§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, What is the position of the Indian Navy; whether that service is to be abolished; and, if so, how the guarantee of the Naval prospects of the Officers of that Service will be carried out? The hon. Baronet said, he was induced to put the Question in consequence of the great anxiety felt on this subject by all who were connected with the service. The question was an important one, as it involved the interests of a class of persons who deserved the best sympathies of the House. These gentlemen were officers who had been sent out to India at a great expense, who had been educated with great care, and whose outfits had cost the country a considerable sum. By the Indian Government Act of the 21 & 22 Vict., c. 106, the prospects of those officers were specially guaranteed. It was provided, that while they should remain under the obligation under which they then lay to serve the Queen, they should be entitled to all the pay and privileges, and, above all things, to the promotion which they would have enjoyed if the Government of India had not been changed. Was that guarantee now to be violated? Were the prospects of those gentlemen now to be blighted and their career brought to a conclusion? He was sorry to say there was an opinion abroad that the guarantees of the Legislature were not so strictly regarded in some parts of the Empire as they ought to be. He hoped that the conduct of the Government in respect to this matter would not tend to encourage that opinion. It was with a view of preventing any such imputations being thrown upon the good faith of the Legislature that he had now brought this question before the House.
§ COLONEL SYKESsaid, the naval service of India was not only distinguished by its gallantly, but also by its scientific capacity. The members of that service had made valuable surveys of the coast of India, the Red Sea, the Chinese Seas, and the Persian Gulf. They were now, however, like Mahomet's coffin, between heaven and earth, not knowing where they were to find a footing, and believing that they were to be abolished altogether. He 2031 hoped the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for India would be able to give a satisfactory explanation upon the matter.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he was afraid that the prospects of this unfortunate service were not very bright. There seemed to be a disposition on the part of the Government of India to violate the guarantees which Parliament had enacted for the safety of the services under the new régime. The hon. and gallant Member had done no more than justice to the unfortunate gentlemen concerned. The officers of the Indian navy were men of high attainments, and had done good service—indeed, there was no service that had produced, in proportion to its numbers, so many men of eminent ability. If it were abolished, he feared there were troubles in store for Her Majesty's Government in the Eastern Seas. The peace of the Persian Gulf was maintained by the Indian navy. The officers of that service had an intimate knowledge of the usages and customs of the tribes which inhabited the shores of that gulf, and were by that means, and by the semi-diplomatic character which they possessed, enabled to preserve the peace of the country. He was perfectly convinced, that if that district were placed under the charge of Her Majesty's navy, and officers were sent there who were not cognizant of the habits and usages of the tribes, we should soon be drifted into one of those expensive contests with which the House was painfully familiar. He was informed that a number of officers who had been in the enjoyment of appointments equal in value to £1,000 or £1,200 a year were now congregated on board the flagship at Bombay. If that service were to be abolished, the superior officers ought, in justice, to be handsomely pensioned, and to the inferior officers the opportunity ought to be offered of competing for the Civil Service appointments, for which, by their long residence in India, they were well qualified.
§ SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, the rules of the House prevented him from rising a second time, and notice had been given of another Question relating to the Department over which he had the honour to preside, and he would therefore answer this Question later in the evening.