HC Deb 27 March 1935 vol 299 cc1973-2008
The CHAIRMAN

With regard to the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Springbum (Mr. Emmott)—in page 65, line 12, to leave out paragraph (a)—I propose to call upon the hon. Member, in the hope that he will explain to me exactly what the effect of the Amendment is. I am not quite sure how far it may or may not be connected with other Amendments, and must reserve my right not to select it if I find that the hon. Member's explanation does not satisfy me.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. EMMOTT

Clause 108 provides that: Unless the Governor-General in his discretion thinks fit to give his previous sanction, there shall not be introduced into, or moved in, either Chamber of the Federal Legislature, any Bill or amendment which—

  1. (a) repeals, amends or is repugnant to any provisions of any Act of Parliament extending to British India."
The Federal Legislature, and during the transitional period the Indian Legislature, can, if the Governor-General gives his sanction, amend or repeal any Act of Parliament extending to British India. That is the effect of paragraph (a). It is true that this power is subject to certain exceptions which are stated in Clause 110. We think, however, that the principle contained in paragraph (a) is a very dangerous one, and should not be established, namely, that the Indian legislature during the transitional period, and in the future the Federal Legislature should—it is true with the previous sanction of the Governor-General—be able to repeal or amend, or make any provision which is repugnant to a provision of, an Act of Parliament. We think that that power should not be conferred upon the Federal Legislature. Indubitably it is an innovation, because, under Sub-section (2) of Section 65 of the Government of India Act, 1915, the Indian Legislature has no power to amend or repeal any Act of Parliament passed after 1860 which extends to British India. The Government of India Act, 1915, is, of course, repealed by this Measure, therefore the power which it is now sought to confer on the Federal Legislature is an absolutely new power.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member's explanation confirms what was in my mind. The point really arises on Clause 110, perhaps more than on this Clause. He has given a clear explanation of his intention, and I think it would not be inconvenient to the Committee that they should discuss the point on this Amendment, but of course in that event it must not be discussed again on the subsequent Clause. If it is discussed now, it must be discussed as part of a series of Amendments to this Clause and to Clause 110.

Mr. EMMOTT

I beg to move, in page 65, line 12, to leave out paragraph (a).

I can put what I have to say very briefly, though I would respectfully urge upon the Committee that the argument I have to address to it is one of considerable importance. It is true that most of the important Acts relative to British India since 1860 have now been repealed, or, if they have not been repealed already, they will be repealed by Clause 451 and the 15th Schedule of this Bill when it becomes law. So the provision to which we take exception is perhaps more important as regards the future than as regards the past. It is true that paragraph (a) of Clause 110 preserves the power of Parliament to legislate for British India, but in practice that power will be apt to be completely nullified if the Federal Legislature has the power which it is now sought to give to it by Clause 108, that is to say, the power to repeal or amend any Act of Parliament, subject, of course, to the previous sanction of the Governor-General.

It is not difficult to imagine circumstances in which very strong pressure might be put upon the Governor-General to induce him to give his sanction. And in this connection I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to the provisions of Clause 109 of the Bill. The effect of Clause 109 is that a Bill which required the previous sanction of the Governor-General or of a Governor, and which had not received that sanction, could still become law if assent were subsequently given. One can imagine circumstances in which exceedingly strong pressure might be put upon the Governor-General or Governor to give his assent to a Bill to which Clause 109 applies, and certainly such pressure would be much more difficult to resist in the case of a Bill on which time and money had been expended, and which had passed through all its stages, than in the case of a Bill to which these circumstances do not apply. Without going into any further detail, I press that view upon His Majesty's Government. I have put before the Committee very plainly the principle upon which we object to this paragraph. We believe that the power which, by it, is sought to be conferred upon the Federal Legislature is a dangerous one, and should not be granted to it.

Some of my hon. Friends may see fit to put other considerations, but before I conclude, I should like to draw the attention of His Majesty's Government to a matter which, I think, is no more than one of drafting. The words in paragraph (a) are: Any Act of Parliament extending to British India. These words will, when this Bill reaches the Statute Book, apply to the Bill itself. Clause 108 is not specifically stated to be subject to any other provisions of this Act. Therefore, if the Clause be read by itself, it would mean that, in the event of the sanction of the Governor-General having been given, the Federal Legislature could amend this Act itself. I do not believe that to be the intention of His Majesty's Government, but the matter is at least a little obscure. I am certainly not suggesting the answer which the right hon. and learned Gentleman will give, but I think that the answer to the consideration which I have just brought before the Committee is that Clause 108 must be read subject to Clause 110, which, in paragraph (a), lays down that: Nothing in this Act shall be taken— (a) to affect the power of Parliament to legislate for British India, or any part thereof, and goes on to lay down that nothing in the Act shall be taken: To empower the Federal Legislature, or any Provincial Legislature— … except in so far as is expressly permitted by this Act, to make any law amending any provision of this Act. It is, I think, actually the case that Clause 108 must be read together with Clause 110 and subject to it, but it is at least open to argument that under paragraph (a) of Clause 108 (1) power is given to the Federal Legislature to amend this constitution Act itself. If that be not the intention of His Majesty's Government, may I ask that words be used to make the intention of the Government clear beyond dispute.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD

I should like briefly to endorse the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn (Mr. Emmott) and to ask the learned Attorney-General to consider withdrawing paragraph (a). We feel very strongly that one of the results of this paragraph is to hurry India along the road to Dominion status at a speed which this House does not realise, and which, if it did realise it, it would certainly not endorse. As my hon. Friend has said, one of the results of this Clause will be that the Federal Legislature in India can, with the Governor-General's sanction, amend or repeal any Act of the Imperial Parliament which is applicable to British India and, as he rightly pointed out, this power does not, under the existing law, exist to-day. But the existing law is to be repealed by the Bill which we are rapidly passing to the Statute Book. I would suggest to the Attorney-General, if he will be good enough to pay consideration to this argument, that we are now giving India a power which, I understand, neither Australia nor New Zealand enjoy, and a power which is not enjoyed by any Colony or Dominion subject to the provisions of the Statute of Westminster under the Colonial Laws Validity Act. It is a little unfortunate, at a time when we are anxious to deal with the Indian problem strictly upon its own merits and to find a solution suitable to the affairs of that great subcontinent, that we should almost casually give them powers of this kind without the Committee fully appreciating exactly what is going to happen. I do not believe that there are many people here who, if they understood fully that we were going beyond the terms of the Colonial Laws Validity Act, would endorse this paragraph.

The argument of the necessity for obtaining the assent of the Governor-General will no doubt be advanced in support of the paragraph, but that is not an argument that carries very great weight with us, because we envisage in the coming years all sorts of pressure which the Governor General may at times be almost powerless to withstand. It is no reflection on the type of man whom we shall certainly be able to find to undertake the great responsibilities in the new Constitution in India to point out that he will be subject to pressure. There will be a whole variety of things which he wants to see carried into action, and he may be prevailed upon, in order to secure assent to some other proposal, to give way on some Bill of this kind which will interfere with the rights of this House and the Imperial Parliament. We hold very strongly to the view that it would be far better if, instead of demanding the prior assent of the Governor-General, the approval of the British Parliament had to be obtained before an Act of the Imperial Parliament could be overruled by an Act of the Indian Legislature. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will give serious consideration to these arguments, because we believe very profoundly that, if we do so, we shall rue the day that we lightly gave away these tremendous powers to India.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS

I am in complete sympathy with the purpose of the Amendment, but I have some doubts about drafting. If we leave out paragraph (a) it may be the case that they will be able to do this sort of thing without anybody's permission. On the other hand, if my hon. Friend had moved to leave out the words at the beginning of the Clause Unless the Governor-General in his discretion thinks fit to give his previous sanction"— and then inserted those words with the rest of the governing words in front of paragraph (b), it would make it clear that (a) they could not do anything, and (b) (c) and the rest, that they could only do something subject to those qualifying words. If we leave the paragraph out entirely, it seems to me conceivable that we shall then deliberately be conferring upon the Federal Assembly the power to—

Viscount WOLMER

My hon. Friend will find that point met by the Amendment on Clause 110.

Mr. WILLIAMS

My Noble Friend means that they go together. I beg the pardon of the Committee, and I am sorry. It is a little difficult to follow all these things, and I heard my hon. Friend say that it should be read in conjunction with Clause 110. I thought he meant in conjunction with Clause 110 as it stands at the moment. I am sorry that through inadvertence I misled the Committee.

6.39 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

It is certainly desirable that the Committee should appreciate what is being done in Clauses 108 and 110 with reference to legislation that comes into conflict with an Imperial Act of Parliament. My hon. Friend who has moved this Amendment, will, I think, agree with me that the real object at the back of his mind only comes out when one looks at the Amendment which he proposes to Clause 110 to insert some words in paragraph (b). I would point out to the Committee how the Amendment would operate if the words which my hon. Friend is later to propose were added to the Clause. Clause 110 would read: Nothing in this Act shall be taken— (b) to empower the Federal Legislature, or any Provincial Legislature—

  1. (i) …to make any law which repeals, amends, or is repugnant to any Act of Parliament passed after the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty and extending to British India or."
The purpose of my hon. Friend is really to lead up to that Amendment. This particular Amendment, although it comes first in order of time, is really what I may call a consequential Amendment to the major proposition which he will make at a later stage. Let us try and see what the position is, first of all, at the present time. My hon. Friend has rightly referred to Section 65 in the existing Government of India Act. Section 65 provides that there shall be no power to make a law repealing or affecting any Act of Parliament passed after 1860. Section 84 of the Government of India Act says that if any Act is passed which does repeal or affect an Act of Parliament passed after 1860, it shall be void to the extent of the repugnancy.

Now the question arises as to what powers the provisions of this Bill will give the Federal Legislature in relation to an Imperial Act of Parliament. The Government might take one of three courses. The first course possible is that they should maintain the existing position. That is to say, that the position as it is under Sections 65 and 84 of the Government of India Act, would remain and any Act which was repugnant to an Imperial Act of Parliament would be impossible or, if passed, would be void. The second course would be what may hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) suggested we are doing, namely, to give the Federal Legislature full and unrestricted powers to do what they like with an Imperial Act of Parliament; in other words, to give them the full freedom of legislature which is now conferred upon a Dominion like Canada to take advantage of the full use of the Statute of Westminster. That is the second course. The Government do not propose either of those courses. They neither propose to restrict the Indian Legislatures in the way in which they are at present restricted, nor do they propose to give them the full freedom to legislate irrespective of anything that the Imperial Parliament may have done or may do in the future. The Government propose, as the Bill shows, to take the middle course. It is all sketched out in the Report of the Joint Select Committee, and many hon. Members will be familiar with the proposal. The proposal is to select certain subjects and rule them out of the competence of the Indian Legislature. If hon. Members will turn to Clause 110, paragaph (b), they will find: Nothing in this Act shall be taken—

  1. (a) to affect the power of Parliament to legislate for British India, or any part thereof; or
    2. 1980
  2. (b) to empower the Federal Legislature, or any Provincial Legislature—
(i) to make any law affecting the Sovereign or the Royal Family, or the sovereignty, dominion or suzerainty of the Crown in any part of India, or the law of British nationality, or the Army Act, the Air Force Act, or the Naval Discipline Act, or the law of Prize or Prize courts.

In no circumstances can a Bill touching these matters come within the competence of the Indian Legislature. The proposal then is that, subject to the ruling out of these matters, the Indian Legislature shall be competent to legislate with the previous sanction of the Governor-General in his discretion. That is the provision in Sub-section (1) of Clause 108. But there is another safeguard which hon. Members have not noticed, perhaps they overlooked it, and that is that by the Instrument of Instructions the Governor-General is directed by paragraph 27 not to assent to— any Bill the provisions of which would repeal or be repugnant to the provisions of any Act of Parliament extending to British India.

Such a Bill must be reserved— for the signification of Our pleasure.

There is a similar provision in the Instrument of Instructions to the Governor-General in paragraph XVIII. Therefore, in so far as any Bill which is introduced which is repugnant to an Act of the Imperial Parliament, or which deals with any of the matters referred to in paragraph (a) of Clause 110 it is outside the competence of the Indian Legislature altogether. If, on the other hand, it is a Bill which does not deal with any of these matters it is still subject to the safeguard of securing the sanction of the Governor-General in his discretion. The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire says that that does not move him in the least; that he regards it as of no consequence. I do not agree with him. But even assuming that it is of no consequence there is a provision at the other end that the legislation shall be reserved, which will mean that the view of His Majesty's Ministers in this country will prevail. Over and above all this there is the provision in paragraph (a) of Clause 110 that— nothing in this Act shall be taken to affect the power of Parliament to legislate for British India or any part thereof.

The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire was certainly most inaccurate when he suggested that we were giving to India powers which exceed the powers given to any of the Dominions, to New Zealand or Australia.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD

What I meant to suggest was that the Dominions which have contracted out of the Statute of Westminster will not enjoy the powers we are giving to India by this Clause.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

The hon. Member has suggested that we are giving to India more than we have given to New Zealand or Australia. He will forgive me for correcting him again, but when he uses the expression "contracted out of the Statute of Westminster," that is not the right way to put it. The two Dominions which he has mentioned have not come into the Statute of Westminster. They prefer to take advantage of a provision in the Act, and until they have adopted a particular section in the Statute of Westminster they do not come into it. They can if they desire take advantage of this section in the same way as Canada, South Africa and the Irish Free State. But, taking my hon. Friend's point that New Zealand and Australia by their own wish, do not enjoy the full powers of the Statute of Westminster at the present time, it is not accurate to say that we are giving to India more than New Zealand enjoys. And for this reason. It has long been unconstitutional and therefore illegal for this House to legislate even for New Zealand without the consent of New Zealand. No Parliament would dream of legislating for New Zealand without the full assent and at the request of the Dominion. In the case of India, under this Bill, not only will it be possible legally and constitutionally for the Imperial Parliament to legislate for India but the power is expressly preserved in the Bill by which we shall be in a position to pass such legislation. From any point of view my hon. Friend has very much overstated his case.

The fact is that the position of the Indian Legislature will be nothing like so free as that of any of the Dominions, whether they have taken full advantage of the Statute of Westminster or not. If hon. Members will look at Clauses 108 and 110 I suggest that they will come to the conclusion that the Government in adopting the proposals of the Joint Select Committee have taken, if you accept the scheme of the Bill, the best course to pursue. I can understand hon. Members saying that we are not giving the Indian Legislature power to legislate in any way which comes in conflict with an Act passed by the Imperial Parliament. That is not the plan of the Bill. The safeguards, the reservations, are ample and sufficient to prevent anything being done which the Imperial Parliament would desire to prevent. And this further matter must be borne in mind, that there are, comparatively speaking, very few Acts dealing with India which have not been passed by the Indian Legislature. I could give the Committee a list if it were not for unnecessarily complicating my statement, of the Acts of the Imperial Parliament which apply to India at the present time, but, broadly speaking, the legislation which governs India to-day is the legislation of the Indian Legislature and, therefore, this conflict between Imperial Acts of Parliament and Indian legislation is not nearly so likely to occur or to be so acute as my hon. Friend has suggested.

I do not wish to shrink from the position taken up by the Government. We are giving an increased measure of freedom to the Indian Legislature to pass legislation as compared with the existing position shown in Sections 65 and 84 of the Government of India Act. If one realises that some matters are wholly withdrawn from the competence of the Indian Legislature, how there are safeguards upon the legislation they may pass, and that in the final case the Imperial Parliament retains all its powers I think the Committee will not be as much disturbed as they might have been by the first statement made by hon. Members.

6.55 p.m.

Viscount WOLMER

I should like to examine the speech of the Attorney-General a little further to see if my right hon. and learned Friend has not overstated his case. I am sure that the public outside have no idea that under this Bill it is within the power of the Indian Legislature to alter this Bill.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

I am afraid that in my desire to be reasonably brief I did not deal with that point, but if the Noble Lord will turn to Clause 110 he will find these words: Nothing in this Act shall be taken to empower the Pe3eral Legislature or any Provincial Legislature … except in so far as is expressly permitted by this Act to make any law amending any provision of this Act. The only place in the Bill where it is expressly permitted to alter the provisions of the Bill is in Clause 176, in the proviso which deals with the matter.

Viscount WOLMER

Let me put this point to the Attorney-General. Sub-section (1) of Clause 108, paragraph (a), says: Unless the Governor-General in his discretion thinks fit to give his previous sanction, there shall not be introduced into, or moved in, either Chamber of the Federal Legislature, any Bill or amendment which repeals, amends or is repugnant to any provisions of any Act of Parliament extending to British India. This is an excellent example of enacting the positive by stating the negative. If the provision which is laid down in this Sub-section is not fulfilled the implication is that the opposite power will exist. Let me put a concrete case. Suppose there is a Socialist Government in power in this country and that there is a Socialist Viceroy at Delhi. I would remind the Attorney-General that we have heard from hon. Members opposite that directly they have the opportunity the Socialist party are going to make a party appointment in India and put a Socialist Viceroy there. Therefore we have to contemplate a state of affairs where there is a Socialist Government in power with a temporary majority in this House and a Socialist Viceroy in India. Suppose that in the circumstances there is a demand in India for a repeal of some of the safeguards in the Bill? If the legislature at Delhi introduces a Bill for the repeal of some of the safeguards contained in this Bill—

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

I am sure that the Noble Lord would not like to give currency to an erroneous view. Let me assure him at once that what he is suggesting could not be done. He is drawing an inference which is indicated from the way Sub-section (1) of Clause 108 is drawn. He is suggesting, I gather, that if the Governor-General, a Socialist Governor-General, under a Socialist Government here gives his sanction to a Bill repealing the safeguards in this Bill that it would be law. That is not the whole of the picture. In Clause 110 there is an absolute prohibition against any such measure.

7.0 p.m.

Viscount WOLMER

The point I want to put to the right hon. and learned Gentleman is whether the words in Clause 110 (b, ii) are strong enough. I should have thought that if the Governor-General gave his sanction under this power in Clause 108, then it could be held, and might be held by the courts in India, that by the Viceroy giving his sanction, these words in Clause 110, except in so far as is expressly permitted by this Act had been fulfilled, because this Bill expressly permits the Viceroy to give his sanction. If he had given his sanction, could not the Indian Legislature proceed to repeal some of the safeguards in this Bill?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

My Noble Friend may say he prefers his own opinion to mine—

Viscount WOLMER

No. I am merely putting the point to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Let me say once more that the provisions of Clause 110, Sub-section (b) are perfectly plain. My Noble Friend has suggested that by reason of Clause 108, Subsection (1, a) there will be, in the event of sanction being given, a legal power to repeal the Constitution Act. If he will read the opening words of Clause 110, he will find that Nothing in this Act shall be taken … to empower the Federal Legislature … to make any law amending any provision of this Act. Therefore, you are not able to refer to the opening words of Clause 108 in order to draw the inference that you are giving that power. I am bound to tell him, with what authority I have to express an opinion on a point of law, that that is the position under the Bill.

Viscount WOLMER

I am not attempting to set my opinion against that of the Attorney-General, but I do think that we are entitled to ask him point blank for his opinion on the matter. A contrary opinion has been suggested from a very high constitutional authority, and it was not me or my friends who first noticed the importance of this point. If the Attorney-General says that the words except in so far as is expressly permitted by this Act do not cover the sanction which the Governor-General is empowered to give, then I can only accept his legal opinion. I do hope, however, that he will look further into this matter and consider it, because that view has been questioned by other great lawyers. This point, he will agree, is a matter of fundamental importance.

7.4 p.m.

Earl WINTERTON

I hope my right hon. Friend will assist the Committee by quoting the name of this legal authority.

Viscount WOLMER

I am entitled to ask any lawyers I like about this Bill. If I bring up a legal point and the Attorney-General turns me down, I am certainly entitled to say that this point has been suggested by people more qualified to speak on legal points than I am. Unless the opinion is expressed for publication, I am under no obligation to divulge names.

Earl WINTERTON

I am not suggesting that my Noble Friend is. It would help in the elucidation of the point which he has brought forward if he would be good enough to give us the name of the legal authority whom he said has given an opinion. I hope it is not going outside the bounds of courtesy to ask if he would be good enough to give us the name.

Viscount WOLMER

The opinion was given to me in confidence. I am not in a position to give names.

