HC Deb 16 March 1858 vol 149 cc250-8
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

I now rise to move that the Resolution of Thanks which this House arrived at on the 8th of February last be road. My object in making that Motion is that we may insert in the Resolution the name of a distinguished gentleman — the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, whose name, by an unhappy inadvertence, was omitted on that occasion. The Thanks of the House were, by the Resolution to which I have referred, offered to the Governor General and to the Governors of Madras and Bombay, but the name of the Hon. Frederick James Halliday. the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, was omitted. Now, I am sure the House will feel that that gentleman has been placed, in consequence of this inadvertence—I may almost say this clerical error—in an extremely painful position. It is not merely that he has been deprived of the highest compliment that one of Her Majesty's subjects can receive—the Thanks of Parliament for public services—but the omission of his name seems to cast a slur upon his reputation which never could have been intended, and which can only be effaced in the way proposed. I do not anticipate, therefore, the slightest opposition to the proposition that I am now going to make—that the Resolution of the 8th of February be read, and that in his due position in that Resolution, which would be immediately after Lord Elphinstone, the name of the Hon. F. J. Halliday, the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, be inserted, so that he may receive in a proper manner the thanks of the House of Commons for his public services during the revolt in India. But since I gave that almost formal notice several Amendments to which I must call the attention of the House have been placed upon the Votes. There is one Amendment by the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir De Lacy Evans), to include the names of Major General Mansfield, Brigadier General Chamberlain, Brigadier General Hope Grant, and Brigadier General Walpole, and, in addition to the fourth Resolution of the 8th of February, the hon. and gallant Gentleman requests us to record the Thanks of the House as eminently merited by those distinguished men who were commanding officers, and who lost their lives during the revolt in India. The hon. and gallant Member for Southwark (Sir C. Napier) also proposes a Vote of Thanks to Sir William Peel for his services in India. I trust there will be no difference of opinion as to the course which we ought to take upon these propositions. I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman who made them that there is no one in this House who more appreciates the services or more deplores the loss of these eminent men than myself. Indeed, when I had the honour of addressing the House upon the original Resolution, as proposed by the noble Viscount the Member for Tiverton, I called upon the House not to forget at that moment of thanks and congratulation the names of the illustrious departed, and I even took the liberty of expressing my regret that rules, the wisdom of which experience has proved, prevented our inserting the name of Sir William Peel, whose romantic energy recalls the brilliant achievements of Sir Sidney Smith. I, therefore, need not assure the hon. and gallant Members that there is no want of respect or of sympathy on our part with the deeds and character of the eminent persons mentioned in their respective Amendments. But there are certain rules which have always been observed in regulating our Votes of Thanks, and from which, I think, it would be most unwise for us to depart. Indeed, when we have passed the line, I do not exactly see where we are to stop. On reading the names included in the Amendments I am sure, brilliant as they are, I could add to them some not less distinguished. Why should the name of Greathed, for example, or of Adrian Hope, be omitted? The truth is, however, that the services of these and other distinguished officers are acknowledged in that general Resolution which thanks the rest of the officers of Her Majesty's army for their gallant services. I hope the House will acquit me of any ostentation—I am really now only supporting the course which was wisely taken by the late Ministry — but perhaps the House will permit me to observe that I think the Thanks of Parliament should not be proposed except after great deliberation, and then only by the executive Government. They should be proposed in both Houses, and with such a concurrence of opinion that there could be no doubt of their being unanimously passed. I hope, therefore, that the hon. and gallant Gentlemen, feeling that the House appreciates equally with themselves the services of the eminent persons whom they have named, will not press to a division the propositions which they have placed upon the paper, I am certain with the best intentions, but I think with less consideration than so important a question would require. I hope that nothing so painful may occur as that we should have a division upon a subject of this kind. The rules which have been laid down on this subject are the result of the experience of long years; the practice that has been adopted has been sanctioned by the most eminent men who have attempted to control the business of Parliament; and I trust, therefore, that the hon. and gallant Gentlemen satisfied with an expression of their respect and sympathy for the distinguished persons whose names they have proposed, will not insist upon going to a division, but will allow the Motion, which I now make, to be passed unanimously.

The House was moved,— That the Resolution of the House of the 8th day of February last, 'That the Thanks of this House be given to the Right honourable Viscount Canning, Governor General of the British Possessions in the East Indies; the Right honourable Lord Harris, Governor of the Presidency of Madras; the Right honourable Lord Elphinstone, Governor of the Presidency of Bombay; Sir John Laird Blair Lawrence, G.C.B., Chief Commissioner of the Punjaub; and Henry Bartle Edward Frere, esquire, Commissioner of Scinde, for the energy and ability with which they have employed the resources at their command to suppress the widely-spread mutiny in Her Majesty's Indian Dominions,' might be read.

