HC Deb 12 February 1857 vol 144 cc577-89
CAPTAIN LEICESTER VERNON,

in moving for a copy of all correspondence relating to the removal of General Pollock, G. C. B., from the Direction of the Honourable East India Company, said that some time ago, when he called the attention of the House to the employment of General Officers in the scientific corps of the army, he mentioned the name of Sir George Pollock as an officer of artillery of extraordinary merit, and stated that that officer had been selected from officers of every arm in the service of the Crown and of the Company to re-establish the supremacy of the British arms in India, and to restore to those arms the lustre which had been tarnished by the ignominious disasters of Cabul. He also stated that General Pollock achieved those objects in as brilliant and decisive a campaign as was recorded in the history of this or any other country; it was no part of his business at that time to dilate upon that gallant officer's services, but it had now become necessary for him to mention them, and he would do so as briefly as possible. In January, 1842, the British army, nominally commanded by General Elphinstone, but unfortunately actually under the control of Sir W. M'Naghten, having for sixty-five days endured greater humiliations than had ever before been suffered by British troops, surrendered their position, and on the 6th of that month 4,500 fighting men, encumbered by thrice that number of camp followers, prepared to retreat from Cabul. On the 12th of January a solitary horseman, the messenger of death, crawled into Jellalabad. He was, with the exception of a few prisoners, the sole survivor of 17,000 persons who had left Cabul only six days before, thus verifying to the very letter the singular prediction of Colonel Denny, who had given it as his opinion, that if the retreat was undertaken only one man would survive, who would bear to the British posts the news that the rest of the army had perished. This intelligence paralysed the Executive, cowed the military spirit of the sepoys, and shook to its very centre that huge mosaic—the British Empire in India. The panic-stricken authorities had then to look for a man equal to the emergency. That man they found in General Pollock. With whatever faults Lord Auckland might be chargeable, he had to a great extent retrieved them by selecting General Pollock, against the advice of some persons, to command the army which was to liberate the captives and restore the prestige of the British army in Affghanistan. General Pollock was then an artillery officer, and had given thirty-eight years of valuable service to the country; he had served at the storming of Bhurtpore; he had been selected by Lord Lake to command the artillery sent in pursuit of Holkar, and he had commanded the Bengal artillery at Rangoon in the first Burmese war; and for these services he had been made a Commander of the Bath. He (Captain L. Vernon) did not wish to trouble the House with reference to many documents, but he would ask permission to read about six lines from Kaye's History of the War, descriptive of the merits of General Pollock. He was anxious that the House should know the gallant officer by his glorious deeds, as he (Captain L. Vernon) did, for he confessed he had never seen the general in his life. Kaye says.— The appointment of General Pollock gave the greatest satisfaction to the Supreme Government, and not one murmur of disapprobation arose from the general body of the army. The nomination of this old and distinguished Company's officer was believed to be free from the corruption of aristocratic influence and the taint of personal favouritism. It was believed that in this case at least the selection had been made solely on the ground of individual merit. He was thoroughly conscientious, he was actuated in all that he did by the purest motives—by the highest principles. He was essentially an honest man. The force now to be despatched to the frontier of Affghanistan required the superintendence and control of an officer equally cool and firm, temperate and decided, and, perhaps, in the whole range of the Indian army the Government could not have found one in whom these qualities were more eminently combined than in General Pollock. General Pollock being an Indian officer, the Horse Guards, of course, cavilled at his appointment, and the Commander in Chief in India, Sir Jasper Nicholls, had to defend the appointment, and wrote to Lord Fitzroy Somerset a letter which contained the following extract in reference to General Pollock:— When Major General Pollock arrived at Peshawur he found 1800 men of the 4th Regiment in hospital, the Sepoys declaring that they would not advance again through the Khyber Pass, the Sikh troops spreading alarm, and in all ways encouraging and screening their desertion, which was considerable. It was well that a cautious, cool officer of the Company's service should have to deal with them in such a temper 363 miles from our frontier. General Pollock managed them exceedingly well. Any precipitancy on the part of a general officer panting for fame might have had the worst effect. Before General Pollock appeared upon the scene, disaster had followed upon disaster. England