Lords Sitting of 8 July 1935

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (LEIGH JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
Read 3awith the Amendments (according to Order), and passed, and returned to the Commons.

TRIBUTES TO THE LATE LORD AMPTHILL.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, before we commence to-day's proceedings on the Government of India Bill, I would ask your Lordships' indulgence for a few minutes while I say one word in regard to one of our esteemed colleagues who was with us last Monday but who, I am sorry to think, has been taken from us in the last two days. I refer to Lord Ampthill. Most of your Lordships were well acquainted with Lord Ampthill and had learned to respect the strong and masterly way in which he approached all these subjects, on which he held such strong convictions. We all welcomed his forceful speeches, and we understood the deep conviction which moved him to express his views in eloquent language, and
2
in language which showed the depth of feeling which appeared behind his words. I know that your Lordships will think it fitting on this occasion that we should express our sympathy with his family in the loss which they have sustained, and I am sure that your Lordships will join with me in saying how deeply we regret the loss of so valued and esteemed a colleague.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, as I was very closely associated with Lord Ampthill lately, perhaps it will be allowed me to add a word to what has been so well said by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House. It is a very tragic feeling, when you are working very closely with somebody in a great enterprise and meeting him every day, to learn one morning that he is ill and two days afterwards that he never can be with us again. All of us must realise that we have lost a man of sterling character in Lord Ampthill. He held his convictions with great strength; he never shrank from expressing them. He was the straightest man I ever had to deal with. I am sure that your Lordships will allow me to add these words to what has fallen from the noble Marquess.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I should like, on behalf of the Opposition, to associate myself with what has fallen from the noble Marquess the Leader of the House. However deep political differences may be, it comes as

3
a great shock when one who has been taking part in our debates with such strength and vigour suddenly drops out of the line. My recollection of Lord Ampthill goes back a great many years to the time when, as a small boy, I used to admire him as Captain of the Boats at Eton. Whatever we may have thought of the various political differences which separated us, there was never any doubt about Lord Ampthill's views and there was never anything the least equivocal about his utterances. His death will be a great loss to your Lordships' House.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, allow me just for one moment to detain you while I associate myself with my noble colleagues in this House in what has been said by the Leader of the House, by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and by Lord Ponsonby. All I can add is that through my long period of acquaintance with Lord Ampthill I have often had differences of opinion with him, but I have always respected him not only for the strength of his opinions but also for the strength with which he expressed them. He was always held in the very highest esteem.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the remarks which have been made about a very old friend of mine, Lord Ampthill. I had the honour of serving under him, as Governor of Bombay when he was temporary Viceroy of India. I know something of his work there and of his great strength of character. I fully associate myself with all that has been said on the strength of his views and his perfect fairness in enunciating them. I also remember, although I was very young, the time when he went to Oxford—without my then knowing him; he was termed then the Admirable Crichton of the day. That was a correct summing-up of the whole of his character.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND): My Lords, perhaps you will also forgive me for one moment if I express my feelings of really profound sorrow at the loss which we have sustained. I have known Lord Ampthill for many years. Often we agreed, generally, I think, on political questions. More recently there have been honest differences of opinion between us with regard to the measure now before your Lordships' House. But it is not
4
only in connection with political matters that I have been closely associated for a good many years past with the late Lord Ampthill. In an entirely different sphere outside the range of politics altogether, he has served for many years in an eminent capacity as Pro-Grand Master of the Freemasons of England, and in that connection I have been closely associated with him for many years. I feel profoundly the loss which has suddenly been inflicted upon us.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.
Order of the Day for the House again to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, before the question is put that the House do go into Committee I wish to ask a question. I understand that it is not the intention of the Government to continue to-day's sitting after dinner to-night. Can the noble Marquess the Leader of the House say whether it is the Government's intention to ask the House to sit after dinner to-morrow? I only ask because I think it is for the general convenience of your Lordships that we should know on which nights we shall be asked to sit after dinner?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, before my noble friend answers I would like to put a question to him. I understand that not only is the House not being asked to sit after dinner to-day but that the proceedings on the Government of India Bill are to be interrupted at seven o'clock to allow another measure to be proceeded with. I have no desire to interfere in the arrangements which my noble friend thinks fit to make, but I think we should have expected to hear why this other Bill is so urgent that the proceedings on the Government of India Bill have to be interrupted. Personally, I should be very anxious to fall in with any wish that my noble friend might have. Perhaps I might take this opportunity of saying that I wonder how the Government contemplate the proceedings with respect to the Government of India Bill in the near future. We are rapidly approaching the First Schedule and upon the First Schedule, I understand, the

