the amount awarded to him as compensa- sight very convincing. They then went on tion for his real property. In regard to to say that under the rules for the distribuhis personal property, he was awarded the tion of compensation for losses of personal maximum that could be given under the property a limitation was made to onerules-namely, 5,000 rupees. The hon. third of the loss, and that in no case could Gentleman the Member for Chippenham a larger amount than 5,000 rupees be (Mr. Goldney) had alleged that Sir John allowed. They also stated that, in the preought to have received compensation on two sent instance, the latter sum was disprodistinct grounds, in respect of property in portionate to the total loss, and that more which he was interested under two distinct liberal compensation was sought on special titles, and he confessed there seemed to be grounds. They went on to say that Sir some force in that argument, although it John Metcalfe laid great stress on the fact was not admitted by the Government of that he had abstained from pressing his India. But, subject to this exception (if it claim against certain districts, but they were one), Sir John Metcalfe was compen- held that this plea was untenable after sated at the same rate as everybody else the formation of the Million Fund. [Major under the rules. The hon. Gentlemen who ANSON: What is the Million Fund?] brought forward and seconded the Motion The next paragraph of the despatch would now alleged that the compensation was in- answer the question of the hon. and gallant sufficient, and said they asked not for Member. For the reasons which they stafavour but for justice. But in what respect ted, they said that Sir John Metcalfe had had Sir John Metcalfe been treated un- no claim to more than 5,000 rupees justly? He had, it was true, suffered under the rules, but that there were special considerable loss, and had received com- grounds which entitled him to consideration pensation to a very inadequate extent. from the Government, such as his own Was that what was meant? ["Hear!"] services at Delhi, and the fact that he beFrom the way in which his last remark longed to a family which had rendered had been received he inferred that the great services to India. Now, although claim was rested on the ground of justice; there was no name more deservedly hoand that, in fact, the justice of the sys- noured in Indian history than that of tem of rules under which the award was Metcalfe, he was sure the House would made was disputed, not only as they ap- feel that the circumstance was not a sufplied to Sir John Metcalfe, but to every- ficient reason for laying out the money body else; because if rules were laid down of the taxpayers of India for the purpose and everybody were treated exactly in ac- of compensating an individual on account cordance with them, it was impossible to of his family, however distinguished. As say that if the rules were just for one per- to the services which Sir John Metcalfe son they were unjust for another. To re- had rendered at Delhi, he was not previse these rules and to set aside the basis pared to say that they were not such of compensation which had been laid down as to entitle his case to special considerawhen the facts were fresh would be a very tion. That was a question which would serious undertaking. He was not respon- have to be measured by a comparison sible for them, nor did he stand up to de- of those services with the services of fend them; but he was merely endeavour- some other officers; and the only statement ing to get at the real facts of a case which he could make with respect to it at the certainly awakened sympathy. It would, present moment was that he must reserve however, be extremely unwise to carry his judgment upon it until he had an opsympathy for an individual so far as to portunity of considering it more fully upon break down rules, without carefully con- its merits. He found that the case had sidering what the consequences might be. already been decided some years ago; and The other ground on which Sir John although he by no means wished to contend Moten'fe's claim was based was that it had that it should not be re-opened, yet he mended for special consideration thought some caution should be exercised Inment of India. He held in in doing so, particularly as no new facts spatch from the Government had been adduced. He should, however, hich that recommendation hold himself entirely at liberty to deal with bey argued, in the first place, the matter, should it be brought before of the distinction between the him, on its merits after consultation with properties, and on this he his Council, and after such reference as their argument was not at first might be deemed necessary to the Govern circumstances of difficulty. He must, however, observe, that no Resolution which might be passed by a Committee, or even by the House itself, would be legally binding on the Council of India; because Parliament had decided on general grounds, and he thought wisely, to remove from itself the duty of administering the finances of India, and had referred that duty to another body. As long as that arrangement remained he did not think Parliament would desire to render it an absurd one by interfering in individual cases with the decision of the Council. He did not, of course, object to the Council receiving any information from a Committee in a case where information so furnished might be deemed desirable. Neither did he object to the comments of hon. Members who desired to point out what they might conceive to be errors in decisions of the Council. On the contrary, he thought that in such ways that House might exercise a very salutary influence. But he thought that in this case the facts were not in dispute. They were correctly stated by the hon. and gal lant Member-more correctly than by Sir John Metcalfe in his petition. Sir John was obviously under an erroneous impression as to the source from which the funds for awarding those compensations were derived. He seemed to think that