GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL. (Hansard, 11 April 1935)

§ The ATTORNEY - GENERAL
The value of a Preamble is, as I have said, not in stating new law but in containing a declaration either as to the intentions of Parliament or possibly stating a matter of historical fact which it is considered appropriate in all the circumstances to attach to a particular piece of new legislation. The value of this Preamble is that it does express in terms to which the Government to-day still adhere, the intentions or policy of Parliament with regard to "the progressive realisation of responsible government in British India as an integral part of the Empire." Speaking for myself I should have thought that this proposal was one which would have met with a warm reception from all parts of the Committee, because although some hon. Members take the view that the pace is rather faster than it ought to be, and though some take the view that the pace is rather slower than it ought to be, I thought everyone was associated with the Government in the desire to help forward the progressive realisation of responsible government by India.
I am not proposing, unless you, Mr. Chairman, allow the discussion to range over a larger field than I anticipate, to discuss Dominion status upon which I detained the House for some time 1365 on the Second Reading of the Bill. I could do no better than repeat what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his speech on the same occasion, and I certainly could not improve upon the very carefully chosen language which he used to express in unmistakable terms the views of His Majesty's Government in relation to that much discussed phrase. It is sufficient for me to say that I hope the Committee will give their approval to the proposal to keep alive the Preamble, not because it will alter any law or enact any law or keep alive any law, but will remain on record, reaffirmed as it is by this Parliament, as a statement of the intentions of this country towards India, in the hope that we may secure the co-operation of India in the realisation of those hopes.

§ Mr. MORGAN JONES
I am very much obliged to the learned Attorney-General for the statement that he has made. Before I proceed to discuss it, I am sure I may say on behalf of all members of the Committee that we are very sorry indeed to hear that the Secretary of State is precluded by illness from being with us. We all appreciate the fact that it is a herculean task he has undertaken in connection with this Bill, and the strain must by now have become almost intolerable; but we are comforted by the fact that we are to have the advantage of the assistance of the Under-Secretary of State and of the Law Officers of the Crown—assistance which has already been given to us in very generous measure. The point which the learned Attorney-General has made still leaves me and my friends very much unconvinced as to the adequacy of what the Government propose through the medium of this Amendment. If hon. Members will look at page 323 of the Bill, in the 15th Schedule they will find a list of the enactments that are repealed, and in that list there is, of course, the Government of India Act, 1919. I may be wrong, but I understand that that statement without any qualification at all means the whole Act, and must necessarily include the Preamble.

§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
It is the intention of the Government, as stated by the Secretary of State, to put down an Amendment to say "except the 1366 Preamble." That was and is the intention of the Government.

§ Mr. H. WILLIAMS
There is already an Amendment on the Paper in the name of myself and others to that effect.

§ Mr. JONES
Whether that is so or not, the answer of the Attorney-General effectually disposes of that point, and I do not press it any further. The Attorney-General told us, and I think quite rightly, that the only purpose of the Preamble is not for stating any new law, but rather for stating a principle of policy or something akin to it. It is in relation to that that we challenge this proposal. We say that as a statement of policy this is inadequate. It is quite true that the Attorney-General said that in 1919 this Preamble was accepted as an adequate statement of the then position of the Government, but the trouble arises in this way. When we get to the interpretation of this Preamble, we are told by responsible spokesmen that it does not mean what people say it means. For instance, a very distinguished gentleman, who helped us very considerably in our deliberations on the Joint Select Committee, and who was then a high official in India, used words—I have not got them with me at the moment—which effectually disposed of what was deemed to be the legitimate interpretation of this Preamble.
For our part, we should regard this statement in any case as being utterly inadequate as indicating the intentions of this Parliament of 1935 in relation to India. It might have been adequate as a statement of policy in regard to the Parliament of 1919, but this is 1935, and we, therefore, are entitled to challenge this statement of policy, for it can be nothing else, as an adequate presentation of the intentions of this Parliament regarding Indian development. This ground that we are now traversing is one of very considerable importance. No one, I think, on this side, desires to exaggerate it, but I very much doubt if it can be in fact exaggerated so far as Indian opinion is concerned. It is vital, in our judgment, that the Government should not content itself with the statement of the Preamble as it is presented in the Act of 1919. Not only are we entitled on our own account, expressing our own view of this matter, to say that this is inadequate, but I am also entitled to 1367 Argue—and I can adduce overwhelming evidence in support of my case—that repeated declarations have been made, not by unofficial people or, if you like, irresponsible people, but by responsible people, which have carried the interpretation of this Preamble far beyond what it was presumed to be as long ago as 1919. I had better fortify myself with one or two quotations on that point.