5
Government are going to propose a profound alteration in the Bill—an alteration striking at the very root of one of its main provisions. I have no great opinion of its main provisions and if the Government think it is right to alter one of them profoundly it is their business and not mine. I think, however, your Lordships' House ought to have some little time in which to consider the drafting and details of whatever the proposal is to be. We expected to see this Amendment on the Paper sometime last week and it is not there yet.
It almost looks as if the Government had not made up their minds what the Amendment ought to be. At any rate, your Lordships ought to be given ample time in which to consider it. If it is only in the hands of your Lordships' House to-morrow morning I do not know how the Government propose to deal with it, but of course it would be late for us to consult the experts who advise us as to its provisions. It is a very intricate matter dealing with one of the fundamental parts of the Bill. It has great consequences. I do not want to be inconvenient, but it certainly seems to me that we ought to have some little time in which to see and consider the Amendment. Of coarse the Government themselves have been in consultation with the Government of India, and their experts have been examining the Amendment, but we have not had that opportunity. We have not been able to see our experts or consider what the bearing of the alteration is. All we ask is that we should have the Amendment in our hands in sufficient time before your Lordships are asked to consider it.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, in answer to the questions put to me by the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition, and my noble friend who sits below the gangway, I would say that we are not proposing to sit after dinner to-night.. As the Leader of the Opposition is aware, the proceedings on the Government of India Bill will be adjourned at seven o'clock to-night, and after that the London Passenger Transport (Agreement) Bill will be read a second time. The noble Marquess will understand—I think he knows well from his previous experience—the great difficulty there is in fitting in business in your Lordships' House. I know that when he
6
occupied the position which I am now endeavouring to fill he found great difficulty in the fitting in of business in relation to business in another place. We are now in the middle of July, and it is hoped that we shall be able to rise at the end of the month; but as the noble Marquess is aware there is a great deal of business to be done, and I am trying as well as I can manage it to include all those Bills which it is most important should be passed before the end of this Session. I know that means encroaching upon your Lordships' time to a very large extent.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: When is the Session to end? This month, or in October or November?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I have no information at the present moment. I was trying to convey the amount of business there is which we are hoping to get through by the end of this month, and I always endeavour, as I ought, to consult the convenience of all your Lordships as to the sittings of this House. I have had to trespass upon your indulgence in asking you to sit after dinner on more than one occasion, and it is only right and proper that ample notice should be given whenever it is proposed to sit late, so as to enable your Lordships to make your arrangements. As I have said, it is not proposed to sit after dinner to-night. I do not know how long the London Passenger Transport (Agreement) Bill will take, but of course we shall have to get the Second Reacting, and we shall have to sit until the Second Reading has been got to-night. I think, however, there is no reason to believe that the Bill will take long, for it is an agreed Bill, I understand, and beyond the usual speeches in connection with a Second Reading it ought not to occupy an undue proportion of your Lordships' time. That means, I hope, that we shall be able to adjourn at eight o'clock or thereabouts.
In regard to the question of the noble Marquess, I regret that he takes the view which he does. My noble friend who sits behind me tells me that the Amendment to which the noble Marquess referred will be on the Paper to-morrow morning, and he is hoping that perhaps it will be possible to deal with that Amendment to-morrow. The noble Marquess says that time is short, and he tells us that this is an Amendment of

