HC Deb 27 July 1860 vol 160 cc324-34

Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [26th July], That it be an Instruction to the Committee, that they have power to make provision therein for the future regulation, discipline, and patronage of the European Forces serving in India.

Question again proposed.

Debate resumed.

MR. ROEBUCK

said, that he gathered from what had fallen from the noble Lord that he objected to the postponement or continuation of this debate. He himself, however, had no difficulty in coming to a conclusion as to what should be done in this important matter. The noble Lord, too, would find that the House was not to be forced to a conclusion so rapidly as he fancied. The majority by which the second reading was carried was, no doubt, large, but there had been a considerable change of opinion since that time, and the continuation of the debate would lead to a still greater change, and the noble Lord and his colleagues would find rather more difficulty in carrying this stage than he had found on the second reading. The question before the House had been lost sight of. It was, in reality, one of administration. The House had chosen to take on itself the Government of India, and the Secretary of State now brought in a Bill of one clause only, which would entirely revolutionize the whole principle of the Government of India. The question to be asked was—what would be the effect of the Bill, first, on the army of India, and secondly, on the Government of India? The two cases required to be accurately distinguished, but in both his own opinion was that it would be most mischievous. It was not the Government of a small colony which was under discussion—the destinies of 200,000,000 people which were at stake—and the House had to decide whether the Government of India should be placed in the hands of persons who had been brought up in that country, and who knew the feelings and habits of the people, or whether it should be entrusted to men who were not sent there on account of their ability for the purpose, who were selected without reference to anything but party considerations, and who might be said to be persons incapable for the duty. Although we had assumed the Government of India, still the important question remained whether the administration should be confined to persons sent to India, and whether the army should be under their control or that of persons in this country. The House had to inquire into the capability of the persons who had to govern the army, and next as to the particular quality of the army to be governed. There were two sets of persons proposed as governors of the army; first, those who, by Providence, were placed in power in this country, and next those who had a knowledge of India from their having been residents in that country, and who, knowing the feelings of the people of India, knew how they ought to be governed. The question lay between those two parties. Now under our present system—and he was putting it merely hypothetically—the Secretary for India, who was primarily responsible for the Government of India at home, might have no qualifications for the office; in place of knowledge and experience lie might merely have audacity; to use the language of a Gentleman on the Treasury Bench the other evening, he might have gone through life "with a silver spoon in his mouth," and by some political chance ho might be called to the Administration of India, without ever having shown the slightest capacity for the government of mankind. He did not say that such a thing had happened, but it might. How little Parliament was qualified to control that officer was shown by the state of that House during the dis- cussion on this Bill. When the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone got up to complain of the taking away of a few yards of Kensington Gardens the benches were full—Gentlemen rose eagerly to address the House until they tired both themselves and it; but when India was concerned there was a wonderful calm—a philosophical air in the manner—he would not say in the ideas of the House—an utter absence of all passion, and even interest. It was most difficult "to get up the steam," as it was called, on Indian subjects. Even at this late period the Indian Budget, affecting the interests of 200,000,000 people, still remained to be brought forward. It would be discussed, probably, with something less than the requisite number of Members present, and it would be carried without opposition. There was a limit to human patience and forbearance, and those Members who had none of the responsibilities of office to keep thorn would naturally go away. If they did not, probably they would have to take to their beds ill. As to the Indian Council, he had always maintained from the first—and experience had proved the truth of his prediction—that it would be made a screen—that its advice would not be-taken, that it would be a sham—a means by which the Secretary of State would govern India without any real responsibility. If the right hon. Gentleman had stood alone, without a Council around him, he never would have dared to bring in this Bill. It might be said that the Council were against him; but still they supported him by the fact of being his Council. He could but wish that the right hon. Gentleman stood entirely alone, and that on his head was concentrated all the mischief which would arise from this mode of legislation. It was said that the Council would have the carrying out of this Bill when it was passed, and again ho could but wish that the sole carrying out of it would fall to the right hon. Gentleman, without the shelter of a Council. Public opinion then would be so directed against him that he would tremble to do that which he now did with audacity.

