asked the Under-Secretary of State for India, whether any orders for sowing opium poppies have yet been given by the Government of India for the current year; and whether, in view of the surplus supply of opium already consigned to China and the recent petition of Indian opium merchants with regard to the disposal of this opium, the Government of India will issue no further instructions for the sowing of opium?

The Secretary of State for India is in communication with the Government of India and the Foreign Office regarding the situation created in Shanghai through the failure of the provisional Chinese Government and the provincial authorities to observe the Opium Agreement of last year, both as regards the restriction of poppy cultivation in China and the admission of a limited quantity of certificated Indian opium. The Government of India have already announced that the licensed area in British India will be largely reduced this year, in pursuance of the policy of progressive reduction. The Secretary of State does not propose to instruct them in the sense suggested by the hon. Member.

Am I to understand that orders have been issued by the Secretary of State for the cultivation of opium for the forthcoming year?

The arrangements for this year have already been made.

When our proceedings were brought to an end the other evening, I was trying to make clear what was the effect of this Clause. Under the Act of 1909 powers were given to the Government of India to create an Executive Council for the province of Bengal. Further power was given to them to issue a proclamation for the creation of Executive Councils in other provinces, provided that the draft of such proclamation was laid before the Houses of Parliament for at least sixty days in the Session. On the assumption that no address was moved by either House of Parliament protesting against such proclamation, they were then at liberty to proceed to create Executive Councils for these provinces. I understand the effect of Clause 2 of this Bill to be that the Government of India will be empowered to create an Executive Council in the province of Bihar without the formality of submitting the draft proclamation to the two Houses of Parliament.

Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present—

As I was saying, Clause 2 of the Bill gives the Government of India power to create an Executive Council in Bihar and in Orissa, without laying the proclamation upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament at least sixty days before the close of the Session, according to the provision of the Act of 1909.

I only rise to put a question to the Under-Secretary for India, (Mr. Montagu), who I hope will be able to tell the Committee what is the extra cost entailed in appointing the Executive Council, because we were informed on the last occasion when this Bill was before the House that it has been already decided that an Executive Council shall be appointed in Bihar and Orissa, which must lead to considerable expense. I should also like to know whether or not the Board of Revenue is to be retained in Bihar and in Orissa. I can hardly believe so extravagant a proposition is intended, and I think some other reason has been suggested for the temporary creation of a Board of Revenue. I rather gather that the Board of Revenue is to be converted into an Executive Council, but I would ask the Under-Secretary to answer my two questions, so that the House may know what really lurks behind the Clause.

I wish to draw attention to the way in which this Clause is drafted, and which I think might possibly lead to some difficulties unless it is given a little further consideration. It is our duty on all these occasions to examine as carefully as possible the drafting of any Bill which comes before us, because, as we all know, careless drafting may lead to unnecessary and expensive litigation. That being so, how much more necessary is it to have careful drafting in a Bill of this character, which deals with a large scheme of government, involving very large and important territories of India. This Clause, short though it may be, contained as it is in about five lines, and which is part of a Bill in itself extremely short considering the vast subject with which it deals, affects two important territories, and when it becomes part of an Act of Parliament it will be examined very carefully indeed not merely by those who live in the country, but, what is even more important, it will be submited to very careful examination by the educated natives of India. It has been our policy in India to educate the natives, and consequently, "when we pass a measure affecting the future welfare of the people of India, it must be a measure which will bear the most careful scrutiny and the most delicate examination. The meaning of this particular Clause, I suggest, will not emerge successfully from the examination to which it will necessarily be subjected, not only by the people of this country, but by the population of India, and especially by those whom it more immediately concerns It is more especially our duty to carefully examine the phraseology and wording of a Bill which concerns the government of a people who are not actually represented in this Chamber, and whose voice cannot be heard within the four walls of the House of Commons, in order that there may be no doubt whatever as to the interpretation of the Act, and that the Government of the country which it concerns may be carried on in an orderly and proper manner. The wording of this Clause is somewhat obscure.

Apart from its wording, there is one point which is not dealt with definitely in this Clause, but which I assume will be carried into effect by the provisions of the Indian Councils Act of 1909—that is to say, I assume that a Legislative Council will also be provided for Bihar and Orissa, as well as the Executive Council with which this Bill is concerned. I presume if the law is carried into effect it is not necessary to enumerate that point in this particular Clause, because the Legislative Council will come under the provisions of the Indian Councils Act, 1909. But I certainly think that those two great countries are entitled to every consideration, and care in the wording of enactments which affect their future. After all, Bihar is an enormous place, containing 43,524 square miles and a population of over 23,000,000, for whom we are legislating in a short Clause of five lines, which, as it appears to me, is open to very considerable doubt in regard to its interpretation. The provisions of Sub-section (1), Section 3, of the Indian Councils Act, 1909, relate to the Constitution of Provincial and Executive Councils, in like manner as they are applied to the province of Bengal. I have looked at the Sub-section, and it seems to me to lay down distinct powers with reference only to the creation of the Council of the Bengal division of the Presidency of Fort William. The word used in Clause 2 of this Bill is "relate" ("relate to the Constitution of Provincial Executive Councils"). If the word had been "relates" instead of "relate"—which possibly is a printer's error—it would have been perfectly obvious, but the very fact that the word is "relate" and not "relates" makes the verb refer to the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 as a whole. Consequently it seems to me that the intelligent native, with the education which, rightly or wrongly, we have bestowed upon him, when he seeks to find exactly how the matter stands with reference to Bihar and Orissa, in connection with the provisions of the Indian Councils Act of 1909, will find himself in considerable difficulty. I think I am aware of the real reason why this Clause is being worded in this particular way. It was in order to avoid discussion in this House with regard to those subsidiary Clauses of Sub-section (1) in the Section referred to and which make provision for determining the number of qualifications of the members of the Council, and also the second Sub-section, which makes provision for the appointment of members of the Council during the absence of any members from illness or any other cause. I think we are entitled to ask the hon. Gentleman whether it was his intention to make the sentence in brackets really refer to the whole of Section 3 of the Indian Councils Act. I wish to draw attention to the extraordinarily careless way in which this Clause has been drafted. I think it is most undesirable to have these references so frequently during the course of this Bill to other Acts and to Acts in many cases dating back for more than a hundred years, and which I should have thought should have been obsolete many years ago. In this particular case I should like to ask whether the subsidiary Sub-section of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 with regard to the members of the proposed council in Bihar and Orissa will be strictly adhered to, that is to say exactly the same constitution of those councils will be necessary as it was arranged for the council of the Bengal Division of the Presidency of Fort William. It would have been far simpler, I should have thought, if the hon. Gentleman's sole intention was not to avoid discussion to have made a general reference, if indeed a reference was necessary at all, and far more satisfactory to have definitely stated exactly what the intention of the Government was. If that course had been decided as being undesirable it would certainly have been far better to have referred to the powers, contained in the whole of Section 3, which deals with the power to constitute provincial Executive Councils instead of limiting the constitution of this new council exactly to the lines laid down for the creation of the council in the Bengal Division of the Presidency of Fort William. What is the reason for wording the Clause in that particular way? Here was a Clause in the India Councils Act of 1909, Clause 3, which gave definite power to constitute provincial Executive Councils, and the hon. Member must have had some reason for not availing himself of the whole powers conferred by that Clause. He desired for some reason or other to limit the powers to the powers conferred merely on the council of the Bengal Division of the Presidency of Fort William. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman also whether, by the enumeration of this particular Sub-section, leaving out the other four important Sub-sections which are included in Section 3 of the India Councils Act, he desires to make any alteration in the arrangements which are there laid down with regard to the appointment of the members of the new council. There is a very important Sub-section in Section 3, which lays down that every member of any such council shall be appointed by the Governor-General with the approval of His Majesty. Had the hon. Member decided to avail himself of the whole of Section 3 of the India Councils Act then we should have been assured that every member of this new council should have been appointed in the same way. As the hon. Member for some reason or other definitely decided to confine himself to Sub-section (1) of that Section, I should be interested to know whether the subsequent Sub-sections are to be applied or not. Unless I get a satisfactory answer on this point I shall certainly support the Noble Lord the Member for Hornsey (Earl of Ronaldshay) if he decides to move the rejection of this Clause.

The Noble Lord the Member for Hornsey (Earl of Ronaldshay) is quite correct in his description of what this Clause does. Having separated Bihar and Orissa from the Presidency of Bengal, I think the Noble Lord will agree that it is desirable as speedily as possible to give it that Executive Government to which it would become entitled when this Clause is passed without any subsequent arrangements in the laying of Papers for sixty days on the Table.

It comes as a matter of course.

Nor is it necessary in this particular instance to do anything of the kind because that provision was really meant, I would suggest, to give the House the opportunity of expressing an opinion on the formation of an Executive Council in some province which the House heard of for the first time when the notification was laid, but as the House had the opportunity of discussing this Executive Council that answers the same purpose as laying Papers. With regard to the question put by the hon. Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) as to the cost, it is estimated that the cost of the Executive Council in Bihar will be two lakhs of rupees per year. With regard to the question as to drafting which the hon. Member (Mr. Sandys) put, the only Sub-section of Section 3 of the Act of 1909 which it is necessary to apply is the first Sub-section. The second and third relate to proclamations which it is not intended to lay on the Table of the House because this Clause will obviate that. I am advised that Sub-section (4) will only apply to the first paragraph of Sub-section (1). Therefore, there would have been no necessity for the Amendment which the hon. Member would have desired to move if he had the opportunity. I do not think there is any necessity for the exercise by the hon. Member of that care which generally, I agree with him, it is the duty of Members of this House to exercise with regard to legislation.

The hon. Gentleman did not answer my question as to the Board of Revenue. If that continues the cost will be more than the two lakhs of rupees (£13,000) for the Executive Council. I understand that the passing of this Clause does not of itself endow Bihar and Orissa with an Executive Council, but merely puts them on the footing of a province which can be endowed with one.

Yes.

I am obliged to the hon. Member for his explanation, which is satisfactory so far as it relates to the Sub-section requiring proclamations to be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament for sixty days. As this Bill is before the House it is unnecessary to lay any proclamations that may be made under it on the Table of the House. But I do not quite understand why, if Subsection (4) is to become operative, the hon. Member has not put into the Bill that the provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 3 of the Indian Councils Act, 1909, shall apply. How is anyone by comparing this Clause with the Act of 1909 to find out that Sub-section (4) of Section 3 applies? I hope the hon. Member will give some further explanation; otherwise it may be advisable to divide against the whole Clause. If you have legislation by reference—which is very wrong—for goodness sake have legislation by reference that the ordinary person can understand if he has the opportunity of consulting the Acts to which reference is made. It is absolutely impossible for a layman to understand this Clause, even if he has the opportunity of consulting a library. The question "that the Clause stand part of the Bill" having been put from the Chair, we cannot amend the Clause; but with the consent of the Government the Clause might be omitted, and then on the Report stage the Amendment which I think ought to be made could be effected.

