HL Deb 16 February 1915 vol 18 cc513-27
*EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON

My Lords, I pass to the second Question which stands in my name on the Paper and which is also addressed to the Secretary of State for India—namely, to ask the noble Marquess whether he cares to make an explanatory statement concerning the Proclamation laid on the Table of the House on the 2nd instant for creating an Executive Council for the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh. This Question relates to a matter which may appear of relatively small importance. But those noble Lords who remember the prolonged discussions that we had upon the India Councils Bill in 1909 and the large part that this question of the creation of Executive Councils played in that discussion will realise, as indeed any one who has had official experience of India will realise even more fully, that it is a matter of great importance in that country.

May I briefly explain the circumstances under which I put this question upon the Paper? When the Bill of 1909, which represented the proposals of the noble Viscount (Lord Morley) and of the late Lord Minto for the introduction of reforms in the administration of India, came to this House it contained a clause—Clause:No. 3—which empowered the Government of India, with the approval of the Secretary of State in Council, to create by Proclamation an Executive Council for any Province administered by a Lieutenant-Governor in India. It was further proposed, and was not contested here, to take immediate advantage of that provision in the case of Lower Bengal. The noble Viscount will bear me out when I say that, while your Lordships as a House received the general provisions of his Bill with much sympathy and did their best to assist it into law, this particular clause excited a good deal of not unnatural criticism and objection. It was pointed out by some of us, I remember, at the time, that the Government of India in their Despatch of October, 1908, which was the basis of the proposals of the noble Viscount, had said that it would be premature to discuss the creation of Executive Councils in the Provinces and that a large departure from the present system of administration could only be recommended after the fullest consideration and consultation with the heads of the Provinces concerned. Nevertheless the noble Viscount, in the exercise of his, discretion, had included this clause in the Bill.

In the Second Reading debate which took place in March, 1909, several noble Lords who had great experience of Indian administration, including the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition, Lord Harris, and Lord MacDonnell, expressed a very decided preference for government by a Lieutenant-Governor over government by a Council or Committee, as being more prompt, more efficacious, and more acceptable to the people; and when we came to the Committee stage on March 4, Lord MacDonnell, who held these views very strongly, moved the omission of this clause from the Bill. I need not recapitulate now the arguments which were employed for or against on that occasion. Suffice it to say that the clause was rejected by your Lordships' House by a majority of 59 to 18, and that decision was adhered to a few days later when the noble Viscount brought up the matter again on Report. The general trend of the argument was not merely that which I have described on the merits of the case, but also the consideration, which I remember putting forward very strongly myself, that we required much more local information before we could agree to set up an Executive Council in this Province or that, and that it would be unwise and wrong for Parliament to divest itself of its rights to express an opinion on future occasions when such creation was proposed.

In the month of May the Bill came back to us from the House of Commons with the clause reinserted, but on that occasion the noble Viscount (Lord Morley), recognising, I think, that there was considerable force in our contention, himself suggested an Amendment to the effect that if it was proposed in future to create an Executive Council in a Lieutenant-Governor's Province for any Province other than that of Bengal, the Proclamation constituting it should be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament for a period of sixty days, and that it should be in the power of either House by an Address to the Crown to estop it. But the noble Viscount added these words—and I am glad to see him here while I read them, because they are very relevant to my argument— There is not really much in this either way. because I cannot imagine the Government of India. with the sanction of the Secretary of State necessarily, sending home a draft Proclamation with, I presume, the reasons for it set forth— those are the words to which I specially call attention— I cannot imagine such a Proclamation coming home and being vetoed by either House. And following a little later on, speaking on behalf of this Bench, I accepted the noble Viscount's proposal on the ground that we should have opportunities of Parliamentary discussion before any appointment of an Executive Council other than in Bengal could take place in the future.

