§ (1) India Stock may, if registered for the time being as stock transferable by deed in manner provided by Regulations made under this Section, be transferred by deed.
§ (2) The Banks of England and Ireland respectively, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State in Council, shall provide by Regulations for a separate stock register being kept for India Stock which is for the time being transferable by deed, for the conditions upon which stock is to be entered in or removed from that register, for the mode in which the transfer by deed is to be carried out, and for the payment of any fees in respect of the entry or removal of stock in or from the register and the carrying out of any transfer of stock by deed.
§ (3) The provisions of all enactments relating to India Stock which are in force at the commencement of this Act shall apply to stock transferable by deed in pursuance of this Section as they apply to stock transferable in the books of the Banks of England or Ireland, or of the Secretary of State in Council, except so far as express provision is made to the contrary by this Section or by the Regulations made thereunder.
§ [(4) No Stamp Duty stall be payable in respect of any deed of transfer of India Stock or any dividend warrant or register certificate relating to India Stock.]
§ (5) In this Section the expression "India Stock" means any stock created and issued, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, by file Secretary of State in Council under the authority of Parliament.
Mr. ROBERTSI formally move that the words which are already printed in the Bill as Sub-section (4) and underlined be inserted in the Bill. This measure originated in the House of Lords, and, of course, it is only within the competence of the House of Commons to deal with the question of Stamp Duty. This proposal simply follows the practice in reference to all India stock and repeats the legislation which has been the rule in a number of Acts dealing with India stock. In order 1785 to preserve the privileges of the House of Commons, it is necessary to insert the Clause in this way.
Sir H.DALZIELI understand in regard to Bills passed by the House of Lords which take the initiative in regard to financial matters it is necessary to draw the attention of the other House to that matter. I think a Rule of that kind exists.
| Section 7 (1). | |
| FIRST SCHEDULE. | |
| Further Amendments of the Government of India Act, 1915. | |
| Enactment to be Amended. | Amendment. |
| The Government of India Act, 1915 (5 & 6 Geo. 5, c. 61) | |
| Section 3 (3) | The word "British," where secondly occurring, shall be repealed. |
| Section 13 (1) | For this sub-section shall be substituted the following subsection:— |
| "(1) Where an order or communication concerns the levying of war, or the making of peace, or the public safety, or the defence of the realm, or the treating or negotiating with any prince or state, or the policy to be observed with respect to any prince or state, and a majority of votes therefor at a meeting of the Council of India is not required by this Act, the Secretary of State may send the order or communication to the Governor-General in Council or to any Governor in Council or officer or servant in India without submitting it to a meeting of the council or depositing it for the perusal of the members of the council or sending or giving notice of the reasons for making it, if he considers that it is of a nature to require secrecy." | |
| Section 13 (2) | The words "or any of the matters aforesaid" shall be substituted for the words "or the levying of war, or the making of peace, or negotiations or treaties with any prince or state." |
| Section 21 | At the end of this section shall be added the words "Provided that a grant or appropriation made in accordance with provisions or restrictions prescribed by the Secretary of State in Council with the concurrence of a majority of votes at a meeting of the council shall be deemed to be made with the concurrence of a majority of such votes." |
| Section 26 | The words "twenty-eight days" shall be substituted for the words "fourteen days." |
| [Section 27(10) | The words "or retiring" shall be inserted after the word "superannuation"; the words "and their legal personal representatives shall, for the purposes of gratuity" shall be inserted after the word "allowance"; and the words "the auditor and his assistants" shall be substituted for the word "they." |
| Sections 28 (1) and 30 (1) | The words "or personal" shall be inserted after the word "real," where secondly occurring, and the words "or otherwise" shall be inserted after the word "mortgage." |
| Section 28 (2) | The word "two" shall be substituted for the word "three." |
| Sections 63 (3) and 74 (2) | The words "any office of profit" shall be substituted for the word "office." |
| Sections 64 (3), 75 (3), and 78 (2) | The words "or when questions are asked" shall be inserted after the words "any matter of general public interest." |
| Sections 67 (3) and 80 (3) | The words "or when questions are asked" shall be inserted after the words "at any such discussion." |
| Section 86(1) | The words "and a Lieutenant-Governor in Council" shall be inserted after the words "a Governor in Council." |
| Section 92 (3). | The words "or special duty" shall be inserted after the words "is absent on leave." |
§ because we do not recognise matters relating to finance from the other House. These words which are underlined are only inserted in the Bill for the information of hon. Members, and then this House by a Resolution can put them into the Bill.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
§ Clauses 7 and 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
1787| Enactment to be Amended. | Amendment. | |
| Section 94 | … | The words "or special duty" shall be inserted after the words "absence on leave," and the words "absence may be permitted" shall be substituted for the words "leave may be granted." |
| Section 99 (1) | … | The words "in British India," where secondly occurring, shall be repealed. |
| Section 106 | … | In this section shall be inserted the following sub-section:— |
| "(1A) The letters patent establishing, or vesting jurisdiction, powers or authority in, a high court may be amended from time to time by His Majesty by further letters patent." | ||
| Section 107, proviso | … | The word "law" shall be substituted for the word "Act." |
| Section 109 (1) | … | The words "any British subject for the time being within" shall be substituted for the words "Christian subjects of His Majesty resident in." |
