The most striking feature of the Act of 1909 was that it introduced important changes in the composition and functions of the Legislative Councils. The number of additional members of the Central Legislature was raised from sixteen to a maximum of sixty, of whom not more than twenty-eight were to be officials. The Governor- General had the power to nominate three non-officials to represent certain specified communities and had also at his disposal two other seats to be filled by nomination. The remaining twenty-seven seats were to be filled by non-official elected members, some of whom represented certain special constituencies such as the landowners in seven provinces, the Muhammadans in five provinces, and two Chambers of Commerce in Calcutta and Bombay, while thirteen others were to be elected by the non-official members of the nine provincial Legislative Councils. Thus a small official majority was retained in the Central Legislative Council.
As regards the functions of the Legislatures, the Act of 1909 empowered them to discuss, and to move resolutions on, the Budget, before it was finally settled, and also certain matters of general interest. Their resolutions were to be expressed and to be operative as recommendations to the Executive Government and any of them might be disallowed by the Head of the Government acting as President of the Council at his discretion. No resolutions could be moved in matters concerning the Army, Foreign Relations, the Indian States and sundry other matters.
Though the Morley-Minto Reforms marked an important step in the introduction of representative government, they did not give Parliamentary Government to India. This was plainly admitted by Lord Morley himself, when he said in the House of Lords on 17th December, 1908: ” If it could be said that this chapter of reforms led directly or necessarily to the establishment of a parliamentary system in India, I, for one, would have nothing at all to do with it.” In fact, Indian administration still continued to be carried on with absolute responsibility to Whitehall. The non-official members could not act in a responsible manner, as nothing that they might say could lead to any modification in the fundamental policy of the Government. As the authors of the Report on Indian Constitutional Reforms, 1918, observed, ” the reforms of 1909 afforded no answer and could afford no answer, to Indian political problems …. Responsibility is the savour of popular government, and that savour the present councils wholly lack “. Indirect election and separate communal representation had also obvious disadvantages.
The Morley-Minto Reforms did not come up to the expectation of the Indian people, whose discontent continued unabated. They renewed their claims with emphasis during the First World War, which broke out within five years of the introduction of these Reforms; and two schemes were put forward, one by Mr. G. K. Gokhale and the other jointly by the National Congress and the Muslim League. To satisfy the widespread demands of the Indians for constitutional reforms, and in recognition of their loyal services to Great Britain during the war, Mr. Edwin Montagu, the Secretary of State for India, made the famous announcement in the House of Commons on 20th August, 1917, that ” the policy of His Majesty’s Government, with which the Government of India are in complete accord, is that of the increasing association of Indians in every branch of administration and the gradual development of self-governing institutions with a view to the progressive realization of responsible government in India as an integral part of the British Empire”. He came to India early in November, 1917, and having ascertained public opinion in this country by an extensive tour, published in April, 1918, the Report on Indian Constitutional Reforms, commonly known as the Montagu Chelmsford Report. This Report formed the basis of the Government of India Act, 1919, which came into operation early in 1921.
This Act made a clear division, as far as possible, of the functions of the Central and Provincial Governments. The Centre was entrusted with duties regarding defence, political and external affairs, the principal railways and other strategic communications, posts and telegraphs, currency and coinage, the Public Debt, commerce, civil and criminal law and procedure, ecclesiastical administration, the All-India Services, certain institutions of research and all other matters not mentioned as provincial subjects. The Provincial Governments were charged with duties in respect of internal law and order, administration of justice and jails, irrigation, forests, inspection of factories, supervision of labour questions, famine relief, land revenue administration, local self-government, education, medical department, sanitation and public health, public works, agriculture, development of industries, excise and co-operative societies. The spheres of the Central and Provincial Governments with regard to the source of income and the heads of revenue were also delimited.
We have already noted the effect of the Act of 1919 on the Home Government. We have now to study how it modified the Government of India. It did not introduce diarchy in the Central Government, and the Governor- General remained, as before, directly responsible to the Secretary of State and Parliament, and not to the Indian Legislature. The Executive Council was enlarged. Though it was not laid down in the Act, yet after 1921 the practice prevailed of choosing three of the members from among qualified Indians. Lord Sinha was succeeded by Sir ‘Ali Imam as Law Member, but the next Indian member, Sir Sankaran Nair, was given the portfolio of Education. After 1920 some eminent Indian lawyer invariably held the office of Law Member. The Finance Members were recruited from the British Treasury.