[TO. THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR."[
SIB,—In 1909 Lord Morley, historian, Constitutional writer, Parlia- mentarian, administrator of Ireland during a period of trouble, undertook as. Secretary of State for India the revision of the system of. Indian Government, and succeeded in passing great measures, much discussed, which have become the law of the land. In 1917-18, after only eight years but in the middle of the Great War, Mr. Montagu visits India, and as the result of his confer- ences, largely with the Indian leaders of public opinion, issues a Report tell.M. Government embodying the Constitutional changes which he thinks desirable. These two Secretaries of State admittedly are the protagonists in the great reforms advocated by them. May I be allowed to compare their views?
Lord Morley insisted on the sovereignty of the British Parlia- ment, and diselaimed any intention to establish a Parliamentary system in India. He took the advice of Lord Minto's Government, backed by the experience of every administrator of eminence, that anything beyond very limited constituencies and indirect fran- chises was unthinkable in India. The Montagu Report gives e valuable and true summary of the results of the Morley-Minto Councils. Thin statement is well worth attention. The Executive have responded' markedly to the ideas of the partly elected Council of India. The proceedings of this Council from 1910 to 1917 are carefully analysed. To avoid opposition every effort is made before a Bill is introduced to ascertain as far as possible non-official opinion. Members interested in Bills arrange to discuss them with the official member in charge in private. Nine Bills are instanced as having been generally improved at the instance of non-official members. Twice as many questions were asked in 1917 as in 1911. The right to move Resolutions on matters of general importance and in the financial statement, conceded in 1909, has been justified by experience. A rough classification of the Resolutions shows that some seventy-three can be desdribed as fructuous. The non-official members have shown a sense of respon- sibility indealing with Government legislation. For the provincial Legislative Councils no similar analysis could be made, but on the whole, they have been characterized by the same tendencies as have distinguished the Council of India.
Such are the results of eight years' work under the Morley scheme. To me they seem to be extraordinarily successful, and to justify the most sanguine expectations of their framers. Why should this system be interrupted ? What more can be required by a liberal-minded and experienced critic of India's history and British rule ? What need is there now to make a change ? The answer is that it is necessary to take steps in order to redeem the promise of August 20th, 1917, given in the House of Commons by the Secretary of State for India, the- promise of taking Indians into the Administration and gradually developing eelf.governing institutions. Now the Royal Commission of 1912 have dealt with the first point,. and it only remains to give effect to their recom- mendations. And for the self-governing institutions, it seems right to leave well alone. In this Mr. Montagu does not agree. He thinks it necessary to introduce a new scheme of his own and enters on the perilous task of constitution-mongering a la Sieyhs. His plan is by no- means original. It is simply to transplant to India the• constitution of a modern British Parliament, the result of a thousand years of struggle, of wisdom, and patriotism. No blame attaches to Indian politicians for framing their ideals according to our example. But that a British Secretary of State should assent to any such scheme, leaving out of account all that makes India• different from Great. Britain, simply fakes one's breath away.
In the provinces of Madras, Bombay, Bengal, the United Provinces, the Punjab, Bihar and Orissa, the Central Provinces, and Assam, enlarged Legislative Councils are to be established with the hulk of the members elected on a broad franchise. Who
are to be the electors P What are the areas for which elections are to be held ? What is to be the franchise ? How many are to be elected P These all-important points are not answered, but are to be referred to a special Committee with an unfortunate Chairman to be sent out from England. "All this electoral architecture must inevitably be experimental, and will need modification and development from time to time," says Mr. Montagu. Any one who knows anything of the country knows that it is impos- sible to work out a bond-fide scheme on these lines. Bengal and the United Provinces have each as many people as the United Kingdom, Bombay as Austria, the Punjab as Spain and Portugal combined. Merely to state these facts is enough to show the total impracticability of Mr. Montagu's proposals.
When he comes to deal with the Government of India Council, Mr: Montagn'e suggestions are of a different character. He pro- poses a double Chamber; that is, to divide the Council into an Indian Legislative Assembly of about one hundred members, and a Council of State of about fifty members. He wants the Council of State to develop something of the experience and dignity of a body of Elder Statesmen. He proposes complicated provisions for these two bodies to work together, reserving all real power for the Council of State.. Hie Utopia may be excellent, but there is the objection that it does not correspond in the least with existing facts and is impossibly vague. Indian politicians will of course be up in arms against what they will regard as reactionary pro- posals, for they will be quick to see through the device of a double Chamber. They will say that they are being deprived of true representation with members elected to the Council of State under regulations by the Governor-General in Council as to the qualifi- cations of candidates.
Between Lord Morley and Mr. Montagu there is a whole world of difference. It is Lord Morley who thought out a system in accord with the announcement of August 20th, 1917, while Mr. Montagu's nebulous proposals are simply disastrous. The present writer has had considerable experience both in India and in London of local administration, and has always been in strong sympathy with progressive Indian views such as are held by many old civilian friends. He thinks it right to point out the vagueness and impossibility of this new policy suggested in Mr. Montagu's Report. Other portions of that Report seem to him worth con- sideration, but your readers who do not know India should be put on their guard in the first place against accepting the fundamental basis of this new policy.—I am, Sir, &c., GERALD RITCHIE. The Athenaeum.
Previous page
