Lords Sitting of 24 July 1891

REPRESENTATIVE PEERS FOR IRELAND.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: Petition of Henry Edward Montague Dorington Clotworthy Upton Viscount Templetown in the Peerage of Ireland, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.
PURCHASE OF LAND AND CONGESTED DISTRICTS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 208.)
Returned from the Commons with several of the Amendments agreed to; several others agreed to, with Amendments, and Consequential Amendments to the Bill; and several others disagreed to, for which they assign Reasons; The said Amendments and Reasons to be printed, and to be considered on Tuesday next. (No. 260.)
SALE OF GOODS BILL [H.L.]—(No. 48.)
Reported from the Standing Committee with Amendments; The Report thereof to be received on Monday next: and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 262.)
HIGHWAYS AND BRIDGES BILL. (No. 234.)
Reported from the Standing Committee without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Tuesday next.
PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 259.)
Reported from the Standing Committee with further Amendments: The Report of the Amendments made in Committee of the Whole House and by the Standing Committee to be received on Monday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 263.)
PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 259.)
  ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES BILL. [H.L.]
  A Bill to consolidate enactments relating to the administration of the estates of deceased persons—Was presented by the Lord Chancellor; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 264.)
  TURBART (IRELAND) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next: (The Lord Privy Seal [E. Cadogan].) (No. 265.)
THE STRAITS SETTLEMENTS AND COLONIAL DEFENCE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  *LORD BRASSEY,in rising to call attention to the increased military contribution demanded by the Imperial Government from the Colony of the Straits Settlements for the maintenance of the garrison, said: My Lords, in calling the attention of your Lordships very briefly to the increased military contribution which has recently been demanded from the Colony of Singapore, my chief desire is to give to the Straits Settlements Association, on whose behalf I speak, the satisfaction of being heard by your Lordships, and of receiving from the Secretary of State an explanation of the reasons which have guided the action of the Government. As an impartial Court of Appeal for every dependency of the Crown which considers that it has a grievance, Parliament is a powerful link to bind the Empire together. I will begin with the admission that the Straits Settlements owe the prosperity which they enjoy to the protection afforded by England, the Mother Country, and may rightly, in point of principle, be called upon to contribute to the cost of Imperial defence. The grievance alleged is that the amount asked is excessive, and that the demand has been made suddenly, without previous warning or consultation. It is not necessary to dwell on the importance of Singapore as a coaling station and as a link in the chain of fortified stations which give protection to our great trade with the East. The importance of the position has been greatly enhanced by the opening of the Suez Canal and the increase in the number of steamers engaged in the trade with the East. The defences of Singapore were carefully considered by the Royal Commission on the defence of the coaling stations. The additional works recommended have been constructed by the colony at a cost of £81,000. The Imperial Government has provided the armaments. In addition to the cost of the defensive works, the Straits Settlements have paid a large military

  215
  contribution for the maintenance of the garrison amounting for the year 1868–9 to £59,000, and for the subsequent years to £50,445 per annum. In addition to the military contribution, the Colony of the Straits Settlements maintains a large armed police force partly for purposes of public order and partly for purposes of local defence. Up to this point the colony has cheerfully given its co-operation whenever called upon by the Home Government in matters of defence. The complaint which I have very briefly to submit arose out of the Despatch received by the colony from the Secretary of State in 1889. In that Despatch the colony was suddenly called upon to contribute £100,000 per annum out of a total military expenditure estimated at £136,000. In addition, they were to pay £60,000 for the construction of barracks; and they maintain a fine body of armed Sikh police for local defence and the maintenance of public order. The colony object to the demand which has been made on the ground that the garrison and the defences are mainly needed for the protection of stores of coal kept at Singapore for the general purposes of Imperial defence. The Straits Settlements Association complain that the charge which has been laid upon them is heavier than any which has been demanded from any other Crown Colony, and they point to the fact that while it is true their revenue is considerable, it is precarious, depending, among other sources, upon the opium farms, which are becoming less and less productive. The Governor of the Straits Settlements, under orders from home, was compelled to use official pressure to obtain the consent of the Governing Council to the payment required from the colony, but he did so under protest. In his Despatch of February, 1890, to the Secretary of State, he stated that he was wholly unable conscientiously to support the claims which Her Majesty's Government had made, and that every member of the Executive Council, in voting for the payment demanded, voted against his conscience and contrary to the views which he entertained. I hope that the Secretary of State, in his reply, may be able to announce some modification of the present demands, or at least to give explanations which will satisfy the colony
  216
  more fully than they are at present satisfied, and remove the sense of injustice which at present exists in regard to the demands which they are compelled to obey. In conclusion, I would say that it is scarcely possible to deal with a particular case apart from the general question of the distribution of charges for Imperial defence as between the Mother Country and the several colonies and dependencies of the Crown. It seems to me this subject calls for a full inquiry by a Committee or by a Royal Commission. Such an inquiry is desirable to establish a standard of strength at which the Navy and the naval stations should be maintained for Imperial purposes, and especially for the purpose of affording reference to our trade; and it is also desirable to determine the share of the burden which the Mother Country ought to bear in the charge for Imperial defence; to ascertain the mode in which the self-governing colonies may best cooperate, and to fix the basis on which the contributions of the Crown Colonies should be assessed. I must acknowledge that such a subject as this is too grave to be taken up at the fag-end of a fatiguing Session, but I hope it may be entertained at a later and more favourable opportunity.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, there is one point which appears to have been lost sight of by the Straits Settlements Association, and which has not been referred to by the noble Lord in his speech, and I think it ought to be put before your Lordships; it is that since the arrangement which was come to between the Government and the Straits Settlements in 1866 for the payment of £50,000 a year, in the time of the late Earl of Carnarvon, an arrangement was made for appointing Residents in the Malay States adjoining the Settlement, thus increasing the naval and military expenses for the protection of the Straits Settlements. Troops have been required for garrisons, and, on one occasion, when the war in Perak took place, the State of Perak had to pay for it. It has been necessary to have troops in Penang, as well as at Singapore, on account of British interests and the number of British subjects in the adjoining Malay States which have been virtually annexed. The trade with Penang and Malacca has very much increased, owing to the

  217
  arrangements made with the Malay States. The Singapore people were the people who asked to have those arrangements made in order that they might push their commerce and trade; and thus, I think, it is only fair that a larger amount should be asked from them towards the military expenditure now necessary.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord KNUTSFORD): My Lords, the noble Lord who introduced this Motion has travelled, as he himself admits, somewhat beyond the terms which are on the Paper, and which are submitted for your Lordships' consideration, and he has raised questions of great importance, but also of great difficulty and complexity. I am not prepared at the present moment to deal with these questions; nor could Her Majesty's Government arrive at any decision upon them until they are submitted in a more definite manner for their consideration. The questions, as the noble Lord has said, are too large and important to be dealt with upon a Motion of this kind, and, I may add, that to find a reasonable solution of them will tax the resources of statesmanship. The noble Lord has suggested that the whole subject of Imperial defence might be referred to a Royal Commission or to a Committee. There is no doubt that such a Commission or Committee might be of great advantage in reporting upon the whole question of Imperial defence, and in laying down principles which might guide Her Majesty's Government in deciding what contribution might be fairly looked for from any particular colony. It might, for example, report whether, and how far, the British taxpayer should be relieved from the payment of the whole naval defence of the Empire, or how far the fact of the naval expenditure being undertaken by the Mother Country should be considered in deciding what military contribution a colony should be fairly called upon to pay for the defence of that colony. But it is manifest that such a Report, unless supported by the evidence of colonial statesmen qualified and authorised to give evidence upon the question, and to explain fully the views of Colonial Governments and Legislatures, would, I fear, carry but little weight, if any, with the colonies. Nor, again, could such a
  218
  Report, even if supported by such evidence, be held binding on our great responsibly-governed colonies. It might be of some assistance to Her Majesty's Government as laying down general principles, and it would tend to strengthen their hands both in this country and, perhaps, in the colonies when they were seeking assistance or a larger military contribution from them, but it would not relieve the Government of the day from an inquiry into each particular case, as the amount of contribution which can fairly be demanded must depend upon the special circumstances of each case—as, for example, upon the financial position of the colony, its revenue and expenditure, its trade, the sources of taxation upon which it can rely, and other local considerations. Having made these general observations upon the point to which the noble Lord has referred, I will now turn to the Motion before the House. I listened with attention to the interesting speech of the noble Lord, but I was unable to discover in it any new argument or any new ground advanced against the decision of the Government in addition to those which have already been urged by the Governor and Legislative Council of the Straits Settlements and by the Straits Settlements Association, and which will be found in the Parliamentary Paper published last March. These arguments have been dealt with in my Despatches of December 13, 1889, and January 1, 1891, and I have, therefore, but little to add to those Despatches. At the same time, as the decision of Her Majesty's Government has been questioned, I should desire, as shortly as possible, to state to the House the general bearings of the case, the principle which has guided Her Majesty's Government in the decision at which they have arrived, the main objections, which have been urged against that decision, and our replies. Before doing so, I wish to express my regret that there has been a feeling in the colony that they have been treated somewhat harshly and discourteously in that the decision of the Government was placed before them in my first Despatch in 1889, before they had had sufficient opportunity of discussing the subject in its details. Nothing could be further from my wish than to show discourtesy to the colony, and, indeed,

  219
  nothing could be more impolitic, in as much as we heartily desire the assent and co-operation of the colony in the decision at which we have arrived; but the following is an explanation of the course which was taken: The principles of the case had been fully discussed in the years preceding the transfer of the colony in 1867 from the Government of India to the Imperial Government. The main arguments now adduced were not only discussed in those years, but also at subsequent periods, notably in 1871 and 1873, when my noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) was Secretary of State for the Colonies. Moreover the Government, before coming to a decision, had the advantage of the Reports of the Committee of 1871, and of the very strong Departmental Committee of 1888, before whom all the Papers and documents were laid and carefully considered, and also of the elaborate and carefully expressed opinion of Sir Frederick Dickson, Colonial Secretary of the Straits Settlements in 1888. There had been necessarily some delay in deciding this question of the increase of the military contribution, and as the year was almost at an end in which the re-settlement was to commence, and as the first considerable increase was to be made for the year 1890, it was thought desirable in the interests of the colony itself that there should be no further delay, and that the decision of the Government should be at once announced. Bat the announcement of the decision was not intended to lessen the colony's opportunities of arguing against it, and, as a matter of fact, they have very properly and fully availed themselves of their opportunities, as I am sure my noble Friend will admit, and they have been supported by the Straits Settlements Association. If the arguments that were adduced had prevailed with the Government there would have been no difficulty about altering the contribution for future years and repaying any overpayment in the years 1889 and 1890. I trust that this explanation will dispel the feeling in the colony to which I have referred, the existence of which, I have before said, I much regret. As regards the question before your Lordships, I think the noble Lord agrees with me that the question is what is the fair share
  220
  to be borne by the colony and the mother country respectively, having regard to all the circumstances of the case and the respective interests at stake. In considering that question I would observe that, in the first place, it is not denied that the colony should pay more than it has done of late years. That obligation was recognised by the Legislative Council by a Resolution which was passed in February, 1890, and which will be found at page 20 of the Parliamentary Blue Book to which I have referred. It may also be taken as admitted that the colony should pay half of the actual cost of military defence in addition to the entire cost of barracks. That is recognized by the third Resolution of the Legislative Council of the same date. Now, in dealing with this question of what is a fair contribution to be paid by the colony, it is necessary to go back to the time when the colony was transferred in 1867 and to the understanding then arrived at. What was the chief object of the colony in asking to be transferred? It was this: The colonists wished to escape from the very heavy defence charges to which the colony was subject as part of the Indian Empire, and in all the negotiations which extended from 1858 to 1866 the Home Government steadily refused to take over the colony until they were assured that no charge would fall upon the Imperial Exchequer for either the military or civil establishments of the colony. The transfer was not desired by the Government, and was only made in the interests of the colony itself. The colony accepted the conditions, and the transfer was made. The correspondence in the Parliamentary Papers of 1862 and 1866 makes this quite clear. It is now objected—and the noble Lord has pointed out that objection—that it is unfair on the part of the Government to attempt to apply to the existing state of things the principles laid down in 1866, when Singapore was but a small colony, a mere trade depôt, whereas now it has become a port of great Imperial importance and of paramount necessity to the maintenance of the Empire. It is objected that, by the opening of the Suez Canal, Singapore, which was in 1866 a remote and unimportant colony and entirely disregarded as an Imperial military station, has now become an Imperial