§ The CHAIRMAN
While the hon. Member is looking up his quotations, may I make quite clear what I think can be the limits of the Debate on this Amendment? I have already said, I think, that of course it is permissible to consider the meaning of the Preamble to the Act of 1919, that it is permissible to consider and to argue one way or another whether or not it is advisable to keep that Preamble alive, and whether or not it is advisable to keep it alive by this particular method proposed in the Amendment before us. But in so far as that may incidentally raise any question of the policy of the present Parliament, or how it differs from that of the Parliament of 1919, that is a matter which this Committee could not discuss, either on this Amendment, or on any new Clause, or on any other Amendment, or in any form whatever. The Committee must remember what is the position of a Committee on a Bill. The House reads a Bill a Second time and then refers it to a Committee under an order of reference to the Committee, and the Committee has no power whatever except to deal with the Bill as read a Second time, and, within limits which I need not go into now, but which are well known to Members, to make or refrain from making alterations and Amendments in the Bill which are or are not within the scope of the Bill.
But the policy of the Bill as a whole, or the policy of the present Government, the present Parliament, or any other Government or Parliament with regard to the subject matter of the Bill is not a matter which the Committee can go into in any shape or form. Those are matters which can be raised and, as in this case, were raised on Second Reading, and though it is not for me to say, because I have nothing to do with the Third Reading—that is a matter for Mr. Speaker—it is possible that within 1368 limits they could also be raised on Third Reading, but in Committee I am perfectly clear that we can only treat this as an Amendment to be decided one way or the other, whether we shall state that an existing form of words shall be regarded as repealed or not repealed. It is a little difficult to say exactly what can be said and what cannot, but I have tried my best to explain the position of the Committee, and it is hardly a matter on which the Chair has any discretion at all, because the hon. Member will realise from what I have said that the position of a Committee to whom a Bill is referred after Second Reading is very clearly defined and restricted.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
May I ask whether, seeing that the Government have introduced the words in this Amendment nothing in this Section shall affect the Preamble to the Government of India Act, 1919, it is not competent for Members of the Committee to move an Amendment to those words?

§ The CHAIRMAN
Certainly, if the Amendment is in order.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
I have here the Preamble, and I ask you, Sir, whether it would not be in order if we moved our proposed Amendment to Clause 1 in appropriate words to this Preamble, that is to say, to make the Preamble read: Realisation of responsible "—

§ The CHAIRMAN
No. The right hon. Gentleman has said enough to enable me to answer "no" at once. No Amendment would be in order which endeavoured to alter the wording of the Preamble or to insert as a Preamble some different words.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
Are we really not being put into a difficult position? I could have understood rather more clearly if we were proposing a Preamble to the present Bill, but, as I understand it, this is an addition to a Clause, and you rule, as I understand it, that we must either accept or reject these words, but that we cannot amend them in any way to make the Preamble read differently.

§ The CHAIRMAN
That is so.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
All I can say is that in those circumstances it may suit 1369 the Government very well that this question shall not be brought to a Division in Committee, but I think it is very bad tactics indeed, because, as my hon. Friend is going to argue and has been arguing, it is one of the most important questions that affect public opinion in India and some of us in this country also.

§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
I should like—

§ The CHAIRMAN
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me, I think this is a matter which I must deal with from the Chair, and I must say that this is a matter which has nothing whatever to do with the Government. It is a matter on which I have to give my Ruling as to what is within the scope of a Committee to whom a Bill has been referred after Second Reading, and I am absolutely bound—I have no doubt whatever about it—to rule that this Committee cannot in any circumstances go outside what is known as the order of reference of the Bill to the Committee. Consequently, the Committee is unable and powerless to vary the order of the House or to go into any question of general policy, which would be more appropriate to the Second Reading or possibly even to the Third Reading. What I am saying now does not in the least degree restrict the right of the House to deal with this matter. What it does is to restrict the Committee from going beyond the reference which has been made to it by the House.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
I am sorry to be very dense in the matter, but I did not understand that there was ever any question on the Second Reading of bringing the Preamble to the 1919 Act into this Bill. This is a new proposal which the Government have introduced into the Bill. I know what the Secretary of State said, but the House of Commons did not vote on his statement; it voted on the printed Bill that was before the House for Second Reading. It is true that the Secretary of State said that he would introduce some words to make it plain that the original Preamble stood, but that is not the point, and I do not want to argue it. I want to argue that the action of the Government in bringing forward this Amendment in such a way that the Committee cannot amend it or 1370 do anything with it but accept or reject it, is restricting the rights of both the Committee and the House of Commons, because we know very well that, unless we can deal with it here, it cannot be dealt with on Third Reading. I most strongly protest against the action of the Government in dealing with this matter in this fashion, robbing the Committee and the House of any opportunity of trying effectively to amend it or to deal with it in any other way. I am not challenging your statement, Sir Dennis; I am challenging the action of the Government in dealing with this tremendously important question in such a way as to present it for or against its form of words, without any chance of our being able to deal with it effectively.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I am afraid that, technically, the right hon. Gentleman, in making that protest against the action of the Government, is doing exactly what: I have ruled cannot be done in the Committee. The Committee has no power to consider the policy of the Government on any such question as whether generally this Bill is a good Bill or a bad Bill. Therefore, the policy of the Government which led to this Bill and what may be its policy in future is outside the power of the Committee to discuss, and, therefore, the conduct of the Government in regard thereto is equally outside the power of the Committee.

