Commons Sitting of 22 February 1933

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
York Corporation Transport Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Friday.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  RUMANIA, CZECHOSLOVAKIA AND YUGOSLAVIA (TREATY).
  Captain CUNNINGHAM - REIDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any information of the treaty signed recently between Rumania, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia; if such treaty has been registered with the Secretariat of the League of Nations in accordance with Article 18 of the Covenant of the League; and, if so, what its main political and economic provisions are?
  Mr. McENTEEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can give any information on the pact of reorganisation entered into by the Governments of Czechoslavakia, Rumania, and Yugoslavia?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon):I have seen in the public Press various statements purporting to summarise the contents of the Treaty signed at Geneva on 16th February by the representatives of Czechoslavakia, Rumania and Yugoslavia, and I understand that those summaries are substantially correct. I have not yet been notified of the registration of this Treaty with the League of Nations. The last part of the question does not, therefore, arise.
  Captain PETER MACDONALD: Would such an arrangement between these States be a contravention of any existing Treaty?
  Sir J. SIMON: Not that I know of.

  AUSTRIA (ARMS TRAFFIC).
  Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will publish the note sent on behalf of the French and British Governments to the Austrian Government on 11th February on the Hirtenberg arms' smuggling affair?
  Mr. LAMBERTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any answer has been received from the Austrian Government in reply to the Anglo-French note relating to the import of arms; and, if so, will he give the terms of such reply?
  Sir J. SIMON: I informed the House yesterday in reply to a Private Notice question from the Leader of the Opposition, of the communication which had taken place between the Italian Government and ourselves as to the lines on which this matter could be dealt with, and stated that His Majesty's Government hoped that the question could be considered closed by the general acceptance of this proposal. I am glad to be able to inform the House that, as I understand, the Austrian Government have agreed to this solution, and in these circumstances it will be preferable not to revive controversy by publishing earlier diplomatic correspondence exchanged on the matter.

  NAVIGABLE WATERS (OIL POLLUTION).
  Major MILLSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether at an early date, he will take steps to bring before the League of Nations the question of the prevention of the discharge of oil at sea outside territorial waters and endeavour to secure international agreement and action in this matter?
  Sir J. SIMON: His Majesty's Government would welcome effective international action to achieve this object, but it has hitherto been impossible to secure agreement among the principal maritime Powers. It would, therefore, unfortunately serve no useful purpose to bring the matter before the League of Nations at the present time.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty to whom the con-

    1713
    tracts have been given for the cruisers, leader destroyers, and sloops of the 1932 programme; what is the total value of such orders; and will he state the total value of orders given to private firms and Government dockyards, respectively?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): The orders for the Shipbuilding Programme of 1932 have not yet been completely placed. Contracts for hulls and machinery, of the approximate total value of £4,500,000, have been placed with the firms shown in the list which I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Apart from related contracts for armour, gun mountings and armament, there remain to be ordered the hull of the cruiser "Apollo," a destroyer depot ship, two sloops, three submarines and small craft. Of these ships, the "Apollo," two sloops and one submarine will be dockyard-built. The orders for them will be placed before the end of March.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Do I understand that the Government dockyards will have a fair proportion of the orders given?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: Yes, that is so. Because of repair work which is looming very large in the programme, the dockyards are being very well dealt with.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Will my right hon. Friend remember that he

    Cruisers.

    H.M.S. Galatea

    …

    Hull and machinery

    …

    Scotts Shipbuilding Co., Greenock.

    H.M.S. Phaeton

    …

    Hull and machinery

    …

    Swan, Hunter, Wallsend-on-Tyne. (Machinery by Wallsend Slipway Co.)

    H.M.S. Apollo

    …

    Machinery only

    …

    Beardmore & Co., Dalmuir.

    Flotilla Leader.

    H.M.S. Faulknor

    …

    Hull and machinery

    …

    Yarrow & Co., Scotstoun.

    Destroyers.

    2. Forester and Fury

    …

    Hulls and machinery

    …

    J. S. White & Co., Cowes.

    2. Fearless and Foresight

    …

    Hulls and machinery

    …

    Cammell Laird & Co., Birkenhead.

    2. Foxhound and Fortune

    …

    Hulls and machinery

    …

    J. Brown & Co., Clydebank.

    2. Fame and Firedrake

    …

    Hulls and machinery

    …

    Parsons Marine Steam Turbine Co., Wallsend-on-Tyne. (Hulls by Vickers-Armstrongs.)

    Sloops.

    2. Harrier and Hussar

    …

    Hulls and machinery

    …

    J. I. Thornycroft & Co., Ltd., Southampton.

    OIL FUEL (HYDROGENATION).
    Mr. LEONARDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can state the total quantity of oil produced from British coal which has been ordered by the Admiralty
    always gets the best value out of Devonport and send all these ships there?
    Colonel GRETTON: Does my right hon. Friend's reply apply to the dockyard vessels, that is to say, will orders for dockyard ships be given at the end of March?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: Yes, they will be placed almost immediately.
    Colonel GRETTON: Before the end of the financial year?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: Yes.
    Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: Is this programme related to the proposals that the Government will lay before Geneva?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: Yes, very precisely related.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case that the Government dockyards are getting a fair share of the work that is to be done?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: That is what I endeavoured to say.
    Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Is this programme actually below the standard permitted to Great Britain under existing treaties?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: That is much too large a question to go into at Question Time.
    Following is the list:
    for the coming 12 months; and what is the contract price for such oil?
    Mr. MARTINasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will tell the House what quantity of oil produced from British

    1715
    coal was recently ordered by his Department, and at what cost?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: It would be contrary to the established practice to disclose details of the quantity and price of oil purchased by the Admiralty.
    Mr. LEONARD: Are the conditions of this purchase economical as against mineral oil?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: I am answering a question on that subject later.
    Mr. MARTINasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the order recently given for oil produced from British coal by a low-temperature carbonisation process was given as a result of experiments having proved that this method of producing oil suitable for consumption in His Majesty's ships is superior to any other method; whether the Admiralty considered buying oil produced by any hydrogenation process; and, if so, what were the comparative costs of oil produced by the two processes?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: No, Sir. The order referred to was placed because an acceptable oil was offered in bulk at a price we were willing to pay in view of our desire to help this new venture. No such offer of oil produced by hydrogenation has yet been made. The last part of the question, therefore, does not arise.
    Mr. MARTIN: The right hon. Gentleman says no such offer has yet been made. Is that because the hydrogenation has not reached a stage where they can make it a commercial success or is it because the Admiralty has not yet decided to encourage hydrogenation?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: This is a very elaborate and difficult question. We are willing to take as much oil as we can get at a reasonable price from low temperature carbonisation, but the hydrogenation processes are far more expensive. We are experimenting with them, but at present we should not be able to buy at any reasonable price from any process of hydrogenation that I know of as yet.
    Mr. LEONARD: I take it that the price is such as to constitute a subsidy on the process?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: No, I should not call it a subsidy. We are very ready always to help anything in the direction that would be of tremendous value to the country and the coal-mining industry and, if we pay a little more, I am quite ready to defend that.
    Mr. LEONARD: Then it is not an economical price as compared with mineral oil?
    Mr. GEORGE HALL: Has the Admiralty entered into a contract for a fixed period at a fixed price for the oil or is it just small portions of oil as they are delivered by the companies?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: No, we have entered into a contract for a year for so many tons per month. It is not desirable to say how much we pay.

    SUBMARINES (SAFETY APPARATUS).
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has yet received any report on an apparatus for locating, communicating with, and saving the crews of sunken submarines which was submitted by Mr. E. E. Beechey to the Admiralty Department of Scientific Research and Experiment in February, 1932, after a provisional patent had been granted; and whether it is intended to adopt this or a similar apparatus?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the question, it is not intended to adopt the apparatus to which my hon. Friend refers. The design of indicator buoy and escape apparatus fitted in His Majesty's submarines was adopted before Mr. Beechey originally approached the Admiralty.

    FISH PURCHASES.
    Mr. BURNETTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the amount of fish purchased for consumption by naval personnel at home stations during 1932; and what was the average cost per pound?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: Fish is not included in the Naval Standard ration. In ships, etc., victualled on the Standard Ration system, the men purchase the fish they require from the canteens out of their messing allowance. In ships, etc., victualled on the General Mess system,

    1717
    it is bought by the accountant officer as required. The information asked for is not readily available, but I may say that the fish consumed at the Royal Naval Barracks, Chatham, in 1932, amounted to about 10,400 stones, the average cost being 4s. l½d. per stone.

    DOCKYARDS (ROYAL MARINE POLICE).
    Mr. McENTEEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the estimated saving that will result from the Royal Marine police being employed in Portsmouth dockyard in place of the Metropolitan police; and when it is proposed to employ the Royal Marine police at Devonport dockyard?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: The antipated saving in cost will amount to nearly £16,000 a year, although an immediate expenditure of about £4,000 will be necessary to provide additional married quarters for Royal Marine police. Moreover, the Admiralty liability for part pensions of Metropolitan police who have at any time served in His Majesty's Dockyard, Portsmouth, amounting at the present time to approximately £30,000 a year, will ultimately disappear. The question of making a similar substitution at Devonport Dockyard will be dealt with at the end of the year.

    SINGAPORE BASE.
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the new base at Singapore will be completed; what is the total estimated cost, including the floating dock; and whether it is intended to erect machine shops and other essentials for the repair of battleships?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: The date for the completion of the Jackson contract is September, 1935, and we have no reason for supposing that it will not be completed by that date. The total estimate for the contract and contingent services, including the preliminary work carried out by the Admiralty, is £5,145,000; and the cost of the floating dock was £971,000. No decision has been made to erect machine shops, etc., for the repair of battleships.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman, when he introduces the Estimates, give a little more information on the subject of machine shops and the like?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: If the right hon. Gentleman will indicate what information he requires, I shall be only too glad to give it.
    Mr. COCKS: Will the Government press on with the work as rapidly as possible to deal with the situation in the Far East?
    Colonel GRETTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Jackson contract includes the machinery, etc., necessary to equip the Singapore Dock?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: It bears on the dock itself and anything pertaining thereto.

  KENYA GOLDFIELD.
  Dr. JOHN WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of prospecting licences issued in Kenya for native lands, also for land occupied by white settlers?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): In 1931, 405 prospecting licences were issued; in 1932, 1,278; 175 have been issued in 1933 up to the 15th of February. A prospecting licence, which is valid for 12 months only, is not limited to any particular area; the holder is entitled to prospect on any land in the Colony, whether in native or European occupancy, subject to the exceptions prescribed in the Mining Ordinance of 1931.
  Mr. LUNN: Is the licence granted for more than 12 months?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No. I said a licence can be granted for 12 months. If a man wants another licence, he has to apply again.

  PALESTINE (WOMEN SUFFRAGE).
  Miss RATHBONEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that a new municipal ordinance for Palestine, intended to be promulgated early in this year, proposes to withdraw from Jewish women in Palestine the rights they have had for 10 years of voting and standing for election in municipal elections and to leave the High Commissioner to decide whether and to what extent Jewish women may exercise these rights; and whether he will endeavour to secure that any changes in

  1719
  women's rights in Palestine shall take the form of raising Arab women to the level of Jewish women rather than of debasing Jewish women to the level of Arab women?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It is not the case that Jewish women generally have enjoyed the right to vote and stand for election at municipal elections in Palestine. The Municipal Franchise Ordinance confines the right of voting and membership to men, but the purely Jewish township of Tel Aviv and certain Jewish villages, which are not municipalities, possess Local Councils constituted under the Local Councils Ordinance of 1921, and in these cases regulations have been issued under the authority of the High Commissioner which permit women to vote and stand for election. The preliminary draft of the new Local Government Ordinance, which is now being discussed with the municipal authorities in Palestine, follows existing municipal franchise legislation in limiting voting and membership to men. But it goes further than that legislation since it gives the High Commissioner discretion to extend to women the right to vote and to women voters the right to be councillors. I can see no ground for the suggestion that there is any intention of withdrawing from Jewish women in Palestine the rights of voting and election which they already enjoy.
  Miss RATHBONE: Will the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to supplement his reply by saying whether I am correctly informed that all the Jewish councils, when questioned as to the proposed municipal ordinance, expressed their willingness to see women vote on the same terms as men; and, further, whether it is not the case that in Turkey and in India Moslem women are permitted to enjoy political rights; and in that case do not His Majesty's Government—
  HON. MEMBERS: Order!
  Miss RATHBONE: May I repeat my question?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: With regard to the first point as to the opinion expressed by the municipalities, I do not know. The High Commissioner is, I understand, at the present time engaged in discussing the terms of the draft
  1720
  ordinance with them, and I have not heard from him the result of those discussions, nor do I think that they are concluded. As regards the general franchise position in India and other territories, I think that the appropriate Ministers would have to have notice of the question.
  Miss RATHBONE: If it proves that a large number of the local councils are in favour of extending franchise rights to women, will not the right hon. Gentleman take courage to extend the voting rights of women so as to bring them at least up to the level of those in Oriental countries?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think that that is rather a misconception. The High Commissioner under the Ordinance, if it is passed in its present form, will have the discretion to extend, and there is no doubt that he will exercise that discretion wisely.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    CEYLON.
    Mr. DONNERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fall in the value of the yen, the Parliament of Ceylon has taken any action, with the object of preventing the effect of Imperial preference being under mined or nullified, to limit the importations of Japanese goods?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir.

    SUGAR IMPORTS (SHIPMENT).
    Sir BASIL PETOasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state the total cost of subsidies, and other financial assistance, in respect of the production of sugar in British Colonies and Dependencies, and how much this amounts to per ton of sugar imported from these sources to this country; and whether, in view of the amount of British tonnage idle and the number of British seamen unemployed, he will take steps to see that these allowances are only paid in respect of sugar which is carried in British ships?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: All sugar imported into the United Kingdom from the Colonies receives a preference at the rate of 4s. 9d. per cwt. for 96 degrees sugar, with an extra preference of 1s.

    1721
    per cwt. on a limited quota of imports, fixed at 275,000 tons for this financial year; but no subsidy or other direct assistance is given by His Majesty's Government to the production of sugar in the Colonies. The latter part of the question is covered by the reply which was given to another question addressed by my hon. Friend yesterday to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
    Sir B. PETO: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when the Government of France makes contracts for South Wales coal for Government railways they enforce the carriage of that coal in French bottoms, and in those circumstances is it not about time that we looked after our own steamships in the same way?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As far as Government contracts are concerned, all Government contracts made by any Colony are always shipped in British ships, but I shall certainly look, on any matter as applying to the general interest of shipping, to be advised by the President of the Board of Trade, who knows more about shipping than anybody in this House.

    OATS AND OATMEAL PRODUCTS.
    Mr. BOOTHBYasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the total amount of imports from all sources of oats and oatmeal products during the year 1932?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin):As stated in the issue for December last of the monthly accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom, the total imports into this country during the year 1932 of oats (grain) and oat products amounted to 6,468,000 cwts., of a declared value of £1,835,000, and 779,000 cwts., valued at £720,000, respectively.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: In view of the fact that, if given the chance, we could produce practically the whole of these oats and oatmeal products for ourselves, will the Government consider taking steps to regulate the importation of oats and oatmeal products to this country?
    Dr. BURGIN: Such steps will certainly be taken into consideration.
    Mr. BOOTHBYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the German Government subsidises directly or indirectly the export of German oats?
    Dr. BURGIN: I am not aware of any such subsidy.
    Mr. BOOTHBYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether there was any disparity between the wholesale price of German oats marketed in Germany and Great Britain during the year 1932; and, if so, what was the extent of that disparity?
    Dr. BURGIN: The average wholesale price of oats at Berlin in 1932, as recorded in "Wirtschaft and Statistik" was 147.5 Reichsmarks per metric ton, equalling at the average rate of exchange for the year 10s. 2d. per cwt. Market quotations for German oats in Great Britain in 1932 are not available. The declared value of the 86,943 cwts. of oats imported into the United Kingdom and registered as consigned from Germany during 1932 was £24,427, or 5s. 7½d. per cwt., but it would appear from the German trade accounts that such oats even though consigned from Germany were not of German origin.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: In view of the fact that the wholesale price of oats marketed in Germany is from the figures given by the hon. Member nearly double the wholesale price of oats marketed in this market, how can the hon. Member say that there has been no subsidy, either direct or indirect, by the German Government on the export of oats?
    Dr. BURGIN: I say so for this reason, that the German export assistance system does not apply to oats, but it applies to oat products and sowing oats, and none of the oats in the answer I have given are sowing oats.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: In view of the fact that there is this discrepancy, will the hon. Member take steps to prohibit the importation of German oatmeal products under export licence and wholesale oats, provided there is a discrepancy of the amount indicated in his answer?
    Dr. BURGIN: I think that question might be put on the Order Paper.

    ANGLO-JAPANESE TRADING AGREEMENT.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade which

    1723
    British industries have made representations that their interests would be harmed by the abrogation of the Anglo-Japanese trading agreement; and will he give particulars?
    Dr. BURGIN: No such representations have been received.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY: In view of the fact that representations from various important trade bodies for the abrogation of this Treaty have been made to the Board of Trade, and that the balance of interest is obviously in favour of the abrogation of this trade agreement, will my hon. Friend give some assurance to the House that a decision on this matter will be arrived at within a reasonable time?
    Dr. BURGIN: I am most anxious to help the hon. Member. In by far the greater number of cases the object of the questioner becomes apparent, but I can assure my hon. Friend that I have not the least idea what he means by the question he has put on the Order Paper, or by his supplementary question. It is not a fact that there are requests for the abrogation of this Treaty. There are requests with regard to the Congo Basin Treaty, but not as to this. With great respect to the hon. Member, I think he is under a misapprehension. If he will confer with me, I shall be glad to give him all the information in my possession.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY: If I submit certain facts dealing with the situation as recently revealed, will the hon. Member consider the matter carefully with a view to getting a settlement of what is considered, particularly in respect to the cotton trade, a matter of outstanding importance?
    Dr. BURGIN: I shall be most happy to do so.

  HONG KONG (MUI-TSAI SYSTEM).
  Mr. LUNNasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the number of mui-tsai in Hong Kong now and what was the number at the end of 1932; if he will inquire into the possibility that young girls are imported as adopted daughters and other designations to evade the law; whether registration and inspection is carried out and how many
  1724
  inspectors are engaged in the work; and when it is intended that the system shall be abolished?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As I informed the House in July last, the mui-tsai system has been abolished in Hong Kong. The number of former mui-tsai who remained on the register on 30th November, 1931, was 3,810, and on 30th November, 1932, was 3,017. Their status is now that of free paid domestic workers. Registration ceased in 1930 and since that date it has been illegal to employ girls as mui-tsai. Efficient inspection is carried out by three inspectors.
  Mr. LUNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite sure that mui-tsai are not being imported into Hong Kong probably under other designations than mui-tsai?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think that the system is really very satisfactory to-day, and from all accounts inspection is working very satisfactorily.
  Mr. LUNN: When does the right hon. Gentleman imagine we shall come to an end of this kind of slavery in Hong Kong; and what part are the British Government going to take in the centenary celebrations this year of the abolition of slavery under the British flag?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: We have already anticipated it by abolishing the system of mui-tsai.

  AFRICA (PROSPECTING LICENCES).
  Mr. PRICEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in connection with the grant of prospecting licences in Africa, the standards of literacy required in African applicants are in English or in the vernacular?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not aware of any actual case having arisen in any African dependency within my responsibility, but, if the hon. Member wishes, I will make inquiries of the Governments concerned.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE (FISH SUPPLIES).
  Mr. BURNETTasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what was the

  1725
  amount of fish purchased for consumption by the Air Force at home stations during 1932; and what was the average cost per 1b.?
  Sir VICTOR WARRENDER (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): I have been asked to reply. Apart from the small quantities required for hospital use, fish does not form a prescribed part of the Air Force ration at home stations, and any fish desired by units is purchased from the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes, out of the cash allowances which are made towards airmen's messing. I regret that the information for which my hon. Friend asks is not in consequence available and could only be obtained by a considerable expenditure of time and labour.

  AVIATION.

    YORK COUNTY AVIATION CLUB.
    Colonel ROPNERasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the important position of the aerodrome at Sherburn-in-Elmet, he can say if the Secretary of State for Air proposes to include the York County Aviation Club among those clubs receiving subsidy from the Air Ministry?
    Sir V. WARRENDER: At this stage I can only say that fresh applications for subsidy have been received from a considerable number of flying clubs. My hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that the case of the York County Aviation Club will receive careful consideration.

    CROSS-ATLANTIC FLIGHTS (FLOATING FUEL STATION).
    Mr. McENTEEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air, if his attention has been drawn to the trials of the "Westfalen," a Norddeutscher Lloyd steamer of 5,000 tons, which has been converted to serve as a fuel station for South Atlantic air traffic; and whether the Government has under consideration any similar proposals to assist British cross-Atlantic air travel?
    Sir V. WARRENDER: I have seen reports in the Press regarding the conversion of this steamer for the purpose mentioned, and the Air Ministry will
    1726
    watch the experiment with much interest. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. McENTEE: Will the hon. Member or his Department take some steps to provide the same facilities for aeroplanes in this country as apparently have been provided in the case mentioned in the question?

  TRANSPORT.

    ROAD GRANTS.
    Mr. CHRISTIEasked the Minister of Transport the names of the counties in Scotland, England and Wales where special road maintenance grants up to 75 per cent. were made during the year 1931–32; and the amount of the highway rate and the total local rate levied during the year in those counties?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus): As the answer is a long one, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    During the year 1931–32 the undermentioned county councils received special grants of 75 per cent. in respect of certain selected works of maintenance on classified roads.

    England and Wales.

    Glamorgan.

    Radnor.

    Monmouth.

    Scotland.

    Aberdeen.

    Orkney.

    Argyll.

    Peebles.

    Angus.

    Perth and Kinross.

    Ayr.

    Banff.

    Ross and Cromarty.

    Berwick.

    Dumfries.

    Roxburgh.

    Inverness.

    Selkirk.

    Kincardine.

    Stirling.

    Kirkcudbright.

    Wigtown.

    Moray and Nairn.

    There is now no separate rate levied by county councils for highway purposes. Rate money required to meet the highway expenditure of a county council is raised as part of the general or consolidated rate. It is not possible to state the total local rate levied in a county as the rate varies in the different rating areas of the county.

    ROAD SERVICE LICENCES.
    Mr. HALESasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that, under Section 81 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, no right of appeal is given to a local authority objecting to variation of the conditions attaching to a road service licence unless the local authority has originally objected to the grant of the licence; and, in view of the case that has arisen in the city of Stoke-on-Trent and similar cases likely to result in injustice and hardship, will he take steps to introduce amending legislation?
    Mr. PYBUS: I am aware of the provisions of the Statute, to which the first part of this question relates; but I am unable to agree with the suggestions of the second part. Where substantial variation of a road service licence is sought, the practice of the Traffic Commissioners is to require it to be submitted in the form of a new application, so as to ensure that potential objectors may have a right of appeal. The city of Stoke-on-Trent has exercised the right so given to them in this case and an Inquiry into their appeal will be held at a very early date.
    Mr. HALES: As the Act is undoubtedly badly drawn and the result is a great injustice to the operatives, will not the hon. Gentleman take further steps to amend it, so that this injustice may be put right?
    Mr. PYBUS: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Act is badly drawn, or that the Stoke-on-Trent Corporation have any grievance whatever. In fact, the inquiry is to be held at an early date, and we have just been informed that the corporation are now pressing for postponement, as they are not ready with their case.

    CYCLES (REAR LIGHTS).
    Commander MARSDENasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the death from misadventure of Mr. Charles Edwards at Bagshot on the evening of 11th January last; and whether he proposes to take action on the jury's recommendation that the carrying of rear lights by cyclists should be made compulsory?
    Mr. PYBUS: My attention had not been drawn to this accident. I have no power to require that rear lights should be
    1728
    carried on pedal cycles. Parliament decided in 1927, in the Road Transport Lighting Act of that year, that in the case of pedal cycles and tricycles an efficient red reflector might be carried in place of a red rear lamp. Legislation would be required to give effect to the hon. Member's proposal.
    Commander MARSDEN: If such legislation will result in reducing the number of deaths on the roads will the Minister take steps to introduce such legislation?
    Mr. PYBUS: If as a result of the investigations we are making into fatal accidents it is established that the use of the rear lamp would reduce the number of deaths on the roads, we should at once take steps to put that into operation.
    Captain DOWER: Will the investigations which my hon. Friend is making show whether or not the rear light does have that effect?
    Mr. PYBUS: The very detailed investigations that we are making into accidents upon the road as the result of a new system being put into force will, I think, establish that point.

    COMMERCIAL VEHICLES (HOURS REGULATIONS).
    Mr. PARKINSONasked the Minister of Transport if he will furnish figures showing the number of prosecutions for breaches of the hours regulations for drivers of commercial lorries; and if his Department will take further measures to secure the enforcement of the law?
    Mr. PYBUS: No figures are available for the country as a whole, but in the Metropolitan Police district action has been taken in five cases, three of which concerned public service vehicles. Convictions were obtained against the principals in all five cases. Proceedings are pending in one further case. With regard to the enforcement of the requirements of the law, I cannot add to my recent answer to the hon. Member for the Thirsk and Malton Division (Mr. Turton), I am sending the hon. Member a copy of this reply.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the observations of various magistrates have found their way into his Department, and, if so, what effect are those observations likely to have upon him?
    Mr. MAXTON: Can the hon. Gentleman say why the figures are not available for the whole country? He has certain responsibilities under the law.
    Mr. PYBUS: I think that question should in the first instance be addressed to another Department.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: May I have an answer to my supplementary question?
    Mr. PYBUS: I think the hon. Member had better put his question on the Order Paper.

    WORKMEN'S TICKETS.
    Mr. McENTEE(for Mr. HICKS) asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that a number of Post Office and other workers in the London area have to travel to and from their work at varying times during the day on account of shift systems and are consequently unable to avail themselves of workmen's tickets; and whether he is satisfied that the transport undertakings in the area are carrying out their statutory duties in connection with the supply of workmen's trains?
    Mr. PYBUS: I have no reason to doubt that the companies are discharging their statutory obligations as regards the running of workmen's trains; I understand that in some respects the facilities afforded by the companies for workmen are in excess of statutory requirements.
    Mr. McENTEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the first part of the question, and say whether he proposes to ask the railway companies to give special facilities to those workmen who have to go to and from their work at an hour other than that at which workmen's trains are running?
    Mr. PYBUS: If the hon. Member will put any special cases he has before me, I shall be glad to consider them.
    Mr. McENTEE: May I ask whether he will put this particular point before the railway companies?
    Mr. PYBUS: Yes, I will do so.

  NEWFOUNDLAND (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Mr. LUNNasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether steps have now been taken for the appointment
  1730
  of a commission to inquire into the financial situation in Newfoundland?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): Yes, Sir. His Majesty has been pleased to appoint the following to be a Royal Commission for the purpose of examining into the future of Newfoundland and in particular of reporting on the financial situation and prospects therein:

  The Rt. Hon. Lord Amulree, G.B.E., K.C. (Chairman),

  Mr. C. A. Magrath, L.L.D. (nominated by His Majesty's Government in Canada),

  Sir William Stavert, K.B.E. (nominated by His Majesty's Government in Newfoundland), with

  Mr. P. A. Clutterbuck, M.C., Dominions Office, as Secretary.

  The Royal Commission will assemble in Newfoundland early in March, and it is the intention that it should complete its inquiries in time to enable decisions to be reached and appropriate arrangements to be made before the debt interest due on the 1st July, 1933, matures.
  Mr. MAXTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say which of these gentlemen represents the Bank of England?
  Mr. THOMAS: None of them.
  Mr. MAXTON: How will the Bank like that?
  Mr. THOMAS: The Bank, I am sure, will appreciate my hon. Friend's interest in their affairs.
  Captain P. MACDONALD: Can the right hon. Gentleman gives the Terms of Reference of the Commission?
  Mr. THOMAS: I have already read them in the answer I have given.

  INDIA (WHIPPING, BOMBAY).
  Mr. BERNAYSasked the Secretary of State for India if he is aware that it is proposed to introduce into the Bombay Legislative Council a Government Bill which would legalise flogging for political offences; whether there is any age limit proposed; and if he proposes to take any action?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): In accord-

  1731
  ance with what appears to be a genuine public demand the Bombay Government have introduced a Bill to legalise whipping, not for political offences but for offences connected with rioting. The Bill does not touch on the question of an age limit. It is before the Legislature and there is no occasion for any action on my part.
  Mr. BERNAYS: At a time when the number of offences for which flogging can be used in this country is decreasing, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it highly undesirable that they should be increased in India?
  Sir S. HOARE: There is a strong feeling in Bombay that some further steps must be taken to restrain the rioting which has been so large a feature in Bombay. The matter is now being discussed by the Legislature, and it is essentially the duty of the Legislature to decide what action it shall take.
  Mr. LOGAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he thinks that the question of rioting which arises from political action, which is contrary to English administrative law, ought to operate in India, and whether he thinks that such action is likely to lead to further unrest, or not?
  Sir S. HOARE: My answer to the last part of the question would be "No." I did not follow the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question.

  WORLD ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.
  Mr. BERNAYSasked the Prime Minister whether the efforts of the Government at the forthcoming World Economic Conference will be directed to the general lowering of tariff barriers?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): Yes, Sir.

  CINEMATOGRAPH FUND.
  Mr. CADOGANasked the Lord President of the Council whether, in view of the fact that under the Home Office Regulation of 17th January money is already being set aside week by week for the cinematograph fund by the local licensing authorities out of the receipts of the Sunday cinemas, he will now state
  1732
  by what method and for what purposes the Privy Council proposes to administer the fund?
  The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): I have nothing to add to my reply to my hon. Friend on the 15th February.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (MINISTRY OF LABOUR).
  Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the Minister of Labour the number of men employed in his Department at the end of December, 1932; the number of women then employed; and how many of the former are disabled ex-service men drawing a disability pension?
  Mr. BLINDELL (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. As the reply contains a number of figures, my right hon. Friend will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. CROOKE: Will the figures indicate that the Department is employing the quota of disabled ex-service men which entitles it to remain on the King's National Roll?
  Mr. BLINDELL: I understand that the figures will indicate the position which the hon. Member desires.
  Following is the reply:
  At the end of December, 1932, the men employed in the Ministry of Labour numbered 18,191 and the women 6,441. These figures include established officers, whole-time temporary officers, and part-time cleaners. In addition there were 518 industrial employés and 722 branch managers. The number of disabled ex-service men on the staff was 4,463; this figure includes all those who were at some date during their employment in a Government Department in receipt of a disability pension.

  GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (CONVERSATIONS).
  Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Prime Minister whether any arrangement has been made for him to visit the United States of America at an early date?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As the hon. Member will have seen from the com-

  1733
  munique issued after the conversation between the President-Elect and the British Ambassador in New York on 20th February, these conversations will be resumed at an early date. It will be evident that no arrangements regarding procedure can be made pending the outcome of those conversations.

  UNEMPLOYMENT (RELIEF SCHEMES).
  Mr. MABANEasked the Prime Minister whether, to enable Members to submit for consideration schemes likely to assist in the alleviation of unemployment, he will give the House details of the new machinery set up by the Government whereby a conference of leading business men is assisting the Government in the consideration of such schemes, and give the House full information as to the form and manner in which schemes should be submitted, and state how Members may learn the result of the consideration given to schemes which they may submit?
  The PRIME MINISTER: In so far as proposals which hon. Members have in mind affect a particular Department, they should be brought to the notice of the Minister in charge of that Department. If hon. Members are in doubt which is the appropriate Department, they can address their proposals to me and I will see that they reach their proper destination. Departments are able to consult the business men to whom I referred in the Debate on unemployment on Thursday last. The other parts of the question will be kept in mind.
  Mr. MABANE: Can the Prime Minister go a little more into detail as to the conference of business men to which he referred in his speech last week?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I tried to give all the details I could of the conference which Ministers can consult; it varies in its members according to the point under consultation.
  Mr. HAMMERSLEY: If I put a question on the Order Paper, will the Prime Minister be in a position to say what sort of machinery is being set up to deal with the question of cotton; that is, in connection with the conference of business men?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That question must be addressed to the President of the Board of Trade.
  Sir PERCY HARRIS: Can we have the names of the business men who are helping the Government?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly not.

  SCOTLAND.

    TUBERCULOSIS.
    Mr. MAXTON(for Mr. McGOVERN) asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of cases of tuberculosis in Scotland in the last 12 months?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): The final figures are not yet available, but provisional returns show that the number of new cases of pulmonary tuberculosis notified in Scotland during the year 1932 was 5,512 and that the corresponding number of non-pulmonary cases was 3,888.

    HOUSEBREAKING (GLASGOW).
    Mr. MAXTON(for Mr. McGOVERN) asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of persons that have been charged in Glasgow courts with house breaking for each month since 1st January, 1932, to 1st February, 1933?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAD (Mr. Normand): As the answer involves a table of figures I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The numbers are: January, 82; February, 51; March, 79; April, 97; May, 74; June, 72; July, 57; August, 72; September, 57; October, 67; November, 74; December, 80; and January, 1933, 130.

    SHOPLIFTING (GLASGOW).
    Mr. MAXTON(for Mr. McGOVERN) asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of persons who have been charged with shoplifting in Glasgow during 1932; the number found guilty; how many were fined or sent to prison; and in how many cases were medical reports of mental trouble accepted as an excuse for these charges, and the names in each case?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: The number of persons who were charged with shoplifting in Glasgow during 1932 was 670. Including those who were put on probation the number found guilty was 634. Of these 261 were fined, and 79 were imprisoned. In no case was a medical report of mental trouble accepted as an excuse for the charge. But in three cases mental disease was established either to the satisfaction of the Court or the prosecutor. The names were Mrs. Semple, who was acquitted on the ground of insanity, Colonel Watkins and James Dorcas.
    Mr. MAXTON: Can the Solicitor-General give us any information as to the social status of the three people who were excused on medical grounds?
    The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I can only give such information as the name Colonel Watkins discloses. I have no information about Mrs. Semple. As regards James Dorcas, I am informed that he was taken into the guardianship of the Poor Law authorities, from which I infer that he was a pauper.

  CHINA AND JAPAN (MUNITIONS).
  Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Prime Minister whether arrangements can be made for the Adjournment of the House to be moved to-morrow at an hour early enough to enable a Debate to take place on the situation in the Far East?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that the hon. Member for the Hartlepools (Mr. Gritten) is raising the subject of the fishing industry on the Adjournment of the House to-morrow, but I have no doubt that arrangements can be made through the usual channels for a discussion of the Far East situation at the beginning of next week.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Of course, if the arrangements are made for to-morrow one has no comment to make, and we must accept them. With regard to the hostilities in the Far East, I should like to ask whether before Monday, which is the earliest day we can debate it, the Prime Minister, or someone on behalf of the Government, will make a public statement as to the Government's policy in regard to sending armaments and other help to the people who are fighting in
  1736
  the Far East? It is a question of an embargo on armaments.
  The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary answered a question yesterday on that subject. The situation changes almost from hour to hour. At present, as far as I can see, and I think I am very well informed, the Debate on Monday will certainly serve all useful purposes which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind, but, if any statement is required to be made, the Government will certainly take an opportunity of making it in the House of Commons.
  Mr. LANSBURY: We will, of course, in the usual way make arrangements for Monday, but I am anxious about what is going to happen during the next few days. What we want to press on the Government is that they should declare their policy as soon as possible, and we hope that they will do so long before Sunday.
  The PRIME MINISTER: As I said, the situation changes from hour to hour. I understand that the most important and definite thing is with reference to the export of arms. Upon that a statement was made yesterday, and that is a continuing situation.
  Mr. LANSBURY: I do not know whether the Prime Minister was in the House yesterday, but the only statement which the House could gather was that the Government were considering the matter and would be willing in certain circumstances to act. The newspapers tell us that all kinds of ship loads are going out, and that old ships are being bought and broken up for the production of shot and shell. What we are anxious about is that this should not go on for another three days. We want the Government to make up their mind.
  The PRIME MINISTER: As a matter of fact, the Government have made up their mind. They have made up their mind that this must be the subject of an international agreement. The Government are doing everything they can to ascertain whether that international agreement is possible.
  Sir P. HARRIS: While agreement is being arranged, cannot the Government give a lead to their own nationals in connection with trade orders for munitions?
  Mr. LANSBURY: May we ask for an answer? The question is what our own Government will do in the matter with regard to our own country, whether other people do it or not. I want to know for what we are responsible.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that if the right hon. Gentleman were in the Government he would not take that view. The Government's view is that this matter must be settled as quickly as possible, but by international agreement.
  Mr. MAXTON: Does that mean that the British nation has completely put all control of this matter out of its own hands, and can take no action of any kind except what is dictated by the League of Nations?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That is not so, and to allege that it is so is most unfair.
  Mr. MAXTON: I am not alleging, but asking a question.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the Government initiate a movement at Geneva for the purpose of securing in the minimum space of time such a policy as would be approved by almost every person in this country?
  The PRIME MINISTER: These questions only repeat each other. The statement made by the Foreign Secretary yesterday is the statement that represents the present situation, within which action is being taken on the lines of the Foreign Secretary's statement.
  Mr. MAXTON: In the meantime we all send arms.

  VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS (DIVISION LISTS).
  Sir B. PETO: I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, a question of which I have given you private notice, namely, whether your attention has been drawn to the recommendation of the Select Committee on Publications and Debates Reports, in their report published in November, 1932, that Division Lists should no longer be published in Votes and Proceedings, and whether steps will be taken to give effect to that recommendation?
  Mr. SPEAKER: In reply to the hon. Member, the printing and publishing of
  1738
  Division Lists in Votes and Proceedings is a practice of such long standing—it was first instituted by Resolution of the House in 1836—that I should not like to order its discontinuance unless I felt that I had the general approval of all parties in the House. For the information of the House, I must point out that very considerable economy would be effected thereby. The cost of publishing Division Lists in Votes and Proceedings, taken on an average over the last five years, is £1,690 a Session. This is certainly a sum the expenditure of which it is difficult to justify unless there is a real need for it. Perhaps the Whips of the different parties will let me know in the course of a few days what are the views of Members with regard to this suggested economy.
  Sir B. PETO: Arising out of that reply, I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you could use your influence in this matter in the interests of economy, inasmuch as these Division Lists are now published in the Parliamentary Debates OFFICIAL REPORT, and that therefore the work is really done quite well.

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1933.
  Estimates presented for the Navy for the year 1933 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A': Mr. R. W. Smith; and had appointed in substitution: Commander Marsden.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

REFORMS IN INDIA.
3.36 p.m.
Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: I beg to move,
"That this House, whilst keeping in view the ultimate ideal of a federal government of all India, is convinced that, in face of existing financial conditions and the inadequacy of the proposed safeguards as outlined in the last Report of the recent Round Table Conference, the transference of responsibility at the centre is inexpedient at the present time; it urges therefore that the first step should be the extension of self-government to the provinces and approves the Report of the Statutory Commission, subject to the temporary reservation of the administration of justice and public security; and this House further affirms its belief that, until self-government has proved effective in the provinces and the provinces with due experience are prepared to federate with the Indian States as partners of the British Empire, the bestowal of central self-government would be fraught with grave danger to the welfare of the 350,000,000 inhabitants of India and to the vast British interests involved in that country, upon which such large numbers of British workers depend for their livelihood."
I move this Resolution with a full sense of responsibility as a Member of the Imperial Parliament, because I believe that this question, which we are called upon from day to day to consider, far transcends in importance any question which is likely to come before this Parliament, and possibly any question which in the lifetime of Members we may have to consider. It will be agreed that in considering this great revolution our task is rendered very difficult because the opposition is not using its usual functions of opposition and criticism in connection with these reforms. Instead of the proposals as they emanate from Round Table Conferences and other places being subjected frequently to searching inquiry from the official Opposition in this House, and instead of there being frequent demands, as in any other situation there would be, for Votes of Censure, the Opposition naturally are concurring because the policy emanated from their late Government.
There is the gravest anxiety, as I think my right hon. Friends in the Administration will admit, all through the country on this subject, more especially at this moment in Lancashire, whose views I trust may be heard in this Debate; and there is no doubt that in recent months there has been growing alarm amongst
1744
a very large number of Members who previously had taken no definite part, one way or the other, with regard to this all-important subject. I see on the Order Paper an Amendment in the name of my Noble Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), which advises hon. Members to do nothing, to wait and see until the White Paper is published and the Government has to that extent committed itself. I think it is fairer to the Government that those who have strong feelings on the question should indicate their views now and not wait until possibly we have slipped yet a little further along what I feel is the downward slope. There are many hon. Members who have been feeling that they are committed. I think I am entitled to say that no Member of the House is in any way committed. Fortunately we had recently, in another place, a speaker whose authority will not be doubted as representing the Government—the President of the Board of Education—and he told us that Parliament was absolutely free and unfettered. Let me quote his words, which went even further:
"We are not committed even so far in theory as we might be committed by the First Reading of an actual Bill."
That will be a relief to every Member of this House. If we have doubts, therefore, we should be prepared to state them now. If we feel that the policy that the Government are pursuing is tending to go far too far, surely this is our opportunity and it is our duty, as loyal supporters of the National Government—I for one desire to see them remain in office to the end of their natural days—to state our feelings immediately. We are discussing, not a question of a small area or an isolated population, but the welfare of one-fifth of the human race—not a nation, but a conglomeration of peoples who are utterly diverse from each other in character, tradition, temperament, culture and breeding. I may add that there are also differences of religion and caste and other great differences. Those of us who had the honour of serving with or fighting beside Indian troops must have learned at once that the Rajputs, the Ghurkas, the Jats, the Sikhs, to mention but a few are far more diverse from each other, in character, physique, temperament and outlook than the most widely differing of the races of Europe whom we know close to us here at home.

1745
Although my Resolution goes a very long way on the lines of progress, I, for one, do not under-estimate the difficulties of any extension of self-governing institutions in India, nor do I fail to realise the immense gulf betwixt the Orient with its desire to be ruled—as I honestly believe—and the West where some of us are desirous of taking part in popular government. I remember that a day or two before Sun Yat Sen left for China on his great democratic mission, I had the interesting experience of discussing with him the object of his journey, and I had the temerity to ask him whether he really believed that Western ideals and institutions were suitable to that great people in China, with their age-long traditions, who for thousands of years had lived under a monarchical and autocratic government. He had no fears at that time. He was full of faith. I wonder, if the clock could be put back, would he have proceeded with his undertaking, in the light of the experience gained since in China and with the complete picture before him? Since the fall of the dynasty in China there has been incessant war, famine and disease? Death has been dealt out on a scale which I believe no man can calculate. Yet one would regard China as a simple proposition compared with India. There are differing races in China, but China has been one nation. It has been unified for aeons of time. It is not a multitude of nations such as we find in India. I would again ask the House, are we, who so light-heartedly undertake these difficult reforms in India quite sure of the step we are taking?
The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): Light-heartedly?
Sir H. CROFT: No, I would not apply that expression to my right hon. Friend, though I would apply it to a large number of Members of this House who say to themselves, "Well, I know nothing about it, and so I do not care to interfere." I beg my right hon. Friend's pardon if he thought for one moment that I was referring to him, because nobody realises more than I do the gravity with which he approaches this question. But are we sure that institutions which have been abandoned already in Italy and Germany and Russia constitute a system
1746
which we ought to impose upon our fellow- subjects in India?
These decisions are momentous and they are momentous not only from the point of view of industry and of the workers in Lancashire and elsewhere in this country. I do not belittle their importance from that point of view. I believe I am right in saying that something like one out of every five workers engaged in connection with our export trade have their whole livelihood bound up with our trade in India. Nor do I wish to belittle our invested wealth in the Indian Empire estimated at from £700,000,000 to £1,000,000,000. Nor do I under-estimate the great services given so freely to India in the past by thousands of the flower of our race. That, I think all sections of the House will admit, is something for which we have no reason to apologise. Our record in India is one of the finest pictures in the whole history of the march of civilisation. We ought to consider our vested interests in India, and in my own personal experience I have noticed that Indians in Kenya and Natal are very quick to proclaim their vested interests in those countries. Yet, I imagine, no one would suggest that their services in wealth, culture and scientific achievement in those countries are comparable with the wonderful story of our race's accomplishment in India.
I complain that too little attention has been paid to these matters by our constitution builders, but above all else I want the House to consider the 270,000,000 of our fellow subjects in India and also the 80,000,000 who live in the Indian States, whose welfare we are bound to watch with the greatest care. I think it will be agreed that we have imposed upon us probably the most solemn trust that has ever been imposed in history upon any country which under Providence has had to control the fate of vast masses of humanity. Time will not permit me to discuss details of the various proposals which have emanated from Round Table Conferences or from our itinerant committees. I do not go into the question of whether or not it is desirable to encourage the illiterate voter in India by the use of coloured ballot-boxes, presumably with animals depicted thereon in order that the voters may know the parties for which they are voting. Personally, I would always back

1747
the man-eating tiger to win and the jackal I think would forfeit his deposit. But there is no doubt that Parliament will have to allot a great deal of time— and rightly so—to those details.
At the moment, however, we cannot occupy ourselves with decisions as to the final decorations of the building and the nature of the roof to be put upon it. We are now concerned with the foundations. We have to ask ourselves whether the base is sure enough and strong enough to bear the great structure which it is intended to erect. I ask in all sincerity whither are we going? Have we considered all the immense consequences of being guided by our emotions in this matter? What is our objective? I submit that in our desire to endorse the hasty ideas of the late Government we have failed to face realities or consider what will be the logical conclusion if we persist in a policy which must mean the end of British rule and influence in India.
I must be a little retrospective but not with the retrospection of the Orient going back to things unchanged for a thousand years. I ask the House only to go back with me to the time when the Montagu proposals were first announced in this House in 191V. Those hon. Members who were here then will remember that the House at that time was utterly war-weary. We were filled with lassitude. When those discussions took place the House was almost empty and all the Members who knew anything about India, with the exception of three, were still waging war in one part of the world or another. We had no one here to advise us. Two main facts transpired at that time. First we had an idealistic Secretary of State whose brilliant career every one regrets was cut off in the prime of his life. He declared that he was determined "to stir the Indians out of their pathetic contentment."
The second great fact was this, that everyone in the House wanted to do something in recognition of the great services of the fighting races of India in the War, which were so fresh in our memories from day to day at that time. The late Mr. Edward Montagu succeeded in his aspirations, some of us think, perhaps too well. He certainly stirred India out of its contentment, and the fighting races, none of whom were politically minded, saw the reward given to those who had not fought.
1748
The fighting races had never asked for these reforms, and to this day the vast majority of them are not really concerned with them. None of the authors of these reforms, none of their predecessors as Viceroy or Secretary of State, no British Cabinet, up till the late Socialist Government had ever contemplated the possibility of granting self-government at the centre by Indians.
Mr. MORGAN JONES: I am quite certain that the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) when he was a member of the Coalition Government, specifically declared at the Imperial Conference in 1921 that it was proposed to give Dominion home rule to India.
Sir H. CROFT: I said that no Cabinet ever contemplated the possibility of responsibility at the centre to-day or tomorrow, although it may have been the ultimate ideal, as it is mine. I will go further than that, and say that much less was Dominion status ever considered. In fact, may I not say that all the wisdom of all responsible men, from Morley to Montagu, expressly ruled out such a possibility? Lord Morley—I suppose I may quote him as perhaps the greatest Liberal authority on India and Indian reforms—speaking with all his impressive authority, said:
"Parliamentary institutions in India would be as much out of place as a fur coat on the Equator."
Perhaps I might come to a later authority than that, Lord Birkenhead, who, in his "Last Essays," in "The Peril to India," said:
"I warned the Government of the madness of authorising the Viceroy to put forward in ambiguous language Dominion Home Rule as a goal. … Yet the Government in its folly authorised this foolish and deceiving declaration."
He said later on:
"No honest English statesman can say that Dominion status for India is attainable in the near future. Why then lie about it?"
These are fairly eminent authorities upon the question of India, and that brings me to the Government of India Act, in which it was specifically laid down that we should proceed step by step, that there should be a gradual development by successive stages; and hon. Members will remember that the Act also laid down that at the end of 10 years there should be an inquiry carried out by Parliament

1749
in order to decide whether we should extend, modify, or restrict these reforms.
The Statutory Commission was then constituted and started on its great task, and I have never met anyone connected with any kind of service in India who denies that it was a masterly survey and description of the life and habits of the Indian people and of the difficulties which confronted them, or that in. Volume II there was no single proposition which did not fulfil to the letter any pledge or suggestion which had been made to India. The only criticism one heard of the Report was whether it was advisable that the administration of justice and order should be handed over until, in due season, the Provinces had proved their fitness for those great and vital duties. That Report, without any consideration whatever by Parliament, which had appointed the Commission and which had sent the most authoritative and brilliant representatives of all parties to give up two years of their lives, at enormous expense to the State—that Report was thrown into the waste-paper basket.
The Round Table Conference emerged. I think it had been called just previously, and it became a kind of over-riding authority, although I have yet to discover what place in our constitution that Conference will find. It seems to me very dangerous that, when you are trying to impose Parliamentary institutions on India, you should be so regardless of your Parliamentary and constitutional precedents in this country. The British delegates entered that Conference with no mandate whatsoever, either from Parliament or the nation, to go a single step further. Suddenly, almost in a night, because some emotional speeches were made, notably by the Maharajahs of Alwar and Kashmir, the British delegates were stampeded into federal discussions, with a kind of belief that there was a burning enthusiasm among the Princes of India for federal reform, a belief which they imagined, apparently, was held very widely. I want to choose my words very carefully on this subject, but I think that no one can now doubt that the Princes had given scant consideration to the proposals and did not understand their full implications.
The atmosphere was something like this: Grave anxiety among all the Princes. "The British Raj is on the run;
1750
if he is determined to quit India, it is imperative that we shall immediately endeavour to come into some new structure of government in order that we may preserve our position, which has been pledged to us through Queen Victoria for all time." Pledges were also made to this House that nothing should be done unless the Princes came in in a body—I think the first version was "unless all the Princes came in," but a second edition came out fairly soon— that nothing should be done unless Hindu and Moslem could agree upon a settlement, and that a communal settlement would not be imposed upon India. These stipulations, far from being kept, appear to me to have been flagrantly disregarded.
I look for one stipulation, one pledge, in vain, and that surely should have been the first, namely, that in any step forward in India steps would be taken to see that the trade and commerce between England and India should be on a basis of reciprocity, with the nearest possible approach to Free Trade between the two great countries. We profess very great interest in the unemployed on every occasion—it is a subject near to every man's heart—and I am surprised that almost your first pledge was not that you would see that their vital interests were not impaired, and I have always been surprised that hon. Members above the Gangway, who are so vocal in their championship of Labour interests, should not have been foremost in their endeavour to see that that was done.
May I, in passing, join with many others in paying a tribute, if he will not think it impertinent, to the Secretary of State for India for his wise administration since he has taken office? I congratulate him on the extraordinary change in the situation in India. It has always seemed to me as if he, coming along, saw a coach and four running away down a steep mountain declivity, and as it came by he leapt on the box, seized the reins, and steered the runaways with great skill round various curves in the road, yet all the time he must have realised that at the bottom of the hill, unless he could pull them up before, there would be a terrible smash at a right-angle turn of the road. Some of us who honour and respect the right hon. Gentleman are calling upon him to-day, as he goes by, clinging to the box, that there is a road half way which bifurcates to the Pro-

1751
vinces, where he can bring his coach to a stop.
As to the safeguards, we are told that all is well because the Viceroy, with his veto, is going to remain. How is the Viceroy going to operate under self-Government at the centre if that Government is composed of Ministers whose organisation has in advance declared its intention of thwarting every single safeguard which you debate so gravely round your tables? How long will the Viceroy last if his Ministers resign and are reelected, while he is deprived of all administrative machinery, and has only one argument left—the argument of British bayonets? We are told blandly that there will be financial safeguards. I want to ask my right hon. Friend, suppose Lord FitzAlan had remained Lord Lieutenant of Ireland with a British garrison in that country. Would my right hon. Friend honestly maintain that Lord FitzAlan could have collected the annuities? The position is parallel. Will the police responsible to Congress, controlled by them, defy their paymasters at the behest of the Viceroy?
The Secretary of State told us, in writing to his anxious constituents in Chelsea, that there is all the difference in the case of Ireland, because the Army will remain in India. As one who has tried to study a little as an amateur the tactics and strategy of arms, I would ask this question: How would you move your army when your railways, posts, telephones, telegraphs and civil administration are in the hands of people anxious to thwart our intentions? The Hindu rulers of Alwar and Kashmir might possibly be at variance with their Moslem subjects. To-day the British administration sends a few battalions under British officers and all is peace. You settle the dispute with benevolent advice. Could a Hindu Government send Hindu troops in order to subdue the Moslem population in Alwar and Kashmir? You would have civil war at once. Could a Hindu Government send Moslem troops with Moslem officers to those territories? Obviously, they would side with the population at once. I have a personal view, and it is that if you are going to quit India, a British Army in that country becomes an anachronism. Further, I think we have no right to risk the lives of our soldiers
1752
in these internecine disputes between unblendable forces if you have thrown over the responsibility of the government of that country.
If it is not certain that the Princes really desire this change; if the finances of India and the Provinces are such that they cannot stand any fresh burdens, and if the communal differences, far from having died down, are much greater than at the time of the Simon Commission, then I say we are forced back to the recommendations of the Statutory Commission, with temporary modifications as to the delegation of administration of justice and public security to each Province in turn—and one or two may be ready now—as it proves its fitness. I think that I may be acquitted of any lack of desire to see the Empire a success, and I confess to a dream of the day when the Provinces have graduated in the hard school of self-government, having learnt the arts of administration, having solved those age-long problems of religious difference, desiring to enter as well-affected partners in the British Empire, as in the Provinces of Canada and the States of Australia, desiring to form a Dominion under the British Crown, then I confess that that would be the coping-stone of statesmanship and the summit of our Imperial hopes. But none of those conditions exist to-day. The only organised political force in British India at the present moment is Congress, and if we blunder into self-government to-day, handing over the government of that great country to a political machine which is intent upon secession from the Empire, the driving of every white man out of the service, abolishing the British Army, repudiating debts and the complete elimination of all British goods. That is the position we have to face. The Secretary of State has said that we must not attach too much importance to Congress. But what about his Liberal moderate friends who said only last week that the Secretary of State ought to be abolished and let us have a federal arrangement and emulate the policy of Mr. de Valera.
The warnings of the back benches have not always been wrong. At the time of the Irish proposals, I ventured to say that, notwithstanding the sincerity of Arthur Griffiths and Michael Collins, in the course of time they would pass, and

1753
then you would be handing over the control of Ireland to a Government of Republicans, who would repudiate their oaths and refuse to acknowledge their obligations. How immensely greater is this risk you are running in India, where you have been told in advance frankly what are the forces to which you are yielding India to-day. If we must experiment let it be upon the provinces. Mistakes even in those vast territories can be redeemed. The National Government received an emphatic mandate to save the nation. They received no mandate to break up the Empire. With the most impressive majority of all history, we were told to repudiate almost everything the Socialist Government had done—not to don their old clothes.
I ask a final question. Is there a right hon. Gentleman sitting on that Bench who in his heart of hearts believes that the Indian ryot will be rescued from the extortion of the moneylender, the children from the practices of the temple, the widows from suttee, Moslem and Hindu from internecine bloodshed, and the Untouchables from the tyranny of the Brahmin if the British abdicate in India? Everyone knows that if you go out, it will not be progression but reaction. All that you have done will be thrown away, and you will see everything which British influence has done in this direction wiped out in a night. I cannot help asking: Are we weary of the white man's burden? Are our hands so palsied, our will so weak, that we, in this great Christian realm, are going to throw over our trust with our task half completed? Those may be the reactions affecting some, but they are not the voice or the spirit of England, and they are certainly utterly opposed to every tradition and ideal that Conservatives have ever held from Beaconsfield to Salisbury and from Balfour to Bonar Law. Go forward—yes, to the provinces. Abdicate from the centre, and your countrymen will never forgive you.
4.10 p.m.
Commander MARSDEN: I beg to second the Motion.
I want, first of all, to thank my hon. and gallant Friend for having introduced the subject at this time, and to congratulate him on his eloquent and courageous speech. I feel that I shall be rather an anti-climax after his concluding words,
1754
but I do think that this is the right moment to talk about India. We shall shortly have the White Paper, which will tell us what the Government intend doing, but we know it may be altered, and surely in this House it is far easier for us to speak openly and freely before rather than after, for, in my innocence, I have formed the opinion that the Government must largely make up their minds from the opinions of their supporters. I have also noticed that, having made up their minds, it is very difficult indeed to get those proud spirits to move from their entrenched position.
I could be far more fluent on this great subject if I had before me a map, because India is so vast that it is impossible to come to any sensible opinion about it unless one can take it all in, as India reaches from those snowy mountains in the north to those tropical shores on the south, extending from 60 degrees east to 105 degrees east, a country not one, two or three times as large as Great Britain but 20 times as large—in fact, as large as the whole of Europe, excluding Russia, and with a population of 350,000,000 people. It seems almost incredible that any Government at any centre could adequately control such an enormous place with such a large mass of people. India consists chiefly of agricultural labourers and people who work on the land, people who seem to be very inadequately represented at every Round Table Conference and every investigation that has taken place, and yet they are the people of India. They live in half a million villages scattered throughout the country. The only people they know are their head men, and, I regret to say, their moneylenders. Their pre-occupation in their daily toil, their ordinary task, how to live, even exist from day to day, their yearly troubles are, of course, the monsoon, which has largely been solved by or through our irrigation of the land.
There is one point which does stand out in all our history of India. Previously to our taking over the security of the frontiers, there never was a raid or invasion which was not successful. Since we have been there, not one has been successful, and so, at last, the peasant can carry on in security. Again, he had his troubles with famine and plague, and we have fought them, and, to a great extent, defeated them. Owing to our communications, where famine is

1755
in one place, there is frequently plenty in another. Owing to our tremendous irrigation schemes, they are not so dependent on the monsoons. Nine-tenths of the population does not know anything about legislative councils, Governors or Viceroy. The most omnipotent man on earth the peasant has ever heard of is the King Emperor, and the only man he is likely to see is the district officer to whom he goes for guidance and assistance on every occasion. Who are the district officers? The very best people we can send out, the pick of our public schools, passing the highest form of examination. How can they carry on if they have not the knowledge behind them that they have this House, this country, and this Empire behind them? Whatever form of government is outlined for India, it is only an outline sketched out. Every contingency may be thought of, every possibility arranged for, but what use is it if the administration is not right? I put it to the House that our administration in India surely has been good, sound and honest. If we were to go out of India, would India be worse off or better off? Would the administration be as good or worse? Would their army be as good, or not so good? If their army were as good, we should never be in India at all, so that it is a perfectly logical conclusion.
We have this tremendous question before us, and it is one which has been filling the minds of the Government. One of the biggest points upon which my hon. and gallant Friend touched was the question of religion, and we who know India closely, or have investigated it, whatever form of election there is, the result we know in advance. Whatever the religion of the majority, it will be successful. Where the Moslems are in the ascendancy, their candidate will win. Where the Hindus are in the ascendancy, they will win. Although the Hindus are in a majority or two to one over the Moslems, the latter are the stronger race. So, if we were to vacate India, we could be certain that in the end the Moslems would be on top. Hinduism is prevalent throughout India, and there, of course, is one of the greatest difficulties. This religion through its various grades, divisions and sub-divisions, runs into no less than 2,300 different castes. Not one of those castes can marry into another, and
1756
a person is born into a caste and cannot rise above it or sink below it. In this extraordinary mixture we propose to make changes, which so far have been successful.
In anything to do with the East there are certain things to be borne in mind. The first is that no man from the West ever knows the Eastern mind. You can only account for certain actions and reactions. What has struck me so much through all these investigations in India, in this House and in this country, is that while we have men with the most intimate knowledge of India, who have served India and been there all their lives, their advice does not seem to have been taken as much as I think it should have been. They cannot tell us what India will always think, but they can tell us how, given certain conditions, the Eastern is most likely to act. Their advice is always the same, and it is practically that which is contained in this Motion. We are giving up a lot, but generosity in the East has to be well timed. Generosity from a victor or a man in a strong position is correct, appreciated and recognised. Generosity from the vanquished or one in a weak position is not looked upon as generosity; it is looked upon as weakness. One way never to rule in the East is by weakness.
There is the great question of the native States. I think that my hon. and gallant Friend has said practically all that can be said about that. Let me visualise again their position. There are 600 of these native States and the biggest is as big as this country. They and their Princes are practically guaranteed by this country. We guarantee the security of their frontiers and the descent of their Princes. We guarantee not only peace in their own countries, but all sorts of things; and yet it is now suggested that those Princes may agree to give up that security. Whatever reasons may be given, there is only one logical conclusion to be arrived at, and that is that the Princes consider the security to be not quite so good as it used to be. Why should a man give up all these privileges and the knowledge that behind him is the full force of the British Empire to support him? Why should he surrender that for something not so strong, not so capable? Yet that is the suggestion. The native Princes

1757
do not seem so enthusiastic about Federation as they were a short time ago. At the last Round Table Conference, as far as I can see, they were not personally represented, but they sent their Ministers. Whatever conclusions they arrived at, it has nothing to do with us, but it seems to me that there is a lot of vagueness as to what measure of unanimity there may be among them. I understood my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to say that in the first instance they must all agree—
The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): I never said that.
Commander MARSDEN: I said that I understood—rightly or wrongly. That was afterwards corrected, but we do not know now how it is to be. If you say "all the States," does it mean that every Prince has to agree? Is it to be taken by the amount of population or area of country? We do not know these things. We hope that we shall know what the intentions are when the White Paper comes out. I will not keep the House long, because the more outspoken opinions we get the better it will be for everybody, and I am sure that they will be appreciated by the Government. There are a couple of things that should be well borne in mind. One is that whatever is put in the White Paper will be looked upon by India as the bargaining point. They will consider, whatever we say, that we shall be prepared to give more; and we can take it that, whatever they say, they will understand that we shall demand considerably less from them. I respectfully submit, therefore, that whatever is contained in the White Paper will be of such an amount that we can add to it while the matter is going through the Select Committee, or through the House, or elsewhere, because it will be impossible to take anything from it. That is the basis of all forms of bargaining in the East, and I am sure that the Oriental will not look upon this as a different form of bargaining from that to which he is accustomed.
It is suggested that we should give to the East a greater form of Western constitutional methods than they have yet had. The Western constitutional methods surely cannot be inflicted on the East by the Easterns themselves. We must have a strong ground of Englishmen accus-
1758
tomed to that form of government to help them. In the administration of India 1,500,000 people are concerned. The number of Englishmen in that administration is only 12,000. Whatever the limit may be, it strikes me that we must be very near the limit now. If we get less than that, we shall be swamped, and how do the Government think that we shall then get the right type of Englishman to go out and carry on these administrative jobs? I hope that everybody in the-House has read the words spoken in the House on the 20th August, 1917. I was not even aware at that time that they were spoken; I was thinking of other things, as I gather that the majority in the House were too. They have, however, come strongly to my notice since. They are most striking words, and were spoken by Mr. Montagu:
"The British Government and the Government of India, on whom the responsibility lies for the welfare and advancement of the Indian peoples, must be the judges of the time and measures of each advance." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th August, 1917: col. 1696, Vol. 97.]
That is the meaning of this Resolution— that we should go extremely slowly and step by step. We cannot say that we know anything. I have no doubt, whatever proposals the Government may make, that they will believe them to be right and that they will hope them to be right. We do not want these measures to be put forward until we know that they are right. Nobody can say they know until after the event, but the nearest you can get to that is to make experiments, and if the experiments are successful that is the best justification you have for going on. In seconding this Motion, I can only bring again strongly to the notice of the House that our intention is that before this full responsibility is given to the centre, experiments should be tried in the provinces on the same lines. Then, if the experiment is successful, the movement towards the centre may be made slowly. If, however, the Government think that they are going in their lifetime to set up a constitution for India which is settled and immovable, they make a grave error. I therefore respectfully submit that they should not fall into such a state of affairs, but should go step by step, satisfying themselves before taking the next step that the last one was justified. Even if my right hon.

