HC Deb 19 November 1919 vol 121 cc883-6
1. Mr. OMAN

asked the Secretary of State for India how many Indian witnesses from the Punjab were examined before the Joint Committee on the Government of India Bill, and how many from Bengal?

The SECRETARY Of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu)

I think the hon. Member will find from the documents already published that the Committee examined one witness from the Punjab and three from Bengal.

Mr. OMAN

May I ask whether one Indian witness is considered an adequate representation for that, Province of India which gave more to the War than any other Province—which gave 350,000 men to the Anglo-Indian Army; also whether that single witness was—as I am assured on good authority—chosen because he happened to be in London and was not the witness designated from the Province?

Mr. MONTAGU

I think the hon. Member will see that the Committee had the advantage of two Memoranda from the Punjab State as well as the witness. I am not responsible for the selection of witnesses before the Committee. It is for the Committee to decide who shall be called, and I am only one member of the Committee. The hon. Member had better raise his criticisms in the Debate on the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL

Is the right hon. Gentleman a believer in the principle that all decisions come to by Committees should be upheld in this House?

2 and 3. Mr. OMAN

asked the Secretary of State for India (1) whether representatives of the Landholders and Zemindars Association of Madras who wished to oppose the Government of India Bill were refused leave to appear before the Committee and forced to leave London unheard, although a hearing was granted to the recently-interned disloyalist Mrs. Besant;

(2) Why Mrs. Besant, a recently interned disloyalist, appeared as a witness before the Joint Committee on the Government of India Bill; and whether her appearance was at her own request or by the desire of the said Committee?

Mr. MONTAGU

I will answer these two inquiries of the hon. Member together Mr. Besant and a representative of the Landholders and Zemindars Association of Madras were summoned by and appeared before the Joint Committee. As an individual member of that Committee I have no authority to attempt to state the reasons which guided them in deciding them to summon, or not to summon, particular witnesses.

Mr. OMAN

Is this gentleman, writing from Madras, correct when he says that, although he came to London for the special purpose of being a witness before the Committee, it was decided that the number of witnesses must be limited and he had to leave London without being heard?

Sir J. D. REES

Is it not the case there were more witnesses from Madras than from any other Province of India?

Colonel WEDGWOOD

Why should the landowners of Madras have more special representatives before the Committee than any other class?

Mr. MONTAGU

I never heard before that the weight of evidence before a Committee was judged by the number of witnesses. The Madras Zemindars' and Landholders' Association, if my memory serves me right, did apply to be heard before the Joint Committee, and the Committee heard a representative of the Association.

Mr. OMAN

Was the Secretary for India well acquainted with the previous history of Mrs. Besant, and will he state in what capacity she was heard before the Committee?

Mr. MONTAGU

Mrs. Besant applied as a member of a deputation sent over to this, country by certain Indian associations, and the Committee were of opinion that her previous history—which I imagine was known to everybody—was not relevant.

Colonel YATE

Was Mrs Besant's name included in the list of names the right hon. Gentleman handed in?

Mr. MONTAGU

I think in almost every case the witnesses who were heard before the Committee applied to the Secretary of the Committee to be heard. The only exceptions were the witnesses suggested to me by my hon. and gallant Friend, whose names I suggested in turn to the Committee.

5. Colonel YATE

asked the Secretary of State for India whether, considering that the evidence taken by the Joint Select Committee on the Government of India Bill is not to be published till the Report of that Committee is published, he will state what period of time is to be allowed to the House for the perusal of all the papers after the publication of the Report and evidence before the Bill is brought up for consideration by the House?

Mr. MONTAGU

The Bill, the Report, and the Evidence have already been published; the proceedings of the Committee will be published to-morrow. The rest of the question should be addressed to the Leader of the House.

Colonel YATE (by Private Notice)

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will state what time is to be allowed to the House for the perusal of all the papers published today with the Report of the Joint Select Committee on the Government of India Bill before the Bill is brought up for consideration in Committee of the Whole House?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House)

Since I have received my hon. and gallant Friend's question, I have not had time to consult with the Secretary of State for India. We feel that this Bill must be pressed forward, and we hope that it can be passed through both Houses before Christmas. We hops to take it early next week, but if my hon. and gallant Friend will put his question again to-morrow I shall give a definite answer.

Back to