| Section 110 (1) | … | The words "lieutenant-governor and chief commissioner" shall be inserted after the words "each governor," and the words "the executive council of the governor-general or of a governor "or lieutenant-governor" shall be substituted for the words "their respective executive councils." |
| Section 114 | … | At the end of this section shall be added the following subsection:— |
| "(S) On the occurrence of a vacancy in the office of advocate-general, or during any absence or deputation of an advocate-general, the Governor-General in Council in the case of Bengal, and the local Government in other cases, may appoint a person to act as advocate-general; and the person so appointed may exercise the powers of an advocate-general until some person has been appointed by His Majesty to the office and has entered on the discharge of his duties, or until the advocate-general has returned from his absence or deputation, as the case may be, or until the Governor-General in Council or the local Government, as the case may be, cancels the acting appointment." | ||
| Section 120 | … | The words "Secretary of State" shall be substituted for the words "Chancellor of the Exchequer"; the words "Madras or Bombay" shall be inserted after the words "Bishop of Calcutta," where thirdly and fourthly occurring; and the words "to be paid quarterly" and the word "British" shall be repealed. |
§ For the Fifth Schedule shall be substituted the following:—
| "Section 131 (3). | ||||||
| FIFTH SCHEDULE. | ||||||
| Provisions of this Act which may be repealed or altered by the Governor-General in Legislative Council. | ||||||
| Section. | Subject. | |||||
| 62 | … | … | … | … | … | Power to extend limits of presidency cowns. |
| 106 | … | … | … | … | … | Jurisdiction, powers and authority of high courts. |
| 108 (1) | … | … | … | … | … | Exercise of jurisdiction of high court by single judges or division courts. |
| 109 | … | … | … | … | … | Power for Governor-General in Council to alter local limits of jurisdiction of high courts, etc. |
| 110 | … | … | … | … | … | Exemption from jurisdiction of high courts. |
| 111 | … | … | … | … | … | Written order by Governor-General in Council a justification for act in high court. |
| 112 | … | … | … | … | … | Law to be administered in cases of inheritance, succession, contract and dealing between party and party. |
| 114 (2) | … | … | … | … | … | Powers of advocate-general. |
| 124(1) | … | … | … | … | … | Oppression. |
| 124 (4)—So far as it relates to persons employed or concerned in the collection of revenue or the administration of justice. | … | … | … | … | … | Trading. |
| Section. | Subject. | ||||||
| 124 (5)—So far as it relates to persons other than the Governor-General, a governor, or a member of the executive council of the Governor-General or of a governor | … | … | … | … | … | … | Receiving presents. |
| 125 | … | … | … | … | … | … | Loans to princes or chiefs. |
| 126 | … | … | … | … | … | … | Carrying on dangerous correspondence. |
| 128 | … | … | … | … | … | … | Limitation for prosecutions in British India. |
| 129 | … | … | … | … | … | … | Penalties." |
§ The following Amendment stood on the Paper in the name of Colonel YATE: At the end of Section 3 (3) to insert the words:
| Section 3 (4) | "and shall be permitted to retain the title of 'Honourable' borne by the Council of the Governor-General in India." |
The CHAIRMANThere are a number of Amendments on the Notice Paper standing in the name of the hon. Member for Melton (Colonel Yate). The first one is out of order, because permission to retain the title of "Honourable" is a matter of the Royal prerogative, and I am afraid I cannot allow the hon. Member to usurp that power.
§ Colonel YATEI beg to move, at the end of Section 13 (2), to insert
The Committee will see that I have a considerable number of Amendments on the Paper, but I may say that they are not so formidable as they look. They are largely consequential, and those I shall move are the main ones, which I hope will raise the status of the Indian Civil Service and make it more upon an equality with the Colonial Service. This is nothing new, because I have spoken on this matter before on the Indian Budget. I raised the same questions in the Debate on the Government of India Consolidation Bill, and Lord Loreburn decided that I should present these Amendments to the House in the amending Bill in the following year. I have now an opportunity of doing so. I am glad to say that of late years there has been a great disposition, on the part of the India Office, to employ officers with Indian experience more often than they did before. In the Foreign Office we see members of the Diplomatic Service called in to serve, and I want the 1790 same principle applied to the India Office. All I wish to point out is that I think all the Civil Servants paid by India, whether employed in India or England, should pass the same examination and be placed on the same footing. The India Office passed a Regulation to say that conscientious objectors are not in future to be eligible for the Indian Civil Service, and I think it would be a little short of a farce if they should not be eligible for the Indian Service, and should be allowed to serve India at the India Office. I insert these words to make sure that all men paid by India should be on a perfect equality, both in India and at the India Office.
"Section 17 (2) before the words 'Civil service,' to insert the word 'Indian.'"
Mr. ROBERTSThe hon. and gallant Member wishes to assimilate the conditions of the establishment of the Secretary of State at the India Office with those that govern appointments to the Indian Civil Service. So far as I understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman's main object, he desires the same examination for each service. That is already done. But if he goes further and asks that clerks at the India Office should be exactly on the same level and under the same rules as to their appointments to junior situations as those who are going into the Indian Civil Service, he is really asking for one or two extra tests which are quite unnecessary in the case of the India Office. For instance, he would require that every clerk at the India Office should go through a riding test which is not necessary. Again, they would have to go for a year on probation, and would have to learn an Oriental language. All you require is that the clerks at the India Office shall be under Civil Service rules and regulations, and that was the object of the original Clause reproduced by Section 17 of the Act, while to insist upon all the conditions which govern appointments in the Indian Civil Service would, I think, really be going on a false track, and I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment.