1759
Friend and others may not agree with me, I am sure that they realise that the instinctive feeling of everybody is that, whatever we do, is for two purposes—to look after British interests and British prestige, and to do our best for the 350,000,000 people who live in India.
4.26 p.m.
Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from the word "House," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
"considers it inadvisable at this time to make any declaration of policy in regard to the future government of India which might be interpreted either as signifying a change in its general attitude or as restricting its freedom to pass a considered judgment on the concrete proposals to be laid before it in the future."
May I begin by assuring my two hon. and gallant Friends that I have not put down this Amendment, as the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) suggested, as a protest against Members of the House of Commons taking time by the forelock and letting their views be clearly known to the Government. I think that that is a wise precaution, and I do not think that anyone can complain that hon. Members should take the opportunity of the Ballot to put down Motions which enable them to express their views. My hon. and gallant Friend, however, is doing much more than that. He has told us, quite rightly, that we in this House are not committed to any particular proposals about the Government of India, and yet he is on a Wednesday afternoon seeking to commit us to the most definite proposals, to which I am sure he could not rightly commit even himself on the basis of the views he has expressed. That, I think, is a very dangerous procedure, and is not likely to create in India that impression of the Englishman with the capacity for clear decision, and is not likely to enhance the prestige of this House in dealing fair-mindedly but strongly with the whole problem of Indian government. It is for that reason that I put down the Amendment.
I hope that the House will be indulgent to me because this is the first time I have ventured to address the House on India. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth seems to have a curious idea of the feelings of those
1760
many hon. Members who have not yet spoken on India. He thinks that, because we have not yet spoken, we are rushing lightly, although we know nothing about it, into some very alarming course of democratic reform. I should not speak now if I did not want to express a point of view on this subject which I have never heard expressed in the House. Now certainly is the time when such points of view should be expressed. I do not think that hon. Members always realise that the vast majority of Members of the present House were not Members of the House when the Government of India Act was passed. I was not a Member at that time, and it has always seemed to me, and it must have seemed to other hon. Members, that at that time these Indian controversies got into a rut from which they have never yet emerged. Phraseology about responsible government had rather artificial meanings attached to them, and the controversy on the Floor of the House has always gone on from the starting point of that phraseology and run along in the old grooves.
To-day we have had from the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth a most impressive and most interesting speech, but running on those same old lines, the lines of reminiscences and going back to the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms, the lines of the use of phrases about "self-government," "responsibility at the centre," and so on. Ever since this question began to be frequently debated in this House we have been, as Abraham Lincoln said on one occasion, "industriously plied and belaboured" with all these reminiscences, all these relics of the particular form which the controversy took in those early years, and I think many of us have come to feel more and more that the problem we have to deal with cannot be defined and the remedy cannot be expressed within the framework of those terms. We have to get away from phrases and get down to facts, and, if I may say so, I do not think that is what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth did.
Sir H. CROFT: May I remind the Noble Lord that I was quoting the law of the land? I quoted the phrases from the Government of India Act.
Lord E. PERCY: That is precisely what I mean. The hon. Baronet regards

1761
the Joint Select Committee which this House is about to set up as being a Committee to introduce Amendments into the Act passed in 1919, as being in some measure a tinkering committee to go a little further than we went then; but I assure him that there are a good many of us who feel quite differently. For years we have seen the moment approaching when this House will have to resolve itself into a committee to determine afresh what is the best form of government for India. Nothing less than that is the question which faces us. All these reminiscences of the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms, all the quotations from existing Acts of Parliament do not help us very much. Of course, the past and the present law must be taken into consideration in determining what we are going to do next, but the attempt to conduct a controversy on the lines of those old divisions of opinion is, I think, futile, for reasons which I hope to put before the House.
Mr. CHURCHILL: At what point are we allowed to start—only at the Round Table Conference?
Lord E. PERCY: I want to start on the basis of all the facts about India which will be before the Joint Select Committee.
Mr. CHURCHILL: Then I gather that my Noble Friend does not consider that the Joint Select Committee should be governed by the conclusions of the Round Table Conference?
Lord E. PERCY: Of course, I say that this House, when it sets up a Joint Select Committee sets it up unbound and unfettered by any previous decisions. I have stated that I do not want this House at this moment to pass any Resolution which might be interpreted as signifying a change in its general attitude. The general attitude of this House I take to be this, that it has stated that it will consider strictly on their merits proposals for provincial autonomy and for the constitution of an Indian Federation; that it has expressed its willingness to receive from the Government proposals of that kind, and has even authorised the Government positively to bring proposals of that kind before it. It has in no way committed the Joint Select Committee as to the lines upon which those proposals shall be considered,
1762
and that Joint Select Committee a Select Committee of this Parliament, must, of course, consider those proposals without its consideration being fettered in any way by any pledges or statements given elsewhere. It has got to face the facts of the situation as they are.
If that is the appalling responsibility which rests upon us, let us see what the hon. Baronet asks us to do. He has put before us a scheme. The first point in that scheme is that he proposes, he says, to approve the report of the Statutory Commission subject only to the reservation about law and order. But does he really mean that? If so, I should strongly advise the House not to vote for this Motion. Take one complete chapter from the report of the Statutory Commission, the financial chapter. It has been blown out of the water long ago. Its authors would not say that it was anything but out of date. What is the good of putting before this House a Motion to approve the Statutory Commission's report including that completely discredited part of it? Then, again, are we prepared to say that we approve in principle the transfer of responsibility for the maintenance of law and order wholly to the provinces, after a temporary reservation? I believe as strongly as the Statutory Commission believe that we cannot have any real test of capacity for self-government unless that test includes responsibility for law and order. At the same time, I should be very sorry to commit myself at the present moment to the most difficult question of what in the future should be the respective powers and responsibilities of the Central Government and the Provincial Governments. That problem has never yet been fully worked out, and I would warn the hon. Baronet that to rush at that proposal and state it in general terms is very dangerous.
Secondly, the hon. Baronet says—and I really cannot understand this point at all—that in face of existing financial conditions, which is on? of the two reasons he gives, the transference of responsibility at the centre is inexpedient at the present time. That appears to me to be a complete non sequitur. I have often heard it argued by Indians, by Nationalists and by persons in this country, that if the financial crisis makes it impossible to give adequate financial resources to the provinces provincial

1763
autonomy is impossible; but that is the conclusion to be drawn from the existence of an impossible financial state. It is not responsibility at the centre, whatever its merits or demerits; it is provincial autonomy which is in jeopardy; and, therefore, that part of the Motion seems to be wholly inadmissible. But those are, perhaps, comparatively minor points.
Let me come to the main issue. What is the form of government which this Motion proposes to set up during the next five, 10, 15 or 20 most difficult years? It is proposed to have popularly-elected assemblies in the provinces. It is proposed that the governor should govern through ministers chosen from among the elected members of those assemblies, and that those ministers, advising the governor, should have full responsibility except for the administration of justice and the maintenance of order. Those Governments, then, will be the expression of a popular public opinion. The number of people who create political opinion in India may be very small—I am not disputing that—but the moment there is an elected assembly and a Government founded on that assembly that Government becomes the centre of a political opinion the strength of which is not proportionate to the number of people who vote or the number of people who hold those views. It is proportionate to the number of people whom the ministers in question can say have supported their views. We are politicians in this House, and we know how we wave an arm to indicate the mass of the people whom we represent.
Those Governments, popular Governments in that sense, are going to have programmes of expenditure. They are going to be extremely eager to spend money on "nation-building" services. Their present financial resources are admittedly wholly inadequate, even for carrying on existing services. Therefore, they will be clamouring for additional sources of revenue. Here is a point on which I can perhaps speak with a little authority. I assure the House that whatever may be the provisions in the constitution about the division of resources between the provinces and the centre, the provinces and the centre will have to share the same sources of revenue. In my judgment we
1764
cannot within any foreseeable future divide a source of revenue such as Income Tax and say that Income Tax shall go either to the units or to the centre. They will be sharing the same sources of revenue, as every federation in the world shares the same sources of revenue. It is the only basis on which any successful system of federal finance has ever been established. We shall have these popular provincial Governments clamouring for more money as against the centre—and who will there be at the centre to oppose them and insist on reserving sufficient sources of revenue securely to maintain the Army, the service of the debt, and so on? There will be controversy between a number of popular assemblies and popular Ministers and one isolated man —the Viceroy.
Everyone who has ever studied this question has regarded that as a possible position. The Statutory Commission did not believe that we could leave the existing constitution at the centre as it stands to-day. They proposed a solution very largely based on this financial problem. They proposed a system of indirect election to a new federal assembly representing the provinces. That had the objection that we might then get at the centre not any popular or semi-popular assembly with an interest in maintaining the revenues of the Central Government, but only a series of delegations from the Provincial Governments all extremely anxious to get a little more for their particular provinces. I ask the House of Commons to realise that that proposal is the crucial issue that we shall have to face.
My view, and the view of most people who have ever had any responsibility for running the Central Government under the existing Consitution, is that whatever happens you cannot leave the existing Constitution unchanged. It is there that I come up against this phrase about "responsible government," which has done more harm, as used by Englishmen, than anything else in the world. The people who are responsible for it are the drafters of the present Government of India Act and all those who prepared the way for it. What did you do? You established this doctrine, surely quite foreign to British ideas, that an elected member of a legislature cannot have two responsibilities. If he is responsible to his constituents he cannot possibly be

1765
responsible to the Viceroy. Therefore it was laid down, I think in Section 22 of the Government of India Act, that no elected member of the Legislature might become a member of the Viceroy's Executive Council.
Just consider what you did. You set up an assembly with a large elected majority, 100 out of 140. Having summoned to Delhi the 100 elected members, you then said to them, "Not a single one of you can hope to have any administrative responsibility unless you give up that elective status and become a nominated member." We set up a constitution at the centre which has this distinction, that it is worse in principle, and more unworkable in practice, than the constitution of the United States of America. This is the sort of thing which does not change with latitude and longitude. I have always been impressed with my own ignorance and the ignorance of many of my colleagues in this House about India, and the sense of my own ignorance was not dispelled by my short official visit to India. But I have sometimes thought that this House has dealt unwisely with India, not because it was ignorant of India, but because it thought that something which has never worked in the history of the world might work under the peculiar conditions of India. That is folly.
One thing that the experience of constitution builders has shown from the beginning of time is that an elected person is a public danger unless he has fairly imminently before his eyes the hope the prospect or the fear of becoming responsible for carrying out what he has talked about on the Floor of the Legislature. I say "responsible" in the moral sense that he has to take on the job. When you come to the constitutional question as to whom he has to be responsible, you get into a sphere where there are any number of solutions. His Majesty's Ministers are responsible to this House while being responsible to the Crown as His Majesty's servants and to their constituents. They never find any difficulty in bearing three or four responsibilities at one and the same time. They are responsible to this House, because the House fundamentally has the power of making any Government by those men impossible by the refusal of Supply, and by the refusal to pass the Army Annual Act. The degree of responsibility, in the constitutional
1766
sense, is proportional to the powers that you give the Legislature. Nobody has ever yet proposed, at any Bound Table Conference, to give the Central Legislature powers of that kind.
You can, on the other hand, enforce responsibility by some such provision as that which is in the Irish Free State Act, that affirmatively the executive must choose its ministers from among the elected members of the Legislature. I should feel very grave doubts about applying any such proposal to the Government of India. I am sure of this, that this question as to whom a Minister is to be responsible, is a very rarefied constitutional question which admits of many constitutional refinements. The one thing which we have forgotten, in all this talk about constitutional refinements, is that, if you expect any constitution to work, the elected man, while he is still an elected man, must be regarded as capable of being chosen for executive duties. If you do not do that, you will have a Government that does not work. The Government of the United States none of us think works very well, but it would be wholly and absolutely unworkable if it were not for one thing. The only thing that makes the Constitution of the United States work is the fact that the President is a party leader and has the party machine under his control. Clearly, you cannot make the Viceroy of India a party leader of that kind. These are the only two possible alternative ways of getting any Government to work: either you must make your executive a party leader, or you must give him the power to choose his executive Ministers from among the members of the Legislature.
These are the types of issues that we shall have to consider. Personally—I am taking, needless to say, a wholly personal view—I should approach the problem almost wholly from this point of view: What powers is it necessary to give the Governor-General and the Provincial Governors, in order to enable them, as the representatives of the executive power, to govern India beneficently? I should approach it from that point of view, and if I did, I should have to consider that what the Governors and the Governor-General require in order to govern India is certainly powers over the police and over the Army, powers to issue Ordinances in emergencies, and so

1767
on. But there is another class of power which it is necessary for them to have, and that is power to build up in their support a body of political opinion behind them. That is the power which, under our present Constitution at the centre, you make is absolutely impossible for the Governor-General to have.
I wonder how many hon. Members have ever asked themselves what powers of that kind the responsible Governors in India at the present moment wish for themselves. We talk of the absurdity of regarding those 350,000,000 of Indian people as having a political opinion, and of course that is true, but in any country-political opinion is not much more than the surface swell which reveals much greater economic agitation beneath the surface. There are in India economic questions and economic movements of the utmost gravity. The moment has just arrived which many people have foreseen, when the growth of population has, in certain parts of India, created a dangerous, I might almost say at first sight an insoluble, agrarian problem. There is no doubt about the liveness of the opinion in regard to their own interests among the peasants of the United Provinces. You could see that, a little more than a year ago, in what happened there. You have also a growing movement of industrialism, with all the social problems which it must inevitably bring in its train.
If you are to deal with those questions, you need something more than mere powers of administration. It would not matter if the district commissioners, the ordinary Englishman whom we send out to India, was, as some people seem to regard him sometimes, a kind of Mussolini, always willing to act drastically. We know quite well that that is not the case, but rather that British administration in India has been like a vast pacifying pool of oil in an agitated country, restoring order and administering equal justice but never able by its very nature to deal with, and unwilling and precluded by the very pledges that you gave to India, from dealing with, those tremendous, underlying economic problems. You must give your future Governors in India power to collect, and to rally to them, bodies of political opinion, in order to deal with those problems.
1768
Such I imagine to be the issues which will face the Joint Select Committee. The gravity of those issues is perhaps the reason why the younger Members of this House have been content during the last few years, to let the legions of my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill)
"thunder past, and turn to thought again."
We are now to assume our responsibility. Into the hands of this House is going to be given the law-giving for 350,000,000 people. We are passing from the stalls to the stage. We are taking out of the hands of the Government, as it were, the responsibility for formulating proposals. The Government are going to lay their proposals before us, and ours is to be the responsibility of expressing our opinion upon them. If we are to undertake that responsibility, let us not create in this House the impression that we have been so impatient at seeing created at Round Table Conferences, an impression of vacillation and negotiation, and of fear and hesitation and doubt. Let us rather resolve to maintain the reputation for those two qualities on which the whole of our rule in India has been based, a reputation for deliberate and fair-minded consideration, a contempt for phrases and an attachment to facts; and, secondly, a capacity for clear decision, and clear statement of our decision when we have made up our minds. Do not let us prejudge that eventual decision, or prejudge our fair-minded consideration of these proposals, by passing a Resolution of this kind which, as I have tried to show, cannot represent the lines of the future Government of India.
5 p.m.
Mr. ATTLEE: We have heard two very eloquent speeches on the question of Indian reforms, by the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) and by the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy). If I wanted to contrast those two speeches, I should describe the first as a broad but extremely shallow stream—a stream that moved along easily, and where there seemed to be no rocks in the surface of the bed of the river. On the other hand, when I listened to the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings, I seemed, as his speech flowed along, to see sticking out of the bed of the river all those very awkward rocks

1769
which we encountered when we served on the Indian Statutory Commission. I could see the financial difficulty; I could see the difficulties with regard to responsibility; I could see the difficulties with regard to the ranging of public opinion behind the Government; and I could see that the Noble Lord appreciated all those difficulties. I certainly did not gather that that was so in the case of the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Bournemouth, and I would say that the views which he put before us were certainly not the views which were put before me, when I was in India, by experienced administrators in that country. They seemed to me to ignore some of the prime facts of the situation.
The first fact that the hon. and gallant Gentleman ignored was that there is a definite pledge in existence, which we cannot disregard. It was obvious that he hoped that somehow or other we could go behind that declaration—the declaration which was made at Delhi by the Duke of Connaught on behalf of His Majesty the King, and which was reiterated quite recently by the Lord President of the Council. I will quote his reiteration. Speaking on the 7th November, 1929, he said:
"Can there be any doubt whatever, in any quarter of the House, that the position of an India with full responsible government, in the Empire, when attained, and whatever form it may take so far as the internal government of India is concerned, must be one of equality with the other States in the Empire?" —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th November, 1929; col. 1312, Vol. 231.]
It is quite possible to say that there is a factor of time, that that relates to something very far off; but I do not think that, when that declaration was made— at a critical time, at a time when there was in this country a feeling of very great gratitude towards India, and not only to the martial races, but to the whole of the people of India—I do not think that this country was dishonestly saying, "We make a declaration to you, and we are going to put it so far ahead that it has practically no value whatever."
The second point that seemed to me to have been ignored by the Mover of the Resolution was the fact that you cannot work political institutions without politically minded people—that, after all,
1770
in India, whether you advance only to provincial self-government, whether you have some form of responsibility at the centre, or whether you have no responsible form of government whatever, India has been, will be, and must be governed through the medium of Indians. The number of Britishers is surprisingly —amazingly—small. We have governed India through India, and that can only be done with the good will of the Indian people. Therefore, in all considerations of reform, we are brought up to this question: "How are you going to get the necessary force of public opinion behind any government which you set up?" I thought that the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings brought out that point very clearly in his speech. Certainly, it was one which impressed the members of the Statutory Commission very much indeed when they were in India, namely, that you had there a form of government in which all the propaganda—platform, Press and everything —belonged to the opposition; that that was a quite impossible position; and that, somehow or other, you had to get a force of public opinion to work. The Noble Lord indicated that point again very clearly when he touched upon those economic problems which, as he very justly said, lie behind all political problems; and the same point was also made very strongly by the Indian Statutory Commission when they declared that the evils from which India suffered were such that they could only be remedied by the action of the Indian people themselves.
That brings me to my next point. The logic, really, of the hon. Baronet's position was that either you must give no self-government to India or you must give it complete self-government and clear out altogether. The hon. Baronet has a logical mind, and I confess that I have always experienced very great difficulty in finding a logical halting place. It is quite possible to get as far as saying that there shall be complete self-government in the provincial sphere; but, when you come to the central government, you are face to face with a number of extraordinarily difficult facts that you cannot get over. They are not facts due to the malevolence of the British people, or to any fault of the Indian people; they are simply the facts of the situation—the existence of the,

1771
Army problem, the existence of the problem of the Indian States, and so forth.
While it is extraordinarily difficult to find any logical halting place between complete responsibility of elected persons at the centre and no responsibility, you are faced with the fact that a Constitution in which there is responsibility in the provinces but none at the centre is extraordinarily difficult to work. The reason is that there are two different wills operating in these two different spheres, and the whole tendency would be to have the provinces being governed by popularly elected persons, but merely by way of a form of attack to capture control of the central government. I am not prejudging at all the question as to how that is to be settled, or how it should be settled; I simply point out this enormous difficulty. It was very apparent to the members of the Indian Statutory Commission. Frankly, I have always considered that, while there is no logical halting place, a halting place is only possible provided that both parties have the will to make it work, and I wish particularly to say to the Government to-day that, whatever form of government is made, the essential question is: Is it going to work with good will? I should like to quote from a late Member of this House of very great political ability, who had a very difficult situation to deal with, namely, Oliver Cromwell. Oliver Cromwell, when he was trying to work out a Constitution, made this very wise remark:
"It is not the manner of settling these constitutional things, or the manner of one set of men or another doing it; there remains always the grand question after that. The grand question lies in the acceptance of it by those who are concerned to yield obedience to it and accept it."
That is the real question that we have to face in this Indian problem. It is not a question of whether you accept the conclusions, or any of them, of the Indian Statutory Commission; it is not a question of whether it is done by a Joint Select Committee or by this set of Indians or that set of Indians jointly with the Government; the vital point is: Are these reforms going to be accepted and worked?
I think that everyone who has studied the history of India since the reforms
1772
realises the extraordinary difficulties that the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms had to meet, owing, in the first place, to the fact that they came at a time of great political disturbance—a disturbance that affected not only the Hindus but the Moslems—and that there was an atmosphere of non-co-operation. In the second place—and I think the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings will agree with me in this—one of the greatest difficulties in the working of the Montagu-Chelmsford system was that it was introduced at a time of falling prices, and that every new provincial government found itself faced with difficulties in regard to finance, so that those who were trying to work the reforms could not bring the promises that they made to anything like fruition.
Now, again, we have the question of reforms being introduced at a time of very great economic difficulty, and, unfortunately, at a time of considerable political complexity. I want to impress upon the Government the importance, which I am sure they realise, of doing the utmost to get Indian opinion ready to work these reforms. We have had it from the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth that, if the Indians come to an election, the Congress party will be in power throughout India. I am not sure whether that is so or not; I should not like to be so dogmatic. I should not say that the Congress party was absolutely and entirely the only Indian political party. But I would say this, that through the whole educated Indian population, with varying degrees of intensity, there runs this national idea. To imagine that the Congress party are the only people who believe in Indian self-government is quite absurd. All the other parties do as well. So do many Indians who are in the Civil Service, and so do many Indians who are in the Army. So indeed did many of the Princes. I noticed recently some writings in the "Morning Post" on the subject of the Princes. I cannot think it is a very fortunate thing that a correspondent should write from India belittling every single Indian Prince who happens to be in favour of federation, saying, "This is a weak man, this is bossed by his Prime Minister, this one is no good," and so forth. I think we ought to be extremely grateful to the Princes of India for their action throughout these reforms. Certainly I was im-

1773
pressed by the grave difficulty of doing anything at the centre unless you had this co-operation of the Princes. As a matter of fact, the Round Table Conference is one of the results of the readiness of the Princes to come in.
You have this national ideal and you have to make terms with it. Everyone will agree that there are masses of difficult questions which divide Indians one from the other. Probably everyone will agree in disliking many of the manifestations of Indian nationalism. Indeed, I am not a whole-hearted admirer of nationalism. Nationalism, after all, may unite some people but it disunites other people. It unites people on that bench, but it disunited the Liberal party. Indian nationalism at present is disuniting Christendom at a time when it ought not to be disunited, but the only big force in India is nationalism. The only force that could work the reforms is the Nationalist movement and, if we wish there to come from these reforms, in whatever form it comes, a satisfactory progress towards Indian self-government, it can only come by the acceptance of that scheme and the working of that scheme by representatives of the Nationalist movement—I use the term in its widest sense. Although it is true that the politically-minded in India are few, the politically-minded are showing that they have power to move the masses. Wherever you have great economic evils, a small number of politically-minded people are able to move those masses.
It is entirely false to suggest that somehow or other you can govern India and disregard Indian nationalism. Besides Indian nationalism there is nothing but a welter of creeds, a welter of jarring strife of every kind, and, therefore, I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to remember, when dealing with this Motion, that the vital thing is his attitude towards the politically-minded in India. I believe the greatest thing for the success of the next stage in India is not the meticulous accuracy of the reforms in every detail, but a gesture on the part of the Government, the release of the political prisoners and a frank invitation to Congress once again to come in. Then you may have a chance of the next stage of this great experiment going forward in far happier circumstances
1774
than those that occurred at the time of the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms.
5.20 p.m.
Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: On several occasions I have had the privilege of addressing the House on this Indian business, and I should like to remind them of an observation that I made on a previous occasion, that the true audience of this Debate is not in this House but is in India. To an amazing extent words uttered in this House are circulated throughout India by means of the vernacular Press in such a way as does not occur in connection with any other Debate. I listened with admiration to the forceful opening speech of the hon. Baronet and I found myself little in agreement with him. With the greatest respect for his advocacy, which I myself have watched and opposed for a good many years outside the House, some of the expressions that he has used will have a harmful effect in India. The principal thing that we have to keep before our minds is not an examination of the powers to be conferred and an analysis of the reaction of those powers on a large electorate, but that no impression shall go out from this House to-day which will unsettle a widespread faith in our sincerity. I remember the Viceroy in 1920 in his remarks to the Indian people referring to the sword of justice which Great Britain had always wielded in that great country, and it is the impression that Great Britain stands for a system of justice which is the foundation of our power. We must not say anything to-day which will unsettle that confidence in our justice which is the standby of the connection between us. The hon. Baronet used an expression which gave rise to considerable disquietude in my mind, and, when reported in India, it will have the same effect. He said that we had never contemplated responsibility at the centre. Shortly afterwards he quoted some observations of Lord Birkenhead which I did not catch, but the effect of which, I understood, was to concur in that statement. May I direct attention to the Preamble of the Statute of 1919?
"Whereas it is the declared policy of Parliament to provide for the increasing association of Indians in every branch of Indian administration, and for the gradual development of self governing institutions, with a view to the progressive realisation of

