§ 47. Lieut. - Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the letter written by the Secretary of State for India to Mr. Satyamurthi, a Swarajist member of the Madras Legislative Council; and whether this letter was published with the, consent of the Secretary of State?
§ Mr. RICHARDSThe answer to the first part is in the affirmative and to the second that my noble Friend's consent was neither asked, granted nor refused.
§ Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURYIs not the proper channel for such a communication through the Government of India, and can the hon. Gentleman state whether there is any precedent for an important communication of policy being made by the Secretary of State for India in such an unorthodox manner?
§ Mr. RICHARDSI do not understand that there is anything in the letter beyond what was stated by Noble Friend in his speech in another place.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREIs it not a fact that the new policy announced by the Secretary of State cuts at the root of representation under the existing Statute, and should not an important new declaration of policy of that kind be made in this House rather than to a private individual in India?
§ Viscount CURZONIs it not a fact that Mr. Satyamurthi is an extreme cooperator, and how can he come under the definition of the Secretary of State when he said the Government would cooperate with those who were willing to co-operate with them?
§ Sir HENRY CRAIKIs not this precisely one of the points which was referred to the Joint Committee of the House of Lords and the House of Commons, upon which a Report was made, and before any change of policy is made 14 by the Secretary of State should not the question be again referred to that Joint Committee? I ask the hon. Member to make a statement on that point.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI understand that there is another question on this subject.
§ Sir H. CRAIKIt is quite different.
§ Earl WINTERTONMy question is not on the same subject.
§ Sir H. CRAIKI ask the Under-Secretary for a distinct statement of policy on this point.
§ Mr. RICHARDSIf hon. Members will read the speech which my Noble Friend made in February, they will find all their points mentioned.
§ Sir H. CRAIKIs it not the case that this very question dealt with in the letter was decided in a particular way by the Joint Committee, and that the decision still prevails?
§ Viscount CURZONBefore any action is taken to change the policy, will it be again referred to the Joint Committee? Upon that point the hon. Gentleman has not replied.
§ Mr. RICHARDSI have nothing to add to my answer.
§ Earl WINTERTONI give the hon. Gentleman notice that, in view of the difficulty of extracting any information from him on this point, I shall endeavour to raise this question on the Motion for the Adjournment for the Whitsuntide Recess.