§ Mr. MORGAN JONES
May I submit to you, Sir, another point of Order? If we accept your Ruling, as we obviously must, may I submit that under that Ruling this Amendment itself is out of order, because it involves a statement of policy. You yourself, Sir, if I may say so without any intention of offence in any way whatever, have ruled, as I understand it, that it is not competent for this Committee, qua Committee, to introduce into the Bill any new statement of policy. The Attorney-General has already said that the purpose of a Preamble is not to alter law but to state a policy, or something of that kind. I submit that in adopting this Preamble he is doing nothing else but introduce a statement of policy. Nothing else appears in the Preamble except that, and I submit that if we are out of order in discussing it in the way we desire the Government are also out of order.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I do not think the hon. Member is right. I hope he will follow me if I give the reasons. The Government, by proposing to put in words to the effect that the existing Preamble to the existing Act is not repealed by any general repeal in this Bill, is not thereby putting into this Bill the words which they say they do not repeal. May I put it in another way? If they put in an express provision that the Preamble of the Act of 1919 is not repealed, they are not thereby repeating the Preamble of the Act of 1919. They are simply leaving it on the Statute Book as something which was put on the Statute Book in 1919 and has since remained there.

§ Mr. JONES
May I put this point to you, Sir? It is quite true that they are not embodying the Preamble of the 1919 Act in this Bill as a Preamble. They are embodying it in this Bill as a statement of principle.

§ The CHAIRMAN
There may be differences of opinion about that, but I am quite clear about this: A legal question having been raised as to whether a. repeal of the Act itself repeals the Preamble or not, it is within the competence of this Committee to deal with this matter and in repealing the Act of 1919 to say how far and to what extent it intends to repeal the Preamble. The hon. Member will realise that the Government might say, "We will repeal it all except Clause 201 or some other Clause." They can equally say, "We will repeal it except for the Preamble." They cannot repeat the words of that Preamble as a Preamble to this Bill, because as I have already ruled they cannot now put in a Preamble in this Bill. What this Amendment proposes, is merely to state that this Bill does not repeal the Preamble of the 1919 Act. That, I think, the hon. Member will see is quite in order and is a matter to be decided one way or another. But if it is decided to accept this Amendment it is not equivalent to repeating the 1919 Preamble in this Bill.

§ Sir WILLIAM DAVISON
There is another point of order I would like to submit in this matter. The Attorney-General before he sat down, said it is desirable that the Preamble to the Government of India Act of 1919 should not be repealed, because it interprets 1372 accurately the intentions of the Government with regard to this Bill now before the Committee. I want to ask you for confirmation, so that we may know exactly where we are, whether it will be competent for the Committee to refer to Clauses in the Preamble to the Act of 1919 which in the opinion of the House, or of the Members speaking, do not accurately interpret the intentions of the Government as disclosed in this Bill, and therefore it is not desirable that this part of the other Act should not be repealed.

§ The CHAIRMAN
Yes, that would be in order. Whether all the speeches of hon. Members in support of such a contention will be in order I have very serious doubts. I am inclined to think that the hon. Member is thinking that he might perhaps make a speech which I shall certainly rule out of order.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
It may be a matter of complete amusement to the Attorney-General, but I want to tell him that this is our only method of really protesting against the policy of the Government in putting Motions down.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman to move to report Progress, for this reason. I am sure he does not intend it, but what he means is his reason for moving to report Progress is dissatisfaction with Rulings from the Chair. Definitely, I cannot accept that.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
I am not, if I may say so very respectfully, doing that. I am moving to report Progress because of the Government's tactics. [Interruption.] Use whatever word you like. [An HON. MEMBER: "Strategy!"] Strategy. If I had had legal training, I should probably have thought of it myself. Those of us who feel strongly on this matter are placed in an impossible position. We have what is virtually an Amendment to a Clause brought on by the Government, and we are told by you, Sir, that we cannot amend that in the only manner which would—

§ The CHAIRMAN
I must interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. I have not told him he cannot amend the Amendment.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
I asked you just now. I read out the words.

§ The CHAIRMAN
We cannot amend the Preamble to the Act of 1919. The right hon. Gentleman used a word that might have been open to represent that what I ruled was that the Committee could not amend the Amendment on the Order Paper. That is not correct.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
I ask you again, Sir, in order that I may be quite clear. The Amendment reads: Nothing in this section shall affect the Preamble to the Government of India Act, 1919. I wish to move to add words—I do not think I ought to play with words—we want, as I think you are aware, to get a declaration in favour of Dominion status. That Amendment, I understand, cannot be moved on this Amendment of the Government.

