HC Deb 25 June 1877 vol 235 cc206-23
COLONEL JERVIS

, in rising to call attention to the Papers respecting the arrears of pay due by the Government of India to Officers of the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers; and to move that they be referred to a Select Committee, said, that the case concerned the Department of the Secretary of State for India, but it related to Her Majesty's British troops, and as they knew of no one to whom they were responsible but the Secretary of State for War, there was no other to whom they could look for redress of grievances. It was so laid down in the Articles of War. The matter, though relating to a small body of men, 250 in number, really involved a matter which could not any longer be overlooked—namely, the broad principle whether Her Majesty's troops when ordered to India were not entitled to all the rights and privileges conferred on them by the Crown and recognized by Parliament. He held that they had hitherto been deprived of those privileges, and his object was to press their case upon the Government. On the 22nd of February, 1872, Lord Cardwell, among other reforms, brought before the House the subject of the re-organization to a great extent of the Artillery and Engineers. That was no new subject. For many years the slow course of promotion had attracted attention, and in 1867 the right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) moved for a Committee to inquire into the matter. On that Committee sat the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. It was perfectly unanimous in its Report; but, on further consideration, there having been a change of Government, Lord Hampton considered the scheme recommended more expensive than he would like to present to the House, and he appointed a Committee at the War Office to consider the Report. Among the recommendations made by the Committee was that in future, on account of the changes which had occurred in the Artillery and Engineers, the first captains should be field officers. The thing was dropped, and in 1871 the question was brought before the House, and Lord Cardwell stated that a Commission had been ordered to go thoroughly into the whole question. In 1872 Lord Cardwell distinctly stated that the rank of field officers would be given to the first captains of the Artillery and Engineers. The question, however, was not then settled, and a considerable party was formed against the proposal, on the ground that it would interfere with the rights of officers of the Purchase Corps. On the 18th of June, 1872, an Address was moved and carried in the House of Lords, praying for a Commission to inquire into the alleged injustice to the Purchase Corps, and that the Royal Warrant should not be issued until the Commission had reported. In reply to that Address, Her Majesty stated that she was advised that the delay asked for in the issue of the Royal Warrant would be inexpedient. On the 28th the late General Sir Percy Herbert brought forward a Motion in the House of Commons to the effect that the matter should be re-considered. Lord Cardwell, in his reply, distinctly dwelt on the arrangement made with the India Office that field rank should be given to the first captains, and said that nothing should prevent him from carrying the scheme into effect. General Sir Percy Herbert did not get a Seconder. On the 5th of July, 1872, the Royal Warrant was issued granting the increase of pay and rank to these officers. On the 15th of August the Royal Warrant was published in India. Yet, after the decision of the House and after the publication of the Royal Warrant, it was not recognized in India, and the officers had received neither increase of pay nor rank. As soon as the Order was read in India the officers concerned had remonstrated by submitting their grievances through their commanding officers to the Commander-in-Chief, who considered they were justified in their application, and who forwarded the matter to the Government of India. The Government of India also thought these officers were entitled to have their grievances remedied, and it accordingly forwarded their application to the Secretary of State for India. The Secretary of State for India said, in his reply, that they were British officers; that the complaints should have gone through the Commander-in-Chief to the Secretary of State for War; and, in the meantime, he asked the Government of India to give him further information. According to this decision two officers made their complaint, and after four years of constant applications forwarded through the proper channel, the latest answer they had got from the War Office was in July, 1876, to the effect that the Petition of regimental officers for increased Indian pay and allowances would be submitted to Parliament in due course. But, in point of fact, the officers never petitioned; they merely asked for what was due to them. Up to the present time, no step whatever had been taken in India to carry out the Warrant. Letters had not been replied to, and the officers were wholly at a loss to know on what ground they had not received what they were entitled to under the Royal Warrant. But although no reply had been given, several excuses had been made, both in that House and out of it. It had, indeed, been said that Royal Warrants had no effect in India. He had, however, taken the trouble to peruse all the General Orders issued in the Bengal Province since the British troops formed part of the Forces in India, and he could find no instance on record of any Royal Warrant affecting promotion and pay which had not been recognized in India, and recognized from the date of the Warrant. If the Royal Warrant signed by the Secretary of State had no effect in India, why were these officers not told so before? Prom year to year these officers could get no answer, and the Commander-in-Chief in India could get no answer to their applications on the subject. It was also stated that the officers of the British Army were entitled to British pay. If so, why was it that they never got it? The officers complaining, though raised to the rank of major, never received the pay of majors, they only received the pay of captains. He was not sufficiently skilled in constitutional law as to say whether it was correct or incorrect; but looking at the question from a plain, common-sense point of view, he was of opinion that these Royal Warrants were not concocted by the Secretary of State, but were the result of the united deliberations of the Cabinet; and since India had been held by England, there was no precedent whatever by which any officer, if he obtained substantial rank, did not receive the allowances of that rank as well as the British pay of that rank. Another reason assigned for the non-recognition of those officers was that the India Office had not been consulted in the matter; but from the evidence given before the Committee on East