said, he wished to ask the Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is intended to bring in any measure to assimilate the proceedings of the Law and Equity Courts in Ireland to those of the English Courts; and, if so, when such Bill will be introduced?

replied, that he hoped in a very few days to introduce a Bill for assimilating the constitution and procedure of the Courts of Equity in Ireland to those of the English Courts of Equity, and also to assimilate the practice and procedure of the Courts of Law in Ireland to those of the English Law Courts.

said, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to be good enough to inform him, Whether Her Majesty's Government have any objection to lay on the table the Despatch of the French Government of the 30th of March, suggesting that the wishes of the population of Schleswig and Holstein should be consulted; also, whether he will lay on the table the answers to the invitation to join the Conference about to assemble, which has been sent out by Her Majesty's Government?

, in reply, said, with regard to the first part of the hon. Member's question, that to the best of his belief that despatch was only read and not communicated in copy to Her Majesty's Government. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would repeat his question to-morrow, and he would then be able to answer it.

said, he wished for an answer to his second question.

said, he would request the hon. Gentleman to repeat that question also to-morrow.

, in rising to bring-forward the question of which he had given notice, said, he was aware how careful the House always was in entering upon subjects connected with the details of military affairs, not to interfere with the prerogatives of the Crown. The body of officers, however, to whose case he wished to draw attention, were dealt with by his Motion in their capacity of late servants of the East India Company. Ever since the formation of the East India Company, their military as well as civil servants had been protected by the House; and in consequence of the Report of a Committee, which sat more than a century ago, an Act of Parliament was passed which pointed out how promotion in the Indian army should be carried out. Subsequently, in 1794, a memorial was sent home from the officers of the Bengal army, complaining of certain grievances under which they suffered. That memorial, by order of the House, was brought to the bar, and its subject taken into consideration. It was then referred to the Board of Control who undertook that justice should be done to the memorialists. The Board of Control thereupon, in 1796, laid upon the table of the House the principles upon which the East India Company were to carry out promotions and other matters relative to the service; and the regulations which were then put in force may be said to have emanated from that House. In 1832, the Committee of the House appointed to investigate the state of the East India Company, inquired most fully and carefully into the organization and administration of the Indian army, and, in consequence of its Report, the organization of 1796 was ordered to be continued. In 1858 it having been considered desirable to put an end to the administration of the East India Company, and to transfer it to the Crown, so careful was the House that no injustice should be done, that it enacted that the officers of the Indian army should retain the whole of the rights and privileges which they enjoyed under the East India Company; and in 1860, when it was considered desirable to abolish the local Indian army, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) insisted on the introduction of a clause reiterating that pledge, for fear of its being otherwise broken— a pledge which that House distinctly affirmed — namely, that the original instructions given by the East India Company for the protection of their officers should be carried out by the Secretary of State for India. It was therefore, with no little astonish- ment, that shortly after the passing of the Act containing that clause, that the officers of the East Indian army found, from a despatch published by the Governor General in Council, that the whole of those privileges and advantages had been entirely destroyed. They at once took the usual steps for memorializing through their commanding officers, the Governors of the various Presidencies, and through them the Governor General, and through him the Secretary of State for India; but for two years they had been unable to obtain any redress. At last the Secretary of State, on the recommendation, or at least in accordance with the unanimous feeling of the House, appointed a Commission, composed of some most eminent and able men, to inquire whether the promises made in 1858, and renewed in 1860, had or had not been departed from; and that Commission, after a careful and anxious inquiry which extended over several months, decided that they had been departed from, and reported accordingly on the 9th November last. Six months had elapsed since the presentation of that Report, without anything being done by the Government, and petition after petition was still being presented to that House for a redress of grievances. Now, if the organization of the Staff Corps, which had been put in force, and had caused so much difficulty, had not previously been inquired into or thought of, or if there had been but a mere attempt made to enact something better than had hitherto existed, perhaps some excuse might be found; but for years the East India Company had been anxious to carry out a Staff Corps as proposed, and been unable to do so. In 1833 the question had been fully gone into by the Committee, who examined Sir John Malcolm and every other eminent and able officer who had served in India, and in whom the country at that time placed reliance. The Committee reported that from the peculiar organization of the Indian army the arrangement for the formation of the proposed Staff Corps could not be carried out without injuring the prospects of those whom the Government had promised should be confirmed in all their privileges