7
great importance. Your Lordships are well aware, and I certainly am, that all these Amendments are of the greatest importance, and it is most essential that your Lordships should have every opportunity of full discussion on them. I am hoping, naturally, that we shall be able to have a full discussion on this particular Amendment. When the noble Marquess says that the time is short and that he has no time to consult his experts, I am sorry, but I should have thought that, after the Amendment had been put on the Paper, we should be able to have a full discussion on it at this stage. And, of course, there is another stage of the Bill, which I hope will be preceded by a week's interval. As I am always most anxious to meet the noble Marquess's desires and requirements, I hope that when I have made that statement he will understand it is the desire of the noble Marquess, the Secretary of State, and certainly my desire, to afford the fullest possible time for the examination of all the Amendments. I regret that the noble, Marquess thinks that the time is short, and perhaps the time is short, but I hope that in the time that will be given there will be opportunity for full discussion. I think I shall have to ask your Lordships to sit after dinner to-morrow night. I am sorry to have to do it, but there are other measures before the Government of India. Bill. There is so much business to be got through that I have had to arrange it in the best way I could, and, with the programme that I have devised with the help of my advisers, I hope I have been able to do it in accordance with the wishes of your Lordships.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Marquess for the information he has given to us with regard to the proceedings, but I should like to say on behalf of the Opposition that the protracted discussion on the Bill—to which we have raised no sort of objection up till now—is largely due to the exaggerated amiability and affability and the out-of-proportion deference which is paid to the critics of the Bill because they are otherwise supporters of His Majesty's Government. I do not think they really represent any considerable feeling in this country, and I doubt if they represent a very large feeling in
8
India; but at any rate if the Government desire that the proceedings should go a little faster it rests with them rather than with your Lordships.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, I think my noble friend knows perfectly well that those of us who are critics here have done everything in our power to avoid any obstructive tactics. We have given every possible facility to the Government, subject to bringing forward those Amendments which we thought were absolutely necessary and to setting forth the valid objections, as we see them, to the Bill. In other cases we have put forward Amendments from time to time where we thought the Bill could be improved without running absolutely athwart the main stream of Government's policy. Those are the two objectives we have had.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: May I explain that I did not mean for a moment to accuse the noble Lord and his friends of obstructive tactics, or of doing anything that was not absolutely legitimate. It is not the Opposition's attitude towards the Government that I was criticising, it is the Government's attitude towards the Opposition.
LORD LLOYD: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for his certificate, but I did not misapprehend him. I was trying to point out to the Government that whilst we had done everything we could within our power to give the Government every opportunity of getting ahead with their Bill, I think this is really treating us rather unfairly. We are going to have put on the Order Paper, at breakfast time I suppose, an Amendment which presumably must have enormous importance, as the noble Marquess has pointed out. Some of us have been deluged with telegrams from India, where the Government's sudden change of front has created an enormous effect, as the Government will some day learn, if they have not learned already. We shall have between nine o'clock and three o'clock to consult people in India and to digest this new Amendment, and, with every wish to behave in a friendly manner, as we should like to do about this Bill, I do not think that is really fair treatment. The thing becomes a farce if we are asked to discuss the Amendment to-morrow afternoon. I would venture to make a very definite protest about that, and in

9
so doing I shall be echoing the feelings of people not only in this country but throughout India.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, I sincerely hope that so long as I have the honour of occupying this position, no section of the House will receive ungenerous treatment, no matter to what Party it belongs.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, it is quite true, I should have been very glad to place the Schedule down on the Paper before now, but, as the noble Marquess will understand, a certain amount of consultation with the Government of India and other authorities in India was necessary before I could draw up the actual details of the Schedule. The Amendment has now been handed in, and really I think the noble Marquess will find, except for the fact that it alters the form of election from indirect election by the Upper Houses in the Provinces to direct election, in accordance with the existing system of the Council of State, practically no other alterations are necessary. When I was dealing with this matter last week, I did my best to make it clear that the alteration which I was prepared to accept, in response to the request of my noble friend Lord Linlithgow, did little more than set up the existing system for the election of a Council of State in place of the system proposed in the Bill. I do not for a imminent underestimate the importance of that change; but, so far as intricacy is concerned, it is not intricate at all, it is perfectly simple; and I hope that when the noble Marquess sees the Amendment to the Schedule to-morrow morning—or I should be very happy to endeavour to obtain a copy of it for the noble Marquess this afternoon—I think he will realise the truth of what I have said, that it really makes very little alteration of a detailed character at all.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, perhaps with your Lordships' indulgence I may be allowed to say that I am extremely obliged to my noble friend for the very courteous reply he has made to me. Of course, if he offers personally to let me see a copy of the Amendment, that is treating me much too well. I was not speaking on my own behalf, I can assure your Lordships; I was thinking of noble Lords in all parts of the
10
House, whose business it is to come to a decision. I should be very sorry to be singled out for special favour. I certainly do not deserve any treatment of that kind. But of course I do not want, either, to interfere with the conduct of business by my noble friend the Leader of the House and, if he wishes to adjourn this Bill at seven o'clock, as far as I am concerned I would respond to that. I recognise that it is a very difficult thing to arrange business. I want to assist him if I can, but after we have seen the Amendment to-morrow morning I think the Government must not be surprised if we find it very difficult to debate the matter within the few hours which will be left. However. I ought to postpone saying anything further on that until I have seen the Amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 303:
No proceedings to lie against Governor-General, Governor or Secretary of State.
303. No proceedings whatsoever shall lie in any Court in India against the Governor-General, against the Governor of a Province, or, subject to the foregoing provisions of Part VII of this Act, against the Secretary of State, whether in a personal capacity or otherwise, in respect of anything done or omitted to ho done by any of them during his term of office.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): On behalf of the Secretary of State I desire to explain the Amendments on this clause which appear on the Paper. Perhaps the most convenient course would be for me to read the clause as it will be with the Amendments written in, and then to explain in a very few sentences what it is that we are proposing to do, because the alterations only touch one or two points. It is a little difficult to follow unless your Lordships hear the clause as a whole. With the Amendments which we are suggesting, Clause 303 will read in this way:
"No proceedings whatsoever shall lie in and no process whatever shall issue from any Court in India against the Governor-General, against the, Governor of a Province, or against the Secretary of State, whether in a personal capacity or otherwise, and, except with the sanction of His Majesty in Council, no proceedings whatsoever shall lie in any Court in India against any person who has been the

