the financial control of the Council with | the Secretary of State should be abothe control of the House of Commons|lished. If they wanted to get at the over the Expenditure of England. This opinion of these 15 men of great Indian interpretation of the Act of 1858 was experience, as in November last, it was endorsed by Lord Cairns and Lord felt to be a great misfortune that the Chelmsford; but Lord Hatherley, who members of the Council could not be was then Lord Chancellor, said that no consulted. They could only learn indiCourt of Law would for a moment sup- rectly what their opinions were. The port the construction put upon the Act two most important clauses in the Act by Lord Cairns. If Lord Chancellors were the 54th and 55th, which declared and ex-Lord Chancellors, Secretaries of that if India engaged in war the fact State and ex-Secretaries of State dif- must be announced within one month if fered diametrically as to the meaning of Parliament was sitting, and within three an Act by which 250,000,000 of people months if Parliament was not sitting, were governed, could it need any words and that the Revenues of India could to show that inquiry was necessary and not be employed beyond the Frontiers that the time had come when the Act of of India without the consent of Parlia1858 ought to be put upon a certain and ment; but scarcely any two lawyers intelligible basis? Lord Lyveden, who agreed as to the extent to which these was President of the Board of Control two clauses controlled each other. The when the first Indian Act of 1858 was facts he had brought forward showed introduced, said that the Court of Direc- that the Act of 1858 urgently needed tors had successfully resisted the whole amendment. The rule in matters of imof the charge for the Persian War being portance and difficulty was that legislathrown on the Revenues of India, and tion should be preceded by inquiry. In half the charge was thrown on England; the days of the Company the Charter and he added it was felt at the time that used to be renewed for only 20 years, if the control of the Board of Directors and at each interval there was an inwas abolished it would be absolutely quiry into the government of India. necessary to give similar control to some Among the many labours to which they other body. Therefore this Act was could look back with pride there was passed. But he believed the Council nothing they could refer to with greater had not been so much as consulted as to satisfaction than the records of the Comwhat portion of the expense of the mittees which sat on the Government of Afghan Campaign should be borne by India in 1808, 1832, and 1853. On each India. In the same debate, in answer of these Committees there sat most to the Duke of Argyll, Lord Cairns eminent men. On that of 1808 Lord made the remarkable declaration that, Castlereagh, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Wil.even if Russia were to invade Afghan- berforce, and the Duke of Wellington istan, the consent of the Council must sat. On that of 1832 were Mr. Robert be obtained before war was declared Grant, Mr. Charles Grant, Sir George against Russia. But such was the un- Grey, and almost every man of emicertainty of the law that Lord Cairns nence in the House. On the Comwas a Member of the Government which mittee of 1853 were Mr. Macaulay, Mr. 10 years later invaded Afghanistan, and Cobden, Mr. Hume, Lord John Russell, not only did not obtain the consent of Lord Palmerston, and others most famithe Council, but, as they knew from the liar with the subject. These were preMinisterial answer given in that House, cedents for such a Committee as he now did not even consult it. He knew that asked for. But, it might be objected, the members of the Council were as anxious time was unsuitable. Why? Because it as men could be to have an opportunity was said they were on the eve of a Disof recording their opinions. So great solution. But the most important of the was the uncertainty of the law that the three Committees to which he had reauthority and control of the Council ferred-that of 1832-sat in the Session were being gradually frittered away. when the Reform Bill was passed and He knew members of the Council who, when a Dissolution was certain in the if this Committee were granted, would autumn. That Committee took most come forward and boldly say, rather exhaustive evidence and made a most than such a state of things should con- memorable and able Report. Why tinue, it would be better the Council of should a Committee not sit in 1879? Another reason why there should be no | two or three clauses of the Act of 1858 delay with regard to this inquiry was that were obviously inconsistent. He that no evidence could be more import- would more particularly mention the ant than that of Lord Lawrence, Sir 41st and the 27th clauses. The former Charles Trevelyan, and others who had provided that there should be no actual filled important official positions both expenditure from the Revenues of India under the old and new systems. But without the control of the Secretary of Lord Lawrence was advancing in years, State in Council, and that no appropriaand, except Lord Northbrook, he was tion of any such Revenues should be made the only survivor of the illustrious men without a majority of votes in the Counwho had filled the office of Viceroy, and cil; while the 27th clause was to the was the only Viceroy who had held an effect that any order not being an order official position before the East India for which a majority of votes was necesCompany was abolished, and the loss of sary might, after the commencement of his views, founded on his vast knowledge the Act, be sent by the Secretary of and experience, would be irreparable. State without a meeting of the Council. No dispassionate person would deny It was thus competent for the Secretary that the financial position of India at of State-although he could not, without present was unsatisfactory; and that if the consent of the Council, order so inthings were permitted to go on a finan- significant a charge on the Revenues of cial embarrassment would soon arise India as the cost of mending an armwhich would not only put a severe strain chair in the India Office-on his own on our resources, but would cause taxa- authority to send a despatch which might tion to be