had been defeated, Ghuznee had been taken, the army was destroyed, and General Wylde had been beaten back from the Khyber Pass. General Pollock forced the Pass at the point of the bayonet, relieved Jellalabad, beat the Affghans in three battles, liberated the captives, planted the British flag on the Bala Hissa of Cabul, and then led back his victorious army through the formidable Passes in triumph and safety. The whole empire rang with his achievements, for all men felt that by him India had been saved. The House would be able to contrast by the list which he was about to read the manner in which services in India were rewarded before General Pollock's time, and the manner in which they were rewarded in his person. For his successes against the Mahrattas, General Lake was made Lord Lake; General Harris was made Lord Harris for the capture of Seringapatam; Sir Stapleton Cotton was made Viscount Combermere for the capture of Bhurtpore; Sir John Keane was created Lord Keane, for the capture of Ghuznee; Sir Hugh Gough and Sir Henry Hardinge were raised to the peerage for the Sutlej campaign; General Willshire was made a baronet for the capture of Khelat; General Sir Harry Smith, a baronet for the battle of Aliwal; General Ochterlony, a baronet for Nepaul; General Gilbert, a baronet for successes against the Sikhs; General Campbell, a baronet for services in Burmah; and Lord Ellenborough created an earl and a G. C. B. for the successes in Affghanistan, China, and Scinde. For saving India General Pollock received the thanks of Parliament, and was made a Grand Cross of the Bath, of which order he was already a commander; and his second in command was also made a G. C. B., though he had not received the intermediate distinction. Twelve years afterwards, in 1854, it became the duty of the Government to appoint three Directors to the Board of Direction of the East India Company. The right hon. Member for Halifax (Sir Charles Wood), the then President of the Board of Control, signified to General Pollock his intention to name him as one of the Directors, in the following letter, which was as honourable to the right hon. Gentleman as gratifying to the gallant general:— India Board, April 7, 1854. My dear Sir George,—The time for the nomination of three Directors of the East India Company by the Crown having arrived, it becomes my duty to recommend to Her Majesty the persona whom I believe to be most capable of discharging the important duties of Directors, and to possess such qualifications as will complete the Court in full efficiency for the performance of the various functions intrusted to them in reference to the government of India. Among those duties one of the most important is the superintendence of the large military force of the Company, and I am anxious to see a tried soldier among the Directors, well acquainted with the requirements of the military service in India. No one has more triumphantly led that army, and under the most trying circumstances, than yourself, and I shall have great pleasure in marking my sense of your services in that army by recommending you to the Queen as one of the Directors to be named by Her Majesty. You will be the senior of the three whom I shall recommend, and, according to the course adopted by the Court as to the Directors whom they have chosen, I shall propose to place your name the first on the list, and for the period of two years, as I must name the period in conformity with the Act. They have named the seniors for the shorter period, and I shall thus have placed the nominated and elected Directors as far as possible on the same footing. I am, &c., CHARLES WOOD; These three Directors nominated, by the Government, it must be observed, were equally eligible for reappointment with the Directors elected by the Company. The post of senior Director was given to General Pollock for his unpayable services in India, and in order to place the two other Directors on an equal footing with their colleagues they were nominated for four and six years respectively. Neither of these two gentlemen had saved India, and it was therefore fair to assume that it was intended to reappoint General Pollock at the end of the two years. Had it not been so, he being the person who had the greatest claims, would naturally have been named for the longest period. That was the generally received opinion, and it was General Pollock's own opinion. But the present President of the Board of Control (Mr. Vernon Smith) had acted in a different spirit, for on the 20th of March, 1856, the right hon. Gentleman wrote to Sir G. Pollock the following letter:— India Board, March 20, 1856. My dear Sir George,—I think it due to the high consideration I entertain for your character and services to inform you, before the period arrives, of the course I think it my duty to pursue upon the vacancy that will be created in the Court of Directors by the expiration of the term of your appointment. Upon a careful revision of the discussions on the Act of 1853, in which I took part myself, I am convinced that it was the intention of the Legislature that a fresh appointment, and not a reappointment, should be the general rule to be followed by the Minister of the Crown in