11
Governor-General, the Governor of a Province, or the Secretary of State in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by any of them during Ins term of office in performance or purported performance of the duties thereof.
"Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed as restricting the right of any person to bring against the Federation, a Province, or the Secretary of State such proceedings as are mentioned in Chapter III of Part VII of this Act."
There are substantially two alterations that are made by virtue of these Amendments. In the first place, under the Bill as it stands, your Lordships will see that provision is made for any proceedings lying, but no reference is made to the issue of other process, and it would be possible, for instance, to issue subpoenas against the Governor-General or a Governor in proceeding's to which he was not a party to compel him to attend. That is only one illustration of what are process but not proceedings against him. We think it is obviously undesirable that it should be possible to compel the Governor-General to come into Court and give evidence in any suit at the instance of any individual litigant. The other alteration, apart from words, deals with what has been done in the past. As the clause stands at present, immunity is given to a Governor-General or a Governor or a Secretary of State in respect of things done by any of them during their term of office so far as relates to proceedings in India, but nothing is said as to what will happen when they vacate their office.
It might be possible, under the clause as drawn, to wait until the Governor-General had ceased to be Governor-General, or a Governor had ceased to be Governor, and then proceed to bring an action against him. We do not think it would be right to give complete immunity. There might be extreme cases in which it would be desirable to remove the protection which the clause affords; but we also do not think it would be at all desirable for anyone to be able, at his will, to bring actions against a Governor-General or a Governor for any grievance he may think he entertains, and therefore provision is made that after an individual has been Governor-General or Governor or Secretary of State he shall not be sued with regard to his actions during his term of office without the sanction of His Majesty in Council. That, we think, affords sufficient protection, on the one
12
hand, to the officials named and, on the other, provides for any extreme case in which it may be desirable to remove the immunity granted.
Amendment moved—
Page 188, line 8, after ("in") insert ("and no process whatsoever shall issue from").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD STRABOLGI: May I ask the Lord Chancellor if he will be good enough to inform me in what way this clause, as amended, will alter the existing situation in India, especially with regard to the Secretary of State?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I had the actual section of the Act here in anticipation of that question being asked, but I am sorry I cannot lay my hands on it at the moment. In effect, I think I am right in saying, at present no criminal proceedings lie against the Governor-General or a Governor in respect of anything except treason or felony, and no civil proceedings lie in the High Court in respect of any act done in his public capacity. Here no such distinction is sought to be drawn. Indeed, in the Bill without the Amendment, no such distinction is sought to be drawn and, having regard to the nature of the duties which are imposed upon the Governor-General and the Governors in this Bill, we think it would be undesirable to seek to draw such a distinction, because it would be opening an obvious door to allege that whatever was done was not done privately but publicly.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: Would the noble and learned Viscount tell me, as a layman, whether there is any provision in this Bill for a process analogous to the process by Petition of Right in this country?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR,: I am afraid that is imputing to me a wider knowledge of the terms of the Bill than I can give offhand. There are, for instance, the accepted provisions in Chapter III of Part VII which give a certain modified right for bringing actions in respect of contracts and things of that kind, and these are expressly preserved by the proviso as moved.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: That is not quite the Petition of Right, but I shall not pursue the matter now.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The other Amendments are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 188, line 10, leave out ("subject to the foregoing provisions of Part VII of this Act")
Page 188, line 12, after ("otherwise") insert ("and, except with the sanction of His Majesty in Council, no proceedings whatsoever shall lie in any Court in India against any person who has been the Governor-General, the Governor of a Province, or the Secretary of State")
Page 188, line 14, at end insert ("in performance or purported performance of the duties thereof")
At end insert:
("Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed as restricting the right of any person to bring against the Federation, a Province, or the Secretary of State such proceedings as are mentioned in Chapter III of Part VII of this Act.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments a-greed to.
Clause 303, as amended, agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved, to insert after Clause 303:
Removal of certain disqualifications on the occasion of the find elections to Legislature.
"For the purposes of the first elections of persons to serve as members of the Federal Legislature and of Provincial Legislatures no person shall be subject to any disqualification by reason only of the fact that he holds—

