HC Deb 22 July 1872 vol 212 cc1570-8

Message from Her Majesty [July 19th] considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

MR. EASTWICK

said, that much as he rejoiced at the action taken by Government in this matter, and strongly as he supported the proposal, he regretted that the Motion should have been brought forward without any statement being made by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman said, on a former occasion, that the Government examined all the precedents connected with the case. But it would have been more satisfactory to the Indian and to the English public if he had stated those precedents, in order that everyone might have drawn his own deductions from them. If he had done so, the only doubt which could have remained in anyone's mind would have been, whether the Government had even now gone far enough in the recognition of Lord Mayo's services? In order to repair the omission, he would himself state to the Committee what had been done, in the way of pension, for the families of former Governors General.

In the first place, he wished to call attention to the fact that there was no idea more deeply impressed upon the mind of the Indian people than that of rewarding services to the State by endowing the families of those who rendered them. Under native rule, no man, who had done the State service, thought himself sufficiently rewarded until a Jágir or estate had been assigned to him, which would descend to his family. This custom was so universal that, when we assumed the Government, we were obliged to look into the titles of those grants, and he was bound to say that few things we had ever done had been more unpopular than the resumption of some of them. He would observe, too, that it had always been the custom in India for men of wealth and rank to make large provision for the ladies of their families. To mention only one instance—the stepmother of the Nuwab Nazim, Mubariku 'd-daulah, had a pension 14 times larger than that first assigned to Lady Mayo. If, therefore, our fellow-Indian subjects reasoned on such matters, they must have thought Lady Mayo's pension inadequate to the occasion. He had further to observe that the custom of endowing the families of distinguished men was continued by native rulers in the case of our own Governors General. It was well known that a Jágir of £30,000 a-year was assigned by the Nuwab Nazim Mir Jafir to the great Lord Clive. But it was, perhaps, not equally well known that the Court of Directors, in 1767, continued this princely income to Clive, and in case of his death to his successors for 10 years. Clive died in 1774, so that his family appeared to have enjoyed £30,000 a-year for at least three years after his death. The next case of endowing the family of a Governor General was that of Lord Cornwallis. Lord Cornwallis finished his first government of India in 1793, and received a pension of £5,000 a-year. He went out for the second time in 1805, and died on the 5th of October in that year, and on the 14th of March in 1806 the Court of Directors granted £40,000 to his family. In January, 1801, the Court of Directors had determined on granting £100,000 to Lord Wellesley, and it was only at his Lordship's express request that this was changed into a pension of £5,000 a-year. But in 1837, besides this pension, the Court gave Lord "Wellesley £20,000. In the same year in which Lord Wellesley first got his pension—that was, in 1801—the Indian Government assigned a pension of £4,600 a-year, and a sum of £10,000; to the family of Haji Khalil Khan—a Persian envoy, a man of no high rank or distinction—who had been accidentally killed in an affray near Bombay. In 1819 and 1827 the Court of Directors gave two sums, amounting together to £80,000, to Lord Hastings, which was made over to trustees for the express purpose of purchasing an estate which might descend in the family of his Lordship. The next case was a very remarkable one. It was that of Lord Hardinge, to whom, on the 20th of February, 1846, a pension of £5,000 a-year was assigned, and by the 9 Vict., c. 21, he was allowed to draw this large pension, together with his very large allowances as Governor General. Nor was this all—by the 9 & 10 Vict., c. 31, agrant of £3,000 a-year was made to Lord Hardinge's two next successors. After this, the idea of providing for the family of a Governor General seemed to have slumbered a little. Lord Dalhousie got a pension of £5,000 a-year; but nothing was done for his family. The next case was one which had been referred to by the Prime Minister—namely, that of Lady Elgin. Now, with all respect, he submitted that Lady Elgin's case could not be taken as a fair precedent for that of Lady Mayo. Lord Elgin took his seat on the 12th of January, 1862, and died on