I hope to be able to satisfy the hon. Baronet. I cordially agree with everything that has been said on the subject of legislation by reference. If we were starting on this subject de novo it would be far better to do without legislation by reference altogether in this Bill. But there are enactments extending over a hundred years in which confusion has been made by repeated reference from one Act to another, and the legislation by reference in this Bill makes no appreciable difference in the terrible tangle of that legislation. That is why, as I announced when introducing the Bill, the Government had decided to prepare a measure for consolidating all the Acts upon this subject, so that we may be able to avoid legislation by reference in the future. That being so we ought to avoid putting into the Clause anything that is unnecessary. I have taken the best possible legal advice, and I am assured that as soon as Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act of 1909 applies to this province, it follows necessarily that other legal enactments become applicable, and chief among them is Sub-section (4) to which the hon. Baronet attaches so much importance. It is not really so important as he thinks, because, even if it did not apply, it would still be open for the Lieutenant-Governor of Bihar and Orissa to nominate these gentlemen. As regards the Board of Revenue, the provisional estimate of two lakhs is intended to cover every contemplated expenditure, and every effort will be made to keep within the estimate.

On the whole, I am willing to let the Clause go without dividing against it. I am obliged to the hon. Member for his explanation, but I did not quite follow his argument with regard to Sub-section (4). If it does apply I think the fact ought to be stated in the Bill. There is a good deal in what he says about the confusion already existing in regard to legislation by reference, and if it is possible for the Government, with the enormous legislative programme which they have unfortunately put before the House, to bring in a Consolidation Bill to do away with this tangle, there may be something to be said for the course they have pursued. I am always willing to give credit to hon. Members opposite when they are endeavouring to do their duty; therefore I shall not divide against the Clause.

Question put, and agreed to.

I beg to Move, after the words "shall be lawful for the Governor-General in Council," to insert the words "with the approval of the Secretary of State in Council."

This Clause is analogous to Clause 3 in the Act of 1909, which gives the Government of India certain powers to create Executive Councils in different provinces. This present Clause gives the Government of India power, by proclamation, to create Legislative Councils in those districts in India which are governed by Chief Commissioners, and not by Lieutenant-Governors. The words I propose to add appear in Clause 3 of the Act of 1909—that is to say, that the Government of India are given power to create Executive Councils by proclamation with the approval of the Secretary of State in Council. I want to know why, if it was necessary to insert these words in Clause 3 of the Act of 1909, it is not considered necessary to insert similar words in Clause 3 of this Bill? Surely it is not intended that the Government of India should have the power to create Legislative Councils in those provinces which are governed by Chief Commissioners without the approval of the Secretary of State in Council? If there is any doubt upon that point. I think it is desirable that we should make the matter clear that the Government of India are not to be at liberty to take this step without the approval of the Secretary of State in Council.

If the Under-Secretary can show, as I make no doubt he will be able to show, that such limitation as this is unusual in Indian Acts and regulations, I should find myself bound to agree with him rather than with my Noble Friend; because I should be quite unwilling to take part in any step whatever that would in the slightest degree reduce the power and authority of the Governor-General in Council. I believe on the whole, though I generally agree with my Noble Friend on these points, that it is quite necessary that the Governor-General in Council should maintain every authority that he has. The tendency has been the other way—to diminish, limit, and to contract his authority. Therefore, for my part, I would prefer, unless there is something extremely unusual which I do not understand in these words, that they should remain as drafted.

The words proposed by the Noble Lord are not necessary. The Act of 1858 gives the very widest possible powers to the Secretary of State in Council for the exercise of a general supervision of the acts of the Governor-General. Such a question as the formation of Legislative Councils would, of course, under these general powers, be submitted for the assent of the Secretary of State in Council. We have followed largely in the drafting of the Act Section 46 of the Act of 1861, which deals with the formation of new Lieutenant-Governorships. There is then no mention made of the approval of the Secretary of State in Council, although, of course, as a matter of practice, under the wide powers therein described, no Governor-General would make any Lieutenant-Governorships until submitting a dispatch home to the Secretary of State in Council. Exactly in the same way, I think, the Noble Lord may rest assured that any important departure would be referred home for the sanction of the Secretary of State in Council.

Why, then, was it thought necessary to have these words in the Act of 1909? I presume they must have been inserted for some reason. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us?

I am afraid I cannot, speaking from memory, say why they were inserted. I have gone to the origin of all those matters, following the model of the Act of 1861. I will endeavour to ascertain the reason for the Noble Lord as a matter of historical interest.

I do not think the words proposed by the Noble Lord opposite are necessary. Those acquainted with the practice of the Government of India are convinced that changes discussed would here be made by the Government of India without previous communication with the Secretary of State in Council.

The argument of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken is in favour of the Amendment. If the hon. Gentleman says that changes would here be made without the assent of the Secretary of State for India, why on earth not put it in? I was rather impressed by the statement of the Under-Secretary, and as I have never been in India I was not going to raise the question. Now, however, the hon. Gentleman opposite, who has had great experience of India tells us that the effect of the Bill is going to be exactly what my Noble Friend desires. Therefore I really do not see why the Amendment should not be inserted.

I really only moved this Amendment because I desired to know why these words were inserted in the one Act and not the other. After what the hon. Gentleman has said I beg to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, to leave out the words "subject to such modifications and adaptations as he may consider necessary."

I strongly agree with the opinion expressed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nottingham, that it is in every case most undesirable that we should in any way restrict or modify powers which are even now too limited. It is certainly with no intention of that kind that I venture to move my Amendment. But in view of the fact that the provisions referred to in this Clause, namely, the provisions of the Indian Councils Acts extending from 1861 to 1909. must necessarily be extremely wide. I do think it is desirable that the Under-Secretary should make some explanation as to what modifications or adaptations it may be necessary to make in those existing Acts. It is most undesirable to limit the powers of the Governor-General in Council, but at the same time as we make laws for India in this House, it is our duty to exercise to a certain extent a restraining influence over those whom we appoint to those high and important positions; and although I in no way desire to restrict the necessary freedom of the Governor-General, what we have admitted to be necessary owing to distance and certain difficulties of communication which even now exist between India and this country, we do desire some statement, even of a general character, from the Under-Secretary as to what exactly he has in his mind when he put in these particular words to which I have referred and which it is the object of this Amendment to leave out. It is not my intention to press the Amendment to a Division if I get a satisfactory explanation from the hon. Gentleman. I hope he will give us some general indication as to the necessity for the introduction of these words in a Clause which might lead to very wide extension of the powers of the Governor-General. We are conferring upon him by this Clause very extensive powers to extend, modify, or adapt these particular Acts of Parliament, which no doubt have been passed by this House subject to strict investigation and which at the time it was thought covered the ground and gave sufficient powers to the Governor-General. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman if he can give us some general indication as to what these modifications and adaptations referred to are to consist of and also the reason why he thinks it necessary to put them in the Act at all.

I am obliged to the hon. Member for giving me an opportunity of explaining the words which I think he will then agree are quite necessary. In this Section we make it possible for the Governor-General in Council to extend the Acts 1861 to 1909 dealing with Legislative Councils in districts which are governed by Lieutenant-Governors to districts governed by Chief Commissioners with certain modifications. It is provided that where the Governor-General thinks it necessary he should substitute the words Chief Commissioner for Lieutenant-Governor. There is a further example: In the Act of 1909 there is a maximum limit to the number of members of the Council; it might not be necessary to have so many and it is in order to enable the Governor-General to make modifications of that kind that these words are necessary.

1.0 P.M.

It does not seem to me that the explanation of the hon. Gentleman is altogether satisfactory. The modifications and adaptations are to apply to Lieutentant-Governorships and Chief Commissioners. In that case why not say so in the Bill. If the Governor-General was only to exercise those powers in that sense it would be a very simple thing, but the hon. Gentleman says the words limit the power of the Governor-General. I do not think that is the impression in the minds of hon. Members. I think these words rather extend the powers of the Governor-General. I certainly should be one of the very last to suggest hampering the action of the Governor-General. He is far away from the centre of government here and he ought to have a free hand as far as possible in dealing with circumstances that may arise from time to time, and which could not be dealt with from this distance. At the same time I do feel that this is a very large order: "Subject to such modifications and adaptations," not as may be absolutely necessary, but "as he may consider necessary." If my hon. Friend goes to a Division I shall certainly support him.

I think that to a certain extent the explanation of the Tinder-Secretary is satisfactory. As I understood the hon. Gentleman he considers these words are necessary because there are certain provinces under Lieutenant-Governors and certain provinces under Chief Commissioners. The Acts 1861 to 1909 only apply to the provinces under Lieutenant-Governors, and these words are necessary to give the Governor-General certain powers to include those provinces under Governors in these Acts. If the hon. Gentleman had wished to make his meaning perfectly clear he should have inserted after the words "Lieutenant-Governors" the words "Chief Commissioners." That would have enabled the hon. Gentleman to achieve what he wants to achieve in simple form. The Clause as it stands does not limit the powers of the Governor-General to provinces under Commissioners, but it gives the Governor-General such powers as "will enable him to alter the whole of the Acts from 1861 to 1909. What is really enacted in this Clause is that it shall be lawful for the Governor-General to apply the provisions of the existing Acts 1861 to 1909 and to modify them as he likes. Therefore, if the words "It shall be lawful for the Governor-General in Council to do what he likes" were put in, the hon. Gentleman would have achieved the object in much fewer words and with a very much clearer result. I am in no way anxious to diminish the powers of the Governor-General. He occupies a very great position in India, and we in this House should interfere with him as little as possible, and that is the desire of all my hon. Friends. I do not for a moment say the Under-Secretary wishes to throw dust in the eyes of the Committee, but if he merely wishes to give certain powers to the Governor-General to make certain small extensions in the Act from 1861 to 1909 these powers ought to be specified. By not specifying them he is giving the Governor-General practically unlimited powers. Perhaps that may be right, but the Committee ought to be well aware of what they are doing and that they are giving the Governor-General far greater powers than the hon. Gentleman has told the Committee. I do not know what action my hon. Friend is going to take, but on the whole I am inclined to agree that an expression of our opinion should be given in this matter.

So far as I understand the case this provision is one which is absolutely necessary. It is a desirable thing for the province of Assam. As one interested in tea growing in Assam, I am well aware how necessary there a Legislative Council is and I cannot support the division upon it.

In view of the explanation which has been given to us, I should certainly like to withdraw my Amendment, but I agree with the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London that if his suggestion had been adopted the Clause would have read far more clearly than it does at present. As the hon. Gentleman has given an explanation which is eminently satisfactory, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, after the word "peace" ["for the peace and good government of provinces"] to insert the word "order." The Clause will then read—

"touching the making of laws and regulations for the peace, order, and good government of provinces under Lieutenant-Governors."