§ Colonel YATEAfter that explanation, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Colonel YATEI beg to move, at the end of paragraph "Section 13 (2)," to insert the words "Section 17 (3); 'and arrange for the transfer of officers from the Government of India.'"
This Amendment is simply to make it easier for the Secretary of State whenever he wants to employ a man from India in the India Office. I move it in order that he may not have to wait until the man has retired from the Service and to enable "him to employ such a man at any time during his service. The Amendment will make it more easy for him to get a hold upon any man at any time. It is advisable that the Secretary of State should have the benefit of the service of any man he wants at any time, and that he should not have to wait until that man retires before he can employ him in the India Office.
Mr. ROBERTSIn substance there is no quarrel whatever between the hon. and gallant Member and myself, but at the same time I really would ask him not to press these words. There is no difficulty at present in the Secretary of State transferring officers and officials from the Indian Civil Service to his establishment at home. In the case of senior appointments that can be done and it is done. The Secretary of State has full power to do it now. The hon. Member said that this power in recent years has been used more frequently, and therefore I do not think that there is any very strong case for pressing for this Amendment. In proper cases the Secretary of State has the power at present, but I am afraid that these words do a good deal more. They also apply to junior appointments. At present the Secretary of State, if he increases his establishment at the India Office, has to get an Order in Council which has to be laid before Parliament. There is, therefore, a Parliamentary check. At the same time these junior appointments are filled up after the ordinary Civil Service Examination. If these words were inserted—they really are not necessary at all—they would enable a Secretary of State, if he wished, to get rid of the Parliamentary check upon the size of his establishment, and at the same time to get round 1792 the necessity of appointing Civil servants subject to the ordinary rules of the Civil Service. I do not mean to say that those difficulties could not have been overcome by another form of words, but the words that the hon. and gallant Member has put forward will show him that it is rather undesirable to fetter by any statutory language the power of the Secretary of State to do what he wants. Under the circumstances the Secretary of State would be very glad if the hon. Member would leave him with his unfettered discretion as at the present time.
§ Colonel YATEI gladly accede to that request.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendment made: At the end of paragraph "Section 26" "Section 27 (10): The words 'or retiring' shall be inserted after the word 'superannuation'; the words 'and their legal personal representatives shall, for the purposes of gratuity' shall be inserted after the word 'allowance'; and the words 'the auditor, and his assistants' shall be substituted for the word 'they.'"— [Mr. C. Roberts.]
§ Colonel YATEI beg to move, at end of paragraph "Section 28 (2)," to insert "Section 36 (l), and shall not be eligible for appointment to any further office in India by the Governor-General."
This question is a very old one, and the necessity for this change was first brought forward by Sir George Chesney in 1870, in his book on Indian Polity. In his second edition of that work published in that year after dilating on the bad effect of promoting Councillors to be Lieutenant-Governors, he ended up by saying that the difficulty might be
obviated, either by placing the Councillors on the same footing of emolument as the Lieutenant-Governors, or by a special enactment declaring them to be ineligible for further advancement in India.I am recommending both. The question of emolument comes later on. Meanwhile my Amendment is by this special enactment to declare members of the Governor-General's Executive Council ineligible for further advancement in India. I only wish Sir George Chesney could have been alive and back again here in this House to have had this opportunity of moving it himself, and I should like hon. Members before deciding on this question to read 1793 for themselves what that great authority said upon the subject.In 1894 Sir G. Chesney published the third and final edition of his book, bringing it up to date, and on page 133 of that edition he says as follows. I cannot read it all, but he commences with "it is inconsistent, etc.," and ends up by saying "it does seem, etc." "Chesney's Indian Polity." 3rd Edition, 1894. House of Commons Kdition, p. 133.
It is inconsistent with the actual state of things that the position of a member of the Governor-General's Council should bo inferior in precedence and emolument to that of a Governor or Lieutenant-Governor. It is unquestionably the more important.it does seem desirable that the position of a member of the Governor-General's Council should be recognised as and made the highest in India under that of Governor-General, to which an Indian public servant can rise, and beyond which he should have no preferment in India to look forward to."—p. 184.The objection raised to this by Lord Macdonell on the Joint Committee was that he was a member of the Governor-General's Council before he was a Lieutenant-Governor, and that he felt sure the experience gained by him in Council made him a better Lieutenant-Governor than he would have been without it. He spoke from the purely personal point of view of a man who had gained by being promoted by the Governor-General to a Lieutenant-Governorship. On the other hand, my personal point of view is that having been appointed Chief Commissioner of Baluchistan without having been a member of the Governor-Generals Council I am perfectly certain that the experienced gained by me as the Governor of a Frontier Province would have made me a much more valuable member of the Governor-General's Council than if I had not had that experience. We cannot look on these things, though from the personal point of view we must take the greatest good of the greatest number, and Sir George Chesney's views have now been long known and approved in India. The question has been ventilated for nearly half a century. The opportunity has at last arisen of obtaining the special enactment that Sir George Chesney longed, and I ask the House to give India the benefit of that enactment I now propose. I beg to move.
Mr. ROBERTSI am sure that I and the Committee must recognise that the Amendments which the hon. and gallant Member puts forward are the product of his very 1794 wide and long experience of the conditions in India. Therefore I need hardly say that his suggestions have been very carefully considered by the India Office.
