COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 2 July 1858)

§ MR. COLLINS
said, he wished to propose as an Amendment, that the salary should be £500 a year, which was the remuneration agreed upon in 1853, when the question was debated at some length. No difficulty has been found in obtaining the services of competent persons at that salary. He did not think that fifteen Coun- 858 cillors could be employed during the whole of their time in managing the affairs of India, and they would have a great deal of patronage, which was an important element in the consideration of the question.

LORD STANLEY
observed, that he could not assent to the reduction. It was desirable that they should have the very best men upon the Council, and as the members would be required to reside during the greater part of the year in London, he did not think the remuneration proposed was too large. He might add that, in pursuance of a suggestion which had been made on the previous evening, he had prepared a proviso to the effect that if Parliament should hereafter deem it desirable to reduce the number of Councillors, no member should be entitled to compensation on that account who had not served for ten years.

§ MR. GREGSON
(who had also given notice of a Motion to reduce the salary to £500 per annum) said that he should support the Amendment. Previously to 1853 the salaries of the Directors had been only £300 a year, and he apprehended that an attendance of two hours a day for once a week would be ample. If so, £500 a year would be an adequate remuneration; but if the whole of their time should be taken up by the nature of the duties reposed in them, £1,200 would not be sufficient.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that the hon. Member was under a mistake as to the time which would be occupied in discharging the duties of members of the Council. No doubt the Council would only sit once a week; but it was anticipated that the duties devolving on the members, in their capacity as members of committees, would require their daily attendance for a considerable time during the day. The Council would therefore not come under the category of Boards where attendance once a week was the general routine of duty. On the whole, the Government considered that £1,200 was a just and proper salary for the members of the Council. They had fixed it at that amount, as there were many eminent individuals whom it would be desirable to have in the Council who were not in the habit of residing in London, and a less allowance would not meet their extra expenditure.

MR. VERNON SMITH
said, he thought that it was high time that the duties of the Councillors and the way in which they were to perform them should be clearly defined. His own belief was, that fifteen members were too many to have upon the Council, and that at least half of these offices would be complete sinecures. The proposal would exactly double the expense of the home Government of India, and as to the new Councillors devoting the whole of their time to Indian affairs, he did not believe that they would do anything of the sort. He would ask the Committee to take the Indian register, to look at the first four names upon the direction, and to say whether it was possible to expect that men who were at the head of great commercial establishments would give up all their time to serve upon the Council. The gentlemen who were to be elected by the Directors of the Company could not be expected to give so much time to this business as the members to be nominated by the Crown, and if they were required to do so they ought to have a larger salary.

LORD STANLEY
said, that it would be very invidious to establish a different scale of salary for the elected and the nominated members. It was not proposed absolutely to bind the members of the Council entirely to abandon all other employment; but he considered that the duties of this office would be so heavy that a great deal of their time would be required, and they would be bound to give as much of their time to the duties of their office as might be necessary. He could not pretend to say what the difference in expense would be between the existing and the proposed system of direction; but his belief was, that if there were an additional expense in one respect, there would be a saving in another. For instance, of all those voluminous documents which were now sent over from India in duplicate for the use of two offices, one copy only would in future be required, and this alone was not an insignificant item.

§ MR. LOWE
said, that his difficulty was, that he was called upon to assess a salary for services of the nature of which he was ignorant. If he knew what the duties of the Councillors were to be he should be able to decide without hesitation upon the salary; but the members of the Government differed so much that it was impossible to discover from their speeches what the duties of these gentlemen were to be. The Solicitor General stated last night it would be competent for them to undertake 860 other duties; while the noble Lord the President of the Board of Control stated there would be an honourable understanding that they should devote themselves exclusively to their duties. According to the Chancellor of the Exchequer there was to be a difference in the two classes of members—the nominated members were to give up all other engagements, but not so the elected members. On what basis, then, were they to fix the salaries? If the Solicitor General was right, £500 would be quite enough; but if the noble Lord was correct £1,200 was not too much. On the other hand, if the case was to be as represented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and if one, set of Councillors were to be "hewers of wood and drawers of water," and the others were to be gentleman at ease dropping in to the Council whenever they pleased and just as it suited themselves, then he contended, however invidious it might be, that there ought to be a difference in the remuneration. In the absence of any intelligible explanation from the Government, he should vote for the Amendment, and he would earnestly warn the Committee against squandering away money which might make whole districts in India happy and prosperous, which might spread education, and might mitigate the evils resulting from a perverted religion and a false faith.

