PUBLIC BUSINESS. (Hansard, 19 July 1860)

HC Deb 19 July 1860 vol 159 cc2167-89 2167

§ Order for Committee (Supply) read.

§ Motion made, and Question proposed,

2168

§ "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

§ MR. DISRAELI
said, he wished to take that opportunity of inquiring of the noble Lord at the head of the Government whether he intended to proceed with the Fortifications Bill to-morrow, and when he would lay on the table the Resolutions on the Paper Duties, which he had been expecting some time. If the noble Lord would answer these questions, he thought that it would tend greatly to the convenience of the House in the conduct of the public business.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
—I shall postpone the statement upon Fortifications until Monday, and I believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will lay the Resolutions to which the right hon. Gentleman referred on the table to-morrow.

SIR MINTO FARQUHAR
asked whether, as the "massacre of the innocents" was shortly about to take place, it was consistent with the intention to withdraw Bills that two new Bills should be introduced to-night, the 19th of July? The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India had given notice of his intention to introduce an India Service Bill, confirming certain appointments in India. That was all very well, and the measure might be advisable, but why was it not brought in at an earlier period of the Session? The Bill also contemplated the amendment of the law concerning the Civil Service in India. He thought those words most ominous. Then there was the Bill for amalgamating the two armies in India remaining to be discussed. True, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India said that Gentlemen on his (Sir Minto Farquhar's) side of the House had been the occasion of the delays which had taken place; but that, however, was not true, because the right hon. Gentleman had himself been the cause of the delay, by refusing to lay papers on the table until he was very hardly pressed upon the matter. There had been a constant call for papers; but he had refused to place them in the hands of hon. Members until the last moment, the consequence of which was that the Army Bill was necessarily put off. He understood that on the question which had been raised the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hors-man) had moved only yesterday for papers of the most important character, and without the production of which it was impos- 2169 sible to proceed with the consideration of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had lately also introduced a Bill in reference to the transfer of Indian Stock. He (Sir Minto Farquhar) supposed that at two o'clock in the morning they would be asked by him to listen to a statement which was to affect the whole Civil Service of India. It was only the other day that they were asked at half-past two o'clock in the morning to discuss the question of Volunteer Corps- for Ireland. Upon that occasion he (Sir Minto Farquhar) had asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he intended to introduce his Bill relating to the Indian Civil Service, and the reply was that he certainly did, and that the statement he had to make would not occupy more than two or three minutes. He (Sir Minto Farquhar) never was more astonished in his life than at such an avowal, because he happened to know that on that question, as on others, the right hon. Gentleman was at issue with his Council. All that he could say was, that he should do everything in his power to resist the progress of the measure. It was of the utmost importance that the Civil Service of India should not be interfered with. It was only in 1858 that the Bill for the better government of India was passed, which Bill introduced the principle of the competitive system, and now they were called on again to amend the law.

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, that on the question now before the House the hon. Member must not enter into the details of the Bill.

SIR MINTO FARQUHAR
appealed to the noble Lord not to allow the introduction of such a measure at this late period of the Session.

§ In answer to Sir MINTO FARQUHAR,

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, he believed that it was the intention of his right hon. Friend to make these two Motions that evening, but the House would probably think it better not to discuss them until they were actually submitted.

§ MR. HORSMAN
Sir, I am not quite sure if I heard the noble Lord distinctly—I hope I did not hear him distinctly; but I understood him to say that the Bill for the Reorganization of the Indian Army would be taken the first thing to-morrow. Surely it is impossible for the noble Lord, under the circumstances, to persist in that intention. I am sure he knows that papers have been moved for and ordered, which are now in the printer's hands, which were 2170 withheld for a long time by the Secretary of State, but which are essential for the consideration of the Bill. Let me recal to the House the position in which it stands with regard to Indian legislation. There was much discussion the other day about the rights of a minority in this House. It is very seldom that hon. Gentlemen wish to enforce those rights to the utmost, and it is long since I joined a minority in such successive divisions as took place on this question the other night. But the right hon. Gentleman forced us to do so. We said he had papers which were absolutely essential to a right consideration of this question. The right hon. Gentleman said he had not got those papers; and upon a question of veracity between him and the House—I do not mean to attribute intentional want of veracity—but on a question of fact between them he kept us dividing to a late hour in the morning. During those divisions he reiterated over and over again that these papers were not in his possession; that he had seen nothing of them for three months; that they were in the printers' hands; and that the fault lay with the printing department. Upon his authority the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War also repeated the statement that the Printing Committee were responsible.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
The right hon. Gentleman will state what I did say. I had no knowledge whatever of the special case, and did not pretend to speak with any knowledge. What I spoke to was the general duties of the printing Committee.