§ Colonel YATEWhat is meant by "considered by the India Office"?
§ Colonel YATEThe Secretary of State alone?
Mr. ROBERTSThey were put forward some time ago. They were put forward in connection with the Consolidation Act of last year, so that there has been plenty of time fully to consider them. I hope the hon. and gallant Member will not think our attitude towards them has been lightly taken up. The whole matter has been very carefully considered.
§ Colonel YATEBy the Secretary of State?
Mr. ROBERTSYes, for whom I am speaking. I must tell the Committee that all these Amendments were put forward before the Joint Committee, consisting of s eight Members of this House and eight from the House of Lords, most of whom, I think, had a good deal of Indian experience one way and another. The hon. and gallant Member is strictly within his rights in putting them before a Committee of this House, but I must say that the Joint Committee was not disposed to accept them and that this particular Amendment encountered very strong opposition on the part, at all events, of one of the Members of that Committee who had had considerable Indian experience.
§ Colonel YATEMay I remind the hon. Gentleman that they were never discussed at all. Lord Loreburn decided that they should be deferred until this Bill was introduced this year. This was only discussed for two minutes, when half the members of the Committee had left and when Lord Loreburn again decided that they should not be put before the Joint Committee this year, but should be left to be put forward in this House. The member of the Committee who objected was one of the members who stayed.
Mr. ROBERTSThe Committee was not disposed to accept it. I am afraid that on this particular Bill we cannot deal with matters upon which there is not general 1795 agreement. This Bill was designed to deal with doubts and difficulties which had arisen in the course of the process of consolidation. When you get points of this kind on which there is not general agreement—in fact, on which there is strong opposition—I would ask the hon. and gallant Member to be content with this opportunity of ventilating the subject. This is not by any means the last opportunity upon which questions relating to Indian administration will come before the House of Commons. Clearly at the close of the War there will be many questions of that kind which this House will have to face and which will be considered then. That is the time, not now, when this particular Amendment and other Amendments of the same nature should be considered.
§ Sir H. CRAIKI cannot consider that the hon. Gentleman's answer to the Amendment moved by my hon. and galland Friend is sufficient. In the first place, he says that we must not proceed with it because there will be other opportunities of discussing Indian affairs. This is a proposal of a definite kind, and it is no use saying that it will be met by future discussion on Indian affairs some time after the War. Then the hon. Gentleman tells us that we must leave this to be considered and adjudicated upon by those who have Indian experience. After all, human nature is the same in India as it is elsewhere. The point aimed at by this Amendment is that there should be no dependency upon and no looking forward to patronage from the Indian Members of the Council, and that they should not be tempted to shape their opinions by their hopes of future promotion. This is not a matter, the hon. Gentleman will admit, for purely Indian experience. It is a matter to be dealt with according to the ordinary rules of human nature. There used to be—I am sorry to say it is now gone—a very general feeling, founded on constitutional principle, that it was an unsound thing to promote a puisne judge to any higher judicial post. That was not founded upon any special legal experience but upon the fact that a man is more independent and less likely to be biassed if he is perfectly free from any thought of promotion in his career as a judge. I do not think the mere perfunctory raising of this question in a small composite Committee, or the fact that Indian questions may hereafter be raised, is a sufficient answer to the broad contention 1796 which lies at the foundation of this Amendment—namely, that members of the Council should be absolutely independent.
Mr. ROBERTSThe hon. Member has stated a case for this proposal. There is another case against it. This Bill was promoted on the understanding that you should deal with the points on which there was no strong controversy. This is a point which is controversial. The one point in the Bill on which there was strong controversy before the Joint Committee was dropped in deference to strong expressions of opinion, and I think I must ask the Committee to stand by me in maintaining that decision that questions which are of a controversial character should not be hastily decided at this moment. After all, many of these questions of Indian administration have been examined by the Public Services Commission, the report of which is completed but has not yet been published, and I think it would be a great mistake merely because a particular controversial question is put before the Committee that the Committee should accept it when it is controversial.
§ Colonel YATEI cannot follow the hon. Gentleman's reasoning at all. The whole of the Schedule is matter that is put into the principal Act the same as these are, and there is nothing particular in this point, and as to the reasons he has given they are entirely insufficient to put this away. He says there are further opportunities. I have never had a chance of raising it and neither had Sir George Chesney, and I see no chance in the future. I spoke in the Budget Debate, but I might as well speak to the moon as in the Indian Budget Debate. I am sorry I cannot quite grasp the reasoning and I must take this to a Division.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI do not thoroughly understand what is taking place, and I had an opportunity of discussing the Bill with the hon. Gentleman before it came into the House. So far as I can gather, this is a controversial question. I am not at all sure—it has nothing whatever to do with the War—that now that we have had an admission that this is a controversial question it ought to be pressed and proceeded with at the present moment, when the arrangement to which we have come, that all controversial measures should be postponed until after the War, is still in force.
Mr. ROBERTSI did not intend to suggest that the Bill was controversial. What I intended to suggest was that the Amendment was controversial.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI am speaking with a little difficulty, because I admit quite frankly that the point was new to me; but I understand what my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Yate) desires is that the independence of the members of the Council should be preserved in order that they should not be influenced by the idea that if they take a certain view some preferment will be given. It is a very wrong thing that anyone should be influenced by that, but it is a thing which I have known in this country, and if as a matter of fact there is a real controversy upon this question. I am not at all sure that the matter ought to be proceeded with.