Earl WINTERTON

I do not see what can be confidential as between a legal authority and my Noble Friend in an opinion on this matter. It seems to be one of the mysteries which my Noble Friend and the right hon. Member beside Mm are so fond of importing into these Debates. I think the answer given him has been very satisfactory. I and others were in some doubt whether he was not right, but I think the answer which the Attorney-General has given was conclusive on the point. I rose to call attention to another aspect to which attention has not yet been given. The vast majority of the laws under which Indian administration operates are not laws of this House, and have not been for at least a generation past. Almost the whole of them are laws which have been passed by the Indian Legislature. Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that there will be any reason for repealing a law passed by this House, because it does not affect the Indian administration at all. The only danger would be one to which I think the Attorney-General has given a conclusive answer. In the ordinary course of administration there would be no reason for the Indian Legislature to deal with a law passed by this House, because practically the whole of Indian statute law is law that has been passed by the Indian Legislature.

7.7 p.m.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON

My Noble Friend the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) has no right to ask my Noble Friend the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) what he does. It is clear that there are many cases in which it would be very undesirable to divulge the name. It might very well be the opinion of a High Court judge, and it would be very undesirable for his name to be quoted. It might also be the opinion of a barrister engaged in advising some of the parties in this matter, the Indian Princes or otherwise. There are various reasons, and, if we are told that our opinion is of no value unless we can quote the opinion of some legal authority, then I say it is prostituting the Debates in this House. [Interruption.] Unquestionably.

Let us get back to the merits of the case. My knowledge of the law is infinitesimal compared with that of the Attorney-General, but all the same the words have a definite meaning. Acts of Parliament are not always interpreted in the same way by different legal authorities. It seems to an ordinary mind such as my own that the Attorney-General says, you cannot amend the Constitution Act because of Clause 110. But what do these words mean: except in so far as is expressly permitted under this Act"? Does not Clause 108 expressly permit the exception. It says that if the Governor-General gives his consent this Act may be repealed or amended. It seems to me such a court of law might very well hold that that was the point aimed at in Clause 110, Sub-section (2), as being a power expressly permitted by this Act. As this is a point of vital importance, it is surely desirable before this Clause leaves the control of the House of Commons that it should be made clear without a peradventure. This matter is one of very great complexity, and we should have words put into the Bill to make it clear that these expressly permissive words in paragraph (a) do not apply to the prohibition in Clause 110.

7.12 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL

I must express the great astonishment with which I have heard the Attorney-General and the Noble Lord refer to the fact that a great deal of Indian administration is carried on under Acts passed by the Indian Legislature as a reason why we should have no fear about this matter.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

I did not say that.

Duchess of ATHOLL

I understood that the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the fact that most of the Acts operated in India to-day were passed by the Indian Legislature, and the Noble Lord did so, and I understood that these statements were made to try to bring home what a very small matter was the Amendment we are discussing. I am sorry if I misunderstood the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but it seemed to me quite immaterial to the argument. It is entirely a question of the grant of constitutional powers and whether the Federal Legislature is to have authority to amend these powers. That is one of the biggest questions we can discuss. Not for the first time I feel that a discussion has been carried on with far too little regard to what has actually happened in connection with the matter under discussion. Let me bring back to the mind of the Committee the memorandum presented by the Indian Delegates to the Joint Select Committee just before they went home in 1933. I would also like to refer them to the number of times in the discussions before the Joint Select Committee and at the Round Table Conferences that the Indian Delegates pressed for this very power to amend the Constitution Act to which now some of us are objecting. All the time it was the expressed desire of the leading Indian delegates to have this power. May I also remind the Committee that Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru more than two years ago, when addressing a gathering of the Congress Party at Allahabad, said that the proposals of the Round Table Conference did not give Dominion status or independence, but that if they sent the right kind of men to the Legislature, it would be impossible for any Government to prevent them securing, in a few years, all the Congress Party desired. That is a statement we must have before us the whole time we are considering this matter. We have also to bear in mind the tremendous pressure there is likely to be on the Governor-General.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne)

The hon. Lady now seems to be getting right outside the Amendment. What we are dealing with is the question of whether the Indian Legislature can amend the Act, if this Bill becomes an Act.

Duchess of ATHOLL

It seems to me that we have to take into account, in considering that matter, the expressed intention of Indians in regard to this question, and to realise the great pressure to which the Governor-General may be subject.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

Whether he is subject to pressure or not, if, in point of fact, there is no legal power to amend the Act, is quite immaterial.

Viscount WOLMER

Surely it is not only a question of this Measure alone. That is only one phase of the point raised by the Amendment. The Amendment deals with the whole question of the circumstances in which an Indian Legislature shall have power to amend any Act of Parliament. The Government contend that this Measure is exempt from the general rule, but they do not contend that the Indian Legislature has no power to amend any Act of Parliament.

7.16 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

I do not know whether it will shorten the discussion or not, but I hope that my two Noble Friends who have just spoken will accept it as an earnest or a proof of my sincerity in saying that this Measure may not be amended, if I tell them that the Government are prepared to put in words to qualify the phrase "expressly permitted" on which they lay so much stress, so as to make it plain that the phrase only refers to Part VIII dealing with the Federal Railway Authority, and to Part XIV of the Bill dealing with Burma. I do not know exactly where these words will come in, but if they are inserted in the right place they will make it perfectly plain that the words "expressly permitted" do not refer to Clause 1.

7.17 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL

I am glad to have that clear statement as to the words which the Government propose to insert, but may we ask this further question? In the event of amending legislation being permitted by the Governor-General, are we to understand that it will be referred to the Secretary of State? If so, are we to understand that anything which is referred home in this connection will be brought before Parliament, or will it rest with the government of the day to sanction amendments of this or any other Act? I would remind the Committee that this power in the Federal Legislature to make amendments in the Constitution Act was one of the things which caused much anxiety to the Indian Princes. That anxiety was expressed in memoranda placed before the Joint Select Committee by their representatives two years ago, and it was again revealed in the speeches made at the meeting recently held. They ask that they should have the power to retire from the Federation in the event of any substantial change being made in it by the Federal Legislature.

7.19 p.m.

Mr. AMERY

I am sure the Committee will feel much reassured by the statement of the Attorney-General intimating that it will be placed beyond all doubt that Sub-section (1, a) of Clause 108 does not constitute "express permission" in the sense of paragraph (b) of Clause 110. Obviously it would be undesirable if this constitution itself were not to have the safeguards applicable to other constitutions in the Empire, but that point seems to have been laid at rest, both by the Attorney-General's original opinion as to the law as expressed in the words as they stand, and by the assurance that the Government will look further into the wording in order to make it as clear as possible.

Leaving that major matter on one side for the moment it seems to me that in other respects this Sub-section (1, a) can serve a useful purpose. Legislation may be passed by Parliament affecting India which experience may show to be, in some minor particular, not altogether applicable. In that case it might be very inconvenient to pass a special Act of Parliament here in order to modify that legislation while it would be convenient with the assent of the Government here for the Governor-General to sanction amending legislation in India. In the same way legislation might be introduced in India which would be desirable there but might be technically repugnant to some general law here. There again after consultation between the Governor-General and the Government here it might be both practicable and useful to sanction the introduction of such legislation as was required in India. It seems to me, therefore, as long as we have the Attorney-General's assurance on the major point, that it would be a good thing to leave this Sub-section standing as it is for the kind of practical purpose to which it may be usefully applied.

