CLAUSE 1.—(Attachment of States.) (Hansard, 14 March 1944)

§ The Chairman
Mr. Amery.

§ Mr. Maxton (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
I should like to ask the chief Whip who is on duty if he proposes to proceed with this Measure now and if he expects to get it to-day. Earlier in the day I made inquiries through the usual channels as to what the likely course of events would be and it was indicated to me that we should be reaching it comparatively early. Now that time-table, for reasons which have nothing to do with me, seems to have been knocked all ends up. Is it proposed to proceed now with what to some of us is a rather more important Measure than is to be judged from its mere size?

§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley)
Unfortunately it is necessary to take the Committee stage because, if we do not get the Bill to-day. I am not quite sure that we shall have another opportunity of putting it forward. We hoped to have got on to it much earlier but the Business of the House has been prolonged. We are never anxious to keep the House unduly late but we feel that the Bill must be got on with.

§ Mr. Sorensen (Leyton, West)
Seeing that there is a certain amount of tension about the Bill, would it not be just as well if it were recognised that it needed more prolonged consideration and therefore might it be postponed?

§ The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery)
I regret any inconvenience caused to hon. Members, but the passage of this Measure is, for administrative reasons, of the very greatest importance, and any delay can only have the effect of creating 178 great inconvenience and disorganisation in the administration of the States concerned.

§ Mr. Maxton
If the right hon. Gentleman is leaving the question of the timetable to deal with the merits of the Bill, I should like to ask responsible authorities of the House to reconsider their decision on this matter. I cannot really accept the view that in a Measure of this description raising constitutional issues in India, a fortnight here or there is of first-class urgent importance. This, as we were led to believe in the right hon. Gentleman's absence, is a matter of 150 years' history. I cannot really be persuaded that it must be dealt with now or something tragic will occur. I could not be persuaded of that. I do not know what is the Government's business in advance, but I should have thought that it was not impossible to find time for this Bill between now and Easter. In any case my antagonism to it is increased—

§ The Chairman
The hon. Member cannot carry on a discussion at this moment. It there is to be any discussion it must be put in Order by a Motion. If, however, the hon. Gentleman merely wishes to ask a question I will allow him to do so, but he cannot discuss it.

§ Mr. Maxton
I do not want to move to report Progress. I do not even want to call attention to the fact that there are not 40 Members present, or do several other things I could do if I wanted to be fractious and disagreeable. I am asking the Government not to try to rush the Bill in a badly depleted House after a day in which the House has been heavily engaged.

§ Mr. Amery
I fully appreciate the spirit of what my hon. Friend has said. I should point out, however, that the Amendment standing in my name and the Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) should not take any great time to discuss. On the other hand, the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton)—in Clause 1, page 1, line 13, to leave out "paragraph (a)"—raises again the whole issue of the Second Reading, which was fully taken a little while ago. I suggest that we might, at any rate continue, and I do not believe our proceedings will be unduly prolonged.

§ Mr. Sorensen
I shall try to abbreviate my remarks as much as possible, but it seems deplorable that we should discuss 179 matters of great importance affecting 800,000 people, and -potentially another 2,000,000, at this time of day. In the circumstances the Secretary of State would have rendered some service to these people if he had agreed to postpone the Bill.

§ Mr. Maxton
It must be obvious to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Chair that there is enough material on the Order Paper on this Bill to keep the Committee going for three or four hours. It affects 400,000,000 people. I could say all I have to say in a very short time and scamp the business, but to be satisfied I need more time than that. To ask us to take this Bill now is to treat India badly on the one hand, and to treat the Committee badly on the other, and it is not a fair proposition for the Government to ask Members at this time to get ahead with it and do it quickly. That is not the way to do Parliamentary business.

§ Mr. Amery
I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, after "Act)," to insert: being a State included in the Western India States Agency or the Gujarat States Agency on the twenty-fifth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-three. The Bill is necessary in the interests of the people in these States in India whose whole affairs are in suspense and great difficulty owing to the absence of administrative officers and not knowing who are to be their administrative officers. It is of vital importance to clarify the one point raised by a particular judicial decision as to the powers of the Viceroy as Crown Representative. That is the only point for which this Bill has been introduced. It is in order to get rid of an immediate condition which is gravely prejudicing the welfare of the people concerned.
Coming to the Amendment, I should like to apologise for my involuntary absence at the time of the Second Reading and to thank my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education and the Attorney-General for the great trouble they took to master this rather complicated Measure and to explain it in what was a very full Second Reading Debate. The only purpose of this Measure is to clarify the position of the Crown representative, which was affected by a judicial interpretation of a certain Clause in the Government of India Act, which was devised by this House for an entirely different purpose. It never occurred to any 180 of the people concerned here or in India that it applied to this particular case.
In making the definition which stands in the Bill, we took from the India Act the type of State in which the Viceroy, as Crown Representative, is responsible for certain official actions, which are susceptible, or were always thought to be susceptible, to transfer to officials of the other Indian States. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. G. Nicholson) pointed out that the definition, as drawn, covered a much wider number of people and States than the particular Kathiawar and Gujarat States in whose interests it was essential to make clear the position, but there was no intention of applying the same method to those other States. In the other parts of India, indeed, geographical and political conditions would not lend themselves to it. The President of the Board of Education advised me—and I entirely agreed—that it might therefore be preferable to draw the definition a little more narrowly, and that is why the words are proposed to be inserted, to make clear that this matter, though dealing primarily only with the Viceroy's rights as Crown Representative, arises in connection with those small States in Kathiawar and Gujarat.

§ Mr. Godfrey Nicholson (Farnham)
Before saying anything about the Amendment, I would like to express my great pleasure—and I think I speak for the whole Committee—in welcoming my right hon. Friend back and seeing him looking so well. He has gone so far as to accept my suggestion, and I therefore express my thanks for what he has done. The whole situation created by the Bill is complex, but I believe that, when all the facts are taken into consideration, the proposed limitation of the scope of the Bill will be for good, and I hope it will be agreed to.

§ Mr. Maxton
The fact that this Amendment has been produced is clear evidence that it was worth while debating the matter on the Second Reading. It might quite well be that a more careful and extended consideration would induce the Government of India to come to the conclusion not only that they were a little hurried and slipshod in the drafting of Clause I, which is now being amended, but also a little hurried and slipshod in the drafting of the Bill as a whole. I understand the effect of the Amendment will be to reduce 181 the number of individuals who will be affected from something like 3,000,000, which was my hon. Friend's estimate, to something under 1,000,000. I think the whole thing is objectionable, but I do not object to the limitation of this objectionable Measure to a smaller number.

§ Sir Stanley Reed (Aylesbury)
The situation is a little different from that explained by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). The effect of the Amendment is to restrict the Bill to an actual area which has undergone exhaustive and elaborate inquiry during the last 12 years, and which was embraced in the Order of April last year. The Bill, being an enabling Bill, might have extended over a wider area, but it was never intended to extend this matter beyond the area of that careful and elaborate inquiry, where the need was greatest in the whole of India. Therefore, it is also necessary because my hon. Friend and others were given the assurance that it would not cover more than 800,000 people. As an enabling Bill it would have covered more. This brings the Bill down to the actual limit of the number put before the House.

§ The Chairman
Before calling upon the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) I ought perhaps to tell him that I propose to call his first Amendment. The second is out of Order, being beyond the scope of the Bill.

§ Mr. Sorensen (Leyton, West)
I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, after "attached," to insert: after consultation and agreement with the Taluqdars or other recognised representatives of the peoples of the States affected. I have already mentioned the fact that I have no desire to sit late to-day because like yourself, Major Milner, I am very hungry. At the same time this matter is one of urgent necessity, I understand, so we must pay attention to it. In passing it seems strange that we should have this sense of urgency in our minds now when we have been assured by the hon. Member for Aylesbury {Sir S. Reed) that it has had careful consideration for 10 or 12 years. But the Bill is before the Committee now and I am sure that both the Secretary of State and the rest of the Committee would agree that as far as possible we should try to implement the principle of democratic consultation, consent and 182 agreement on the part of those affected by the Bill. That being so, I must say that however we interpret the many cables that have come to us, and still come, and indeed the letters that come by airmail, whatever motives we may attribute to the senders of these communications, they do seem to indicate that some at least of the peoples of these States are by no means satisfied with the explanations that have been given. I have, for instance, a letter from which I will not quote extensively, even if at all. It arrived only yesterday, dated 17th February, from Rajkot in Kathiawar, and was sent by representatives of the Kathiawar Political Conference. There is no suggestion here that they are Taluqdars but rather that they are representatives of some kind of political movement in certain of the affected States.
I have looked at this very carefully, and I have also read with equal care cables I have received, and I have come to the conclusion that there is perhaps more in this Bill than at first meets the eye. The suggestion made in the previous discussion that the agitation was simply organised by a number of interested Taluqdars I do not think is correct. Apart from the Taluqdars there are, it seems to me, others who are representative of the people in their area. Certainly I find in one of the cables reference to Chiefs. That being so, it seems to me that apart from the Taluqdars and their representative nature there may be others who are also representative of the people in their district.
As I said, I will not read even extracts from the lengthy letter I have received, but I can assure the Committee that the arguments are put forward with restraint but with emphasis, and bear some internal evidence of real feeling on the part of those who have sent the protest. I know it has been urged in respect of my Amendment that there is a difficulty in any case in securing consultation and agreement with Taluqdars or other recognised representatives of the peoples of the States affected. But, on the other hand, I would point out that these States are to be transferred to other States that have representatives of an autocratic or despotic nature, and we do not query in their case whether they are representative of the people or not. We take it for granted they are. Therefore, I would submit that if we grant that in some sense a native 183 prince's representative has possibly some contact with his people and more or less expresses their need, in the same way we should apply the same principle to the small autocrats, if such they be, called Taluqdars, or Chiefs, or whatever they may be, representing these small areas.
Further, I would urge that, although there has been, apparently, this 12-year-old discussion, the people who are intimately connected are still not satisfied. It is not enough to discuss or consult: the necessity for agreement is just as strong. Otherwise, it is merely discussing with a person how he should be transferred like a slave, without granting him any liberty to please himself whether he shall be transferred or not. It does not seem that there is any particular value in saying to an individual, "You are perfectly free to consent or not consent to come with me; but if you do not consent, you will come all the same." That seems to be to be the approach in this case. I am not sure that Taluqdars are the non-representative people they have been made out to be. In any case, we have left these individual people in possession for many years; it is only now, when this matter is brought up in this House, that we find some Members rising to suggest that these Taluqdars are interested people, representing only themselves.
I would suggest that there is a possibility of securing some kind of agreement. I do not intend to read through this hefty pile of cables in my hand, although I think that I should be quite in Order in doing so. Perhaps I might read extracts from two of them, to show the feelings which exist. I shall not read them in full, but only salient passages: We deeply regret that true facts relating to the States of Kathiawar and Gujerat, to be attached, is not appreciated. These States have been recognised during the last 135 years as separate political and legal entities, having direct relationship with the Crown, with their existence and integrity guaranteed and given effect to in the Constitution Act, 1935. This goes on to argue, at great length, legally and not merely emotionally, that they should not be attached. Here is the other, from Gujerat: We, the third and fourth class states of Kathiawar, are sending you this cable, as there seems to be some misunderstanding that we are classed as Taluqdars, when we are totally different from Taluqdars and Thana owners. We are States, and not estates in any sense, and possess treaties in common with first and second class states in any area. 184 It goes on: We pray that this Bill may not be passed finally by Parliament before our views are considered. We understand that the Chamber of Princes and the Standing Committee, who are of the same opinion, have taken up this matter with His Excellency the Viceroy. That seems to indicate that behind this matter there is more than up to now has been revealed to us. I would like to hear the Secretary of State say whether he can possibly accept this Amendment on democratic grounds, on the assumption that, if once consultation and agreement can take place, the transference, where it was desirable, would meet with approbation, and avoid disturbance. It seems to me if that is not done, we shall always leave bitter sentiments in the minds of large numbers of people, who otherwise might have accepted the transference with content. I do not know whether I am in Order in what I am going to say: if not, I am sure that you, Major Milner, will call me to Order. It seems to me strange that when one looks at the map, so kindly supplied for our consideration and examination, many of these States, or estates, as some prefer to call them, are adjacent to British India.

