§ Order of the day for the House to be again put into Committee read.
§ House in Committee accordingly.
§ Clause 34 (Competitive Examinations for the Indian Army).
§ THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he must for a few minutes draw their Lordships' attention to this clause. It for the first time introduced what was called open competitive examination for admission to the Engineers and the Artillery of the Indian army. This provision was not contained in the first Bill brought in by Her Majesty's Government, nor was it contained in the Bill of the late Government, but was introduced for the first time now. He had at all times regarded the introduction of competitive examination as the most dangerous and democratic of all modern innovations. Its practical tendency was to substitute persons of inferior education and position for the men who had hitherto led our armies to victory and conducted the affairs of the State. It had always been the practice when great experiments were about to be made in Government to inquire whether there were any defects to be remedied and whether there was a reasonable hope of improvement. But in this case there was no defect to be remedied. On 1680 the contrary, the perfection of the existing system was admitted; and no attempt could be made to alter it without incurring the most serious dangers. Nothing could be more injurious than to tamper with the scientific corps of the Indian army, perfect as they now were. If a failure should occur in this arm it would affect the success of a siege through the incapacity of an Engineer, or the success of a battle through the inferior character of an Officer of Artillery. Such a failure would go to the fate of a campaign, perhaps to the fate of an empire. This change was proposed at a moment when both of these services had attained their highest pitch of reputation. The boldness of the operations of our Engineers in front of Delhi,—the extraordinary resource, the audacity, which had marked all their operations at Lucknow,—the courage, the resolution, and the novelty which had distinguished the operations of the Artillery in all those actions in which they were supported by the Rifles—had actually introduced a new era in the art of war, and established on the part of these scientific corps a claim to consideration which one really would have thought Her Majesty's Government would have been only too happy to recognize. As their Lordships were aware that at the present moment there was, in point of fact, a competitive examination for commissions in these services in the College of Addiscombe, through which institution alone the Officers of Artillery and Engineers were now recruited. The cadets there studied under men of the most honourable and conscientious character, thoroughly acquainted with all that they had to teach, and deeply impressed with the great moral responsibility attached to the duty which they undertook. They there had not only to pass an examination for which they might be crammed on a particular day, but their whole conduct while at school was watched, and their moral character ascertained, as well as their intellectual attainments; and there could be no doubt that the gentlemen thus selected at Addiscombe for these services were men on whom the country could entirely depend. On the other hand, there was no possibility of introducing into the plan of open competitive examination any security of that description. All they could find was that on a particular day the person chosen had obtained a certain degree of apparent superiority over a gentleman who in reality had probably a much higher claim to the appointment. There were 1681 other advantages in the present system which it was impossible to attain by means of open competition. From the manner in which these officers were now chosen they had a guarantee that they were gentlemen; and it was impossible for him to speak too strongly of the advantage of having, especially in India, gentlemen—men of all the gentlemanlike feelings which prevailed in English society—for the conduct of military as well as of civil affairs. We maintained our position in that country by our moral superiority. An Englishman holding an official situation there was practically a representative of his Government, and whatever he did ill, or so as to impair his own position, impaired at the same time the position of the Government with which he was connected. Whatever he did well, or in a manner to distinguish him from others, increased the influence of his Government, while it added materially to his own. He recollected many years ago having gone to the Duke of Wellington on the subject of a court-martial, which had suggested that an officer who had been guilty of drunkenness should be dismissed the service. When urged to restore the accused to his position on account of some extenuating circumstances which existed in his favour, the Duke said, "Never palliate drunkenness in an officer. Depend upon it the Natives of India are extremely clever in discovering the character of an Englishman living among them; and no offence which an Englishman can commit is in their eyes so revolting as drunkenness." But that was not all. The moral superiority of Englishmen enabled us to keep that country; and if in any case we overlooked an offence that was calculated to lower us in the opinion of the Natives, the consequences to our power might be most disastrous. He had always been most desirous that we should retain the highest gentlemen we could procure at the head of affairs in India, and therefore he was particularly anxious that in this case the son of a grocer or a tailor, of the John Gilpin class, should not, through being highly crammed for an open competitive examination, be preferred before the son of a country gentleman or retired officer, who might not be able to pay enough for an education of that kind, but who might, nevertheless, be the fittest candidate for the situation. The higher a man's natural position the greater, ordinarily speaking, was his consideration for all those under him. This was always a true characteristic 1682 of the gentleman; and there never had been an occasion on which it was more important than at this juncture, that the general demeanour of all Englishmen and English officers in India towards the Native population should be conciliatory, and calculated to restore us in their opinion to the position we formerly held. The alteration was proposed also at a time when none of the apprehensions as to our officers could be entertained, which might perhaps have been entertained formerly. The Directors were no longer elected by a constituent body who had claims upon their patronage which might in former times have led to the selection of persons not of the most proper kind; and the Members of the Council, by not having seats in Parliament, would be saved from similar claims. He could not but regard this proposition as an act of homage to democracy. It was totally uncalled for. No one in the House of Commons had asked for it. No one anywhere had expressed the smallest wish to have this change introduced into the Indian army. It was proposed when that army was covered with glory, and when there was every reason to suppose that it would maintain its high character for the future. It was a measure which would affect injuriously the future efficiency of the Artillery and Engineers, and it was impossible that the present officers of both those noble services could do otherwise than offer to it the greatest opposition. For these reasons he should certainly object to the proposition.