INDIA.

HL Deb 02 November 1911 vol 10 cc56-90

^*EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON rose to call attention to the following proposals reported to be in contemplation by the Government of India, viz.:—

1. 1. The abolition of the offices of Director-General and Inspector-General in several departments of the Indian Administration, and more particularly the office of Director-General of Archæology.
2. 2. The reduction of the Army in India.

To inquire of the Secretary of State for India as to the policy of His Majesty's Government in these respects; and to move for Papers.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Secretary of State is presently going to India in attendance upon the King on a mission which I venture to say has the sympathetic approval of every member of your Lordships' House and of the public., and this is the last occasion on which I shall have the opportunity of asking him any questions for a period of some months. I am sure, therefore, he will not grudge the demand that I shall make upon his attention, and also I am sure that he will be the last to deny, although this is a subject which may not excite much popular interest, the importance of the topics that I bring before him. In. my Question I allude to certain proposals which have been sent home by the Government of India—in the first place, for the abolition of administrative posts in the Indian Government, and, secondly, it is believed, for a reduction of the Army in India. These proposals may be thought to be widely severed from each other and to have nothing in common, but as a matter of fact they have this common feature—that both of them are believed to be dictated by the desire of the Government of India to practise certain economies in view of the financial situation with which they are faced. The main difficulty in the financial situation of India arises from the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to the opium traffic between India and China. I am not concerned on the present occasion to criticise the principles of their policy. I believe there is a. good deal to be said for it, although I think I might without. unfairness criticise the manner in which in India that policy has been carried out. However, the fact remains that at no great distance of time the Government of India will be confronted with a. loss which I have heard put at as much as £3,000,000 a year. Simultaneously the Government of India have embarked upon a policy—rightly, as hold—which must be an expensive policy, with regard to education and sanitation in that country. Further, the increased cost of living in India must, I think, before long produce a demand, which it will be difficult to resist, for increased pay in the lower grades of the official hierarchy in that country. I imagine, broadly speaking, that this will be the justification offered by the Secretary of State for the policy that is being pursued.

Yet, my Lords, if I may move for a moment on to a wider field of policy, I would ask the Secretary of State not to be too despondent about the finances of India. In my opinion those finances are in a thoroughly sound position, and I believe that with very little effort the revenues of India can be made equal to the maximum strain which the Secretary of State desires to place upon them without any recourse to heroic reductions of the character that I am discussing this afternoon. There have been during recent years great and beneficent reductions of taxation in India, and I do not believe that noble Lords opposite will disagree with me when I say that it can be demonstrated that at the present moment India is the most lightly taxed of all the great countries of the world. I do not doubt that without any reimposition of the taxes which have been wisely taken off a considerable additional revenue might be procured in India by an increase of certain of the import duties which would be both popular and lucrative, and inflict no injury on any class of the population.

But apart from that, which is, perhaps, not the question before us this afternoon, I should like to point out that there are sources of revenue in India which are expanding and are bound to expand. In spite of the more lenient standards of assessment which have been in force in recent years in the collection of land revenue, the increase in cultivation in India, and more particularly in the cultivation of lands irrigated by the State canals, must result in a considerable enhancement of the land value in the future. The railways in India, which used a few years ago to be on the wrong side of the balance-sheet, now result in a profit which last year contributed £2,000,000 to the expenditure of the Government of the country. The Forestry Department, to which I must turn later on, produced a surplus of £800,000. So strong is the position in India that there has been a great reduction in recent years both of the ordinary and the railway debt. If you look at the financial column in your newspapers you will find that the credit of the Government of India at this moment, although not equal to that of Great Britain and France, is as good as that of Germany, and is easily superior to that of Russia, Japan, Argentina, and Brazil. During the last ten years there has been accumulated an enormous saving, as much as £20,000,000 sterling, from the profits in the main of coinage, and although this reserve is held as a standard reserve to maintain the currency policy in that country, I think it will be generally admitted that it is an element of very great financial strength.

I have merely made these observations by way of impressing upon you that there is no cause for alarm as regards the financial position in India. On the contrary, the Government of India can in all probability meet any loss that may be imposed upon it by the abolition of the opium trade with China without any drastic reduction either in the administration of Government or still more in the strength of the Army, upon which you rely for the security of that country. I think, therefore, that it would be a great pity if, in any fit of temporary apprehension, the Government of India or the Secretary of State were to sanction reductions which might afterwards be found to be unnecessary or to be repented. One more observation before I pass on to the particular subjects referred to in lily Motion. The noble Viscount opposite, Lord Morley, has sometimes in this House spoken, I think, in rather disparaging terms of the doctrine of efficiency of administration in India as a doctrine of merely abstract and theoretical excellence, and has seemed to balance against it the tranquil contentment of the native population. My Lords, the two are absolutely identical. There is no contradiction or severance at all between them Efficiency of administration in India, and, indeed, in any Oriental country, is the sole guarantee for the welfare and the happiness of the people. With a weak and inefficient Administration you get bad and careless government, and with bad and careless government the effect is at once visible upon the lives, the security of property, and therefore, I need hardly add, on the happiness and contentment of the native peoples. I would sooner myself see a slight enhancement of taxation in India than I would see any general diminution of the standard of efficiency at which the administration has hitherto been maintained; and still more I think that any economy would be most dearly purchased if it were secured at the cost of any diminution in the security of the defences of the country.

The first part of my Motion relates to certain economies which it is, I understand, proposed to effect by the abolition of a number of posts in the Administration. I understand that the superior directing posts which the Government of India desires to abolish are seven in number—the Director-General of Archéology, the Inspector-General of Forests, the Inspector-General of Agriculture, the Sanitary Commissioner with the Government of India, the Inspector-General of the Civil Veterinary Department, the Inspecting Officer of Cantonments, and the Inspector-General of Excise and Salt. Some of these posts were created in my time, and I suppose I may be regarded, therefore, as having a parental interest in them, but the remainder, I think the majority of them, were in existence in the Government of India before I went there. One word, if I may be permitted. as to the reasons for the creation of these posts. I assure your Lordships it would be a great mistake to suppose that any of these offices were created from any desire on the part of the Central Government in India to interfere with the Provincial Governments, to arrogate to themselves excessive functions, or to indulge in a policy of centralisation. For my own part I think that a great deal of nonsense is talked about centralisation and decentralisation. People are apt to speak of them as though one was vicious in itself and the other embodied every virtue. The fact is, of course, there is no inherent virtue or vice in either. Centralisation is bad when the Central Government arrogates to itself functions or powers which can be discharged with equal capacity and knowledge by the Provincial Governments, but decentralisation is also bad when the Central Government has abandoned so much of its authority that the principles of which it is the recognised custodian in India have been lost sight of or confused in practice, or when the subordinate authority utilises the powers conferred upon it to lower the standard of administration. What you want in any Government. organised on the basis of India is the best division of labour between the two, and the real test is not how much of the powers is exercised at Calcutta or Simla or how much in the provincial capitals, but whether the division of labour between the two is so well adjusted as to produce the best effects in regard to civil administration and the contentment of the people at large.

