§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether, in the year 1869, an Act was passed to enable Lord Napier of Magdala to receive the full benefit of the salary of Member of Council for the Presidency of Bombay, or as holding any other office in India, notwithstanding his being in receipt of an annuity, and notwith- 131 standing other Acts of Parliament; if he can state why a similiar indulgence was not extended to Sir Frederick Roberts in respect of the annuity granted to him for his services in Afghanistan; whether a sum of £25,000 was voted to Sir Garnet Wolseley for his services in Ashantee; whether the annuities conferred on Lords Keane, Gough, and Hardinge, and Sir H. Havelock, were charged on Imperial Revenues, though granted for Indian services; whether, in commemoration of the famous exploit of General Roberts, a bronze star is to be or has been given to those who took part in it; whether it has been held that we cannot clearly define as an Indian object the purpose of the Afghan War, and that in consequence a grant has been made from Imperial funds towards the expenses of that war; and, whether, taking into consideration the foregoing precedents, and also the admittedly composite character of the campaigns in which Sir F. Roberts took part, Her Majesty's Government will reconsider their decision as to the £12,500 awarded to Sir F. Roberts, and grant him either from Indian or Imperial funds a pecuniary reward more in consonance with such precedents?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONIt is true, Sir, as stated in the Question, that an Act was passed to enable Lord Napier of Magdala to receive the full benefit of his salary as a Member of Council, notwithstanding his being in receipt of an annuity. It is also true that £25,000 was voted to Sir Garnet Wolseley for his services in Ashantee. It is further the fact that Her Majesty's Government have held that the Afghan War cannot be considered to have been undertaken solely for Indian purposes, and that it was just, therefore, to make an Imperial contribution towards the expenses of the war. That Imperial contribution has been made in the shape of a grant of £5,000,000. It has never been proposed or suggested that any further contribution should be made, or any division of the detailed expenditure of the war should be made, between the Indian and Imperial Governments. There is, so far as I am aware, no more reason why the Imperial Government should undertake a share of the payment of the officers than why they should undertake to pay the commissariat or any other of the expenses in- 132 volved. The hon. Member asks why a similar Bill was not introduced in the case of General Roberts as in the case of Lord Napier of Magdala. I may say, in reply, that it is perfectly certain that such a Bill could not have passed through this House without considerable opposition and delay. The circumstances would have been in that respect very different from those in which Lord Napier's Bill was passed; and I am not prepared to say, even if I could have been certain that the Bill would pass without any opposition, that I should have been prepared to introduce, or that the Council of India would have been prepared to support me in introducing, a Bill in conformity with that precedent. All I can say in answer to the general question is, that, looking to the precedents which have been published in the Return recently moved for by the hon. Gentleman, it appeared to the Government that the services of Sir Donald Stewart and Sir Frederick Roberts would be adequately met, in conformity with former precedents, by a grant of £1,000 a-year for life, and looking to the exceptional circumstances in which those two officers were placed by their being at the time in high office under the Indian Government, and thereby disqualified for an immediate pension, a grant of £12,500 in commutation of the annuity was an adequate and even a liberal one.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFbegged to point out that the noble Marquess had not replied to that portion of his Question relating to the annuities conferred on Lords Keane, Gough, and Hardinge, and Sir Henry Havelock.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONI believe it is a fact that the annuities referred to were charged on Imperial revenues. I have not made any inquiry into the circumstances in which these annuities were granted; but I do not see anything to induce me to modify the general reply I have just given.