§ 8.1 p.m.
§ Mr. MOLSON
I beg to move, in page 181, line 30, to leave out "in British India."
Perhaps I may deal with the first two Amendments in my name together, as one is consequential on the other. The Subsection at present reads: 1072"No person in British India shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.I am moving two Amendments, to omit "in British India" in line 30, and to insert after "property" in line 31 "in British India," so that the effect will be that no person shall be deprived of his property in India. It seems quite clear that in a Constitution of this kind there is no reason why anyone living in any place should be deprived of his property in India save by operation of law.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
This is an improvement from the layman's point of view. The effect of the Clause without the Amendment would probably be the same, but I accept it.
§ 8.2 p.m.
§ Mr. H. WILLIAMS
May I ask whether it covers the point raised in my Amendment, which is the third on the Paper, because there is the further case that somebody living in India might have property outside India which, on account of action in India, might be taken away. There is property represented by pieces of paper, and it is conceivable you might have an action of that kind. I drafted my Amendment to go a little further than the Amendment we are now discussing. I think it raises a point of real substance. I do not know whether the Attorney-General has considered it, but my Amendment covers all that is in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson) and a little besides, and gives a little further protection which ought to be afforded.
§ 8.3 p.m.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
If the property is outside India, no expropriation can take place by virtue of any legislation in India. That covers the point which I think my hon. Friend intended to raise in his Amendment.
§ Mr. WILLIAMS
Suppose I am living in India and I possess some property outside India by virtue of some form of document, and an Act is passed in India whereby the possession of that document is transferred to somebody else, and with the transfer of the document passes the property. In that case, clearly an Act of the Indian Legislature would transfer property which in fact was situated outside India. I think there is a further 1073 point for consideration, and I ask the Attorney-General to give consideration to it.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
If the piece of paper is in India, I suppose, in theory, the Indian Legislature can transfer that piece of paper from A to B, but that would not affect the transfer of any property that happened to be mentioned in the piece of paper, or for which the piece of paper was a title deed. The Indian Legislature could not transfer property outside India by legislation which they passed.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Further Amendment made: In page 161, line 31, after "property," insert "in British India."—[Mr. Molson.]
§ 8.4 p.m.
§ Mr. MOLSON
I beg to move, in page 161, line 34, to leave out from "acquisition" to "unless" in line 35, and to insert:of property belonging to any person or the compulsory extinguishment or modification of rights therein.There are three Amendments standing in my name which are more or less consequential. With your permission, I would like to deal with all three and explain the general purpose I have in moving them. I feel that my friends and I owe an apology to the Committee for having put down so many Amendments which are rather confusing, but it has been in an attempt to devise a form of words which will be effective for the purpose and which will not be unduly hampering to the new Legislature to be set up in India. As I understand it, the purpose of this Clause was to give legislative effect to certain recommendations which were made originally in the fourth report of the Federal Structure Committee of the Round Table Conference, where "there was general agreement to the proposal that property rights should be guaranteed in the Constitution and provision should be made whereby no person could be deprived of his property save by due process of law and for a public purpose, and then only on payment of fair and just compensation, to be assessed by a judicial tribunal." That was generally agreed to at the Round Table Conference. It was a demand made by Indians, 1074 who were in many cases chiefly concerned about real property, and it was supported by the European community in India who were anxious that, at the same time that they were protected against discrimination, they should also be given protection against expropriation. The Government accepted the principle of this recommendation and in the White Paper it is provided, in paragraph 75, thatthey are satisfied that certain provisions of this kind"—that is fundamental rights—such, for instance, as the respect due to personal liberty and rights of property …can appropriately, and should, find a place in the Constitution Act.Then, finally, this recommendation was accepted by the Joint Select Committee which, in paragraph 369, recommends that"legislation expropriating, or authorising the expropriation of, the property of particular individuals should be lawful only if confined to expropriation for public purposes and if compensation is determined, either in the first instance or on appeal, by some independent authority.I am sorry to say that in the Clause of the Bill as drafted, the Government have not carried out the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee. There is a number of very serious omissions in this Clause. In the first place, a distinction has been drawn between real property and personal property. In the second place, there is only provision for protection against the expropriation of land if it is the property of a private individual. It would appear that a company does not obtain protection. In the third place, there is no protection against the compulsory acquisition, the expropriation, of property belonging to a private person, unless it is acquired for a public purpose. I would point out that it is very easy to imagine, for example, in the case of the permanent settlement in Bengal the Legislature there might wish to deprive certain people of their property without compensation, and not take it over for a public purpose but transfer it to some other person. In the fourth place, even if these various conditions are satisfied and therefore there cannot be expropriation without compensation, there is no provision in this Clause as drafted for 1075 that independent assessment of the compensation to be paid which was recommended by the Joint Select Committee.
We therefore feel that there is no good purpose in this Committee examining with so much care Chapter III of Part V of this Bill in order to make certain that there should be no unfair discrimination against British commercial interests in India if under this Clause it is possible for all property that is not real property, all property that belongs to a company and not to a private individual, all property that is not acquired for a public purpose, to be expropriated without compensation and with no provision for the compensation to be paid being assessed by an independent authority. It is for that reason I move this Amendment. In the third Amendment we are inserting a provision that there shall be assessment by a tribunal approved by the Governor-General or Governor in his discretion.
§ 8.13 p.m.
