HC Deb 24 May 1878 vol 240 cc623-5

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the powers conferred upon Her Majesty by the 57th section of the 21st and 22nd Vic. c. 106, have ever been exercised; and, if so, whether he will give the date of any Order in Council made in pursuance thereof, and cause the same to be printed for the information of the House?


Sir, no Order in Council has been made under the 57th section of the Act, because none has been required. The terms and conditions of service of the Native Forces remain precisely what they were when that Act was passed. All that has been done is this. The Governor General in Council in 1869 slightly altered the language of the form of attestation, so as to bring it into harmony with the public notification of the terms of enlistment and the condition of service relating to the Indian Native troops issued by the Governor General of India in 1856.


asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, before any portion of the revenues of India was devoted to defray the expenses of the transport of Indian troops to Malta, the expenditure was sanctioned by the Council of the Secretary of State for India; and, if so, whether he will inform the House on what day this sanction was given?


Sir, no portion of the Revenues of India has at any time been devoted to defray the expenses of the transport of Indian troops to Malta, and therefore no such expenditure could be sanctioned by the Council of State for India.


I beg to give Notice that on Monday, I will ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer a Question to the following effect:— Whether it is not provided, in the 41st section of the Government of India Act, that no grant or appropriation of any of the revenues of India can he allowed without the sanction of a majority of the Council of the Secretary of State, and whether such grant or appropriation must not have been made when the money of India was advanced to defray these expenses?


I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer a Question, of which I have given him private Notice—namely, Whether he has any objection to state to the House now the form of the Vote for the Army Service to be taken on Monday next? Perhaps I may, to save trouble, explain that my object is to ascertain whether the number of men will be stated in that Vote, so that they may appear as having been voted by the House. In further explanation, I may mention, that, according to the Estimate which we have before us, £350,000 is to be voted to meet the additional expenditure for defraying the cost of the transport of Indian troops, and only below, in the explanatory state- ment, mention is made of 7,000 men. My object is to inquire, Whether these 7,000 men will appear in the Resolution as voted by the House?


The right hon. Gentleman only gave me Notice of his Question just now across the Table. I have not the form of the Vote here. I apprehend, however, that the Vote will contain the number of men with respect to which the money is taken.


asked the hon. Member for Dundee, If he intends to go on with his Motion respecting the Supplementary Estimate for moving Indian troops?


in reply, said, that in view of the fact that his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) proposed on the Estimate to raise a question on which he (Mr. Jenkins) thought he was entitled to precedence, he should withdraw his Motion in favour of that of his hon. Friend. This would not, however, prevent the House from discussing the policy and expediency of employing Indian troops in the course of the debate.


asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether, for the convenience of the discussion on Monday, he was prepared to furnish a statement of the terms and conditions of the contract entered into for the transport of the Indian troops?


Sir, I am not in a position to furnish this information to the House, inasmuch as the information I have received has only come to hand by telegraph.


Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the information he has received by telegraph? ["No, no!"]