§ MR. HORSMAN
That is precisely what I said. The right hon. Gentleman spoke on the authority of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for India, he himself knowing nothing of the facts. We were placed in not a very agreeable position, labouring, as we did, under the imputation of acting factiously in order to obstruct this Bill, and throwing the blame on the right hon. Gentleman, when, in fact, it rested with the Printing Committee. Well, what really turned out to be the fact? Why, that those papers had been for weeks in the office of the Secretary of State for India; that three days before, according to his own admission in this House, when they were asked for by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. H. Seymour), the printer made the application known to the Indian Department; it was then made known to the Secretary of State and his 2171 Under-Secretary; they found that those papers were in the hands of the Military Secretary; they went to him desiring him to return them; and they did this within three days of these divisions, during which divisions we were told that the right hon. Gentleman had seen or heard nothing of them for three months. Yet he had kept us in the House insisting that he knew nothing of these papers, and that we were entirely in the wrong in insisting upon their production.
What occurred, again, with respect to other papers? There were certain papers which we also thought most essential for the discussion of this question. In 1858 a correspondence took place between the Commander-in-Chief, the Secretary for War, and the Secretary for India. As soon as the Act of 1858 was passed, the Commander-in-Chief wrote to the War Secretary, who forwarded his letter to the Secretary for India, claiming that the Indian army should be put under the Horse Guards. A notice for the production of that correspondence was placed on the paper by me on the 28th of June. The right hon. Gentleman told me it did not exist. I told him I knew it did exist, and that it was in his own office, and I begged I might have that correspondence. The right hon. Gentleman still insisted that there was no such correspondence; declaring that he had referred to the War Secretary, who had no such letters in his department. I told him that the correspondence was in his own office. He insisted that it was not. I was placed in some difficulty, when at last I got the dates of the correspondence; and the day before yesterday I showed them to the War Secretary. There was a letter from the War Secretary, General Peel, written on the 10th of August, 1858, enclosing a letter from the Duke of Cambridge to Lord Stanley, then President of the Board of Control, dated "Horse Guards, August 2." There is a reply from Lord Stanley of the 17th of August, and another letter from General Peel of the 23rd of August. Lord Stanley's letter was considered unsatisfactory, and General Peel sent a rejoinder; and then Lord Stanley submitted the whole question to the law officers of the Crown, and that was laid regularly before the Council for India. I showed this to the Secretary of State for War. I am very sorry to speak of these things; but when we have to deal with the Secretary of State for India, we are not met 2172 with, I will not say that courtesy, but not even with that fairness and plain dealing, which we have a right to expect either from a gentleman, or a Minister of the Crown. I am only repeating now what I have stated before. It was absolutely essential in this matter that we should get our information in an indirect manner on purpose to correct the misinformation we receive from the Secretary of State. Nothing can be more characteristic than some correspondence which I will read to the House, which I happen to have in my pocket, although I certainly did not expect that I should have to read it to-night. As I said before, the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for India has withheld information, he has misled us, and at the same time he has endeavoured to press on these Bills at a time when we were not only imperfectly informed, but actually misinformed, upon the facts. Now, here is a correspondence which I think is very characteristic. The day before yesterday I showed to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War the list of papers, and asked if there was any objection to my having them, stating that I would place a notice on the paper on Tuesday. He said, "Of course, you will put it in the Votes," and I said, "I will, and move tomorrow." Accordingly, yesterday I moved, but the right hon. Secretary of State for War, it appears, informed his right hon. Colleague of what I had shown him, and yesterday I got this letter:— Sir C. Wood presents his compliments to Mr. Horsman, and begs to inform him that he has found in his own office the correspondence between the Secretary of State for the War Department and the Secretary of State for India in 1858,"—the fact is I found it and communicated it the day before yesterday to the Secretary for War,—"a Motion for the production of which Mr. Horsman gave notice of. Mr. Horsman will recollect that on his asking Sir C. Wood if he had any objection to give them, Sir C. Wood said that he had only just seen the notice, but that he understood from Mr. Herbert that there was no such correspondence in existence. Sir C. Wood only became aware of the existence of these papers yesterday, and loses no time in apprising Mr. Horsman. He has no objection to their being produced if Mr. Horsman wishes to move for them as an unopposed return. I must express my great obligations to the right hon. Gentleman for informing me that lie had found them. I had told him three weeks before that they were there, and the day after my giving the precise dates of the letters