§ VISCOUNT HALIFAXasked the Secretary of State for India, If he has any objection to lay on the Table of the House the dissents of Sir Erskine Perry and Sir Henry Montgomery to the telegram of the 30th of September, 1875, referred to in their dissents dated the 10th and 16th of November; and, also, whether any answer has been received from the Governor General of India to the despatch of the 11th November, 1875? From Papers already produced it was evident that the dissents of those two Members of the Council, dated the 10th and 16th of November, were supplementary to dissents which had not been produced, and which were dissents to a telegram sent by his noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury) to the Viceroy of India on the 30th of September, 1875. Parliament ought to have these previous dissents, in order that it might be able to judge fully of the circumstances which made two of the oldest Members of the Council express a difference of opinion from the Secretary of State on a most important question. The Act of Parliament under which the Council was created provided that the Members should have the power of recording their dissent, and he believed that up to the present time it had always been considered that by such a provision it was intended that Parliament should be put in possession of dissents so recorded. When he was Secretary of State for India, he acted on that principle so fully that on the occasion of the amalgamation of the Indian Army with the Queen's troops he wrote an official letter for the sole purpose of giving the Members of the Council an opportunity of recording their dissent with the view of their being laid on the Table of the House. He hoped the noble Marquess would not refuse the Papers for which he now asked.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that the dissents which the noble Viscount asked him to produce were dissents to a confidential telegram sent by the Secretary of State to the Viceroy of India. They were so far irregular that if he had been in the country at the time they would not have been made. But he held it to be absolutely necessary that no dissents should be presented unless 922 the documents to which they were dissents were produced at the same time. Dissents were in the nature of comments. They represented what the documents contained; they might represent the contents fairly or not, or they might distort their meaning, and therefore give an entirely false description of the documents from which they were dissents. These things might happen; and consequently it would be impossible—it would be just to the Office and unjust to the public service—to present them unless the very words of the documents from which they dissented were presented. He did not think it would be of much importance to produce the particular dissents referred to by the noble Viscount, because he held that, having regard to the public interest, the telegram from which they dissented could not be laid on the Table. They might lay down the doctrine for which the noble Viscount seemed to contend—namely, that whenever there was a dissent, it and the document from which it dissented ought to be made public; but if they did they would put an end to confidential communications between the Secretary of State and the Governor General of India, and he ventured to say that for such communications there was frequent necessity in the India Office. The same thing might be said of other Departments of the State. Under those circumstances, he could not accede to the proposal of his noble Friend.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he could not but think that his noble Friend the Secretary of State for India underrated the immense importance of the refusal he proposed to sustain. He begged the House to remember—and the country to understand—what was the power of the Secretary of State for India. No other Minister in the country exercised a tenth part of the power which could be exercised by the Secretary of State for India. The Secretary held in his own hands—with the exceptions and limitations to which in a moment he would refer—all the powers which formerly were vested in the Court of Directors and in the Board of Control—that was, he held in his own hands the entire power of the Imperial Government of India. The only check which existed on that power—the only direct check—was that he could not 923 give money grants out of the revenues of India without the assent of a majority of the Council. It had been contended that the limitation extended to this—that he must have the consent of a majority of the Council for what involved expenditure:—certainly he could not give money grants without the assent of the majority of the Council; but he (the Duke of Argyll) suspected it would be found that the Secretary of State, of his own act, and without the assent of any one, or without consulting his Council, could direct measures to be taken which would involve the expenditure of millions of money and lead to great financial embarrassment to the finances of India. He had, as he had just observed, all the powers which were formerly possessed by the Board of Control and the Court of Directors, acting through the Secret Committee, and consequently might order wars to be undertaken, and might direct measures which might lead to great financial embarrassment. The only other check was the Imperial Cabinet. But it was impossible for the other Members of the Cabinet, engaged as they were with heavy business in their own Departments, to exercise any real control in respect of the Government of India, except in very rare cases; especially if the Secretary of State for India happened to be a man, like his noble Friend opposite, of great ability and great resolution of character. He (the Duke of Argyll) asserted, then, that