DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.68025#0184
178
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE:
The Hon.
Mr. F. A.
Slache.
29 Jan., 1908.
18725. Have they occupancy rights?—Yes, just in
the same way as on private estates ; over the great
bulk of the province they are regulated by the
Bengal Tenancy Act; in Chota Nagpur they have a
special Act.
18726. Who deals with suspensions and remissions
of rent?—The Commissioners deal with remissions of
rent in Government estates.
18727. Do you suspend very often when you do not
remit ?—Yes; he goes up to the Board for the year
afterwards, but they occur so seldom.
18728. Generally speaking, you do not think that
Collectors and Commissioners need more powers in
that particular matter?—It would not lessen the
work ; I am perfectly willing to delegate powers where
necessary, but I do not see the necessity for this ; the
present system does not hamper them, because the
need for their carrying out those matters occurs so
very seldom.
18729. Is the principle under which decentralization
should be conducted merely that of lessening work ?—
And making it more efficient ; there is no necessity to
delegate a power which is used probably once in five or
ten years.
18730. Is not the principle rather that when there
can be no objection to an officer having power, there is
no reason for not giving it to him ?—But you have not
sufficient instances before you to show that there is no
objection.
18731. Suppose a Joint-Magistrate is passed over for
a Collectorship, would you debar him from an appeal ?
—I would put him then to serve in another division
and see what the officer there said of him.
18732. Suppose the Lieutenant-Governor came to
the conclusion that X was unfit to be a Collector,
would you allow X to have an appeal to the Govern-
ment of India ?—No.
18733. In a Lieutenant-Governor’s province is that
not rather a dangerous power to be in the hands of one
man ?■—I would not bar the man from promotion for
ever. I would let him go to another division, and then
if the Commissioner there reported that he was unfit
I would retire him on a proportionate pension.
18734. His fate after one or more trials is to lie
absolutely in the hands of the Lieutenant-Governor ?
—Supported by the advice of two Commissioners.
18735. You would have a sort of Committee?—No ;
the Lieutenant-Governor depends on the advice of his
Commissioners in the first instance.
18736. Therefore if two Commissioners have said
that X is not fit, that should be accepted ; suppose one
Commissioner says that he is fit and the other says he is
not ?—Then I would give him another chance.
18737. Take a man who is passed over for a Com-
missionership and feels, wrightly or wrongly, that he
has a very real grievance ; are you going to allow him
to appeal ?—No.
18738. The appointment of members of the Board
is now technically in the hands of the Government of
India ; that is to say, it requires their sanction. Do
you see any necessity for that ?—I think it will be
better for the procedure to remain as it is now.
18739. In the railway case you mention of the
Bengal and North-Western Railway, that it is not a
railway under direct Government management ?—No.
18740. Do you say that in a railway matter the
Commissioner’s opinions should at once prevail if he
says that a bridge or some expensive work, say, wire-
fencing, is necessary ?—I do not say that it should at
once prevail, but I should like to see the procedure
altered so that frequent references to the Government
of India would not be required.
18741. As long as railways are an imperial matter
there must be references to the Government of India ?
—I am afraid so, but there is the fact that in railway
matters a great deal of harm is done to the people by
the present procedure.
18742. (Sir S'eyning Edgerley.) I should like to call
your attention to Act I of 1903, that is, an Act by
which in the second schedule a large number of dele-
gations were made to the Government of Bengal ;
would that be an illustration of specific legislation for
the purpose of delegation?—You mean specific legisla-
tion for specific subjects ; jes.
18743. That Bill was introduced and specific per-
mission to publish given on the 20th February 1903 (I
am quoting from the Legislative Department pro-
ceedings) ; it was not referred to a Select Committee ;
it was finally passed on the 6th March 1903. Do you
see any advantages in that procedure over a general
Act of delegation with notification ?—These were all
things which were non-contentious ; no one would for
a moment think of disputing them ; as far as I
remember they were simply the substitution for an
old defunct procedure of a modern one ; that is to say,
where you had “ the Governor-General in Council ”
you put in “the Lieutenant-Governor.” At the time
it was imposed there was no such thing as the Lieu-
tenant-Governor ; the administration had improved
since then, and no one had the slightest objection to
the Lieutenant-Governor being substituted for the
Governor-General in Council in these matters.
18744. Is the procedure that was followed in that
case in any way better than the procedure would be
under a general delegation Act such as I have sug-
gested ?—You could utilise this procedure just as
effectively with regard to non-contentious matters.
