§ It shall be lawful for the Governor-General in Council by proclamation to extend, subject to such modifications and adaptations as he may consider necessary, the provisions of the Indian Councils Acts, 1861 to 1909, touching the making of laws and regulations for the peace and good government of provinces under Lieutenant-Governors (including the provisions as to 445 the constitution of Legislative Councils for such provinces and the business to be transacted therein) to any territories for the time being under a Chief Commissioner, and where such provisions have been applied to any such territories the proviso to Section 3 of the Government of India Act, 1854 (which relates to the alteration of laws and regulations in such territories), shall not apply to those territories.
§ Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
EARL of RONALDSHAYI beg to Move, after the words "shall be lawful for the Governor-General in Council," to insert the words "with the approval of the Secretary of State in Council."
This Clause is analogous to Clause 3 in the Act of 1909, which gives the Government of India certain powers to create Executive Councils in different provinces. This present Clause gives the Government of India power, by proclamation, to create Legislative Councils in those districts in India which are governed by Chief Commissioners, and not by Lieutenant-Governors. The words I propose to add appear in Clause 3 of the Act of 1909—that is to say, that the Government of India are given power to create Executive Councils by proclamation with the approval of the Secretary of State in Council. I want to know why, if it was necessary to insert these words in Clause 3 of the Act of 1909, it is not considered necessary to insert similar words in Clause 3 of this Bill? Surely it is not intended that the Government of India should have the power to create Legislative Councils in those provinces which are governed by Chief Commissioners without the approval of the Secretary of State in Council? If there is any doubt upon that point. I think it is desirable that we should make the matter clear that the Government of India are not to be at liberty to take this step without the approval of the Secretary of State in Council.
§ Sir J. D. REESIf the Under-Secretary can show, as I make no doubt he will be able to show, that such limitation as this is unusual in Indian Acts and regulations, I should find myself bound to agree with him rather than with my Noble Friend; because I should be quite unwilling to take part in any step whatever that would in the slightest degree reduce the power and authority of the Governor-General in Council. I believe on the 446 whole, though I generally agree with my Noble Friend on these points, that it is quite necessary that the Governor-General in Council should maintain every authority that he has. The tendency has been the other way—to diminish, limit, and to contract his authority. Therefore, for my part, I would prefer, unless there is something extremely unusual which I do not understand in these words, that they should remain as drafted.
§ Mr. MONTAGUThe words proposed by the Noble Lord are not necessary. The Act of 1858 gives the very widest possible powers to the Secretary of State in Council for the exercise of a general supervision of the acts of the Governor-General. Such a question as the formation of Legislative Councils would, of course, under these general powers, be submitted for the assent of the Secretary of State in Council. We have followed largely in the drafting of the Act Section 46 of the Act of 1861, which deals with the formation of new Lieutenant-Governorships. There is then no mention made of the approval of the Secretary of State in Council, although, of course, as a matter of practice, under the wide powers therein described, no Governor-General would make any Lieutenant-Governorships until submitting a dispatch home to the Secretary of State in Council. Exactly in the same way, I think, the Noble Lord may rest assured that any important departure would be referred home for the sanction of the Secretary of State in Council.
EARL of RONALDSHAYWhy, then, was it thought necessary to have these words in the Act of 1909? I presume they must have been inserted for some reason. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us?
§ Mr. MONTAGUI am afraid I cannot, speaking from memory, say why they were inserted. I have gone to the origin of all those matters, following the model of the Act of 1861. I will endeavour to ascertain the reason for the Noble Lord as a matter of historical interest.
§ Sir JOHN JARDINEI do not think the words proposed by the Noble Lord opposite are necessary. Those acquainted with the practice of the Government of India are convinced that changes discussed would here be made by the Government of India without previous communication with the Secretary of State in Council.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThe argument of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken is in 447 favour of the Amendment. If the hon. Gentleman says that changes would here be made without the assent of the Secretary of State for India, why on earth not put it in? I was rather impressed by the statement of the Under-Secretary, and as I have never been in India I was not going to raise the question. Now, however, the hon. Gentleman opposite, who has had great experience of India tells us that the effect of the Bill is going to be exactly what my Noble Friend desires. Therefore I really do not see why the Amendment should not be inserted.
EARL of RONALDSHAYI really only moved this Amendment because I desired to know why these words were inserted in the one Act and not the other. After what the hon. Gentleman has said I beg to withdraw.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. SANDYSI beg to move, to leave out the words "subject to such modifications and adaptations as he may consider necessary."
