HC Deb 29 June 1875 vol 225 cc711-38
MR. LOWE

rose to call attention to the position of the Civilians in the North-West Provinces of India; and to move for a Select Committee to inquire and report upon the Memorial of members of Her Majesty's Civil Service in India to the Secretary of State for India in 1873, and on the Correspondence relating to such Memorial laid before the House. The right hon. Gentleman said, he rose for the purpose of calling attention to what he believed to be the grievous wrong which was sustained by a portion of the Civil Service in India. For that wrong no remedy could be obtained except by appealing to the House of Commons. This grievance was an old one. As soon as the English Government obtained a secure footing in India by the overthrow of the Native Princes, adventurers went out from this country armed with letters from persons of influence here, recommending them for situations and employment. In the last speech delivered in that House by Lord Macaulay, he told a characteristic story of Lord Clive, who, when one of these young men came out with a letter of recommendation, being evidently unfit for employment, remarked to him in his peculiar way—"Well, chap, what do you want to be off?" And, in fact, large sums of money often used to be given to these young men out of the revenues of India to induce them to return to England. Ultimately a close service was established for India; but it was thought better that the patronage should be dispensed in England rather than in India, because there would be greater responsibility. This was the system existing up to 1853, when Parliament determined to maintain the close service in India, but to alter the conditions on which appointments should be made. Instead of men getting these situations by patronage, they were to be appointed to them after competition; but when they were once so appointed the close service was to be retained, and that was the principle of the Act of 1853. In a speech delivered by Lord Macaulay on June 24, 1853, he pointed out that some gentleman of great ability thought that the best mode of improving the government of India would be by throwing open the Service, and remarked that it seemed plausible to propose that the Governor General should choose his own servants; but he prophesied that the destruction of the old mode would lead to a system of great abuse in the distribution of patronage; instead of purity, there would be a return to the old traffic in appointment by letters of recommendation, which would be treated as Bills of Exchange drawn upon the revenues of India in return for Parliamentary support given in that House. In 1793 an Act was passed providing that vacancies in any office under the degree of Councillor should be filled up from the Civil Service belonging to the Presidency in which the vacancy occurred. This was the charter of the Indian Civil Service. When the change took place in 1853, he (Mr. Lowe) filled the office of Secretary to the Board of Control, and it devolved upon him, Lord Halifax then being at the head of the Department, to bring the new regulations into effect. Therefore, the members of the Civil Service in the North-West Provinces came to him to ask him to state their grievances. Up to 1857 things went on prosperously. In the year 1857 the Civil Service Commissioners addressed to the Government of India a communication stating how little was known in this country of the great advantages to be derived from taking a place in the Indian Civil Service, and they desired to have information as to the offices and salaries with a view to stimulating competition for these appointments. The Government of India complied with this request. In an official letter Mr. Melville gave the information which was asked for, and it was put before the public by the Civil Service Commissioners in the most formal manner on behalf of the Government of India. This had a great effect in inducing young men to become competitors for places in the Indian Civil Service. His noble Friend the Under Secretary for India had, doubtless, been instructed by the Government to deny that there had been any breach of faith in this matter at all. He thought it was clear, however, that if the Government of India instructed the Civil Service Commissioners to make statements in order to induce young men to offer themselves for the Civil Service of India, although it was not bound in all circumstances to see that the statements were fulfilled was certainly bound to act fairly towards those men, and to do nothing wilfully which would diminish the advantages it had promised to them. All he maintained was, not that the Government of India was bound to do anything beyond what it undertook to do, but that it ought not wilfully to take away the advantages it had promised. If it should appear that it had taken away those advantages, then, he maintained, it had committed a breach of faith. But he had also to rely on the Act of Parliament he had already quoted, and he would show the House that that statute had been repeatedly violated. He might further rely on the interest of the Government in this matter. Who could suppose that any enlightened or civilized Government would take the greatest trouble in order to gather from all quarters the ablest young men to be found in this country, that it would train them at great expense for two years in England and for two years more in India, and that after all it should place over their heads persons who had gone through no such test? The decline of the system began in 1861, when an Act was passed enabling the Indian Government, with certain very stringent safeguards, as they were considered to be, to appoint persons other than civil servants to offices previously appropriated to members of the Civil Service of India. No doubt, the Act was passed with the best intentions, and was partly justified by the great pressure caused by the number of vacancies which resulted from the deaths occurring during the Indian Mutiny, and the further pressure brought about by the increase of our territory. He did not want to exaggerate or overstate anything, and he admitted that this Act had not been very freely used. But if things went on as they were at present doing, it would come about that the Act would be much more freely used. He thought the Act was to be extremely regretted, because it was in some degree a breaking of faith with those persons who had gone out to India on the faith of the Act of 1853. Protests were made when this Act passed by members of the Council in India, which clearly showed their opinion of the extreme danger of breaking down the close system in India. Mr. Mangles and Lord Lawrence were two of those who so protested. There was besides another Act passed in 1870 which threw open to Natives certain offices which were formerly tenable only by members of the Civil Service. Of course, no one could object to Natives being appointed to posts for which they were fitted; but this was nevertheless a breach of faith to those members of the Civil Service who went out on the faith of the previous statute and the declarations he had referred to. There was on the part of the Indian Government a distinct duty, which, if assumed by an individual, any Court of Law would have forced him to perform. There was no Court of Law before which this case could be tried. These people had no refuge but the sense of justice of the House of Commons, and to that sense of justice he appealed. He would confine his remarks to the civilians who were in the North-Western Provinces. There were regulation and non-regulation Provinces. The regulation Provinces were Madras, Bombay, Lower Bengal, and the North-Western Provinces—the non-regulation Provinces were Oude, the Punjab, Burmah, and the Central Provinces. Lord Dalhousie made, in 1856, some resolutions in the case of the North-Western Provinces. These resolutions were, in fact, decrees binding on the Government of India, and they were to the effect that the Punjab and Oude should be served by civilians of the North-Western Provinces. Lord Dalhousie also made a regulation that at least one-half of the persons employed in the offices of these two non-regulation Provinces, Oude and the Punjab, should be civil servants. That regulation was laid down in 1856, but from that time to the present it had never been observed. In 1867 Lord Lawrence, then Governor General of India, went further than Lord Dalhousie, for he laid down by resolution that the civilians