SEVENTH SCHEDULE.—(Legislative Lists.)

HC Deb 13 May 1935 vol 301 cc1449-519

6.38 p.m.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell)

I beg to move, in page 290, line 4, to leave out "in India," and to insert "borne on the Indian establishment."

This is a drafting Amendment. It has been decided to substitute the words "borne on the Indian establishment" for the words "in India" with respect to the naval, military and air forces, because that is clearly what is intended.

Amendment agreed to.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I beg to move, in page 290, line 7, to leave out from "Governments," to "central," in line 9.

This is little more than a drafting Amendment. In the first paragraph of the Schedule, in lines 7, 8 and 9 there appear the words: including the use of those forces in aid of the civil power, whether Federal or Provincial. If we leave out these words the generality of the Clause fully covers the use of the forces and their presence might limit the use. There are one or two further Amendments which are consequential. The words having been left out the later Amendments in the Provincial and Concurrent List make it clear that this use of the armed forces will not be within Provincial powers. Although the Amendment is really drafting it required a word of explanation, as it is important.

Amendment agreed to.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I beg to move, in page 290, line 9, to leave out relation to defence and external affairs, and to insert: British India for reasons of State connected with defence, external affairs, or the discharge of the functions of the Crown in its relations with Indian States. This Amendment slightly expands that part of the Bill which deals with preventive detention, and covers cases which it may be desirable to cover.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 291, line 8, leave out: Indian subjects of His Majesty, and insert: British subjects domiciled in India"—[The Solicitor-General.]

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I beg to move, in page 291, line 31, after "navigation," to insert "the provision of aerodromes."

It is right that the provision of aerodromes should come under this head.

Amendment agreed to.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne)

Before I call upon the hon. and learned Gentleman to move the next Amendment, I should like to point out that I think it covers the point in the various Amendments which stand in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens). If the hon. and learned Member has any point that he desires to raise, perhaps he will be good enough to raise it on this Amendment.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I beg to move, in page 292, line 13, at the end, to insert: 36. Regulation of labour and safety in mines. 37. Regulation of mines and oilfields and mineral development to the extent to which such regulation and development under Federal control is declared by Federal law to be expedient in the public interest. In the Bill as drafted, mines and development were a provincial subject. Let me deal first with the proposed new paragraph 36. We have considered the point raised by the Amendment in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) and think it right that the regulation of labour and safety in mines should be a central subject. There is a technical department which deals with this matter. It is a thing which requires uniformity. The staff is small, but it would lead to unnecessary expense if every Province had to have its own technical staff. Apart from that fact, it is desirable that there should be uniformity in dealing with this very important matter with regard to the regulation of labour and safety in mines. The other side of the Amendment deals with the question of uniformity in Federal control in the regulation of mines and oilfields and mineral development. I can appreciate the argument that can be advanced for central control in these matters. This Amendment does not go quite as far as those standing in the name of my hon. and learned Friend, but we believe that this is the best scheme. If there is inaction at the Centre the Provinces can go ahead with their own regulations and developments, but to the extent to which the Centre desires and declares by law that there shall be central regulations and control, then the subject comes out of the purely restricted Provincial field and becomes a subject of control at the Centre. There is a consequential Amendment which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State. We propose, in page 295, line 7, to leave out paragraph 22— mines, including the development of mineral resources of the Province and to insert: 22. Regulation of mines and oilfields and mineral development subject to the provisions of List I with respect to regulation and development under Federal control. There is also an Amendment in page 298, line 6, to leave out the words: regulation of the working of mines, but not including mineral development The hon. and learned Member for Ashford has an Amendment down dealing with the power of the central government to tax royalties. In our opinion that question does not arise here, and the matter is sufficiently covered by the amendments proposed.

6.46 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE

Do I understand that matters affecting legislation in regard to mining are now to be a central subject? The Solicitor-General said that the centre would act in case of default by the province.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The hon. Member has not appreciated the distinction I made between No. 36 and No. 37. No. 37, that is, the regulation of mines and oil fields and mineral development, will only operate if there is an express law passed relating to that development by the Centre.

Mr. ATTLEE

In that case we are dealing with two separate Amendments. On the question that the regulation and working of mines should be a federal subject, our view always has been that it is best to keep labour legislation in the concurrent list. Is the Solicitor-General satisfied that the administration of the regulations and development of mines must be entirely separated from the regulation of labour and safety in mines? Will there be a central factory inspectorate staff; will everything be done by the centre? Is there any possibility of the provincial government acting in relation to welfare and safety in the mines? I want to be quite clear whether the whole subject of mining is to be entirely outside the provincial sphere except in regard to regulation and development.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

Broadly speaking, we prefer central control with regard to safety measures and hours and conditions of labour; but the Solicitor-General would help us if he could tell us what the conditions are at the moment. Have the provinces their own rules and regulations, and hours and work? Do the conditions vary in the provinces? The Amendment only suggests that where the federal law is passed, conditions become uniform under some federal legislation. It would help us if we were told whether it is the view of the Government that these questions ought to be taken from the legislative council and administered by the Council of State; whether in all questions relating to the working of mines the subject of hours of labour and terms and conditions shall be made uniform without waiting to see what the provincial council is doing. We have always desired that there should be contact between workmen and their representatives. The Council of State will be a remote body as far as the mine worker is concerned, and the Legislative Assembly will be much nearer. The worker will be much nearer his representatives there than he is to his representatives in the Council of State. What are the intention and desire of the Government in this matter? India is very different from this country. There are reasons why one may feel that the central government would be better than a provincial government to secure uniformity in rates of wages and conditions, but the proposed Parliament which we are now establishing is very different from the Parliament in this country. What are the conditions to-day with regard to the control of these matters which are vital to the miners and their families? Have the Government made up their mind that whether a provincial legislature desires to legislate on behalf of its area or not it is the intention that the Council of State shall legislate for the whole of the mines of India?

6.52 p.m.

Mr. SPENS

I do not propose to add anything to what has been said by hon. Members opposite in regard to the question of regulation of labour and safety in mines except that I regret there is no reference to the question of wages in that proposal; no question as to whether the question of wages should or should not be a federal subject. Let me say a word or two about the new proposal, No. 37. Quite frankly, I do not know how far it is intended that these words should go or what they are intended to cover. In the ordinary course, when you are dealing with mines and minerals there are, quite apart from the questions of labour and safety, two other important items on which the Committee should make up its mind which body, the federal legislature or the provincial legislature is going to legislate. The first is who is to have a proprietary right in the mines and minerals; whether the mines and minerals are, or can be by legislation vested in the Crown or in private individuals, and, if so, whether the legislature is to have power, if they are vested in individuals, to vest them in the Crown; whether the legislature is to have power to legislate over the terms of concessions, mining laws and licences affecting proprietary rights? The second subject is what legislature is to have power to deal with the ordinary regulations which affect the working of the mines themselves, and which are to be incumbent and binding on mineral lessees who are working the mines. Lastly, there is the question which legislature is to have the power to tax mineral rights.

As far as I have been able to ascertain you have a very confused situation in India as regards mining laws at the moment. In Madras all mines and minerals are vested in the Crown, and no landowner has or can acquire any right in regard to its minerals. That, at any rate, is the case in regard to coal. In Bengal and elsewhere landowners under the Permanent Settlement Scheme have acquired the right, and have been allowed the right, of dealing with and disposing of minerals. The Crown, although it has never admitted their legal right to do so, has certainly stood by for 100 years while these dealings have been going on. Throughout all India the Crown itself has been a substantial mineral owner. As regards minerals owned by the Crown, I understand that the position in India has been that, in fact, the Central Government have always made the general rules and regulations affecting the terms of leases and licences, the amount of royalties and the surface rents, which can be charged to those who work the minerals, but, having collected the rents, they have always accounted to the Provinces for the rents collected. Obviously, therefore, there has been, and is, a great diversity of treatment of minerals in India, and I would urge that this is an opportunity when an endeavour should be made to introduce uniformity into the mining laws of India and, if possible, provide one code applicable to all minerals, or at any rate to important minerals, throughout the length and breadth of India.

I have on a former occasion referred to the unfortunate results which have occurred in the United States and elsewhere where a variety of States have been allowed to deal with proprietary rights and regulations affecting the minerals of their own district. The same thing will happen in India if we have 11 States making their own laws with regard to the rights of owners in minerals, whether they are vested in the Crown or in private persons. It is exactly the same thing with the important question of the taxation of minerals, one State imposing high taxes on mineral rights and another State imposing a different scale of taxation. This only leads to confusion and to a very uneconomic and non-commercial development of the mineral resources of a country. Therefore, I urge that as far as possible we should take this opportunity to try to bring about one code of laws relating to as many minerals as possible throughout India.

I appreciate that when one comes to deal with proprietary rights, and one suggests that the Federal Government should have inclusive legislation regarding proprietary rights in minerals, there may well be difficulties concerning some minerals which are inside Indian States. But the system which has been adopted regarding Crown minerals in India, namely, that regulations are made from the Centre but that taxes and revenues derived from them are accounted to the Provinces, is, I would suggest, a method which might be further considered as applicable to minerals generally in India. After all, what the Ruler of a State wants most is that he should be secure in his revenue from his minerals. But the advantage to the country of obtaining one system for the development of minerals is such that I would urge the Committee to support me in a request to the Government that they should consider further whether they cannot rather enlarge the proposed Section 37 so as to give the Federal Centre some further control over the development and exploitation of minerals in India.

If it is impossible to deal with all minerals, then I would urge that at least coal and petroleum—which are, I understand, the two most important minerals likely to be developed in the territories of the Federation—should be put under Federal control from the very start; and that we should avoid having no less than eleven different mineral codes operating in India, except to such an extent as the Federal Government may make some sort of regulation for "mines and oilfields and mineral development." What those words mean I do not know. I do not know whether under these words the Federal Centre will be entitled to interfere with the proprietary rights in minerals—to vest minerals in the Crown or to buy up royalties or anything of that sort. It seems to me that the present wording of this Amendment leaves great scope for doubt about the whole position, and I would suggest that at any rate some further effort should be made to vest in the Federation, as far as possible, a wider control than that proposed by the Amendment before the Committee.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS

I think that the Committee will probably agree with my hon. Friend who has just spoken. But as I read these two regulations the first one does go a long way—in dealing with the regulation of labour and safety in mines—towards a unified system of mining in India. I must agree with my hon. Friend that Number 37 is not quite so clear. It entirely depends on what can be done under the two words in the second line, "regulation and development." If under "regulation" you can have a comparatively flat rate for the mineral duties over the whole of India, then you have got some form of unification; but I think the Committee should be clearly told whether these words would enable the Federal Government to pass laws which would enable them absolutely to unify the position as far as mining is concerned. If you are going to have a Federal authority I feel sure that it is better in this case that they should bring things into line.

We should have a full explanation exactly as to how far they can go under these two words. As far as development is concerned what would happen if one State or Province at the present time is developing a mine close to its boundary and its next-door neighbour refuses to develop in any way? The conveyance of oil by a pipe-line is another possibility which we should consider in this connection. Even if you can deal with such a situation in the Provinces, you are up against a further difficulty as to whether the States will come in. I think, therefore, that the Government might well explain the position—whether under the existing system they have the power of regulation which is necessary; and, further, whether it is the intention of the Government really to use the Federal power to achieve unification or not? It seems to me most essential that it should be developed as far as possible, so that you do not get the sort of thing you might have were you to have a boundary with a pipe-line running hrough it, and entirely different rules and regulations on one side and the other of the boundary. You might have one Province or State holding up the whole scheme. I want to see, if possible, that there is power in the Federal Centre to stop that kind of thing.

7.9 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL

I wish to associate myself with the request—that we should know something of what the position is about the present distribution of powers before we proceed to make up our minds on the Amendment before the Committee. As no Member of the Government seems to be in a hurry to reply to the question put—

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

It was thought more convenient to deal with the question after subsequent speakers had expressed their views. It was not because of any hurry or any discourtesy to the Committee that it was decided to allow other Members to speak before making the Government reply.

Duchess of ATHOLL

I did not wish to accuse any Member of the Government of discourtesy, but it is very helpful to the discussion if right at the beginning we can realise what the present position is. May I remind the Committee of one or two points which were made clear in the Report of the Simon Commission? In the first place, the Simon Commission in their first volume showed that the settlement of labour disputes, factories, electricity, boilers, gas, and the welfare of labour, including provident funds, industrial insurance (general, health and accident) and housing, were provincial subjects reserved to the Governor. They were not among the transferred departments. I have always regarded it as an extremely important point that when departments were first transferred to responsible Indian Ministers, while responsibility for development was transferred, questions concerning the welfare of labour were a reserved department. We cannot be too clear that one of the things we are now asked to approve in this Bill is the transfer of all these subjects so closely affecting the welfare of labour from the hands—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

It may be so in the Bill, but it is not so in this Schedule.

Duchess of ATHOLL

But I suggest that this also applies to the Schedule? The Governor at present can concern himself with these questions, along with his Ministers. Then the Simon Commission goes on to say that these question of the welfare of labour, including provident funds, industrial insurance (general, health and accident)—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The list of subjects which the Noble Lady is reading out has no relation whatever to the Amendment now before the Committee.

Duchess of ATHOLL

With all due respect, Captain Bourne, if I may be allowed to finish the sentence I think the Committee will see that it has relation to the Amendment, because the list shows that these subjects which are Provincial to-day are subject to legislation by the Indian Legislature. Therefore, there are powers to-day in the hands of the Indian Legislature to legislate for these very important subjects. But I think it is not out of order if I tell the House that a mine inspector gave his opinion to the Simon Commission that the Indian Legislature had shown itself very little interested, for instance, in the work of women and children in the mines of India. Therefore, the Committee should clearly realise that there may not be very great interest taken in those questions in the proposed Federal Legislature. They cannot be expected to have British standards before them as a Governor-General or a Governor from this country would have. We should not forget that at present the Governor-General has power to insist on the passing of any resolution—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The Noble Lady appears to me to be arguing against the transfer of these powers to any Legislative Assembly. That point has been decided long ago by this Committee. The sole question now is whether the regulation of mines shall be dealt with by the Federal or Provincial legislatures.