In a Bill of this kind great importance ought to be attached to the phraseology. During the last month or so we have had an example of a new constitution which is being proposed for Ireland, and the words employed are those which I now suggest should be used in this Bill, namely, "peace, order, and good government." There are two very good reasons why this Amendment should be adopted. I have reason to believe that the population of India have taken a very great interest in the Government of Ireland Bill, and I know that the natives of India who happen to be resident in this country display extreme interest in the terms of this measure. Not long ago I had an opportunity at Cambridge of addressing an audience largely composed of native gentlemen who have come over to this country to complete their education, and they appeared to be extremely interested in the Government of Ireland Bill, and I have no doubt that that Bill is being carefully studied, not only by the native gentlemen resident here, but also by the educated native population of India, and they will examine the Clauses and words of this Bill with great care. They will find in the measure providing a new constitution for Ireland that provision is to be made for "the peace, order, and good government of Ireland," and then the intelligent, educated native gentlemen will turn to this Government of India Bill and they will find that there is no provision to be made with regard to order, because that word is definitely left out. I think this is rather an important matter, because we know the importance which the Oriental mind attaches to matters which might appear to us to be of comparatively subsidiary value. When these two measures are being presented practically at one and the same time, with this curious and marked difference in the phraseology, the native will naturally ask himself why no definite provision is being made for the maintenance of order in India. In view of the critical times which India has passed through during the last few years, surely it is essential that we should impress upon the native mind of India that we are there not merely to ensure good government and protect them from external attacks, and the danger and peril of a foreign war, but also to ensure the preservation of order in the country, and to see that law-abiding citizens shall have protection for their persons and their property. I do not know whether this important word was intentionally omitted from this Clause. If so, no doubt the Under-Secretary will have some excellent reasons why it is not thought necessary to state that laws are to be made for peace and not for order as well. Unless the hon. Gentleman has some good reason for leaving the Clause as it stands at the present time, I sincerely hope that he will see that there is some value attaching to the suggestion I am making.

I must point out to the hon. Member that he has already four times repeated the same statement.

I apologise for having repeated myself, but I think that considerable importance is to be attached to the insertion of the word "order."

I do not rise to deal with this Amendment, because I should have some difficulty myself in holding the view that "regulations for the peace and good government of provinces "do not include order.

Is the hon. Member in order, because he said that he did not rise to deal with this Amendment?

The hon. Member was dealing rather effectively with the Amendment.

I was observing that upon this Amendment a very useful opportunity offers itself to the Under-Secretary to repudiate with all his might any intention to establish any similarity, either in the phraseology or in anything whatsoever, between this measure and the Government of Ireland Bill. This is a point of considerable substance, because it has been raised in the Indian Press, and it has been claimed that India has got Home Rule before Ireland. I hope the Undersecretary will take this opportunity on behalf of the Government of hotly repudiating any similarity between the two Bills.

I agree with the last speaker that this word is really unnecessary. It is impossible to stipulate "good government and peace" which does not include "order," and for that reason I think it is unnecessary to put the word "order "in. I would ask the hon. Member if he does not agree with me that there is no government in the world that can challenge comparison with the Government of India, and no people in the world that can challenge comparison with the people of India in desiring and maintaining a condition of order in the country in which they live? In drafting this Clause we have followed the words in previous Acts. If the hon. Member will turn to Section 48 of the Act of 1861, he will see precisely the same words used—

"It shall be lawful for every such Lieutenant-Governor in Council, thus constituted, to make laws for the peace and good government of his respective division, province, or territory."

If we are considering the influence on the Indian mind of words in Clauses of this kind, surely it is far better to preserve harmony with previous Acts than to go for an analogy which must necessarily be inaccurate.

May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman does not see his way to accept my brief and earnest invitation?

The hon. Member says the word "order" is included in the words "good government," and that you cannot have good government unless you make provision for the maintenance of order. That is true, but I am not quite certain the present Government always acts up to it, and what we have in our mind is the attitude of the Home Secretary last night. I presume the hon. Member—

We cannot go into that now.

The hon. Member will certainly admit his Government in his opinion is a good Government, but his Government does not always maintain order.

That, again, is really out of order. The question before the Committee is whether it is desirable in drafting this Clause that the word "order" should be inserted.

I was endeavouring to answer the argument of the hon. Member that good government included keeping order, and I was going to argue that it did not always. I will not pursue the subject only to justify myself in your eyes and in order to show I have no desire to contravene your ruling.

Is the hon. Baronet in Order in disregarding the good government of this House by disobeying your orders?

I think the hon. Baronet will regard my ruling.

Certainly. There is only one Member in the Committee, and that is the hon. Gentleman who has just intervened, who thinks for a moment that I should not obey the ruling of the Chair. The Government have put in similar words in another Bill dealing with government in another part of our Empire, and the Under-Secretary has brought forward no argument to show it is not necessary to repeat them here except to say that in the Act of 1861 the word "order" is not inserted. A great many years have passed since 1861, and we cannot always count upon enactments of fifty years ago. We undoubtedly have extremely good government in India, and I think we might therefore leave the words as they are; but the Committee ought to be greatly indebted to my hon. Friend for having brought this subject before it, and I would congratulate him upon having done so. I think on the whole, however, having ventilated the matter, it would be advisable to withdraw the Amendment.

After the very satisfactory explanation which the hon. Gentleman has given, I shall certainly desire, with the leave of the Committee, to withdraw the Amendment. I agree with him that you cannot very well have good government without order, and no doubt there are exceptional circumstances prevailing at the present time in Ireland which make it desirable that the question of order should be emphasised there which do not make it necessary with regard to this Bill for the Government of India.

Before this matter drops, may I ask the hon. Gentleman once again if he will disclaim any analogy between this Bill and the Home Rule Bill?

The hon. Member has asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move to leave out the words "to any territories for the time being under a Chief Commissioner," and to insert instead thereof the words "to the Central Provinces and the Province of Assam."

The whole of the remaining Amendments in my name on Clause 3 are connected and must be read together. One of the main effects of Clause 3 is to give to the Government of India the power of creating Legislative Councils in the minor provinces of India, that is to say, in those provinces which are under the government of a Chief Commissioner and not under the government of a Lieutenant-Governor. There are, if my memory serves me, seven of these provinces. Two of them are large provinces and are undoubtedly ripe for government by Legislative Councils. Those provinces are the Central Provinces and the Province of Assam. I understand, if this Clause is passed in its present form, it is the intention of the Government of India to create Legislative Councils in those two provinces, and those two only; but, though they only propose to take advantage of the powers to be conferred upon them by this Clause in respect of those two provinces, they would still have the power without coming to Parliament of creating a Legislative Council in any other of the minor provinces of India. I think it is rather undesirable that this House should give up the very small control which it still retains with regard to the Government of India. When we have protested that the Government has not altogether acted in accordance with constitutional usage in their recent action in India, they have always replied that they are acting strictly within the limits of their constitutional powers, because the Government of India have been given power by previous statutes to bring about all these great changes by means of proclamation. If we are going to give them similar powers by this Clause and they propose to create Legislative Councils in some of these minor provinces, we shall be told we have no longer any right to interfere, because by our enactment in the year 1912 we abrogated our powers and our control over the matter. My Amendment, therefore, proposes to give the Government of India power to create Legislative Councils in the provinces of Assam and in the Central Provinces, and also to create Legislative Councils in the other minor provinces in the future, provided that before doing so they lay a draft of their proclamation upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament for at least sixty days during the Session of those Houses. I have taken my Amendment from the Act of 1909. That is precisely the procedure which was adopted in the Act of 1909 with regard to that Clause which gave the Government of India power to create Executive Councils for different provinces.

The Government at that time were quite willing to accept the Amendment then moved and carried which allowed this House to retain control to a certain extent over the Government of India so far as the creation of Executive Councils was concerned, and all I propose is that we should once again retain to ourselves the power of exercising some control over the Government of India if they propose in future to create Legislative Councils in these minor provinces. I may, perhaps, just point out that the only remaining provinces under Chief Commissionerships, after the provinces of Assam and the Central Provinces have been provided with Legislative Councils, would be five in number, all of them with a comparatively small population. In every case, I think, they consist of a population which is certainly not now ripe, and I do not think will be ripe for some time to come to enjoy the advantages, as some may think, of representative government. The provinces that would be left are: first, the North-West Frontier province, a province which runs down the North-West Frontier of India, and is inhabited very largely by somewhat primitive mountain tribes—not exclusively, I admit, but largely—who I do not think are really fit for enjoying the advantages of representative government. The second is the province of Coorg, which is a province of only 140,000 population. The third is the province of Ajmere-Merwara, with a population of 500,000, the fourth is the province of Baluchistan, with a population of over 400,000, again largely consisting of primitive tribes, and the last is the province of the Andamans and Nicobars, with a population of 10,000. I need not enlarge upon the fact that the population of those islands mainly consists. of convicts. All I ask, therefore, is that while giving the Government of India complete power to create Legislative Councils in the two provinces in which they now desire to do so—in the Central Provinces and the province of Assam, we should, with regard to the remaining five minor provinces, have the right of having the draft of any proclamation which the Government of India may desire to issue in the future for the purpose of creating Legislative Councils in them laid upon the Table of each House of Parliament, so that we should have the opportunity at any rate of discussing the question before such Legislative Councils can be created.

My Noble Friend's Amendment is one of much pith and substance, and I certainly agree with him that these minor Chief Commissionerships are not likely for some time to come to require the blessings of representative government. I think I have visited all of them, including the Andaman Islands, though I might say I went there as a visitor and not as a resident. I do not think they would require it. Therefore, I think the Amendment might very well be accepted. The only objection I have to the Amendment is one that runs through every proposal that has been made. Really I have an instinctive dislike to limiting in any respect any proposal for endowing the Governor-General in Council with powers. I feel always a dread of Indian matters coming before this House for adjudication. I own that fairly and squarely. When the Noble Viscount, Lord Morley, was Secretary of State, he was a man and a Statesman of great courage, and he was able to withstand foolish, ill-informed, and sentimental proposals which were made and pressed upon him. We cannot always be certain that will be the case. I hope we shall get on to the Third Reading of the Bill so that the whole policy that lies behind it may really be dealt with, and I propose, with your permission, Sir, to deal with some of those questions. I do not feel, since the Noble Viscount relinquished the reins, that equal courage and capacity have been shown. Therefore, though I agree with my Noble Friend's Amendment in many respects, I would almost leave the Bill as it is on purpose to emphasise and to increase if possible the powers of the Governor-General in Council. The intention, I take it, is that there should be occasions like those upon which when the East India Company's Charter was renewed the Government of India came before the House of Commons for consideration. A verdict was then passed upon it and there was an opportunity of altering it in the renewal of the Charter. In those days, however, democracy had not rushed along its course in the way it has now, and for my part, in spite of the large extent to which I agree with my Noble Friend, I doubt if I could vote with him if it came to a Division for the reason that I wish to see everything possible left to the Governor-General in Council and his powers increased rather than decreased.