Now I come to the present case. It was only a day or two ago that I noticed in the reports of our proceedings an intimation that this Proclamation was to be laid upon the Table. It was the first that I had heard of it. I have been told since that the Under-Secretary in another place, in a speech about the part taken by India in the war at the end of November, did mention the matter, but I suppose the fact that it had no apparent or immediate connection with the war, or my own negligence, induced me to overlook it, and, as I say, it was not until a few days ago that I first heard of this intention. I saw the text of the Proclamation for the first time yesterday, and it has been circulated with the Papers to your Lordships this morning. You will see that it is a Proclamation of a purely businesslike character, providing for the creation and the composition of this Executive Council and regulating its procedure, but it is not accompanied by any statement of reasons for the step proposed, in the manner foreshadowed by the noble Viscount in the passage to which I have referred.

It appears to me that we cannot accept this Proclamation without some further information. We have a right, I think, to know whether the Government of India has changed its mind since we last discussed the matter in 1909, and, if so, what are the grounds for the change. There may be very good reasons indeed why an act of policy which was thought inexpedient or inopportune or premature six years ago may be regarded as expedient and even as necessary now, but, if that he so, I think we are entitled to know what they are. All the more so that it is well known that many persons of the highest authority and with special connection with the Province concerned still retain their attitude of unmitigated opposition to this proposal. Lord MacDonnell, who was Lieutenant-Governor of this Province—the ablest Lieutenant-Governor by whom I had the honour to be served in India in my day—between 1895 and 1901, writes to me that his opinions are still unchanged, and that it is only a prior engagement at Dublin which prevents him from being here to say so this afternoon. His predecessor from 1892 to 1895, Sir Charles Crosthwaite, has published the same opinions. A subsequent Lieutenant-Governor, Sir John Hewett, who is now in this country, an official of the highest authority—he was Lieutenant-Governor from 1907 to 1912—was consulted by the Government of India in 1909, and it is well known that he wrote a letter in reply recording his strong reasons against the change. That this was so is no secret, because a little later, in 1911, it was openly stated in the Imperial Legislative Council at Calcutta. The Government being asked their attitude on the matter, the then Home Member, Sir John Jenkins, publicly stated the fact of Sir John Hewett's opposition, and said that the matter would not be proceeded with during his time. Then in 1912 Sir John Hewett was succeeded by Sir James Meston, the present Lieutenant-Governor, and that he also was opposed to the measure is well known from his own utterances, because a debate having been raised in his Legislative Council in the United Provinces and a Motion having been moved in favour of the creation of such a Council, he not only resisted it in speech, but I think I am right in saying that he succeeded in defeating the Motion by a majority of one, which was his own vote. Thus it appears that four out of the five living Lieutenant-Governors of this Province—I know nothing about the Opinions of the fifth, whose view I have had no opportunity of ascertaining—have publicly recorded their opinions against this proposed change. I believe the present Lieutenant-Governor, Sir James Meston, has since changed his mind, and that is one of the points on which I hope information will be forthcoming from the Secretary of State.

The last step in this chain of action was the Despatch from the Government of India to the Secretary of State, the date of which I do not know, but which is no doubt the basis of this proposal now before your Lordships' House. Here again I am told that the action of the Government of India was far from being unanimous. I am under the impression that three, if not four, members of the Government of India recorded their opposition to this proposal. I do not know—I have no private information—whether they appended their signatures to the Despatch, Or whether, after the custom which prevails in India, they recorded Minutes of Dissent. That, again, is a matter on which we are entitled to ask for information. These facts which I have briefly narrated are sufficient to show that we are certainly not in a position to arrive at a final decision of the question to-day. We assumed six years ago responsibility in connection with this matter which I do not think we ought entirely to throw off. I will say this. I imagine that there would be the strongest desire on the part of every section in this House when a proposal comes to us with the unanimous approval of the Viceroy, the Government of India, and the Secretary of State in Council to accept such proposal, and it would only be with great reluctance in such a case that anybody with a knowledge of India would urge your Lordships to reject it. But we cannot vote entirely in this matter, as we should be doing if we acted to-day, in the dark. We cannot accept a proposed revolution of this importance in the administration of one of the most considerable Provinces of India without a word, when we know from the evidence which I have given that the opinion of the great majority of those who have administered the Province and are qualified to speak upon it is unfavourable. Therefore, my Lords, I propose with the leave of the House—I gave private intimation of my intention to the Secretary of State yesterday—to conclude with a Motion for Papers, and I hope, if the Secretary of State grants that Motion, that. the Papers which he will lay before us will include the official letter from Sir John Hewett to the Government of India in 1909, to which I have referred; the opinion of the present Lieutenant-Governor, Sir James Meston, in any letter or Despatch he may have written since; and also the Despatch of the Government of India to which I have already referred.