Mr. EMMOTT

But for the statement which was made a few moments ago by the Attorney-General we should certainly have taken a different course on this Amendment: but in view of the explicit assurance which he has given to the Committee I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.23 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I beg to move, in page 65, Line 19, to leave out from "matters" to "or," in line 22, and to insert as respects which the Governor-General is, by or under this Act, required to act in his discretion. This is purely a drafting Amendment. As the reserved departments are now defined in Clause 11, it is obviously appropriate that we should follow that definition in the subsequent parts of the Bill, and that is the object of the Amendment.

Wing-Commander JAMES

Am I right in assuming that the Sub-section, as redrawn, would now cover the excluded areas?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

As I have explained, this is only a drafting Amendment. The words which originally-occurred in the Bill, and which it is now proposed to omit, affect matters reserved to the discretion of the Governor-General in relation to defence, and other matters. It is now proposed to substitute the words: as respects which the Governor-General is, by or under this Act, required to act in his discretion. There is a purely technical difference. To be completely frank with the Committee, the words at present in the Subsection are a legacy from the time when Clause 11 was drafted in slightly different terms. They follow the earlier draft of Clause 11. The only change which we are making is to bring the wording of this Sub-section into line with the way in which Clause 11 is now drafted.

Wing-commander JAMES

May I ask, then, at what point in the Bill it is intended to deal with the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee which is to this effect: It is proposed that the powers of a Provincial Legislature shall not extend to any part of the Province which is declared to be an 'Excluded Area.' In what part of the Bill will that intention be implemented if not in this Clause?

Sir S. HOARE

I am afraid I could not deal with that question off-hand, but it certainly does not come in here.

Amendment agreed to.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE

I beg to move, in page 65, line 23, to leave out paragraph (d).

I wish to know the reason why there should not be introduced in either Chamber of the Legislature a Bill relating to any of the police forces? Paragraphs (d) and (e) of Sub-section (1) deal with matters which are quite different from those coming under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). Why should it not be possible to discuss such a matter as a change in the rules relating to the police?

7.26 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE

I thought we had dealt with this question when we discussed the whole problem of safeguards in connection with the police, but, whether we did or not, the answer to the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) is this. The Joint Select Committee regarded it as essential, as one of the safeguards for the police, that legislation dealing with the internal organisation and discipline of the police should only be introduced with the Governor-General's previous assent. Their reason was that the morale of the police depended so much upon the rules and Acts governing the organisation of the police in India that rash meddling, either with the rules or with police legislation, might in a short time destroy the morale of the police and ruin the organisation. The Joint Committee therefore came to the opinion, and the Government very strongly agree with them, that legislation of this kind should only be introduced with the previous assent of the Governor-General. That is a single reason, but a very strong one for this provision.

Mr. ATTLEE

I do not quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's point. The police administration is to be under the Provincial Governments. That is not now a reserved subject and therefore questions can be asked in the Provincial Legislatures and discussions are bound to take place constantly about the police. Why then should there be this restriction against introducing any legislation at the Centre dealing with the police? I understand it is possible to discuss police matters on a resolution, and the question of police rules and regulations is safeguarded. I cannot understand why it should be regarded as dangerous to discuss police matters on a Bill introduced in the Legislature.

Earl WINTERTON

The hon. Gentle man will remember that we had long discussions on this subject in the Joint Select Committee, and I think that he and the Members of his party and those who sat on the other side were not in agreement. The answer to him is this: With regard to a resolution dealing with the conduct of the police in any particular case, there is nothing under this Clause to prevent that discussion taking place. Therefore, it would be perfectly possible for the Legislature to raise the question of the conduct of the police. The reason why, in the opinion of many of us, it is undesirable to give power to the Legislature to introduce legislation affecting the police, is that some person or persons desiring to destroy the whole morale of the police may introduce a Bill for that purpose. In previous Clauses relating to the police there are very strict enactments to prevent the discipline of the police being interfered with. These words round off that system by preventing the Legislature from dealing with legislation.

Amendment negatived.

7.31 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE

I beg to move, in page 65, line 24, to leave out from "force" to the end of line 27.

Here a similar question to the last arises. Why should there be this restriction affecting criminal proceedings? I do not understand the point of setting up a sham Legislature that you cannot trust even to discuss a Bill. I think it is a monstrous thing that there should be this prevention of the discussion of legislation. It shows an extraordinary nervousness.

7.32 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE

Here again there is a good deal of past history behind this proposal. Hon. Members who have followed the history of this question will remember that in the past it has been a very fruitful source of bitter controversy. A generation ago there was no question that created greater bitterness in India than questions connected with the trial of Europeans. At one time India rang from one end to another with this controversy. For very many years it raged. But fortunately in the years immediately following the 1919 Act a successful attempt was made to reach a compromise between the European community in India and the Indians. A committee was appointed, a compromise was reached and subsequent amendments were made in the criminal code. As far as I am aware that compromise has worked very well, and it has gone far to end this very bitter and inflammable controversy. When, therefore, the Indian delegates at the Bound Table Conferences and the Joint Select Committee came to consider this question they agreed with the majority of the British representatives that there was every advantage to be gained by continuing a compromise of this kind, and by not returning to the period of bitter controversy that had preceded it. The conclusion that was reached was that the best way to safeguard the compromise was to bring matters of this kind within the field of the measures that need the Governor- General's previous assent before they are introduced into the Legislature. My answer to the hon. Member for Lime-house (Mr. Attlee) is, therefore, that previous assent in this case is the safeguard to maintain a compromise that is working well and was generally accepted by many representative Indians. In view of these facts I hope very much that the Committee will not attempt in any way to disturb the compromise.

Mr. ATTLEE

In view of that explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. KIRKPATRICK

I beg to move, in page 65, line 27, at the end, to insert: (f) repeals, amends, or affects any Act relating to major ports or makes provision with respect to suck ports, that is to say, the declaration and delimitation of such ports and the constitution and powers of port authorities therein. I recognise that my right hon. Friend can use the argument that major ports in India are of equal importance to both British and Indian commercial interests. On that ground my right hon. Friend would be entitled to say that it would be unreasonable to anticipate that these major ports of India will be more neglected than any other field of administration which we are entrusting to the new Legislature. But with all respect I submit another, and I suggest a much more practical, consideration. I would argue that the ports of India are, as units and collectively, of Imperial importance. I would urge, therefore, that the determining of their control, their policy and their administration by Provincial Governments, may create not only difficulties to arise with native States, but may conceivably also react against the best interests of the political and economic unity of India as a whole.

7.37 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE

I agree with my hon. Friend that the future of the major ports in India is of the first importance. I can well understand the interest of the business community, British and Indian, in the question of their future. I am sure we all agree that the last thing any of us wishes to see is action taken that would compromise their efficiency and reduce their usefulness. I do, however, suggest to my hon. Friend that there is no reason to make this further extension. I feel that it is important to keep down to the minimum the questions for which the previous assent of the Governor-General is needed before legislation can be introduced. The further we extend that field the more we undermine the responsibility of the Federal Legislature and Executive, the more we fail to achieve one of the objectives that is in the minds of many of us, namely, to make the Government responsible for as wide a field as we can. If you once make this extension and bring into this field the question of the major ports, it seems to me that there is then no good reason why you should not make a number of other additions.