MR. DRUMMOND

observed that, when the noble Viscount the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston) moved the Vote of Thanks on the 8th of February to the distinguished officers who had done such good service in India, the name of Viscount Canning was objected to by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer on the ground that the insertion of that noble Lord's name might be supposed to imply an unqualified approbation of all the policy he had pursued since he had been in India. Subsequently, when it was shown that the Vote of Thanks was confined to the exertions he had made to suppress the mutiny, the right hon. Gentleman gave way, and consented that the Resolution should pass nemine contradicente. Now, as it would be impossible, when the Indian Bill came to be debated, and when the causes which led to the insurrection came to be considered, not to bring forward some points affecting the conduct of Mr. Halliday prior to the mutiny, he wished to protest now, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer formerly did, against being supposed that, by assenting to the present Motion, he was precluded from making whatever observations he should feel to be necessary when the Indian Bill came before the House.

MR. MANGLES

said, be trusted the House would not think him guilty of presumption if be were to ask leave to offer a few words in explanation of the circumstances under which Mr. Halliday's name had been unfortunately omitted from the original Vote of Thanks. He could bear the strongest testimony to the energetic conduct of that Gentleman, who had made all possible exertions, and tried every means in his power, to further the military operations for the suppression of the mutiny. As Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, it was true he had no military authority, that being vested in the Supreme Government, but the whole local administration was exclusively in his hands; and though he only bore the title of Lieutenant Governor, he was in fact as much Governor of the Provinces of Bengal, Bahar, and Orissa, as the Governors of Madras and Bombay in their respective Presidencies, the only difference being that the latter had military authority. The thanks of this House, however, had not been given to the Governor General and to the Governors of Madras and Bombay for military services, but for civil services which they had rendered in furthering the operations of the army. Mr. Halliday had rendered similar services, and his exertions and success were in no wise inferior to those of the Governor General and the Governors of the other Presidencies. He had shown the greatest zeal, vigilance, and ability, in facilitating the movements of the troops upon the grand trunk road; and fur his most praiseworthy services in providing for provisioning and the carriage of the troops he deserved the thanks of this House and the gratitude of the country. The arrangements were so complete that, not only was provision made for supplying the troops with necessaries, but food was actually kept cooked and ready for them at the different stations on their road from Calcutta, so that they had their food and proceeded on their march with rapidity never before equalled. Mr. Halliday also deserved great credit for haying so conducted the civil administration of his Presidency, that no troops were required to keep it in order. It was true that in consequence of their habits and character the population, happily, did not need the presence of troops. The Natives of Bengal were a peaceful and timid people, so pacific that they were said to be too timid to defend themselves even against gangs of robbers. But there were bad characters there as everywhere, and Mr. Halliday's administration had been so eminently successful that, with one single and partial exception, there had been no example of disturbance within his district, and the revenue had been collected with the same regularity as in times of peace, the whole credit of which was due to Mr. Halliday. He (Mr. Mangles) was disposed to take his share, and a very large share, of the blame, for not inserting Mr. Halliday's name in the list, and the regret be had already expressed in private he wished to express openly for that omission. Her Majesty's late Government did him (Mr. Mangles) the favour to send to him, a day or two before the Vote was proposed, a paper containing a list of the names to be proposed, and be (Mr. Mangles), by an omission which he could not sufficiently re- gret, did not suggest the insertion of that name. He regretted it the more, because, in addition to knowing officially how well entitled to the thanks of Parliament that Gentleman was, he was a personal Friend of his (Mr. Mangles) of many years' standing. What the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Drummond) might mean by the caveat he had thrown out, he (Mr. Mangles) was not able to guess; but if that hon. Gentleman had any charge to bring forward against Mr. Halliday, he could only say that such was his feeling as to the credit Mr. Halliday had won, and the services he had rendered to the country, that he should, however ineffectually, be prepared to meet it.

SIR DE LACY EVANS

said, he did not propose to divide the House on the proposition of which he had given notice; but he had expressed his opinion when the late Government was in office that the number of officers thanked was too limited, and that officers of lower rank than those who were thanked had performed very signal services. The right hon. Gentleman had adverted to the difficulty, if the House went below a certain rank in naming officers in votes of thanks, of drawing the line where to stop; but he would remind the House that there was a time when votes of thanks were reserved for general officers of high command, and the line had been gradually extended to other ranks in the army. He fully concurred in what the right hon. Gentleman had said with regard to Brigadier General Greathed. However, he was content to leave the matter in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not in considering it be too apprehensive of departing from the wisdom of past ages, for which that House did not in its practice show too devoted a veneration.