Duchess of ATHOLL

Surely it is in order to compare what is proposed with what at present exists.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

Hardly. We are not concerned with the present situation. Possibly it might be in order to ask whether it is the Central or the Provincial Governments which at the moment have this power. But that is not what is now before the Committee.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

May I ask whether when we submit questions to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Amendment we are not entitled to know exactly what the conditions are at the moment with regard to the control of safety, hours of labour, and other things affecting mines? Clearly we were under the impression that the Solicitor-General would be good enough to acquaint the Committee with the situation as it is to-day so that we might be able to compare the situation as it may be under the terms of this Bill.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I am afraid that the hon. Member, like other hon. Members who have spoken, has not quite realised the very limited nature of this Schedule. The question in front of the Committee at the moment on this Amendment and other Amendments is merely whether the power to legislate on certain subjects should go to the Federal Legislature, the Provincial Legislature or the Concurrent List. The question which the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) put as to which body, if any, at the moment has power to legislate of course can be asked and answered, but it must not be argued. That point is only involved in so far as it may be the foundation for an argument that something now under the Provincial Legislature should remain there, and not be transferred to the Federal List or vice versa. We cannot go into an elaborate discussion of what is now the practice in India on these Amendments.

Duchess of ATHOLL

I bow to your Ruling, Captain Bourne. I am glad it is proposed that there should be Federal power in this matter. I think the more these questions of labour welfare are brought in to the light of day in the whole of British India, the more likelihood there is of good standards being achieved—and obviously it is very desirable that the standards should be good. I am also glad of the Amendments put down both by my right hon. Friend and by the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens), which will give power to the Federal Legislature in regard to the working of minerals. But I share the doubt of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford whether the terms of my right hon. Friend's Amendment are wide enough.

What I have in view is the question of a possible concession for the working of mines. That seems to me very important. It is well known that there is a good deal of evidence of corruption in connection with contracts given by local authorities. There may be concessions given for the working of mines, and there is less likelihood of influences of that kind operating in the Federal Legislature than in the Provincial Legislature. It is very desirable that there should be some powers in the hands of the Federal Assembly, powers which might be used to combat influences of that sort. I am not sure that the Government Amendment covers the point. I rather fear that the words "regulation and development" may mean that the central Legislature would have no power to safeguard the grant of concessions.

7.17 p.m.

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE

As the Government Amendment stands, is there not a likelihood, or at any rate, a grave fear, that between the Provincial and Federal Governments there may arise in future a controversy, after the proposed procedure in regard to the working of mines has been going on for some time? I think that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) will appreciate the fact that, once the Provinces are in control of the mines, it will be extremely difficult in practice for a Federal Legislature, largely appointed from the same kind of people, who are interested in Provincial matters, to take over a control which has hitherto been exercised by the Province. It seems to me that the gravest danger of the proposals of the Government is that we are, as it were, inviting the future possibility of friction between the Province and the Centre. I should have thought it would have been much better to have decided now what minerals are purely Federal, rather than to leave the decision to the future. It appears to me that that difficulty is not met by the Amendments of the Secretary of State, and I am not sure that it is met by the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Ashford. Whether that be the case or not, it is a point which calls for a reply.

7.19 p.m.

Lord E. PERCY

I notice that the Government are not proposing to remove taxation of mineral rights from the Provincial list, where it now is. How can the Federal Government have power to regulate the development of mines if an unlimited power to tax rights is still left in the Provincial Legislature?

7.20 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I do not know whether my Noble Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) was present when I made my opening remarks, but points that she has raised I dealt with in that speech. There is in India, in charge of these matters, a central technical mining department and it is the fact that the legislation, such as it is, is central. There is a Mines Regulations Act which, for instance, prevents women working in the mines at night. I have not, of course, the details in my head, but the regulation of conditions of labour and of safety is at present administered centrally and is a central subject. That is one reason for our moving this Amendment. Quite apart from the desirability of uniformity, it would be incurring unnecessary expenditure to have every Province setting up a technical department dealing with matters of safety and things of that kind. Regulation 36 does follow on the existing central position.

Then I come to questions put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens), and by subsequent speakers. My view certainly is that these words clearly cover the power of vesting minerals in the Crown. The words would clearly entitle the Federal Assembly to make provision as to concessions, and the words of the Amendment are wide enough to empower the Federal Legislature to cover all matters in the development of mines, co-ordination and so forth. My hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) asked whether it was the intention of the Government to use these powers. These are not powers which His Majesty's Government can use, but powers which the new Legislature can use.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS

I meant the new Federal Legislature.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

It is, of course, our intention that this power and analogous powers to which I shall draw attention should be used by the Federal Legislature. We hope that the Federal Legislature will take an interest in the development of industries throughout India in all cases where common policy or common methods are desirable. My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) rather suggested that he did not like this way of dealing with the matter, and urged that we ought to make up our minds now and draw a hard-and-fast line between what is Federal and what is Provincial. I would point out that we are following the form that was in the White Paper and was approved by the Joint Select Committee and which appears in List 1. That is the sort of line on which we are dealing with mines and minerals. It is no good in effect shaking the Legislature by the scruff of the neck and saying, "Legislate about this," if the Members of that Legislature are not interested in the subject or ready to legislate about it. If you cut off this control from the Provinces you might have a period when, it may be through human infirmity at the moment, the Federal Legislature was not taking a great interest in this matter, and you might have tied the hands of the Province by giving exclusive power to the Federal Legislature.

Our view is that this particular scheme is most likely to lead in the shortest time to the results that we all desire if we leave the Provinces with power to legislate should legislation be desired. Once they start legislating, that brings the matter into the legislative picture, and it will stimulate the Members of the Federal Assembly to say "This is a matter with which we ought to deal." We believe there is more likelihood of there being the uniformity that we want if we proceed in this way than if we put power exclusively into the hands of the Federal Legislature at the start.

Mr. MOLSON

The learned Solicitor-General keeps on referring to leaving it to the Provinces. The responsibility for developing oil and coal is at present with the Government of India. What is being done under this is to transfer the primary responsibility from the Centre to the Province and at the same time to provide that subsequently it may be re-transferred from the Province to the Centre.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I was speaking of the Bill as originally drafted and comparing it with the result which will flow from this Amendment. In the original Bill mines and minerals were exclusively Provincial. Many matters which are now Central are being transferred to the Provinces, but it would be out of order to go into the larger issue raised by them. My Noble Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) raised an obviously important point, into which we shall certainly look. I can quite imagine a form of taxation which would conflict with regulation and development. In that case I think I am right in saying that under the scheme I have in mind at the moment, List 1 wins; if there is overlapping between List 1 and List 2, List 1 wins. But I am not disposing of the point in that way. There is a real point of substance in my Noble Friend's speech, and it requires attention. I think we have made plain our intention, but I will certainly look into the point raised by my Noble Friend.

With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) I appreciate the fact that there may be difficulties of the kind which he has suggested on this and other points with regard to the legislative fields of the Provinces and the Centre respectively. I am not sure, however whether the hon. Member appreciates the fact that this is a power to legislate as to "regulation and development" and is not really a question of control of the mines. It is simply a question of some general scheme of development. I realise the possibility of a Province starting something which might not fit in with a central scheme but, as against that, we feel that on the whole it might delay matters to cut the Provinces off from the beginning. One can only hope that people will be sensible and that should a necessity for some central control and regulation arise, they will fit in with it and also that the method of control itself will be such as will fit in with local circumstances or peculiarities.

7.31 p.m.

Captain CAZALET

As a matter of drafting, may I ask whether the word "mines" in this connection includes oilfields? In the second part of the Amendment a distinction is drawn between mines and oilfields whereas the first part merely refers to the "regulation of labour and safety in mines." Surely there is no form of mineral activity in which the regulation of labour and safety is more necessary than in oilfields and I wish to know whether that word should not be included in the first part of the Amendment.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS

I am not sure whether, when we were discussing Part VI of the Bill, we made clear what the position was to be in regard to mines and there is a point which I wish to raise now and which may govern subsequent Amendments. It is the practice for nations to-day to enter into international agreements with regard to various matters such as health and conditions of labour. When this country enters into such an agreement Parliament has sovereign power to give effect to it by any legislation which may be necessary. In India, however, the Government which will negotiate such international agreements will be the Federal Government whereas the Provincial Governments will have to deal with many of these subject matters. When we transfer any subject from the Provincial to the Federal list as it is proposed to do here we make the procedure in that respect perfectly simple. But suppose that the question of labour and safety in mines had been left in the Provincial list and the Federal Government entered into an international convention on that subject, would the Governor-General be in a position to make sure that the Provinces would pass the necessary legislation?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I am afraid that that question does not arise on this Schedule.

Mr. WILLIAMS

I am merely putting the point in order to get information. My own belief is that under Clause 125 the Governor-General could ensure the passage of the necessary legislation but I am not clear on the point. It is a matter of importance and it bears on the particular subject which we are now transferring, because this is precisely one of those things which may be the subject of international agreement.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES

I understand the case of the Solicitor-General to be on these lines. Hitherto the regulation of mines has been largely controlled from the Centre. Under the original proposal of the Bill, it was to become a provincial subject but now, by this Amendment, power is to be given to the central authority to deal with it. Let us assume that out of 11 Provinces one Province which is alive to its responsibilities, embarks upon mining legislation and passes a law which applies to the mines in that Province only. The other 10 Provinces do nothing. Then the Federal Legislature passes a Federal law and presumably its writ runs, not only in the 10 recalcitrant Provinces but in the eleventh Provinces as well. Does the new Federal law then supersede the provincial mining law in the case of the active eleventh Province? This may appear a simple point to the Solicitor-General but to me it is difficult and I should like a statement upon it.

7.37 p.m.

Sir REGINALD CRADDOCK

There are some points in connection with these Amendments on which I should like to make a few observations from my own experience in the administration of the present law. The question has been raised as to whether mineral rights are with the Crown and to the best of my belief all those questions are settled, as they were in my own Province, under the original grant and under the several Land Revenue Acts and the Act giving the right of access to minerals to the Crown. All minor administrative acts can conveniently be done and have been done by the Province but almost from the beginning, in connection with the administration of these minerals, the Central Government have laid down by legislation regulations dealing with all questions of the working and management of mines and safety and the employment of women and so forth.

All those matters were under a Central Act but, apart from that, and apparently under no particular Act, but as a general executive instruction, the Central Government laid down rules under which prospecting licences and mining leases were to be granted. Those rules were fairly elaborate and every local government has hitherto followed them. The Central Government, at the same time, laid down standard rates of royalties to which the State was entitled. In the cases of precious metals and of oil, the question of royalties had to be referred absolutely to the Central Government but, in respect of other minerals, rates of royalties were laid down as an accompaniment of the lease and the local authorities collected those royalties as a form of land revenue. They were included among miscellaneous land revenue receipts. This power of giving leases and prospecting licences depended on the standard rules being followed and it was not necessary to refer to the Central Government unless some exception was to be made or some concession granted outside the standard rules. In those circumstances I think the present administration has inspired general confidence and therefore I am very pleased to see this Amendment in the name of the Secretary of State because if this matter were left entirely with the local governments, there would be enormous danger of favouritism in the administration of concessions. It would leave the way open for special concessions which might be discriminatory.

There is the further point that great discrimination might be caused by heavier taxation being imposed in one Province than in another. If mines were being worked in one Province, say, by a European or a Parsee, and mines were being worked in another Province by persons of some other race and status, it would be possible for a Province to bring about discrimination. One Province might put a heavy tax on the European mining concern while the other Province would put a very low tax on an Indian mining concern. There is great necessity therefore for maintaining the control of the Central Government over the rates of taxes and so forth merely with a view to securing uniformity. The royalties and all other income derived would go to the Province and the Provinces would go on in the ordinary way as they are doing now administering those matters which they administer at present under the mining rules and the royalty rules. If they wanted to alter these rules they would require the sanction of the Central Government. It is that way that uniformity can best be secured while allowing the Provinces to have the legitimate income from their mining concessions, and at the same time avoiding all risk of discrimination between concession holders of different races. I thought that those facts, derived from my personal experience, might usefully be placed before the Committee in connection with the consideration of this matter. I support the Amendment.

7.45 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I was asked by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) whether this new item would apply to oilfields. I should have thought that it would not. We are only dealing with safety in mines here, but we will consider whether oilfields do provide dangers analogous in degree and intensity to those found below ground in mines. I think it would be out of order if I answered the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) but I will refer him to Clauses 106 and 125. These deal with the position as to international agreements affecting labour and safety, but the only thing we are discussing is labour and safety in mines, and as the Federal Legislature have power under the Amendment which I am proposing, I do not think the question raised really arises.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

If it was a matter of indifference from the point of view of international treaties whether it was in the Federal or Provincial lists, the situation would be different, but my difficulty is that Clause 106 is in conflict with Clause 125.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member had better raise that point on the Report stage.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I then come to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), who asked me to assume that Provinces had got under way with this form of regulation. It is always difficult to consider these matters in the air, without knowing exactly what sort of regulation one is thinking of. Some forms of regulation would undoubtedly be impossible unless you had an all-India basis. It may be that some matter of price-fixing would be impracticable unless you had an all-India basis, or some control of distribution, such as we have in this country. But that is the sort of regulations which we visualise, and it is would be very difficult for a Province to get under way on its own. There might be a form of regulation and control on which a Province could start itself, and it might be that the very fact that that could be done by one Province without handling the position vis-a-vis the others would mean that it was a thing which was unlikely. But under Federal control it is a thing that could be left, as in this country, to different coalfields to organise on their own, because they would not prejudice themselves or impinge on their neighbours by dealing with it. If it was a matter which the Federal Legislature decided ought to be taken under Federal control, undoubtedly it could take the power, and it could legislate accordingly.