Then as to the second reason for the creation of these superior posts. In recent years the Government of India has made enormous administrative strides—in education, in commerce, in sanitation, in railways, in everything. The Government of India is going ahead at almost railroad speed. We endeavour to approximate in India to, and we are willing to be judged by, the standards of the West. It is, or it was until recently, a very remarkable feature in Indian administration that while the standards of administration were constantly going up, the staff with which we had to cope with them and direct them was painfully inadequate to the purpose. How different it is in this country. Any Minister here who wants the advantage of the advice or authority of any expert, of the greatest expert in the land, has merely, so to speak, to touch a button and the man walks into his room and pieces before him all the resources of his infinite knowledge and experience. It is net so in India. In the Government of India we only have eight Cabinet Ministers and eight Departments of Government, broadly speaking, as compared with your fifteen or twenty here. Our Offices in India are not manned by officials who are there for a lifetime. The men are continually coming and going, coining up from the Provinces, passing through a term of service, and going back again. Accordingly, all these vast problems of administration have to be dealt with in India by officers relatively deficient in expert knowledge and experience. I will give you an illustration. When I went to India education was in the hands of an Under-Secretary in the Home Department. Conceive the sort of dismay that would be produced in the House of Commons if such a state of things obtained here. Archéology was in the hands of the Department of Revenue and Agriculture! These officers did their work with amazing versatility and ability. I was often astonished at the soundness and the wisdom of their advice; but my Lords, they were not expert authorities, and in our readjustment the thing we had to do was to enable the Indian. Government to have at hand the expert authority and advice which would enable it to grapple with these difficult questions. That really was the main reason for the appointment of these high officers with whom it is now proposed to dispense.

Before dealing with the different posts in turn, I may, perhaps, point to a very significant fact. The noble Viscount, Lord Morley, when he was Secretary of State, sent out to India a Commission to report to him upon the possibilities of decentralisation in that country. The proceedings of the Commission were contained in a large number of volumes, and the final Report [Cd. 4360] I now have in my hand. Chapter VIII of this Report is directed solely to the question of these Inspectors-General and Directors-General of whom I have been speaking, and I feel that my case will be immensely strengthened if your Lordships will allow me to read one or two words from this Report, remembering that they come from en authority that was sent out to India as far as possible to promote decentralisation, and therefore, where the situation might arise, to take away from the powers of the Supreme Government. In Chapter VIII the Commissioners say— An agency of this character [Imperial Inspectors and Directors-General] is necessary, but its existence should not bring about any greater degree of centralisation.

Then they go on to define the proper functions of these officers, and finally they conclude by saying [p. 142]— In short, there is a sphere of most useful work open to the Government of India specialists in helping all who have administrative responsibility but have not time for comparative study, and in keeping the Central and Provincial Governments apprised of the results of their inspections; but they should not be allowed to overshadow Provincial experts or to usurp the responsibility of Provincial authorities in matters relating to ordinary administration. On the other 'hand, the Provincial Governments should consult them fully and freely on any matter in which their advice may be of assistance.

It is clear from this, therefore, that the Decentralisation Commission gave a vindication rather than a condemnation of these appointments, that they were generally convinced of their necessity, and that as a matter of fact they did not recommend the abolition of any single one among them.

Now I come to the seven cases to which I refer. I am not going to contend that all of them are of equal importance. That would be ridiculous. A much stronger case can be made out for the retention of some than of others. It may be that the abolition of one or two would be relatively harmless. My point is, while giving the Secretary of State an opportunity to explain, also respectfully to insist on the proposition that the abolition of certain among them would be fraught with very serious injury to the Administration. The first of these is the Director-General of Archæology. In the Commission's Report to which I have just referred not one word is said about this officer or Department. They evidently never even contemplated his possible abolition. No criticism even was offered of the work of the Archaeological Department. In fact, I have never met anybody who has criticised it unfavourably anywhere, and I believe there is no Department of the Indian Administration in modern times that has met with more frank and unanimous approval from all classes of the community in India than the Archæological Department. The people of India look with great reverence upon the monuments of the past, more especially if those monuments are of a religious character. They regarded with dismay the manner in which these monuments in India used to be converted to secular and profane purposes, and when the Department of Archaeology was reorganised and a competent scholar, Mr. Marshall, was brought from Europe to be put at the head of it, they welcomed his appointment and have given it their approval and support ever since. Only this morning I read in the columns of The Times a letter from an Indian gentleman, writing, I think, from Bombay, in which he pays a most remarkable and generous tribute to the work of the Archaeological Department in India and the impression produced by it on the native peoples.

I am not going to repeat here all that I said in a letter a little while ago in opening this subject in The Times. I will summarise it in a few sentences. In 1899 the monuments of India, a continent nearly as large as Europe, were under the control of five officers only. The total amount of money spent in India on archaeological surveys was £7,000 per annum, and most of it went in salaries. The Local Governments were left to do much or little or nothing as they chose. Most of them did the latter. I see opposite me one very notable exception. I refer to the late Lieutenant-Governor of the Northern Provinces (Lord MacDonnell of Swinford), whose exertions for the conservation of the monuments under his charge were an example to the whole of the rest of India. Buildings were tumbling into decay, temples and mosques and tombs were turned into barracks, post offices, dwelling-houses, and bungalows. When the reorganisation of the Department took place Mr. Marshall was brought out to India. His operations have had a wonderful effect, and the history of the last nine years has been one of incessant activity. There is a saving that the Emperor Napoleon remarked that if all else were forgotten he would go down to posterity with his Code in his hand; and if our Government in India were to be expelled from that country to-morrow, I truly believe that it would be most fondly remembered, not. for its railways, or barracks, or hospitals, or educational institutions, its bridges, or its docks—it would be more likely to be remembered by the great mass of the people for the reverent attention it had shown to their ancient buildings and memorials.

It would seem almost incredible that the Government of India should propose the abolition of such an office. So far as I know, there is not a newspaper in India that has not opposed this suggestion; there is not a Local Government in India that is in favour of it; and I doubt whether there is a single member of the Council of the Secretary of State who would support it. I believe the Secretary of State has had memorials addressed to him by something like ten of the learned societies in this country, and you have only to read the columns of the newspapers to see the number of authorities in India and elsewhere who have written on this matter. I said just now, and it was said in the House of Commons by the Under-Secretary two days ago, that economy was at the base of this proposed abolition; and yet I am not sure that economy would result, for I hear to-day that if this office is abolished it is proposed to set up in Calcutta an Oriental Institute which would be a very expensive thing, with a Professor of Archaeology at its head, who would receive a salary scarcely inferior to that of Mr. Marshall. If that be so, I cannot help asking the question, Why do the Government of India propose to abolish, for economy's sake, a post which is admittedly admirably filled, and then appoint at a scarcely inferior salary a man who obviously will not have had the experience of the present occupant of the office? And why, of all things in the world, should they place him at Calcutta, which is altogether outside the field of archiæological work in India?