should have two-thirds of the situations in the non-regulation Provinces. As, however, they never obtained one-half of the situations, of course they never obtained two-thirds. The Civil Service in the North-Western Provinces was reduced by the means he had described to a condition which was perfectly miserable, as compared with what the civil servants there had a right to expect. That was the charge he had to bring against the Indian Government, that they had broken faith by not preserving their own regulations which were still in force, and had continued to draw persons from England by competition just as if they had not filled up the places by other means. That charge the Government themselves admitted in so many words. Why was it that the resolutions of Lord Dalhousie and Lord Lawrence had not been adhered to? The reason was only too simple. The Indian Government had taken military men, and had placed them in the Civil Service to the exclusion pf those for whom that service was supposed to be reserved. The result was that it was overcrowded. That was not all. These gentlemen having been put into a service where they had no right to be, and having interest, and being well befriended, rose rapidly in the service, and were put over the heads of civilians who were better qualified, but who had no interest, and who were not influentially befriended. These military men filled all the best posts of the Civil Service in the provinces he had mentioned, and the civilians were kept in the lowest grades. So that what they had got was a service officered greatly by men who had gone through no competition and given no proof of fitness, and they had the very pick and flower of English youth serving under them in comparatively insignificant situations. If he were able to call a Committee and to establish this case, was there any man in that House who would tell him that a case of breach of faith of the greatest character had not been established? In 1857, when the Papers he had alluded to were published by the Civil Service Commissioners in order to induce persons to compete, the number of Bengal civil servants was 392, and of these only 134 drew less than £1,000 a-year. In 1874 there were 526 civil servants in Bengal, of whom 234 drew less than £1,000 a-year. Thus almost the whole of the total increase of the service during that period was in the lowest grade of all. This fact in itself spoke volumes. In 1862 the civilians in the North-West Provinces who had completed eight years' service drew £1,020 a-year; in 1872 they only received £600. In 1862, after 12 years' service, they drew £1,630; in 1872 only £800, or less than half. It was admitted by the Government of India that the remuneration of those persons had fallen below that which it was held out to them they would receive to the extent of one-half, and yet he was told there had been no breach of faith, and that they had made out no case for compensation. If provinces had been cut off from our Indian Empire so that there was a glut of civil servants, he should not be indisposed to say that the civil servants must bear their share in the national calamity; but for the Government of these provinces to select their own friends and relations and connections, and put them into those places which had been solemnly promised to the civil servants, thus reducing the salaries of the latter one-half, and keeping them in a subordinate position, seemed to him contrary to every principle of justice. In Madras when a civilian received £920 a-year in the North-West Provinces he received only £600, and when one in Madras received £1,920 a-year in the North-West Provinces he received only £900. But in the case of Madras there was comparatively no jobbing. He would now call attention to the Petition before the House, because it was necessary that the House should see the complaints which had been brought to the notice of the Government of India, and the answer which the Government had given to them. He would be very glad to submit this Petition to a Committee of the House, but the Government had decided not to grant one. Here were some of the instances of military and uncovenanted men obtaining appointments in the Civil Service, to the exclusion of covenanted civilians. First there was Major James, a major of a Cavalry regiment, who had never done any civil work in his life. In 1870 Major James was appointed to be the chief civil magistrate of a district. The appointment was believed to have been made against his own wish, because his military appointment was wanted for someone else. Major James was so absolutely ignorant of civil work that he had to be placed for six weeks under another magistrate to learn it, and was then declared qualified to award sentences of seven years' imprisonment, though a civilian had two years' training in England and two years' more in India before he was allowed to award more than six months. At the time Major James was appointed there were covenanted civilians of 10 and 11 years' standing in the same Province in lower grades. The next case was that of Mr. Kiernander. He was an uncovenanted assistant in the Financial Department, and was gazetted in the order of the Government of India, Financial Department, dated the 16th of April, 1875, "to take charge of the office of Accountant General of Punjab." That was one of the offices specially reserved for covenanted civilians by the 24 & 25 Vict. c. 54, s. 2, and the Government of India evaded the law by gazetting a man "to be in charge of the office of Accountant General," instead of to be Accountant General, although he drew the full pay and performed all the duties. They had now ceased to appoint young civilians to the Financial Department of the Treasury, and they held a sham competition in India of three or four nominees, who were often rejected candidates for the Civil Service. The third case was that of Mr. Kempsen, Director of Public Instruction, North-West Provinces. Mr. Kempsen went out in 1857 as an under-master in Mr. Madock's school at Mussoorie; he was a great cricketer and attracted the Lieutenant Governor's attention, who appointed him Inspector of Schools at £1,200 a-year about 1860, and in 1862 Director of Public Instruction, the highest appointment in the Educational Department, and one which had always been held by a civilian up to that time. The pay was £3,000 a-year, and civilians of the same standing as Mr. Kempsen (15 years) were only receiving an average of £1,200 a-year in the same Province. The right hon. Gentleman also cited similar cases of Mr. B. A. Lloyd, Mr. J. C. Macdonald, Mr. H. W. Gibson, Mr. H. H. Butts, and Mr. P. J. White, as specimens of the kind of thing which was going on in India, and as instances which showed that the men put in by interest not only absorbed the appointments intended for civilians, but got pushed on more rapidly, and drew more pay than their civilian contemporaries who were better trained, and were, therefore, presumably more efficient. A memorial had been laid on the Table of the House on his Motion, together with the Petition of the civilians of the North-West Provinces to the Duke of Argyll, then Secretary of State for India. In that memorial the civilians set forth Lord Dalhousie's rules, confirmed by Lord Halifax in 1864, and re-affirmed by Lord Lawrence in 1867. They also set out the Petition presented by them to the Governor General in 1872. The answer of the Governor General was very remarkable. It was to the effect that any relief he could give to the service by appointments in his gift would be small, while in every appointment the fitness of the individual must be more considered than the claims of the service at large, however urgent they might be. But surely in such appointments as that of Major James the fitness of the individual was not regarded at all. He held in his hand a conclusive proof of the misconduct of the Indian Government, and particularly of the departmental Governments in this matter. It was the answer of the Government of India, dated Simla, 30th of October, 1873, and addressed to the Duke of Argyll, then Secretary of State. In that paper, speaking of the memorial of the civilians of the North-West Provinces, which they were transmitting, they say—"The contention of the memorialists is, in the main, borne out by facts." They introduced the qualifying words "in the main;" but, in reality, these words should have been struck out, because there was not even an attempt to show that these unfortunate