Mr. MORGAN JONES

Assuming that Province No. 1 has got going and the Federal Legislature then legislates affecting the other 10 Provinces, whose writ would run in Province No. 1 in mining legislation, the writ of the Province or the Federal writ?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

It would depend on the stage to which the thing had got. Federal control means a writ running in all Provinces, and therefore if the Federal Legislature had gone through the two stages and had said it was in the public interest that the matter should be publicly controlled, any provision of the Provincial law which was repugnant to the Federal law would be to that extent inoperative. It has always to be remembered that the connection between the Central Legislature and the Provincial Legislatures is very close. The hon. Gentleman opposite thinks that it is too close, but—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will not develop that question on this Amendment.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL

I thought it relevant to refer to it, because several hon. Members have raised the possibility of conflict between Provincial and Federal Legislatures as justifying this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

7.52 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I beg to move, in page 292, line 14, to leave out paragraph 36, and to insert: 36. The law of insurance and the regulation of the conduct of insurance business; Government insurance, except so far as undertaken by a Federated State or, by virtue of any entry in the Provincial Legislative List or the Concurrent Legislative List, by a Province. This Amendment deals with the item of insurance, and the words which we propose are in the nature of a drafting Amendment, designed to make clearer the intention of the existing item. There are various Amendments which we shall reach later dealing with unemployment and health insurance, but this Amendment safeguards the powers of the Provinces in respect to any special form of insurance, powers as to which have been by the Bill, or may be by Amendment, conferred upon them.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES

There is a small point that occurs to me on this Amendment. When we talk of the law of insurance in this country we know that it will cover industrial insurance, motor insurance, and so on. It will also cover the insurance companies which handle workmen's compensation, but the vocabulary which we employ in this country in relation to Government insurance relates almost entirely to our social services, namely, unemployment insurance, health insurance, and contributory pensions insurance; and it occurred to me, in reading this Amendment, to ask what actually is meant by "Government insurance" here as apart from the law of insurance in connection with the other subjects which I have mentioned.

7.55 p.m.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL

"Government insurance" would cover a scheme run through the Post Office savings bank or something of that kind. Matters which we might regard as insurance in this country are somewhat nearly allied to the matters which we shall come to in List II of this Schedule. This Amendment expressly excludes anything which may be found in that list or which the Committee may desire to put into it. "Government insurance" would simply cover such a matter as a Post Office savings bank scheme.

Mr. MORGAN JONES

Would the terms of the Amendment preclude a Federated State associating itself with a Government insurance business if it so desired?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

No, I do not think so. We are here proceeding with the Legislative Lists, the matters about which laws can be passed, and there being powers to legislate about Government insurance, that legislation could take any form. The States would be a constituent part of the Federation, and clearly any conditions or terms could be inserted.

Mr. JONES

I am a little in the dark about this question. There are some 56 items in this Federal List, and a State may accede in respect to any number of them. Suppose a State accedes in respect to this particular No. 26, which is insurance. What is the effect then of the words: except so far as undertaken by a Federated State. A Federated State in acceding may actually desire, for the purpose of securing its own scheme, to be associated in some way with an insurance scheme run by the Federal Government, but under these words will it not be specifically excluded?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I had not quite appreciated my hon. Friend's question, and I will certainly look into it. The object of these words is to safeguard the position where a State has a scheme of its own, so that the Federal Legislature cannot deal with it. The point of the hon. Gentleman is this: Supposing a State wanted to telescope its scheme, so to speak, into a general scheme, should we have tied our hands? I will look into that matter.

Mr. JONES

Thank you.

Amendment agreed to.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I beg to move, in page 292, line 20, to leave out "railway areas, and to any other," and to insert "any."

This and the next Amendment are rather complicated, but really they are drafting Amendments to item 38, which deals with the powers of the Federal Legislature to extend the powers and jurisdiction of members of a police force belonging to any part of British India to railway areas and other areas outside British India, and which deals also with the position where it may be desired to extend the powers of a police force in a State to a railway area outside that State. The position is that if you have a single railway system, there is an advantage in having a single police area, in connection with it. Suppose the line of a railway system owned by a State goes for 20 or 30 miles outside the boundaries of that State into British India, it is convenient that there should be power to enable the police jurisdiction of the State to extend along its own railway, although actually it is running in British territory. There is a power the other way that laws may be made extending the powers of the police force in British India to railway areas and to other areas in another governor's Province or a chief commissioner's Province in British India. The object of this Amendment is to make the Clause read a little more clearly.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: In page 292, line 25, at the end, insert: Extension of the powers and jurisdiction of members of a police force belonging to any unit to railway areas outside that unit."—[The Solicitor-General.]

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I beg to move, in page 292, line 26, to leave out paragraph 39, and to insert: 39. Elections to the Federal Legislature, subject to the provisions of this Act and of any Order in Council made thereunder. This is a different matter. On the whole it has been though desirable not to specify election offences in disputed elections. The intention is that the item should be a general item and put in general words, instead of as originally drafted.

Amendment agreed to.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I beg to move, in page 292, line 31, at the beginning, to insert "Inquiries and."

This is a formal Amendment, and little more than drafting. It is obviously right that there should be power to deal with inquiries both legislatively and administratively. It may be that such a power is inherent, but we think it right to insert it.

Mr. MORGAN JONES

I should like to ask whether these Clauses we are now discussing are in relation to the compilation of statistics or whether they cover any other field of inquiry which may not be present to our minds at the moment.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

These are the subjects in regard to which the Federal Legislature has power to legislate, and certainly it is our intention that it should have a general power to pass a law, to set up a Committee, to inquire or lay down that there shall be conditions under which an inquiry shall be held into any matter. It really is, I think; a matter which is inherent in any legislation. It must have power to inform itself and to pass the necessary legislation to inform itself.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 292, line 34, leave out "commodities and articles, and insert "goods."—[The Solicitor-General.]

8.6 p.m.

Sir R. CRADDOCK

I beg to move, in page 293, line 5, at the end, to insert: 49. Pilgrimages other than pilgrimages wholly taking place within one unit. One has had experience of epidemics produced in one Province by pilgrims who come from some other place of pilgrimage in another Province, of which often there has been no warning. You get a serious epidemic in your own area, which has nothing to with that area, but is due to returning pilgrims. There were cases, one in Bombay and one or two in Bengal, in which the measures taken in those Provinces were inadequate for the rush of pilgrims who came there, with the result that the pilgrims left a trail of cholera which was very difficult to deal with. In addition, when one provincial government has to write to another provincial government which is somewhat senior in the scale of local government, the position is not always easy, and it is very desirable that a provincial government that has a complaint to make about the failure—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Gentleman appears to be addressing his argument to the Committee on the assumption that when this Bill comes into power the present administration in Indian will continue. This Amendment deals solely with powers of legislation.

Sir R. CRADDOCK

I thought that an Act to regulate pilgrimages of this kind might be necessary in the circumstances of the future as they may have been in the circumstances of the past, and that therefore it is desirable that some general control should still reside in the Federal Government in order that these troubles between Provinces may not arise. Is is a matter that does not require any particular argument.

8.10 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL

I should like to say a few words in support of the Amendment. I cannot forget reading some of the memoranda addressed by provincial governments to the Simon Commission. I found extremely interesting the memorandum submitted by the Government of the United Provinces pointing out the danger to public health which arises from the large number of pilgrims from all over India coming to the great religious centres in that Province. This Memorandum spoke of the danger to public health that arises from these great assemblies of pilgrims. The Province in which the pilgrimage is made may have quite suitable provisions and administration in regard to public health, but these may be vitiated by pilgrims coming from Provinces where legislation is less advanced. The Government of the United Provinces founded on that a plea for public health Acts relating to India as a whole. That is, to my mind, the great importance of this Amendment, that while it does not deal strictly with public health, the question of public health is closely related to it. Because of that great question which means so much to the welfare of India, it would be very desirable for the Federal Legislature to have power to legislate in regard to pilgrimages, not within one unit, but as occurring between different units.

8.11 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT

I hope the Solicitor-General is going to accept this Amendment. It does seem eminently reasonable. I think in certain Dominions of the Empire legislation is vested in the main government, for example in the Commonwealth of Australia. I should have thought it was obvious that if you had these big pilgrimages across Provinces and into fresh Provinces it was very necessary to have some federal control.

8.12 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

This is a proposal to put these pilgrimages into the exclusively Federal List. It really is a question for the Provinces. Let me take the hon. Member's point that there is a real danger to the Provinces through which the pilgrims go and that there may be disease spread, or other matters arise which have to be dealt with. If this is in the exclusively Federal list, it may deprive the Provinces, which is the unit primarily interested, of any part in any legislation. That cannot have been what was intended.

Sir R. CRADDOCK

There is a difficulty about that, but at least it might be put in the Concurrent List so that the Federal Government could have the necessary legislative power.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

Having, if I may say so without offence, driven the hon. Gentleman out of the position he had taken up, let me follow him to the Concurrent List. In the Concurrent List there is power to deal with the matter to which he refers. Paragraph 29 says: The prevention of the extension from one unit to another of infectious diseases or pests affecting men, animals or plants. That is now in the Concurrent List. But surely the actual pilgrimages are specific events. They take place from one Province to another at particular times of the year. Pilgrimages in one part of India may raise different problems and different positions from those that take place in another part of India. Therefore, they are of vital concern, administratively and possibly legislatively, to the Provinces from which they come, through which they go, and from which they return. It surely must be right that legislative and administrative power dealing with pilgrimages should be in the Provinces which are the units vitally concerned. As the hon. Member for the English Universities knows, the Provinces in India already have their own epidemic diseases Acts and therefore are able to deal with the pilgrims who come to them. This Bill links legislation and administration. Therefore, having regard to the fact that item 29 in the Concurrent List enables the Centre to deal with the question of the spread of infectious or contagious disease, and that nobody could contemplate depriving the Provinces of the power to deal with pilgrimages as such, we think that the scheme of the Bill is not only watertight to meet the point of the Amendment, but is the best general lay-out of the administrative and legislative powers to deal with the matter.

8.16 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL

I can appreciate that item 29 is intended to prevent the extension of epidemic disease from one Province to another and that it could deal with the special danger that arises in connection with pilgrimages, but does not my hon. and learned Friend think that there might be other matters than health in regard to which some central legislation is desirable affecting the transit of pilgrims, such as, for instance, railway legislation or something of that kind?

8.17 p.m.

Mr. WISE

I did not follow my hon. and learned Friend when he said that it was impracticable to take this matter out of the hands of the Provinces whose main concern it was. The Provinces are represented in the Federal Legislature, and, if they desire any particular legislation, their representatives have only to urge it on the Central Government. By leaving it purely in the hands of the Provinces certain dangers might arise. There is the possibility of a dispute between one Province and another, and also the possibility that, as the result of communal trouble, one Province might undertake legislation which, under the guise of public health or some other such need, might make pilgrimages difficult. I believe that there are Hindu shrines in Provinces that have a permanent Moslem majority, and Sikh shrines in Provinces which are not controlled by Sikhs; and it may be possible that, as a result of communal trouble, religious parties will bring forward legislation which will seriously impede the effective transport of pilgrims from, one Province to another. That, I think, is a reasonable ground for pressing on my hon. and learned Friend the desirability of considering whether it would not be in the best interests of India to take this power from the Provinces and give it to the Legislative Assembly.

Amendment negatived.

8.19 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I beg to move, in page 293, line 6, at the end, to insert: 50. Regulation of the working of mines, but not including mineral development. 51. Ranchi European Mental Hospital. The first of these items was dealt with in the earlier discussion, and I do not think the Committee will want any further words about it. With regard to Item 51, Ranchi is a summer camp in Bihar and is governed by the Centre. It is supported by contributions from various Provinces, and it is considered that the best way to maintain it is to make it an exclusively central subject.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 293, line 9, leave out "income from agricultural land," and insert "agricultural income."

In line 11, leave out paragraph 52, and insert: 52. Taxes on the capital value of the assets, exclusive of agricultural land, of individuals and companies; taxes on the capital of companies." [The Solicitor-General.]

8.22 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN

I beg to move, in page 293, line 18, after "railway," to insert "road."

I feel sure that the omission of the word "road" is merely an oversight on the part of the Government. It is obvious that goods come to a town not only by railway and air, but also by road. To-day in India, as throughout the rest of the world, road transport is developing, and it is necessary to include "road" as well as "railway" in order that taxes may be collected on vehicles brought in by road.

8.23 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

It is possible that my hon. and gallant Friend may have forgotten, as we all might have done, the provisions of Clause 135. That Clause provides that certain taxes, among which are terminal taxes on goods or passengers carried by railway, water or air and taxes on railway fares and freights, shall be levied and collected by the Federation, and that the net proceeds in any financial year shall be handed over to the Provinces. The terminal taxes on goods or passengers carried by railway, water or air are Federal, and this item is in the Federal List because these means of transport are, from the administrative point of view, dealt with federally. Railway administration all over India is a Federal subject. Therefore, the collection of the terminal railway tax is a proper matter for the Federal Legislature to deal with, whereas road transport is not federalised and there is no reason why, in the event of there being terminal taxes on goods carried by road, they should be in this list or why the Federal Legislature should have any power over them.

Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman explain the position of a railway company which undertakes road transport?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The terminal tax on goods and passengers carried by rail, water or air is a Federal tax and that means that such transport is dealt with by the Federal Legislature. If a railway company in India is able to own road transport—I do not know whether it can—the goods it carries in its lorries will obviously not be carried by rail, water or air. It does not matter who owns the lorry, whether a railway company or somebody else, the goods are carried on the road. The scheme is to give the Federal Legislature power to legislate for levying these taxes on systems of transport which they themselves administratively control. Road transport is outside the Federal field. If there are any terminal taxes on road transport, they can be dealt with by the Provincial Legislatures and the proceeds will go to the Provinces.

Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.27 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT

I beg to move, in page 293, line 19, at the end, to insert "56. Weights and Measures."

This Amendment proposes to include weights and measures in the Federal List. At present this item appears in the Provincial List, paragraph 29. It seems almost inconceivable that, though we have different systems of weights and measures at present, they should continue to exist as a permanent part of the future arrangements in India. I shall be very glad if the Government can give me any reasons why the present apparent anomaly should continue. One would have thought that weights and measures whould have been almost the first subject to be put on the Federal List.

8.29 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I am not sure whether my hon. and gallant Friend has noticed item 49, which gives the Federal Legislature power to establish standards of weight. It did occur to me that that might not, in terms, include measures, and I am having that question looked into. I think the right system is for the central legislature to have the power to establish standards. My hon. and gallant Friend asks, "Then why have weights and measures in the Provincial List?" As we all know, India is a very large country, and there is a great variety of weights and measures used throughout India. If we say that the Centre shall, as and when practicable, lay down standards, it may be possible in the future to standardise weights and measures, while in the interim, before the country is ripe for such a measure of standardisation, each Province will be able to lay down what weights and measures shall be standard there. I hope the hon. and gallant Member will appreciate the reason for leaving this subject in the Provincial List, subject to the small point whether the wording of item 49 is restricted to weights or includes measures.

8.31 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT

The reason I raised this point was that I was aware that there were all these different standards in vogue, and felt that if the Federal scheme meant anything it ought to put all these various weights and measures on one common standard. That must be part of the scheme, and. I gather from what the Solicitor-General has said that there will be nothing to prevent that being done if matters stand as they are.

8.32 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL

I was glad to hear my hon. and learned. Friend say that he will consider the question of putting "measures" in item 49, because, as he no doubt remembers, both weights and measures, though provincial subjects, are now subject to legislation by the Indian Legislature as regards standards. Therefore, if measures become a provincial subject under this Bill that will be a decentralisation of a matter which I think the Committee will agree should, as far as possible, be standardised.

Sir H. CROFT

I do not propose to press the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

8.33 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT

I beg to move, in page 293, line 19, at the end, to insert: 56. Marriage and divorce; infants and minors; adoption. This is a very much more important Amendment, and we hope it may have very serious attention from the Government. Marriage and divorce and the position of infants and minors are vital and key questions in the future of India; in fact, they go to the very roots of the whole social and religious life of India. They are governed at present by the religions of the people, the Hindu law applying to Hindus and the Islamic law, based on the Koran to Moslems. It appears to me that any legislation on these subjects must be an all-India question, and that it is essential that they should be included in the Federal List. I think that hitherto these questions have always been all-India questions.

Mr. BUTLER

They are in the Concurrent List.

Sir H. CROFT

They have been subjects which have been attended to by the all-India authorities. In every Province of India for all time, as I see it, under the Bill, there will be a definite communal majority, and if that majority were to legislate upon these very vital matters, which are more important to the Indians than any political question, it is undoubted that that would lead to very serious complications in those Provinces. We might go further than that. The whole of India might easily flare up. This seems to be a question which should not be touched at all, or only with tremendous care and even then only by the Central Government. I can imagine no more fruitful ground for the clash of opinion or that would lead to more serious communal disputes, than an interference with the religious customs of the people in India from any other quarter than the Federal Centre. The Committee are probably aware that there is already a great deal of discontent on this matter in India. Orthodox Hindus have, in fact, been petitioning the Viceroy against the actions of the reforming Hindus, who are a small but nevertheless powerful political entity in India, and protesting against the latter introducing legislation with regard to marriage and legalising divorce, which Hindu religious opinion does not allow, proposals which affect very seriously the whole basis of the Hindu religion. The leaders of the orthodox Hindus feel very strongly that if these matters are allowed to be tampered with and if alteration is unchecked by the representatives of the King Emperor, that will be a violation of Queen Victoria's historic proclamation which guaranteed that, under British rule, there would be no interference with religion. I know that this is a most difficult subject, and that is why I want to see it dealt with only with the utmost care so that no hasty proposal should be made in connection therewith. I believe that the Viceroy received a petition last year on this very subject.

Let me give an instance. I think I am right in saying that the Sarda Act has incurred the hostility of very large sections of Hindus and Moslems, because they regard it as an interference with their marriage customs. This was one of the arguments used on the North-West Frontier by the Red Shirts in fomenting the attempted rebellion there. Since these prolonged discussions have been taking place we have realised more and more that religious and social customs in India are interwoven, and I have feelings of the very gravest alarm lest there be a hasty attempt to interfere with the special customs of the people of India such as might lead to an immediate religious conflagration. There are many religious customs in India of which I do not approve, but that fact has nothing to do with the case. We are under the most solemn pledge from Queen Victoria's day that we, as British people concerned with the government of India, will not in any way be responsible for such interference. I have had numerous letters from leading Hindus in India during the last year, complaining that they think that under the Bill there is grave danger of their religious customs being undermined, and that is why I ask His Majesty's Government to consider whether it would not be better to take these subjects out of the list in which they stand and to bring them under Federal control.

8.40 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL

On looking at the lists of subjects given in the Statutory Committee's Report, I cannot find any mention of marriage or divorce, or of the headings mentioned in the Amendment. The nearest I can get to them is number 16 in the Central List, which is: Civil law, including laws regarding status, property, civil rights and liabilities, and civil procedure. Possibly those subjects in the Amendment are included under the civil law regarding status. It do not know whether my hon. and legal Friends would say that the word "status" would include divorce. I should imagine that marriage laws stood by themselves and, if they are meant to be covered by the civil laws referred to in the present list, it rather looks as though there were anxiety on the part of the authorities not to proclaim the fact that marriage laws are something with which the central Legislature to-day can be frequently concerned.

I can confirm what has just been said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) as to the great anxiety that is felt by the orthodox Hindus at the thought that these matters can be legislated for by a Federal Assembly without the previous sanction of the Governor-General. I have had a great deal of correspondence on the subject showing this very great anxiety, and I think that you, Sir Dennis, have actually had letters endeavouring to make out that to bring these matters before the Imperial Parliament at all is a breach of the promise made in Queen Victoria's proclamation of 1858. I am aware that the point at issue in the Amendment is whether these matters should be in the Concurrent or in the Federal List, but the anxiety that is felt on the question makes it desirable that only the Federal Legislature should have the power to deal with those matters. There is a possibility of different laws being passed in different Provinces, because each Province will be under the rule of a communal majority, in most Provinces Hindu and in the minority of Provinces Moslem. There may be a variety of laws which go very much to the root of things, because in all countries marriage laws are basic laws, as they deal with questions of status, marriage and divorce. In India especially they are wrapped up with religious questions which are a great motive power in India in a way which they are not here.

I can imagine nothing more likely to cause unsettlement than these questions of marriage and divorce, and the fewer Legislatures that have power to deal with them the better. For that reason, and because on the whole a more balanced judgment will be possible in the Federal Legislature than in some of the Provincial Assemblies, it is better that they should rest with the Federal Legislature. I have also in mind that the Governor-General has the power to prevent legislation which he thinks might disturb peace and tranquility. It is conceivable that measures of this kind might have that effect, or might appear likely to have that effect, and because the Governor-General has more power in that matter than, I discover, the Governors are to have, it will be safer if such matters are reserved to the Federal Legislature. For those reasons, I support the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth.

8.45 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

This proposal to remove from the concurrent list the subjects of marriage and divorce, infants and minors, and adoption, leaving them exclusively Federal subjects, is not one that I can agree on behalf of the Government to accept. I cannot help thinking that the proposal and the grounds on which it is supported are the products of a Western mind. These matters of marriage, divorce and adoption are largely dealt with—I was going to say in 99 cases out of 100—by what one may call the customary law of the two different communities. Nobody is unaware of the great varieties of circumstances in India; indeed, my hon. and gallant Friend and his associates are never tired of pressing on the Government that India is a great Continent where there are very striking differences in habits of life and modes of thought; and so it is in connection with these matters of marriage and divorce. The principle upon which we have proceeded, in putting these subjects into the concurrent list, is that generally speaking uniformity with regard to legislative principles is the right goal to aim at, but that there must be in relation to certain matters, of which these are illustrations, elasticity, to enable variations to be made in pursuance of provincial or local circumstances. My noble Friend the Member for West Perth (Duchess of Atholl) says that these are such important matters that it is desirable that they should only be dealt with by the Federal Legislature, in order, if I understand my Noble Friend's argument aright, to make it as unlikely as possible that there will be any legislation in the Provinces. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) bases himself upon Queen Victoria's declaration that there shall be no interference with the religious customs of the people—

Duchess of ATHOLL

The religion.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

The religion of the people; and on the fact that many of these matters are really religious matters in India, as I understand it, although perhaps they may not be so much religious matters to us in the West. But really those arguments tend to show the correctness of the decision at which the Government have arrived. It would be most undesirable, I suggest, that there should be no opportunity of legislation to meet some particular local circumstance. It is most unlikely that there will be any interference with what I may call the customary law which regulates marriage and divorce, but if, owing to some local circumstance which cannot be foreseen, it were necessary to make some alteration, not in the customary law, but in matters relating to marriage and divorce, such for instance—this occurs to me on the spur of the moment—as registration of divorce or some matter of that sort, it would be very undesirable and inconvenient if legislation could not be passed by these Provincial legislative bodies. The Government are at one with my hon. and gallant Friend in desiring that there shall be no legislation which will interfere with matters that are dealt with by the customary law of the communities concerned, but, because we think we have secured the advantages of both worlds, we propose to leave these matters to be dealt with in the concurrent list as well as including them in the Federal list. If there should be any reason to suppose that the Provincial legislatures were going too far in any legislation that they might be minded to pass, the Federal Legislature will always be in a position to step in and correct any mistake that may be made.

Duchess of ATHOLL

If, as the Attorney-General seems to indicate, the intention in putting these subjects into the concurrent list is that the Federal Legislature should have the power to legislate in the larger and more important matters, leaving to the Provinces minor matters such as registration of divorce, would it not be well to indicate the difference by putting rather different words into these two lists?

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL

My Noble Friend must not attach too much importance to the illustration I have given. The idea is to allow minor matters to be dealt with by the Provincial legislatures, and weightier matters to be dealt with by the Federal body. I should prefer to put it in this way, that, if there is any question of principle relating to these matters, the Federal Legislature would seem to be the proper body to deal with it, but if there are any matters—which may be important matters as well as quite minor matters—which require to be dealt with merely in relation to local or provincial circumstances, which vary as between, say, Madras on the one hand and the North West Province or the Punjab on the other, the Provincial legislature shall not have their hands tied and be prevented from making the necessary adjustment. I do not want to be thought to distinguish between important matters and minor matters; it is really that questions of uniformity of principle would be dealt with by the Federal Legislature, and other matters by the Provincial bodies.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE

The Attorney-General speaks of uniformity of principle, but to such an ignorant person as myself uniformity of principle seems very difficult of attainment. Would the Attorney-General enlighten me on this point? The question of marriage and divorce is in the concurrent list; that is to say, it will be dealt with by the Federal Legislature, as at present arranged, and also by the different provincial legislatures. But the majority in the Provincial legislatures is in some cases Hindu and in other Mohammedan. Of course we all know that the practice with regard to marriage and divorce in these two great communities is very different, and when the Attorney-General speaks of uniformity of principle it is very difficult to realise how uniformity of principle can be attained. Is it that certain principles with regard to a wife are laid down, and that those are to be made uniform over the whole of India? Is the question to be dealt with on a communal basis, or is it expected that it will be possible to have a uniform principle for the whole of India?

8.54 p.m.

Mr. WISE

I think the Attorney-General put his finger on the point when he said that these matters were religious matters. Surely, if they are religious matters, they are not Provincial. In India, religions are not isolated in Provinces. Hindus are Hindus in the United Provinces just as they are in Bengal, and they are, in fact, the same sort of Hindus. They have the same marriage customs and the same divorce customs. Exactly the same is the case with the Moslems. There is no difference in Moslem marriage or divorce law as between one end of India and the other. Surely, if that be the case, all legislation dealing with these matters should be uniformly from the Centre, because there is bound to be a greater balance of opinion and a greater calm, if I may say so, at the Centre, than there is likely to be in Provincial assemblies. I am also rather surprised that the Attorney-General should reproach us for coming to this question with a Western mind. I thought that that was what we are all trying to do. We are not only trying to impose Western constitutions. We are trying to give India a Western mind, and surely the best way of accomplishing this object of Occidentalisation would be to settle these matters as in this country, and have the marriage and divorce laws controlled by a central, and not by a local administration.

8.56 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT

I would beg the learned Attorney-General to realise that we have not brought the Amendment forward without great consideration. Is your federation going to be a federation at all, or are you going to allow all these great customs to exist? We press the Government to consider the question, because some of the greatest authorities with whom we have been in touch are deeply concerned as regards the future. If in regard to the marriage age, or some other point of that description, there are to be different laws in different provinces, you will have a state of affairs much worse than has been the case in the United States, and which has led to such a scandal as regards the various divorce laws there. I beg of the Attorney-General to reconsider the matter. We ought to do everything in our power, surely, to try to assist the Indian laws of the future, so that the different Provinces will move along in the same direction in their law-making. If at the very inception you give an opportunity to the different Provinces to arrange different variations of these very vital matters, you may have such a conflict of opinion in neighbouring provinces as to cause the very flare-up in religion which must continue to be a danger in India as long as there are religious conflicts.

