[Lords] COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 3 August 1874)

§ MR. FAWCETT
said, he must apologize for rising; but he was not responsible for two Indian subjects coming before the House on the same evening. In the debate on the second reading, those supporters of the Government who spoke in favour of the Bill, indicated their preference for a measure of a very different character, and one which he should be disposed to approve. The hon. Members, however, had not put on the Paper the Amendments they suggested in their speeches, being deterred from doing so by the late period of the Session. Therefore, there was no opportunity of considering the very Amendments which the supporters of the Government had advanced. For himself, he was not anxious to oppose the Bill, but considerable misapprehension prevailed with regard to it. There was the widest divergence between the speech of the Secretary of State on this Bill and that of the Under Secretary, and that divergence had not been cleared up. The Prime Minister had spoken of the approval of the Governor General being obtained before any appointment was made, but there was nothing to that effect in the Bill. If that idea had been put forward in the first instance, it would have prevented any opposition being offered to the Bill, whereas the fact was an impression had got abroad that a very able official, but a very enthusiastic projector was about to be sent out to India at once. Some people were very much alarmed about it. The Under Secretary wished the Bill to pass in order that vacancies might be filled up next spring; but if there were to be that delay, would it not be better to delay the Bill until next Session, when the views of Lord Northbrook could be known? If that were done, and if time were allowed for the consideration of the suggested Amendments, he should support the Bill, because the Public 1219 Works Department required cautious and well-considered reform.

§ SIR GEORGE BOWYER
thought the opponents of the Bill were mistaken in supposing that a great increase of expenditure would take place under it, for no such inference was justified by its provisions. Reform was required in the Public Works Department of India, and the remedy for defects of administration would be found in the appointment of a responsible official. It had been suggested by the hon. Member for Hackney that the Bill should be postponed till next Session. He (Sir George Bowyer) did not think that was desirable, for that was not like an English Bill, and if such a postponement took place, it would mean throwing the Bill over for a long time. He thought the House might have confidence that the conclusion to which the Under Secretary invited them was one that was wise and mature. This question ought to be considered as a matter of principle, and it was deserving of earnest consideration whether one person should not be placed in the position of supremacy, and be responsible for these works.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, it was a matter of the highest importance that public works should be proceeded with in India without delay, for as matters now stood, there was a want of concentration of responsibility for the construction of such works. If it turned out that works were more expensive than they should be, or that a great mistake had been made, there was now a difficulty in fixing the responsibility, and the consequences were great delay and considerable waste of money. The object of the Bill was to prevent the occurrence of such a state of things by the proper concentration of responsibility, and by the securing of some one person whose duty it would be to look into the matter and see that the work was necessary, and further that it was done, and done in the best manner. But it might be said that some one was to be appointed whose object would be not to promote economy so much as to connect his name with great and ambitious schemes. There was no foundation for such an assertion. The name of a distinguished officer had been freely mentioned, but however flattering the fact was to the officer in question, he could assure the House that there was 1220 equally little foundation for the rumour. He could state on behalf of his noble Friend (Lord Salisbury) that no appointment would be made until, in the first instance, the Governor General had been consulted on the subject. Further, it was also right to say that the gentleman spoken of had never made the slightest motion to secure the appointment. There was no intention whatever on the part of his noble Friend to make a place for any particular person. His sole object was to concentrate responsibility, to develope the resources of India, and to put a proper cheek upon expenditure. Nothing was more fascinating than the erection of great public works, but they were apt to lead to uncomfortable financial results. The Government were thoroughly awake to this fact, and it would be their primary duty rigidly to criticize all schemes laid before them. He hoped, therefore, the House would proceed with the Bill, as nothing was to be gained and much might be lost by delay.

§ MR. FAWCETT
said, the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was quite satisfactory, and he should not offer any further opposition to the Bill.

§ MR. DUNBAR
moved, as an Amendment, to leave out after the word "Act," in line 19, to the end of the clause. The effect of the Amendment was, that the Minister to be appointed would not be limited to the duty of looking after public works, but would be generally available to assist the Governor General in Council.

MR. BECKETT-DENISON
said, that it was not possible to accept the Amendment without taking out the pith and marrow of the Bill.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
said, that it was impossible for economy to be exercised in public works in India while the Governor General was responsible for them.

§ MR. FAWCETT
said, that with the view of indicating the purpose of the Bill, he would propose as an Amendment, 1221 in line 20, to leave out the words "called the Members of Council for public Works purposes," in order to subtitute for them the words" the Member of Council responsible for the Financial Administration of the Public Works Department."

§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTON,
while agreeing entirely with the object of the hon. Member, that whoever was appointed to the office should direct his attention to the finances of the Public Works Department, thought that the Amendment would prevent the person appointed from being paramount in his own Department.

§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTON,
in reply to Mr. BECKETT-DENISON, explained that, although it would be necessary, in the first instance, to appoint a new member of Council; yet if, after the appointment, the Governor General was of opinion that his Council did not require an augmentation, the number of his Council would remain unchanged.