HC Deb 05 August 1869 vol 198 cc1361-7

[Lords.] COMMITTEE.

Order for Committee read.

MR. KINNAIRD

said, it was certainly understood by those Members who listened to the speech of the late Secretary for India (Sir Stafford Northcote) last Session that the whole question of the Government of India, which it was admitted required to be calmly considered and thoroughly discussed by Parliament, should be referred to a Select Committee of the House at the commencement of the present Session. The actual words used by the right hon. Gentleman were, as reported— I think that the best plan would be, when the Bills are introduced next year, that they should be referred to a Select Committee, and under these circumstances I beg to move that the Order of the day for going into Committee upon the Bill should be read and discharged. At the time when these words were spoken they were heartily responded to; and it was in the hope that the present Secretary of State for India would assent to the wise and judicious course of action proposed for adoption by his pre- decessor in Office that he had refrained from renewing the Notice he had placed upon the Paper in the last Parliament for the appointment of a Select Committee on Irrigation. And if, in July of last year, it was acknowledged that the appointment of a Committee upon this subject was desirable, he thought it could not be denied that the necessity for such an inquiry was greatly increased at the present moment, when one of the largest questions which could possibly arise, vitally affecting the interests both of this country and of India—namely, whether the construction of railways and of works of irrigation still so urgently required should be monopolized by the Government or thrown open to private enter-prize—was now pressing hard for decision, and was reported to have been all but finally decided upon by the Council of India without that House having been consulted at all. Surely a question of such vast importance in its results to both countries, and so closely mixed up with the constitution of the Council of India, that one could not separate the two, ought not to be decided either one way or the other by any other tribunal than Parliament itself, to whom alone the solution of such a national problem could be satisfactorily intrusted. Up to the present moment no public discussion worthy of the name had been had on these momentous questions, and the minds of English statesmen had not been brought to boar upon them in a clear and distinct manner, and he was sure that not only would that House, but that portion of the public most interested in the matter, agree with him in saying that until a full, patient, and thoroughly sifting inquiry had been made by some such means as a Select Committee, no satisfactory result could be hoped for, or discussion had. That House had, in fact, no materials before it by which it could properly and with satisfaction to itself discuss and decide on a matter fraught with such immense results for good or evil to the Governments and people of both countries; and he therefore earnestly put it to the Under Secretary of State for India whether it was right to proceed at the fag-end of a Session with measures as to the merits of which that House was in almost total darkness, and whether it would not be an act of wisdom, which would be appreciated by all who took an interest in India, on the part of the Government to refer the two Bills now before the House to a Select Committee, and to agree that to the same Committee should be also referred the inquiry as to the best mode of constructing railways and other public works. His hon. Friend near him (Sir Charles Wingfield) had given notice of a Motion similar to his own, and he could assure the Government that the concession he asked for on their part would be received with the highest satisfaction out-of-doors, and be accepted as a convincing proof that they had the real interests of India at heart, and were not desirous of preventing a full discussion founded upon the best information that could be procured. He begged to move that both the Bill under discussion and the Governor General of India Bill be referred to a Select Committee next Session, and he should take the sense of the House on the question.

SIR CHARLES WINGFIELD

said, the Motion of which he had given notice referred only to the Governor General of India Bill. He could see no reason why the Bill now under consideration should not be proceeded with.

MR. C. DENISON

said, he had formerly entertained the same opinion as the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Kinnaird) that these Bills ought not to pass the House at so late a period of the Session, without their being referred to a Select Committee; but when those who were specially interested in the subject took counsel together they came to the conclusion that the first Bill might be allowed to pass upon condition that the objectionable clauses in the second Bill should be withdrawn for the present Session. He, therefore, could not divide with his hon. Friend.

SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE

said, that the Bill involved a principle of the utmost importance, and would make a fundamental alteration in the constitution of the Council of our vast Indian Empire, and the term for which the members of that Council were elected. It had, indeed, undergone partial discussion last year; but since then a clause had been introduced under which every member of the Council must be appointed by the Secretary of State for India. The House and the country were very much in the dark as to the manner in which the new Government of India had worked during the last ten years, and he was therefore of opinion that the subject ought to be thoroughly inquired into. In conclusion, he entered his protest against the hurried way in which it was proposed to discuss this important question.

MR. AYRTON

said, his hon. Friend (Mr. Kinnaird) was altogether wrong in supposing that he desired last Session to have these Bills referred to a Select Committee. On the contrary, he was extremely anxious that they should be discussed publicly in the House.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 (Vacancies to be filled up by Secretary of State).

MR. E. N. FOWLER

entered his protest against proceeding with a measure of this vast importance at so late an hour (12 40 A.M.)

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2 (Members of the Council of India to be in future appointed for a term of ten years).

MR. DICKINSON

said, he entertained great objections to the system now so common of buying out by pensions officials who had become too old for their work. When competent men were constantly coming home from India they ought not to retain worn-out men in the Council. The hon. Gentleman moved in page 1, line 18, after "years" to leave out "and," and insert— Determinable on his attaining sixty-five years of age; and every member of Council who has not served ten years before the passing of this Act shall continue in his office for a period of ten years from his appointment, and no such member of Council, whether appointed or continued, shall.