India Finance it showed that in the opinion of the Secretary of the Military Department for the time, in the opinion of Lord Cardwell, and of His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, the India Office had been duly communicated with in reference to the changes effected in the military organization. He came next to a rather peculiar point. As the House were well aware, the Government of India, following a system which had been more or less prevalent in Europe a century ago, made special allowances to officers for the equipment of their regiments. The last instance of this was the old regimental-clothing colonel, who received allowances for clothing his regiment. The system was objected to by His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, when the Royal Artillery was first sent out to India, and also on subsequent occasions, though it was approved of by Lord Panmure, Lord Ellenborough, and the Court of Directors. In 1859 and 1861 the Indian Government rather objected to it, on the ground that the stores sent to Bombay were said to be rotten. A Committee was then formed, of which Sir George Barker, who died early in India, was the Chairman, and that Committee reported against the system, but the Government of India considered it so essential on the ground of economy, that it was established throughout India. Lord Cardwell said that many officers made large sums of money out of these contracts and other matters; but the Duke of Argyll asked for further information with regard to them. An inquiry was instituted, and at the end of 18 months the result was that it appeared that, taking the whole of those contracts all round, able and experienced officers might make something like, 25 per cent out of them, but that officers who were new to Indian Service, or who happened to have particularly long marches, were likely to be losers. The Government of India, finding that to be the case, and being desirous of extending the system, went further into the matter, and the result was that a confidential Circular was sent round to the officers commanding the Artillery in India, asking them to carry on these contracts at a higher rate than they were then receiving, but they declined to have anything further to do with them. The Government of India then took legal advice on the matter, which was to the effect that they could not force these officers to have to do with these contracts, and that they would have to take them over into their own hands. In a final Report, however, the Government of India said that whether the officers had made any money out of the contracts or not they had carried out their part of the bargain, and the matter had nothing to do with the question of their pay. They further said that if the officers had made money, it could be no excuse for withholding the pay from them. Lord Salisbury, in 1874, agreed in this view; and in July of that year he (Colonel Jervis) was informed that a Warrant would be sent out on the subject of the pay. The Warrant was not published in India till January following, and was not to take effect till April. Memorials and confidential communications on the subject were forwarded from India, but none of them, he believed, ever reached the War Office. It had been stated that when Lord Cardwell had promoted them it had been on the understanding that no increase was necessary to the pay and emoluments of commanding officers of batteries, and that any increase allowed should be charged on the Indian revenue. Lord Cardwell afterwards said— that financial considerations ought not to be overlooked; but he must consider what was just and expedient for the British Army; and that could not be set aside because the conditions in India were different from others. The Indian Government had admitted that the officers in India had to pay for fuel and travelling expenses, which in England were defrayed by the Government, and their pay was liable to income tax. His reason for bringing the subject forward was that British officers in India had no one to look to but the Secretary of State for War. These officers had been played with, the Secretary and Under Secretary of State being the battledores, and the officers the shuttlecocks, for the last five years; and sending them from the India Office to the War Office, and vice versâ, was a system of dealing with the Indian Army that was utterly pernicious and destructible of discipline and good feeling. This same kind of conduct was pursued by the India Office towards non-commissioned officers. In June, 1875, a letter, however, was written by the Commander in Chief, bringing the subject under the notice of the War Office and requesting a settlement; but so far as he could make out no reply was sent to that letter. They were told that it was under consideration. A second letter was sent by the Commander in Chief to the India Office, but with no better result. He had heard, indeed, from Mrs. Grundy that the India Office could hold no communication with the Commander in Chief on the matter; and that it had taken three weeks to find out what portion of the Secretary of State's Department had to communicate with the India Office. In the meantime, the Commander in Chief in India had declared that that the matter would be brought before Parliament. It never had been; and as the subject could no longer be allowed to remain in abeyance, he had no alternative but to take the duty on himself. If these men were wrong and were not entitled to anything, why not tell them so in the first instance, and not go on in suspense for five years and then leave them where they were? The course that had been pursued had had the effect of making the Commander in Chief look absurd in India, and discipline was interfered with in consequence. His Royal Highness was colonel of the Royal Artillery and of the Royal Engineers, and how could he meet the officers? He believed that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War would admit that these gentlemen were entitled to the money. As to Lord Salisbury, who had done so much to put an end to ill-feeling in other branches of our Indian Service, he believed he was utterly unacquainted with the real state of affairs, for he was not the man to take refuge behind the Council of India. And what, he would ask, would be the feelings of those officers if, after they had been officially informed that the question of their grievances would be brought before the House of Commons, the House were that evening to say they would not entertain it? Such a course could only serve to impress the whole Army in India with the idea that a man the moment he left this country was at the mercy of the India Office, and if such a case as the present were slurred over we might not find it so easy to find men again when we required their services. The hon. and gallant Gentleman concluded by moving for a Select Committee to inquire into the subject.

COLONEL NORTH

, on rising to second the Motion, said, that his hon. and gallant Friend had left very little for anybody to say on the subject; but he must express his astonishment at the manner in which these gallant officers had been treated, not the slightest attention having been paid to their remonstrances. An answer had not been received until 18 months after a letter had been written. These officers appeared to have done everything that officers were bound to do; their remonstrances had been couched in the most respectful terms, and he contended that they had not been well treated. A Committee ought to be appointed to inquire into the grievances, and if his hon. and gallant Friend pressed his Motion to a division he should certainly vote for it.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Papers respecting the arrears of pay due by the Government of India to Officers of the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers he referred to a Select Committee,"—(Colonel Jervis,) —instead thereof.

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

LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

said, he would briefly state the reasons why the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India had, with the unanimous approval of his Council, declined to admit the validity of the claims now made. Lord Salisbury, as his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Jervis) truly remarked, had given considerable attention to the grievances of Indian officers, and had dealt with them fairly and liberally. Therefore the House might be assured it was not without strong grounds that his Lordship took the course he had taken in the matter. A great deal had been said about the pay of British officers. Now, British officers were liable to serve in any part of Her Majesty's dominions. Whatever part of those dominions they might be in, they were legally entitled to the British pay of their rank. It was not alleged that the officers referred to in the Motion had not received that pay. On the contrary, he would show that they had received a great deal more. As long as British officers were paid by the English Treasury they scarcely ever received anything more than the British pay of their rank. In Ceylon, in Hong Kong, and some places elsewhere they received small Colonial allowances; but in India, and in India alone, allowances were given which were in many cases three times, and in all cases twice as much as officers received in any other part of Her Majesty's dominions. The Indian Government had never hesitated to treat the officers thus liberally, on the understanding that they alone should have the control over the extra pay and extra allowances. The difference between England and India was as follows, taking the rupee at 1s. 9¼d.:—A lieutenant-colonel of Cavalry received £474 in England, and £1,673 in India; a lieutenant-colonel of Infantry, £365 in England, and £1,539 in India; a lieutenant-colonel of Artillery, £328 in England, and £1,109 in India; a captain of Artillery, £200 in England, and £466 in India; and so on. When the India Office gave their assent to a Royal Warrant, they were always very careful first to ascertain what additional charge should be imposed upon their military expenditure. In 1872 the India Office heard indirectly that there was an intention on the part of the War Office to make the promotions in rank which had been referred to; and in February, 1872, a letter was written by the Duke of Argyll to the War Office,, pointing out that the effect of the proposed promotion would be to increase the military expenditure of India if they carried Indian allowances. Lord Cardwell, in reply, said that the financial arrangements of India and the military allowances were controlled by the Secretary of State for India, and if he thought them too large he could reduce them. That circumstance alone showed that there was a perfect understanding between the two Secretaries of State upon the subject. If the claim now brought forward were forced on the Indian Government it would involve an increased charge of about £50,000 a-year on the revenues of India. The objection of the India Office to the proposal was two-fold. They thought the promotion was unnecessary; but as the question was a military one, they waived that objection. But they also had a financial objection, for the Royal Warrant, as originally proposed, was drawn in such a manner that it put the officers promoted in the same position as other majors of the Army. They feared that claims such as the present might be preferred, and accordingly the Royal Warrant was purposely altered to prevent them being made. The Indian Government having received a number of Petitions from these officers, who thought they were entitled to get the same pay as other majors, wrote to the Duke of Argyll suggesting the abolition of what was called the contract system, and an increase of the rate of pay of all the officers who had been recently promoted. The contract system, by which all captains of batteries were enabled to make considerable profits, was a bad system, and the