§ The Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY having given Notice of certain Questions—
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYBefore my noble Friend (Lord Stanley of Alderley) puts the two pages of Questions of which he has given Notice, with reference to the death of Sir Salar Jung, I wish to make an appeal to the House as to whether those Questions ought to be put. The greater part of them are directed to most flagrant and unjust aspersions on a most distinguished public servant; for, my Lords, I believe we have no more distinguished man in the Indian Civil Service than Sir Richard Meade. Your Lordships will see that these Questions are not Questions at all in the real sense of the word, but are simply a long string of accusations. The 4th Question, for instance, is as follows:—
Whether in 1877 the British Resident, Sir Richard Meade, though fully cognizant of these facts, and that Vikar-ul-omra was a deadly enemy of Sir Salar Jung, forced him on Sir Salar Jung as his colleague in the Regency against Sir Salar Jung's strongest protests?Again, your Lordships will find that the 7th Question is in these terms— 156Whether the Resident, Sir Richard Meade, and his assistant, Major Euan Smith, did not openly support their spoliations, and whether their support of them did not end in disgraceful rumours to the effect that they both had been corrupted by the said Vikar-ul-omra?Here, as your Lordships will perceive, is an allegation of corruption against Sir Richard Meade. Then my noble Friend asks whether the editor of a certain London newspaper could not furnish some evidence as to the truth of the above-mentioned disgraceful rumours. Another Question has reference to "a heavy wooden case," and all the Questions throw on Sir Richard Meade the very gravest imputations. The noble Lord then refers to the death of Sir Salar Jung; and although it is not plainly stated, yet I cannot help feeling that, looking at the commencement of these Questions and at the end of them, there is some kind of imputation that some person mentioned in this long string of Questions is connected with the death of Sir Salar Jung. It seems to me that these Questions constitute a speech, if they constitute anything. They are not Questions in the ordinary sense of the word. If my noble Friend has a speech to make in this House, and proofs to bring forward on the subject, it will be our duty to listen to him; but in the form of Questions these imputations ought not to be made.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I confess that I quite concur in the opinion of the noble Earl who has just spoken (the Earl of Kimberley), and I would add to the considerations which he has pressed on the House that my noble Friend at the Table (Lord Stanley of Alderley) imputes to Sir Richard Meade acts of administration for which there are persons responsible—namely, the Government of the day, who authorized Sir Richard Meade. In Question No. 4, my noble Friend asks, Whether in 1877 the British Resident, Sir Richard Meade, though aware that Vikar-ul-omra was a deadly enemy of Sir Salar Jung, forced him on Sir Salar Jung as his colleague in the Regency against Sir Salar Jung's strongest protests? Now, in 1877, the Government of Lord Beaconsfield was in Office, and if anybody is responsible in this matter and ought to be gibbeted it is myself, and not Sir Richard Meade. I protest, in the strongest way, against putting into an official document language imputing responsi- 157 bility to a man for that which he did in obedience to the orders of his superiors. There are Constitutional ways of dealing with those superiors. As to the rest of these imputations, that somebody poisoned Sir Salar Jung, that somebody stole something in a wooden case, and that somebody accepted a watch, if my noble Friend wishes to make a charge, he can move a Resolution, and the matter can be debated; but it appears to me that it is an utter misuse of the power of putting Questions to insert imputations of this kind. If this had occurred in the other House, the Speaker would not have allowed such Questions to appear on the Paper; but we have no such power in this House.
§ EARL GRANVILLEMy Lords, I think it is unnecessary for me to add anything to what has been stated by my noble Friend near me (the Earl of Kimberley) and by the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury). Therefore, I will take the liberty of moving that these Questions be not put, and that they do not remain on the Minutes of your Lordships' House.
§ Moved, "That such questions be not put."—(The Earl Granville.)
§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, it was rather irregular that an attempt should be made to stop Questions before they were put. He had put this series of Questions on the Paper in order that he might not be accused of taking the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) by surprise, and in order that he might get an answer. With regard to the charges he would go into them first of all. ["Order, order!"]
§ EARL GRANVILLEI rise to Order. It is perfectly irregular for the noble Lord to go on arguing after I have moved, "That the Questions be not put."
§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYwished to say a few words in explanation. He had not taken this course lightly. Nine years ago he made some charges against a Colonial Governor; and the then Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Carnarvon) and the present Secretary of State for India attacked him for what he had said, and laid down that charges should not be made except for the purpose of their being investigated. The noble Earl 158 could not blame him for bringing these Questions forward unless he could produce despatches from Lord Hartington and the Government of India showing that these matters had been investigated.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYI rise to Order. I shall be ready to give a plain and distinct answer at the proper time to any accusations which may be made. We are not now, I submit, discussing what Lord Hartington said, but whether these Questions are Questions which ought to be put.
§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYWill the noble Earl state in what form I am to put these Questions?
§ On Question? agreed to.