§ SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for India, What was the date of his communication to the Indian Council on the subject of the abolition of the local European army in India, and whether the Council collectively declined expressing their dissent on the ground of its being too late to do so? The right hon. Gentleman stated the other night that as long as the question between the abolition and retention of a local army was pending in the Cabinet, he thought it unadvisable to consult with the Indian Council on the matter. What, then, was the Indian Council appointed for? The right hon. Gentleman said in effect that he belonged to two Councils, each consisting of sixteen members—the one being the Cabinet Council, possessing no specific knowledge of India whatever, and the other the Indian Council, composed of men most capable of giving advice relative to the affairs of that country, and chosen expressly for that object. Of what use was the Council of India, which cost the coun- 529 try some £25,000 or £30,000 a year, if the Cabinet was to decide such questions first, and then to consult these gentlemen afterwards? These gentlemen were, he believed, high-minded men, and if they were to be thus treated, they would naturally think the country might be spared the expense of their salaries.
§ MR. SPEAKERsuggested to the hon. and gallant Member that he should confine himself more strictly to the question he wished to put to the Indian Minister.
§ SIR DE LACY EVANSThe right hon. Gentleman having statod that he at last made a formal communication to the Indian Council for the purpose of allowing it to express its dissent from the decision of the Cabinet, and that the Council then declared that it was too late to do so, he therefore wished to know whether the Council collectively declared that it was too late, and what was the date at which the right hon. Gentleman made his communication to that body?
§ SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he could only repeat what he had said on a former occasion — namely, that throughout the whole of the autumn, while the question of the abolition of the local army was pending, he was in constant communication with the leading members of the Council of India, though not in their collective capacity, and was, therefore, in perfect possession of their opinion. Whether that opinion was expressed individually or collectively, the result was practically much the same. The essential point was that in taking part in the Cabinet, he should be able to state what was the opinion of the members of the Indian Council en this important question. It did not seem to him that it would be proper to bring the subject formally before the Indian Council till some step was to be taken in one direction or the other. If the decision of the Cabinet had been in favour of maintaining a local army, no step whatever would have been necessary, but things would have gone on as they had done before. The decision of the Cabinet was come to on the 16th of May, and on the very next day he stated what that decision was to the Indian Council. He said they would be sorry to hear that the decision arrived at the day before by the Cabinet was against the maintenance of the local army; and, therefore, that now, for the first time, he could bring before them a practical question on the subject; and that he was ready to do so in order that any Member who wished 530 to put on record his dissent might have it in his power to do so. The proposal he should make was that a letter should be written to the Commander-in-Chief, desiring him to suspend recruiting for the Indian army, and any member of the Council wishing to raise objection might then do so. An opportunity was thus offered to the Council to express an opinion, but they said that the Goverment having come to that decision, they thought it was too late for them to express assent or to attempt to alter that determination. He could not say how many of the Council expressed that view, but no one expressed a contrary opinion. He did not therefore actually propose the writing such a letter, as the Council did not seem to wish to record opinions against it; and the rosult was that, having had an opportunity to dissent, they had declined to avail themselves of it.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL, in answer to the Question of the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines) said, he was informed by Lord Cowley that considerable labour had been employed in the task of bringing the ad valorem duties into the shape of specific duties, but that it was not likely that the task would he accomplished in the time proposed for it in the Treaty itself. Lord Cowley, therefore, expected that some prolongation of time would be required, but he was unable to say how much, and as he had some observations to make upon the subject, he begged Her Majesty's Government to wait for those observations before they took any determination with regard to the prolongation of the period. He could not therefore give a more definite answer; but as soon as he heard from Lord Cowley on the French Ambassador here the matter would receive his immediate attention. He agreed in the statement that it was of great advantage that the task should be accomplished, but it required a great deal of inquiry and specific information, which occupied much time. There were one or two other questions which from time to time had been asked, and to which he had not been able to reply.
With regard to the case of Senor Escalante, the gentleman who was imprisoned in Spain upon suspicion of distributing the Bible, he was imprisoned for a considerable time, though in a very indulgent way; but on application to the Superior Court, that tribunal had, upon his plea, decided in his favour, and he had been set at liberty.
531 A Question had been asked respecting the export of unmanufactured cork from Spain. There had been a correspondence with Spain on the subject, and the Minister of Finance said that he could not make out that there was any duty on the export of unmanufactured cork except from one province—the province of Gerona; that the Spanish Government were employed very assiduously in endeavouring to improve the tariff of Spain, and that they wished to show the same liberal spirit to us as we had manifested towards Spain in respect to wines; but that there were conflicting interests, which were found difficult to be dealt with, just as in England a similar difficulty had been felt, as the experience of the opposition to the repeal of the Paper duties showed.
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDinquired whether the proposed changes in the Spanish tariff were to be effected by a supplementary convention?
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLYes, it will be done by a supplementary convention.