which enabled him to make a search that resulted in their being found, he is kind enough to communicate 2173 the fact to me, as a piece of good news for which I should be grateful to him. I must say that, considering the right hon. Gentleman received his information from myself, and that this is the second time we have been placed in this very unfair position, and not forgetting that he compelled us to go on dividing at two o'clock, apparently putting us in the wrong by saying we were asking for papers which were not at that time in his office,—remembering all these things, that letter rather surprised me. I wrote this letter in reply:— July 18,1860. Mr. Horsman presents his compliments to Sir C. Wood. He has already, at twelve o'clock to-day, moved for the return set down in his name. He did so by Mr. Sidney Herbert's permission, to whom he yesterday showed the exact dates of the letters he asked for, thus proving the existence of what was so strangely unknown to Sir C. Wood. Mr. Horsman protests most strongly against the very careless and inconsiderate manner in which Sir C. Wood deals with Members of the House of Commons in regard to papers that are absolutely essential to a fair consideration of the questions he submits to them. If this return had been granted when it first appeared on the notice-paper, and on the day when Sir C. Wood informed Mr. Horsman the correspondence did not exist, it would ere this have been in the hands of Members. The correspondence (in no sense confidential) was a matter of notoriety—the most casual inquiry in his office must have made it known to Sir C. Wood, and the complaint would have been obviated of his having a second time placed the House at a disadvantage by his strange inability to account for indispensable papers that were in his own possession. It is obvious that if Sir C. Wood presses his India Bills at this late period of the Session very grave questions will be raised, not merely on the merits of the Bills on which he is at issue with the India Council, but also on his relations with the Council, whom he appears to have reduced to an insignificance not contemplated by the Act of 1858, and also on his relations to the House of Commons, which he has not allowed to be possessed of the information it has a right to. The further progress of the Bills must in such circumstances be very strongly and resolutely opposed, and there is every reason for at once including them among those which Lord Palmerston is expected to-morrow to announce his intention of dropping for this Session. The Cabinet was sitting when I received the right hon. Gentleman's letter, and as I sent my answer at once and by hand, I hope it was submitted to the noble Lord. I then received a second note from the right hon. Gentleman, as follows:— Sir Charles Wood presents his compliments to Mr. Horsman, and wishes simply to correct a mistake into which he has fallen as to a matter of fact. Sir C, Wood certainly relied on the information which he received from Mr. Herbert, that the correspondence on the subject of placing the Indian armies under the Horse Guards in 1858, between the Departments of War and India, 2174 did not exist. It is impossible, however, that Mr. Herbert could have assented yesterday morning to the production of papers of the existence of which he was then unaware, and only learned from Sir C. Wood this morning. Sir C. Wood understands from Mr. Herbert that what passed between him and Mr. Horsman was not that Mr. Herbert assented to any papers being produced, but that he promised to give an answer to Mr. Horsman in the evening, which he had not an opportunity of doing. Downing Street, July 18, 1860. A verbal inaccuracy is not much, but I showed the paper containing the dates of the correspondence on Tuesday to the right hon. Secretary of State for War, and therefore it was from me that the right hon. Gentleman received his information, and not from his right hon. Colleague. Now, I must press on the noble Lord and the House whether, having asked on the 28th of June for these papers which are essential, having been put off in this manner from day to day by the right hon. Gentleman, having at last succeeded in showing the existence of the papers, and having, with his permission, moved for them only yesterday, I would urge the noble Lord to consider whether he is justified in asking us to-morrow to go on with this Bill.
I heard just now two hon. Gentlemen express their determination to enforce to the utmost the rights of a minority upon this occasion. I would appeal to the House whether there was ever an occasion upon which it was more justifiable to enforce those rights than the present. It is not a question as to the merits of the Bill, but it is a question whether, if only two hon. Members of this House want to give a fair consideration to the Bill, they are not entitled to have an opportunity of receiving information in order to discuss the matter properly. But what else is the right hon. Gentleman doing? We are now arrived at the 19th of July, and the Government are dropping those Orders of the Day for Bills which they feel at this period of the Session are too important to be passed through without discussion. I believe the earliest period at which the House can possibly rise is very late in August, but at the very time that the Government are dropping these important Bills they are introducing others, and upon the notice-book for tonight there stands at least one measure much more important than any which are not to be proceeded with. The whole administration of the Indian army is to be transferred to the Horse Guards, but what is now going to be done with the Indian Civil Service? The Government proposes 2175 to appropriate the whole administration of that civil service.