One other point. I think we ought to know how the experiment of an Executive Council in the two other Provinces in which it has been set up since the passing of the Act of the noble Viscount has succeeded. Those Provinces are Bengal and Behar. There is no doubt that this proposal was, and for all I know may still be, advocated by what is called the Nationalist Party in India, but I am informed that the result of the experiment in those two Provinces has not everywhere given unmixed satisfaction, and that some of those who originally favoured the proposal regard it now with a rather different eye. If the noble Marquess can give us information on this point, either this afternoon or at a later date, I think it may help us to arrive at a decision. I would say, in sitting down, that the only test which I would apply and which I think we all ought to apply in deciding our vote on a matter of this kind is the good administration of the territories and the people concerned. If the noble Marquess, speaking for the Government of India, can convince us that the government of the United Provinces will be better conducted in the interests of the people by a Lieutenant-Governor with an Executive Council than by a Lieutenant-Governor alone, I should be the last to raise any objection to this proposal; and it is to give him the opportunity of supplying us with this information, in which we are at present deficient, that I have ventured to put this Question on the Paper, and that I conclude with the Motion for Papers which I have just explained.

Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for Papers relating to the creating of an Executive Council for the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh.—(Earl Curzon of Kedleston.)

*THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

My Lords, I have to thank the noble Earl, in the first place, for his courtesy in sending me private notice of his intention to ask for Papers and also of one or two of the other points which he has raised in the course of his speech. This whole question, as he pointed out, of the addition of Executive Councils to Lieutenant-Governorships is by no means new. So far as the particular question of supplying the United Provinces with an Executive Council is concerned, it is an older matter still; because it is remembered there that eighty years ago, as no doubt the noble Earl opposite is aware from his studies of Indian history, there was a proposition to divide the then Presidency of Fort William in Bengal into two and to have one Governor remaining at Fort William and the other at Agra. That proposition actually became law but was never carried into effect, and instead a few years afterwards a Lieutenant-Governor was appointed. Then in far more recent years—in 1866 and 1868, if I remember right—the question of providing, Lieutenant-Governors with Executive Councils was mooted; and it was also advocated, unless I am mistaken, by a very distinguished Indian official, Sir Charles Aitchison, in 1888 when the whole question of the reconstruction of the Civil Service was under consideration. Therefore we certainly cannot say that the matter is in any degree a novel one.

The main opposition to the appointment of such Executive Councils as this has rested, perhaps, on two grounds—in the first place, on the argument that, although a Council may be a useful and indeed an indispensable appenage to a British politician who comes out to act as an Indian Governor, such assistance is not required in the case of a Lieutenant-Governor who is invariably a member of the Indian Civil Service with a life-long experience there; and, in the second place, it is contended that India being a country which is as a rule best governed by purely personal administration rather than by any combined form of administration, you ought to avoid instituting anything in the nature of a Council which would tend to dissipate the responsibility of the individual ruler except in cases where it is found to be absolutely necessary. The noble Earl gave a clear account of what passed in this House when the Act of my noble friend Lord Morley was under discussion. It was then left, by agreement, to Parliament to decide ultimately whether in the case of a particular Province administered by a Lieutenant-Governor an Executive Council should be appointed or no. It has always been held by the Government of India that the appointment of such a Council is in no way designed to interfere with the prompt exercise of executive power, and if it could be shown that it had such an effect it would always be a strong argument against such an institution.

