GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL. (Hansard, 5 March 1935)

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. I desire to put a question to the Secretary of State and to offer him an opportunity of giving some information to the Committee. I quoted the other night some extracts from speeches alleged to have been made in the Assembly of the Princes at Bombay, which seemed to show how wide, various, vital and fundamental were the amendments which they would require in the Government of India Bill. The Secretary of State had then no knowledge of what had occurred, but I wish to know whether, in what is practically a week since then, he has been able to obtain and is able to give us further information about the discussion which took place, whether those extracts were accurate, and whether he can tell us anything about the consequential effects which they will necessarily have on the Bill.
I see in the "Morning Post" to-day verbatim reports of speeches by Sir Akbar Hydari and Sir Ramaswami Aiyar which certainly disclose differences with the Government which, if they are to be met, will entail a complete remodelling of the Bill. They already affect Clauses 2, 6 and 8, and we have dealt with them. Unless entirely new information is forthcoming, a case is disclosed for a motion to recommit the Bill in respect of these Clauses, because it is perfectly clear that, if they stand in the form in which they have been passed by the Committee, the Princes will not accept the Bill. Then, according to the arguments of the Government, it is impossible that their scheme can go forward; that is the Government's case. I do not know how many Members have read the report which appears in the "Morning Post" to-day. It seems to me that there ought to be an official report in matters of this kind which become public in this country. Whether they should become public is another matter, but they have become 1774 public, and we are bound to judge the facts as they are presented to us. Anyone who has not read these two columns in the "Morning Post" should really do so without the slightest delay, because it is essential to an appreciation of all the matters which are under discussion. Anyone who has read them will see what a serious position we are in. Take the Clause we are now discussing, Clause 12. Sir Akbar Hydari says: Then there are Clauses 12 and 127, by virtue of which the Governor-General eau at any time really interfere in the internal administration of your States on the ground that you are not doing your federal duties. That is what he is reported to have said. Did he say that? Is this an authentic speech, or is it invented from beginning to end If it be true, then this is a most grave and serious matter. Perhaps the Government are not ready to answer to-day, but they should fix a day in the near future when they will be able to tell us what are the differences between them and the Princes on this Bill, what are the Amendments for which the Princes are asking, and whether, and if so to what extent, they are able to meet those differences. Otherwise, are we not simply wasting our time I Are we not debating the whole Measure upon a false footing? I am advised that the Princes require vital and specific amendments to Clauses 2, 6 and 8, Clause 12— that is the Clause before us this afternoon—paragraphs (a) and (g), Clauses 45, 99, 127, 145, 147 and 156.
Where do we stand? Where do the Government stand? I have no doubt that we can arrive at a perfectly amicable arrangement, because anyone can see the difficulty in which the Government have been placed. To use the words of the "Statesman," that friendly newspaper that always supported them, they have been "duped and misled." Those are the words of the" Statesman." But that may not be the fault of the Government. It is certainly their misfortune, and we have to be careful that it does not become our misfortune. It seems to me that a new situation has arisen, and that the Government should make a comprehensive statement. If these facts are true, they should tell us how they propose to deal with the situation; and if they are not true they should relieve the anxiety of their followers upon the matter at the earliest moment. I am sure it will 1775 be much more simple to deal with this Bill when we know where we are. The Secretary of State said that it was desirable that we should know where we are at the earliest moment. When we know exactly what it is that the Bill is going to be we shall be able to give our attention to it. Meanwhile, I await with the customary respect, and even unusual interest, the answer which I invite from my right hon. Friend.

§ Mr. ISAAC FOOT
May I put a question before the right hon. Gentleman replies 2 When he replies, can he give us any information as to the circumstances in which the debate by the Princes was carried on, and whether his attention has been drawn to the statement made by Sir Ramaswami Aiyar, appearing in the Press on Saturday, that no shorthand note was taken of the debate whatever, and that there was an agreement, before the discussion commenced, that the proceedings should be utterly and completely confidential; and that only the resolutions should be published. How was it in these circumstances that, on the day following the meeting, a part of the debate was purported to be quoted in this House by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill)?