§ MR. SPEAKER
I must remind the right hon. Gentleman, as I did the hon. Member for Hertford, that when a measure is on the table of this House it is not competent to discuss its merits until the order comes on in due course.

§ MR. HORSMAN
I am speaking, Sir, of a Bill which is not upon the table, but which the Government have given notice they intend to introduce. I think, when we are taking counsel with the Government as to what measures shall be proceeded with and what shall be withdrawn, it is open to me to remonstrate with the Government when they seek to introduce new matters of debate, and I say that, if we now enter upon a discussion of a measure to put an end to the competitive system in the Indian civil service—that system which has been built up with so much difficulty by Parliament, as the best safeguard against inefficiency and jobbery—if we are to enter upon a discussion of the question on the 19th of July, it is a mockery for Government to drop other Bills because there is not time to discuss them. It shows what is the present system in the Indian Department. Bills are introduced late in the Session, without previous notice, without information, without papers being furnished, and they are to be hurried and smuggled through the House, these most important measures, because the right hon. Gentleman feels that there is only a very small section of the House who take an interest in Indian questions and understand them, and he is able to come down with a majority to overpower the minority, and to pass just what he pleases. There is another thing. It was a very important point which was just raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir James Elphinstone) which it behoves the House to consider well—whether it is not in itself a reason for proceeding carefully with legislation on a subject when it is known that the Secretary of State is at issue with the whole Council upon it. I believe the House would not have agreed to transfer the government of India to the Crown unless they had believed that the Council would have been a security that Indian affairs would be administered by those who knew something of India. Yet, for the first time, we now hear that the members of this Council are turned into clerks, smothered with papers, and reduced into a position of mere insignificance, as if 2176 they were at the beck and nod of the right hon. Gentleman, and held office at his pleasure. When, therefore certain measures have been withdrawn, and other Bills with regard to India, of a very large and important character, are announced to be proceeded with, and upon which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India is at variance with the Indian Council, I would earnestly press on the Government the propriety and policy of postponing them to another Session. I must say, expressing an opinion I have heard uttered by many other Gentlemen in this House, that instead of allowing one Secretary of State to overbear the opinions and outweigh the authority of fifteen members of the Council, if the House were polled they would allow the opinions of one member of Council to outweigh those of fifteen Secretaries of State even of the calibre of the right hon. Gentleman, who by some extraordinary piece of fortune, which nobody understands, fills that high office. I beg to repeat that I should be extremely sorry to join in the opposition threatened by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I am ready to appeal to the House and the country, and I say that, however a small section of the House that takes an interest in this question and has studied it might, in other circumstances, yield to a majority which feels these measures should pass, they ought not, in this instance, to give way, seeing the manner in which the Government has chosen to overbear us in this House, both as to measures and papers—by a treatment, I must say, very different from what we had a right to expect.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
Sir, I cannot help expressing the surprise and regret I feel that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud should have taken the present opportunity, without any notice, of making the attack he has done on my right hon. Friend in his absence. The right hon. Gentleman came down here with documents which it was clearly his intention to read to the House, making, not a fair criticism on the public conduct of my right hon. Friend, but an attack on his private character and honour, which I am only the less surprised to hear, because we have been in the habit of hearing attacks from the right hon. Gentleman of a character different from those of any other Gentleman in this House. With regard to the first subject of attack, my right hon. Friend himself made an explanation to the House. He took the earliest opportunity, after as- 2177 certaining the facts, of stating them to the House, with regard to the papers the production of which was called for on the second reading of the Bill; and I believe my right hon. Friend entirely satisfied the House upon the subject. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman, after that statement, which was, I believe, entirely satisfactory to the House—should have thought it necessary to repeat charges against my right hon. Friend in his absence—coming down to the House armed with correspondence and documents by which he endeavoured—but I am sure I may appeal to the House to confirm me when I say vainly endeavoured—to depreciate the honour of my right hon. Friend, and establish against him a charge of fraud, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman himself will regret when he comes calmly to reflect on his conduct. I say nothing more on that point, but I feel, from the long experience I have had in this House, that what I have said must meet with the general concurrence of hon. Members.
With regard to the question which has been raised as to the progress of certain Bills, I must say, if we are to do any business at all, it will be better to confine our attention to what is before us, and not anticipate discussions on Bills placed on the Paper either for this evening or to-morrow. The hon. Baronet the Member for Hertford (Sir Minto Farquhar) objects to two Notices on the Paper to-night. I have not the advantage which it seems the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud possesses of knowing the precise contents of the Bill of which notice has been given. I very much doubt whether his statement of the contents will be found to be correct. I do not profess to know what the contents may be; but, admitting fully that it would be inexpedient now to introduce Bills which are not indispensably necessary, it is premature to anticipate the discussion which will arise when the subject comes regularly before us. My right hon. Friend will state what are the general objects and purport of these Bills, and why he considers it desirable that they should be introduced now. [Several hon. MEMBERS: At what hour?] I do not know at what hour as that must depend on the progress of other business. When he makes that statement he will give his reasons why they ought to be passed this Session, and when the measures are introduced, even if they are not proceeded with, it maybe of advantage to the public to know what the proposals are. When 2178 they have been introduced will be the proper time to raise the objection, and the House may, if so disposed, decline to proceed with them. So with regard to the Indian Army Amalgamation Bill, if it is brought forward to-morrow, and if the right hon. Gentleman thinks there are papers which it is essential the House should have in its possession before that Bill be proceeded with in Committee, he may state the reasons which have led him to that opinion, and the House has it in its own power then to prevent the Bill from being proceeded with; but it is too much for the right hon. Gentleman to say "I hold it essential that these papers should be produced, and I insist now that that Bill shall not proceed to-morrow." If it be on the Paper tomorrow, and if my right hon. Friend move that it be proceeded with, then will be the time for the right hon. Gentleman to object, and state his reasons for thinking it should not be proceeded with. I do hope the House will not allow the regular course of business to be interfered with by irrelevant discussions as to the relative position and power of the Secretary of State and the Indian Council. I believe, when the subject comes to be discussed, it will be found that my right bon. Friend has acted in strict conformity with the law on this subject. I am only sorry that my right hon. Friend bad no notice of the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to read the documents which he has read, and to bring his charges against him in the manner he has done.