I strongly agree with the opinion expressed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nottingham, that it is in every case most undesirable that we should in any way restrict or modify powers which are even now too limited. It is certainly with no intention of that kind that I venture to move my Amendment. But in view of the fact that the provisions referred to in this Clause, namely, the provisions of the Indian Councils Acts extending from 1861 to 1909. must necessarily be extremely wide. I do think it is desirable that the Under-Secretary should make some explanation as to what modifications or adaptations it may be necessary to make in those existing Acts. It is most undesirable to limit the powers of the Governor-General in Council, but at the same time as we make laws for India in this House, it is our duty to exercise to a certain extent a restraining influence over those whom we appoint to those high and important positions; and although I in no way desire to restrict the necessary freedom of the Governor-General, what we have admitted to be necessary owing to distance and certain difficulties of communication which even now exist between India and this country, we do desire some statement, even of a general character, from the Under-Secretary as to what exactly he has in his mind when he put 448 in these particular words to which I have referred and which it is the object of this Amendment to leave out. It is not my intention to press the Amendment to a Division if I get a satisfactory explanation from the hon. Gentleman. I hope he will give us some general indication as to the necessity for the introduction of these words in a Clause which might lead to very wide extension of the powers of the Governor-General. We are conferring upon him by this Clause very extensive powers to extend, modify, or adapt these particular Acts of Parliament, which no doubt have been passed by this House subject to strict investigation and which at the time it was thought covered the ground and gave sufficient powers to the Governor-General. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman if he can give us some general indication as to what these modifications and adaptations referred to are to consist of and also the reason why he thinks it necessary to put them in the Act at all.
§ Mr. MONTAGUI am obliged to the hon. Member for giving me an opportunity of explaining the words which I think he will then agree are quite necessary. In this Section we make it possible for the Governor-General in Council to extend the Acts 1861 to 1909 dealing with Legislative Councils in districts which are governed by Lieutenant-Governors to districts governed by Chief Commissioners with certain modifications. It is provided that where the Governor-General thinks it necessary he should substitute the words Chief Commissioner for Lieutenant-Governor. There is a further example: In the Act of 1909 there is a maximum limit to the number of members of the Council; it might not be necessary to have so many and it is in order to enable the Governor-General to make modifications of that kind that these words are necessary.
§ 1.0 P.M.
§ Sir HILDRED CARLILEIt does not seem to me that the explanation of the hon. Gentleman is altogether satisfactory. The modifications and adaptations are to apply to Lieutentant-Governorships and Chief Commissioners. In that case why not say so in the Bill. If the Governor-General was only to exercise those powers in that sense it would be a very simple thing, but the hon. Gentleman says the words limit the power of the Governor-General. I do not think that is the impression in the minds of hon. Members. I think these words rather extend the powers of the Governor-General. I certainly should be one of the 449 very last to suggest hampering the action of the Governor-General. He is far away from the centre of government here and he ought to have a free hand as far as possible in dealing with circumstances that may arise from time to time, and which could not be dealt with from this distance. At the same time I do feel that this is a very large order: "Subject to such modifications and adaptations," not as may be absolutely necessary, but "as he may consider necessary." If my hon. Friend goes to a Division I shall certainly support him.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI think that to a certain extent the explanation of the Tinder-Secretary is satisfactory. As I understood the hon. Gentleman he considers these words are necessary because there are certain provinces under Lieutenant-Governors and certain provinces under Chief Commissioners. The Acts 1861 to 1909 only apply to the provinces under Lieutenant-Governors, and these words are necessary to give the Governor-General certain powers to include those provinces under Governors in these Acts. If the hon. Gentleman had wished to make his meaning perfectly clear he should have inserted after the words "Lieutenant-Governors" the words "Chief Commissioners." That would have enabled the hon. Gentleman to achieve what he wants to achieve in simple form. The Clause as it stands does not limit the powers of the Governor-General to provinces under Commissioners, but it gives the Governor-General such powers as "will enable him to alter the whole of the Acts from 1861 to 1909. What is really enacted in this Clause is that it shall be lawful for the Governor-General to apply the provisions of the existing Acts 1861 to 1909 and to modify them as he likes. Therefore, if the words "It shall be lawful for the Governor-General in Council to do what he likes" were put in, the hon. Gentleman would have achieved the object in much fewer words and with a very much clearer result. I am in no way anxious to diminish the powers of the Governor-General. He occupies a very great position in India, and we in this House should interfere with him as little as possible, and that is the desire of all my hon. Friends. I do not for a moment say the Under-Secretary wishes to throw dust in the eyes of the Committee, but if he merely wishes to give certain powers to 450 the Governor-General to make certain small extensions in the Act from 1861 to 1909 these powers ought to be specified. By not specifying them he is giving the Governor-General practically unlimited powers. Perhaps that may be right, but the Committee ought to be well aware of what they are doing and that they are giving the Governor-General far greater powers than the hon. Gentleman has told the Committee. I do not know what action my hon. Friend is going to take, but on the whole I am inclined to agree that an expression of our opinion should be given in this matter.
§ Sir J. D. REESSo far as I understand the case this provision is one which is absolutely necessary. It is a desirable thing for the province of Assam. As one interested in tea growing in Assam, I am well aware how necessary there a Legislative Council is and I cannot support the division upon it.
§ Mr. SANDYSIn view of the explanation which has been given to us, I should certainly like to withdraw my Amendment, but I agree with the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London that if his suggestion had been adopted the Clause would have read far more clearly than it does at present. As the hon. Gentleman has given an explanation which is eminently satisfactory, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. SANDYSI beg to move, after the word "peace" ["for the peace and good government of provinces"] to insert the word "order." The Clause will then read—
"touching the making of laws and regulations for the peace, order, and good government of provinces under Lieutenant-Governors."
In a Bill of this kind great importance ought to be attached to the phraseology. During the last month or so we have had an example of a new constitution which is being proposed for Ireland, and the words employed are those which I now suggest should be used in this Bill, namely, "peace, order, and good government." There are two very good reasons why this Amendment should be adopted. I have reason to believe that the population of India have taken a very great interest in the Government of Ireland Bill, and I know that the natives of India who happen to be resident in this country display 451 extreme interest in the terms of this measure. Not long ago I had an opportunity at Cambridge of addressing an audience largely composed of native gentlemen who have come over to this country to complete their education, and they appeared to be extremely interested in the Government of Ireland Bill, and I have no doubt that that Bill is being carefully studied, not only by the native gentlemen resident here, but also by the educated native population of India, and they will examine the Clauses and words of this Bill with great care. They will find in the measure providing a new constitution for Ireland that provision is to be made for "the peace, order, and good government of Ireland," and then the intelligent, educated native gentlemen will turn to this Government of India Bill and they will find that there is no provision to be made with regard to order, because that word is definitely left out. I think this is rather an important matter, because we know the importance which the Oriental mind attaches to matters which might appear to us to be of comparatively subsidiary value. When these two measures are being presented practically at one and the same time, with this curious and marked difference in the phraseology, the native will naturally ask himself why no definite provision is being made for the maintenance of order in India. In view of the critical times which India has passed through during the last few years, surely it is essential that we should impress upon the native mind of India that we are there not merely to ensure good government and protect them from external attacks, and the danger and peril of a foreign war, but also to ensure the preservation of order in the country, and to see that law-abiding citizens shall have protection for their persons and their property. I do not know whether this important word was intentionally omitted from this Clause. If so, no doubt the Under-Secretary will have some excellent reasons why it is not thought necessary to state that laws are to be made for peace and not for order as well. Unless the hon. Gentleman has some good reason for leaving the Clause as it stands at the present time, I sincerely hope that he will see that there is some value attaching to the suggestion I am making.
§ The CHAIRMANI must point out to the hon. Member that he has already four times repeated the same statement.
§ Mr. SANDYSI apologise for having repeated myself, but I think that considerable importance is to be attached to the insertion of the word "order."
§ Sir J. D. REESI do not rise to deal with this Amendment, because I should have some difficulty myself in holding the view that "regulations for the peace and good government of provinces "do not include order.
Mr. EDMUND HARVEYIs the hon. Member in order, because he said that he did not rise to deal with this Amendment?
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member was dealing rather effectively with the Amendment.
§ Sir J. D. REESI was observing that upon this Amendment a very useful opportunity offers itself to the Under-Secretary to repudiate with all his might any intention to establish any similarity, either in the phraseology or in anything whatsoever, between this measure and the Government of Ireland Bill. This is a point of considerable substance, because it has been raised in the Indian Press, and it has been claimed that India has got Home Rule before Ireland. I hope the Undersecretary will take this opportunity on behalf of the Government of hotly repudiating any similarity between the two Bills.
§ Mr. MONTAGUI agree with the last speaker that this word is really unnecessary. It is impossible to stipulate "good government and peace" which does not include "order," and for that reason I think it is unnecessary to put the word "order "in. I would ask the hon. Member if he does not agree with me that there is no government in the world that can challenge comparison with the Government of India, and no people in the world that can challenge comparison with the people of India in desiring and maintaining a condition of order in the country in which they live? In drafting this Clause we have followed the words in previous Acts. If the hon. Member will turn to Section 48 of the Act of 1861, he will see precisely the same words used—
"It shall be lawful for every such Lieutenant-Governor in Council, thus constituted, to make laws for the peace and good government of his respective division, province, or territory."
453 If we are considering the influence on the Indian mind of words in Clauses of this kind, surely it is far better to preserve harmony with previous Acts than to go for an analogy which must necessarily be inaccurate.
§ Sir J. D. REESMay I ask whether the hon. Gentleman does not see his way to accept my brief and earnest invitation?
§ Sir F. BANBURYThe hon. Member says the word "order" is included in the words "good government," and that you cannot have good government unless you make provision for the maintenance of order. That is true, but I am not quite certain the present Government always acts up to it, and what we have in our mind is the attitude of the Home Secretary last night. I presume the hon. Member—
§ The CHAIRMANWe cannot go into that now.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThe hon. Member will certainly admit his Government in his opinion is a good Government, but his Government does not always maintain order.
§ The CHAIRMANThat, again, is really out of order. The question before the Committee is whether it is desirable in drafting this Clause that the word "order" should be inserted.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI was endeavouring to answer the argument of the hon. Member that good government included keeping order, and I was going to argue that it did not always. I will not pursue the subject only to justify myself in your eyes and in order to show I have no desire to contravene your ruling.
§ Colonel GREIGIs the hon. Baronet in Order in disregarding the good government of this House by disobeying your orders?
§ The CHAIRMANI think the hon. Baronet will regard my ruling.