  221
  coaling station, of primary importance to the naval, military, and commercial interests of the Empire. I have dealt with this argument in my Despatch of January 10, 1891, which is found at page 64 of the Parliamentary Paper of March, 1891, and I would venture very shortly to read to your Lordships one or two passages which afford the answer to this objection. I there pointed out that these views as to the position and unimportance of Singapore in 1866 are not in accord with the opinions expressed by the Local Authorities when discussing the proposed transfer from Indian to Imperial rule. At that time the colony, when seeking relief from the heavy naval and military charges imposed upon it by its connection with India, did not admit, what it now asserts, that Singapore was merely the chief town of a remote and unimportant colony, entirely disregarded as an Imperial military station. On the contrary, it represented that the importance of Singapore as an Imperial station was such that a large portion of the defence expenditure ought to come out of Imperial funds. The same arguments and representations were made in urging upon the Government of that day the importance of the transfer as an an Imperial station by the Singapore Chamber of Commerce; and in a resolution passed at a public meeting of the inhabitants of Singapore in 1861, it was, among other things, resolved—
  "That the greatly increased expenditure incurred for military purposes entailed by the expensive system of fortification now in progress, should not be borne by these Settlements, as it is undertaken for Imperial, and not local interests."
  And the same view was urged in a Memorial from the principal merchants in London connected with the Singapore trade in the same year. I twill be observed that the arguments now urged against charging Singapore with the cost of its garrison are identical with those used for the same purpose at the time of its transfer in 1866; and subsequently, in 1871 to 1873, the period to which I have before referred when the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) was in office, those arguments were again brought forward, and again disposed of. Looking to this fact, then, that the arguments urged in 1861 and 1866 were
  222
  held insufficient, I see no reason, I confess, why similar arguments repeated now for entailing a larger charge upon this country should be held as valid. Then it is further objected that the contribution of 1866 was stated by the War Office to be fixed
  "With regard to the wants and means of the inhabitants of the colony,"
  and should not be increased. It is quite true that it was so fixed in 1866, and it is also true that it was fixed upon the same principle and upon the very same lines in 1889. Those who raise this objection have omitted to mention that, in addition to the words quoted, the following words were made use of in 1866 by the War Office:—
  "It being a sine quâ non condition of the consent of the Imperial Government to the transfer that it is to cast no additional burden on the Imperial Exchequer."
  Nor again has reference been made to the further stipulation that the Government could enter into no agreement, that it would not increase or decrease the garrison, if circumstances should require it. In support of the objectors' case, a Despatch of Lord Kimberley's to the War Office in 1871 has been quoted and relied upon. In it the noble Earl stated that he
  "Would not feel justified in imposing upon the Settlements any arrangement by which they will be rendered liable to an uncertain charge over which they have no control."
  But that Despatch referred to a very different question. When it is looked at it will be seen that it had no reference whatever to the cost of the garrison; it dealt only with the question whether the colony should be charged each year with the actual ascertained cost of the troops for the year, or whether it should be charged with the estimated cost, taking it for a fixed period. The former plan was the plan adopted by the Indian Government, but the noble Earl (Lord Kimberley) thought—and, if I may be allowed to say, thought correctly—that it would be better that the colony should know exactly what it would have to pay for a given number of years; and the principle of payment by estimate, and not by actual ascertained cost, was adopted, as I think, very much to the advantage of the colony. The colony made a very good bargain in 1867 by the transfer. The main object was, as I

  223
  have said, to get rid of the heavy charge not only for the military garrison, but also for the Navy, which it sustained as long as it was connected with the Government of India. Those charges, for some years prior to the transfer, fluctuated between 1858 and 1863 from 67 to 33 per cent. of the Revenue. In 1866, the year prior to the transfer, the charges amounted to 27 per cent. of the Revenue; while in 1868, the year after the transfer, they fell to 22 per cent. of the Revenue. They were further reduced, in 1871 and 1873, to about 16 or 17 per cent. of the Revenue, and they are now still further reduced by this last re-arrangement to about 15 per cent. of the Revenue. If the colony had not been transferred from the Indian Government to Imperial rule, its present defence charges would have amounted under the Indian scale to £236,800 per year, or 32 per cent. of its Revenue; whereas the £100,000 we now ask for is only about 15 per cent. of its Revenue. Perhaps I may be allowed to direct your Lordships' attention to page 12 of the Parliamentary Paper, 1891, and to a Table there set out, from which it will be seen that in 1872 the contribution of the colony in respect of military expenditure was reduced from £59,300, at which figure it stood from 1868, to £51,595, or 17·1 per cent. of the total Revenues of the colony, and that since 1873 the contribution has been £50,145. From 1871 to 1876 the percentage of military Expenditure to Revenue, as I have said, averaged 16 or 17 per cent., and then, owing to the fall in the value of the dollar in which these contributions were unfortunately received by the War Office, and owing to the very great increase of Revenue, your Lordships will see, if you look at page 12, that the percentage dropped gradually to 6·6 per cent. in 1887. No doubt the new charge will amount to about 15 per cent.; but that, as I have before pointed out, is a less percentage than during the years from 1871 to 1876; and the question we have now to consider is whether this is an unreasonable increase considering that it is a less percentage of the Revenue than from 1871 to 1873, and an extraordinarily less percentage than when the transfer was made. In fact, looking to the increase of Revenue, every re-settlement has been
  224
  in favour of the colony. I have pointed out that before the transfer of the colony in 1867 the percentage was 27 per cent. of the Revenue; immediately after it fell to 22 per cent. After 1871 it was 17 per cent., and now by the new arrangement it is about 15 per cent. Her Majesty's Government adhere, and have always adhered, to the principle of 1867, upon which the transfer was made, and it is not correct to state, as I think I have seen it urged by the Association and others, that the Imperial interest in the land defence of Singapore was recognised in 1866 by the assumption of the cost of the wing of the Hong Kong regiment there. This argument is founded on a complete misapprehension. The Government never consented to assume any part of the cost of the garrison of Singapore; on the contrary, between 1861 and 1866, it distinctly and repeatedly refused to take over the colony until it could be assured that no such charge would fall upon it. In order, however, to reduce the charge to the colony, without throwing any extra burden on Imperial revenues, it determined to keep one wing of a Hong Kong regiment at Singapore on the distinct understanding that it formed no part of the garrison paid for by the colony, and that it was liable to be removed whenever required elsewhere. This arrangement, which was continued under the agreement of 1871, is no longer practicable. In these days of quick attack, the garrison of Hong Kong must be at that post and not in Singapore. It has been found necessary to keep the wing at Hong Kong, and Singapore-must, therefore, now rely entirely upon its own garrison. This arrangement, however, saved the colony about £40,000 a year for over 20 years; and it is now rather hard to urge upon us that because they have been saved that sum all those years. The action of the Government should be considered as a recognition of Imperial interest, in the land defence of the colony, and as setting aside the agreement of 1866. Nor, again, is it just to urge, as has been urged, that the principle of the original agreement was abandoned by the arrangement made in 1884, under which the Imperial Government assumed the cost of the armaments, while the colony provided the

  225
  works. The transaction of 1884 had no reference whatever to the cost of the colonial garrison, but related solely to the cost of special works of defence then contemplated. The Parliamentary Papers of 1884 show that the question related not to Singapore alone, but to 10 or 12 colonies. It was then felt by the Government of the day that in spite of the agreement of 1866, to which they still adhered, it would be hard, in that special matter, to treat Singapore less favourably than, or on a different footing to, other possessions. To that extent the agreement of 1866 was departed from, and the military establishments of Singapore did cast an extra burden on Imperial revenues of about £194,000. That departure from the terms on which the transfer of the colony was agreed to in 1866 is no reason, however, for still further departing from those terms, and for permanently charging Imperial revenues with an expenditure for the garrison, which the colony, on its transfer, undertook to bear. The Home Government, I may observe, undertook to bear half the cost of Aden defences at the same time that it agreed to bear the cost of Singapore armaments, but the Government of India has never argued, as Singapore does, that the Imperial Government is in consequence bound to go further and permanently assume part of the cost of the garrison. But, my Lords, putting aside, for the sake of argument, the agreement of 1867 and other past arrangements, and assuming a large Imperial interest in the defence of Singapore, the contribution now called for is not too large in proportion to the respective interests—Imperial and colonial. It is worth considering, when we are charged with "harshness and extortion," what the British taxpayer pays in respect of the defence of this colony and of the Imperial interests therein. The cost of the military garrison and works is not nearly, as your Lordships know, the total cost of the defence. The naval defence forms a most important item in this consideration, and the whole cost of that falls on this country. In many cases it is extremely difficult to make even an approximate calculation of this cost, because, as a rule, ships are not told off for the defence of a particular colony, the policy of the Admiralty
  226
  being against assigning any fraction of the Fleet to particular areas. It so happens, however, as is pointed out in page 65 of the Parliamentary Paper of 1891, that out of the total force on the China Station it has been found desirable, for special reasons, to assign about 4,000 tons to what is called the Straits division, of which Singapore is the headquarters, and this force is rarely absent from Malayan waters. On the basis of a division of the aggregate naval expenditure by the total effective seagoing tonnage of the Navy, the cost has been calculated at (£40 a ton for effective charge yearly, £10 a ton for non-effective charge yearly), 4,000 × £50=£200,000 per annum; and this, therefore, is the sum which the mother country may be said to spend in the naval defence of the Straits Settlements, and which it may be assumed that the colony would have to spend were it an independent State. This calculation takes no account of the cost of defending the commerce of the Straits outside Malayan waters. It will, of course, be understood that I only refer to the amount thus paid for naval defence, for the purpose of showing that the British taxpayer pays a large share of the defence, larger even than the colony would bear if it bore the whole military defence; but I would observe that the cost of the Navy is not included in the calculation of the contribution to be paid by the colony. This, however, is not all. As regards the land defences, it must be remembered that since 1877 the mother country has laid out £194,000 in armaments and works, and that as the annual military expenditure is £136,000, and the colony, under existing arrangements, only pays £100,000, the mother country pays £36,000 a year still in respect of military defence. The reasons for our making this payment for the four years ending December, 1893, are stated in my Despatch to be—
  "Out of consideration for the colonial finances and in order to lighten the immediate pressure of an application, to the circumstances of the present time, of the original agreement upon which the colony was transferred."
  As Mr. Stanhope showed in the House of Commons some time ago, the charge now made for defence amounts only to 3s. 6d. per head of the population of the colony, while in the United Kingdom the corresponding charge