Now, if this were the difference between the two governing parties, what would be the constitution of the army if the Bill passed. The local European army was composed of men whose lives and fortunes were spent in India, who went out there while their minds were yet un formed, and who acquired that knowledge of the habits and prejudices of the people which made them fit instruments for the government of that country. For that force it was now proposed to substitute a body of men who would have no interest in and no acquaintance with India, who would be mere birds of passage there, intent on getting home again, and who would have all the insolence of domination combined with an utter ignorance of the feelings and usages of the Natives. Such would be the effect of the change upon India. What would be its effect upon England? The whole patronage of the Indian army was to be handed over to the Government of this country. It was said it would be transferred to the Horse Guards, but there could be no doubt the real influence would be exercised by the Treasury Bench. He wanted to know whether that Bench had shown such a wonderful capacity for governing that the government of 200,000,000 of people should be confided to them. While our Colonies, instead of being self-governed, were ruled over by that Bench, there was no part of the world so ill-administered as those Colonies. When the system of double Government was applied to India, very eminent statesmen thought it a great discovery. It was, however, merely a means of giving the whole power to the Government of the day, and screening them from all responsibility. No doubt atrocities were committed and things done in India that were the shame of England during the old East India Company's exclusive rule; but then there was a body on whom the public censure could be affixed. Immediately the double Government was introduced there was an end to all Parliamentary check or condemnation. The right hon. Gentleman wished to maintain his Council as a screen, and yet to be able to rule India exactly as he pleased. Everybody in power, or likely to obtain power in England, was for supporting this measure; whereas those who did not expect power, and who therefore looked solely to the good Government of India, entirely opposed it, as did also the persons most versed in Indian affairs—namely, the right hon. Gentleman's own Council. He could not tell what might be the consequences of this vast change, but he was sure it ought not to be hurried through the House in this manner. This was by far the most important Bill propounded this Session. It was a measure which the Treasury Bench intended to carry if they could. He was not at all sure that their intentions had ever been the same with their Reform Bill. As far as his influence went they should not be permitted to carry this measure. He implored the House by every means at its command to prevent so direful a result. That House was now the ruling power in the State. It might, as was said long ago, be governed by the patronage of India, They talked about introducing Bills to prevent bribery and corruption. If ever there was a Bill in aid of bribery and corruption it was the one now proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. Believing that it would be injurious alike to England and to India, and thinking that it could not possibly do any good to any living person except the Treasury, he felt bound to vote against it.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

The argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman, Sir, although very ingenious, appears to me entirely fallacious. While the last' Act for the Government of India was under discussion in this House, the hon. and learned Member opposed a double Government, because it was a screen to the Minister; and wishing to concentrate responsibility, he was, I think, altogether against having an Indian Council. Now, however, he adopts a very singular line of reasoning. He says my right hon. Friend, desiring to get rid of his responsibility, has used his Council as a screen. And how? Why, by stating this matter to his Council, and then finding that they one and all entertained opinions exactly the reverse of his own. My right hon. Friend having acknowledged to the House that the views of his Council were opposed to his own, he is now accused of screening himself behind that Council, and thus escaping his share of the responsibility attaching to him as a Minister of the Crown. Everybody must see that that is contrary to common sense and experience. Surely, if you want to get a Council to shelter you from responsibility, you would get it to back your own opinions, and give you some authority for what you propose; the last thing you would think of would be to elicit its opinions when in antagonism to your own. With regard to this question itself, it is one not only of great importance, but of the greatest difficulty, and one requiring the most anxious consideration before an opinion can be formed upon it. The Cabinet had for a long time considered this question, and had delayed coming to a decision upon it, in order to be enlight- ened as much as possible by all the opinions which they could obtain from India. When they had to govern a great empire of 200,000,000 people, and when they had to govern it by opinion supported by force, the main point was not what the civil Government should he, but what should be the army of India. Lord Metcalfe said that the Government of India did not rest entirely upon opinion, nor entirely upon force; but they must have opinion with them, and they must have force to sustain the Government against disturbance. There should be unity of command, efficiency of discipline, and a homogeneous character in the military force, on which they must chiefly rely. The European local army was brought into existence entirely and unavoidably by the manner in which the Indian Government was acquired. It was acquired by a company of merchants, and they naturally formed their own army. But when you made the change from the government of the Company to the Government of Royal authority, and when you have to consider the question of what the army should be, you cannot forget that every man of military reputation is of opinion that they never could have the same discipline in a local as in the Queen's army. I have heard the late Duke of Wellington say, at least ten or twelve times, that the local force of India was deficient in discipline, and perhaps that great commander carried his opinion to an extreme in the objections which he made to officers of the Indian army. But with regard to the maxim, that in point of discipline you will gain by having one army, it is, I believe, undeniable—and it is equally clear that you will gain in unity of command—by having all the officers with the like expectations and under the same regulations. Until very lately there remained the difficulty that there was a local army existing which had won glory in the field in repeated battles and repeated wars, but partly by accident and partly by unfortunate events that army consists now of no more than 13,000 men. The question, therefore, is rather whether you should recreate a local army than whether you should destroy one already in existence. Upon the whole I have come to the conclusion, contrary to my previous impression, that the Queen's army ought to be the only European army in India. Another question upon which the hon. and learned Gentleman laid a good deal of stress—and it is most important— was whether the former army was not a link between the inhabitants and the Government of India. There is no doubt that that has been the case, and it was one of the causes of difficulty present to my mind; but I do not think that it is a matter which is incapable of solution by various modes by which you can connect the army existing in India with the local Government of India. Of course, among the officers who go out with their regiments there will be many young men who might look to an honourable career in India rather than returning to this country. I think that will be a natural consequence. But it must be recollected that without your legislation, and totally independent of it, there has been a total change since Bengal was first conquered by Lord Clive. It then took about a year to come home and go back again. Men who went out directed their whole thoughts to India, spent their whole lives in India, and only retired in their old age to enjoy the competence which they had acquired. But now, when communication is so rapid that the journey may be made in six weeks instead of six months, men's associations remain so connected with England that it is quite impossible, even if you wish it, in 1860 to restore the habits which in 1760 were the common habits of the country. I come, therefore, to the conclusion that, although there may be some inconvenience on this account, yet, as the great objects of unity, efficiency, and discipline, can be most certainly obtained, it is desirable to adopt the plan which the Government proposes. One word as to the Question before the House. It is that it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to make provisions for the future regulations, discipline, and patronage of the European forces serving in India. Can any one hope to carry such a Resolution? If you mean to have the Queen's army, of course the Resolution is incompatible. If you mean not to have the Queen's army, then the Bill should be rejected, and a Bill of a totally different nature introduced. But the notion of attempting to introduce in this Bill a number of clauses of which nobody has even given a sketch, to provide for the whole regulation, discipline, and patronage of the European forces serving in India, is the most impracticable which I have ever heard of in my life. The conclusion which I draw is that the hon. Gentleman is adverse to the plan of the Government, and then I say with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India, if the House agree with the hon. Gentleman let them reject the Government Bill, and carry a Bill for a local force in the course of the present Session. Of all things the greatest evil will be to postpone this question to another Session, to leave it open to be a matter of dispute in India and of fresh debates here. If the House disapprove the plan of the Government let them not pass an ambiguous and obscure instruction, but vote against going into Committee, or when in Committee refuse to agree to any clause and desire the Chairman to leave the chair. That will be a plain and intelligible declaration that you mean to have a local army. Let any one who has the confidence of the House frame a measure for the purpose, and let it be carried in the course of the present Session. The civil authorities and army in India would not then be left in doubt, but would know what you mean and what your intentions are.

MR. MONCKTON MILNES

said, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India had placed this question on a false basis. The right hon. Gentleman had declared that delay was dangerous in the extreme, and that his measure must be passed at once. Any one would have supposed from such language that the Government had really laid before the House a complete and well-matured scheme for the military administration of India. But so far was that from being the case that the measure was not even an empowering Bill. Its object was simply to divest the Government of certain powers which they now possessed—those which were to be substituted depended on some supposed project of the Government dimly shadowed forth in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. Was there any one in the House who professed clearly to understand the consequences which would follow the passing of the Bill, not only to the local army, but to the general administration of England and India? The necessity for the measure had been created solely and voluntarily by the Government. No one had asked for it. Every authority in India had solemnly deprecated it, and none more strongly than the Governor General and his Council. Her Majesty's Government had themselves started the question, and were alone to blame for the agitation and disturbance which it had occasioned in India. The House had not the means of coming to a proper decision on the question, because they did not know what plan the Government proposed to adopt. The measure was really not of an urgent nature; and the only reason which could be conceived for pressing it through the House was, that the Government were anxious during the recess to do something which Parliament would not be able to supervise and examine, and which they would, next Session, be told was a, fait accompli not to be disturbed. That was a contingency which he wished to prevent. There could be no practical danger in allowing the question to stand over till next year, when he trusted they would have better information on the subject. The only argument which the Government could use was that immediate action was demanded in consequence of that unfortunate mutiny of a portion of the European local army. He found, however, that the military authorities who were brought forward to support the Bill were themselves among the first to acknowledge that much excuse was to be made for the mutineers, and that, under the circumstances, their conduct was not only natural, but even pardonable. The mutiny was an event of an accidental and temporary character, which ought not to influence their decision on this great question, which rested on far deeper and more important grounds. He trusted the Government would at length perceive what was the feeling of the intelligence of the House, and understand that, as the question had grown in interest, so the measure had grown in unpopularity. He hoped they would not be misled by the result of the division on the second reading, which arose simply from the respect which the House very properly entertained for the decision of the Executive Government on a subject which they had not had time to master.

