*LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYasked the Lord President whether he had applied to the Treasury for the salary belonging to his office; and he also asked the noble Lord, as Secretary of State for India, whether as guardian of the interests of the Indian taxpayers he had remonstrated against the salary of the Lord President being provided out of Indian taxes. He said that shortly after Mr.Gladstone formed his Government his principal organ—or perhaps it would be more correct to say his chief supporter in the London Press, perhaps almost his only supporter among the principal London newspapers—The Daily News, made on August 17th last the following announcement:— 1226
Economists will observe that the double appointment given to Lord Kimberley (Secretary of State for India and Lord President of the Council) saves the country from payment of the salary attached in the ordinary course of things to the functions of President of the Council.This was a most unblushing avowal of shabby economy—an arrangement which was discreditable to the country and to the First Lord of the Treasury who has made it. It was part of the too prevalent system of bribing voters with other people's money. On the following day, the 18th August, a letter appeared in The Daily News from Mr.S.Digby, in which he wrote—Will you permit me to respectfully suggest for Mr.Gladstone's consideration that his Lordship should draw part of his salary from the English Exchequer and part from the Indian—£2,000 from the former and £3,000 from the latter? A saving to the Indian Government of even £2,000 per annum is not to be despised in these hard times when the rupee is down to 1s. 2¾d. It is sometimes forgotten in England, though never in India, that the entire cost of the India Offiee,£227,985 (…1821–92), is a charge on Indian Revenues The emoluments of the Secretary of State, Under Secretaries, Members of the Council, &c., amount for the last year to £134,070. Some of us who are not adherents of the National Congress fail to see why, in regard at all events to the official Parliamentary representatives, India should be treated differently from the colonies.To avoid any misapprehension or suspicion of hostility to his noble Friend the Secretary of State for India, he would hasten to say that for his part he thought the best solution of this untoward circumstance would be that his noble Friend should receive the salaries of both the offices which he held, for the following reasons: that the duties of both offices were very onerous. With Mr.Acland in the Education Office and little or no restraint exercised over Her Majesty's School Inspectors, the Lord President would have a good deal to do. He would have to answer questions from the right rev. Bench, except the Bishop of Sodor and Man, who was alone independent of the Education Office. But with a falling rupee, Upper Burma unpacified, and Lieutenant Governors to restrain, a great deal of extra work would fall upon the Secretary of State for India. Though this would not relieve time India Treasury, yet it would remove the feeling of indignation that had been aroused in India by the economy practised by a rich country 1227 at the expense of a poor one; and it was well-known that there were none of Her Majesty's Ministers in Office or out of it more hardworking than the Secretary of State for India. But if this might not be, he must ask his noble Friend the question of which he had given notice; and should it be the case that the Secretary of State for India had not yet remonstrated or had failed in his remonstrances, he must ask him to renew them and to refuse to allow the President of the Council to be provided for out of Indian revenue. He had not invented the theory that the Secretary of State was the guardian or protector of the Indian taxpayer. It was one that had been laid down by the late Lord Halifax, and more than once by the Duke of Argyll in a few words which he would read. Lord Halifax said, quoting from Hansard, on March 14th, 1876—The circumstances of India make it impossible that an independent local Legislature should be established in India, but the same principle of government is no less applicable to India than to the colonies. The colonies are able to protect themselves through their own Legislatures; and as the people of India have not a domestic Legislature to protect them, I have always held it to be the duty of the Secretary of State for India to protect their interests against any pressure in this country from English interests.He remembered hearing the Duke of Argyll say that the Secretary of State had to carry on an incessant struggle with the Horse Guards and other Departments to prevent encroachments on the Indian Treasury; and that the Secretary of State was the sole guardian of the Indian taxpayer. He had not been able to find this passage in Hansard, but he had found another which would do as well. The Duke of Argyll said on July 28th, 1870, in connection with the Indian Financial Statement—He might remind the House that the Act of Parliament specially provided that the Indian Revenue should be expended for the purposes of India alone, and any expenditure on the British Army, not strictly connected with Indian purposes would be at variance with the Act, adverse to the policy of Parliament, and at variance also with their duty to the people of India.Under these circumstances, he did not think that the Secretary of State had any choice but to insist, with the First Lord of the Treasury, that he should provide for the Lord President out of the British Exchequer, otherwise the alternative 1228 would be that his noble Friend the Secretary of State for India would reproach himself for not having kept up to the standard laid down by Lord Halifax and the Duke of Argyll. It was very probable that the attention