In the Imperial Legislative Council a proposition was made in January, 1911, for an Executive Council for the United Provinces. It was strongly supported but was finally defeated, mainly on the ground that it was a premature proposal, by 40 against 18. Then two years later, as the noble Earl has reminded us, a similar proposition was made in the local Legislative Council of the United Provinces when Sir James Meston had not long arrived. It obtained 21 supporters, and, as the noble Earl has pointed out, it was lost by the exercise of the casting vote of the Lieutenant-Governor in the chair. But the noble Earl conveyed an impression to the House which was not quite accurate in implying that the opposing vote of Sir James Meston was given on the merits. Sir James Meston is not a member of this House but he adopted in that case the rule of your Lordships' House which is so familiar to us all—prœsumitur pro negante. His argument was that it is not right to give a vote of this kind in a local Legislative Council with whom the matter did not really rest, and that the initiative ought to come from higher authorities than the Council of the United Provinces itself.

Now the matter has come forward again and the noble Earl—who, I am bound to say, seems to have so much information on the general subject that there remains hardly anything that I can tell him—has stated the course of events generally as they occurred. The view, I think, of the present Governor of the United Provinces is this. He accepts the general proposition which was laid down by various authorities of importance in the former discussions, that a Council ought not as a rule to be appointed unless the Lieutenant-Governor's work has become so heavy that it is impossible for him to conduct it alone, and admits that he cannot state that his work has become so overwhelming that he requires assistance; yet he says that the scope of the work is generally increasing and that it may not be so very long before he requires assistance—or, indeed, that it may be soon that he will require assistance of that kind. The Lieutenant-Governor also lays stress on the advantage of having the co-operation of an Indian gentleman on the Executive Council, just as the Viceroy has found the advantage of having an Indian gentleman as member of his Council, and as my noble friend Lord Morley and I have found the advantage of having the co-operation of Indian gentlemen on the Secretary of. State's Council here. It is also, I think, generally admitted that as the work of the Legislative Council increases it is an advantage for a Lieutenant-Governor to have colleagues who are able to hold particular portfolios and to reply in debate in respect of particular subjects—that is to say, men who share the actual responsibility for those Departments and who are able to speak with more authority than a Secretary to Government can who otherwise would have to reply.

Then there is also the point to which the noble Earl alluded—that the Province of Bihar and Orissa, governed in precisely the same manner as the United Provinces are, has been possessed of an Executive Council since the time when we brought about the Repartition of Bengal. I think it is generally agreed that the institution of a Council of this kind ought to depend upon the degree of development which the particular area to be administered has reached. Where a Province is thoroughly or even relatively backward the arguments for direct personal government remain not merely strong but overwhelmingly strong. On the other hand, as development advances there is likely to be a larger claim in the first place for the institution of a Legislative Council and afterwards for the addition of an Executive Council as giving some greater share in the administration of Government to those who are qualified to undertake it. So far as the United Provinces are concerned it is useless to attempt to disguise the fact that there are certain difficulties arising from the existence of religious animosities between the adherents of the different faiths, which are held by some to provide an argument for further delay in the appointment of such a Council. But it is important to note that the arguments contrary are all arguments for delay; they are not arguments for ref using. And, on the other hand, it is held by the Lieutenant-Governor and by the Government of India—and I hold the same opinion myself—that in view of the undoubted continuance of an agitation for the appointment of such a Council and the practical certainty that within a very few years such a Council would be granted, it is a wiser and more gracious and more sensible act to appoint such a Council now rather than to wait until the agitation in its favour might reach a head and when various passions might have been aroused on both sides which at present cannot be regarded as acute.

Our proposition is to start with a Council consisting only of two members besides the Lieutenant-Governor, one of the two being an Indian gentleman. It is decided also to retain the Board of Revenue consisting of two members, taking, of course, a share of work which in other circumstances the Council might have to take over. The system on which such a Council as this, I think, ought to work is one which I have already indicated—namely, the handing over to each member of the portfolio and the supervision of one or two Departments of which he can be regarded in charge and the affairs of which he is in a full position to discuss, and upon them to defend the policy of the Government in debates in the Legislative Council. It is proposed that the salaries should be identical with those which are given in the Province of Bihar and Orissa.

