HC Deb 09 April 1872 vol 210 cc969-70
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether, at the time of his reply to a Question of the 19th of March, it had been brought under his consideration that the Address of the House of Commons to Her Majesty the Queen on the 28th of June 1870, besought Her Majesty to redress the grievances of the Bonus compensation claimants, consequent on Lord Cranborne's instructions of the 8th of August having been carried out, and did not pray Her Majesty to ascertain whether the instructions had been carried into effect; if he will state the reasons why he did not communicate to the House the replies of the Madras and Bombay Governments, to the effect that the instructions of Lord Cranborne had been carried out, but that in doing so "due regard had not been paid to the interests of the officers concerned;" and, whether Lord Napier of Magdala did not coincide with the opinions expressed by the Governments of Madras and Bombay?

MR. GRANT DUFF

, in reply, said, the Address referred to by the hon. Baronet asked for the further consideration of the subject of that Address on the ground of certain orders of Her Majesty not having been properly carried out. To that Address Her Majesty replied as follows:— I have received your Address praying that, as the Orders I gave for the redress of the grievances of the Officers of the Indian Array, consequent upon an Address of the House of Commons, dated the 2d of May, 1865, have not been carried out in the sense of the Address, owing to deductions being made from the bonâ fide claims of Officers on the ground of accelerated promotion, and on the ground of increased retiring pensions, further consideration may be given of the subject, with a view to the redress of the still unsatisfied claims. The grievances referred to in the Address of the House of Commons, dated the 2d of May, 1865, were restricted under the terms of that Address to such grievances as had been admitted by the Commission on the Memorials of Indian Officers of 1863 to have arisen by a departure from the assurances given by Parliament by the Acts 21 and 22 Vic, c. 106, and 23 and 24 Vic, c. 100. I have every reason to believe that the grievances which were admitted by the Commission have been fully redressed. As regards the compensation for Bonus payments which my Government undertook to sanction in 1866, I shall direct further examination to be made whether the conditions upon which it was intimated to Parliament that such compensation would be granted have been fully observed. In consequence of that reply a Despatch was sent to the Government of India, which, with the reply from the Government of India, had been laid before Parliament. In reply to the hon. Baronet's second Question, he had to say that he did communicate to the House many months ago the replies of the Madras and Bombay Governments. In reply to the hon. Baronet's third Question, he had to say that he did not at all know what view Lord Napier of Magdala took of the opinions of the Governments of Madras and Bombay. Lord Napier of Magdala was a Member of the Government of India, and he had not given the Imperial Government any reason to suppose that he dissented from the view of the Government to which he belonged.