If it be said that the standards of efficient administration have been so firmly fixed that you can afford to dispense with this officer and that the Local Governments can do the work, I venture to differ. The Local Governments have not got men with the knowledge, training, and experience required. Archaeology is a science requiring the most careful study and investigation. I saw in some newspaper the suggestion that if the Government of India stepped aside private initiative might take their place. There is no such thing in India as private initiative in a matter of this sort. Private initiative has had opportunities for many years and has not lifted a little finger to help, and if you think you are going to fall back on private initiative you will have a disastrous disappointment. I will not labour this question of the Director- General of Archæology because, although I have not the slightest reason for saying so, I rather suspect that the Secretary of State, who is a man of fine taste and culture, is secretly in agreement with me on the point. I have, as I say, no right to make that statement, but I shall be very disappointed indeed if his reply is not of a sympathetic character.

The next post which it is proposed to abolish and which is really of considerable importance is that of the Inspector-General of Forests. The Forests Department in India is a branch of the Administration of which everybody connected with India is very proud. One-fourth of the whole of India is under its control. It has 300 officers and 15,000 subordinate officers. The Forests Department exists for the scientific conservation. of forest lands, for the preservation of the timber and fuel that is in them, for the preservation of the grazing lands of the people who live outside the forests, and for the utilization of the products of these areas for the enhancement of the revenues of the country. The control of the Department is in the hands of the local Administrations. Each has its own conservator, but the general policy is controlled by the Government of India, who are advised by a highly trained officer. The first of these officers was appointed in 1864, and the post has been held by a series of the most eminent men in Europe. You can understand that whereas in this country forestry does not convey very much to us, in a country like India it is of supreme importance. It is a very technical subject, and when proposals with regard to development come up to the Government of India your Lordships can understand how supremely important it is that the Government should have technical and expert authority to advise it. The Inspector-General does not guide the details of local administration, but he is the adviser of the Government of India on general policy. He visits all the provinces; and if a further testimony were required as to the necessity of the post, I might refer to the Report of Lord Morley's Commission, who [p. 110] say this— We think that the inspection reports of the Inspector-General are of benefit both to the Government of India and Local Governments. The Government of India are responsible for the general forestry policy of the country and are clearly entitled to know how this policy is being Carried out. At the same time it is to the advantage of Local Governments that the wide experience of the Inspector-General should be brought to bear on their local problems.

That is a testimony upon which no words front me could improve.

The third post to which I must advert and which it is proposed to abolish is that of the Inspector-General of Agriculture. This office was created in my time, in 1901, and we appointed an excellent Bombay officer to the post. Considering the extent to which the population of India, more than 80 per cent., live by agriculture, and considering the enormous contribution which the land makes to the revenue of India, it was almost amazing to find how sparse were the efforts devoted in India to the application of science to agriculture. A wealthy American came to India, Mr. Phipps, and offered me £30,000 to do what I liked with for the benefit of the Indian people, and, acting upon the advice of those who knew much better than I did, I devoted it to the creation of a great Agricultural Institute at Pusa. This place was to become a home of scientific research. There was attached to it an experimental farm, and there was a college for the technical teaching of those whose life was going to be devoted to agriculture. We appointed this Inspector-General with a staff of experts round him. The whole of the provinces of India followed suit and started with research students and. experimental farms, tad during the seven or eight years for which this system has existed I venture to say that it has been of untold good to the country at large. Every year a Board of Agriculture assembles at the central spot, presided over by the Inspector-General, and there all the officers of the local Departments exchange their experience and arrange for common action. Here, again, it is unnecessary for me to defend this officer, because Lord Morley's Commission have done it. At pp. 116 and 117 they say— There appears to be no unwillingness on the part of Local Governments to consult the Inspector-General on important matters, and, indeed, they seem fully to recognise the value of an independent expert opinion on agricultural questions. That the general relations are so satisfactory is, in our opinion, attributable largely to the proper recognition, on both sides, of the fact that the Inspector-General is purely an advisory officer in relation to Local Governments. And later on they say— The Board appears to us an admirable device to insure co-operation and co-ordination, while at the same time minimising the risk of friction and misunderstanding.

And yet this officer is going to be pushed into the tumbril, and, if the Secretary of State approves, his head, too, is going to be cut off. I venture to say that that would be a great mistake.

I have not much time in which to deal with the remaining officers, and I can only in a few sentences refer to each. There are four more officers whom it is proposed to destroy. The first of these is the Sanitary Commissioner. I believe the Government of India want to spend a good deal more on sanitation in the near future. I think that would be a very good thing, but it would be a curious beginning to sweep away the head of the Department which is about to be improved. I need not state the case of the Sanitary Commissioner because it is stated in the Report of Lord Morley's Commission. This is what they say [p. 135]— The functions of the Imperial Sanitary Commissioner were described as being to advise the Government of India upon sanitary and bacteriological questions, and to consult and confer with Local Governments and their sanitary officers on these matters, but he was not to be allowed to encroach in any respect on the administrative authority of the Local Govermnents and their officials. The Sanitary Commissioner is also in direct charge of the central bacteriological institute at Kasauli.

And further on they say— His functions in relation to the Provincial Governments should, we think, be of an advisory, and mainly of a technical, character; and his relations with them and with their officers should be regulated by the suggestions we have made in respect of the Imperial Inspectors-General as a class. Acting within these limitations, he should prove a very useful adviser to Local Governments as well as to the Government of India.

I am quite prepared to rest my case upon that Report.

Before I pass away from the Sanitary Commissioner, I might, perhaps, be allowed to mention an experience of my own. I met the other day a very responsible officer of a Local Government, and I asked him what he thought of the proposed abolition of these officers from the point of view of a Local Government. He was very much opposed to their abolition in each case. His experience had brought him particularly into contact with the Sanitary Commissioner. Asked what he thought about that, he said— The Local Governments have their own Sanitary Commissioners, but a Central Commissioner is very much wanted because he has greater knowledge and wider experience. The Government of India can afford to pay a better man than we can in the provinces.

And then he gave me a rather interesting illustration. He took the case of malaria prevention, which is greatly under the notice of the Government of India at this time. He said that malaria prevention is not a provincial or local, but an Imperial problem; it could not be dealt with by local bodies; and he concluded by saying that he thought the abolition of this particular office would not only be inexpedient, but, to use his own words, "positively wicked."

The other three offices which it is proposed to abolish arc those of the Inspector-General of the Civil Veterinary Department, of which I will only say that it is an immense Department of yearly increasing importance, because it has to look after the whole question of the breeding of cattle and the prevention of disease in cattle throughout India; the Inspector-General of Excise and Salt, who was created after my time, but a defence of whose appointment may also be found—I will not quote it—on p. 73 of the Report of Lord Morley's Commission; and the Inspecting Officer of Cantonments. This last officer was not mentioned by the members of this Commission at all, and if he is to go I am sure I do not know why.