§ The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare)
My right hon. Friend has given me no notice of this question, though I do not in the least demur to that. I welcome, indeed, the opportunity of giving the Committee an immediate answer. Moreover, my right hon. Friend has made the speech he has just delivered three times, and I have given him three answers. I will now give him a fourth answer. I have received by air mail during the weekend a statement from the Princes' Ministers as to the points under discussion. My advisers and I carefully investigated those points, and I can tell my right hon. Friend at once that that careful investigation confirms me in the view which I have stated three times in the course of these Debates, and once at some length a week ago, that all of them can be adjusted. They confirm in every respect the account which I gave when my right hon. Friend moved the adjournment of 1776 the Committee a week ago. He gave the impression in his speech just now that he had discovered a long list of points at issue between the Princes and ourselves. I do not think he can have followed carefully what I said in answer to him a week ago. He will find, if he looks at my answer, that I set out almost detail by detail the points that he has just elaborated. Those are the points under discussion. I gave them to the Committee a week ago, and the Committee then, by an overwhelming majority, took the view that there was no reason why the discussion of those points should delay the further consideration of the Bill. The position to-day is exactly what it was a week ago, with this possible exception, that I have this confirmatory document from the Princes' representatives confirming—yes, I can say confirming in every respect the account that I gave to the House a week ago. My right hon. Friend seems delighted at his discovery in one of the journals to-day of what two of the Princes' representatives are supposed to have said at the Princes' meeting. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) is quite correct in saying that that was a private meeting. No shorthand note was taken at that meeting.

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
I say that is directly contradicted.

§ Sir S. HOARE
Where?

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
In the "Morning Post."

§ Sir S. HOARE
I think I cannot do better than read the statements that have actually been made by the two Ministers whose speeches are supposed to have been reported in the "Morning Post" this morning. Here is Sir It. Ramaswami Aiyar:— Madras, 1st March. Accounts published in London of speeches by certain Princes and Ministers at the important secret meeting earlier this week in Bombay in which the India Bill was discussed were referred to by Sir Ramaswami Aiyar, one of those present, in an interview here today. I have noticed,' he said, that Mr. Churchill, in the House of Commons, purports to quote some remarks alleged to have been made by me and others. All I can say is, speaking for myself, that our speeches were, to my knowledge, not taken down in shorthand, and the proceedings, as apart from the resolutions, were 1777 agreed by everyone to be treated as strictly confidential. In these circumstances I am surprised at the so-called quotations made by Mr. Churchill in -the House of Commons.' I come now to Sir Akbar Hydari: My speech at the confidential States meeting on Monday was entirely extempore, and I have neither passed nor even seen any record of it. Mr. Churchill's quotations have not been wired here, but I can emphatically deny the truth of any report which represents me as having been opposed to federation at that meeting or in the Ministers' meetings. On the contrary, I concluded my speech with emphatic and unequivocal remarks to this effect, that I was from the very beginning, and continued to be, a strong federationist, and if there were certain provisions in the present Bill that were not acceptable to us, I would press and press again upon the Government here and in England for their satisfactory amendment, so that Federation may materialise on the lines which we fully believed had already been agreed at the previous conferences and discussions. You can make use of this statement. That, certainly, does not appear to be the statement of one of the Princes' representatives who regards the gulf between us and the Princes as being unbridgeable. It is obviously the statement of a man than whom none is better able to speak on the question of Indian Federation, the representative of the greatest State in India, the man who has taken a closer interest in All-India. Federation than, probably, almost any Indian. It does not appear to be the statement of a man who does not regard the differences at issue as adjustable.

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will tell us—perhaps he is going to deal with the point—whether the verbatim reports which appeared in the "Morning Post" are authentic or not?

§ Sir S. HOARE
I do not know so much as my right hon. Friend. He seems to know a great deal about this.

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
I know what I read in the newspapers.

§ Sir S. HOARE
Perhaps he can give us some further information on the subject.

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
Has my right hon. Friend read them?

§ Sir S. HOARE
I have. I know no more than my right hon. Friend; in fact, I am under the impression that I know a great deal less.

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
I have no knowledge at all except what appears in the public Press—none whatever. I was favoured with an advance copy the night before of what was to be published the next morning. I have no other knowledge at all. But here are verbatim reports of two columns' length in the greatest detail, and it seems inconceivable that they could have been fabricated or invented. I want to know whether they are true or not. If they are true, then the modest disclaimer to help the Government out of their difficulty and the Minister round the corner, has absolutely no relevance to the importance of the case disclosed.

§ Sir S. HOARE
There is no question of helping the Secretary of State round the corner or getting the Government out of their difficulty. It is the comment of the two men who have been quoted in the "Morning Post" as to what actually took place. I would have thought that they are much -better qualified to give an, accurate version of what took place than anybody else. Let us assume, to please my right hon. Friend, that these reports are accurate.

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
Hear, hear!