young men had in any way exaggerated the treatment to which they had been subjected. The Indian Government went on to say that— There was not, in fact, under the North-Western Provinces Government a sufficient number of the higher appointments to furnish reasonable promotion in due course of seniority for the increased number of gentlemen who had been sent out and posted to the Provinces. The pressure was mainly caused by an over supply about the years 1861–63. No; but it was caused by jobbery. Why were there no appointments for the unfortunate persons who had been brought out to India relying on the pledge that promotion would follow upon length of service? Because the Government of India had taken the appointments away and given them to relatives and friends. This was cruel and unfair treatment, and went beyond what was to be expected from any Government. He had long held high office, and he could say that if a Chancellor of the Exchequer were to do any such thing in England, he could not retain his place for a week. But although these things were done in India, the gentlemen affected by them were as much entitled to justice as if they were here. This House was properly no respecter of persons, and no matter if those men were the poorest in the land it would wish that justice should be done them. He held in his hand a list of the successful candidates who had entered the Indian Civil Service from 1855 to 1863, and they amounted to 414. Of these, 98 came from Oxford, 76 from Cambridge, 70 from Dublin, 38 from the University of London, 28 from the Queen's University, 25 from Edinburgh, 15 from Aberdeen, 3 from Melbourne, 1 from Calcutta, and the rest from various public schools and Colleges. Now, it was surely something rather hard that one should have to plead, not for any extraordinary favour or consideration for those gentlemen, but that justice should be done them. If they could get into a Court of Law it would be awarded to them as a matter of course, and yet they were told by the Government that they could do nothing to remedy an evil so monstrous as this. Then came the last paragraph of the letter of the Indian Government. It was— It is true, however, that the promotion of many of the memorialists has been and will be materially delayed, mainly through non-observance in past years of the rules for distributing appointments in the non-regulation Provinces to covenanted civilians. Here we had got the admission from the Government that it was not from necessity, but merely from a violation of the rules that these men had not obtained the promotion to which they were entitled. Then we had got something about expediency, for the letter went on to say— And the condition of the Civil Service is connected with its efficiency quite nearly enough to render this a question of general administrative importance, although it may not be one to which local Governments always look closely and consistently in dispensing their patronage. Here we had then most complete admission that the rules had been broken, and that it had been done through the misconduct of the local Governments. The only wonderful thing was that when the Government of India made such an admission it did not strike them that if they did not intend to do anything they were very foolish to make it. In 1873 they meant to do something else; they proposed this remedy— We intend, therefore, to arrange with the different Administrations a systematic rule of procedure, whereby the preferential claims of civilians shall be brought forward and considered by the Government of India whenever an office falls vacant for which civilians are eligible, and to which no other officer has his superior claim by reason of seniority, local standing, or special qualification. That was to say, if no excuse could be found for not appointing a civilian, they would appoint one. But nothing had been done since 1873. This proposal was a clear and distinct admission on behalf of the Indian Government that they had broken their own regulations, and had not the least intention of recompensing those whom they had injured. The proof of it was that this was dated the 30th of October, 1873. He had asked the Under Secretary of State what steps had been taken to give effect to this undertaking, and the answer was that he had no information of any steps having been taken. The Secretary of State, in a letter dated the 5th of February, 1874, said— I consider that the memorialists have great reason for complaint, and I must desire that the various Governments and Administrations be distinctly informed that I fully approve of the instructions which, as set forth in the fourth paragraph of the despatch under reply, your Excellency in Council proposes to issue; and I must insist that they be carefully acted on in future. These were the instructions that nobody could be found to attack. This was the case he had had to lay before the House; and he would ask the Government to put themselves for a moment in the place of those on whose behalf he spoke. He ventured to say that there would be no great difficulty in remedying this matter, although the question of the compensation must resolve itself into a question of money in some form or other, and with the experience which had been gained the Government would do wisely to get rid of the distinction between regulation and non-regulation Provinces, at least as far as the matter of patronage was concerned. The injustice that had been done was this—Promising young men had been tempted into a competition by the hopes of early independence and retirement. They had been tempted to take a step which was irrevocable, for when a man had been many years in India it was too late to retrace his steps. Looking at the matter from a moral point of view, there was no stronger obligation on a Government, when it had offered to young men the inducement of an independent career, than to fulfil to the letter everything it had promised to do. Look at the waste that was involved in the present course of procedure. We took the best young men we could find, who had been trained at an enormous expense; we sent them out to India, and we set them to discharge, under others who had undergone no test whatever, the duties of clerks, which could very well be performed by men who had not been so thoroughly educated at home. The government of 250,000,000 people of India by a few whites of an alien race was a feat such as the world never saw; and how a Government could neglect any opportunity of governing by the best instruments they could employ he could not imagine. The conduct that was complained of must re-act unfavourably on the class from whom these recruits came. After the exposure of to-day, could he expect that the same class of young men would enter into these competitions? Look at the danger this system exposed us to. We drove these young men into despair by keeping them in poverty, in an unhealthy climate, in a country where all who approached them were ready to bribe them; and thus, so far from inculcating loyalty to the Government, we taught them to regard the Government as an enemy. We took them to India under false pretences, and broke our plighted word in a manner unknown under any other civilized Government. Look also at the cruelty of the thing. In one case a man who had succeeded in the competition went out to India on the faith of these assurances, mainly because he was anxious to marry. He married, children came quickly, and he was one of those to whom this system was applied in all its rigour. Although extremely careful and economical, he was reduced to such poverty that he actually had to petition the Government to grant him a compassionate allowance to enable him to educate his children. He did not say the present Government was, in any way, to blame; the blame rested with former Governments; and he hoped that no false feeling of chivalry for their Predecessors would cause any hesitation on the part of the present Government to abolish, in taking steps to free us from the scandal that neither the Courts of Law, nor the Indian Government, nor the English Government, nor the House of Commons had found a remedy for, so gross and patent an injustice.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee he appointed to inquire and report upon the Memorial of members of Her Majesty's Civil Service in India to the Secretary of State for India in 1873, and on the Correspondence relating to such Memorial now laid before the House,"—(Mr. Lowe,)

