HL Deb 15 February 1892 vol 1 cc431-41

Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount CROSS)

My Lords, I have to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill. The Bill is not new to your Lordships, because in the year 1891—last year—I introduced this Bill into your Lordships' House; it went through Committee and also through the Grand Committee. I think the result of the labours of those Committees has been to introduce a good deal into the measure which might very fairly be left out; but I thought it better to introduce it in the form in which it left the Standing Committee and passed through your Lordships' House last year. At the same time, when we go into Committee, if your Lordships give the Bill a Second Reading, I shall propose certain Amendments, solely for the purpose of greatly simplifying the drafting of this Bill. The object of the Bill is to enable the Secretary of State for India in Council, with the consent of the Governor General in Council, to allow certain officers, who at the present moment cannot come home to England without losing their appointments, to come home for a short period. The Governor General, the Governors of Madras and Bombay, the Commander-in-Chief of the Forces, the Commanders-in-Chief of Madras and Bombay, the Lieutenant Governors of Bengal and the North-West Provinces and the Punjaub, can none of them come home without vacating the office they hold. That, I think, was a very wise provision at the time it was passed, when the journey to India took a long time, and it would have been almost impossible to allow them to leave and come home, however important the business might be upon which their presence was required. But now that the journey is performed so quickly, and that one of these officers could come home and go back almost without any interruption of his office, it does seem to me that it would be very wise, under every precaution, to make some provision for allowing them to come home to England without vacating their offices. My Lords, once or twice the matter has come before me in this way: it was very important that a man should come home from India, in one or two cases because he was very much wanted in consultation; in another, for a short period because of health; but, although I have been pressed more than once to act, I have always refused to let an officer come home and then send him back and re-appoint him, because I thought it would be an evasion of the Act, and I never would consent to evade the Act. I have never attempted to do so, and I never intend to do so. But now let me take the case of the Commander-in-Chief for the moment. I can quite understand that it might be of the greatest possible advantage that he should come home for consultation with the Military Authorities here, and with the Government of the day upon many matters; but, as matters now stand, it would be quite impossible to summon him to England without his vacating the office absolutely and entirely; and I think it would be an evasion of the Act to bring him home, letting him vacate the office, and then to re-appoint him and send him back again. Of course, it is for your Lordships to consider whether this measure should proceed as high as the Governors of Madras and Bombay, or whether it should go even as high as the Governor General himself; that is a matter entirely for your Lordships when it comes into Committee; but I hope that the principle of this measure will be accepted by your Lordships as it was last year, namely, that there should be some such power, guarded as much as you like. I have guarded it by saying that it should be done by the Secretary of State in Council, and should require the Governor General in Council also to approve; and I think that, if the Secretary of State in Council, on his own responsibility, were to say that it was wise that a man should come home for a short time, and if that opinion of the Secretary of State in Council was endorsed by the Governor General in Council, you have a very great safeguard against any abuse of the powers which this Bill proposes to give. I do not think I ought to take up your Lordships' time further by stating what the object of the Bill is. Your Lordships will remember that in one case we were obliged to pass a special measure to enable His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught to come home for Her Majesty's Jubilee, and, at the time that Act was passed, it was stated openly by Mr. Childers, in the House of Commons, that he objected to a particular Bill, but that, if a general Bill was brought forward, he for one, at all events, and, he believed, a good many of the persons with whom he acted, would see no objection to passing such a measure. I have to ask your Lordships to read this Bill now a second time.

Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Viscount Cross.)

* THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK

My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships for not having been present when this Bill was brought in during the last Session of Parliament. In point of fact its title did not attract my notice, and it altogether escaped my observation. But, my Lords, it seems to me that there are many reasons against the passing of this Bill. I must say that I failed to gather from the noble Viscount in his speech to-night, and I have read his observations of last year, that any public necessity has been shown for passing this Bill. I daresay the Government have been in communication with the Governor General in India on the subject, and will be able to put before your Lordships the opinion expressed by him in respect to this measure; and I should like very much to know what is the feeling of the Governor of India in Council with respect to the advisability of increasing the frequency of vacancies in the great offices in India. India is a country which is subject to most unexpected occurrences; and supposing the Governor General is away for six months, supposing the Governors of Madras and Bombay are away for six months, supposing the Commander-in-Chief in India is away for six months, and supposing the other Commanders-in-Chief are away for six months, and any serious circumstances were to occur in India in the absence of either of them, I think the consequences might be exceedingly grave. And I very much doubt, myself, whether it is desirable to give these facilities for these high officers of State to leave India. My Lords, the analogy, which the noble Viscount quoted last year, of the Colonies is not applicable, in my opinion, to India. The most part of the Colonies have Representative Institutions and Constitutional Governments, and the absence of the Governor of such a Colony for a short time does not appear to me to involve any of those consequences which the absence of the Governor General of India or of the Presidencies might involve in India. And, my Lords, I should like to have some further explanation from the Secretary of State for India in what circumstances the power of requiring the Governor General of India to come home is to be exercised. The noble Viscount very fairly said, in the course of his observations, that it is possible that in Committee this Bill might be made not to apply to the Governor General or to the Governors of Madras and Bombay. My Lords, if that is the case, there will be very little indeed left in the Bill. But I should like to know how this power is to be applied. What are the "public grounds," which are undefined in the Bill, which are to justify the Secretar of State in requiring the Governor General or the Governors of Madras and Bombay, or the Commander-in-Chief, to come home? Are those "public grounds" matters of grave consequence affecting India? If they are, surely the place for the Governor General and these high officers is in India; if they are matters connected with this country, surely we ought to have some explanation as to what kind of matters are of sufficient importance to justify the Secretary of State in requiring the Governor General or the Commander-in-Chief to come home. We all felt, my Lords, that Her Majesty's Jubilee was an occasion when it was quite justifiable, as a perfectly exceptional circumstance, to bring home to this country the Commander-in-Chief in Bombay, His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught. I do not think anybody could fairly quarrel with an exceptional Act of Parliament being passed in those circumstances. But, my Lords, in ordinary circumstances I cannot myself conceive that it would be right to summon the Commander-in-Chief in India home to this country. He is in a military position, perhaps the most responsible in the world, with dangers constantly occurring that cannot be expected. I must say, my Lords, that the whole policy expressed in this Bill—I will not go into details—appears to me to be open to very considerable doubt, and I trust, if your Lordships pass the Second Reading of this Bill, to which I should not myself be a consenting party, the Secretary of State will lay before the House some Papers showing that the matter has been considered, and, moreover, that he will consider whether there should not be some definition, even if this Bill goes forward, as to what the public grounds are to be on which, and some limit of time for which the Governor General may be required to come home by the Secretary of State. There is no limit whatever in the Bill. Absolutely the Governor General or the Commander-in-Chief may be sent for to come home by the Secretary of State, and may remain without any limit of time in this country. These are, I think, sufficient reasons to show your Lordships that this Bill requires further consideration. I will not dwell upon another matter; still, it is a matter of some importance. These officers are to come home from India on public grounds connected with this country. Who is to pay the expense? I presume the Secretary of State will move in the other House that all expenses connected with the visit shall be paid out of the Imperial Revenues, because it would be very unfair upon the Indian Revenues that the expense should come out of the finances of India. Not that it would be any very great sum, but as a matter of principle. These matters are being watched by the people of India, and care should be taken to do justice to all parties, and if the visits home are to be on English grounds, care should be taken in another place to put the whole of the expense upon the finances of this country, and not, upon the finances of India. I myself, my Lords, am against increasing the facilities for people holding these high offices to vacate their appointments for a limited time. I think there is something to be said, if there is now any difficulty (I do not believe myself there is), in favour of enabling the Lieutenant Governors of Bengal, the North-West Provinces and the Punjaub, to come home on sick leave. I apprehend that they can do so now under the present law. I believe that, on a medical certificate, those officers may come home on sick leave for a certain time, and I say that, I think there is no objection to that; in point of fact, I think there is good reason for allowing it, because these officers are all officers belonging to the Indian Civil Service, and, therefore, it would be hard upon them, if their health broke down in those appointments, that they should not be allowed to come home on sick leave in the same way as they can if they fill the high appointments of Members of the, Governor General's Council. But that argument does not apply, in my opinion, to the other officers mentioned here;, it does not apply to the Governor General of India, to the Governors of Madras and Bombay, or to the Commander-in-Chief in India?it would not in any way interfere with his military position that he should have to give up his appointment—it does not apply to the Commanders-in-Chief of Madras and Bombay. My Lords, the reason why I object to any greater facilities being given for the vacation of these important offices is that, at present in India, the constant vacancies in offices, by reason of their holders going away on sick leave and otherwise, is a great public evil. It is (to use a familiar expression) a general game of "post;" one man goes away and another is acting for him, and a third acts for the person transferred; so that all over India there is uncertainty as to who is really doing these important duties. And, I think, if you extend this system to officers filling these high appointments (and it would be extended if this Bill passes), you would be increasing an evil which is, even now, by no means of minor importance.

THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)

My Lords, I shall not at all contest the criticisms which the noble Lord has passed upon the wording of this Bill. My noble Friend thought it right to adopt the wording taken in the Standing Committee, but I readily grant to the noble Lord that it will require a good deal of correction, and there are particular questions which I will readily leave as questions of detail to be debated on another stage of the Bill, if your Lordships think fit to give the Bill a Second Reading. But on the general principle I cannot concur with the noble Lord. The state of the case is this: that when these Acts were passed originally, which we are modifying now, it was impossible to get from India to England except by going round the Cape, and it took six or eight months to do so. At that time short leave was unknown. Gradually, as the means of communication increased, those parts of the Service of India which were not limited by Statute received the advantage (of which, perhaps, as the noble Lord says, they have too abundantly availed themselves) of privileged leave, and other forms of leave, which enabled them to come home from time to time. But the result of this stiff statutory law is not in any way to diminish the game of "post," of which the noble Lord complains; it is to create this anomaly: that some of the posts at the head of the Service, which are held by the oldest men—by the men who have been most tried, by the men to whom leave on medical certificates may be most absolutely necessary—to them it is impossible, while it is freely granted to all the rest of the Service. I do not think the noble Lord is entitled to put the onus upon us. He has to show why we have to keep this strange anomaly standing quite by itself in the Service of the Queen, and which has grown up to its present proportions through the enormous alteration of the conditions of passage which have taken place. The noble Lord asks what evils there are. I decline to be committed to instances; it is impossible to give instances; instances would involve not only entering upon private affairs of individuals, but speaking of matters which properly ought not to be spoken of in public. But there are two inconveniences of the present system which are more or less grave. One of them is the impossibility of consultation; the other is that, owing to the difficulty of obtaining temporary leave, or medical leave, it is difficult to fill some of the offices mentioned in this Schedule. I do not mean to go into details; but nobody who has had anything to do with the filling of them will doubt the accuracy of what I say. I am quite ready to go into the question of limitations, if it is thought that limitations are necessary. If you cannot trust the Secretary of State in Council, I should not resist putting in any limitations which may be thought wise; but I think the time has come for departing from an arrangement which is evidently obsolete, and which is a hindrance, in more than one respect, to the proper carrying on of the Public Service. I speak feelingly from my own office when I say that consultation is of the essence of the Public Service, and one of the great advantages which the facilities of communication give to us now; and in the Foreign Office I know it is frequently used; I believe it is frequently used in the Colonial Office also, though I have no personal experience of that; but we are debarred from personal communication with the members of the Councils of the three Provinces by the state of the law. I do not wish to revert to old troubles; but my impression is that some points on which I had the misfortune to differ from the noble Lord very strongly, when we were in the respective offices of Secretary of State and Governor General, might have been entirely averted if it had been possible for me to send home for the persons principally concerned. I therefore think you are placing an unnecessary fetter and impediment on the usefulness of the Public Service. If you cannot trust those who have the adminis- tration of these duties to exercise powers so large as are contained in this Bill, well, offer to us limitations of them. I will not exclude the idea of them; but I do hope the House will consent to depart from a system which in itself is anomalous and unwise.

* THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

My Lords, with respect to a portion of the Bill, I am not disposed to disagree with the noble Marquess opposite. For instance, with regard to the Governors General of Bengal, the North-West Provinces, and the Punjaub, I do not think there is any necessity for a restriction bearing upon them more than upon any other member of the Indian Service. It may be necessary to give them the power to come home either for consultation or for leave. But I confess I do feel, with my noble Friend Lord Northbrook, grave doubt as to the applicability of this Bill, either to the Governor General of India or to the Commander-in-Chief. There is no doubt much force in what the noble Marquess has said as to the advantage of consultation with officers with whom you have to act; but here we have to consider, as in most other matters, the balance of advantages, and we have to consider whether the possibility of the Governor General being brought home to Europe, for the purpose of consultation with the Government here, might not bring about evils greater than any advantage that could be derived. Your Lordships must bear in mind that there is no officer serving under the Government, certainly not an Ambassador or Colonial Governor, whose responsibility can in any degree be compared with that of the Viceroy of India. The Viceroy stands, as it were, on a pinnacle, and his personal responsibility is very great. In this country, whatever Government may be in Office aims, I think, to send out the most distinguished and able man who can be selected for the post, and that because we consider that it is not merely an administrative post that can be carried on by any man with the assistance of others, even if he is not of very high character and ability, but that upon the personal character, and influence, and ability of the Viceroy depends, to a very great extent, the conduct of that vast machine—the Government of the Empire of India. I think that the temptation to send for the Viceroy in cases where serious difference arose between the Viceroy (himself probably a distinguished man) and the Government at home, would be very great. On both sides there would be a strong desire, probably by consultation, to avoid differences which on either side would be deplored, and it would be very difficult to resist an application on either side for the use of the power under this Bill. But it might be that serious danger might result, because in the Empire of India there might suddenly be some movement, internal or external, when the absence of the Viceroy and the occupation of his post by some temporary occupant might deprive the Government in India of that prompt action which, at such a time, is most essential. Therefore, while I do not deny the force of the argument put by the noble Marquess, I feel that on the other hand the disadvantages are, very serious. And I think the same thing applies to the Commander-in-Chief. The Commander-in-Chief is a soldier of the highest eminence, and is a man upon whom the greatest responsibility rests; and if there were to be any serious frontier war—still more, any serious outbreak in India in the absence of the Commander-in-Chief—some great calamity might result. I say nothing as to the Governors of the Punjaub or the North-West Provinces, or the Members of the Viceroy's Council, or even the Governors of Madras and Bombay; because, although I think the latter have not the same claim which the Governors of the Punjaub and the North-West Provinces have to leave—being only officers employed, as it were, temporarily in India—I do not feel that the position of Governor of Madras and Bombay, in point of importance and responsibility, differs so much from that of the Governor of Bengal and the North-West Provinces and the Punjaub that you can properly draw a distinction between them. I confine my objections, therefore, to the Governor General and the Commander-in-Chief. My Lords, I did not feel so strongly about the Bill last year; I had not had time to consult with others, and I felt a hesitation in throwing any obstacle in the way of the Bill. But, after the weighty observations of my noble Friend, who has himself been Viceroy, and whose opinions are certainly of value in the matter, I trust the Government will give very careful consideration to the objections which he has raised.

Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock.