§ LORD OLIVIERhad given Notice to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can give the House any intimation of the intentions of His Majesty's Government in regard to the appointment of a Commission for the purposes of Section 41 of the Government of India Act, 1919; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in putting down this Question I exercised a certain degree of circumspection by requesting 3 that it should not appear on the Paper until this morning, because I had under stood from the Secretary of State for India, that although His Majesty's Government, had formed certain intentions, they did not desire it to be known that they had formed those intentions. However, in the course of the week-end all that circumspection and secrecy was blown to the winds by public announcements in the most important newspapers that the Government had determined to appoint a Commission and had determined upon the members of that Commission. I must express sympathy with the Government, because that announcement has placed them in a disagreeable and awkward position.
The Statutory Commission is only to be appointed, as I read the Act, after a Resolution from both Houses of Parliament praying His Majesty to appoint the Commission, and it is extremely inconvenient for the Government to have to go to Parliament asking for leave to appoint a Commission when they have already announced their intention of so doing and have named the persons concerned. As regards the date of the appointment of the Commission, I feel strongly that His Majesty's Government have been well advised in choosing this time for doing so, but I cannot speak for all members of my Party nor, of course, for all members of this House. Others may think that it should have been postponed, particularly since the matter has been prejudiced by the fact that the names of the members of the Commission have been disclosed. I shall be glad if the noble Earl can give us any explanation as to how this came about, having regard to the fact that the personnel of the Commission could hardly have been known to anyone except those to whom it had been divulged personally and in confidence. I do not apprehend that I shall have to move for Papers, because one Paper—namely, a Bill—has already been presented, and I understand that we shall have a further opportunity for debate. I beg to ask my Question, and to move formally for Papers.
§ THE EARL OF BIRKENHEADMy Lords, as your Lordships will remember, one of the provisions contained in the Indian Reforms Act of 1919 required "at the expiration of ten years after the passing" of that Act the appointment, 4 with the concurrence of both Houses of Parliament, of persons to be a Commission to inquire into the working of the Indian Constitution and to consider the desirability of establishing, extending, modifying or restricting the degree of responsible government then existing there. The Government have decided, for various reasons which I need not, perhaps, on this occasion discuss, that it is desirable to anticipate the date (December, 1929) contemplated by the Act, and to appoint this most important Royal Commission forthwith. Balancing the various considerations and endeavouring to give due weight to each, His Majesty's Government have decided upon the following procedure:—(A) They propose to recommend to His Majesty that the Statutory Commission should be composed as follows: The Rt. Hon. Sir John Simon, K.C.V.O., K.C. (Chairman); Viscount Burnham, G.C.M.G., C.H.; Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal; the Hon. E. C. G. Cadogan, C.B.; the Rt. Hon. Stephen Walsh; Col. the Rt. Hon. G. R. Lane-Fox; and Major C. R. Attlee. These names will be submitted to both Houses in Resolutions.
The noble Lord has made reference to the fact that these names have been prematurely published. The noble Lord is perfectly right. It is regrettable that such premature and unauthorised publication should have been made. The reason why I ventured to urge, even upon the noble Lord, whose discretion is undoubted, the importance of secrecy in this matter was that every consideration of Parliamentary correctitude makes it proper that, where the assent of Parliament is required to the personnel of a Commission, the publication of the names proposed should in the first place be made to Parliament. I greatly regret that I am not in a position to make this announcement for the first time in this House, simultaneously with the announcement made by the Prime Minister elsewhere. I will not carry the matter further than to say that I have necessarily had to take into my confidence a large number of persons in this country in both Houses of Parliament. I have necessarily equally had to take very directly into my confidence and in some respects even to invite counsel from the leaders 5 of other Parties in the State; and it is altogether gratifying to me that no announcement of any kind has been made, so far as I know, and no premature disclosure would have taken place upon this side of the ocean. Of this I say no more. The publication is regrettable, but it is not calamitous. It has anticipated by a day or two the statements which are made here and in another place.
I come now to my next sub-head (B); His Majesty's Government cannot, of course, dictate to the Commission what procedure it shall follow, but they are of opinion that its task in taking evidence would be greatly facilitated if it were to invite the Central Indian Legislature to appoint a Joint Select Committee, chosen from its elected and nominated unofficial members, which would draw up its views and proposals in writing and lay them before the Commission for examination in such manner as the latter may decide. The Committee might well remain in being for any consultation which the Commission might desire at subsequent stages of the Inquiry. It should be clearly understood that the purpose of this suggestion is not to limit the discretion of the Commission in hearing other witnesses. (C), His Majesty's Government suggest that a similar procedure should be adopted with the Provincial Legislatures. (D) The vast area to be covered may make it desirable that the task of taking evidence on the more purely administrative questions involved should be undertaken by some other authority, which would be in the closest touch with the Commission. His Majesty's Government suggest that the Commission, on arrival in India, should consider and decide by what machinery this work may most appropriately be discharged. This will not, of course, debar the Commission from the advantage of taking evidence itself upon these subjects to whatever extent it may think desirable. (E) When the Commission has reported, and its Report has been examined by the Government of India and His Majesty's Government, it will be the duty of the latter to present proposals to Parliament. But it is not the intention of His Majesty's Government to ask Parliament to adopt these proposals without first giving a full opportunity for Indian opinion of different schools to contribute 6 its view upon them, and to this end it is intended to invite Parliament to refer these proposals to consideration by a Joint Committee of both Houses and to facilitate the presentation to that Committee both of the views of the Indian Central Legislature, by delegations who will be invited to attend and confer with the Joint Committee, and also of the views of any other bodies whom the Joint Parliamentary Committee may desire to consult.