§ MR. HORSMAN
said, he had not seen the Bills, but he spoke of the India Civil Service Bill as a matter of notoriety, and he stated only what he did because he was surprised to learn from the noble Lord that the Indian Army Bill was to be proceeded with the first thing to-morrow night.

SIR MINTO FARQUHAR
said, he had not seen the Bill, but he understood that there was a clause in it which would affect the civil service in India.

MR. T. G. BARING
I can assure hon. Members there is not the slightest wish to withhold papers connected with the Indian army question, but, on the contrary, every information has been given which it is in the power of the Secretary of State for India to produce. In fact, those who have looked at the papers must admit that they have been produced, I may almost say ad nauseam. So far from withholding information, even confidential papers have been produced which it was unusual to give 2179 in similar cases. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud has misstated the explanation given by my right hon. Friend as to the papers relating to the discharge of men last year. The papers were not in the possession of my right hon. Friend at all.

§ MR. HORSMAN
I said they were in the possession of the Military Secretary, in the Secretary of State's office.

MR. T. G. BARING
As the right hon. Gentleman says they were not in my right hon. Friend's possession, I am satisfied with that explanation. The truth is, a large mass of papers were ordered to be printed, and some delay arose in the correction of the proofs in the India Office, which was brought to my notice two or three days before the debate came on, when it was at once put an end to. On my own authority, I can say that my right hon. Friend had no knowledge whatever of those papers. They were entirely in the hands of the Military Secretary, Colonel Baker, and I myself had no knowledge of the proofs being corrected at the India Office until within a few days of the debate. With regard to the other papers alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman, as soon as my right hon. Friend ascertained that they existed he communicated the fact to the right hon. Gentleman, and stated that if he would move for them they would be given as an unopposed return. It should, however, be remembered that the correspondence did not take place with the present Secretary of State for India, and, being a correspondence between departments, the matter was naturally referred to the Secretary of State for War. I think the right hon. Gentleman should be careful how he brings such charges against my right hon. Friend, without the slightest ground of any sort or description. As the right hon. Gentleman assumes—and it is an entire assumption on his part—that these papers are so essential, I may take on myself the responsibility of stating that the Indian Army Bill will not be proceeded with tomorrow night. The production of these papers, however, could have no effect on the decision already arrived at by a large majority of the House on this important question.