§ The Chairman
Discussion of British India is out of Order. The whole question is the Amendment before the Committee, which asks, as I understand, for consultation and agreement. The scope of the Bill is such that it does not permit of discussion of British India.

§ Mr. Sorensen
With all due respect, Major Milner, I do not want to transgress your Ruling. I intended to use that as an illustration of the fact that, had there been some consultation those concerned might have decided to opt for British India, preferring to come under the British Crown than under an autocratic Prince. I will leave it at that, and assure you that I merely brought it forward as an illustration of the need of further consultations. I trust that this is in Order. If there had been a desire to secure unity and order in that part of India, why is it that many of the broken-off or scattered portions of large States are not affected by this Bill? There is no suggestion in this Bill, in the interests of unity and order, that these should be transferred to other States. That being so it seems to be one more piece of evidence in support of my contention that there has been no real consultation 185 and desire to secure agreement. For that reason, I beg to move my Amendment, because only in that way can we vindicate our democratic professions.

§ Sir S. Reed
I fully appreciate the reasons lying behind the Amendment which my hon. Friend has proposed, but I would assure him that he is perhaps under a very considerable misapprehension. I think he has misapprehended entirely the position in relation to the Taluqdars, and if he went to Kathiawar and suggested that the Taluqdars represented the people he would call forth a certain amount of mild abuse. If he will look at the map, he will see, however fitting in principle are the terms of his Amendment, how utterly impracticable it is. If one of these States decided against being attached, the whole system and the growth of the forces of progress in that area would be wrecked and ruined, and we should be thrown back to a position entirely unworthy of that Province. While recognising the generous sentiment at the back of his mind, I would like to assure the hon. Member, for what my assurance is worth, that he would be rendering no service to the area if he were to press his Amendment upon the Secretary of State.

§ Mr. David Grenfell (Gower)
I should like to avoid further misapprehension by asking that a suggestion I made in the last Debate should now be operated by the Secretary of State. Unfortunately, he was not present in the House to hear the point we made on the last occasion, but I did ask that a particular case of attachment covered by this Bill should be recited to the House in order that we might know exactly what is proposed to be done under the Bill and what nature of objections may from time to time appear. I do not think it is fair to the House. I am not in a position to know what would happen in Kathiawar and Gujerat or any places named, whose location and importance are certainly not in the full cognisance of the House. A Taluqdar may be a very important official in the old India, but apparently his importance is to be lessened by attachment, and his functions are to be changed and handed over to somebody else. I should like the Minister, for the satisfaction of the House, to tell us something of what happens when attachment takes place.

§ Mr. Maxton
I think the hon. Member has been the most faithful supporter of this Bill since it came before the House, and he knew about it 12 years ago, which is eleven years and nine months before I got to know about it. I think there are quite a number of Members of the House who have not heard about it yet. The hon. Member is much too facile and contemptuous of these small men in India. My hon. Friends and I have learnt that they are very small people indeed, who have not been used to rubbing shoulders with Viceroys. The Taluqdar is a mere subject for contempt, but, after all, he will have been, until this Bill goes through this House, a British citizen.

§ Mr. Amery
No.

§ Mr. Maxton
Up to the passing of this Bill his appeals were to British justice.