practically the only check was the one which his noble Friend (Viscount Halifax) had brought under the notice of their Lordships, and to which his noble Friend gave effect in so remarkable a manner on the occasion of the amalgamation of the two armies—though, of course, that amalgamation was the act of the English Cabinet. The only check was the responsibility of the Minister to Parliament; and how was it possible for Parliament to exercise that check unless it was put in possession of the facts on which he had to decide? He was at a loss to see how Parliament could make the Secretary of State responsible unless it had before it the advice tendered to him in the particular case. It was known that the despatch of the noble Marquess was one in which he condemned some financial measures of Lord Northbrook, and ordered the Government of India to repeal certain 924 sources of revenue. Here, then, was the case of a Secretary of State for India ordering the repeal of a source of revenue with the probability of a deficit; and the powers so exercised by him might be exercised in almost any other matters concerning India, however important. How could Parliament judge whether the Secretary of State was right in dissenting from Lord Northbrook unless they had the recorded dissents before them? It was reported that not only was a dissent recorded by one of the oldest and most experienced Members of the Council, but also by a new Member.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYdissented.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLThe noble Marquess shook his head. Of course he was speaking without information, and if he was in error on the point, that only showed the necessity for the information which the noble Marquess was asked to give their Lordships. All that was wanted was the substance of the dissents—the noble Marquess need not produce the ipsissima verba of the telegram. The noble Marquess with his corps de batallion could successfully resist any Motion for Papers; but what would be the effect of refusing those dissents? Members of the Council of India had very little substantive power, except in reference to money grants—they could only give their earnest opinion and advice to the Secretary of State; and he himself could answer for it that there was no tendency in the Members of the Council of India to exercise their power of dissent in any factious way. Sir Erskine Perry, who had dissented upon the present occasion, would, he was sure, only dissent if he entertained the belief that some dangerous step was about to be taken. He feared that they would not get eminent men to serve upon the Council unless they conferred upon them those powers which Parliament really intended they should have.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYassured the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) that his indirect sources of information had misled him in the case. The telegram to which these dissents referred did not contain any instructions whatever; they were only a request for information. For their own importance he would not resist their production; but he must strongly resist the conten- 925 tion that because a Member of the Council chose to dissent from a confidential despatch that therefore that confidential despatch must be laid before Parliament. Acting upon such a doctrine would put an end to all confidential communications.
§ EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that as he understood, the matter was thus—a political Friend of the noble Marquess had moved for Correspondence, and it was given with alacrity. In the Papers laid before Parliament reference was made to "dissents," which dissents referred to a telegram sent by the Secretary of State to the Governor General of India. The telegram being asked for by his noble Friend (Viscount Halifax), the noble Marquess said it was a confidential communication. But he (Earl Granville) must observe that the telegram in question had passed through Council and elicited the opinion of the Members. If the noble Marquess, by marking such a despatch as that "confidential," could justify himself in refusing to produce either it or the dissents from it, then clearly there was an end of the Parliamentary supervision of the Government of India which the Act of Parliament was intended to secure. His noble Friend (Viscount Halifax) did not want an exact copy of the telegram—the substance of it would be sufficient; and this must be on record in accordance with the practice which prevailed in all the Offices. The noble Marquess said that there were matters which it was necessary to keep confidential. That was true. But there must not be half confidences. If it had been stated that the whole correspondence was confidential and could not be produced, his noble Friend (Viscount Halifax) would be the last man to go against the responsibility of the Secretary of State in such a matter; but when it was remembered that part of this very correspondence had been produced, and that this part showed that there was a very important portion not before Parliament, in which was included dissents referred to in the Papers that had been presented, he believed that it was utterly against the spirit, if not against the wording, of the Act, and perfectly unconstitutional to refuse what was asked for by his noble Friend.
§ VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid, the Secretary of State had not answered the second part of his Question—whether any 926 answer had been received from the Governor General of India to the despatch of the 11th of November, 1875?
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the Government of India would split their reply into two parts. At present he had received only one despatch; when he had both he would lay both on the Table.