and advantages. When, in 1860, the Act was brought in for the stoppage of the recruiting for the Indian army, and the clause was to be inserted for the fulfilment of the promise contained in the Act of 1858, a Committee had been appointed, which was presided over by the noble Lord the Member for the East Riding (Lord Hotham), to inquire whether the proposal intended to be carried out by the Secretary of State for I India would be within the guarantee given by Parliament. That Committee reported on the 30th July, 1860—the day on which the right hon. Baronet accepted, in the fullest possible manner, the pledge asked of him of inserting a clause—that if the right hon. Baronet carried out his proposition for the re-organization of the Indian army, it would be contrary to the pledge that had been given by Parliament. The question had been fully gone into by a Commission, of which the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley) and the then Secretary of State for War (Generel Peel) were members, and that Committee distinctly reported that the Crown could not interfere in any way with the re-organization of the army, because if it did it would interfere with the pledges that had been given by Parliament. It was now high time that something should be done to allay that feeling of irritation which had been felt by so many of these gentlemen; and it was only right and just, when they asked a body of noble and gallant men to serve for years in a foreign land, and to be ready at a moment's notice to sacrifice their lives and their interests for the good of their country on the faith that certain pledges should be scrupulously adhered to and carried out, to act fairly and honestly by them. He should not enter into what might be called the details of military organization, but merely confine himself to the pledge that was given. The main point in the whole of these Reports and Acts of Parliament to which he had referred was, that any man entering the Indian army and agreeing to serve a certain number of years, did so upon condition that he should not be superseded by others in his profession, and that at the end of a certain number of years he should retire on a fixed pension. This was, however, completely set aside by the formation of a Staff Corps. When, also, the Committee of that House, which sat in 1833, were investigating the affairs of the East India Company, it directed the Company to turn its attention to the fact that their officers did not retire at a sufficiently early age to enable them to obtain active and intelligent men to command their regiments. The Company not only granted increased retiring pensions, but induced their officers to form a fund amongst themselves, to induce men, when they attained a certain age, to accept the pensions offered by the Company. This has lately been declared by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India to be illegal, and the large sums of money which these gentlemen have advanced are not to be held as giving them a claim in equity to compensation. When discussing the point last year with the Commission appointed by himself, the right hon. Baronet said they must assimilate the practice of bonus in the Indian army to the practice which prevailed in the British army. But what was the fact? The Queen's Regulations warned any officer who gave against giving more than regulation prices for Commissions; that he did it on his own risk, as it was contrary to law, for if more was given than the regulation price it was a misdemeanour, and on its coming to the notice of the Commander-in-Chief, he was bound to prosecute; and if the person was convicted, he, in addition to other penalties, lost his commission. But what was the case with regard to the officers of the Indian army? It was publicly announced in 1838 by the Governor General of India in Council, that the East India Company fully recognized their junior officers subscribing to regimental funds for the purpose of buying out their seniors. The East India Company could do nothing without the sanction of the Board of Control, and that sanction had been given in this instance. So far as India and the Indian army were concerned, any order of the Governor General of India in Council had the force of law. The Secretary for India, in reply to these statements submitted to the Royal Commissioners, said that they were not facts. But if orders from the East India Company, agreed to by the Board of Control and published by the Governor General, were not facts, it was difficult to know what were facts. He also said that the facts, if facts, were not recognized by the Board of Directors. But what was the fact? In 1855, a case having occurred in a Court of Law by which the practice he had described was decided to be contrary to law, the Directors of the East India Company entered into correspondence with the Government of India and the Board of Control with a view to the introduction of a Bill into that House to make the practice lawful. He would urge upon the House that it was highly necessary that some arrangement should be made to put an end to n state of things which was very unsatisfactory. If our countrymen abroad were to be required to observe the discipline and obey the regulations prescribed, they were entitled to demand fair treatment. The present position of those officers was not of their seeking, but it was the result of an act of the Government, and therefore it was the duty of the Government to see that justice was done to them. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by moving—

"That this House, having by the Acts 21 & 22 Vict. c. 106, and 23 & 24 Vict. c. 100, guaranteed to the Officers of the late East India Company's Service that their advantages as to 'pay, pensions, allowances, privileges, promotions, and otherwise,' should be secured to them, has learnt with regret, from the Report of the Royal Commission on Memorials of Indian Officers, that in certain cases this assurance has been departed from, and is of opinion that full and speedy reparation should be made to those who have suffered by such departure."—(Captain Jervis.)