We have tried to keep this category a very definite category of issues so important that they really stand by themselves. Important as is the future of the ports, I do not believe that it is in the same category as the other subjects we have just been discussing. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment, and that he will leave the future safeguarding to these two considerations: First of all, I cannot conceive of any Federal Government taking action that is going to endanger one of the great assets of the Federation, namely, the major ports; and, secondly, if action was taken of a discriminatory character, obviously aimed at, we will say, the British community, the shipping community or the trading community in a particular port, the Governor-General could intervene under his special responsibilities. In view of those two considerations I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

Can the Secretary of State say whether any of these major ports are in Indian States or whether all are in British India?

Sir S. HOARE

I think the Mover of the Amendment was contemplating ports in British India.

Mr. KIRKPATRICK

Yes.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

The major ports, then, are in British India?

Sir S. HOARE

Yes.

7.41 p.m.

Sir ROBERT HORNE

I would like to support the Amendment. No doubt there are many precautions that are being taken in order to prevent discrimination being applied against us in connection with various aspects of our trade. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that it is inadvisable to extend the field of things safeguarded further than we must; but the methods by which discrimination can be used against British commerce by any person who is adverse at the time to our general interests, are many. I think it is very necessary indeed to close up every bolt-hole which can be discovered. We are dealing with people who have shown themselves to be extraordinary ingenious in devising methods by which they can defeat these particular interests, if at the time they take a view which is adverse to us. One of the means which they could adopt against our commerce would be such a use of the ports as in effect would ensure that we would not be able to use them in an advantageous way. I do not see at all why the Government should not put in this particular paragraph, which would enable precautions to be taken—precautions which might be very necessary on particular occasions. I beg the Secretary of State to consider the anxieties of British trade with regard to these matters. If he cannot give any answer now on the subject I beg him to keep the matter open in his mind for the Report stage.

7.44 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE

I do not think my right hon. Friend has appreciated the very limited scope of this Amendment. The Amendment deals only with the previous assent of the Governor to the introduction of legislation. I cannot conceive of legislation being introduced that would result in a port silting up or obstacles being put in the way of trade. I do not want to get into any sort of appearance of controversy with my right hon. Friend on the subject, because I am as anxious as he is to keep these major ports efficient.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. AMERY

My right hon. Friend has deprecated making these additions to this Clause on the general ground of not weakening the sense of responsibility on the part of the Indian Legislatures. There is another aspect of the matter, and that is that if we insert too many varied additions to the subjects for which special sanction is required from the Governor-General we may tend to blur his sense of responsibility, and if there are too many things for which he must give special sanction that special sanction will tend to become a matter of common form. Therefore, from that point of view, as well as from the point of view which the Secretary of State put forward, I would deprecate burdening the Clause with any provisions which are not really essential. Undoubtedly the whole of the Bill must give rise to anxieties with regard to the effect of self-government in India upon our trade, but once we have decided the main issue and once we have laid certain very special responsibilities upon the Governor-General, I do not think that we shall improve the situation either in law or in psychology by overburdening the Measure with too many of these extra minor safeguards. Therefore, in spite of the view taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Sir E. Home), I hope that this Subsection will not be added.

7.46 p.m.

Sir J. SANDEMAN ALLEN

I hesitate to say anything on this Amendment, particularly after what the Secretary of State has said, but I feel bound to say that shipping interests and the Chambers of Commerce take a serious view of the matter. I am afraid that the Secretary of State does not quite realise how easy it would be to disturb the use of the major ports. Therefore, I hope that he will give some further consideration to the matter. The Amendment has not been brought forward lightly, although one does appreciate the importance of not having too many restrictions of this kind. To many of us this matter is much more a major point than it seems to be in the mind of the Secretary of State.

7.47 p.m.

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE

I can quite understand the anxiety of my hon. Friends on this matter. It is one with which all those of us who have any know ledge of Indian trade conditions must have the greatest sympathy, but where I think my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment and those who support it are perhaps a little wrong is that they do not fully appreciate what the effect of provincial opinion would be. The fact is that provincial opinion, which has to be represented in the Federal Centre pretty strongly, is extremely jealous of every move in connection with these major ports or any intention to alter them or to change the conditions on which they are worked. In the Federal legislature envisaged in the Bill there is no fear whatever that the local interests will not take good care that their major ports are worked as they have been in the past for the benefit of the cities and Provinces in which they are situated. If I thought that there was a real danger that that would not be so I should be the first to support the Amendment. I do not support the Amendment, because I do not think it is necessary on the ground that I think the provincial interests will look after the interests of the major ports.

Amendment negatived.

7.49 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL

I beg to move, in page 65, line 27, at the end, to add: "or (f) affects any religion, or relisious rites or usage, of any class of British subjects in India. I must apologise to the Committee for not having given earlier notice of this Amendment. I have had it in mind ever since the Committee stage began and have been in correspondence with people who know more about the matter than I do. I have been waiting for an Amendment to be suggested to me, but it only reached me this morning and I did not think that it was quite suitable. I therefore thought I must move this particular Amendment, and I am obliged to you, Sir, for allowing me to bring it forward.

The Amendment deals with a very difficult question, that of legislation dealing with religious rites and usages.

Sir R. HAMILTON

Will the Noble Lady give us the terms of the Amendment

Duchess of ATHOLL

It retains to the Governor-General the right to refuse previous sanction to any legislation which affects religions or religious rites or usages of any class of British subjects in India. The Amendment deals with the very difficult question of certain religious usages in India which we are all agreed in deploring and which we wish to see removed as quickly as possible. It seeks to maintain the existing position, which was partly abandoned in the White Paper and is completely abandoned in the Bill. I am aware that the Joint Select Committee's Report wished this matter to be left entirely to the Indians. They said: It has become increasingly evident in recent years that the obstacles to such legislation can only be removed by Indian hands. I am afraid that I regard that statement as an easy way out of a very great difficulty, and I am told that opinion in India is very much divided as to whether it really is the best means of obtaining what we desire, to abolish the Governor-General's right of requiring previous sanction. The Joint Select Committee's Report, I maintain, minimises what we have been able to do. They seem to ignore what we have been able to effect in the way of making some of these religious usages or social usages illegal. It is 100 years since we made suttee illegal. There still remain some cases, but everybody in India knows that suttee is illegal and it has been almost entirely stamped out. Female infanticide has been made illegal and has almost ceased to exist, although there are still some cases of it. We have also made human sacrifice illegal, although it still exists. Cases have been reported in recent police reports in two provinces, but we have been able to make human sacrifice illegal and almost to eliminate it. Then hook-swinging is another usage of the Hindu religion which we have been able to make illegal and largely to eliminate, although not completely.