§ The CHAIRMAN
Nor at any stage in this Committee.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
Nor in Committee. The Government have wisely, or unwisely, put us in the position that we are unable to get a decision on that vital question.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I must interrupt him. I do not think he wishes to do anything wrong or disrespectful to the House, but what he is now doing is to reflect on the conduct of the House in referring this Bill to this Committee. The whole point of the trouble is that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends cannot do in Committee what they now want to do. They have had, up to a certain extent, their opportunity of doing it on Second Reading. They may have an opportunity of doing it on Third Reading, or they can take other Parliamentary opportunities of doing it in the House, but I must make it quite clear to the right hon. Gentleman that what he wants to do is a matter which cannot be done in this Committee. That is not the fault of the Government, or the consequence of anything that the Government have done. It is a result of the fact that we are a Committee sitting under an Order of Reference by the House referring the Bill. We have strictly limited and restricted powers and, therefore, to put it quite plainly, the right hon. Gentleman cannot do what he wants in Committee, and it is no fault of the Government; it is no fault of the Chair, and, if and in so far as he may be making a complaint in 1374 regard to the conduct of the House in the past, the right hon. Gentleman will see that, of course, that question cannot possibly be raised in Committee.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
I really do not understand. I am only an ordinary person, and I do not understand the Ruling. I do not understand how it is possible for the Government to have the right to move an Amendment and the rest of the Committee to have no right to amend that Amendment.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I am sorry I must interrupt.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
I do not think you ought to do so.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I have definitely stated—I had to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman in order to state it—that I have not ruled that the Committee cannot amend the Amendment which is on the Order Paper. What I have ruled is that the Committee cannot amend or alter the existing Preamble to the Act of 1919. The right hon. Gentleman really must not attribute to me rulings which I have not given, and I really think it is time now that we got on with our business, on the definite Ruling which I have given that we must keep within the order of reference of the Bill to the Committee. We must confine ourselves to that.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
That Ruling is understandable and it rules us out from amending the Amendment. [Interruption.] Well, if the Preamble is not embodied in this Amendment, I must say I do not understand the meaning of words. These words say that if they are carried the Preamble of the 1919 Act remains un-repealed. I maintain, as my hon. Friend stated just now, that when the Bill had a Second Reading the principle embodied in the Preamble to the previous Act was not before the House. It is true that the Secretary of State made a statement, but the House voted, not on our speeches, but on the printed Bill to which it gave a Second Reading. The Government have, introduced a new matter, that new matter being the Preamble to the 1919 Act. I respectfully suggest that in doing so they have thrown the whole question open, not merely for discussion but for Amendment. You, Sir, say that what I am doing, or what I am saying, is disrespectful to the House itself. I, on the contrary, think that I am acting very 1375 respectfully towards the House and this Committee. All of us have the right to argue a question like this. I have known hon. Members argue for an hour or an hour and a half on a question between themselves and the Chair less vital than this question, but we have made our protest. I understand you will not take my Motion to report Progress. I cannot understand that. You have the right to refuse it, and we must accept that Ruling. Again I most emphatically enter my protest against the action of the Government— [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] —I will not be shouted down.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I must ask the right hon. Gentleman, when. I have ruled something definitely out of order, not deliberately to repeat it nor to remain on his feet doing so after I have risen from my seat.

§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
I will endeavour to keep within the proper limits of your Ruling, Sir Dennis, although there is a great deal that I would like to say in answer to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury). He asked me if I thought it was a laughing matter. I was not laughing, but there might have been a less placid expression upon my features. I do not think it is a matter for laughing. There never was an Amendment put down in better faith or in greater desire to meet the critics of the Government than the Amendment which is before us. It entered my mind in the last few minutes to say that, in the circumstances, we would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, but I am satisfied that that would cause acute disappointment to people outside the House as well as to many hon. Members within the House. The Government would be perfectly prepared to meet such arguments as might have been advanced for the Opposition Amendment to the proposed Amendment, if such an Amendment had been in order. I will say, for the right hon. Gentleman's satisfaction, if he will believe me, that we think we have very good arguments to advance against the arguments which I understand he would have advanced. It is not necessary for me to defend the Government against allegations of manoeuvring, tactics, strategy or trickery—

§ Mr. LANSBURY
I never said that —

§ The ATTORNEY - GENERAL
—in order to curb debate by ruling out proper observations upon the policy of the Government. I must not say any more, because I should be going outside your ruling. I still tender the Amendment to the Committee as one put down in absolute good faith and with the desire to go as far as we thought possible to meet the views expressed from the benches opposite, and, as we thought, to conform with wishes, at any rate to some extent, which were expressed by right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite.

§ Mr. MORGAN JONES
Will it be permissible for me to ask one or two questions? I admit that I am perhaps anticipating, but the questions are relevant to the point at issue. You have indicated that you do not propose to call the proposed new Clause (Act to be regarded as facilitating dominion status) which stands in our name upon the Order Paper. May I submit that it is vital that we should be able in some way to discuss the point contained there in? In the Preamble, which, in the Government's Amendment, we are now asked to adopt, are these words: 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 of responsible government in British India as an integral part of the Empire. and so on. In our proposed new Clause we give some point to the sentiment expressed in that first paragraph of the Preamble. For the purpose of removing doubts, it is declared that the provisions of that Act are to be regarded as containing the necessary legislative process for facilitating the advance of British India. to full dominion status.
My point is that if we are entitled to posit, through the medium of the Government Amendment, the Government's anticipations respecting India, why are we not equally entitled to restate that in a form acceptable to us? The consequence of your Ruling, I say respectfully, is that we are committed, without any opportunity of challenging it, to the statement as presented to us in the first paragraph of the Preamble; whereas we wish to accept the Preamble but in terms 1377 acceptable to us. I have listened very attentively to what you have had to say, but I say frankly that I am still at a loss to understand why we cannot challenge the Government's Amendment even by moving words such as we shall propose in the new Clause.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The answer to the hon. Member's question is that, as we are now sitting as a Committee under an order referring a Bill which has been read a Second time, what the hon. Gentleman desires is not possible. This discussion has made it clear to me that the new Clause to which he has referred is also out of order, because it would be contrary to the Second Reading. In order to justify and explain that a little more, I may say that the question whether this Bill is or is not in accordance with the Preamble to the Act of 1919 is not a matter which can be discussed in this Committee, because that is a Second Reading matter, and not a matter for the Committee after the Bill has been read a Second time.

