MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS. (Hansard, 11 February 1881)

§ LORD WAVENEY,

in rising to move an Address for further Papers relating to the retention or abandonment of Candahar which have been communicated for the information of the Home or Indian Government by civil or military officers, said, the question of the retention of Candahar was of a most important character. He maintained that, since attention was first called to the intended abandonment of that city, public interest in the matter had grown till it pervaded every class, his own opinion being that the proposed step would be equivalent to the abandonment of Gibraltar. Indeed, it was regarded by many men who were compe- 617 tent to form an opinion upon it as one of vital consequence to our position in India. He felt assured that there were many documents in the Government archives which would afford valuable information in relation to it, which could properly be laid before Parliament as tending to the elucidation of so important a subject, which they could not wish to keep back from the country, and which they would have an easy way of presenting if his Motion were carried. Among the documents of the kind to which he referred was the Memorandum of Lord Napier of Magdala, which singularly illustrated the difference between official and general public knowledge on the subject. The document was a most remarkable one, supporting the opinion of many persons already formed upon the subject; and they should have the documents upon which some of the assertions in that document were based. There had been so much hypothesis and uncertainty upon the question that it was most desirable that they should have all the authentic information on the subject which it was in the power of the Government to furnish. The Memorandum he referred to stated that if Candahar were abandoned by us it would be said by the Afghans that Ayoub Khan had driven us out, and Lord Napier added that that would be partly true. There might also be included, for instance, an important letter which recently appeared in The Standard and in The Morning Post. The writer was no ambitious soldier, desirous of war for professional advancement, but one who was well known in this country, as well as in India, for his historical accuracy, his judgment, and discretion—he meant Colonel Malleson. That distinguished officer had had an experience of India of upwards of 30 years; and he declared that the contemplated surrender of Candahar was viewed with absolute horror by the Native officers of the Indian Army, who complained that that which had been won with so much difficulty and bloodshed should be so lightly abandoned. He (Lord Waveney) had a list of the names of gentlemen who had expressed their opinions on the Candahar question, and must certainly complain that but few of those opinions were officially before the House. They were: Lord Napier of Magdala, Lord Strathnairn, Sir Henry Rawlinson, Sir William Merewether 618 (late), Sir George Malcolm, Sir Frederick Roberts, Sir Donald Stewart, Sir Michael Biddulph, Sir Edmund Hamley, Sir George Lawrence, Sir Edwin John-sou, Sir Frederick Haines, Sir Henry Green, Sir Arnold Kemball, Sir Richard Temple, Sir Fitzjames Stephen, Sir Bartle Frere, Major General Parke, Colonel Donald Macnabb, and Colonel Malleson. It was very desirable that the statements of these authorities should be before the House; and he, therefore, hoped there would be no objection to the production of the Papers for which he moved, and which he set out in a list which he begged to hand to the noble Viscount the Under Secretary of State for India.

VISCOUNT ENFIELD

My Lords, I think that neither my noble Friend (Lord Waveney) nor your Lordships will expect me to go at any length into, or indeed to notice, the main question whether Candahar should be permanently occupied or not. But I will reply, in a very few sentences, to his appeal as to whether any further Correspondence upon that very interesting and important question will be introduced to your Lordships' notice. A similar Question was addressed to my noble Friend the Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Hartington) last week in "another place," when my noble Friend said that, while he thought there was no obligation on the part of the Government to produce private official Memoranda of such Correspondence bearing on this subject, still, he would consider whether it would not be possible to supply the two Houses of Parliament with further information bearing upon the point. My noble Friend, since that time, has had the subject further under his consideration; and I believe I am justified in saying that he has looked over very valuable and interesting Memoranda and Correspondence—although not perhaps of an official character—bearing upon this subject, and that he is now considering what portion of that Correspondence and of those Memoranda 619 might properly be submitted to Parliament. Owing, however, to the confidential character of some of the Papers, it has been necessary for my noble Friend to consult the distinguished persons from whom they have emanated, with a view to obtaining their consent to such communications being laid before Parliament; and until my noble Friend has received their consent, he will not, of course, do so. Such, I believe, is the Secretary of State's intention; and, although I cannot answer as to the particular persons whose opinions will be presented, I think I may assure my noble Friend (Lord Waveney) that the Secretary of State will be in a position to present them before the debate of which Notice has been given by the noble Earl the late Viceroy of India (the Earl of Lytton) for the 24th.