My Noble Friend has made out a very good case for his Amendment. He has shown very clearly that the object of the Government is to extend these Legislative Councils to two provinces, and that it is not the object of the Government to extend them to the other five provinces. If that is the case, and I do not think it can be denied, I fail to see why the Amendment should be refused. My hon. Friend supported him in a rather half-hearted manner, and he gave his reasons, which no doubt are good reasons, but I am afraid they are rather a little influenced with his desire to be above the Houses of Parliament when he is out in India. My hon. Friend has occupied a great position in India, and no doubt, when there and seated in his Court, he does not like to think any of his actions could in any kind of way be considered by this House of Commons. I agree with him to a certain extent, but I think there are limits. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir J. Jardine) has also occupied a distinguished position in India, and no doubt, when he is in India, he is not so desirous of having his actions criticised by this House of Commons as he is when he is a Member of the House of Commons of criticising his former colleagues in India. Holding, as I do, that after all the House of Commons is the centre of the government of the Empire, I say we ought to preserve to ourselves at any rate some power under certain circumstances. Unless the hon. Member can assure me it is absolutely necessary for the object with which the Bill was introduced to be able to extend these Legislative Councils to the Andaman Island and the other places, I must say he ought to accept the Amendment which has been so ably proposed and argued by my Noble Friend. Under those circumstances, if my Noble Friend goes to a Division, I shall certainly support him.

I hope to be able to convince the Noble Lord and the hon. Baronet that this Amendment will not serve any useful purpose. There is not any intention on the part of the Government of India or on the part of the Secretary of State in Council to apply the provisions of this Clause to any other parts of India except the Central Provinces and Assam, and his fear with regard to the other provinces need not trouble him. I think I can explain why the Clause was drafted in this way. The Noble Lord's Amendment would not produce the effect which he anticipates for it. All that the Government of India would have to do, if they desired to create a Legislative Council in some province now administered by a Chief Commissioner, would be to alter the Chief Commissioner-ship into the far more expensive form of Lieutenant-Governorship, and then to create a Legislative Council, which they could do without coming to Parliament at all.

Does the hon. Gentleman say that the mere fact that they can alter the form of government to a much more expensive one would not obviously act as a check upon them?

Yes, but it would not produce the effect the Noble Lord desires to give effective Parliamentary control. In the second place, I have another argument. The object of this Clause is to give Legislative Councils to provinces now administered by a Chief Commissioner in exactly the same way that Legislative Councils can now be given to provinces administered by a Lieutenant-Governor. Surely it is better, when we are discussing the procedure by which such Legislative Councils should be set up, to take the analogy from the procedure which is adopted in giving Legislative Councils to Lieutenant-Governors rather than pursue a new procedure altogether, a procedure not applicable to Legislative Councils at all. In this Clause I ask the Committee to assent to giving Legislative Councils to provinces, whether under Lieutenant-Governorship or under Chief Commissionership, by the same procedure. The Noble Lord would prefer to give Legislative Councils and Lieutenant-Governorships by one procedure, and Legislative Councils and Chief Commissionerships by the same procedure for giving Executive Councils to Lieutenant-Governors. I suggest that is a more complicated and cumbrous method of procedure. When we are, for the first time, giving Chief Commissioners Legislative Councils, we should pursue the line we have always pursued in setting up Legislative Councils. For the two reasons, that the Amendment would not do what the Noble Lord wants, namely, preserve the control of Parliament, and that we have a better procedure of setting up Legislative Councils, I ask him if he cannot see his way to withdraw the Amendment.

On what the hon. Gentleman has said I should like to observe this. He assured us that the Government of India will have no intention to create Legislative Councils in any other provinces under a Chief Commissioner, except the Central Provinces and the province of Assam. If that be so, I fail to understand why he objects to this House keeping control over them in the event of their wishing at some future time, under circumstances which we cannot now foresee, to alter their present decision and to create Legislative Councils in those other provinces. There is something in what my hon. Friend beside me (Sir J. D. Rees) said with regard to not limiting the powers of the Governor-General of India and his Council, but I do rather object to giving these enormously wide powers to them and thereby abdicating our own powers and our own control. I say that for this reason, that when we objected that the Government had not acted altogether constitutionally in their recent procedure in India their answer to us was that they. had acted constitutionally, because Parliament had abrogated its powers in the past. I therefore object to giving any future Government an opportunity of giving a similar reply to any future Opposition, if that future Opposition desires to have some discussion upon any measure or policy which the Government of the day may endeavour to carry out with regard to India. I do not wish to press the Amendment to a Division, but I do regret that the hon. Gentleman has not been able to give a more satisfactory reply. I cannot say I was very much impressed by the argument which he adduced when he said that the Amendment would not have the effect which I intended it to have. He said that all the Government of India would have to do would be to create a Lieutenant-Governorship, in the province in which they desired to create a Legislative Council, in place of the Chief Commissionership. He admitted that would be a more expensive form of government. Surely, if all we ask the Government of India to do is to lay a draft of their proclamation upon the Table of the Houses of Parliament, in order that Parliament, if it so desires, should have the opportunity of discussing it, I feel convinced that they would be willing to do that, rather than to adopt the very much more expensive procedure suggested by the Under-Secretary, of creating a Lieutenant-Governor in provinces in which they knew a Lieutenant-Governor was not required.

If the creation of a Legislative Council in a province were a dangerous or desperate act I would largely endorse the views of the Noble Lord, but I do not think it is. I look upon Legislative Councils in these provinces as means by which the people there can make their wishes known, in the same way that this House has a general inquest over all matters of grievance. I do not see any particular objections to a larger creation of Legislative Councils, and I do not see that the creation of Legislative Councils as such cannot be left to the Governor-General in India. As regards the control over him, we know that that is vested in the Secretary of State for India, and that these matters may be debated in this House.

When?

I will answer the hon. Baronet by saying there are not enough opportunities for that discussion during the course of the year. Looking round the state of the benches now, it seems to me there ought to be more present. It ought not to be left to a small number of Members to deal with a great matter like this Bill. It is relevant to this argument to say that the House might have a greater control by having an examination into the affairs of India as it used to do in olden times. In that way the duties which ought to be assigned to the Governor-General in Council, and those which ought to be assigned to this House, ought to be marked out. On the whole, I think the Clause as it stands might well be passed.

I cannot follow the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken in the sequence of his arguments. He said, in one portion of his speech that he was thoroughly in agreement with the statement that there were not enough opportunities of discussing great Indian questions in the House of Commons. I would venture to impress upon him that if the Amendment is accepted, it will afford, at any rate, a further opportunity for a discussion of this question, should it at any future time be considered desirable by the Government of India to extend this system of government to those provinces which would, for the time being, be excluded if the Noble Lord's Amendment were carried into effect. I thoroughly agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is most desirable that we should have more frequent opportunities of passing in review the policy which is being pursued by the Governor-General and those who are responsible for the administration of India, and for that reason alone I shall certainly support the Noble Lord if he sees fit—I do not know yet what his intentions are—to press this Amendment to a Division.

There is another reason for my doing so, and that is really on the ground of the statements which were made by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Montagu) himself. So far as I understand from his speech, he was in agreement with the contention made by the Noble Lord (Earl of Ronald-shay) that it would be undesirable to extend these powers to the various portions of India which were enumerated by the Noble Lord, and he agreed, as far as I could understand his speech, with the Noble Lord in his conclusion that it was under existing conditions undesirable that the extension should be made. But what he asked us to accept was his statement that it was not the present intention if the Government to do anything of the kind. Although it may not be the intention of the hon. Gentleman himself, still he admits by that very statement that by the terms of the Bill as they stand without the Amendment of the Noble Lord we are granting him the power of carrying out that extension without any further submission of the subject to the verdict of this House. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to make a personal statement. Possibly he is entitled to do so on behalf of the Government of which he is the solo representative, a circumstance which I very much regret when a great question like this is under discussion. But what guarantee have we that under those great changes and vicissitudes which overtake any Government, however ably they may conduct the affairs of the country, his successors in office may not avail themselves, possibly at an earlier date than the hon. Member might anticipate, of those powers which we are conferring upon them and upon him and upon his successors by passing this Clause as it stands without the Amendment proposed by the Noble Lord? It appears to me most desirable that we should retain this controlling power and influence in our own hands. There is no desire unnecessarily to restrict the authority of the Governor-General in Council, but, as we are ultimately responsible for the Government of the millions of native population of India, surely it is our duty on an occasion like this to see that when a great change of this character is anticipated, where a further extension of the present intentions of the Government may become in their opinion desirable, we shall have another opportunity of passing in review what has occurred and what may have occurred since this Act first came into operation, and to see whether, in view of the experience which we shall then have gained, it is desirable that a further extension, which may then be necessary, is based on the general interests of the people of India as a whole. Under these circumstances, if the Noble Lord takes the Amendment to a Division, I shall certainly support him.

May I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment in view of the fact that the opposition has been most considerate towards him to-day, and of the fact that the hon. Gentleman himself has said that the effect of the Amendment is merely to do what he desires to do, and that the hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Jardine) has supported it as far as he dares support an Amendment in opposition to his own Front Bench? It is so very much better that in matters of this sort their should be good feeling on both sides of the House, and that we should both endeavour on a Bill of this sort, which is not a party Bill, to make it a really good, workmanlike measure. I hope the hon. Gentleman will reconsider his decision.

I should much like to respond to the hon. Baronet's persuasive appeal, but, even above the desire to preserve the harmony which has so far existed, we must have regard to the merits of the measure. I really think the Bill is better as it stands than it would be if the Amendment was carried. The Noble Lord is in agreement with me that it is not likely that the Amendment, or the Bill as un-amended, will have any practical application, because, so far as we can foresee at present, there is no intention of setting up Legislative Councils in these other Commissionerships. I am anxious to make the Legislative Council in the Chief Commissionership and in the Central Provinces and in Assam of the same status and composition as the Legislative Councils in the Lieutenant-Governorships. It may be smaller, and it may have different procedure, but it ought to be created in the same way and under the same conditions as the other Legislative Councils.

But how would my Amendment obviate that?

Because Parliament will have admittedly made an exception, and may desire to adopt a different procedure in the future as regards Legislative Councils in Chief Commissionership and as regards Legislative Councils in Lieutenant-Governorships. I want to maintain harmony, but I feel bound to ask the House not to accept the Amendment.

The hon. Gentleman seems to think that if my Amendment is carried the Legislative Councils which will be set up in Assam and the Central Provinces would be differentiated in some way from the Legislative Councils which already exist in the major provinces, but that would not be the case. The Legislative Councils in Assam and the Central Provinces would be set up in precisely the same way.