his recommendations to Her Majesty. As this is the first occasion on which the exercise of tins discretion has occurred, I think it most desirable to maintain the principle whereby, in my opinion, the direction will be made most valuable, and therefore, in spite of the high value I set upon your services, it is not my intention to propose your reappointment. I am unaware at this moment whether, if I had found it compatible with my public duty to offer you the office again, you would have wished to accept it, and therefore it is quite open to you to let it be considered that you would not, if more agreeable to you: at any rate, I trust that you will understand that my course is entirely prescribed by public principle, and that nothing in it can in the least detract from that high renown which places your name among the first in Indian annals of warfare. I am, with the sincerest respect, Yours very truly, R. VERNON SMITH. Now he (Captain L. Vernon) would ask, was this a creditable document to come from the India Board, signed by a Minister of the Crown and one of Her Majesty's Privy Council? The right hon. Gentleman's justification of himself on grounds of "public principle" was only separated by a colon from the proposed subterfuge of the gallant General's letting it be understood that he was not anxious to be reappointed. It was rather astonishing that the right hon. Gentleman should have come to such a conclusion as to the non-reappointment of nominated directors in the face of two clauses of the Act of Parliament regulat- ing the Government of India. The right hon. Gentleman did not appear to have read very carefully this passage in the 7th section of the 16 & 17 Vict., c. 95:— And every person who shall, or but for reappointment or re-election would, cease to be a Director by the expiration of his term of office, shall be capable of being forthwith reappointed or of being re-elected at the election holden on the day of the expiration of such term. Nor this in the 8th section:— And it shall be lawful for Her Majesty from time to time, upon or after the expiration of the term of office of any Director or Directors by Her Majesty by warrant under the Royal sign manual, to appoint or reappoint a person or persons to fill such vacancy or vacancies. However, the reply of Sir George Pollock was just such a one as might have been expected from so gallant an officer and honourable a man:— East India House, March 24, 1856. My dear Sir,—I have to acknowledge the honour of your communication of the 20th inst., stating that you are convinced it was the intention of the Legislature that a fresh appointment, and not a reappointment, should be the general rule, and that therefore you feel it to be your duty not to recommend me to Her Majesty for reappointment, but to establish the rule and maintain the principle on this first occasion of a vacancy. I beg you will accept my best thanks for the very flattering allusion to my services in India which accompanied the communication. I was appointed by Sir Charles Wood in a private letter (extracts from which I enclose), without any solicitation on my part, and (although I need hardly say that, had I anticipated removal on the expiration of my two years' tenure of office, I should have hesitated to accept the office) it was not my intention at the present time either to request a reappointment, or to decline it if offered; I was content to leave the decision in the hands of Her Majesty's Ministers, under the confident expectation that it would be in accordance with what is due to me and advantageous to the State. The expression of your intentions certainly caused me some surprise. I am obliged by the consideration for me with which you suggest that (if more agreeable to me) 'it is quite open to me to let it be considered, that I would not accept office if again offered;' but in answer to this, I beg to say, that with reference to the policy you assign, as a reason for the course you pursue, I do not see why any disguise should be adopted; and, as I certainly should have accepted the reappointment had it been offered to me, I think it is better for the public service and more honourable to you and myself that the truth (whatever it is) should appear. I remain, my dear Sir, Yours very truly, GEORGE POLLOCK. This letter required no comment. It was a plain, straightforward, soldierlike, honourable letter, and would well stand com- parison with the document of the India Board. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control ought to thank him for this opportunity of explaining his extraordinary letter, and of making known to the Indian army on what principle it was that the services of a distinguished soldier like General Pollock had been so unworthily dealt with. He did not expect to gain redress for General Pollock, but if this Motion were granted at least this point would be gained. The history of Sir George Pollock would stand in the records of that House from the hour when he received the thanks of Parliament for his deeds to that in which those deeds were ignored by the Board of Control, and in the same pages would be found the narrative of his great achievements and of the small consideration which they had gained him.

