HL Deb 17 March 1908 vol 186 cc360-90
*LORD LAMINGTON,

in asking whether His Majesty's Government would consider the advisability of amending the statute by which the Viceroy, the Governors of Madras and Bombay, and the Commander-in-Chief in India are unable to obtain leave to return home without resignation of their appointment, said: My Lords, the prohibition that forms the subject of my Question dates from an Act of 33 George III. I have read somewhere, but cannot now trace the reference, the origin of this prohibition. If I remember rightly, it was owing to the absence from India of some highly placed official for a period of two or more years without leave. However, the prohibition was finally embodied in an Act of 3 & 4 William IV., and it now reads as follows— That the return to Europe or the departure from India with intent to return to Europe of any governor-general of India, governor, member of council, or commander-in-chief, shall be deemed in law a resignation and voidance of his office or employment. That prohibition has been so far amended and qualified by an Act of 1861 as to allow members of the Council to obtain leave on medical certificate.

My Lords, I need hardly point out the great difference between the circumstances which obtain now and those which obtained in the year 1793, when a voyage to India occupied anything from a year to eighteen months, and even in the time of William IV., it might often have a duration of from six to nine months. In addition, there is now a weekly mail, and there is the telegraph incessantly going between the Government of India and the authorities at home. Therefore, there is really no comparison between the methods of communication which now exist and those which existed at the time these Acts were framed; and if this is such a very wise and important provision, it may well be asked why it is not found in any other Department or in any other service. It certainly does not exist in the case of any other offices held under the Crown, and it may safely be assumed that in no other country in the world does this disability extend to any official, and I do not imagine for a moment that anybody would say that if you were in these days framing a system of administration for the Indian Empire you would insert such a provision as this. I am myself far too profound a believer in the value of the opinion, the judgment, and the knowledge of the man on the spot to propose anything that would encourage him to take leave for his own recreation or amusement, and thereby possibly injure his authority and prestige. Nor, indeed, can I imagine that any occupant of these offices that are subject to this prohibition would be willing idly to absent himself from his post. The work is so interesting, the problems to be solved are so varied, so complex and so absorbing, and the distribution of officers and general system of patronage demands such constant and urgent attention, that I cannot conceive of any of these officials being anything but loth to sever himself, even temporarily, from the affairs of his office. But, my Lords, there are inseparable accidents of our existence. Death and illness are always possibilities, and these upset your best-framed regulations; and in my opinion the failure to recognise them may only accentuate their possibilities for evil, and by not making allowance for these contingencies the continuity which it was the obvious intention of these Acts to preserve may be only the more impaired.

If I may do so, I would show this by my own experience, but I do so with extreme reluctance, and I would ask your Lordships to acquit me of any desire or intention of bringing forward my own misfortune as the basis of my argument. I only use it by way of illustration, and nothing more. Still less am I seeking to ventilate a grievance, because for the sympathy and goodwill that I received from the Secretary of State I can entertain nothing but the most profound gratitude—a gratitude equalled only by my admiration for the manner in which he discharged the affairs of his office. Therefore there is nothing personal about what I am going to say; it is merely used by me in illustration of my argument. Last year I was holding the post of Governor of Bombay, and owing to certain untoward circumstances in connection with ill-health, my return home was necessitated. Before returning, I asked the Secretary of State if it was not possible to allow of my resignation with a view to subsequent reappointment. I only asked for a short leave of absence—say eight or ten weeks, but the Secretary of State, after giving full consideration to my application, said he could not grant it, as he considered it would be contrary to the spirit of the Act. Well, my Lords, what happened? I left towards the end of July, and my successor did not arrive in India until nearly the middle of November; so that the interruption—the interval between the holding of the Governorship by myself and my successor—was an interval of fourteen or fifteen weeks, as compared with the eight or ten weeks for which I had asked. Furthermore, the occupant of the post was fresh to his duties as compared with myself. I do not think it can be gainsaid, therefore, that continuity of administration was not secured in that instance, and that the spirit of the law would have been honoured rather in its breach than in its observance. I should not care how stringent were the conditions imposed upon any official who had to take leave—I should say that he must sacrifice his pay, that he should receive no allowance of passage money, and that there should be the strictest possible limitations of time imposed; but what I do contend is that the Government, or the Secretary of State, should not be debarred absolutely, helplessly, and hopelessly, from doing what might be considered advisable under such circumstances—that some discretion should be allowed in the matter of giving leave. Remember, this disability may operate very injuriously in preventing the Government obtaining the services of the men who may be best fitted to fill these posts. The point was mentioned by the late Lord Salisbury on an occasion which I will allude to later on. He said that "owing to the inability to obtain temporary leave or medical leave it was difficult to fill some of the offices specified in the schedule of a Bill which was then being brought forward;" and he added that "nobody who had had anything to do with the filling of those offices would doubt the accuracy of what he said." And I have had it on very good authority that one of the most distinguished Members of your Lordships' House has said that nothing would induce him to accept an office during the tenure of which he would be debarred from any possibility of returning home.

My Lords, that is one aspect of the case. Then there is another. The one I have mentioned deals rather with the removal of what to my mind constitutes a defect of the law, but there are those who hold strongly that it would be a decided gain were any one of these officials able to be summoned home for purposes of consultation and discussion by the Home Government. I need not dwell upon the advantages of personal discussion as compared with any amount of despatch or letter writing, but I may briefly state what has taken place in this connection. In 1887 it was thought desirable that His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught should leave his post of Commander-in-Chief in Bombay—a post which has been since abolished—so as to be enabled to attend the Jubilee of her late Majesty Queen Victoria; and Sir John Gorst, who was then Under-Secretary of State for India in the House of Commons, in moving the Second Reading of a Bill to enable His Royal Highness to come home, stated that it had been then contemplated by the Government that it might have been possible to have allowed His Royal Highness to resign with the intention of his being subsequently reappointed, but that it had been felt by the Government, then as now, that some would consider that such a course would constitute an evasion of the Act. Mr. Childers, in the course of the debate, said that he would be willing to support the Bill on the understanding that the Government as soon as possible introduced a Bill repealing this particular provision. Mr. W. H. Smith, the then Leader of the House of Commons, at once assented, and during his speech adverted strongly upon the advantages that would be obtained by the possibility of giving permission to any one of these officials to return home from time to time; and in 1891–1892 the noble Lord, Viscount Cross, introduced a Bill into your Lordships' House with these objects in view. That Bill both gave permission for any one of these officials to obtain leave on medical certificate, and also provided that on public grounds he might be summoned home at the discretion of the Secretary of State. Speaking for myself, I think that the conditions surrounding this concession were really almost too liberal, but that is a point into which I need not enter now. During the course of the debate, the late Lord Salisbury mentioned that he considered the present system was anomalous and unwise. That Bill passed through your Lordships' House. It then went to the House of Commons, where it was taken charge of by my noble friend Lord Curzon, but it never arrived at any further stage, owing to the general election supervening.