(a) an office of profit as a non-official member of the Executive Council of the Governor-General or a Governor, or as a Minister in a Province;

(b) an office which is not a whole time office remunerated either by salary or by fees."

The noble Marquess said: The object of this new clause is to remove a disqualification which would otherwise obtain in the case of an unofficial member of the Executive Council or of a Minister under the present Constitution. We think it is only reasonable that in the case of a first election, at any rate, a man who had been a Minister under the present Constitution, or an Indian public man who had been a member of the Executive Council under the present Constitution, should not be disqualified from becoming a Minister under the new Constitution. That is the main object of the new clause. It also goes a little further than that, and would also make eligible under the new Constitution part-time officers such as village officials and persons of that kind who, under a
14
strict interpretation of the Bill, without this Amendment., would not be held to be eligible. After the first election the matter will, of course, rest with the Legislatures in India themselves, and it will be open to the Federal Legislature or to the Provincial Legislatures, as the case may be, to pass legislation under Clause 26 (1) (a) or under Clause 60 (1) (a), as the case may be.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 303, insert the said new clause.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 304:
Procedure as respects proposals for amendment of certain provisions of Act and Orders in Council.
304.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, if the Federal Legislature or any Provincial Legislature, on motions proposed in each Chamber by a Minister on behalf of the Council of Ministers, pass a Resolution recommending any such amendment of this Act or of an Order in Council made thereunder as is hereinafter mentioned, and on motions proposed in like manner, present to the Governor-General or, as the case may be, to the Governor an Address for submission to His Majesty praying that His Majesty may be pleased to communicate the Resolution to Parliament, the Secretary of State shall, within six months after the Resolution is so communicated, cause to be laid before both Houses of Parliament a statement of any action which it may be proposed to take thereon.
The Governor-General or the Governor, as the case may be, when forwarding any such Resolution and Address to the Secretary of State shall transmit therewith a statement of his opinion as to the proposed amendment and, in particular, as to the effect which it would have on the interests of any minority, and the Secretary of State shall cause such statement to be laid before Parliament.
In formulating any such statement of opinion the Governor-General or the Governor, as the case may be, shall act in his discretion.
(2) The amendments referred to in the preceding subsection are—

(a) any amendment of the provisions relating to the size or composition of the Chambers of the Federal Legislature, or to the method of choosing or the qualifications of members of that Legislature, not being an amendment which would vary the proportion between the number of seats in the Council of State and the number of seats in the Federal Assembly, or would vary, either as regards the Council of State or the Federal Assembly, the proportion between the number of seats allotted to British India and the number of seats allotted to Indian States;

15

(b)any amendment of the provisions relating to the number of Chambers in a Provincial Legislature or the size or composition of the Chamber, or of either Chamber, of a Provincial Legislature, or to the method of choosing or the qualifications of members of a Provincial Legislature;

(c) any amendment providing that, in the case of women, literacy shall be substituted for any higher educational standard for the time being required as a qualification for the franchise, or providing that women, if duly qualified, shall be entered on electoral rolls without any application being made for the purpose by them or on their behalf; and

(d) any other amendment of the provisions relating to the qualifications entitling persons to be registered as voters for the purposes of elections.