  227
  amounts to 16s. or more per head. The noble Lord referred to the works of defence, and he stated one objection that has been raised, namely, that the garrison and defences are mainly for the protection of the stores of coal at Singapore, which are kept chiefly for Imperial purposes. But in 1885, when there were rumours of war, the colony took a very different view of the situation. It was then represented to the Secretary of State for the Colonies that—
  "The increase of trade and agriculture in the States Settlements, and the large stocks of home and foreign products, including coals, which are stored there, must be subjects of the greatest anxiety, while the colony is at present practically undefended."
  It will be observed that not only "the home and foreign produce, including coals," but the valuable colonial docks on which the prosperity of the colony so largely depends, are now included in the defence which is now stated to secure Imperial interests alone. Then, again, it has been argued that it is not pretended that the defences, such as they are, cover the trade and town of Singapore. I might, perhaps, leave that to my noble Friend behind me to argue, but I may state shortly that the military opinion is that the new harbour defences taken in conjunction with the battery at Tanjong Katong, which was built at the request of the colony in 1868, and which has been re-armed with breech-loading guns in order to protect the town and roadstead, afford a degree of protection which would make an attack from the sea in the last degree in probable. I will only point out one other objection which has been made. I am unwilling to take up your Lordships' time, but it is important to satisfy the colony that we have a good case. The last objection I will refer to is that which regards Penang and Malacca. It is represented that no defences are provided for these places, while their revenues have to provide the cost of defending them. But this question of defending Penang and Malacca has been inquired into several times, and the Committee of 1871 reported that Penang and Malacca are, from their position and comparatively inferior importance, scarcely liable to external attack, and they did not recommend that any special protection
  228
  should be provided for them beyond the general protection which would be afforded by the Navy. That recommendation has been acted upon for some 20 years without ever having been called in question, and I must say it is rather late in the day to receive this objection as a reason why the colony should not bear the cost of its Singapore garrison. I trust I have established that the contribution now called for is—first, much less, in fact, less by one-half, than the colony would have had to pay if the transfer had not been made, and if it had remained under the Indian Government; second, that it is much less than the colony could be called upon to pay if the agreement of 1867 were strictly and rigidly enforced; third, that it is a very reasonable contribution if taken in consideration with the amount paid by the mother country for the Imperial interest in the defence of the colony; fourth, that it is a reasonable contribution when compared with the revenue of the colony, as it is based on a lower percentage than upon any former re-settlement or rearrangement of this question, and is more in favour of the colony compared with the increase of their revenue; fifth, I would add that, comparing it with the other colonies whose contributions have been revised, the Straits Settlement has not been dealt with unfairly. In conclusion, I would observe that, looking to the greatly increased and increasing cost and requirements of the military and naval services, and the consequent heavy and increasing burden upon the British taxpayer, Her Majesty's Government have had to consider, and in this they are only following the example of former Governments, whether some increase of colonial contributions should not be called for. In dealing with these questions, we have, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget speech in another place, "examined the matter in no narrow and exacting spirit." We have closely examined into the revenue, expenditure, trade, and sources of taxation in each colony from which a larger contribution is looked for. We have had no desire, and I think no Government would desire, to press for an extreme contribution or to bear hardly upon the colonies; and as to the particular

  229
  case now before us, I trust that, after what I have said, your Lordships will be of opinion that the decision of Her Majesty's Government is reasonable, and that this colony, considering all the circumstances of the case, has not been called upon to bear more than a just contribution towards its defence.
  *THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I think my noble Friend behind me was quite justified in bringing this matter before this House and those who have listened to the speech of ray noble Friend opposite will, I am sure, be glad that there has been an opportunity of thoroughly explaining the course the Government have taken in this matter. I was myself so constantly engaged during the time I was in office in a controversy of a similar kind, that I entirely sympathise with my noble Friend opposite in the difficulty which I have no doubt he has had in dealing with this question. I would make only one remark upon the statement with which the noble Lord commenced, in which I do not entirely agree with him, that is in regard to Her Majesty's Government having announced their decision in, I think, 1889, without having previously consulted the colony on the subject. The noble Lord said that that was entirely justifiable, because the principles upon which that decision was based had been laid down long before. That, no doubt, is perfectly true, but, at the same time, I cannot help thinking when there was to be an application of the principles in a new state of things it would have tended to smooth matters with the colony and would have been, I think, more judicious if the colony had been communicated with beforehand. Still, that is not really a very important point, because, as the noble Lord has said, there has been ample opportunity afforded for discussion, and I have no doubt that if the colony had been able to show that demand for increased military contribution was based on a misapprehension or that a change was advisable, Her Majesty's Government would have given their consideration to the argument; and if the decision had been found one which could not be supported, notwithstanding that it had been announced beforehand, they would have reconsidered the matter, and made any modification which might have been
  230
  necessary. My noble Friend has gone so thoroughly into the whole question, and dealt with it so fully and clearly, that it is only necessary for me to say very little. I can remember when this subject of the arrangements to be made upon the transfer of the Straits Settlements to the control of the Imperial Government from the Indian Government was under discussion, during the short time when I was Secretary to the India Office in 1864; and I well remember how strongly the Indian Department was at that time pressed by the Straits Settlements to make the change because they thought they were unduly taxed by the arrangements they were subjected to under the Indian Government, and certainly at that time, and I have no doubt afterwards there was no desire on the part of the Government to accept the change; on the contrary they disliked it very much. My chief then was the late Sir Charles Wood (Lord Halifax). He by no means desired that this change should be made, and he would have preferred that the original arrangements should have maintained. However, the conditions then agreed upon between the colony and Her Majesty's Government have been clearly stated by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Knutsford), and they were distinctly and plainly that the colony was to bear the cost of its military defence, and the arrangements that have been mentioned by the noble Lord that Signapore was not to be dealt with as an Imperial station were exactly then as they have been since. Since that agreement was come to, in what way has the situation changed? I think it has to some extent. The noble Lord read extracts from some of these Despatches, and I cannot help reading your Lordships one passage for the purpose of showing you how the matter was represented in 1861 by the Singapore Chamber of Commerce. They say that "Singapore is from its position the key of the China-Indo and Java seas, and is the coaling depôt" for mail and other steamers. There is the whole of their contention stated in plain language. That contention was taken into consideration when the conditions were agreed to in 1866. Now, in what respect has the situation changed? As I have said, I think to some extent it has, but then that change has been recognised by the

  231
  action of the Government at home. What has happened is that it has been found necessary to erect expensive fortifications at Singapore in order to meet the requirements of the present day. Her Majesty's Government did not expect the colony to be charged in 1886 with an extraordinary expenditure of that kind, and they very properly made themselves responsible for a considerable portion of the former armament, which may be called the extraordinary expense so incurred. That is by no means an argument why the original agreement must be set aside, but rather an argument, it seems to me, on the other side, and it shows that Her Majesty's Government have dealt generously with the colony in respect of an expense which could not have been foreseen, and which are no doubt heavy in amount. With regard to the figures which have been arrived at by Her Majesty's Government, I am not called upon to take any responsibility. It would require a most careful examination of the whole arrangement in order to deal with them, and to enable me to say that the sum arrived at is the exact sum which I should have arrived at myself if I had been responsible; but I see no reason to question that the Government have given full and fair consideration to the arguments adduced by the colony, and have arrived at what they conceive to be a reasonable and just settlement. Therefore, I do not desire to discuss the details of the arrangement, but would rather discuss the general principles of this matter, on which I entirely agree with the noble Lord opposite. In the first place, your Lordships must remember that this country has to undertake the whole naval defence of these colonies; that is the most important part of the whole matter, because there cannot be the least doubt that the safety of Singapore depends really upon our having the command of the seas. The safety of Singapore may for a time be guaranteed by fortifications, and it is very necessary there should be some fortifications to prevent any casual attack upon the colony by which it might be seriously damaged, or perhaps ruined; but in the last resort, if we were driven off the seas, there is no doubt that, fortifications or no fortifications, Singapore would fall. It is impossible
  232
  to put out of consideration the great expense which this country has to go to for naval defence, and the enormous advantage which the colony derives from this naval defence, to which it contributes nothing; and I make that remark not only in regard to the Colony of Singapore, but other colonies. In all these discussions it is most unjust and unfair to this country that you should look only to the military and not take into consideration our naval expenditure. With regard to the military expenditure, that has been divided by Her Majesty's Government in a way which, looking to the whole circumstances and revenue of the colony, they think just; and I think the simple fact which the noble Lord has stated, that the cost to every person in this country amounts, I think he said, to about 16s. a year, whereas in Singapore it only amounts to 3s. 6d., must carry conviction at once to everyone's mind that we are not treating the colony with any harshness which, of course, I should be sorry that we should do. The possession of this colony is, no doubt, of immense importance from an Imperial point of view, and, so far, I think it is quite right we should have contributed towards the works which have been recently erected, and in providing their armament; but the colony, although it may be of great importance in an Imperial point of view, must also be regarded as a great emporium of trade, and the maintenance of its position of great benefit to those who live in the colony; the merchants who have business in this great emporium, and the population inhabiting it live by that trade, and it is only reasonable that they should contribute to its protection in proportion to their means. No one can suppose that if Singapore was not rendered safe by the power of this country it would be in the same position it is in now, and in addition to that, as my noble Friend Lord Stanley of Alderley remarked, the advantages of the position have been greatly increased now that we have taken the protectorate of the various Malay States extending to the Siamese frontier. That has been a matter of great interest to Singapore, and it has been done in the first instance at the cost of the Imperial Government. Unfortunately there arose war in Perak, and

  233
  a great part of the expense in that war was paid by Her Majesty's Government, although I rather think the colony contributed something. The whole result of the matter is this: that I think in a question of this kind you must trust very much to the Government of the day to see that justice is done. It is a matter which can only be determined by the Colonial Office in discussion with the colony, and I can see no reason to suppose that on either side of the House, or in either House of Parliament, there is any disposition to treat the colony with severity or harshness in the matter. Certainly I should entirely deprecate such a course. I think we should err, if we err at all, on the side of not exacting the uttermost farthing, and I believe we have erred on that side, because if you look at what was paid by Singapore when under the Indian Government before the transfer took place, and if you look now to the sum which is demanded from the colony with reference to the improved defence which you have given to it, I think it will be seen that the colony has not substantial reason to complain. With regard to the very important and broad question which was raised by the noble Lord behind me (Lord Brassey) and which was touched upon by the noble Lord as to whether it would be desirable to have a general inquiry upon this subject. I should not like to commit myself upon that point. I should much doubt, looking to the various and different positions which our colonies occupy all over the Globe, some under responsible Governments and some Crown Colonies, whether any general inquiry would lead to any desirable result. For instance, I do not think it is at all desirable to raise this question with regard to the Australian Colonies or Canada. The Australian Colonies have been spending large sums in defending their ports, and Canada has also a considerable military expenditure. I doubt very much whether it would be advisable to re-open this question with them at the present time. Then, as to Crown Colonies. I think some light might be thrown on the subject by an inquiry, but I would make this remark, that whatever principles you lay down, the contributions must vary from time to time, according to the necessities of the case, and the changing aspect of affairs. I
  234
  exceedingly doubt whether you would find it possible to lay down any hard and fast rule. My own impression is that if you laid down such a rule on the Report of a Royal Commission or Committee five or six years hence you would have to modify that rule very considerably, and you would be considered to have bound yourselves by a set of regulations which, in point of fact, were not applicable to the new circumstances in which you were placed. However, I do not wish to express any strong opinion against such an inquiry if there are questions to be decided. All I desire to say, in conclusion, is this: that I have never myself had the slightest desire that we should press unduly upon this or any other colony; but, on the other hand, I think it only just and fair to the British tax paper that we should receive a reasonable contribution from these colonies for their defence, which if of importance to us is of far greater and primary importance to them.