§ Sir F. BANBURYCertainly. There is only one Member in the Committee, and that is the hon. Gentleman who has just intervened, who thinks for a moment that I should not obey the ruling of the Chair. The Government have put in similar words in another Bill dealing with government in another part of our Empire, and the Under-Secretary has brought forward no argument to show it is not necessary to repeat them here except to say that in 454 the Act of 1861 the word "order" is not inserted. A great many years have passed since 1861, and we cannot always count upon enactments of fifty years ago. We undoubtedly have extremely good government in India, and I think we might therefore leave the words as they are; but the Committee ought to be greatly indebted to my hon. Friend for having brought this subject before it, and I would congratulate him upon having done so. I think on the whole, however, having ventilated the matter, it would be advisable to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Mr. SANDYSAfter the very satisfactory explanation which the hon. Gentleman has given, I shall certainly desire, with the leave of the Committee, to withdraw the Amendment. I agree with him that you cannot very well have good government without order, and no doubt there are exceptional circumstances prevailing at the present time in Ireland which make it desirable that the question of order should be emphasised there which do not make it necessary with regard to this Bill for the Government of India.
§ Sir J. D. REESBefore this matter drops, may I ask the hon. Gentleman once again if he will disclaim any analogy between this Bill and the Home Rule Bill?
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member has asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL of RONALDSHAYI beg to move to leave out the words "to any territories for the time being under a Chief Commissioner," and to insert instead thereof the words "to the Central Provinces and the Province of Assam."
The whole of the remaining Amendments in my name on Clause 3 are connected and must be read together. One of the main effects of Clause 3 is to give to the Government of India the power of creating Legislative Councils in the minor provinces of India, that is to say, in those provinces which are under the government of a Chief Commissioner and not under the government of a Lieutenant-Governor. There are, if my memory serves me, seven of these provinces. Two of them are large provinces and are undoubtedly ripe for government by Legislative Councils. Those provinces are the Central Provinces and the Province of Assam. I understand, if this Clause is passed in its present form, it is the intention of the Government of 455 India to create Legislative Councils in those two provinces, and those two only; but, though they only propose to take advantage of the powers to be conferred upon them by this Clause in respect of those two provinces, they would still have the power without coming to Parliament of creating a Legislative Council in any other of the minor provinces of India. I think it is rather undesirable that this House should give up the very small control which it still retains with regard to the Government of India. When we have protested that the Government has not altogether acted in accordance with constitutional usage in their recent action in India, they have always replied that they are acting strictly within the limits of their constitutional powers, because the Government of India have been given power by previous statutes to bring about all these great changes by means of proclamation. If we are going to give them similar powers by this Clause and they propose to create Legislative Councils in some of these minor provinces, we shall be told we have no longer any right to interfere, because by our enactment in the year 1912 we abrogated our powers and our control over the matter. My Amendment, therefore, proposes to give the Government of India power to create Legislative Councils in the provinces of Assam and in the Central Provinces, and also to create Legislative Councils in the other minor provinces in the future, provided that before doing so they lay a draft of their proclamation upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament for at least sixty days during the Session of those Houses. I have taken my Amendment from the Act of 1909. That is precisely the procedure which was adopted in the Act of 1909 with regard to that Clause which gave the Government of India power to create Executive Councils for different provinces.
The Government at that time were quite willing to accept the Amendment then moved and carried which allowed this House to retain control to a certain extent over the Government of India so far as the creation of Executive Councils was concerned, and all I propose is that we should once again retain to ourselves the power of exercising some control over the Government of India if they propose in future to create Legislative Councils in these minor provinces. I may, perhaps, just point out that the only remaining provinces under Chief Commissionerships, after the provinces of 456 Assam and the Central Provinces have been provided with Legislative Councils, would be five in number, all of them with a comparatively small population. In every case, I think, they consist of a population which is certainly not now ripe, and I do not think will be ripe for some time to come to enjoy the advantages, as some may think, of representative government. The provinces that would be left are: first, the North-West Frontier province, a province which runs down the North-West Frontier of India, and is inhabited very largely by somewhat primitive mountain tribes—not exclusively, I admit, but largely—who I do not think are really fit for enjoying the advantages of representative government. The second is the province of Coorg, which is a province of only 140,000 population. The third is the province of Ajmere-Merwara, with a population of 500,000, the fourth is the province of Baluchistan, with a population of over 400,000, again largely consisting of primitive tribes, and the last is the province of the Andamans and Nicobars, with a population of 10,000. I need not enlarge upon the fact that the population of those islands mainly consists. of convicts. All I ask, therefore, is that while giving the Government of India complete power to create Legislative Councils in the two provinces in which they now desire to do so—in the Central Provinces and the province of Assam, we should, with regard to the remaining five minor provinces, have the right of having the draft of any proclamation which the Government of India may desire to issue in the future for the purpose of creating Legislative Councils in them laid upon the Table of each House of Parliament, so that we should have the opportunity at any rate of discussing the question before such Legislative Councils can be created.