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that with the very greatest deference for the opinions of his noble Friend, and more especially on a subject on which he spoke with great weight and authority, he could not coincide with the arguments by which he had opposed the clause—some portions of which arguments were indeed inconsistent with other portions. His noble Friend said that the clause introduced for the first time into the scientific corps, the Artillery and Engineers of the Indian service, the principle of competition [The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH: Open competition]—of open competition; but with all respect to his noble Friend, it did not introduce the principle of competition, open or not open. As the clause at present stood it undoubtedly did introduce the principle of competition; but, as he (the Earl of Derby) proposed to amend it (of which Amendment he gave notice on the second reading)—namely, by omitting the last three lines, it 1683 would not introduce the principle of strict competition. What the clause did was this—it provided that persons should be admitted into the Artillery and Engineers upon an examination, the regulations for which examination should with all convenient speed be prepared and prescribed by the Secretary of State acting under the authority of his Council. He was not a very warm and ardent supporter of the principle of competition—at least he thought that competitive examination was a great experiment, of which he took took the liberty of saying, that in his opinion, they were not yet able to pronounce a decided opinion. But he must say this, that if there were one portion of the public service, civil or military, to which the principle of strict examination and of competition could be fairly and legitimately applied, it was the scientific branches of the military service. What was the case with regard to the British army? Why, with regard to the Royal Engineers and the Royal Artillery, they were subjected to the strictest possible examination, and not only that, but to the strictest competition. There was a competition for admission into Woolwich, there was a competition also for passing out of Woolwich, and, after that competition for passing out of Woolwich there was still a probation of the candidates, and they were liable to be rejected if their qualifications and their conduct did not prove to be equal to the promises they had held out upon their examination. Well, was there anything unreasonable, improper, or impracticable in such a course? Did not such a course give an answer to the objection which his noble Friend used—namely, that a person who might be very well up in his examination might prove to be no gentleman in his habits, dissipated in his conduct, and unqualified in other respects for the profession? But, provided proper regulations were laid down, first with regard to the character of the examination itself, and, next, with regard to the probation of the candidates after they had passed their examination, he could not see that such a risk would be incurred as his noble Friend appeared to anticipate. But was his noble Friend really an opponent of the system of competitive examination? Not at all, for he had told their Lordships that there was the strictest competitive examination at Addiscombe. But, said his noble Friend, "I wish the competition to be limited to the persons 1684 who have got into Addiscombe." And why? "Because," said he, "it gives you a security that the parties are gentlemen and the sons of gentlemen, and you will have no such security in any other public examination." Now, he (the Earl of Derby) hoped he was not insensible to the advantages of birth and station, but he confessed he could not join with his noble Friend in saying that because a person happened to be the son of a tailor, a grocer, or a choosemonger, provided his mental qualifications were equal to those of his competitors, he was to be excluded from honourable competition for an appointment in the public service. He did not think that was a legitimate argument for his noble Friend or for any one to use. A man's origin was nothing; the question to be asked was, "What are his qualifications for a scientific appointment, and what is his moral character?" If they showed him (the Earl of Derby) a man who was superor in both of these respects to his competitors, he cared not what might be his birth—that man was the best entitled to the appointment to which he aspired. He did not deny that Addiscombe had those merits which his noble Friend had ascribed to it. Those who were trained at Addiscombe had an immense advantage in the direction of their studies, and more especially in the knowledge on the part of their Professors of the peculiar qualifications and attainments which were required in the services which they had afterwards to enter. But he could not understand upon what principle it was that his noble Friend contended that that which had been introduced into every part of the civil service at home, into every department of the army, and more especially and more rigidly with regard to the scientific departments of the Royal army was not fit to be introduced into the scientific departments of the Indian army, which was now about to be incorporated and associated with the Queen's army, and to act under the authority of the Crown. If the clause laid down the strict and rigid principle that a man who succeeded in his examination should of necessity take the place of all others, he thought it would be open to serious objection. But if it simply provided that regulations should be prepared with regard to the due examination of persons wishing to enter the scientific corps, he could not understand upon what principle, without in the slightest degree derogating from the present examination to which his 1685 noble Friend referred, the advocates of competition in the civil and military services of the Crown could object to a clause which was simply so worded as to give a security that candidates for the scientific corps possessed that fair amount of scientific knowledge which was requisite for the efficient discharge of the duties they might be called upon to perform.
§ THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, that the subject was a most important one. He fully agreed that the artillery of the Indian army had been, up to the present time, most efficient: indeed Sir Charles Napier said it was second to no artillery in the world. The question as to the admission of persons into the Artillery had been before him when a member of the Commission for investigating the effects of the system of purchase in the army, and Sir James Melvill had stated before that Commission the system which was pursued at Addiscombe. By that system there was a preliminary examination for entrance into the college; and, after passing through the college, on a subsequent examination, the best were appointed to the Engineers, the next best to the Artillery, and the third to the Infantry. That, he thought, was a good system of competition; and it was the same system which prevailed in France and in Austria. What he feared in the system of the Government was that there would be competition without any system of military discipline. He thought that it was most desirable to let men pass through a college, and so to pass through a system of military discipline. When they came out of that they came ready to take their part in the army. So far from doing away with the present system, he thought that Addiscombe ought to be enlarged; and he would remove Addiscombe to Haileybury, which was a much larger building. In his opinion there ought to be a competition for getting into the college, but no one ought to obtain admission into the service without passing through the college.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYexplained that what he had said was, that he did not see any reason why persons superior to those who had been educated at a military college should be excluded from admission into the service. But this clause did not say anything as to this; and it was quite consistent with it that education at a military college should be made a condition.
§ EARL GRANVILLEthought that it was 1686 the duty of the Government to consider whether there should be unlimited competition, and to state distinctly what they recommended. He did not see any advantage of retaining the clause if they were to amend it as his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) had said. His noble Friend did not say what the effect of the clause would be, or what were the intentions of the Government.
§ THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, that in the case of the Royal army it had been determined by general consent that the Royal Academy of Woolwich and the College of Sandhurst should be preserved, and, that being so, he saw no reason why the same course should not be adopted with respect to the Indian military services now that they were about to be handed over to the Crown.
§ THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEagreed with his noble Friend (the Duke of Somerset) that the clause as it was now proposed to amend it would be perfectly useless, and that it would be much better to omit it than to pass it in the amended form. The introduction of a similar principle on a former occasion had resulted in the destruction of Haileybury College, and he was afraid that the natural consequence of adopting the clause as amended would be to destroy the College of Addiscombe. He should be very much opposed to anything which could have so unfortunate a result, and he felt convinced that one of the best things that the new Secretary of State for India could do would be to re-establish the College of Haileybury with the utmost despatch. It was impossible for any one who had studied the question not to see that a special education, both for the military and civil service of India was essentially requisite; and he should deeply regret if they took any course which should lead to the same result with regard to Addiscombe as had already taken place with regard to Haileybury. He hoped that Haileybury would be re-established as a college for the civil service, and that the resources of Addiscombe would be developed and increased. He did not see what object the Government could have in view which could not be as well attained without the clause as with it, and therefore he thought it desirable that the clause should not be persisted in.
§ LORD CRANWORTHsaid, that the noble Earl at the head of the Government had met one great objection to the clause as it stood by removing its concluding pro- 1687 vision; but the noble Earl had not told them what he would insert instead of the portion so omitted.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that the constitutional objection which he felt to the last words of the clause which he proposed now to omit was, not that they introduced the competitive principle, but that they introduced it by Act of Parliament; whereas, the proper course was that it should be done by the authority and under the sanction of the Crown. The question ought properly to be left to the prerogative of the Crown, and it was for that reason that he had moved the omission of these words.
§ LORD MONTEAGLEstrongly opposed any course which might lead to the abolition of Addiscombe. The clause, whether amended or not, did not give sufficient security for its preservation. Certainly, Parliament ought not to delegate its power over the framing of these regulations to any Executive Department, however able it might be.
§ THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that before the question was put he wished to state what was passing in his own mind. He proposed to establish an additional military college at Haileybury, with the same competitive examination, both for the new college and for Addiscombe. One great advantage which would arise from such a competition would be that there would be virtually a competition between the professors of the two colleges, as well as among the pupils. But when his noble Friend spoke of the lower classes of the community, competing with the higher upon the same terms, it must be remembered that officers and clergymen generally were not wealthy men, and that they could not afford that cramming examination which was necessary for competition. The sum paid at Haileybury when he first remembered it was only £20 a year. Then the idea was started of making the college self-supporting, and the amount to be paid was raised to some £100—a change which he thought was very injurious. There ought to be provided for the children, in some cases the orphans, of military men and clergymen, a cheaper and better education than they could get elsewhere. Then his noble Friend had made use of the word "assimilation" as to the English and Indian armies. He cautioned his noble Friend against the idea of "assimilation." It was the most dangerous word that could be used. They had seen the advantages arising from differences in the Bengal, 1688 Madras, and Bombay armies. Those differences had prevented the spread of the mutiny. Their Lordships might depend upon it their security rested upon difference and not upon assimilation.
§ LORD BROUGHTONconsidered it very undesirable that Addiscombe should be done away with.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, the clause did not hint at Addiscombe.
§ LORD BROUGHTONNo; but it gives the Government power with respect to Addiscombe.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYIt gives the Government no power with regard to Addiscombe which it has not possessed already. It does not interfere with Addiscombe.
§ LORD BROUGHTONBut it gives the Government power to substitute another education for that of Addiscombe.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYIt does not give any power, and it does not take away the power which the Government possesses at this moment.
§ LORD BROUGHTONIf it gives the Government no new powers, at least it offers to them a recommendation to employ the powers they already possessed. It was not anticipation of the future, but recollection of the past, that induced him to entreat the noble Earl to amend this as well as other infirmities of the Bill. There was hardly a considerable man in India who had arisen of late years who had not owed his education to Addiscombe. The result had been that officers had been elected to the conduct of high political offices; they were obliged to take away those superior persons from the army in order to put them in Residencies, and in great political posts for which they alone were fit. He pointed this out, and said to the authorities, "You are denuding the army of its best men;" but their answer was a good one, "What would you recommend us to do? Is there any one half so good?" The answer was, "No." The number of officers, sometimes merely lieutenants, who had risen to the highest posts, was such as to show that to Addiscombe the Indian army was indebted for its highest distinctions.
§ THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that if the words were taken out the young gentlemen who acquitted themselves at the examination with credit must either have what the words promised or nothing at all. He did not like the clause.
1689 Words from "examinations" to end of clause, struck out.
§ Then Question was put, "Whether the said clause, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?"
§ The Committee divided:—Contents 41; Not-Contents 34: Majority 7.
§ Resolved in the Affirmative.
| CONTENTS. | |
| Chelmsford, L. (L. Chancellor.) | Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)[Teller.] |
| Bath, M. [Teller.] | Melville, V. |
| Salisbury, M. | Strathallan, V. |
| Bathurst, E. | Bagot, L. |
| Beauchamp, E. | Boston, L. |
| Carnarvon, E. | Braybrooke, L. |
| Derby, E. | Calchester, L. |
| Graham, E. (D. Montrose.) | Crofton, L. |
| Denman, L. | |
| Hardwick, E. | De Ros, L. |
| Harrington, E. | Dinevor, L. |
| Leven and Melville, E. | Dunsandle and Clanconal, L. |
| Malmesbury, E. | |
| Rosse, E. | Farnham, L. |
| Sandwich, E. | Raglan, L. |
| Stanhope, E. | Rayleigh, L. |
| Verulam, E. | Redesdale, L. |
| Wilton, E. | Sondes, L. |
| Southampton, L. | |
| Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.) | Templemore, L. |
| Wrottesley, L. | |
| Dungannon, V. | Wynford, L. |
| Hardinge, V. |
| NOT-CONTENTS. | |
| Cleveland, D. | Broughton, L. |
| Marlborough, D. | Calthorpe, L. |
| Newcastle, D. | Churchill, L. |
| Somerset, D. | Congleton, L. |
| Cranworth, L. | |
| Ailesbury, M. | |
| De Tabley, L. | |
| Albemarle, E. | Ebury, L. |
| Amherst, E. | Foley, L. [Teller.] |
| Clarendon, E. | Kingston, L. (E. Kingston.) |
| Cowper, E. | |
| Ellenborough, E. | Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.) |
| Granville, E. | |
| Pomfret, E. | Monteagle of Brandon, L. [Teller.] |
| Powis, E. | |
| Romney, E. | Mostyn, L. |
| Saint Germans, E. | Stafford, L. |
| Stanley of Alderley, L. | |
| De Vesci, V. | Wodehouse, L. |
| Sydney, V. | Wycombe, L. (E. Shelburne.) |
| Ashburton, L. |
§
Clause 35
("Not less than one-tenth of the whole number of persons to be recommended in any year for Military Cadetships (other than Cadetships in the Engineers and Artillery) shall be selected, according to such regulations as the Secretary of State in Council may from time to time make in this behalf, from the sons of persons who have served in India in the military or civil services of Her Majesty, or of the East India Company.")