Therefore, I urge the Attorney-General to consider this question a little further before the Report stage. We are not bringing the matter forward in any contentious manner; it is a question of the happiness and contentment of the people in the days to come. If different forms of legislation are to be permitted in the various Provinces, is it unfair for me to say that some of those new Provincial Assemblies will be very irresponsible for a time? You are likely to see the same kind of thing which you have seen in Ceylon and in the municipal government of Calcutta. The right hon. Gentleman will not deny that the municipal government of Calcutta has really been a very serious failure.

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore)

I deny it about Ceylon.

Sir H. CROFT

The right hon. Gentleman denies the case of Ceylon, but the fact remains that, if I were in order, I could tell a long story about Ceylon. I think that he will agree that in the temptation of a new government to find its feet it has engaged in irresponsible proposals. If he had made a study of Ceylon he would see that that was the tendency which the Government had to face.

Mr. BUTLER

Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give any instances of marriage and divorce laws having been passed by the Ceylonese Council?

Sir H. CROFT

I am merely stating the tendency.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE

I want to protest. The Ceylon Legislature has not touched one of these religious or family questions since the new constitution was established.

Sir H. CROFT

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the interruption. I was not attempting to suggest that that was so, and I am sorry if any hon. Members in the Committee think that it is so. What I said is that a new legislature, as in the case of Ceylon, wants to find its feet. It wants to exercise all sorts of powers, and to throw its weight about, so to speak. I was not referring to this specific subject. You are bound to have ardent politicians in the Provinces, who, for the first time, find that they are there with an opportunity of making suggestions, bringing forward all sorts of extreme measures. Would it not be far better, when you have a Federal Government with greater solidarity and responsibility, and where the Provinces are also represented, to leave these very vital subjects in their hands, rather than to have every new politician trying to become notorious in the Provinces and bringing up these matters which so deeply affect the whole life of the people of India? That is why I submit that they are the best authority for dealing with these very vital matters. We have seen how vitally these questions affect the people, and how irresponsibility might lead to some great clash in the Provinces.

9.1 p.m.

Sir R. CRADDOCK

It is impossible to exaggerate the great importance of not tampering, or seeming to tamper, in any way with the religions of the people of India. The learned Attorney-General has spoken about them, their customs and so on. These are all laid down in the great text books of Hindu law which are commentaries on the rules which were formerly promulgated by some of their great lawgivers. There are various schools of Hindu law regulating succession, joint families, self-acquired property and so forth. They are very important as regards adoption and marriage. It may be that we here do not think that there is any risk of those customs being altered by legislation or by pressure of any kind, but the Hindus themselves realise that danger and feel it. They ought really to know better than we can what danger there is. They are afraid that the considerable Moslem element that has arisen in the new population, of politicians especially, will deliberately do their best to cause mischief among the ordinary orthodox Hindus. They are genuinely alarmed, and are particularly desirous that no legislation should be introduced at all into the legislature without the previous sanction of the Governor-General. They attach great importance to that. Once a thing has been introduced and discussion has ranged over it, bad blood arises all over the country. This is likely to cause such difficulties. The Proclamation of Queen Victoria they regard as the Magna Charta of their whole status, and nothing should be done by us in this House, by our legislation or by any legislation in India which seems to conflict with the promise then given. There is no portion of the famous Proclamation of Queen Victoria which is quoted so often and upon which real dependence is placed. Most people who know India well will say that it was that paragraph relating to religion in the Proclamation that helped the Indian people and reconciled them to British rule.

Therefore, it is of great importance that we should lose no opportunity of strengthening the position. The proper line always is that in purely religious practices which should not interfere, with the one exception where the practice conflicts with the ordinary criminal law. That has been the case with Suttee and with the age of consent and various other measures that have been taken. That is a very sound line to follow. Do not interfere with the religion of anybody else unless the act that you prohibit would be ordinarily an offence by whomsoever committed and whatever his religion may be. If you adopt that guiding line you will check a lot of these bits of legislation with regard to child marriage and so on. Our action is used against us by the very people who advocate the legislation. It is well known that agnostics in the Legislative Assembly who supported the Marriage Law were very prominent in making it a case of agitation against the British Government. They have no scruples whatever. They induce you to do a certain thing on the ground of modern culture or that the practice is at variance with intellect and so, and when you have done it they go among the more ignorant, superstitious people and lay it to the charge of the British raj that they have interfered with the religion of the people. Those are the dangers that we have to be on guard against. I hope that the Government will ponder very carefully before making any law which could be regarded in any way as an interference, direct or indirect, with any of the religious practices followed in India.

9.9 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

I would point out that the Amendment—I am not suggesting that it has been hastily conceived—was only put on the Order Paper last Friday. Nor am I suggesting that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft)—

Sir H. CROFT

I wonder whether the Attorney-General, with his great staffs behind him, has any conception of the appalling pressure which has been put upon those of us who have been trying to follow this Bill without that assistance. To suggest that we should be able weeks in advance, when he has been rushing this Measure through day by day, to put down Amendments, is most unreasonable. It has been with the utmost strain that we have been working, even up to one, two, three and four o'clock in the morning, night after night when we have left here, in order to master the points of the Bill.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not think that I was saying anything unnecessary. I am afraid that he shows signs of the strain of sitting up until two or three o'clock in the morning. I intended no imputation whatever upon him and his colleagues. I merely made an observation which was introductory to another observation. The first observation was the fair statement of fact that the Amendment was only put down last Friday. I was going to follow that observation up by the statement that the Government's proposal for the inclusion of these subjects in the Concurrent List has not been a matter of controversy either in this country or in India, which is much more important. As between the two great bodies of Hindus and Moslems, although the Government proposal to include these subjects in the Concurrent List has been well known for months not a single doubt or suggestion has ever been made that they would prefer the matter to be left only in the Federal List. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will acquit me of any imputation when he sees that I was merely leading up to that observation. I am sure that he is working under great pressure, along with his colleagues, and, if he will allow me to say so, they are working admirably, having regard to the difficulties of the situation. Listening to what my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock) said, one would be under the impression that we were proposing to introduce legislation to alter the law of marriage in India. We are not proposing any such legislation. I go a very long way with him, in fact all the way with him, in thinking that it would be most undesirable to pass legislation to interfere with the customary law of these people dealing with the domestic customs such as the marriage of persons, the process of divorce and the law of adoption. We are not proposing to do that. All that we are proposing to do is to say that the Federal Legislature shall have power to deal with these subjects and as to that there is no difference of opinion between us, because that is my hon. and gallant Friend's proposal. The only difference is whether in relation to these matters, either connected with the substance or the machinery of the matter, the Provincial Legislative Bodies shall also have power to legislate. I cannot believe that the questions raised by Queen Victoria's Declaration and the undesirability of interfering with the customary laws of these people have anything to do with this very limited difference between my hon. and gallant Friend and myself.

He says, justifiably, that he has very competent advisers and suggests that it is a matter that requires reconsideration. All I can say is that the Government have had a number of very competent advisers. Advisers do not always agree, but we think that the advice which has been acted upon by the Government is advice which must have commended itself to the great community in India, for the reasons that I have stated, seeing that not a single voice has been raised in criticism of the proposal ever since it was put down until last Friday. I hope the Committee, after the arguments have been stated more than once in the last 20 minutes by successive speakers, will think that we can now proceed to a Division.

9.13 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT

I am grateful to the Attorney-General for having added those few explanatory words, because at first it did appear as if he was reproaching us for not having put Amendments down many days in advance. It has been absolutely impossible to work at higher pressure than we have done, as a small section of this House really trying to study the Bill, and I think the Attorney-General will agree that but for our intervention on most of the Clauses they would have gone by default, just like the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms and the Constitution for Ceylon. The reason why I told the Attorney-General that we did not propose this Amendment in any lighthearted manner is because I happen to have had a very long correspondence with people in India, who I know His Hajesty's Government have not encouraged very much—I do not think that it is unfair to say this—to give evidence before the Joint Select Committee. I refer to the orthodox Hindus who are an extreme religious wing of opinion in India and whose views are not received or welcomed very much in certain circles. The Attorney-General has said that until quite recently nothing had been heard at all on this question. It is at least six months since I was first informed that the leaders of the orthodox Hindus in India believed that if there were any possibility of dealing with the questions enumerated in the Amendment, it would lead to appalling bloodshed. That is why we have tabled the Amendment, and I regret that the Government cannot accept it.

9.10 p.m.

Sir WILLIAM WAYLAND

Although the Government do not intend to interfere with the marriage customs of India, power will be given to Provincial Legislatures to alter the marriage laws. There is plenty of room for reform in the marriage laws of India, but you do not want to create a series of States in India like you have in the United States, where marriages and divorce can be obtained easier than anywhere else, and thus create centres such as we know under the name of Reno, where those who wish to be divorced can obtain what they desire for a very small fee. In most civilised countries it is only the central legislature which has authority to deal with matters appertaining to marriage and divorce, and the same principle should hold for India.

9.17 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN

The hon. Member for the English Universities

(Sir R. Craddock) has dealt with the position of the Hindus. I should like to say a few words about Islam. Many years ago I was assessor in the Madras Divorce Court, and I sat with the imam hearing cases. Therefore, I have some knowledge of the marriage and divorce laws of Islam. I was astonished to hear the Attorney-General say that these are domestic matters. They are not domestic matters; they are purely religious matters. The religious ceremony and divorce laws of Islam are fixed and immutable, not only in India but throughout the East. It is important, therefore, that we should regard this as a Federal subject, not as a local subject. I was even more surprised when the Attorney-General talked about the western mind. We have only to go to Scotland to see the trouble caused by two different marriage laws. The scandal of Gretna Green rang from one end of the country to another, and we had to pass a special law to prevent such marriages being performed. If that can occur in this country, what may occur when you have 11 provincial governments legislating for three, four and more religions. It is an impossible situation. If you are going to put this in the Bill, you cannot limit it to minor matters. If they have the right they will carry it out; and there is nothing more likely to create trouble and bloodshed than to interfere with the marriage laws of the various peoples of India. I hope the Government will reconsider the matter and leave this as a Federal subject. If you want a divorce in Ireland, you have to have an Act of Parliament passed in this House. If we have made these mistakes in this country what mistakes are likely to be made in India? This is a matter on which India is extremely nervous. It is like putting a lighted match to gunpowder to interfere with religions in India. There is nothing which stirs up trouble more quickly than to interfere with the marriage laws of the people.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 30; Noes, 210.

Division No. 181.]	AYES.	[9.22 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Bracken, Brendan	Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.	Broadbent, Colonel John	Davison, Sir William Henry
Atholl, Duchess of	Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry	Ersklne-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Fuller, Captain A. G.	Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)	Wayland, Sir William A.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.	Pike, Cecil F.	Wells, Sidney Richard
Greene, William P. C.	Purbrick, R.	Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Hales, Harold K.	Remer, John R.	Wise, Alfred R.
Knox, Sir Alfred	Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)	Wragg, Herbert
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.	Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Moreing, Adrian C.	Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (Pd'gt'n, S.)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Perkins, Walter R. D.	Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'Wick-on-T.)	Mr. Raikes and Mr. Emmott.
NOES.
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)	Gluckstein, Louis Halle	Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher	Goff, Sir Park	O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Albery, Irving James	Goldie, Noel B.	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Aske, Sir Robert William	Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)	Owen, Major Goronwy
Attlee, Clement Richard	Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur	Paling, Wilfred
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)	Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)	Parkinson, John Allen
Banfield, John William	Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)	Patrick, Colin M.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Grigg, Sir Edward	Peake, Osbert
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey	Grimston, R. V.	Pearson, William G.
Batey, Joseph	Groves, Thomas E.	Percy, Lord Eustace
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th. C.)	Grundy, Thomas W.	Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Belt, Sir Alfred L.	Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.	Potter, John
Bernays, Robert	Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Blindell, James	Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)	Pownall, Sir Assheton
Bossom, A. C.	Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)	Radford, E. A.
Boulton, W. W.	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.	Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenning t'n)	Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)	Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)	Rea, Walter Russell
Brass, Captain Sir William	Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.	Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George	Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.	Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Brocklehank, C. E. R.	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.	Rickards, George William
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)	Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)	Robinson, John Roland
Brown, Ernest (Leith)	Hicks, Ernest George	Ropner, Colonel L.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Holdsworth, Herbert	Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Burghley, Lord	Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)	Runge, Norah Cecil
Butler, Richard Austen	Hopkinson, Austin	Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)	Hornby, Frank	Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)	Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.	Salmon, Sir Isidore
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney)
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)	Hume, Sir George Hopwood	Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (P'rtsm'th, S.)	Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)	Show, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)	Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer	Shute, Colonel Sir John
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)	Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.	Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)	James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.	Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric	Jamieson, Douglas	Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Christie, James Archibald	Jesson, Major Thomas E.	Somervell, Sir Donald
Clarry, Reginald George	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Clayton, Sir Christopher	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Cleary, J. J.	Kerr, Hamilton W.	Spens, William Patrick
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton	Stones, James
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Strauss, Edward A.
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.	Law, Sir Alfred	Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)
Conant, R. J. E.	Lawson, John James	Sugden, Sir wilfrid Hart
Cooper, T. M. (Edinburgh, W.)	Leckle, J. A.	Sutcliffe, Harold
Copeland, Ida	Lees-Jones, John	Tate, Mavis Constance
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Thorn, William James
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)	Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)	Tinker, John Joseph
Croom-Johnson, R. P.	Loder, Captain J. de Vere	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Cross, R. H.	Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander	Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Crossley, A. C.	Lunn, William	Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Culverwell, Cyril Tom	MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)	Turton, Robert Hugh
Daggar, George	MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)	Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)	Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)
Davies, Rhys, John (Westhoughton)	McEntee, Valentine L.	Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)	Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Dickle, John P.	McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Dobble, William	Magnay, Thomas	Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel	Mainwaring, William Henry	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Dunglass, Lord	Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest	Watt, Major George Steven H.
Eastwood, John Francis	Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.	White, Henry Graham
Edwards, Charles	Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter	Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)	Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson	Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John	Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard	Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare	Milner, Major James	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)	Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)	Worthington, Dr. John V.
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst	Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale	Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)	Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Fremantle, Sir Francis	Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Gardner, Benjamin Walter	Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)	Sir George Penny and Lieut.-
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)	Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.	Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman	Munro, Patrick

9.28 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I beg to move, in page 293, line 24, to leave out "and" and to insert: (but not including the use of His Majestys naval, military or air forces in laid of the civil power). This is an Amendment consequential on one passed earlier on the first paragraph in the Seventh Schedule. I think I explained this Amendment at that time.