Now I come to another stage of this question. In 1902 I understand that during the Viceroyalty of Lord Curzon a despatch was sent by the Government of India dealing with this question, and I would ask the noble Lord who is going to reply to this question whether he would not allow that despatch to be laid upon the Table of this House, and also the reply made to it by the then Secretary of State. In speaking of the Bill of 1892 I ought to have mentioned that the Viceroy was not included amongst the officers that were put into the schedule.

My Lords, I think I have said enough to show that I am not myself recklessly proposing an innovation. It is a subject that has been approved of by most eminent statesmen, and it is also a subject that has met with the full approval of your Lordships' House. What I, however, most strenuously contend for is that this regulation, as it at present stands, is inadequate, and that it operates injuriously to the public interest, and therefore I press for some modification of it which will unfetter, in some degree, the Secretary of State so as to allow him to use his discretion. If it is thought that the discretion, if granted, might lead to laxity, then by all means hedge it round with every conceivable limitation, so as to safeguard it against abuse; but I do think, my Lords, that this is a subject which merits attention, and that the modification which I propose would certainly tend to the improvement of the public administration of the affairs of India.

VISCOUNT CROSS

My Lords, the noble Lord has referred to my action when I was Secretary of State for India. It is quite true that my attention was first called to this subject at the time of the Jubilee, and what the noble Lord has said is equally true, that it was desired, on public grounds, that the Duke of Connaught, who was then Commander-in-Chief of Bombay, should come home to attend the Jubilee. It was suggested to me at that time that I should allow him to resign his office, come home, and then be re-appointed. That I entirely declined to have anything at all to do with. I thought it would be a gross breach of the Act of Parliament and that it would be making a use of it which was never intended, and ought never to be allowed for a moment. So there was an end of that. Then there was no means of bringing him home except by a special Act of Parliament, and what my noble friend has said on this point is equally true; a Bill was introduced into the House of Commons, it passed and became law, and the Duke of Connaught came home. But during the course of the discussion in the House of Commons, Mr. Childers, who at that time appeared on behalf of the Opposition, so to speak, made almost a stipulation that if that Bill was allowed to pass it ought to be as a general Act—not for this particular Commander-in-Chief, but that it ought to be a general Act, and so discussed. That pledge was given, and the result was that in 1891 we brought forward a Bill in your Lordships' House to allow the Viceroy and the other Government officers in India—the Commander-in-Chief and the Governors of Bombay and Madras—to come home on public grounds. But great care was taken that that should not be abused, because in the Bill which I brought forward no action was to be taken except with the consent of the Secretary of State for India in Council; and there was the further safeguard that it had also to pass through the Viceroy and his Council in India before it could be acted upon. So that probably every safeguard that could be adopted was introduced into that Bill.

I agree with my noble friend that when the Act to which he has referred was passed, communication between India and England was a totally different thing from what it is now. At that time you had to go round by the Cape, and months and months would elapse. Now all that is changed. That Bill of 1891 did not go through, because it was crowded out. That is a thing which very often happens in sessions of Parliament in regard to Bills, some of which are good and some bad, and I daresay it is possible that in the present session a certain number of Bills may be crowded out. In 1892 it was brought in again. Lord Northbrook, who had a great experience, of course, in Indian affairs, objected to the Viceroy being included, and he gave very substantial reasons why he should not be included. He said that the Viceroy himself stood quite apart from anybody else—he was on a pinnacle—he was the great man—and the result was that I consented to strike the Viceroy out of the schedule, and the Bill passed your Lordships' House with that omission. I am not quite certain whether anybody could imagine India without the presence of a Viceroy, and I think Lord Northbrook was right. The effect of bringing a Viceroy home for consultation, even on matters of great importance, would very likely have had a bad effect in India itself, and would to a certain extent have pulled down the Viceroy from the pinnacle upon which he stood, because the Viceroy is the Viceroy, and known as such all over the Indian continent. Well, that second Bill passed your Lordships' House with the exclusion of the Viceroy. If I remember rightly, Lord Northbrook also wanted to strike out the Commander-in-Chief, but your Lordships declined to do that, and the Bill retained the provision with regard to the Commander-in-Chief. My noble friend said perfectly truly that the Bill passed your Lordships' House, and was brought into the other House of Parliament, and it would no doubt have become law if it had not been for the dissolution of Parliament itself, and the consequent dissolution of the Government which brought it in.

There my connection with this subject stops. I quite agree that these great officers should not be called home except for very important reasons, and I think that the safeguards which were put into that Bill, requiring the sanction—in fact the initiation—of the Secretary of State in Council, and also the assent of the Viceroy and his Council in India, were safeguards which everybody must admit were very great, and such as to render any abuse impossible. There is no doubt that Lord Salisbury, who had been Secretary of State for India himself, and who was at that time Prime Minister, and Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, most warmly backed up the Bill which I had the honour of introducing to your Lordships' House. He, at all events, knew as much about India as most people. I am still of the same opinion as I was then, and I think with what my noble friend brought forward as Lord Salisbury's view, and also his statement that the absolute inability, as the Act stood, of the holder of one of these great offices to come home, however important the subject might be for which he was to be brought home, did at all events make an extra difficulty in finding men ready to take up these posts.