§ Mr. JONES
We cannot carry the matter further with you. We have done our best, and I certainly shall not occupy the attention of the Committee any longer on the point. I merely say, not to you, Sir, but to the Government, that they must not take it, by reason of the fact that we are not able to move an Amendment formally in terms that are acceptable to the Chairman, in any wise whatsoever that the Preamble even approaches what we regard as adequately expressing our intentions in this Parliament of 1935, regarding the Indian people's rights to self-government. With that I leave it.

§ Sir H. CROFT
I rise to state, so far as I am personally concerned, that I shall most certainly support the Amendment proposed by the Government. The interesting discussion which we have had precludes me from giving the reasons I should have desired, to state why I could not support what right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen of the Opposition were going to say. I think we are entitled to discuss the actual words of the Preamble to the Act of 1919. That I wish to do in detail.

§ The CHAIRMAN
Within the limits of the Preamble.

§ Sir H. CROFT
I will endeavour to confine my remarks almost literally to the words of the Preamble. In the Preamble, it is laid down: Progress in giving effect to this policy can only be achieved by successive stages. It is highly desirable that the Committee should be reminded of that vital consideration, which governs all the considerations in the Bill. Some of us feel that we need to be reminded of it every moment. Again: Whereas the time and manner of each advance can be determined only by Parliament, upon whom responsibility lies. We think that it is vital that those words should govern the situation. Occasionally, phrases have been employed by secretaries of state or by viceroys who are not the governing authority. Nobody can deprive Parliament of the right of taking any decision on any actual departure from the ideals of the past. Thirdly: Whereas the action of Parliament in such matters must be guided by the co-operation received from those on whom new opportunities of service will be conferred. We regard it as very important that that shall still stand as a guiding principle, because we think it may encourage those who hitherto have shown no sign of cooperation to get some sense of support of the measure in India and confidence in their own sense of responsibility. It is a principle which must ever guide our decisions, I think the Committee will agree, in regard to the Indian Empire. Ever since the governing pledge of Queen Victoria, that has been a sine qua non. There again—I speak for my hon. Friends—we feel that there must be every sign of responsibility before the Bill can be made operative as an Act.
Lastly, The gradual development…which is compatible with the due discharge by the latter"— that is the people of India— of its own responsibilities. Those words are of great moment, and it is very important that, in the legislation on which we are now engaged, those words should stand. I only desire to say, keeping myself very definitely to the Ruling which you have given, that it would be fatal to the future of the Government of India if we were to endeavour to insert words at this stage outside the Preamble to the Act of 1919. That is the 1379 governing Act under which we are promoting this legislation, and to depart from it would be a vital mistake. I rejoice that His Majesty's Government are keeping to it.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
I hope that the Government will not persevere in this Amendment, because I think it would make matters worse and not better. The Preamble to the 1919 Act was a statement of fact. It was the opinion of that House—I will not say a better House than now, but a better Government than now—and of the Government of the day. We are merely saying now in the Amendment that in 1919 Parliament felt like this. It has no other effect. We might as well put in an Amendment that in 1861 Mr. Gladstone said so and so. It has no relation to this Act of Parliament whatever. I can understand the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) desiring the Amendment, because it says once more that a long time ago a more liberal parliament thought differently from this one. There is no satisfaction to be got from that, or any rest in India whatsoever.
The Preamble to the Act of 1919 was a valuable statement of the opinion of Great Britain at that time, in regard to India. It laid down the statement of fact that the Act of that date was one stage towards home rule—only one stage—and that it would be followed in subsequent periods by further Acts in the same direction. The reason why there is no Preamble to the Bill is obvious. It would be a contradiction of fact if there were a statement in a Preamble to the Bill saying that the Bill was one stage in the direction either of dominion home rule or of home rule of any sort. The Bill is final. The Government know that it is final, and the draftsmen of the Bill know that it would be a lie to put in a Preamble that this was only one stage further in the association of Indians with responsible rule. The Bill that we are now—