INDIAN ARMY.

  THE CASE OF COLONEL GEORGE JACKSON, 5TH BENGAL CAVALRY.
  *THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK, in rising to call attention to the case of Colonel George Jackson, commanding the 5th Bengal Cavalry, and to move for an Address for a copy of the Regulations under which officers of the old Local Indian Service may be compulsorily retired, said: My Lords, this is the first time since I have had anything to do with politics that I have felt it my duty to bring to the notice of Parliament the personal case of an officer, and in this particular case I am sure your Lordships will excuse me for so doing, because the officer was for four years on my personal staff; and, being under considerable obligations to him for his services, I feel it my duty to do my best to prevent him being treated with what I conceive to be injustice. I have had an opportunity of reading the whole of the Papers connected with this officer's case, with which Papers he was, of course, furnished by the Government, and I have reluctantly come to the opinion, in the first place, that Colonel Jackson has been treated with carelessness and harshness, almost amounting to injustice, by the authorities in India; secondly, that his appeal has not received that consideration

  235
  which it ought to have received from the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India in Council; and, lastly, he has been told he will be placed compulsorily in retirement, and I am of opinion that the intention to treat him in that manner is contrary to the Parliamentary guarantee which was given to officers of the Local Indian Service, of which Service he is a member. Now, my Lords, I will deal very shortly with the military part of the case. Colonel Jackson is an officer who has seen 32 years' service. He served in the Umbeyla Campaign, and in Abyssinia. He did excellent service on the Staff of three succeeding Viceroys of India. He commanded for three years the Governor General's Body Guard. He was then appointed second in command of the 12th Bengal Cavalry, where the Reports of him were so good that he was specially selected to take the command of the 5th Bengal Cavalry, a regiment which, at that time, was in very bad order. The regiment was stationed at Mean Meer, one of the most unhealthy stations in India, and the regiment was, moreover, in a state of sickness, and inefficient on that account. Yet, notwithstanding that he had been in command of the regiment for only six months, a favourable report of the regiment was made in March, 1888, by Sir Hugh Gough, the officer commanding at Mean Meer; and afterwards, in October, 1888, when the regiment left Sir Hugh Gough's command, he publicly addressed it in terms which were positively enthusiastic, as regarded its condition, as compared with what it was when Colonel Jackson took command. The regiment then went to Delhi, and afterwards to Lucknow, and it was inspected by Sir Charles Gough in March, 1889. The inspection of the regiment by Sir Charles Gough was distinctly satisfactory. Colonel Jackson, unfortunately however, was not able to obtain the approval of Brigadier-General Luck, the Inspector General of Cavalry. The Report of Brigadier-General Luck upon the regiment was inconsistent with the Reports of Sir Hugh Gough and Sir Charles Gough. He reported unfavourably upon the regiment, and upon Colonel Jackson himself. I may mention that Sir Hugh Gough and Sir Charles Gough had been for the whole of their lives in the Indian Cavalry Service; whereas
  236
  Brigadier-General Luck—I do not mean to express any doubt as to his ability—was a British Cavalry officer, and could not be expected to know so much of the interior economy of an Indian regiment as officers who had been so long in the Service. The Commander-in-Chief, Sir Frederick Roberts, I do not know for what reason, but I presume because of the inconsistency between those Reports, determined that Colonel Jackson should have another trial, that another Report should be made upon him and his regiment, after which it should be considered whether he should remain in command of it. But at that time Colonel Jackson had the misfortune to lose his father; and a short time after the inspection of his regiment by Sir Charles Gough he applied for leave to go home upon his private affairs. He left India without any distinct intimation having been given him that he would prejudice his position in any way by going home on leave. And, therefore, he was, as your Lordships may well understand, somewhat surprised a few months afterwards to receive a private suggestion from the Adjutant General's Department in India that it would be convenient he should retire from the Service at the expiration of his leave. Of course, Colonel Jackson, having the proper pride of an officer, declined to accede to the suggestion. The next thing that happened was that he received an official intimation from the Government of India, through the India Office, containing, I think, the most extraordinary request that was ever made, or that I over heard of as having been made, to an officer. That was that he
  "should be called upon to show cause why he should not he retired from the Service at the expiration of his leave."
  I have always thought if any officer was to be compulsorily retired on account of certain charges brought against him, he should have an opportunity of meeting those charges, and that it should not be put upon him "to show cause why he should not be called upon to retire." Against that decision Colonel Jackson appealed to the Secretary of State for India in Council. The Commander-in-Chief had intended to give Colonel Jackson an opportunity of further trial before he went home on leave; and I should have thought the

  237
  Secretary of State for India in Council would have said that as Colonel Jackson had not had any intimation that he was to be compulsorily retired, he should go back to India; and if, after further trial, it appeared that he should not retain the command of his regiment, it should be given to somebody else. But, no; the whole of the papers were sent back to India, and after the expiration of a considerable time Colonel Jackson received another letter from the Secretary of State for India in Council containing no discussion, no explanation of any of the points he had raised in his appeal, but simply an intimation that it was desirable he should send in his application to retire. With considerable experience of such matters I do not recollect any case in which an officer was ever treated in that way before; but, still, I am not a military man; and your Lordships have in this House my noble and gallant Friend Lord Chelmsford, who was Adjutant General of the Army in India, under my late noble and gallant Friend Lord Napier of Magdala, who will be able to give your Lordships a much better opinion upon the military part of the case than I can pretend to do. But I say, supposing Colonel Jackson had not been quite up to the mark in bringing this regiment into good order, he should not have been called upon to retire from the Service. Why should not he have been put back to his old regiment, of which he would have obtained command in due course, or have been given some other employment in India? There was no reason, because I can assure noble Lords that there has not been a single word said against Colonel Jackson through his whole career with regard to his conduct as an officer, or as to his mental or physical capacity. Yet he is to be compulsorily retired. So far upon the military aspects of the case. I should like to say, with regard to the statement with which I opened, that I am afraid I must state my opinion that proper consideration has not been given by the Secretary of State for India in Council to this appeal. I hold that an officer has a right to appeal to the Secretary of State for India in Council if he thinks he has been ill-treated by the authorities in India; and if he does appeal, I think the Secretary of State for India in
  238
  Council is bound to make proper inquiry into the circumstances of his appeal. I think it would be only right in the case of an officer of upwards of 30 years' service he should be told that what he has put into his appeal is not correct if that be the case. Colonel Jackson, in his appeal, raised several points of most serious consequence in respect of the manner in which his case had been treated in India. I will not dwell upon them in detail, but there were most extraordinary inconsistencies and misstatements of matters of fact on the part of the superior officers on whose recommendations Colonel Jackson has been so treated. I would ask the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for India whether he thinks an officer should be allowed to go home on leave without any notice from the Adjutant General's Department that he would be retired compulsorily, and that, when he gets home, advantage should be taken of his absence to force him out of the Service? The straightforward way of dealing with him would have been that he should have been told plainly that if he took leave it must be on the condition that he would retire from the Service at its expiration. But this is a military question, and I will not deal further with it. Now, I come to a part of Colonel Jackson's case which, to my mind, is more even important than the military question. In Colonel Jackson's appeal he said this, as he had a right to do:—
  "I desire to state that I am an officer of the local Service, and within the provision of the Henley Clause, under which, I apprehend, misconduct has hitherto been held to be a necessary precedent to compulsory retirement."
  I must here point out to your Lordships, and I should have done so before, that it is, of course, a very grave and serious matter for an officer to be removed from the command of his regiment, but the course taken with regard to Colonel Jackson by compulsorily retiring him from the service, adds to that the additional and most serious punishment of preventing him going on to serve for his Colonel's allowances—that is, the pension which Indian officers receive after a certain number of years' service. I may venture upon this matter to say that I have some knowledge of the ground upon which

  239
  Colonel Jackson makes this statement, because I happened to be Under Secretary of State for India under my late noble Friend Lord Halifax, then Sir Charles Wood, at the time when the question of maintaining a separate European Force for India was considered, when Parliament decided, after considerable controversy and difference of opinion, that that force should no longer be continued, and when there were apprehensions entertained that officers would not be treated, after the local European Force had ceased to exist, in the same way as they had been treated by the East India Company, A distinguished politician, whose name probably some, at any rate, of your Lordships will recollect, Mr. Henley, took this matter up, and in the House of Commons he introduced a clause into the European Forces (India) Act of 1860, by which all the advantages of their former position were guaranteed by Parliament to those officers in any alterations in organisation which might take place. That clause the foundation of Colonel Jackson's appeal, and I will venture to read it. It says—
  "Provided that the advantages as to pay, pensions, allowances, privileges, promotion, and otherwise, secured to the Military Forces of the East India Company by the 21st and 22nd Vict., Section 56"—
  that was the Act which transferred the Government of India to the Crown—
  "shall be maintained in any plan for the re-organisation of the Indian Army."
  The conditions of the East India Company's service were well known at that time. There had been a Royal Commission, of which my noble Friend the Earl of Derby was a Member and General Peel was Chairman, and the conditions under which officers served the East India Company will be found appended to the Report of that Commission. It was there distinctly stated that officers should remain on certain specified lists until they received their Colonel's allowances—of course, unless removed for misconduct or mental or physical incapacity. I may observe that his guarantee granted to these officers was heartily accepted by Sir Charles Wood at the time. He supported the clause. It was done with the full cognisance of Parliament; it was
  240
  alluded to on one or two occasions in General Orders, which were published in India, and the officers of the local forces were told over and over again that those privileges and advantages would be maintained to them. As regards this particular case and the manner in which this guarantee applies to Colonel Jackson, your Lordships will see it applies in this way: Colonel Jackson says that compulsory retirement from the Service—that is what the Secretary of State wishes to apply to him—unless for misconduct or physical or mental incapacity is contrary to the guarantee given by the Henley Clause. I suppose, my Lords, there is no man who could be relied upon to give a fair and authoritative opinion as to what the practice was in such matters better than the late Lord Napier of Magdala. Here is his opinion as to what the rights of the local officers are under this clause. He says in a Minute dated October 26th, 1871—
  "The Parliamentary guarantee secures to the officers of the local service all the rights and privileges which they enjoyed under the East India Company. There is no doubt that the East India Company possessed the power of removing officers from the service, with or without pension, but that power was never exercised except in eases of grave or scandalous misconduct of a nature requiring no judicial trial to verify it. Except in such cases no officer was ever removed from the Service"
  here is the point—
  "unless sentenced to such punishment by court martial. I think it cannot be disputed that this was a virtual contract between the company and those who entered its military service, and it appears to me that it would be a breach of the spirit of the guarantee if the Government were now to substitute a mode of terminating the service of officers which was never recognised or practised by the company."
  It might be supposed that this opinion expressed by Lord Napier of Magdala did not apply to such a case as that which I have brought before your Lordships, but I beg to assure your Lordships that that is not so, for this opinion was given in reference to a class of cases which were precisely similar. It so happened, just before I went myself to India in 1872, that the Government of India and the Government at home were in considerable difficulty in consequence of the great number of unemployed officers in India who were employed on "general service," as it was