I have now dealt with the whole of the officers whom it is proposed to abolish. Their abolition would, as I have shown, be contrary to the Report of the Commissioners appointed by Lord Morley, and so far as I can see the saving made by the abolition would be very slight, while the effect upon the efficiency of administration would in some cases be serious. Now if there is one danger to which I think the Government of India is liable under our system, it is the danger of oscillation from one extreme to the other. One Government goes in strongly for efficiency of administration; then a period of reaction ensues. Posts are abolished, experience is sacrificed, money is said to be saved, and a reign of laissez faire begins. Then the pendulum swings back again. I am perfectly certain that if you abolish these posts now, the majority of them will have to be re-created later on. I submit that it is the function of the Secretary of State in this country, to prevent these oscillations, which are almost inevitable under such a system of government as ours, from being too violent, and to consider not merely the desire for economy for the moment but the wider interests of efficiency in administration as a whole.

One other point before I pass from this question. I think something I said earlier will have shown the supreme importance to the Government of India, when it. wants to fill these expert offices, of being able to attract the highest class of man. You cannot get him in India. You therefore have to get him from England, and sometimes from Europe. We have been very successful in procuring that type of man, but if you create a number of these posts, if you declare them to be permanent and tempt a number of English or European gentlemen of great distinction to conic out and occupy them, and if von then suddenly sweep them away wit hunt notice and turn your officers adrift on the world, all I can say is that the Government of India will earn an unenviable reputation and you will not persuade the same class of men to come forward and fill your expert posts in the future.

I now come to the Indian Army. It is understood that the Government of India are likely to submit before long, if they have not already submitted, to the Secretary of State proposals for the reduction of the Army in India. I should say that I speak with no special knowledge on this subject and only from the evidence which is accessible to every one in the newspapers, from which I conclude that there is no doubt whatever that some such idea is on loot. It appears to have arisen as follows. In I he early part of the present year, in a debate in the Imperial Legislative Council at Calcutta, a Motion was submitted by a very prominent Indian gentleman, Mr. Gokhale, calling for a reduction of expenditure, and this Motion was for the time being disposed of by an offer on the part of the Finance Minister to appoint a Committee to consider the question of military expenditure in India. The Committee, I believe, has been sitting. Rumours of its probable findings have from time to time come out in the newspapers, and more than once the Under-Secretary in the House of Commons has answered questions upon the subject, his answers leading to the conclusion that sonic reduction in the Army is certainly contemplation. The only consolation to be derived from his remarks has been that the reduction is not to apply to the British Army in India, but only to the Native Army.

I do not for one moment blame the Government of India or the Secretary of State for having instituted an inquiry into civil and military expenditure in India. I think it is very good that such inquiries should lie held front time to time, and I rather regret t hey are not also sometimes held in the Parliament of this country. I am far from saying that the strength of the Army in India should be looked upon as a res judicata, as fixed for all time. It has been altered from Mite to time in the past. But I do say that if the alteration that is proposed is going to take the form of reduction, then it ought to be justified by the very strongest arguments. The reduction of the Army in India is not merely a local affair but an Imperial affair, affecting the whole resources of the Empire, and of all things in the world it ought not to be decided on financial considerations alone. Even from the fin racial point of view, if that is your point for the moment, you ought to consider very carefully, first., whether your economies, if you insist upon them, could not be otherwise effected, and I will show in a moment how I think they could be; and., secondly, even if they are effected in this particular way, whether they might not be more than counterbalanced by the resultant risks.

No doubt we shall be told by the noble Marquess the Secretary of State—I hope he will forgive me for anticipating the possible nature of his reply—that the reductions will consist solely of weeding out the inefficient elements in the Indian Army, and that the diminution in numbers will be more than compensated for by the increase in efficiency—that although your Army will be numerically weaker it will yet be stronger than before. I am well aware of this ancient plea. It does not impress me in the least. It is the favourite argument of the economist when he is turned loose in a military department and has to reduce somehow or other. But however that may be in this country, the argument about reduced numbers and increased efficiency has less force in India than anywhere else; and for these reasons. In the first place, in a country like India, with all its composite populations as the basis of your Army, you can never hope to recruit the whole of your Army on the same standard. You must always have a number of your regiments drawn from races and from elements in the population that are relatively inferior. Further, it must be remembered that in India the whole of your Army is not required for service in the field. When disturbance breaks out or war occurs you push up your martial regiments to the frontier, but your inferior regiments are kept in posts and cantonments all over the country to secure internal tranquility. One other consideration. You do not want to recruit your Army in India from one class only. I should like to impress upon noble Lords my conviction that one great element in the strength of our Army in India is not merely that it is a fighting force, but that it is a national force—that is, a force dependent upon the contributions, and consequently upon the support, of the community at large. Therefore it is of vital importance to the Army that it should be recruited from all parts of that great Empire. In days of external trouble the efficient regiments will go to the frontier and across the frontier to hold up the flag of Great Britain against the enemy; but in the day of internal trouble the less efficient regiments will be almost equally useful in maintaining tranquility in the interior.

There is one other respect in which I think I may anticipate the reply of the Secretary of State. He will tell me, no doubt, that the situation has changed in India; that the present strength of the Army was fixed with a view to a Russian invasion, and that with the conclusion of the Anglo-Russian Agreement such a danger has disappeared into the background. I admit that the tension on the frontier of India has been most happily relaxed, and that the chances of invasion have been proportionately reduced. I hope that that situation will be permanent, but I think it would be unwise to be absolutely confident about it. Anyhow I do not think there is anything in the alteration of the situation to render it desirable that the Government of India should seriously alter their policy as regards the strength of their armaments. Then there are counterbalancing factors which every one who knows India cannot help bearing in mind. They are these. The whole of Afghanistan is now armed to an extent which would have been deemed incredible twenty years ago; and not merely Afghanistan but that great stretch of mountainous border between Afghanistan and India is now flooded with European rifles and modern ammunition, which have made their way up, as your Lordships know, from the Persian Gulf; and it cannot be dismissed as an idle dream that, should the opportunity occur at a time of internal commotion or public danger, these hereditary freebooters of the highlands on the frontier might again seize the opportunity of pouring down on the rich plains of the Punjab and taking again that which they regard as their legitimate spoil.

I am not going to say anything about the internal condition of India, because that is rather a delicate subject. I hope the internal position of India is sensibly alleviated. I believe that it is, for the time being at any rate. But no one can doubt that there are elements existing below the service which can never be ignored and which might threaten our domestic tranquility in the future, and that in the event of war on the frontier, or still more in the event of disaster to British arms outside, an occasion might arise in which there would be serious trouble inside India itself. In view of these various considerations I would urge upon the Secretary of State, if he will allow me to do so, a policy of some caution and circumspection in dealing with this question of a proposed reduction of the Army in India; and I would remind him that on the few occasions when we have suddenly and substantially reduced the Army in India, apparently for good reasons, the step has been bitterly repented of and has had to be retraced at great cost. Above all, I would ask him, as he is now going out to India., where he will have an opportunity of consulting with the Viceroy and the officials of the Indian Government, to remember that a very important element in the maintenance of our rule in India is the contentment of the Native Army. The Native Army particularly dislikes any thing in the nature of change, and you have to look to the effect of a reduction in the Native Army not merely in your Budget for the next year and the years following, but in the sentiments of the troops. It is very little worth while to save a lot of money, to come out with a fine Budget, if the price you have to pay for that is a serious diminution in the confidence and contentment of the soldiers of your Native Army.

