§ *SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucester, Forest of Dean)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether, according to precedent, a Resolution to charge the revenues of India for the cost of moving Indian troops away from India is needed, even if it is intended that the whole charge shall ultimately be borne otherwise than by India; when it is intended that the necessary Resolution to charge the revenues of India for the cost of sending to Suakim the regiments now detailed for duty in the Soudan shall be submitted to the House; and, whether, if it is intended that any portion of the charge, ordinary or extraordinary, shall ultimately fall upon the revenues of India, the consent of the Government of India has been asked?
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOE INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,) Middlesex, EalingAccording to precedent, no Resolution is necessary for the employment of Indian troops outside India unless a charge be imposed upon Indian 1144 revenues for that purpose. In any decision arrived at as to the apportionment or incidence of expense the views of the Indian Government will be fully considered. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ *SIR C. DILKEIs not the noble Lord aware that on March 9, 1885, a directly opposite opinion was given on behalf of the Government on the point covered by the first paragraph of the Question? ["Hear, hear!"]
§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTONI think that, according to precedent, no Resolution has been moved unless a charge was imposed upon the Indian revenue. I do not know to whom the right hon. Gentleman refers or who made the speech to which he alludes.
§ *SIR C. DILKEThe Under Secretary of State of the day.
§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTONI do not know who made the speech, but I am advised that what I have stated is accurate law. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ *SIR C. DILKEHas not the noble Lord looked at the precedent of March 1895, in which the Under Secretary asserted the contrary of what he has now stated?
§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTONI have not read the speech to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, but I have followed precedent, and I have accurately described those precedents. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ *SIR C. DILKEUnless this matter is raised upon an earlier date, which is quite possible, I shall call attention to it on the motion for the adjournment over the Whitsuntide recess. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ MR. JOHN MORLEY (Montrose Burghs)I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when it is proposed to give the House an opportunity of deciding upon the employment of Indian troops at Suakim, in conformity with the principle, laid down in 1882 by the then Secretary of State for India, that, both legally and constitutionally, there is reserved to Parliament full control over all cases of the employment of Indian troops beyond the frontiers of India. The right hon. Gentleman added that the Secretary of State at the time to which he referred was Lord Hartington, now the Duke of Devonshire?
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.In point of actual law there is no 1145 obligation under the Statute to have the assent of Parliament unless some extra charge is thrown upon the Indian finance. But precedent is undoubtedly in favour of giving Parliament an opportunity in these cases of discussing whether India should bear the extraordinary charges. Such an opportunity, on that assumption, would, of course, be given to the House. [Cheers.]
§ MR. J. MORLEYMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has read the passage to which this Question refers? The speech was made by Lord Hartington on July 30, 1882. In that speech the right hon. Gentleman will find that his noble colleague laid down the principle which I have indicated. I also wish to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the noble Duke did imply that the House was to have full control over the question whether Indian troops are to be employed at all outside India without the consent of Parliament?
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYI do not feel called upon to give any authoritative interpretation of speeches made 13 years ago. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.]
§ MR. J. MORLEYI shall put a Question on the subject on Thursday.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREI beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the military force that is to be sent from India to Suakim is to be employed only as a garrison to defend Suakim and the district around it against attacks by the Soudanese, or whether it is intended that it shall take part in the invasion of the Soudan by Egypt; and, whether any agreement has been entered into between Her Majesty's Government and the Italian Government in respect to military action in the Soudan of which this House is not cognizant?
*MR. CURZONThe military force that is to be sent from India will be employed for the defence of Suakim and the surrounding district, according to the judgment of the Sirdar. It is not intended that the Indian troops should take part in the operations in the Valley of the Nile. No agreement has been entered into between Her Majesty's Government and the Italian Government in respect to military action in the Soudan.
*MR. CURZONI think that the numbers are about 50 British officers, 60 native officers, and from 2,000 to 2,500 men. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ *SIR C. DILKECan the right hon. Gentleman give us any information as to when the opportunity for discussion will be given to the House?
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYI will endeavour to consult the convenience of the House, but I cannot name a day.