Mr. ROBERTSIt is very undesirable that the Amendment should be proceeded with. The status quo surely ought to be preserved. The Amendment ought not to be pressed if it is a matter of controversy. We are simply keeping the existing order of things. The hon. and gallant Member suggests himself that the matter was first raised thirty or forty years ago. It has been a rule in Indian administration, and surely the arguments which the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of Loudon (Sir F. Banbury) has put forward would apply against the Amendment His whole argument was against the Amendment and in favour of leaving the existing status quo.
§ Colonel YATEWill the hon. Gentleman give an opportunity for discussing this? Will he name a date when we can discuss it and promise to give an opportunity?
§ Mr. KINGIt seems that this Bill ought not to have been introduced if it raises a question of long-standing controversy, and if when it is passed there will probably be no opportunity for a generation, at least while none of us are here, will an opportunity again offer of raising this very important question which has been brought before us by the hon. Member for Melton Mowbray (Colonel Yate)? I must say that I have listened to the discussion with some distress. I should like to support, the Government, and to carry 1798 through legislation which is wanted, but I should also like to support the hon. and gallant Gentleman in carrying through a reform which has been urged again and again for many years. What am I to do? I suggest that the Government postpone the measure altogether, and let us go home.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Colonel YATEI beg to move, at the end of paragraph, "Section 28 (2)," to insert the following words, "Section 36 (3), leave out" ["at least of them"], and insert "members at least out of five or four out of six."
Section 36 (3) reads as follows:
"Three at least of them—"
that is, the members of the Viceroy's Council—
"must be persons who, at the time of their appointment, have been for at least ten years in the service of the Crown in India, and one must be a barrister of England or Ireland, or a member of the Faculty of Advocates of Scotland of not less than five years' standing."
Sub-section (2) says:
"The number of the ordinary members of the Council shall be five, or, if His Majesty thinks fit to appoint a sixth member, six."
Six have been appointed. The alteration I make is that three at least out of five, or four out of six, should be members of ten years' standing in the service of the Crown in India. I think the hon. Gentleman will probably agree to that.
Mr. ROBERTSOn this matter I am unable to agree with the hon. and gallant Member. On the Viceroy's Council there are members for commerce, law, and finance. Each one of these may be members for whom the presented residence in India is not absolutely necessary, and if you extend the number of those for whom this residence in India is prescribed you would undoubtedly experience difficulty in some cases in getting the best men to take charge of commerce, law, or finance. For that reason, I ask the Committee not to impose that additional fetter upon the discretion of the Secretary of State, who obviously wishes to obtain the best men for service upon the Council.
§ Amendment negatived.
1799§ Colonel YATEI beg to move, at the end of paragraph, Section 28 (2), to insert,
The question which I am raising on this Amendment is the putting of the Indian Civil Service on an equality with the Colonial Civil Service, by which the Governors of provinces in India should for the future be called governors and not merely Lieutenant-Governors as they are called now. The description Lieutenant-Governor as applied to India is entirely a misnomer. The question is one of nomenclature. I ask for no new establishment or higher pay, but merely that the man who is the Governor of a province shall be called what he is and not named a Lieutenant-Governor. This was proposed by Sir George Chesney as long ago as 1870. I myself raised the question on the Indian Budget both in 1012 and 1913, but there has never been a chance of raising it in Debate. In 1912 when I raised this question I referred to the levelling up of Lieutenant-Governorships and Chief Commissionerships in India to the status of Governorships. I pointed out why I recommended this, and went on to say:
"Section 53 Headline, leave out 'Lieutenant-Governorships and other,' and insert 'Governorships and Chief-Commissionerships of.'" We ought to do everything we can to maintain the dignity of our people. In Ceylon we have a Governor and the Lieutenant-Governor there is simply the Colonial Secretary of Ceylon; and to put the ruler of a vast province like the United Provinces or the Punjaub on an equality with a Lieutenant-Governor is a misnomer. Ceylon has an area of 25,000 square miles and 4,000,000 of population, while the United Provinces has an area of 107,000 square miles and a population of 47,000,000. You have a Governor of the Straits Settlement at Singapore, with a population of 2,000,000, and the Lieutenant-Governor of Burma, with 12,000,000 of population and an area of 236,000 square miles. Is it fair that a vast charge should be called a Lieutenant-Governor and that the colonial official at Singapore should be called a Governor? I claim that India ought to be treated with equality in this respect. I do not propose that they should be put on an equality with the Governors of Bengal, Madras, and Bombay. That would require an Act of Parliament, but I ask that the names should be raised from 'Lieutenant-Governor' and 'Chief Commissioner,' and that the man who is Governor in India shall be called 'Governor.'I said that on the Indian Budget in 1912, and in 1913 I referred to the second edition published in 1870, Sir George Chesney's book entitled "Indian Polity," in which he said:From whatever point of view the Government is regarded, whether as to population, area or revenue of the country, the magnitude of the public establishments employed, or the extent of the power possessed by the Government, the title of Lieutenant-Governor seems 1800 altogether inappropriate for the head of the administration, and opportunity should be taken to make the titles of these high officials more consonant with their position.Further on he said that:It seems very