I said just now that if the Secretary of State was looking out for military economies I would like to give him a little advice on the matter. I think there are other directions in which he might very well economise in military matters in India, but they would not be in a reduction of numerical strength so far as they would be in the simplification of administrative control. I rather wish that I was going out to India as A.D.C. to the noble Marquess. If I were engaged in that modest but honourable capacity, I would go up with him to Simla or take hint to Calcutta and penetrate into the administrative side of Army headquarters, and I venture to say that I could point out to him superfluous and overlapping offices and posts inside those departments. Ten men doing the work which could be done by five; their number might very opportunely be reduced without any suffering to anybody but the individuals concerned. In this way the noble Marquess might obtain the reductions he desires without any infringement of the security of our position in India and without any diminution of our native forces.

I apologise to your Lordships for the time I have taken, but. I have had, under the guise of a Question, to cover the whole field of Indian administration and to deal also with the vast question of the Army. I have made no attack on His Majesty's Ministers; I have not the slightest ground for doing so. I merely ask theta questions, and I conclude by saying that I hope the Secretary of State will not hurriedly give his assent to measures the result of which may be very far-reaching and the collective effect of which, if they are all carried out, may be not to strengthen our position in India but, to weaken it.

Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for Papers respecting—

1. 1. The abolition of the offices of Director-General and Inspector-General in several departments of the Indian Administration, and more particularly the office of Director-General of Archæology;
2. 2. The reduction of the Army in India.—

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE)

My Lords, at the beginning of his most interesting speech the noble Earl alluded in kind terms to the fact that I am shortly about to have the honour of going to India in attendance on the King, which will prevent my taking any further part in the business of the remainder of this Session. I can assure the noble Earl and the House that I feel deeply the honour of attending His Majesty on such a great and unique occasion, and I also feel what a singular advantage it is, an advantage which no Secretary of State has ever enjoyed before, to be able even within the short time that will be at my disposal to have an opportunity of consulting the Government of India on the spot, more especially as the Viceroy is an old friend of mine; our friendship goes back more than forty years, when we were contemporary schoolboys—a friendship which has been maintained during that long period. He and I, therefore, can consult on many State matters with more ease than if we met there for the first time almost as strangers. I have no complaint whatever to make of the fact that the noble Earl has thought it right to introduce a debate dealing with these various matters; neither have I the faintest complaint to make of the manner in which he treated them, or of anything which fell from him in the course of his speech.

I think, perhaps, it will be the most convenient course if I first say a. few words about the subject with which the noble Earl dealt in the latter part of his speech—I mean the subject of the Army; because important though many of the topics are upon which he touched, that is by common consent the most important of any. The noble Earl has told us that his remarks were founded upon certain accounts or rumours which appeared in the public Press, not, as he pointed out, with complete accuracy, because they were afterwards authoritatively contradicted in so far as they dealt with some most alarming points, the most alarming being a contemplated reduction of the British Army in India, for which there never was an atom of foundation. It is quite true that in approaching the consideration of this matter the Government of India have borne in mind the general necessity which confronts them for the exercise of economy. They recognise, as the noble Earl very fairly pointed out, the growth of expenditure arising from improved administration of all kinds, and particularly the prospective growth which is bound to proceed from the call for improved sanitation all over India, and also the large and necessarily costly improvements in the education of the people.

I am in entire agreement with the noble Earl that we ought not to talk of the financial future of India in terms of anything approaching despair. Quite the contrary. I adopt everything that he said on that point, and. I am very glad that, speaking with his great authority and long experience, he is able to take a not altogether unhopeful view of the future of Indian finance. But, as he also truly pointed out, the Government of India have to face the prospective loss of revenue front the policy which has been adopted, by common agreement in this country, with reference to the Chinese opium trade. It would be a waste of time for me to animadvert in any way to that policy. It is undoubtedly the declared and settled policy of this country that opium is not to be forced upon China if China states and shows that she does not want opium, and the Indian Government have accepted this as a fact. In consequence, my Lords, the Government of India have engaged in a general investigation into the various public Departments wit h a view to seeing what economies are or may be possible, and among those Departments the Department of the Army was naturally, and I venture to say rightly, included.

It may be taken as an absolute axiom that in the pursuit of economy in matters of defence no sacrifice of safety against external attack or any risk of inability to preserve internal order can possibly be faced, and that applies not only to the numerical strength of your defensive force, but also to the maintenance of its efficient character. But, my Lords, that fact ought not to imply, and I believe does not imply, except in the case of a very few reckless people, that the cost of your national defence, whether by sea or land, is to be a matter of indifference to you. Take an analogy from civil life. We should all agree that in the last resort the most important civic expenditure upon which we could engage is that which insures us an efficient police force; and for this reason, that a state of complete anarchy which might be presumed to exist if there were no police force would be an even worse thing than that sanitation should be neglected or education be altogether deficient. But that fact will never prevent people from grumbling at the police rate if they consider it unduly high. On the same principle, while fully admitting the axiom with regard to national defence which I have stated, it is not merely reasonable; but imperative even, to inquire into the scale and the merits of your expenditure. It is equally true—and here I ant also in agreement with the noble Earl—that it is a serious mistake, especially in the case of an Empire like India, with a great native Army, to be continually pulling up your plant to see how it is growing, or to make perpetual, small, and possibly fussy alterations in your policy.

As regards the position in India, the present composition and distribution of the Army is founded on the proposals which started in the year 1903 and were finally applied in the year 1904, and it is quite unnecessary for me, speaking in this House, to pay any tribute either to the high authority or the great national services of Lord Kitchener. But since that time there have occurred those changes in relation to external policy to which the noble Earl alluded, although he rightly pointed out that too much emphasis must not be laid on the existence of an agreement or understanding which is the consequence of those changes, and although he admitted that a relief of tension might occur, as it has occurred on the North-Western Frontier, by their operation; and. of course, there is also the possibility of other external changes which are not of so favourable a character. It is also true that since 1903 there has been some change—the noble Earl alluded to it as a subject of great delicacy—as regards our internal position. In those years the internal state of India gave no anxiety. In some years following it caused grave and deep anxiety. Now, I am glad to be able to think and to say that we can regard the internal position of the country without anything which ought to be described as anxiety. The position must need, and will receive; all due watchfulness; but there is nothing now in the general temper, not merely of the people of India as a whole but of any race or section of the people of India, which ought to cause us anything which can be described by the word "anxiety."