§ COLONEL SYKES
said, that if the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Gregson) knew anything whatever of the business of the East India Company, and if his right hon. Friends the Members for Northampton and for Kidderminster knew a little more about it, they would not have spoken as they had done. What were these Councillors to do? Why, they were to assist in the Government of India, which comprised no fewer than thirteen distinct departments of State. He could only wish that those who thought the duties of the present direction were light would visit his room at the India House. These Councillors would be men of position, to whom salary would be no object. He should wish the amount awarded them to be considered rather as an honorarium than a salary, and he, for one, would object to take £1,200 a year, and should say that £800 or £1,000 merely as a recognition of their services, would be ample.

§ MR. MONCKTON MILNES
said, that the Committee should not forget that by the vote of the previous evening they had deprived the members of the Council of all political hopes and aspirations, and he 861 thought, if they reduced the salary below that of a Lord of the Treasury, that they would unduly derogate from the importance of the office. In spite of the able appeal of his right hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Lowe) he did not think that the future welfare of India would be advanced by any petty parsimony; and he doubted even whether the expense of the direction would be increased by the Government proposal, because there would be a considerable saving from the consolidation of offices which was to be effected under the Bill.

MR. WHITE
said, he had a strong opinion that the work would be quite as well performed if the salary were £500 as if it were £1,200 a year. Indeed, the influence and patronage of these gentlemen would be so great, and their personal dignity would be so much enhanced by being made Councillors, that he doubted whether we should not get quite as good men if they had to pay £500 a year for holding the office, instead of receiving £500 a year for discharging the duties of it. On the other hand, he feared that if they adopted £1,200 as the salary, he thought that many persons would be placed in the Council whose only qualification would be that of being hangers on of the Ministers for the time being.

MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, the Committee ought to recollect that the members of the Council would have great patronage. In 1853 the patronage of an East India Director was estimated at £6,000 a year. Therefore, considering their patronage and the not very onerous character of their work it would be wholly unjustifiable to give them large salaries.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
said, he considered the question was one of considerable difficulty. That difficulty was increased by the large number of the Council, and the fact that they were to retain the patronage now vested in the court. With regard to the patronage, he entertained so strong an opinion on the subject that he intended to move a clause to deprive the Council of it. The principle that the patronage was to be considered as part of the emolument was a most dangerous one to introduce, as it would justify any member of the Council in disposing of this patronage to the benefit of his own family The experiment of this Council being a new one, he thought the Committee ought not to withhold from the Government any means which they might think necessary to render it less hazardous, and therefore, if the Government felt that 862 £1,200 was the proper salary he would not be disposed to reject their proposal. There were many Indian officers who would be highly competent for the office, but unless the salary was such as would enable them to reside in London, they would not accept it. He thought some regulation should be made to the effect that the members of the Council should be bound to devote their whole time to the duties of their offices. Many of the present directors held offices which would render it impossible for them to make such an engagement, and he did not think they would be proper members of the new Council unless they undertook to give up their other duties.