§ Sir J. D. REESMy Noble Friend's Amendment is one of much pith and substance, and I certainly agree with him that these minor Chief Commissionerships are not likely for some time to come to require the blessings of representative government. I think I have visited all of them, including the Andaman Islands, though I might say I went there as a visitor and not as a resident. I do not think they would require it. Therefore, I think the Amendment might very well be accepted. The only objection I have to the Amendment is one that runs through every proposal that has been made. Really I have an instinctive dislike to limiting in any respect any 457 proposal for endowing the Governor-General in Council with powers. I feel always a dread of Indian matters coming before this House for adjudication. I own that fairly and squarely. When the Noble Viscount, Lord Morley, was Secretary of State, he was a man and a Statesman of great courage, and he was able to withstand foolish, ill-informed, and sentimental proposals which were made and pressed upon him. We cannot always be certain that will be the case. I hope we shall get on to the Third Reading of the Bill so that the whole policy that lies behind it may really be dealt with, and I propose, with your permission, Sir, to deal with some of those questions. I do not feel, since the Noble Viscount relinquished the reins, that equal courage and capacity have been shown. Therefore, though I agree with my Noble Friend's Amendment in many respects, I would almost leave the Bill as it is on purpose to emphasise and to increase if possible the powers of the Governor-General in Council. The intention, I take it, is that there should be occasions like those upon which when the East India Company's Charter was renewed the Government of India came before the House of Commons for consideration. A verdict was then passed upon it and there was an opportunity of altering it in the renewal of the Charter. In those days, however, democracy had not rushed along its course in the way it has now, and for my part, in spite of the large extent to which I agree with my Noble Friend, I doubt if I could vote with him if it came to a Division for the reason that I wish to see everything possible left to the Governor-General in Council and his powers increased rather than decreased.
§ Sir F. BANBURYMy Noble Friend has made out a very good case for his Amendment. He has shown very clearly that the object of the Government is to extend these Legislative Councils to two provinces, and that it is not the object of the Government to extend them to the other five provinces. If that is the case, and I do not think it can be denied, I fail to see why the Amendment should be refused. My hon. Friend supported him in a rather half-hearted manner, and he gave his reasons, which no doubt are good reasons, but I am afraid they are rather a little influenced with his desire to be above the Houses of Parliament when he is out in India. My hon. Friend has occupied a great position in India, and no doubt, 458 when there and seated in his Court, he does not like to think any of his actions could in any kind of way be considered by this House of Commons. I agree with him to a certain extent, but I think there are limits. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir J. Jardine) has also occupied a distinguished position in India, and no doubt, when he is in India, he is not so desirous of having his actions criticised by this House of Commons as he is when he is a Member of the House of Commons of criticising his former colleagues in India. Holding, as I do, that after all the House of Commons is the centre of the government of the Empire, I say we ought to preserve to ourselves at any rate some power under certain circumstances. Unless the hon. Member can assure me it is absolutely necessary for the object with which the Bill was introduced to be able to extend these Legislative Councils to the Andaman Island and the other places, I must say he ought to accept the Amendment which has been so ably proposed and argued by my Noble Friend. Under those circumstances, if my Noble Friend goes to a Division, I shall certainly support him.
§ Mr. MONTAGUI hope to be able to convince the Noble Lord and the hon. Baronet that this Amendment will not serve any useful purpose. There is not any intention on the part of the Government of India or on the part of the Secretary of State in Council to apply the provisions of this Clause to any other parts of India except the Central Provinces and Assam, and his fear with regard to the other provinces need not trouble him. I think I can explain why the Clause was drafted in this way. The Noble Lord's Amendment would not produce the effect which he anticipates for it. All that the Government of India would have to do, if they desired to create a Legislative Council in some province now administered by a Chief Commissioner, would be to alter the Chief Commissioner-ship into the far more expensive form of Lieutenant-Governorship, and then to create a Legislative Council, which they could do without coming to Parliament at all.
EARL of RONALDSHAYDoes the hon. Gentleman say that the mere fact that they can alter the form of government to a much more expensive one would not obviously act as a check upon them?
§ Mr. MONTAGUYes, but it would not produce the effect the Noble Lord desires to give effective Parliamentary control. 459 In the second place, I have another argument. The object of this Clause is to give Legislative Councils to provinces now administered by a Chief Commissioner in exactly the same way that Legislative Councils can now be given to provinces administered by a Lieutenant-Governor. Surely it is better, when we are discussing the procedure by which such Legislative Councils should be set up, to take the analogy from the procedure which is adopted in giving Legislative Councils to Lieutenant-Governors rather than pursue a new procedure altogether, a procedure not applicable to Legislative Councils at all. In this Clause I ask the Committee to assent to giving Legislative Councils to provinces, whether under Lieutenant-Governorship or under Chief Commissionership, by the same procedure. The Noble Lord would prefer to give Legislative Councils and Lieutenant-Governorships by one procedure, and Legislative Councils and Chief Commissionerships by the same procedure for giving Executive Councils to Lieutenant-Governors. I suggest that is a more complicated and cumbrous method of procedure. When we are, for the first time, giving Chief Commissioners Legislative Councils, we should pursue the line we have always pursued in setting up Legislative Councils. For the two reasons, that the Amendment would not do what the Noble Lord wants, namely, preserve the control of Parliament, and that we have a better procedure of setting up Legislative Councils, I ask him if he cannot see his way to withdraw the Amendment.
