Secretary and the Secretary of State, but resulted in re-duplication of work and loss of time. The whole method of disposing business was extremly dilatory and cumbersome. Above all there being no individual responsibility and the opinions being expressed collectively the Council could not prove to be an efficient body. Thus the exprience and knowledge of the Council was not availed of as intended by the framers of the Act of 1858. Again the salaries of Councillors were to be paid to them from the revenues of India for whatever little purpose they served. The whole situation was bɔund to be intolerable if we bear in mind the fact that the Councillors were to be appointed for seven years, a period too long to keep them in real touch with the rapidly changing conditions in this country. Thus the unanimous verdict was that the Council which had proved to be too weak and ill-constructed to fulfil the noble intentions of the framers of the Act of 1858, should be ended or mended.

Attempts at Reform. (a) Lord Crew's Bill was introduced in the House of Lords in 1914. It made provisions for: (i) the elimination of the Committees and substitution for them of departments corresponding to and to remain in touch with those of the Government of India, each member being the responsible head of this Department; (ii) the reduction of the number of the Councillors to 7 with the maximum of 10, raising their salary to its earlier figure of £ 1200; (iii) the condition that six members atleast should have served or resided in India for at least 10 years; (iv) and the clause that at least two members were to be natives of India, selected from the list prepared by the non-official members of the Indian Legislative Council. The Bill could please nobody, neither the Abolitionists nor the Reformers, and died "unsunk, unmourned and unwept."

(b) Lord Welby's Commission later on was appointed to make certain recommendations on this subject. The minority report recommended (i) that a sufficient number of representative

Indians of position and experience should be nominated to the Council of the Secretary of State on the recommendations of the Central and Provincial Legislatures; (ii) that the system of Parliamentary inquiries as in the time of East India Company should be renewed; (iii) and that to maintain the controlling authority over Indian expenditures, the salary of the Secretary of State should be placed upon the British estimates. This report had also practically no effect nor could it satisfy the aspirations of the people of India.

(c) The Joint Report of 1918. The opinion of the leaders in India was in favour of the abolition af the India Council. The Montague-Chelmsford Report however recommended:-(1) That the control of the Secretary of State and the Government of India must continue in essential matters so that the former might discharge effectively his responsibility to Parliament. (2) That a wider discretion ought henceforth to be left to the GovernorGeneral in Council who should be required to refer certain matters to the Home Government not for sanction but for information only. (3) That arrangement may be made for some interchange in the personnel between the staff of the India Office and the Public Services in India to enable the Secretary of State to be informed with the most recent political state of India that was so rapidly changing. (4) That the salary of the Secretary of State should be defrayed from England's revenue and voted annually by Parliament. (5) That a select Committee on Indian affairs should be appointed every year at the beginning of each Session by the House of Commons to keep themselves well-informed on Indian questions and report to the House before the annual debate on Indian estimates.

(d) The Crew Committee's Report 1919. As suggested in the Montague Chelmsford Report, a Committee under the Presidentship of Lord Crewe was appointed to report upon the reconstruction of the India Office and the extent of the Secretary of State's

control over the Government of India. Some of the importanrecommendations of this Committee were the following:

Relations Between the Home and Indian Administration

(1) Save in cases of absolute necessity, legislation should not be certified for enactment by the Council of State without the previous approval of its substance by the Secretary of State on the ground that its enactment is essential in the interests of peace order and good government of India.

(2) Where the Government of India are in agreement with a majority of the non-official members of the Legislative Assembly, either in regard to legislation or in regard to resolutions on the budget or on matters of general administration, assent to their joint decision should only be withheld in cases in which the Secretary of State feels that his responsibility to Parliament for peace, order and good government of India or paramount considerations of imperial yolicy, require him to secure a reconsideration of the matteer at issne by the Legislative Assembly.

(3) As a basis of delegation, the principle of previous consulation between the Secretary of State and the Government of India should be substituted in all cases in which previous sanć. tion of the Secretary of State in Council has hitherto been required.

(4) In relations between the Secretary of the State and loca Governments the principle should, as far as possible, be applied that, where Governments are in agreement with conclusions of the legislature, their joint decision should ordinarily be allowed

to prevail.

(5) Ascent to or the disallowance of Indian legislation by the Crown should be signified by His Majesty in Council.

The Home Administration of India.

(6) The powers and authority now vested in the Secretary of State for India in Council should be transferred to the Secretary of State,

(7) The Secretary of State should be assisted by an advisory committee to which he shall refer such matters as he may determine, and he may provide by regulations for the conduct of business of the committee.

(8) The advisory committee should consist of not more than 12 and not less than six members appointed by the Secretary of State.

(9) No less than one-third of the members of the committee should be persons domiciled in India and selected by the Secretary of State from a panel of names submitted by the non-official members of the Indian legislature.

(10) The tenure of office of members of the committee should be five years.

(11) Members of either House of Parliament should be ineligible for appointment to the committee.

(12) The salary of members of the committee should be £1200 a year.

(13) Indian members of the committee should receive a subsistence allowance of £ 600 a year in addition to the salary in respect of their domicile.

(14) A statutory provision should be made for recommendations (6) to (15) inclusive.

(15) The Secretary of State should regulate by executive orders the conduct of correspondence between the India office and the Governments in India.

Organizations of India office establishment.

(16) Action should be taken with a view to the transfer of the agency work of the India office to a High commissioner for India or some similar Indian governmental representative in London.

(17) No formal system of interchange of appointments between members of the India office and Indian services can be recommended, but a deputation between the two countries should be encouraged.

(18) Occasion should be taken now and then to appoint an Indian to one of the posts intermediary between the Secretary of State and heads of departments.

Apportionment of Charges of India Office between

Home and Indian Revenues.

(19) The charges on account of political and administrative work of the Office should be placed on the British estimates, those on account of agency work of the Office being defrayed from Indian revenues. The apportionment te be determined by agreement between the India Office and the Treasury.

(20) The committee are not in favour of the proposal to establish a select committee of the House of Commons on Indian affairs.

Sir James Brunyate, Professcr Keith and Mr. Basu have stated their views in seperate memoranda. (Kale)

When the above report was discussed, the abolition of the Council was strongly opposed by Ilbert and Austin Chamberlain. At last it was retained and the following changes were introduced in the constitution of the Home Government:

A. To strengthen Parliamentary Control-(1) Transfer of the Secretary of State's salary and other India Office expenditure to British estimates. The 19th recommendation mentioned above was not fully carried out. The Act requires the salary of the Secretary of State for India, his Under Secretaries and any other expenses of his departments may be paid out of monies provided by Parlíament. But the salary of the Secretary of State, it was laid down,