1775
responsible Government in British. India as an integral part of the Empire."
Any word used here which casts any doubt on the intention of those words and the regard which this Parliament is going to place on them will have a terrible effect in India. More than that, Section 41 of the Statute made provision for a Statutory Commission, and in terms put upon that Commission the duty of inquiring into the working of the system of government as set up by the Act, the growth of education, the development of representative institutions and matters connected therewith
"and the commission shall report as to whether and to what extent it is desirable to establish the principle of responsible government, or to extend, modify or restrict the degree of responsible government then existing therein."
In face of those facts it is not open to any Member of the House, whatever his views may be, whether he approves of that Statute or not, to question that this House itself determined the government of India on the basis of the 1919 Statute and contemplated further extensions, or, at any rate, a review of the structure then erected. The Statutory Commission was appointed. No one who is interested in this matter will falter for a moment in paying tribute to the splendid work that the Simon Commission carried out. As was said by a previous speaker, the volumes setting out the results of that inquiry provide in a compendious form an accumulation of facts and considerations relating to India which constitute the finest piece of work ever performed on behalf of this House. It was said also by a previous speaker, I believe the hon. Baronet, that this big document has been cast into the waste-paper basket. I think the hon. Baronet was carried away by the fervour of his cause when he made that observation. The Simon Commission report has been a standby to all those who have given attention to this Indian matter. I regret indeed that anything should be said which would appear to throw any discredit on that great piece of work.
The Commission having reported, its work awaits the review of this House. In no single matter—a bold thing to say, but I say it with deliberation—to which this House at any time has addressed itself has such detailed consideration been given. The proceedings of the Round
1776
Table Conference and the various agencies which have applied themselves on behalf of the House to the Indian question are of such a considerable character that, when the House comes down to the task of setting up a Select Committee, there will be available for it an accumulation of work unparalleled in the history of any other inquiry set up by the House. The plea I want to make is that, having taken all these steps, I hope that no word is going from this House to-day to India to suggest that we regret the work which is being done and are prepared to go back on the commission which we gave, not only to the present Government, but to their predecessor, and by that means lend countenance to the fruitful suspicion which is always ripe in India that you cannot depend upon the British word.
This matter has been complicated by two sets of persons: One is Indian and the other is British. I came back from India convinced that there is a type of Indian who is constitutionally and temperamentally incapable of attributing justice to Great Britain. I came across many instances of this. It is a sort of treacherous subtlety in which they appear to agree with you and all the time intrigue to circumvent the assistance which you are prepared to give to their cause. I came to the conclusion that there is this type of Indian still abroad in India whose machinations we have to circumvent. No better weapon could be placed in his hands than is contained in the words, "What we have promised we do not intend to carry out." The other type—and I say this with the greatest possible respect—consists of a sort of pensioner on the Indian Funds who seems to apply the whole of his time to stirring up animosity against the people whom he formerly served. He embroils discussion of this matter in such a way that many people are disturbed and unnecessarily put about by the exercise of such intemperate propagandists. We in this House have to do our best to avoid the influence of those two types of persons. We have to apply ourselves to the task with all the ability we can command.
I apologise to the House for being so long, but my excuse is that I feel very strongly about this matter. The situation in India is very disquieting. I do not want it to be worsened by any indiscreet utterances here, and I have en-

1777
deavoured to avoid any such declaration which may cause trouble in India. The hon. Gentleman who has spoken on behalf of the Opposition has made a special plea with regard to political prisoners. The whole House watched the extension of the movement of civil disobedience with gathering anxiety. While the Indian Government had to originate and use powers unknown in this land to deal with civil disobedience, we came to the conclusion that the use of those powers was justified. I was much distressed in finding them being used against Mr. Ghandi, whom I have known for many years and whose confidence I enjoyed, and of whose sincerity and single Handedness I have no doubt whatever.
The hon. Gentleman asks the responsible Government of India to make an order for the release of those prisoners without any undertaking that they will not resume the disturbance which has brought about such arrests. He happens to be a member of the commission who travelled all over India. He has detailed knowledge of actual conditions in India which persons like myself, who have not been there in recent years cannot enjoy. He must know the field in which the movement of civil disobedience took place. He must be able to assess the consequences of that widespread movement. He must be familiar with the results of the movement, and must join with every responsible Member of the House in not desiring that those results shall be incurred again. Therefore, I would endorse' the appeal of my hon. Friend if he would couple with that appeal the condition that the persons desired to be liberated under the amnesty, for which there is a great deal to be said, should precede their release by a strict undertaking not to resume the activities for which they have been detained. Then, they can at last freely engage in all the energies now being applied in an attempt to bring about the honourable development of the obligations which we undertook in the Statute of 1919. I beg of the hon. Baronet the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft), having stated his views, to be content and, in the interests of the future relations of Great Britain with India, not to proceed to a Division in this matter.
5.38 p.m.
Mr. SOMERVELL: No one who rises to take part in the Debate or who indeed
1778
has paid any attention to this subject can fail to be impressed with the immense complexity and difficulty of the task which confronts His Majesty's Government. The Motion refers to the grave danger to the welfare of the inhabitants of India if there is, as it is said, central self-government. Some of us think that the course outlined in the Motion will be fraught with much graver danger to the welfare of the inhabitants of India. I will begin by saying a word or two about what I understand the words, "responsibility at the centre" to mean. It is impossible at the moment to anticipate in any detail the proposals which will subsequently be embodied in the White Paper, but it is obvious, I think, that one can, from the proceedings of the last Bound Table Conference, collect a body of proposals which it is the intention of the Motion to criticise and to ask the House to negative or cut down. There were certain observations made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Battersea (Commander Marsden) who Seconded the Motion which seemed to be inconsistent with the proposals to be found in the Bound Table Conference proceedings.
It is important that we should bear in mind the extent of the reservations and the safeguards which were outlined at that Conference. Defence and external affairs are to be wholly reserved subjects, and, therefore, when my hon. and gallant Friend contemplated a Hindu Government sending Hindu troops into a Hindu State in order to defend it, he was contemplating something which is certainly quite outside any proposal contained in the proceedings of the Bound Table Conference. We should be quite clear that defence and external affairs are completely reserved subjects, and I hope that the House will forgive me for reminding it of the other safeguards to be found in such proposals. A special responsibility is to be given to the Governor-General, with powers to see that that responsibility is carried out, in order that he may prevent the grave menace to the peace or tranquility of India, for the protection of minorities, for the prevention of commercial discrimination, for seeing that the rights of public services are maintained, for the administration of the reserved services themselves, and for the relations with the Indian States. That is the picture and I felt when listen-

1779
ing to the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft), and the hon. and gallant Member who Seconded the Motion, that that side of the picture which we gathered from the proceedings of the Round Table Conference had been, to some extent, left out of account.
Not only do I suggest that there is danger in the line which this Motion asks the House to take, but there would be great danger in passing a Motion such as this at this time at all. Of course, Members of this House are not committed, but that does not mean that we have any right to be behaving as if we were unconcerned, and as if our past acts had not been observed when they were evolved. In December, 1931, this House, by an overwhelming majority, approved the line of conduct and the policy outlined in the White Paper and in the speech of the Prime Minister when the second Round Table Conference adjourned. That did not commit the Joint Select Committee, but that was the act of this House. It approved of the White Paper by an overwhelming majority.
The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth now asks the House to approve a wholly different document which would, to a large extent, negative and cut down the document which the House approved in December of 1931. I suggest that it cannot be said that anything which has happened in the meantime would justify a movement in the direction of the Motion. Everybody agrees that things are better because of the line pursued by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India and the Government which he represents in this matter. I have seen it stated that civil disobedience is in eclipse. That may be putting it too high, but the situation in that regard is certainly very much better. Feeling is better and, what is perhaps of the greatest importance, Indians in India anxious to co-operate with us and to assist us in getting this great change in the partnership between India and the United Kingdom successfully and faithfully accomplished, have been strengthened and encouraged by what has happened in the last year. Their task in India is not an easy one. They are working and supporting in the main the present policy of defending the safeguards and the reservations and they
1780
have to convince Indian public opinion that those reservations and safeguards are, as in truth and in fact they are, essential for the well-being and prosperity and development of India. That is not an easy task.
Those who have worked with us and are working to-day in India for co-operation with this country are entitled to ask this House for encouragement in order that their hands may be strengthened in the work they are doing there. I find it difficult to imagine anything more fatal to the work that they are doing than that this House should at this stage pass, or even show a substantial vote for, a Resolution negativing to a large extent, or cutting down, the Resolution which this House approved a little over a year ago. We ought not to be asked to commit ourselves to prejudge in half a day's discussion matters which we have pledged ourselves shall be exhaustively, impartially and fairly considered for months by the Joint Select Committee.
I should like to consider the matter on slightly broader lines and to take up the history—I do not want to go far back—at the point at which the anxiety that is obviously felt by many in this House is focussed. I mean the point when at the first Round Table Conference the proposal was definitely put forward to grant responsibility at the centre, subject to an All-India Federation, and subject to safeguards. We are now at a little distance from that occasion and certain conflicts which loomed very large then have to some extent passed away. There was great feeling in certain quarters with regard to the Simon Report when it was published, but many matters which loomed in the forefront then have passed away and we can now look at the step then taken and see it in its true perspective. I do not want to criticise, but it must be admitted that the Terms of Reference to the Statutory Commission were confined, narrowly, to British India. As a result of that, the Chairman of the Commission wrote to the Prime Minister asking that, if necessary, the Terms of Reference should be extended to enable them to explore the matter from the All-India point of view. That was granted, and the Report deals with that aspect of the matter. It is right to remind ourselves that the proposal of the Conference to

1781
representatives of British India and the States:
"for the purpose of seeking the greatest possible measure of common agreement."
came to the Prime Minister from the Chairman of the Statutory Commission, and I deprecate very much, because I do not think it is in accordance with the facts, any attempt to suggest that the subsequent procedure by conference is something inconsistent with or in conflict with the recommendations of the Statutory Commission. At the first meeting of the Round Table Conference representatives of the Indian States and the Princes agreed to consider the possibility of federation, and a totally new situation arose. The Statutory Commission had looked forward to an All-India federal scheme and had indicated it as on the right lines towards which we should all work. They used these words:
"We desire in our proposals to do nothing to hinder but everything to help its arrival."
At the first Round Table Conference representatives of the States said: "We are willing to consider whether it may not be possible to work up to federation and to a federal scheme in which we may be prepared to come." There can be no doubt that those who prepared the report of the Statutory Commission did not believe at that time that a movement of that kind would be effective at so early a date. I cannot but deprecate one or two of the suggestions made this afternoon as to the motives of those among the Princes who performed at that time what I believe to be a great act of statesmanship. Anyone who looks at the map of India and sees the States which we have protected and maintained, scattered like a great archipelago over the Continent of India, cannot but feel that any move towards an All-India Federation which will enable the whole of the sub-Continent to come under some system of unity in All-India matters, is a thing which we should welcome. Is it suggested that that gesture, that move having been made by the Indian States, it was practicable for us to say: "No, we will have nothing to do with it. Although that is the aim and object which we desire and although this is a great step towards it, we are afraid that it has come too soon. You must wait, five, 10, 15 or 20 years. We cannot allow you to go into this matter now."
Sir H. CROFT: Would it not have been possible to have given a few months to enable all the Princes to have become acquainted with it so that we might have a more or less unanimous view from the Princes?
Mr. SOMERVELL: The first Round Table Conference proceeded to do that, and no other course could have been pursued. They proceeded to sketch out the sort of things that federation would involve. What other course could have been adopted by this competent and qualified body than to sit down and say: "We will see what sort of thing is involved." Then they went on to indicate what would be a reserved subject, what would be safeguards, and so on. That is exactly what was done. The Indian States would have cause of complaint if those steps had not been taken to show them what sort of federation it would be when it came to be worked out in detail. I suggest that it is not practicable, and never could be practicable, to ask the States to come into a federation or to sketch the federation into which India would come unless you had some form of responsibility at the centre. I am speaking always, of the area outside defence, external relations and safeguards. The States are autonomous bodies with great traditions of relationship with the paramount Power.
How could you ask them to agree to the exercise within their territory of Federal jurisdiction and Federal Government unless you allowed the legislative body to which you are asking them to send members to have some control over the Executive? Unless you had responsibility at the centre in regard to the very matters on which you are asking them to federate, you would be asking them to transfer further powers to an irresponsible central executive. I suggest that the question of responsibility at the centre on the lines indicated and the possibility of an all-India federal solution are indissolubly bound together. You cannot have an organisation into which all the States are to come unless the legislature at the centre to which you are asking them to send representatives is a legislature which is in effective control over the matters of the central executive.

1783
There are some regrets for the steps which have been taken in the past in regard to this matter by this country. No doubt there is wisdom to be gained after the event, but it would be unreasonable to criticise our predecessors because, on the whole, I believe that the course pursued by this country since 1917 onwards, far from being a weak and an injudicious course has been a courageous course, a course in accordance with the traditions of British policy, and a natural development of our attitude and our pledges, certainly since 1861 in the famous Proclamation of Queen Victoria. The hon. and gallant Member who moved the Motion, in his moving peroration, said that a consideration of Conservative principles from Beaconsfield to Salisbury and from some other statesman to Mr. Bonar Law, showed that it was right to grant responsibility to the provinces but wholly wrong to grant any responsibility to the centre. I do not believe that a consideration of Conservative policy between the periods outlined by the hon. and gallant Member could lead to so simple a solution of the matter. I believe that the alterations we are making are alterations which will preserve the partnership which our predecessors have built up in the past. This House should give every encouragement to the Secretary of State in the path he has trod, and is treading to-day, in dealing with this very difficult and responsible matter.
6.0 p.m.
Mr. BERNAYS: The Motion has been moved in vigorous and provocative speeches, and my only quarrel with them is that they are 30 years out of date. They rest on the assumption that such changes as have taken place in India have merely been surface changes. With that view I profoundly disagree. The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) spoke of the Indian soldiers who fought so gallantly in the War. They changed the sunbaked villages of India for the rain-sodden trenches of Northern France; and I suggest that they went back to India with a new outlook, and a new conception; a somewhat twisted conception of Western civilisation. That is one fact. There is another and a more prosaic fact—the motor omnibus. In the old days the newspapers were left
1784
along the Indian lines by train. Now they are carried to the remotest villages in motor omnibuses. The vernacular Press is almost wholly in favour of Indian nationalism. It goes to these remote villages. You may say that there is only one person who can read, the head man of the village, but they gather round him and in that way hear the news. I suggest that hon. Members who have moved this Motion envisage an old India which has passed, and my complaint about them is that they make so little attempt to understand the new India. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) in the course of the last 10 years has met a single representative Hindu. He jeers and sneers at Mr. Gandhi, but I doubt whether he made any attempt to have an interview with him when he was in this country.
Mr. CHURCHILL: I even declined one.
Mr. BERNAYS: That explains a great deal of the right hon. Gentleman's views.
Mr. CHURCHILL: You locked him up. It is not for you to jeer now.
Mr. BERNAYS: The right hon. Gentleman claims to be a great expert on India. I suggest that we should not regard anyone as a great expert on this country who had not visited it for 30 years and who had not even taken the trouble to meet one representative Socialist. [Interruption.] I am saying that the right hon. Gentleman claims to be an expert on India. The right hon. Gentleman has not been to India for 30 years. He has not taken the trouble to meet a single representative Hindu. What weight should we attach to the opinion of a foreigner on this country if he had not visited us for 30 years and had not taken the trouble to meet a single Socialist?
Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: How long has the hon. Member himself been in India?
Mr. BERNAYS: I was there only for a few months. I do not claim to be an expert on India, but I claim that my knowledge is of the year 1931, whereas the knowledge of the right hon. Member for Epping is 1899. This Motion is based upon the idea that we are giving consti-

1785
tutional government to a dumb India. I suggest that they are not nearly as dumb as we think they are. We have heard a great deal about the risks of this new constitution. Suppose the Government accepted this Motion and returned to a system of government which it envisages, who would there be in India to work it? We should have against us the whole of the political Hindus, three-quarters of the Moslem world, a considerable part of the European community and, worst of all, a certain number, perhaps a large number, of Indian officials as well. We should have enemies in the actual workshop of government. We hear a great deal about the risks attendant on the Government's policy, but I suggest that they are nothing to the risks attendant on the policy of the right hon. Member for Epping, which involves nothing less than a return to the nineteenth century structure of government without one of the conditions which gave that structure stability.
Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member, but when he attributes to me a policy, may I say that the only policy to which I have committed myself is to rest within the ambit of the Statutory Commission?
Mr. BERNAYS: That is exactly the policy I am attacking. I am saying that such a Government cannot survive. It is not a choice between the Simon Report and the Government White Paper: it is a choice between the White Paper and military autocracy. It is suggested that we are handing over the Government to illiterate millions. To whom else are we to hand it over? The right hon. Member for Epping is in favour of some extension of self-government. To whom does he propose to extend self-government? To the landlords? A restricted franchise means a landlord franchise, and under the present proposals the views of the ryots will swamp the views of the landlords. The extent of the intended franchise is the surest guarantee that it will not be used for oppression.
The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth talked about the impossibility of parliamentary government. We are not imposing parliamentary government on India: we have been asked to give it. Educated India wants parliamentary government, and who are we to
1786
say that what has worked well for us will not work with them? In any case we cannot go back now. All the reforms in India for centuries have been constructed on the model of Western democracy. We have advanced too far to retreat now. Who will work the new constitution? That depends on the attitude of the Government. Obviously, there is an irreconcilable wing which nothing can win over, but there is a dominant section who genuinely desire peace, and I believe that a real, generous settlement will detach them from civil disobedience to co-operation. In fact, it is detaching them already. There has been a remarkable decline in the number of political prisoners this year compared with the number when the Labour Government were in office. In the case of the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms, Congress, again and again, refused to co-operate. For three years they kept out. Then they came in with the idea of smashing it, but failed to do so.
I suggest that when people of all sides look down at the abyss of anarchy which may result if this constitution fails, they will draw back. We on this side of the House shall vote this evening for the Amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy). This is not the time to harry or badger the Secretary of State. A new picture of India is approaching completion. The Indian Constitution is like a great jigsaw puzzle. For six years successive Governments have been trying to work the jagged pieces into some coherent whole. This is not the time to jumble them together and start again, still less the time to follow the policy of the right hon. Member for Epping and upset the table. It is rather a time to proceed boldly and patiently to the completion of the task which we began six years ago.
6.12 p.m.
Sir REGINALD BANKS: Like many other hon. Members I was deeply impressed and moved by the remarkable and forceful speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft). I sympathise with much that he said, and he has done a service in using the opportunity which the Ballot gave him to inaugurate this Debate. He expressed doubts and anxieties which it is well that the Government should know. These doubts and anxieties have been growing, especially among Conservative Members,

1787
as the result, in my view, of a further study of this question, upon which it was high time to embark, and I know that the Government will sympathise with a frank and honest expression of these doubts, realising, as I hope they do, that Conservative Members, the most numerous and probably the most powerful group in the House, are by no means the least loyal of the Prime Minister's supporters to-day. It is true that we cannot claim a mandate for any India Constitutional Bill from the electors. I do not suppose it was mentioned even in a perfunctory way at the last election or the preceding one, nor do I suppose that more than a very small group of members have had the time to familiarise themselves with the proceedings of the Round Table Conference, and with the very complicated questions involved in the reports of the three different Commissions which have been sent out to India since then.
All these considerations seem to me to be good and quite sufficient reason why this House should not pronounce any premature decision on this subject this afternoon. We are asking the Government for assurances that we shall not be committed, and, if I understand the position, the Secretary of State has told us that the Round Table Conference was not regarded, nor did it regard itself, as a constituent assembly; that the agreements arrived at were necessarily provisional, and that the conclusions arrived at were not binding, either upon the Government, upon this House or upon the Joint Select Committee. As I understand it, the Joint Select Committee itself is to be free and unfettered to take whatever course it thinks best after further reflection. In fact, nobody was committed to any definite course of action until, sooner or later, the Government commit themselves by the introduction of a Bill. Should we not, therefore, in these circumstances maintain complete freedom of judgment and of action?
I believe that I and Mr. Gandhi are the only two genuine Die-hards in the world to-day. He would like to go back to 1758. I would rather like to go back to 1858, because I am not at all sure that we have not been travelling on the wrong path since then. I am rather inclined to agree with Mr. Gandhi that western
1788
ideas, social, political, economic and industrial, are not suited to the changeless East. The difference between us is that he thinks he can go back to 1758, and I know that I cannot go back to 1858. Indeed, I know that I cannot go back to 1928. There is the difference. I am sorry, personally, that in 1929 the Government of the day did not see fit to accept and operate the scheme suggested in the Simon Report. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), when he discussed the White Paper, made, as he always does make, a coruscating speech, with formidable arguments, but I am sorry to say that the conclusion he put before us was as futile as his speech was forceful. The only true conclusion to which his arguments would have conducted us would have been utterly to undo the past. You cannot undo the past. It is just like the progress we sometimes notice in a love affair—amorous glances, brushes of the hand, caresses, finally impassioned love letters imprudently committed to writing, and anyhow you have to marry the girl or face a breach of promise action and be cast in damages.
The vote that we passed in December, 1931, I supported. I said then, and I say now, that I did not think that the declaration of policy which was placed before us justified any Member of the House elected to support a National Government in parting from the National Government at that time. True, it was a declaration of policy. I think I am right in supposing that what we did then was to give a conditional approval to the policy in that White Paper. If I had thought that our approval was absolutely unconditional and irrevocable, I should neither have taken that course myself nor have recommended it to my friends. But I believe it was subject to conditions, and that is the key to my position to-day.
If I may, I respectfully advise the House to take this attitude: Let us say to the Government "We have not gone back upon the attitude that we adopted in December, 1931. All we ask you to do is this: Knowing that we are ultimately to decide we ask you to realise that it is not fair to ask us to pass any Bill unless we are satisfied that the conditions which you yourselves laid down are fulfilled." Those conditions, I apprehend, are mainly two. First of all the Simon scheme was abandoned, I under-

1789
stand, for one reason only, and that was because there was an affirmation by the Princes that they were ready to come into an All-India Federation. That was substantially an essential change in the position.
We know very well that there are some 680 States. We know that they are obliged, before definitely declaring their adhesion to the scheme, to satisfy themselves about their own condition in a multiplicity of ways—customs, finance tribute and all sorts of other matters which must be carefully deliberated by them. We do not ask the Government to say to us to-day or for some time that only a specific proportion will constitute a satisfactory proportion. I believe it would be bad diplomacy and bad tactics and would put us in a, weaker position if we tried to force the Government to specify any particular proportion of the native States which would satisfy their views. But we say "You are not to hold up this great scheme because of one squire—he may be a Prince, but his lands may not exceed the lands of some of the ancient families in this country—you are not to hold up the scheme because one or two feudal squires hold out against it, but you must not consider yourselves satisfied because a few prominent and important States have signified their adhesion. There is to be no federation at all until and unless in broad terms Indian India signifies its readiness to join with British India."
The second consideration or condition was solvency. I am not going into that extremely complicated question, nor do I wish to say anything indiscreet about the position as it is to-day, but we know there are difficulties; we know that some of the provinces have difficulties from a financial point of view. Certainly I am confident that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would not desire to erect this great building upon a foundation of bankruptcy, like one of those grandiose luxury hotels that are put up at an enormous expenditure of capital and are generally being run by a receiver about two months later. So the adhesion of Indian India and the solvency of the provinces and of the centre are the conditions upon which we sincerely hope that the Government will satisfy us.
Another condition is this: We ask the Government to remember that we are not bound to support any Measure which does
1790
not provide for effective safeguards upon those lines which the Government themselves consider it necessary and wise to impose. I have read with the greatest care the pages in the report of the three Round Table Conferences in which these safeguards are enumerated and explained, and I would like to say as a lawyer that I could not possibly advise better safeguards than I find there—on paper. The Viceroy is given immense powers—on paper. The Governors are given much greater powers than they possess at present—on paper. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for a triumphant victory over those who would have abated his views—on paper. But, if I may speak epigrammatically, there is a difference between powers and power.
Assuming that all is happy in India and everybody is trying to co-operate, obviously you do not require any safeguards at all. Assume the contrary, and then it is no use shedding ink unless you are prepared and able to shed blood. Let me put the matter in another way. Assume a Cosgrave and your Treaty is observed and your annuities are paid. Assume a de Valera and your Treaty is rubbish and obligations are repudiated. I am afraid that the de Valera type of mentality is rather more prevalent than the other among the politically-minded in India. Take a concrete example. Imagine some general attempt on the part of a recrudescent Congress to force the Viceroy's hand for some ulterior object like the immediate Indianisation of the army. Take any step which the Viceroy regards as premature. Imagine widespread disaffection in India. Imagine the Ministers in charge of the police or transport or posts and telegraphs, against the Viceroy. Imagine the Viceroy refusing to take their advice, disaffection amongst the police, and it may be an army which in those days he will not find so utterly loyal as the army to which he has been accustomed.
In those circumstances what is he going to do? He has the Army, we know. But calling out the troops is a thing that no Executive does except in the last resort. We all know what it means. You rely on the police wisely—and generally your reliance is proved well founded—to deal with disorder in the first instance. Of course the Viceroy may pass a Governor-General's Act over the heads of

1791
his advisers. If he wants extra supplies of course the may make a Governor-General's tax. Of course he may call on the Provincial Governments to exercise their special powers to supplement and complete his own. But what machinery will he have? He must in the last resort have human brains to study his plans and human hands to execute his orders. It is no use being given a latch key if the people inside bolt the door. It is no use having a symbolic cheque if the bank will not pay the money over the counter.
Those for whom I speak—I know they are loyal members and I believe they are numerous members—do desire the Government by some means or another to make these safeguards effective. I cannot ask the Secretary of State for a solution to-day. It is no doubt a very complicated matter. There may be many devices which he will find out as time goes on, but I am positive that the Secretary of State himself and those associated with him have not been foolish enough, after sad experiences in other parts of the Empire, to write these words and print them in that Round Table Report without having a sincere desire and resolution to make them effectual. If that is so let us to-day, after this discussion, go home without prejudicing the situation by any ill-advised and premature action, reserving to ourselves the right to be satisfied in the long run, that what we are doing is in accordance with our own consciences and in the best interests of the Empire. That solemn responsibility will fall upon us then. It is totally Unnecessary that we should anticipate it to-day.
6.30 p.m.
Sir A. KNOX: I rise to support the Motion of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft). Although many speakers have attacked the Motion, I think it is a matter for congratulation that it has been moved to-night. I hope that it will be some indication to the Government who are deciding our future policy towards India, of the depth of feeling in this House regarding our commitments and our policy in India. I would point out to the Government that the Indian experience of those who are most concerned as to the Government's Indian policy greatly exceeds in length of time the Indian experience of those who would
1792
light-heartedly enter into this scheme of reform. We, who have been in India, perhaps many years ago, can claim to know something of the natives of India. For myself, I spent five months in a walled-in post on the Indian frontier where I had no Englishman near me. I had Sikhs and Jains and Mohammadens, and I had to speak to them in their own language or not speak at all. In situations like that one gets to know something about the feelings of the people and when young Members of this House tell me that we, who were in India 20 or 30 years ago, know nothing of the new India I absolutely deny the statement. The young Member to-day goes out like a sort of "Paget, M.P." and becomes acquainted with a few politicians there, but what does he know of the cultivators who are 90 per cent. of the population? What does he know of their feelings and their fears? I am frightened lest the Government do away with the white autocracy and put in its place a brown autocracy.
Mr. BERNAYS: As the hon. and gallant Member asked me when I was last in India, may I now ask him when he was last there?
Sir A. KNOX: I was last in India in 1921. I spent 11 years in India and I can talk with the natives of India in their own language. I am not dependent upon conversations with Anglicised Indians or on conversations with the ryots only through the medium of interpreters. If we were to accede to the Amendment of the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), it would tend to muzzle the House of Commons. We want to bring pressure on the Government and to let the Government know, with all due loyalty, what we feel about India. While we may support the National Government and while I believe a National Government to be necessary in this country, I should throw over the present National Government rather than risk the safety and permanency of our rule in India on which depends the livelihood of 350,000,000 people.
I find a great deal more to agree with in the speech of the Mover of the official Opposition Amendment. If you are to bring in these reforms, then surely some time you will have to open the gaol gates and let out the people who are now in

1793
prison in India. What is going to be the result? It is impossible, if you are going to inaugurate a great scheme of reforms in India, that you should have 6,000 or 8,000 people in the gaols, and when you free these people what action are they going to take? The only organised party in India is the Congress party, and at the recent Round Table Conference one of the Indian delegates expressed the opinion that, at any rate, in the first two elections the Congress party would be certain to gain a majority. What will happen then? What use are your safeguards going to be?
The hon. and learned Member for Swindon (Sir R. Banks) asked whether the safeguards were to be only paper safeguards and I wish to ask the Secretary of State one or two questions about those sagefuards. At a meeting of the Conservative and Unionist Associations on 30th June, 1931, the right hon. Gentleman supported a resolution to the effect that certain essential safeguards must be real and permanent and capable of being exercised by the Imperial Parliament in the interests of this country no less than those of India. The right hon. Gentleman at that meeting added that he took his stand on a dispatch of the late Viceroy in which were enumerated no fewer than 11 subjects on which we should have adequate safeguards. At the Round Table Conference we find that only three subjects have been reserved, namely, defence, external affairs and ecclesiastical affairs. Other such important matters as the defence of minorities, and the prevention of unfair trade discrimination are to be the special responsibility of the Viceroy.
What machinery has the Viceroy to deal with those special responsibilities? If you place special responsibilities on the unfortunate man who is going to be in a position of Viceroy when these reforms are introduced, remember that he has only the army on which to depend. I am the last person to depreciate the effect of an army but an army without police is of no use whatever to keep internal order and it is proposed to hand over the police and judiciary to the provincial governments. How is the unfortunate Viceroy, sitting up on a peak in Simla, with the army scattered over India—but chiefly concentrated on the North-West frontier to prepare for that Russian invasion—to get in touch with
1794
the army and use the army for the purpose of keeping order. At the Round Table Conference the Secretary of State expressed the hope that these safeguards would only be ultimate safeguards, probably never to be used. We all share that hope but in these times we have to look at the realities and try to find what is likely to happen.
Our experience in Ireland does not give us much hope as to what is going to happen in India. What use have the safeguards in Ireland been? I was not in this House at the time, but I would like to recall what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) regarding the Irish Agreement. He said that that agreement "made us full of hope." He said, that, by it we won "a deep, abiding and passionate loyalty." He said that as a result of it "our peril will be her danger; our fears will be her anxiety and our victory will be her joy." If you are going into this new resignation of Empire, this abdication of Empire, in that sort of spirit, I only hope that you will have your eyes opened and that you will provide real safeguards and not merely paper safeguards. The hon. Member for Crewe (Mr. Somervell) dealt with the Round Table Conference and with how the idea of Federation arose. He said that the Chairman of the Statutory Commission had written a letter to the Prime Minister asking the Government to have consultation with the representatives of the Princes to see if they could be brought into the picture.
Mr. SOMERVELL: And the representatives of British India.
Sir A. KNOX: And the representatives of British India. But I submit that it is very unlikely that if the Chairman of the Statutory Commission knew that these Round Table Conferences were to be made the excuse—as they have been —for shelving the whole of his Report, the labour of three years, he would have penned such a letter. I would like to quote the exact words of the letter:
"It seems to us that what would be required would be the setting up of some sort of conference after the report of the Statutory Commission has been made, considered, and published."
Now the Report of the Simon Commission has never been considered. I think that in the long history of Parliament

1795
this is the only instance of a report of such importance to which prominent men have given years of their lives and the utmost labour and ability, never having been considered at all in this House. At the first Round Table Conference, in November, 1930, a few Princes, who really had not a mandate from their fellow Princes, said they would come into a scheme of Federation for all India. At the last Round Table Conference we learned the history of how that proposal came about. That prominent member of the Conference Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru explained that he saw the Princes and that it was his suggestion that they should make that proposal to the Round Table Conference. Lord Reading, who was, I believe, the head of the Liberal Delegation, immediately accepted, and thus we had the idea of Federation.
Apparently, this is to be the first instance in history of Federation being started before the constituent parts have had any real practical experience of self-government. There have been federations such as the Australian, the South African and the Canadian, but in those cases the units had all been self-governing before they came into the federation and they were countries inhabited by people of our own blood who have a genius for government or rather, I ought to say, a genius for standing governments which you do not find in many other nations and much less in a sub-continent like India. There is the great federation of the United States which, I believe, began in 1787, but the 13 States who came into that federation originally had been independent for four years previously. They came in of their own free will and abdicated such powers as they thought should belong to the central Government. In spite of that fact one of the bloodiest civil wars of history was waged in America from 1861 to 1865 in order to keep in some States which wanted to get out of the federation. We know that federations have not worked very smoothly in Australia, though we hope for the best.
Compare the position in India. The Provinces which you are going to bring in have never had any real self-government. They have been nursed either by British-trained Indians or by the British themselves. They have not reached a
1796
point at which they can say whether they would willingly join a federation or not. On the other hand, you are going to have 600 or so Indian States alike in only one respect, namely, that they have no democratic form of government whatever. You are going to bring these Indian Provinces which thirst for this thing called democracy into the same federation with Indian States which are purely autocratic. It seems to me the most extraordinary scheme ever suggested.
I would like the Secretary of State to tell us something about this pressure which is being put on the Indian States to come into the federation. It is true that a few States said at the first Conference that they were in favour of the federation, but at the last Conference we found that constant pressure was being put on the States to come in quickly. They are not being treated any longer as sovereign Powers. I do not blame the Secretary of State so much for that. He pointed out to Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru that it would be necessary to wait, that he could not present an ultimatum to the States because they might take it badly and it might cause a reaction against the idea of Federation. But we find the representative of the State of Hyderabad, Sir Muhammad Akbar Hydari, stating:
"His Majesty's Government is slowly but surely pressing us into the federation."
Then we have the Lord Chancellor saying:
"Gentlemen of the States, India is thirsting. India is calling. You have put the cup to her lips. Do not delay her drinking it. You have excited the hopes of India and hope deferred maketh the heart sick.'"
I ask hon. Members, can they imagine any worse I India is thirsting. Why, it is not even the hot weather. Probably in the 350,000,000 of the Indian population there are not 500,000 who know anything about these reforms. What a misnomer for a man in that position, in the circumstances, to talk about "India thirsting." It is really raising false hopes. But that is what happens when people get into that atmosphere of mutual admiration in the Robing Room where they spent three weeks exchanging compliments. We want to get back to reality and to have some scheme of reform which will give the Indian ryot a chance. The people who know India and love India are frightened lest the Government go too far and produce a scheme which will break down and cause chaos in India.

