Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

 Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow 114.: The Government of India Bill [3] 8 JULY, 1868 - The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXVIII The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXVIII - Public and Parliamentary Speeches Part I November 1850 - November 1868

Return to Title Page for The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXVIII The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXVIII - Public and Parliamentary Speeches Part I November 1850 - November 1868

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

Subject Area: Political Theory
Collection: The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill

114.: The Government of India Bill [3] 8 JULY, 1868 - John Stuart Mill, The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXVIII The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXVIII - Public and Parliamentary Speeches Part I November 1850 - November 1868 [1850]

Edition used:

The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXVIII - Public and Parliamentary Speeches Part I November 1850 - November 1868, ed. John M. Robson and Bruce L. Kinzer (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1988).

Part of: Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, in 33 vols.

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.


114.

The Government of India Bill [3]

8 JULY, 1868

PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 193, cols. 859–60, 861–2. Reported in The Times, 9 July, p. 6, from which the variant and responses are taken. For the Bill, see No. 102. Mill spoke in Committee on Clause 2, which provided yearly salaries for future Members of the India Council of £1500, but ruled out retiring pensions for them. An amendment had been offered that would have had the effect of treating continuing Members in the same way, and the debate turned on the issue of whether those appointed under the India Act of 1858 had legitimately expected a choice between continuing for life or retiring after ten years with a pension. Ayrton argued that Parliament had the right to reconsider the arrangements of the Act of 1858; it was better, he asserted, that such Members should serve another ten years at £1500 than to fix no limit at all, and in any case most of them already had a pension from their Indian service

(col. 859).

mr. j. stuart mill said, that his honourable and learned Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) had forgotten one matter—namely, that the pensions from India were bought, being derived from stoppages from pay. He (Mr. Stuart Mill) quite agreed that an ample salary rendered a retiring pension unnecessary. But there would be a hardship if, when the expectation of pensions had been held out to the existing Councillors, they were deprived of pensions in the end. If an increase of salary were to be given instead, that increase should range over a fresh series of ten years. But the reason which induced the House to limit the service of future Councillors should prevent it from continuing the old for another ten years. He, therefore, recommended the Committee to agree to give the old members an opportunity of serving for another five years at the increased salary, or else to grant them a pension at the end of the ten years.

[After a short discussion, Stafford Northcote said that Mill’s suggestion could best be dealt with in a new clause, which he would consider carefully; he recommended that the amendment be withdrawn (col. 860).]

Mr. J. Stuart Mill said, he would be happy to bring up a new clause.

[The amendment was withdrawn, and another offered to reduce the salary to £1200.]

Mr. J. Stuart Mill said, that if it was not for the Council the Government of India would be left wholly to the Secretary of State—who before his appointment was agenerallya ignorant of Indian affairs—and to such irresponsible persons as he might choose to consult, who if he had a pre-conceived opinion would be likely to share it. The Secretary of State would be left with no regular assistance but that of the subordinates in his office. Of the latter, having himself been included in the number, he entertained, generally speaking, a very high opinion; but he did not think Parliament and the country would approve of handing over the government of India entirely to them. It was absolutely necessary that there should be associated with them some men of standing, of professional knowledge, and practical acquaintance with India, whose names and character were known to the public. (Hear, hear.) It was also necessary that such salaries should be given them as would induce them to continue in their offices. Although yielding to no one in his desire for economy, he did not think that retrenchment was judicious when it took the form of stinting the remuneration for the best and most difficult work. (Hear, hear.) It was possible they might get very much the same class of men for £1,200 as for £1,500; but, in the absence of a pension, he did not think the latter amount excessive.

[The Bill was withdrawn on 27 July because there was insufficient time for its discussion (col. 1871).]

[a-a]TT , perhaps,