EARL of RONALDSHAYOn what the hon. Gentleman has said I should like to observe this. He assured us that the Government of India will have no intention to create Legislative Councils in any other provinces under a Chief Commissioner, except the Central Provinces and the province of Assam. If that be so, I fail to understand why he objects to this House keeping control over them in the event of their wishing at some future time, under circumstances which we cannot now foresee, to alter their present decision and to create Legislative Councils in those other provinces. There is something in what my hon. Friend beside me (Sir J. D. Rees) said with regard to not limiting the powers of the Governor-General of India and his Council, but I do rather object to giving these enormously wide powers to them and thereby abdicating our own 460 powers and our own control. I say that for this reason, that when we objected that the Government had not acted altogether constitutionally in their recent procedure in India their answer to us was that they. had acted constitutionally, because Parliament had abrogated its powers in the past. I therefore object to giving any future Government an opportunity of giving a similar reply to any future Opposition, if that future Opposition desires to have some discussion upon any measure or policy which the Government of the day may endeavour to carry out with regard to India. I do not wish to press the Amendment to a Division, but I do regret that the hon. Gentleman has not been able to give a more satisfactory reply. I cannot say I was very much impressed by the argument which he adduced when he said that the Amendment would not have the effect which I intended it to have. He said that all the Government of India would have to do would be to create a Lieutenant-Governorship, in the province in which they desired to create a Legislative Council, in place of the Chief Commissionership. He admitted that would be a more expensive form of government. Surely, if all we ask the Government of India to do is to lay a draft of their proclamation upon the Table of the Houses of Parliament, in order that Parliament, if it so desires, should have the opportunity of discussing it, I feel convinced that they would be willing to do that, rather than to adopt the very much more expensive procedure suggested by the Under-Secretary, of creating a Lieutenant-Governor in provinces in which they knew a Lieutenant-Governor was not required.
§ Sir J. JARDINEIf the creation of a Legislative Council in a province were a dangerous or desperate act I would largely endorse the views of the Noble Lord, but I do not think it is. I look upon Legislative Councils in these provinces as means by which the people there can make their wishes known, in the same way that this House has a general inquest over all matters of grievance. I do not see any particular objections to a larger creation of Legislative Councils, and I do not see that the creation of Legislative Councils as such cannot be left to the Governor-General in India. As regards the control over him, we know that that is vested in the Secretary of State for India, and that these matters may be debated in this House.
§ Sir F. BANBURYWhen?
§ Sir J. JARDINEI will answer the hon. Baronet by saying there are not enough opportunities for that discussion during the course of the year. Looking round the state of the benches now, it seems to me there ought to be more present. It ought not to be left to a small number of Members to deal with a great matter like this Bill. It is relevant to this argument to say that the House might have a greater control by having an examination into the affairs of India as it used to do in olden times. In that way the duties which ought to be assigned to the Governor-General in Council, and those which ought to be assigned to this House, ought to be marked out. On the whole, I think the Clause as it stands might well be passed.
§ Mr. SANDYSI cannot follow the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken in the sequence of his arguments. He said, in one portion of his speech that he was thoroughly in agreement with the statement that there were not enough opportunities of discussing great Indian questions in the House of Commons. I would venture to impress upon him that if the Amendment is accepted, it will afford, at any rate, a further opportunity for a discussion of this question, should it at any future time be considered desirable by the Government of India to extend this system of government to those provinces which would, for the time being, be excluded if the Noble Lord's Amendment were carried into effect. I thoroughly agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is most desirable that we should have more frequent opportunities of passing in review the policy which is being pursued by the Governor-General and those who are responsible for the administration of India, and for that reason alone I shall certainly support the Noble Lord if he sees fit—I do not know yet what his intentions are—to press this Amendment to a Division.
There is another reason for my doing so, and that is really on the ground of the statements which were made by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Montagu) himself. So far as I understand from his speech, he was in agreement with the contention made by the Noble Lord (Earl of Ronald-shay) that it would be undesirable to extend these powers to the various portions of India which were enumerated by the Noble Lord, and he agreed, as far as I could understand his speech, with the Noble Lord in his conclusion that it was under existing conditions undesirable that the extension should be made. But what 462 he asked us to accept was his statement that it was not the present intention if the Government to do anything of the kind. Although it may not be the intention of the hon. Gentleman himself, still he admits by that very statement that by the terms of the Bill as they stand without the Amendment of the Noble Lord we are granting him the power of carrying out that extension without any further submission of the subject to the verdict of this House. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to make a personal statement. Possibly he is entitled to do so on behalf of the Government of which he is the solo representative, a circumstance which I very much regret when a great question like this is under discussion. But what guarantee have we that under those great changes and vicissitudes which overtake any Government, however ably they may conduct the affairs of the country, his successors in office may not avail themselves, possibly at an earlier date than the hon. Member might anticipate, of those powers which we are conferring upon them and upon him and upon his successors by passing this Clause as it stands without the Amendment proposed by the Noble Lord? It appears to me most desirable that we should retain this controlling power and influence in our own hands. There is no desire unnecessarily to restrict the authority of the Governor-General in Council, but, as we are ultimately responsible for the Government of the millions of native population of India, surely it is our duty on an occasion like this to see that when a great change of this character is anticipated, where a further extension of the present intentions of the Government may become in their opinion desirable, we shall have another opportunity of passing in review what has occurred and what may have occurred since this Act first came into operation, and to see whether, in view of the experience which we shall then have gained, it is desirable that a further extension, which may then be necessary, is based on the general interests of the people of India as a whole. Under these circumstances, if the Noble Lord takes the Amendment to a Division, I shall certainly support him.