Motion made, and Question proposed— That there be laid before this House, a Copy of all Correspondence relating to the removal of General Sir George Pollock, G. C. B., from the Direction of the Honourable East India Company.

Mr. VERNON SMITH

Sir, my answer to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman is simply this:—There is no official correspondence in existence as to the non-reappointment of Sir George Pollock, and that Sir George Pollock never was removed from his office, and therefore the hon. Member is doing Sir George Pollock a wrong in speaking of his removal from office. Such a thing was never contemplated, and never done. That, Sir, would be a sufficient answer to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman to prevent it being put in point of form from the chair, but he has entered with considerable detail into a question upon which I think it is my duty to follow him. As regards the preliminary part of his speech, in which he spoke of the achievements of Sir George Pollock, it is utterly impossible for any one to deny the splendid victories achieved by Sir George Pollock in Affghanistan, and I should be the last man to attempt to do so. I had the satisfaction to mention them in public when I met Sir George Pollock at a dinner at the East India House, upon which occasion I said that gallant officer had executed the magnificent manœuvre which drove the Khyberees from their precipitous fastnesses, and added that Nadir Shah had only accomplished by corruption what Sir George Pollock had done by force of arms. There is no statement which can be made of the glory of that officer's career which I am not ready to endorse. If the honours which Sir George Pollock has received from the Crown have been an inadequate reward, the proper course would have been to move an address to the Crown, praying that further honours might be bestowed, but I must say I have the greatest reason to complain of the conduct of the hon. Member towards me. This is the first instance in my experience in which when an hon. Member has thought it his duty to read private letters, he has not at least given notice to the person whom they chiefly concerned. Those letters were private, as all who know the course pursued relative to the exercise of the patronage of the Crown are well aware. The hon. Gentleman did not say whether he had the consent of Sir George Pollock to read them, and I should doubt much whether that gallant Officer would have sanctioned such a course. That, however, is a question between the hon. Member and myself, but, nevertheless, it leaves me completely disarmed, as I have had no opportunity of referring to any notes of my own to ascertain whether there were other letters than these which have been read, or to make myself acquainted with the contents of those that have been read. As far as I recollect, the circumstances were these: I knew I should be called upon in April 1856, to appoint a Director of the East India Company. Several private communications took place between myself and the Chairman of that Company, who asked me whether I intended to reappoint Sir George Pollock; to which I replied, decidedly not; and in conversation I expressed to him, what I now repeat to the House, my extreme pain that I should not find it consistent with my duty to reappoint that gallant Officer. I put the question whether Sir George Pollock was willing to make any intimation to me, or whether he had any wish to be re-appointed, but I never heard either from the Chairman or Sir George Pollock upon the subject. I am sure the House will believe that the most painful situation a public man can be placed in is when he is called upon by his public duty to act with what may appear harshness towards a person for whom he entertains the highest respect. If it is a charge against me that, in endeavouring to soften as much as possible any feelings of irritation which Sir George Pollock might entertain, I went too far in the letter which has been read, I bow to the charge, and say, I would have gone thrice as far to avoid causing him pain. My impression in writing that letter was that I was paying Sir George Pollock every compliment I could think of. I repeat it. It was my duty to choose the fittest man, and I did not think Sir George Pollock the fittest person to be reappointed; and, in writing that letter, I did all I could to lessen any irritation which he might feel. It was a painful duty to make such a communication to a man of his rank and character, but I did not choose to shrink from it. In 1853 a discussion took place in this House upon the India Bill, in which I and others who took part in it expressed opinions that the object to be gained by a new mode of selection of East India Directors was the infusion of fresh blood into the direction; and my hon. friend the Member for Huntingdon went so far as to propose that no person should be elected a Director under this method who had been absent more than five years from India. Thus, when it became my duty to make a selection, I felt I could not recommend the re-appointment of Sir George Pollock, and in his place I recommended Sir H. Rawlinson, a man of world-wide reputation, and a diplomatic as well as military character. Soon afterwards Mr. L. Melville died, and