§ The CHAIRMAN
The possibility of a Preamble to the Bill is a Second Reading matter. It follows with regard to the Bill as a whole that discussion of that point is outside what I have ruled to be in order.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
I will pass over the question of the impossibility of a Preamble to this Bill, as that is out of order. The question is whether we are doing anything to make good that statement. If we had put in the Amendment that is out of order, would that have made any appreciable difference in the actual facts of the situation? The facts of the situation are that we are taking the final step so far as India is concerned, and, therefore, it is useless to talk about a series. The real difficulty is this: A great many people in India, like Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, Mr. Jayakar, and others, have been clamouring for some statement of policy. Will these people be really disappointed if this does not go in? Will they be in the least affected by the Government Amendment? I say emphatically that they will not. These people accepted Federation, but they found, when the Bill was introduced, that Federation was unpopular in India, and that, if they were to retain their hold upon Indian opinion, they must find some reason for changing their minds. They changed their minds on the absence of a Preamble from this Bill. What really changed their minds was the attitude of the Indian people, and I am certain that it will not make any difference in the Bill, and that it will not make the slightest difference to the opinion of people in India, whether this goes in or not. The howl of rage that went up from the Liberals in India was solely occasioned by the fact that they had to find some excuse, and they found this one. From my point of view, and I must say from the point of view of common sense, what difference does it make if there is or is not a Preamble expressing a pious hope for the future, when what is being done in the Bill is the final stage, which cannot be altered in any circumstances?

§ Mr. ISAAC FOOT
I am certain that I should be out of order if I endeavoured to reply to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), and I am not going into the question of altered Indian opinion. All that we know is that the Preamble to the Act of 1919 was a very outstanding part of our legislation. It was the statutory expression of what was, perhaps, the most momentous. 1381 announcement that had ever been made in our history; and I suppose that no part of our legislation had ever been studied more closely, and no words adopted by the House of Commons had ever been considered more carefully, than the words of the announcement in 1917 and the statutory expression of that announcement in 1919. That being so, it was thought that it would be unfortunate that those words should pass out of existing legislation. When the matter was raised on the Floor of the House only a month or two ago, on the Second Reading, the Secretary of State dealt with the criticisms that had been made as to the absence of a Preamble from this Bill and as to the failure to use the words "Dominion status." He then spoke upon Dominion status, and said that he gathered that this Bill was the carrying out of the Declaration of 1917 and the Preamble of 1919, and that, in order to make that quite clear to India and to this country, he would secure the Preamble being continued on these lines. We know very well that in the declaration made by the Viceroy, I think in the year 1921, he then used the words "Dominion status," and said that it was the natural outcome of the Declaration of 1917. The Declaration of 1917 is expressed in the Preamble to the Act of 1919, and, when the Secretary of State made that announcement, which I believe gave much satisfaction in India—the agitation on this point would have been much less—

§ Sir H. CROFT
On a point of Order. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to refer to the satisfaction or otherwise that was produced in India? I understood that I was not allowed to do so.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I was becoming a little doubtful whether the hon. Gentleman was not going beyond the bounds of my Ruling in referring to matters which have taken place since the Preamble of 1919.

§ Mr. FOOT
I do not want to express any opinion at all on the question of Dominion status, but only to deal with it historically. It was in the course of a discussion in the House on Dominion status that this promise was made by the Secretary of State. I will not dwell upon whatever effect it had in India. When the Secretary of State said that Dominion status in his opinion was the outcome of 1382 the Preamble to the Act of 1919 and the Declaration of 1917, my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) drew attention to the fact that the Preamble was, with the rest of the Act, to be cancelled by the present Bill, and it was then that the Secretary of State said that he would take steps to guard against that, and that words would be introduced for that purpose. Whether or not the Preamble goes sufficiently far to meet Indian opinion is not the question before the Committee.
The Amendment is not one that the Government would have wished to introduce, but it was promised in the course of the Second Reading Debate, and, so far from its being anything like strategy, or any attempt to deal unfairly with those who are opposed to the Bill, it is the carrying out of an express promise made at that time. We should have had some ground for complaint if that had not been done—if the Bill had reached the end of its Committee stage and that promise had been left unfulfilled. The Amendment having been introduced, we wish to thank the Government, because it carries out the promise which was then made, and, although my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen is not here at the moment, I would like in his name to thank the Attorney-General and the Secretary of State for bringing forward the Amendment which was asked for at that time.

§ Mr. EMMOTT
I hope it may be worth while for me to offer to the Committee one word of comment on the observations made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), and I think I can do so while remaining strictly within the bounds of order. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that this Amendment is unnecessary, futile, nugatory, because it does no more than assert that, in a particular year a Parliament which he thinks was more liberal than the present Parliament, was of a particular opinion. I suggest to the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. The meaning of the Amendment is quite different. It preserves the Preamble to the Act of 1919. It reasserts the Preamble. It asserts, in effect, that the Preamble to the Act of 1919 is still of full force 1383 and validity. What is the Preamble to the Act of 1919? I have it before me. I need not repeat its terms, for they are already familiar to Members of the Committee, but I note with interest that the word "policy" occurs twice in it. The Preamble is a declaration of policy. The effect of this Amendment is to reassert, as the policy of Parliament, the policy which is laid down in the Preamble to the Act of 1919, and it is because we approve, and desire to reapprove, this policy, that we lend our hearty support to the Amendment.

§ Sir W. DAVISON
I desire to reinforce what has just been said by the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Emmott). The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) said that, if this Amendment were put into the Bill, it would simply indicate what the opinion of Parliament was in the year 1919, but that, clearly, is not so. If that statement is reinserted in this Bill, introduced in 1935, it means that it has the approval of the Parliament of 1935.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I must remind the hon. Member that the Amendment does not propose to do anything of the sort. It does not propose to insert the Preamble in this Bill; it leaves it where it is—on the Statute Book.