desirable that the title of Governor should be conferred on officers tolding these important positions, and exercising greater iniluence over the fortunes of their fellow men that is probably possessed by the tiller of any colony.In the third edition of his book published a quarter of a century afterwards, in 1894, by which time he had left India, and had become a Member of Parliament, he rewrote his chapter on the Provincial Governments, and, after describing the magnitude and importance of the North-West Provinces, the Punjab, Central Provinces, Assam and Burmah; and on page 109 he gives his reasons whythe head of all these administrations should be called-what he already is in everything but the name-a governor.Since that date, two further Provinces have been formed in India: namely, the North-West Frontier Province in the Province of Baluchistan. We have therefore added these Local Governments to his list. Anyone who is interested in the subject will I hope read Chapter V. of Sir George Chesney's book for himself. The reasons given by him for the change of name will, I think, be found convincing. Objection has been taken to the proposal on the ground that if you once change the name of Lieutenant-Governor or Chief Commissioner, to that of Governor, the Home Government will at once annex the appointment and put it on the same list as the Governors of the Residencies of Bengal, Madras, and Bombay, but this danger is entirely imaginary, and I would ask the House to look at the principal Act. By Section 46 (2), of the Act, Governors of the Presidencies of Bengal, Madras, and Bombay, are appointed by His Majesty by warrant under the Royal Sign Manual. By Section 54 (1), of the Act, the Governor and Chief Commissioners of Provinces are appointed by the Governor-General, with the approval of His Majesty, and nothing can alter that but a fresh Act of Parliament—and that can be passed in the one case just as well as in the other. The law can be changed by Parliament at any time, whether the man is called a Governor or a Lieutenant-Governor, but till it is so changed he is just as safe when called Governor as he is when called Lieutenant-Governor. If I thought for a moment that by any change of name the appointment of Provincial Governors would be taken out of the hands 1801 of the Governor-General, I would not on any account change the name, but there is no danger of that in the present Bill. Sir George Chesney saw no danger of it, nor do I. I believe there would be no danger whatsoever of these appointments being taken away from the Governor-General and handed over to the Home Government in the event of my Amendment being accepted. I remember seeing one of these high officials in the street, and a man asked, "Who is that?" and the reply was, "Oh he was something in India." That was the remark about a man who had ruled 50,000,000 of men, that he was "something in India." I want to raise the status of these Lieutenant-Governors and to have them called Governors where they really are so. Take the case of Singapore on one side of Siam with a Governor, while on the other side you have Burma, which is twice as big as the United Kingdom, with a Lieutenant-Governor. What is the King of Siam to think. In India, and in the East generally, you have got to exalt your officials and not to lower their status. We all know that in the East they have high sounding titles. In Persia, for instance, you have Governor-Generals, and in China you have Viceroys. When a man is really a Governor he ought to be called a Governor.
Mr. ROBERTSI hope the hon. and gallant Member will not think me impracticable if I cannot accept the fifty-four Amendments which he proposes. This may seem a mere matter of nomenclature, but there is something more behind it. I do not think it is the appropriate place to deal with it in this Bill. There is a real reason for the difference in nomenclature which exists at present. Governors are appointed by the Home Government. They are often politicians from here sent out to Bengal, Madras, and Bombay, while Lieutenant-Governors and Chief Commissioners are appointed by Viceroy, and that difference of name corresponds with the real thing. It is true, as the hon. and gallant Member says, that the mere change of name will not by itself carry with it in its train an alteration in the method of appointment, which would be, of course, a serious alteration. But he must know, and I, at all events, know perfectly well, that there is a very large body of opinion in India which would like to see the Governors in these various Provinces appointed by the Home Government, and not as Lieutenant-Governors are appointed 1802 at present. I think if you change the name you will very much encourage that desire. It is true that Sir George Chesney recommended it, but he recommended that it should take place at a time while administrative changes might be under consideration. He also pointed out that there would be what he called some trifling additional expense. I imagine if you give a new status to the head of those Provinces that that would require a little extra establishment to keep up the extra dignity. That also must be considered. I think the main point is that this is one of those questions which may properly be considered when the time comes for considering them.
§ Colonel YATEWhen will that time come?
Mr. ROBERTSAt the end of the War, I imagine. The hon. and gallant Member shakes his head. I know that it was said on the Consolidation Bill that we should never see an amending Bill. I ventured to disagree. Here I also venture to disagree. I think it will be necessary for those responsible for the government of India to fully consider the changes which are certain to come in the future in India. Though I cannot anticipate, I do venture to say that the changes which the hon. and gallant Member proposes in this long series of Amendments may doubtless be quite properly considered at a time when substantial changes may be taking place, and when, as many would like to sec, there is proposed an increased measure of decentralisation in the Provinces. That may be the right time, but I do not think it is appropriate to this Bill, and for that reason I must ask the hon. Member not to press it.
§ Colonel YATEWill the hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that the matter will be brought forward?