§ Mr. H. WILLIAMS
I would like to congratulate the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson) on the series of Amendments which stand in his name and the names of his colleagues. As far as I can see, they more than cover the point raised in the Amendment which immediately follows in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Thorp). I think very definitely that if an Act of Parliament is passed either here, in India or anywhere else, taking people's property, that property ought to be paid for. That is a simple and definite principle, and I gather that even the most enthusiastic members of the party opposite, having regard to the ever-increasing possessions of the people of this country, do not now look upon "Socialism in our time" as Socialism without compensation, although there are certain contradictions in terms. In the Bill as it stood there was a limitation that it only applied Sub-section (2) to land belonging to private persons and therefore by implication, if the land belonged to any kind of corporate body—no doubt the learned Attorney-General will put us right if we are wrong in our interpretation—they would not be entitled to any compensation. That seems to me an extraordinary point of view that the Government were going to protect the rights of a private individual, because the Clause says: 1076"for public purposes of land belonging to private persons.The Amendment does not say "private persons" but "any person." I believe I am correct that unless there are words to the contrary in an Act of Parliament the word "person" include company and bodies of any kind.
§ Mr. MOLSON
My hon. Friend will see that I have an Amendment to Clause 280 which exactly covers that point and interprets "person" as including a company.
§ Mr. WILLIAMS
I had not seen that Amendment, but I believe that without a further Amendment the word "person," actually includes all bodies that may be owners of anything. I welcome the Amendment of the hon. Member and hope it will be carried having regard to the careful consideration which the Front Bench very properly gives to Amendments that come from the quarter to which I have referred as the Nabobs of India.
§ 8.16 p.m.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
The hon. Member who moved this Amendment has referred the Committee to the recommendations in paragraph 369 of the report of the Joint Select Committee. Undoubtedly the Joint Select Committee realised that there were considerable difficulties in the way of drafting a Clause which would effect this most laudable object. Most of us, without prejudice to the hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite, share the view that no property ought to be taken except upon proper compensation being paid. That, however, is a statement which it is more easy to make than to apply to every conceivable set of facts. For instance, when this House takes a considerable portion of a person's income or a person's estate after his death, it is not easy to apply the principle that no property should be taken except upon proper compensation being paid. The property is taken and compensation is not paid. I only mention that to show how easy it is to make a general statement that property ought not to be taken without compensation and how difficult it may be to apply it to a particular legislative proposal by way of taxation. I can assure the Committee that most anxious and sincere attention has been given to the proposals contained in paragraph 369 of the Joint 1077 Select Committee's report with a view to carrying out, at any rate the spirit, if not the letter of their recommendations. It is, however, obvious to anybody who has tried to tackle the task of drafting a suitable provision that almost at every turn you come up against some difficulty. It is only when you have exhausted every idea that you can put into words that you really come to the conclusion, as the Government have come, that you cannot really do all that the Joint Select Committee contemplated.
Let me take the question as to the nature of the property that was to be the subject of this provision. The Joint Select Committee undoubtedly envisaged all property. They used the word "property." My hon. Friend has rightly said that the Clause as drawn deals only with land—what in this country we call real property, and, as it includes immovable property, it includes buildings on the land. The Clause, in the form in which it is drawn, leaves out what we call personal property, which would include stocks and shares, securities and movables. When we come to a proposal to include movables which are included in personal property, we are up against the difficulty which I mentioned just now, that it is no good legislating in such a way as to make it illegal to impose taxation upon people who have personal property. It is possible to legislate against the State taking immovable property without compensation, but it is practically impossible—I think quite impossible—to devise words which will prevent them taking personal property without compensation unless we do that which is absurd, namely, make it illegal to tax people and even to impose penal taxation, which is the character of a great deal of taxation in this country as anyone familiar with the Income Tax laws will agree.
Therefore, we have to put in rather more limited words if we are to extend the Clause so as to make it cover something else than immovable property, that is, land. I am prepared to consider on behalf of the Government putting in some additional words. I cannot go as far as my hon. Friend proposes when he would put in personal property simpliciter, but I can go as far as to say that I will gladly consider whether some such words as these cannot be nut in after the word 1078 "land" in line 34—"or any industrial or commercial undertaking." That will have the effect of making it illegal to take the whole undertaking of a person by way of confiscation. I rather think at the moment that that will not prevent any legislation by way of taxation, but it would prevent this rather ridiculous result: the Government might take a piece of land with a building on it for some public purpose and under the Clause as it is drawn, they would have to compensate the owner of the land and the owner of the building, but not the man who is carrying on an industrial or commercial undertaking upon those premises. That would be an absurd result, and it is not in conformity with the views expressed by the Joint Select Committee in paragraph 369.
I do not propose to put the words I suggest in the Bill to-day because they are not on the Order Paper. They are words which, I think, may properly go in, and I will take care that words to that effect are added. The word to which I should personally attach a great deal of importance is "undertaking," because it refers to something which is identifiable, and it does not run up against the difficulty that I have mentioned of taking money or personal property except by taxation. For instance, it would cover, I think, a proposal to take a fleet of steamboats, an undertaking which somebody was carrying on in the way of commerce or industry. That is as far as I feel able to go in connection with that objection.
The next objection which my hon. Friend put was that the Clause as drawn deals only with the property of private persons. I am perfectly prepared to agree on that point. There are two Amendments on the Paper which propose to insert words to make it plain that companies are included as well as persons as owners of property. I am not sure whether "companies" is quite the proper word. I think my hon. Friend suggested "a body or a company." I do not much like "a body," and I do not know that it may not be necessary to say "incorporated company," but I will take care to put in words to make it plain that legal persons are intended as well as natural persons. That will meet my hon. Friend's second, point. The third objection is that there is no protection in the 1079 Clause against taking property except "for public purposes." I should have been very glad if the words "for public purposes" could have been left out, and my first impression was that they could safely be omitted, but then we are brought face to face with this difficulty. Suppose under a writ of execution to enforce a judgment in an action between A and B, they came along and took a man's property to satisfy the judgment. That could not be taking "for public purposes," but if we left out the words "for public purposes" the Clause as drawn would make it illegal to take a man's property in satisfaction of a judgment unless he were compensated for it, and that is nonsense. That is the sole reason why the words "for public purposes" are in. There was no intention in any way of limiting the operation of the Clause. It might in theory have a little limiting effect, but in practice I do not think one could contemplate any legislation of the character my hon. Friend envisaged, namely, taking a person's or a company's property for the purpose of handing it over to some other person. In theory it is possible, but in practice I should not think any Legislature would do it.
§ Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE
If that be the only difficulty about the words "for public purposes," would it not be possible to put in a proviso which would cover taxation or a judgment under a writ?
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
It must not be supposed that the cases which I have given are exhaustive. I have mentioned two difficult cases, and I could mention others. In this country we have lately been familiar with legislation which takes slum property upon giving practically no compensation, or in some cases no compensation at all, to the owners. I do not go into the question of whether that is good legislation or not, some of us on this side have views which are not the views of everybody on that subject, and I am not going to say a word about that question. I only mention it as an illustration of legislation which involves the taking of property without compensation. I do not want to suggest that the examples I have given are exhaustive. When my hon. Friend says. "Put in a proviso to except taxation and to except judgments"—
§ Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE
My right hon. and learned Friend will realise the difficulty of leaving the Clause as it is, because there is undoubtedly a danger.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
One can only deal with this thing, so to speak, in detail. One cannot take the Clause and say that it does not do all that one would like it to do. If that were my hon. Friend's criticism I should not part company with him. I should like to see more done by the Clause. I should like to see legislation in this country that would prevent confiscation without compensation, but there are some things we cannot do. Language cannot be designed to prevent that sort of legislation, quite apart from the fact that it is open to Parliament to do anything. That is the reason why we must retain these words "for public purposes." The next objection, and the last, that was taken was that there is no provision for the assessment of compensation by an independent authority. The reason for that, which I recognise to be a departure from the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee, is that in some cases legislation, such as the Land Acquisition Act in India, provides for assessment of compensation otherwise than by an independent authority. For instance, it provides for assessment by a revenue official. Ice, is true that the assessment made by him is subject to confirmation by a district judge, but still the assessment is made by a revenue official. In general, I have no doubt that Parliament would provide for a measure of compensation or a principle of compensation that would almost of necessity leave the compensation to be fixed by some tribunal either appointed for the express purpose or already in existence but if only for the reason that there are existing Acts of Parliament which provide for the assessment of compensation for taking certain portions of property otherwise than by an independent tribunal I cannot—
§ Mr. MOLSON
Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman read Subsection (4) which says:Nothing in this Section shall affect the provisions of any law in force at the time of the passing of this Act.
§ The ATTORNEY - GENERAL
Oh, yes, I recognise that, and I had not forgotten it. Perhaps I ought to have 1081 elaborated what I was saying. What I intended my hon. Friend to understand is that just as there is existing legislation that is necessary to deal with the matter covered by the legislation, so there might have to be legislation of the same sort in connection, for instance, with tenancy legislation. My hon. Friend opposite will know much better than I do that the regulation of the rights of landlords and tenants involving rights in property and in land is a very important subject of legislation; and it would be impossible to put words into this Clause which would interfere with the proper freedom of the Legislature in dealing with matters of that sort, very likely on the same lines as in the Land Acquisition Act.
I have told the Committee that I am prepared to meet my hon. Friends to a certain extent about personal property; I will meet them altogether about private persons and companies; I am not able to meet them about "for public purposes"; and I am not able to meet them over the suggestion to put in a proviso that compensation shall be assessed by an independent authority. But I will do something which has not been suggested by either of my hon. Friends. I am prepared to undertake that there shall be inserted in the Instrument of Instructions a provision that Bills of an expropriatory character which the Governor-General or the Governor does not feel justified forthwith in disallowing on grounds of inequity should be reserved for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure. If a provision of that sort goes into the Instrument of Instructions the Governor-General will have the full power of exercising his general veto, and there will also be a direction that if he does not feel able to go as far as that, at any rate that he should reserve a Bill which is really of a confiscatory character for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure.
I hope that hon. Members who are anxious about this matter will think that the way in which I have met them is satisfactory, having regard to all the circumstances. I do not think that we should attempt to place fetters upon the Indian Legislatures beyond what is reasonably necessary to prevent confiscation without compensation. We must trust to some extent to the good sense 1082 and the public spirit of the Legislatures, in the belief that they will do things as we, with our great experience—as we think—and our position in this country, try to do them. The more you try to tie up the Legislatures the more difficulties you make both for yourself and for the Legislatures. What we can do is to try to make our general principles, which I think we shall have laid down if the Clause is amended as I suggest, as sound as possible. I hope that my hon. Friends will think that the Government are going as far as is reasonable, and that they will support the Government.
§ 8.36 p.m.
§ Mr. MORGAN JONES
I do not propose to follow the Attorney-General in all the details in which he has discussed this matter, but I wish he would translate the very amiable generalisation with which he completed his speech into something more practical, and that he would present a firmer front to the voracious gentlemen who surround him on every hand. I see that the Attorney-General disagrees with my description, which appears to me to be an entirely adequate one. I have listened to almost the whole of the proceedings on the Bill, and the more I have listened the more staggered I have been at the number of interests which have had to be safeguarded. For over a fortnight we have been safeguarding this, that and the other interest, and in doing so we have added chain upon chain to the limbs of the future Indian Legislature until it seems that it will be almost impossible for it to move at all. Is there any justification for these things? I agree with the Attorney-General that we ought to be able to rely upon the good sense of the—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I have no objection to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) making the speech which he is now making on the Amendment, but, if he raises general questions, rather wide general questions, it must be clearly understood that those questions cannot be raised again on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ 8.38 p.m.
§ Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE
I would like, in the first place, to express my gratitude to the Attorney-General for what he has done to try and meet us. He has gone a very long way. He will not be surprised if I now say that I am naturally a little disappointed that he has not been able to go a little further. I want to save the time of the Committee, so I will not go over the points on which he has been able to meet us, but I will deal specially with the assessment of compensation. I would remind him, although he probably needs no reminding, that it is clearly laid down in the recommendations in the Report of the Joint Select Committee that there should be compensation, which should be assessed by an independent tribunal. I realise the difficulties of the Attorney-General in setting up such a tribunal in. an Act of Parliament in a way that will work equitably in all cases, but surely it is not impossible to cover the matter a little more definitely than in the way he has suggested.
There appears to be very little harm in any of these Amendments. One of them proposes to leave compensation to be assessed by a tribunal approved by the Governor-General or the Governors, as the case may be, or, if it be not desired to put still further responsibilities upon the Governor-General or the Governors, it proposes that the assessment of such compensation shall be by an assessor or assessors from whose decision appeal will lie to a judicial court. I should have thought there could be no practical difficulty in accepting one or the other of the Amendments. There is very strong feeling in this country and in India that we must safeguard against the possibility of private property being expropriated without reasonable compensation when such a complete change is taking place.
I agree entirely with the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his hope and belief that the Legislatures in India will act as we do in this country and treat all subjects reasonably; we believe and hope that that will be the case, but that does not alter the fact that those who have property are entitled to ask that the recommendations which the Joint Select Committee so clearly laid down should be carried out. The majority of the members of the Joint Select Committee were strongly in favour of this position 1084 being safeguarded. The Attorney-General has had much experience, and on almost any other subject he has had a great deal more experience than I have, but on this subject, if he had had as much experience as I have had, even of governments of India in the past, he would be quite as anxious about safeguarding property in India as I am, in order to see that it shall be secured in every possible way against any action which might be taken.
I have a very vivid recollection of property which was acquired for public purposes—so-called public purposes—some 18 years ago in India. It meant the removal of a large portion of land. It may interest the Committee to know that a comparatively flourishing business had to disappear because of the acquisition of that property, and that there was very insufficient and poor compensation. I saw the same land when I visited India some months ago, and nothing whatever bad been done to it in the 18 years. Governments are not always far-seeing in the action which they take, and I press upon the Committee the desirability of dealing with this matter, which is causing a very great deal of anxiety to a very large number of people. I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for what he has tried to do, but I ask him to say whether he can deal with the last Amendment in a little more definite way than he has suggested. It is cumbrous that the whole matter should be left to the Instruments of Instructions. I would prefer that compensation should be independently assessed and that if necessary there should be an appeal from the tribunal to a judicial court. As I understand the position, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not prepared to accept these Amendments now, but is prepared to bring in new Clauses on the Report stage. Am I right?
§ 8.53 p.m.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Yes, my hon. Friend rightly understood me. I do not propose to accept these Amendments. In point of form, they would not be suitable, and, in point of substance, for the reasons I have mentioned, they go further than the Government are prepared to go. In answer to the suggestion that it would be more satisfactory to have an independent body to assess compensation, 1085 perhaps I may say that even that provision would not be effective. If there is a mind to confiscate without compensation, all that the Legislature has to do is to say that compensation shall be assessed on the basis of paying the owner 1 per cent. of the market value at the final payment, and then where would you be with regard to your independent assessment for compensation? You cannot find a way out of this difficulty, and a veto on the part of the Governor-General is really the most effective proposal which has emerged.
§ Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE
I am very grateful to the Attorney-General for the trouble he has taken in this matter, and we shall look forward with great interest and hope to the Clause that he will bring forward on Report.
§ Sir H. CROFT
May I say, on behalf of my hon. Friends, that they appreciate that the Attorney-General has gone a long way to meet their point, and I gather from what he has said that he is also going to consider something a little wider than an industrial or commercial undertaking.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
I did not intend to suggest those words to the exclusion of any other words which go a little further than a commercial or industrial undertaking. I will consider that phrase, but I do not want to pledge myself to any particular form of words.
§ Sir H. CROFT
We attach great importance to this subject, but, in order to avoid a prolonged discussion, I will only say that I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for what he has already said.
§ 8.47 p.m.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Sir WALTER SMILES
I should like to call the attention of the Attorney-General to the position of tea companies in India. Many of those companies possess rights which were originally given to private individuals, at the time of the Indian Mutiny, or even before that, when the Naval Brigade went up to Assam. Those rights have been transferred to limited liability companies, some registered in Calcutta and some in London; and many of the grants to tea companies have been altered. There was one place in Assam where only Assamese—natives of the soil—were allowed to take up land, but which has 1086 since been transferred to companies by the sale of their rights. There were other cases where companies had rice land attached to their estates, which they let out to their labourers at a cheaper rate than they could get elsewhere. Already I see it is proposed in the provincial councils that there should be some confiscation of those rice lands because they are let at cheaper rates than elsewhere, and I hope the Attorney-General will consider this point when drafting his new Clause.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
If it is a question of compensation, it will be covered by the Clause as it is drafted.
§ 8.49 p.m.
§ Mr. MOLSON
I desire to express my sincere gratitude to the Attorney-General for what he has said, and still more for his obvious desire to meet us in any reasonable request. I am sorry he has not been more sympathetic towards the proposal regarding assessment. He says it would be possible for the Legislature to provide that compensation should be paid at the rate of 1 per cent. of the market price, but I am not really afraid of that, because obviously such a Bill would be expropriatory on the face of it, and therefore the Instrument of Instructions would come in and a Bill of that kind would be reserved. But a separate point of which we are afraid is that, while the Bill on the face of it might not be expropriatory, nevertheless, because the assessment was not made by an independent body, the compensation paid might in fact be extremely inadequate. It would not be an undue interference with the liberty of a Legislature to adopt such measures as A thinks right and proper, to provide that the assessment on the basis laid down in the legislation should be arrived at by an independent body. I merely mention that point. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 8.51 p.m.