of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for India had not before been drawn to this matter, and very natural that he should not read The Daily News, since he would probably pay more attention to those papers which attacked Her Majesty's Government. It was also natural that his noble Friend should have thought that this was a case similar to that of former Prime Ministers also holding the seals of the Foreign Office; but there was this difference: that both those offices were provided for out of the English Exchequer. The Daily News had taken credit for what was a shabby economy, and the Press of India had cried out against the injustice. He would read only one short extract from The Times of India, an English paper published at Bombay, and leaning more to the Civil Service than to the people of India. That paper on September 16th, 1892, said—If it be true, as alleged, that the whole of Lord Kimberley's salary is to be borne by the Indian Government despite the fact that he holds a second office also, there is certainly ground for complaint, though the relief would no doubt be slight enough. The pay of the President of the Council is £2,000; but although the two offices are combined in Lord Kimberley's case, the double office does not carry extra salary, so that it would only be just if a moiety of two-fifths of Lord Kimberley's pay were borne by the Home Government. But the whole question is one that will need looking into in the near future.He would, in conclusion, move formally for any Papers on the subject.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY)My Lords, I will first answer the Motion of my noble Friend. I am sorry to say there are no Papers on this subject. The only paper I am aware of dealing with the matter is the one my noble Friend referred to in The Daily News; and I am bound to say, though he may think it very extraordinary, I do read The Daily News, and I read the letter he has referred to. And now, my Lords, I must say I am exceedingly obliged to my noble Friend for the kind way in which he has taken up my case, because, as I understand, 1229 what he would consider the best arrangement is that my salary should be augmented by £2,000 a year. How that would benefit the Indian revenues he did not explain, because I do not see that adding some £2,000 to the £5,000 paid by the Indian Treasury would tend to relieve the Indian taxpayer. But having put that as the best way of dealing with the matter, my noble Friend made quite another suggestion: that the salary should be divided into two parts, and he was good enough to furnish an estimate of what my services are worth as Lord President. It appears that comparing the business which falls upon the Secretary of State for India, who is to some extent responsible for the government of that Great Empire, with the business of the President of the Council, he considers that the proportions are as three-fifths to two-fifths. Well, I think that is rather an inadequate estimate of the work which falls upon the Secretary of State for India, and the responsibility which that Office entails as compared with my duties as President. If I had to make an appraisement of the proportions, I confess I should be puzzled how to do so. But my noble Friend apparently forgets that the President is also a Cabinet Minister, and a considerable portion of his salary is given him on that account. It is quite clear I cannot do double duty as a Cabinet Minister, and I cannot, therefore, claim any particular portion of the President's salary allotted to him as a Cabinet Minister. My noble Friend, perhaps, takes the view that the Indian Government should, as it were, lease me to the Imperial Government, which should pay so much a week to the Government of India for the amount of work which I may perform in my other capacity. Certainly I was rather alarmed at what my noble Friend said as to those duties, and I hope it does not emanate from any confidential information he has received; that is, that I might have to furnish answers night after night to the Members of the right rev. Bench except the Bishop of Sodor and Man. If I had to estimate the amount to be paid to me for that responsible work I should be inclined to put it somewhat high. But, my Lords, the real point is this: What does the Indian taxpayer lose by this arrangement? If it is the 1230 case—and I admit this argument might be used—that the duties I have to perform as President of the Council would prevent to that extent my discharging the duties of Secretary of State for India, then I fully admit that the Indian taxpayer would have a right to complain. But if I succeed in adequately discharging the duties of Secretary of State for India, in what respect can the Indian taxpayer be injured? The salary of £5,000, I may tell my noble Friend, is fixed by Act of Parliament, and it is my duty to perform all the business the Secretary of State for India has to perform to the best of my ability. Though I should be far better pleased personally, I can assure my noble Friend if I had not additional work to perform, yet I believe I can discharge my duties as Secretary of State for India, and even answer those Members of the right rev. Bench who may address questions to me. I have the advantage of having as my colleague Mr. Acland, who is a Member of the Cabinet; and though that fact does not relieve me from responsibility as President of the Council, anybody who knows what the work is will recognise that it does lighten my work. My Lords, I must say that I think a great deal of unnecessary bother has been made about really a very small matter. The whole question is only as to £2,000; and though I am most anxious that no pains should be spared to guard the Indian Treasury against unfair demands upon it, there is nothing hero which, in my opinion, calls for interference on my part.
§ THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, he was disappointed with the answer the noble Earl had made to the question, which was rather in the form of a conundrum—one felt uncertain whether it was a single question put to two Ministers or two questions addressed to one. As Secretary of State for India the noble Lord had answered the question, but his answer might be attributed to his having spoken in the third capacity of Chancellor of the Exchequer of the English Government. It could not be believed for a single moment that the noble Earl, as Secretary of State for India, would desire that the English Government and English taxpayers should, by this arrangement for his filling two offices, make a clear profit of £2,000 1231 a year, and that the Indian Government and taxpayers should lose that sum by the arrangement.
§ THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, they really lost it because it was quite clear the Indian Government should not pay whatever salary was attached to the other of the two offices, the duties of which the noble Earl had to perform. Looking at the question from the Indian taxpayer's point of view, which his noble Friend had overlooked, they might tell him, "Year by year the salary of the Secretary of State for India is increasing; it is not at all a fixed sum, because that salary is not paid in rupees of an even standard, but in sovereigns, and we Indian taxpayers have to pay more rupees to furnish it ";and the same thing, of course, applied to the whole expenses of the Government. The sum, it was true, was not large; but this was a matter of justice and equity, and the question was whether there was a disposition to deal with the Indian taxpayer and the Indian revenues in, he would not say a liberal, but a just spirit. This was another instance in which the French proverb might be applied, "That those who are absent always get the worst of it." Complaints were continually being made as to the manner in which questions connected with Indian finances were dealt with by the English Government notwithstanding the constant remonstrances of the Indian Government and of the Governor General in Council, that they were determined with a view to English and not to Indian interests; and this was another instance of the manner in which these questions were treated. He would not have thought it necessary to address their Lordships on this subject were it not that at the present time the Indian revenues were in a condition of great and serious embarrassment, not to say an alarming condition, in consequence of the fall in the exchange and the difficulty of meeting the gold debt in this country; and one of the great burdens of the Indian Government was the payment of the whole expenses of the India Office and of the Secretary of State's salary in this country. He would ask the Marquess of Ripon, who had filled the office of Viceroy of India, and was now Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether the colonies paid his 1232 salary; and, if not, the reason why the Indian taxpayer should pay that of the Secretary of State for India? And, also, the further question whether the colonies paid the £80,000 or £100,000 a year expenses of the Colonial Office? Or whether they made any contribution in either case? He asked the Lord President and Secretary for India who paid the expenses of the India Office, and the reason why the British taxpayer and British Government paid the whole of the expenses of the Colonial Office if the Indian taxpayer had to pay the entire cost of the India Office? He would not go further into this very important question of the distribution of the expenses of the Home Government now paid by the revenues of India; but with regard to the question of the expenses of the Army touched upon by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley of Alderley), his noble Friend the Marquess of Ripon knew very well that Government after Government, in India, and Viceroys and Members of their Councils had represented to the English Government the inequitable nature of the charges paid out of the Indian revenues for the home administration of the Indian Army. The noble Marquess had himself made that representation as strongly as every other Viceroy of India. In this time of grave difficulty, if not danger, to Indian finances—danger and difficulty not in any way depending upon the general condition of the finances of India, but entirely upon the fall in the value of the rupee—these heavy burdens became of immense importance, and he would ask whether Her Majesty's Government had considered whether any, and what, relief could be given to the Indian revenues by a determined effort on their part to reduce the home expenses which were now borne out of them? Although this question was a small one, it created considerable interest in India, which was always watching to see whether Indian claims were dealt with equitably by the Government of this country. He was bound to say the noble Earl's answer had not satisfied him that this matter had been treated equitably. Like others, no doubt, who had been under the harrow of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he might say, "Sufferance has been the badge of all our tribe," when they had had to deal with even the smallest charge upon the 1233 English taxpayer, and he would not, therefore, quarrel with his noble Friend who, doubtless, had done his best. Still he was sorry he had failed, and hoped Her Majesty's Government would consider not only this small charge, but the far larger question of the reduction of the Home charges of the Government of India now paid from Indian revenues.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Marquess of RIPON)My Lords, my noble Friend who has just sat down has wandered considerably from the minor point raised by the question of my noble Friend opposite (Lord Stanley of Alderley). He has raised a question of great magnitude, which I think it would be exceedingly inconvenient to attempt to discuss upon an occasion of this kind. That question, I admit with him, is one requiring great consideration, especially at the present time; but I can assure him it is the desire of Her Majesty's Government to do everything they can to reduce any expenditure which now presses upon India. My noble Friend knows very well, in regard to the loss in consequence of the depreciation in value of the rupee, that a Committee is sitting upon that subject to see whether, by any Government measures or by legislation, it can be dealt with.
§ THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKI should like to ask the noble Marquess whether the question of Home charges is referred to the Committee?