I have said now all that I mean to say; I leave the matter in your Lordships' hands. Whether my noble friend will be content with what he may hear from His Majesty's Government I do not know, nor do I know whether His Majesty's Government have any intention of bringing in any such Bill or not; but at all events I think we ought to be grateful to the noble Lord for bringing this matter before your Lordships' House. As I say, I am still of the same opinion as I was as that time—that it would be wise with sufficient safeguards, for public purposes alone, and leaving out the Viceroy, to allow the other Indian officers to come home on leave.

*LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON

My Lords, perhaps as my name has been mentioned, and as I have necessarily had some experience of this subject, I may be allowed to say a word or two before the representative of the Government replies. The noble Lord who has just spoken has given us a sufficient history of what has passed in respect of the Bill of 1892, but the noble Lord, Lord Lamington, who made such a clear and, as it seemed to me, convincing statement of the case, alluded to events that passed while I was Viceroy. It is true, as the noble Lord said, that we did consider this question, and that a communication was addressed to the Secretary of State for India by my Council on the subject, by which I mean that the Government of India was unanimously in favour of the alteration of the law, and of the concession for which the noble Lord is now asking being made in respect of the offices to which he has alluded. For my own part, I have not the slightest objection, if the noble Lord who represents the Government thinks fit to lay that despatch on the table of the House. The subject is of such importance that I think the matter ought to be placed fully before your Lordships. May I say that with the main proposition—in fact the entire proposition—of the noble Lord, Lord Lamington, I am in complete agreement. I have never been able to discover any valid reason why, alone in the official hierarchy of the Empire, these officers to whom he refers—the Viceroy of India, the Commander-in-Chief, and the Governors of Madras and Bombay—should be debarred, under any circumstances whatever, from going home on leave, however short. Let us remember that they are serving their country in a climate that is extremely trying, that their work is exceedingly laborious, and that the strain upon them might almost be described as overwhelming. And yet under no conditions whatever, either of public interest, or of ill-health, or of personal convenience, are they ever permitted to return even for a day to this country.

The noble Lord, Lord Lamington, has clearly pointed out to your Lordships that this practice is really a survival of an obsolete era—that it provided for a state of things which no longer exists, and that the extreme and increasing rapidity of steam communication, which renders it possible for an officer to leave India, return to England, and get back to India in the space of three months, really cuts away the ground from the Act in the form in which it was originally passed. The noble Lord alluded, if I may say so, with great good taste and reserve to his own position, and being very familiar with the circumstances of his case, I must say that it seemed to me exceedingly hard that because of the conditions to which he referred his tenure of office at Bombay, fraught as it was with great advantages to the people of that Presidency, should have been cut short. But I am familiar with other cases, and I may, perhaps, mention to your Lordships the case of a very high official of the Government of India in my day. I allude to the late Sir William Lockhart, with whom I had the honour of serving when he was Commander-in-Chief. Sir William Lockhart died at his post in India, and yet I have no doubt that his life might have been lengthened—it might conceivably even have been spared—had he been permitted to return to this country and to take medical advice here. The matter was one which he more than once discussed with me, but he could not afford, in the position in which he was placed, to throw away the great office which he held. He was obliged, therefore, to remain in India, and he died, in the circumstances I have described, at his post.

My Lords, there is one other point to which I would ask leave to draw your attention, and that is the essential absurdity of the position in which we are placed by the terms of this obsolete Act. The noble Lord read out the conditions of the Act, which are that the occupants of the high offices in question must not leave India in order to return to Europe. That is the operative condition. Now your Lordships will see that there is nothing in this Act to prevent the Commander-in-Chief, for instance, in India from taking command in a campaign in South Africa. He might have headed the expedition which we sent for the relief of the Legations in Pekin. Similarly as regards the Viceroy: there is nothing in the Act to prevent the Viceroy from going, for purposes of health or otherwise, to Ceylon, Mauritius, or even Cairo. I was myself permitted, while in India, to pay an official visit to the Persian Gulf, which, as your Lordships know, lies a good way outside the borders of India. But the moment any one of these high officers leaves with the view of returning to England, the one place where it is conceivable that he may be wanted either in the public interest or in his own—then this disability falls upon him like an axe.

Both the noble Lords who have spoken, have alluded to the case of the Duke of Connaught in the year 1887, when, in order to escape the rigidity of the statute, a special Bill had to be passed through both Houses of Parliament to enable His Royal Highness to come home to attend the Jubilee of the Queen. But there is another case which has not been mentioned, which happened at an early stage in history and is perhaps forgotten, and that is the case of Lord Napier of Magdala. He was Commander-in-Chief of the Bombay Army, which at that time had a separate military existence. While holding that post he was appointed to the command of the Abyssinian Expedition. He went to Abyssinia; he conducted the campaign, as we know, with success, and His Majesty's Government at that time desiring to consult him, he was actually brought to England on the absurd plea that he would be conducting his duties as Commander-in Chief of the Bombay Army here. That, of course, was a ludicrous evasion of the statute. Then I am not certain, in view of what has fallen from Lord Cross, that the statute was not evaded in my own case too, because when I came home in 1904, I could only obtain leave by resigning my office and being re-appointed when I went back—a very clumsy method, as it seems to me, of continuing a man in office for a longer period of years and giving him leave which he may not only desire, but require.

My Lords, the noble Lord has, I think, made clear to us the advantages of the change which he proposes. There is first the interest of the man himself—his health, which is liable to suffer—his private affairs, which may call for a brief visit to England. But I would prefer to rest it on the ground of the public interest. I remember the late Lord Salisbury speaking about the matter, and he laid the greatest stress upon the advantage which might accrue, in cases which are no doubt rare, but which still are likely to happen from time to time, in which the Government at home may require to consult here in England the Commander-in-Chief about some great military expedition, or to consult the Governor of Madras or the Governor of Bombay, or even the Viceroy himself. And if I may quote my own experience, I think that at a certain stage it would have been exceedingly advantageous to me if, for the space of a few weeks, I could have had the advantage of a private conversation with His Majesty's advisers at home.