imposed on the people, which involve India in a costly war without the they would regard as an intolerable bur- slightest possibility of any control being den, and make them feel that the rule of exercised by the Council, though that, England was the reverse of a blessing. in truth, was the very object and funcIn bringing this Motion forward he was tion of the Council. If the House denot actuated by any Party motive. He sired to treat the matter seriously and believed that all parties alike desired wisely, it could only do so by amending that our Indian Empire should rest on the Act of 1858. That would have to the growing contentment of the people; be done sooner or later; though he could and he asked the House, before it was not say whether or not the appointment too late, resolutely to set to work to of a Committee was the best way of applace on a secure and more economical proaching the subject. With regard to basis the finances of a country whose another point: the hon. Member for poverty must excite their commiseration, Hackney had alluded to the increased and the well-being of whose people charge thrown on the Indian Revenue. should engage their anxious, their watch- by the Amalgamation Act of 1860. Proful, and their constant care. The hon. bably very few persons realized what Member concluded by moving the Re- that increase was; but it was a fact that solution of which he had given Notice. under the old system, before the Amalgamation Act, the average military charge in India was £12,000,000; while the average since the passing of that Act was no less than £16,000,000. That sum was solely for the ordinary military charges, and not for such exceptional expenses as those consequent on an Afghan War. The main point was, whether it was possible so to construct the whole government of India as to keep the power and responsibility in the hands of the Secretary of State, at the same time investing the Council with a real financial control. He did not think that would be impossible, particularly as the Indian Council were elected on the ground of their knowledge of Indian finance, and as the exercise of their dis Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon the operation of The Government of India Act, 1858,' and the other Acts amending the same,"—(Mr. Fawcett,) -instead thereof. Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." MR. A. MILLS said, he believed the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) had done good service in bringing forward this question, but doubted whether this was a seasonable time to make such an inquiry as was proposed. There were VOL. CCXLIII. [THIRD SERIES.] 3 S cretion in time past had proved their | dian Executive must be exercised in capacity for power. The hon. Member England, and by the one authority for Hackney had described the Council greater than the Viceroy-namely, the as tongue-tied, and unable to criticize Secretary of State and his Council. the Secretary of State. That was, to Some persons imagined that the power some extent, an exaggeration; but the of the Council was shadowy. He mainpoint was, not that members of the tained that it was enormous, and would Council could not express their opinions mention one fact. He could speak only freely, but that they had little or no con- of what had occurred under the admitrolling power. Sooner or later some nistration of the Duke of Argyll; but, step must be taken in amending the Act except on very rare occasions, the same of 1858, and, in his (Mr. Mill's) opinion, procedure had, no doubt, been followed the sooner the better. It was no objec- by all Secretaries of State for India. tion to immediate action to talk of the While the Duke of Argyll was at the present House as a moribund Parlia- India Office, there must have been somement. To that phrase he strongly ob- thing over 100 questions submitted for jected. But, after all, if their political the decision of the Indian Council every future was but brief, that very fact ought week. He was there for more than five all the more to stimulate their energies; years, and he had never once overruled otherwise it might be argued with equal his Council, so that, in that time, they force that the entire Session ought to had said as a body "Yes" or "No" to be spent in idleness and inactivity. nearly 30,000 questions, many of them of the greatest possible importance. Could a body be said to have only a shadowy power to which not only every question directly relating to any appropriation to be made, or any grant to be given, from the Revenues of India was necessarily submitted, but which, in practice, decided upon almost every large question connected with India? He said upon almost every question, for there were, as was well known, certain reservations made in the legislation which governed the powers of the Council. There were some people—not very many, he believed-who would sweep away these reservations, and who thought that every question connected with India should be finally decided by the vote of the Indian Council. There were others who thought that every question should be submitted to it, and that its advice should necessarily be taken on absolutely every subject. To the first of these propositions he would be entirely opposed; against the second he should have a good deal to advance if this were the time to discuss it. He would only now observe that the question resolved itself into this-Was Parliament to be the supreme arbiter of Indian as of all other affairs, or was it not? If Parliament was not to remain the supreme arbiter, he did not know that this high trust could be in better hands than those of the Indian Council, consisting, as it did, of the picked men of Indian experience. But was Parliament prepared, on the advice of any Committee, how MR. GRANT DUFF agreed with a great many, though by no means with all, the observations that had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett). The hon. Member wished to persuade the House that the financial control now exercised over Indian expenditure was inadequate, and sought a remedy in the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the working of the Government of India Act and the other Acts amending the same. After listening to his hon. Friend's statement, he still held the opinion that among the many and great