  241
  called, which really meant doing nothing, drawing half-pay, and completing their time for their Colonel's allowances. Naturally, it was considered whether some of them should not be retired upon the pensions to which they were entitled. There was a good deal of correspondence between the Secretary of State in Council and the Government of India on the subject, and this Minute which I have read by Lord Napier of Magdala was written in reference to that particular class of cases. I read it for the purpose of showing that it would have been a breach of the guarantee then, in 1872, to force officers into retirement compulsorily who belonged to the local Service unless for misconduct or for physical or mental incapacity. The words used by the Secretary of State for India, and by the Government of India, were very much the same. It was laid down in Despatches of the Secretary of State that officers should not be retired unless for such causes
  "As would under the system in force before the amalgamation have led to their removal from the effective list, such as moral delinquency or intellectual capacity."
  And, again, in another Despatch the words are—
  "Clear misconduct or proved physical or mental inefficiency."
  I have shown your Lordships there is no pretence for alleging misconduct or physical or mental inefficiency in Colonel Jackson's case, and, therefore, I put it to your Lordships that he is protected by the terms of the Parliamentary guarantee, and the Secretary of State for India in Council, if he proposes to act upon the intimation which Colonel Jackson has received, would, in my opinion, be committing a broach of faith towards Colonel Jackson as an officer who has received this Parliamentary guarantee. That is my view of that part of the case. My Lords, I am sure my noble Friend will not, in reply to this argument, take any legal view. I am sure he will not say there is no legal claim; he will not say there is a legal right on the part of the Secretary of State for India in Council or the Crown to act in this way. That is not the question. The question is, whether the Secretary of State for India in Council is acting now in the manner in which
  242
  the Court of Directors would have acted if the case had occurred in their time; and if my noble Friend has the slightest doubt in that matter, perhaps he will allow me to remind him that this is not the first time when claims of this sort have been brought forward. When the Staff Corps was first formed in India in 1861 a great many complaints were made by local officers in India that they were treated contrary to the Parliamentary guarantee. My late Chief Sir Charles Wood was then Secretary of State for India. He did not treat these complaints as a matter of law. He appointed a Royal Commission, of which Lord Cranworth was Chairman, to examine into the claims of these officers. The members of that Commission made their Report, and he acted in accordance with their Report. In their Report they laid down most precisely that it was not a question of law at all. It is necessary, in order to support the claims of this officer, that I should read that authoritative interpretation in order to satisfy my noble Friend that this is not a legal case. They reported that the word "entitled," which was in the clause,
  "cannot be understood as referring to rights capable of being enforced in a Court of Justice,"
  but they proceeded to explain the way in which, in their opinion, the guarantee should be carried out. They said—
  "In any change of organisation the Crown should, as no doubt the Company would have done, preserve all the rules as to pay, pensions, allowances, and privileges, and the like advantages as regards promotion and otherwise which existed at the time the Act was passed."
  Now, my Lords, I think I may fairly, having shown the condition of the matter, and the rights, as I conceive them to be, of this officer under the Parliamentary guarantee, ask the noble Viscount the Secretary of State to produce in this House, if he can, any case of an officer who, in the time of the East India Company, was treated in this way, or any case of a local officer who has been treated in this manner since the Government of India has been transferred from the company to the Crown. I can answer for it that when I was in India, when I had to deal, in communication' with Lord Napier of Magdala, with the compulsory retirement of a certain number of officers under the

  243
  General Order of 1872, in no case of this sort was an officer compulsorily retired. I am quite satisfied that my noble Friend the Secretary of State for India has not any desire to do injustice in this matter; but, as time goes on, these Parliamentary guarantees become liable to be forgotten; I doubt whether in India at the present time there is any single statesman or officer who has any recollection of the circumstances in which the guarantee was given, and I do not think there is any Member of the Indian Council except my old friend Sir Henry Rawlinson, who can have that knowledge which I myself happen to possess. I happened at the time to be connected with the India Office, and therefore I have some knowledge of this rather intricate matter, and if my noble Friend is doubtful upon the case, if he thinks that at any rate I have brought forward a primâ facie case to show that this officer has not been treated in accordance with the Parliamentary guarantee, I would venture to suggest to him that he should take the same course as was taken by Sir Charles Wood in a similar case. I do not think it matters a straw as regards the duty of Parliament whether the case is that of one officer or of 100 officers. If the Parliamentary guarantee has been given, it is as good to one man as it is to an entire army. And I would venture to suggest, in justice to this officer, that my noble Friend should refer this case to such men as I could name who are thoroughly conversant with these matters. For instance, my noble Friend the Earl of Derby, who was himself a member of one of these Commissions—a gallant officer, a friend of mine, Sir Thomas Pears, who was Military Secretary to the Council of India for many years, and I will name also Sir Martin Dillon, who was Military Secretary to Lord Napier of Magdala during the whole time he was in India. I think it would be only just and right if my noble Friend on reconsideration of this case, would refer this matter, which I take to be one of great public importance, namely, the maintenance of a Parliamentary guarantee, to a Commission composed of such members as I have named. If he would make such a reference as that, Colonel Jackson would be quite
  244
  satisfied, and I can assure the noble Lord that I should myself be quite content.
  Moved, "That an humble address he presented to Her Majesty for Copy of the Regulations under which officers of the old Local Indian-Service may he compulsorily retired."—(The Earl of Northbrook.)
  *LORD CHELMSFORD: My Lords, I have gone carefully over the Papers connected with the case of Colonel Jackson, and I have come to the conclusion that that officer has been treated with very scant justice indeed, and that his military reputation is really at stake. I would venture to say I have myself only a slight personal acquaintance with Colonel Jackson, and during the time that I was Adjutant General in India, Colonel Jackson was not named in any Reports which came before me. Therefore, I come perfectly unprejudiced to the consideration of this question. I would ask your Lordships' attention to two or three features connected with this unfortunate case. I would point out to your Lordships that Colonel Jackson was appointed specially by the Commander-in-Chief in India to a regiment which was acknowledged to be in a bad state. This was the state that the regiment was described as being in in a letter of Sir Hugh Gough's—the very officer under whom Colonel Jackson first served directly after Colonel Jackson was appointed to the command of the 5th Bengal, Cavalry. It says that he is much disappointed with the appearance and turn-out of the regiment; that there was a want of smartness, that they were dirty and slovenly, and that he was particularly dissatisfied with the troop horses; that he wished the Commander to select a picked officer, suggesting that Colonel Jackson should be appointed, and that he was very pleased Colonel Jackson had had the command given to him. My Lords, I am not going into the history of the case, I merely wish to say that Colonel Jackson was not treated with that fairness which one ought to expect from the Authorities in India, and I believe myself they have been entirely misled by the Report of the Inspector General of Cavalry. On the arrival of the regiment under Sir Hugh Gough's command it was inspected almost immediately, and Sir Hugh Gough reported that the condition of the regiment was very good, and that they

  245
  were steady on parade. Eleven days afterwards the Brigadier General of Cavalry, General Luck, came to the Station to inspect the cavalry there. I am well acquainted with General Luck, and I suppose there is not a smarter or more efficient cavalry officer to he found. He belonged to the Inniskillen Dragoons, and has always borne a high reputation as a British cavalry officer, but he had no experience whatever of native cavalry regiments. Sir Hugh Gough, who had inspected that regiment, and had himself made a Report upon it, had commanded a Bengal cavalry regiment, and he knew exactly what to make allowances for, and how to report upon it; but I suppose General Luck looked upon it from the standpoint of a British cavalry officer, and judged it by the standard of a British cavalry regiment; and Colonel Jackson having had really only two or three months' time to try and improve this regiment, naturally it did not turn out exactly in the way that General Luck would have wished. The Report of General Luck says: "The riding of the regiment is decidedly bad." Now, Sir Hugh Gough had given an opinion directly opposite to that. He goes on—
  "Then, as to the turn-out, there is a general want of smartness about the regiment."
  Sir Hugh Gough said the regiment turned out well. However, Colonel Jackson, after that Report, went on in command of the regiment, under Sir Hugh Gough, for about a year. On leaving the command there Sir Hugh Gough spoke to the regiment publicly on parade, and, after referring to their condition previously, expressed himself pleased to see the regiment in a condition so very different to that in which he saw it on joining it at Mean Meer. Surely the report of an officer of the standing of Sir Hugh Gough should be allowed to stand against that of an officer who, although a very smart and efficient officer of British Cavalry, knew nothing whatever of a native regiment. Then the regiment passed under the command of Sir Charles Gough; but, unfortunately, this regiment, the 5th Bengal Cavalry, was the very regiment which he had himself commanded, and very naturally he would look with disgust at the change which had come over it. But he reports of it in this way. He says—
  246
  "That the 5th Bengal Cavalry is generally in a good state of drill and efficiency, the regiment drills steadily, and, when well commanded, will do well."
  Then he reports—I am bound to read this—
  "Colonel Jackson does not possess any real ability, but is a very average officer. He appears to he deficient in tact, temper, and judgment, and he does not appear to gain the confidence and esteem of the men."
  Then, after that inspection took place in March, 1889, Colonel Jackson left the command, and he never came back to the regiment. Sir Charles Gough never saw him again. About a year afterwards Sir Charles Gough was called upon to report regarding the regiment, and took the opportunity of reporting upon it in these terms—
  "Colonel Jackson is absent, and has been absent during the greater part of last year."
  He had been absent, in fact, during the whole of it—
  "I attribute the vast improvement which has taken place in the 5th Bengal Cavalry greatly to the fact of his absence. I was asked to report upon it almost immediately after he had come under my command, and before I had had time to get an intimate knowledge of Colonel Jackson, from what I have seen of him since,"
  Now, I beg your Lordships to observe that Sir Charles Gough had never seen him during that time. He had never been under Sir Charles Gough's command since the year before this Report:—
  "I feel sure his return to the regiment would be disastrous to it; he is utterly deficient in tact, temper, and judgment."
  That is what is stated a year after he had seen him, for Sir Charles Gough had never seen him since the first Report; and yet he says that he is somewhat deficient in tact, and in his manner of dealing with the men. Surely your Lordships must see that a Report of that sort going up to the Commander-in-Chief in India was likely to do Colonel Jackson the most terrible injury and to damage his reputation, and I venture to say that if that Report had been brought to the knowledge of the Governor General in Council in India, I am sure he would not have paid any attention to such a Report as that. General Luck appears to have exercised a malign influence upon these Generals, and to have twisted and distorted