The point that I would emphasise is that we have been able to do these things without losing the confidence of the Orthodox Hindus, who wish to see reforms come from within their community rather than be imposed upon them from outside by legislation. In addition to the usages to which I have referred we have also dealt with the question of the raising of the age of marriage. Under our rule two Acts have been passed for that purpose. One was passed long ago under the administration of Lord Lansdowne, and in the intervening years between then and the recent Sarda Act the age of marriage steadily rose, although it was very far from being what it ought to be. Some one who has been in charge of a great many child wards has told me that by personal influence and persuasion she had been able to get the age of marriage raised in regard to a large number of girls.

The Sarda Marriage Act was passed in 1929, but I am informed that that Act has in some way led to a setback not only on account of the period which elapsed before the Act came into operation but because it has aroused the resentment of certain members of the Orthodox Hindu community who have felt it to be their duty—I am now referring to the priests—to make it more a point of honour than they did before the Act was passed, to inquire at what age children in Hindu families are being married. Whereas before the Act was passed many families were putting off the marriage age until later, now in a great many cases pressure is put upon them to marry off their children at an earlier age than the Act allows. I cannot speak on that matter from my own personal knowledge but from information given to me from one who is very closely in touch with these matters.

I can, however, speak at first hand of the great anxiety that evidently is felt by leading members of the Orthodox Hindu community at the abolition of the previous sanction of the Governor-General which hitherto has always been required for legislation of that kind. They show considerable bitterness towards the Westernised Hindus from whom they expect this kind of legislation. They say that these Westernised Hindus have given up their faith and have no right to introduce reforms of this nature.

What weighs most with me is that I find these leaders of the Orthodox Hindus referring constantly to the provision in Queen Victoria's Proclamation of 1858 that we would not disturb India's religions. It has been said to me in very emphatic terms by these leaders that it is because of that promise that India as a whole has accepted British rule. They say that if we give power to these Westernised Hindus to carry legislation through their Legislatures whenever they please, we shall be breaking the pledge that we gave them in 1858. They stress what we all recognise to be a fact, and that is that religion is by far the greatest motive power in India. If the Orthodox Hindu community believe that legislation to which they object is going to be rushed through the new Legislatures without the previous sanction of the Governor-General being obtained, we may have a very serious position arising. We may get Hindus as a whole more roused by these measures than by anything that has yet occurred. Protests inspired by religious motives may arouse much greater feeling than any political movement that has been organised by the Congress party. We have also to remember that whereas the Governor-General has been given power to safeguard the legitimate rights of minorities, the Orthodox Hindus are not a minority. They may be a minority in certain provinces, but there are Provinces in which they will be very much in the majority, and the Governor-General will have no power to safeguard their legitimate rights.

There is another point which weighs very much with me and that is that during the years that this matter has been under discussion one has had occasion to realise the lamentable bitterness that exists between different sections of Indian opinion. We have to realise that there is not only this bitterness between Hindus and Moslems but between Orthodox Hindus and Westernised Hindus. That being so, I cannot but fear that the Westernised Hindus in bringing forward legislative proposals, with which we may be in entire sympathy here, may do it in such a way and in such an uncompromising manner that it will arouse a great deal of unnecessary resentaumt. They will not seek to carry the Orthodox Hindus with them. I believe therefore that the Governor-General, if he is allowed to retain this power of previous sanction and if he exercises the tact, the forbearance and the tolerance which we expect from somebody in his position, should be able to get the Orthodox Hindus to agree to more legislative reforms than would be possible if he had simply to stand aside and see the Westernised Hindus engaged in trying to get the reforms passed. It is not out of any lack of desire or lukewarmness to see the age of marriage effectively raised in India, or any of these social usages removed which so distress us, that I move this Amendment, but because I honestly believe that this will be the way in which we shall get the steadiest progress, and progress without upsetting a very large, very important and very loyal section of the Indian community.

8.1 p.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

I really cannot understand the Noble Lady bringing forward this Amendment. She knows perfectly well that if the question of the abolition of suttee, or family infanticide, or any of the beastly practices we have stopped in India, had been left to the sanhedrim of priests, they would never have abolished them. To bring forward an Amendment to make further progress on the same lines impossible, simply because it is objected to by a lot of the Conservative priesthood—

Duchess of ATHOLL

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman misunderstands me. I am not proposing to leave the question to the Orthodox Hindus. I am proposing to leave the existing system in operation by which it largely rests with the Governor-General to reconcile people to reforms.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

The Noble Lady all along, in Africa and everywhere else, has been in favour of our putting things right and disregarding the existing habits and customs of the native people, and here she is bringing forward an Amendment which would put the obscurantists in power for ever. It would be extremely difficult to get the Assembly ever to propose any legislation which would interfere with any custom, however antiquated and bad, and to ask the Governor-General to act as a further obstacle in the way when it is his business to assist progress is something which I cannot understand. The difficulty with the Indian marriage business has been that the Government have found it necessary in various Provinces to interfere and to prevent the Bill being brought in Everyone of us who wants to see habits and customs of that sort in India improved, should desire that it should be left entirely out of the hands of the Governors and the Governor-General, and where legislation may be introduced, to give the westernised Hindus a chance, at any rate, of solving an almost impossible task of converting the Assembly. It will give them the opportunity of following on the lines and advocating the principles that the Noble Lady has always adopted in this country.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE

The Noble Lady has an extraordinary habit of wanting to connect our rule with every possible abuse in India. It is true there are all kinds of abuses. She wants to put it on our Governor-General and our representatives to tell the people who want reforms that they must not have them. Why cannot we leave the reactionaries to do their own dirty work? It is all very well for the Noble Lady to say that we have done away with suttee and various things like that, but if someone like the, Noble Lady had been ruling India, we should never have done it. We should have said "Oh, no, it is not right to interfere with these good old customs. Let us take no further notice of them, and in time we shall manage to persuade the people without-active interference to abandon these bad customs."

Duchess of ATHOLL

The hon. Gentleman is grossly misrepresenting me. I said that under this system we have been able to do these things, and it is because I want to see the Orthodox Hindu carried along with these movements, and do not want to see a great deal of opposition stirred up against these reforms, that I advocate this proposal.

Mr. ATTLEE

Any Indian administrator will say that unfortunately for many years we have taken the Noble Lady's line. We have been afraid to touch these things, because we might tread on the tender corns of fanatics, and the alternative for not having these people brought into politics is that nothing should be done and we should take the responsibility of opposing all reforms. I think this is a monstrous suggestion. The Noble Lady has tried in every possible way to ensure that a reactionery Legislation shall be enabled to oppose those who want to do anything, and she now proposes that any old reactionary shall be able to influence the Governor-General to refuse his consent. I have never understood the position taken up by the Noble Lady and others. We have been in India for years, and one idea is that we should cease to do anything actively and hand over certain things. They do not object to handing over education and so on, but we are to continue to be the people who will prevent reform and act as policemen and tax collectors. I cannot understand the idea of a system in which the representative of the British Raj has to take responsibility for all the unpleasant work of Government, and other people are left to take the credit.

8.7 p.m.