said, he cordially seconded the Motion, as he considered the subject brought under the notice of the Government and the House was of very great importance. The grievance of which these officers complained was one that ought to be removed, and he was astonished that the Government should for so long have continued to overlook their complaints. Perhaps an explanation might be found in the fact that these officers were a long way off, and therefore their complaints might safely be treated with neglect. Not long ago the privates of the Indian army were induced to believe that the Government had not behaved well towards them. When it was proposed to identify the privates of the Indian army with the Queen's army, the noble Lord at the head of the Government stated in that House that the men, if they preferred to remain in their former positions, would be entitled to an additional bounty; but when the time came for payment of that bounty, the Government in India refused to give it. He believed that after some time Lord Canning had thought it was advisable that the bounty should be paid; but in the meantime a great deal of indiscipline, approaching to mutiny, took place among the men. He had more than once in that House reminded the noble Viscount that he was in some measure the cause of that mutinous feeling, as he had led the men to understand that they would be entitled to receive an additional bounty whenever they transferred their services to the Queen's army. The noble Lord had not given any reply to any of these representations. Then, as to the officers of that army, there certainly did prevail among them a feeling that they could not rely upon being treated with good faith by the Government. He had had considerable experience with armies in different services, and he knew no surer way of promoting indiscipline and even mutiny, than by raising a belief in an army that they would not be fairly dealt with by the Government. When the Government decided that the two armies should be amalgamated, some of the most experienced officers of the Indian army declared that it would be a very difficult operation to carry out; and so it had proved. An equitable arrangement had not yet been come to, although if the Government deemed it right to carry out the amalgamation, they ought also to have done justice to those who were affected by that determination. After more than a year since the amalgamation took place, complaints still continued to be made, and at last the right hon. Baronet caused a Commission to inquire into them. He had not seen the Report, but he was told that that Commission declared the officers had not been treated with good faith. He hoped, now that the subject had been formally brought before the House, the right hon. Baronet and the noble Viscount would admit the necessity of setting at rest all doubts as to the treatment of officers belonging to the late Indian army.

Sir, I rise to support the Motion of the hon. Member for Harwich; and, as the question is of great gravity, affecting the rights of some thousand British officers, and affecting the policy of the proposed military organization of the native armies of India, I will beg the indulgence of the House for some little time. As an old Indian officer who has passed through all the grades of the service, I naturally feel a strong interest in the subject before the House; but probably on that account not much weight would be attached to my testimony. When, however, the House saw two officers of the Queen's army taking the initiative, he hoped they would accept that fact as an evidence of the importance of the subject and of the justice of the complaints. Let the House consider how large a number of officers were affected. It was shown by a Return before the House that, at the time of the annexation, or re-organization, or amalgamation, that the establishment of the Indian army comprised 6,333 officers, and the number absolutely on the roll on the 1st January,1861, was 5,121. Surely, when complaints were made by a great proportion of so large a body of officers, that they felt themselves aggrieved and their prospects blighted by the non-fulfilment of the promises of the Government, the House would give them a ready hearing, and grant them that redress which a Resolution of that House alone could give them. In the first place, it is necessary to have a distinct idea of what the several Parliamentary guarantees have been. They are as follows: that by 21 & 22 Vict. c.106, Clause 56, August 2,1858, it was enacted that—

"The Indian military and naval forces of Her Majesty shall be under the same obligations to serve Her Majesty as they would have been under to serve the said Company, and shall be liable to serve within the said territorial limits only, and be entitled to the like pay, pensions, allowances, and privileges, and the like advantages as regards promotion, and otherwise, as if they had continued in the service of the said Company."

"The advantages as to pay, pensions, allowances, privileges, promotions, and otherwise, secured to the military forces of the East India Company by the former Act, should be maintained in any place for the re-organization of the Indian Army."

"In the execution of these measures, the amalgamation, the pledge that due regard shall be paid to the rights and claims of the officers of Her Majesty's Indian forces will be scrupulously adhered to,"

"In the execution of the measures to bring about the proposed amalgamation, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government that the pledge that due regard shall be paid to the rights and claims of the officers of Her Majesty's Indian Forces, shall be scrupulously adhered to."