§ Mr. GORDON MACDONALD
I beg to move, in page 161, line 37, to leave out Sub-section (3).
We feel that Sub-section (3) does away with all the value of Sub-sections (1) and (2). I was very much impressed by the appreciation which our point of view re 1087 garding compensation received. We are not a confiscatory party; we accept Subsection (2). I was also impressed when the Attorney-General told us that we must trust the good sense and public spirit of the members of the Federal and Provincial Legislatures, and it is for that reason that we object to Sub-section (3). In my opinion this provision occurs so many times in the Bill that it makes a mockery of any pretence to Parliamentary government. We are told in Sub-section (1) that:No person in British India shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.We subscribe to that; we think it is unfair to take property by any other means. But when we are told that no law can be made without the previous sanction of the Governor-General we feel that that is simply putting the Governor-General in the position of a dictator. If Sub-section (1) and (2) have any value at all, it is that they give the Legislature powers to deal with the land question and the acquisition of land; but all that value is at once lost in Sub-section (3). Our point is a very simple one. We think that this is a vital question which ought to be left to the Legislatures, and that we ought not, while pretending to give them this power, to take it away from them in Sub-section (3).
§ 8.53 p.m.
§ Mr. COCKS
It seems to me that in some respects this Sub-section goes further than the proposals of the Joint Select Committee. Although the Joint Select Committee said that ordinary property in land should be dealt with by such machinery, they made an exception in the case of the Permanent Settlement. That is a very complicated subject—much too complicated to discuss at this moment—and legislation dealing with it could only be passed if it had behind it an overwhelming body of public support. Therefore, in that case, the Joint Select Committee did not think it would be a good thing to impose the safeguard of previous sanction, but recommended that in such a case, as the Government could not escape responsibility, the legislation should be reserved for His Majesty's pleasure after it has been passed. If Sub-section (3) is intended, as I imagine it is, to cover that case, I suggest that it does not 1088 incorporate the proposal of the joint select Committee
§ 8.54 p.m.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
The purpose of this Clause is undoubtedly to protect certain rights which exist, and, although it is in part covered by the observations I have already made, it is intended to give to the Governor-General the power to impose his sanction, so as to prevent any interference with such rights as those referred to in the paragraph, which the hon. Gentleman rightly said he did not want to discuss, in the Report of the Joint Select Committee. The paragraph dealing with the Permanent Settlement would in itself have to be the subject of considerable discussion if we were all to try to understand it properly, but the hon. Gentleman has quite rightly described the intention and purpose of the Clause. The Government take the view that it is a proper Clause, and that it is in accordance with the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee. Between those opposing points of view, I am afraid the Committee will have to choose.
§ 8.55 p.m.
§ Mr. COCKS
I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman rather overlooked the point I put before him. This does not cover the intention, surely, of the Joint Select Committee on the point of the Permanent Settlement. They considered it on a different footing. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will glance rapidly through paragraph 372 of their Report he will see what they thought about it. They believed that the previous sanction of the Governor-General would not be necessary, and that it would be sufficient that sanction should be reserved for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure. That is not, as far as I understand, carried out in a Clause in this Bill.
§ 8.56 p.m.
§ Mr. TINKER
This Sub-section seems to be rather important. It cuts right across Sub-section (2), which gives power to the Indian Legislature to take over land if they pay compensation for it. Immediately after, in Sub-section (3), it says that they cannot do that unless they have the sanction of the Governor-General. It would have been far better to have left Sub-section (2) out altogether 1089 than to have given that power and, immediately afterwards, provide for it to be avoided by another body set up for the purpose. It is important that that power should be put in. I do not know whether the Governor-General has special powers to deal with the legislature on all matters or only on particular matters, but I regard this question as being very important. As has been pointed out by my hon. Friend, we are not pressing for confiscation in this country or any other country, but supreme power should be in the hands of the governing body. If it should be decided to take over land, or any property, they should have the final word upon the matter. I hope that we shall vote against Sub-section (3) in order to show our discontent with this kind of legislation which gives so much power to one man.
§ 8.58 p.m.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
With reference to what the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) has said, the Clause, as I understand it, is intended
to protect, in the legislative sphere, the Jagirdars, who are dealt with in the administrative sphere in Clause 281. There is a reference in the Instruments of Instructions, in paragraph 18, by which the Governor is instructed to reserve, but not to assent to,
any Bill which would alter the character of the Permanent Settlement.