§ Sir W. DAVISON
I agree, but it expresses in this Bill approval of the Preamble to the Statute of 1919. I think that that is correct.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I doubt whether it goes so far as that. All that it says is that it shall stay where it is.

§ Sir W. DAVISON
Really, we are getting, as the Leader of the Opposition said, into rather a tangle in this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh! "] The House is getting rather into a tangle in this matter. If there is any point in the Amendment at all, it must be to keep alive the Preamble to the Act of 1919. I think I am right now, and on stable ground; I have touched terra firma. It is the intention of Parliament, if this Amendment is passed, to keep alive the Preamble to the Act of 1919. I should have thought that, if any body of people desire to keep something alive in their 1384 day and generation, rather than let it expire and die, it means that they have some measure of approval of the thing or substance which they are keeping alive, and, therefore, within the Rules of Order, I lay that opinion, for what it is worth, before the Committee. I do not know whether I am entitled to say—probably I am not—that I regret personally that it has not been found possible for the Preamble to be inserted in this Bill; but, as I cannot proceed on those lines, I hope I am in order in asking the Attorney-General if he will explain, as the Preamble is now being kept alive, how this paragraph in the Preamble is in any way germane to the Bill: Whereas the action of Parliament in such matters must be guided by the co-operation received from those on whom new opportunities of service will be conferred, and by the extent to which it is found that confidence can be reposed in their sense of responsibility. This Preamble is being restored. It has not legislative authority except in the sense in which the learned Attorney-General indicated, that it shows that the Government of the day are still in agreement with what was passed by the Government of 1919. I ask the learned Attorney-General to tell the Committee whether, in his opinion, this Preamble adequately embodies the views of the Government to-day, and whether, in proceeding with this Bill through Parliament, the opinion expressed of the intentions of Parliament in 1919 adequately covers the same intentions of Parliament in 1935?

§ The CHAIRMAN
I cannot allow the right hon. and learned Gentleman to answer that question. It is a question of the policy of the Bill as a whole, which is a matter for Second Reading and has been dealt with; it cannot be dealt with in this Committee.

§ Sir W. DAVISON
I bow to your ruling, Sir Dennis. It is difficult to discuss the matter, but I think that it would be of interest to the Committee to know why the Preamble of the Act of 1919 is being kept alive by the Bill of 1935. Surely we are entitled to ask whether the Government are keeping this Preamble alive because they consider that what is stated in the Preamble is germane to the facts of to-day?

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member must realise that if I put it this way, 1385 I am only repeating what I have already said. The Preamble is a statement made 16 years ago. It is not a statement of policy which the present Government make in this Bill, and if and in so far as the question arises of whether it is the policy of this Government at the present time or not, it is a Second or a Third Reading question, and not a Committee question.

§ Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX
I shall certainly support the Government in this Amendment for one reason only. While I look upon the Preamble of the Act of 1919 as the high water-mark of sentimental folly of the last Coalition Government, it will be interesting to future generations to compare the terms of that Preamble with the present Bill, which goes much further.

§ Mr. H. WILLIAMS
I welcome the Amendment because I have an Amendment on the Order Paper which, in the circumstances, will not be called and which, I think, actually is rather a better Amendment, for this reason. I was proposing to alter the Title of the Bill and to keep the 1919 Act in being by preserving the Title of it, and the Preamble. If that were done the Preamble would in effect have been the Preamble to this Bill. Therefore it would have gone rather further than the Amendment which we are discussing, because it would have made the Preamble one of intention now, and that, I understand by your ruling, Sir Dennis, is not what we do by this Amendment. What we do by the Amendment is still somewhat dubious. In any event, in the Act of 1919 Parliament made a declaration of policy, and with that declaration in general I agree. It is a declaration that there is no limit to the constitutional advance in India. That is in the Preamble. It is also a declaration that that advance lies with Parliament, with us and our successors, and it is made conditional on the responsibility of the people in India. Therefore, though it is unlimited in one sense, it is conditional, because there are the words: The extent to which it is found that confidence can be reposed in their sense of responsibility. Whatever we do, we are definitely saying that we are not destroying the declaration made in 1919. It is a great pity that so many statesmen have made so many 1386 declarations with regard to India. They go running round making unnecessary promises which cause a great deal of harm. It is a terrible mistake to excite hopes unnecessarily by all sorts of promises which have not the slightest justification. I often wonder to what extent we are bound by declarations made by Ministers of past Governments. We are bound by contracts, clearly. I do not think that anybody can, in perpetuity, bind his successors by unilateral declaration. We must not break promises or break faith as a nation, but I do not think that statesmen ought to make statements regarded as promises, and certainly you cannot bind posterity indefinitely by unilateral declarations and the careless use of words. The declaration which was made in 1921 of India taking its place among our Dominions clearly did not mean what Dominion status now means, although many people think that it does. It was great carelessness on the part of some of our statesmen.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I do not think that those statements have anything to do with the Amendment.