§ Sir S. HOARE
The right hon. Gentleman is delighted about that.

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
I did not say whether I was delighted or not.

§ Sir S. HOARE
I gathered from the expression on my right hon. Friend's face that he generally agreed. Anyhow, let us assume that they are accurate. That does not in the least alter the position I explained a week ago. They set out, detail by detail, the very points of which I informed the Committee a week ago, and with the general approval of the great majority of the Committee I stated that they were points which could be adjusted. I still maintain that position, and when we come to the Clauses in which these points occur, I can explain the position to the Committee. As to the earlier Clauses, amendments may or may not he necessary as a result of our further discussions, but I do not at all accept the view that even if we adjusted all these details—and I hope we shall adjust them—it would be necessary to remodel the Bill. My whole position is that they are points which can and ought to be adjusted within the frame 1779 work of the Bill, and I have every hope that during the course of these discussions I shall be able to prove that to the Committee.

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question as to whether at this meeting of the Princes in Bombay the speeches were taken down in shorthand or not? There appears to be a direct conflict of testimony. The two Ministers he has quoted say that their speeches were not taken down. Some explanation is usually forthcoming in a case of discrepancy of that kind. Will the right hon. Gentleman also say whether these transcripts have been forwarded to the Viceroy? Surely he can inquire of the Viceroy whether it is true that 'he has received a, report of what happened; and, if so, surely he can lay it before the House later on?

§ Sir S. HOARE
I will certainly inquire of the Viceroy, but I will tell my right hon. Friend now that, so far as my present information goes, no transcript was taken, and no transcript was sent to the Viceroy, but, as I say, I have no official knowledge of what actually happened at a meeting which was confidential and private. I will make further inquiries, but, as I say, according to the information at present at my disposal, I, believe I am right and my right hon. Friend is wrong.

§ Sir WILLIAM DAVISON
May I point out to the Secretary of State that what he has said to the Committee is a direct confirmation of the statement made in this morning's paper, because it is quite true that Sir Akbar Hydari, after saying in this speech that his objections were fundamental and referring to Clause 6 as an appalling Clause, or some such word, and he could not imagine how it could have been inserted in the Bill, he ends up quite a long speech by saying that he is still most desirous of having federation, and that he hopes the Government will see reason, and will remove these Clauses from the Bill, or entirely alter their effect. What the Secretary of State has said seems to me to confirm, on the face of it, what is reported in the paper which I have in my hand. We are not here discussing whether the "Morning Post" was entitled to publish this report or not, or whether it got it by illicit 1780 means. What the House is anxious to know is, are the statements correct or incorrect?
As a, back bencher, I venture to suggest to the powers-that-be that the House is being placed in a very anomalous, and, I would almost say, farcical position in discussing these important Clauses before we know Whether the Princes are going to accept them in this form or not. We were told that federation would never have been suggested had not the Princes agreed to come in. If that is so, surely we want to know before going on with this Bill what are the fundamental conditions in the present Bill to which the Princes object, and what are the terms in which they are coming in. Otherwise this procedure is being reduced to an absurdity. We ought to know what conditions the Princes lay down. We are told that Clauses 6 and 12 are quite impossible for them to consider without fundamental alterations, and we ought to know what are the fundamental alterations which the Princes demand.

§ Mr. ATTLEE
We are going to be placed, I think, in a very great difficulty if after, as I understood, we all came to a decision with regard to the discussion of this Bill, we are to have a Motion to report Progress in order to discuss what appears in the "Morning Post." I am not aware, of what appears in the "Morning Post," but I think we have had quite enough already about discussions in party meetings and party newspapers. I think it is an abuse of the practice of the House for the right hon. Gentleman to get up and again make, as I understand he has done several times already, a speech on a particular point. If so, we had better face the fact that the idea of carrying on the discussion so that various points of view can be put forward, is being entirely destroyed. There are several important points which my hon. Friends and I wish to put forward, but, if this kind of thing goes on, the whole arrangement will break down.

§ Mr. ISAAC FOOT
I only want to ask that the House shall at least have justice done to it in this respect. On Thursday last the right hon. Gentleman quoted from certain typewritten papers. He quoted what were supposed to be 1781 statements made in the course of the Princes' meeting. That information was not then in the possession of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State. We have heard since from two of the Princes, or at least two Princes' representatives who were then quoted, that they gave no authority for the publication of those statements, and, in fact, they made an express disclaimer. I thought when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) rose to-day, he was rising to apologise to the Committee for occupying the time of the Committee with statements which should never have been issued, except as a result of a breach of faith on someone's part. It is quite clear, and it is stated in terms by Mr. Akbar Hydari and Sir Ramaswami Aiyar, that no shorthand notes were taken. Sir Akbar Hydari spoke extempore, and, apparently, they objected to statements being made on the Floor of this House which were directly attributed to them by the right hon. Gentleman. If he has these subterranean methods of communication with India, or any methods of communication—I will withdraw the word "subterranean"—I think it was his duty to-day to explain to the Committee why they had been misled in listening to speeches behind which there was no authority. Surely he, above all people, will recognise the difficulty of discussing any statements unless they are authorised. He himself has written to the "Times" to-day showing that the mere mistake—and very natural mistake—of using the word "study" instead of the word "state" reduces his statement to the House of Commons, in his own words, to nonsense. If such a mistake can be made here, surely he will see what difficulty there may be in a conflict arising out of reports which are repudiated by those to whom he has attributed them. Instead of occupying the time of the Committee with this further Motion, I think the best thing that he can do is to apologise for having misled the Committee, and promise that in future he will deal with the relevant questions which are before them.

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
If I had misled the Committee, wittingly or unwittingly, I should certainly make my disclaimer and apologise, but I have done nothing of the sort. I quoted certain extracts 1782 which were placed in my hands. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] They were given to me by the "Morning Post," and were to appear in the paper next morning. They appeared to be authentic and to be highly relevant to the particular Clause, and I thought at the time that I was not only justified in bringing them to the attention of the Committee, but was bound to do so. I do say, and, in fact, after a week has passed, it is found that these extracts are accurate and authentic. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If the hon. Gentleman would read the repeated—the alleged—speeches, he would see that they bear the mark of genuineness and authenticity in every line. All that I have to ask is that the Government should say whether these speeches are authentic or not. The hon. Gentleman argued just now as though he did not care what was the truth. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, he argued as though he did not wish this point pressed as to whether these grave matters have in fact been said by the important Indian ministers to whom I have referred. We ought to know the truth. What are we debating here for, unless to find out the truth and to place our debates on a fair and reasonable basis?
I am far from having reached the end of this matter, and I hope and trust that when the report is in due course received by the Viceroy, to whom I am informed it has been sent, the right hon. Gentleman will endeavour to lay the facts before the Committee in a White Paper. Until he does, or until he contradicts this matter in the same definite manner in which the speeches are repudiated and we know exactly in what terms they are repudiated and what lines and what paragraphs are inaccurate, I shall accept them as accurate and true and shall argue upon that basis. I hope and trust that the right hon. Gentleman will endeavour to place the Committee at an early date upon that reasonable basis.
The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) has been indisposed for the last 10 days. I am sorry if one of the symptoms of what we now see is a happy convalescence should be bad temper. If the hon. Gentleman had been fortunate enough to enjoy his usual health and to be present at the Debates he would have seen how admirably they 1783 had been conducted, how sensible has been the feeling on every side that there was no obstruction, and also how admirably his colleagues have filled his place in his absence. He would then not have gone out of his way, on no information, and not having been in touch with the Committee and its work, to deliver such a very striking and dictatorial lecture !to me. How much time has been taken up? Half-an-hour has been occupied in raising these extremely important matters, which he will find will be examined and reported in all parts of the country, and very much more than some of the orations with which the hon. Gentleman will presently favour us.

§ Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE
On a point of Order. In the cablegram which has been read from Sir Akbar Hydari there was the statement that certain paragraphs in the Bill were not acceptable to the Princes. I suggest that we ought to know what those paragraphs are.

§ Sir S. HOARE
I had already stated them.

§ The CHAIRMAN
Let me deal with a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) moved to report Progress on grounds which I thought were quite sufficient and something quite different from the grounds or the continuation of the grounds upon which he moved a similar Motion about a week ago. That Motion was made and decided upon, and therefore there are two reasons why certain arguments are outside the present discussion, one is that the discussion should not merely be a repetition and the other is that it must not deal with a matter which has already been decided by the Committee.

§ Mr. SOMERVILLE
The position is altered, because the Secretary of State has received cablegrams from certain ministers to the Princes. Is it not in order to put a question to him in regard to those cablegrams? The question I was going to put is whether the Secretary of State knows the provisions mentioned by Sir Akbar Hydari, whether they are important or whether they are minor points capable of adjustment. In 1784 any case, I submit that it will be only fair—

§ The CHAIRMAN
That is the exact question debated a week ago.