Amendment agreed to.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I beg to move, in page 293, line 26, at the end, to insert: preventive detention for reasons connected with the maintenance of public order; persons subjected to such detention. This is a drafting Amendment to put an item at present contained in paragraph 4 of List II into the first paragraph.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page line 34, leave out from "institutions" to the end of paragraph.—[The Solicitor-General.]

9.31 p.m.

Mr. EMMOTT

I beg to move, in page 294, line 8, to leave out paragraph 9.

This paragraph deals with the compulsory acquisition of land, and this Amendment is preparatory to an Amendment the effect of which would be to place the subject of the compulsory acquisition of land on the Concurrent List. We think that this is a subject upon which both the Federal and the Provincial Legislatures should be able to legislate. We think, for instance, that there might have to be a uniform code which would be operative throughout India, dealing with this subject, and corresponding to our own Lands Clauses Act. This code would be laid down by Federal law, while it would be for the Provincial Legislatures to determine the manner in which and the extent to which Provincial Acts should incorporate the Federal code. It is also conceivable that land might have to be acquired for Federal purposes, many of which readily suggest themselves to the mind. There is, for instance, the case of the railways. If it were necessary for land to be acquired for Federal purposes, then Federal law should govern this matter. As the thing stands at present, with the subject of the compulsory acquisition of land in the Provincial List, the Federal Legislature will have no power to deal with this topic.

9.34 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The object of this Amendment is to remove this matter from the Provincial List and to put it in the Concurrent List. The entry as in the Bill is intended to continue the existing procedure under the India Land Acquisition Act. It is clear that all the administrative and executive actions connected with the acquisition of land must be dealt with by the Provinces. They are the people with the officers on the spot, and it will be within the Provinces that the land exists. If the Committee will look at Clause 126, they will see that provision is made for the acquisition of land for Federal purposes. It enables the Federation to put into operation the Provincial machinery in order that land may be acquired for Federal purposes. As the executive authority in relation to this subject must be with the Provinces it hardly is right that the whole matter should be dealt with Federally. After all, we are dealing with Provinces that are very large units, and in the event of the acquisition of land it is a perfectly proper matter to call them in, and we have safeguarded the position of the Federation by enabling it to put into operation through the Provinces the machinery which will exist. We recommend the Committee to leave the matter as it is in the Bill, and for these reasons we cannot accept these Amendments.

9.37 p.m.

Sir B. PETO

Clearly there may be other bodies than the Federation which may require to acquire land in more than one Province, and although Clause 126 protects the Federation that wants to acquire land for a railway in more than one Province, it does not cover any other body, corporate or otherwise, which might want to acquire land in more than one Province. These Provinces all have boundaries. That seems to me a very strong argument for the Amendment. I think it would be a great convenience, in all cases where land was in the neighbourhood of a boundary, for the people who wish to acquire the land to know what the general law is with regard to the acquisition of land, although the administration of the law would be in the hands of the Provinces.

9.38 p.m.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS

Suppose it was desired that the Federal Legislature should pass an Act giving a corporation power to acquire land compulsorily, would that case be met by Clause 126, or would the inclusion of this paragraph in List 2, make it impossible for the Federation to pass any Act which would give a corporation or other body of persons power to acquire land compulsorily in the way in which many corporations are given power in this country to acquire land for the purpose of development? If so, there should be some provision by which the Federal Legislature, for instance, legislating on railways or aerodromes, could give a corporation power compulsorily to acquire land. A Federal Act would become ineffective if there had to be a Provincial Act in each Province implementing the powers given by the Federal Act so far as the compulsory acquisition of land was concerned.

9.40 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto), a corporation which desired to acquire land in more than one Province would have to proceed under the Provincial laws in each Province, and in our opinion that is right. We regard this question of the compulsory acquisition of land as one which, as it has to be dealt with administratively by the Provincial Executive, is one in which they should have power to legislate. We see no reason to contemplate any wide or embarrassing lack of uniformity in matters of this kind. The corporation which acquired land compulsorily in two Provinces would have to conform to the machinery for the compulsory acquisition which was involved in those two Provinces. No great difficulty would result. Clearly there would have to be two proceedings in any case. My hon. Friend referred to the boundaries of Provinces. Of course boundaries in any legislative or administrative unit do cause some trouble. If the whole world were one for all purposes, many of our difficulties would disappear. Difficulties are inevitable in any scheme. If there was a piece of land to be acquired, part in Province A and part in Province B, part of it would be acquired under the law in Province A and part of it under the law in Province B.

With regard to the question of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), in the Bill as it stands, for the reason I have given, compulsory acquisition of land is a Provincial subject, subject to Clause 126. My hon. and learned Friend referred to railways which, broadly speaking, are a Federal subject; there is a large area of Federal legislative authority in respect of railways. I think I am right in saying that land acquired for Federal railway purposes would be land acquired for the purpose of the Federation. If the hon. and learned Member will look at Clause 126 he will see that the purposes of the Federal Railway Authority are expressly mentioned. The hon. and learned Gentleman raised a more general point which is certainly one of importance. He asked whether, in relation to the development of some industry, the Federal Government could confer compulsory powers on corporations, overriding any Provincial law on that matter. I shall certainly look into the question. My first impression is to answer "No." The compulsory acquisition of land being expressly referred to as a Provincial matter, the Federal Legislature, under its general powers to deal with the development of industries, could not impinge upon or contradict any legislation dealing with the compulsory acquisition of land which may exist in the Provinces, and such matter would have to be a matter of negotiation and so on with the Provinces.

Sir S. CRIPPS

Let me ask one further question. Would it not also be impossible for the Provincial Legislature to give powers for compulsory acquisition because they have not the power to legislate on the broad subject? Take the case of aerodromes. A company desires to develop air services through India. The Provincial Legislature under paragraph 9, could not give authority for aerodromes to a company because they have no power to legislate with regard to aerodromes, and the Federal Government could not give authority because they have no power to legislate as regards the compulsory acquisition of land. Therefore in that case the result would be that neither could give the power for the compulsory acquisition of land for aerodromes, or any subject-matter which came within the Federal list, because it would be excluded from the power of legislation in the Province.

9.45 p.m.

Sir B. PETO

I wish to direct the attention of the Solicitor-General to the wording of Clause 126 which appears to have a limiting effect. It refers specifically to "purposes of the Federal railway authority" and therefore it would appear that any other authority which wanted to acquire land might be debarred because that particular authority has been mentioned.

9.46 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL:

In reply to my hon. and learned Friend opposite I would point out that earlier in the day the Committee accepted an Amendment making the provision of aerodromes expressly a federal subject and I think that probably that would give them an over-riding power in regard to the matters referred to. When my hon. and learned Friend was speaking earlier I thought he was referring to the general question and my previous answer dealt only with the general question. I think that answer is probably the right answer and indicates the right position to take up in this matter. If the legislature is to develop some industry on particular lines, it ought to have the power to acquire land compulsorily. I think that would necessarily be incidental to its general power to deal with and regulate the development of industry. As regards aerodromes, there is the further answer that air transport is a subject which according to the decision already made by the Committee can be taken under the direct control of the Federation. I shall certainly undertake to look into the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend opposite and also into the point raised by the Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto). I agree that it would not be the result which is intended if the Federal Legislature, having received exclusive power to deal with the provision of aerodromes, were left incapable of seing that aerodromes were provided except at the mercy of some Provincial Legislature.

9.49 p.m.

Lord E. PERCY

I confess to feeling rather mystified. Surely the words in Clause 126, "for the purposes of the Federation," can have no other meaning than that of any purpose in respect of which the Federation has exclusive power to legislate. I do not know what other meaning they can have. I hope that the Government will look into this question before the Report stage and consider whether the Clause should be drawn—if it is not already so drawn—in such a way as to cover all purposes for which the Federal Government has exclusive powers of legislation.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

I wish to mention another example which appears on the Concurrent List. The other examples quoted so far have not been on the Concurrent List. A company might be formed for the generation of electricity at a waterfall and for the development of a large hydro-electric undertaking. The area of consumption might be remote from the place of generation. A case might arise in which electricity was being generated in one Province and consumed largely in other Provinces. The words "compulsory acquisition of land" would include, I imagine, not merely land acquired for the actual generating works and sub-stations, but also wayleaves, and, as far as I know, wayleaves are not mentioned in any of the lists. They are associated with the compulsory acquisition of land—in other words the compulsory acquisition of the right to put up posts and run cables across land on suitable terms. I do not see how, if compulsory acquisition of land is to be a purely provincial subject, a private enterprise which obtained a charter from the Federal Government for an inter-provincial electricity scheme would be able to function should some Province see fit to refuse the necessary legislative power in connection with land and wayleaves.

The Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) interprets Clause 126 as meaning anything in connection with which the Federation had the exclusive power to legislate. I should have thought that, for instance, "for the purposes of the Government of the United Kingdom," to use an analogy, would refer to land which His Majesty's Government required for the purposes of the Government. It would be an entirely different thing if a citizen or a corporate body wished to acquire the land. Would the words "for the purposes of the Federation" be interpreted as meaning "for the purposes of the Federal Government of India," that is to say, for the purposes of all the inhabitants of Federal India? Would the Noble Lord interpret those words as including anything which affected the inhabitants of Federal India? That would bring in any person, in any Province, who, in respect of any particular matter, looked to the Federal Government and the Federal Legislature. If it does not mean that, then it must mean something less than that. The Noble Lord's point is that these words refer to anything in respect of which the Legislature can pass an Act of Parliament. Therefore that would mean that any citizen or citizens of Federal India in respect of whom an Act of Parliament had been passed, authorising them to do something which required the compulsory acquisition of land, could go to the Federal Government and say, "Please instruct this Province accordingly." If it does not mean that, I do not know what it means. However, we have the two Law Officers here and they will doubtless tell us precisely what these words do mean. I think if I were a lawyer I might earn a good deal of money in trying to explain this matter to judges and it would probably have to be explained to more than one set of judges before a final decision was reached.

9.54 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

This is a point of importance and it may be that the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) is a little too sweeping and that I was a little too cautious. If those responsible for this Amendment will be satisfied with an assurance to that effect, we will undertake to look into this matter. I think the words in Clause 126 do certainly cover this—that the Federation by the form of its law, might make it clear that it was conferring the power to acquire land for Federation purposes. A scheme might be such that, by its very nature, it would bring the activities of those to whom it referred within the wording "for the purposes of the Federation." On the other hand, there may be something in the point made by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) that the purposes of the Federation can be construed as Government purposes in the absence of some express words in the enactment. Without infringing on the main principle that the compulsory acquisition of land should be a provincial subject, we will look into the question of whether any undertaking for dealing with electricity or other matters which might appropriately come under Federal control, would be embarrassed by the absence of any express reference to the power of acquiring land.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

Does not the word "Federation" before the words "including purposes of the Federal Railway Authority" make it clear that they mean in the first place "Government purposes," that as there would be some doubt whether "Government purposes" included the Federal Rail way Authority those words were put in?

Sir B. PETO

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman undertake to consider with an open mind whether it is not desired to do precisely what the Amendment asks?

Mr. EMMOTT

In view of the undertaking given by the learned Solicitor-General to look into this important point, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 294, line 11, leave out paragraph 11, and insert: 11. Elections to the Provincial Legislature subject to the provisions of this Act and of any Order in Council made there-under."—[The Solicitor-General.]

9.57 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

I beg to move, in page 294, line 18, to leave out "Public health and sanitation."

This is moved as one of a number of Amendments intended to make public health purely a Federal service, but we have passed that stage, and on this Amendment we can only suggest that it should come into the Concurrent List. Not having visited India, I am not as expert on this subject as some others are, but it seems to me that public health in the wide sense is not something which has any knowledge of Provincial boundaries. If you have outbursts of any kind of epidemic diseases, which in hot countries may become much more serious than in temperate countries, it seems to me that you must have a wider view of the subject than merely a narrow, Provincial view. That an outburst of bubonic plague, which too often has inflicted great suffering and misery on the inhabitants of India, should be handled by Provincial Governments, each working separately, introduces very great dangers to the public health. There are other problems of public health arising, such as water supply and sanitation, problems of curious complexity in a country where—I say it with all respect—the habits of the people are such that sanitation and water supply are not as easily dealt with as in this country or, in fact, in most European countries. Some of the great rivers of India, which only too unfortunately perform the function of public sewers to a much greater extent than we should regard as desirable, traverse more than one Province. Therefore, there is a very substantial body of arguments in favour of the Amendment.

