CLAUSE 6.—(Accession of Indian States). (Hansard, 26 February 1935)

§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
I beg to move, in page 3, line 19, to leave out, "a declaration made," and to insert, an instrument of Accession executed."
This is the first of a series of Amendments to the Clause in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I dealt with them all on this Amendment. They are all drafting Amendments in the sense that they do not alter the intention or the substance of the Clause as drafted. They are designed to make the intention clearer and to simplify the original drafting. Earlier to-day my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to this Clause, gave an analysis of its main outlines and made a reference to these Amendments. Having regard to that very clear statement, I do not think it is necessary for me to repeat the analysis of the Clause in order to make these drafting Amendments intelligible to the Committee. The Amendments in the first place bring up from Sub-section (7) of the Clause as it was drafted the words, "Instrument of Accession" and make it clear that the Instrument of Accession is the operative document in which what were originally referred to as declarations will in fact be made. So it will be found in the six Amendments that where in the original drafting we found the word "declaration" we substitute the words "Instrument of Accession."
Then there is an Amendment which is designed to make clear what was always intended, namely, the obligation of a State to ensure due effect of the Act within its territory. The obligation of the ruler to ensure due effect within the State is limited to provisions which are applicable to the State by virtue of the Instrument of Accession. The Amendments also rearrange the latter part of Sub-section (1, b) in that part of the Clause which says that the Instrument of Accession will specify which of the matters mentioned in the federal legislative list he accepts as matters with respect to which the Federal Legislature may make laws for his State and his 1084 subjects. As amended Sub-section (1, b) will stop there, and what is contained in the three latter lines of the original Clause will come in the proviso, and added words, which are in an Amendment to line 38, will also make it clear that the Instrument of Accession will not only specify the subjects in the federal list, subject to any conditions and limitations with regard to that, but also the Instrument of Accession may qualify the provisions of the Act, but only if there are provisions of the Act which expressly authorise their being qualified in that way.

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
On a point of Order. Are we to take it that we are now discussing not only the Amendment which is actually before the Committee but also the Amendment on page 345 of the paper to which the Solicitor-General has referred?

§ The CHAIRMAN
The Solicitor-General proposed, I think with the general assent of the Committee, to discuss on this first Government Amendment all the Government Amendments to this Clause. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has pointed out that these Amendments are all related and that they stand together.

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
Will that have the effect of cutting out the important Amendments which we seek to make in this Clause?

§ The CHAIRMAN
No. The ordinary course is that those Amendments which are related one to the other are discussed as a whole on the first of them to be moved and that on the ones later the question should be put on each of them as reached without debate. After the general discussion we shall proceed to take the next Amendment which would be called in the ordinary course. Then when we reach the next Government Amendment that will be put to the Committee without further discussion.

§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
This is a complicated matter but I shall do my best to make the point clear. My right hon. Friend explained this afternoon 1085 that the general scheme of the Clause is that the ruler will accede to the Act as a whole dealing with these powers of the Federal Executive. What the ruler does in the Instrument of Accession is, first, to limit the area within which those powers will be exercised, and then with regard to the subjects in the federal list which he agrees to accede to, he will have power to impose conditions and limitations. For instance, there are treaty rights which no one for a moment suggests should be interfered with and which would come within the area of one of the subjects in the federal list. So far, I think the general lay-out of the Clause is clear. In addition to that, I would ask the Committee to look at Clause 124 which deals with the administration of Federal Acts in Indian States. But for this Clause the administrative powers of the Federal Executive would apply completely in respect of any subject which had been acceded to. This Clause provides: Notwithstanding anything in this Act, agreements may, and, if provision has been made in that behalf by the Instrument of Accession of the State, shall, be made between the Governor-General and the Ruler of a Federated State for entrusting to the Ruler or to his officers functions in relation to the administration in his State of any law of the Federal Legislature which applies therein, but any such agreement shall contain provisions enabling the Governor-General in his discretion to satisfy himself, by inspection or otherwise, that the administration of that law is properly carried out. There is a Clause which says expressly that a particular limitation in regard to the general application of the Act may be made. In the words which it is proposed to add express reference is made to the fact that provision in the Instrument of Accession may be made in matters of that kind, if the Act expressly authorises their insertion in that place.

§ Mr. MORGAN JONES
Do I understand the Solicitor-General to say that, supposing a Prince accedes in respect of 10 such federal subjects, it is only the Governor-General who can assure himself that the 10 subjects are being properly administered within the State?

§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
I think the hon. Member misunderstood me. In the ordinary case a State, by acceding to 10 subjects, will accede in respect not only of the legislative powers, but of 1086 the administrative powers of the Federation. The Clause to which I refer, Clause 124, is intended to meet the special case of some large State with an efficient administration which puts forward the suggestion that it might itself be allowed to administer one or more subjects in respect of which it accedes. Clause 124 says that such an agreement may be made, but if it is made, then the Governor-General is given the special power of inspection to which I have just referred. Then there is another Amendment. The Committee will see in pararaph (b) in line 34, the word "condition," where it will be found that in the new Amendment in substitution for that word and in other places where the word "condition" occurs, we have added "and limitations." It was thought that treaty matters, for instance, as to which nobody suggests a State could not properly make reservations, are more properly described as limitations than conditions.

§ Mr. EMMOTT
Is that on the Order Paper?

§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
That is where the word occurs in the Clause as now drafted. Those words are taken out of that place, and somewhat similar words come in in another place, and where the word "condition" occurred previously by itself in the Clause, we now put in the words "and limitations." That is a general statement, and if I now refer to these Amendments where they come on the Order Paper, I hope I may be able to make clear what is being done. The first one is at the bottom of page 343 of the Order Paper, and that is in the first category to which I referred. It substitutes the words "an Instrument of Accession executed" for "a declaration made." The Committee will see that in the Clause as originally drafted the Secretary of State is deemed to have acceded to the Federation if His Majesty has signified his acceptance of a declaration made by the Ruler. It was intended that that should be the Instrument of Accession, and we now make that clear by bringing those words up to the top of the Clause. The next Amendment is on page 344, the last but one from the bottom, in page 3, line 33, to leave out from "subjects" to "and" in line 36. Those are the words which I told the Committee we were leaving out 1087 and covering by words which occur later in the proviso. The next group will come on page 345, the second lot of Amendments. The first one is in line 38, to leave out "to this Act." Those words come out, and there are inserted in their place: to the provisions of this Act so far as they are applicable therein by virtue of his Instrument of Accession. The Amendment makes clear what was the obvious intention, namely, that the Ruler will only assume the obligation of ensuring that due effect is given within his State to the provisions of this Act so far as they are applicable therein by virtue of his Instrument of Accession. In the original draft the words "to this Act" were unqualified. That is just the kind of point that might give rise to misunderstanding in the position as it is. The next Amendment is a long one and substitutes words for "a declaration may be made" in line 39. They cover the ground covered by the last lines of paragraph (b) and make it clear what can be and what cannot be in the Instrument of Accession. It is, perhaps not necessary to read the Amendment as I think I have fairly explained the effect of it. The next Amendment in page 4, line 5, is to effect the substitution of the word "Instrument" for "declaration," and the following one in line 7 is to insert "with or without conditions or limitations" in place of "conditionally or otherwise"; and the others in this group are consequential. In line 19, there is another substitution of the word "Instrument" for "declaration," and in lines 37 and 38 are two more of the same kind. The last one is in page 5, line 1, to leave out Sub-section (7). As the words "Instruments of Accession" have now been brought up to the front of the Clause it is unnecessary for these provisions to remain in Sub-section (7). They have been covered by bringing the words up to the beginning of the Clause and also by the added words in line 38 on page 3.