—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

said, that there was no one whose opinion on a question affecting the Indian Civil Service was more entitled to respect than that of the right hon. Gentleman, who, he was sure, did not bring this question forward with the view of embarrassing the Government, but because he considered it affected the efficiency of a Service whose interests were very dear to him. He had listened with great attention to the representation made, and he would state what were the points on which the Secretary of State could agree with the right hon. Gentleman. There ought to be no infringement of any agreement made with the Cove nanted Civil Servants of India, and even if the Governor General or the Secretary of State wished to make an inroad on their rights they could not do it, because they were defined by Act of Parliament. No encouragement had been given, or would be given, by the India Office to those who went out to India on speculation, on the mere chance of obtaining occupation; but no doubt from time to time officers were appointed by the Secretary of State who did not belong to the Civil Service of India—such as officers who performed duties for the Public Works and Education Departments. It had always been understood by Parliament, and certainly by the Indian Civil Service, that there were certain classes of appointments to which the members of that service were not absolutely entitled. The complaint now made was a complaint against the local Governments, and not against the Supreme Government. The patronage of the Indian Government in the non-regulation Provinces was very small; and the present charges were almost exclusively directed against the Lieutenant Governors of the North-West Provinces and of the Punjab. The right hon. Gentleman spoke at length of a "breach of faith;" but he was rather astonished to find that breach of faith contained in two Acts of Parliament of the dates of 1861 and 1870, and it seemed to be a dangerous thing for any Member, more particularly for an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, to lay down positively that an Act passed 14 years ago, and that not a retrospective one, involved a breach of faith. The Act laid down clearly and distinctly what were to be the rights of Indian civil servants. The right hon. Gentleman read certain extracts containing a strong condemnation of what he thought was the Act passed in 1861; but it was not the Act of 1861. Sir Charles Wood made a draft of a Bill in 1860; there was no doubt that in that draft he proposed to curtail the rights of Indian civil servants. There was great opposition to that draft Bill, which was therefore altered, and the Bill of 1861 differed so materially from that submitted by Sir Charles Wood to the Council of India in 1860 that two of the dissentients then said—" Our dissents do not apply to the Bill now before Parliament, which contains provisions which reconcile us to the measure." The con- troversy, therefore, was supposed to have been terminated by the Act of 1861; and if the right hon. Gentleman objected to the Act it was quite open to him to bring in a Bill to repeal it; but so long as it existed it was not in the power of the Governor General or the Secretary of State to disregard its provisions. The right hon. Gentleman accused the Government of a breach of faith because they had not complied with the inducements offered in what might be called the "prospectus" of the Civil Service Commissioners. But nothing was said in their Report of 1859 about the intervals which must usually elapse between successive promotions. No promotion was guaranteed by them, nor could it be. Even the right hon. Gentleman himself could hardly lay down the principle on which promotion proceeded—whether by seniority or selection. Mr. Mangles, one of the Council, had, in a Minute written against the proposals of Sir Charles Wood, fallen into the error of assuming that promotion was guaranteed to Indian civil servants by the Civil Service Commissioners in 1859. In the Memorial, quoted from by the right hon. Gentleman, that part of Mr. Mangles's Minute which was incorrect had been inserted as if it were part of the Report of the Civil Service Commission. Anyone reading that Memorial would at once assume that certain promises, as regarded promotion, made in specific language by the Civil Service Commission, had been disregarded by the Indian Government. No promises were made, and Mr. Mangles was wrong in asserting that they had been made. By engrafting Mr. Mangles's error in their recent Memorial in such a way as to make his words appear to be those of the Civil Service Commissioners, the memorialists had misled the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. LOWE

said, he did not maintain that promotion was guaranteed. All he said was that the Government guaranteed these civil servants against the result of the acts of the Government itself.