I realise that there is an argument on the other side, and that a great many of the problems of public health are purely localised as the day-to-day work of a medical officer and a sanitary inspector, such as we are all familiar with in this country. The clearance of house refuse and all that kind of work is essentially localised, but there are wider and larger problems of public health, which, if they are to be handled properly, should be dealt with, to use an Americanism, on a country-wide basis. It is, I think, with that in view that my hon. Friends and myself have tabled this Amendment. Possibly those who were responsible for drafting it had in mind primarily—I added my name because I was in accord with the general principle—that on balance public health should be a Federal service.

Personally, I am a little inclined to think that the Concurrent List, where alone we can now seek to place it, is perhaps the better place for it, because it is obvious that certain aspects of public health are exclusively local. On the other hand, the other aspects to which I have referred, such as epidemic disease, plague, the movement of insects, agricultural diseases, and things like that, are nation-wide and, therefore, should be Federal subjects. If public health can be put on the Concurrent List, it will enable the Federation to deal with those aspects of public health where the problem knows no frontiers, and equally it will enable the Provincial Governments to deal with those aspects of public health which are very much more local in their character.

10.2 p.m.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX

I want to give one instance of the necessity for considering public health and sanitation as at least as important a Federal subject as a Provincial subject, and that is the pilgrimages in India. As is well known, there are pilgrimages of Hindus from all over India to Hardwar and Allahabad in the United Provinces and to Nassik in Bombay. These pilgrims arriving at the place of pilgrimage and returning to their various residences all over India are a very frequent cause of the spread of infection, and it seems very important that this should be kept an all-India subject, or at any rate on the Concurrent List, so as to enable the spread of infection to be dealt with expeditiously and properly. I wonder how long it would have taken the Provincial Governments in India more or less to stamp out the plague if they had not had the guidance of the Central Government in India.

10.3 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL

I feel it is impossible to exaggerate the importance of this Amendment. India is a land of devastating epidemics, a land in which plague has taken a toll of 46,000 people in the last year for which the figures are available, namely, 1932. In that year cholera in India accounted for 67,200 deaths, the lowest figure, we are told, yet on record. From smallpox the toll was no less than 114,691, and we are told by the Health Commissioner of the Government of India in his latest report, from which I have quoted these figures, that India is the chief epidemic focus for smallpox in the world. The control of an epidemic must depend largely on sanitation, and that is especially true in regard to cholera. The prevention of cholera depends very largely on efficient drainage and pure water supply, hut, as we know, the service of public health, including, of course, sanitation, was handed over to Provincial Ministers in 1921, and as such it appears in the Bill. But in regard to this the commissioner for health has a very sad tale to tell. He tells us that very little progress has been recorded in India in regard to sanitation. He goes on to say that recent sweeping reductions in expenditure even on such primary necessities as water supplies and drainage schemes are all indications of the false economy which has prevailed in the last two years. India has had to cut down her services as we in this country have had to do. But she has cut down things which the health commissioner rightly says are primary necessities. He states as a general opinion that no Provincial Health Department in India had even the minimum requirements necessary for the efficient performance of its functions. That is what the health commissioner of the Government of India says about sanitation and public health generally in the 14 or 15 years in which it has been a provincial subject.

Earl WINTERTON

Surely the Noble Lady is not arguing that the lack of money is a fault?

Duchess of ATHOLL

I do not think that I gave my Noble Friend any occasion to say that. I did not enter into the question of finance except to refer to the retrenchment that has taken place. I have here an extract from a letter from an ex-inspector general of public health for the United Provinces in which he says that it is notorious that the standard of public health has deteriorated to an alarming extent since the introduction of the reforms. As a result, this ex inspector-general of public health and the government to which he was responsible asked for the Government of India to have greater powers in regard to public health. The United Provinces asked the Simon Commission for an All-India Public Health Act because they felt that it would be impossible otherwise to cope with the spread of infection from one Province to another. I recognise that the Government wish to give some powers in this matter to the Federal Government. We find in the Concurrent List that there is an item, No. 29, by which both Federal and Provincial Governments will have power for the prevention of the extension from one unit to another of infectious or contagious diseases; but I submit that the efforts of the Federal Government to prevent the extension of infection from one Province to another may be vitiated if the machinery in one of those Provinces for dealing with an epidemic is defective. It thus seems to me that it is necessary to give the Federal Government more power than is proposed in Item 29.

I would just instance as strengthening my argument the fact that to-day the Central Government has powers in this matter of public health. On page 128 of Volume I of the Simon Commission's Report we find that the Provinces have powers over public health and sanitation and vital statistics, but subject to legislation by the Indian Legislature in respect to infectious and contagious diseases to such extent as may be declared by any Act of the Indian Legislature. That wording is much wider than the wording of Item 29 in the Concurrent List. The proposal in the Bill is a limitation of existing powers of the Government of India for dealing with an epidemic. I am told that in spite of pressure from many public health officials and some Provincial Governments they have taken much less action than it was hoped they might take and which it was open for them to take. I have been told of schemes which have been put forward by Provincial Governments for the Government of India to take action in regard to public health, schemes supported by some Provinces, but which could not be put into operation unless they had the consent of all the Provinces and the railway authorities, and because they could not get the agreement of all the Provinces and the railway authorities they have had to be pigeon-holed. That is really a very serious matter, because epidemics know no limits of frontiers. With the powers it already had the Government of India has failed to do all that lay within its power to stem epidemics. Following on the recommendation of the United Provinces Government to the Simon Commission that the Government of India should exercise greater powers and legislate for public health throughout British India the Simon Commission recommended that the Government of India should exercise powers in this matter. On page 152 of their Second Volume they said that they wished to ensure co-operation between the various Provinces in matters of administration which, though not central subjects, may be of vital concern to more than one Province, or to India as a whole. For that purpose, they wished the Central Government to have powers over the Provincial Governments. They go on to say: We may recite as examples measures for fighting famine or epidemic diseases. I submit that again that wording is much broader wording than: The extension from one unit to another of infectious or contagious diseases. So that again the wording in the Bill falls short of what was recommended by the Simon Commission. I repeat that the most admirable measures proposed by the Central Government for preventing the extension of an epidemic from one Province to another may be rendered useless if the provincial administration is ineffective and has the Federal Government, under the proposals of the Bill, a better chance of getting agreement between all the Provinces than the present Government of India? After all, the Legislatures to-day, both central and provincial, include a certain number of nominated officials anxious to help forward Government measures, and men who know the value of efficient public health measures. Will it be easier for a Federal Legislature, which must be controlled by one communal majority, to get the agreement of Provincial Legislatures and of Provincial Governments controlled by other communal majorities, will it be easier to secure co-operation among those legislatures than it is to-day? It seems to me that it will be much more difficult to get uniform public health legislation all over India under the arrangement proposed than it is at present.

If we are really to have an efficient public health service in India, there ought to be some means of providing for more or less uniform qualifications for public health officers. There again a wide diversity exists. I do not know if hon. Members saw a letter in the "Times" from an ex-director-general of public health in the United Provinces. He referred to this matter of qualifications for public health officers, and said that in some cases the standard was lower since the service was transferred, and that some men who had no qualifications were becoming public health officers. It seems very desirable that there should be some central authority to prescribe that there should be a certain number of public health officials per head of the population, but there is no power to-day to ensure anything of that kind, or to ensure uniform or reasonably efficient standards. It is worth while remembering that in South Africa and Australia, where there are Federal Governments, powers of this kind have been conferred on the Central Government, and yet neither of those countries has anything like the epidemic problem that India has. For lack of effective central control India is actually the only civilised country which has not practically eliminated plague, cholera and smallpox. It has been impressed upon me that it is not possible to deal effectively with them without central control.

But public health in India is not limited to epidemic diseases. It also includes the important question of child welfare and child and maternal mortality. Do we realise that the maternal mortality in India is over six times as high as in Great Britain? We are concerned because we cannot get the figures lower in Great Britain, but, according to the Health Commissioner's latest report, the maternal death rate figures in India are six times as great as ours. According also to this report, child welfare work "is pitifully small and shows little tendency to increase." No serious attempts, the Commissioner says, have been made to estimate the causes of the higher infant mortality rate in India. "Preventive work among children is not regarded as a necessity, and is dispensed with as a luxury." That shows the need for more central authority, with a very experienced officer to advise it, which can stimulate the provincial governments in this very important matter. This subject will not be touched at all by paragraph 29, which will refer only to epidemic disease. Then, again, how are the Provinces to have intelligence as to maternal mortality, infant mortality and epidemic disease if there is no power in the central authority except that which is proposed? Surely there is great need for information to be given to the provincial Governments by some central authority. It is important, too, that inquiries should be held into the many health problems which concern India.

Tuberculosis is another great problem in India. I do not think it would come within the scope of item 29 in the Concurrent List. I am not sure whether it could be described exactly as an infectious or contagious disease. It is notifiable in this country, but it does not seem to be quite in the same category as other epidemic diseases. I know that it is contagious, but it is not an epidemic disease; at any rate it seems to me that it is in a slightly different category. That is another case where action by the central Government may be absolutely vitiated if no measures for dealing with the disease are taken in the Provinces. It is not a disease which spreads so rapidly from one province to another. In dealing with it much depends on the hygienic arrangements which will have to be made by the Provinces. Deaths from tuberculosis in India are estimated to be from three to sixteen times the mortality in this country. There are apparently no reliable statistics, but the estimates range within those figures, and it is said that for every death there are ten infected persons. In this report the need is stressed for organised efforts to combat this terrible disease.

Finally, there is malaria. It has been said to me by the officer whom I have already quoted that 130,000,000 people in India have attacks of malaria which keep them from their work for about six weeks in the year, and that about 90 per cent. of those people can get no quinine, on account of the cost. In malaria we have a terrible scourge. Will it be possible for malaria to be dealt with under item 29? Here, again, we cannot exaggerate the importance of combined efforts to grapple with this scourge. Local treatment is very necessary for the prevention of malaria, but it is clear that the item in the Concurrent List leaves out a large block of public health work in India affecting women and children. It is clear, also, that we cannot hope to deal effectively with epidemic diseases if the Federal Government cannot be sure that the conditions which bring about those diseases or accentuate them will really be coped with effectually. I support the Amendment and earnestly beg the Government to give it careful consideration.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER

I am sure the Committee will realise the importance of this discussion, and sympathise with me if I do not cover the previous discussions we have had on the relationship of central government to provincial autonomy. We have always said that we in the Government believe in provincial autonomy, and therefore it is not for me to repeat all that has been said about the relationship of the powers of the Provinces to the powers of the Centre. The future of India must be built up on units which are really autonomous. Our service to provincial autonomy is not mere lip-service; we realise its deep implications.

I am glad that the Noble Lady has taken part in this Debate because she, as much as any other Member of the Committee, has made a profound study of this subject. She has all along shown how seriously she considers it. We also have done our best to make a profound study of it. I have here many statistics showing the serious nature of the ravages of disease in India, the present condition of the public health and so forth. I would say nothing which would imply that the condition of the public health service is perfect, or not open to improvement all over India. I can assure the Noble Lady that this subject has given my right hon. Friend and myself, and other Members of the Government, much anxiety, and that any action which can be taken to improve it would meet with our approval.

We now have to consider the future of India under the Federal Scheme which we propose. The Noble Lady's remarks were in the first place directed to preventing serious epidemic disease from ravaging India, and she referred in particular to the recommendation of the Statutory Commission which was that there shall be opportunities for further co-ordination between the Provinces with a view to enforcing measures for fighting famine or epidemic diseases (whether among men, animals or crops). I am advised that that is precisely the object of our inserting in the concurrent list Item 29, which reads: The prevention of the extension from one unit to another of infectious or contagious diseases or pests affecting men, animals or plants. Those are exactly the same words as in the recommendation of the Statutory Committee. In reply to the anxiety which the Noble Lady expressed, let me assure her that I am advised that the legislative content of Item 29 is exactly similar to what was recommended by the Statutory Commission.

Duchess of ATHOLL

May I point out that the Statutory Commission in paragraph 182 of their Report say: We recommend that the superintendence, direction, and control of the Governor-General in Council over a Provincial Government should be exercisable only over a field defined by the following categories"— and one of them is— matters which may, in the opinion of the Governor-General essentially affect the interests of any other part of India. Then they say in paragraph 184: Measures for fighting famine or epidemic diseases (whether among men, animals or crops).

Mr. BUTLER

I must take the Noble Lady's intervention as an opportunity to give the Committee some words on the subject. The Committee ought to look into this and to see whether the legislative content is suitable, or whether certain items should be in the Provincial or the Federal List. I have informed the Noble Lady that our legal advice here and from various parts of India is that the content of this Item is exactly the equivalent of what she desires. I can do no more to help the Committee and her than to give her that assurance, and if the Noble Lady does not accept it, I am afraid that the extent of the help I can give her is limited to the previous remarks I have made.

Duchess of ATHOLL

My hon. Friend has said, although perhaps indavertently, that the words in the Concurrent List are what I desire. He means, of course, that they were what the Simon Commission recommended.

Mr. BUTLER

Yes. As far as we can secure, and according to my advice—I stand liable to correction by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General—they have exactly the same content as that which was proposed by the Statutory Commission. The object of them is to secure co-ordination in these vital matters of infectious or contagious disease which may affect one Province or another. This deals with the difficulty raised by the Noble Lady as to disease which might cross the boundaries between one Province and another. Disease is no respecter of Provincial boundaries. As far as that difficulty is concerned, the Noble Lady's troubles are, I think, met by what is here proposed. We want to carry out the opinion of the Statutory Commission that this subject of public health or sanitation should not be taken away from the provincial government. This has been a provincial subject ever since the reforms were introduced over 12 years ago, and, for reasons which I will try to give to the Committee, must remain essentially a provincial subject. The differences between the Provinces as regards the incidence of disease follow, unfortunately, provincial idiosyncrasies. The registration of infectious diseases may have to be enforced in a different way in one Province from that in which it is enforced in another. It would be very difficult, in the case of any particular disease which ravaged one particular Province, for the Federal Legislature to pass a law which necessarily suited that Province.