Miss RATH BONE

I do not misunderstand the Noble Lady's motives. I think she is as anxious as anybody in this House to forward social reform in India, but I think she is entirely mistaken in seeking this way of doing it. What would be the actual effect? The Governor-General, whose responsibilities are going to be heavy enough as it is, is to have the added responsibility of having brought to bear upon him every reactionary force in the Assembly to prevent any attempt to introduce legislation dealing with such matters as child marriage, temple entry, the untouchables, and so forth. If the Governor-General yields, there will be a continuation of the risks with which those who are fighting against the evils in India are faced to-day—the excuse, "We should get along very well and settle our religious differences in half an hour if it were not for the reactionary influence of the British Government." Is that the effect the Noble Lady wants? When the Suttee Act to which she alluded was passing through the Assembly, I recollect Mr. Jinnah himself assuring the House that, "When we have swaraj we shall not need a Joint Select Committee"—I am quoting from memory—"It will not need half a sitting to pass a measure like this."

Again and again the whole blame for the slow progress of social reform in India is thrown on the timidity of the British in India, and especially on the assent that they have made to Queen Victoria's pledge. The Noble Lady has quoted Queen Victoria's pledge. I would remind her that long before Queen Victoria's pledge was given the Government dealt with the evil of suttee and of female infanticide, and I very much doubt whether these terrible evils would ever have been swept away, even to the extent they have been, if we had had Queen Victoria's pledge in the days of Lord William Bentinck. If there is one thing for which I feel we must throw the responsibility on Indians themselves, it is the question of these social reforms. They can deal with their own reactionaries a great deal better than we can, and I feel that the Noble Lady is doing the worst possible service to the cause which she herself has most at heart, the cause of the British in India if she wants to put on the overburdened shoulders of the Governor-General this most unwelcome responsibility. My own great objection to the proposed form of federal legislature is that it is already going to be too reactionary. It needs no safeguards in these matters of reform. I hope the Government will give no countenance to this Amendment.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER

The hon. Lady has referred to Lord William Bentinck. I think all of us would agree with what she said about his work in India, and what she said about British efforts in past days to achieve social reform cannot be dwelt upon too often by the Committee. The hon. Lady will remember Macaulay's famous words about Lord William Bentinck: He suppressed cruel rites and effaced humiliating distinctions. That is an enviable epitaph to have put on the tomb of any one of us. In dealing with the Amendment, the best advice we can take is that given by the Joint Select Committee, who told us that they considered these matters were essentially questions for the responsible Indian minister to deal with. The whole sense of the report of the Joint Select Committee, particularly its Introduction, was that the question of social reform should be left to the Indians themselves under the new Constitution, because social habits and customs were so deeply engrained in the life and in the religion of the people that it would be advisable to leave these matters to be dealt with by the Indian legislators themselves. We are introducing into the Provinces responsible government and we are introducing into the Centre a certain extent of responsible government. Let the Committee remember that in 1919, when responsible government was partly introduced into the Indian Provinces, it was decided to take away from the Governor the necessity he had then of giving his previous sanction to measures of social reform. We are, in fact, following the advice of the Joint Select Committee and taking away from the Governor-General the need to give his previous sanction to the introduction of measures dealing with such a reform.

The Noble Lady dealt with the apprehensions held in particular by the orthodox Hindus. All I have said hitherto will apply to any social legislation introduced, but I want to turn to some of the apprehensions expressed by the Noble Lady and to tell her how, if the situation which she fears arose, that is to say, the introduction of social reform resulted in some serious disturbance in the Provinces, or the introduction of social reform jeopardised the progress of the Reforms, steps would be taken to put matters right. In the first place, I would draw the Noble Lady's attention to the power which the Governor has to withhold his assent from a Bill—what is known as the power of veto, and which is, I think, in Clause 75. That would operate in the case of a measure which had been introduced in the Legislature, and which the Governor-General though the could not let by, owing to the serious state of affairs he found around him. That is an important power, which I hope will meet some of the Noble Lady's fears. Besides that, the Governor would be entitled to forestall his refusal of assent and to send a message to the Legislature telling them that he would be likely to withhold his assent to a particular Bill if it were proceeded with, so that there is the opportunity of warning the Legislature. Further, if there was likely to be some disturbance which would result in a serious menace to the peace and tranquillity of the Province, the Governor, under Clause 86, Sub-section (2), would be able to act as follows: If the Governor in his discretion certifies that the discussion of a Bill introduced or proposed to be introduced in the Provincial Legislature, or of any specified Clause of a Bill, or of any Amendment moved or proposed to be moved to a Bill, would affect the discharge of his special responsibility for the prevention of any grave menace to the peace or tranquillity of the Province, or any part thereof, he may in his discretion direct that no proceedings, or no further proceedings, shall be taken in relation to the Bill, Clause or Amendment, and effect shall be given to the direction. I am reading from the Provincial part of the Bill, but there is a corresponding provision in the Federal part. The Noble Lady will therefore see that if there is a grave threat to the peace and tranquillity of the Province, arising out of a proposal for social reform, which is likely to divide the Province from top to bottom, and it is necessary for the Executive to interfere in the interests of peace, there is power to do so, while if the Measure is unfair or the Governor thinks it undesirable, he can withhold his assent from it. There is an equivalent power in the case of the Governor-General.

The Noble Lady raised the problem of the numbers of orthodox Hindus, and she said they could not be covered by the Governor-General's special responsibility for minorities, because in many Provinces they were in fact majorities. In so far as they were in a minority as outlined in the Instrument of Instruction in any particular Province, this power would apply but surely in the case of a Province where they were in a majority, it would be up to them to take their part in the responsible government of that Province, and to organise themselves into political parties and take their part in the political life of the Province.

Duchess of ATHOLL

Has the hon. Gentleman realised how, in spite of their numbers and their strong feelings, they are not very experienced in political matters, and so were not at all successful in the recent elections?

Mr. BUTLER

We are giving responsible government to India, and it is important that all sections of the community, particularly if they are so powerful, intelligent, and numerous as the orthodox Hindus, to take steps at once to see that their political organisation is of an equivalent value to that of the Congress party or any other body, and I feel sure, from what I know of orthodox Hindus and their late leader, that they will quickly realise the opportunities for political life which will shortly be given them; and I sincerely hope they will. It was said in the Debate that certain measures had tended to bring the orthodox Hindus into politics, and I sincerely hope that is the case, because we feel, in resisting this Amendment, that it would be much better to follow the advice of the Joint Select Committee and make responsible government a reality, to adhere to the views which I have expressed that these matters should be dealt with by responsible Indian Ministers, and we should leave the discretion to them.

Duchess of ATHOLL

In view of my hon. Friend's explanation of the reserved powers of the Governor-General and Governor, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.19 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I beg to move, in page 66, line I, to leave out from "matters" to "or," in line 4, and to insert: as respects which the Governor-General is, by or under this Act, required to act in his discretion. This is exactly the same Amendment as one which I moved earlier in the Clause, It merely introduces the appropriate form of words having regard to the form in which Clause 11 is now drafted.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 109 ordered to stand part of the Bill.