MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 17 February 1871)

§ MR. FAWCETT
said, the course that had been adopted by the Government placed him in a position somewhat difficult and embarrassing. On the very first day of the present Session, according to a promise which he made at the end of the last, with, he ventured to say, the approval of all hon. Members on either side of the House who took an interest in India, he gave Notice that he would move that evening for a Select Committee to inquire into the Financial and General Administration of the affairs of India. He had made a communication as to what they intended to do, but until that hour he could not obtain the slightest intimation of their intention. But that evening, without any warning, the Under Secretary for India rose in his place, anticipated his Motion, and gave Notice of his intention to move for a Committee to inquire into Indian Finance. He might be told that, under those circumstances, he had got what he wanted, and ought to be satisfied without going on any further. Well, he could assure the House that if he got what he wanted it would be a matter of perfect indifference to him whether the Committee was moved for by his hon. Friend (Mr. Grant Duff) or by himself. All he cared about was not who carried the Motion, but whether it was carried at all. But there was this difference be- 382 tween the Notice of the Under Secretary of State and his own—that whereas his hon. Friend said curtly and briefly that he would move for a Committee of Inquiry into Indian Finance—which might mean simply an inquiry into Indian financial accounts — the Committee, on the other hand, which all hon. Members taking an interest in India desired to see appointed, should inquire not merely into the accounts, but into the general administration of that country. The opinion to that effect was expressed at the close of last Session by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, who possessed great practical knowledge and official experience of India. The Committee, therefore, which he proposed would not be merely a Finance Committee, but would inquire, among other topics, into the present position and future prospects of the revenue and expenditure of India; into the management of the public works department, and the outlay it incurred; into the question of primary and higher education in India; into army organization and expenditure; into the local Governments of India and their Councils; also into the transport service; and, above all, into the home expenditure of India — that was to say, the expenditure of Indian money in this country, which was increasing, and now absorbed more than one-fourth of the whole Indian revenues. That House was trustee for that expenditure to the people of India, and was bound to render a faithful account of its trusteeship. The Prime Minister himself frankly admitted the necessity of such a Committee, when at the end of last Session he laid down the doctrine that it was most important that the various Departments of the State should be periodically revised by Committees of that House; and more particularly in the case of India, because of the little attention the House was able to give to the affairs of that country. The right hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) also virtually promised to agree to such a Committee when Secretary of State. Another cogent reason for granting it was this — In the days of the old East India Company, in consequence of the renewal of its charter, the administration of the Company was subjected to periodical revision and investigation; but there had been no Committee on Indian affairs 383 since the House took upon itself the responsibility of the Government of India; and he had reason to know that if the House was unwilling to grant an inquiry into the way in which it had performed that duty it would cause grave discontent among the people of that country. He feared there existed a misapprehension among some members of the Government as to his motive in bringing forward that Motion. They might suppose that he did so as a censure on the present administration of the affairs of India. Nothing, however, could be further from his wish or intention. He believed that Lord Mayo was one of the most popular, most zealous, and hard-working Governors General that India had ever had, and he had no reason to suppose the present Secretary of State for India and his hon. Friend the Under Secretary were in any respect less able Ministers than any of their predecessors. His object in moving for that inquiry was not in the slightest degree to investigate the conduct of Ministers; it was not to be a personal inquiry; its sole and entire object would be to investigate the system they had to administer. He knew that if the Committee was granted many most able witnesses were anxious to give evidence before it, and that all the competent authorities on Indian matters in that House would be ready to serve upon it. The sketch he had given of the scope of its inquiries would convince the House that the investigation must be long and laborious; the sooner, therefore, the Committee got to work the better, and if its appointment were postponed valuable time would be lost. That was his sole reason for bringing on his Motion at the earliest possible period of the Session. He had no wish to anticipate the debate on the Indian Budget fixed for that day week, and he had determined not to mention a single point that could raise a word of controversy. If his hon. Friend the Under Secretary (Mr. Grant Duff) thought it in the least degree an affront to him that that Committee was moved for before he brought forward his Budget, he deeply regretted it; but, whatever his Budget might be, it could not affect the necessity of that inquiry. The Committee would not inquire into the Budget, but into the system of administration, involving great questions of national policy. He was not anxious 384 to oppose the Government more than he found it necessary; if, therefore, they thought they could gain anything for the people of India, or for their own credit or reputation, by postponing that Committee for a fortnight, he was willing, should the House wish him to do so, to withdraw his Motion—but only on the understanding that the Committee proposed by the Government should be moved for on the earliest possible day after the Indian Budget, and that its inquiry should be at least as wide in its scope as the one he had himself indicated to the House. He hoped that his hon. Friend the Under Secretary would withdraw the Notice he had given, and that after that statement—which he trusted was as conciliatory as it possibly could be—his hon. Friend, would see that there was no occasion to have another debate on the subject; that, as the feeling of the House was in favour of the Committee, it might just as well be granted at once, and that it should immediately commence an inquiry which, if instituted, would, they might feel sure, give the utmost satisfaction to the people of India. The hon. Member then moved for the appointment of a Select Committee.