they had been voted by that House, and that a very large sum had been granted for the purpose, and had not yet been exhausted. Had that been so, that House would of course have been the right judge whether its intentions had been carried into effect. But it was not so, and the hon. and gallant Member had not put forward the case on that ground. He should be most happy to lay the whole of the Correspondence on the table in order that the House might see exactly how the case stood. Having looked over the Papers-without, however, having had an opportunity of consulting his Council-he would now state how in his opinion the case presented itself. In the first place it should be borne in mind that the compensation awarded to Sir John Metcalfe was granted, not upon any special award confined to his case, but in application of the general rule laid down by Sir Charles Wood, the Secretary of State in Council in 1859. He was not prepared to go into an argument as to the legal rights which the sufferers by the mutiny might have had to recover the full amount of their losses from the inhabitants of the districts in which those losses were incurred. That, however, was a point on which he would institute inquiries, as it might possibly have some bearing on the case. But he might remark that if every sufferer from the mutiny had a legal right to recover all his losses from the inhabitants of the district, the cases of every loser by the mutiny, as well as that of Sir John Metcalfe, called for inquiry, with the exception of the comparatively few cases in which the losses were made good by the action of the Punjab Government, or other local authorities, on the spur of the moment. But when Delhi fell the Government had, instead of allowing prosecutions against districts and villages, made an arrangement under which compensation should be granted out of some general fund. With respect to Delhi, it was at first proposed that the compensation should be provided by contributions to be levied on the houses in that city. That plan, however, was abandoned, and the following plan was adopted by the Government of India. The claims, it appeared, amounted to about £2,000,000, and the Government laid down the following scale of compensation:-A distinction was drawn between real and personal property, it being provided that the losses in real property should up to a fixed amount be made good to the amount of one-half the loss sustained, but that beyond a certain point the compensation should be at the rate of one-third of the actual loss, while with respect to personalty the rule was laid down that one-third of the proved loss should be made good, but that no claimant should receive more than 5,000 rupees, or £500. It was obvious that under this peculiar arrangement, which however was deliberately adopted and applied in every case, a person who had lost property worth £1,500 would receive as much as a person whose losses amounted to £15,000. Now, the peculiarity of Sir John Metcalfe's case was simply that he was a large loser, and that, therefore, this scale of compensation, which was perhaps sufficient for those who lost but little, was in his case a very inadequate one. Still, he was compensated according to the scale laid down and applied in every instance. The money was to be derived from contributions out of the general funds of the Government of India, and whereas the losses were represented to amount to about £2,000,000, the total sum which the Government determined to grant by way of compensation was not to exceed £1,000,000. He believed Sir John Metcalfe made no complaint as to the amount awarded to him as compensa- sight very convincing. They then went on tion for his real property. In regard to to say that under the rules for the distribuhis personal property, he was awarded the tion of compensation for losses of personal maximum that could be given under the property a limitation was made to onerules-namely, 5,000 rupees. The hon. third of the loss, and that in no case could Gentleman the Member for Chippenham a larger amount than 5,000 rupees be (Mr. Goldney) had alleged that Sir John allowed. They also stated that, in the preought to have received compensation on two sent instance, the latter sum was disprodistinct grounds, in respect of property in portionate to the total loss, and that more which he was interested under two distinct liberal compensation was sought on special titles, and he confessed there seemed to be grounds. They went on to say that Sir some force in that argument, although it John Metcalfe laid great stress on the fact was not admitted by the Government of that he had abstained from pressing his India. But, subject to this exception (if it claim against certain districts, but they were one), Sir John Metcalfe was compen- held that this plea was untenable after sated at the same rate as everybody else the formation of the Million Fund. [Major under the rules. The hon. Gentlemen who | ANSON: What is the Million Fund?] brought forward and seconded the Motion The next paragraph of the despatch would now alleged that the compensation was in- answer the question of the hon. and gallant sufficient, and said they asked not for Member. For the reasons which they stafavour but for justice. But in what respect ted, they said that Sir John Metcalfe had had Sir John Metcalfe been treated un- no claim to more than 5,000 rupees justly? He had, it was true, suffered under the rules, but that there were special considerable loss, and had received com- grounds which entitled him to consideration pensation to a very inadequate extent. from the Government, such as his own Was that what was meant? ["Hear!"] services at Delhi, and the fact that he beFrom the way in which his last remark longed to a family which had rendered had been received he inferred that the great services to India. Now, although claim was rested on the ground of justice; there was no name more deservedly hoand that, in fact, the justice of the sys-noured in Indian history than that of tem of rules under which the