§ Sir F. BANBURYMay I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment in view of the fact that the opposition has been most considerate towards him to-day, and of the fact that the hon. Gentleman himself has said that the effect of the Amendment is merely to do what he 463 desires to do, and that the hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Jardine) has supported it as far as he dares support an Amendment in opposition to his own Front Bench? It is so very much better that in matters of this sort their should be good feeling on both sides of the House, and that we should both endeavour on a Bill of this sort, which is not a party Bill, to make it a really good, workmanlike measure. I hope the hon. Gentleman will reconsider his decision.
§ Mr. MONTAGUI should much like to respond to the hon. Baronet's persuasive appeal, but, even above the desire to preserve the harmony which has so far existed, we must have regard to the merits of the measure. I really think the Bill is better as it stands than it would be if the Amendment was carried. The Noble Lord is in agreement with me that it is not likely that the Amendment, or the Bill as un-amended, will have any practical application, because, so far as we can foresee at present, there is no intention of setting up Legislative Councils in these other Commissionerships. I am anxious to make the Legislative Council in the Chief Commissionership and in the Central Provinces and in Assam of the same status and composition as the Legislative Councils in the Lieutenant-Governorships. It may be smaller, and it may have different procedure, but it ought to be created in the same way and under the same conditions as the other Legislative Councils.
§ Mr. MONTAGUBecause Parliament will have admittedly made an exception, and may desire to adopt a different procedure in the future as regards Legislative Councils in Chief Commissionership and as regards Legislative Councils in Lieutenant-Governorships. I want to maintain harmony, but I feel bound to ask the House not to accept the Amendment.
EARL of RONALDSHAYThe hon. Gentleman seems to think that if my Amendment is carried the Legislative Councils which will be set up in Assam and the Central Provinces would be differentiated in some way from the Legislative Councils which already exist in the major provinces, but that would not be the case. The Legislative Councils in Assam and the Central Provinces would be set up in precisely the same way.
§ Mr. MONTAGUAs an exception.
EARL of RONALDSHAYNo, not as an exception. The only effect of my Amendment would be to give the House the opportunity, at some future time, if the Government desired to set up Legislative Councils not in Assam or the Central Provinces, but in any other of the minor provinces in which they will not now propose to create Legislative Councils, of discussing their proposal. That seems to me to be a very reasonable proposition, but I am most anxious not to do anything which could for a moment suggest that the Opposition are in any way treating this Bill as a party measure or doing anything to try and obstruct its passage into law, and because I am so anxious not to create that impression, and only for that reason, if the hon. Gentleman cannot meet us I propose to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. SANDYShad given notice of an Amendment to leave out the word "not" ["shall not apply to those territories"].
§ The CHAIRMANThis Amendment is out of order, because it would make nonsense if it were carried.
§ Mr. SANDYSThe object is that the proviso of Section 3 of the Government of India Act of 1854 shall apply to these territories. With respect, I do not think that is nonsense.
§ Mr. MONTAGUThis Clause sets up Legislative Councils for these Chief Commissionerships. If the proviso applies to these Chief Commissionerships, although Legislative Councils might come into existence, legislation could still be passed by the Governor-General. Therefore what could remain of the Legislative Councils?
§ The CHAIRMANIt appears to me, reading the Amendment into the Clause, that the later words of the Clause would be superfluous.
§ Mr. SANDYSMy object was to use that as a means of emphasising the necessity of retaining that proviso of the Act of 1854, which appears to me to be of great importance. Probably the same effect could have been obtained by merely deleting all the words from the words "Chief Commissioner" to the end of the Clause. I think the same object would be obtained in that way as by leaving out the word "not." That would make perfectly evident what is my intention.
§ The CHAIRMANIf the hon. Member moves his Amendment in the more sensible form of leaving out these words, it will be in order.
§ 2.0 P.M.
§ Mr. SANDYSThen I beg to move to leave out from the words "Chief Commissioner" to the end of the Clause. I think this question is one of considerable importance. It does not seem to me from a survey of the Act of 1854, that the hon. Gentleman is quite correct in the suggestion he made, namely, that if this proviso were to remain in force these Councils would be deprived of legislative authority. I would like him to refer to the Act, so that he may see exactly how the position stands. I notice in the Bill now before the House it is described as the Government of India Act, 1854, but in the official copy of the Act which I have before me it is described as the Indian Appointments Act, 1854. Therefore, I hope we are really referring to the same measure, because I have not been able to ascertain that there was any other measure passed in regard to India in 1854. I assume that this is merely a drafting error, and that the Indian Appointments Act, 1854, is really the measure which is referred to, because at the end of Section 3 there is a proviso which is evidently what the hon. Gentleman had in his mind at the time. If I am in error, possibly he will correct me and refer me to the Act of 1854, to which allusion is made in this Bill. If he refers to the Indian Appointments Act, 1854, I submit that it is most important in my view that the proviso in Section 3 should not be repealed, but should remain in force so far as this Bill is concerned. I do not wish to trouble the Committee by reading the whole of the Section, although it is rather difficult to understand exactly what is involved without reading the earlier portion. After making provision for the Governor-General of India in Council, with the sanction and approbation of the Board of Directors of the East India Company by proclamation duly published, exercising certain powers and authority, we come to the proviso which I submit is the proviso in question.