The Noble Lady mentioned malaria, the greatest scourge of our Indian Empire, and a matter which I think the Noble Lady is right in saying might best be dealt with by further and better supplies of quinine. That, however, is an administrative question, and I should be out of Order in referring to it here. Let me remind the Noble Lady that the manner of dealing with malaria in Bengal may be radically different from the manner of dealing with it in, say, the Punjab, and I am advised by our experts that it would not be conducive to the extinction of malaria if we were to insist upon regulation by a central Act of the provincial treatment of malaria in different parts of India. Moreover, to refer to my previous remarks about provincial autonomy, it seems to me that, in order to eradicate disease and have an efficient public health and sanitary service, it is essential to encourage local effort and provincial autonomy in dealing with these matters. We believe that interference from the Centre would not encourage local effort, but rather would retard it, and that we should be taking away from the locality the necessary stimulus to deal with its own particular problems. Moreover, these public health matters depend essentially upon provincial finance, and as it is from that source that they will be financed, it therefore seems to us right that they should be under provincial control.

The Noble Lady referred to the problem of intelligence. It will be possible, under an item of the Federal list, for institutions for research to be governed from the Centre. That matter could be governed by Federal legislation. But I think the best hope for the Noble Lady is that the Government consider that the most fruitful course to pursue in dealing with these problems is that of the co-ordination of policy as between the Centre and the units. We are, as I have told the Committee, dealing with a Federation, and I think I am safe in saying that in no Federation has the problem of health development been solved by coercion from the Centre, but always by development of the unit. The Noble Lady quoted Australia, and, as I felt sure that this would be mentioned in the Debate, I attempted to arm myself with information as to the development of public health in Australia. The development of public health in Australia arose out of the appointment of the Royal Commission in 1926, and it may be said that, as a result of that, further co-ordination between the different States of Australia has taken place, and has finally resulted in the establishment of an Australian Health Council and latterly, I am glad to say, of an actual Department of Health in Australia. That has been arrived at entirely by the process of co-ordination and co-operation between the units, and not by any artificial control from the Centre. In India we envisage that the future will follow very much the same lines, or rather, I may be permitted to hope so.

Sir A. KNOX

How many people will have died in the meantime?

Mr. BUTLER

Under Clause 133 we have included the opportunity for the provinces to set up an inter-provincial council. It is our earnest hope that, under the provisions of that Clause, it will be possible for an inter-provincial council to be set up, and I devoutly hope that further co-ordination in health policy may result. Like the Noble Lady, I have had the privilege of discussing this matter with Major-General Graham and others who have been connected with public health in India, and I believe it is their opinion that the best way to develop public health under the future Federation will be by agreement between the units and by co-ordination and getting together, rather than by any sort of coercion. The Noble Lady may ask how, when this Council is set up, it will be possible for the Federation to legislate and implement the finding of any inter-provincial Council? If she will refer to Clause 103 she will see that the Federal Legislature will have power to legislate for two or three Provinces by consent. I am advised that under that Clause it would be possible in the distant or in the near future, as the case may be, for a Public Health Act to be passed for India. But at the present moment I am advised that there are such distinct provincial idiosyncrasies and difficulties that future Public Health Acts must depend in the first place upon the Provinces getting together. We all hope that there will be developed a more powerful central bureau for health in India and that health policy will develop along the lines which the Noble Lady desires, but we feel to-day that the wise and proper course is to let this depend upon co-operation rather than upon coercion. I regret that we cannot accept the Amendment.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES

We have been discussing what, in the Schedule, relates to public health, and I should like to ask whether the representative of the Government will be good enough to answer a question which concerns us greatly on these bencehs. In this country we always regard the National Health Insurance Scheme as part of our national health services. Indeed, it is one of the most important of those services. We have tried on more than one occasion to include some of these services in these lists, but we have failed up to now. Consequently, we shall be pleased if the hon. Gentleman will tell us whether it is possible, within the words "public health," to include a piece of legislation which will institute a scheme such as that known in this country as the National Health Insurance Scheme.

Mr. BUTLER

As far as I know, this will be covered by Item 19, which is already in the Concurrent List.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE

The Under-Secretary has said that the Government wish to increase autonomy in the Provinces. The Provincial Legislatures have autonomy in matters of health, and it is notorious that the health services have deteriorated very considerably under that autonomy. Is it argued that, when the Provinces have autonomy in matters of irrigation and of law and order, and so on, their administration of health services will improve?

Duchess of ATHOLL

Would it be possible for the Federal Government to take any action with regard to Malaria under Item 29 in the Concurrent List.

10.39 p.m.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE

Malaria may be said to be an infectious disease. The words in the Bill are definitely wider than the words advocated by the Noble Lady. She advocated the word "epidemic." We do not want merely to cover epidemic diseases, but infectious and contagious diseases, and practically all the diseases to which she has referred can be grouped under one or the other. With regard to malaria, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and anybody associated with the Colonial Office know, it is of the utmost importance that you should not have uniformity in the attempt to deal with the preventive services dealing with malaria. It is quite clear that in a rice-producing country you cannot have too much water as a preventive of malaria. Equally, where you have a wheat-producing country what you want is the maximum of drainage. All the preventive measures which have been adopted in connection with these two different crops and two different climates are fundamentally opposed to ridding the country of mosquitoes. In regard to Malaya, where we had a tremendous campaign, there was quite different treatment according to the particular variety of the mosquitoes being dealt with as carriers of malaria. Probably the greatest successes in fighting malaria have been achieved because they have been concentrated efforts in a small limited area. In the Panama Canal zone, in a certain swamp area of Palestine and in the Pontine Marshes the efforts have been conspicuous successes in fighting malaria where you need concentration of the whole population in local areas. Where there has been failure has been where the central government have adopted a sort of mass attack; they have always invariably failed. As one very much interested in the malaria problem for many years I devoutly hope that the Government of India will not try to impose anti-malaria measures upon the Provinces, but will provide for the maximum decentralisation in the interest of science and in the interests of proper administration.

10.43 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL

I thank my right hon. Friend for the very interesting statement which he has made, but I would ask him whether he is not aware that one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Agriculture was that the Government of India should control the production, manufacture and distribution of cinchona for manufacture into quinine, in order to make it more available at lower prices for the millions of people who cannot afford to buy it. Therefore, while I recognise what my right hon. Friend has said, with his great knowledge of Colonial affairs, and I realise the importance of concentrated attack in local areas, the fact remains that the Royal Commission recommended that the Central Government should have power to act, and the Central Government proceeded to exercise its powers.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE

It is a very serious question how far quinine can be regarded as a prophylactic and in the attack on malaria and how far it is valuable as a remedy. But that has nothing to do with what I might call preventive medicine and sanitation. We mainly regard quinine as dealing with the curative side. Various efforts have been made in the British Empire to endeavour to grow quinine in competition with Java, but I am afraid that many years and more experience will have to be gained before we shall find any part of the world so ideally situated to grow quinine as the particular area in Java where it is grown. The chief thing that has prevented the various efforts in India and in the Colonial possessions in developing the growth of quinine is that they have failed to grow it cheaper than they can grow it in Java. That is why Java has a monopoly. I do not think that you can blame the administration in India for failure to do what for years British and European officials have failed to do—namely, grow cheaper quinine than is grown in Java. To blame Indian Ministers or the Indian health services is a little unfair.

Duchess of ATHOLL

If the right hon. Gentleman will read official documents showing the effects of the Linlithgow Report he will find that in the first year after its publication the Government of India asked the Provincial Governments what could be done to carry out its recommendations in this respect, but that next year nothing further could be done because of the findings of the Round Table Conference. If the findings of the Conference were implemented the Government of India would lose the power of dealing with this matter. I made no insinuation against Indian Ministers. The power of the Government of India to deal with this matter was brought to an end by the first Round Table Conference.

HON. MEMBERS

"Divide."

10.47 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT

I must protest at the haste with which the Committee want to deal with this vital subject. We are debating the health and happiness of 365,000,000 people, and it is to be dismissed after an hour's debate because hon. Members want to go to bed. Every one of our suggestions has been swept aside by the Government, who say that we must concentrate on the autonomy of the Provinces, a point we urged months ago, but these very same people are now ready to abandon the idea so anxious are they that the Central Government shall not have the control of this vital service. Would this Committee, if it had a free hand, put the administration of such vital questions as disease and health into the hands of six or seven different centres, or would it not rather have its central research station where you would get the most experience. We are not following a wise course in this matter. I have taken some interest in the question of tuberculosis and no one would suggest that you should divide the country into England, Scotland and Wales, but rather that there should be a central research department and then allow the localities to further the object in their own districts. You are handing over the government of the Provinces completely to Indians and taking

away from them all the skill of British medicine and science. If there was real vision of the future of India so far as health and happiness were concerned we should say that the people would be better cared for if they were under the control of the Central Government. As I have said, every single suggestion we have made has been swept aside by the Government, although they have been made at the instance of men of great and wide experience of India. One of our principal advisers has given more service to India than all the members of the Joint Select Committee who voted with the majority. The advice we have given in regard to medicine and disease is also to be swept on one side, and yet earlier in the afternoon the Government withdrew a Schedule, and the whole of their faithful supporters voted against their Bill and eliminated two pages from it. I think the time is coming when the people of this country will begin to realise, when we have howls from the Socialist benches that they want a Division after discussing this great question of health for an hour and ten minutes, that we are not treating this great and mighty problem with the seriousness it deserves, and that we are trying to hasten through something which ought to occupy the attention of every Member of this House to a far greater extent than it has done.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 216; Noes, 31.

Division No. 182.]	AYES.	[10.53 p.m.
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)	Briscoe, Capt. Richard George	Conant, R. J. E.
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher	Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Cooper, T. M. (Edinburgh, W.)
Albery, Irving James	Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)	Copeland, Ida
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Brown, Ernest (Leith)	Cranborne, Viscount
Apsley, Lord	Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Cripps, Sir Stafford
Aske, Sir Robert William	Burghley, Lord	Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Attlee, Clement Richard	Butler, Richard Austen	Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)	Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.	Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)	Cross, R. H.
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)	Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm	Crossley, A. C.
Balniel, Lord	Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)	Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Banfield, John William	Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)	Daggar, George
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)	Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey	Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)	Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Batey, Joseph	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)	Dobbie, William
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th. C.)	Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)	Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Beit, Sir Alfred L.	Chorlton, Alan Ernest Loofric	Eastwood, John Francis
Bernays, Robert	Christie, James Archibald	Edwards, Charles
Blindell, James	Clayton, Sir Christopher	Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Bossom, A. C.	Cleary, J. J.	Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Boulton, W. W.	Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.	Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)	Colman, N. C. D.	Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Brass, Captain Sir William	Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.	Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)	Loder, Captain J. de Vere	Robinson, John Roland
Fox, Sir Gifford	Logan, David Gilbert	Ropner, Colonel L.
Fraser, Captain Sir Ian	Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander	Rothschild, James A. de
Fremantle, Sir Francis	Lunn, William	Runge, Norah Cecil
Gardner, Benjamin Walter	MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)	Salmon, Sir Isidore
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)	MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)	Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman	Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)	Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle	McEntee, Valentine L.	Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Goff, Sir Park	McKie, John Hamilton	Shute, Colonel Sir John
Goldie, Noel B.	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)	Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd. N.)	Mainwaring, William Henry	Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine. C.)
Graves, Marjorie	Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest	Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur	Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.	Somervell, Sir Donald
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)	Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.	Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Grigg, Sir Edward	Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)	Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Grimston, R. V.	Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John	Spens, William Patrick
Groves, Thomas E.	Milne, Charles	Stones, James
Grundy, Thomas W.	Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)	Stourton, Hon. John J.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.	Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale	Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)
Gunston, Captain D. W.	Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)	Strickland, Captain W. F.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)	Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)	Sutcliffe, Harold
Hammersley, Samuel S.	Morrison, William Shepherd	Tate, Mavis Constance
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.	Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)	Munro, Patrick	Tinker, John Joseph
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.	Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.	North, Edward T.	Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)	O'Donovan, Dr. William James	Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.	Turton, Robert Hugh
Holdsworth, Herbert	Orr Ewing, I. L.	Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.	Owen, Major Goronwy	Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Paling, Wilfred	Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood	Parkinson, John Allen	Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)	Patrick, Colin M.	Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer	Peake, Osbert	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.	Pearson, William G.	White, Henry Graham
Iveagh, Countess of	Penny, Sir George	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.	Percy, Lord Eustace	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Jesson, Major Thomas E.	Pickthorn, K. W. M.	Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Potter, John
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.	Williams, Thomas (York., Don Valley)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton	Pownall, Sir Assheton	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Radford, E. A.	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Law, Sir Alfred	Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)	Ramsden, Sir Eugene	Womersley, Sir Walter
Lawson, John James	Rathbone, Eleanor	Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)
Leckle, J. A.	Rea, Walter Russell
Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Reid, William Allan (Derby)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Liddall, Walter S.	Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.	Major George Davies and Captain
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)	Rickards, George William	Hope.
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Greene, William P. C.	Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Atholl, Duchess of	Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John	Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Bailey, Eric Alfred George	Hartington, Marquess Of	Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Broadbent, Colonel John	Knox, Sir Alfred	Wells, Sydney Richard
Carver, Major William H.	Marsden, Commander Arthur	Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Courtauld, Major John Sewell	Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)	Wise, Alfred R.
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry	Moreing, Adrian C.	Wragg, Herbert
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Nall, Sir Joseph
Davison, Sir William Henry	Perkins, Walter R. D.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)	Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)	Vice-Admiral Taylor and Mr.
Fuller, Captain A. G.	Pike, Cecil F.	Raikes.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.	Remer, John R.

Resolution agreed to.

It being Eleven of the Clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.