I then recommended the appointment of General Vivian, upon the sole ground of advantage to the State, from his recent experience of warfare as well as his service at Madras, Surely I cannot be charged with improper motives or sinister objects in making those recommendations. Can any one accuse me of corruption in this, or the consultation of either my own interest, or even my own ease? If I had wished to consult my own convenience in the transaction of business, there are no Directors a President of the Board of Control would prefer to gentlemen who never interfere with him. The hon. Member seems to consider the Board of Directors as a place of honourable retirement. ("No!") The hon. Gentleman asked, was that a reward for Sir George Pollock's services? No one meant it as a reward. His rewards were the dignities conferred upon him by his Sovereign and country. My duty was to supply the direction with new vigour, to select the most useful men for the office. I have done so. The public and the press at home and in India have approved my choice. This Motion is a proof of the difficulty which a Minister experiences in the performance of his duties. There is an outcry for Administrative Reform, and hon. Gentlemen are continually watching the actions of the Government to see whether they put "the right man in the right place;" and yet, when it becomes my misfortune to be compelled to supersede a gentleman whom I do not think competent from his infirmities of age to discharge the duties of the office, I am charged with an improper dismissal. I did not dismiss Sir George Pollock, nothing made it necessary for me to do so, but the two years for which he was appointed having expired I declined to reappoint him, as, if I had, it must have been for the six ensuing years. The hon. Member says I should thank him for having brought this matter forward; but I do not think he has given either Sir George or myself any reason for thanks, as he has compelled me to state opinions which I have been most unwilling to utter. My main desire has been to avoid wounding the feelings of Sir George Pollock. If I out-stepped prudence in proposing that he should resign instead of not being re-appointed, or if there be anything illogical in my letter, it arose from that motive. I shall never regret, nor am I now ashamed of the suggestion I made, or of the course I pursued. I consulted my noble Friend at the head of the Government, and am convinced that I acted rightly in placing in the direction of the East India Company men who are able to carry out with vigour those schemes of improvement which all Indian reformers press upon us, and which cannot be accomplished if the direction is allowed to become an effete and languid body. I presume the hon. Member will not press his Motion, as the papers are private documents which he has obtained I know not whence, but which I cannot believe, unless he tells me so, that he has obtained from a gallant and honourable officer like Sir George Pollock. I should be sorry to put on the Journals of the House a statement that Sir George Pollock was removed,—which, I repeat, never was done. His time of service had expired, and I did not shrink from what I believed to be my duty to appoint a person better qualified by great abilities and greater activity.

MR. DISRAELI

When the Indian Bill was first submitted to this House in 1853, I supported a Motion of my hon. Friend, then Member for King's Lynn, by which that Bill would have been defeated, and I remember on that occasion we had the valuable support of the present President of the Board of Control. I thought it an ill-conceived measure, that would not only disappoint public expectation, but instead of improving tend rather to injure the administration of our Indian empire; and all that I have observed since, and all that I can calculate as to its effects, entirely confirm the opinion I then formed. I believe it is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs, and that the attention of Parliament must necessarily be speedily called to the subject. I do not doubt that now the President of the Board of Control generally agrees with me in these views, because I cannot suppose that his having attained, quite honourably, the high office which he holds, and the duties of which I am willing to believe he performs with satisfaction, can in any material manner affect the opinions resulting from considerable thought and study which he then entertained. Therefore, Sir, upon the affairs of India the President of the Board of Control and myself probably have many opinions in common. Though it was a minor point, I was in some degree reconciled to the passing of the Act of 1853, by the judicious manner in which the highest patronage of the office over which the right hon. Gentleman presides—namely, the nomination of Directors—was exercised by the Government. There was a general opinion that the appointments were made without any undue influence, and that the Gentlemen chosen were the best who could be selected. A very short time, however, has elapsed, and we are called upon, under circumstances which I am sure every Gentleman feels to be very painful, to canvass the case of a Gentleman whose appointment, which gave very general satisfaction when it was made, but whom, on