§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether his attention has been called to an article in the "London and China Telegraph" of May 27th, 1878, in which the writer, after commenting upon the Estimates for the State of Perak, recently framed by the British Resident, Mr. Low, who, "acting under the advice of the Government of the Straits Settlements," declined to sanction a proposed new tax, goes on to remark, in conclusion—
that, as Perak matters seem to be all regulated by the governor of Singapore, it would be bettor and more straightforward at once to announce the annexation of the country, and not to keep up a state of things which is farcical and far from creditable;and, whether, looking to the fact that on the 1st June, 1876, Lord Carnarvon expressly declared that—''government of the country by British officers in the name of the Sultan (a measure very little removed from annexation) could not be allowed,he will lay upon the Table further Papers showing, for the information of the House, the policy, instructions, and authority under which the proceedings of British Residents in Perak are now regulated; and in what respects the present condition of Perak differs from that of an annexed province, and the functions of the residents there from those proposed for the Commissioners appointed by Sir William Jervois, but, subsequently, set aside by Lord Carnarvon?
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLwished also to ask a Question in regard to the payment of the Indian troops employed 1355 in the Perak Expedition. It was acknowledged that the extra expenses caused by the removal of those troops would have to be charged either to the colony or the mother country; but he would like to know, Whether the Government intended to move an Estimate not only for the extraordinary charges of the Expedition, but also for the ordinary pay and allowances of the soldiers during the period they were employed beyond the Indian territory? If not, it would be a clear case of the Indian Treasury being charged with the expenses of the troops while on foreign service.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that if the hon. Baronet the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had given Notice of his Question with reference to the payment of the Indian troops, he should have been able to give him a definite answer. He might, however, say that the financial control of the House would ultimately be complete over any expenditure on account of the Indian troops in question, though there had been considerable delay, owing to the difficulty of settling the accounts between the different parties concerned. No doubt, pending that settlement, there had been a charge of £40,000 upon the revenues of India. He did not understand the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) to raise the general question of Perak or the history of the war, but rather to ask a Question with regard to the relations between the British Resident at Perak and the Native Rulers. A greater responsibility, of course, attached to Residents than that of merely advising Native rulers, and that responsibility had been clearly pointed out by his noble Predecessor. In Perak the position was one of some little difficulty, but the duties attending it seemed to have been performed successfully.