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
We are all indebted to the learned Solicitor-General for the cogency and the compression of his statement on this series of Amendments; which play an important part in the Government's alterations to the Bill. I feel, 1088 after what my hon. and learned Friend has said, that the Committee is now in full possession of all the points at issue. As we are anxious to get on as rapidly, as possible, I shall not find it necessary to delay the Committee by exploring this matter further, but there are one or two questions I wanted to ask. As far as I am able to throw myself into the full stream of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's discourse, I gather that this series of Amendments is designed to placate the Princes, a very legitimate and a very necessary task, designed to placate them upon the varying and complicated type of their Instruments of Accession. The rather vulgar commonplace word "declaration" has been put into a suitable background, and the expression "Instrument of Accession" is given due prominence. That is the specific Amendment, and it inaugurates a series of Amendments all designed, as I take it, to enable the Secretary of State to go round to these Princes one by one. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give me his attention. Perhaps he was telling the learned Solicitor-General of something which the latter had forgotten to say. They are all designed to enable my right hon. Friend to go round to these Princes one by one—not having them in a great bunch of 100, as we saw the other day in Bombay—but one by one and take from each according to what he can give—from each according to his power, to each according to his need. It will be a case of an indefinite succession of individual dealings. After all, some will contribute a good deal to the Federation, others may only be able to give very little, but he needs them all, and this Amendment gives him the power to arrange anything that he likes with any Prince in order to gather his force together.
I take it that is the object of the extremely powerful technical exposition from the Solicitor-General. We can quite understand the purpose; although some of us, not having a legal training, may not be able to follow every one of those refinements, yet, nevertheless, the purpose is nakedly clear. It is to enable the right hon. Gentleman to gather his party together among the Princes. But there are one or two questions I must really ask. There must be some limit, some minimum test, before he can say he has got a 1089 Prince. Of course, the larger the party the more generous are the conditions of association, but this is rather a small party, on the narrow verge between the 50 per cent. who we thought were associated with the whole party and the 75 per cent. where a lot of vulgar blackmailing considerations might intrude upon the course of the Imperial Government. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman must have a more or less precise test. I hope he will tell us what is the least concession of individual State rights which he will accept as suitable for the Crown to concur with. I gather we shall have all kinds of Instruments of Accession. Some will come in for a lot, and some for less, and some for hardly anything—some will hardly pay the green fees. At any rate, however they are in there must be some test, and I hope the Secretary of State will tell us quite shortly what it is. I would not wish him to go over all the legal points again. We have got them. Quite shortly, what exactly is the least that will qualify a Prince to he told, on the authority of the Crown, that he has executed an acceptable Instrument of A ecession—I think I have got that right?
Another question which arises is a little more complex, hut I think I can put it without any legal complication. All these Instruments of Accession will be of varying types and varying values. Some will be whole-timers, some half-timers, others will only just chip in for a bit and go away again. All these Instruments of Accession are of varying values. There may be four, five or six different types, or many more. How do those varying values affect the principle of 50 per cent. of the Princes coming in in order to constitute the basis of the federal system? It is obvious that these react upon one another. You cannot count the half-timers as whole-timers. For the purpose of 50 per cent. you cannot count a man who only comes in for one thing or another, and who says, "I come into Federation on this limited liability principle; I quite agree with it as far as that is concerned." You cannot count him as a 100 per cent. factor of the 50 per cent. necessary quota.
These react upon each other, and we are getting into an extremely complicated notation in this matter. I hope the right 1090 hon. Gentleman will tell us quite plainly whether, when he says there must be a 50 per cent. minimum of the Princes by population and territory, as set out in the Bill, he means 50 per cent. bona fide Instruments of Accession and not merely a number of Princes who may have paid a certain lip-service to the principle, although they may have a certain population and territory. Are these obligations to be reciprocal? Is everyone—including those who come in for a very little—also to be excluded from voting in the Debates of the Federal Assembly in respect of matters which they have not, as it were, put into the pool? If you are to carry out this immensely complicated scheme, the like of which was never seen on earth, in Heaven or in the waters under the earth, and will never be seen again after we have finished with it, at least you should lay down the broad principle that no one shall take out of the federal pool more than he puts in, and that no Prince shall take out of the federal pool more than he puts in. I hope I shall be able to have an assurance that that is definitely embodied in the law.
I am sure my right hon. Friend will clear up these points of difficulty which remain over; he really owes it to us to do so. He said earlier in the day that the House had instructed him to produce this Bill, but I think responsibility does not rest entirely upon the House. He forgot to mention that before the House instructed the Government to produce this Bill, the Government instructed the Whips to instruct the House to instruct him to produce exactly the Bill that he requires.