As regards the drawbacks to the proposal, I must ask leave to differ from my noble friend Lord Cross, whom I served as Under-Secretary The noble Lord cut out the Viceroy from the Bill of 1892, accepting, as he told us just now, the reasoning of Lord Northbrook—the argument of Lord Northbrook being that the Viceroy was placed on such a pinnacle that it would be almost impossible to contemplate his being taken away, and that some nameless, but serious, results would accrue to India if he were not there. But, my Lords, if the pinnacle has ceased to be occupied by the Viceroy, somebody else climbs up and stands there in his place. During my absence for six months, in 1904, the pinnacle was occupied, and, if I may be allowed to say so, occupied with great advantage and distinction, by Lord Ampthill, and whatever the circumstances under which the Viceroy might be called home the Viceroyalty would not be vacant through his absence. The most senior member of his Council, for instance, might for a few weeks or for a month or two, take his place. I venture to say from my own experience that the argument we have heard before, that the prestige of the Viceroy would be impaired, or that the efficiency or continuity of the Government would in any degree be affected, is quite illusory. I agree with my noble friend Lord Cross that if the privilege be conceded it ought to be fenced round with every manner of restriction. I would myself surround it with restrictions greater than those he proposed in the Bill of 1892. At that time he proposed leave of absence being granted for as long a period as six months. I think that in the despatch written by the Government of India in my day we proposed a maximum of only three months. We proposed that that leave should only be given once at the most in any term of office, that it should only be given upon the advice and with the consent both of the Governor-General in Council in India and of the Secretary of State in Council in England, and that it should only be given for one of three objects—public interest, ill-health, or important private concerns. So restricted, my Lords, I believe that the concession, if made, would be desidelly advantageous both to the individual and to the public in occasional cases, and that it would do no harm whatever either in India or in England; and if my noble friend, or any other noble Lord in this House, at any time puts the proposal forward in the shape of a Bill, I, for my part, will do my best to advocate it.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will especially regret to-night the absence of the noble Member the Leader of the House, who would have brought the weight of his authority to deal with this question. I can only say, on behalf of the Government and the India Office, that they are quite unable to agree to the suggestion of the noble Lord, and that they would not consent to introduce, or even to approve of, any legislation in this direction.

With regard to the Paper which the noble Lord mentioned, I will certainly mention the matter to the Secretary of State. The noble Lord will of course quite understand that I am unable to promise anything concerning it myself, but I will consult Mr. Morley on the subject. With regard to the Bill of the noble Viscount (Viscount Cross), I think it has not been sufficiently pointed out that he also put restrictions in another direction upon the home-coming of these various officers, because he made it quite plain that they could only come home for matters of public convenience, and that matters connected with their private affairs should not be considered a sufficient reason for their coming home.

The noble Lord who asked the Question laid stress, quite rightly, upon the increased advantages in the way of public travelling since the days when this prohibition was made law. He forgot also to remind your Lordships how much easier it is to consult officials in India by means of the telegraph in these days, and I think if he refers to the one, it is only fair that your Lordships should be reminded of the other. The fact of the matter is, my Lords, that in the opinion of the India Office, the Government of India is a system which is very nicely balanced and adjusted, and these will be considerable danger of those delicate arrangements being interfered with if it is altered in the direction which the noble Lord suggests. May I make a practical suggestion to the noble Lord (Lord Curzon of Kedleston), who represents India as well as Ireland in this House. Imagine that there was controversy on a matter of importance between the Commander-in-Chief and the Viceroy. Let us imagine that the Commander-in-Chief was sent over to consult the Council of India at home. Would the noble Lord wish to see the Viceroy hurrying after the Commander-in-Chief by the next mail boat? Does he think it would be very dignified if these officials, either singly or together, were to come back to England and were to consult the Secretary of State upon a matter upon which they might possibly be divided in opinion?

*LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON

That case, although an ingenious one, and not without a personal application, is a case which could not possibly arise under the proposal which I suggested. One of the conditions which we laid down in India was that either the Viceroy or the Commander-in-Chief should only come home, not merely with the consent of the Secretary of State in Council in London, but with the consent of the Governor-General in Council in India, and in the circumstances to which the noble Lord alludes, I can hardly imagine that that consent would be given.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

That is of course a matter of difference of opinion. At any rate, it would not be impossible, and I think the theory I have put forward is not entirely an impracticable one, although I am rather willing to agree with the noble Lord that it is quite likely that permission under those circumstances might have been refused to one of the parties to the case. But I think it is only right to point out to your Lordships that after all no very serious inconvenience has been felt in the past. Five years is not a very long period, and a continuous service for that time is not altogether unreasonable. It is scarcely fair to speak of India as if it could be compared with other posts or with other countries within the British Empire. India is an exceptional case. It is liable to sudden emergencies which are specially dangerous in a country without representative Government. The work there is specially responsible, and the offices to which reference has been made have really, I think, no parallel anywhere in any other part of the Empire. The responsibility is much more concentrated in the individual in those offices than in any others, and I am not sure, my Lords, that it would not be unfair to the Government of India to consult either the Governor-General or the Commander-in-Chief alone. There might be a tendency, if such a practice became common, to transfer the government of India in times of crisis from the Governor-General in Council to the Government and the Cabinet at home. The cases of emergency to which a reference has been made by the noble Lord are surely just those very cases when it is important that these officers should themselves be present in India. Then, my Lords, I think if leave is to be recognised on public grounds there would be considerable difficulty in drawing a line, because it would be possible that undesirable discussion might arise in connection with them, in the same way that if leave was asked for on medical grounds the Medical Board could scarcely refuse a certificate. And, my Lords, if the cause of the desire to return home were ill-health, resignation would probably be desirable. Extreme cases have been met, as was happily done in the case of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Curzon) by reappointments, and there are, I think, perhaps special objections in the case of the Viceroy, though a great deal of what I have said applies, in my opinion, with equal force to the other positions which have been mentioned. The position of the Acting Governor-General, with his hands tied, might be somewhat difficult, and even dangerous, especially in view of his special concern with the foreign relations of India. The opinion of the India Office is that the Governor-General, or the Viceroy, should have no temptation to separate his life interest from India during his tenure of the office, and that his authority should not be impaired by the sense that he might be able to come home at any time and to share, perhaps, part of his authority with the Secretary of State in England. Under those circumstances, my Lord, I can only repeat what I began by saying—namely, that the Secretary of State cannot under any circumstances give his approval to legislation on these lines.