The ante-dating of the Commission involves an amendment of the, governing Act, and I have to-day introduced a Bill to this end. I anticipate that your Lordships would not judge the present occasion the most convenient one for discussing the broad matters of general policy which are raised by the proposals of the Government. Equally I recognise that an early opportunity may reasonably be requested for a debate on the whole matter. Such a debate, I think, could not very conveniently take place upon what I may, for the sake of brevity, describe as the Acceleration Bill. The title of that Bill is necessarily so narrowly drawn that it will admit of a general debate merely upon the question, aye or no, whether it was desirable that the date of the appointment of the Commission should be accelerated. I would, therefore, suggest to the Leader of the Opposition, as the more convenient course, that when I move for the appointment of a Parliamentary Commission, and request the agreement of your Lordships to that Motion, the general debate which noble Lords in many different parts of the House would desire might take place. I do not think that that debate ought to be too long delayed, nor can it conveniently be too long delayed. The noble and learned Viscount has made a particular proposal to me upon that point, and he has been good enough to give me an opportunity of consulting with my colleagues in another place. I will make him an early reply to that suggestion, which is that the debate should take place at an early date next week.
§ VISCOUNT HALDANEMy Lords, of course, I do not rise to discuss names, or to go into those matters which, it was understood between the two sides of the House, should not be discussed yet; but I do wish to point out that matters of great concern and interest have been 7 raised, which require an early debate, and that it is very desirable that the two parts of the Government proposition—namely, the proposal of this Bill, and the proposal to appoint the Commission and the reasons for these proposals—should be discussed together. Therefore I am entirely with the noble Earl in thinking that we should take an early debate on the full subject—possibly next Tuesday, which I understand is a vacant date, would be possible. The Government, of course, will have to consider that, but if they do fix on Tuesday no objection will be offered from this side to their taking that date. I speak, of course, only for those for whom I am in some way responsible here.
Then I wish to point out that that debate must necessarily be one which would range over a good deal of ground. It is obvious, from what the noble Earl has told us, that the work of this Commission is going to be a very long business. I do not mean the work of the Commission itself, which is to live in a kind of see-saw condition, appearing above the surface at one point and then disappearing while inquiries of other sorts are going on. There are all these sorts of references to the Indian Assembly and other bodies in India. It may be quite right—I am not saying anything on that point—but it is going to take a great deal of time and give rise to a great deal of controversy. Then the matter has to come back here, and there has to be investigation by the Joint Committee of the two Houses, and then probably there will be long debates in Parliament on this momentous subject. Therefore I do not see any danger of any decision being come to before the expiry of 1929. There is, however, one thing which does strike me, and that is that this Bill ought to have come first of all. It ought to have come before any naming of the Commissioners, or any proposition to appoint them. That has not been done, and what the consequences will be it is too soon to be quite sure. Anyhow, on this and other subjects we shall have an early debate next week, we hope, in 8 which to bring the matter before the House. With that in the meantime, I am content
§ LORD OLIVIERMy Lords, I do not propose to press my Motion for Papers, because I understood the noble Earl to say that he will give us all the information necessary for a full debate. The noble Earl did not mention the terms of reference, or whether they will be laid before the House prior to the debate. I understand they are to include other matters besides those mentioned in the Statute. If the noble Earl will give us some kind of draft of the terms of reference it would be an advantage.
§ THE EARL OF BIRKENHEADI will certainly lay those Papers before the House prior to the debate, whenever it may conveniently take place. Certainly the Government have no cause to complain of the tone and substance of the speeches. I am sure that noble Lords would not think this a convenient time for me to engage in a discussion even on the limited topics which have been raised to-day, but may I be permitted to point out that it really makes no difference at all whether the Bill to accelerate the appointment of the Commission was introduced before the suggestion and recommendation of the names of the Commissioners to Parliament or not. We must, of course, make ourselves responsible for our policy as a whole. We must assume that we shall be able to persuade Parliament to accept that policy. Many elements contributed to that decision. If and as soon as we determined that it was desirable to accelerate the appointment of the Commission, from that moment it became necessary immediately to make the selection of the Commissioners. No inconvenience or disrespect to Parliament was involved in including both proposals in the same Parliamentary week. Parliament has to consider both propositions and to deal with them.
§ Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
§ House adjourned at twenty minutes before five o'clock.