§ SIR JAMES FERGUSSON
I wish to say, Sir, that a previous conversation which I had with the right hon. Member for Stroud amply bore out what he has now stated. I had intended to place on the 2180 Paper a notice for to-morrow on the subject of the Indian Army Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman told me that the Bill could not come on to-morrow because he could not believe the Government would press it forward without first presenting the papers which wore at the India House. The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the correspondence he has just read, and said it was his intention to show these letters to the noble Viscount at the head of the Government, as he thought that would be more courteous than to read them to the House. I think, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman has said no more than he actually felt, and that it was only in consequence of the unexpected statement which has been made on the part of the Government that he road the documents which he has done to-night. After the answer given by the noble Lord to the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington), I do not think the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor for the Duchy had a right to administer the reproof which he gave to the right hon. Member for Stroud. The noble Lord, when objection was raised to Supply being taken on the ground that many hon. Gentlemen did not expect it to be brought on, replied that hon. Members ought to be in their places. Considering that the Secretary of State for India must have known, although the House could not, that the Bankruptcy Bill was to be withdrawn, ho must have supposed that, if important legislation with respect to India were to be pressed forward, the House would give to that legislation some discussion. I think, therefore, that the right hon. Member for Stroud has not been proved to have taken any unfair advantage of the absence of the Secretary of State for India.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
I cannot but think that there is a further portion of this correspondence which the right hon. Gentleman has not read. There must be another letter to this effect:—Mr. Horsman presents his compliments to Sir Charles Wood, and begs to give him notice that it is his intention to make a personal attack upon him in the House to-night. And another still to this effect:—Mr. Horsman presents his compliments to Mr. Sidney Herbert, and begs to give him notice that ho moans to refer to-night in the House of Commons to a private conversation he has had with him. It is much to be lamented that the right hon. Gentleman has not read those letters, because they would 2181 have placed his conduct in a clear light before the House. But it is so constantly done in such cases that it is impossible the right hon. Gentleman can have omitted what is so necessary and, at the same time, so usual a practice among gentlemen. There is another point on which, though I wish to avoid all discussion on it at the present moment, I feel that the reproaches directed against my right hon. Friend the Secretary for India are wholly undeserved. It is said that my right hon. Friend does not attend to the advice of his Indian Council. But I must remind the House that it is the business of my right hon. Friend on grave questions of policy to consider, not the opinion of his council, nor even his own opinion, but the opinion of Her Majesty's confidential advisers, who must ultimately decide all questions of policy, whether they regard the interests of India or the general interests of the empire. With regard to this particular question, we heard lately a very fair and candid statement from the right hon. and gallant General the Member for Huntingdon, who stated that among the witnesses who came to give evidence before the Indian Army Commission, one thing was plain, that every man who held a military position in India, or a civil position there, was of opinion that there ought to be a local army in India, and, on the other hand, every man who held a position in the military service of this country was of opinion that there ought to be no local army. That was a question, therefore, which my right hon. Friend had to decide, not on his own authority, but according to the advice of others; and the question really comes to this, whether it is right that my right hon. Friend should consult first the Members of the Cabinet individually, and then place the question for decision before the whole Cabinet, or whether he should in the first instance lay the matter before the Indian Council and consult them, and then turn round and say, I have got the opinion of the Indian Council and I shall act upon it, no matter what may be the opinion of the other Cabinet Ministers and advisers of the Crown. That was the alternative before my right hon. Friend, and I leave it to the House which it was his duty to adopt.

§ MR. MONCKTON MILNES
I trust, Sir, this great question will not be embarrassed by personal considerations. After much doubt and difficulty in the course of the discussion on the Bill for the better 2182 Government of India, we decided that the Members of the Indian Council should not be eligible for seats in this House. I regretted that decision at the time, and I regret it now, because if gentlemen of such weight and dignity as those who composed that Council were here, I am sure these discussions would be conducted in a far better manner than they now possibly can be, when we are compelled to trust so much to rumour and private information, and can understand the relations between the Minister for India and his Council only by those indirect means which necessarily carry with them great personal inconvenience. Much excuse might, therefore, be made for the hon. Member for Stroud, who could by these indirect means alone inform himself thoroughly of what I believe to be the main point in this question—namely, the difference between the Minister for India and the Council given him to advise him. If one isolated measure had been submitted to the House it might have stood on its own merits, and required no collateral discussion; but when we see the Government compelled by necessity to give up a Bill in which I believe the interests of this House are as much concerned as in any Bill ever laid before Parliament, and find that new Bills are to be introduced at the eleventh hour of the Session, which require for their discussion much time and all the information which can be brought to bear upon them, I say I am impressed with the conviction that there must be some intention which we do not entirely understand in the adoption of such a policy by the Indian Minister. It is impossible to avoid feeling that the object of the Government and of the Indian Minister in bringing forward a series of measures upon which he is known to differ from his Council, is to depreciate that Council in public estimation, and to enable the right hon. Gentleman to assume the position of Monarch of India, which I am certain this House never intended he should hold,

§ MR. HORSMAN
Sir, I wish to explain. I saw both the Secretary of State for India and the Secretary of State for War in this House shortly before I rose to addressit. I believed they were both here.