As an exception.

No, not as an exception. The only effect of my Amendment would be to give the House the opportunity, at some future time, if the Government desired to set up Legislative Councils not in Assam or the Central Provinces, but in any other of the minor provinces in which they will not now propose to create Legislative Councils, of discussing their proposal. That seems to me to be a very reasonable proposition, but I am most anxious not to do anything which could for a moment suggest that the Opposition are in any way treating this Bill as a party measure or doing anything to try and obstruct its passage into law, and because I am so anxious not to create that impression, and only for that reason, if the hon. Gentleman cannot meet us I propose to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

had given notice of an Amendment to leave out the word "not" ["shall not apply to those territories"].

This Amendment is out of order, because it would make nonsense if it were carried.

The object is that the proviso of Section 3 of the Government of India Act of 1854 shall apply to these territories. With respect, I do not think that is nonsense.

This Clause sets up Legislative Councils for these Chief Commissionerships. If the proviso applies to these Chief Commissionerships, although Legislative Councils might come into existence, legislation could still be passed by the Governor-General. Therefore what could remain of the Legislative Councils?

It appears to me, reading the Amendment into the Clause, that the later words of the Clause would be superfluous.

My object was to use that as a means of emphasising the necessity of retaining that proviso of the Act of 1854, which appears to me to be of great importance. Probably the same effect could have been obtained by merely deleting all the words from the words "Chief Commissioner" to the end of the Clause. I think the same object would be obtained in that way as by leaving out the word "not." That would make perfectly evident what is my intention.

If the hon. Member moves his Amendment in the more sensible form of leaving out these words, it will be in order.

2.0 P.M.

Then I beg to move to leave out from the words "Chief Commissioner" to the end of the Clause. I think this question is one of considerable importance. It does not seem to me from a survey of the Act of 1854, that the hon. Gentleman is quite correct in the suggestion he made, namely, that if this proviso were to remain in force these Councils would be deprived of legislative authority. I would like him to refer to the Act, so that he may see exactly how the position stands. I notice in the Bill now before the House it is described as the Government of India Act, 1854, but in the official copy of the Act which I have before me it is described as the Indian Appointments Act, 1854. Therefore, I hope we are really referring to the same measure, because I have not been able to ascertain that there was any other measure passed in regard to India in 1854. I assume that this is merely a drafting error, and that the Indian Appointments Act, 1854, is really the measure which is referred to, because at the end of Section 3 there is a proviso which is evidently what the hon. Gentleman had in his mind at the time. If I am in error, possibly he will correct me and refer me to the Act of 1854, to which allusion is made in this Bill. If he refers to the Indian Appointments Act, 1854, I submit that it is most important in my view that the proviso in Section 3 should not be repealed, but should remain in force so far as this Bill is concerned. I do not wish to trouble the Committee by reading the whole of the Section, although it is rather difficult to understand exactly what is involved without reading the earlier portion. After making provision for the Governor-General of India in Council, with the sanction and approbation of the Board of Directors of the East India Company by proclamation duly published, exercising certain powers and authority, we come to the proviso which I submit is the proviso in question.

That is the Act.

The proviso says:—

"Provided always, that no law or regulation in force at any such time as regards any such portion of territory shall be altered or repealed except by law or regulation made by the Governor-General of India in Council."

I maintain that it is most desirable that that proviso should remain in force. It really seemed to me that there was a fallacy in the argument used by the hon. Gentleman. His argument was that if the proviso remained in force it would prevent a Legislative Council having the necessary authority for managing the affairs of the province over which it has control. That is not the terms of the proviso as I read it. So far as I can see the contention of the hon. Gentleman is incorrect. If this proviso remains in force it will not deprive Legislative Councils of the right to introduce the necessary legislation for the government of those provinces in future, but what it will do is to prevent them altering or changing existing laws without the approval and sanction of the Governor-General in Council. Therefore, I think the hon. Gentleman, when he made that statement, was labouring under a misapprehension, and probably he had not had sufficient time to study the details of this particular Section. After all, we are agreed that the laws made were those which were considered best for the good government of these various provinces. I think it is most desirable, when it is thought necessary that some change should be made in existing laws, it should not be done except in the way indicated. As has been frequently stated during the course of the discussion by hon. Members on this side of the House, there is no desire whatever on our part to restrict or restrain the authority of the Governor-General, but this is a restriction and restraint on the powers of the Governor-General which the hon. Gentleman is proposing in the Clause as it stands. We want to extend the powers. If this Amendment is accepted the result will be more satisfactory than if we allow to these different Chief Commissioners, who under this Clause are to have extended authority in the various provinces which they control, the power of repealing or altering laws and regulations which have been previously made for the good government of the country without any reference to the Governor-General in Council. It is highly probable that friction would arise and undesirable incidents would occur which would be obviated if this old proviso remains in force, a proviso which would not restrict the powers of these Councils with regard to future legislation, but only with regard to the alteration or amendment of of laws already existing.

The proviso in the Act of 1854, which it is now sought not to apply to this province, was to apply to territory taken under the control of the Governor-General where there was no Legislative Council, and therefore it was right and proper that any alteration as existing before the Chief Commissioner-ship was formed should be made by the Governor-General in Council. There was no other way of doing it. There was no Legislative Council in the province itself, so the Governor-General was the right person to do it. But under the new condition of affairs I submit that it would be a highly invidious procedure to say that whereas other provinces can alter these laws, yet the Legislative Council which is to exist in the districts covered by the Amendment, although it exists for the purpose of legislation, must go to the Governor-General in Council for an alteration in its laws just as though no Legislative Council had ever been created. I am quite sure that the hon. Member will see that it really would not be fair to the new Legislative Council to limit its activity in a way in which no province under a Lieutenant-Governorship is limited. I hope, therefore, that the House will not accept this Amendment.

I may say at once that this Clause carries out the policy of the Government of India, and the reason I did not intervene was that I could not make out what the objection was. In my opinion the policy behind this Bill is so momentous and it is so much objected to in India that I am anxious to get on to the Third Reading. I realise that discussions of this character will be very unacceptable in India where they think that we should deal with the great policy of the Bill, and not with points of detail which arise in this way.

I did not quite follow the statement of the hon. Member though I have no doubt that in his amended views he is perfectly correct, but if so, there was no necessity to put in this portion of the Clause at all, and therefore my Amendment would be an improvement and simplification of the Bill. The Under-Secretary stated, as I understand, that the proviso of the original Bill of 1854 was put in with reference to a state of affairs existing when the Governor-General took over a new territory altogether where no Legislative Council had been in existence. There is no real necessity for definitely stating that that proviso is not to apply, because if the hon. Member's statement is correct it would not apply in any case. Consequently, I still think that the Bill, would be simplified by the adoption of the Amendment. But as that is not the view of the hon. Member and as he has explained why he thinks it desirable that the new Legislative Council should have powers not merely of introducing new legislation, but of repealing or amending old legislation, I ask the Committee's leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

In reference to the Amendment which stands in my name. I realise that this Bill carries out the policy of the Government of India, and that if no extra cost were to be imposed the Bill would be absolutely worthless. Therefore my Amendment amounts to a direct negative, and although this Bill according to the statement of the hon. Gentleman made in answer to questions which I put will manifestly put an extra charge equal to the salaries of five Secretaries of State on the Indian taxpayer to say nothing of the cost of Delhi, I hope on the Third Reading to get an opportunity of dealing with this question. Neither will I press the second part of my Amendment, because it is identical in substance with the Amendment of my Noble Friend (Lord Ronaldshay), and I have altered my mind since I put it down, being impressed day by day by the danger resulting from what I believe has lately happened, and that is the settling of Indian questions between two-State officials, the Secretary of State and the Governor-General, instead of through the ordinary channel.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

The Amendment which stands in my name is in Sub-section (1), after the word "Service," to leave out the words "and the other enactments mentioned in Part II. of that Schedule."

I am not sure whether I should be in order at this point in referring to Part II. of the Schedule itself, with regard to which I have an Amendment that it should be omitted. This is a consequential Amendment to that Amendment, and I am not sure whether it would be more in order formally to move this Amendment now without going into details, and then, when Part II. of the Schedule comes up, to move its omission.

I rather think that I shall have to rule out the Amendment on the Schedule to leave out Part II., because it will be consequential upon what takes place upon this Amendment.

I must speak to the two Amendments together then. A good deal has been said in the course of the discussion already as to the inadvisability of this system of legislation by reference, which is unfortunately becoming so common and makes it far more difficult, from the point of view of a Member of Parliament, who has not got the advantage of skilled advice to assist him, to deal with questions which may have far-reaching and important consequences. Therefore I propose to move to omit Part II. of the First Schedule, in order to draw attention more especially to the remarkable extent to which this system of legislation by reference has been developed. I am bound to confess that I have not had time to study Sections 53 and 57 of the East India Act of 1793, but I sincerely hope that these points have been carefully investigated by the Under-Secretary. I trust that these ancient and somewhat obsolete Acts of Parliament have been carefully examined by him or his advisers in order to see that these Clauses and Sub-sections, and so forth, do apply, and that it is really necessary for the purpose of this Bill they should be repealed. In the short time at my disposal I have not had an opportunity of studying Section 62 of the Government of India Act of 1833, where we are told are the words, "And Governor of the Presidency of Fort William in Bengal," nor have I had time to examine Section 71 of the same Act. I hope the hon. Gentleman has carefully gone into this Act as. well as the Act of 1793, and has ascertained that in order to carry into effect the provisions of the Bill now before us it is necessary to repeal the words referred to in the Schedule.

Similarly I have had no time to make a careful examination into Section 50 of the Indian Councils Act, 1861, in regard to which it is proposed to repeal the words. "And Governor of the Presidency of Fort William in Bengal," in order that proper effect may be given to the provisions of this Bill. I think it is undesirable that we should be asked to sanction obscure legislation of this character, it being most difficult where we have not a law library at our disposal—I know there is one available in this House—to assist us to go closely into great and important questions of the government of India, on which the destiny of the Empire so largely depends. We have to study those Bills when we go home, without the aid of a law library, and, owing to the obscure way in which these measures are drafted, it is absolutely necessary to come to the House to look at the references in order to see what the Government are proposing. In the limited time at my disposal I have had no opportunity in regard to these references to look them up and verify them. I have been more fortunate in my investigation of the First Schedule of the Indian Councils Act, 1909, and I would like to draw the Under-Secretary's attention to this portion of the Bill. In the First Schedule to the Indian Councils Act, 1909, it is proposed to repeal certain words. In that Schedule we come to this curious phrase, "Legislative Council of the Governor-General of the Bengal Division of the Presidency of Fort William." I at once turn to the Indian Council's Act of 1909, and the Schedule to which this referred. I have gone through very carefully the First Schedule to the Act of 1909, and it seems to me this is another instance of legislation in a hurry, another case of that incurable sloppiness which is principally characteristic of Radical legislation at the present day.