1797
We do not want to see India in, the state in which China has been since the so-called reforms were established there. The last speaker seemed to think that it did not matter how many States came into Federation. The States altogether have a population of some 80,000,000. Supposing 40,000,000 came into Federation and 40,000,000 stayed out. How are you going to run customs and railways and services of that sort? Will it not lead to terrible confusion in the government of India?
On one occasion, I believe it was 27th June, 1932, the unbound copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT reported the Secretary of State as saying that all the States should come in to make Federation possible. Then we had the bound copy which came out a few weeks later in which the word "all" was omitted and it simply said that the States should come in to make Federation possible. That correction was not made, the Secretary of State tells us, by his authority. The last remark of the Secretary of State on this subject was at the Round Table Conference. That was on Christmas Eve, and he considered then that half the States would be sufficient if they came in, "as at present advised." That "as at present advised" is the sort of political loophole that we unfortunate back benchers are afraid of. We want to know what it means. Can we have a statement that in no circumstances will he accept as a mandate for Federation less than half the population of the Indian States?
We had this wonderful report on the franchise by a Noble Lord and a young committee who went to India. They spent, I suppose, about three months in India, examined some 315 witnesses, and came to a definite conclusion as to the political capacity of 350,000,000 Indians. They allowed that perhaps they were not politically minded yet, but they said that, after all, that modern invention, the loud speaker, would do all the rest. You could have a loud speaker in every village. There are some 750,000 villages in India, and you can imagine what an expense it would be to the Government to have a loud speaker in each. You can imagine the local schoolmaster, if there is one in the village, and what kind of interruption he would make when any political opinions came through that he did not like; and you can imagine the villagers' keenness in listening to politics
1798
from loud speakers. Are we keen when Members of the Government or of the Opposition discuss politics over the loud speaker? Do we not switch them off at once and turn on some jazz?
There has recently been an election in Burma which ought to give us some realisation of how far our Oriental fellow-subjects are politically minded. I may say at once that the people of Burma have a larger percentage of literacy than the people of India; there are more of them educated. In that election we had some propaganda, in which it was proclaimed that if Burma were separated from India, it would become a Crown Colony of Great Britain, "entailing dreadful consequences." Those consequences numbered no fewer than 23, and here is one of them:
"Christian ministers shall preach every day except on Saturday and Sunday at every street."
Imagine how the Buddhist priests would use their influence against that kind of thing. Here is No. 10:
"In every house there shall he a lavatory … and every lavatory shall be inspected by a Government servant three times a day. A tax shall be levied on every lavatory."
No. 20 is as follows:
"Meat of animals which died of old age or disease must not be eaten."
Imagine this sort of thing being put over as propaganda. We are accustomed, many of us, to unscrupulous propaganda at elections in this country, but how will the poor ignorant ryot, who cannot read or write, be able to contend with it? And these 36,000,000 are going to have the vote.
Lord E. PERCY: Is it not a fact that the people of Burma voted the other way at the election?
Sir A. KNOX: They voted, I understand, against inclusion with India.
Lord E. PERCY: In other words, against the propaganda that the hon. and gallant Member has read out?
Sir A. KNOX: No, on the contrary; the Noble Lord is wrong. One hon. Member spoke about the difficulties of finance, and they are very real. It is perfectly true that when the Montagu reforms were introduced, the success of those reforms was endangered by lack of finance, and now the financial position in

1799
India is infinitely worse. I have seen it stated that the cost of running the Montagu reforms in India increased the expenditure of the Central Government by no less than 41 per cent., and the man at the plough has to pay that. My time is up. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth will push this Motion to a Division in order to give the Government some idea of the strength of feeling and anxiety among their supporters in this House.
6.51 p.m.
Sir S. HOARE: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) enjoys a well-deserved reputation for speaking his own mind with absolute sincerity and courage. He made to-day, if I may say so, a speech typical of his whole career in this House. He made a speech which seemed to me to show that in his heart of hearts he disapproves of the course of policy that has been adopted towards India for many generations. He seemed at any rate to show that, so far as these latter years are concerned, he has a profound apprehension of the course that has been adopted in the last two years. I do not in any way blame my hon. and gallant Friend for having his doubts and anxieties upon these very complicated and serious questions. There is no part of this Indian problem—that is its great difficulty—to which any simple answer can be given. Still less do I question my hon. and gallant Friend's good faith in moving this Motion. All that I would ask him to-day is to give us who disagree with him credit for as much sincerity as he himself possesses.
He may think that the course upon which we have been proceeding now for many months is a very dangerous one, but I can assure him that we, like him, have not the least intention of abandoning our Indian obligations; we, like him, have not the least intention of taking any action that is going to lose India to the Empire; we, like him, are neither opportunist time-servers nor nerveless officeholders; and we, like him, have, through the whole existence of this Parliament, adopted a perfectly consistent line of action. Why, Mr. Speaker, with a dull monotony that must often have bored many of my hon. Friends I have gone on during this Parliament making the same
1800
speech and maintaining the same course of policy. To-day I claim that there is no change in my position, no change in the position of the Government, no change in the position of the House, compared with the position that the House took up in December, 1931, when, by an overwhelming majority, it gave general approval to the line that the Government then proposed to adopt.
Perhaps I should say that with one exception the position to-day is as it was in December, 1931. The one exception is that the state of affairs in India itself is much better than it was 18 months ago. Law and order have been substantially restored, boycotting has been effectively crushed, two-thirds of the civil disobedience prisoners have been released, and no serious results have ensued; and perhaps most notable of all have been the evidences of a better state of feeling in India. The Assembly, by an overwhelming majority, ratified the Ottawa Agreement, and together with the Provincial Councils, has of its own free will, without any external compulsion, passed legislation by the ordinary constitutional procedure that armed the Central Government and the Provincial Governments with powers to deal with any renewed threats against established order.
I ask the House this evening, at a time when in almost every part of the world and when here in Europe the state of affairs has been deteriorating during the last 12 months, when great parts of Asia have been drifting deeper into chaos, is it not a significant fact that affairs in India have been steadily improving, is it not significant that they have been improving at the very time when we have been discussing these constitutional changes, is it not significant that they have been improving at the time when we have been engaged in carrying out a dual programme of order on the one hand and constitutional advance on the other? Sir, if this be the state of affairs, what reason can the House of Commons have to-night for changing the course in which it encouraged the Government by an overwhelming majority 18 months ago, and in embarking on a new programme totally different from the programme that was then before the House?
Duchess of ATHOLL: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend, but when

1801
he says there has been no change in policy on the part of the Government, I wonder whether he will make clear to the House two matters in which there has been some change of policy. The first is that we understood from him in June last that a considerable number of—
Sir S. HOARE: If my Noble Friend will allow me, I have only a little time, and I am going to deal with all those points in my speech. I claim that nothing has happened during these months that would justify the House of Commons in altering its general attitude towards Indian reform now. I am aware that my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) has the lowest opinion of the actions of the Government in the field of constitutional reform during these anxious months. He made a speech at the end of last week in which it was clear that he was under the impression that we, the Government, and the great majority of our supporters have slavishly accepted the Socialist programme. Let me, if I may, remind the House of the words he actually used:
"Yet upon the morrow of their great victory they found the Tory party, with its overwhelming Parliamentary majority, so cowed and muffled that it was almost afraid to mention its own name. The representatives of the great party which did all the work, bore all the responsibility, and would incur all the unpopularity, sat silent dumbfounded, gripped or bewitched by the old gang and the party machine. It is under these conditions that we come to the discussion of the tremendous problem of India. The Tory party has swallowed, lock, stock and barrel, the policies of the late Socialist Government about the Indian Constitution."
Mr. CHURCHILL: Hear, hear.
Sir S. HOARE: I was thinking in particular of my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) sitting "silent and dumbfounded, gripped by the old gang and the party machine." When I read that description of our Indian policy, I am reminded of what Gibbon in his autobiography said of Pope's translation of Homer.
"It was a portrait endowed with every merit except likeness to the original."
So far from adopting the Socialist programme, it is clear from the Amendment on the Paper that there are considerable points of difference between the Opposition and ourselves.
Mr. CHURCHILL: I meant the programme of the late Socialist administration—of the present Prime Minister and the late Secretary for India, Mr. Wedgwood Benn.
Sir S. HOARE: So far from adopting this Socialist programme, even at that time, we, the Members of the various delegations went into the first conference and reached our conclusions, not because proposals came, or did not come, from the Socialist Government, but because we thought that on the merits of the case, and the actual circumstances, they were wise proposals we could adopt. It is clear to-day that the programme on which we are engaged does not fully meet with the approval of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench. We have had an interesting speech from the hon. Member for Lime-house (Mr. Attlee). He made an appeal that we should release the civil disobedience prisoners and, by a gesture, enlist the support of new bodies of opinion in India. I am afraid I have nothing to add to what I said on this subject in answer to a question the other day. We are genuinely most anxious for co-operation with every section of opinion which is willing to co-operate with us, but we are not prepared to take risks. We are not prepared to repeat the experiment, which did not altogether succeed owing to the action of Congress two years ago. We cannot contemplate any release of that kind until we are really satisfied that civil disobedience will not break out again, and the risks are no longer serious.
I come to the actual Motion which the House is asked to consider to-day. My hon. and gallant Friend makes a series of proposals in that Motion. First of all, his Motion rejects responsibility at the centre on the grounds, first, that there is not enough money and, secondly, that the proposed safeguards are not adequate. He further proposes that the first step should be the extension of self-government in the Provinces and approves the report of the Statutory Commission subject to temporary reservation of the administration with regard to law and order. Further, he proposes that federation should be contingent upon the willingness of the autonomous Provinces to federate with the States as partners in the British Empire. Before I deal in detail with this, let me make two general

1803
observations. Let me first point out to the House that so far at any rate as the Provinces are concerned, my hon. and gallant Friend appears to be ready to impose Western institutions upon our Indian fellow-subjects. I notice, in the speech which I have just quoted, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping condemned in very forcible language any such attempt. If he is prepared to vote for the Motion this evening is he prepared to impose upon the Provinces this experiment of Western institutions?
Mr. CHURCHILL: I have always been prepared to come within the limits of the Simon Commission.
Sir S. HOARE: The other observation I will make to-night is that the time really to discuss details of the constitutional proposals will be, first, in the Debate on setting up the Joint Select Committee and, secondly, in the Joint Select Committee itself. When I say that, I do not mean to say I will not give a general answer to-night to many of the questions raised in the Debate, but I do say that the time for detailed discussion is not to-night but on future occasions when the Joint Committee is set up and the Bill actually introduced.
Sir H. CROFT: Will details be in the White Paper?
Sir S. HOARE: Having made these two general observations, let me take my hon. and gallant Friend's points in order. He says, first of all, that the state of Indian finance will not admit of setting up a Federal Government at the centre. I agree with him that the state of Indian finance, much improved as it is, is not yet as satisfactory as we should desire. I agree with him further, that if an attempt were made here and now to finance the Federal centre, and finance at the same time autonomous Provinces, it would be very difficult to find the money. I do further say that it is impossible for us to-night to forecast the exact position when the act of Federation takes place. I further say to him, and I hope this may to some extent reassure him, that I do not suppose anybody here, or indeed in India, will be prepared to bring Federation into being if it is quite obvious that the Federation will be insolvent. My own view, which is supported by many of
1804
my expert advisers, is that the Federal Government would not cost substantially more than the existing Central Government, and that the problem of adjusting finances between the centre and the Provinces is much the same whether Federation is set up, whether Provincial autonomy is started, or whether we keep the centre as it is now.
I come to the second of my hon. and gallant Friend's contentions. In the first place, there must be adequate finance and, in the second place, adequate safeguards. To-night I have no intention of going into detail on the safeguards seriatim. The time for that discussion will be when the White Paper is actually produced, when they will be set out in precise form so that every Member can judge whether they are adequate or not. I will only say, first of all, that neither I, nor the Government, have receded from the position we have taken up about safeguards from the very start of this discussion. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member who spoke last is misinformed when he suggests we have watered down the safeguards from 11 to 3. The safeguards to-day are substantially the same as the safeguards we always discussed from the very beginning, and the methods for dealing with them are substantially the same. I can assure my hon. Friends in every part of the House that they will find that that is the case when the White Paper is produced. In the meanwhile, let me say that I entirely agree with what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Swindon (Sir R. Banks) said in a very remarkable speech, that the safeguards are the very essence of the problem; that it is not sufficient to have safeguards on paper. These safeguards, if need arises, must be capable of being put into force. I would ask hon. Members to suspend their judgment upon the safeguards until they see them set out in precise form in the White Paper. I am perfectly ready to accept the condition suggested by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Swindon that the question of safeguards is one of the test cases in the whole of this constitutional problem.
I pass from the question of safeguards to another series of questions raised by my hon. and gallant Friend, and also by the hon. and learned Member for Swindon, namely, Federation itself. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend

1805
that, at this moment, it is unwise to state explicitly the exact number of States, or the exact proportion of population, without which we should not regard Federation as an effective Federation. But I can assure him that we do regard the existence of an effective Federation as a basic condition of our proposals. By effective Federation I do not mean the accession of two or three great States, nor do I mean the accession of a large number of small States without the great States. I mean by an effective Federation a substantial representation of the main body of the States in India. There, again, I would ask the House to wait for the details until we actually produce our White Paper.
I come now to the third part of my hon. and gallant Friend's Motion, that dealing with Provincial autonomy. In that respect my hon. and gallant Friend says that he accepts the Simon Commission, but he makes so extensive a reservation as to make his acceptance of the Simon Commission of very little value. He makes the exception of law and order. I know, perhaps, as much as any Member of the House the great difficulty of the problem of law and order, and I can sympathise with my hon. and gallant Friend's anxiety. He looks at some of these Provinces and sees the chance, it may be, of a Congress majority, and he thinks quite justifiably what is to be the effect of a transfer of law and order from a splendid service like the Indian police. I share many of his anxieties, but I can assure him that we are giving very close attention to this question, and particularly to the position of the police. While I am not prepared to go into details this evening, I can tell him that within the limits of the transfer of law and order—we do regard that as essential—we are taking every possible step to safeguard the future of a great service to which we are under perpetual obligations from day to day and from month to month.
Mr. CHURCHILL: Did the right hon. Gentleman say "within the limits of law and order which we regard as essential to transfer"? Are we to understand that a decision has been taken to transfer law and order to the Provinces?
Sir S. HOARE: I was just coming to that point. I say that we were fully aware of the gravity of the question,
1806
and that, having considered it from every angle, we have been driven to the same conclusion as was reached by the Simon Commission, namely, that without a transfer of law and order Provincial autonomy is really a contradiction in terms. I myself am quite sure that without a transfer of law and order Provincial autonomy cannot work. I am sure that you would get the worst features of dyarchy, and the most extreme kind of irresponsible criticism of the Government; and that you would really get the worst of both worlds. I am certain from the many conservations that I have had with Indians of every school of thought that in no Province of India to-day would you get any substantial body of opinon to work Provincial autonomy if law and order were not transferred. These were the arguments that the Simon Commission considered at, great length, and we, like that Commission, have come to much the same conclusion.
I go so far as to say that my hon. and-gallant Friend's Motion is really, in practice, no alternative to the Government's proposal at all. I am sure that it would not work, and that the certain result would be to drive every political section of Indian opinion into non-cooperation. It is a platitude to say so, but there are really only two Indian policies; there is the policy of co-operation, and the policy of non-co-operation. I would not say that I should ever support anything in the nature of abdication of government, but I would say that my hon. and gallant Friend's plan, if it were carried into effect, would drive every politically-minded Indian into non-cooperation, and we should then be driven back to an avowed policy of non-co-operation. There may in certain circumstances be something to be said for a policy that imposes the will of the Government on the people, but the question I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend and his friends who think with him is whether they are likely to be able to carry out a policy of that kind for a sufficiency of time and with an effective continuity that would enable us to succeed in India in very much the same conditions as we failed in Ireland. With the vicissitudes of party politics here I see no likelihood of any length of time in which such a line of policy can be successfully maintained.

1807
If that be the case, surely the wise course is to follow the line that we have been adopting during the last 18 months, of trying as far as we are able to cooperate with Indian opinion. I own that it is not always an easy task. I own that a section of opinion represented by Congress refuses in certain conditions to co-operate. None the less, I do say that we have not altogether failed in our attempt during the last 18 months. We have now many friends in India; we have many more friends than we had a year or two ago. We have large sections of public opinion in India with us in the general line that we have been adopting. I do urge that it would be disastrous if to-night, with the work that we have done during these difficult months and with the success that we may have achieved in enlisting the help of large bodies of opinion, the House should take any action which seemed to show that it was vacillating in the decision which it made 15 months ago. I am the last Member of the House who would press that decision too far. I agree with the general description of it that was given by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon. It was a general line of advance rather than a detailed programme, and I fully agree that the last decision must be with the Government in their final preparation of the Bill, and also with Parliament in the attitude which it takes to that Bill.
It is because we hold that view that we have proposed a procedure unique in our constitutional history, namely, that our proposals in detail are to go to a Joint Select Committee representative of the big bodies of opinion in both Houses of Parliament before the House is committed even by a First or Second Reading. I think, therefore, that the House to-night need have no anxiety that anyone on these benches is trying to repeat the Irish precedent, or that the House will be faced with the dilemma of accepting a document or repudiating a pledge. The position is exactly as I have stated it. In the course of a few weeks' time we shall circulate our proposals in a White Paper in great detail. The White Paper will go to the Joint Select Committee. The Committee will, we hope, have the power of conferring with Indians; it will be the master of its own procedure, and it will not be
1808
restricted in such a way as to prevent it making any proposals which it may desire to make.
Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Do the Government propose to allow the House to discuss the White Paper before it goes to the Select Committee?
Sir H. CROFT: Are we to have a free and unfettered vote on that White Paper?
Sir S. HOARE: In answer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth I cannot give that pledge, but here and now I can say to my right hon. Friend that certainly there will be a full Debate upon the Motion setting up the Committee, when the White Paper will be in every Member's hands. I hope that I have said enough to convince the House that it would be not only unwise but disastrous to take any action to-night that implied that the House was reversing the policy generally accepted by a huge majority 15 months ago. I would appeal to hon. Members on all sides of the House to keep their heads cool, to look at the proposals that we shall make with impartial minds and to satisfy themselves as to their wisdom; also, to look at the proposals with warm hearts, remembering that the British on the one hand and the Indians on the other are not rival nations fighting for supremacy, but the representatives of two great civilisations, which, if they hold together, may confer a benefit unprecedented in the history of the world and of the British Empire. I hope that I have said enough to ensure the rejection of my hon. and gallant Friend's Motion. I shall be glad to see a Division taken and the House once again reaffirm the position adopted 15 months ago.
Duchess of ATHOLL: I agree with my right hon. Friend that this Motion is not an alternative to the Government's policy.
Sir H. CROFT rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put", but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
Duchess of ATHOLL: We have to await the presentation of the Government's policy which we may expect in a few weeks, and it will be

1809
premature to express an opinion in favour of any other policy before the White Paper has been presented and thoroughly examined by the Joint Select Committee. Any of us who are loyal supporters of the Government feel that we shall want to subject that White Paper to the most severe and meticulous scrutiny, particularly in regard to safe guards. I want to refer to what was said by my right hon. Friend as to a decision having been taken in December, 1931—
HON. MEMBERS: Divide!
Sir H. CROFT rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 42; Noes, 297.

Division No. 51.],

AYES.

[7.30 p.m.

Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Rankin, Robert

Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

Greene, William P. C.

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Scone, Lord

Bracken, Brendan

Hartington, Marquees of

Slater, John

Broadbent, Colonel John

Hepworth, Joseph

Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

Burton, Colonel Henry Walter

Kimball, Lawrence

Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)

Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

Knox, Sir Alfred

Thorp, Linton Theodore

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Levy, Thomas

Touche, Gordon Cosmo

Clarry, Reginald George

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Wayland, Sir William A.

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Wise, Alfred R.

Davison, Sir William Henry

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Denville, Alfred

Purbrick, R.

TELLERS TOR THE AYES.—

Everard, W. Lindsay

Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

Brigadier-General Sir Henry Page

Croft and Commander Marsden.

NOES.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

Carver, Major William H.

Fleming, Edward Lascelles

Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

Albery, Irving James

Castle Stewart, Earl

Forestler-Walker, Sir Leolin

Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Fremantle, Sir Francis

Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J.A. (Birm., W)

Ganzoni, Sir John

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

Gibson, Charles Granville

Aske, Sir Robert William

Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

Gledhill, Gilbert

Atkinson, Cyril

Christie, James Archibald

Gluckstein, Louis Halle

Attlee, Clement Richard

Clarke, Frank

Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.

Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Goldie, Noel B.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Colfox, Major William Philip

Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

Colman, N. C. D.

Granville, Edgar

Balniel, Lord

Conant, R. J. E.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

Banfield, John William

Cook, Thomas A.

Graves, Marjorie

Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

Cooke, Douglas

Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Cooper, A. Duff

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

Cranborne, Viscount

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Griffith, F. Kingley (Middlesbro', W.)

Belt, Sir Alfred L.

Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

Grimston, R. V.

Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Groves, Thomas E.

Bernays, Robert

Cross, R. H.

Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

Crossley, A. C.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)

Culverwell, Cyril Tom

Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

Borodale, Viscount

Curry, A. C.

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Bossom, A. C.

Daggar, George

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Boulton, W. W.

Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.

Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Ztl'nd)

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

Hanbury, Cecil

Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Harbord, Arthur

Brass, Captain Sir William

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Harris, Sir Percy

Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

Dickie, John P.

Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Doran, Edward

Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

Drewe, Cedric

Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

Buchan, John

Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Dunglass, Lord

Hirst, George Henry

Buchanan, George

Eady, George H.

Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

Butler, Richard Austen

Eales, John Frederick

Holdsworth, Herbert

Butt, Sir Alfred

Edwards, Charles

Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

Cadogan, Hon. Edward

Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

Hopkinson, Austin

Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

Elmley, Viscount

Hornby, Frank

Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

Emrys-Evans, P. V,

Horsbrugh, Florence

Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

Entwistle, Cyrll Fullard

Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

Cape, Thomas

Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

Maxton, James

Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

Hume, Sir George Hopwood

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Milner, Major James

Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)

Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

Sinclair, Col T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)

Iveagh, Countess of

Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)

Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.

Moreing, Adrian C.

Smithers, Waldron

Jamleson, Douglas

Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

Somervell, Donald Bradley

Jenkins, Sir William

Morrison, William Shephard

Soper, Richard

Jennings, Roland

Muirhead, Major A. J.

Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

Munro, Patrick

Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Nathan, Major H. L.

Spencer, Captain Richard A.

Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

Ker, J. Campbell

Normand, Wilfrid Guild

Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)

Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

Nunn, William

Storey, Samuel

Kerr, Hamilton W.

O'Connor, Terence James

Stourton, Hon. John J.

Kirkpatrick, William M.

Ormiston, Thomas

Strauss, Edward A.

Knebworth, Viscount

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Knight, Holford

Owen, Major Goronwy

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Palmer, Francis Noel

Summersby, Charles H.

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Parkinson, John Allen

Sutcliffe, Harold

Law, Sir Alfred

Patrick, Colin M.

Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

Peake, Captain Osbert

Thompson, Luke

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Pearson, William G.

Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Peat, Charles U.

Thorne, William James

Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe.

Penny, Sir George

Tinker, John Joseph

Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

Percy, Lord Eustace

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Lloyd, Geoffrey

Petherick, M.

Train, John

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. G'n)

Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)

Turton, Robert Hugh

Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)

Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

Loder, Captain J. de Vere

Power, Sir John Cecil

Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

Logan, David Gilbert

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

Price, Gabriel

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Lunn, William

Procter, Major Henry Adam

Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

Mabane, William

Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

Warrender, sir Victor A. G.

MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick)

Ramsbotham, Herwald

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

McCorquodale, M. S.

Ramsden, Sir Eugene

Watt, Captain George Steven H.

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Rathbone, Eleanor

Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

Rea, Walter Russell

White, Henry Graham

McEntee, Valentine L.

Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

McKeag, William

Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanclly)

McKie, John Hamilton

Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

Ropner, Colonel L.

Wills, Wilfrid D.

McLean, Major Sir Alan

Rosbotham, Sir Samuel

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Runge, Norah Cecil

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Macmillan, Maurice Harold

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Withers, Sir John James

Magnay, Thomas

Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

Maitland, Adam

Salt, Edward W.

Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

Mander, Geoffrey Ie M.

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Worthington, Dr. John V.

Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)

Martin, Thomas B.

Savery, Samuel Servington

Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Mr. Blindell and Mr. Womersley.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Proposed words there added.
Resolved,
"That this House considers it inadvisable at this time to make any declaration of policy in regard to the future government of India which might be interpreted either as signifying a change in its general attitude or as restricting its freedom to pass a. considered judgment on the concrete proposals to be laid before it in the future."

