§ LORD STANMOREMy Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Earl Beauchamp I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in his name upon the Paper—namely, to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has bean drawn to the Press accounts of the speech made by the Viceroy on proroguing the Indian Legislature, and in particular to the statement that if the Government of India had to submit to the division of His 1566 Majesty's Government Regarding Kenya, its submission was, with due respect to His Majesty's Government, under protest, and whether such a statement, as reported in the Press, accurately reflects the relations between His Majesty's Government and the Government of India.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (VISCOUNT PEEL)My Lords I am obliged to the noble Earl for raising this Question and for giving me the opportunity of clearing away some misapprehensions that may exist as to the intention of the Viceroy's speech. I have received verbatim extracts of the more important passages in the speech, to which I am giving publicity. It will, I think, simplify matters if I read to your Lordships now the actual text of the passage relating to the Kenya decision to which the noble Earl has referred. It is this:—
We are conscious that there were important aspects, perhaps not sufficiently understood by us, which His Majesty's Government were called upon to weigh and determine, and we fully appreciate and acknowledge their whole-hearted efforts to arrive at a fair and equitable conclusion. They have announced their decision and the Government of India must consider it and arrive at its conclusions. If submission must be made, then with all due respect to His Majesty's Government it can only be under protest.Before I go on to answer the last part of the noble Earl's Question, I should like to recall that the particular passage to which he calls attention is not, of course, the whole, but only a part, of the Viceroy's observations on the Kenya decision. The Viceroy laid stress or the advantages to which India can look forward as a consequence of the settlement; but in doing so, he reiterated what already has been made plain by His Majesty's Government, that on certain material points it was not possible to meet the wishes of the Government of India. The general balance of his observations will, I think, be more clearly appreciated from the verbatim extract which I am giving to the Press.Now with regard to the particular passage to which the Question relates, I realise that there has been some doubt as to its interpretation. The passage has been taken to imply that it was open to the Government of India to consider whether or not they should submit to 1567 His Majesty's Government's decision in this matter. I will make it clear to your Lordships that I myself had no doubt that the Viceroy could have had no intention of making himself responsible for such a doctrine. Still, it is common knowledge that doubt has been expressed, both by members of your Lordships' House and others; perhaps not unnaturally, when we consider how compressed were the Press reports of his speech and what prominence was given to this particular utterance.
I have been in communication with the Viceroy on the matter, and his reply shows quite clearly that the interpretation which I should have placed upon his words is the right interpretation. The passage, taken together with its context, is intended to imply that until the Government of India have received the actual text of the documents containing the decision of His Majesty's Government, they could not judge what further action they might be at liberty to take or how far it might be open to them to make further representations as to details of importance. The Viceroy has made it perfectly clear to me that there was no idea whatever on his part, or on that of his colleagues, of challenging a decision communicated to them by His Majesty's Government.