I quite admit the importance of the subject which has been introduced in so temperate a manner by the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Jervis). There is, however, not the least reason for supposing that the Government has been disinclined to do justice to the officers of the Indian army. We have all along admitted that they are entitled not only to justice, but to the most liberal and generous treatment on the part of the Government. I have never denied that for a moment, nor have I a single syllable on this matter to retract. Our object has been to adhere scrupulously to the Parliamentary guarantee given to these officers. I need hardly remind the House that the whole of these arrangements were sanctioned by a great majority— indeed, by almost the whole—of the council of India, who naturally sympathize with the officers of the Indian army, and were little likely to withhold anything to which they were fairly entitled. I can assure the House that the very last thought in our minds was the idea of doing any injustice to the Indian officers. After the statements which have been made, I hope I may be permitted, without going into details, to say that a very large measure of consideration was given to the army of India. We adopted, of course, those arrangements which we deemed best calculated to promote the efficiency of the public service; but in doing so we endeavoured to give to the Indian officers every possible consideration. The very first step that was taken in regard to pensions, pay, and allowances, imposed an additional annual charge of a quarter of a million on the Indian revenue. We cannot, therefore, be accused of having stinted our measures by mere considerations of economy. When the question was raised in the House I felt that Parliament had a right to see that the guarantee which they had given was fairly carried out, and I recommended the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the subject. The testimony which the hon. and gallant Officer has borne to the character of that Commission justifies, I think, the selection which was made. I did not endeavour to choose those who were prejudiced on my side of the question, but did my best to secure an unbiassed inquiry. We owe our best thanks to the noblemen and gentlemen who served on this Commission for the exceeding pains which they have taken in considering the subject, and for the impartiality with which they have drawn up their Report. When the question was under consideration by my Council, we certainly did not think that we were in any way infringing the Parliamentary guarantee. In order to make ourselves sure on that question we submitted the whole of the despatches to the then Law Officers of the Crown, who reported that we had done nothing which might not have been done by the East India Company, and which, therefore, we were not justified in doing. Being fortified by that authority, I hope the House will not suppose me to be exceedingly obstinate in continuing to be unconvinced that we have departed from the guarantee. At the same time, I defer to the opinion expressed by the Commission, and frankly and fully accept their Report. The Commission, it will be observed, have classed the complaints made under thirteen different heads. In regard to eight out of that number they have reported that the Parliamentary guarantee has not been violated; in regard to two they say that there may be an infringement; and in regard to three that a departure from the assurance of Parliament has taken place. With respect to the retiring fund, to which allusion has been made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, it was a Court of Law which declared that it was illegal; and I only cited that decision. The Commission very justly remark that it is impossible to suppose that Parliament could have intended to guarantee the continuance of a practice contrary to law. The Court of Directors, in a despatch to the Bombay Government, in 1838, expressed disapprobation of their having received payment of subscriptions even provisionally, or given any encouragement to the service to expect a sanction to the system. It is, however, not worth while going into that question now. The hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) has said that the majority of officers of the Indian army, whom he stated correctly enough to be below 5,000 and 6,000, have cause for complaint; but that is far, indeed, from being the fact. The officers who volunteer into the Line are benefited by the change, and so are the officers of the Staff Corps, and of the Artillery and Engineers. Those officers who were appointed on the distinct understanding that they would be subjected to any change which might be made, have no just cause of complaint. In fact, instead of a majority of the officers in the Indian army having complained, the utmost number who can be injuriously affected by the changes, and can have possible cause of complaint, is about 1,500. Moreover, I must be permitted to say that there is a good deal of unfairness in many of those who complain, for although they gain on the whole, they say nothing about their gains, but insist only on what they lose, For instance, an officer complains that he has to remain lieutenant-colonel longer than would have been the case under the old system, but suppresses the circumstance that he reaches that grade more speedily. If a major becomes a lieutenant-colonel four years sooner than he would otherwise have been, but remains a lieutenant-colonel two years longer, it is clear that he is a gainer by the change. He gains four years' pay as lieutenant-colonel, instead of as major, and actually obtains a colonel's allowances two years sooner than under the old system. In complaining of the delay in getting beyond the rank of lieutenant-colonel, it is, therefore, not fair to keep back the fact that promotion to that grade is much accelerated. If you deduct the cases of that kind from the whole number of complaints, you will see that no very large proportion of the 1,500 Indian officers have any real cause to complain. The hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen says, that promotion by regimental seniority was the legal right of the officers of the Indian army. If that is so, of course there can be no question of the promotions complained of being illegal; but all I can say is, that in the time of the Company many promotions and appointments were made in utter derogation of regimental seniority. [Colonel SYKES: They were exceptions.] I do not deny they were exceptions, but you cannot have an exception to that which is a legal right. Besides, no person will tell me that the occurrences which took place two years ago were not of a very exceptional character. It was certainly an exceptional state of affairs when sixty-two regiments mutinied in Bengal and disappeared entirely from the service. So, too, the great reduction which has been made in the Indian army was an exceptional measure, because, up to very recently, the number of Native troops had always been on the increase. When the Indian army was reduced to the extent of 130,000 men, the necessary result was, that there were far more officers than were required to officer the existing army. I apprehend nobody will maintain that it was not as competent to the Crown as it would have been to the Company, or that it was not as much the duty of the Crown as it would have been the duty of the Company, to reduce the army. But then came the question, how the officers were to be dealt with? The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that the officers of the Indian army had a right to pay and promotion just as if they had continued to be employed. But is that the case with any other army in the world? When reductions were made in the English army the officers are put on half pay for life. In the case of the Indian army, the pay and promotion up to the rank of General will go on just as if the officers continued to be employed; so that a young gentleman who was appointed in December, 1861, will be promoted up to the rank of General, with the pay of the rank which he may hold, though he had never served at all when the change was made. Surely that is not dealing hardly with the Indian officers? Reference has been made to certain cases mentioned in the Report of the Commissioners of some retardation of promotion in consequence of the reduction. The Commissioners say it was competent to the Crown to reduce the Indian army, and they add it was the duty of the Crown to show every consideration to the officers. I think when we have continued to them the whole of their pay and promotion, although the regiments to which they belonged have ceased to exist, it cannot be fairly said that we have evinced any want of consideration for them. But there are three cases in which the Commissioners have reported a breach of the guarantee. I am prepared to give redress in those cases. It has not been from any want of attention, of thought, or of care, that the measures for this purpose have not been completed. I solemnly declare that these questions connected with the Indian army have cost me more time and trouble ten times over than all the rest of Indian affairs put together. The House must not forget that it was necessary to consult a great number of people—because no step can be taken in giving promotion which affects the Indian army alone. Nothing could be more simple than the course suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen, that the whole of the promotions to the Staff Corps should be cancelled; but, as I stated on a former occasion, I must hesitate before adopting a measure of that kind. The officers of the Staff Corps have not been selected by the Government at home. They are tried and experienced men, selected at various times by the Indian Government, and it would be extremely hard to them to cancel the rank which they have now held for three years. That would be inflicting an injustice upon them without doing good to other persons, for I believe that many of the officers who complain of the supersession actually gain by the others being on the Staff Corps. If the promotions are not cancelled, however, it becomes a difficult question to determine what can be done. It is extremely difficult to devise any mode which will even approximate towards remedying the breach of guarantee without entailing injury and hardship upon another class of officers. The hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen talked about promoting all the officers in the same way as the officers on the Staff Corps; but what, I ask, would be the effect of that upon the officers of the Line? They have not complained of the promotion of the officers in the Staff Corps, but if they are to be superseded by all the officers of the old Indian army they will have a just and legitimate cause of complaint. What is the best mode of dealing with the cases of breach of guarantee I am at present unable to say. Shortly before Easter we devised a measure which, upon the whole, we thought would answer the purpose; but difficulties occurred, and it became necessary to consult again with the military authorities in this country. The plan is at present under the anxious consideration both of the Government and of the military authorities, and it will be brought forward as soon as possible; for I need hardly say I am as anxious as anybody can be to fulfil every pledge I have given. I do not, of course, complain of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite for submitting this matter to the House, but after what I have said I hope he will not think it necessary to press it to a division.