§ Mr. MAXTON
I do not want to take up time on this matter because, with the other parties to the agreement, I agreed to facilitate the passage of this Measure. I am not so impressed by what the Princes do or do not think; that will not influence the least little bit my judgment on the various Clauses of the Bill. Indeed, the things to which they object most would be those which I would be most inclined to do. The point I wish to raise with the Secretary of State—and I put this as a Member of the Committee—is how it comes about that on the last occasion when there was a Motion to report Progress, and again to-day, he, as Secretary of State for India, seems to be less well-informed upon what has actually happened upon the spot in matters vitally affecting the legislation which this Committee are discussing? He seems to be less well-informed and always some days behind an unofficial Member of the House, of great importance and with great influence in this House, who is showing a very active interest in the matter, yet not holding office and without the means of communication that are available to the Secretary of State, and without responsible officers on the spot such as are available to the right hon. Gentleman. His information, as he has told us, comes through a perfectly legitimate, if not very reputable channel, the "Morning Post." I want to ask the Secretary of State for India why it is, when we are honestly trying to use our judgment on this Measure, that we who are not tied to a mere voting machine but are willing to listen to the discussion of each issue and cast our votes as we are persuaded the greater amount of justice and common sense lies, cannot get from the Secretary of State on the day when the matter comes before the House, authentic and definite information as to what has been done by people who are actively concerned in the matter in India.
Is there something wrong with his staff? Has he not men on the spot, or was this meeting of the Indian Princes not a matter of sufficient concern for him to 1785 take the step in reference to it that was taken by an English daily journal? If a group of Indian strikers in Bombay or Calcutta were holding a meeting, even though it were in secret, the Secretary of State for India, as we have had experience, would have knowledge of the matter. He can get right into the innermost secrets of trade union gatherings or gatherings of revolutionary agitators, but when it comes—

§ The CHAIRMAN
I would remind the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) of the very strict rule that when this Motion has been made the Debate must be strictly limited to the Motion.

§ Mr. MAXTON
I am sorry. The simple point that I was making—I conclude on it—is that we have had ample proof in our work that the Secretary of State for India is not devoid of means of getting exact information when he desires to get it. Why is it that such information is not available on this matter at the time when Members of the Committee can make use of it?

§ Sir S. HOARE
I respond at once to the question of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). There are some things that the Secretary of State cannot do. One thing he cannot do is to break confidence. This was a confidential meeting. I had no means of breaking into that privacy even if I had wished to do so. I can only deal with authorised information when it comes to me, and I am dealing with authorised information. I have had the authorised statement of the Princes' ministers and, as I said just now, I am dealing with it. If the Princes themselves communicate further with the Viceroy I shall deal with that communication. One thing that the Secretary of State cannot do is to deal with unauthorised information of this kind, and I do not believe that the hon. Member for Bridgeton would expect me to do so.

Duchess of ATHOLL
May I ask the Secretary of State whether he does not see a considerable similarity between the report which he has read to us and what Sir Akbar Hydari says in the report published in the "Morning Post"? Might not what he read be a report watered down for public consumption of a much 1786 franker statement made at the meeting? Secondly, can the Secretary of State find in the statement which he read from Sir Ramaswami Aiyar any denial of this speech as reported in the "Morning Post"? I can find none. I have heard the extract which the right hon. Gentleman has read, and I read it carefully when it was published in the "Morning Post." I can find no denial—no statement whatever that he did not make the statements attributed to him, but merely that he understood that there was no reporter present. That is not enough.

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
I am going to ask leave to withdraw my Motion. I think this discussion has shown the usefulness of this procedure in bringing important matters into Parliamentary discussion. May I in doing so suggest to the Secretary of State a perfectly simple course that he can take. I suggest that he should take this good advice; when the English newspapers, or some of them, contain long reports purporting to be verbatim accounts of speeches delivered at this confidential meeting, those reports, if they are not true, should be contradicted, and if they are true he should decide whether it is not desirable that the whole of the proceedings should be published, or at any rate than an official report of the proceedings should be made and communicated to the Viceroy. The Secretary of State is in touch with the Princes; he should put this to them and point out that some of their confidential matters had been disclosed apparently and that it is desirable that we should have fuller information on the matter for Parliament.

§ Sir S. HOARE
I am not prepared, so long as I am in this office, to have my telegrams to the Viceroy drafted for me by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). I have placed this matter frankly before the Committee, and I have nothing to add to what I said.

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
In spite of the refusal of the right hon. Gentleman to clear this matter up in any way, or to elicit more information which might be unwelcome to him, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.