HC Deb 24 February 1921 vol 138 cc1147-50
Viscount CURZON

I desire to ask you, Sir, a question with regard to the ruling given yesterday on a question in reference to India. I asked a question with reference to a certain man in India, and whether certain statements made about him were correct. You replied that it did not seem to be a matter for Parliament, but one for the Legislative Council. The hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) then asked: Is it not a matter for this House to know whether a man responsible for the Government of India, who has been appointed to high office under the Crown, is a convicted rebel? I submit that we are entitled to that information. You said that the House having practically given the Home Rule, or something in the nature of Home Rule, to these councils, the less it interfered with the councils the better. When a country has been given Home Rule, are we to understand that no further questions may be asked about the details of administration in that country?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

May I call your attention to a section of the Act passed the year before last? Section 4 enacts that the Governor of a Governor's Province may, by notification, appoint ministers, not being members of his Executive, and so on. The Governor of this Province was an officer appointed by the Crown, and for the, appointment of that officer the Secretary of State is clearly responsible. I submit that under the terms of that section, this minister having been appointed by the Governor of the Province, who was appointed by the Secretary of State here, we are entitled to ask questions of the Secretary of State as to the conduct of his own appointment.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE

Is it not also laid down that the Ministers so appointed are responsible to the Local Legislature and removable by the Provincial Council. If that be so, would not a deadlock be reached at once if Ministers were appointed to an Indian Province and had not the confidence of the Provincial Assembly of that province. Therefore, is it not impossible for two Legislative Chambers to attempt to share such responsibility, and will it not have to be made quite clear whether the Indian Ministers are responsible to the Provincial Councils or to this House. It must be one or the other; both cannot possibly exercise the responsibility.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS

My hon. Friend has not quoted the Section, which goes on to say: Any Ministers so appointed shall hold office during his (the Governor's) pleasure.

Sir H. CRAIK

Might I, as a member of the Joint Committee, point out that the nomination of these Ministers is in the hands of the Governor, but we were repeatedly assured that the Governor would be responsible to the Secretary of State. That is quite independent of the methods that may be used by the Assembly for removing such Ministers. The original appointment of the Ministers is in the hands of the Governor, and the Governor is responsible to the Secretary of State, who is answerable to this House.

Mr. SPEAKER

The Noble Lord asked me a general question, and I pray in aid, in reply, the legal phrase, "Dolus latet in generalibus." I will not answer it in general terms. I will only say that it must depend in each case upon the events into which it is desired to inquire, and upon the questions which are put. We are now commencing a new era in India, and it appeared to me yesterday, and still appears so to me to-day, that it would be extremely undesirable if this House were to attempt to undertake the function of controlling or criticising the Ministers who are responsible to the newly created legislative bodies. After all, the Ministers, however chosen, however selected, are the Ministers of those legislative bodies, they presumably have their confidence, their salaries are voted by them. Talk of dyarchy! It would indeed be dyarchy if we supervised those Ministers as well as the legislative councils to whom they are responsible. For that reason I think that we had far better begin by abstaining from asking questions and criticising the Ministers who have been duly selected by the Governor, under the Statutory Powers which this House has given him for that purpose.

Sir H. CRAIK

On the point of Order. May I say, with great respect, that the question raised was not in regard to any criticism of the action of the Minister, who is now responsible to the Assembly in India. A question was raised with regard to the action of the Governor, who is subject to the Secretary of State. The question had relation, not to the action of the Minister, but solely to the action of the Governor in appointing the Minister; and we contend that the Governor, in so doing, was responsible to the Secretary of State, and, through him, to this House.

Mr. SPEAKER

The question was intended to hit the Minister through the body of the Governor.

Sir W. DAVISON

My question was, was it a fact that the Governor had appointed to a Ministry in the Punjab a gentleman who had been convicted of rebellion against the Crown; and, as the Governor was appointed on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, I thought that that was a question which might be asked in this House.

Viscount CURZON

The question that I asked the Minister was, was it a fact, as stated, that this man was a convicted rebel, and that he held jurisdiction over a largo number of Europeans? The statement appeared in the Press that he was a convicted rebel, and I wanted to know for information, whether it was so or not. To that you replied that it did not seem to be a matter for this Parliament. May I now ask whether I was entitled to have the information for which I asked, without any reference to criticising the action of anyone?

Mr. SPEAKER

If you say that a man is a convicted rebel, I think you criticise him. You do not do him any good.

Mr. DEVLIN

Do I understand that a rebel is entitled to be a Minister if he is not convicted?

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is leading me into deep waters.