§ Agreed to.
§
Clause 36
("Except as aforesaid, all persons to be recommended for Military Cadetships shall be nominated by the Secretary of State and members of
1690
Council, so that out of seventeen nominations the Secretary of State shall have two, and each member of Council shall have one; but no person so nominated shall be recommended unless the nomination be approved of by the Secretary of State in Council.")
§ THE EARL OF ALBEMARLEsaid, he did not think the public would be prepared to hand over the whole of the patronage of India to the Minister for India and the Council. He should therefore, if no other course was open to him, propose to deprive the governing body of the patronage, and to place it in the hands of a Board, where it would not be used to the disadvantage of the public service. Under the Bill the great bulk of the patronage of India would be given to the Council of India; for out of 500 cadetships, 450 were bestowed upon them. The fact was, there had been a secret alliance between the old Court of Directors and Her Majesty's Ministers, the Directors having taken advantage of their power to act upon a Government with no very fixed principles of action. When the Government proposed to buy off the old Directors and to give £1,200 a year to the same men who had been content with £500, he thought they had done wisely in building a golden bridge, and he should have thought the bargain a good one if at double the sum, provided the patronage had not been included. The whole maladministration in the army of India might be traced to the system of patronage. The cavalry had especially been reserved for the patronage of the Directors. It had been proved before Committees of that House that the Irregular Cavalry were more trustworthy, economical, and efficient than the regulars, and that while the pay of an Irregular Cavalry soldier was only £35, the pay of the regular was £73. This difference had been mainly kept up for the sake of the patronage of the East India Company. On these grounds he should suggest a clause carrying out the proposition he had stated to the House, or he should be ready to support any other mode by which the patronage might be distributed with greater advantage to the army.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, the noble Earl spoke of proposing a particular clause, or some other mode of carrying out his object; but he need hardly say that that was not the usual way of proceeding. As the clause stood the Secretary of State was to have two nominations, and each member of the Council one. The noble Earl objected to the power given to the Council; 1691 but his Amendment was one of so singular a character that he could not help calling the special attention of the Committee to it. He proposed that the patronage should be given to a Board not consisting of less than three members of the Council, and these three members were to be selected by the Secretary of State. One-eighth of the patronage was to be exercised by the Secretary of State, and seven-eighths by the Board, which the Secretary of State was to select. Then these three Councillors were to receive their £1,200 a year; but while they were to have seven-eighths of the patronage they were strictly prohibited and forbidden from taking the slightest part in any of the business relating to India.
§ EARL GRANVILLEthought the clause of the Bill itself was not free from objection. There was, in his opinion, great objection to the mode in which the nominations were vested in the Council.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 37 to 40, agreed to.
§ Clause 41.
§ THE DUKE OF SOMERSETmade an objection to the wording of the clause, which appeared to him to give neither the Governor General nor the Secretary of State power over the expenditure of the money.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, the clause provided that the expenditure of the revenues of India, both in India and elsewhere, should be subject to the control of the Secretary of State in Council. The clause did not in the slightest degree interfere with the powers to be exercised by the Governor General of India, subject to the control of the Secretary of State in Council.
§ THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHthought that, by the clause, the Governor General might do very nearly just as he pleased; but the expenditure of the Governor General was to be subject to the approval or otherwise of the Secretary of State in Council.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 42 to 51 agreed to.
§ Clause 52 Audit of Accounts.