said, that after the clear admission of the right hon. Gentleman that he accepted the Report of the Commissioners, and that it would be carried out bonâ fide, he would withdraw his Motion.

wished to know, why the grievances of the medical officers of the Indian army had not also been brought under the consideration of the Commission?

May I be allowed to ask, whether the plan to be proposed will be produced in time to be discussed this Session?

asked, Whether there was any scheme under consideration for the employment of Indian officers when they returned home after serving in India?

said, he questioned what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman with respect to the retiring funds of Indian officers. He could not understand how the practice could be called illegal, considering the approving despatch of the Court of Directors in November, 1837, and the adoption of the recommendations by previous Governments.

said, it was not for him to pronounce what was legal or illegal—the practice was declared to be illegal by a Court of Law before which the point was raised. He was perfectly aware of the despatch which the hon. Gentleman had quoted, which, however, did not affect the opinion of the Court of Law in any way. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, it was quite true that several Indian Engineer officers had been employed in this country, and there was no reason why Indian officers should not be employed here on general service on their return from India. As to the noble Lord's question, he hoped in a very short time to be able to announce that a conclusion had been come to upon the point. He was in hopes that he should have been able to submit his proposal before Easter, but unforeseen difficulties of detail had arisen, causing some delay. He hoped, however, to lay the proposal on the table in a short time. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Derby, the case of the medical officers was a totally separate one. It had been under consideration for some time, but difficulties had arisen with the War Office. He had great hopes, that as far as the existing service was concerned, the difficulties would soon be removed.