Those are the changes, very broadly described, which have occurred since 1903. The Government of India, therefore, think that it is reasonable to make some fresh and further inquiry into the whole military position. They regard, and rightly regard, the military position in India as a matter of Imperial concern, and they therefore do not desire on their own initiative to make such suggestions, still less to carry out such steps, as would be within their full competence to make or to take, without reference here. This they feel all the more because the question has been raised of the possibility of a certain reduction, to which the noble Earl alluded, of what may be considered as somewhat superfluous elements in the Indian Army. That being so, the Government of India ask, and the Military Department in India also ask, that they may be assisted in making this inquiry by a Committee, and they have asked that a very distinguished officer, Sir William Nicholson, should preside over that Committee.

EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON

In India?

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

Yes. As your Lordships are aware, Sir William Nicholson has an Indian experience which is scarcely equalled by any senior officer of the day. He was its the Afghan War in 1878, and from that time down to 1899 he held high appointments, including the highest Staff appointment in India. Therefore there is little that he does not know about the Indian Army. He has been asked, and has agreed, to preside over this small Committee when his time of service as Chief of the Staff is up, which will be early in the spring, and he will therefore proceed to India for that purpose. He will be assisted by one or two other distinguished officers, and also by some gentleman who can be regarded as an expert in Indian military finance.

EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON

Does that mean that the matter is in abeyance until next spring?

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

Yes. No steps will be taken so far as a consideration of the whole military position is concerned until this Committee has reported; but, of course, I am not saying that the Government of India may not make some proposals with reference to their forthcoming Budget proposals with which I am, as yet, unacquainted, and which may affect the Indian Army to some extent. I must guard myself against that, for, of course, I do not know that some proposal may not be made. But so far as the whole question is concerned, we shall wait until we hear that this Committee has reported. That is all I have to say on the subject of the Army.

I pass on to the miscellaneous questions of the Inspectors-General with which the noble Earl dealt. It would not be accurate to say that the desire to cut down expenditure was the prime moving cause with the Government of India in making these proposals. They are, of course, glad, as any Administration would be, to save money on any post which can be regarded as superfluous, but the whole amount involved, as the noble Earl is well aware, is not by any means large, and even if the whole operation were to take place it could not be regarded in a very splendid effort in the cause of national economy. The Government of India, therefore, would not admit that their proposals involved anything like a deliberate sacrifice of efficiency for the sake of saving money. On the contrary, they object to the existence of these posts in themselves as not tending to efficiency as they understand it. The noble Earl alluded to the Report of the Decentralisation Commission, which was, however, only indirectly concerned with these offices in the sense that it was not so much called upon to consider whether such offices ought to exist as whether in fact they interfered prejudicially with the relations existing between the Supreme Government and tile Local Governments for financial and administrative purposes. But it is clear from the quotations which the noble Earl read that the Commission did not object on principle to the existence of these offices, and they certainly did not recommend their abolition. They did, however, make recommendations that the sphere of activity of these officers should be carefully defined and that they should be kept within that sphere.

The noble Earl told us that some of these officers, though by no means the whole of the seven whom he mentioned, were appointed in his time, but he was anxious to make it clear that the appointment of those officers was not due to an excessive desire for centralisation in his mind, but that it was done in the interests of the proper division of labour between the Central and the Provincial Governments. I do not dispute that for a moment, but this has to be remembered that different men will always regard in a somewhat different way what that proper division of labour between the Central and Provincial Governments ought to be, and it is no imputation against the noble Earl to say that it is not surprising that he specially recognises the sort of services which these officers of the Central Government were able to perform. If the noble Earl will allow me to say so, he possesses in an almost unique degree those qualities which in the historic contest between the hare and the tortoise caused the hare to be the favourite in the race before it was run, combined with those opposing qualities which when the event actually took place caused the tortoise to be returned the winner. Or, to drop allegory, I would say this of the noble Earl, that I very much doubt if, since the palmy days of Mr. Gladstone, there has been any public man who combined so wide a range of interest in many subjects, and such an easy grasp of their general features, with so close and laborious attention to detail and the power of working out that detail. It is very natural that the noble Earl, possessing those qualities, should see great virtue in a system which would bring under his immediate notice, with ease and certainty through a central officer, the various features of provincial policy in a way which could hardly be brought otherwise; and, as I say, that fact conveys no imputation, as I trust the noble Earl will think, against himself.

The intention, therefore, of these central inspecting or directing officers was that on the one side of their duties they should supply technical knowledge to the Government of India and to the Viceroy, and that on the other side they should facilitate the comparative study between province and province among the different provincial Administrations. Those were the declared objects of the appointment of these officers, but the objection that is taken to the actual working of the system is, in the first place, that, by supplying the Central Government with technical knowledge, you encourage it to immerse itself in detail, sometimes to the sacrifice of the general principles which it is everybody's desire that the Central Government should enforce, and that the secretariat—that branch of the Department specially concerned with the particular subject—is therefore apt, through the influence of these central officers, to take up small points to the exclusion of large ones, with the result that a vast deal of minor correspondence is brought about and correspondence generally is multiplied. Another objection is that the existence of a central officer of this kind tempts the Supreme Government to aim at a uniformity of practice all over India, in parts of which the conditions are so entirely different, rather than encourage it to make an allowance of flexibility where conditions vary. And it is argued, in the third place, that although these gentlemen are called inspectors their functions are intended to be simply advisory; but it is contended that their advice is apt sometimes to harden into something which can hardly be distinguished from orders, and that thereby the sense of responsibility on the part of Provincial Governments is diminished and their work is not so well done. Those are the disadvantages which in practice the Government of India are of opinion follow the existence in certain cases of these Directors-General, although they fully admit that the arguments differ in strength for retention or abolition in particular cases; there are some whom they do not propose to abolish, and they maintain that the advantages which an Inspector-General can bring about can in most cases be attained by the system of provincial conferences, to which the noble Earl, in connection with one subject by the way, alluded favourably, but which he would not consider, I know, as taking the place of Inspectors-General as a class.

EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON

Provincial conferences are specially dealt with and pointedly condemned by Lord Morley's Commission as an alternative to Inspectors-General.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I am quite aware of what the noble Earl says, but the noble Earl spoke with great favour of the meeting at Pusa of provincial representatives under the chairmanship of the Director-General, and to which he attached great value. Although the Government of India do not say so, because it is not their business to quote British instances, I suppose they would say that the system which they favoured would be something of the same kind as that which brings about the association of county councils in this country. Lord Belper is not in his place, but he would probably maintain that a great deal could be done by conference between local authorities which could not be done so favourably or well by a representative of the Local Government Board. I do not say that the analogy is in any way complete, but it is the kind of argument which I have no doubt the Government of India would desire to use.

I will take the appointments in turn, and will first deal with those which it is proposed to give the Government of India leave to abolish. The first of those is the Inspecting Officer of Cantonments, who was first appointed in 1903. It was a temporary and tentative appointment. It is believed now by the military authorities in India, who do not desire to see a fresh appointment made, that the excellent standard which no doubt the Inspector-General did something to bring about can be maintained, and that, in fact, there is really no work for a fresh Inspector-General to do, and, so far as I know, no objection is taken to the lapsing of the appointment in any quarter either civil or military.

