RESOLUTION. (Hansard, 25 July 1882)

VISCOUNT ENFIELD
said, he rose, pursuant to Notice, to move— That, Her Majesty having directed a military expedition of Her forces charged upon the revenues of India to be despatched for service in Egypt, this House consents that the revenues 1674 of India shall be applied to defray the expenses of the military operations which maybe carried on by such forces beyond the external frontiers of Her Majesty's Indian Possessions. In asking their Lordships to assent to that Resolution on behalf of the Government, he believed he was acting strictly in accordance with Constitutional usage and precedent. When the Act for the better government of India passed through Parliament in 1858 it was clearly contemplated that at some time or other the use of Her Majesty's Indian Forces would be required beyond the Frontiers of India. That Act contained the following clause:— 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 both Houses of Parliament, be applicable to defray the expenses of any military operations carried on beyond the external frontiers of such possessions by Her Majesty's forces charged upon such revenues. That clause was proposed very nearly in the terms in which it now stood by the present Prime Minister in the passage of the Act through the House of Commons. It was altered to some extent by Mr. James Wilson, and opposed by Lord Palmerston; but it was carried in substantially the same form in which it now appeared on the Statute Book. But, in passing through the House of Lords, the late Lord Derby added certain words which rendered it necessary that the assent of Parliament should not only be obtained before Her Majesty's Indian Forces might be moved out of India, but before any portion of the Indian Revenues could be applied to defray the charge for those Forces when employed out of India. Various expeditions with which their Lordships were, no doubt, familiar, and in which both English and Indian troops had been employed, had taken place during the last 30 years. There had been the expedition to China, the expedition to Persia, the expedition to Abyssinia, and the expedition to Afghanistan; and on the last two occasions the assent of Parliament wag asked before Her Majesty's Indian Forces were employed on such duties. With regard to the Abyssinian Expedition, it was decided upon within the last few days of the Session of Parliament in 1867, and it was practically entered upon without the assent of Parliament; but so jealous were Her Majesty's Ministers of that day 1675 as to the Constitutional duty which devolved upon them of asking the assent of Parliament to the employment of Indian troops, that they summoned Parliament in November of that year, when its assent was obtained. As to the expedition to Afghanistan, those who now sat on the Ministerial Benches were opposed to that expedition; but he believed that no objection was taken to the Constitutional course which Her Majesty's Advisers then adopted; and the noble Viscount opposite, then Secretary of State for India (Viscount Cran-brook), and Mr. Stanhope in the other House, asked for and obtained the assent of Parliament to the employment of Her Majesty's Indian Forces outside the Frontiers of India, and also to the Indian Revenues being charged with the expenses of that 'expedition. There had been another assembling of Her Majesty's Indian Forces subsequently to the Abyssinian and the Afghan expeditions on which he might say a word. The noble Marquess or the noble Viscount opposite might ask why did the present Secretary of State for India, who objected to the despatch of Indian troops to Malta in 1878, now ask the assent of Parliament to the despatch of Indian troops to Egypt? He was authorized to say, on behalf of his noble Friend the Marquess of Hartington, that the exception he then took to the course which Her Majesty's Advisors then followed was based on a strictly Constitutional and legal ground. His noble Friend then objected that in time of peace Indian troops should have been brought to Europe without the assent of Parliament being previously obtained. He ventured to make that explanation, because it might be said that they seemed to have changed their policy in having objected in 1878 to Indian troops being brought to Malta, and in now themselves despatching Indian troops to Egypt. It would be only wasting their Lordships' time wore he now to dwell on the paramount necessity and importance, both to India and England, of a safe passage to India through Egypt by the Suez Canal. If that necessity was, as he believed, recognized on all hands, the Government did not think it unreasonable that a small portion of Her Majesty's Indian Forces should be employed in the proposed expedition to Egypt. He believed that by their training and 1676 physical qualifications Indian troops would be eminently fitted to act in cooperation with troops sent from this country in such an enterprize. It was originally intended that a force of something like 7,600 men should be despatched from India, with a reserve of about 1,400, to be located at Aden. But within the last few days the number had been somewhat altered, owing to representations which had been made to the India Office by the War Department; and he was not in a position to state what would be the exact number of the proposed contingent; but he thought it would not exceed 6,000 with the small amount of reserve he had mentioned. He believed there would be three regiments of Cavalry. He was also authorized to say that, at a sitting of the Indian Council that day, those provisional arrangements were accepted by the Council and passed without any dissent on their part. He might add one word as to the financial aspect of the matter. As at present arranged, he believed it was intended that the Indian Revenues should defray the ordinary and extraordinary charges for that Indian contingent. With regard to the future financial arrangements, they must depend on the opinion of the Government at home and the views of Parliament. In conclusion, he thought that Her Majesty would rely with confidence on the fidelity, the loyalty, the bravery, and the discipline of the troops who were des-spatched from this country; and he felt certain that those qualities would be equally shown by that Indian contingent for the employment of which he had now to ask the assent of their Lordships in the terms of the Resolution which he had placed on the Table.

§ VISCOUNT CRANBROOK
said, that there could, of course, be no objection to the acceptance of that Resolution by their Lordships. The singular nature of the contest in which they were about to be engaged was one which specially demanded troops who were inured to a 1677 climate like that of Egypt. The peculiar circumstances of Egypt, and the fact that the operations were intended for the purpose of securing peace in that country, and a free passage through the Suez Canal for our merchandise and our communications with India, also rendered it fitting that that expedition should be authorized; and, therefore, it seemed not unreasonable that a contingent of Indian troops should be furnished for that service, which concerned India fully as much as it did any part of the Empire. The noble Viscount had told them that at present the question of finance remained open, and he (Viscount Cranbrook) would not, therefore, now enter upon it; but it might become the subject of discussion hereafter. At the same time, he must say that the employment of Indian troops upon this special service, and in connection with this question, was a matter which con-corned India as much as any other part of the Empire. The noble Viscount had not informed their Lordships at what time the troops would be prepared to leave India; but it was to be presumed that they had had warning given them long ago, and that they were quite ready to start. He should be glad to know when they would reach their destination, because that was a point of no little importance?

§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY
said, he objected to that part of the Motion which proposed that the cost of those troops should be defrayed out of the Indian Revenues. He objected to the Revenues of India being charged with the expenses of a war undertaken in the interests of the Egyptian bondholders. This war was already sufficiently unpopular with a large portion of Her Majesty's Indian subjects, and it would be injudicious to make it more so, by also making them feel the burden of it through taxation.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
said, that he did not know whether the noble Lord intended to move any Amendment or not.

§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY
No.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
Then he did not think it necessary to answer the observations of the noble Earl; in fact, they had been already answered by what had fallen from the noble Viscount. He, however, wished to say that, whatever might be the merits or demerits of the 1678 question, he must entirely deny, and he hoped that their Lordships would agree with him, that they were entering into a contest on behalf of, or in the interests of, the bondholders.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, he was very glad to hear that intimation from the noble Earl, because, inasmuch as the word "bondholders" had been mentioned, it might have led to some misunderstanding. He could only say, as he was giving his humble support to the Government, that if it were a question of going to war on behalf of the bondholders he should earnestly resist imposing any burdens, not only upon the Indian, but the English people, solely in their interests.

VISCOUNT ENFIELD
said, in reply to the noble Viscount opposite, that the Government had foreseen that it might be necessary to convey troops from India to Egypt, and that precautions had been taken. Troops were in readiness, and he believed that transports had already been taken up.