SECOND READTNG. (Hansard, 2 March 1876)

§ MR. FAWCETT
, in rising to move "That it is inexpedient to pass this Bill, as it would throw an additional and unnecessary charge on the Revenues of India," said, they had heard of a horse being re-sold with his colour changed, and that transaction represented with considerable accuracy what had been done with 1279 that Bill. On the 25th February last year a Bill entitled "The East India Home Government (Pensions) Bill" was introduced. That Bill passed its third reading, and at the very last moment the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) discovered that it was so badly drawn and its real nature so little understood that he got it postponed till the following Thursday. It was then recommitted, but finally withdrawn. It appeared again in July last in a new form and with a new title—" The East India Home Government (Appointments) Bill," and it now came before them as the Council of India (Professional Appointments) Bill. He would put a difficult question to the Government, What was the reason of all those ungracious devices? Why this indecent haste to give pensions to men who were not entitled to them? Those were plain questions, and he hoped the House would support him in opposing the Bill. It was difficult to say what the Bill would do and what it would not do. In 1869 a Bill was introduced in this House, and passed through both Houses, providing for appointments to the Council of India, and the provision being large during the tenure of office, that no person should be entitled to a pension, even if his office were abolished. And that Act further provided that no man should hold the office beyond a certain number of years. Notwithstanding, that Bill was brought in to give pensions to members of the Council who were appointed under the Act of 1869, and it would contravene that Act if the House allowed it to pass. The appointments under the Act of 1869 had been eagerly sought for; and he must say that the course now proposed was most undignified. If a Cabinet Minister went out of office he was not entitled to a pension, and yet this Bill proposed to give pensions to men who took office on the express condition that they were not to be entitled to retiring pensions. If we were so careless about granting pensions in India, and so indifferent to the extravagant expenditure of the government there, what would the people of that country think of our guardianship of their interests? They would not be mollified by the association of their country with the Imperial titles of the Sovereign. He begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTON
said, the hon. Member for Hackney was mistaken in supposing that the Bill introduced in July last was the same as that brought in last February. It was quite different, and only withdrawn because it was thought that the Treasury would be embarrassed by the interpretation which it placed upon the Superannuation Act. The Bill had now been introduced in order to secure the services of the best possible men on the Indian Council. There was no difficulty in getting old Indians to join the Indian Council, because they came home with pensions, and, added to that, £1,200 a-year for 10 years as members of the Council. But there was a difficulty in getting gentlemen of legal attainments not old Indians to come on the Council, because only £1,200 could be offered to them for 10 years, with no pension. The Bill, therefore, simply proposed that the Secretary of State for India should have power to appoint certain gentlemen of professional attainments for 15 years, with pensions of £500 after 10 years' service, and it was believed that this was the Cheapest way of obtaining legal advice. With respect to the increase of the home expenditure for India, no doubt that had been very large since 1857–8 up to the present time, but the whole of that increase was for the purposes of the Government in India, and if the Indian Office here was abolished to-morrow, these charges on the revenue of India would remain for purely Indian purposes. The guaranteed interest on railways was a very large item. The interest on the Debt had increased from £670,000 in 1856–7 to £2,300,000, owing to the expenditure necessary to put down the Indian Mutiny. The charge for stores was also high; and so long as stores could be obtained cheaper in England than in India he trusted they would always be procured at home. There was, however, one item of cost which the Indian Government could control, and that was the charge for administration, which exhibited a decrease, although the work had increased enormously. In our depart- 1281 ment only the number of despatches had increased eightfold during the last 20 years. In 1856–7 the cost of the Home administration was £179,849; but although there had been a vast increase in the duties performed, the cost was, in 1870, £177,000, or a decrease of £2,000. There was, perhaps, no Department of the State in which the work had increased so much with so little corresponding increase of expenditure. In 1866–7 the law charges of the East India Company amounted to upwards of £19,000, because they had no lawyers upon their establishment, while last year the law charges of the India Office were only £2,500. If the hon. Member for Hackney was successful in throwing out this Bill, he would not only prevent the Secretary of State from obtaining that assistance which he believed to be necessary, but would unquestionably, in the long run, throw heavy additional charges on the revenues of India.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
said, no doubt it was desirable there should be some legal element in the Council, although he would deprecate the introduction of too many lawyers, and especially of lawyers as distinguished from jurisconsults. It was of enormous importance that the Secretary of State for India, who was more uncontrolled than any other Minister, should have the most eminent men upon his Council, and a trumpery pension of £500 a-year was a mere drop in the ocean by comparison. There were men of great weight and value now on the Council, who would not have taken office on the reduced terms. He had himself been appointed to a place in the Council, and possibly, if the terms had been the same as they were prior to the Act of 1869, he might never have left it. He found, however, that if he chanced to live 10 years he should be thrown out of the Council without a profession and without pension, and he resigned this precarious situation. His experience thus showed that there were cases in which the inducements of a seat in the Council were not such as to lead men of very humble pretensions to care to retain it. On the other hand, he regretted that matters of this importance should be dealt with by patchwork legislation. He thought that the whole constitution of the Home Government of India should be overhauled and re-considered.

§ MR. HARDCASTLE
wished to know whether, under the provisions of this Bill, those merchants who were members of the Indian Council would receive pensions?

§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTON
said, such was not the intention of the Bill.

MR. GRANT DUFF
said, he thought the Government had done good service in bringing in the measure, which he considered would be a great advantage to India and a great gain in the way of economy.

§ MR. T. E. SMITH
said, that he should feel it his duty to oppose any Bill which would cause further increase of expenses.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said, that he should support the Bill, which was carefully limited for the advantage of those persons who were specified.