RESOLUTION. (Hansard, 11 February 1876)

§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

, in rising to move a Resolution in reference to the Council of India (Pensions) on which to found a Bill for the purpose of 238 enabling the Secretary of State to appoint certain professional men—not exceeding three—as his advisers, said, it had for its object the removal of an inconvenience resulting from the mode of appointing Members of the Council. Under the Act of 1858 Members were appointed to the Council of India for life, and were entitled to a pension of £500 a-year after 10 years' service. It was, however, afterwards found desirable to limit the appointments to 10 years. But it was absolutely essential that the Secretary of State should have upon that Council certain professional advisers, and the inducement at present was not sufficient to attract eminent lawyers. The proposed Bill would give the Secretary of State power to appoint Members of the Council who would have the same privileges as they would have had under the original Act of 1858; but the tenure of office would not last more than 15 years, and the number so appointed could not exceed three. He did not consider this an extravagant proposal.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

said, he was glad to find that the Bill differed from the proposal made last Session. It omitted the section which provided for superannuation to the Auditor of Indian Accounts, who was now understood to have had his rights to superannuation recognized prior to his transfer from the Home Civil Service to the India Office. But it was only right that the portion of service spent in the Home branch should bear the share of the superannuation which might be awarded on the completion of his duties as Auditor. The charges for pensions to officers and soldiers of the Army were graduated in ratio to the years and days served in India and in the direct service of the Crown. It was, therefore, only fair to India that the superannuation, when granted to the gentleman appointed Auditor, should, on the same principle, be divided between Imperial and Indian Revenues in proportion to the years respectively served under the two Governments. This new Bill was, however, of great importance, for it made a great change in the conditions on which appointments were to be made to the Council of India. Under the Act of 1858 no one could be appointed to the Council who had not served in India for some years, and the Act of 1869 continued that condition. The present Bill, 239 however, provided for three Members being appointed to the Council, without the condition of India service. Such a change as that ought not to be made without the fullest information being laid before Parliament as to the causes which had led to the change. Looking, also, to the exclusive way in which offices in the Imperial Service were restricted to those who had actually belonged to that Service, it did appear a most unusual course to pass laws by which those who had spent their life in the service of India should have the few openings for service at Home diminished in favour of those who had no claims and might have no motives for protecting the interests of India. This change also provided for pensions being granted to these three Councillors, and if report could be relied on, the learned and talented gentleman who was now on the Council was likely to benefit by this new law; and what was most objectionable, the law was to have retrospective effect, so as to cover his service in the Council, notwithstanding the intentions of the Legislature, which, under the Act of 1869, were understood to have excluded all new Councillors from the right to pensions. On these grounds he felt it his duty to oppose the Bill.