§ MR. DISRAELI
I agree with the noble Lord—indeed, it is unquestionable—that it is most agreeable to every Gentleman's feelings, when he has a personal charge to make, that he should make it in the presence of the persons concerned. But at the same time am bound to express my own im- 2183 pression as regards the conduct of the right hon. Member for Stroud, that he certainly did not come forward this evening to make a charge of a personal character with any notion that the Minister whom it affected would be absent. The noble Lord commenced our debates this evening by laying it down as the duty of a Member of Parliament always to be in his place. I agree with the noble Lord that that is a position which ought as much as possible to be enforced, because there would be no end to the postponements of public business if the presence or absence of hon. Members interested in it were to be accepted as a sufficient excuse. Allegations of that kind are, I think, much too frequently heard. But as regards numbers of Members in a popular Chamber, the noble Lord's doctrine that they ought always to be present must, to some extent be only a theory, whereas Ministers of the Crown ought, generally speaking, to be always here in practice. It must have been a secret to everybody but the Members of the Government that the Bankruptcy Bill would be to-night withdrawn. The next order on the Paper is Supply, and during its consideration every Minister ought to be in his place, because it is impossible to tell what questions may not then be brought forward affecting the general policy of the country. The two right hon. Gentlemen who have been alluded to were not in this House when the right hon. Member for Stroud made his statement, although it seems they were here shortly before. Had that right hon. Member postponed his statement till to-morrow I feel bound to say, I think that if his great object was to secure the adjournment of the measure on the Indian army, that statement would have been made with much less effect than when made to-day. Because, when the House had met and the Government had announced their first measure to be that relating to the Indian army, whatever might have been the statement made, and however much time might have been lost in personal recriminations, I doubt whether the Government would have felt it consistent with their dignity to withdraw a measure of which they had given notice. They have now had an opportunity, of which I think they have wisely availed themselves, to announce to the House that they will not press on that measure to-morrow; but will allow us to have those papers, on the production of which it is but fair that we should insist.
2184 I would make one observation on the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman. It appears to me that, in consequence of the declaration of the noble Lord, and feeling the responsibility of his own position in regard to this measure, it was very difficult for the right hon. Member for Stroud not to make the personal statement which he has done to-night, although we must certainly all regret that the Ministers who are concerned were not present. For my own part—and I believe I only express the feeling of every hon. Member—I shall form no opinion unfavourable to those Ministers until they have bad an opportunity of being heard. I cannot help, however, stating my impression, which I believe is shared by many, that the relations of the Indian I Administration with this House are not in so satisfactory a state as they might be. After the passing of the Act of 1858 it was quite clear that the relations between the House of Commons and the Government; of India assumed a different character from that of the preceding period, when the East India Company ruled with the prescription of long years, exercised with I weight and authority, and resting on a system of administration which had been approved by experience. It is quite clear that after the change the responsibility of Parliament generally in the administration of India was much increased. Therefore it became the duty of the Government to take care that any measures which required the sanction of Parliament should be introduced at a period when they could be amply and sufficiently discussed, and should be preceded by ample and sufficient information. No doubt, the unfortunate circumstances which have influenced this Session with respect to business generally have had their effect upon these measures for the administration of India, but, although I am not disposed to attribute to the Government the Machiavelian design which has been imputed to them by the hon. Member who has just spoken, still the fact remains that at the end of the Session the House is called upon to discuss most serious and most important measures. That is a state of affairs which is very much to be regretted, and therefore the Government ought not to be surprised if there is some impatience—even some jealousy among those hon. Members who are peculiarly interested in the affairs of India when they find that there is a chance of the House being hurried into a decision upon those measures in a 2185 manner which can hardly be satisfactory even to those who approve them. Under these circumstances I highly approve the decision of the Government not to force on the discussion of the first of those measures tomorrow. No doubt, before that debate comes on papers will be produced, and we shall approach the question with advantages which we do not now possess. In the meantime I shall express my hope and my belief that when the right hon. Gentlemen whose conduct has been referred to, and whose absence we regret, appear in their places, we shall receive from them a perfectly satisfactory account of the circumstances which have been stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud. We all know from our own experience that great misconceptions may arise between Gentlemen, which may easily be removed by personal explanation, but which correspondence, even if as complete as the noble Lord has suggested that it ought to be, sometimes only increases. I trust and believe that when an opportunity arises explanations will be given which will be quite satisfactory, and I am sure that the House generally will approve the course which has been adopted by the Government with regard to the European Forces (India) Bill.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
The right hon. Gentleman seems to imagine that I stated broadly that it is the duty of every Member of the House to be present upon every occasion. I did not mean to impose such a tax upon the time and endurance of hon. Members. What I said was that those who intended to take part in the discussion of any measure which stood upon the Paper for the evening ought to come down, because they could not be sure that the Orders which preceded it might not go off, either on account of the unavoidable absence of those who had charge of them, or from some other cause.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
wished to ask whether it was intended by the Government to propose a loan for India this year. Looking to the finances, he thought such a measure would be necessary, and, if so, the House ought to have early notice. With regard to the statement made by the right hon. Member for Stroud, he was sure it had been made through an earnest anxiety to show the necessity for delaying the consideration of the measure to abolish the Indian army. There was a question that had never yet received the attention of the House, 2186 though he could hardly conceive a more important one: ho meant the effect which the addition of 100,000 men to the control and patronage of the Horse Guards would have both on the Indian Empire and on our own Government; and anything which tended to show what were the opinions of the Commander-in-Chief or of other persons in this country on that subject was of the highest importance. Some observations had fallen from the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs with regard to the Indian Council. That noble Lord two years ago voted in a strong minority against the proposition that the Members of the Indian Council should not have seats in this House. [Lord JOHN RUSSELL: Hear, hear!] He thought the House had reason enough to regret the decision to which they then came, because they were suffering the disadvantage of discussing the composition of the Indian army without having the opinions of that Council, many of whom were men of great eminence. For his part he could not see that either the Cabinet or the House would have been at all the worse if they had taken the opinions of those distinguished men before they came to any decision on the subject.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
If the hon. Baronet will put his question with regard to the loan to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India to-night, or will give notice of it for another evening, he will, no doubt, receive a proper answer. I will only venture to say a few words to the House with reference to the powers of the Council of India. Under the former Act it was in the power of the President of the Board of Control completely to overrule the Court of Directors, and to order them to write any despatch that he thought fit; therefore it is quite a mistake to suppose that the Secretary of State for India possesses power which was not enjoyed by the President of the Board of Control. One consideration which has been overlooked is that the Council of India is merely a council for advising the Secretary of State upon matters relating to the administration of the affairs of India, those matters which are within the operation of the Act, and upon which the Secretary of State has to take some positive measure. With regard to any legislation, any Bill which be has to bring into this House that is not an administrative act, is not an act which he does in his capacity of Secretary of State for India, but in his capacity 2187 of a Member of this House. Of course, he is bound to consult his colleagues in the Cabinet, but it is not a matter which he can in any way regularly bring under the view of the Council. If hon. Gentlemen will look at the words of the Act they will see that it is not competent to the Secretary of State for India to consult his Council as to whether he shall propose a Bill for introduction into this House; nor could they, under the words of the Act, record their dissent from the course which he proposed to adopt. All he can do is, when they are assembled, to inform them, if he thinks fit, of his intention, and to profit by their advice. What I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary for India is, that he was in private conversation apprised of the opinions of the Members of his Council upon this question of the army before he brought in the Bill. He knew that they were unfavourable to his proposition, but it was not competent to him within the terms of the Act to propose to the Council that he should bring a Bill into Parliament and enable them to record their dissent from that course. Therefore, in discussing this question the House should distinctly bear in mind the difference between the legislative proposals which the Secretary of State introduces into this House as a Member of the House, such as the Bills he seeks to introduce to-night, and the orders which he sends to the Governor General, or the other Governors in India, or any other act which he does in this country in his administrative capacity as Secretary of State for India.

§ SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE
said, he must deprecate, without any reference to the right hon. Gentleman at present Secretary of State for India, the manner in which measures relating to India were dealt with. Not only were they introduced at a late period, but the information which was necessary for their proper consideration was delayed till it was almost useless. The House had been entrapped into a hasty decision upon the second reading of the European Forces Bill. It was only on the morning of the division that important papers relating to what was so strangely called the mutiny of the European troops were placed in the hands of Members. They ought, he thought, to give a fair consideration to the views of hon. Gentlemen founded on papers recently presented to the House, and which were very much at variance with statements that had been 2188 hitherto made, and threw an entirely new light upon the question. The other papers had such a direct bearing upon the matter to be discussed that they certainly ought to be placed in the hands of Members before any further discussion took place. There was also no doubt that if the opinion of the Council had been favourable to his policy the right hon. Baronet would have been the first to have come down to the House and to have made it a great point.

MR. HENLEY
said, that it appeared to him that the remarks of the Home Secretary would give occasion to hon. Members to sharpen their wits by the very subtle distinctions he had laid down in the construction to be placed on the Act of Parliament. He told the House that the President of the Board of Control could compel the Directors to send out what orders he liked to India, and therefore the Secretary of State had no more power now than the President had before. No one doubted that, but it was not the point. He also laid it down that the duty of the Council was to advise the Secretary of State for India in matters of administration in India, but that when it came to matters of legislation, then he did not propose measures as Secretary of State for India, but as a Member of Parliament, Now, that was an uncommonly subtle distinction. Was the House, then, to understand that this Bill was brought in by the Secretary of State for India, or by the Member for Halifax? That was the first question. And then, where was the distinction between matters of administration in India and matters of legislation, if the former required the help of legislation to carry them out? Suppose that some question of dealing with the religious prejudices of the Natives of India arose, upon which the legislative authority of that House was required. It was most unlikely that any such authority would be given; but was that the sort of question upon which the Council was or was not to be consulted? The explanation of the right hon. Gentleman seemed so far to narrow the ground that it was very difficult to say on what questions the Council were to be consulted.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, he wished to explain that when he alluded to legislative power he spoke of legislation in that House of Parliament, and not of legislation in India; and he had referred to the measures which his right hon. Friend (Sir 2189 Charles Wood) had introduced, not simply as Secretary of State, but as a Member of that House [Mr. HENLEY: Hear!]—such measures as he would be unable to introduce if he were merely Secretary of State for India, and not a Member of that House.