18745. Would that not be much more trouble ?—
Yes, in so far as you could not do it except probably
in the cold weather and the rains.
18746. Does this procedure, as followed in this .
case, give any advantage over the procedure that you
suggest ?—No.
18747. The public have just the same notice under
your procedure ?—Yes, just the same.
18748. Rather more ?■—I do not know about more,
because this Bill has to be published.
18749. It was published and passed within fourteen
days ?—But they would not do that always ; they
knew that these things were non-contentious ; this
would not be a general instance.
18750. Can you always know a priori that things
are non-contentious ?—You can have a very good idea
whether they are likely to be contentious or not.
18751. The Salaries Committee reported that the
custom of introducing the words “subject to the
previous sanction of the Government of India ” into
Acts was of comparatively modern origin ; do you
agree with that view ?—Yes.
18752. Would it not be generally sufficient to legis-
late in the sense that action should be “ subject to the
control of the Government of India ” in order to
enable the Government of India to maintain effective
supervision ?—In some cases, yes ; I would not adopt
it universally.
18753. It has been suggested?—Yes, in some in-
stances, not for general use.
18754. Could anything be done in the way of dele-
gation in the sphere of executive administration, by
devolving the powers and saying that instances of the
exercise of the powers should be reported in periodical
returns for the purpose of information and control ?—
In some instances it might be useful.
18755. Could that be made general use of?—No.
Possibly there would be some instances in which it
would be waste of time to do it ; it might be con-
sidered on each delegation.
18756. You say that the functions of Inspectors-
General should be those of “inspection and sugges-
tion.” What do you mean by the word “ inspection ” ?
—For instance, take agriculture ; where you have got
an experimental farm, it would be for the Inspector-
General to inspect the farm, to see whether the work
was being carried on upon proper lines.
18757. Should they be able to come into the pro-
vinces and make tours of regular inspection ?—Yes.
18758. If they do that, should they inform the
Local Government beforehand of their intention to
come ?—Certainly.
18759. And after they have inspected it, to whom
should they report?—To the Government of India,
sending a copy to the Local Government for informa-
tion, unless of course there were confidential matters
that they did not want to send.
18760. You suggest that the Inspector-General of
Education, say, could come into a province, make an
extended tour, examine everything, and report direct
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE:
The Hon.
Mr. F. A.
Slache.
29 Jan., 1908.
18725. Have they occupancy rights?—Yes, just in
the same way as on private estates ; over the great
bulk of the province they are regulated by the
Bengal Tenancy Act; in Chota Nagpur they have a
special Act.
18726. Who deals with suspensions and remissions
of rent?—The Commissioners deal with remissions of
rent in Government estates.
18727. Do you suspend very often when you do not
remit ?—Yes; he goes up to the Board for the year
afterwards, but they occur so seldom.
18728. Generally speaking, you do not think that
Collectors and Commissioners need more powers in
that particular matter?—It would not lessen the
work ; I am perfectly willing to delegate powers where
necessary, but I do not see the necessity for this ; the
present system does not hamper them, because the
need for their carrying out those matters occurs so
very seldom.
18729. Is the principle under which decentralization
should be conducted merely that of lessening work ?—
And making it more efficient ; there is no necessity to
delegate a power which is used probably once in five or
ten years.
18730. Is not the principle rather that when there
can be no objection to an officer having power, there is
no reason for not giving it to him ?—But you have not
sufficient instances before you to show that there is no
objection.
18731. Suppose a Joint-Magistrate is passed over for
a Collectorship, would you debar him from an appeal ?
—I would put him then to serve in another division
and see what the officer there said of him.
18732. Suppose the Lieutenant-Governor came to
the conclusion that X was unfit to be a Collector,
would you allow X to have an appeal to the Govern-
ment of India ?—No.
18733. In a Lieutenant-Governor’s province is that
not rather a dangerous power to be in the hands of one
man ?■—I would not bar the man from promotion for
ever. I would let him go to another division, and then
if the Commissioner there reported that he was unfit
I would retire him on a proportionate pension.
18734. His fate after one or more trials is to lie
absolutely in the hands of the Lieutenant-Governor ?
—Supported by the advice of two Commissioners.
18735. You would have a sort of Committee?—No ;
the Lieutenant-Governor depends on the advice of his
Commissioners in the first instance.
18736. Therefore if two Commissioners have said
that X is not fit, that should be accepted ; suppose one
Commissioner says that he is fit and the other says he is
not ?—Then I would give him another chance.