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

said, the only specific instance of breach of faith cited by the right hon. Gentleman was in the North-West Provinces. Now, he could not deny that the Indian Government admitted that the contention of those memorialists was, in the main, borne out. They said that the promo- tion of many of those memorialists had been, and would be, materially delayed through non-observance in past years of the rules of promotion in the non-regulation Provinces. But was it entirely the fault of the Lieutenant Governors of the different Governments that these regulations were not carried out? It was necessary before censuring these officers to be sure that the fault was theirs. It was doubtless the fact that promotion in the old days was faster than it was now, because there used to be constant acquisitions of fresh territory. The object of the regulations issued by Lord Dalhousie in 1856 was not to accelerate promotion in the North-West Provinces, but to retard it, and to give the persons who had been posted in Oude and the Punjab from the North-West Provinces an opportunity of sharing the emoluments of the higher appointments in the North-West Provinces. The lower appointments in the Punjab and in Oude were better paid than in the North-West Provinces, but the higher appointments were much worse paid. The result was that, after a certain time, the civil servants posted in the Punjab and Oude found that their prospects were not as good as those of the civil servants in the North-West Provinces, and they sought to return there. Under these circumstances, Lord Dalhousie laid down the principle that any person who obtained the position of Deputy Commissioner in the non-regulation Provinces should be eligible for appointment to the office of Collector and Magistrate in the North-West Provinces, and should be entitled, as a matter of right, to have his claims taken into consideration by the Lieutenant Governor. Remembering Lord Lawrence, he was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that promotion in the non-regulation Provinces had been one great job from beginning to end. The fact, he believed, was that many of the civil servants would not stay in Oude and the Punjab, and went back to the regulation Provinces, where their prospects were better. This was one reason why in the Punjab there was such a preponderance of military officers in the upper grades. After the Mutiny the number of civil servants appointed from England was very much in excess of those appointed before or since that period, for it was necessary to fill up vacancies caused by deaths during the Mutiny. Lord Lawrence, after he left the Punjab, became impressed with the opinion that it would be better to assimilate the salaries in the Punjab and in the North-West Provinces; he made proposals which were accepted, and the salaries of the higher officers in the Punjab were raised. Then the civil servants in the North-West Provinces, who had declined to serve in the Punjab, made an outcry. They had not thought it worth while to serve until they attained the higher grade; and when the salaries were raised they protested against the infringements of the Regulation of 1856—namely, that one-half of the appointments in the non-regulation Provinces should, if possible, be held by covenanted civil servants. In 1863 Lord Lawrence affirmed the principle laid down by Lord Dalhousie—namely, that half the appointments should be held by the covenanted service. That principle had been affirmed by successive Secretaries of State, and there was no question now that half the appointments in the Punjab were not held by covenanted servants. In 1870 the covenanted servants of Bengal petitioned Lord Mayo, and they made four requests. To two the Government acceded, and the petitioners enjoyed advantages not formerly allowed. Their third request was that they might be more largely employed in non-regulation Provinces. Lord Mayo pointed out that he had little patronage in his hands, but said that he would direct the local Governments and administrations to employ more largely the covenanted civil servants in the non-regulation Provinces. The whole argument of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) in favour of an inquiry into the condition of the civil servants in the North-West Provinces was founded upon the assumption that their promotion had been retarded in consequence of jobbing on the part of the Lieutenant Governors and the heads of local Governments, but that assumption was not borne out by the facts. In the very Petition alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman a complaint was made from the covenanted civil servants in the Lower Provinces of Bengal that their promotion was as slow and their prospects as bad as those of the Civil Service in the North-West, yet there was no regulation affecting them as to their employment in the non-regulation Provinces. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman could not on their behalf urge the same argument as he had on behalf of the covenanted servants of the North-Western Provinces. If the right hon. Gentleman looked at the memorial he would find it stated that many of the junior civilians in the Province of Bengal were in the same hopeless position as those in the North-West Provinces. Therefore, it was perfectly clear that what was complained of was not the result of ignoring regulations, nor the consequence of any breach of faith.

[The House was here summoned by Black Rod to attend in the House of Lords: on their return—]