§ THE EARL of ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he wished to introduce an Amendment in this clause. It provided that the Auditor should, in the ordinary way, audit the accounts. That, so far, was very proper; but he thought it should go somewhat further. The expenditure of India should be chaged upon the revenues of India 1692 alone. It seemed to him to be but fair to India that there should be a reciprocal provision in order to guard the revenues of India from being applied to any purposes which were not strictly connected with the interests of India. He was not certain that the Council would guard the revenues of India with the same jealousy which had been always faithfully exercised by the Court of Directors. They had never sanctioned any charge on those revenues which was not directly connected with the purposes of India; and he wanted the Auditor to be appointed under this clause to have the power of stating where any expenditure had in his opinion been incurred out of the revenues of India for purposes that were not Indian. After the words:—
And such Auditor shall report from time to time to the Secretary of State in Council his approval or disapproval of such accounts, with such remarks and observations in relation thereto as may think fit.He would therefore propose the insertion of the following words:—Specially noting any case, if such there shall be, in which it shall appear that any moneys advanced from the revenues of India have been appropriated to purposes other than those of the government of India, to which alone they shall be applicable.He thought it but common justice to India to insert words to that effect.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYsuggested that the Amendment should be printed, in order that he might have an opportunity of considering it before the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime, he thought the words requiring the Auditor to specify
In detail in his reports alt sums of money, stores and property which ought to be accounted for, and are not brought into account, or have not been appropriated in conformity with the provisions of this Act, or have been expended or disposed of without due authority,might be sufficient to carry out the object which his noble Friend had in view.
§ THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, possibly they might, but he thought distinct words to the effect suggested by him ought to be embodied in the clause. Their Lordships said that no Indian charge should be paid out of English revenue, and it was but common honesty to say that no English charge should lie paid out of Indian revenue. With the understanding that the proposed Amendment should be considered on bringing up the Report,
§ Clause agreed to.
§ LORD MONTEAGLEsupported the Amendment. The present system of public audit in this country was, not satisfac- 1693 tory, and the last Report had recommended a return to the old system of the auditor reporting direct to Parliament. He would recommend the same system with regard to India.
On Clause 53, which directs an account to be annually laid before Parliament for the last financial year of the produce of the revenues of India at each of the several Presidencies, and of all the receipts and disbursements at home and abroad in respect of the government of India.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYproposed to insert at the end of clause—
And such account shall be accompanied by a statement prepared from detailed Reports from each Presidency and district in India in such form as shall best exhibit the moral and material progress and condition of India in each such Presidency.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY, pursuant to notice, moved the addition at the end of the clause of the following Amendment, which he said would insure the production in this country of a complete picture of the moral and material condition of India from time to time:—
And such account shall be accompanied by a statement in an abstract form, prepared from detailed Reports from each Presidency and district in India, showing the following particulars—namely, the additions made during the same year to means of communication by railways, roads, canals, and improved river navigation; the number of European settlers or commercial agents in each district in the several Presidencies, exclusive of the capital towns of Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay; the aggregate strength of European troops, with the aggregate mortality during the year, and the average rate of mortality, and the number of recruits born in India of European parentage enlisted in each military division; the number of all colleges, schools, and other places of instruction supported or assisted by the Government, with the average number of pupils, male and female, under instruction, and the number of teachers, and whether European or Native, in each school, specifying the nature of each school, and if Hindoo whether Hindoo class books, or if Mahomedan whether Mahomedan class books, or if Parsee whether Parsee class books, or if Christian whether Christian class books, or if Government whether selected class books, are employed in each school; the number and description of all hospitals, dispensaries, poor houses, and other charitable institutions, with the number of applicants for relief, and of all religious institutions supported or assisted by Government; the extent and value of land held in free tenures, and all money payments and other grants and privileges made to each class of the above institutions, and all pensions and endowments granted by Native Princes and other individuals of which the Government or its officers are trustees; and such statements shall be prepared in such form as shall best exhibit the moral and material progress of India in each Presidency.1694 After a few words from Lord MONTEAGLE,
§ THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, the general words proposed by the noble Earl at the head of the Government were preferable to the minute particularity aimed at by the Amendment of the noble Earl near him. What they wanted was information in a concise and manageable form, and not those huge blue-books, through which nobody could ever wade, and which were an admirable device resorted to by Departments which wished to conceal everything.
§ THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH, as an illustration of the voluminous papers appended to the correspondence sent home from India, mentioned that attached to certain Reports on the subject of education, which he received while in office, was a mass of details extending over 5,000 pages.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 54 (Providing that when an order to commence actual hostilities was sent to India, the fact should be communicated to Parliament, if then sitting, within one month, or if Parliament was then prorogued, within one month from its re-assembling).
§ THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, it was impossible that this provision could be acted upon. Before intelligence of any event in India reached this country five weeks must elapse, and it occupied five weeks more before any order thereupon could arrive there, and no Minister in his senses would give an order for the actual commencement of war when he knew that, before that order reached India, circumstances in that country might have entirely changed. Therefore, all that he would do would be to give a contingent order, and to such an order this clause did not apply. If a contingent order were given in August, it would probably not be made known to Parliament till February; but if it were given in January, and Parliament met in February, it must be made known in a month. In the latter case, the Government against which the hostilities were to be directed would receive notice of our intentions. If this clause had been brought into existence during the late war in Persia, the capture of Bushire and Mohammerah, which came upon the enemy as a surprise, could not have been conducted with success.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYthought there was nothing unreasonable or ill-advised in the provision, that on the commencement 1695 of actual hostilities Parliament, if sitting, should be apprized of the order within a month from its issue. How such a course could give notice of their plans to the enemy, when the event referred to was the commencement of "actual hostilities," he was at a loss to conceive. The instance cited by his noble Friend was not a very happy one; because, if ever there was an unconstitutional proceeding, it was the last war with Persia, which was begun, carried on, and ended without Parliament having the slightest intimation of the fact that the hostilities were going on, or of the motives and grounds on which they had been entered into, or what they were fighting about. And if this clause should only prevent the repetition of such a state of things at the commencement of another war, he thought it legitimate and necessary.
§ THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHdid not mean to defend the conduct of the late Government in the matter referred to, but at all events the operations which they had ordered had been successful. If the intentions of the Government as to a war in the East were communicated to Parliament, the enemy would become apprized of them long before we were prepared to act.
LORD WODEHOUSEreminded the noble Earl that it was not that the order for the commencement of war should be communicated and discussed by Parliament, but that, after it was in progress a month, Parliament should be informed of the fact.
§ EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that although the object was a very good one, he did not think this was a very satisfactory clause. Considering the rapid means of communication, there were great doubts whether it would not be injurious to the interests of the country, in case of the outbreak of war in India with a Native State.
§ THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGEsaid, he thought it was most desirable that on a great question of this sort a communication should be made to Parliament; but he was sure that neither their Lordships nor the other House of Parliament could wish for information which might prejudice the interests of the country. Provided the clause were so worded that the interests of the country should not be injured, he thought it ought to stand part of the Bill. He thought that the period within which communication was to be made to Parliament ought to be extended.
§ LORD CRANWORTHsaid that, having 1696 regard to the great distance of India, the enactment in its present form might be dangerous. It might happen that circumstances were so altered between the time of an order being sent out and the time when the Governor General was called upon to act upon it, that he would decline to do so.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, it was difficult to understand who supported and who objected to the clause. [A noble LORD: All support it.] Well, then, what was that state of mind which, after mature deliberation in the Cabinet, assented to a clause, but when the same clause was introduced verbatim by another Government into their Bill, and laid upon the table, objected to it? He had no objection to extend the period from one month to two, and to add the words "unless such order shall have been in the meantime revoked or suspended."
§ EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the noble Earl need not be so much surprised at the noble and learned Lord having changed his opinion, for of all the changes of opinion of the present Government—and they had changed their opinion on almost every subject—the most extraordinary were their changes of opinion on the subject of Indian government. He thought that it would be better to make it three months instead of two, because by that time an answer might be received from the Governor General to the communications sent out to him.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYwas understood to say that he would agree to three months.
Words "one month" omitted, "three months" inserted: also inserted "unless such order shall have been in the meantime revoked or suspended."
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 55 disagreed to.
§
THE EARL OF DERBY moved to insert a new clause in the following words:—
Except for preventing or repelling actual invasion of Her Majesty's Indian possessions, or under other sudden and urgent necessity, the revenues of India shall not, without the consent of Parliament, be applicable to defray the expenses of any military operation carried on beyond the external frontiers of such possession by Her Majesty's forces charged upon such revenues.
§ EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that the object of the clause was a good one. Mr. Fox suggested something of the kind formerly, and so did Mr. Pitt, but they failed, and was there the slightest chance, if the clause became law, of its being more suc- 1697 cessful? The Indian army was not to be employed outside the Indian frontiers except to repel an invasion or on some urgent and sudden necessity without the consent of Parliament. As he said before, no war was justifiable except the case was urgent, and some suddenness was always connected with a military operation. What was the meaning of the consent of Parliament? Was an Act of Parliament to be got? Was there any other mode of expressing its consent? If so, it ought to be embodied in the clause. By this clause the Governor General might be deterred from doing things which it would be his duty to do.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, the object of the clause was to impose a certain restriction upon the perogative of the Crown through the intervention of Parliament. It was erroneously thought that it would prevent the Crown from employing Indian forces upon any foreign expedition. The clause had no such object or effect, for after it passed, the Crown would be at full liberty to employ those forces in any quarter of the globe for which by the terms of their enlistment they were eligible. It being the undoubted perogative of the Crown to make war and peace, the constitutional check upon the exercise of that prerogative was the sanction of Parliament by the granting of the pecuniary resources. The Crown could not send out forces unless Parliament provided the funds to pay them, but it was necessary to introduce this clause for the protection of the revenues of India. The effect of the clause would be that Indian troops, except for the purpose of preventing anticipated invasion, or of repelling actual invasion, should not quit their own territory; or if they did, the expense should be defrayed out of the revenues of this country, and not out of the revenues of India. If the troops were employed out of India, it would be for Parliament to decide whether they were employed upon Indian or Imperial objects. The clause did not prevent the Crown from making use of the Indian troops, subject only to this—that as a general rule the expense of those troops must be defrayed by Parliament; and the same constitutional check, therefore, was imposed on the Crown with regard to troops serving in India which was imposed with respect to troops serving in every other part of the globe. If the clause were not agreed to it would be perfectly competent for any unconstitutional Sovereign to employ the 1698 whole of the revenues and troops of India for any purpose which the Crown might direct, without the necessity of going to Parliament for the advance of a single shilling.
§ THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHthought the Bill had taken the best security against that, for it gave the Council a power of vetoing any measure of that kind. The Directors refused to pay for the China expedition; and if they had not agreed to pay half the expenses of the Persian expedition, they could not be called upon for one shilling towards the expenses of that war. It was for that reason he considered the clause would be inoperative. He believed the only effect of the clause would be to tie up the sword of the Governor General, to paralyze his diplomacy, and to lead to the very wars which it was intended to prevent.
§ Question put, whether the said clause shall be there inserted?
§ The Committee divided:—Contents 52; Not-Contents 36; Majority 16.
1699| CONTENTS. | |
| Chelmsford, L. (L. Chancellor.) | De Vesci, V. |
| Dungannon, V. | |
| Beaufort, D. | Hardinge, V. |
| Cleveland, D. | Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) [Teller] |
| Bath, M. | Melville, V. |
| Exeter, M. | Strathallan, V. |
| Salisbury, M. | Bagot, L. |
| Amherst, E. | Bateman, L. |
| Bathurst, E. | Boston, L. |
| Beauchamp, E. | Braybrooke, L. |
| Carnarvon, E. | Clifton, L. (E. Darnley.) |
| Derby, E. | |
| Graham, E. (D. of Montrose.) | Colchester, L. |
| Congleton, L. | |
| Hardwicke, E. | Denman, L. |
| Harrington, E. | De Ros, L. |
| Leven and Melville, E. | Dinevor, L. |
| Malmesbury, E. | Dunsandle and Clanconal, L. |
| Pomfret, E. | |
| Powis, E. | Farnham, L. |
| Sandwich, E. | Ker, L. (M. Lothian,) |
| Shrewsbury and Talbot, E. | Melros, L. (E. Haddington.) |
| Stanhope, E. | Raglan, L. |
| Strathmore, E. | Rayleigh, L. |
| Verulam, E. | Redesdale, L. |
| Wilton, E. | Sondes, L. |
| Southampton, L. | |
| Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.) | Templemore, L. |
| Wynford, L. |
| NOT-CONTENTS. | |
| Marlborough, D. | Cowper, E. |
| Newcastle, D. | Doncaster, E. (D. of Buccleuch & Queensberry.) |
| Somerset, D | |
| Ailesbury, M. | |
| Ellenborough, E. | |
| Albemarle, E. | Granville, E. |
| Clarendon, E. | Portarlington, E. |
| Romney, E. | Ebury, L. |
| Saint Germans, E. | Foley, L. [Teller.] |
| Shaftesbury, E. | Hamilton, L. (L. Belhaven and Stenton.) |
| Vane, E. | |
| Stratford de Redcliffe, V. | Kingston, L. (E. Kingston.) |
| Sydney, V. [Teller.] | Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.) |
| Ashburton, L. | Monteagle of Brandon, L. |
| Aveland, L. | |
| Broughton, L. | Mostyn, L. |
| Calthorpe, L. | Stafford, L. |
| Churchill, L. | Stanley of Alderley, L. |
| Cranworth, L. | Wodehouse, L. |
| De Mauley, L. | Wrottesley, L. |
| De Tabley, L. |
§ Resolved in the Affirmative.
§ Remaining clauses agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYstated, in answer to a question from Earl Granville, that on the Bill coming into operation in India a Proclamation would be issued by the Crown stating the principles on which the Government of the country would be carried on.
§ Report of Amendment to be received To-morrow.
§ House adjourned at Twelve o'Clock till To-morrow half-past Ten o'clock.