I speak under correction by the hon. Gentleman, because, although I have got a copy of the Act from the Library, it may be that it is incorrectly printed. Evidently there was some mistake with regard to the Government of India Act, 1854, because it was differently described in the volume which was at my disposal; but this is quite a recent Act, and it seems incredible that there should be variations of this Act in existence at the present time. I should be very glad to know exactly in what copy of the Act this particular phrase which I have quoted appears. As I said, I have gone through the First Schedule of the Indian Councils Act of 1909 with very great care, and I cannot find the words which the hon. Gentleman now proposes to repeal. I cannot see how you are going to repeal words which do not exist. Let me go through the Schedule of the Act of 1909. It is headed, "First Schedule." Then follows, "Maximum Number of Nominated and Elected Members of Legislative Councils." One column is headed, "Legislative Council," and the next column is headed, "Maximum Number." It is rather difficult to describe the Schedule as it appears upon this page; but under the heading of the first column we have "Legislative Council of the Governor-General," and in the next column the maximum number appears as 60; then "Legislative Council of the Governor of Fort Saint George," maximum number 50; "Legislative Council of the Governor of Bombay," maximum number 50; "Legislative Council of the Lieutenant-Governor of the Bengal division of the Presidency of Fort William," maximum number 50: "Legislative Council of the Lieutenant-Governor of the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh," maximum number 50; "Legislative Council of the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Eastern Bengal and Assam," maximum number 50; "Legislative Council of the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of the Punjab," maximum number 30; "Legislative Council of the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Burmah," maximum number 30; "Legislative Council of the Lieutenant-Governor of any province which may hereafter be constituted," maximum number 30.

I have read the whole of the Schedule to which this Schedule of the Bill apparently applies, and I cannot find any mention of the "Legislative Council of the Governor-General of the Bengal Division of the Presidency of Fort William." Who is the Governor-General of the Bengal Division of the Presidency of Fort William? He does not exist in the Schedule which I have read. Here is another copy of the Act which has been placed in my hand, and I do not see any mention of this interesting personality. This Governor-General has apparently been created by the Liberal Government in order that his career may be immediately cut short by the provisions of this Bill. I speak under correction. It may be that the copy of the Act which I have read is wrong. I do not know who the Governor-General of the Bengal Division of the Presidency of Fort William is. It seems to me that he is a sort of legislative "Mistress Harris," and, as a matter of fact, I am inclined to think that, like Mrs. Gamp's friend, "there is no such person at all." Subject to explanation by the Under-Secretary—and I have no doubt he Has a sufficient explanation—I have moved the Amendment that the words of the Clause referring to this Schedule shall be left out in order that we may have an opportunity of hearing from the hon. Gentleman who this Governor-General of the Bengal Division for the Presidency of Fort William is, what are his functions, and what is the reason for desiring that he should apparently be cut off from those official functions in order to fulfil the purposes of this measure which is now before us.

The object of the hon. Member is to leave out the Second Schedule, and as his second Amendment is consequential on the one he now moves, I propose to deal with the two. I can assure the hon. Member that the repeal Clause of that Schedule has been very carefully considered. As I explained in introducing the Bill to the House, Section 53 of the East India Act of 1793 and Section 62 of the Government of India Act, 1833, were of a different effect from any of the other enactments mentioned in the Second Schedule, because they contained matters which were of importance at that date, and therefore have been specially mentioned. All the other Sections sought to be repealed are purely non-controversial and far from the state of affairs which results from the passage of the other Clauses of the Bill. Section 62 of the Government of India Act of 1833 refers to what the Governor-General of India should do if there should be a vacancy in his office, or if he should be absent. It is suggested that he shall appoint in his place an ordinary member of the Council next in rank, who shall hold the office of Governor-General of India, and the office of Governor of the Presidency of Fort William and Bengal. That was at a time when the Governor-General of India was also Governor-General of Fort William and Bengal. Now that there is a separate Government it is clearly not necessary to appoint a person to hold the office of Governor of Fort William and Bengal when the Governor-General of India is absent. Similarly, by Clause 50 of the India Councils Act of 1861 the Governor of Bombay and Madras is given the right in certain contingencies to act as Governor-General of India and also as Governor of the Presidency of Fort William and Bengal. That was when the two offices were held by the one individual, but now that they are separated that Section must be repealed. I come to the India Councils Act of 1909, and I congratulate the hon. Member in having discovered what is not. and perhaps he will accept my assurance on the point, a sin on the part of the Government, or an attempt on my part or on the part of anybody, to mislead the House. It is nothing more or less important, serious though it may be, than a misprint in the Bill, which, of course, has got to be remedied. I was going myself to suggest that it should be remedied. The whole matter can be set right at once, not by anything so drastic as by leaving out the whole of the Schedule, but you can remove the printer's error by altering the words "Governor-General" to the words "Lieutenant-Governor" in line 27 of the Schedule. I think that would be a less heroic and at the same time satisfactory course. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City will see that that purports to be a quotation from the First Schedule of the Act of 1909, but by an error in printing it refers to the Lieutenant-Governor.

My object in moving that the whole of this Schedule should be left out was because I had not an opportunity of personally investigating the other portions referred to in these obscure and rather difficult Acts. I hope that the hon. Member has really made a careful examination to see at any rate that in the earlier portions of this Schedule proper correctness has been observed. I think it is rather remarkable now on the Committee stage of this Bill, and after, I should imagine, the examination of this Schedule by the hon. Member with all the expert advice behind him, and after he had devoted a considerable portion of his time to it, and after at least a second printing of the Bill, that a glaring error of this description should be found, and which, caught my eye the very moment I opened the Bill, though I only had it in my hand for the first time yesterday evening. I should have thought it was the duty of the hon. Member to personally investigate an important measure of this kind, and not merely hand it over to the printers to do their best or their worst for him, and then when a glaring mistake is detected comparatively by accident, to say, "Oh, it is only a printer's error, for which we cannot accept any responsibility."

I do most humbly accept the whole responsibility. I quite agree that the hon. Member has every right to complain of the error which has occurred, but I wish to say, not in self-defence, but in defence, that I had seen the error long before the hon. Member pointed it out, and proposed to set it right.

I did not notice any Amendment on the Paper, and if I had I should not have thought it necessary to draw the attention of the hon. Member to the matter. As it was not down I thought the point had escaped his attention. I think that on future occasions, when Bills of this first-class importance are being prepared, it should not be left to the last moment to hand in a written Amendment to the Chairman, but that the Bill should' be carefully investigated in every word and read not once, but twice or three times, in order to see that proper accuracy has been attained. I think I am justified in saying that this is an example of that incurable sloppiness which characterises Radical legislation. They are more anxious that there should be a quantity of legislation than that it should be carefully examined and investigated. They are anxious, in the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his remarkable speech at Cardiff, "to keep the legislative wagon full." Surely it is better that we should have quality rather than quantity, and that there should be a proper examination and' investigation of those important measures upon which the future government of our greatest dependency hangs. Those are Bills which require most careful investigation and examination before they are presented for the approval of this House.

I am not going to attempt to make any reply to the bitter partisan attack of the hon. Member who has just spoken, except to say that this is a Bill which was treated as a non-contentious measure, and to drag party politics into it does not conduce to the government of India or to the conduct of business in this House. I wish to ask the Undersecretary whether the repeals in this Section affect in any way the appointments reserved to or the status of members of the Indian Civil Service?

No.

There was no question of any party feeling until the hon. and gallant Member opposite arose. I should like to testify my gratitude to my hon. Friend for the assiduous way in which he has assisted His Majesty's Government to arrive at right conclusions and to draft their Bill properly. I think the Government ought to acknowledge the great debt they owe to the Opposition, because, if it "had not been for our coming down at great inconvenience and pointing out the errors in the Bill, these mistakes might have pass undiscovered. We are anxious that that great ornament of the British Crown, the Indian Empire, should be properly governed. In the twenty years I have been a Member of the House I do not remember any occasion on which there has been two attempts to print a Bill and both have been wrong. While I acknowledge the courtesy with which the Undersecretary has treated us, I think my hon. Friend is quite right in saying that these attempts to force legislation with undue haste lead to this sort of mistake. I understand that an Amendment will be moved by the Minister in charge of the Bill; therefore I presume my hon. Friend will withdraw his Amendment.

As the matter is going to be put right, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

I beg to move that this Clause be read a second time.

This is a Clause to which I attach very great importance. The Mahomedan community, who benefited very considerably by the Partition of Bengal brought about under Lord Curzon's administration in 1905, consider that they have a considerable grievance in the revocation of that Partition under the recent change of policy. At the annual Conference of the All India Moslem League, held at Calcutta in March last, the following resolution was passed:— That the All India Moslem League places on record its deep sense of regret and disappointment at the revocation of the Partition of Bengal in utter disregard of Moslem feeling, and trusts that the Government will take early steps to safeguard Moslem interests in the Presidency of Bengal. Dacca was the capital of the old province of Eastern Bengal and Assam, which was preponderatingly Mahomedan in its population, and one of the grievances which the Mahomedans consider they suffer is the removal of the seat of Government from the erstwhile capital of their province. It is well-known that prior to the Partition of Bengal, Eastern Bengal was very much neglected by the Government of Bengal, the reason being that the province was so large, the area so great, and the population so enormous that it was quite impossible for one Government to give careful attention to the needs of the whole of the province. For that reason the Mahomedans welcomed the Partition which divided the province, reduced the enormous population under the charge of a single Government, and gave them a seat of Government at Dacca in the centre of their own district. That has all been changed. Dacca is no longer to be the centre of Government. It is quite true that the Government have declared their intention that the Governor of the new province shall spend a portion of the year at Dacca. The Undersecretary, on the Second Reading of the Bill, went so far as to say that that was the settled policy of the Government. When I read that observation it seemed to me that the hon. Member's courage had outrun his discretion. Surely he must have remembered that Lord Morley, late Secretary of State for India, had declared publicly in Parliament that the Partition of Bengal was also a considered and settled fact. We all know that that settled fact has been swept aside, and I am afraid there is a serious feeling in the minds of many Mahomedans in India to-day that they cannot attach that importance which they ought to be able, and which they would like to attach to the mere declarations of the Government. I propose therefore to put into statutory form the intention of the Government in this matter. It is their intention that the Governor of Bengal shall reside for a certain period of the year at Dacca, and under the circumstances it seems to me to be only reasonable that that should be embodied in the Bill. Can the hon. Member give us any idea as to what exactly is meant by the declaration of the Government. Have they in their mind any particular period during which the Governor shall reside at Dacca? Do they mean that in addition to the Governor, the Government offices, the Secretariats, and so on, are to be placed at Dacca for a period of the year? We have had no information upon that point. I feel quite certain that the Mahomedans will still consider that they are suffering from a grievance, unless they have it laid down in the most categorical manner that not only the Governor himself, but the Government of the province has to spend a portion of the year in the old centre of the Government of Eastern Bengal. I know of no objection, no serious objection, which the hon. Gentleman opposite will be able to produce against inserting this intention of the Government in the provisions of the Bill. It is because I have had opportunities of realising how deeply the Mahomedans, and not only the Mahomedans of Eastern Bengal itself, but the Mahomedans throughout the whole of North India, feel in regard to this matter that I move the new Clause which stands in my name.