§ Mr. Amery
None of his powers are affected by this Bill in any way.

§ Mr. Maxton
The right hon. Gentleman had better quarrel with the Attorney-General, because my speech is based on his speech and my subsequent reading of HANSARD. My Amendment is intended to elucidate these points. Supposing the right hon. Gentleman challenges my description of a British citizen—and I do not think he could soundly challenge it—I say that he has lived inside the framework of the British Empire—let me choose my words very correctly—under the general tutelage inherent in the paramountcy of the British Government. Will that description meet our responsibilities in the matter? The right hon. Gentleman has been responsible for these people, although he denies that they are British citizens. He is denying now that they are British citizens, but they certainly had the right to be consulted about this matter, not only the few hundreds of the Taluqdar themselves, but hundreds of thousands who have lived under their respective jurisdiction. This Government had a duty to consult them in advance, just as they had the duty to consult the Princes to whose States they were to be attached. Although I have had no communications on that subject, the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. G. White), who took part in the proceedings, indicated that he had had communications from Princes.

§ The Chairman
I am not anxious to interrupt the hon. Member but he will 187 appreciate that he is not now addressing himself to the Amendment, as Indian Princes certainly do not came into it.

§ Mr. Maxton
I started off and was very faithful to the Amendment, certainly up to a point. I may have gone beyond it. I was not only aware that the Taluqdars were not to be consulted but they were to be attached to the various Princes without the Princes being consulted. Is that the point at which I am out of Order? I only use it to indicate that there has been a very facile attitude over the treatment of these people because they are very small people, because they are only a very small number, or they are very inconvenient, or the House of Commons know so little about the subject that they will let it slip through without bothering their heads about it.
I was reading a book at the week-end called "The Framework of the Future." It was sent to me by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) and I have to admit quite candidly—I hope it will not be used against me by the Members above the Gangway—that I read a large portion of it with very considerable care, and was impressed by some of the arguments and sentiments expressed. One of them was that if the future is going to be a growth that will endure and be valuable, it should not be built by trying to walk in and mechanically impose new structures on the top of old, but should be a natural growth. But the right hon. Gentleman comes in here and says, "Wipe out this natural growth of the past." I do not know the story of the Taluqdars. I do not know how they preserved their independence surrounded by the Princes on the one hand and the British Empire on the other, but I am one who has had responsibility for maintaining a small party in this House against the big battalions who have had some respect for me. I do not know how these fellows originated and how, with the Princes on one side and the British Empire on the other, they maintained their independence through a long period of history.
I remember an hon. Gentleman who sat, I think, for Oxford University in a previous Parliament, one night getting up and giving us a description of how some of the Princes maintained their principalities, or arrived at their high estate, and it was an interesting tale. The Taluqdars 188 must have had a similar, interesting history, and here, without regarding them as fit subjects for consideration, for consultation, for previous intimation, the Secretary of State for India—the author of that great world-shaking work "The Framework of the Future"—comes here to-night and says "This past, this historic growth, and the organisation for the future growing out of the past, is good enough for a book but not for practical politics. Away with it." I want to hear him defend himself against that.

§ Mr. Amery
The speeches to which we have just listened show, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed) remarked, a complete misapprehension of what is happening and what is being proposed. There is no question whatever of transferring these States to other States, still less of transferring their peoples as slaves to the jurisdiction of other autocratic rulers. The position of these States remains entirely unaffected, in this respect, that these Taluqdars are going to retain every element of sovereignty which, in their States, they have enjoyed hitherto. Their subjects will continue to be subjects of those States. They have never been British subjects, they are not going to be British subjects or become subjects of any other States. Nor—and there I see misapprehension too in the telegrams which the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) has received—are they going to be excluded from their direct relations with the Crown.
What is going to happen? What has happened? What has been temporarily and very inconveniently suspended by a certain legal decision is that certain administrative services which have either been carried on with certain jurisdiction in these Taluqas and States by agents of the Crown Representative, are going to be carried on by the agents of neighbouring large States which will enable the people of those small States to get the benefits of education and health, and sanitary and irrigation and road services which, owing to geographical conditions, but also owing to the fact that the Crown Representative has no large administrative services at his disposal, cannot be provided efficiently in any other way than by inviting these neighbouring States to render these services.

§ Mr. Sorensen
If that be so why does not this Bill apply to those small areas which still belong to British India?

§ Mr. Amery
There, again, I see a misapprehension. The areas which belong to British India are part of the Indian Provinces and can, therefore, enjoy the services of their Provinces. The educational officials or police of those Provinces there can be made available there. The Crown Representative has no administrative services such as an education department, an agricultural department or an irrigation department.

§ Mr. Sorensen
If that is so why cannot the States which are to be attached to the larger States have the option of being attached to British India?

§ Mr. Amery
It would not be in Order to discuss that now beyond saying that that would be entirely contrary to the proviso of the main India Act, which was passed for that specific purpose and not for the purpose which has been raised by a particular judgment. The hen Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) asked me to illustrate what is happening and that I am glad to do because I hope it may clear up some misunderstandings. He also asked me to say something about the nature of some of these States. I have a few instances here which I think will show what kind of States they are. I will take the Taluqa of Anida, which consists of 13 different villages in eight different areas, two of them 100 miles apart—

§ The Chairman
I am sorry, but the right hon. Gentleman is going quite beyond the terms of this Amendment. There might perhaps be another opportunity. I have allowed a certain amount of latitude but the right hon. Gentleman now seems to be going into a Second Reading speech. I hope he will not carry it too far.

