§ SIR THOMAS BAZLEYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, with reference to the Notice of Motion for this evening respecting the Second Report of the East India Finance Committee, Whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to take any steps to give effect to the Recommendation in that Report?
MR. GLADSTONE,in reply, said, that when application was recently made on behalf of the Committee to bring witnesses from India at considerable expense, and to charge that expense upon the public fund, it was thought by the Treasury that the matter lay so much outside the common line which marked such cases that the House ought to be made perfectly cognizant of what it was intended to do in the matter. They considered that the Government, rather than the Committee, ought to take the initiative in the matter, and to decide in the first instance the question of the mode in which the expense should be provided for, the House, of course, being the final arbiter in the matter. There could be no doubt that the desire of the Committee that witnesses should be sent for must be complied with. What the Government proposed, therefore, was this. They would authorize the 1875 Governor General in India to publish an announcement giving persons in India an opportunity of tendering themselves as witnesses. Of course, those witnesses would not have their expenses paid unless they were approved by the Governor General. The Government would endeavour to consider carefully what would be a fair arrangement as to expense, and would make known their view to the House, with whom it would rest to deal with the matter as they thought fit.
MR GLADSTONEsaid, that any such proposal would clearly go against the view of the Committee, who were strongly of opinion that there should not be a vicarious examination of witnesses in India. He did not think they ought to do anything to hamper or limit the scope of the inquiry.
§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEinquired out of what funds the cost of the inquiry would be paid?