18737. Take a man who is passed over for a Com-
missionership and feels, wrightly or wrongly, that he
has a very real grievance ; are you going to allow him
to appeal ?—No.
18738. The appointment of members of the Board
is now technically in the hands of the Government of
India ; that is to say, it requires their sanction. Do
you see any necessity for that ?—I think it will be
better for the procedure to remain as it is now.
18739. In the railway case you mention of the
Bengal and North-Western Railway, that it is not a
railway under direct Government management ?—No.
18740. Do you say that in a railway matter the
Commissioner’s opinions should at once prevail if he
says that a bridge or some expensive work, say, wire-
fencing, is necessary ?—I do not say that it should at
once prevail, but I should like to see the procedure
altered so that frequent references to the Government
of India would not be required.
18741. As long as railways are an imperial matter
there must be references to the Government of India ?
—I am afraid so, but there is the fact that in railway
matters a great deal of harm is done to the people by
the present procedure.
18742. (Sir S'eyning Edgerley.) I should like to call
your attention to Act I of 1903, that is, an Act by
which in the second schedule a large number of dele-
gations were made to the Government of Bengal ;
would that be an illustration of specific legislation for
the purpose of delegation?—You mean specific legisla-
tion for specific subjects ; jes.
18743. That Bill was introduced and specific per-
mission to publish given on the 20th February 1903 (I
am quoting from the Legislative Department pro-
ceedings) ; it was not referred to a Select Committee ;
it was finally passed on the 6th March 1903. Do you
see any advantages in that procedure over a general
Act of delegation with notification ?—These were all
things which were non-contentious ; no one would for
a moment think of disputing them ; as far as I
remember they were simply the substitution for an
old defunct procedure of a modern one ; that is to say,
where you had “ the Governor-General in Council ”
you put in “the Lieutenant-Governor.” At the time
it was imposed there was no such thing as the Lieu-
tenant-Governor ; the administration had improved
since then, and no one had the slightest objection to
the Lieutenant-Governor being substituted for the
Governor-General in Council in these matters.
18744. Is the procedure that was followed in that
case in any way better than the procedure would be
under a general delegation Act such as I have sug-
gested ?—You could utilise this procedure just as
effectively with regard to non-contentious matters.
18745. Would that not be much more trouble ?—
Yes, in so far as you could not do it except probably
in the cold weather and the rains.
18746. Does this procedure, as followed in this .
case, give any advantage over the procedure that you
suggest ?—No.
18747. The public have just the same notice under
your procedure ?—Yes, just the same.
18748. Rather more ?■—I do not know about more,
because this Bill has to be published.
18749. It was published and passed within fourteen
days ?—But they would not do that always ; they
knew that these things were non-contentious ; this
would not be a general instance.
18750. Can you always know a priori that things
are non-contentious ?—You can have a very good idea
whether they are likely to be contentious or not.
18751. The Salaries Committee reported that the
custom of introducing the words “subject to the
previous sanction of the Government of India ” into
Acts was of comparatively modern origin ; do you
agree with that view ?—Yes.
18752. Would it not be generally sufficient to legis-
late in the sense that action should be “ subject to the
control of the Government of India ” in order to
enable the Government of India to maintain effective
supervision ?—In some cases, yes ; I would not adopt
it universally.
18753. It has been suggested?—Yes, in some in-
stances, not for general use.
18754. Could anything be done in the way of dele-
gation in the sphere of executive administration, by
devolving the powers and saying that instances of the
exercise of the powers should be reported in periodical
returns for the purpose of information and control ?—
In some instances it might be useful.
18755. Could that be made general use of?—No.
Possibly there would be some instances in which it
would be waste of time to do it ; it might be con-
sidered on each delegation.
18756. You say that the functions of Inspectors-
General should be those of “inspection and sugges-
tion.” What do you mean by the word “ inspection ” ?
—For instance, take agriculture ; where you have got
an experimental farm, it would be for the Inspector-
General to inspect the farm, to see whether the work
was being carried on upon proper lines.
18757. Should they be able to come into the pro-
vinces and make tours of regular inspection ?—Yes.
18758. If they do that, should they inform the
Local Government beforehand of their intention to
come ?—Certainly.
18759. And after they have inspected it, to whom
should they report?—To the Government of India,
sending a copy to the Local Government for informa-
tion, unless of course there were confidential matters
that they did not want to send.
18760. You suggest that the Inspector-General of
Education, say, could come into a province, make an
extended tour, examine everything, and report direct