the 20th of November, 1863. He was, therefore, less than two years Governor General. Lord Mayo took his seat on the 12th of January, 1869, and died on the 12th of February, 1872, and was, therefore, more than three years Governor General. But, besides this, Lord Elgin's constitution was completely shattered when he became Viceroy, and he died from natural causes, before he had been able to do much to distinguish his career in India. But Lord Mayo was cut off in the very vigour and flush of manhood, after almost unexampled services, and he fell in the discharge of his duty by the hand of an assassin, who might even yet be shown to have been the agent of a fanatical sect, whom Lord Mayo had done so much to repress. Nor let it be thought that Lord Mayo sacrificed a too precious life in too mean a cause. It was his duty to see that every part of the vast dominions intrusted to his charge was well administered—and not the least important part of those dominions was the island in which many political prisoners and hundreds of the most desperate criminals were assembled. Some persons might, perhaps, think that he ought to have avoided the danger of visiting that spot, of which, no doubt, he was fully warned; but it might be said that— He was armed too strong in honesty. There was so little terror in those threats That they passed by him as the idle wind, Which he regarded not"— and by the fearless discharge of that duty, as of every other, he set an example which was worthy of any sacrifice except that which it involved—the sacrifice of his own life. Enough, perhaps, had been said to show that, looking at precedents only, the grants made to Lord Mayo's family in reward of his services were, in the first instance, wholly inadequate, and must have been so regarded by the people of India. It was matter of rejoicing, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government had consented to supplement those grants. But he owned he wished they had gone a little further. There were peculiar reasons why the Government should mark, in an emphatic way, their sense of the value of Lord Mayo's career. The great rewards which were given to such men as Lord Wellesley and Lord Hardinge were given for dethroning Native Princes and for warlike triumphs. The triumphs of Lord Mayo were preeminently those of peace, and were therefore, in his humble opinion, far more important. His foreign policy was such as to allay the apprehensions of the nations bordering on our frontier, and to change them from enemies into allies. His internal policy was a complete assurance to the Princes of India that the Proclamation of 1858 would be carried out, so that they were henceforth safe. As regarded finance, Lord Mayo converted a deficit of millions into a surplus, and he laid the foundations of many most valuable reforms. But that which, above all things, distinguished his government was the prodigious activity he showed in the discharge of his duties, and the manner in which he made British rule popular in India. In the three years of his rule he was said to have traversed 20,000 miles, and he certainly learnt more of India in that brief period than most Indian officials had in a long life. As to his popularity, he would content himself with citing one authority. It was that of a well-known writer of the Anglo-Indian Press. He said— With respect to Lord Mayo personally, it is not easy to say how deeply he will be mourned. Of a noble, dignified, and kingly presence, he became his high office in all that pertained to the externals of Royalty. In social life he was good nature itself. Pride, other than proper pride, was not in him. Free, frank, and courteous to all, without offence to any, he could not but be popular. Hospitable, generous, ready to encourage sport or work, a willing patron of all that the people could enjoy, he will be missed and mourned. Unlike some of his predecessors in the high office, no breath of scandal was ever breathed against him or his Court, and so far as general sympathy can mitigate the sorrows of Lady Mayo, this will not be wanting. Well, then, looking at all that Lord Mayo did, and at the grants which had been made to his predecessors, the sole doubt was whether the grant which had been now made went far enough. They had happily but one parallel case in this country—that of Mr. Perceval. The grants made to his family from the Imperial Treasury were £2,000 a-year to the widow, £1,000 a-year to the eldest son—afterwards exchanged for a valuable appointment—and £50,000 to the other children. Compare this with the present grant of £1,000 a-year. For his own part, he could wish that there were added £1,000 a-year to the eldest son of Lord Mayo—that it might thus be shown that England had at least an equal sense of his services with India.