The noble Earl asked me a question at the close of his speech as to the actual working of the two Executive Councils in Bengal and in Bihar and Orissa. As the noble Earl recognises, the Bengal case is not in pari materia. There is there a Governor who is not an Indian official, and he, of course, depends upon his Council precisely in the same way that the Governors of Madras and Bombay depend upon theirs; and I am certainly able to say, from frequent communications from Lord Carmichael, that he is most deeply indebted to the assistance which he has received from the very able and capable gentlemen who have been members of his Council, one of whom, I am happy to say, has come to join me on my Council here, Sir William Duke. I do not think that any criticism which has reached the noble Earl could possibly be hostile to the existence of a Council in Bengal.

EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON

I believe I am right in my recollection that an Executive Council was given in Bengal while it was still under a Lieutenant-Governor, and, if so, the conditions have no doubt changed since Lord Carmichael was appointed Governor. While under Sir Edward Baker we had the experience of a Province administered by a Lieutenant-Governor with an Executive Council, which, I think, lasted two or three years.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I have no reason to believe that Sir Edward Baker did not find it a useful addition to his powers; and it will be found, I think, that Sir Edward Baker has recorded views in favour of the general introduction, as needed, of Executive Councils in cases of Lieutenant-Governorships. So far as Bihar and Orissa is concerned I have no reason to suppose that the arrangement does not work there with perfect smoothness. I have never heard the expressed opinion of Sir Charles Bayley on the subject, and therefore I am not in a position to state it; but so far as I know, there is a complete absence of any complaint from the public on that ground.

Then I come to the request for Papers with which the noble Earl concluded. He spoke first of a communication addressed by Sir John Hewett to the Government of India I think in 1909. Sir John Hewett, as we all know, was not in favour of the appointment of an Executive Council to assist him. He said that he in no way required it, and that he was well able to conduct the business even in that great Province without one; and I do not know that on abstract grounds he favoured the appointment of such Councils. So far as that document is concerned, I have no objection whatever to its publication, although, of course, I should like first to ask Sir John Hewett whether he takes any exception. But on the general question—the publication of all the Papers that have passed—I think it would be generally agreed that if any publication of confidential Papers takes place in a case of this kind it is better that the publication should be as complete as possible. On that question I have to say this. It must be remembered that a number of communications were written with no idea or intention on the part of their writers that they would ever see the light. They are of the nature of confidential documents passing between Ministers, and had the writers known that there was a question of publication I have no doubt that in some cases they would have been differently worded.

To state the matter generally, it will be found that examination of the objections which are taken to the institution of a Council of this kind include a number of personal references; they include allusions to religious difficulties which I have mentioned, couched in terms which are at any rate capable of being misunderstood in India itself. And the Government of India tell me that, while agreeing that if there is to be a publication of Papers on this subject it has to be general and copious, they deprecate such publication on grounds of public policy and the probability of raising some excitement at a time when we do not desire that excitement should be raised. I think, therefore, my wisest plan will be to show the Papers, if the two noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite will allow me, to the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition and to the noble Earl, and to take their opinion as to the advisability of a general publication of the kind for which the noble Earl asks. The noble Earl asked for all the Papers—

EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON

All I really asked for were three Papers. I certainly never had in view any of these confidential documents to which the noble Marquess has alluded. What I asked for were—first, the letter of Sir John Hewett; secondly, the letter, if there was one, from the Lieutenant-Governor who was his successor, Sir James Meston; thirdly, the Despatch of the Government of India upon which the noble Marquess is proceeding, with any dissents if such were recorded. That is all I asked for.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

Those include all the Papers, as I imagine the noble Earl is very well aware, to the publication of which the Government of India was likely to take any exception. As I say, I think my best plan will be to show them to the noble Marquess and the noble Earl, and we can consider whether on public grounds they should be published. The whole matter is one of the public interest. We certainly have no desire to withhold anything which could he of either public interest or could be regarded as important, or which noble Lords opposite might regard as a reasonable basis for any action that they desire to take. But it is purely on the ground of feeling in India and the possibility of disturbing that feeling that I would ask the two noble Lords opposite to agree to make with me this preliminary examination of the Papers before we arrive at any official conclusion on the subject. Subject to that, I shall be very glad to meet the noble Earl as far as I can.

