§ MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether it is contemplated to make a present of £12,000 to Sir Frederick Roberts for his services in Afghanistan; whether, if so, such moneys are to be furnished by the inhabitants of India, or those of the United Kingdom; and, whether this House will have an opportunity to express an opinion upon this present before any decision being finally taken by Her Majesty's Government in the matter?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONSir, the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock has a Question upon the Paper on the same subject as that to which this Question refers. Considering the exceptional character of the noble Lord's Question, perhaps he would be good enough to read it out at full length.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he would wait until his Question, which was the 48th on the Paper, should be reached. Perhaps the noble Marquess would read it himself.
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLYes.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONSir, in reply to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), I have to say that I stated some time ago, in moving a Vote of Thanks to the Army in Afghanistan, that Her Majesty had been graciously pleased to confer a 1067 Baronetcy upon General Stewart and General Roberts, and that, in accordance with precedents, the Council of India had voted a sum of £1,000 a-year to each of them, or, as an alternative, the sum of £12,500 in commutation of a pension. These sums will be charged on the revenues of India, and have been voted by the authority of the Council of India. The sanction of Parliament to this grant is not necessary, and the matter will not be brought before this House unless my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton or some other Member thinks it necessary to call attention specifically to the subject. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) puts a Question on the same subject, and as he declines to read it, I shall myself have to put the House to the trouble of listening to it. I am asked by the noble Lord—
Whether it is a fact that Sir Garnet Wolseley received for his eminent services in Ashantee a grant of £25,000; Whether General Sir Frederick Roberts on his return from India was definitely informed by him that, in return for his equally eminent services in Afghanistan, he would receive a grant of £20,000; and whether Sir Frederick Roberts, on his return home from South Africa, was informed that the grant of £20,000 had been reduced by him to £12,000; and, if so, why the grant originally promised has not been made?In reply to these Questions I have to state that I believe that Sir Garnet Wolseley did receive £25,000. But that was a grant made by Parliament; while the sums which have been voted to Sir Donald Stewart and Sir Frederick Roberts were voted by the Council of India on my recommendation, strict Indian precedents being followed. In reply to the second Question, I have to state that Sir Frederick Roberts returned home from India in November, that I never had any communication whatever with him on the subject of a pension or grant of any kind until February 26, 1881, and that in informing him of the honour which Her Majesty's Government proposed to confer upon him I used these words—I propose to submit to the Council of India that a grant of £1,000 a-year for life be made to you.A day or two afterwards I saw Sir Frederick Roberts, and I had some conversation with him, the exact terms of which I cannot, of course, vouch for. 1068 The general effect of it, however, was that he felt some natural hesitation about accepting an hereditary honour when the pension by which it was to be accompanied was limited to his own life and not continued to his son. In consequence of that conversation I wrote him a letter on March 1, from which I must read a short extract. I said—The precedents are so clearly in favour of limiting any grant from the revenues of India to one life that I should have considerable difficulty in inducing the Council to depart from the usual course in this instance, but there have been cases in which, where the original recipient has enjoyed a grant for only a short time, it has been renewed in favour of his successor. I cannot doubt in your case, if you should unfortunately not obtain the benefit of a pension for a considerable period, the circumstances would be favourably considered by the Secretary of State and the Council at the time, but I cannot give you any formal assurance which would bind my successors and the Council on this point. I think, however, the Council would be prepared to consider favourably any request you might make to commute the grant for a capital sum.A short time after the receipt of that letter Sir Frederick Roberts left England for Natal, having first signified to me his grateful acceptance of the honour proposed to be conferred by Her Majesty, and his wish that the pension should be commuted for a capital sum. Some delay took place in the final settlement of the matter, in consequence of its being ascertained—what had not been previously brought to my knowledge—that owing to the provisions of an Act of Parliament it would not be possible for either Sir Donald Stewart or Sir Frederick Roberts to draw a pension of £1,000 a-year while they held the offices of Commander-in-Chief in India or Madras. They finally answered, accepting a pension of £1,000 a-year when they could legally receive it, or, as an alternative, the sum of £12,500, which was in both cases in excess of the actuarial value of a pension of £1,000 a-year. I think this statement will show that there is no foundation whatever for the statement that I ever assured Sir Frederick Roberts that he would receive a sum of £20,000, or any sum other than that which I have mentioned. And now, having made this statement, I think I am entitled to ask the noble Lord upon what grounds, other titan those which are contained in the calumnious and lying gossip which ap- 1069 pears in certain newspapers published in this Metropolis, he has founded the Question put to me containing imputations of so injurious a character? I will also ask whether, before putting his Question on the Paper, he had taken the trouble of satisfying himself by those means which were open to him—[Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: What means?]—by communication with Sir Frederick Roberts or otherwise, to ascertain whether there was the slightest foundation for the statements which he has brought under the notice of the House?
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLI have put this Question on information which came to my knowledge. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] I did not consult Sir Frederick Roberts, because I regret to say that I have not yet had the honour of making the acquaintance of that illustrious General.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONMay I ask the noble Lord whether he had any foundation whatever for putting the Question, except a paragraph in a newspaper called Vanity Fair?
§ LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLI am not in the habit, nor shall I hope over to be in the habit, of putting Questions to Ministers founded on statements which may appear in Vanity Fair.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFI wish to ask the noble Marquess whether, having referred to certain actuarial calculations, he is prepared, in accordance with the Rules of the House, to lay them on the Table?
§ MR. R. N. FOWLERI would also ask, whether it was not in accordance with the general rule, in giving a pension of £1,000 for distinguished services, to grant it for two lives?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONNo, Sir. The precedents have been carefully examined, and there is no instance of the original grant having been made for more than one life, although in several cases the grant had subsequently been continued to the successors. In answer to the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), I have to state that I have no actuarial calculations to lay on the Table. The statement I made was founded on the information given me by the financial authorities at the India Office, and I have no doubt whatever as to its accuracy.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFThe noble Marquess said there were actuarial 1070 calculations; and I would ask you, Sir, whether, having referred to those calculations, he is not bound, by the Order of the House, to lay them on the Table?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONWhat I believe I said was that the sum of £12,000 was larger than the actuarial value.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFThere must be some Report, Sir, on which the noble Marquess acted, and I ask whether the noble Marquess is not bound to lay it on the Table?
§ MR. SPEAKERI do not understand that the noble Marquess has quoted from any specific document.
§ MR. ONSLOWI wish to ask the noble Marquess, whether he is aware that his private secretary said anything to General Roberts on the subject?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONIt is absolutely impossible that anything of the sort can have taken place. The letter I read was copied by my private secretary, who was perfectly aware of the intentions of the Government, and he could have made no such statement as the Question of the hon. Gentleman implies.