MR. KINNAIRD

said, he would support the Amendment. He protested altogether against that Indian Council. They ought to have a responsible Government. The Secretary of State for India and the Under Secretary, with a proper staff, ought to suffice without a Council of old individuals, whose age, according to the Returns, was marvellous. Some members of the Council were in India thirty years ago, since which period the greatest changes had occurred there, so that their knowledge of the country was quite antiquated. The House ought to be careful not to waste the money of the people of India in salaries and pensions for such a body.

SIR CHARLES WINGFIELD

said, he hoped the House would not accede to the Amendment fixing the limit of age at sixty-five years. Judges and other public servants performed their duties satisfactorily at the age of seventy and upwards, and he did not see why it should be enacted that no man should sit in the Council of India after he was sixty-five years of age.

MR. GRANT DUFF

begged the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Dickinson) carefully to remember that they were now dealing with councillors, and not with administrators. For the purposes of a Council men rather gained than lost by advancing years, provided they retained their faculties—and certainly many persons of active mind retained their faculties in perfect vigour when considerably over the age of sixty-five. That House was one of the very last Assemblies in the world in which they ought to speak of sixty-five as an age at which men ought to retire from active public life. A leading case was that of Lord Palmerston, and there were many others who showed great power after the age of sixty-five.

MR. KINNAIRD

said, if he remembered rightly the intention was that there should be fresh blood in the Council of India. They did not want old gentlemen who lived in India twenty years ago, but men who were well acquainted with what was passing in India now. He regretted to see this retrograde policy of the Government.

SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE

said, the course of Her Majesty's Government in fixing one arbitrary line ought to be regarded as sufficient. He should object to a double check. The matter might be fairly left to those who were responsible, for they would not be likely to appoint unfit persons.

MR. DICKINSON

said, he had no desire to press the Amendment as to ago. His object was not to give annuities to those to whom they were not bound to give them.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 18, after the word "and," to insert the words "every member of Council who has not served ten years before the passing of this Act shall continue in his office for a period of ten years from his appointment, and no such member of Council, whether appointed or continued, shall."—(Mr. Dickinson.)

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: — Ayes 11; Noes 70: Majority 59.

SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE

said, he would beg to move the omission of the words '' except as herein-after provided," with a view to other Amendments removing that provision from the Bill which gave the Secretary of State the power of re-appointing members of the Council at the end of their term of service. He did not think members of the Council should be put into a position which obliged them to look to the Secretary of State for re-appointment.

SIR CHARLES WINGFIELD

said, he would support the proposed Amendment. Some men might be tempted to ingratiate themselves with the Secretary of State in the hope of re-appointment. The first quality a Council should possess was independence; if the Secretary of State had councillors whose first object was to please him, the result would be to increase his power amazingly, while it diminished his responsibility. Earl Russell and the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) had strongly insisted upon the independence of the Council at the time it was formed.

SIR CHARLES DILKE

said, he should support the clause as it stood. At the time the Council was appointed the idea was to curb the power of the Secretary of State. That feeling had passed away, and it was now recognized on all hands that the Council should be a consultative and not a controlling body. Neither of the hon. Members who had preceded him seemed to understand the full meaning of the provision they wished to amend. The Secretary of State could not appoint without good reason, and his reasons would have to be drawn up and laid before Parliament.

MR. GRANT DUFF

said, it was a mistake to suppose that there would be a rivalry among the members of the Council to flatter the Secretary of State, for they could not be sure that any particular Secretary for India would remain long enough in Office to reward them for obsequiousness.

MR. COLLINS

said, he thought it would be a very unwise thing for the Committee to declare that a man who had served in the Council for ten years, and had there earned distinction, should not be allowed to serve other five, should the Secretary of State believe he was capable of doing further good service.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 (As to retiring pensions of existing members of Council).

MR. GRANT DUFF

moved that the following words be added:— And it shall be lawful for Her Majesty, by warrant under her sign manual, countersigned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to grant to any member so resigning, out of the revenues of India, if he shall have been elected or appointed before the passing of this Act, and if he shall have held the said office for the period of ten years and upwards at the date of such resignation, a retiring pension during life of five hundred pounds.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. DICKINSON

proposed the following proviso:— Provided, That when and so often as a vacancy shall occur during the continuance of any pension under this section, the Secretary of State shall, by reducing temporarily the number or salary of newly-appointed Members of Council, arrange that the total charge for salaries of Members of Council and pensions under this section shall not exceed eighteen thousand pounds a year.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 (Appointment of ordinary members of the Governor General's Council and of the Presidencies).

SIR CHARLES WINGFIELD

said, he objected to the clause, which would, place the appointment of the members of the Governor General's Council in the hands of the Governor General. The object should be to give the Governor General honest, independent advice.

MR. GRANT DUFF

said, he thought it very undesirable that his Council should be any check on the Governor General. It should be rather a Cabinet to assist him.

Clause agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, at Two of the clock.