§ The Secretary of State in Council may, notwithstanding anything in the principal Act, by rule regulate and restrict the exercise of the powers of superintendence, direction, and control, vested in the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State in Council, by the principal Act, or otherwise, in such manner as may appear necessary or expedient in order to give effect to the purposes of this Act.
§ Before any Rules are made under this Section relating to subjects other than transferred subjects, the rules proposed to be made shall be laid in draft before both Houses of Parliament, and such rules shall not be made unless both Houses by resolution approve the draft either without modification or addition, or with modifications or additions to which both Houses agree, but upon such approval being given the Secretary of State in Council may make such rules in the form in which they have been approved, and such rules on being so made shall be of full force and effect.
§ Any other rules shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and if an Address is presented to His -Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next, thirty days on which that House has sat after the rules are laid before it praying that the rules or any of them may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the rules or any of them, and those rules shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODI beg to move, after the word "be" ["rules shall be laid"], to insert the words
submitted to a Standing Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament to consider Indian affairs, and if approved by a majority of such Committtee shall then be.This refers to the Rules, and I want to have referred to Parliament those affecting the franchise proposals, so that we may have the chance of considering them when they are framed. The first part of the Clause says that the Secretary of State may "by rule regulate and restrict the exercise of the powers of superintendence direction, and control, vested in the Secretary of State," and so on. The next part of the Clause says that such Rules are to be submitted, not to a Standing Joint Committee, but to Parliament, and 770 I want brought into the ambit of this Clause the Rules and Regulations dealing with the franchise.
§ Mr. MONTAGUI much appreciate my hon. and gallant Friend's object, but I do not think he has chosen the right way to affect it. You cannot, I think, legislate for a Standing Committee of both Houses, because a Joint Committee is set up by the vote of each House each Session. What I offer on behalf of His Majesty's Government is that there shall be a motion brought in in each House to appoint such a Standing Committee at the beginning of next Session. It is quite inconceivable that Parliament will allow these Rules to be brought before them until they have been considered by the Standing Committee which they have appointed for the purpose. This Committee will be charged by Parliament to investigate on its behalf these Indian affairs. Some of the Rules under Clause 33 are to be brought up for affirmative Resolution by both Houses, because they are intended to limit the responsibility of the Secretary of State to Parliament, and, therefore, they ought clearly not to be made without the affirmative Resolution of both Houses. I do not think that applies to any other Rule. I will give my hon. and gallant Friend this undertaking that is due from me to him. I promise that before the Rules are made embodying the franchise, in which he is so interested, I will submit them to this House for approval, and give Members of this House an opportunity of making Amendments.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODThe right hon. Gentleman must understand that submitting them to a Joint Committee is not much satisfaction to me, as I am not on the Joint Committee.
§ Mr. MONTAGUBut how does the hon. and gallant Gentleman know that Parliament will not appoint him to the next Standing Committee? That is a matter for Parliament.
Amendment negatived.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. STEWARTI had a Motion down to leave out the Clause, my object being to ascertain what would happen in certain circumstances if the Secretary of State divested himself, as he proposes to 771 do, of his authority. As probably India will claim full fiscal autonomy under this Bill, what will be the position? Supposing India were to declare full fiscal autonomy, and try to make a bargain with some other country, giving that country better terms than she was prepared to offer this country? If the Secretary of State divests himself of all his powers, will India be able to legislate in this way, and will it not mean the breaking-up of any system of Preference, the principle of which the present Government have accepted in a tentative form? I merely suggest that, for the Secretary of State to destroy his authority in this way is altogether unnecessary.
§ Mr. MONTAGUI do not think fiscal autonomy conies into this Clause at all; it is merely concerned with such matters as allowing the Government of India to act in administrative matters when it is in agreement with the Legislative Councils. All measures connected with fiscal questions will be Bills, and all Bills will have to receive the sanction of the Crown. The King has a veto over all legislation, and therefore nothing that can be done under Section 33 will, I think, be likely to affect that matter. I wish it were otherwise, because if there is anybody in this House who thinks we ought still to manipulate the tariffs of India in the interests of any part of Great Britain I should like to test that by a Division. My hon. Friend says, "How are we to guarantee that India will not manipulate her affairs to the advantage of somebody else?" What guarantee have we that Australia will not do the same? There is nothing which would do us so much harm as the slightest suspicion that we want to alter the tariffs of India in the interests of British trade. We have the solidarity of the Empire to depend upon, and the Imperial goodwill, which has always been developed by mutual trust, and I think my hon. Friend is perfectly right to have raised this question, which ought to be decided, but I do not think it can be decided under this Bill.
§ Mr. STEWARTI am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his information. I was not advocating—
§ Mr. MONTAGUI am quite sure of that.
§ Mr. STEWARTI merely asked, so that we should know where we stood.
§ Mr. MONTAGUI hope the hon. Member did not think I was accusing him.
Question put, and agreed to.