the termination of his period of office, the Government declined to reinstate. I am not surprised, after what has occurred, that General Pollock wishes his case to be laid before Parliament, and I am bound to say my hon. Friend has shown great spirit and Parliamentary talent in the manner in which he has brought it under the notice of the House. In what a strange position do we find ourselves to-night! I am willing to believe that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. V. Smith) has acted upon the purest convictions of what he thought to be his duty. A Minister must act on his own responsibility; and the right hon. Gentleman has vindicated, in a manly and spirited manner, the exercise of his discretion; but in doing so he has made an attack upon one of his colleagues. General Pollock, a man of more than European reputation, of world-wide reputation—to use the epithet of the President of the Board of Control—was appointed only two years ago, with the approbation of the public, by the present First Lord of the Admiralty. If General Pollock, from age and infirmity, is now incapable of holding office as a Director of the East India Company, why was he appointed by the colleague of the right hon. Gentleman? It is not poosible that in two short years those abilities which gained great victories, and that high character which commanded general approbation, should dissolve. If Sir G. Pollock is incompetent now, it was a bad appointment two years ago. But what evidence have we that he is incompetent? Is it to be found in the letter read to us by my hon. Friend? It appeared to me to be a dignified letter, expressed in manly and proper language, and to be the production of a man fully equal to any position he might be called on to occupy. I do not question the right of the President of the Board of Control to act on his own responsibility, but, having no evidence before me that Sir George Pollock is not as capable as he was two years ago, I must say I deplore that he is no longer a member of the direction of the East India Company.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

Sir, I think that the House will agree with me that though it may not be unusual, it is very inconvenient for discussions of this kind to turn on the personal merits of individuals, but I must say it is very incorrect to describe the course of my right hon. Friend as one implying anything derogatory to the high qualities of Sir George Pollock. Nor does it at all follow that, because my right hon. Friend (Mr. V. Smith) in the course of last year thought it his duty, on a comparison of qualification, to prefer another person to Sir George Pollock, my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty did not act perfectly right in the appointment of Sir George Pollock two years ago. I should hope the hon. Gentleman who made this Motion will not place upon our records the assertion, inconsistent with fact, that Sir George Pollock was removed from the direction of the East India Company. My right hon. Friend might have removed Sir George Pollock before the time of his service had expired. If my right hon. Friend had done that, it would have been necessary to have shown grave reasons for such an exercise of the Royal prerogative. But he did not do so. Sir George Pollock was placed in the direction for two years. The term having expired, it was the duty of my right hon. Friend to consider the relative qualifications of different persons who might be appointed, and if, on a balance of considerations, he thought another person was fitter from age and other circumstances to discharge the duties of Director, it was his duty to prefer that other person, It was no disparagement whatever to the high character of Sir George Pollock that another was preferred. The position of official men who have to fill up appointments is exceedingly difficult, but the difficulty will be aggravated if, when they make the best selection according to their opinion of the candidates, their conduct is to be called in question in the House of Commons, and the House of Commons is, as it were, to make itself the judge of the relative merits of persons who are appointed by the responsible officers of the Crown. I hope it will be clearly understood that the high professional character of Sir George Pollock and the professional reputation he enjoys for the important services he has rendered are in no degree whatever disparaged by the exercise of discretion which my right hon. Friend has made. Sir George Pollock's period of service expired, my right hon. Friend chose another person; but Sir George Pollock was not removed, and really it would be very unfair to him to record a removal which, in point of fact, never took place.

CAPTAIN LEICESTER VERNON

said, he had no wish, after the explanations which had been given, to insist on the word removal. With respect to the letters, it was sufficient for him, as a British Officer and a Member of the House of Commons, to say that they fell into his hands, and he was willing to undertake the whole responsibility of using them. But, of course, if there were no other correspondence than that which he had read he had nothing to ask for, and his Motion fell to the ground.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.