*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

My Lords, I do not desire to detain your Lordships with an examination of the questions of high policy which arise out of this debate. It would be easy to prolong the discussion considerably if we were to enter into an examination of such questions as the general desirability of the establishment of Executive Councils—whether, for example, the existence of such Councils does or does not impair the power and authority of the head of the local Government. I know some very distinguished heads of local Governments in India who held a very decided view upon that subject and who were strongly opposed to the institution of these Councils. Again, I am not going to attempt to say whether the local conditions in the United Provinces do or do not justify the institution of such a Council. Nor, again, have I any information which would make it possible for me to say whether the Executive Councils which have been already appointed are working well in Bengal or elsewhere.

What I think matters to us this evening is this, that this House has undertaken a certain responsibility in this matter. My noble friend behind me (Lord Curzon) reminded your Lordships of the debates which took place upon this question in the year 1909. The noble Viscount who sits on the Back Bench opposite (Lord Morley) will recollect very well how this House, for weighty reasons, determined to excise from the Bill of which he was then in charge the very clause under which power was taken to set up Executive Councils in some of the Provinces. We excised that clause, but we allowed it to be reinserted in the Bill upon conditions which were very clearly explained at the time. The principal condition was this, that in any case where an Executive Council might he set up in the future a Proclamation should lie upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament for a certain number of clays. What we all understood by that was that we in this House reserved to ourselves the right of challenging the decision of the Government, and, if necessary, standing in the way of its acceptance. What has happened in the present case? I think the noble Viscount told us on that occasion that in all cases where a Proclamation of this kind was decided upon the reasons for resorting to the change would be fully explained to Parliament.

VISCOUNT MORLEY nodded assent.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I am glad to see that the noble Viscount nods assent to that. My noble friend (Lord Curzon) makes a great point of this, that in the present instance there has been no statement of reasons. We have had merely the bald text of the Proclamation itself, and we have to look outside the text of the Proclamation for the reasons which are in our opinion indispensable. But the evidence, so far as we are able to collect it unofficially, is entirely against the Proclamation. My noble friend has been able to cite the authority of one high Indian official after another against the introduction of these Executive Councils. I will not go over the same ground again.

I listened attentively to the reasons which were advanced by the noble Marquess opposite. As far as I was able to follow him his main reason was this, that his advisers thought that this thing had to come in the United Provinces and that therefore it might just as well come now. I confess that does not seem to me to be a convincing justification of so great a change. In these circumstances the noble Marquess evidently cannot be surprised that we should ask for Papers, and my noble friend has explained that the Papers which he requires are not of a very extensive character. There is one Paper, the letter written by Sir John Hewett which I gather the noble Marquess has no objection to lay. Then there is the letter of Sir John Meston, of which the noble Marquess gave us some account. That letter, I infer, is a very Lödicean sort of letter. I doubt very much whether, if we ever see it, it will convince us that Sir John Meston is a very enthusiastic believer in this new policy. Finally there is the Despatch of the Government of India, to which we know are attached three or four weighty dissents from conspicuous members of the Viceroy's Council.

The noble Marquess dwelt upon the inconvenience of producing these Papers, and I quite agree with him that in many cases of this kind there may be Papers of an entirely confidential character which cannot be divulged without injury to the public interest. But, after all, what is the object and purpose of the practice under which Members of Council have the right to attach dissents to the Despatches that go home? It is because it is necessary that the Government at home and the public at home should know what is the true view held by men who have a right to be considered experts in these matters; and I really think that a great wrong will be done to us if it is to be laid down as an established practice that dissents of this kind are to be withheld from our knowledge. My noble friend certainly did not ask for a general publication of all the documents, but he did press—I think rightly—for these three documents, all of which are essential if we are to have any real knowledge and understanding of the case. I was glad to find that the noble Marquess who leads the House does not desire to resist my noble friend's Motion, and if he is good enough to allow us to see these Papers unofficially and to point out to us any particular document or any particular passages in particular documents which for good reasons he would desire to withhold from the public knowledge, I need not say that we shall consider his suggestion not only with an open mind but with every possible desire to meet his wishes. But I hope my noble friend will press his Motion, and I am glad to think that the noble Marquess opposite does not intend to resist it.

On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.