§ Mr. Amery
Then perhaps I could give an explanation on the Amendment which is to be moved by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton).

§ The Chairman
I was not proposing to call the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bridgeton; I was hoping that he would say anything that he had to say on the Motion that the Clause stand part of the Bill. There would then be an opportunity to say a few words on that Motion.

§ Mr. Amery
I will be glad to do it then. All I would say in further correction of the misapprehension of the hon. Member for West Leyton is that the machinery of attachment means that a special officer, delegated from the State to which the taluqa is attached, will carry out the provisions of an instrument of attachment which make arrangements for seeing that health, sanitation, road and other services are applied within the taluqa for the benefit of the inhabitants. In return for that there will be a contribution of 10 per Dent of the revenue of the taluqa. The whole of the services will be provided out of the facilities which neighbouring States enjoy and out of their revenues which are much larger than those which the taluqdars themselves have.
May I go back to the main point of consultation? I think it is essential for the Committee to keep in mind the broad relation to the Crown as paramount power, both to the rulers of India and to their subjects. It is a relationship which has grown up over a long period of time. It involves for the Crown a dual responsibility—a responsibility first of all to pay careful regard to all the rights of the sovereign rulers of India, small and large. Secondly they have also a responsibility for the welfare of their peoples. They are their subjects, not British subjects. Those two responsibilities are exercised by the Viceroy as Crown Representative in accordance with his own judgment. They are not matters which can be settled by Parliament. We are not in a position to legislate for their subjects, nor can we properly set up any machinery for consultation. The Viceroy has to consider what is fairest and befit in the interests both of rulers and their subjects.
This problem, as the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed) pointed out in a speech full of knowledge and experience on the Second Reading, has occupied the mind of the Crown Representative far the last 10 or 12 years and many schemes have been considered. The question was how to find a scheme which was the most natural, which would involve the least upset to all concerned and which grew most organically out of the existing system. The scheme decided upon is the most natural geographically because these States are embedded in the major States, most natural historically because they were connected with them even before the British came. Most of them were tribu- 191 tary to Baroda. Therefore the most natural method was to see whether the needs of their people could be provided for hest by these major States, and indeed the whale idea really originated from a suggestion on the part of Baroda that it was willing to give its services. The Crown Representative framed a scheme which does not affect a single right of the Taluqdars. Their rights in relation to their subjects, their right of direct access to the Crown if the present system does not work, or if they find difficulties in connection with it, their Customs rights, Revenue rights, police rights and jurisdictional rights, in so far as they have them, are all preserved intact. You could not have a fairer or more conservative scheme so far as the preservation of their existing rights is concerned. On the other hand, as far as the subjects are concerned—and it is their interests that ought to appeal most to the House—they will be in a position to get the services which they lack, and which for administrative reasons it is impossible for the Crown representative to supply, from neighbouring States, from officials who speak their own language and are accustomed to their ways. I cannot imagine a scheme more suited to the needs of the people concerned.
As far as consultation is concerned, the constitutional position precludes democratic consultation and intervention in the internal affairs of States, but in so far as informal consultation and discussion is concerned, the representatives of the Viceroy have been discussing the matter with leading people in these various communities for the last five years in regard to this particular scheme and, if there are now more or less organised representations, nothing of the sort occurred until this particular judgment upset the whole system. There was no reason to believe until this judgment that the situation was not working happily in the interests of all concerned. Intervention and the kind of consultation suggested by the hon. Member would not only be unconstitutional but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury suggested, entirely impracticable. We are dealing with 600 States, many of which are divided into a large number of parcels. We are dealing with 965 different administrative units. What form of consultation could there be?
192 We cannot decide the fate of a number of individual States by a plebiscite of the total population of the States. On the other hand, we cannot decide it by particular scattered administrative units contracting out of a particular State. Besides, there is no question of the kind that might justify a plebiscite, or even a plebiscite of the rulers, no quesion of transferring them and altering their status. All that is happening is that their status remains untouched, but that services of the greatest importance to the well being and progress of their communities are now being made available to them in the most practical fashion. As a necessary and inevitable consequence of that, certain other relatively minor functions, which have hitherto been exercised by officials of the Crown Representatives service, go with them. There is nothing in this Measure of the kind of scale and magnitude or of the effect on those concerned, either rulers or subjects, as the speeches of hon. Members have seemed to imply. It is purely a Measure for the betterment and welfare of these scattered little communities which cannot get the services for themselves, which cannot practically federate together of themselves, and which for high constitutional reasons, apart from geographical reasons, could not be included in British India. This is a simple, workable, conservative method of meeting a real need, a need which must be met at once because of the very difficult situation of the peoples concerned, which has arisen owing to a judgment which entirely upset all previous understandings as to what the powers of the Crown Representative were.

§ Mr. Sorensen
May we take it that the protests that have been expressed and conveyed to us are all due to a simple misunderstanding, and that, in fact, it is sheer selfishness on the part of these alleged unpleasant Taluqdars?