  247
  their views regarding Colonel Jackson into something totally distinct from what that officer really was. Then the Report comes up to the Commander-in-Chief, and the Commander-in-Chief, having taken General Luck's Report, and ignored altogether Sir Hugh Cough's favourable Report, reports in 1888 that he considers the Reports received were sufficient to require Colonel Jackson to retire, and that unless the regiment improved he would have to be removed from the command. A year after, the Commander-in-Chief again reports upon the regiment, and says that the Reports of the present year are again of an unfavourable nature. Now, that was not exactly the case; Sir Charles Gough's Report was not unfavourable. He distinctly stated to Colonel Jackson—"The confidential Report upon you is not altogether unfavourable;" and yet this Report says—"They are again of an unfavourable nature." It shows that the inquiry into the condition of this officer's qualities as a commanding officer have not really had fair play at all. Colonel Jackson had been reported upon as wanting in tact, judgment, and temper. That was principally based upon Sir Charles Gough's Report, and upon General Luck's Report, but there is a very curious correspondence which took place upon the matter. Colonel Jackson had an interview with General Luck in the presence of Sir George Greaves, the present Commander-in-Chief in Bombay, who was called upon to report as to that interview, which occurred during the camp exercises in 1888. General Greaves, being requested to report upon what occurred, stated that owing to the nature of the ground the lines of the 5th Bengal Cavalry had necessarily been thrown back from the general line of the camp—
  "General Luck found fault with Colonel Jackson for this, and his manner and voice were more harsh than is usual in the Service, especially as there were several junior officers present. Colonel Jackson's demeanour was calm and respectful, but it was evident to me there was ill-feeling between these two officers, irrespective of the particular circumstances of the moment. On thinking the matter over since, I have come to the conclusion that Colonel Jackson had more reason to complain of the ground assigned to him for his camp than General Luck had to complain of his use of it."
  I will not detain your Lordships further
  248
  upon this unfortunate case, but I would beg your Lordships to remember that Colonel Jackson's reputation as a cavalry officer, which never had any slur passed upon it before, is at stake. Colonel Jackson has on all sides received commendations and good reports from the different officers, different Viceroys, and general officers under whom he has served, and it seems to me this is a case in which a single officer has been able, by twisting and distorting reports with regard to Colonel Jackson, to do him a very serious injury in the estimation of the Governor General in Council and in that of the Commander-in-Chief in India. I trust the Secretary of State for India will see his way to rectify that injustice, and if it should be thought that for any reason Colonel Jackson should not be returned to the command of his regiment, at all events, that he may be allowed to succeed to that to which he has every right in my opinion, namely, his Colonel's allowances.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS): My Lords, I am afraid that injustice has been done to one officer by the noble and gallant Lord who has just spoken, and that is General Luck. Why there is any slur to be cast on General Luck's character I do not know. The noble Lord said at the outset of his remarks that nothing was to be said against General Luck, that he was an able and excellent officer, and immediately following upon that he insinuated that General Luck had a personal spite against Colonel Jackson.
  *LORD CHELMSFORD: I beg the noble Viscount's pardon; I read from Sir George Greaves's Report which stated that.
  *VISCOUNT CROSS: Sir George Greaves's Report stated that. I am quite sure Colonel Jackson would never say anything of the kind himself. Turning to the question itself, I am sure your Lordships will believe it is a matter of very great pain to me to be compelled to say anything against the conduct of an officer in the Indian Service. But first I would say one or two words about the Parliamentary guarantee. The noble Earl who brought this matter forward stated that in no one case—and he quoted Lord Napier of Magdala as his authority—had any person been dismissed by the old East India Company unless after a trial

  249
  by Court Martial. I have not had time to have the whole of the records searched, but I can assure the noble Earl that upon that point he is entirely mistaken. There was a case which happened not long before the East India Company was dissolved, of an officer who had the command of a regiment which before that had been in very good order, but under his hands had got into disorder. There was no Court Martial held in that case at all, but he was dismissed by the East India Company.
  *THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: Dismissed the Service, or removed from the command of his regiment?
  *VISCOUNT CROSS: He was removed from the command of his regiment and retired from the Service on pension. There was another case where an officer was tried by Court Martial for conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman; the Court Martial acquitted him, but the Court of Directors having inquired into the whole case thought that although he had been acquitted of the charges brought against him he was not a person who should be allowed to remain in the Service, and he was treated in a similar way. I have shown your Lordships two instances, and I am assured there are many more, but I have not had time to look into the records of what was done by the East India Company. What was then done was that an officer was put upon an extraordinary or invalid list which practically was the same thing as putting him on pension. Now let me come to the Parliamentary Guarantee which rests, as the noble Earl says, entirely upon Mr. Henley's clause, that clause being put into the Act which made over the Government of India to the Crown. The noble Earl says I am not to look upon it in a legal point of view, but at all events I am entitled to look upon it in a legal point of view to see what the meaning of the Act of Parliament was. It so happens that this very question has been tried in a Court of Law, and I do not quite see why the noble Earl does not wish me to refer to it. There was one officer of the local force who was dismissed. He was an officer in the East India Company's Military service, and subsequently continued in the Indian Army when the Indian Military and Naval Services were transferred to the
  250
  Crown. He brought an action against the Secretary of State for India, as representing the Crown, for damages for having been placed on the Pension List, and so compelled to retire from the Army. That action was tried before Mr. Justice Grove, and I think it is right we should see what was decided in that case so that we can see what is the legal meaning of this Parliamentary Guarantee. It was contended by the plaintiff that the East India Company had by contract, expressed or implied, with its military officers, including the plaintiff, waived its right to dismiss them, and that the plaintiff retained his rights under such contract against the Secretary of State for India representing the Crown. That was argued at very great length, and the learned Judge says that this power of removal exists in the Crown for the benefit of the Empire, and for the benefit of Her Majesty's subjects, and could not be contracted away; otherwise any officer whom a jury might have considered physically and mentally deficient might retain his place in the Army, notwithstanding he was found unsuitable for the performance of his duties. Then the learned Judge proceeds to discuss this Henley Clause on which the noble Earl relied, and he says the contract must be taken to refer to the existing laws and customs and regulations subject to the military regulations, and not overriding the power of dismissal or removal. Then, with regard to Section 56, the enactment on which the noble Earl relies, he says that does not seem to alter this view, but strengthens it, by saying that all the forces should be subject to all regulations relating to the East India Company's forces as if they had throughout been acts relating to the forces of the Crown instead of the forces of the company. So far as the legal right goes, that case makes it absolutely clear that the power does exist in the Crown, and that, under the advice of the Secretary of State, the Crown can remove any officer, notwithstanding the Henley Clause, which was introduced no doubt for the purpose which the noble Earl stated. This question was discussed, as the noble Earl has said, in 1869, 1870, and 1871; and in 1872, when the noble Earl himself was Governor General of India, an Order was issued, stating that

  251
  unemployed officers who are ineligible for public employment by reason of clear misconduct or proved inefficiency, or have been removed for that reason, or who, by misconduct, have rendered themselves ineligible for regimental employment, "will be called upon to send in their resignation," that they will be called upon to retire, and if they fail to do so, they will be removed or put upon the Pension list. That was the noble Earl's own Order when in office in India. Now, other Secretaries of State have had this matter before them. The Duke of Argyll, in the year 1872, is discussing this question, and he writes in this way to the Governor General—
  "You are authorised therefore at once to call upon all officers who are pronounced by your Government ineligible for public employment by reason either of clear misconduct, or proved physical or mental inefficiency, or who, in the words of his Excellency the Commander-in-Chief, 'have been removed from their appointments for inefficiency.'.. to send in their application to retire upon such pension as they may be entitled to under the regulations; intimating to them, that should they fail to do so within a definite and short time they will be removed to the pension list."
  That was the case in 1872 in a Despatch written to the Governor General of India. It goes on to say, that to prevent the growth in future of a military burden rendered possible by the peculiar organisation of the Indian Service, an officer may, generally speaking, become unemployed in one of four ways. He may be removed for unfitness or inefficiency in his particular office or department—
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I think the noble Earl is not quite correct. I read that Despatch, and there is no intimation in it, that any officer, removed from an appointment because he was not fit for that appointment, should be compulsorily retired; it was evidently contemplated he should be employed in some other appointment.
  *VISCOUNT CROSS: The way in which he speaks of it in this Despatch is very remarkable. He says—
  "They are to send in their application to retire upon such pension as they may be entitled to under the regulations, intimating to them, that should they fail to do so, they will be removed."
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount, but as this happened when I was in
  252
  India, I may be allowed to explain that that general order was only temporary, and applied to a certain number of officers. This officer has not been removed from the command of his regiment; he has not been given his throe months, and that general order has thereby lapsed.
  *VISCOUNT CROSS: The reason I quote this general order is this: officers were all under the same Parliamentary Guarantee as Colonel Jackson claims to be under; and those particular officers who were placed on the pension list were under that guarantee.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I can only say that if my noble Friend can produce to me one single case of an officer who was retired under that order I will admit his argument, not otherwise.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: That is the order. What may have been done under it I cannot tell.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: The records must be in the office.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: The noble Lord has read this Despatch, and he has quoted the opinion of Lord Napier, but there is one sentence in it which I would like to call your Lordships' attention to—
  "His Excellency then refers to the practice of the Court of Directors of the late East India Company, and expresses doubts as to the policy of placing officers on the retired list who may be unemployed through no fault of their own."
  Then he observes that—
  "Those officers who have been removed from their appointment from inefficiency or who distinct or undeniable misconduct have rendered themselves ineligible for regimental commands, cannot be considered unjustly treated if they are not permitted to succeed to colonels' allowances."
  That is clearly the case with Colonel Jackson; if he was removed from inefficiency, in spite of the so-called Parliamentary guarantee, in the opinion of Lord Napier he could not complain that he is deprived of colonels' allowances. That is only one Despatch of a number which I have here. There was a Despatch written by the noble Marquess opposite, the Marquess of Ripon, in 1884, when he was Governor General, addressed to the noble Lord (the Earl of Kimberley), stating that—
  "General Hardinge recommends that when cases of disabilities of an insurmountable

  253
  nature, such as those originating from want of nerve or judgment necessitate the exclusion of an officer from the position of commandant or second in command of a regiment, a special report should be made to Government, setting forth the Commander-in-Chief's reasons for with holding promotion from such officer."
  But goes on to say—
  "The State has a right to expect from officers a high standard of efficiency considering the liberal terms under which they are serving."
  In that I entirely agree, that you have a right to expect from officers not a moderate but a high standard of efficiency. I have here several cases of officers who were removed for inefficiency when not in command, but when second in command, and who were removed for this reason, that if anything happened they would be called upon to assume the command of their regiments, for which they were not fitted. Therefore, it has been applied to officers second in command. I have also a Despatch from Lord Randolph Churchill when Secretary of State, to the same effect, and concluding with the remark to the Governor General of India that if he finds any officer ineffiicient, and not able to perform his duty to the satisfaction of his superiors, he may rely upon his support in the removal of that officer. I think I have shown, at all events as far as the Parliamentary guarantee goes, there is no case for Colonel Jackson. Great caution, I quite admit, is necessary, and I quite admit that officers should not be dismissed rashly because the power exists; but all I have been urging is that the power does exist, and that the Government had a right to remove Colonel Jackson if he was proved to be inefficient. Leaving that part of the case, I will come to the question whether he was efficient or not. I am bound to say that if ever my character has to be defended, I hope it will not be defended by my noble and gallant Friend who sits behind me (Lord Chelmsford), for I certainly thought that he made a very weak defence. No doubt Colonel Jackson had not been in command of the regiment for some long time. He had been on the staff. There is no doubt he was a good officer, or was believed to be so, and was appointed to this regiment to bring it into order. The noble Earl and my noble and gallant Friend behind me have both quoted extensively from a Report of Sir
  254
  Hugh Gough. There are sentences in that Report which undoubtedly say Colonel Jackson was a moderate officer, but if my noble Friends had only taken the trouble to read that Report through, they would have seen an enormous number of faults that Sir Hugh Gough finds in that Report. But I do not think that Report ought to have been quoted, if I may say so with all humility to your Lordships, without going on to state what happened in reference to it afterwards. There was a letter, which was sent to Colonel Jackson; it is not a Report on the regiment made to the military authority in India. It was sent after the Inspector General of Cavalry had come, and then the real Report was made by Sir Hugh Gough. Now, I will read what Sir Hugh Gough said when he made his Report, not to Colonel Jackson, but to the military authorities—
  "Colonel Jackson is reported by the Inspector-General of Cavalry as a failure. He failed to bring his regiment into a state of efficiency; an opinion in which I concur. He is considered to have neither tact, judgment, nor qualifications, and I regret not being able to make a satisfactory Report on his regiment."
  That is some time after he had written the Report to Colonel Jackson and all I can say is that I think both those Reports should have been placed before your Lordships at the same time. The Governor-General and the Commander-in-Chief were very much struck with the difference between those Reports, and they called for an explanation of how it came to pass that he should have told Colonel Jackson one thing, and should have formally reported to his superior something else; and then Sir Hugh Gough says—I am bound to say I think it is rather a lame explanation—that he thought the regiment wanted encouraging, that there were some good points about it, and he thought when he wrote to Colonel Jackson he would say all he possibly could in its favour, although he had not practically come to that conclusion himself. But now I come to the Reports of the Inspector-General of Cavalry, General Luck, because they really do bear upon this case very much. In March, 1888, the Inspector-General of Cavalry goes to inspect this particular regiment, and what did he say? He says—