I think the Noble lord will agree with me that there has never been a case of a statutory precedent in a matter of this kind for a Governor or a Lieutenant-Governor of a province in India. If there was plague or famine in Eastern Bengal, or it was a case of the illness of the Governor himself, a statutory provision of this sort would be extremely difficult to carry out. The Governor-General of India and the Secretary of State is as alive as is the Noble Lord him- self to the loss which Eastern Bengal has sustained, and would sustain, by the removal of Dacca as the seat of Government. Let me quote the words of my Noble Friend in the House of Lords:— His visits to Dacca should not be merely those of a flying kind, but should show that he treats it as a second headquarters. It is very much the same reason that would take the Governor of Bengal to Dacca that takes the Governor of the United Provinces to Allahabad or Lucknow, and the Governor of Bombay to Poona. In neither of these cases has there been any statutory declaration. Government buildings have been put up at Dacca at great cost, and are to be preserved and used for the purposes indicated. I think the Noble Lord will agree with me that, once the Governor of Bengal starts going to Dacca, every visit he pays will make it more difficult for him or his successors to abandon it. Now is the critical time. The intention of the Government in this matter has now been so amply declared in every part that I venture most respectfully to suggest to my Noble Friend that he has secured what he desires in a way that is far less open to objection than the novel method of a statutory provision.

I agree with what the Under-Secretary has said, that this is an entirely novel method of bringing about what my Noble Friend desires, and I would adopt the view he has stated were it not that the whole position is without precedent. The Under-Secretary says that never before has a stipulation of this sort been imposed by Statute upon a public officer. But never before has the British Government gone back upon its word, solemnly given to the Mahomedans of India! So strongly do I feel on this matter that I will support my Noble Friend if he goes to a Division. The fact is that the Mahomedans of Eastern Bengal received the strongest assurance from the Secretary of State, Lord Morley, that this partition, which gave them a province in which they were in a majority, would never be undone. The Under-Secretary of State refers us to the words of his Noble Friend Lord Crewe in the House of Lords. I would like to refer him to Lord Morley in this House, whose words were that that partition would never be undone. But it has been undone by the Noble Viscount's successor.

Would the hon. Member refer me to the words he is quoting?

He said immediately the partition was a settled fact that he would not reopen it. Surely the hon. Member admits that? Over and over again I have heard that in this House. The Undersecretary invokes Lord Crewe. Lord Crewe no doubt said, in the House of Lords, what was the intention of the Government. But that is not a Statute! But I want to get away from all these small Amendments and to the Third Reading of the Bill, so that we can discuss matters of principle. Lord Morley's solemn assurance has been set aside by his successor, Lord Crewe. What faith can the Mahomedans have in the words of Lord Crewe in the House of Lords, undertaking that the Lieutenant-Governor shall in future spend two months in Dacca? For my part, I maintain that the Mahomedans of Eastern Bengal have been extremely badly treated in this matter, and that what has taken place amounts to a definite breach of faith. But I want to stop at that just now, for having spent the greater part of our time over technicalities, I want really to get to the policy of this Bill. I will support my Noble Friend if he goes to a Division.

The Undersecretary in his reply to my observations said that it might be difficult to carry out the provision by reason of plague or famine or something of that kind. Are we to understand by that reply that at the time when the presence of the Government is most necessary in the district he holds the view that it is just at that time that the Government ought to be absent? That is one of the strongest arguments in favour of the insertion in the Bill of my new Clause. As to the argument of the creation of a new precedent, I entirely agree that it is so; but why is it necessary to create a new precedent? Because the Government have shown that their "word in matters of this kind is not to be trusted. Lord Morley said most definitely and most explicitly in Parliament that the Partition of Bengal was a settled fact which could not be gone back upon. Yet only one or two years after Lord Morley resigns the office of Chief Secretary for India his successor goes back upon his pledged word. Is it to be wondered at that the Mahomedans, after that experience, hold that a mere declaration of the intention of the Government is not a sufficient guarantee to them of the privileges and rights which they desire to hold? I am entirely unsatisfied with the answer of the hon. Gentleman, and I feel bound under those circumstances to press this Amendment to a Division.

I must say I am very much impressed by the arguments of the Noble Lord. I was not at all impressed by, at any rate, one argument of the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, and that is almost the first occasion this afternoon, that I have not been impressed by his arguments. He says he cannot accept the Amendment of my Noble Friend merely on the ground that it is a new precedent. I am not impressed by that reply. Such an argument to come from a, Government that has disregarded all old precedents rather suggests a new world. The real argument I should have said against this Amendment of my Noble Friend would be, if it could be used, that it is a bad one. I did not hear the whole of the speech of my Noble Friend, but the part I did hear convinces me that the Amendment is not a bad one. My Noble Friend has taken very great trouble over this Amendment. The last time this matter was before the House he attempted to move it as an Amendment to the Clause, but then it was found that it was not in order, and that it should be brought forward as a new Clause. I attach very great importance to my Noble Friend's opinion on this subject, and I cannot see on what ground the Amendment should be refused. I do not know whether any of the hon. Gentlemen on the other side can enlighten us upon this matter. I see the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald), who is a great stickler for precedent, in his place. I should like to hear him get up and say he cannot accept this Amendment because it is a new precedent. Unless some better reason is brought forward against the Amendment of my Noble Friend I shall have much pleasure in supporting it.

I understand my Noble-Friend intends to press this to a Division, and I am strongly inclined to support him in the Lobby. The Amendment is one of an extremely reasonable character, and I was very much impressed not only by the speech of my Noble Friend, but also by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham. I share the regret which the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) has expressed, that we have had no contribution to this particular discussion from hon. Members on the other side of the House I have no doubt there must be several of them well qualified to give their views upon this question which in my opinion is a question not of subsidiary importance, but one involving a principle of great interest, and upon which a great deal depends. As the Noble Lord has decided to take this Amendment to a Division, I feel certain he will get a great deal of support, and I hope that so far as this Amendment is concerned it may not be regarded as a party question. A strong accusation, and I think an unmerited accusation, was brought against me personally suggesting that owing to the fact that I called attention to an error in the Bill I was actuated by party motives. I take this the first opportunity of assuring the hon. Gentleman that there was no feeling of that kind behind the statement that I felt it my duty to make, and similarly with regard to this Amendment I hope hon. Gentleman on the other side will listen to the appeal made and will treat this question on its merits and not merely go to the Lobby under the direction of the party Whips. In these circumstances I desire most heartily to support this Amendment, and I hope it will receive a large measure of support from the other side of the House because it seems to be eminently reasonable in its character.

3.0 P.M.

I cordially support this Amendment. In this reunion of Bengal the Mahomedan population round Dacca area were led to expect they would have a Governor resident for many months in their area, and they were led to believe that that was going to be a permanent arrangement, and now that that arrangement is upset they will obviously lose confidence in the Government if something like this new Clause is not put upon the Statute Book. It is not enough for them, after the treatment accorded them, to be given a mere promise and assurance. I find a paragraph in the White Paper which was circulated embodying the proclamation and correspondence with the Government of India at the time that this change in the capital was decided upon and when these enormous changes in the whole Indian system were settled. On page 9, paragraph 9, of the dispatch of the Government of India to Lord Crewe, Secretary for India, it is stated that:— Various circumstances have forced upon us the conviction that the bitterness of feeling engendered by the Partition of Bengal is very widespread and unyielding, and that we are by no means at the end of the troubles which have followed upon that measure. Eastern Bengal and Assam have no doubt benefited greatly by the Partition, and the Mahomedans of that province who form a large majority of the population, are loyal and contented; but the resentment amongst the Bengalis in both provinces of Bengal, who hold most of the land, fill the professions, and exercise a preponderating influence in public affairs, is as strong as ever though somewhat less vocal. That shows the very knotty nature of the problem which has got to be dealt with. There was a great deal, according to the showing of the Government of India, of bitterness of feeling engendered by the partition of Bengal. Meantime, the inhabitants of Eastern Bengal gain by the partition. Who is going to benefit by the reunion? Not the Mahomedans. The Mahomedans will undoubtedly suffer. You will not have a homogeneous province, but they will go back more or less to their own conditions. I do think, if you want to promote good feeling in the cauntry generally, which has been brought about by the announcement of the intention of the Government to make a reunion of Bengal, if you want full benefit to follow from that arrangement, something more definite than a vague promise—I say it in no offensive spirit—from His Majesty's Government is necessary. After all, if you put something upon the Statute Book it takes some time to get it removed. With all the good will in the world the Government may be unable to carry out its promise. I do not think the Under-Secretary has made good his case for refusing this Amendment in the reply which he made to my Noble Friend. The question of the illness of the Governor is no answer; and with regard to the question of plague, that may be the very time when it is most important that the Governor should be there. An obligation to stay two months in the year is not very much, and there is no doubt that it will be a source of great satisfaction to the Mahomedan population of that province. Personally, I think it would go far to do away with the bitterness and resentment which will be stirred up unless something of that kind is done. I trust, therefore, that the Government will see their way to modify their unbending attitude, and that something stronger than a promise may be done in order to prevent disappointment.

I understand that there will not be a Third Reading of this Bill to-day, and as the Under-Secretary distinctly challenged me when I referred to Lord Morley's statement, I should like to quote an extract from the speech of Lord Minto on this point. I asserted that what the hon. Member regarded as a sufficient safeguard was not before regarded as sufficient. I do not think the Under-Secretary can really complain of what I said, but in case he does I will read an extract on this point from Lord Minto's speech. He said:— Notwithstanding the extraordinary and belated discovery of the Government of India that there was some discontent in Bengal, I unhesitatingly assert that there was hardly any general national feeling in the Bengal agitation against partition. I can assure your lordships that when I left India the agitation against partition was stone-dead. I do not believe there was a political agitator in Bengal of whatever influence who could have collected a representative gathering on the question. We were told from home that the partition was a settled fact.

May I ask you, Mr. Chairman, whether this research into the remarks of Lord Minto on the partition of Bengal has anything to do with the question whether the Governor should reside two months in Dacca?

That is what I was wondering myself. I do not understand how the hon. Member connects it with this Amendment.