*THE EARL OF CROMER

My Lords, I did not come to the House with any intention of speaking on this subject, but I would like to state very briefly that I entirely agree with the proposal made by my noble friend Lord Lamington. I confess I heard with considerable disappointment the statement of the noble Lord opposite, that the Government were not prepared to consider this proposal. I do not base my support of the noble Lord's suggestion in any way upon the private interests of the individual; I base it entirely and wholly on public grounds and I think the public grounds for making a change in the Statute are extremely strong. The difficulties of governing India are notoriously increasing year by year, and it is therefore becoming more and more important to render these high appointments attractive, and to attract the best brains to fill them. Successive Governments have certainly been extremely fortunate in their nominations for the offices of Viceroy and Governors, but I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that the stipulation that when a man is once appointed, he cannot return until the end of five years, does somewhat narrow the field of selection, and might quite conceivably act as a deterrent to those who might otherwise make most desirable occupants of these positions. It must be borne in mind that those who are competent to fill the positions in question are, if not in middle life, at all events not in their first youth, and there are generally private or family affairs which render it very difficult for such men to absent themselves for five years from this country. Moreover, although these appointments are highly honourable, they are very far from being lucrative. On the contrary, they involve heavy expenditure on the part of those who fill them, and therefore I say that anything that can be done to make these appointments attractive is very much to be desired.

Another point to which I should like to draw attention is that so far from there being any objection to these high officials leaving India, it appears to me that if they occasionally left India for a short visit to England it would be of the greatest possible advantage to the public service, because they would thus be enabled to consult with the Secretary of State and others here, and to keep in touch with English public life, which is liable to great change in the course of the five years of their absence. This is all the more Important if the practice of peripatetic politicians going out to India to air their own views is to become general. I can only say that during the many years that I was in Egypt I found that it was of great advantage to myself—and I hope it was of some advantage to the country—to be able to come home for two or three months every year, and not only to see the officials, but also to get out of the local groove, and to be able to understand thoroughly the views held in this country about the affairs in which I was specially interested. May I add also, with all due deference to the noble Lord (Lord Cross) and my late distinguished relative, Lord Northbrook, that I do not accept the statement that the Viceroy ought to be excluded from the proposed amendment of the law any more than any of the other officials who have been mentioned. A third point is that I think if this suggestion were carried out it would tend towards continuity of policy in India. I should be very glad to see the Viceroys and Governors encouraged to stay more than five years. Remember what happens now. I am sure noble Lords who have themselves occupied these high positions in India will agree with me that it takes six months or more for them to get into their saddle, so to speak, and that during the last six months that they hold office they cannot do much. Therefore they have practically only four years' in which to work, and four years is a very short time in which to carry out an important measure in India, because such measures have to be carried out steadily and without hurry. Therefore, for my own part, I should very much like to see the Viceroy and the Governors of Madras and Bombay encouraged to accept a second term of office, because I feel sure that this would prove to be a very great advantage to the public service; but I am quite sure that they will never do so unless they are permitted to come home at times. For these reasons, my Lords, I regret that His Majesty's Government are not prepared to accept the proposal of the noble Lord.

*LORD AMPTHILL

My Lords, I am extremely reluctant to express any disagreement with my two noble friends wish whom I served contemporaneously in India, for we worked together on all matters in India with very pleasant harmony. But since I hold, and have always held, that the views expressed by those noble Lords upon the matter now under discussion are wrong, I should not think it fair to the solitary spokesman of the Government, who is at present faring odds of four to one, if I failed to state my opinion.

The grounds upon which this suggested change is urged are two-fold—firstly, the public interest, and secondly, the private interests of the individuals concerned. I do not think any case at all has been made out for the relaxation of the Statute on public grounds, and it will not have been unnoticed, I think, by your Lordships that the noble Viscount (Viscount Cross), who spoke with such a weight of experience and authority on this matter, expressly said that he would only give the leave on public grounds. If any case has been made at all, in my humble opinion it has been made on the grounds of the personal interests of the individuals concerned. But with regard to the remarks which were made by the noble Earl (The Earl of Cromer), I would ask your Lordships whether the mere off-chance of coming home on some possible or potential matter of public importance in the course of five years could possibly affect the decision of a man who was asked to accept the position of Viceroy, and who was deterred from doing so by the thought of the long exile. There would only be the off-chance of coming home, even according to the stipulations of my noble friend, Lord Lamington, if some urgent public affairs, or some great domestic calamity, called for his presence. Personally—speaking with some experience of the offices both of Viceroy and of Governor—I cannot conceive any ordinary circumstances in which personal consultation, at the cost of the large delay of the journey home, would have any advantage over the present rapid and complete means of communication by post and telegraph; and again, if the Viceroy or the Governor did come home, he could, as has been already pointed out, only give his personal opinion, and in any protracted negotiations with His Majesty's Ministers at home, he would be divorced from the opinion of his Council, and that, in my view, would be a dangerous constitutional innovation. Still more dangerous, I venture to think, would it be for the Commander-in-Chief to come home and give his opinions on those immensely important military questions which cannot possibly be separated from political questions, independently of those of the Viceroy, and of the Governor-General, in Council. It would be, in effect, an abrogation of those large constitutional principles which underlie the phrases so familiar to everyone who has had to do with India, "Governor-General in Council" and "Governor in Council." I can imagine circumstances in which it might be advisable, expedient, and useful if members or representatives of His Majesty's Government at home were to go out to India for the purposes of such consultation, and to see things with their own eyes on the spot, but I cannot conceive any circumstances in which it would really be useful for Viceroys or Governors to come home. If such-circumstances were to arise, they could, as has been pointed out, and as has been done on previous occasions, be met by special legislation.