That is, I think, in accordance with the proposal contained in the Report of the Joint Select Committee, but the matter will be further looked into. It is again apparently a question, so I am informed, of finding words which leave out the Permanent Settlement and give proper protection to the Jagirdars and so on. But the matter will be further looked into with a view to seeing that, as far as possible, the Clause is in conformity with the views of the Joint Select Committee.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 189; Noes, 32.1091
|Division No. 149.]||AYES||[9.0 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Elliston, Captain George Sampson||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)||Elmley, Viscount||Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)|
|Aske, Sir Robert William||Emmott, Charles E. G. C.||Ker, J. Campbell|
|Assheton, Ralph||Emrys-Evans, P. V.||Kirkpatrick, William M.|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)||Knox, Sir Alfred|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Essenhigh, Reginald Clare||Law, Sir Alfred|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)||Lennox-Boyd, A. T.|
|Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)||Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)||Lewis, Oswald|
|Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel||Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)||Liddall, Walter S.|
|Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-|
|Blaker, Sir Reginald||Fleming, Edward Lascelies||Liewellin, Major John J.|
|Blindell, James||Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)||Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)|
|Bossom, A. C.||Fox, Sir Gifford||Loder, Captain J. de Vera|
|Boulton, W. W.||Gluckstein, Louis Halle||Loftus, Pierce C.|
|Bracken, Brendan||Goff, Sir Park||Mabane, William|
|Braithwalte, J. G. (Hillsborough)||Goodman, Colonel Albert W.||McEwen, Captain J. H. F.|
|Briscoe, Capt. Richard George||Gower, Sir Robert||McLean, Major Sir Alan|
|Broadbent, Colonel John||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)||McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Grimston, R. V.||Magnay, Thomas|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)||Gritten, W. G. Howard||Mander, Geoffrey le M.|
|Burnett, John George||Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.||Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.|
|Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm||Guy, J. C. Morrison||Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.|
|Caporn, Arthur Cecil||Hacking, Rt. Hon, Douglas H.||Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Cassels, James Dale||Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)||Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)||Hammersley, Samuel S.||Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John|
|Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)||Hartland, George A.||Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)|
|Christie, James Archibald||Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)||Milne, Charles|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)||Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)|
|Clayton, Sir Christopher||Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)|
|Cook, Thomas A.||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale|
|Cooke, Douglas||Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)||Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres|
|Cooper, A. Duff||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Moreing, Adrian C.|
|Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry||Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Hornby, Frank||Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)|
|Crooke, J. Smedley||Horobin, Ian M.||Munro, Patrick|
|Croom. Johnson, R. P.||Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.||Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.|
|Culverwell, Cyril Tom||Hudson. Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)||Nicholson. Godfrey (Morpeth)|
|Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.||Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer||Nunn, William|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.||Orr Ewing, I. L.|
|Dickie, John P.||Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)||Palmer. Francis Noel|
|Donner, P. W.||James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.||Patrick, Colin M.|
|Drewe, Cedric||Jamieson, Douglas||Pickthorn, K. W. M.|
|Duggan, Hubert John||Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)||Potter, John|
|Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)||Radford, E. A.|
|Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)||Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)||Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.|
|Railway, T. B. W. (Western Isles)||Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.||Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)|
|Ramsden, Sir Eugene||Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.||Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)|
|Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)||Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)|
|Reid, David D. (County Down)||Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K-dine, C.)||Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.|
|Reid, William Allan (Derby)||Smithers, Sir Waldron||Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.|
|Remer. John R.||Somervell, Sir Donald||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Ropner, Colonel.||Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)||Wayland, Sir William A.|
|Rosbotham, Sir Thomas||Soper, Richard||Weymouth, Viscount|
|Ross, Ronald D.||Spens, William Patrick||White, Henry Graham|
|Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)||Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Runge, Norah Cecil||Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)||Strauss, Edward A.||Wills, Wilfrid D.|
|Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Strickland, Captain W. F.||Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)|
|Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.||Wise, Alfred R.|
|Salmon, Sir Isidore||Sutcliffe, Harold||Womersley, Sir Walter|
|Salt, Edward W.||Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)||Worthington, Dr. John V.|
|Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).||Thorp, Linton Theodore|
|Selley, Harry R.||Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)||Tree, Ronald||Sir George Penny and Major George Davies.|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Granted, David Reel (Glamorgan)||Maxton, James|
|Banfield, John William||Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)||Milner, Major James|
|Batey, Joseph||Grundy, Thomas W.||Owen, Major Goronwy|
|Buchanan, George||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Rathbone, Eleanor|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Thorne, William James|
|Cove, William G.||Lawson, John James||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Daggar, George||Leonard, William||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon, Josiah|
|Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)||Logan, David Gilbert||Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)|
|Edwards, Charles||McEntee, Valentine L.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Gardner, Benjamin Walter||McGovern, John||Mr. D. Graham and Mr. John.|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur||Mainwaring, William Henry|
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
§ 9.5 p.m.
§ Mr. MORGAN JONES
We want to register a very strong objection to the weakness which the Government have shown in face of the clamant requests of hon. Members for further concessions in the direction of safeguards. It is our view, as I have said more than once, that in the last fortnight we have been piling safeguard upon safeguard, and most of those safeguards have been in the direction of protecting private interests in one way or another. In this particular case we are dealing with a restricted area and a concession has been granted by the Government which in our judgment is very largely unnecessary. I will explain why I think this extra concession is unnecessary. The Governor-General is in possession of very ample powers of veto. If a, Bill is brought forward by the Government in respect of certain matters with which the Governor-General disagrees he may veto it. If the, Bill in the course of its progress through the Legislature is amended in a certain way the Governor-General may insist that the Amendment be withdrawn. If the Bill is carried and the Governor 1092 General still objects he may withhold his assent. These are very ample powers
This evening we are told that the Government are prepared to introduce into the Instrument of Instructions a new proviso, a new safeguard. If a Bill dealing with the expropriation of land is introduced containing terms with which the Governor-General does not agree, he can reserve the Bill for the signification of His Majesty in regard to the matter. We are discussing the question of what may be the attitude of a future Federal government or a Provincial government on the question of land ownership. I do not anticipate that during the next 30 or 40 years there will be anything approaching a revolutionary government in the Provinces or in the Centre in India, because the Government are taking good care that property interests are more than amply represented in both those bodies. But suppose that at some future time 30 or 40 years hence a government, say, of Socialist tendencies were elected for a Province or the Centre, or let us assume the election of a Communist Government by the Indian people. A Communist Government on being elected would have the authority of the people behind it and be entitled to carry out the mandate received from the people. I am not interested in the progress of Communism but I am interested in the progress of 1093 Socialism. Let me assume that a Socialist majority is elected by some hazard or chance—it would have to be that—and they deem it necessary in the public interests that the land should be nationalised. In this country that may happen within a very short time, for all we know. So long as the government elected has the authority of the people for the purpose, what right have we to say to the people of India that they shall not have their will? What right have we to say to the Indian people that they shall not do this, that or the other? For Heaven's sake let us have done with this hypocrisy. If we are not giving self-government, let us say so. If we are giving self-government, let us give it frankly and freely.