§ Mr. MORGAN JONES
I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman added the last point, which in substance is the same as that which we have repeatedly put before the Committee. Earlier in the evening I tried to show some reasons why we objected to federation, and among the arguments which I advanced was the last argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) to which I have just referred. It is possible for a Prince to accede to this federation on the basis of one item in the list. It is, of course, possible that the Secretary of State has in his mind some common factor, some common 1091 measure, to which all the Princes must accede. He may have in his mind that a Prince must accept 10 items or 20 items, as the ease may be. If hon. Members look at the list they will see what the items are. I look casually at page 293, And among the subjects is No. 46, State lotteries. If a Prince is prepared to accept, in the federal list, the item of the governance of State lotteries, as a federal subject, does that entitle him, on that basis alone, to become a member of the Federation, and to exercise all the powers that membership of the Federation involves, even to the extent of withstanding any measure of democratic advance in other parts of British India? It is a most important point, which ought to be cleared up, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us to-night, that it is in his mind and in the mind of the Government of India that all the Princes must accede in common to some common list—that there must be a common standard for them all—

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
A common minimum.

§ Mr. JONES
Yes, a common minimum. Otherwise, I think that federation is simply a sham. The right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon that he is not going to have a sham federation, but, unless he has a fuller explanation to give to us than he has been able to give so far, it will be a sham federation, because there will be no common standard to which all the Princes must subscribe. My second point is one that I tried to put to the Solicitor-General earlier in an interruption. Supposing that a Prince has acceded in respect, say, of 10 subjects, what is the effect of Clause 124 in relation to this point? If that Prince demands, as the price of his accession, that the administration of the 10 subjects within his State shall be in the hands of State officials, acting, so to speak, in the capacity of agents on behalf of the Federation, do I gather that, once the State officials have become the administrators of the federal laws inside the State on behalf of the Federation, the Central Legislature will have no power itself to supervise the administration of those 10 subjects, but that that supervision is in the hands of the. Governor-General, and not of the Central Legislature? The point is an important one, 1092 because the Central Legislature will supervise the administration inside British India, but may delegate its authority in respect of administration to State officials inside a State, and will then have no direct power itself to see that its federal laws are being properly administered inside those areas, except in so far as the Governor-General satisfies himself that that is the case.
My third point is a rather difficult one. It is in regard to Sub-section (2), where there is a reference to a supplementary declaration. Supposing that a Prince has in the first instance acceded in respect of 10 subjects, and that later, as the Federation seems to progress or begins to be operative, the ruler thinks he would like to hand over the administration of two or three other subjects, does the supplementary declaration include the supplementary subjects which he may want to accept from the federal list? I am afraid I have put the point rather clumsily, but I hope it will be clear to the right hon. Gentleman. There is yet a further question which I should like to put to you, Sir Dennis. I take it that, in discussing these subjects now en masse, as it were, we are taking an all-round discussion on them, but that you will be calling in the proper place the Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) at the bottom of page 344—In page 3, line 36, after "subject," to insert: (c) declares that he accepts as matters with respect to which the Federal Legislature may make laws for his State and his subjects the matters numbered twenty-six, twenty-seven, and twenty-eight in the Concurrent Legislative List, namely:

(i)Factories; regulation of the working of mines, but not including, mineral development;

(ii) Welfare of labour; provident funds, employers' liability, and workmen's Compensation;

(iii) Trade unions; industrial and labour disputes."

§ The CHAIRMAN
That is so. Perhaps I may repeat what I said just now. Having disposed of this Amendment, we shall take the other Government Amendments when we come to them in. their order without discussion. Sandwiched between those various Government Amendments will come, in their due place, whatever other Amendments on the Order Paper are selected by the Chair.

§ Sir C. OMAN
Would it be permissible for a Sovereign who has been requested by His Majesty's Government to reside outside his own territories for a time to accede on behalf of himself and his successors and, secondly, is it possible for a regency acting for a minor, who may be 20 years ahead of coming of age, to accede in his name and, if so, will the power of acceding on behalf of these two classes of people be in the hands of the Government?