I submit that it is very much to the point. I was arguing the point that the Under-Secretary disputed that partition was regarded as a settled fact. The Mahomedans are sore and disappointed at what has happened, and they desire that, the new Governor of Bengal should be bound to spend a certain period of the year in their own capital of Dacca. If the hon. Member opposite had troubled himself to ascertain the circumstances I do not think he would have interrupted, and I think I am dealing with a point of substance. Lord Minto said—

I wish to ask, Mr. Chairman, whether it is in order to quote from the Debates of the other House of Parliament?

It is in order if it is absolutely necessary to the point, but it is unusual.

I am quoting the most pertinent portion of Lord Minto's speech, and therefore I can understand the hon. Member's objection. Lord Minto said:— We were told from home that partition was a settled fact. My point is that both Lord Morley and Lord Minto have stated that partition was a settled fact, and when I state that fact the Under-Secretary takes exception to my statement. My Noble Friend wishes to make it statutory that the new Governor should spend two months in the capital of the province of Eastern Bengal, which has been abolished and thrown into Bengal, whereby they lose the Lieutenant-Governor of Dacca. I submit that my point is material to the last degree. It is said that there is an objection to the Governor of Bengal being bound by Statute to spend some time in Dacca, and the objection was raised that there might be a time when it would be necessary that he should be elsewhere. If this is not actually made statutory something may arise which will give a good or a colourable reason for not going to Dacca, and therefore we believe it is necessary to pin the Governor down in this respect. Would the Governor of Bengal think it a hardship to be bound by Statute to spend two months at Darjeeling, or would the Governor-General think it a hardship to have to spend three months at Simla, or the Governor of Madras or Bombay to spend a similar period at Ootacamund or at Poona? We know they would all be quite willing to go to a pleasant hill station, and I am not imputing the slightest reflection upon them. I wish to point out that there is not any real hardship in binding the new Governor of Bengal to spend two months in what was the head of the old Mahomedan province which has just been disestablished, after it was stated time after time that it was a settled fact, like the laws of the Medes and the Persians. What can be the hardship in giving some compensation to those Mahomedans who have stood by us so faithfully in this matter? Lord Crewe, in his dispatch, speaks of his anxiety not to disappoint the legitimate expectations of the followers of Islam in Eastern Bengal, who form the bulk of the population, and have been loyal to the British Government during recent trouble. What is the implication? Somebody must have been absolutely disloyal during the recent trouble. I do not wish to raise any race question or import any heat into this Debate, but it is perfectly clear that what Lord Crewe meant was that the Mahomedans had stood by us and the Hindus had not on that occasion, otherwise where is the point of the argument? I think it becomes us here, when we are debating a subject which affects millions of our fellow-subjects, to treat it seriously. Here, I think, we have a point of substance which I think we must go fully into. I understand that the Government will not be able to get the Third Reading to-day, and perhaps I may be allowed to deal with this question now. Lord Hardinge, with all respect to him—I know he was a distinguished diplomatist—has since he has been Viceroy adopted the diplomatic method of dealing with difficulties in India.

The hon. Member is now making the speech he proposes to make on the Third Reading. I think he must really defer that until we reach the Third Reading.

I will leave that at once. I wish on this Amendment to associate myself with the words used by Sir Edward Carson on a recent occasion, when he said:— Neither in society, nor in business, nor in commerce, nor in professional life has any body of men succeeded who adopted the policy of abandoning their friends in order to conciliate their enemies.

That is clearly the speech the hon. Gentleman intended to make on the Third Reading.

I frankly confess I was going to say that on the Third Reading.

Then the hon. Member had better wait until we reach the Third Reading.

When the Government state it is their intention the Governor of Bengal shall reside for a certain period of the year at Dacca, do they mean that the Government of the whole of the province will move?

The whole of the Committee stage has so far been accomplished without a Division, and I should like, if I could, to see it completed without the necessity of a Division. If the difference between us was whether the Governor should or should not reside in Dacca, then I should cordially agree with all the remarks of the Noble Lord and some of those of the hon. Gentleman, but we are agreed that he should reside at Dacca, and the only difference between us is whether it should be a statutory obligation or an obligation which rests upon the good faith of the Viceroy in India, the Secretary of State in the House of Lords, and his representative in this House. I submit there is nothing novel in the proposal. There are in India at the present time two other Governors of great provinces who have two capitals. There is no necessity for a statutory obligation in those two cases. The Governor of the United Provinces goes to Lucknow from Allahabad and the Governor of Bombay goes to Poona without any statutory obligation. I say there is nothing to distinguish between these cases which makes it necessary to have a statutory obligation which may be fraught with all sorts of difficulties. There can only be one real reason at the back of hon. Members' minds for going into the Division Lobby, and that is to seriously suggest a solemn pledge given in three places by those responsible for the administration and government of India is not sufficient. No greater disservice could be rendered to the good government of India by Members than to suggest that the word of His Majesty's Government on so vital a matter is not considered good enough for the House of Commons. In answer to the Noble Lord, I would rather not commit myself further than to a repetition of the words I have already read from my Noble Friend's speech in another place, in which he said that it was to be regarded as a second capital of the Presidency.

May I say that under the circumstances, and only because I do not want to give rise to any suggestion that we are treating this Bill in a party way, I shall ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Proposed clause, by leave, withdrawn.

In moving this Motion for the Adjournment of the House, I wish to take the opportunity of making a slight change in the announcement of business which has already been made for next week. As regards Monday, the first business was to have been the Second Beading of the Trade Unions Bill. That is a large measure, the discussion of which it is obvious would probably require the whole day. It has come to the notice of the Government that there is every intention of a Motion being made on Monday for the Adjournment of the House, and, if Mr. Speaker accepts that Motion and it receives the sanction of the House, it would occupy the time of the House, probably from 8.15 until the close of the Sitting. Under these circumstances the Government have thought it advisable to change the business for that day. My right hon. Friend has been in consultation with the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Balcarres) and with other hon. Gentlemen who speak for the different sections of this House, and it is proposed that the business on Monday shall be the Report and Third Beading of the Government of India Bill to be followed by the Second Beading of the Mental Deficiency Bill and, if time allows, the Second Beading of the Criminal Law Amendment (White Slave Traffic) Bill, standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Fareham, which the Government has resolved to accept.

What supply will be taken on Thursday?

Land Valuation Office (Inland Revenue).

Although especially interested in the business originally put down for Monday, I feel it is quite impossible to resist the decision of the Government. We are all aware that certain events are transpiring outside this House that may require to be reviewed here on Monday, and it would be very inconvenient indeed if we had to split up the Debate on the Second Reading of the Trade Unions (No. 2) Bill, and to adjourn it at 8.15 until another day. But I hope the Government will make it quite clear that this postponement is a postponement only, and that they intend to put this Bill down at the earliest possible date which can be arranged through the usual channels. If the Government will give me a pledge to that effect I shall not propose to offer any opposition to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman. May I say, with reference to the other Bill, the White Slave Traffic Bill, I hope the Government will give it such a place as will ensure its Second Reading.

My hon. Friend may rest assured that the postponement on Monday is only a postponement of the Bill in which he is particularly interested. As regards the second point, touching the White Slave Traffic Bill, I will bear in mind what he has said. I can assure him that the Government are quite as anxious as any section of this House to see that Bill carried.

I do not wish to criticise the arrangements for business which have just been announced, as they evidently meet the convenience of the two Front Benches. But I wish to say frankly, with regard to the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, wrongly called the White Slave Traffic Bill, it must be clearly understood that there are some Clauses in it which require very earnest and searching criticism and, indeed, will get it. As for any desire to put down this foul and degrading traffic, I can assure the House there is no one more inclined to be severe upon it than I am. This Bill was originally introduced under another title, but no definite effort was ever made to pass it. There were no demands for its Second Beading, and it repeatedly happened apparently that hon. Members preferred to be at horse races or engaged in squaring their financial arrangements subsequently to attending to the business of this House. A totally false impression has got abroad in regard to this Bill. It was frequently on the Notice Paper last year, but night after night no Member took the trouble to move it. It is represented that it was down on the Order Paper at least one hundred times, but that there was always somebody who cried, "I object." That is not true. There was no definite effort made in any quarter to get it passed. This year it has only been moved two or three times, and that has been when there has been a big Division. For instance: it was moved on the night of the Division on the Second Heading of the Home Rule Bill. It was also moved on the night when the Division was taken on the Welsh Church Disestablishment Bill. But that was simply because hon. Members happened to be in the House and thought it well to stay behind and call for the Bill. No one, however, has seemed inclined to put himself to the slightest inconvenience to get it through, and I do not want it to go forth to the public that "Indefatigable efforts" have been made to get the Bill through. I certainly have not seen anything of them, and I have been as much in attendance as any hon. Member of this House. The Bill will, no doubt, effect some good. But as to one of its Clauses—I do not propose to go into the merits of it—those who champion the right of innocent women to be preserved from arrest on suspicion will naturally examine it very closely. I have been astonished to hear it suggested at Question time that there is no disposition to discuss this Bill. I venture to assert that the action which has been taken by some of us has been taken with the object of having it properly discussed. I do not object to anything in the Bill that will lead to the stamping out of procuration and other abominable evils, but we certainly are desirous of preventing innocent people being arrested on suspicion. I hope it will not be thought that when endeavouring to secure the proper consideration of these Clauses we are animated by the slightest possible sympathy with the degrading traffic.

May I remark that my hon. and learned Friend in charge of this Bill would have moved it on many occasions had it not been for the fact that during several weeks he has been suffering under a severe domestic affliction. I merely rise to point out to the Home Secretary that from what has fallen from the last speaker it is perfectly obvious there is no objection on principle to the Second Reading of this Bill, and I do hope that if it is to be taken on Monday next it will be placed at such a point on the Order Paper as will ensure its going through.

I should like to ask the Home Secretary, seeing that he suggested that the question of the strike might be discussed on Monday, whether it is possible to have Sir Edward Clarke's award obtainable from the Vote Office?

It is there already.

I tried to get it, and could not.

It ought to have been there. I will certainly do my best to see that it is available.

I should like to ask the Home Secretary whether it would be possible to have the Criminal Law Amendment Bill placed second Order instead of third? I agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Booth) that there has been a great deal of misrepresentation about this Bill, and that the more time we have to discuss it, and the fuller it is discussed, the better for everybody. I venture to say there are not six Members of the House who have ever read the Bill, or who have the slightest knowledge of what is in it. They are caught by the words "White Slave," which are put in the Title of the Bill, but which do not occur in the Bill, and only one Clause of the Bill relates in any kind of way to this particular traffic. I remember the Chief Secretary to Ireland saying that he believed that a good many Bills got through this House on account of their titles. The agitation on behalf of this Bill has been solely on account of its title. In these circumstances I trust that a real opportunity will be given for the discussion.

In view of the appeal made by the Noble Lord, supported by the hon. Baronet, the White Slave Traffic Bill, wrongly so called according to the hon. Baronet, will be placed second Order.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-three minutes before Four o'clock till Monday next, 10th June.