  255
  "As a leader Colonel Jackson is wanting in dash, and unable to apply quickly his knowledge of drill, which is limited, to the circumstances of the moment. I recommend his removal from the command at the end of the year unless a very marked improvement takes place in the meantime."
  You cannot, I think, have a stronger Report against a man than that, saying he is unfit for his command and recommending his removal the next year unless a different state of thing's should take place in the interval. Then, what happens in March, 1889? Sir Charles Gough goes to inspect the regiment, for it had then changed its position and was under Sir Charles Gough. He says—
  "Colonel Jackson does not possess any real ability as a commanding officer, but is about a fairly average officer; is zealous and means well and is anxious to do so, but is wanting in manner and tact in dealing with men, and does not appear to gain their confidence and esteem."
  Now comes the Inspector-General of Cavalry again; and in March, 1889, the same month of the same year, what he says is—
  "In my opinion Colonel Jackson is not fit to command a regiment. I have no reason to alter the opinion I formed of him last year. His ignorance of drill on many occasions was most marked. I fear the regiment will never improve while under his command. They work well enough under their squadron commanders."
  Can you have a worse report than that of any officer? He says this officer is unfit for the command; that the men work well enough while under their squadron commanders, who do know their work, but that they do not work well when he comes to the front. Surely you could not have a worse report than that. Then the Commander-in-Chief is consulted, and he quotes this report and says—
  "I have no option but to report my opinion that Colonel Jackson should not be permitted to remain in command,"
  and he goes on to give further reasons. He says—
  "I saw the regiment twice last winter, first at the Delhi camp of exercise and afterwards at Lucknow,"
  and then he goes on to tell you his opinion of what the condition of the regiment is, and to say that he was not favourably impressed by it. First, then, you have the Report of the Inspector-General of Cavalry, and you have not one
  256
  single word in Colonel Jackson's favour to balance the arguments used against him in the Reports of the Inspector-General of Cavalry and the Commander-in-Chief. But in 1890 Sir Charles Gough goes to this regiment again, and although the words used by him were read by my noble and gallant Friend (Lord Chelmsford) I do not think he read them quite to the point. Colonel Jackson had gone away. What had become of the regiment in the meantime? Was it in the same state as when he left it? How was it found by Sir Charles Gough in 1890? What he says is—
  "Colonel Jackson is absent and has been absent during the greatest part of the past year. I attribute the vast improvement that has taken place in the 5th Bengal Cavalry greatly to the fact of his absence. I was asked to report upon him almost immediately after he had come under my command and before I had had time to get an intimate knowledge of him. From what I have seen of him since, and the improved state of the regiment since he left, I feel certain his return to the command would be disastrous to the regiment. He is utterly deficient in tact, temper, and judgment."
  And yet the noble Earl wishes me to say, in the face of the opinion of the Commander-in-Chief, not only from these Reports, but from his own knowledge of the regiment, and when I am told that Colonel Jackson's return to the regiment will be disastrous to it, that I am prepared to step in at this stage and put down the opinion of the Commander-in-Chief, the Governor General in Council, and say that this man ought to be reinstated. I think that would be a very strong measure for me to take. I doubt whether my noble Friend opposite, when Secretary of State, or any other Secretary of State, would take the responsibility of sending a man back to the command of his regiment after receiving these reports. Then, my noble Friend says no care has been taken to sift Colonel Jackson's case since he came home. I venture to say that no case has ever received more consideration. The noble Earl says it might be referred to three persons whom he named; but this matter has already been most seriously considered.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I referred to the question of his rights under the Parliamentary guarantee.
  *VISCOUNT CROSS: I thought the noble Earl meant as to Colonel Jackson's conduct. I am speaking now of his conduct.

  257
  This matter has been referred to three of, probably, the very best men you could put your fingers upon for the purpose, members of my Council, Sir Archibald Alison, Sir Peter Lumsden, and Sir Donald Stewart. I think you could not find an officer in the whole Indian Army who knows more about such matters than Sir Donald Stewart. Those officers all came to the absolute conclusion that it was utterly impossible that this officer should be allowed to remain in command of his regiment. In the face of that does my noble Friend really think that a Secretary of State would step in and say this officer should be returned to his command? My Lords, that is the ease I have to lay before you. My noble Friend said when Colonel Jackson got home he was astonished to find he was to retire. Well, he must be a most extraordinary man if he was astonished when he got home, because he did not leave India until towards the end of 1889, and when he was in India he had received a letter from the Adjutant General, dated the 10th of May, 1889, and marked "Urgent," in which he was told that, owing to the unfavourable reports made upon him at the inspection of the 5th Bengal Cavalry, it would not be possible for the Commander-in-Chief to allow him to continue in command of the regiment. He knew that; he had it from the Adjutant General himself in May, 1889, and he could not, therefore, have been astonished at it when he got to England in 1890.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: The noble Viscount must have misunderstood me in a very odd way. What I said was when he came back without having received any intimation from the Adjutant General, he was exceedingly surprised at receiving this intimation that he would be expected to retire.
  *VISCOUNT CROSS: I will come to that part of the case presently. Clearly he had had warning enough. He was told in May, 1889, he could not remain in command of the regiment. My noble Friend says now that he went away under the impression that General Roberts would give him another examination. I will read the words of the letter—
  "Sir Frederick had hoped that you might have remained in India till the end of this
  258
  cold weather and have stood the test of another inspection."
  Not that he was not in his own right, but that General Roberts was willing to do it out of kindness to Colonel Jackson. When Colonel Jackson called upon the Commander-in-Chief at Simla he was told that every consideration had been given to his case; but he was told, that although the Commander-in-Chief's opinion of his unfitness for the command remained unchanged, it would be better for him to defer leaving the country until his case was settled. He was told that it would be better in his own interest that he should postpone his departure for England until he should have undergone another inspection which the Commander-in-Chief was willing to grant him out of kindness. That is precisely what the Commander-in-Chief told him; but in spite of that advice he left the country, and I do not know how he could have been astonished afterwards when he came to England to find that he was asked to take this course. There is a considerable gap in the correspondence, but before I finish I may say a letter was written to him privately. It was thought better that a private letter should be sent so as not to hurt his feelings, telling him that he might retire. The reason there has been delay was this: In consequence of the interest which I knew the noble Earl took in this matter, I was quite determined that Colonel Jackson's case should be re-considered in India if possible, and, therefore, I went out of my way to communicate with the Viceroy, begging him to look into the case and see if he could find any loophole in Colonel Jackson's favour. The answer I received was there was not another word to be said, and that there could not be; that the Viceroy had looked into the whole case himself and was satisfied that justice had been done. What more can be done in the face of these Reports? If the Commander-in-Chief and military advisers, after the satisfactory consideration which they had given to the case at my instance, said, and when the Viceroy also says that there is nothing for it but that the man must be dismissed, what could the Secretary of State do but this? There is one point more to which I will refer, and I cannot help thinking that this is at the bottom

  259
  of Colonel Jackson's feeling in the matter—and I feel it, too—that is, that he should be deprived of his Colonel's allowances. That is the point which Lord Napier alluded to when he said that if a man is removed for inefficiency—these are Lord Napier's own words—
  "They cannot be considered unjustly treated if they are not permitted to succeed to Colonel's allowances."
  Just let me point out, in order that Colonel Jackson should gain his Colonel's allowances, the alternative I should be put to. This officer cannot go back to his regiment. He would receive full pay for six years from the Revenues of India in order that at the end of that time he should receive his Colonel's allowances. Do your Lordships think I could stand up in this House, or that anyone representing the Government of India could stand up in the other House of Parliament, and defend such a course? I could not do so. My Lords, I have to apologise for having taken up some time in explaining this matter fully to the House, but I hope your Lordships will be content with my explanation.
  *THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I beg to move for the Regulations mentioned in my notice.
  *VISCOUNT CROSS: I quite forgot to say there are no Regulations, and, therefore, I cannot give them. The only Regulations are the Statutes which refer to the East India Company. Those are Statutes which transfer these powers to the Crown; but there are no Regulations; had there been, they should at once be placed on the Table.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: Am I to understand from the noble Viscount that there are no Regulations stating on what grounds an officer may be removed from his command to the Pension List? If so, it is a state of things which leaves the reputation of almost any officer in the power of the Commander-in-Chief in India, because the noble Viscount's explanation is simply repeating what the Commander-in-Chief in India has said, and there can be no remedy for any injustice which may be done by the Commander-in-Chief in India. I will not trouble your Lordships with an elaborate answer in regard to the course which has been taken in this case of
  260
  Colonel Jackson. I will simply say that every single point which has been made by the noble Viscount has been most carefully considered by me, and I can say that the noble Viscount has omitted to state whatever was in favour of Colonel Jackson, and has stated with great ability, and with all the authority which his position enables him to exercise, everything which can possibly be said against that officer. But I will prove to your Lordships in one moment how very cursorily and carelessly the attention of the noble Viscount must have been called to this case. The noble Viscount gave several Reports which were damaging to Colonel Jackson. He seemed to think it was a right thing for an officer commanding a division to state that subsequent experience had led him to a conclusion when he had no subsequent experience at all; he thought it was right that a Commander-in-Chief should make a statement of that kind, without examination, to the Governor General in India, in order that he might deal with an officer upon such a Report as that; and the noble Viscount laid great stress upon a Minute of the Commander-in-Chief himself, in which he said he could personally testify to the condition of the regiment, for he had seen it twice, once at Delhi, and once at Lucknow. Will your Lordships believe me when I say that that statement was entirely inaccurate—that the Commander-in-Chief had not seen the regiment twice, and that if the Governor General of India relied upon that statement he relied upon a statement which was contrary to the fact? Colonel Jackson, in his Memorial, put that before the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State considered it such a trifle for the Commander-in-Chief in India to send an inaccurate Report to the Governor General that he has not even taken the trouble to find put that it was inaccurate. I can assure your Lordships I have taken great pains in going into this case, and it is only one of the many extraordinary circumstances which show the manner in which officers are treated in India at the present time if Colonel Jackson's case is at all a specimen of the way in which business is done in the Adjutant General's office in India. I would take the sense of the House upon the matter;

  261
  but, as there are no Papers, it is impossible for me to divide.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

KYANG KHENG.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD LAMINGTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Indian Government have yet decided upon recognising the State of Kyang Kheng as tributary to the Burmese Shan State of Kyang Tung?
  *VISCOUNT CROSS: My Lords, there is no doubt this is a very important question, and I am very glad the noble Lord has brought the matter forward. The Government of India are at present considering the matter; they have agents there looking into it, but they have not yet had an opportunity of considering their Report. I hope to be able next Session to give a better answer upon the subject.
  *THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I would ask the noble Viscount whether the Commissioners are making progress in settling the boundaries with the Siamese Government?
  *VISCOUNT CROSS: Yes; I believe they are making rapid progress.

FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS BILL. (No. 256.)
Read 3a (according to order) with Amendments.
Verbal Amendments made.
LORD BARRINGTON: My Lords, I have an Amendment to move upon Clause 18. It is scarcely worth while to recapitulate what took place yesterday. The sense of the House was very well proved by the Division which took place. Notwithstanding the able manner in which the noble Earl appealed to your Lordships in endeavouring to have the clause struck out of the Bill, it remains, having been carried by a large majority. I say nothing more, but that my sympathies are very much with the noble Earl, and I think that the sting of the clause might well be be removed by an Amendment. Therefore, I would now move to add at the end of the clause,
"Unless she produces a medical certificate that the employment will not be injurious to her health."
262
Clause 18 is to prevent an employer during the space of four weeks knowingly employing a woman after her confinement. There is no doubt that many women are able to follow their ordinary occupation in less time than four weeks. It was shown, upon very good evidence produced by the noble Earl, that many do so in 10 days or a fortnight, and I think that if a woman obtains a medical certificate that she is in a fit state there can be no possible objection to her being employed earlier than a month if she desires. I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved, in page 8, line 39, at the end of Clause 18, to insert the words—
("Unless she produces a medical certificate that the employment will not he injurious to her health.")—(The Lord Barrington.)
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Before the noble Lord answers, I must call attention to the fact that no notice has been given of the noble Lord's Amendment; and without expressing any opinion upon it, I would point out that after the decision given in a much fuller House by a decided majority, it is very inconvenient that the subject should be brought forward in a very small House upon an Amendment of which no notice has been given.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK): I think what the noble Earl has said is conclusive; we were told the other evening that it could not be done without notice.
*EARL WEMYSS: This is a very important proposal of my noble Friend's, and I think the Amendment ought to be considered.
VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: But there is no notice.
*EARL WEMYSS: I know—it is a matter of form. Why not postpone the Third Reading? There is no hurry. Instead of taking it now, postpone it; that will give time for notice.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Third Reading has been passed.
*EARL WEMYSS: Then I can move a postponement before the Bill is passed.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: That is a very inconvenient course. The House has decided this question by a large majority after a full discussion, and we

263
have now passed the Third Reading. It is really very inconvenient to put in Amendments without notice after that.
LORD BARRINGTON: I press my Amendment.
*EARL WEMYSS: I do not know what is the form; but I must say I think it is extremely desirable that this proviso should be appended to the clause. Surely the noble Lords on my right, if it is unnecessary that some women should be kept out of their proper employment for four weeks—that is, if their health as shown by a medical certificate admits of their resuming their work—do not wish that they should be deprived of their employment needlessly? My own impression is that the whole of this legislation is wrong so far as it is carried out in this particular clause. I divided upon it because Lord Hannen came to me and said—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I interrupt the noble Lord? As I understand the Order of the House, it is irregular to move an Amendment at this stage without notice. I quite admit that from time to time by consent of the House formal Amendments have been made; but this is a matter of substance, and I believe, as a question of Order of the House, it is out of order to move such an Amendment at such a time.
Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
Amendments moved, in Clause 26, page 10, line 29, after ("therein") to insert—
("And every contractor employed by any such occupier"); lines 39 and 40, to leave out ("in a factory or workshop.") The occupier of the factory or workshop,") and insert ("by the occupier of a factory or workshop, or by a contractor, the occupier, or contractor.")—(The Lord de Ramsey.)
LORD SANDHURST: I agree to that Amendment. Those words were originally inserted in the clause which I proposed.
Amendment agreed to.
Moved, "That the Bill do now pass."
*EARL WEMYSS: Now, my Lords, I move at this stage that the Bill be postponed, and I do so simply on this ground. As a matter of fact, I believe this proviso is one which we had every reason to believe would be accepted. It modifies the evil of the clause itself, and may
264
be of great advantage to those poor women who by the clause are to be struck out of employment for four weeks when they are perfectly able at the end of two or three to return to their work. I do hope the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, and those on the Government side of the House, will allow the Bill to be postponed, in order that notice of this Amendment may be given in due form. I do trust that will be consented to by the leaders of this House.
LORD HERSCHELL: I feel sure that is impossible. The Motion has been put, "That the Bill do pass," and if you adjourn that Motion no Amendments can be put in after the Third Reading. An adjournment of the Motion "That the Bill do pass" will not enable Amendments to be put in.
*EARL WEMYSS: We were told that would be the proper course, and that it has been done.
LORD HERSCHELL: What was done in the case of the Gates and Toll-bars Bill was that the adjournment took place upon the Motion for the Third Reading of the Bill.
*EARL WEMYSS: I can only regret, my Lords, that the Forms of this House should prevent a necessary modification of a very foolish and very harsh clause. The responsibility rests with others, and not with us.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not quite certain that my noble and learned Friend is accurate. I have a very distinct recollection of the Land Transfer Bill when the Motion was put that the Bill should pass; a Motion was then made upon that, and upon that Motion it was defeated.
*EARL WEMYSS: On the strength of that, I will move that this stage of the Bill be adjourned, and I will divide upon it.
Amendment moved, "That the Debate on the said Motion be adjourned to Monday next."—(The Lord Wemyss [E. Wemyss].)
*THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My impression is that the Amendment cannot be proposed after the Motion that the Bill do pass.
*THE EARL OF SELBORNE: In the case mentioned by my noble and learned Friend there can be no doubt that the Motion "That the Bill do pass" had not

265
been put; the Third Beading had been passed; and it was agreed that the Debate should be adjourned at that stage.
On Question, resolved in the negative.
*EARL WEMYSS: My Lords, I wish to give notice, in reference to the Motion for postponement of this Bill, that if the Bill receives Her Majesty's assent I shall next Session bring in a Bill to repeal the 16th clause.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BILL. (No. 257.)
Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
TRUSTS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 245.)
Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) ACT (1860) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 162.)
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

COUNTY COUNCILS (ELECTIONS) BILL.—(No. 248.)
Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments.
*LORD HENNIKER: On Clause 4 I have an Amendment. It is with regard to questions which were put in Standing Committee the other day by the noble Lord opposite, Lord Lingen. The Amendment, I think, meets the wishes of the noble Lord as far as possible and clears up the difficulty. As the words stood, it might have been impossible for any Alderman or County Councillor to resign, but as they will stand by my Amendment, it is possible that there should be such resignation. That is my intention in moving this Amendment; in fact, that the law remains as it is at present.
Amendment moved, in Clause 4, page 2, lines 34 and 35, to leave out ("shall continue in office until that day") and insert ("their term of office shall be extended accordingly.")—(The Lord Hartismere [L. Henniker].)
*LORD LINGEN: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for having introduced the words he proposes into the Bill, and I am quite willing to take his opinion, given no doubt under legal advice, that the words are sufficient for the purpose. The words provide that the chairmen and members mentioned in the beginning of the clause, whose term of office would have expired but for this Act on the ordinary day in November, "shall continue in office" until the new date; and this, it appears to me, somewhat infringed upon the privilege which is given by Section 36 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, and which is embodied in the Local Government Act, 1888, to the effect that the office-bearers of the Councils may resign their offices upon terms to be settled by the bye-laws of their respective Councils. The bye-laws of the County Council of London state that those officers may retire upon payment of a fine of £1. The words which the noble Lord has consented to introduce will, I believe, be sufficient for the purpose. I have conferred with my noble Friend Lord Hobhouse upon the matter, and he is, as well as myself, satisfied with the words. I therefore beg leave to accept them. Perhaps your Lordships will grant me your patience if on the Third Reading of this Bill I make one or two further observations upon it.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved, in line 42, to leave out ("shall continue in office till that day") and insert ("their term of office shall be extended accordingly.")—(The Lord Hartismere [L. Henniker].)
Amendment agreed to.
*LORD THRING: My Lords, I have to introduce an Amendment by permission of the Local Government Board. It is for the purpose of removing a doubt, which was considered to be serious, with regard to the qualification of a County Councillor. A Councillor would be disqualified under the Municipal Corporations Act if he holds any office of profit relating to the County Councils. There is a Return of County Council officers specially required. The Chairmen have been made Returning Officers, and they are entitled to fees and expenses. Those fees have not been received by the

267
Chairmen. They have appointed deputies who have received them, and they have not been disqualified. Of course the consequences of such disqualification would be most serious, and this clause has been introduced to prevent that. It can do no harm, and will remove the possibility of most serious consequences if it is retained.
Amendment moved, after Clause 5, to insert the following new Clause:—
("It is hereby declared that a person shall not be disqualified, nor be deemed ever to have been disqualified, under section twelve of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, for being a member of a county council by reason only of his being appointed returning officer by that council, except where he has directly or indirectly by himself or his partner received any profit or remuneration in respect of such appointment."—(The Lord Thring.)
Amendment agreed to.
*LORD LINGEN: I have already stated to your Lordships such reasons as occur to me why I think that this Bill is an inexpedient one in regard to the County Council of London, and in answer to those reasons the noble Lord who has charge of the Bill has brought forward his own arguments, and I have no doubt he has brought forward those which he considers the strongest; but I really think that, if it were worth while at this stage to do more than notice them, there are some which call somewhat for the consideration of this House. It has been made a great argument against the London County Council that upon this question they changed their minds. Well, I will not say that their change of mind is supported by a proverb of some weight, that second thoughts are best; but whether it was consistent or inconsistent to change their mind, I think the real question before this House is whether their second resolution was an expedient one or not. I do not think the mere fact of changing ought to be quoted against them. Then another argument which my noble Friend brought forward was this: that although there was a majority of two to one in the County Council for retaining the old date of election, yet the County Council was not the only representative of the ratepayers who were also represented by the Members of Parliament who sat for constituencies within the County of
268
London. I do think, my Lords, that is rather an extraordinary argument for a Government which has brought in a Local Government Bill to put forward. The constituencies which they speak of were constituted in the year 1885, and the date of the Local Government Bill is 1888. If there was no occasion for a further and separate representation of the ratepayers, I really fail to see why the Local Government Bill was brought in at all. But, as I understand the Local Government Bill, it does give to counties representation, a representative and an executive function, over certain matters which Parliament is content to delegate to them. Another argument which was urged by the noble Lord was, that be the inconvenience what it might, it would only occur once in three years. If it occurs at all, that I think is very scant comfort indeed to the Council. I do not wish to bring these points before your Lordships, except in the way of protest against this Bill. I think it is a Bill which does not rest upon sound arguments drawn from the municipal government and condition of London. Regulations which may be desirable for small County Councils representing small areas plainly, as a matter of common-sense, do not apply to such a county as London. I venture to say that the attempt to apply such regulations to such a county cannot be lasting, and I believe that at no very distant day your Lordships will have this question before you again.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

MARKETS AND FAIRS (WEIGHING OF CATTLE) BILL.—(No. 243.)
Read 3a (according to order) with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
First Report from the Committee made, and to be printed. (No. 266.): To be considered on Tuesday next.
House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.