As regards the personal grounds for the suggested alteration, I hold that if circumstances of domestic calamity, or business necessity, should arise such as to prevent a Viceroy or a Governor from giving the whole of his time, thought, and attention to his arduous and responsible charge, it is clearly right and desirable that he should resign his appointment. Viceroys in India, and Governors in a lesser degree, are in a position which seems to me analogous to that of commanders of armies in the field, and their position is at any rate analogous to that of a Minister of the Crown in this country. They are, so to speak, on active service; they are on duty, and on a duty which demands incessant attention from day to day and from hour to hour. It is no more possible for them, in my opinion, to leave their posts, and to lose touch with the affairs which they are directing, than it is possible for a general to leave his Army in the face of the enemy, or for the Prime Minister of the country (and this is really the closest analogy) to go 7,000 miles away, out of the reach of King's Messengers and rapid communications. Your Lordships will agree with me that the latter is a contingency which would not be tolerated for one moment in this country. Comparisons with the Governments of the Colonies are, for obvious reasons with which I need not delay your Lordships, beside the point, but a specious comparison has been suggested by two noble Lords between the positions of the Viceroy, Governors, and Commander-in-Chief, and those of other members of the public service in India. But I venture to think, with all deference, that that comparison must break down on the slightest examination. It is obvious, in the first instance, that men who are appointed on political grounds, and for a certain definite term of five years, are in a different position from those whose services are non-political and are their life-long profession. It is precisely the same distinction which holds good in this country. Any member of the Civil Service, as all your Lordships know, can take his two months leave at any time, and completely sever himself from the cares and duties of the office to which he belongs, provided there is no unusual official inconvenience. But this is not the case with the Minister in charge of the Department. Even if the Minister goes away on a holiday, though it be abroad, he has to remain in constant touch with his office, and he cannot throw aside all care and responsibility. This state of things would not be possible in regard to Viceroys and Governors if 7,000 miles of sea were to separate them from their subordinate officials and from their duties. It is true that Secretaries of State have on occasion made long tours, and thus absented themselves from their offices, but those were cases in which the inconvenience was justified by the exigencies of Imperial affairs. But in that connection it must be remembered that under the theory of the Constitution there is only one Secretary of State, although the duties of that office are divided among several Ministers of the Crown. If, therefore, a Secretary of State is absent from the country, there are always several of his colleagues in a similar position and vested with precisely similar and equal authority, to discharge his functions, and that without any rearrangement of offices or any extra cost to the State. But the thing which influences me most, in spite of the views of my noble friend (Lord Curzon), which on all subjects I regard with the greatest deference, is the bad effect that the temporary absence of the Viceroy or the Governor would undoubtedly have on public opinion in India. The difference between the position of the Viceroy and the Governors, and that of the officials of the Indian bureaucracy is one which is very keenly and very fully appreciated by the people of India, and to place those high dignitaries under similar regulations with regard to leave as the officials of the bureaucracy would tend to reduce them to the level of the permanent official, with a consequent loss, pro tanto, of their peculiar prestige and influence. As regards the feeling of the European officials themselves, there would be a similar and a no less marked effect. The Viceroy, and the Governors of the Presidencies, are there to set an example of devotion to duty which rises superior to any personal consideration. The members of the Civil Service themselves are not able to obtain leave on urgent private affairs unless they have earned that privilege by a definite term of service, and it is, therefore, often the case—it certainly was in my experience—that these men are obliged to stick to their posts in the face of very serious personal inconvenience, and even in circumstances of tragic domestic trouble. The Governor would not be in a position to exhort them to persist in this duty if he himself were able, with much less difficulty, to go home on private affairs when it happened to suit him.

These considerations, my Lords, seem to me to far outweigh any that have been advanced on the other side, and I rejoice sincerely that the Secretary of State does not intend to depart from the established policy of the India Office.

LORD WENLOCK

My Lords, at this late hour I do not intend to inflict a long speech upon your Lordships, but with regard to this particular matter—which is one on which I have a certain amount of knowledge—I may be permitted to inform your Lordships that I quite agree with the views expressed by my noble friend (Lord Ampthill). Lord Cromer, who spoke from his knowledge of official life, made a great point of the fact that he considers that all these high officials should spend a longer period of their lives in their various official kingdoms. He thought that if the Governors of Bombay and Madras, the Viceroy, and the Commander-in-Chief could be allowed to extend their services for a longer period than five years it would be a very great advantage to the country, in that they would be able to bring to bear upon their various duties the experience and knowledge which take them now so long to accumulate, and which they have so short a time to exercise. There I think he is perfectly right, and if the term of office could be lengthened in the manner he proposes, I see no objection whatever to their coming back to England at stated intervals or for stated periods. The noble Earl himself was in Egypt for twenty-four years, and it is naturally impossible to suppose that anyone could remain absent for twenty-four years without ever returning to England. But as things are at present, those of us who are sent to India are only sent there for five years, and I think it is most important that during that time they should never relax their duties in any way, because the time at their disposal is so very short that even a visit of three months to England would cut very largely into it. Although somebody might be acting for them during that time the policy and the responsibility would cease to be their own, and would be somebody else's. It is perfectly true that during late years, since the Acts alluded to by Lord Lamington were passed, conditions have very much altered, but I think it should be remembered that the people of India themselves have not altered; the people themselves are very much what they were a hundred or a thousand years ago, and the problems which the Government of the country have to face are very much the problems that were in existence a very long time ago. True, railways, the telegraphs, and various means of communication have been facilitated in a great many ways, but the feelings of the people are very much what they were, and the conditions which the Governors and those in authority have to face are very much now what they were a hundred years ago, and more. I need only just refer to the fact that I see the papers have announced, in the last few days, serious trouble as arising in a part of the country which Lord Ampthill and I know very well, in the South of India, and I think it would be a matter of extreme anxiety to the Governor of that Presidency if he were at this moment on a three months or six months leave to England. I think this sort of things point to the fact that it is most important that if you are only to go out for five years to India, you should spend the whole of your five years upon the spot as long as you have health and strength to carry out your work. I say this feelingly, because towards the end of the time I was in India circumstances arose at home which would have made it exceedingly convenient for me if I could possibly have come away; I found myself mixed up with litigation on a very serious matter in which my financial affairs were very closely involved, and from that point of view it was most Important for me to have come home if I possibly could have done so, and attended to my own private affairs. But on the whole I consider it very much better that a Governor, during the short time he is sent out to administer the affairs of a Presidency, should never be allowed for a single moment to turn away from the work of government with which he has been entrusted, or to relax the vigilance which he exercises over his Presidency. For these reasons, my Lords, I agree with the view expressed by the noble Lord who has spoken on behalf of the Government.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