§ Mr. Amery
I would not say that all the Taluqdars welcomed the scheme, and there is no doubt a certain feeling that their status will not be so high if they have relationship to the neighbouring States. I believe, however, judging from the various telegrams that have been referred to, that they mostly arise from sheer misconception. The misconception is entertained, not only that the States as such are being transferred and that the Taluqdars are being made subordinates of the States to 193 which they are attached, but that their status is being diminished. That is not the case. This Measure, though important from the point of view of the welfare of the people concerned, is from the constitutional point of view, so far as the Princes or their subjects are concerned, a very much minor and smaller thing than hon. Members and they themselves have conceived.

§ Mr. Maxton
The right hon. Gentleman seemed to me to make a very perfect case. Indeed, I thought it was too good. After hearing that, I, like the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen), say: "What's the trouble? Where has all the trouble come from?" I understand that, in the beginning, the Government of India were just going to operate along these lines and not bother about any legislation at all. They proceeded on the assumption that it was the right thing to do and they had already done it, but now is the time to legalise it.

§ Mr. Amery
It is really rather important to make this point clear. This is not legislation dealing with the States. The Crown Representative was going to deal with the States in accordance with what was recognised, and everybody believed, to be his rightful power, as Crown Representative, and in the exercise of the paramountcy of the Crown. A judicial decision, some months after these operations had already taken effect, placed an interpretation upon a Section of the India Act and put doubt upon his powers. The Bill is concerned with nothing more than setting right that misunderstanding, that doubt as to his powers.

§ Mr. Maxton
It is more than a misunderstanding. It is a misinterpretation of a law. We regretted the absence of the right hon. Gentleman and I am glad to see him back. Obviously he is as fit as ever he was. The Attorney-General told us that the Bill arose because a case was appealed from. As a matter of fact, it was in these territories that somebody committed suicide. I am not surprised. I do not know how it came to be a matter of appeal, presumably to a responsible court. Was that court a British court?

§ Mr. Amery
It was the Crown Representative's court.

§ Mr. Maxton
The right lion Gentleman described it as a British court. That court decided that this was illegal. The Attorney-General, like the right hon. Gentleman, commended the Bill to me in a way that always gets folk like the hon. Member for West Leyton and myself, in a soft place, by saying that this was for education or health or something of that sort. We just swallow that whole and say: "That is what we are out for too—education, health and better social conditions, and down with the landlord." Arrange those ingredients in any way you like, and they always get us. They appeal to us because they are the right type of bait for our kind of fish. When we examine the Bill, however, we find nothing in it about education or health or social services. All that is in the Bill is a matter about the jurisdiction of the courts, because the Government have been done down by a court, their own court, in India. Instead of going to the Privy Council with their appeal, they say: "The Privy Council are difficult, an awful lot of fellows, but pretty wise old boys. We will just go and get new legislation. We will start in the House of Lords, because they are even more facile than the House of Commons. Because of the absorption of Lords and Commons in the general European situation and with the war, we will have it through before they wake up." That is the story as I see it. Is that an unfair description?

§ Mr. Amery
I will give my answer presently.

§ Mr. Maxton
There is nothing about social service, or liberating the people of these estates from their immediate surroundings, only transferring them to new courts, to somebody else to impose sentences on them, not somebody else to give them health, nutrition or education. Now that the Taluqdar from whom, as I understand, they had an appeal to a British court, is attached to a particular State he retains all the powers he had before, the powers to punish in petty cases, the powers to extract rent, and the powers to extract rates; he is losing nothing.
The Governent must not come and tell me they are liberating the rank and file on the estates from the power of the 195 Taluqdar because the right hon. Gentleman has proved quite conclusively that the Taluqdar loses none of his powers and few of his dignities. He goes into a State but what does the ordinary man on one of these estates lose? As I understand it, instead of having an appeal from the judgment of his local chief, his local Taluqdar, to a British court—I would like the right hon. Gentleman to correct me now if I am wrong in this—which in the ultimate is responsible to this House, his appeal from that justice, from his own Taluqdar, is to the justice of a native despotic State. His appeal is to the court of a native State. If his appeal was to a British court I could rise in this House and make a scene about it. That was his wee bit of democracy. Once he goes into one of the native States this House of Commons is out because you cannot interfere with their internal affairs.
Because you regard Ranjitsinghi or the Jam of Nawanagar as English people—[Interruption]—I do not think the fact that a fellow sometimes scored a century for an English county club or for England itself 30 years ago necessarily means that for all times the despotic princes in all the States of Baroda, Nawanagar and others will necessarily be the most wise, enlightened, humane and just men. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will disagree with me in that, but that is the conclusion I have come to. The fact that one of the Indian States was once ruled by a fellow who was a first-class cricketer does not lead me necessarily to the conclusion that despotic, absolute government is always of a benevolent nature. That is what the right hon. Gentleman is trying to persuade me of to-day. I think it is also applicable to this Bill that however small they were their treaties, written or unwritten, were honourable bargains direct between themselves and the British Government. The smallest Taluqdar, as I understand it, was there with his rights, his independence such as it was preserved by direct treaty with the Crown here. Now he has only got a second hand independence. These treaties, 600 of them, are to be thrown into the waste-paper basket. I remember how contemptuous the right hon. Gentleman was in the last war of those who tore up treaties, and regarded them just as scraps of paper. He is to-day tearing up 600 scraps of paper. Of course, it does not matter, because these are very 196 small people. Some of them have only two or three square miles of territory. They are so small that you can kick them as hard as you like. That may be good worldly wisdom, but, in my opinion, it is not good morals, and not good justice, and I do not think that it forms a basis for any steps forward in any part of the Government of India. I oppose this Clause.