§ Lord EUSTACE PERCY
May I ask the Secretary of State to make one tilling clear in his reply. There is an Amendment in his name, in Clause 6, page 3, line 39, to leave out "a declaration may be made," and to insert: an Instrument of Accession may declare that the Ruler accepts this Act subject to such provisions, if any, as may be specified in the Instrument, being provisions which are by this Act expressly authorised to be included in an Instrument of Accession, and that his acceptance of any matter as a matter with respect to which the Federal Legislature may make laws is subject to such conditions and limitations, if any, as may be so specified. (2) An Instrument of Accession may be executed. I read this originally in a sense in which I think anyone else might read it, including any Indian Prince, namely, that not only were the permissible provisions all to be specifically authorised in the Act but also that any conditions or limitations which a Prince desired to insert into the Instrument of Accession should also be expressly authorised in the Act. I understand that that is not intended to be the case and that there is no intention to say that the conditions ad limitations of the Instrument of Accession which a Prince may insert are limited to such conditions as are expressly authorised in the Act.

§ Sir W. DAVISON
There is one very interesting matter that has just emerged. Do I understand that one of the items to which these Princes are to be invited to subscribe is that of State lotteries? If so, this is a most extraordinary thing—

§ The CHAIRMAN
I think that question will arise when we come to the list of subjects.

§ Sir W. DAVISON
As it is one of the items which we are now discussing, which it is necessary for a Prince to subscribe to in order to come into the Federation, surely I am entitled to refer to it and ask the Government whether they really intend that State lotteries should be one of the items to which a Prince shall be invited to subscribe.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to do that here. Later on, if all goes well, we shall come to where that subject appears in the list, and then will be his opportunity.

§ Sir W. DAVISON
I was only anxious at the moment to draw attention to it.

§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
I will first deal with the point raised by the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), namely, the position with regard to subjects when a State comes up for consideration. They can give their list of federal subjects and can accompany that with conditions or limitations as they desire.

§ Lord E. PERCY
Whether mentioned in the Act or not?

§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
That is so, whether mentioned in the Act or not. So far as a State is concerned where subjects are qualified by conditions or limitations; with reference to these subjects, that is one thing it can do. It can, in addition, ask for limitations in respect of others, but can only ask for such limitations or provisions as are expressly authorised by the Act.

Mr. D. D. R EID
May I ask whether the Instrument of Accession is not a final document? It must be, definitely.

§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
The Instrument of Accession is a final form, the result, as everybody will agree, of negotiations. When I was speaking just now I mean to refer, if I did not make myself clear, to the first stage of negotiations, when the State said, "We wilt accede, we would like this condition or limitation to be made if the negotiations go on." My hon. Friend is right in that when the thing comes to be an Instrument of Accession it is a final and complete document.

§ Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND
I should like to ask one simple question—whether these limitations and conditions that may be asked for apply simply to subjects in List 1 or also to List 3, the concurrent list?

§ Major NATHAN
I should like to ask what is the machinery for the signing of the Instrument of Accession in the circumstances which seem to me to be contemplated in Sub-section (3), where it is prescribed that a declaration shall not be valid unless it is the declaration of the ruler himself?

§ The CHAIRMAN
I do not think that arises on this Clause.

§ Major NATHAN
It is raised in one of the Amendments. There is reference to the acceptance of an Instrument of Accession made by the ruler thereof. The question I am attempting to put to the Secretary of State is, how does the ruler sign or execute the instrument to which reference is made under Sub-section (1)?

§ The CHAIRMAN
We are not discussing that at all; the Amendment on which that question could have been raised is quite limited in scope. It is quite wrongly raised on the Clause.

§ Sir H. CROFT
In view of the vital importance of the question, could not the Secretary of State answer first thing to-morrow?

§ Sir S. HOARE
indicated assent.

§ Mr. THORP
Is it the view of the Government that the words in Subsection (1, b) would allow a time limit to be placed on the application of the condition?

§ The CHAIRMAN
That question cannot be taken on this Clause.