§ MR. R. N. FOWLER
seconded the Motion, and presumed that, after the announcement made that evening by the Under Secretary for India, the hon. Member for Brighton would not press his Motion to a Division. He was interested in three questions—the opium revenue, in regard to which he last Session seconded the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), the salt duties, and thé Hill Tribes. He apprehended that the questions of the opium revenue and the salt duty would come under the head of Indian finance; but he doubted whether the important question of the Hill Tribes of India—on which he knew that some competent gentlemen were anxious to give evidence—would come within the scope of the inquiry if the Committee was appointed in the terms suggested by the Under Secretary of State, because its terms would limit the inquiry to strictly financial subjects; and he thought there was great force in the appeal made to the Government to appoint a Committee embracing as much as possible those Members of the House who took an interest in the affairs of India.

§ COLONEL SYKES
approved the proposal to postpone the appointment of this Committee until after the Indian Budget had been laid before the House; but, at the same time, he hoped that, when appointed, the Committee would have an unlimited range of inquiry. This had been the case with two previous Committees of the House, and the result had been the collection of a most valuable mass of information.

MR. GRANT DUFF
said, the last thing which the Government wished to do was to keep a promise to the ear and break it to the hope. If the Government had intended to give a Committee only on Indian accounts they would have said so; but the subject of finance covered a very wide field, and involved questions which, if inquired into fully, would provide more work than could be got through in one or even two Sessions. To inquire into all the subjects alluded to by the hon. Member for Brighton would necessitate not one, but half-a-dozen Committees. A few years ago the simple question of the colonization and settlement of India went through more than one Session; and if the House were to examine not only into all that could be properly said to come under the head of finance, but also into army organization in India, into the questions that might arise out of the public works in India, into the large question of primary education in India, and into the relations of the local governments to the central government, they would go on to Doomsday, and the very object aimed at by the appointment of the Committee would be frustrated. Still longer and more difficult would the inquiry be if they were to go into the extremely interesting, but not immediately pressing, question of the Hill Tribes in India. He was quite sure that all persons in India and at home who understood what questions would be opened by the appointment of a Committee on Finance would be perfectly satisfied with the Committee 386 which Her Majesty's Government proposed to give.

§ SIR CHARLES WINGFIELD
expressed concurrence in the concluding remarks of the Under Secretary of State for India. The question of finance would cover all the ground, and would especially include the difficult and delicate subject of local taxation, which the Government of India was pressing strongly forward at this moment. With regard to the feeling of the people of India, he could confidently say that there was a most earnest desire for an inquiry in the widest sense into the whole financial arrangements of the country. This feeling had been heightened by the financial mismanagement of past years, and the hurried and high-handed way in which an income tax of 3 per cent had been forced upon the country.

§ MR. FAWCETT
said, that in order to meet the views of the Government, he would be content to strike out of his Motion the words "and General," and leave the Committee to deal only with the financial administration of India.

MR. GLADSTONE
said, he was very glad to hear the hon. Member for Brighton say he was content to take a Committee on the financial administration of India. In saying that, however, he did not intend to convey the impression that all the other subjects connected with the Indian Government were not matters very proper to be considered when the proper time should come; but to overload the present Committee would be to defeat the object of its appointment. If the question of Indian finance, with all the collateral issues necessarily arising out of it, was not sufficient fully to occupy the attention of the most energetic Committee that ever sat, he did not know what would be. With respect to appointing the Committee, the difference in point of time between Her Majesty's Government and the hon. Member for Brighton was so small he did not apprehend any quarrel; and he now simply wished to appeal to his hon. Friend not to press his Motion at present. His hon. Friend the Under Secretary for India had spoken of his intention to move a Committee so soon as the best method of proceeding had been settled; and, in so doing, he did not mean to imply that this would involve a delay of a fortnight. He had very great expectation that his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for 387 India would be able to redeem his promise at the commencement of the coming week. Under the circumstances, therefore, he hoped the hon. Member for Brighton would see his way to the withdrawal of his Motion.

§ MR. FAWCETT
said, after the satisfactory assurance he had just received, he should not persevere with his Motion.