§ Mr. RAWLINSONIt must strike the House that this is not a very satisfactory way of legislating. This matter has been mooted for a long time. This particular Amendment merely gives a certain verbal status to people who certainly deserve it. It is not proposed to alter the way in which the appointment should be made. The Statute makes it perfectly plain that the Governors or Lieutenant-Governors shall be appointed in a particular way. My hon. Friend does not seek to alter that in any way, but he seeks to make an alteration which does count very largely in India. Names go much further in India 1803 than in England. What is the position? The Government bring in a Bill making amendments in the law. I am not complaining of that. But if the Government do that, why should not private Members have an opportunity of bringing in a reform which is very much needed? If the matter does not press, why have the Government brought in a Bill at all? Surely it is not a satisfactory way to deal with the House of Commons, to bring in a Bill very late in the Session without giving us an opportunity of dealing with one or two of these matters. This is a very simple question, and the Government might really deal with it. After all, we are a legislative assembly, even if we do sit after eleven o'clock on an August night, and when a strong case has been made out for an Amendment of this kind, the necessary time should be given to it. Either there is urgency for this Bill or there is not. I have not heard any suggestion of urgency. This is an amending Bill, and I submit that some of my hon. Friend's Amendments should be dealt with, and, if the Government think right, accepted.
§ 11.0 P.M.
§ Sir H. CRAIKEveryone is ready to recognise the validity and strength of the argument that controversial questions should not be raised. But may not that argument be pressed a little too far? What have the Government themselves done? Only last Session they passed an Act covering whole questions of this sort. But they proceeded with such timidity—I suppose from the excessive urgency of not introducing anything which by any chance could be controversial—that they now, within twelve months, have to introduce another Bill, and they refuse to consider questions for the consideration of which this is a favourable opportunity, questions which have been pressed by the highest authorities on India for more than a generation past, which are desired by a very large proportion of the Civil servants in India, and which are of importance in order to improve the prestige and influence of the rulers in India. The hon. Member tells us that this would introduce a new precedent. Does he remember the case of Canada? There are five provinces in Canada, and the Governor of each of them is called "Governor." They are not appointed by the Home Government; they are not appointed out there. The Governor- 1804 General is, of course, appointed from Home, but the Governors of British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, and so on, are appointed out there and are called Governors. That really, as the hon. Member put it, is a matter of enormously less importance than the posts to which the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend refers.
§ Colonel GRETTONMy hon. and gallant Friend deals with this matter from a lifelong experience. We are met here by the plea that, everything put forward is controversial. The Government can make anything controversial. The Amendment is one of substance, and has not received any really serious consideration. The Under-Secretary is, of course, only carrying out the instructions which have been given to him, and is left without that discretion which the Minister himself would have. May I suggest that if we cannot get these matters really seriously considered that further consideration of this measure should be postponed and brought forward when we really can discuss it, and know where we are. Unless we get a more adequate reply—I am sorry to speak in this controversial way—it will be my duty to move, Mr. Whitley, that you report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Mr. ROBERTSI think the hon. Members who are pressing this point so strongly forget for the moment the real facts in reference to this Bill. If it were really a Bill to reform the government of India clearly it would be for the Secretary of State to take charge of the Bill. The only reason he asked me to take charge of it was because I was interested in the Consolidation Bill of last year. In deference to the wishes of the House that Bill was strictly confined to consolidation, with the understanding that there should be in a subsequent Session a minor Bill dealing with non-controversial points, and not raising the problem of the government of India; because if you are going to raise these problems, whether controversial or not, you are entering on an enormous task which certainly could not be undertaken now. The only thing which could be done was to appoint a Joint Committee, and to see in that Joint Committee what proposals were likely to meet with general acceptance. This particular proposal was strongly objected to 1805 in Committee. That is really the case. There was no chance of getting agreement for this Amendment on that Committee, which had on it representatives of large Indian experience. I ask the Committee to realise fully the conditions, and to leave the Bill what it really is—a means of removing the doubts which have arisen in the process of consolidation—and of
The CHAIRMANWith regard to the further Amendments of the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Yate) on the Paper the next thirty-eight go out; the two dealing with the matter of pensions are out of order, because they involve a charge; the next ten also go out; the one dealing with the statutory maximum and 100,000 rupees also involves a charge on the revenues of India and is, therefore, not in order. I come down to the Amendment after "Marine" to insert "Foreign."
§ Colonel YATEI beg to move in Schedule III. of the Act, 1915, after the word "Marine," to insert the word "Foreign."
This is an Amendment in the Third Schedule, and it is provided in Clause 1 of that Schedule that
secretaries, joint secretaries, deputy secretaries, and under secretaries to the
§ dealing with these minor matters which are inevitable if you are dealing with consolidation. We should not attempt to deal with the larger problems.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 9; Noes, 78.
1805| Division No. 54.] | AYES. | [11.8 p.m. |
| Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G. | Hazleton, Richard | Younger, Sir George |
| Batcher, John George | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | |
| Fletcher, John Samuel | Stowart, Gershom | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Gretton, John | Walker, Colonel William Hall | Colonel Yate and Sir Henry Craik. |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke | Higham, John Sharp | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Adamson, William | Hill, James (Bradford, C.) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Hogge, James Myles | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte | Hope, Harry (Bute) | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Robinson, Sidney |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Rowlands, James |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Illingworth, Albert H. | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Jacobsen, Thomas Owen | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) | Shortt, Edward |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W. | Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe) | Spear, Sir John Ward |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney) | Sutton, John E. |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Jowett, F. W. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Byles, Sir William Pollard | Keating, Matthew | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. | King, J. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon) | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Walsh, Stephen (Lance., Ince) |
| Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth) | Layland-Barratt, Sir F. | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) |
| Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) | Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) | Whitley, Rt. Hon. J. H. |
| Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.) |
| Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth) | Mackinder, Halford J. | Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Morgan, George Hay | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Galbraith, Samuel | Newdegate, F. A. | Wing, Thomas Edward |
| Goldstone, Frank | Pratt, J. W. | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow) |
| Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough) | Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. | |
| Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones | Radford, Sir George Heynes | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Helme, Sir Norval Watson | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Mr. Gulland and Lord Edmund |
| Hendry, Denis S. | Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon) | Talbot. |
| Hibbert, Sir Henry F. |
§ several Governments in India, except the secretaries, joint secretaries, deputy secretaries, and under secretaries in the Army, Marine and Public Works Departments."