Royal Artillery had always objected to it. The great majority of the first captains of Artillery in India were in receipt of these contract allowances, and Sir George Barker in 1860 had advised an equivalent in the shape of long pay. He put it at 300 rupees per month, but the Indian Government now estimated it at between 150 and 200. The Duke of Argyll, however, required accurate information before he decided on the amount to be given. This information arrived from India after the noble Duke had left office; and Lord Salisbury, who succeeded him, gave his assent to the increased expenditure as soon as the contract system was abolished, which took place on the 1st of April, 1875. This was done to remove a grievance and to get rid of an objectionable system; but now, after making this concession to the officers, and giving them increased pay, the Indian Government were asked to give this increased pay in addition to the contract allowances from the date of the Royal Warrant—in other words, the Royal Warrant issued in England must ipso facto carry with it Indian allowances and Indian pay. If that were once admitted, it would destroy the fundamental principle of Indian finance; and he was sure the Secretary for War would not desire such an alteration, which would also involve the English military authorities in great difficulties. His hon. and gallant Friend had wished the case to be referred to a Select Committee; but in doing so they would only follow up a foregone conclusion. The whole question, in fact, was whether they were dealing with arrears of pay, or with a demand for increased pay. Lord Salisbury having looked carefully into the facts, had come to the conclusion that this was a claim which could not be admitted. His Council, which included several military men, who were usually tender towards grievances, were unanimous in their opinion of it. The Indian Council, it should be remembered, had by Act of Parliament an absolute veto upon all expenditure, and he could not imagine that Parliament would take away from it that control and transfer it to the War Office. Certainly it was to be regretted that any of the officers should have made complaints for some time without being answered; but the Secretary of State was giving the matter his attention, and Papers would soon be on the Table of the House. The transaction had occurred before the present Government entered office, and their claims were a legacy which, however unpleasant it might be, would have to be settled. It was plain, nevertheless, that the charge ought not to be on the revenues of India, and the Duke of Argyll, had he anticipated them, would never have agreed to the Warrant. His hon. and gallant Friend had stated that the case was before Parliament; for his own part, he did not think so, though, no doubt, Parliament was the ultimate appeal. He was not sorry that appeal had been made, for it had given him an opportunity of mentioning the circumstances under which the Warrant had been issued; the conditions imposed by the Duke of Argyll, and the care he had taken to state distinctly that he did not intend to allow the charge to be placed on the Indian revenues. Under these circumstances, he must ask the House to negative the Motion; for if the question had concerned the finances of England, there would have been but one answer—namely, that of the English taxpayer: he believed, however, that the House would in like manner protect the taxpayers of India.

CAPTAIN NOLAN

said, that according to Lord Cardwell, it was intended that the rank of major in the Artillery should carry the pay of major of the Line. Nothing could be clearer than that; but the fact was that there was a want of correspondence between the two offices, and the India Office had repudiated the increased pay. The noble Lord had referred to a letter in which the India Office had refused to sanction the increased pay; but these words oc- curred in another part of the same letter— It must, at the same time, be considered that what is just to the British Army cannot be set aside, because the peculiar arrangements of India render the change more expensive. The noble Lord had endeavoured to prove that the two Offices had acted in concert to oppose the pay from the year 1872 to 1874; and he could demonstrate that the War Office could not possibly interfere. The fact was that up to 1875 there was no possibility of the War Office objecting. He believed that the War Office and the India Office were acting together now; but were they to take the answer of the noble Lord as final, or were they to expect to hear something from the Secretary of State for War; because, if the noble Lord spoke not only for the India Office, but also for the War Office, why did not Lord Cardwell speak not only for the War Office, but for the India Office, in 1872? The fact was that for two years they had been giving these officers a superior rank without any increase of pay, and the consequence was, that they had to maintain a superior position and to meet heavier expenses without a similar increase of income.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

