§
The following Amendments shall be made in Section three of the principal Act in relation to the composition of the Council of India, the qualification, term of office, and remuneration of its members:
(1) The provisions of Sub-section (1) shall have effect as though "eight" and "twelve" were substituted for "ten" and "fourteen" respectively, as the minimum and maximum number of members, provided that the tenure of office of any person who is a member of the council at the time of the passing of this Act shall not be affected by this provision.
§ Colonel YATEI beg to move, at the end of paragraph (1), to insert the words 766
The provisions of Sub-section (2) should have effect as though 'His Majesty in Council' were substituted for 'the Secretary of State.'Section 2 of the original Act provides that the right of filling a vacancy on the Council shall be vested in the Secretary, of State. I desire that in future the right of filling a vacancy shall in future be vested in His Majesty in Council, and not in the Secretary of State. It is most important that the Council should be appointed by His Majesty in Council. His Majesty is the Emperor of India and is looked up to by all the Indians, and if you want to make the Indian Council a real body working under His Majesty in Council, His Majesty in Council should appoint the members.
§ Mr. FISHERI hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will not press his Amendment. On reflection he will find that there is no substantial advantage in it. The Amendment, if accepted, would only create further complications without altering the situation as it exists under the text of the Bill. If the Amendment were accepted His Majesty in Council would make the appointments presumably on the recommendation of the Secretary of State for India. In fact the appointments would be made by the Secretary of State for India. It is true that there would be a formal change, but there would be no other change.
§ Colonel YATEI cannot agree to that. In my opinion it would be a matter of great pride to India that these members of the Council should be appointed by His Majesty in Council. The question should be most seriously considered.
Amendment negatived.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ Colonel WEDGWOODI want to know why the Council of India should be retained? Speaking in the Mesopotamia Debate the Secretary of State gave reasons why the Council of India should not be retained.
§ Mr. MONTAGUCan you quote?
§ Colonel WEDGWOODYes—
Even if the House of Commons has to give orders to the Secretary of State the Secretary of State is not his own master. In matters vitally affecting India he can be over-ruled by a majority of his Council.He goes on to say,And these gentlemen are appointed for seven years, and can only be controlled by the Houses 767 of Parliament, by a Resolution carried by both Houses or Parliament calling for their resignation. The whole system of the India Office is so designed as to prevent control by the House of Commons.What I want is an explanation of that, and why, seeing that everybody in the India Office knows the right hon. Gentleman's views of this Council, he now accepts the idea of the Council of State and prevents the India Office from being, as it should be, the exact parallel to the Colonial Office. We want India to become ultimately just what Australia is to-day; we want our control over India to be as great or as little as it is over Australia. The presence of this Council of India differentiates, in a way that is not flattering to India, between the cases of India and of the rest of the Colonies of the Empire.
§ Mr. MONTAGUI feel bound, even at this late hour, to answer my hon. and gallant Friend as shortly and as conclusively as I can. The Council of India, which is now to be used is a very different Council of India from that which was then under consideration. It is to be appointed for a shorter term, and it is to be paid out of moneys voted by Parliament, and, therefore, to some extent it will be controlled by Parliament. In these ways it loses many of the features I commented on in the speech quoted. Further than that, you cannot have a Secretary of State for India in the position of a Secretary of State for the Colonies until you have responsible government in India. My experience is that gentlemen in India always want the Secretary of State to interfere with the Government of India when they are in agreement with the Secretary of State, and always want him not to interfere when they are in agreement with the Government. I hope questions will not come home when a Governor in India is in harmony with his Legislature. When he is not, the Secretary of State will have to take more control over events in India than the Secretary of State for the Colonies has over the self-governing Dominions. If he is going to do that, he cannot and ought not to act without expert advice. There are not many occasions when the collective voice of the Council is of much importance one way or the other, but the individual assistance of councillors is absolutely indispensable. One of my great objections to the India Office procedure was that too 768 much emphasis was laid upon the collective Council. The Amendments made in other parts of the Bill will enable the Council to function much more individually. I think that the Council has been enormously improved, and the invaluable experience of the councillors is being retained. Therefore no useful object, but a great disservice to the Government of India would be achieved if it were abolished.
§ Colonel YATEMay I say how glad I am at the testimony of the right hon. Gentleman to the usefulness of the Council of India? I hope, considering what the right hon. Gentleman has said, that he will give favourable consideration to the other Amendments which I have on the Paper, and that he will try to get men fresh from India to the Council and substitute three years' absence from India for five.
Question put, and agreed to.