§ I propose to add the word "Foreign" after "Marine." This question has given considerable trouble in India. A generation ago, Sir Henry Durand was appointed Foreign Secretary in India. The other day we had Sir Henry MacMahon appointed to that office. Owing to this Statute the Viceroy had to refer the matter home, and he had considerable trouble in making the appointment. I think the Secretary of State will agree with me that the Viceroy and the Governor-General in India should be able to appoint as his Foreign Secretary the man that he considers best fitted for the post. The late Viceroy selected Sir Henry MacMahon, whom we will agree was in 1807 every way suitable for the post. It is a great misfortune to curtail the power of the Viceroy in this respect, and I hope that the Secretary of State will agree to the addition of the word "foreign." I have quoted some instances which occur to me at the moment, and doubtless there are others. It is necessary to get the best man as Foreign Secretary in India. You require a man of great experience in all the countries in Central Asia, and whether he is a civilian or a military man who has done political duty you must get the best man available for the post.
§ The SECRETARY Of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain)I am sorry that I was not present at the earlier part of the discussion, but my hon. Friend (Mr. C. Roberts) I am sure has well represented the views of the Government of India and the India Office. He is, in fact, much better conversant with the details of this matter, with which he was associated before I became Secretary, than I am myself. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend, who, if I may say so, has had a very handsome run for his money, will not think it necessary to divide the House on this or his subsequent Amendments. The hon. Member is really asking for something which is quite unnecessary. To deliberately change the Statutes would be to raise a question which would provoke considerable controversy. I am unwilling to do that, but if on a particular occasion it happens that someone is clearly the best man for the post who is not qualified under the ordinary rule, then under Section 100 of the principal Act the appointing authority has power to go outside that rule and appoint that man to the position. It is not therefore really necessary for any practical purpose to make the change my hon. and gallant Friend suggests, and I hope that he will not press it.
§ Question, "That the word 'Foreign,' be there inserted," put, and negatived.
§ Colonel YATEI beg to move at end of paragraph "Section 120" to insert,
1808 The rest of the appointments with which I am dealing, and which are reserved to the members of the Indian Civil Service, are those of the Accountants-General, and the Commissioners of Customs, Salt, Excise, and Opium. These appointments are all reserved to the Indian Civil Service, but is it really in accordance with the fact that the best accountant you can get in India must necessarily belong to the Indian Civil Service? If a man has been in the Accountants Department all his life, he ought to have the opportunity of rising to the top of the tree. An Indian Civil Servant may not necessarily be an expert in any of these matters, but any man, for instance, who has served all his life in the Salt Department ought to have a chance of rising to the top of that department. By this Statute you absolutely debar any man in any of those departments in India from rising to the top of his own particular tree. That is very hard lines. It gives men to hope. If a man goes into the Salt Department—it is a very uninteresting department—it seems to me very hard lines that he should be absolutely debarred from rising to the top of it. These men ought to be given the chance of rising to the top if the Viceroy and Governor-General sees that they are fitted for the position. Under the present rule it is absolutely impossible for them to do so. In these circumstances, I beg to move.
"Schedule III. … Leave out 'Accountants-General.' Schedule III. … Leave out 'Commissioners of Customs, Salt, Excise, and Opium.' Schedule III. … Leave out 'Opium Agent.'"
§ Sir H. CRAIGI have given my assistance, so far as I could, to my hon. and gallant Friend, but in regard to this Amendment I am bound to say that I entirely disagree with him. I think that the privileges of the Indian Civil Service are great enough as they are.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINWhat my hon. and gallant Friend says shows that he does not appreciate what I said before. He is raising a controversial question which I am unwilling to stir up at this moment. He speaks as if we were enacting a new exclusion. We are doing nothing of the kind. He is asking us to proceed to the revision of the existing law, and this is not the time when we ought to do that which would involve a great deal of controversy. There were provisions in the Bill as originally introduced, or one provision, which would have involved a very great deal of controversy, and to which the Government of India attached very great importance. But, under the circumstances, and in view of the controversy which would have been 1809 provoked and the opposition which would have followed, we felt bound to withdraw it, and we did so. I cannot now go out of my way to introduce other contentious matters. Beyond that, I have nothing to say, except in repetition of what I said just now. If I repeat myself it is because my hon. and gallant Friend is BO obsessed with his own opinion that he really does not pay attention to the answers which he solicits. If he will read Section 100, he will find that the case is not as he suggests. There is a strong presumption that these appointments are to go to the Indian Civil Service. But if the case is as he states, namely, that there is some other man who is clearly in the public interest the right person for the position, and he is not a Civil servant, this appointing authority, under Section 100, can put on one side the ordinary practice and, under these special circumstances, appoint the man who, though he does not fulfil the ordinary qualifications, is the best man in the public interest.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Schedules ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed with Amendments.