BROADCASTING.
7.40 p.m.
Mr. EMMOTT: I beg leave to move,
"That this House, being satisfied that the British Broadcasting Corporation maintains in general a high standard of service, is of opinion that it would be contrary to the
1812
public interest to subject the Corporation to any control by Government or by Parliament other than the control already provided for in the charter and the licence of the Corporation; that controversial matter is rightly not excluded from broadcast programmes, but that the governors should ensure the effective expression of all important opinion relating thereto; and that only by the exercise of the greatest care in the selection of speakers and subjects- can the function of the Corporation be fulfilled and the high quality of the British broadcasting service be maintained."
I am glad to have the opportunity of initiating a Debate in this House on this subject. It is one of general interest, because it affects the habits and the lives of millions of the people of this country. It may interest hon. Members to be reminded that during last year more than 5,250,000 wireless licences were issued. From time to time, for one reason or

1813
another, it becomes a topic of public discussion. It is therefore, I apprehend, a proper subject of debate by this honourable House. It will be observed that by a part of the Motion before it the House is invited to disapprove any change in the constitutional position of the British Broadcasting Corporation which would subject that Corporation to any control by Government or by Parliament other than the control already provided for in the charter and licence of the Corporation. Seeing that such change is deprecated it may be asked what is my purpose in moving this Resolution. My reply is that, in the first place, this Debate affords an occasion, which I believe I am correct in saying will be used by His Majesty's Postmaster-General, for an explanation of the constitutional position of the Corporation and of the relation in which it stands to the Postmaster-General—a matter which appears to be the subject of some misunderstanding. In the second place, this Debate provides an opportunity for appreciation and criticism of the whole work of the British Broadcasting Corporation, an opportunity which, I am assured, is no less welcome to the House than to the governors of the Corporation, and of which I anticipate hon. Members will take full advantage.
It would be possible, Sir, for me to devote myself to a detailed appreciation of the material which generally constitutes broadcast programmes. I might voice the views of particular individuals or groups of individuals. I might, for instance, express the opinion of those who hold strong views upon that hour which, like most things intended for children, is nominally addressed to the youngest members of the community, but fully appreciated only by the oldest members of it. I might express the opinion of those who hold still stronger views upon that kind of music, generically described as "jazz," which to some is perfect euphony and to others perfect cacophony. To this task I might address myself, but I fear it would occupy more of the time of the House than I am justified in taking; and for many reasons I think it will be more proper if I treat this subject generally, and develop in a general manner certain considerations suggested by the Resolution.
The House is invited to profess itself satisfied that the British Broadcasting
1814
Corporation maintains a high standard of service. That is the conclusion that I ask the House to come to. I, however, deliberately refrain from addressing to it any argument designed to induce it to come to that conclusion. My reason is that the question whether the Corporation maintains a high standard of service is one the answer to which depends upon the taste and judgment of individual persons. This is a matter upon which the proper appeal is to the taste of the individual, and not to general argument. I should therefore regard it as irrelevant and even impertinent if I were to set about giving hon. Members reasons why they should come to a conclusion favourable to the Corporation. I am content to leave the matter to the fair judgment of hon. Members. I ask them to appeal to their own experience of the work of the Corporation. I ask them to interpret the general sense of the community. I ask them to compare in their own minds the work of the Corporation with the work of foreign broadcasting stations. And with confidence I invite them to say, upon a fail-consideration of the whole work of the Corporation, that that work is done with honour to the Corporation, with credit and with success.
I do not suggest that mistakes have not been made. Of course, they have. Recently the Corporation incurred strong criticism on account of a broadcast which was done on New Year's Eve. This was in the form of a running commentary upon things in general by two unnamed persons. It was a tactless piece of work, and it contained much more or leas offensive innuendo. But surely we must see these things in proportion. Grant that this broadcast was a blunder; grant, if it can be established, that mistakes have been made on other occasions: what then? I imagine that the House will not be willing to set up the Select Committee that His Majesty's Opposition ask for, unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the House that the Corporation have committed errors so numerous and so serious as to demand immediate inquiry. To use the language of theology, proof merely of venial sin will not suffice. To obtain their Select Committee, the Opposition must convict the Corporation not of venial but of mortal sin. Now can it fairly be argued that whatever errors have been committed by the Corporation

1815
are to be regarded in so serious a light? To that question, I respectfully suggest, the only possible answer is a negative.
It is occasionally suggested, when the searchlight of public criticism is directed upon the British Broadcasting Corporation, that a Parliamentary body ought to be set up and charged with some kind of control over the Corporation. I think I ought to offer to the House one or two observations on this topic. Since the beginning of this year the Corporation has been the subject of many references in the newspapers of this country. I have examined this material with some care, and my research, together with conversations with many persons interested in the subject, has satisfied me that there is to-day no demand from any responsible person for the control of broadcasting by Government. I observe with interest that, in the Amendment which the Opposition have put down to my Resolution, they do not ask for anything in the nature of control of the Corporation by Government. Perhaps I may be allowed to make this comment, that that is either a curious exception to Socialism, or it is a high compliment to the Corporation. It is certainly the second, and it is possibly the first. Since there is no demand from any responsible person for control of the Corporation by Government, I need say no more upon that point. A word may, however, usefully be said upon the subject of control by Parliament, control, that is, beyond the control which is already provided by the charter and the licence of the Corporation. I am wholly opposed to any such project of Parliamentary control. It has sometimes been suggested that a Committee of Parliament should be invested with powers, of a nature not accurately specified, in relation to the Corporation. Whatever these powers might be, I believe that practical reasons alone would deprive any such committee of all utility. A mass of work would be thrown upon it which it would be quite unfitted to perform and, indeed, physically incapable of performing. I wonder if it is realised that, during the last year, the British Broadcasting Corporation received 90,000 letters upon the subject of programmes alone. If such a committee were to be established, a very considerable portion of those letters would be addressed to the members of the committee. Members of
1816
Parliament require no addition to their correspondence. I believe too—and this is a more important point—that such a committee would confuse the responsibility for the choice and determination of broadcast matter. That responsibility cannot be shared between the Corporation and any other body. If such a committee existed, inevitably there would be blurring of responsibility. Responsibility for the choice and determination of broadcast matter must rest ultimately upon the Governors of the Corporation, and upon them alone. I urge upon the House that the Governors of the Corporation, with the Director-General and his staff, are perfectly qualified and are alone qualified to discharge that responsibility. For these reasons, I ask the House to deprecate any change, in relation to Government or to Parliament, in the constitutional position of the British Broadcasting Corporation.
I turn to the question, which of all the questions connected with this subject is, I believe, the most important: the question of controversy in broadcasting. Those who are responsible for the selection of broadcast matter have an alternative: they may admit controversial matter, or, attempting to please everyone, they may exclude it. Now exclusion is impossible. By manner or by matter, anything can acquire the character of controversy. Even the inflection of the voice may be sufficient to give a provocative character to the barest statement of fact. I suppose that it is for this reason that some announcers adopt that voice so precise, so pruned, so prismatic, that arouses the most unchristian sentiments in the most christian listeners. When television is perfected—and I anticipate, with the due encouragement of the British Broadcasting Corporation, that that time is not far distant —and the man who speaks is seen as well as heard, he will indeed have the power to
"Convey a censure in a frown,
And wink a reputation down."
But it is a question of matter as well as of manner. Can you hope to avoid controversy by the elimination of everything but pure statement of fact? If your attempt is successful, you will have eliminated what to many is the best part of broadcast programmes. But unless you confine the broadcast to music and the weather, your attempt cannot be

1817
successful. I speak of the elimination of everything but pure statement of fact. But what fact? The man who swears to tell the truth, swears that be will tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The real objection to the objectionable parts of the New Year's Eve broadcast to which I have already referred was not that they were inaccurate statements of fact, because, for all I know, they were accurate enough, but that they were partial, incomplete statements of fact. If you state facts, you must state all relevant facts, and at once you find yourself upon the battle-ground of controversy.
From every point of view it is plain that avoidance of controversy is impossible. But, I go far further. Avoidance of controversy is not only impossible; it is wrong. I welcome controversy. It is the breath of life; it is certainly the breath of our life here. My fear is not lest there be too much, but lest there be too little, controversy. The peril which those who control broadcasting have vigilantly to guard against is not the obvious one that this or that person will, from time to time, make some unhappy or some foolish statement. The peril is far more subtle, far more insidious, far more real. It is the suppression of inconvenient opinion. They are not mistaken who perceive in this vehicle for the dissemination of ideas the most powerful instrument of education that has been placed at the service of man since printing was invented. When I speak of education, I do not mean the formal education of boy or girl; I mean that process which should cease only with life itself: the development of the powers of the mind. They that have the ear of a nation command the road to its mind.
Now what is this invention going to do to the mind of this nation? What form is the mind of our people going to take under this instrument so new, so beautiful, so full of power for good, and ill? I do not know. No one knows. But this I know, that the clear mind, the good mind, the mind that will seize truth and keep fast hold of it, the mind that every man must wish to have, can be formed and fashioned only by the impact of ideas most various and most diverse. The danger that I fear is a tendency to keep from the ear of the nation ideas the real objection to which is that they are inconvenient, it may
1818
be either to Government or to some other element in the State. An example of this tendency, in my view, is the denial to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), on two occasions during the year 1931, of opportunity to broadcast his views on India. It is unnecessary for the purpose of my argument to examine the question whether the views of the right hon. Gentleman on this topic are right or wrong; it is sufficient, and it is beyond dispute, that they are important. We must not open our ears only to comfortable doctrine. No guest should be unwelcome in the mansion of the mind. In the words of Dr. Johnson, "every man has a right to utter what he thinks truth, and every other man has a right to knock him down for it." I am not concerned to examine the propriety of the latter part of this sentiment. I am only concerned with the truth of the first part.
It may be asked: "Are, then, no limits to be placed upon the dissemination of ideas? I reply, certainly limits are to be laid down. Broadcasting should not be permitted to be used for the propagation of blasphemy or sedition. I would not permit the broadcast to be utilized for debate upon the Motion, "That a man should in no circumstances fight for his King and country." The interests of the State are paramount, and whatever comes in conflict with them, whatever undermines the foundations of the State, should be prohibited. But, within the limits defined by this prohibition, all opinion should, in my submission, have opportunity of expression. A careful and just observance of this principle will ensure the expression of a kind of opinion of which we hear all too little in these times. We all know now that 'tis a brave new world we live in; but some of us beg leave to doubt whether though brave and new, it is at all better than the old. Much is heard of the professors of new ideas in religion, in politics, in science, and in art. They are always eager to use any means made available by science for the propagation of their ideas. We desire to hear more often those who, being of conservative temperament, hold that the ideas of order and tradition contain no less of truth than the idea of change, and are no less necessary to the welfare and happiness of man.

1819
A service conducted upon these principles will preserve that high tradition which the British Broadcasting Corporation has already established, and which, I am confident, it will maintain far into the future.
8.4 p.m.
Mr. LAW: I beg to second the Motion. My hon. Friend has surveyed the very wide field which is covered by his Motion in a manner which was at once concise and comprehensive, and which was both lucid and, if I may say so, charming. I do not possess the touch of my hon. Friend, and I am afraid that my own approach to this important subject must be very lowly and limited. I should like, with the permission of the House, to confine my remarks to a consideration of the functions of broadcasting, and of what should be the relationship, in the light of those functions, between the British Broadcasting Corporation and Parliament and the Government. Obviously, the first and more obvious function of broadcasting is to provide entertainment for the masses of the people of this country. Although, however, that is its more obvious function, I do not, myself, think that it is the more important. As my hon. Friend has said, it is very difficult to decide whether the quality of the entertainment provided by the British Broadcasting Corporation is good or bad, but I think the House will agree that, whether it be good or bad, and whether it might, perhaps, be a better form of entertainment if it were provided by an ordinary commercial organisation, at any rate it would not be better if it were provided by Parliament and the Government. Whatever the functions of Parliament and the Government may be, I do not think that the provision of cheap and innocent entertainment for the masses is one of them, although, of course, it is sometimes so merely incidentally.
The second and, for our purpose, the more important function of broadcasting is the provision of educational facilities for large numbers of people scattered over this country. I know that when wireless was first developed, and broadcasting was first started, there was an opinion that there was no need to provide education for the people—that what people wanted was entertainment, and
1820
that they did not want ideas stuffed down their throats. I think that that idea has now largely disappeared, because it has been disproved by the statistics themselves—not only by the fantastic increase in the number of licences, but also by the very considerable and steady increase in the circulation of the pamphlets of the British Broadcasting Corporation connected with their talks. I think that most people would admit now that it is a very important—probably the most important—function of the British Broadcasting Corporation to provide such educational facilities. This imposes, obviously, a tremendous responsibility upon the British Broadcasting Corporation, and it is the purpose of this Motion to ask the House to consider whether that responsibility is being fitly sustained by the British Broadcasting Corporation as it is at present organised.
Whatever difference of opinion there may be on that question, I think we shall all agree upon one thing, and that is that it is a responsibility of a peculiar kind, which could not be fitly left to ordinary private commercial enterprise. We have to consider whether it is a responsibility which would be more fitly exercised if the British Broadcasting Corporation were more strictly controlled by Parliament. If it were the purpose, or even the main purpose, of the British Broadcasting Corporation to provide elementary education on a large scale, there might be a case for further control by Parliament, but it is rather the purpose of the British Broadcasting Corporation to provide adult education. The British Broadcasting Corporation has become, in the few years of its existence, a kind of university—as it were, the university of the common man; and I think it must be admitted that it is an essential feature of university education, and, indeed, of adult education generally, that it should be absolutely free, that it should not be fettered by irksome and unnecessary restrictions—that it should be, in short, an adventure, with all the delights and all the risks which are implied in that word.
There is no doubt that any form of education is a risky business. The people who receive it may be unfitted to receive it, or may misunderstand it. But you cannot eliminate the risks which are a part of education without eliminating also the adventure which is at once the

1821
inspiration and the whole purpose of education. If you tried to rectify such errors as have been committed by the British Broadcasting Corporation, you would only succeed in killing or utterly stultifying the work that they are doing, which is of very great value to the country as a whole. As my hon. Friend has said, it is not the purpose of this Motion to whitewash the British Broadcasting Corporation; it is no purpose of the Motion to imply that they have never made any mistakes. A corporation, as we all know, never dies, but that is not to say that is never makes mistakes; the corporate immortality which it enjoys certainly does not imply any corporate infallibility. The British Broadcasting Corporation has made in its time quite a number of mistakes. It has made mistakes of direction, mistakes of tact, such as my hon. Friend indicated in his speech; and I have no doubt that in the course of the Debate other instances of, perhaps, carelessness, or, perhaps, accident, will be brought before the House by hon. Members. But, whatever sort of organisation you had like the British Broadcasting Corporation, and in whatever manner it was controlled, you could not possibly avoid its making some mistakes of that kind from time to time. What we have to consider is whether it has in fact exceeded its fair ration of mistakes, and I do not think that a fair-minded man would say that it had.
That is one kind of criticism which is directed against the British Broadcasting Corporation—that it has at times made certain, perhaps, rather curious and clumsy errors of judgment. But there is another class of criticism that is directed against it, and that comes from critics who are inclined to say that the whole angle from which the British Broadcasting Corporation regards life, its whole attitude towards learning and life, is in some ways a false one—that it is apt to be too theoretical, that it is apt to be divorced from reality, that it is apt to be sometimes too quick and sometimes too slow. I think that that is so; I think that it does suffer from all these defects; but I do not think that they are defects peculiar to the British Broadcasting Corporation; they are the defects of the academic mind. If you decide that you want an academic education of the kind provided by the British Broadcasting Corporation, you must put up with those
1822
defects in securing its advantages. All of us are prepared to expose our own children, by sending them either to school or to the university, to very much the same danger—the danger that, from too close contact with academic minds, they may get a false perspective of the world and of life. But we trust to the common sense of our children, and to the experience of life as they gain it, to correct any falsity that might otherwise occur through their academic education, and I think we may well trust to the common sense and experience of life of the common people of the country in just the same way.
The other main line of criticism to which the British Broadcasting Corporation is subjected is the criticism that it is biased politically, or, in an alternative form, that minorities are not fairly represented by it. That criticism is very widespread in certain quarters of the House. It is, in fact, disproved by the variety of the quarters in which it is felt. In a remarkable way they cancel one another out. But, even if it were not so, if the British Broadcasting Corporation were biased in politics, if it did not give a fair representation to minorities, I cannot see that the position would be improved by more direct Parliamentary control. So far as the representation of minorities is concerned, my own limited experience does not incline me to think that minority opinion, at any rate within parties, counts for a very great deal. The Whips account for a lot more. In the same way, I do not think you would get greater impartiality by subjecting the British Broadcasting Corporation to any control, however well-intentioned, of a Parliamentary majority. There is no doubt, from the point of view of those who think that the Broadcasting Corporation is biased, they are very much better to-day than they would be if there were stricter governmental or Parliamentary control.
I second the Motion with complete sincerity, because I believe the British Broadcasting Corporation has done and is doing work of the most tremendous importance to the country and to civilisation as a whole. If there were any risk of it setting itself up against Parliament as an expression of the will of the people of the country, it would be a different matter, but there is no sign

1823
of their doing that, and there is no prospect of their wanting to do it. If they did, there is no doubt that their fate would not be a very happy one. Talking of wireless is very difficult because there are few or no absolutely historical parallels to it. I suppose the nearest parallel to the Broadcasting Corporation is a man who is said to have lived some thousands of years ago whose name was Stentor. He had a very large voice and for some time he exercised it to the common enjoyment of himself and of his hearers, but the time came when he ventured to challenge Hermes, the messenger of the gods, and, when that happened, Stentor himself came to a bad end. In the same way, if the British Broadcasting Corporation were to challenge in any way the sovereignty of Parliament, it, too, would come to a bad end. But, because there is no chance that I can see of its doing so, I can with complete sincerity second this Motion and express the hope that it will reflect the sentiment of the House of Commons.
8.20 p.m.
Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to insert instead thereof the words:
"in view of the growing importance of broadcasting in the life of the community, particularly its actual and potential influence in the realm of political controversy, it is expedient that a Select Committee be appointed to review the work of recent years and make recommendations."
The hon. Member who moved the Motion, in a most admirable speech, has, I think, entirely miconstrued the purpose of our Amendment. It raises no question as to any extension of control beyond that which is already exercised by this House and by the Government, of which this Debate is a good example. There is no suggestion that the Select Committee whose appointment we suggest should run the British Broadcasting Corporation. It is in order to assist in the solution of what we believe are certain real difficulties which have arisen and which have been very fully recognised by the Corporation itself. The hon. Member said that one of the most important and difficult matters was the matter of controversy. We agree entirely that it is vital that controversy should be pre-
1824
served, but the question is how best to preserve it in the interests of everyone who is concerned. He thinks there should be no limitation of what should be broadcast except that which undermines the State. The difficulty is that his view of what undermines the State and that of other people differ. For instance, he thinks that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) broadcasting on India does not undermine the State. He thinks, on the other hand, that the broadcast of a pacifist debate at Oxford would undermine the State. There are people, even in the House, who might take precisely the opposite view on those two problems, and I think that is a very good illustration of the sort of difficulty which arises and which we want to face.
Perhaps I may go back historically to consider the development of this great national service. It is now just over 10 years since the first licence was issued by the Postmaster-General for broadcasting, and since that date there has been an enormous technical development both in transmission and in reception. The broadcasting public has also very largely changed from what it was in the beginning, a select body of persons who could afford the apparatus which was then available, whereas there is now an enormous public of over 5,000,000 people in this country alone who can receive the broadcasts transmitted. Not only that, but, with the growth of high power transmission, the problem has become an international as well as a national one, so that the early considerations that were brought to bear on the problem have now become out of date in this very rapidly changing science. We agree that it was the most profound wisdom in the first instance to retain this great service in a single hand, the hand of a public corporation, so that we do not get the sort of advertising stuff that one gets in America or the competition of private broadcasting companies which has been so detrimental in other countries. The early years of broadcasting were frankly experimental in many ways. It was not until April, 1923, that the first committee was set up under Sir Frederick Sykes to make a report as regards a more permanent institution, and it was not until August, 1925, that Lord Crawford's Broadcasting Committee reported, which actually initiated the great public corpo-

1825
ration that is now responsible. In that exhaustive report there were laid down the principles which really have been followed up to the present day. I draw the attention of the House to one of the principles and to the paragraph in which it was elaborated. Dealing with controversial matter, which is the principal matter with which I wish to deal, they said that
"A moderate amount of controversial matter should be broadcast provided the material is of high quality and distributed with scrupulous fairness, and the discretion of the commissioners in this connection should be upheld."
They then elaborated it in these words:
"We are unable to lay dawn a precise line of policy or to assess the degree to which argument could be allowed to be transmitted. In the absence of authoritative evidence that advice would be premature."
That shows that this was an experimental recommendation of the Crawford Committee. They thought that the Commission would be able gradually to assess the nature and the extent of the demand for this class of broadcast. Under the Charter of the Corporation of 1927 the degree of Government control was laid down, as the House will remember, in this form. The Postmaster-General had power to require the Corporation to refrain from transmitting either any general matter or any particular matter, and, also, the Government had the power to have any matter they desired transmitted free of cost by the Corporation. Under an agreement, which was supplemental to the licence, there was one further check upon the activities of the Corporation. The news to be transmitted should be obtained from four named agencies, which one has often heard recited over the broadcast, and any other news agency approved of for that purpose by the Postmaster-General. So that this House has at the present time an active control, through the Postmaster-General, over the whole of the matter that may be transmitted, and, indeed, in the early days, prior to 1928, there were a number of occasions when the Postmaster-General exercised that power, and stopped the transmission of particular broadcasts. There was one famous occasion, I think it was on Mr. Bernard Shaw's 70th birthday, when he was speaking in the House and permission was refused because it was thought that he might be controversial.
The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): In the House?
Sir S. CRIPPS: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will remember that at that time controversial matter was not allowed at all. Let me take the other instance of the speech of Dr. Deissmann, which was another case in which permission was refused after reference to the Postmaster-General. On 5th March, 1928, the Lord President of the Council, the Prime Minister as he then was, said that the position had been reviewed by the Government and that the prohibition against statements involving matters of political, religious or industrial controversy would be withdrawn, and then was laid down the principle which the Broadcasting Corporation was to adopt in its place:
"The Corporation has been informed that the Government expect them to use the discretionary power thus experimentally entrusted to them strictly in accordance with the spirit of the Crawford Committee's Report, and that it is their responsibility to see that this is done."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1928; col. 812, Vol. 214.]
I draw the attention of the House to the very important word "experimentally" in order to show that the House which was responsible for the withdrawing of that restriction upon broadcasting contentious matter, was giving this permission experimentally. The object of our Amendment is to show that the time has now come when that experiment should be reviewed by the House by the only available means, and that is by a Select Committee. This release of the Broadcasting Corporation opened up the ether for three classes of political controversial matter: First of all, statements by Ministers which were supposed to be factual and non-controversial on current political matters; secondly, frankly party statements by speakers nominated by the parties, such as at election times; and, thirdly, educational discussions by people who very often moved in the political sphere upon current matters of political interest. It is those three classes with which we are most concerned as far as our Amendment goes to-night. There is no doubt that the British Broadcasting Corporation have had an enormously difficult task in dealing with the question of political broadcasting, and nobody can blame them if, as we believe, they have committed errors of judgment or errors of

1827
practice, because we believe that, anyway at present, there is no adequate machinery of any sort to assist them in carrying out those functions properly.
All through 1928 and 1929, after the release of this ban, attempts were made to get agreement among the parties as to how the matter should be arranged. The Conservative party, and, I think, the Labour party, more or less, came to an arrangement at one time, and the Liberal party found difficulty in coming in, and so on. The three parties could not be brought together for a very long time. It was not until April, 1929, that the Broadcasting Corporation arranged for eight political broadcasts before the election of 1929 against the protests of some of the parties as regards the allocation of time. There followed during the election, as hon. Members will remember, six other broadcasts. In October, 1929, after the election the Conservative party complained to the Broadcasting Corporation of the misuse of the microphone by the Government. An inspired statement was published in the "Times," which, no doubt, gave the reason for the action of the British Broadcasting Corporation, and which said that a distinction must be drawn between non-controversial subjects delivered by virtue of offices, that is, by Ministers, and those essentially of a party character. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, as he has done ever since, broadcast the Budget speech, and other Ministers made explanatory statements either after returning from conferences, or on large Bills which had passed through the House. At that time there was an arrangement with the political parties by which the Whips of the three parties were consulted, but that procedure was not a success. It was expressed in these terms by Lord Gainford in another place in a Debate on the 19th March, 1931. He said:
"We have an agreement with the three parties in the House of Commons as to what we may and may not broadcast of a political character. That is all drawn up, and they take no exception to what we broadcast of a political kind. We consult them as to all that we do with regard to political matters which may be thought to entrench upon the agreement arrived at between us."
That agreement, which, as I have said, operated somewhat imperfectly, came to an end in September, 1931, at the time of
1828
the last General Election, and since that date there has been no effective machinery of any sort for dealing with the question of political broadcasts. The theory of the factual and non-controversial ministerial talks has been gradually extended, and, in our view, extended to cover some of the most controversial matter. For instance, there were the four broadcasts on the Ottawa resignations. All the right hon. Gentlemen who broadcast at least took the opportunity of attacking the Opposition either directly, or in that very ingenious way which the hon. Member who proposed the Motion mentioned by the inflection of the voice, and there was the Secretary of State for India's broadcasts which many people thought should have been answered. Then there was the Prime Minister's broadcast on unemployment. None of these, being dealt with as non-controversial, were answered. The Opposition was refused any facility what soever for reply. I agree that the difficulty is very great. There might be half-a-dozen people who would want to reply from different angles. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Epping would have liked to reply to the Indian broadcast.
The difficulty is that there is no machinery by which, at the present time, any satisfactory arrangement can be made. The answer of the British Broadcasting Corporation, so far as we understand it, was that after the sad experience of the other method which I have mentioned, described in Lord Gainford's speech, it took the matter into its own hands, subject to the advice of a Parliamentary Committee. The Parliamentary Committee was an informal, non-representative one and is not quite accurately described in the 1933 Year Book of the British Broadcasting Corporation, which says that it was set up with the support of all parties, and the National Government. So far as our party was concerned, I do not think there was any consultation with it as regards the setting up of the Committee. As to that I have no complaint to make, because that is the machinery which the British Broadcasting Corporation chose to set up. We do not think it is the proper machinery or the right machinery, but I am dealing with it at the moment historically as being the device which the

1829
British Broadcasting Corporation invented to supersede the earlier device of consultation with the Whips, which was the first formal method adopted to get some regulation as regards political broadcasting.
There are three great difficulties which, in our submission, the House should face and set up a Select Committee to consider. First, there is the question of the extension of factual Ministerial statements which, if it continues, will mean the continual outpouring of Ministerial statements over the ether, without any reply. Of course, that is a thing which the Government will not oppose very strongly, but it is something which obviously the Opposition will always oppose, whatever the complexion of that Opposition may be. Secondly, there is the selection of political issues by the British Broadcasting Corporation. It cannot be doubted that transmission by broadcast is now one of the most potent political forces in the world, and if political issues are to be selected for the country we believe they ought to be selected in the House of Commons and not at Broadcasting House. Obviously, if matters for debate over the broadcast are selected by the British Broadcasting Corporation there is a danger that they may create issues which, perfectly justly, they may think are the major political issues at the moment, but in regard to which Members of this House would not agree.
Thirdly, there is the selection of political personalities by the British Broadcasting Corporation. If they have the selection of the political persons who are to speak over the microphone it is very easy for them to make a politician overnight by giving him an audience of 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 people. It does not necessarily follow that because a politician has a good broadcasting voice he is the best person, either from the country's or the parties' point of view, to be selected and to be given that vast publicity. A party or anyone else might-well object to that being done. It is not easy to say what is the best solution of these problems in the public interest. That, we believe, can only be solved by bringing together the best information available and discussing the matter in a Select Committee, and trying to thresh out, somehow or other, what the joint and corporate views of the House are upon
1830
this important matter. One cannot debate that matter to-night, because it is far too complex and difficult a problem to deal with in a short time.
There are other matters which would naturally arise before such a committee. There is the question of industrial controversy. Industrial controversy raises the same necessity for scrupulous fairness which the Crawford Committee laid down as the criterion. As everybody knows, on more than one occasion the Trades Union Congress have been led to protest because of things which they believed were not done fairly. Whether their protest is justified or not is not the problem with which I am dealing at the moment. The problem with which I am dealing is the problem of the difficulty of ensuring scrupulous fairness and the necessity, after the experimental period of 4½ years, of having some revision in regard to the method of dealing with controversial matters.
Another point of difficulty arises out of the News Bulletin. There are four Press agencies which serve the British Broadcasting Corporation and all of them have Conservative newspapers as their main customers. We do not blame them for circulating Conservative news. That is obviously the right thing for them to do, but the point which arises is that the corporation, being tied to these four Press agencies, can only give out the news which they send. Anyone who has followed the Press reports from Broadcasting House, although they are extracted with scrupulous fairness from what they get, will find as a matter of fact that there is very seldom any news, other than extracts from Parliamentary Debates, concerning any other parties than the Conservative party, or the National Government at the present time.
That raises another difficult question. We believe that there is no way of solving these matters to the satisfaction of the people of the country unless there can be some inquiry. I have no doubt that the Postmaster-General will attempt to dismiss this matter with a few of his flippant witticisms and try to get a few party scores about our inability to broadcast, or something of that sort; but that has nothing to do with the issue. This question, in our view, is an extremely serious one and a matter about which millions of people in this country are

1831
acutely anxious. Whether they take one view or another, never mind, they are acutely anxious, and we believe that it may have a very important effect upon the political and industrial future of the country as to how this controversial matter is regulated in the future. I suppose that it is always the case in matters of this sort that minorities feel more acutely than majorities. It has always been the case in broadcasting matters that whichever party has been in Opposition, that party has always been the one to raise the difficulty and to complain. I dare say that that will always go on, however perfectly the thing is arranged.
No one would desire to minimise the very excellent work which the British Broadcasting Corporation have done in all sorts of ways. Its educational work has been excellent, as indeed have been its programmes in many other particulars. These are real difficulties. The British Broadcasting Corporation has attempted to solve them in two different ways, neither of which are satisfactory. I do not think that they are considered to be satisfactory by the corporation itself. We think that after this period of time, when this review can be carried out in the light of the experience gained, a great service will be done to the nation and we shall be able to attain what the Crawford Committee set out to attain when it launched the British Broadcasting Corporation on its career; that is, a fair amount of controversial broadcasting carried through with scrupulous fairness to all sides. At the moment that scrupulous fairness is not being given, perhaps because of the difficulties of the corporation, and we think that a Select Committee of this House will be able to solve them.
8.46 p.m.
Sir K. WOOD: I understand that it will be for the convenience of some hon. Members if I make a statement on this matter at this juncture in the Debate, and if there are any questions or points to which hon. Members think I should reply later on, I need hardly say that I shall be glad to do so. In the first place, let me say that the Government and the British Broadcasting Corporation welcome this Debate, and I think the public will welcome it also. Few domestic matters discussed in this House can be
1832
of such direct and personal interest as the subject of this Debate. Before coming to the House this afternoon I inquired the latest figures, and I understand that at the end of last month there were nearly 5,400,000 broadcasting licence holders. If you add to that number the great body of our fellow countrymen resident in foreign countries, who regularly listen to the British Broadcasts, and also the rapidly increasing number of our fellow subjects who, thanks to the splendid and latest project of the British Broadcasting Corporation, now hear the voice of London from all parts of the Empire, you have a listening constituency of many, many millions. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Bristol East (Sir S. Cripps) and other hon. Members that broadcasting is indeed one of the greatest factors for good or evil in our national life to-day and that its world influence is tremendous and far-reaching. It is a good thing indeed that the House has been given the opportunity for this discussion. There has not been a full discussion of this great new medium of communication since the time the Charter was first granted seven years ago.
Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: Whose fault is that?
Sir K. WOOD: I take it that the hon. and gallant Member has, on occasion, been successful in the ballot during the last seven years, and perhaps he might have taken the opportunity himself. It is certainly right and desirable and useful, from the point of view of the Government and myself, as the Minister concerned, that Parliament should have an opportunity of reviewing and constructively criticising the work and aims of the body to which it has entrusted so many responsibilities and so many important duties. The House is indebted to the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Emmott) for the opportunity he has afforded it by the Motion and for the able, constructive and timely contribution he has himself made, and also to the Seconder of the Motion. The Motion, and the opportunity for this discussion, is particularly welcome to myself, because it is apparent from recent public discussions and contributions in the Press that there are a number of misconceptions and some confusion as to the respective duties and responsibilities of the Min-