The next appointment which I propose to agree with the Government of India might reasonably be abolished is that of the Inspector-General of Agriculture. The noble Earl told us that these Inspectors-General could not as a rule be obtained from the Indian service, but that it was an advantage to get men of large general experience from this country who would be able to take a wide view. Well, in this case the Inspector-General of Agriculture, whose term of office is now coming normally to an end, was an Indian officer and not a gentleman from England. Mr. Mollison, who was the Provincial Inspector of Bombay, was appointed to the post with the Government of India, and has filled it with the greatest efficiency and skill. But the Government of India hold now, and I think their arguments can be sustained, that the Provincial Directors and their staffs are fully competent to carry out the agricultural work in their respective areas. They also think that the institution at Pusa of which the noble Earl spoke can now supply all that is needed in the way of central advice and acquisition of general knowledge, and they think that I his is one of the cases—and I find myself in agree- ment with them—in which the system of conferences between province and province ought to be able to do all that is required in the way of co-ordination of knowledge and of work.

The third post which I have agreed with the Government of India might be abolished is that of the Inspector-General of the Civil Veterinary Department. There again the Provincial Departments have had good experience of which they made full use. There is a central Board of Veterinary Science which deals with the more recondite subjects in which veterinary surgeons are interested, and it is believed that that Board will be able to exercise all the functions which have been performed by the Inspector-General.

I will now mention the offices in regard to which we do not find ourselves in agreement with the recommendations of the Government of India. First I take the post of the Director-General of Archaeology. The possible abolition of this post has, as your Lordships will have observed in the public Press, excited no little general interest, and, as the noble Earl stated, a number of scientific societies and bodies of great importance have approached us at the India Office to urge its retention. We all remember the claims to public gratitude established by the noble Earl himself by his services in this regard during the period of his Viceroyalty. Everybody will agree that he performed a great service in India by rescuing a number of very beautiful and interesting historical buildings from base uses, uses of the kind which he described. Of course there have been changes of opinion on that subject not only in India but here and in the change of opinion the noble Earl has been a worthy exponent. After all it is only the other day that here, in London, our most important national possession in the way of a lay monument—the Tower of London—was rescued from use for military purposes which interfered greatly, not only with its beauty, but with its historical interest. So, as I say, everybody will be grateful to the noble Earl for what he did in India in that respect, and I agree that he performed great service in initiating a system of provincial museums, a matter in which I know he took a deep personal interest, with a view to saving a great number of specimens of antiquity from dispersal and loss, and also on the ground that subjects of this kind of local interest gain by not being removed too far from their original habitation.

Then, as we know, the noble Earl did great work in India in respect to the restoration of buildings. As to that, as the noble Earl knows, there will always be among those interested in the subject two opposing schools of thought; there will always be some who set their faces against almost everything which can be described in any sense as restoration, while there are others who believe that restoration can be carefully and sympathetically carried out in a way that need not give offence to any taste. But although there may be differences of opinion as to what the noble Earl did in particular places, yet everybody will recognise the tremendous energy which he threw into these branches of his duty and the great success which in general attended his efforts. I am in general agreement with the view that it is impossible to regard archaeology as in any sense a provincial subject. In the first place no officer, from the highest to the lowest, is appointed to any post—I am speaking of course of the ordinary service—in respect of his knowledge of or interest in archaeology or any kindred science. That applies equally to the highest offices, and when the noble Earl was selected by the late Lord Salisbury to go to India, as Viceroy I think it would be exceedingly doubtful whether any attention was paid to his interest in these matters, in considering his great and obvious fitness for the appointment. It was a very fortunate thing for India and for everybody that the noble Earl happened to take the interest in them he did, but officers of all kinds, Inspectors-General and Commissioners, are not primarily, or indeed in ally degree, chosen for their offices on account of or with any reference to their interest in antiquities. Consequently this seems to me the one subject of all in which it is reasonable and even imperative to maintain some system of central advice. I am not prepared to pledge myself to the perpetual maintenance of the Department on its existing terms, but I have decided to retain it, and the Government of India have been so informed. I have no doubt that they will heartily agree in the decision at which we have arrived. But in saying this it would be most unfair to regard the Government of India, in desiring to take the action they have desired to take, as being in any way indifferent to the subject of archæology and to the maintenance of the ancient monuments of India, or as being guilty of any trace of vandalism in this regard. They have obviously been actuated by the belief that the system in which the noble Earl is so much interested and which he carried out, for the care of monuments, could be proceeded with without detriment without this system of central control. I confess I take a different view, and taking that view have decided that it is necessary to retain the central department for advice, for general supervision, and for the collection of information in connection with archæology.

Then as regards the Sanitary Commissioner; that case, as the noble Earl is aware, though I do not think he made it quite clear in his speech, is on a different footing from the others. In this case the proposal is not in any way to decentralise or provincialise; the proposal in this case is that instead of having a Director-General of Civil Medicine and a Director-General of Sanitation, to throw these offices once more under one head and to give the Director-General of Medicine full charge of sanitation. As to this I consider, with the agreement of the Indian Council that it is desirable to retain the Sanitary Commissioner, but as regards his precise relations with the Director-General of the Indian Medical Service I have asked the Government of India to reconsider the question with a view to coming to a decision as to what the actual relations ought to be. It has been found that the complete separation of sanitation and of medical research, which it comes to, from the practical and clinical side of medicine has created a great deal of difficulty, and has tended to make the research side unpopular with young men who wish to keep their general information alive. They say that it is necessary for them somehow to have the chance of watching the processes of applied science, and that if they have not the chance of so doing they are in no better position than if they were working in the laboratory of some maker of patent medicines or preparer of drugs in the form now so popular; they have not the chance of improving themselves in the general knowledge of their profession so long as research is carried on, as the tendency has been to carry it on, far away from the large hospitals and the means of studying cases. It is therefore desired that the clinical and the biological and sanitary sides should be brought closer together.

We think that is an argument that demands consideration, and we have therefore asked the Government of India to consider carefully what the relations of the Sanitary Commissioner as he exists ought to be with the Director-General of the Medical Service.

Then, again, the Inspector-Generalship of Forestry has been the subject of correspondence in the Press. That is an old office dating back to 1864, but the arguments for its retention are not altogether so much on one side as might appear from reading much that has been written on the subject. That, I think, was pointed out in a letter to the Press from Lord Lamington, who urged that there were strong arguments for the abolition of the post. His intervention, no doubt is due to the fact that lie was Governor of Bombay, and Bombay and Madras, as the noble Earl knows, are not obliged to, and do not as a matter of fact, avail themselves of the services of the Inspector-General of Forests, but have a service of their own which they consider to be sufficient. One important duty of the Inspector-General has been to examine the working plans for the management of forests, plans of the deepest importance as regards the main-fence of forests as great revenue-producing concerns. The Government of India believe that if the Department of Inspector-General is allowed to continue, there will be a loss of initiative in the provincial Administrations in the management of their forests. I am not prepared to come to a hasty judgment on the question as to the management of these vast State properties, and have therefore asked the Government of India to reconsider the point in the light of such further information as they are able to collect, and that is one of the matters on which, no doubt, I shall have an opportunity of discussion with the Indian authorities when I go to India.