§ SIR JAMES GRAHAM
said, he believed that the occupation of the members of the Council would be daily, as power was taken under the Bill to enable the Secretary of State to divide the Council into Committees. Reference had been made on a former evening to Captain Shepherd; but he was authorised to say that if that gentleman was appointed a member of the Council he would give up all his other posts. This showed his estimate of what the duties would be. It was now settled that the Councillors were to be excluded from Parliament, and as they would be consequently precluded from attaining the highest object of the ambition of an Englishman, they were entitled to an increased remuneration. He admitted that patronage was the worst possible mode of remuneration; but after this Bill passed the amount of patronage left to the Council would be very small, comprising only the first appointment (subject to a strict examination) to the more scientific portion of the military service. On the whole he really believed that if a great change in the home government of India was to be made it could not be carried out in a better manner than was proposed by the Bill as it now stood; and although he did not wish to squander a single rupee of the revenues of India, yet, considering the duties to be imposed on the Council he did not think the salary of £1,200 was at all too much. He did not think it would be expedient to lay down a rigorous rule in an Act of Parliament binding the members so to devote their time; but there should be an honourable understanding that the daily occupation of the Councillors at Leadenhall Street would be expected, subject to the control of the Minister of State.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, the Goverment expected the members of the Council would place their 863 time at the disposal of the office; but they did not think it advisable to introduce words into the Act which would rigidly prevent them from performing any other business whatever. The understanding on this point to which his noble Friend (Lord Stanley) had referred was not intended to be a more verbal understanding, but would be placed in such a form, by regulation or otherwise, as would leave no doubt on the subject. Any positive clause in the Act would only give rise to constant difficulties and misunderstandings. The power given to the Secretary of State to define the duties of the Councillors would sufficiently ensure that their time would be fully occupied. If any member found he could not fully discharge these duties, he should resign; but the Government did not think it necessary to insert any clause which would prevent a member of the Council forming any relations which would not interfere with his duties, but which might render him a much more valuable member of the body. It was very easy to urge what might be called the sentimental argument, and ask how many wretched Hindoos might be made comfortable with the £10,000 a year of the increased expenditure. The same argument might be applied to any office. They might take any Minister of State, and ask how many starving families his salary would feed. He might as well ask a member of the administration which had engaged in a Persian war without the authority of Parliament, and spent £1,000,000 in it, what benefit that sum would not have produced if distributed among the population of India. With regard to the salary, he admitted he could not adduce any irresistible arguments to show that £1,200 was the exact sum required. The noble Lord the Member for London appeared to be in favour of a higher sum. The hon. Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) told them £800 a year would be a compliment, but £1,200 would be an insult. The Government thought the sum they proposed would be a fair equivalent for the services to be performed, judging by the analogy of the salaries attached to other offices of the State.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, the main difficulty arose from the large number of the Council. If it had been eight or ten, the Committee would have had very little hesitation in fixing the amount of salary. He should vote in favour of the Government proposition; but, as the clause fixed the salary absolutely at £1,200, the Government would have no control whatever 864 over the amount, and he would suggest that, as there was considerable difficulty in determining beforehand the amount of duties to be discharged, words should be inserted to the effect that each member of the Council should have a yearly salary not exceeding £1,200 as Her Majesty by Order in Council might from time to time direct.

LORD STANLEY
said, the Government thought that the independence of the Council would be best secured by allowing Parliament to deal with the question of their salary, and thus to prevent the Minister of the day from having any control over it.

MR. VERNON SMITH
said, he wished to be informed by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General whether he was to understand, from what he said on the previous night, that the Government would have power to remove any member of the Council whom they might suppose to devote too little time to the Council. If so, the Council would be in the position of clerks.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
said, there could be no doubt that it would be misbehaviour on the part of a member to neglect to devote such portion of his time to the Council as the Secretary of State might require, and that for such misbehaviour he might be removed.

§ MR. COLLINS
said, he was entirely in the hands of the Committee, and was perfectly ready to withdraw his Amendment if such was their wish.

§ SIR ERSKINE PERRY
said, the statement as to Captain Shepherd's intention to resign two offices which he now filled, if he should be elected a member of the Council, was most satisfactory, and, if it was intended that the Council should devote their time to the business of the Council, in the manner indicated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it would be wholly unnecessary for him (Sir E. Perry) to move the Amendment of which he had given notice on that subject.

§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE
vindicated the character of Captain Shepherd from an imputation which he imagined had been cast upon it by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kidderminster, and bore testimony to the high sense entertained by the East India Company of the services of that gentleman. He hoped that he would form one of the new Council.

§ MR. LOWE
said, he must disclaim any intention of disparaging the gentleman 865 referred to. Indeed, he was perfectly ready to agree in passing an eulogium on Captain Shepherd.