evils that already afflicted, and the still greater evils that threatened, Indian finance, an inadequate control over expenditure found no place. If an elaborate machinery of control, constantly and carefully worked during the last 20 years, could have made our Indian expenditure a thing agreeable to contemplate, we should have had great reason to be satisfied. But the machinery for controlling Indian expenditure had been, at various periods of our history, very indifferent; and the evils that were wrought even in the worst times by a defective system of control were as nothing compared to the ill effects of errors in our general policy. If the state of the finances of India were, as he admitted it to be, a subject for uneasiness and alarm, it was the result of grave errors in recent policy, not of any defective control. It would be generally admitted that an effective financial control over the In ever composed, to abdicate its power tuency to fall back on. His hon. Friend 66 another place" in the year 1869, as to what the statutory powers of the Council with reference to finance were meant by Parliament to be. These questions, however, were not now before the House. The question before them was whether they should refer to a Select Committee of that House alone, at a moment when they had, thanks to the accidents of Elections, by no means a large number of men of Indian experience in it, and when the House, even if it lived out its days, was certainly not very far from its end, the whole constitution of Indian government, on the ground of the control now exercised over expenditure not being sufficient. He thought that the control now exercised by the Council over expenditure was sufficient. This was not the time, and a Select Committee of that House alone was not the way, to inquire into the Government of India Act, and he must accordingly deelino to support his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney. He should be very sorry, however, if anyone were to suppose that he did not think the state of Indian finances very unsatisfactory, or that the Government of India Act was susceptible of amendment. The Indian Government, when the late Government handed it over to their Successors, was in the position of a great landowner who was somewhat embarrassed, but could just pay his way. It was now in the position of a great landowner who, having had a succession of bad years from no fault of his own, had had the folly to involve himself in an expensive lawsuit with a neighbour, the least unsatisfactory issue of which would be the acquisition of an estate which would be a damnosa hæreditas indeed, requiring an expenditure upon it which might easily, in a few years' time, lead him to destruction. MR. ONSLOW said, he differed from the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) with respect to the financial condition of the old East India Company, which was its great weakness; and he had been surprised to hear the hon. Member assert that economy had been one of the strongest points of that Company. The following figures he had carefully tabulated from the records of the House, and he could vouch for their accuracy. From the years 1814 to 1860, inclusive, there had only been surpluses in 13 years, amounting together to £8,895,000, while there had been deficits in the remaining 33 years amounting to £72,200,000-that was, an average surplus for 13 years of £684,200, and an average deficit for 33 years of £5,540,000. Between 1800 and 1859 the Debt had been increased in 44 years, while it had been diminished in 15 years only; so that, up to that time, we had in the aggregate a huge deficit, and a substantial accretion of Debt. When Mr. Wilson went out to India, in 1859, there had been a deficit for four years, amounting to £37,000,000. And all this was under the old East India Company. Thus it was clear that during the rule of that Company there were far larger deficits than since the Crown had taken the affairs of India under its direct control. Now, he would be the last person to India Company; but, still, the figures adduced would, he thought, show that however much there might have been a desire for economy, still the East India Company were not successful in the administration of the finances of India. It had been truly remarked that the finance of India was a matter of surprise, because the chief part of the Revenue was derived from opium, and it was never known whether the Estimate would in any year be realized or exceeded; while at any time numerous little wars, or panics, or famines, or even cyclones, might overthrow the best calculations. In these circumstances, he could not see how the appointment of a Committee of that House could prevent the finance of India being a matter of surprise. It was impossible all at once to Americanize Indian institutions, which must be dealt with tentatively and gradually. He believed that the waste of money in India was not owing to the extravagance of Viceroys or of their Councils, but to the pressure brought to bear upon the Secretary of State by hon. Members in that House, who compelled him to force the Viceroys to spend money on objects which the latter were aware would be of no practical use, or, at all events, not so useful as many other projects. Taking the case of the building of the barracks in India: every hon. Member in that House respected Miss Nightingale, who had done so much good for our soldiers; but that lady, having gone out to India and seen the condition of the barracks there, had put such pressure upon that House, and upon the Secretary of State, that no less than £12,000,000 had been spent upon the erection of new barracks there which were practically of very little use, and, therefore, that money might be said to have been thrown away in pursuit of this philanthropic object. He did not see how the Viceroy could have resisted the pressure that was then brought to bear upon him, though, backed by his Council, he should have refused to consent to this extravagant expenditure. It must, however, be remembered that that extravagance originated, not in India, but at home. It was also owing to pressure at home that so many millions more than were necessary were spent in relief of the Famine in 1874. It was impossible for any Committee sitting even three days a-week to frame an |