My Lords, I feel some embarrassment in rising after four noble Lords who have held the office of Viceroy, but perhaps I may be allowed to intervene for one moment, because this matter was brought up before the late Government. Your Lordships must realise that there must be, in the minds of any Government considerable doubt, and it is quite impossible for us to speak with such certainty as Lord Ampthill on a subject of this character. It is impossible not to recognise that there are, or may be, great advantages to a Government in having occasional personal conferences with officials with whom they are in almost hourly correspondence in India. That must be so in military matters in the case of the Commander-in-Chief, and I am not sure that, even if no other change is proposed, it would not be desirable for the Commander-in-Chief, considering the great advances which have been made in military science, to come home occasionally to confer with the authorities here. Perhaps that may be considered a fitting question to be considered by the authorities by itself.

Then there is a second question, on which great stress was laid by Lord Cromer, who pointed out the enormous extent to which work has developed and increased in India during the last few years; and I do not doubt that to any man who takes up the appointment of Governor of Bombay or of Madras there is an immense strain in having to do that work for five years without a change. But, my Lords, I should not be acting fairly if I did not say that my conviction is that whatever restrictions you may place on the holiday which it is possible to obtain, whether you put it on the ground of convenience to the public, or of ill-health, or of urgent private affairs, in practice every Viceroy and every Governor of Bombay and Madras who goes out will have a holiday during the period of five years. Therefore I should treat the matter from the point of view that it is an appointment which admits of that vacation, and I should look at it as to whether that is or is not desirable.

My Lords, I will not trouble the House (it is really a question for the Government) with regard to the other appointments, but I have one special claim to address your Lordships upon this subject—namely, that I am the only man alive who has had, as Secretary of State, to deal with two Viceroys at once—a Viceroy in India and a Viceroy in England—virtually though not actually a Viceroy—with whom His Majesty's Ministers were most anxious to consult upon all important topics. I think the position is not without difficulty. The greater the Viceroy, the more admirable his devotion to his duties while he is in India, the more certain it is that while he is away on a holiday, in whatever form it is taken, his opinion while away must be the governing factor in the policy to be pursued. You may send the Governor of Bombay or of Madras to Calcutta, thereby to some extent necessarily interfering with the progress of business in Bombay or Madras, but whatever happens during the period of his absence, even in a case such as that of the noble Lord, Lord Curzon—whose absence, owing to the special circumstances of the case, was far more prolonged than that which was contemplated under the present proposal—even tinder those circumstances it would be impossible, nothwithstanding the complete confidence that His Majesty's Government had in Lord Ampthill, that there should not be an immense amount of reduplication work, and that is the difficulty. The work is so severe that it would be a real advantage if a holiday could be taken; on the other hand it is so incessant that there is a difficulty in transferring it for a short period to somebody else. If I had to make a comparison, I should venture to suggest that the work of the Viceroy (and I think I could quote words of Lord Curzon which would bear me out) is in many respects more detached from that of other officials, more personal, and more incessant, than even that of Prime Minister of this country; and the more that is true, the more that work is concentrated, as it must be, in the Viceroy in India, the more difficult do we find it to conceive how it would be possible, say, for the Prime Minister of this country to go to India for three months during the term of his office. Those are the considerations which prevented the late Government from coming to a conclusion in favour of the suggested change, although, as I stated at the outset, many considerations appeared to us to warrant some reconsideration of the present position.

LORD LAMINGTON

Everybody has assumed that the Viceroy and Governor are appointed for a term of five years; but as a matter of fact there is no limitation at all—they are appointed without any reference to the duration of their office, and therefore the prolongation of their office is a matter which presents no difficulty; it could be held for twenty years. With what the noble Viscount (Viscount Midleton) has just said about the complexity and the multitudinousness of the duties of the Viceroy I quite agree, and I am perfectly confident that no man, except under great stress of circumstances, would willingly leave his post.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

This is quite irregular.

LORD LAMINGTON

I beg the noble Earl's pardon.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of ELGIN)

It is a little irregular for the noble Lord to reply before the debate has been replied to for the Government, but I did not wish to interrupt the noble Lord.

With regard to the question of the term of the office, no doubt what the noble Lord has just said is true, as I know from the warrant I received; no term appears in that document; but five years is the accepted period for a Viceroy's appointment and for the other appointments with which we are dealing, and therefore I think we may take it that for practical purposes there are five years appointments.

My Lords, I feel that it is difficult to approach this matter altogether impersonally. Those of us who have had experience in India must naturally draw upon our experience; those who have not had experience in India cannot fail to speak without the experience which we think we possess. With regard to the officers named in the Question of the noble Lord, I should like to point out in the first place that they do not all stand on exactly the same footing, except for one reason, and that I admit is an important one. I think that for the Governors of Madras and Bombay a solution might be found, but the reason I refer to is an important one, because it is an historical one, and that is the division of India into the three Presidencies of Madras, Bombay, and Calcutta. Had it not been for that, and if it was not necessary to retain that, I have sometimes thought that there was no reason why the provinces of Bombay and Madras should not be under the direction of Lieutenant-Governors, and in that case the difficulty of the noble Lord might have been obviated.