The one remaining post is that of the Inspector-General of Excise and Salt. His retention, again, is a subject on which there has been a somewhat marked difference of opinion. The whole subject is intensely technical, and it is one which it would be useless, even if I were competent to do it, to discuss fully in this House. The object of the Government of India I and their argument for the abolition of this inspectorship are that it is their aim to provincialise as far as possible, and perhaps ultimately to provincialise altogether, the Excise revenue, and in doing that all the responsibility for the details of Excise administration would be transferred to the provinces. On the other hand, it is argued that, however much you may succeed in doing this, it will always lie necessary, owing to the perplexity anti obscurity of the subject, for the Government of India to have technical and expert information at their command, and that it is desirable also that the various local governments should be able to command the services of an officer of this kind who possesses special technical knowledge. There are a number of problems of a doubtful character with regard to salt, which is one of the most important sources of revenue on which we have to depend in India. There is also a question of a different kind which has been raised for some time past, as to whether it would not be wise to include the supervision or inspection of the Customs among the duties of this officer. That being so, and this difference of opinion existing, I have asked the Government of India to allow this subject also to be referred back to them for further consideration, because obviously it is not one of extreme urgency, and I think it will gain by further examination and reflection.

Those are all the various cases, and I hope the noble Earl will recognise and admit that we have done our best to consider them not in a perfunctory way, but with regard to the special claims and merits of each. We have, as the House will have recognised, been unable to form a definite and concrete opinion upon them all. We have been obliged to leave two over altogether, and to leave over one point in connection with a third. On the others we have been able to arrive at a definite conclusion. I thank the noble Earl for having afforded me an opportunity of stating to the House the course which, on this large and interesting subject, we have felt it our duty to take.

THE EARL OF CROMER

My Lords, all who are interested in Indian affairs will have heard with very great pleasure the noble Marquess's announcement that there is no intention of moving very fast in the way of making changes in the Indian Army. The tortoise and the hare have been referred to in this discussion. I hope that both the Government of India and the Secretary of State will in this matter emulate the conduct of the slow-moving rather than the conduct of the rapid-moving of these two animals. I should have been more pleased if the noble Marquess had told us that no changes would be carried out until Sir William Nicholson had reported. I hope the Government will not drift in India into the habit which we have rather followed here in connection with important financial and military affairs of taking action first and then inquiring into the consequences of the action afterwards. That is pessimi exempli. I understand, however, that no fundamental changes will be immediately made; and although the noble Marquess could not guarantee that the Government of India would not make some minor changes in the forthcoming Budget, I would express the hope that those changes will be of a minor description and that nothing serious will be done until Sir William Nicholson has reported. Apart from the reasons to which Lord Curzon alluded, there is one other reason which I think is of great importance. I will not use the word danger—that, perhaps, is an exaggerated term—but great caution must be exercised in touching the native Army. It is a most delicate machine, and it is difficult for the wisest man to say exactly what effect would be produced in India by dealing with it in any way. The noble Marquess said, and we all heard his view with great pleasure, that there was now no cause for anxiety as to the internal affairs of India. I earnestly trust, however, that in considering the question of a reduction in the Indian Army too much reliance will not be placed on the existing situation of the moment. It is impossible, in dealing with the many important affairs of India, to foretell that, however quiet affairs may be now, there may not be in the course of two or three years cause for anxiety.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

Perhaps I might be allowed to explain to the noble Earl that I carefully defined the use of the word "anxiety," which is a strong word; but I certainly did not desire him or the House to understand that I did not think there was need for continual vigilance.

THE EARL OF CROMER

I am glad to hear the noble Marquess's assurance on that point. All who are interested in India will hear with great pleasure that there is no intention of abolishing the Archaeological Department, and that, although the sword is still suspended over the Sanitary and Forestry Departments, their doom has not yet been sealed.

EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON

My Lords, I need only offer the fewest observations in reply. I have on my own behalf and on behalf of your Lordships to thank the noble Marquess for the full reply which he has given, and for the scrupulous care and fairness with which he went into the various subjects and with which also he seems to have considered the proposals of the Government of India when they came before him. I will not add anything on the military question to what has been just said by the noble Earl on the Cross Benches. I know Sir William Nicholson well; I had the pleasure of serving with him in India he is a man of strong character and of the highest ability, and I think His Majesty's Government could not have selected a better officer to advise them on the subjects referred to. It is impossible for any of us now to prejudge what the nature, and still more what the results, of such an inquiry may he, but I earnestly endorse what Lord Cromer has said in regard to the Indian Army. I hope that full opportunity will be given to those interested in this country to consider any proposed changes before they are carried into effect, and that we shall not be put in the lamentable position of finding a reduction agreed upon which we can only criticise after it has taken place.

With regard to the Director-General and Inspector-Generalships, I felt disposed, as the noble Marquess was proceeding with his remarks, to avail myself of the right which I claim in my Motion, and as the noble Marquess developed at sonic length the views of the Government of India about these Inspector-Generalships and Director-Generalships—views with which I wholly disagree, and which I may say were completely thrown over by the Corn-mission appointed by Lord Morley—I felt inclined to press my Motion for Papers, because I should like to have seen the document in which these rather surprising arguments were employed. But as he proceeded I found to my gratification that the noble Marquess had by no means been convinced of the soundness of the arguments, because in four of the seven cases alluded to he had refrained from accepting the advice offered him by the Government of India.

Of the three posts which the Secretary of State has decided to concur with the Government of India in abolishing, I will only say that I regret the abolition of the Inspector-Generalship of Agriculture. I argued my case before; it is stated in the report of Lord Morley's Commission; and in view of the enormous development which lies before agriculture in India I should have thought that it would have been found, and I believe that one day it will be found, of great advantage to the Government of India to have an authority at hand who can advise them in this matter. But whatever regret I may feel at the decision on that point is more than compensated by my satisfaction at the retention of some of the other posts in which I am more particularly concerned.

The decision of the Secretary of State with regard to Archæology will be warmly welcomed not only in this country but in India, where I do not think there is a dissentient voice on the matter. As to the Sanitary Commissioner, I am not surprised, in view of the large extension of the work of that Department, that the Secretary of State should have decided to retain this officer, and I warmly approve of the proposal to make careful inquiry into the adjustment of the relations of the Sanitary Commissioner with the Director-General of Medical Service. These inquiries from time to time require to be made and are essential to the working of the administration without friction. The Inspector-General of Forestry and the Inspector-General of Excise and Salt are also for the moment still in existence, because the Secretary of State has asked the Government of India to reconsider their suggestions. Nothing can be better than that the Secretary of State should have an opportunity of discussing these matters when he is out in that country, and I hope that when he conics back we shall find that his consideration of them has led him to adopt with regard to them the same conclusion, as he has with regard to the Director-General of Archæology and the Sanitary Commissioner. I do not propose, in these circumstances, to press my Motion for Papers, and I thank the Secretary of State for the great attention he has given to the matter.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.