supported the Motion. He was in favour of the utmost economy being at all times exercised with regard to the finances of India; and at no previous period, not even when the finances of India were in great disorder after the Mutiny, was real economizing in the management of Indian expenditure more needed than at the present time, when new or additional taxes were about to be laid on the people of India in order to meet imprudent and unwise outlays; but, at the same time, he thought justice ought to be done, and that there were many openings both in the civil and military services for effecting these economies without resorting to the objectionable practice of withholding from individuals their fair and reasonable claims, and on this broad ground he considered every officer entitled to the remuneration which the custom of the service had entitled him. At all events, it was right that the interests of these officers should be protected at any cost. Injustice had already been done to the Artillery officers in that case — he cared not by what means or in what way—and a remedy ought to be found. When the Government saw fit, whether rightly or wrongly, to raise first captains to field rank they were bound to give them the pay of that rank. It had been stated by the noble Lord that Artillery officers had been already sufficiently remunerated in India by contract allowances. Well, he admitted that some Artillery officers had made money by contract allowances; but many who were careless did not cover the expenses they had incurred. But it was wrong to say that the officers alone benefited by these contracts, for the Government of India was far more benefited; the work done for the money paid under these contracts between the commanders of batteries and the State was far more cheaply, and, on the whole, as efficiently done than if the Government had retained the duty. Besides, the abolition of the contracts could have easily been ordered in 1872 as they had been since; it was, therefore, in the interests of the State that these contracts were kept up until 1875, and, being so kept up for the benefit of one party, there was no reason for keeping back the pay of majors until the Government found it convenient to undertake the work. Then, another reason might be urged, that though 58 battery officers were in receipts of profits from contracts with the Government to maintain batteries and houses in an efficient state out of the allowances, yet there were 28 battery commanders who had no such contract allowances, but who, holding the rank of major, were only paid as captains, being a course entirely at variance with all the precedents in India. On this ground he supported the Motion.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, that this was a question which had been going on for several years, and, as had been admitted by his noble Friend, no answer had been given either by the Office of the Secretary of State for War, to which the officers looked, or by the India Office, who were to give the extra pay. That no answer should have been given was a great grievance in itself, and ought not to be tolerated by the House. It was a plain, straightforward question, and it was a mischievous and a miserable thing that a question of pay and allowances should be bandied about between two great Offices of State, the War Office and the India Office, and that neither of those two great Departments should have taken it up and settled the question. He had himself formed part of a deputation to his right hon. Friend the Secretary for War in relation to this subject; and, judging from his words, as well from the expression of his countenance, he certainly understood that he thought the officers had a very good case, and that he would be prepared fully to endorse what Lord Cardwell had stated in that House, when without any reservation he declared that it was necessary in the interests of the service that first captains of Artillery and Engineers should have the substantive rank of majors in the Army with the pay and emoluments of that rank. He therefore hoped the House would pause before they gave a vote adverse to the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Jervis). A compromise had been arrived at in 1875 which now satisfied the officers, and it was only right that the claims of those who served as majors from 1872 to 1875 should be allowed. He looked to his right hon. Friend, in conjunction with the India Office, to do justice to these men.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, that during the discussion he had been so frequently appealed to, that he thought it his duty to say something with reference to the question. It was quite true that when he first heard of this case, and especially when he received the deputation which had been alluded to by his hon. and gallant Friend, he thought a great deal,; of it—that it required further investigation, and so far as the War Office was concerned there had been no lack of energy in calling upon the India Office to say whether they would do what was required or not. The Secretary of State for India in Council had the power conferred upon him to say what they would pay out of the India finances in respect of the Army; and it was to them he had had to appeal, and to them they must look for a decision. At the same time, he ought to say that when he read the answer of Lord Salisbury, which he was sorry, through some misapprehension, was not on the Table of the House, he had come to the conclusion that, though there had been some confusion in the beginning of the case, there was an explicit understanding that if these majors were made, their promotion was not to entitle them to these additional allowances in India, entailing such a large expense. One fact which showed that that must have been the case was this—There was the arrangement of contract allowances to captains in India, on which it had been said some of them made a profit of 25 per cent. Captains of Horse Artillery in India received £605 independent of contract allowances, whereas majors at home had only £356 5s. 6d. Captains in India had nearly double what majors had at home, so that being made a major probably brought a man up to what he had as a captain in India. But there were others who had not these contract allowances; and the Duke of Argyll showed how entirely he considered the matter was in his own hands; as, in order to equalize the receipts of these two classes, he raised those who had not these beneficiary contracts from 30 rupees to 100 rupees per month. And these officers, who thus had their pay increased, were amongst the majors who were now asking for arrears. They were not, in fact, arrears of pay at all—they were allowances given in India at the discretion of the Indian Government. They were under the control of the Secretary of State for India in Council. After a full consideration of all the circumstances of the case, Lord Salisbury had, he believed, judiciously come to the conclusion that they were not bound to give these arrears. No doubt the intention of Lord Cardwell had been to put the majors in India on the same footing as majors of the Line; but when he consulted with the Secretary of State for India a difficulty arose which he did not foresee with reference to the charge on India, and an alteration was made in the Warrant accordingly, making it imperative on the Government of India not to pay those claims. The Duke of Argyll, in order to compensate those who had not contract allowances, added to their income 70 rupees per month; but though the majors were content to receive an increase of income of 70 rupees per month from the Secretary of State for India, they refused to accept any decrease of pay from the same authority, although that discretion was clearly given to him by the Act. Sir John Adye had gone fully into this matter, and was clearly of opinion that these majors were not entitled to have the full pay and allowances of majors in India; and that was acted upon from the beginning. It was a great pity there had not been more negotiation at first, and that everything had not been put in writing on a clear and accurate footing; but the Indian Government had acted throughout in good faith and honour in the matter with the War Office, and he could not but support his noble Friend the Under Secretary in the conclusion he had come to.