§ Mr. Amery
I am afraid that even my previous explanation has not dispelled from the hon. Member's mind the idea that we are tearing up treaties or affecting in some way the constitutional relationship between the Crown and these States. It has always been a great source of pride to this country that our treaties with the Indian States, small and great, have been observed. There is no breach of that observance at all in these arrangements. I come to the main point which the hon. Gentleman raised, namely, that the powers of the Viceroy to act in this matter were put in doubt by a decision of the Viceroy's own Judicial Commissioner in the special court for that part of India. That is perfectly true. I should be the last person to cast any doubt upon the legal validity of that decision, or upon any further opinion on it that the Privy Council might give if the matter were referred to the Privy Council, but I would point out that, whatever the legal force of the decision, it is based on a Clause in the India Act, which was introduced with one purpose only, to prevent the Viceroy, as Crown Representative, handing over authority in the States to a British Indian self-governing authority. We have always held the view that if the States are to enter into any union in British India, it must be absolutely voluntary, of their own free will, and there can be no question of their being handed over to a British Indian Government against their will.
I come to this particular interpretation. That interpretation, coming after these arrangements had already been put into effect, cast the whole situation in that part of India into administrative confusion. There was a real serious danger to the whole administration of law and order in those little States. In giving them facilities, educational and otherwise, I must make it clear again that there can be no question of our legislating for education in those States. We legislate for our own subjects. But we must liberate the Viceroy from a judgment which made it im- 197 possible for him to make arrangement with other States to provide services for these communities. Now the hon. Member suggests that we might have waited for a decision of the Privy Council. That necessarily means a good many months, during which the situation, already very serious, would get worse, and that was the reason for the efforts to get this Bill through very quickly, because the situation was getting worse.

§ Mr. Maxton
Will the right hon. Gentleman explain that? I have heard about difficulties and troubles in Bengal in the last few months, but I have never heard about trouble in that part of the world. What is the nature of the trouble?

§ Mr. Amery
Undoubtedly, we have been faced with far more serious troubles elsewhere in India. The nature of these troubles is that, first of all, on the change over taking place the existing British police officials and others were withdrawn, and the action of the Courts was withdrawn; other police officials and education officials and others came in, and we have got into the position in which nobody knows who are the administrative officers to deal with the minor, everyday affairs in these States. What I want to point out is that this delay in reference to the Privy Council would not have saved us from legislation—and legislation of a restrospective character. Let me assume, on the one hand, that the Privy Council did not take the view taken by the Judicial Commissioner, and came to the conclusion that the Crown Representative's action had been perfectly right and in order. Then there would be a great deal of necessary retrospective legislation to validate actions which have been done—and a good many have been taken—on the assumption that the Judicial Commissioner's decision was right. On the other hand, if that decision had been maintained by the Privy Council as a matter of law, nobody could have disputed the law, but, as a matter of practice, it would have been necessary for the Crown, in the interests of the people of the States as well as the rulers themselves, to introduce this legislation all the same, and it would also have had to be retrospective to validate all those actions which had been done. One way or another, this Bill was necessary, and the speedier it is passed the better for the interests of all concerned, and that is the sole reason why this Measure has been introduced.
198 If I may take advantage of your permission given earlier, Major Milner, I would like to say a word or two about these different States and their character. I will give an example of a larger and a smaller State. The estate of Anida in Western Kathiawar consists of 13 villages in eight different areas, two of them 100 miles apart. The total territory is 13 square miles, with a population of 13,729, and with a total revenue of £6,750. There are two Taluqdars, one of them exercising jurisdiction on the civil side up to £37, and in criminal cases up to two years' imprisonment and a 2,000 rupees fine. He has to maintain 15 policemen, and there are nine schools in the villages but no dispensary. All these powers, judicial or otherwise, remain with the Taluqdar, but it is to be hoped that the villages without schools will now get schools.

§ Mr. Sorensen
Does this not seem to indicate that Taluqdars are not really the detached unrepresentative legal representatives which the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed) tried to make out.