I agree with what was said by the learned Attorney-General that if you are going to tie up the Indian Legislatures both Provincial and Central by these innumerable safeguards, if you erect barriers around them, you are bound in the end to create greater difficulties in administration in India, and you will do a much bigger and much more dangerous thing. If you make the people think that you have introduced into the Constitution barriers that cannot be moved away, safeguards that they cannot get over, you will develop in India, perhaps without desiring it, an unconstitutional or an anti-constitutional spirit which right hon. and hon. Members opposite as well as ourselves would deeply deplore. The only way to safeguard the constitutional spirit in any country is to give the people the assurance that they can get what they desire constitutionally.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I think the hon. Gentleman is now developing a much wider argument than this Clause will bear.
§ Mr. JONES
With respect, may I put my proposition once again? In Subsection (3) we are going to reserve to the Governor-General the right to say that if a, Central or Provincial Parliament carries a Bill for nationalising land he can if he likes withhold his assent. That is a, power which he ought not to possess. The consequence of giving that power is to develop in the minds of the electors of India the feeling that however constitutionally they may move, however amply they may exercise their constitutional right of the vote, 1094 they are not in the long run to be the arbiters of their own fate, the person who determines whether the thing is good or bad for India is the Governor-General. The effect of putting the Governor-General in that position may he one which hon. Members perhaps will not like. You will make the representative of His Majesty in India appear to be the bulwark against the progress of the Indian people. You are doing a dangerous thing, and for my part I shall have no share or lot in this effort to prevent the people of India having a full expression of their desire for progress along the lines which seem best to them. What right have we to say to the Indian people 40 years hence that they must not nationalise the land? Who are we to speak in their name? Who are we to put impediments in the way of their progress? What right have we to speak in this way? If we are going to give them self-government let us give it, but if not then drop this hypocritical attitude and say that we cannot give it because we distrust them, it is too great a power to give. In that case let us have done with this hypocrisy, and keep them in leading strings as we have in the past.
§ 9.18 p.m.
§ Mr. TINKER
I should like to confirm what my hon. Friend has said. The first paragraph of this Clause says thatNo person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.That is all right; we understand that. The law is represented by the elected representatives of the people and, therefore, nobody is to be deprived of their property unless the elected reresentatives say so. But when the Clause goes on to say that the law expressed by the people may be wrong, that there must be a proviso to prevent anything like that happening, and the Governor-General is to decide whether the law is right or wrong. When we passed Clause 12 I assumed that we had given all the comprehensive powers which the Governor-General would require, but in this Clause we are giving him further special powers. India has not the same democratic institutions we have in this country, but we are trying to lead them in that direction. We have given certain powers to the Indian people, the power to vote, although greater powers are being given to certain sections of the 1095 Indian people than they ought to possess, and we are looking forward later on to a time when the Indian people will be able to assert themselves a little more rapidly than they are at the present. When that time comes, they may want to take over land and pay compensation for it. We agree with that, and cannot understand why the Bill should contain these special powers to the Governor-General to assert these rights. We should be lacking in our duty to our principles if we allowed the Clause to pass without a Division.
§ 9.21 p.m.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) in his forcible speech has raised a number of wide issues into which I hope he will pardon me if I do not follow him. He has raised the whole issue of the various safeguards throughout the Bill. I will confine myself to the provisions of the Clause. The hon. Member's speech was largely directed to Sub-section (3). May I say on the broad question, that if you read the Clause as a whole it is obviously directed against confiscation. I think that we are all agreed in repudiating confiscation; we agree that if property is taken for public purposes compensation should be paid. The Clause is not inserted because we distrust the new Indian legislatures, the safeguards are not put in from motives of distrust, but in order to prevent apprehension, possibly ill-founded, in certain minds as to the effects of this great change. We believe that ordinary principles of law will be observed, but we have put these safeguards in the Bill to prevent apprehensions and misgivings arising which themselves may do great harm to the new constitution. I hope hon. Members will not feel that I am discourteous in dealing briefly with the points they have raised, and that we may get the Clause without a Division.
§ 9.23 p.m
§ Mr. McGOVERN
It is interesting to hear that this Clause is inserted to prevent anything in the nature of confiscation of land in India. Some of us have another name for it, the restoration of the land to the people of India, from a small and select class who have in the past robbed the people of India of their inheritance. I am glad that the hon. 1096 Member for Caerphilly has stated his opposition to the Clause. He says that if we are giving a measure of self-government to India, if we give them the right to decide whether they are going to take over any form of property for the communal use of the people of India, they should be able to decide the terms upon which such property is taken over. One of the most obnoxious things in the Bill is the power given to the Governor-General to say that the community through its representatives—although they may represent only a section of the property owners—are to be debarred from taking land in India. I am amazed to hear that the Opposition agrees to the payment of compensation for land. In the early days of the Labour movement I was taught to regard all rent for land as robbery, and that no compensation should be paid for land taken for the benefit of the community. Therefore, I say that, as with other doctrines, the Labour party is changing more and more as time goes on, so that soon there will be no distinction between them and the Tory Government.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I hardly think that the internal politics of the Labour party can be raised on this Amendment.
§ Mr. McGOVERN
I only wanted to refer to that for the purpose of pointing out that the words from the Labour benches in connection with their objections to the Bill raised another point of view, that they are not Labour, for Socialists believe that a community decides things for itself. If they have the backing of the community, the new Indian Government can even confiscate without compensation. So far as we are concerned, we do not believe in compensation for landlords. We believe in the taking over of land and the whole of the industrial undertakings and products of India by the people, the same as we do here, by the will of the people, using them for the common good of all. I hope that India, in spite of all these restrictions, will be able in time to make manifest their opinions on these lines.