SIR HENRY HAVELOCK

said, it was immaterial whether the late or the present Government were to be blamed for the lapse that had occurred with reference to this subject. This was a question of justice and truth, and it ought not to be decided on narrow technicalities. He would ask whether, when these officers were promoted to the rank of major, they were informed that they would not receive additional pay in the usual manner—namely, by a General Order of the Governor General in Council? [Mr. GATHORNE HARDY: There was a General Order issued in August.] It was not issued in the usual terms; and as there had been a misunderstanding on the subject, he thought as a point of honour they ought to do what these officers asked, and not, at any rate, allow their case to be bandied about between the two Offices without any notice being taken of the grievance under which they undoubtedly suffered. The refusal to pay what the officers believed they were entitled to, had created a great deal of dissatisfaction, and if the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Jervis) insisted on a division he should feel bound to vote with him.

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

said, the following were the words used by Lord Cardwell in introducing the Army Estimates in 1872:— We now propose to establish the rank of major in the Artillery with a pay and position similar to that of major in the Line."— [3 Hansard, ccix. 892.] But no one in the House at the time, and no officer interested in the matter, could suppose for a moment that Lord Card-well had control over the revenues of India. The pay and allowances of the Army in India rested absolutely with the Indian Government, and when Lord Cardwell made the statement, he was perfectly acquainted with the fact. When the time came for the Warrant to be issued, Sir Thomas Pears pointed out the existence of the contract allowances, and showed that to give the Artillery majors the full pay of Line majors, in addition to those lucrative allowances, was to impose too great a burden upon the Indian taxpayers. It was to avoid this that a break was made in the rate of pay, and it was fixed at 14s. 6d. and 18s. 6d., with a command allowance of 1s. 6d. That allowed the Indian Government to make such an arrangement as they chose, and prevented them from being saddled with an expense altogether out of proportion to that which they were entitled to bear. As to those arrangements anyone who knew Lord Cardwell knew him to be a man who would not make any statement unless he was able to carry it out, and yet such a statement he would have made had he promised these officers additional pay in India. Sir Thomas Pears, whom the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Jervis) had attacked, was a man of the highest honour and integrity, and there was nothing contradictory between his statement and that which his noble Friend had made in this House.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 93; Noes 145: Majority 52.—(Div. List, No. 190.)

Words added.

Main Question, as amended, proposed.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

, in opposing the Motion, said, he had often heard that no interest was taken in Indian affairs, unless personal matters were involved. He confessed that when he compared the attendance that evening, when a question had been before the House affecting certain persons outside the House, who, however, had strong influence inside the House, with the attendance the other night when the Indian Budget was under discussion, and when the whole question of Indian finance was being debated, he was obliged to come to the conclusion that those who made this statement were right. The vote just given, if effect were given to it, would reverse the whole policy on which was founded the financial Government of India. He would yet trust that, in the end, the official statements would prevail over the impassioned appeal which had been made that evening. He should, therefore, again divide the House against the Motion.

The House divided:—Ayes 104; Noes 56: Majority 48.—(Div. List, No. 191.)

Resolved, That the Papers respecting the arrears of pay due by the Government of India to Officers of the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers he referred to a Select Committee.