1833
ister concerned and the corporation itself.
Let me say at once that there ought to be, and should be, no mystery as to the character and responsibilities of the British Broadcasting Corporation. The original charter of the corporation was granted on the 20th, December, 1926, a draft was laid on the Table of this House, and it was fully debated after a careful statement had been made by the present Lord Selsdon. May I remind hon. Members of the principles generally which were followed, with the approval of Parliament, at that time. Parliament decided in 1926 that the broadcasting of this country was not to be run as a State institution. It decided that wireless should not be commercialised. It put broadcasting on a basis radically different from that of broadcasting in the United States and continental countries, and, finally, a bold and interesting experiment was made by the establishment of a corporation akin to and of the nature of a public utility corporation. Considerable freedom and discretion were designedly entrusted to the governors of the corporation. I suppose that the trust which has been given to the governors of the corporation can compare with no other duty that has been given to any similar body of men. At the same time, certain restrictions were made and certain powers given to the Postmaster-General.
The whole design, so far as I see it, was not to prohibit ultimate Parliamentary control, but to limit Parliamentary interference, and to accord to the corporation reasonable liberty of action as trustees of the service in the national interest. So far as the governors of the Corporation and their relationship with the Minister are concerned, the hon. and learned Member for Bristol East referred to the Report of Lord Crawford's Committee, which is well worth studying in connection with this matter. There it was distinctly laid down that the prestige and status of the governors of the corporation were to be freely acknowledged and their sense of responsibility emphasised. The governors of the corporation are not intended to be, nor do they claim to be, specialists or experts, but their responsibilities are certainly very important and considerable. It is their duty to see,
1834
subject to the provisions of the Charter and the licence, that the many purposes for which broadcasting was established are carried out with efficiency and impartiality, and one of their most important functions is to estimate, to weigh and to judge the general effect of the service so far as the public is concerned.
Allusion has been made to the power and the duties of the Postmaster-General, and they can be seen by any Member of the House in the charter and the licence. I want to refer to one of them, because there has been a considerable amount of discussion in relation to it. The Postmaster-General, as is provided by a clause in the licence, has power by notice in writing to require the corporation to refrain from sending any broadcast matter, either particular or general, specified in such notice. The only case in which the Postmaster-General has exercised that power was in informing the corporation on 11th January, 1927, that he required the corporation to refrain from broadcasting the following matters:
(1) Statements expressing the opinion of the corporation on matters of public policy;
that is the expression of the views of the corporation itself—
(2) Speeches or lectures containing statements on topics of political, religious or industrial controversy.
Representations were made from time to time to Parliament and in the Press in favour of the withdrawal of the ban on political and controversial broadcasting, and it was in consequence of these representations that in March, 1928, the Government of that day decided, with general approval, to withdraw the prohibition so far as controversial broadcasting was concerned. The announcement was made in the House of Commons by the Lord President of the Council who was then Prime Minister. He said that the Government had reviewed the decision taken at the time of the constitution of the British Broadcasting Corporation, under which the corporation was prohibited from broadcasting the two matters I have referred to. He added that the Government had decided that the first of these prohibitions, that is on the issue of editorial pronouncements, must be maintained, but that the second, that is as regards controversial

1835
matter, should be withdrawn forthwith. So far as the power of veto on individual items is concerned, it has never been used by any Postmaster-General, and I do not think that any Postmaster-General would desire to find any occasion to use it. It is sound policy that such a power should never be used lightly but only in a serious case and in the last resort.
Sir S. CRIPPS: Was not the case that I mentioned, that on 15th November, 1926, a speech delivered by Dr. Deissmann, of Berlin, on the entry of Germany into the League of Nations.
Sir K. WOOD: I am not aware of that case, but it may have been before the ban was raised. But certainly since this matter there has not been any interference of any kind. Therefore the position to-day is this: That the prohibition of statements expressing the opinion of the corporation on matters of public policy is maintained. Editorial wisdom is certainly undesirable on the broadcast. I am sure the governors of the corporation have no desire that that prohibition should be withdrawn. Indeed, unless this was maintained there might very well be serious confusion both at home and abroad as to whether statements of such a character were in fact the pronouncement and the opinions of the Government of the day. Therefore that provision is a very necessary one, and no one, neither the Corporation nor this House, desires that the prohibition should be withdrawn. So far as controversial broadcasts are concerned, including political broadcasts, there is to-day no ban or bar by the Government.
Broadcasts on the even of a General Election have been a matter, of course, of special arrangement between the parties, and so far as I have been able to gather it has been a most difficult and tiresome thing. But the general principle applied to-day, so far as controversial and political broadcasts are concerned, is that it is in the interest of the nation, following the traditions of this country, that there should be, not a licence for subversive doctrines or propaganda against the functions of good government, but reasonable liberty for the expression of free opinion and thought. I say deliberately that minorities should have their place—individuals perhaps not at the moment attached or
1836
perhaps only lightly attached to any particular party should be chosen, if they have a useful contribution to make.
As Lord Crawford's Committee stipulated, all such controversial matter should be of high quality and distributed with scrupulous fairness. Regard must be paid to the international situation when you come to consider what should or should not be broadcast in relation to controversial matter. The chief test that might well be applied in such a matter as admission to the microphone is whether it is a timely and useful contribution to the councils of the nation. It is obvious that there must be some limitation. I read to-day a leading article in one of the greatest newspapers in this country, which certainly cannot be said at any time to have been opposed to freedom of speech in this country. I refer to the "Manchester Guardian." The "Manchester Guardian" to-day in its leading article quite rightly sets out that there obviously must be limits to the latitude of debate. It says:
"At times the broadcasting authorities may unavoidably have to conclude that the ill-feeling a discussion of some issues might create would outweigh the good that discussion might do."
They go on to discuss the experiment that is being made in this connection, and they say:
"Let us go slowly. The immediate lessons of the discussion are that the British Broadcasting Corporation should lead opinion rather than follow it; that in assessing the tolerance of listeners it has nothing to go on but its own judgment; and that this judgment—this discretion of the British Broadcasting Corporation—must be upheld, since the judgment of no outside person or group of persons is likely to be better, and might be a lot worse."
That is a very fair statement of the position. I have emphasised the desire for a proper opportunity in regard to controversial matters because the days for instance when speeches of leaders of the nation were reported fully in the public Press have gone. The editorial pencil often works its own way for its own purposes and headlines and descriptive sketches are generally deemed a sufficient representation of our proceedings. I suggest to the House: Might not broadcasting meet the real needs of the vast electorate and supply from all points of view and angles that presentment of issues and of policies which will usefully mould public opinion and help

1837
us to determine wisely the issues of our time. If that is, on the whole, a fair summary of what we desire, how is this matter to be determined? We are bound to come to that question in the end. There have been criticisms to-night and the Mover of the Amendment based his criticism on the number of broadcasts given to the Government. I was very interested to hear him and, if he will forgive me for saying so, his remarks coming from one who is always such a serious speaker were rather amusing, because exactly the same kind of speech was made on a former occasion when a very short discussion took place on this subject, only in that case the criticism was made by a Conservative Opposition and the reply was made by my hon. Friend opposite who then occupied the position of Postmaster-General. He pointed out then that there were always people on the Opposition side of the House who said that the Government of the day enjoyed too many opportunities of Debate. In those days it was the Conservative opposition who were accusing the Labour Government of having too many opportunities of discussion. To-day it is the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite who is accusing the National Government of having too many opportunities on the wireless and I as Postmaster-General representing the National Government have to reply to that criticism.
I think it will be generally agreed that it is desirable, having regard to the statement which I have already made as to the position of minorities and the position of individuals who have something to contribute to our national councils—it is desirable, whatever Government may be in office, that the Prime Minister should speak when a great appeal is being made to the nation as for instance in respect of the conversion of War Loan, as happened on 20th July last year. Surely it is desirable when a Prime Minister makes a speech on foreign affairs, as Prime Ministers always do at the Lord Mayor's function in the City every year, that the nation should have an opportunity of hearing it. There are one or two other speeches of that kind like the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the National Budget. These are occasions of importance to the nation and these speeches should be heard. The hon. and learned
1838
Gentleman made a lot of to-do about the speeches which were made on the occasion of the resignation of the hon. Gentlemen who now sit below the Gangway on this side and who support—more or less—the Government of the day. The hon. and learned Member seemed to think that he ought to have had an opportunity of joining in that affair on the wireless or that somebody should have had the opportunity of reply. I must confess that from the point of view of interest and excitement I would have preferred that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) should have had an opportunity of joining in that discussion, but the British Broadcasting Corporation were quite right in the attitude which they took up. The chairman of the corporation, a former Speaker of this House whom we all respect, followed the ordinary Parliamentary practice—
Mr. LANSBURY: No, no.
Sir K. WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to proceed?
Mr. LANSBURY: I merely said, "No, no."
Sir K. WOOD: Yes, but the right hon. Gentleman has such a powerful voice that it prevented me from proceeding. He knows that when an hon. or a right hon. Gentleman resigns from the Cabinet be makes a speech and under our procedure only the Prime Minister or someone acting on his behalf is allowed to follow on such an occasion. That is the point to which I was addressing myself. I will deal with the grievances of the Socialist party in a minute. The question to which I want to come now is: How is this matter of who is to take part in controversial broadcasts and the subjects of such broadcasts to be determined? I suggest that it is contrary to the public interest that the Postmaster-General should be the censor of British broadcasting or that a Minister of the Crown should have the responsibility of the day to day working of that service. He might very well abuse his position but what I think is much more likely is that he would play for safety, and this would ruin broadcasting and render it a dull and lifeless thing.
Hon. Members know that one of the duties of the Postmaster-General is to

1839
collect the fees for licences for British broadcasting. We have been very successful and have got in a very large sum. But one of my predecessors said that while he did not mind going round with the hat, he refused to turn the handle of the organ and there is a great deal of force in that statement. A singular feature of this discussion is that the hon. and learned Gentleman, with all his ability, which we know to be very considerable, has made no practical suggestion whatever of any alteration in or alternative to the present system.
What is the position? Is it altogether unnatural that there should be complaints and criticisms and charges of unfairness of exclusion or of favouritism. There are at least 22,000,000 listeners in this country and the British Broadcasting Corporation has to provide them with 60,000 hours of programme. Is it any wonder that there is some complaint? I suppose that every listener has his idea about the programme. Some people want the British Broadcasting Corporation to "go gay," others say, "Too much uplift," and the fact is that the British Broadcasting Corporation may be able to please all the listeners some of the time, and some of the listeners all the time, but it cannot hope or expect to please all the listeners all the time. Certain it is, in my judgment, that for every critic there are 10,000 satisfied but silent listeners. Mistakes may be made. Of course the British Broadcasting Corporation makes mistakes, as it would be the first to acknowledge, and a mistake made in a broadcasting studio is heard all over the country, but without initiative and without experiment on the part of the corporation broadcasting Indeed would be a weak and weary affair.
I want now to say a word or two about the Amendment which has been proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman, who made a curious but not very candid speech so far as representing the views of the Socialist party was concerned. I heard nothing to-night, although I thought he would have taken the first opportunity of mentioning them, of the very extraordinary allegations with regard to the corporation that the Socialist party have been making quite freely up and down the country, in the public Press and in their resolutions, which are really the foundation of their
1840
party. To put it quite bluntly, they say that the news bulletins are prejudiced against them. I have seen some of their Labour organs, and they say that the very tones of the announcers on the microphone are Conservative. The right hon. Gentleman the late Minister of Health, in a statement only a few days ago in the public Press, of which we heard nothing to-night in the hon. and learned Gentleman's mild and beautifully tempered speech—I would like the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs to see some of the letters which the Leader of the Opposition has written—the late Minister of Health, in a public statement the other day, talked about "intense dissatisfaction among the members of the staff" of the British Broadcasting Corporation as a reason for this inquiry; and he actually said, in contradiction to what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said to-night, and what no other person has said in this House to-night:
"With regard to the general quality of the British Broadcasting Corporation programmes, there is room for vast improvement."
The real reason behind this Amendment to-night, although it has not been stated in the very polite speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman, is that the Labour party want to have an opportunity of airing their particular grievances before a Select Committee of the House of Commons. I do not know what will satisfy them, because when this matter was referred to for a very short time in the House of Commons on the 11th, December, 1931, the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee), who was my predecessor in office, made the suggestion in regard to controversial broadcasting, not that there should be a general inquiry, as is proposed to-night, but that:
"there should be set up an advisory committee of Members of all parties to advise on the allocation of political speeches and so forth."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December, 1931; col. 2312, Vol. 260.]
That is the only practical suggestion that has been made by the Socialist Opposition, at any rate during the time I have held my present office, and what has happened? The British Broadcasting Corporation has followed out the suggestion which was made, the only practical suggestion that has come from the Socialist party, and has set up an Advisory Committee. What happened so far as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the

1841
Opposition is concerned? Although his hon. Friend who is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition made this suggestion, he has been the only one of the representatives of the parties in the State who has refused to co-operate in the formation of that committee. They made the suggestion themselves.
Mr. LANSBURY: The right hon. Gentleman had better, I think, read the correspondence to the House, and let the House decide who is right on this issue. Neither the Opposition nor the Government nor the Liberal party, as I understood the British Broadcasting Corporation, were to be consulted on the setting up of that committee at all.
Sir K. WOOD: Of course not. Neither did the Deputy Leader of the Opposition make any such suggestion.
Mr. LANSBURY: What suggestion did he make, then?
Sir K. WOOD: That an advisory committee should be set up by the corporation. What it comes to is this, that because the British Broadcasting Corporation did not go to the Prime Minister, nor to the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) nor to the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, nor to the right Hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), to ask who should be chosen to sit on the advisory committee, therefore the party opposite will have nothing to do with it— an amazing attitude to take up. If this committee is to advise the corporation, it is for the corporation to set up its own committee—[HON. MEMBEKS: "Why?"]—Because it is its committee, and the committee is to advise the corporation. It is doing exactly what I should have thought the House would have desired it to do, and that is avoiding bringing the political leaders of the parties into consultation to nominate members of this advisory committee. The British Broadcasting Corporation appointed, as it has done in countless other cases, in connection with education and all sorts of activities, an advisory committee to advise it, and I know of no reason why it should not act in that way in this matter as in other matters. Only the other day the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley was asked, in order to get this matter fixed up, to send forward two or three names so that some Socialists
1842
should be able to serve on this particular committee, and the corporation is still waiting for the names.
I am glad to think that the views that have been expressed to-night by the hon. and learned Member do not represent many Labour views on this matter. I read only the other day the views of Mr. Herbert Morrison, a member of the late Labour Administration, who wrote an article in the "Star" newspaper which had a very interesting title, in view of the attitude of the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley—"Why bully the B.B.C.?" He stated:
"The substantial independence of the British Broadcasting Corporation as an institution must not only be maintained; it must be insisted upon."
So far as controversial broadcasting is concerned, I suppose no one has had greater experience than the hon. Member for Limehouse, who has occupied my own position as Postmaster-General, and he said only a few months ago that in the matter of controversial broadcasts the corporation was steering a very careful course. He added:
"I have a very great admiration for the British Broadcasting Corporation and the work it is doing. … I found, when Postmaster-General, a few aggrieved individuals making much more noise than the many who are satisfied."
He wound up his statement not by demanding a committee of inquiry, but by saying:
"The British Broadcasting Corporation has built up a wonderful service and, considering the difficulties of satisfying so many divergent views, has been marvellously successful."
Those are the views of the two Labour Members who were chiefly concerned when this matter was before the House.
As to the Motion to-night—and I ask the House to pass it, and to reject the Amendment—it does not, of course, mean that every individual item in the number of programmes presented by the corporation necessarily receives the approval of every member, but it is a general verdict in favour of the system set up in 1926. The corporation is barely 6 years old. It is like broadcasting itself—it is still in its infancy. It is remarkable, on the whole, that so little exception has been taken to the presentation of the British broadcasts. It can be claimed without exaggeration that this country leads the world in broadcasting. Canada, Australia and New

1843
Zealand have adopted systems closely approximating to our own. Canada, for instance, with full knowledge and opportunity of forming an opinion of American broadcasting, has deliberately and almost with complete unanimity initiated a system similar to our own.
The policy of the corporation, very much to its credit, has been decisively and boldly not only to provide entertainment, but to contribute cumulatively to good citizenship by the broadcasting of fine music and of information over as wide a field as possible. It would have been very easy for the corporation to have played down. Everyone will have been glad to note the recent improvement in the cinema in this country, but the difference in the utilisation of these two great forces has been very marked. It would not have been difficult for the corporation to lower the standards of public and national life in this country. I say to the House to-night that the British Broadcasting Corporation has raised them, and has shown how the fullest advantage can be taken of the marvellous invention which science has brought to the service of mankind. So far as political controversial matters are concerned, it has acted to the best of its judgment impartially. Such critics as, there have been have come from opposing political forces, a tribute to, rather than a condemnation of, the freedom from political bias of the corporation.
I put this final question: Is there any more promising alternative to our present British methods as suitable and as advantageous to this country? There is the commercial system of America, do we desire that? There is direct Government control. Is that advisable? The British Broadcasting Corporation is held in high respect throughout the world. It has, and can have, no other motive or object than that of public service. It has taken its responsibilities seriously, and is it not the least we can do to-night to encourage and support it in its purpose and its work?
9.31 p.m.
Mr. LANSBURY: I shall not detain the House more than two or three minutes as it is a private Members' Debate, but I must deal with one point which the right hon. Gentleman has not met at all— the question of political broadcasts. We
1844
raised in our letter to the corporation the discussion over the wireless that took place between Lord Snowden, the Lord President, the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), and the Foreign Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman says that the course that was taken then was the same as would be taken in this House. That is quite untrue and quite beside the point. Broadcasting is an entirely new method of conveying political propaganda and political views. It is totally unfair to allow statements to be made derogatory to the Opposition, whether that Opposition has 50 or 200 Members in this House, without giving an opportunity of replying. There has been no answer to that point. The right hon. Gentleman cannot answer it; neither can the chairman of the British Broadcasting Corporation. He has not met the case of the two Indian broadcasts, both of them highly controversial, and the fact that on neither occasion would the British Broadcasting Corporation allow an Opposition speaker to reply to them. Does anyone contend that the speech of the Prime Minister at Christmas was not highly contentious propaganda? If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the people in the country will be satisfied with that reply, he must be a very gullible gentleman indeed. He charges me with taking action differing from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Lime-house (Mr. Attlee). He knows perfectly well that the question discussed then was not the question of the parties and political propaganda. Our case is not that the British Broadcasting Corporation do not allow discussions of a controversial character. They do, but, when it comes to the spokesman of the Government broadcasting highly controversial political matter, we say that the Opposition has a right to reply.
I am what is called a wireless fan, and I enjoy very much what comes over the wireless, but, in my judgment, the propaganda that comes over the wireless is always tendentious, as the pressmen say, when it is political, on one side or the other. It is utterly impossible for people holding strong views on important subjects to be other than dogmatic in the views they put across. I object to this elevating of the British Broadcasting Corporation into the position of a kind of god to choose who shall speak and who shall not speak. Somehow or other that

1845
has to be met. It will not be met by the House doing it as a House, but I think that the House might appoint the suggested committee in order to try and find some means of dealing with what everybody knows is a serious condition of affairs. To me there can be no question of a future, but British broadcasting does and can, with the aid of the Government of to-day, make the issues of a General Election; it can make or mar men who are going to fight that election by not allowing them to put their case. That is something entirely new, something that the House ought not to tolerate. This is the greatest power in the world. The right hon. Gentleman once said that the platform would always beat the Press, and it is proof of that that any of us are here at all. We are here in spite of the Press, Now you have taken the platform from us, and the microphone can destroy any new party in the State if it is in the hands and under the control of the Government. The Government get the power to broadcast whenever they want, and we are denied the same right. That is what we are protesting against to-night.
9.37 p.m.
Mr. BUCHAN: My hon. and learned Friend who moved the Opposition Amendment desired an inquiry by a Select Committee. I agree with the Postmaster-General that such an inquiry would be unnecessary and premature, but I think that this most interesting Debate fulfils many of the functions of an inquiry and enables us to get our heads clear upon this most important matter. There has been a good deal of criticism in this Debate, and that is right, for the British Broadcasting Corporation is a servant of the public and a most important servant, far more powerful in many ways than the Press, and infinitely more powerful than the platform. It is right that the British public through its representatives should interest itself in this most masterful servant, and should want to know all about its work.
I am glad to see, however, that while there has been some criticism, there has also been a good deal of appreciation of the very remarkable work which the corporation has accomplished. We have not had many pieces of good fortune as a nation since the War, but I think that one of them has been the Broadcasting Corporation. It was very lucky
1846
for this country from the start that the Government took the matter seriously and put it under wise regulation. You have only to look at America to see the chaos which the lack of regulation brings about. You have only to look at the films and see the degradation and the confusion to which unrestrained commercial enterprise has brought a great instrument of public service. We may congratulate ourselves that from the first the Broadcasting Corporation has been wisely regulated and that from the start it has been under the direction of a man not only of great administrative ability, but of broad ideas and a high sense of public duty.
I find myself in complete agreement with my hon. Friend who moved the Motion. I do not think it possible to have Parliamentary supervision in matters of detail. For one thing it is impracticable; for another, the general principle is bad. The Broadcasting Corporation is a kind of public utility company, the type of corporation of which I hope we may see many more in future, and I do not want to see a wrong precedent set up. It would be fatal to the efficiency of the Broadcasting Corporation or any similar body to be put under any day to day detailed Parliamentary supervision. The Corporation has its charter and its principles. It has also, it must have, many unwritten principles which guide the policy of its governors and its Director General. In many respects it is exactly paralleled by a newspaper, with one conspicuous difference. As a Corporation, it can have no views. Like a newspaper, it must publish news. Like a newspaper, it will publish special features, and, like a newspaper, it will publish signed articles, But, unlike a newspaper, it can have no editorials. It must be an entirely colourless conduit pipe through which instruction and information flow to the British public. It has a duty not wantonly to offend its public. It has a duty to publish the most accurate news and to provide the best informed articles by the best writers; but these articles must be the articles of the writers and not its own. For them it can have no responsibility. Its only responsibility is to provide the best and the most competent broadcasters. I take it that that, roughly, is the policy and the constitution of the corporation.

1847
I should like to be allowed to offer a few observations upon what in many ways is the most important branch of its duties—the discussion of opinion, and especially of controversial opinion. We have been told to-night that a certain amount of controversy is part of the policy of the corporation. That controversial matter takes three forms. I look upon them rather differently from the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). In the first place, there are party views broadcast at an election by the leaders. The mechanism of that is comparatively simple, for it is merely an arrangement between the leaders and the Whips. Then we have at less feverish times than elections the broadcasting of different views on public policy by authoritative exponents. Finally, we have a number of talks upon matters which are not controversial in the ordinary sense, but which do involve differences of opinion and may be made the vehicle of highly tendentious matter. I should like to make a few observations on the two last classes and to take the latter class first.
With the approval of its subscribers the Broadcasting Corporation provides talks upon a variety of matters—literary, artistic, ethical, social, economic and religious, which have sometimes given rise to considerable discussion. It is a common criticism of Members of my own party that the bias in these talks is quite clearly towards the left wing. It is said, for example, that those who expound literary and artistic taste are the iconoclasts, the people to whom the last thing is always the best thing; that those who theorise upon social and economic matters are usually the restless progressives; and as for ethics and religion, the most delicate questions of all, it is alleged that the talks on these have a bias towards what is called modernism or heterodoxy. I do not deny that there may be some truth in that impression, but consider the difficulties. The people who have strong views on that kind of subject and who can expound them in an interesting way are usually of the radical and dynamic type. The Conservative mind, the conformist mind, is apt to be silent, it is so assured in its convictions. The nonconformist mind—and I would remark that I do not use that word in any ecclesiastical sense—not perhaps
1848
being quite so sure, is apt to dilate upon the differences. If I may quote the Prophet Isaiah it is the distinction between those who say:
"In returning and rest shall we be saved; in quietness and in confidence shall be your strength."
and those whose cry is:
"We will flee upon horses. … We will ride upon the swift."
If those talks are to be retained, and I think they are valuable, because they are provocative of thought, obviously it is far easier to get broadcasters from the one side than the other. There must always, then, be a slight left-wing bias. I do not see how that can be averted, unless the happy possessors of the conservative temperament can be induced to be more loquacious, and follow the example set in this House by certain ex-Ministers of the Crown. After all, the basis of the English temperament is conservative, and it is not a bad thing to have now and then a gadfly to sting it into thought. Even the sophist—he may prefer to be called a progressive thinker —may be of some value if he forces Conservatives to reflect upon the basis of their creed, and incidentally reveals the emptiness of his own.
I come now to the question of broadcasts on admittedly controversial topics by authoritative exponents. On that matter I have no doubt about my own opinion. I would allow every type of talk to be broadcast without any distinction whatsoever, always providing the talks were fairly rationed according to the public interest. Those last words are of importance, because obviously the corporation has to play the part of an editor and consider what matters are topical, what matters are at the moment in the public mind. Apart from that, I would make no distinction of kind whatsoever. I see no reason why a Communist should not be allowed to broadcast his beliefs and the reason for them. Incidentally, I cannot imagine anything more damaging to Communism. I see no reason why the most heterodox views on economics or religion or any other subject should not be broadcast by someone qualified to speak on them. I see no reason why a view on, say, India wholly different from that held by the Government of the day should not be broadcast by an authoritative exponent.

1849
I would lay down only two conditions. The first is that a right occasion must be chosen, because I can imagine a situation of great delicacy in foreign or domestic affairs where a broadcast, perfectly harmless in normal times, might do an infinity of damage. That seems to me common sense. The second condition I lay down would be that in manner such broadcasts should not be unnecessarily provocative, should not needlessly offend those who may differ from the view expressed. That is not a question of policy or of morals, but is a question merely of good manners, and I believe the corporation may be trusted to see that that point is observed. After all, it is only the corporation which can see to that, because we cannot lay down rules about a thing which is so constantly changing as taste. What constitutes frankness? What constitutes good taste? Views on that may vary not alone from generation to generation but in every five years, and only a corporation like the British Broadcasting Corporation, which is in close touch with public opinion, can properly regulate it.
There is a great deal of nonsense talked about freedom. Liberty is not the same thing as license, and it may be necessary in the interests of the State now and then to make strict regulations. But I confess I am always very nervous about any attempt to restrict the free expression of opinion, for the simple reason that opinion, however dangerous it may be, is far safer in the open air than underground. Many people may think differently, but to those who do I would suggest that broadcasting is by far the safest way of ventilating possibly dangerous opinion, for the simple reason that it rules out the orator. All the adventitious tricks of the orator are of no avail. It is the great antidote to the demagogue. Broadcasting succeeds only through the cogency of its arguments, and it is very hard indeed to bring in much emotion or passion. There was a remarkable example of that in the last American Presidential election but one. There were two candidates: one Mr. Hoover, prosaic, pedestrian, cautious, practical, uninspiring; and the other a most brilliant and attractive platform orator, Mr. "Al" Smith; but when it come to the election and broadcasting— and the election was largely won by
1850
broadcasting—the pedestrian Mr. Hoover was far more effective than the brilliant Mr. Smith. I repeat that broadcasting is the great antiseptic to the feverish demagogue. If there are any who believe that our British people are so unstable and light-witted that any suggestion of subsersive doctrine coming through the ether will upset the foundations of Church and State, and turn our citizens into neurotic revolutionaries, I suggest they underrate the solid good sense of our countrymen. That seems to me an insult which in the immortal words of Mrs. Gamp:
"Lambs could not forgive nor worms forget."
My plea, like the plea of the Mover of the Motion, would be not for less controversy but for more, provided it be wisely regulated. No man can be secure in his opinions unless he has faced their opposites. I know that many Members of my party are apprehensive of the future of broadcasting; so am I, but only on one point. If we do not have controversy, we may be in danger of seeing manufactured throughout the land the terrible product which has been called "the broadcast mind," a mind dominated by a shallow uplift and a thin, complacent scepticism; a mind surfeited with half-truths; a mind that is incapable of grappling seriously with any problem. We do not want that. I would far rather that we had a believing Christian honestly expounding his faith and being answered honestly by an unbeliever, than that broadcasting should be reduced to something where belief and unbelief are reduced to a trashy common denominator.
I do not want to see the British Broadcasting Corporation become what might be described as—if I may borrow a title of a type of publication seen rather frequently to-day—"The Congenital Idiot's Guide to World Knowledge." There is far too much half-educated opinion about to-day, and it is very dangerous. We shall never get rid of it if we increase its half-educated complacency. Truth, as the Mover of this Motion has truly said, comes from an honest clash of opinion and not from the suppression of it. Controversy, honest, straightforward, well-regulated controversy is the only salt which will save a most valuable side of broadcasting from, going rotten. After all, we can trust our people. The British Broadcasting Cor-