§ Mr. Amery
The Taluqdars' position remains unaffected. If I might refer to the point made by the hon. Member for Bridgeton, I think he gave a picture of the relation of the judiciary to Parliament not entirely consistent with our conception of the rule of law. We do not question or override legal decisions in this House, and I think I can say that the Judiciary, in those States like Gondal, which has just lost a very fine, progressive Ruler, and like Baroda, which have perfectly reliable and trustworthy courts, the people are not at the mercy of the arbitrary, day by day whim of the ruler. I can assure my hon. Friend on that point.
I come from that to the State of Bhadwa, where the particular case was raised. This consists of three separate areas of a total extent of seven square miles, with a population of 1,401 and a revenue of £1,200 a year. The Taluqdar exercises jurisdictional powers enabling him to try civil suits up to the value of £37 10s., and criminal cases involving penalties up to three months' rigorous imprisonment. I come to the estate of Vakhtapur, with an area of 1½ square miles, a population of 390, and a total revenue of £450 a year, with no schools and no hospitals. These little States or 199 estates are so poor and so scattered that it is beyond their power to provide the ordinary amentities of life which we consider essential nowadays in any ordinary civilised community. The possibility of federating them together was discussed and proved unworkable and would have been found more difficult by the Taluqdars than the present scheme.
All that the present scheme amounts to is to provide, at extremely moderate cost and without loss of any of their existing powers, services which are desirable and indeed essential. It was said on Second Reading that this ought to have been done years ago. The whole of this question of in any way interfering or dealing with the States requires responsible and long deliberation and much consultation. All this has taken place and the outcome of the scheme devised was by general consent the best and fairest scheme to all concerned. It was inaugurated and might have worked smoothly but for the legal decision—I do not pretend to express an opinion on that—which created such administrative difficulties that this particular legislation has had to be introduced merely for the purpose of defining the powers of the Viceroy and making it clear that he enjoys powers which everybody always assumed he did enjoy.

§ Mr. Maxton
Is it necessary to take the Third Reading now?

§ Mr. Amery
The situation is really urgent.

§ Mr. Maxton
We have had the Committee stage and the Report stage, and now the Third Reading is proposed with the attendance of the House down to its present figure. There are some decencies that we ought to try and preserve, and I do not think that it is decent to take the Third Reading now.
200 AN HON.MEMBER: Why not call a count?

§ Mr. Maxton
I do not believe there are enough people in the precincts to give the necessary Quorum. I am not calling attention to it, but I am asking those who are in charge of the Bill to postpone the Third Reading to another day. I am not saying there is any attempt to obstruct, but in the interests of common Parliamentary decency I suggest that we put the Third Reading down for another day.

§ Mr. Sorensen
I want to make it clear that, having voiced my protest, I shall not continue with it now, because I should only get a small proportion of the House to support me. But I would like to make it clear that the protests I have tried to voice in this House are not merely on behalf of the Taluqdars only. I am prepared to accept a description of some of them given by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed), but I am fully persuaded that that is not the whole of the story, and that the communications I have received, and the conversations I have had with some in this country might well lead me to the conclusion that there are quite a number in many of these States who are profoundly disturbed. If they are under a misapprehension, the sooner that is cleared up the better. It is well that we have been able to express our views in this manner in order that the people of India may know that there are some in this House who are deeply interested in their fate, and who are determined, whenever they can, to raise their voices on their behalf.

§ Mr. Amery
I would appeal to hon. Members, after the very full explanation that has been given of the really limited scope of this Bill, both on Second Reading and to-day, not to press the point further. I can assure the hon. Members opposite that there has been nothing either in the mind of the Government of India, or in my mind, in any way slighting or depreciatory on the position of any of these Rulers, however small their territory may be. The whole purpose of this Measure is to preserve their rights and, at the same time, to secure for their subjects the services which they have not been able to get in the past. This Bill has, unfortunately, been a long time in coming before the House. The Viceroy telegraphed how urgent it was to get it 201 through before Christmas if possible. I do suggest that, in the interests of all concerned in administrative decency in India—if I may use that term—at any rate the orderly conduct of the affairs of that large area of India, we should dispose of this Measure now. I would earnestly appeal to my hon. Friend.

§ Mr. Maxton
I am not complaining about the Minister at all. I think he has been wonderful. I am not complaining about the Attorney-General. I am complaining about those responsible for organising the Business of the House. If they had any decency they would get up and say "Put the Third Reading down for some other day." Would the Attorney-General remember this, that those who are against this Bill can kill it stone dead now? Just remember that.

§ Mr. W. Whiteley
It is true that this Bill was "down for last week, and for the convenience of hon. Members it had to be postponed until to-day. I have made full inquiries and I understand this Bill is urgently needed. I am not anxious to stay; I am just as anxious as my hon. Friends to finish in a reasonable time. It is not because we are opposed to the situation. It was absolutely essential that this should be put down for to-day, and there is no other reason at all.

§ Mr. Silverman (Nelson and Colne)
All the same it would be interesting to know the Members for whose convenience the Bill was put forward until to-day and, if there were some who decided that it should be taken to-day? I am not aware that that absolves the Government. What my hon. Friend said just now is true—those who are against this Measure could defeat it now. It might be very difficult to get it afterwards, except after a long delay. If they were to exercise their power to-day the Government would lose a Measure which, on the assurance of the Patronage Secretary, it is essential not merely to have but to have now.

§ Mr. Maxton
The Patronage Secretary said that this Bill was brought on to-day to suit the convenience of hon. Members. I was probably the only Member who asked for a postponement, not to suit my convenience but to avoid the Measure being taken last week in the circumstances in which it is being taken now. Inside five days there has been a Second Reading, the Committee stage and—

§ Mr. Speaker
On the Third Reading we discuss what is in the Bill. This has mainly to do with what is outside the Bill.

§ Mr. Maxton
I imagine that the Third Reading should not be taken now on top of the Committee and Report stages at this hour. That is all I am trying to argue now; I am not debating the Third Reading.