§ THE MARQUESS OF RIPONCertainly not. I entirely admit that, like my noble Friend, when I was in India I used to grumble at these Home charges, and desire that they should be reduced. My noble Friend knows that is no new question. He talked about the increased salary of my noble Friend the Lord President, but that, I think, is not a fair way of putting the question. No doubt India has to transmit more money for the home charges at the present time than she did when the rupee was at 2s., but that does not mean that the home charges have really increased in amount, but only that—to the great loss and injury, I admit, of India—she has now to transmit larger sums to meet them. My noble Friend the Secretary of State is as well aware of these difficulties as anybody, and they occupy, I am sure, a large share of his attention. I quite admit they are 1234 difficulties of a serious kind. My noble Friend, Lord Northbrook, used strong language with respect to the present state of the finances of India which I hope is not altogether justified to the full extent to which he went; but no one can doubt that this heavy drain on the revenues of India ought to be relieved as far as possible; and there is just ground, I think, for giving to India every consideration in respect of the Home charges. But really, my Lords, when we consider large questions of this kind, is there any connection between them and the exceedingly minute point raised by the noble Lord opposite? I cannot admit for a moment that the taxpayer of India loses, because my noble Friend does not draw £2,000 a year from the English Revenue in respect of the other office he fills. In accordance with custom and practice in these cases, he does not draw salary for the two offices. He draws salary as Secretary of State for India, and I am sure it will not be disputed that he gives to the duties of that office the fullest attention which the people of India can require. My noble Friend speaks of the arrangement which has been made in respect of the colonies. No doubt it is quite true that the whole expense of the Colonial Office is borne by the English taxpayer and not by contributions from the colonies; but my noble Friend knows very well that that has been the practice time out of mind, whereas the practice with regard to India has always been precisely the opposite. There has been no change whatever introduced into that practice of late years, and I confess I should think it very inadvisable that we should embark at this moment without notice upon so large and serious a question as the discussion of the present condition of Indian finance or the mode in which the difficulties of that finance should be relieved.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I do not think the matter is quite so small as my noble Friend represents. Of course, £2,000 a year is not a matter of great importance either to the English or Indian Exchequer, but it does represent a new departure of principle. The noble Lord appealed with great emphasis to the existing practice, but this is 1235 an absolutely new departure from any practice which has existed before. It is entirely a new departure. The question is, whether you have a right to use an officer paid by the Indian Treasury to do English work? That is the question. It has not been an unknown practice in other countries or in other ages. Appointments used to be made in the Middle Ages in commendam, as when the Pope appointed persons to good fat English Abbeys. That is exactly a precedent for the proceeding which has been adopted by the noble Lord opposite. Now, I want him to consider, supposing he was dealing with some community less distant and less patient than the Indian, how such an arrangement would be criticised. Supposing, for instance, the Governorship of the Isle of Man were given in the same way to some Minister whose salary it was desired to clear off the English Estimates, or that he was made Chairman of the London County Council. Supposing, again, the Home Secretary were to have no salary at all, but should always be Chairman of the London County Council. I think this practice will necessarily grow, and I venture to commend that consideration to the noble Lord in reference to the payment of salaries to Members of the Indian Council. I think there are four Under Secretaries in the House of Commons, and I do not see why they should not all be appointed Secretaries to the Indian Council.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYOf course, that is a trifle which would have to be altered. But all those are ways of saving the English Estimates, which no doubt might seem very smart and very ingenious to the persons who arrange the figures at the English Treasury, but would not be so satisfactory on the other side of the water. You must not measure a financial injury by the number of thousand pounds involved. If people feel that their money is being taken from them, it matters very little whether it figures as thousands or tens of thousands. I regret the arrangement very much. I cannot see any reason for it. I am sure the services which the noble Lord renders are amply worth £2,000 additional a year, and it would entirely solve the question if he 1236 had an English as well as an Indian salary.
*LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, one point had been forgotten. The noble Earl had stated to the House that a division of the salary paid into two-fifths and three-fifths would not be in proportion to the duties he performed in his two offices. No doubt the duties of Secretary of State for India were far more important than those of Lord President of the Council, but that did not comprise the whole question. Wear and tear had to be considered; and however robust the noble Earl might be, it was by no means the same thing to him, after being occupied in reading long Indian Despatches, to be exposed night after night to be baited with questions in his other capacity in this House. The Lord President had already been up three times to the Secretary of State's one, and that was likely to continue. On this occasion the noble Earl's reply might be regarded as a joint affair, but he would keep an account of the noble Earl's appearances in both capacities in case no alteration were made.