§ MR. COX
thought, if the name of one candidate was to be mentioned in that House, the others ought to be brought forward too. The Directors of the East India Company had been eulogized by all parties, the late Government and the present. And, therefore, as they received only £500 a year, that was an ample payment for a member of the new Council.

MR. MOFFATT
said, he wished to propose the words, "providing that the salaries shall be paid out of the revenues of India."

LORD STANLEY
said, he had no objection,

§ SIR ERSKINE PERRY
said, he had given notice of his intention to move to add the words "each member shall give his entire time to the duties of his office;" but, in consequence of the explanation of the Government, he would not move his Amendment.

LORD STANLEY
said, that the pension of any member who might have served in India would not be deducted from the amount of his salary.

§ SIR FRANCIS BARING
said, he wished to ask what was the object of making the pensions dependent upon the Government, and of requiring the warrant to be signed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This was an unusual course, and he would suggest that the pensions of the Councillors should be placed on the same footing as those of the Judges, so that a Councillor on retiring should be entitled to his pension as a matter of course. With respect to the increased pension after fifteen years, would not that afford a temptation to men to continue in office after they were unfit for their duties in order that they might have a title to the larger pension? Of course the object of every one must be to get rid of incompetent men; but this clause only induced men to "dawdle on," sticking fast to office when they ought to retire. Let the Committee fix the retiring allowance at a fair sum, and 866 let it not be increased for length of service. Perhaps the logical inference would be, that the longer a man remained in office the smaller the retiring pension should be. He did not propose that, however, but he suggested that one uniform rate should be established.

§ Mr. BLACKBURN
said, he had an Amendment on the paper for carrying out the object which the right hon. Baronet had in view.

§ MR. RICH
said, he agreed generally in the observations of his right hon. Friend who had just sat down, and with a view of giving effect to them he would move, as an Amendment, that no pension should be allowed under a service of fifteen years. He believed that this was the period of service required from the Judges, who were taken from the most lucrative profession in the world; and, considering the handsome salary which the Councillors were to receive, he contended that his Amendment would fully meet the justice of the case. Why should these men not be placed in the same position as the other public servants under the Civil Service Superannuation Act?

LORD STANLEY
said, that the wording of the clause was adopted from the Act which granted the retiring pensions to the Judges, and the counter signature of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was required to bring the matter under the cognizance of the Treasury, which was necessary, as the expenses were to be paid out of the revenues of India. He admitted that there was a good deal in what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, but it was open to argument whether there was not as much danger in inducing men to retire too early as there was in leading them to remain too long upon the Council. Originally he had intended to give no pension under fifteen years, but he feared that the effect would have been to retain men on the Council when it would he for the advantage of the public that they should retire.

§ MR. GLADSTONE
said, he was disposed to support the Amendment, because he looked with apprehension on such an innovation of the law as was proposed by these pensions. The only cases in which he thought pensions could be justified were when you had obtained all the virtue and strength out of a man; but if persons were to be appointed to this Council who had spent the most effective part of their lives in India, and who enjoyed pensions 867 for their services there, and if they were now to be put into a new office for a short term, and were to receive cumulative pensions, he should look with the greatest aversion upon such an arrangement. He should prefer to get rid of the system altogether, but in default of that he should support the Amendment as a mitigation of the evil.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, the reason why pensions were introduced in the Bill was not to give compensation for energies exhausted in the public service, but rather to give some security against persons who had become disabled holding office after their services were no longer of use to the public.

MR. TATTON EGERTON
said, he though a retiring allowance ought to be given; but any pension to which the parties were already entitled should be deducted from it.

§ VISCOUNT GODERICH
said, the retiring allowance was merely a plan to get rid of the old gentlemen when they got unfit for the office.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, he wished to know whether these salaries and allowances were to be accumulative on any previous pensions.

LORD STANLEY
said that, on reconsidering the question, he had no objection to stop the clause at the words "five hundred pounds," so that the effect would be to grant an uniform pension of £500 after ten years' service, and to give no increase for a more lengthened tenure of office.

LORD STANLEY
said, he would now propose the addition of the proviso to which he had referred in the course of the discussion, the effect of which would be to give the Councillors no claim for compensation for loss of office under ten years' service in the event of Parliament deciding at any future period to reduce their number.

§ MR. GLADSTONE
said, he thought it was desirable that the Government should have the power of removing a member on the ground of inability.

LORD STANLEY
said, there would be no difficulty in carrying an address through both Houses of Parliament in any case where a member's incapacity was notorious and such as to justify his removal.

§ MR. GLADSTONE
remarked, that an Address of the House was intended not 868 for such a case, but for cases of flagrant misconduct. The House would not stigmatize a man by agreeing to an Address to the Crown against him when his only offence was infirmity.

MR. MANGLES
said, he objected to the Government having the power of removing members of the Council, because they might avail themselves of it to get rid of a "cantankerous" member£that is, one opposed to their views.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, a case recently happened of an Address for the removal of a person from high office merely for physical inability£he meant the Address with regard to an eminent Irish Judge.

§ MR. GLADSTONE
That Address was not carried.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
You cannot provide by an Act of Parliament that an Address shall be carried.

§ SIR ERSKINE PERRY
said, in France incapable men could be got rid of by very admirable superannuation rules. A man could be walked out of his office in France the moment the Government thought he was incapable. The House had agreed to give the members of Council a very absurd tenure£namely, one for life, and the Government ought to have the power of superannuating any member whom they might deem incapable. He thought the words "or shall be incapable by reason of infirmity" should be inserted in the clause.

MR. VERNON SMITH
said, he fully concurred in the views expressed by the right hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. Gladstone), and the hon. Member for Devonport (Sir E. Perry).

§ MR. AYRTON
said, he wished to ask how it was possible that Parliament could judge of things going on in India when it had so much difficulty in judging of what was under its own eyes£namely, the Council proposed by the Government.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, the House, of course, did not intend to bring a Member to the bar that he might there undergo an examination to enable them to judge of his mental and bodily health. An Address to the Crown was not the remedy, but a removing power on the part of the Government in such a case.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
All these suggestions strike at the Independence of the Council.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
I should have 869 thought that the first object of the Government would have been to get, not an independent, but an efficient Council.

§ MR. HUDSON
said, he was opposed to the suggestion of the right hon. Member (Mr. Gladstone).

§ MR. RICH
. observed, that as he believed that £1,200 a year was more than a sufficient salary, he must object to the grant of any pensions to the Council, and insist that the sense of the Committee should be taken on the clause.

§ SIR FRANCIS BARING
said, he understood the object of Clause 15 to be that the plan of the first establishment of the Council should be framed by the Secretary of State, and submitted to the Government for their approval, and also to Parliament. If Parliament should approve it, the establishment was to be created by an order of the Queen in Council. But it would seem by the wording of the clause that all future alterations in the establishment would require only the approval of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State. That was the first time that it was proposed to set aside an order in Council by the mere consent of two Ministers of State, and he must therefore, object to the proposal.

§ SIR JAMES GRAHAM
said, he fully agreed with the right hon. Baronet. His official experience convinced him it was desirable to provide that no change should be made without the sanction of an order in Council.

LORD STANLEY
said, he rose to move to insert after the words "Secretary of State," the words "in Council."

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
said, this Amendment was one of a series of which the noble Lord had given notice, and which would alter the entire action of the Council, and prevent the Secretary from doing any act unless in Council.

LORD STANLEY
said, such was not the case. He would consider the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet.

§ SIR ERSKINE PERRY
said, that by the clause as altered by the Government the Secretary of State, like the "Governor-General in Council," would have to act in conjunction with his Council.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
doubted the truth of the assertion that no addition could be made without an order in Council. Salaries, at all events, could be increased without such an order.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, he would admit that such was the fact with regard to salaries, but no alteration in any establishment could be made without an order in Council.

§ SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE
remarked that he concurred with the right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth in thinking that, especially as they were dealing with Indian revenue, in the prudent expenditure of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not feel so much interest as he did with respect to English revenue, no important increase in the establishment of the Indian Minister should take place without the consent of Parliament.