MR. T. E. SMITH

said, that as one of the few Members of the House of Commons who had been in India during Lord Mayo's Administration, and as the last Member of the House who had seen him alive, he wished to bear testimony to the fact that in India there was at the time but one opinion as to the manner in which Lord Mayo had devoted himself to the service of his country. In India, as in England, it was possible to differ on political subjects; but whether men agreed with him or differed from him, all alike bore testimony that there never had been a Governor General of India who more unceasingly and unselfishly devoted himself to promote what he believed to be the good of that country than did Lord Mayo. Whether they looked at his policy towards the natives, the way in which he conciliated and made friends of the Princes of the country—among whom he was popular in a degree that no Viceroy had ever been before—whether they looked at the way in which he promoted the material development of the country or husbanded its resources, there could be but one feeling as to the spirit animating his government of India. He would not follow the hon. Member opposite into a criticism of whether the pension proposed was sufficient or not, because, after all, the real question was not as to the amount voted, but as to the appreciation which it expressed and the testimony which it bore to the value of the services rendered by Lord Mayo. The finances of India were now in a very different state, and were administered on widely different principles, from what they were in the days which had been referred to. He felt sure, however, that both in this country and throughout the length and breadth of India it would be matter of satisfaction to Europeans, as well as natives, that Her Majesty's Government had thought it right to supplement, even though it might be tardily, the somewhat meagre provision made for Lady Mayo.

MR. GLADSTONE

Sir, I do not regret that the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Eastwick), or that an hon. Member on this side of the House, should have taken the opportunity of reminding Parliament and the country of the merits and services of the late Lord Mayo. But I regret, and it is quite without reason, that the hon. Gentleman should have thought fit to give a controversial and reproachful turn to the Vote in acknowledgment of those distinguished services. The hon. Gentleman has forgotten that not three months or four months after receiving the tidings of Lord Mayo's death, but immediately afterwards, my noble Friend in the other House, and I myself in this House, endeavoured to express, as appropriately and emphatically as we could, what we thought of those services. I confess it appears to me that it would have been in singularly bad taste if we had reserved till this time our opinion upon those services, and had then come down with a laboured eulogium upon Lord Mayo. The hon. Member complains of me for not referring to precedents, and he himself has gone through precedents totally irrelevant, and having no connection with this case—gifts given by the East India Company from their Indian Revenues, and not, as this is, proceedings in which Parliament is called on to take a part. He has referred, indeed, to one precedent which approaches, in some degree, to a parallel case, but he has completely misapprehended and misunderstood it. The hon. Gentleman has made up his mind that Lord Elgin's going to China had no connection with his death. The hon. Gentleman made an announcement on that head, which, to my mind, is not as certain as the hon. Gentleman seems to consider it. But the hon. Gentleman must have known that for 20 or 30 years before that period Lord Elgin had discharged with the highest honours the most arduous offices on behalf of his country in every climate of the globe. He ought to have known that the pension voted by this House to the widow of Lord Elgin was not voted for Indian services at all. It was a contribution made in respect of other than Indian services to the aggregate pension, the Indian portion of which was granted by the Indian Government. And, therefore, it would be absurd to make a comparison between that pension, not given for Indian services, and the one which is given now; and it would have been great affectation on my part if I had done anything more than rely on the very simple statement, as I conceived it to be, which Her Majesty's Government made of their position in reference to this case. We did not find, at the time we examined the case, any precedent for granting from British sources a pension to the widow of a Governor General for Indian services. We could find no such precedent—for Lord Elgin's case was no precedent—and we did not think, on the whole, it lay within our discretion properly to ask Parliament to make one. But the extraordinary circumstances of Lord Mayo's death, combined with the admirable manner in which he had discharged his duty, made an appeal to the feelings of Parliament and the public which we felt would justify us in paying a willing deference to those feelings. We never took the credit of being the originators of the proposition; but we did not think it our duty to offer it an obstinate resistance. On the contrary, we were as willing as the rules of the public service could enable us to be to show some alacrity in coming forward to meet the public desire. The hon. Gentleman probably did not pay attention to the words of the Message from the Throne; he did not consider them worthy of his notice. Yet he must have known that those words have been advised by Her Majesty's Government, and that they contained a most distinct reference to the remarkable services and lamentable end of Lord Mayo. The peculiarity of this pension is to be found not in the amount, but in the fact that it is given to all. It is on account of the strong public feeling and the particular circumstances of this case that Parliament has thought fit—and that the Government meeting the wishes of Parliament have thought fit—to go out of their way to the extent of creating a precedent where no precedent existed to meet this very peculiar case. The hon. Gentleman ought also to have recollected, before he entered upon his criticism, that this was a mere completion—a mere postscript to arrangements substantially complete. Everything had been said which could be said; and, as we thought, the Indian Government had taken on itself the responsibility which had always lain upon it before. It had dealt with the question of the provision to be made for Lady Mayo; and it was only after careful consideration of the feeling that existed in this country that we made the proposal which we have laid upon the Table, and I must say that I do not feel that we are open to the reproaches of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman raises the question of amount. I believe my hon. Friend who spoke last was quite right in saying that the value of the pension is not to be estimated from its amount. It is not the business of Parliament to provide for the widows of Governors General. That being so, it appears to me, I must confess, that what has been done has been done in due order and in a becoming manner. And I feel bound to repel the taunts of the hon. Gentleman, although, at the same time, I am extremely glad that he has taken the opportunity, from his own knowledge, to revive again in the mind of Parliament a remembrance of the services and the sad fate of the late Lord Mayo.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