§ Mr. WILLIAMS
I am doing my best to keep in order, Sir Dennis. At any rate, this Parliament is making no declaration. There is no preamble, no declaration and no promise. All that Parliament is doing is to say that these things under the Bill, if it becomes an Act, shall be done. In that sense we are not binding ourselves for the future, but we are leaving on record the declaration and intention made in 1919. That is the only declaration of intention made by Parliament. Therefore, if we do not put that declaration in the Act we do not destroy it, and, in effect, so far as any declaration and intention are binding, the Preamble of 1919 remains binding, and for that reason I support the Amendment.

§ Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT
I congratulate the Government on the steps they are taking. The absence of words to this effect has caused very serious concern in all parts of India, and I think that by adding these words to the Bill the Government are doing two things. First of all, they are reassuring opinion in India that the Preamble of the 1919 Statute is not a bad one, and secondly, they are putting into this Bill words which describe the principle of development 1387 which therefore becomes part of the Act. I have listened with the greatest difficulty to the long discussion which has preceded the present discussion, and I am very anxious to keep within the terms of order. It would seem to be the case that if the Government or any other person proposed to the Committee the insertion of such words, it would be open to the Committee to consider the Amendment of such words. Personally—I may have misunderstood your Ruling, Sir Dennis—I should have thought that if words were proposed to be inserted in the Bill, that not only could we discuss the meaning of such words but that it would be corn-potent to enlarge them if necessary, but at the moment we are restricted under your Ruling to the insertion of these words.

§ The CHAIRMAN
May I point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman—I do not know whether;he understood my meaning or understood the facts—that we are not inserting in this Bill the Preamble to the Act of 1919.

§ Mr. KNIGHT
With the greatest possible respect, though I do not want to reopen the discussion, which was not followed without difficulty in the Committee, these words in effect incorporate into this Bill the Preamble to the Act of 1919. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I will put it this way. These words incorporate into this Bill the principle of development which is set out in the Preamble to the Act of 1919. I hope that I am well within your Ruling, Sir Dennis, in putting it in that way?

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. and learned Member is expressing his own opinion, and I certainly will not rule on the question of the correctness or otherwise of the hon. and learned Member's opinion, but I shall confine myself to ruling, whether or not what he says is out of order or not.

§ Mr. KNIGHT
I am not asking you, Sir Dennis, to give a Ruling on any statement of mine, but I am here to state an opinion, and if that statement of opinion is not within the Rules of Order I am prepared to submit to your Ruling. With great respect, I desire to repeat, in the hope that it is in order, that these words bring within the ambit of this Bill the principle of development 1388 which is set out in the Preamble in the Act of 1919. I put it purposely in that form, and I say that the absence of such words from this Bill caused very great concern not only in India but in this House. This Bill was preceded by a very detailed examination. The 1919 Statute contemplated a revision of the terms of that Statute in the light of the experience of the Statute, and that examination having taken place under the recommendations of the Statutory Committee, this Bill was framed, and the absence from this Bill of any words which gave support to the principle of the Act of 1919 caused great concern. The fact that the proposed words are to be put into the Bill is a matter of very great satisfaction, and it is an additional satisfaction to me and to those outside that, not only are they proposed by the Government but hon. and right hon. Gentlemen whom I did not expect to accede to this addition to the Bill have stated here to-day that they accept it. Therefore the addition comes with the general approval of the Committee, and I hope it will have the effect of reassuring interests in India that we have not abandoned the principle of the Preamble to the Act of 1919.

§ Mr. ANNE.SLEY SOMERVILLE
The Amendment appears to be satisfactory: at the same time, the position created by it is most peculiar. We have the whole of the Act repealed except the Preamble. That Preamble is most useful, but the word upon which I should like to dwell is the word "gradual," the gradual development of self-governing institutions. Surely to have that in existence side by side with or at the beginning of the Measure is a contradiction in terms. This Bill does not provide for gradual development, but for a great leap forward. I dare say that I should be out of order if I attempted to develop that idea, but I want to express my satisfaction that this Preamble is left in being as a contradiction to a great part of the Bill now before us.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
I understand that the Government have brought forward this Amendment in order to satisfy those who felt that the Bill, without the 1389 Preamble, is unsatisfactory. I wish to say that those of us who were dissatisfied on the score of there being no Preamble showing the object of the Bill, as in the case of the 1919 Act, cannot accept this as satisfactory, because of the fact that higher authorities in India disagreed as to the meaning of the Preamble after Viceroys and the present Prime Minister and others had explained what the Preamble meant. Others have challenged that definition and we desired that there should be a clear statement as to what it meant. We also wanted the Prime Minister's statement and the statements of the late Viceroy and the present Viceroy in regard to Dominion Status to be put in the Preamble. We are prevented by your Ruling to move our Amendment in order to get a decision on that subject. We might, if we thought it wise, vote against this Amendment, but we do not feel that we should like to do that, weak as we think it is, and not understandable as we, think it is, because of the diverse opinions expressed by different authorities as to what it really means. I regret very much, first, that the subject is before us in this manner and, secondly, that the Government have not taken their courage in both hands and definitely declared that the object of this legislation is to bring India ultimately into the British Commonwealth of Nations as an equal partner, with full Dominion Status.