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

continued: When interrupted he was calling attention to the fact that Indian civil servants had no rights guaranteed in the non-regulation Provinces; their rights were strictly defined by Act of Parliament. There could be no question that the civil servants of the North-West Provinces did occupy an exceptional position as regarded the non-regulation Provinces, inasmuch as a regulation was made as to the proportion in which appointments in non-regulation Provinces were to be held by covenanted servants of the North-West Provinces. There was no question that the candidates for appointments in the North-West Provinces had assumed that half the appointments in the non-regulation Provinces would be held by civil servants. Admitting that fact, which had been already admitted by the Government of India, he was not prepared to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that a Committee should be appointed to inquire into this matter. The question had been before the Government of India for nearly five years; they had made great concessions to the covenanted service; they had altered the rules relating to leave and to furlough; they had made every concession except that of giving compensation; and the proposal of the memorialists amounted to a request for pecuniary compensation. If, therefore, the appointment of a Committee was granted, the only question the Committee would consider would be what amount of compensation was to be given to the civil servants who complained; and compensation could be given in two ways, either by increasing the pay of their present appointments, or by making fresh appointments, conferring upon their holders higher pay. Either scheme would be equally objectionable both as a precedent and as throwing fresh charges upon the revenues of India. Soon after he accepted his present office he was told in that House by one of more experience that nine out of ten of the Motions on Indian matters were made solely with the object of squeezing something out of the Indian Government. If, however, an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer attacked the Indian revenues in this House, he feared that he should have no chance whatever of successfully defending these revenues. The right hon. Gentleman said there had been a breach of faith towards these civil servants. Suppose his assertion were put to this test, and the Committee were granted upon condition that all the concessions made to them in respect of pensions and furloughs were given up in return for the increase of pay now asked for. He felt sure that the civil servants who now put forward this grievance would not agree to such a condition. Two years ago the Indian Government had made an immense concession in the matter of pensions, the result being to impose an additional charge of £70,000 a-year upon the revenues of India, and to give a civil servant who had served 25 years, including four years' furlough, a pension of £1,000 quite irrespective of the amount of his yearly contribution towards buying the annuity. This concession was peculiarly applicable to the present complainants. Slow promotion, under the old pension rules, affected a civil servant in two different ways—his annual salary was less, and, as a necessary consequence, his pension was less, inasmuch as his pension materially depended upon the 4 per cent annual deductions made from his salary. Now, however, anyone could retire upon the highest pension irrespective of the amount of his contributions towards purchasing his pension. Any loss these gentlemen had sustained in consequence of a want of promotion might be debited against the advantage they would gain under the new pension rules, and if that were done he believed the Indian Exchequer would be found not the better, but the worse for the change. At all events, it was hardly fair for the right hon. Gentleman to denounce, in strong language, this breach of faith when such concessions had been made by the Indian Government. It was admitted that the Bengal civil servants, who could not complain of any breach of faith, were in quite as hopeless a state respecting promotion as the civil servants of the North-Western Provinces. Was their case to be considered? Was that of the Madras civil servants to be considered? A precedent of a most dangerous character was set by such a Motion. The Indian Civil Service was, perhaps, the strongest and best employed by any Government in the world, and its members were quite able to take care of themselves through their friends in Parliament. Upon what principle was compensation to be given if this demand were granted? If promotion depended on selection, how could you prove that a man was entitled to compensation owing to a want of promotion? The right hon. Gentleman said the Indian Civil Service was the grandest administrative machine in the world. This statement was quite true, and why? Because every individual engaged in this service knew that after his first appointment his promotion would depend upon merit. If the House once interfered with the power of selection by local Governors, how could they be held responsible for the maintenance of order in their respective Provinces? Was the right hon. Gentleman of opinion that successive Lieutenant Governors had been guilty of jobbery? Then he should move a vote of censure upon them. It might be possible that here and there Lieutenant Governors had not always discreetly exercised their power of selection. But he hoped that the House would not, on account of some few unwise appointments, lay down hard-and-fast rules which would prevent Lieutenant Governors from exercising the most salutary right of choosing those who were to serve under them. The right hon. Gentleman complained of the appointment of so many military officers. It must be remembered that some of our ablest administrators and political officers—Sir James Outram, Sir Henry Lawrence, Sir Henry Durand, Sir Thomas Munro, and Sir Henry Edwardes—had served in the Army. He trusted that the House would seriously consider the objections to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London before assenting to it. The subject was under the consideration of the Indian Government, and he believed the reason of the delay which had occurred was, not because they did not want to consider the question at all, but because it was a question of great difficulty. He did not see how the subject could be satisfactorily dealt with by a Committee. Who were to be placed upon such a Committee? What information was to be given to it? Who was to supply this information? Were the Lieutenant Governors to be called home to give evidence? And if no representatives of the local Government appeared before the Committee, the inquiry would be a one-sided one. In the earlier part of the Session the right hon. Gentleman had been satirical on the Government for endeavouring to carry on the Business of the country by Select Committees; but if there was one question more than another over which the Government ought to have absolute control it was surely that which related to the appointment of those whose services it employed. If it could be shown that the Indian Government had disregarded the Petitions which had been addressed to them, and had not endeavoured to redress the grievances complained of, there might be some reason for appointing a Committee. But while the Indian Government had refused to grant pecuniary compensation, they had made great concessions; and it would be a strong measure to take the inquiry out of their hands upon what he might, without offence, call the ad captandum appeal of the right hon. Gentleman.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he was one of the Lieutenant Governors who were in some measure incriminated by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe). He therefore wished to say that during his administration of Bengal he attempted to follow very much the lines indicated by the right hon. Gentleman, by placing the civil servants in the appointments to which reference was made. The consequence was that he had been enormously abused. He was attacked at the bar of the Government of India, and he had some difficulty in defending himself. He was inclined to think, on the one hand, that the right hon. Gentleman had gone somewhat too far and made out too strong a case; while, on the other hand, his impression was that the noble Lord who represented the India Office had made too complete a defence. He had proved too much. He altogether denied that the fault, if fault there was, lay exclusively with the local Governments, as a very large proportion of the patronage in respect of the appointments in question was exercised by the Government of India and the Viceroy. He thought the Government of India was bound to see that this patronage was exercised in accordance with the principle of the Acts which Parliament had passed upon the subject; but it was too late now to go back to consider the propriety of those Acts. With regard to the information furnished to the Civil Service Commission in 1859, there was no just ground of complaint. It was a plain statement of facts. In consequence of the Mutiny promotion was abnormally high. The civil servants in India were bound to examine the facts for themselves, and the Government were not bound to make compensation. The grievances of the civil servants, in general, were not particularly great; but he thought the case of the civil servants in the North-West Provinces had been made out. Although the promise held out by Lord Dalhousie did not amount to a regular legal guarantee, but only to a promise made in the most formal way that could be adopted—a statement published in The Gazette—they were justified in believing that the Government would follow the course indicated, and substantial grievances had been inflicted upon them, inasmuch as that course had not been followed. Now with regard to the remedy, he thought it ought not to take the shape of compensation at the expense of the taxpayers of India. The matter should be adjusted in some other way. A very broad question was involved. One half of our dominions in India were free from the regulations in question as to patronage. With regard to the older dominions a new class of appointments had been created which did not come within the rules laid down. This was a serious matter, which ought to be taken into consideration by the House, and might properly be made the subject of inquiry at some future time, for it was impossible to institute such an inquiry at this late period of the Session. The practical grievance of the North-West Provinces was quite as true, real, and great as it had been depicted by the right hon. Gentleman, and, no doubt, a good deal of jobbery had been mixed up with it. He believed the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly right in all the cases he had mentioned. But with regard to the mass of appointments in the Punjab and Oude, they had not arisen entirely from jobbery, but were rather the result of the muddle which occurred on the abolition of the Army in India; and he believed that by a little foresight and care the enormous burden which had been thrown on the taxpayers might have been avoided. A large number of officers were thrown on their hands, and it was necessary for the Government of India by hook or by crook to provide for them. A large number were provided for in civil employ in the Punjab and the North-West Provinces. Great bounties in the shape of deferred annuities were held out to them by way of compensation for their grievances, provided they served long periods. The effect of that system was that the military officers being in civil employ did not retire, they blocked the service, and it became extremely difficult to give the civilians the promotion which had been promised them. They naturally resisted the intrusion of new civilians, and the Government had not the courage to deal with the question. He hoped the grievance would be redressed without making another draft on the Indian taxpayer. A new arrangement had been made to promote the retirement of the senior military officers, and he thought the opportunity should be taken to put civilians into their places, and so do justice to them. But very stringent orders would be required. He confessed he had perpetrated a few jobs, but considering the pressure put upon him it was a wonder he did not commit a great many more. He was unable to say that anything had yet been done which would have a real and practical effect. He supported the view of the right hon. Gentleman that a Committee should be appointed to inquire into the matter. He did not think the broad question could be dealt with this Session; but the practical grievance of the civil servants in the North-West Provinces might be so dealt with. The India Office was not strong enough to deal with questions of this kind. The Secretary of State himself was not strong enough to put a sufficient pressure on the Government of India and the local Governments with regard to these personal questions. In the India Office there was a disposition to treat them with a tender hand. He was not sure that a Select Committee would have all the information open to officials in India, but sufficient means of information existed in this country to warrant an inquiry into this matter, and what should be done was not necessarily to give pecuniary compensation, but that the House might know really how the matter stood, and how justice might be done at the least expense to those officers who had really suffered grievous wrongs. He should support the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. GIBSON

