SIR S. NORTHCOTE ON BRITISH LIBERALITY.
Q IR STAFFORD NORTIICOTE makes a very bad hand of 1.) an official defence. He does not bewilder people enough, has an invincible respect for facts, and is apt to let out the very one he ought to conceal in the most honest and irritating way. He did that the other day in a controversy with the Gas Companies ; and again on Tuesday night. Mr. Fawcett, who seems to have some special hate of abuses which every- body sees and nobody will touch, asked him whether it was true that the Ball to be given to the Sultan in London was to be paid for out of the revenues of India, and "why, when a European monarch visits this country, the only public State entertainment given him is to be paid for by the people of India ? " Sir Stafford, in reply, confessed at once that India was to provide the motley, which was most stupidly and gra- tuitously candid of him. He should have said that "the ex- penditure was matter of account among the Departments, which had not yet been completely settled." That is the legitimate and customary way of defending a job done by an English de- partment against the India House, as the Horse Guards and the Admiralty and the Board of Ordnance very well know, and it is a way which always succeeds, for when the " account " is settled India pays, as it was intended she should, and the ever busy House has forgotten the affair. His reply to the second question was a little more complex. He wanted to make out that the India House had asked the Sultan to a fete of its own motion, and intended to pay for it just as any separate Government might do, or as the old Court of Directors would certainly have done. The British Government had made bo demand, and had done nothing in the matter, especially had not asked India to pay, a proceeding which he acknowledged would have been "not very creditable to the hospitality of England,"—another most imprudent admission. He should have said that it would be most creditable, as proving to the Sultan that he was wel- comed not only by England, but by the British Empire. He would have been cheered all the same, and the Standard would have thought it quite a grand point. He had made the suggestion himself, he said, deeming that the Mussul- mans of India would be pleased with any courtesy shown in London to their Caliph ; had consulted his Council, who as- sented ; had asked Lord Derby if he saw any objection, and had then—here the dangerous truth came out—asked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs to invite the Sultan, who had accepted the invitation. In other words, Sir Stafford North- cote, being a member of the British Government, a fact he appears to have forgotten, felt the shortcomings of its hospi- tality, and, with or without suggestion from anybody else, resolved to supplement them out of the revenues of India. If she had not given a fete, the British Government must, or have seemed shabby in the eyes of a guest to whom hospi- tality is sacred ; and as the British Government had no funds, the Great Mogul took the responsibility of getting it out of the dilemma. 'What else did we charge him with doing ? We do not object to the India House giving a great fete to a Prince who is rather Asiatic than European, if it pleases ; on the contrary, we deem a certain ceremonial stateliness, a certain external grandeur of life, a fitting attribute of such a department, one which might tend to the direct benefit of India, by keeping it constantly before a very power- ful society, which can greatly affect its administration, and consequently its prosperity. If the India House spent 100,000/. a year in keeping up its state in the eyes of the world, that would not be more than the sum which might fairly be expended by a ruler who asks for no civil list, and keeps up no regal Court out of Indian taxes. Bourgeois simplicity may be an excellent thing, but it is not a thing we have felt called upon to defend as specially in place in the management of Oriental affairs. All that we ask is, that India shall not be taxed to make up for British shortcomings, that her expen- diture shall be for her own tinsel and not for spangles to decorate somebody else. In this instance, it has been. If it has not, let that fact be distinctly conveyed to the Sultan ; let him be told that the British Government can give no fête, but that the India House—which, on Sir Stafford Northcote's showing, is not a department of that Govern- ment, but a self-existing and isolated entity—has on be- half of its Mussulman subjects resolved to expend in His Majesty's honour a portion of Hindoo taxes. At present the British Government—of which the Secretary for India is only a member, whether he likes the position or not, and the India House only a department—is gaining credit with its guest for hospitality by spending money which does not belong to it. Suppose Sir Stafford suggested the expenditure himself, what does that prove? Simply that he is the member of Her Majesty's Government most responsible for the bit of petti- ness of which we complain. Or suppose the Council of India did consent, which is certain, or the wine merchant could not be paid, what does that prove, except that the Council of India has failed to perform its most useful function, that of pro- tecting India from unfair Imperial demands? The Standard says ten thousand pounds is a trifle which does not matter to the revenue of India, which is in round numbers 45 millions ; but then how much does it matter to that of Great Britain, which is in round numbers seventy ? It is mean to make a dependent pay for your show, though the cost be a trifle to either, rather more mean perhaps when the cost is a trifle than when it is much. Everybody would feel that, if a Crown Colony had been asked to pay the money, if Jamaica were taxed, for instance, to entertain the Bing of Ashantee, but the Indian Treasury is so handy that conscience and gentlemanly feeling alike give way to a love of ease.
This matter of the "joint accounts" between England and India wants a thorough overhaul, more outrageous jobs being done in them than in any other division of the Imperial out- lays. No British official will examine them, and no Indian, after Sir Charles Wood's treatment of General Balfour, will venture to put his official neck in any such peril. No Secre- tary for India, whatever his capacity for figures or his• courage, and Sir Stafford Northcote possesses both, wants the three great spending departments—for the Foreign Office is not innocent in the matter—all on his hands at once • and as for the Indian Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would be in England in six weeks after he bad ventured to ask why the Home expenditure was so great. The department is as sensi- tive as the old Court, and will no more take an inquiry from India as to ways and means than an old noble would take an inquiry from his footman as to his extravagance. We do not mean to say or to imply that the unfairness is all on one side. On the contrary, the Indian Secretary is sometimes a man whom no department dares attack, and we never could make out why the Admiralty flung upon England the whole expense of the fleet in Asiatic waters. India used to have a fleet of her own, and if the separate service was a mistake— as it certainly was—India could have paid for the needful Queen's ships. Her whole system is organized on the theory that she can pay for herself, and it is both a just and a wise one, even if the expense includes some little display in her highest Embassy, the new India House. All we contend is, that the principles to be obeyed ought to be laid down by Parliament, that the chiefs of English departments ought not to be tempted as they are now tempted, to throw all manner of small expenses On India, and to grasp every little mite of . Indian patronage, because they know the House of Commons will not ask how it is employed. There may not be a soldier too many in the Home depots, but is the number settled on Eng- lish or Indian considerations ? It may be quite right that the Admiralty should man the new transports, but then who is responsible to Parliament for their annual coat? There are twenty questions of that kind which ought to be asked and answered before the grand bonne-bouche falls in, the tribute of 680,000/. a year which in 1874 India is to cease to pay. If the departments will only be reasonably honest, and Parlia- ment lay down some definite rule, the Admiralty might get something out of that windfall valuable to an exchequer which cannot afford to give a ball.
Previous page