But, my Lords, the Viceroy and the Commander-in-Chief in my opinion stand alone—I think the expression has been used—and naturally for my part, I must speak specially with reference to the Viceroy, although I hold that the argument applies to the Commander-in-Chief mutatis mutandis. I wish to say at once that of course I can imagine certain circumstances which would create in any officer holding those positions an intense desire—an overwhelming desire—to return to Europe. It may proceed from health, or it may proceed from private reasons. But I cannot myself believe with the noble Earl, Lord Cromer, that the consideration of this point can have deterred many men who were willing to undertake the duties of these offices, and personally I am quite unable to concur in the demand for the relaxation of the rule which the noble Lord has advocated. I cannot help thinking that the arguments which are based upon the leave privileges of other members of the Service in India ignore the true cause of differentiation. It is quite true, of course, that the three months which now prevail suffice for a very short and rapid return to this country, and it is true also that men even in the highest ranks of the Indian Civil Service are able to avail themselves of these privileges. But even with regard to the Indian Civil Service I have my doubts—I had my doubts when I was in India—whether that system was altogether an advantage to the public service, whatever it might be to the individual. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Curzon, must have had some such experiences as I had. Time after time, when going through the country, I came upon men who were holding acting appointments, and who were not the men who were properly appointed to those particular posts; and I remember I said publicly before I left India that I thought there were grave dangers and grave inconveniences to the public service, which might have to be considered with reference to that particular state of affairs.

Now, my Lords, returning to the comparison of the Indian civil servant and the Viceroy, I would point out that the Indian civil servant is a man who has had long experience in India—as a man in the higher ranks of the service, at any rate—who has served in all parts of the country; and, though the senior members of them may, for that reason, be argued to be inured to the dangers of the climate, my belief is that very often the danger then comes upon them at a moment which they cannot foresee. On the other hand you have the Viceroy. He is fresh to India, and he has to serve there for a definite period of five years—with all respect to the noble Lord (Earl Cromer)—and he knows perfectly well what he is undertaking. I would point out also that he is not, like the ordinary civil servant, exposed to hot weather in the plains, but is, from the accustomed arrangements, able to transact his business during that period of danger in localities, which, in my opinion, are second to none in giving opportunities for hard work. My Lords, I venture to think that in those circumstances the application of the argument that because these privileges are given to the Indian civil servants, therefore they ought to be extended to the Viceroy, is not a complete one.

Then, my Lords, I should like to say a word with regard to what would happen supposing this change were carried out. We are to contemplate the Viceroy going on leave for three months, and we have been told by the noble Lord (Lord Curzon) this afternoon, that he would suggest, to fill the place of the Viceroy during that period, not a high official like the Governor of Madras, because—and naturally because—it is difficult to suppose that one could summon the Governor of Madras for so short a period, but that he would rely upon the senior ordinary member of the Viceroy's Council. My Lords, I wish to speak with all respect—with affection, if I may—of the members of the Viceroy's Council, but they are not chosen for a succession like that, and I venture to think that it might perhaps not increase confidence in the Government, either here or in India, if the succession to the Viceroyalty, at the time that the Viceroy took leave, was to be left to the mere chance of who was the senior among the officers who were appointed for entirely different reasons.

LORD LAMINGTON

It used to be done—it used to be the rule.

THE EARL OF ELGIN

My Lords, I should like to put, as shortly as I can, why I think it would also be inconvenient for the Viceroy to be summoned home for consultation with the home Government. It has been said that the position of the Viceroy is unique, and I think it is so. The Viceroy is probably almost invariably strange to India when he gets there, and yet he is the head of a Government which is composed of men who have had long service in India, and who know it from top to bottom. On the other hand, he must at the same time be the representative there of the home Government. Now, my Lords, how is that provided for? It is provided for by the arrangement, I think, that the Viceroy, and the Viceroy alone of his Government, has the right of private correspondence with the Secretary of State. That is a well understood and perfectly recognised arrangement to which no objection is ever taken, but the Viceroy at that time is in close communication with his colleagues, and sees them every day, and of course enters freely with them into discussion of policies. My Lords, it appears to me that the transfer of the Viceroy to London would alter the whole conditions. The personal element in that case would overshadow everything, and I believe myself that it would be false in principle, and detrimental to the constitutional relations between the Viceroy and the Government of India.

My Lords, I do not think that I need say more to justify my adherence to the answer which the noble Lord (Earl Beauchamp) has given on behalf of the Secretary of State for India. After all, it appears to me that there is a very strong preponderance of opinion in support of continuing matters as they now stand. We have had many names quoted this afternoon, amongst them those of Lord Northbrook and of a former Leader of the House of Commons, Mr. W. H. Smith. We have had the noble Lord opposite, and the noble Lord who spoke below the gangway, and on the other side we have the two noble Lords now on the cross benches, and we have had mentioned the case of Lord Cromer, which, at any rate partly supported them.

*LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON

And also Lord Salisbury.

THE EARL OF ELGIN

I was going to mention that, with all deference to the noble Lord. With regard to that, we have had a statement from the noble Lord (Lord Cross) who said, in explaining his Bill of 1892, that it especially excluded the Viceroy, and at any rate only gave permission for a return from India for public reasons

*LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON

No, the Bill did not exclude the Viceroy: it applied to all the officers, but in consequence of Lord Northbrook's contention in this House, Lord Cross, in order to meet him, withdrew the name of the Viceroy from the schedule; but the Bill as originally introduced and supported by Lord Salisbury included the Viceroy as well as the other officials.

THE EARL OF ELGIN

I did not quite follow the exact sequence, but as a matter of fact the Bill as it passed this House did not include the name of the Viceroy.

House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.