THE CASE OF COLONEL GEORGE JACKSON, 5TH BENGAL CAVALRY.

HL Deb 24 July 1891 vol 356 cc234-61

*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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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— 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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— 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 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. 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 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 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 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; but, as there are no Papers, it is impossible for me to divide.

Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.