§ LORD SYDENHAM rose to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the opinion of the Government of India on the Amendments inserted into the Government of India Bill at a late stage in the proceedings of the Joint Select Committee will be laid on the Table before the Bill is considered in this House.
§
The noble Lord said: My Lords, a similar question to this was put in another place on November 24, and the Secretary of State gave a written answer in the following terms—
The Government of India's views on all the principal issues which arose before the Joint Committee in connection with the Bill were fully stated to the Committee by Sir James Meston.
I think, to put it very mildly, that this answer was not quite adequate. Sir James Meston did give his views on a very large number of points at great length, but it is quite inconceivable that the Government of India could have given him carte blanche to accept any proposals which the Secretary of State made at rather a late hour. The Government of India stated their objections to some of the proposals which had been made in the earlier stages, and especially as to a change in regard to education, which the Joint Committee eventually accepted. All such objections as were made in the early stages were told to the Committee in the words of the Government of India.
§ My Question relates to certain Amendments which were suggested at a late stage in our proceedings and after the taking of evidence had ended. These Amendments are embodied in the Report, and they are either included in the Bill or in the Rules for which the Bill makes such a large demand. They have the effect, in my opinion, of gravely weakening the authority of the Government of India, and it would not be possible to accept them on the unsupported opinion of Sir J. Meston, even if his views had been given to the Joint Committee. As the noble Lord will remember, the Secretary of State said that he had received a long telegram from the Government of India which clearly showed that they did not understand his previous communication, and he said at the same time that further communications were passing. I have no idea what was the result of those communications. These matters are really too serious to be discussed by telegram. You cannot argue 517 complicated political issues through the cable, and the Government of India has not even now received an amended Bill or the Report of the Joint Committee.
§
The Amendments, in my opinion, go far beyond the terms of the original Bill and violate some of the principles laid down by the Joint Report of the Viceroy and Secretary of State. That Report says very definitely—
For the present official authority must be effectually retained in the Government of India.
In another place the Report insists that "the Government of India must remain wholly responsible to Parliament, and, saving such responsibility, its authority in essential matters must remain indisputable." I contend that these views are not fulfilled by the amended Bill as it now stands. All I ask at the present time is that the opinion of the Government of India, the ipsissima verba of the Government of India, may be laid upon the Table before the Bill comes up for final discussion. The almost indecent haste with which the Bill is being pressed on will be deeply regretted before many years are past.
§ THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD SINHA)My Lords, it is somewhat difficult for me to meet my noble friend's criticism, either with regard to the Bill as amended by the Joint Committee or the Report of the Joint Committee. So far as the Bill as amended is concerned, it is not now before your Lordships' House, and I am not sure that my noble friend is entitled at this stage to into the provisions of the Bill itself. The fact remains that the Bill as amended by the Joint Committee is stated in the Report itself to be in scrupulous accord with the principles laid down in the pronouncement of policy of August 20, 1917. I shall therefore content myself, not with going into the matter in detail, but in trying to answer the specific Question on the Paper with regard to the communications between the Secretary of State for India and the Government of India on these Amendments.
I do not know whether my noble friend makes any distinction between the Amendments inserted at an earlier stage and those made at a later stage. To my mind no such distinction can possibly be made. All the Amendments inserted by the Joint Committee were made during the sittings which occupied from October 20 to Novem- 518 ber 10. Many of them were in accordance with the expressed wishes of the Government of India. Some they have not dealt with; others, on which they expressed their opinion, were decided by the Joint Committee (so far as they could decide them) in contravention of the wishes of the Government of India.
But what happened after the Report was issued was this. Immediately on the publication of the Report a full summary of the Report itself, and of the changes made in the Bill, were cabled out by the Secretary of State to the Government of India, and there have been two cables received, and two only; one, a private one from the Viceroy, who was away from his Council at the time in Madras, dated November 25, and another from the Government of India as a body; and with your Lordships' leave I will quote both of them to give all the communications between these two authorities since the alterations were made. The Viceroy himself authorises the Secretary of State to quote him as saying this—
"The Government of India are well aware of the immense difficulty of the task which confronted Joint Committee, and are grateful for patience and care with which that task has been discharged. They have put their views fully before Joint Committee, and now that, after much labour, a decision seems at last to be in prospect, I feel sure that Government of India would not wish to delay by one day the carrying into effect of Joint Committee's recommendations. Speaking for myself, I feel assured that the Government of India will accept the decisions reached and will endeavour loyally to give effect to them."
The other telegram from the Government of India, dated November 30, states—
"Government of India are well aware of immense difficulty of task which confronted the Joint Committee, and are most grateful for patience and care with which that task has been discharged. They have put their views fully before Joint Committee, and now that after much labour a decision seems at last to be in prospect they would urge that there should be no delay in legislation. They will cordially accept the decisions reached by Parliament and will endeavour to the best of their ability to carry them out expeditiously and successfully."
519 I should like to add one word with regard to the complaint made in respect to what the noble Lord calls the haste with which this Bill is being pressed forward. The cablegrams from the Viceroy and the Government of India show, I submit, conclusively the necessity for the legislation being passed as quickly as possible; and as the authorities in India are pressing the Secretary of State for the passage of this measure through Parliament as quickly as possible, I hope that your Lordships will not share the noble Lord's aspersion that there has been any haste, much less indecent haste, in the matter.
§ VISCOUNT MIDLETONMy Lords, the explanation which has been given by the noble Lord is one which will be easily understood. I share, with him, the feeling that whatever has to be done ought not to be unduly delayed. The Committee which sat under the Presidency of my noble friend Lord Selborne had necessarily to give a considerable amount of time to the work before them, and while we fully realise the noble Lord's point of view, and to some extent share his feelings, it is rather an anomaly that the Government, having based their policy so largely on the support of the Government of India, have now found themselves in a position in which they have had to take one of the most important steps connected with the Bill really without any consideration by the Government of India.
The telegram which the noble Lord has read does not give the opinion of the Government of India. It gives what we all knew would be their position—a readiness to acquiesce in anything which Parliament had arrived at, and do their best to make it a success. The noble Lord will see that this is a different proposition from the one to which, in the Committee, we attached great importance—namely, that we should have the view of the Government of India as to whether this proposal was a workable one and one which they themselves considered to be an addition to the Bill. I do not see that in the circumstances we can carry the matter any further. If we were to wait until the whole of the Committee's Report and the text of the Bill as amended went to the Government of India, it would be not improbably impossible to pass the Bill during the present session; and for the reasons which the noble Lord has given, and which I think many of us share, I think that any 520 such delay would greatly detract from the value of the Bill which may be in the end passed by this House.
§ LORD SYDENHAMDid the noble Lord say that the whole of the Report of the Joint Committee had been telegraphed?
§ LORD SINHAA full summary of the Report.
§ LORD SINHANo. They could not.