§ Mr. MONTAGUThat is the Act.
§ Mr. SANDYSThe proviso says:—
"Provided always, that no law or regulation in force at any such time as regards any such portion of territory shall be altered or repealed except by 466 law or regulation made by the Governor-General of India in Council."
I maintain that it is most desirable that that proviso should remain in force. It really seemed to me that there was a fallacy in the argument used by the hon. Gentleman. His argument was that if the proviso remained in force it would prevent a Legislative Council having the necessary authority for managing the affairs of the province over which it has control. That is not the terms of the proviso as I read it. So far as I can see the contention of the hon. Gentleman is incorrect. If this proviso remains in force it will not deprive Legislative Councils of the right to introduce the necessary legislation for the government of those provinces in future, but what it will do is to prevent them altering or changing existing laws without the approval and sanction of the Governor-General in Council. Therefore, I think the hon. Gentleman, when he made that statement, was labouring under a misapprehension, and probably he had not had sufficient time to study the details of this particular Section. After all, we are agreed that the laws made were those which were considered best for the good government of these various provinces. I think it is most desirable, when it is thought necessary that some change should be made in existing laws, it should not be done except in the way indicated. As has been frequently stated during the course of the discussion by hon. Members on this side of the House, there is no desire whatever on our part to restrict or restrain the authority of the Governor-General, but this is a restriction and restraint on the powers of the Governor-General which the hon. Gentleman is proposing in the Clause as it stands. We want to extend the powers. If this Amendment is accepted the result will be more satisfactory than if we allow to these different Chief Commissioners, who under this Clause are to have extended authority in the various provinces which they control, the power of repealing or altering laws and regulations which have been previously made for the good government of the country without any reference to the Governor-General in Council. It is highly probable that friction would arise and undesirable incidents would occur which would be obviated if this old proviso remains in force, a proviso which would not restrict the powers of these Councils with regard to future legislation, but only with regard to the alteration or amendment of of laws already existing.
§ Mr. MONTAGUThe proviso in the Act of 1854, which it is now sought not to apply to this province, was to apply to territory taken under the control of the Governor-General where there was no Legislative Council, and therefore it was right and proper that any alteration as existing before the Chief Commissioner-ship was formed should be made by the Governor-General in Council. There was no other way of doing it. There was no Legislative Council in the province itself, so the Governor-General was the right person to do it. But under the new condition of affairs I submit that it would be a highly invidious procedure to say that whereas other provinces can alter these laws, yet the Legislative Council which is to exist in the districts covered by the Amendment, although it exists for the purpose of legislation, must go to the Governor-General in Council for an alteration in its laws just as though no Legislative Council had ever been created. I am quite sure that the hon. Member will see that it really would not be fair to the new Legislative Council to limit its activity in a way in which no province under a Lieutenant-Governorship is limited. I hope, therefore, that the House will not accept this Amendment.
§ Sir J. D. REESI may say at once that this Clause carries out the policy of the Government of India, and the reason I did not intervene was that I could not make out what the objection was. In my opinion the policy behind this Bill is so momentous and it is so much objected to in India that I am anxious to get on to the Third Reading. I realise that discussions of this character will be very unacceptable in India where they think that we should deal with the great policy of the Bill, and not with points of detail which arise in this way.
§ Mr. SANDYSI did not quite follow the statement of the hon. Member though I have no doubt that in his amended views he is perfectly correct, but if so, there was no necessity to put in this portion of the Clause at all, and therefore my Amendment would be an improvement and simplification of the Bill. The Under-Secretary stated, as I understand, that the proviso of the original Bill of 1854 was put in with reference to a state of affairs existing when the Governor-General took over a new territory altogether where no Legislative Council had been in existence. There is no real necessity for definitely 468 stating that that proviso is not to apply, because if the hon. Member's statement is correct it would not apply in any case. Consequently, I still think that the Bill, would be simplified by the adoption of the Amendment. But as that is not the view of the hon. Member and as he has explained why he thinks it desirable that the new Legislative Council should have powers not merely of introducing new legislation, but of repealing or amending old legislation, I ask the Committee's leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Sir J. D. REESIn reference to the Amendment which stands in my name. I realise that this Bill carries out the policy of the Government of India, and that if no extra cost were to be imposed the Bill would be absolutely worthless. Therefore my Amendment amounts to a direct negative, and although this Bill according to the statement of the hon. Gentleman made in answer to questions which I put will manifestly put an extra charge equal to the salaries of five Secretaries of State on the Indian taxpayer to say nothing of the cost of Delhi, I hope on the Third Reading to get an opportunity of dealing with this question. Neither will I press the second part of my Amendment, because it is identical in substance with the Amendment of my Noble Friend (Lord Ronaldshay), and I have altered my mind since I put it down, being impressed day by day by the danger resulting from what I believe has lately happened, and that is the settling of Indian questions between two-State officials, the Secretary of State and the Governor-General, instead of through the ordinary channel.
§ Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.