award was Metcalfe, he was sure the House would made was disputed, not only as they applied to Sir John Metcalfe, but to everybody else; because if rules were laid down and everybody were treated exactly in accordance with them, it was impossible to say that if the rules were just for one person they were unjust for another. To revise these rules and to set aside the basis of compensation which had been laid down when the facts were fresh would be a very serious undertaking. He was not responsible for them, nor did he stand up to defend them; but he was merely endeavouring to get at the real facts of a case which certainly awakened sympathy. It would, however, be extremely unwise to carry sympathy for an individual so far as to break down rules, without carefully considering what the consequences might be. The other ground on which Sir John Metcalfe's claim was based was that it had been recommended for special consideration by the Government of India. He held in his hand the despatch from the Government of India, in which that recommendation was made. They argued, in the first place, the question of the distinction between the two separate properties, and on this he confessed their argument was not at first feel that the circumstance was not a sufficient reason for laying out the money of the taxpayers of India for the purpose of compensating an individual on account of his family, however distinguished. As to the services which Sir John Metcalfe had rendered at Delhi, he was not prepared to say that they were not such as to entitle his case to special consideration. That was a question which would have to be measured by a comparison of those services with the services of some other officers; and the only statement he could make with respect to it at the present moment was that he must reserve his judgment upon it until he had an opportunity of considering it more fully upon its merits. He found that the case had already been decided some years ago; and although he by no means wished to contend that it should not be re-opened, yet he thought some caution should be exercised in doing so, particularly as no new facts had been adduced. He should, however, hold himself entirely at liberty to deal with the matter, should it be brought before him, on its merits after consultation with his Council, and after such reference as might be deemed necessary to the Govern under the circumstances, the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not press his Motion for a Select Committee, while he (Sir Stafford Northcote) would undertake to take care that if the case were brought before him by a memorial from Sir John Metcalfe, it should not be set aside with the ordinary answer that the question could not be re-opened. ment of India. It would, he might add, be in his opinion extremely difficult for a Select Committee to decide satisfactorily in the matter; indeed, he did not see in what way such a tribunal could well proceed in its investigation. They might, indeed, put questions to the members of the Council as to the grounds on which they had come to the conclusion at which they had arrived; but he was not at all sure that SIR GEORGE BOWYER had heard that they would ascertain the justice of the with great satisfaction the decision at case at all more satisfactorily than could be which the right hon. Baronet had arrived done by the House itself in open debate to take the case into his favourable conwith all the necessary information before it. sideration. He contended that, as the He was perfectly ready to lay on the table Council of India were a purely official the original Correspondence which had led body and not elected by the taxpayers of to the establishment of the rules to which India to represent them, it was perfectly he had referred, as well as all the subse- open to the House of Commons to review quent Correspondence which bore upon the their action on financial questions, and case. He should also be prepared, if the maintained that, although the rules to case were properly brought under his no which reference had been made might, tice by Sir John Metcalfe, to take it into generally speaking, operate fairly, yet that consideration in Council, so that he might was no good reason why a particular insee how the thing really stood; but he must stance in which they might operate harshly not be understood as in any way pledging should not be dealt with on its own merits. his individual opinion or that of his Council The case was one entitled to consideration as to what, on full investigation, might ap-upon its own merits, and on grounds of pear to them to be just. The noble Lord the Member for Taunton (Lord William Hay) had, in the course of his remarks, referred to some observations which he (Sir Stafford Northcote) had made the previous evening as to the right of the House of Commons to control the Council, but he seemed to have misunderstood his meaning. What he had said was that in the event of a difference of opinion arising between the Secretary of State and his Council upon a question of expenditure recommended by the Government of India, the Secretary of State had a remedy against the Council by being able to put a moral pressure upon them by bringing the matter before Parliament. It would, however, he thought, be a dangerous principle to establish, that the House of Commons, whenever a case of what it deemed to be individual hardship was brought before it, should, with comparatively little knowledge of the matter, interfere and try to over-rule the decision of the Council of India. As to the present case, he did not mean to say that it was not a case which was in some respects a strong one; but he, at the same time, was of opinion that it would be injurious that it should be drawn into a precedent for making appeals from a better informed body to one which must necessarily from the absence of information be less qualified to proan opinion upon it. He hoped, nounce abstract justice; and as it was, moreover, the claim of a man who had rendered important public services, and whose family also deserved the gratitude of the country, it was to be hoped that it would be dealt with in a favourable, an equitable, and even in a generous spirit. MAJOR ANSON said, that, after the speech of the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for India, he would not press his Motion to a division; but as the Indian Council had already expressed an opinion on the subject, if their decision upon it should be again adverse, he must hold himself at liberty to bring the case before the House at a future period. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. PERMANENT EXPENSES OF COMMIS SIONS.-RESOLUTION. MR. GOLDNEY said, he did not regret that he had not secured an earlier oppor tunity of bringing on his Motion, because the proceedings of Thursday night showed how necessary it was to consider in what way the increasing expenditure of the country could be grappled with. Hon. Members knew very well how exceedingly difficult it was in Committee of Supply to effect any reduction of expenditure. Attempts to do so usually ended in promise that the matter should be looked into rent-charges; but after that was accomplished certain duties were assumed by the Commissioners for the purpose of continuing the Commission. Indeed, it was found that when once a Commission was appointed for any definite purpose, it was almost impossible to get rid of the Commission itself. Acts were passed, and renewed, and consolidated, and in various ways work was found for the Commission, so as to keep it alive; and in many instances, no doubt, that work was very beneficial, but the benefit was for private indi viduals and not for the public generally. The Tithes Commission, having done its chief work-that of turning the tithes into a commuted fixed rent-charge upon the land-was now occupied in making variations solely for the benefit of the parties interested. It was manifestly unfair that a poor shopkeeper, say in York, should be contributing to the cost of managing a gentleman's estate in Buckinghamshire. Last year the Tithes Office dealt with 395 cases, including the confirmation of 283 altered apportionments, thirty-six applications for glebe exchanges, and 117 applications for redemption of rent-charge. Not only did the country bear the cost of all these transactions, which were for the benefit of into before the preparation of the Estimates for the following year. Soon after he entered the House a Motion was made by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. White) to the effect that the expenditure of the country was increasing, and ought to be diminished; and the right hon. Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) said it was useless to make general Motions for reductions of expenditure, and that the only mode of effecting any permanent reduction was to object to items in detail, and to point out those that could safely be got rid of. Hon. Members would be startled to hear the increase in the Civil Service Estimates during the last twenty-five years. In 1839 they stood at £2,500,000, which covered all Civil Service expenses at that period; and they had grown, not by any sudden jump, but gradually, by £100.000, £200,000, or £300,000 a year, until last year they amounted to £8.002.953, which was this year augmented by £400,000. In discusions upon them a great number of Votes had been attacked, and arguments had been used which in ordinary cases would have been conclusive; but the Treasury experienced difficulty in dealing with the heads of Departments, and inducing them to give up some portion of their expendi-individuals, but the Acts constituting and ture. The sum we were now called upon renewing the Commission exempted the to pay for the Civil Service alone would in transactions from the cost of postage and 1838 have paid the whole of the Army and stamps, so that the Revenue lost a large Ordnance, as well as the Civil Service ex- sum it would otherwise receive in addition. penses. In speaking of the increase of the Last year twenty-two inclosures were conCivil Service Estimates he did not forget firmed and carried out, and 228 exchanges that they embraced certain new charges, of landed estates effected. In all, 264 such as the Education Grant, but that cases were dealt with, and the value of the Grant, large as it was, did not account for property passing and changing ownership more than one-sixth of it-if that. Acting through the assistance of the Commission upon the recommendation, therefore, of the was nearly £350,000, which was also exempt right hon. Member for South Lancashire, from stamps that would have amounted to he would take three heads of expenditure between £4,000 and £5,000. The Copywhich might be fairly considered with a hold Office dealt with 1,203 cases, including view to passing a Resolution declaring that 825 enfranchisements, and the value of the they ought not to be a public charge, and property dealt with was nearly £250,000, that the offices ought to be self-supporting. again exempt from stamps and postages. Those three heads were the Copyhold, In. In these offices a small payment on each closure, and Tithe Commission, the Charity transaction would meet all the necessary Commission, and the Land Registry Office. expenses, and relieve the Consolidated Fund The Tithe Commission, in its origin was, from a charge of £30,000 or £40,000 per no doubt, very properly appointed; and annum, and which charge would after a very when it was first established it no doubt short time have to be further increased by performed duties which were of general superannuations-and justice could be done advantage. It was fair that the nation should bear the expense of carrying out a great principle of change solemnly adopted for the public benefit like that of commuting the whole tithes of the kingdom VOL. CXCI. [THIRD SERIES.] to the country without doing injustice to anyone. The question of the Charity Commission was brought forward in 1863 by the right hon. Member for South Lancashire, in an able financial speech, in which 2 T |