I speak what I am sure must be the feeling of every friend of Lady Mayo and of every member of the late Lord Mayo's family, when I say that I honestly trust the effect and grace of this Vote may not be marred by any controversial turn that may have been given to the question. The right hon. Gentleman has fairly said, and I myself should desire to put this Vote—not as one proposed by the Government, by any particular party in this House, or even by the House itself, but as the Vote of the English people. It is no use canvassing precedents, for the case is one to which precedent does not apply. It is no use canvassing whether the Vote in itself is inadequate—any sum would be inadequate to express our sense of the loss we have sustained, and still more of the loss sustained by Lord Mayo's family and friends. Nevertheless, to such an extent as it is possible for a Vote of Parliament to carry with it the sentiments that inspire it, this Vote does express our feelings; but, of course, the value of the Vote depends much more upon the manner and grace of the gift than upon the actual amount. Those who know Lord Mayo's work in India, and the spirit with which he set about it, will, I am sure, be anxious that in whatever we do for his family we shall act in the spirit which distinguished him—not in a grudging or eye-serving spirit, but by asking what can be done and doing it. We who know something of his worth, know that he went out to India under circumstances of very peculiar difficulty. He succeeded a Governor General who above all for many years had filled the office, and was intimately acquainted with all the circumstances of the country which he was administering. Lord Mayo went out without that advantage, and he determined from the first to make up for the disadvantage by his own personal activity. He resolved to see everything for himself, and it was by working in that spirit that he made himself so popular in India, and also, unfortunately, it was by working in that spirit that he brought upon himself the untimely end that overtook him. I trust, therefore, that nothing will be done to mar the grace of the Vote which we are about to pass, and which will, I am sure, receive the approval of the country.

MR. EASTWICK

wished the Committee to believe that it was the furthest thing from his mind in what he had said to reproach the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government, or to disturb the unanimity with which this grant was about to be made. He accepted most complacently the censure which had been passed upon him, because it had brought forward an expression of Lord Mayo's merits, which he thought ought to have been made before.

Resolved, That the annual sum of One Thousand Pounds be granted to Her Majesty, out of the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain and Ireland, the said Annuity to commence from the fifteenth day of March, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-two, and to be settled in the most beneficial manner upon Blanche Julia Countess of Mayo, Widow of the late Richard Southwell Earl of Mayo, Her Majesty's late Viceroy and Governor General of India, for the term of her natural life.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.