said, he wished to make a very few remarks on this question. He thought that there was a decided grievance, as well as a very clearly-defined remedy. He believed that the discussion which had taken place on the subject would be beneficial to the Indian Civil Service, inasmuch as public attention had thereby been called to the matter, and civil servants in India had been shown that their interests were not lost sight of in the Imperial Parliament. The noble Lord had referred to the Act of 1861, and he seemed to think that was an answer to the claim. He did not think so. The Preamble of that Act pointed out clearly and specifically that it was in consequence of the exigencies of the public service that unqualified persons had been appointed, and it was passed to ratify those appointments, and to enable the Government of India to make similar appointments if the exigencies of the public service should render it necessary. The 5th clause was purely permissive. Although that Act passed in 1861, the Secretary of State for India in 1864 went back again to the old statement, and confirmed the rule of Lord Dalhousie in plain and precise terms. Lord Lawrence, in September, 1864, in equally plain and precise terms, showed that he considered the Act of 1861 had made no difference, and should make no difference, in the distribution of patronage. He thought, then, that the broad proposition should be accepted by the House, that the Indian civil servants had entered into a most difficult and responsible service upon an understanding which had been distinctly held out to them by the nation, and the question was, had that undertaking on the part of successive Administrations been acted upon or broken? Indian civil servants in the North-West were receiving about one-half the pay they were receiving in 1862. In Madras and Bombay the salaries averaged £1,100 per annum, and in the North-West £673. The case was put with singular clearness in a letter from "A Competitive Wallah," which appeared in The Times, and the figures embodied in that letter fully established the grievance complained of. The grievance being proved and admitted, it was the duty of the Government to find a remedy, the proposition of 1873, already quoted, being no remedy at all. It was no satisfaction to men who had families to maintain and educate to talk to them of pensions in 10 or 15 years. He did not, however, believe that a Committee, as proposed, to inquire into the matter would do much good; in fact, he was of opinion that the discussion which had taken place would do all that was necessary.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that he had always, in dealing with Indian matters, felt that a most difficult problem of statesmanship was the degree in which this House ought to interfere with Indian administration. On the one hand, they ought to be very careful not to embarrass themselves or the Indian Administration by interfering too much or too hastily in matters of a very delicate and special character; and, on the other hand, they had assumed a responsibility which forbad them to leave all these questions of Indian administration to be dealt with, as perhaps they were in the days of the old Company's rule, entirely by Indian authority, and subject to Indian opinion only. Ever since Her Majesty had taken upon herself the responsibility of the direct administration of affairs in India, that House had had thrown upon it the responsibility of expressing its opinion clearly and distinctly upon questions affecting that administration where it was capable of doing so. He therefore rejoiced in debates of this character on subjects as to which Indian opinion required to be fortified by the expression of English opinion. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had said he found himself subjected to great pressure and exposed to unpopularity on this question, and it was a good thing that those who were so placed should be supported by opinion in England. Because the Secretary of State and the English Government abstained from interfering in questions of patronage in India, and as the English administration had purged itself from the suspicion of jobbery, it was the duty of England to support those in India who were endeavouring to administer its affairs on principles we had adopted. He would remind the House of the cogent arguments against referring this matter to a Committee. He very much doubted whether a Committee could conduct an inquiry which would lead to a satisfactory result, and he could not help fearing such an inquiry would lead to disadvantageous results. It was very questionable whether it was wise or proper to take off any portion of the responsibility which in a matter of this sort must rest with the Government of India itself. "We could not undertake to govern India from England; and in these questions of promotions and appointments there were two things to be considered. There was not only the duty they owed to those they had sent out in their service, and their obligation to treat them fairly, but there was also the important duty they owed to those whom they governed, that they should appoint proper persons to the discharge of important duties. It would be an unfortunate thing if the Government of India were to say they felt themselves hampered by the action of some Committee of the House of Commons, which was really not able to examine and study the details of the subject. That applied more particularly to some of the newer non-regulation Provinces, in which from time to time it had been necessary to employ persons with very peculiar qualifications, such as distinguished officers who had been employed in the Punjab and elsewhere. Another objection to pressing the Motion to a division was that by being compelled to resist it the Government would be made to appear as if they gave their sanction to the con-duct of the Government of India to an extent which they were not prepared to do. Her Majesty's Government admitted the justice of a great deal which had been said by the right hon. Gentleman, but the matter required much further consideration. He admitted that the Minute of the Government of India pointed to an inadequate remedy and that pressure must be put upon the Government of India to take stronger measures than they had taken to redress these grievances. The discussion and the manifestation of the feeling which pervaded the House were more likely to do good and to bring about a proper settlement than would probably follow a reference to a Select Committee. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman, who had made so very eloquent and taking a speech, would feel that he had done more to advance his cause by eliciting information than he would do if he were to press to a division his Motion for a Committee.