§ Mr. McGOVERN
I cannot see why it does not arise. I say that this Clause restricts the power of the people of India 1097 and that the people have a right to make known their ideas. I look to the people of India to take power into their own hands, not only taking over from the landlords but brushing aside Governors and even the National Government.
§ Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 197; Noes, 31.1099
|Division No.150.]||AYES.||[9.30 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)||Palmer, Francis Noel|
|Albery, Irving James||Hammersley, Samuel S.||Patrick, Colin M.|
|Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)||Hartland, George A.||Penny, Sir George|
|Aske, Sir Robert William||Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)||Petherick, M.|
|Assheton, Ralph||Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Atholl, Duchess of||Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.||Pickthorn, K. W. M.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Potter, John|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Herbert, Major J. A.(Monmouth)||Radford, E. A.|
|Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)|
|Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel||Hope, Capt. Hon. A.O. J. (Aston)||Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)|
|Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)||Hornby, Frank||Ramsden, Sir Eugene|
|Blaker, Sir Reginald||Horobin, Ian M.||Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)|
|Bossom, A. C.||Horsbrugh, Florence||Reid, David D. (County Down)|
|Boulton, W. W.||Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.||Reid, William Allan (Derby)|
|Bracken, Brendan||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Remer, John R|
|Braithwalte, J. G. (Hillsborough)||Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer||Ropner, Colonel L.|
|Briscoe, Capt. Richard George||Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.||Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)|
|Broadbent, Colonal John||Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)||Runge, Norah Cecil|
|Brown, Col. D. C.(N'th'I'd., Hexham)||James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H.||Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks. Newb'y)||Jamleson, Douglas||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Burnett, John George||Joel, Dudley J. Barnato||Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)|
|Butler, Richard Austen||Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)||Salmon, Sir Isidore|
|Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm||Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)||Salt, Edward W.|
|Caporn, Arthur Cecil||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)||Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney)|
|Cassels, James Dale||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Selley, Harry R.|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)||Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)||Shaw, Helen B.(Lanark, Bothwell)|
|Christie, James Archibald||Ker, J. Campbell||Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)|
|Clayton, Sir Christopher||Kirkpatrick, William M.||Shepperson. Sir Ernest W.|
|Cook, Thomas A.||Knox, Sir Alfred||Smith, Louis W.(Sheffield, Haliam)|
|Cooke, Douglas||Law, Sir Alfred||Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine. C.)|
|Cooper, A. Duff||Lennox-Boyd, A. T.||Smithers, Sir Waldron|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Lewis, Oswald||Somervell, Sir Donald|
|Crooke, J. Smedley||Liddall. Walter S.||Soper, Richard|
|Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-||Spens. William Patrick|
|Culverwell, Cyril Tom||Liewellin, Major John J||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)|
|Davidson, Rt. Hon. C. C. C.||Lloyd, Geoffrey||Stevenson, James|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)||Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Loder, Captain J. de Vere||Strauss, Edward A|
|Dickie. John P||Loftus, Pierce C||Strickland, Captain W. F.|
|Donner, P. W.||Mabane. William||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F|
|Drewe, Cedric||MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. C. G.(Partick)||Sutcliffe, Harold|
|Duggan, Hubert John||MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)||Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)|
|Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey||McEwen, Captain J. H. F.||Thorp, Linton Theodora|
|Elliston, Captain George Sampson||McLean, Major Sir Alan||Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K.(B'wick-on-T.)|
|Elmley, Viscount||McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)||Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)|
|Emmott, Charles E. G. C.||Magnay, Thomas||Tree, Ronald|
|Emrys-Evans, P. V.||Mander, Geoffrey le M.||Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.|
|Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)||Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.||Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)|
|Essenhigh, Reginald Clare||Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.||Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Walfsend)|
|Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)||Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E)||Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)||Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N)||Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.|
|Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)||Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Fermoy, Lord||Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)||Wayland, Sir William A|
|Flelden, Edward Brocklehurst||Milne, Charles||Weymouth, Viscount|
|Fleming, Edward Lascelies||Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)||White, Henry Graham|
|Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Williams, Herbert G.(Croydon, S.)|
|Fox. Sir Gilford||Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Gluckstein, Louis Halle||Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres||Wills, Wilfrid D|
|Goff, Sir Park||Moreing, Adrian C||Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold(Hertf'd)|
|Goodman, Colonel Albert W||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Gower, Sir Robert||Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)||Wise, Alfred R.|
|Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)||Munro, Patrick||Womersley, Sir Waller|
|Grimston, R. V.||Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.||Worthington, Dr. John V.|
|Gritten, W. G. Howard||Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)|
|Guest, Capt Rt. Hon. F. E.||Nunn, William||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Guy, J. C. Morrison||Orr Ewing, I. L||Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward and Mr. Blindell.|
|Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Owen, Major Goronwy|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Buchanan, George||Daggar, George|
|Banfield, John William||Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)|
|Batey, Joseph||Cove, William G||Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)|
|Edwards, Charles||Lanibury, Rt. Hon. George||Milner, Major James|
|Gardner, Benjamin Walter||Lawion, John James||Smith, Tom (Normanton)|
|Graham, D.M.(Lanark, Hamilton)||Leonard, William||Thorne, William James|
|Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur||Logan, David Gilbert||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)||MeEntee, Valentine L.||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah|
|Griffiths, George A.(Yorks. W. Riding)||McGovern, John||Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)|
|Grundy, Thomas W||Mainwaring, William Henry|
|Jones, Morgan(Caerphilly)||Maxton, James||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Mr. John and Mr. Paling|