COLONEL DICKSON

said, he could not join in the condemnation of the Secretary of State for India for having originated this proposal. It was, he held, the duty of the right hon. Gentleman, and of his colleagues, to initiate measures of this kind. The Bill certainly ought not to have been introduced so late; still he thought that, considering that the real question was whether the Queen should have authority by her officers over all the troops in India, it was a subject which might be well discussed, and he should not hesitate to give his vote in favour of having one army. The argument as to the accli- matizing of troops, and that they would be connected with the Natives, were arguments telling far more strongly against a local army than an Imperial one. He was the last person to say a word against the discipline of an army which had so long sustained its character for bravery and good conduct; but the discipline certainly was not such as to secure a proper state of efficiency. Even our own army could not be maintained in a proper state of discipline in India. He was sorry to hear the argument brought up about patronage, as if it were managed without thought or care, but only for the purpose of promoting private interests. There could be nothing worse than to interfere with the exercise of authority when it had been placed in hands where it bade fair to be wisely administered. He hoped the Government would proceed with this Bill at once, for nothing could be worse than delay, and he should be glad to give them his cordial support.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. MONCKTON MILNES

said, he then rose to move:— That it be an Instruction to the Committee that all appointments to military commands in India (the commands in chief alone excepted), and all Staff appointments, whether military, or medical, be vested in the Governor-General in Council, and other constituted authorities in India. His object was to provide that the army to which the defence of India was intrusted should be subordinate to the authority of the Indian Government. He proposed this instruction in no spirit of hostility to the military authorities in this country, nor did he entertain any fear that the influence of the Horse Guards would be destructive of the English Constitution. He believed that the Horse Guards, the Secretary for War, or whoever administered the patronage, would do so to the best of their ability, but they would be liable to error on account of their want of knowledge. The disastrous consequences of injudicious appointments from home were felt both in the Affghan war and during the late mutiny in India. Earl Canning had himself said that if the Governor General was not allowed to be paramount in the government of the army in India, he would lose the greater portion of the authority by which he held that country in subjection, and a divided authority would be introduced, the consequences of which must necessarily be disastrous. The extent of In- dia, instead of being, as the noble Lord at the head of the Government appeared to think, a reason why there should be no local force in that county, was the main cause which rendered necessary the localization of a large portion of the army to which its defence was intrusted. It had been calculated that if India was to be held solely by troops sent from England, we should have to pay for the passage of 30,000 men annually. Was that expenditure to fall upon the revenue of India or upon that of England? Mr. Willoughby stated in the strongest manner that the revenue of India was not capable of bearing the additional expense which this plan would cast upon it, and that the advantage which would be derived from a frequent change of regiments would be as nothing compared with the enormous expense to which the revenue of this country, or that of India, would be put in order to attain that object. For the Indian service a different class of men were required from ordinary English military officers, whose ideas were not sufficiently of an Indian character. It could not be said that the government of India had been unsuccessful hitherto. If they respected the memory of those who rescued India during the late rebellion, how could they seek to break up the system under which the salvation of India had been secured? The subsidiary English force in India might be increased without the introduction of this Bill. He believed that, if the local army in India had not existed during the late crisis, no human power would have preserved our dominion there. He trusted that the Government would either abandon this measure, or that the House would continue their opposition to it until they compelled them to do so.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That it be an Instruction to the Committee, that they have power to make provision therein that all appointments to military commands in India (the commands in chief alone excepted), and all Staff appointments, whether military or medical, be vested in the Governor General in Council and other constituted authorities in India.

MR. DANBY SEYMOUR

moved the Adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned till Monday next.