MR. GRANT DUFF

said, there could be no doubt that the civilians in the North-West Provinces had sustained considerable hardship, and the House evidently were of opinion that it was the duty of the Government of India to see, that in one way or another, this hardship should be remedied. At the same time, he agreed with the noble Lord that the best method of devising a remedy would not be through a Select Committee. It was very desirable that this House should, from time to time, entertain Indian questions, and that the Indian Government and Indian authorities should see reflected through this House how English opinion was affected by what was done out there. He did not think, however, that good would come from any interference by this House in the minuter details of Indian Government. The hon. Gentleman (Sir George Campbell), who as Lieutenant Governor of Bengal ruled over 66,000,000 of people, had spoken of the necessity of providing for those officers whose prospects were damaged by the amalgamation of the two Armies, and he could not help remembering that the worst part of the muddle which had then occurred arose from a vote taken in a very thin House under the administration of Sir Charles Wood. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Lowe) might be well satisfied to leave the case where it now stood without dividing. The responsibility rested chiefly with the local Governments of India; and he thought that after to-day's debate both the local and the central Governments would see that, in the opinion of the House of Commons, an evil existed, and that they would be stimulated to provide a real remedy.

CAPTAIN NOLAN

said, that the discussion had been exclusively confined to Members above the Gangway, and he thought it would be well if some other Members stated their opinions on the subject. He looked at this as a popular as well as an Indian question. "Were men who entered the public service on the competitive system to be cast aside in favour of those appointed through patronage? If the competitive principle were struck at in this branch of the public service, it would be struck at in every branch. The case of the Staff College at home was exactly in point. The Queen's Regulations had been altered in favour of those who had not passed through the College, and something of the same kind had happened in India. Men who failed to pass the Civil Service examination went out as secretaries and officers, and obtained civil appointments through the private influence they possessed, thus retarding the promotion of the men who had passed this examination. He hoped that the Select Committee would be granted, and that the right hon. Gentleman would persist in forcing his Motion to a division.

LORD ELCHO

said, he had been requested by gentlemen interested in Scotch education to say a few words upon the able and powerful indictment submitted by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe). The University authorities in Scotland felt that young men came there on the faith of statements made by the Indian Government as to the career which was open to them, and it was manifestly unjust that those statements should not be borne out and that the promised career should be in a great degree shut. His noble Friend (Lord George Hamilton) had endeavoured to defend the apparent injustice by showing that compensating advantages had been given to these civil servants in the shape of pensions and otherwise. The argument, however, that an injustice was to be redressed in this way was not a sound one, and similar reasons were at once rejected by the Committee which inquired into the Bonus question. He would recommend the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Motion, and to be satisfied, as he well might, with the result of the debate.

MR. BUTT

said, the grievance complained of was one by which the civil servants in the North-Western Provinces were placed in a much worse position than those in any other part of India, in defiance of the declaration made by Lord Dalhousie that appointments were to be given in certain specific proportions between the civil servants generally. Besides, a young man who 10 or 12 years ago, having been at the head of his class, and having been, in consequence, allowed to choose the part of India in which he would like to serve, selected the North-Western Provinces as most desirable, now found that if he had been last in his class he would have been sent to Madras and Bombay, and instead of £800 or £900 would have something like £2,000 a-year. This was a special grievance and required a special remedy.

MR. LOWE

said, that considering no one but the noble Lord had risen in defence of the proceeding which he had censured, and considering also the lateness of the Session, he thought he should best consult the interests of those for whom he appeared on that occasion if he did not press his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.