1851
poration, as it has grown up today, is a peculiarly British product, and, like all our true indigenous products, it is based upon a trust in the ordinary man.
9.59 p.m.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I intervene only for a very few minutes to say one word upon the subject of this Debate. I have spent the last 18 months in the country, and I say without any hesitation that the British Broadcasting Corporation has added a very substantial percentage to the amenities of country life. It has given me also an opportunity of comparing British broadcasting with that of practically every country in Europe, and I say, again, without any hesitation — although upon a given night you might have something better in one of the capitals of Europe— that for sustained excellence and quality our British broadcasting is infinitely superior to all of it. That is a very great achievement, and we owe a debt of gratitude to those who, by their organising genius, intelligence, initiative, imagination and—I agree with an hon. Member opposite— their taste, have produced this magnificent result. This generation owes a debt of gratitude to Sir John Reith.
I do not believe that there is any dispute with regard to that part of the matter. We all appreciate the very high quality of what is produced by the British Broadcasting Corporation, with respect to music and literature. So far as the talks are concerned, they are more of a popular educator. They stimulate interest in topics, and incite people to take a fresh interest in them and look into them for themselves. When you come to the question of political controversy, I think that there is something more to be said. It is generally accepted by all those who have spoken in this very remarkable Debate—one of the most interesting Debates to which I have ever listened, in the character and quality of its contributions— from both sides of the House, that we must admit political controversy on the broadcast. I do not believe that that is challenged by anyone. The only point is as to the conditions under which you are to permit it. I do not think that the present conditions are satisfactory. I am not blaming the British Broadcasting Corporation, because I know from the little experience that I had, more particularly before 1929,
1852
how difficult it is to adjust the rival claims of the parties.
The difficulty is not an insuperable one, given good will; not in the least. I forget which hon. Member it was that said that the Press had ceased to report political speeches. When I first started politics, newspapers reported fully a certain number of speakers. They gave a column to several more, and half a column or a quarter of a column to the rest, and the only difference between the Conservative and Liberal papers in those days was in the proportions. Both Conservative and Liberal papers gave a verbatim report of a certain number of speakers. The Conservative paper would give a verbatim to, say, four Conservatives and to two or three Liberals, whereas the Liberal paper would give a verbatim to four Liberals and to two or three Conservatives. That is how it was in the days when I started my political life. There was an opportunity of mastering the case of both sides. In the main, the type of man in the towns and villages who directed opinion—of course the vast mass of people bought the newspapers, but I am speaking of the people who directed opinion—were those who were well informed as to the merits of a controversy, having read the most able exponents of both points of view.
That is gone. Instead, you have a condition described by the hon. Member, in which very few Conservative speeches are reported fully even by Conservative newspapers, and the same thing applies to the other parties. You have a condition of things where headlines are creating opinion. There is another and new practice which has been introduced in the last 30 years. News was very fairly given, without reference to its effect upon opinion, in the old newspapers. I do not say that there is any suppression, but there is an emphasis of the particular kind of news which favors the opinion of a particular paper, and by that means, there is no doubt, opinion is created. It is done, not so much by the leading article, but by the way in which news is arranged and set out, and by the way certain news is elaborated, and other news put somewhere into the background. It is vital, in these circumstances, that there should be some other agency by which you can get at the 30,000,000 people upon whom the fate of this country, of the British Empire, and to a certain ex-

1853
tent of civilisation, depends—that you should be able to get into their minds what the issues are, and what are the arguments for and against them. Naturally, the hon. Gentleman thinks that the party to which he belongs is more intellectual and sounder in every respect than the others; but we all think that. That is not what matters; it is neither he nor I who decide, but those 30, 000,000 people, and it is vital that they should understand, first of all, what the issues really are— which they do not always do— and, in the second place, what are the arguments for and against those issues. I do not know of any other agency by which, under present conditions, the vast issues upon which the life of the country depends could be presented, except the British Broadcasting Corporation.
No policy of suppression will in the end achieve its purpose; you cannot have Hitlerism in this country, direct or indirect. You cannot have in this country the suppression of opinion, either through the Press or through the British Broadcasting Corporation. It is not their fault that the thing is not organised at the present time. It is no use having a few speeches during an election. Opinion will have accumulated, and grown, and swung in a certain direction by then. You must gradually educate the people, and give them an opportunity of knowing what the position is. I am sure it can be done. I am not against Parliamentary control altogether, but I am very glad that this is a corporation which is independent, and I have no reason to think that it does not preserve its independence. But it is perplexed and baffled; it wants direction, it wants encouragement, and it wants to know what Parliament is thinking. It is right that Parliament should exercise the sort of control which this Debate gives— that now and again there should be a review of the general situation. After all, it is the authentic exponent of the views of the nation.
My right hon. Friend thought that a committee should be set up. I am not against having a committee, but I was rather sorry that he ruled out altogether the idea of having some consultation beforehand as to the composition of that committee. As I understand it, the Chairman of the British Broadcasting Corporation set up a committee without previous consultation with anyone, but I
1854
cannot believe that there is not consultation in the other matters to which reference has been made—whether amusement, or education, or anything else—with those best entitled to give an opinion. Why should not they set up this committee? I forget the names of its members. I have heard them; I do not know that they impressed me very much when I heard them; I have forgotten them since. I think, however, that it would be desirable that there should be a committee of that kind. I do not mean that the members of the committee should be nominated. The moment a man is a nominee of a particular party, he is there to fight for that particular party. The members of this committee ought to be there to do what is right and fair, not merely as between parties, because, as was said by the hon. Member who has just sat down, there is a vast body of opinion which is not party in this country; there are heterodoxies which one day will become orthodoxies, and will become as reactionary as my hon. Friend. You must give them an opportunity of putting their case and their point of view. If you have a committee which is purely representative of parties, you will not get that. I am all in favour of having an independent committee which is not nominated by the parties, but I do not say that that is incompatible with prior consultation with those who, in the judgment of the Chairman of the British Broadcasting Corporation, are more or less entitled to be consulted upon matters of that kind. Undoubtedly, my right hon. Friend would be consulted on the subject.
Sir K. WOOD: There was a request to send in three names.
Mr. LANSBURY: The right hon. Gentleman knows that that was months afterwards.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would rather not be drawn into a discussion on that point. We want to get along. I am certain that the British Broadcasting Corporation want to be helpful in the matter, and that they would like to arrange it in such a way as to give satisfaction, not merely to the parties, but to the 20,000,000 people who are outside. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said that there was one advantage in broadcasting over the platform— that it gave an advantage to the dull dogs over the more interesting speakers. If

1855
that be the case, by all manner of means give them that chance; it is time that they should have their turn. I was in entire agreement with the general principles laid down by the Postmaster-General— for instance that minorities should have their place. As far as his general principles were concerned, he was quite sound. But our principles are all sound. It is when we come to their application that the difficulty arises, and I am afraid the Postmaster-General was a little lame when he came to that. I would ask him to reconsider the question, and not even to be altogether bound by what he said an hour ago.
I would ask him to put before the British Broadcasting Corporation the question whether they could not get rid of whatever committee there is. I do not say that those gentlemen who are there might not take part in the new committee, but at any rate I would say, let the matter be reconsidered, and then see that you get real issues. I entirely agree that what matters is that you should have issues in which the general public are interested, but those issues ought not altogether to be denned by the British Broadcasting Corporation. When an issue is raised here in the House of Commons, it is raised in the form in which those interested in it wish to challenge it, and that is right, because the way in which you state a proposition has a good deal to do with directing the final verdict on the matter. Those who are interested in the issue ought to be allowed to state the form in which it is debated and discussed. I hope that there will be greater freedom in the discussion of these great issues, that there will be a committee which will command general confidence— not a committee composed of nominees of parties, but one that would command the confidence of the general public— and that that use which is made in every enlightened country of this great scientific discovery will also be made here. In the United States of America, and in the Dominions, elections are fought in this way. They were in Germany. Here it is not used in that way, and I beg the Postmaster-General to reconsider that point.
10.15 p.m.
Mr. CHURCHILL: I am so much in agreement with the speech that has just
1856
been delivered, and indeed with the speech that was delivered by my hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan), that I shall compress my remarks, I hope, into a very short compass so as to leave time for others who wish to speak. I am not going to discuss this question at all from the point of view of the personal feelings that I may have upon the manner, in which the British Broadcasting Corporation have administered their trust so far as I am concerned. I do not think the matter of individuals is at all important. There is far more of importance in this issue than that. It is one of the greatest issues that Parliament can possibly have to deal with.
We are in a period of full democracy—universal suffrage—and, as my right on. Friend has pointed out, not only has the electorate enormously increased but the means of coming in contact with it have actually diminished in the comparatively short time that I have been in public life. I remember, as he has reminded us, the days when all the affairs of Parliament and politics were accompanied by a running commentary by the half-dozen leading men on each side, which was reported verbatim in every newspaper and which was read by all the people who governed and guided and formed political opinion throughout the island. It has gone—absolutely vanished. No newspaper can bear a verbatim report of political speeches. Although the newspapers have multiplied their circulation ten, twenty and thirty-fold, they have reached a class of readers who are much too absorbed in the ordinary toil of getting their living to be concerned in following long speeches of politicians reported verbatim. After their day's toil is done, they wish to rest, or they wish for amusement, and in their newspapers crime, frivolity, and crossword competitions are quite sufficient for them. So this platform has gone.
Then there is the report of the House of Commons. Everyone who likes to look at the reports of our proceedings of 30 years ago published in the Press and compare them with what is given now can see how all that great forum of discussion has been cut out, as it were, from the programmed of national life. Lastly there is the size of the electorate

1857
in every constituency. When I was first a Member of Parliament 34 years ago, in a great constituency you could see three quarters of your supporters. You could perhaps see half of the whole constituency. What can you do now? In a fortnight you can only touch the fringe. All that has gone. So that at the moment when the greatest decisions in the world are confided to an electorate of 25,000,000 people, or whatever it is, you find that they are deprived even of the mechanism which has hitherto enabled political contact to be maintained. I think that is a most grievous and anxious fact to bring before the House for the attention not only of those who are interested in politics but for those who are thinking of the long future development of the country.
The world is losing faith in this democracy. It is losing faith in the methods by which it is manipulated. The stunt Press, the great caucus machinery, the stunt oratory—all these things are leading political thinkers who a hundred years ago were marching on hopefully to fuller democracy to recoil, and they have recoiled. Look at Europe. Much more than half of Europe has degenerated in this century from Parliaments so hopefully erected in the last into arbitrary or military Governments, and the movement is steady everywhere. Alone almost we here labor and strive to preserve the vitality, the authority and the glory of our Parliamentary institutions and of our free Government. I am sure that these processes which are at work nowadays have only to continue to destroy the Parliamentary institutions and the free political life under which, and with which and by which our country has grown, and grown great. At this very moment in our history the protecting genius of Britain comes forward with his marvelous new instrument, this wonderful apparatus, which enables a continuous association to be maintained between the voting millions and the guiding authority of the State. It is a tremendous, wonderful gift which has come to us. I am told—I must admit that it was my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General who told me, and he will not mind my betraying confidence at his expense—it may be in a few years' time that it will be possible to invite Members to address their constituencies on a special wave length
1858
adapted to the particular areas. What a wonderful thing! It will be one of those labor-saving devices to which no one who is in the middle of a long campaign could possibly object, and what an advantage to be able to speak to the men and women you represent, not in the excited, hectic, controversial atmosphere of a public meeting with all its rowdy-ness and interruptions, which have grown considerably, I am bound to say, as time has gone on, but in quiet surroundings after a long day's toil.
It is a great gift which has been given to us, and, like so many of the gifts of science, we have so far neglected and almost rejected it. Just as we are told that because mankind has become so wonderfully skilled in making all the things it wants there for we must enter upon a period of grim privation and tighten our belts, so in this field of broadcasting, when this gift has been given to us in the most critical period in our history, we find it neglected, laid aside and almost stifled. I am, of course, speaking of political controversy. I agree with all that the right hon. Gentleman said about the high quality of British broadcasting in the entertainment which is given to the public, but upon the question of political controversy, in which the House is interested tonight, turns the practical utility of this instrument for the future. Since when have the British Government shirked or been afraid of controversy? I have never heard of such a thing. Controversy has been the buoyancy of Government and the means by which they have kept themselves alive. Ministers are kept keen on the grindstone of criticism, and very often the process of framing the answer to an attack has been the spur which has discovered the remedy for an evil. I have sat long enough in Cabinets to know how refreshing it is when the atmosphere of smug complacency and mutual admiration is broken in upon by the window being flung open and a keen, even bitter gust of fresh air comes in.
Why should this Government be afraid of controversy? I could conceive that if you had a weak Government, a Government with a lot of second-rate men, a Government which was suffering from the new disease which the Prime Minister has discovered, this "Being below par" disease; I could quite conceive that such a Government might well wish to build up

1859
any little adventitious shield or protection to keep itself in security from outside shock. But when you have a National Administration of all the choicest spirits of the age, pulsating with energy, aglow with inspiration, with an appetite for activity, such a Government has certainly no need to shrink from the sharpest contact with criticism. Indeed, it is, of all Governments, the one Government that should take the plunge and open the broadcast freely to political controversy, from every quarter and of every kind. I must admit that there are limits. Sedition and obscenity are punished by law, and no one suggests that they should be admitted to the broadcast. The violation of official secrets is protected by legislation.
I do not attach any importance to the arguments which we hear, that you must not talk about Indian or foreign affairs. Let me take Indian affairs first. I am not going into detail, but I think it has been very wrong that there has been no permission given during the whole of these last two and a-half years for a statement of views which some of those who are not represented either by the official Government or the official Opposition are able to share. I think that has been very wrong and unfair. What harm could it do in India that is not capable of being done already by a speech or article that is telegraphed out to India? Obviously, the withholding from the broadcast of Indian matters is not because of any fear of influencing the Indians, who have not these facilities in their 750,000 villages, but who receive telegraph reports. The object is to prevent the formation of British opinion. That is what I thing is unfair and a fraud. It is an abuse of power and an abuse of this great institution to try to prevent our own fellow countrymen from forming an opinion.
Take foreign affairs. I remember, in bygone days, that the great men used to discuss foreign affairs with enormous latitude. I have heard them say things that, really, would make the hair of the modern, correct politician rise on end. Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Gladstone and other statesmen habitually discussed foreign affairs with great vigor. The foreign nations did not take offence, because they said: "It is only Mr. So-and-So," or "Mr. So-and-So." Then,
1860
somebody else answered him, and one tale is good until another is told; very often only good until another is told. In the past there was a great deal of plain speaking about foreign affairs. But why was there irritation the other day in Poland? Because it was not a man's opinion that was being given, not the opinion of a public man, who could be corrected by other public men, but because it was this impersonal, subhuman or superhuman sham god that was speaking.
These well-meaning gentlemen of the British Broadcasting Corporation have absolutely no qualifications and no claim to represent British public opinion. They have no right to say that they voice the opinions of English or British people whatever. If anyone can do that it is His Majesty's Government; and there may be two opinions about that. It would be far better to have sharply contrasted views in succession, in alternation, than to have this copious stream of pontifical anonymous mugwumpery with which we have been dosed so long. I am very much encouraged by this Debate. I think there is a general feeling in the House, even among the Liberals, a minority, and it may be an increasing minority, that I am championing fair play and free speech. This Debate, if it is properly interpreted and enforced, may mean the opening of a new, wider and freer use of this great instrument, which if it is opened to the political life of the nation can only bring enhancement to the strength of the State, and set upon more permanent foundations the institutions which this small island has evolved.
10.33 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: If the people of England will only read word for word what the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) has just said they will bear a good deal of resentment at the fact that they have been denied hearing him on the microphone. No one could have listened to a more amusing, constructive and instructive speech, and it is a thousand pities that his voice is not heard more often in homes up and down the country. I have a certain feeling of complaint tonight. This is a private Members' night, and so far we have had five Cabinet Ministers and Front Bench speakers. The last speaker made up for a lot, but there were others which were not so good. But

1861
when the Postmaster-General speaks -early in the evening—it is the first time I have heard the right hon. Gentleman as Postmaster-General—almost imitating broadcasting by reading his speech, and occupies no less than three-quarters of an hour with a promise that he would speak again later in the evening, it is really intolerable to call tonight a private Members' night. There are many, subjects of controversy upon which I should like to have said something, but having listened to so many long speeches I shall occupy only five minutes in making my own.
I want to draw the attention of the House to a particular feature which has been introduced today into our life. Hitherto it has been laid down that the British Broadcasting Corporation is not a party matter. The Postmaster-General has always looked upon it as something apart, something over which he has general control but not actual control. Will hon. Members notice what has occurred through the Whips today? There was a Motion put down by a right hon. Gentleman here, a Motion with which I do not agree and with which I do not think the House would have agreed. I do not think this is the light time to have an inquiry into broadcasting in its entirety, because the charter ceases in two years' time. But that is no reason why the hosts of the National Government should be rallied round by a Whip to defeat that Motion. This is the first time we have had the party machine behind the British Broadcasting Corporation. I sincerely hope it will not occur again. The British Broadcasting Corporation must be divorced from party. If this is the start, let the Chief Whip realize that when another party sits opposite we shall get worse things than this. If they are to carry on from a party point of view the independence of the British Broadcasting Corporation ceases from that moment.
This is the first Debate we have had on broadcasting for three years. I think the Postmaster-General said that. When I asked him, by way of interjection, whose fault it was, he endeavored to chaff me by saying, had I not drawn a Motion in the ballot and could not I have chosen this subject for discussion? As a matter of fact I have never had the luck to draw a Motion. But it is intolerable that a subject which interests
1862
the whole House and country can only be discussed upon a private Member's Motion. The main reason for my rising is to tell the House plainly that this is not to be so in future. When the British Broadcasting Company existed before the Corporation the money got from the licenses went to the Company. At present under the Charter it goes to the Government, and the Government give a grant to the Corporation. The moment it becomes a grant it is a debatable subject in this House, and I sincerely hope that on the Postmaster-General's Vote we shall get more discussions of this kind. Of course, it will devolve on the Opposition to choose the Vote that is to be discussed, but I hope it will be made perfectly clear that we shall have another opportunity later to speak on this subject, even if we have been jockeyed out of it before, as we have been jockeyed out by every trick of the trade in this House. The present Corporation have not got a monopoly; there is no monopoly contained in the Charter; and if we are not allowed to discuss the British Broadcasting Corporation we can discuss by the hour the possibility and desirability of installing another station which can compete with the British Broadcasting Corporation.
My right hon. Friend boasted that in this country we had not got the sponsored programmed and the terrible things happening in America. I do not think he listens very much to his programmed, or he has not got the right wavelength. You have advertisements now from Radio Normandie, which is flooding the whole of England. A foreign station is taking good English money, and when our own stations are not used as often on Sundays as at other times, it seems to me right that we might take a little of the money by using those stations for sponsored programmed instead of letting the money go abroad. As I always complain of long speeches I make only short ones. I hope that the Opposition will come to our rescue later in the Session on Votes in Supply, when they can choose what we shall discuss, and that they will give us another opportunity of letting the Postmaster-General think that perhaps we are not so satisfied with the child that he is going apparently to adopt — why, Heaven only knows— and that he thinks a so desirable child.
10.40 p.m.
Sir ERNEST GRAHAM-LITTLE: The whole trend of the Debate this evening has been towards the political aspect of broadcasting. I wish to introduce some remarks upon the educational aspect. A letter appeared in the "Times" on 6th February signed by a number of educational experts and from that letter I quote the following sentence:
"There is a large body of silent opinion which is more interested in educational than in political programmes."
It is forgotten, I think, that the Charter of the British Broadcasting Corporation was granted upon a very specific promise that there should be widely spread educational broadcasts. From the report upon which the Charter was founded, I quote the following sentences:
"We are much impressed by evidence reaching us from authoritative witnesses who advocate the vigorous and extended employment of broadcasting for education in its widest and most liberal sense. This has been achieved with notable success in the case of musical education and we doubt not that in many other directions similar advantages will accrue. Although the number of listeners may be relatively small compared with the total number of licenses they deserve special assistance."
An examination of the current year book of the British Broadcasting Corporation shows under the heading "Events of the Year" that for 10 months, during which some 300 or 400 events are mentioned, only four of those can in any sense be described as promoting education in a wide and liberal sense. It is to that proportion in the programmed that I wish to draw the attention of the House, and I put in a plea for the wider use of educational opportunities. The disregard of educational opportunities is particularly absurd in London because in the administrative county of London there are 50 or more colleges of university rank contributing fresh knowledge and competing with each other in putting forward that knowledge. For instance, at one of these colleges a lecture was given 'a few weeks ago by Lord Rutherford, the first physicist of his generation, on "The Transmutation of Matter." That lecture was listened to by 300 persons, and ought to have been listened to by five million. I do not think that the British Broadcasting Corporation need have any fear that what are called "high-brow" discourses will not be acceptable. University members, I think, may point with pride to the growth of the number of students
1864
in the universities of the country, which demonstrates the fact that there is a large and increasing audience for serious material. The University of London, our Metropolitan University, according to the last figures, has 25,000 students, and that significant fact may give the British Broadcasting Corporation every confidence in providing us with more educational programmes.
10.44 p.m.
Captain PETER MACDONALD: In the few moments which remain to me of what is supposed to be a Private Members' Debate, though it has been almost monopolized by Front Bench speakers, I would like to deal with an aspect of this question which has been so far neglected. I refer to the Empire Broadcasting station which was started a short time ago at Daventry, linking this country with every part of the Empire. I take the opportunity of congratulating the British Broadcasting Corporation upon their enterprise in pressing forward with this great experiment of Empire in the face of great difficulties, financial and otherwise. No one who had the privilege of listening to the "Round the Empire" programmed broadcast at Christmas time, when the voice, not only of Big Ben, but of our most Gracious Sovereign, was brought to the loneliest dweller in the most remote parts of the British Empire, can have anything but a feeling of pride, not only in the Empire itself, but in the British Broadcasting Corporation, for its sagacity, enterprise, and skill in bringing about this great link with the Empire.
This experiment is in its initial stages, and in order to make it a success, it is essential that it should have the wholehearted co-operation, not only of the Dominions, but of the Colonies as well. You can only have that co-operation if you give those Dominions and Colonies a programmed which they want, and at a time when they are best able to receive it, and in order to give them that programmed, you must have a knowledge of the Empire so as to know what their requirements are. If I have any criticism to offer, it is that there is no member of the board of governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation who can be said to have a special knowledge of Empire affairs. I think that there the Postmaster-General has an opportunity, as he has the power of nominating mem-

1865
bers to that board, to add to the board or replace some less suitable member by a member who really does represent Empire opinion and has a knowledge of the conditions in the different parts of the Empire.
In this experimental stage I would strongly urge that the corporation should maintain a very open mind as to what its future policy is to be, and when I say an open mind, I do not mean a vacant or an empty mind, but that it must concentrate on the problems which are confronting it in this great and wise experiment. There has been a certain amount of criticism of the programmed which have already been sent out, but that criticism is bound to come while the enterprise is in its experimental stages. The corporation has had great difficulty in getting its wavelength across so wide an area, because it should be remembered that there are 300 degrees of difference in longitude and some 40 hours of difference in time between the various parts of the Empire and Greenwich. These are only a few points which confront the British Broadcasting Corporation in carrying out this wise experiment. It is bound to meet with other difficulties, and it is bound to meet with opposition and criticism, but I would strongly urge it to press on with this great experiment, this great link of Empire, and I believe that it will reap benefits, not only for the Empire, but for civilisation, which will justify the confidence placed in the enterprise.
10.50 p.m.
Duchess of ATHOLL: The Postmaster-General congratulated himself upon having refuted the accusation of political bias because he was being attacked from both sides. He was taking it too easily, because, as I understand it, the criticism that comes from the Front Opposition Bench is in regard to talks in which a whole political party is represented but the complaint from the right hon. Gentleman's own supporters is more in regard to other talks, talks of the kind referred to by the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan). He was apparently quite ready to accept that in these there should be a Left bias. I do not agree with my hon. Friend. While, with him, I have no wish whatever to see controversy avoided in British Broadcasting Corporation talks, I think
1866
there is undeniable evidence that, in regard to some of those talks or series of talks, both sides are not being presented. In some cases the side which has not been represented is something much more than the minority point of view referred to by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). An instance in point has been brought forward by Mr. J. O. P. Bland, who, in a recent book of his, has some very strong criticisms on the British Broadcasting Corporation, saying that all British Broadcasting Corporation talks on China give one point of view, upholding the Nan king Government and making no reference to the terrible atrocities which Communist armies have committed in China.
For some months past, or even for a year or two, I have been of opinion that the treatment of conditions in Russia is very one-sided. It is now three or four years since the professors of Russian in our various universities approached the British Broadcasting Corporation on this subject, saying that the talks that were given were too political in their nature and asking that some of them should give a more real idea of conditions in Russia. In the summer of 1931 there was a series of talks in which those who criticised the regime in Russia were allowed some hearing though more hearing was given to those who praised it. In view of the criticism of the professors of Russian, it is very strange that the reviewing of this series of talks was given to an assistant of one of these professors who had given one of these talks. The assistant was an admitted Communist and, in very bad taste, was very discourteous about his chief. It was a very unwise selection, both in itself, and, as it proved, especially in view of the warning which had been given by the professors of Russian that the British Broadcasting Corporation were not being sufficiently careful. Then as recently as last autumn Mrs. Sidney Webb gave a broadcast talk on Russia which was very uncontroversial and restrained in tone but had one or two very important omissions which made it very incomplete. It purported to be a picture of Soviet democracy and much emphasis was laid on the wide franchise in Russia. Nothing was said about the facts that after the revolution all election by ballot had been wiped out after having existed for years and that there was no free election as lists of candi-

1867
dates were sent down. The mere mention of those facts, if they had been brought out, would have shown how inappropriate was the word "democracy." She also spoke of the Federal Government of Russia being supreme in all national affairs, but omitted to mention that the Communist party controlled the Soviet Government. I submit that if the matter were to be fairly presented, that broadcast should have been followed by another which would have rectified some of these omissions, and thereby have enabled a more complete picture to be presented.
In another more recent series of talks by Professor Toynbee on Russia he states that the anti-God campaign is being given up. But admits that he had not been in Russia since 1930, and he seems to have failed to realise how much this campaign has progressed since then. The official organ of the movement on January 7th specifically foreshadowed redoubled activity in the anti-God campaign during the second Five-Year Plan. Therefore I say that these talks by Professor Toynbee are extremely misleading on a point of interest to people in this country and to whoever values religion, and this series of talks should be followed by others which could correct any inaccurate impression that might have been made. It seems to me that in this matter the British Broadcasting Corporation seem afraid of Russia. Let us recognise that what is taking place there is one of the most controversial subjects that can be touched upon, and do not let us be afraid to have it treated from both sides.
We look to the Broadcasting Corporation to give us, above all things, facts. We are never afraid to give our people facts, and let not the corporation be
afraid to give them facts. Only in that way can they avoid misleading many thousands of people. We have to remember that when speeches are made at political meetings there are interruptions and questions at the end, but anything that comes over the wireless is lapped up in a receptive spirit, and it may be very difficult for people to have the knowledge with which to discuss the questions broadcast. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities in the fear that our people should have the broadcast mind, that is the mind which freely receives and takes in what it hears without question. The exercise of mental franchise is one of the dearest of life's treasures, and unless people hear every point of view we cannot be sure that it will be retained by our people.
Mr. EMMOTT rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put the Question.
Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: I only want to add one thing to what has already been said. The Postmaster-General in dealing with these complaints should take also into account the proper engagement of people who deal in non-Parliamentary controversy. At the present time, the corporation are only too ready to select haphazardly someone to represent a point of view when they are not really fitted to represent that point of view at all. I hope that the corporation will bear that in mind.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 203; Noes, 27.

Division No. 52.]

AYES.

[11.0 p.m.

Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

Boulton, W. W.

Carver, Major William H.

Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Albery, Irving James

Bracken, Brendan

Christie, James Archibald

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Aske, Sir Robert William

Brass, Captain Sir William

Conant, R. J, E.

Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

Cook, Thomas A.

Atholl, Duchess of

Broadbent, Colonel John

Crooke, J. Smedley

Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard

Beaumont, M. W. (Buck., Aylesbury)

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)

Culverwell, Cyril Tom

Bernays, Robert

Buchan, John

Curry, A. C.

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.

Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)

Burnett, John George

Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

Blindell, James

Cadogan, Hon. Edward

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Boothby, Robert John Graham

Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

Denville, Alfred

Borodale, Viscount

Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

Dickie, John P.

Bossom, A. C.

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Donner, P. W.

Drawe, Cedric

Leckie, J. A.

Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham

Duggan, Hubert John

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

Dunglass, Lord

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

Eales, John Frederick

Levy, Thomas

Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

Edge, Sir William

Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

Little, Graham, Sir Ernest

Rosbotham, Sir Samuel

Elmley, Viscount

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)

Runge, Norah Cecil

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

Loder, Captain J. de Vere

Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Salt, Edward W.

Fleming, Edward Lascelles

Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Ford, Sir Patrick J.

McKeag, William

Scone, Lord

Fraser, Captain Ian

McKie, John Hamilton

Selley, Harry R.

Fremantle, Sir Francis

Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Ganzoni, Sir John

McLean, Major Sir Alan

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

Gluckstein, Louis Halle

Magnay, Thomas

Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

Goldie, Noel S.

Maitland, Adam

Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C>

Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

Somervell, Donald Bradley

Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Soper, Richard

Graves, Marjorie

Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

Greene, William P. C.

Marsden, Commander Arthur

Storey, Samuel

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Martin, Thomas B.

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Grimston, R. V.

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

Hales, Harold K.

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Summersby, Charles H.

Hammersley, Samuel S.

Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

Hanley, Dennis A.

Morrison, William Shephard

Thompson, Luke

Harbord, Arthur

Muirhead, Major A. J.

Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

Munro, Patrick

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Touche, Gordon Cosmo

Hepworth, Joseph

Normand, Wilfrid Guild

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

Holdsworth, Herbert

Nunn, William

Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

Owen, Major Goronwy

Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

Horsbrugh, Florence

Palmer, Francis Noel

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

Patrick, Colin M.

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

Pearson, William G.

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

Peat, Charles U.

Watt, Captain George Steven H.

Iveagh, Countess of

Penny, Sir George

Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

Percy, Lord Eustace

Weymouth, Viscount

Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)

Petherick, M.

White, Henry Graham

Jamleson, Douglas

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Janner, Barnett

Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

Wills, Wilfred D.

Jennings, Roland

Procter, Major Henry Adam

Wise, Alfred H.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

Womersley, Walter James

Ker, J. Campbell

Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

Kerr, Hamilton W.

Ramsbotham, Herwald

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Kimball, Lawrence

Ramsden, Sir Eugene

Mr. Emmott and Captain P.

Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

Rea, Walter Russell

Macdonald.

NOES.

Attlee, Clement Richard

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

McEntee, Valentine L.

Banfield, John William

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

Milner, Major James

Batey, Joseph

Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

Parkinson, John Allen

Cape, Thomas

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Price, Gabriel

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Hirst, George Henry

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

Cove, William G.

Jenkins, Sir William

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

Daggar, George

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Lawson, John James

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Edwards, Charles

Lunn, William

Mr. Tinker and Mr. Groves.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
"That this House, being satisfied that the British Broadcasting Corporation maintains in general a high standard of service, is of opinion that it would be contrary to the public interest to subject the Corporation to any control by Government or by Parliament other than the control already provided for in the charter and the licence of the Corporation; that controversial matter is rightly not excluded from broadcast programmed, but that the governors should ensure the effective expression of all important opinion relating thereto; and that only by the exercise of the greatest care in the selection of speakers and subjects can the
1870
function of the Corporation be fulfilled and the high quality of the British broadcasting service be maintained."
The Orders of the Day were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.
Resolved, That this House do now adjourn. —[Captain Margesson.]
Adjourned accordingly at Ten Minutes after Eleven o'clock.