MR. NISBET

said, that as a personal friend of Mr. Halliday, who had been under his immediate direction in India, he could not sit still and not hoar testimony to the great abilities of that officer, whose success he thought afforded the best proof of his merit. He was at a loss to conceive what charges the hon. Member for Surrey (Mr. Drummond) had to bring against him.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

I entirely concur with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the discretion of selecting the officers whose names are to be proposed to Parliament for the high honour of the thanks of both Houses is most safely vested in the Executive, who are most fully aware of the relative claims of all those who may come under their consideration, and who also are the best judges whether it would be expedient to depart in any case from those general rules which have hitherto guided Parliament in the expression of their thanks to military officers. I think, therefore, that it would be best for my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Westminster to agree to the substantive Motion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and not press the Amendment of which he himself has given notice. With regard to the question of the omission of the name of Mr. Halliday from the former vote, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Mangles) has correctly stated the circumstances. When that vote of thanks was proposed, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Control communicated beforehand a copy of the names to the two Chairs. It did not contain the name of Mr. Halliday, because it did not appear to us that, according to the words in which the Resolution was put; the particular situation and functions of Mr. Halliday could be brought within the scope of the vote. The draft of the Motion was returned by the Chairs without any suggestion that Mr. Halliday's name should be inserted. Some time after that, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Mangles) stated to me that which he has just represented to the House, namely, that there were circumstances connected with the peculiar duties which Mr. Halliday had performed in relation to the military arrangements in that part of the Empire, which in his opinion and the opinions of the Directors of the East India Company entitled him to the thanks of the House. I pointed out to him, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Control pointed out to him, the difficulty and inconvenience which would arise from revising the vote which Parliament had already come to; but I stated that if the Chairs officially communicated to the Board of Control their view of the matter, and recommended that a substantive Motion for a vote of thanks to Mr. Halliday should be laid before Parliament, we should be ready to give due consideration to such recommendation. As that recommendation has been made to the present Government, and that Government have thought fit to adopt it, certainly I am not going to obstruct the vote proposed by the right hon. Gentleman.

GENERAL CODRINGTON

said, he thought the rule laid down with the apparent consent of the leaders of both sides of the House—that the Executive Government ought, on their responsibility, to determine to what persons the thanks of Parliament should be proposed—was one which it was most desirable to observe; and he would not have said a word, had not the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir De L. Evans) given notice of his intention to move the thanks of the House to several officers who were named in his Motion. He (General Codrington) did not wish to enter into any discussion with regard to those names, but, as several brigadiers were mentioned in the hon. and gallant Member's Motion, he thought it right to remind the House that there were other brigadiers who had led assaults at Delhi; that there was a general officer, whose name, as he was dead, he might mention, General Barnard, who had for some time commanded the forces before Delhi, and in several actions; and that there was also Major General Windham, under whose command one of the brigadiers mentioned in the gallant Officer's Motion served, to whom the thanks of Parliament had not been proposed. He had merely risen to say that, if the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster had been brought forward, he (General Codrington) would have moved the addition of other names to the Resolution. He agreed, however in the propriety of the principle that the Government should, upon their responsibility, submit to the House the names of the officers to whom they considered thanks ought to be voted.

COLONEL SYKES

said, that had the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster persevered with his Motion, he should have felt it his duty to move the addition of another officer's name. He alluded to Major General Lester, commanding the Bombay army in the Southern Mahratta State, who with only 100 European troops had contrived to preserve that province in tranquillity and security, amid the symptoms of conspiracy and mutiny which were manifested around him.

CAPTAIN VIVIAN

said, he thought the rule of leaving the selection of the names of military officers in the hands of the Executive was the correct one. He might mention, however, that he had found, on reference to a book which recorded the Votes of Thanks passed to the army on various occasions, that in some instances as many as fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, and even twenty-four officers had been included in the votes, and that all officers in command of brigades had invariably been thanked. It appeared that, when a vote of thanks was passed in 1812 to officers who had commanded at Salamanca, the names of seven officers were omitted, and among them, singularly enough, was that of Marshal Beresford; but in February, 1813, an Amendment, including the seven omitted names, was proposed and adopted. He did not wish to say anything in the slightest degree disparaging with regard to the gentleman who was the subject of the vote before the House, bat he thought, if it was a slur to omit the name of that gentleman from the vote lately adopted by the House, the omission of the names of officers who had commanded brigades! before Delhi, and in other parts of India, was quite as much a slur upon them. In his opinion this was especially the case with regard to General Barnard, who had commanded the army before Delhi for some time, and to other officers who had lost their lives in the struggle. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would take this subject into their consideration, and that, acting upon the precedents to which he had referred, they would include in the votes of thanks the names of brigadiers and of officers holding independent commands.

MR. ELLIOT

observed, that he fully-concurred in the propriety of including Mr. Halliday's name in the vote of thanks. He further wished to state that, in his opinion, Lord Elphinstone had deserved the thanks of Parliament, not merely for his civil services, but also for the admirable military arrangements which he had made at Bombay, and he believed it was on that ground that his name had been included in the former vote.

Motion agreed to.

Resolved, Nemine Contradicente, That the like Thanks be given to the Honourable Frederick James Halliday, Lieutenant Governor of Bengal.