(3) So far as regards any such amendment as is mentioned in paragraph (c) of the last preceding subsection, the provisions of subsection (1) of this section shall apply to a Resolution of a Provincial Legislature whenever passed, but, save as aforesaid, those provisions shall not apply to any Resolution passed before the expiration of ten years, in the case of a Resolution of the Federal Legislature from the establishment of the Federation, and in the case of a Resolution of a Provincial Legislature, from the commencement of Part III of this Act.
(4) His Majesty in Council may at any time before or after the commencement of Part III of this Act, whether the ten years referred to in the last preceding subsection have elapsed or not, and whether any such Address as is mentioned in this section has been submitted to His Majesty or not, make in the provisions of this Act any such amendment as is referred to in subsections (2) of this section
Provided that—

(i) if no such Address has been submitted to His Majesty, then, before the draft of any Order which it is proposed to submit to His Majesty is laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State shall, unless it appears to him that the proposed amendment is of a minor or drafting nature, take such steps as His Majesty may direct for ascertaining the views of the Governments and Legislatures in India who would be affected by the proposed amendment;

(ii) the provisions of Part II of the First Schedule to this Act shall not be amended without the consent of the Ruler of any State which will be affected by the amendment.

LORD MIDDLETON LORD MIDDLETON moved to insert at the end of the first paragraph in subsection (1) the words "and no such action shall be taken except in pursuance of an Address of both Houses of Parliament." The noble Lord said: We now come to the clause which I certainly think is the most
16
objectionable in the whole Bill and which, I submit, deserves the closest scrutiny by every member of this House. Whatever views noble Lords may hold as to the merits of the Bill as a whole and of the provisions in general, they will, I hope, bring to bear their individual critical judgment on a clause which threatens to disintegrate a pledge given by the Government to Indians and reiterated again and again. The interests of minorities are without doubt endangered and, equally, so are the good name and the honour of British statesmanship. I wish to make it as clear as daylight that I have not the least intention of flourishing here statements that have been made and resolutions that have been passed in India condemning the clause as it stood when it emerged from another place. I hold no brief whatsoever for any particular class or community. The Hindus may be in a majority in one Province and in a minority in another, and that applies equally to Moslems. There is no class that is not somewhere in a minority, whether they be Hindus, Moslems, Indian Christians, Sikhs, Anglo-Indians, women or representatives of labour; and that does not exhaust the list.
I think that it would save your Lordships' time if I were to deal first of all with the merits and demerits, perhaps the latter particularly, of this clause in the first instance, and, if I may do this, then it will be possible for me to move the five Amendments which are tabled in my name in as few words as possible as they come on. It is of interest, and certainly of importance, to study the career of this clause since it first made its appearance in the Bill. It was Clause 285 when it was born, and I am bound to say that at that time it was nearly innocuous. Sir Henry Page Croft endeavoured to improve it, and was unsuccessful. The clause reappeared as Clause 299 when the Bill, as amended, was discussed in another place on the 28th May. It was nursed by the Under-Secretary and, in the name of his chief, he placed the hall-mark of the evil one upon it by Amendments which I would term the horns and the hoofs and the spiky tail. Those adornments were imposed upon it with some subtlety, so that they did not at once become apparent in another place.
If your Lordships have had time and opportunity to study the proceedings it

17
will be seen how a smoke screen descended upon this evil thing when Mr. Isaac Foot moved an Amendment which diverted the attention of the House to a discussion on to the merits of direct and indirect election. So far did honourable members follow the by-paths of that interesting controversy that Mr. Deputy Speaker was compelled to whip them off the line. However, the minds of honourable members were diverted from the monstrous new appearance of the clause. I think that Mr. Butler must have blessed Mr. Isaac Foot with all his heart for his timely intervention. The Under-Secretary ingenuously characterised the Amendments as slight modifications and improvements, and he slipped in one excrescence by calling it "consequential." He was taken to task for this, and he explained that by "consequential" he meant "consequential on the explanation a ready given." Mr. Williams and others had something to say on his methods. The implications of the Amendments were not lost on the noble Lady who represents Kinross and West Perth, but, unfortunately, the rule of the Report stage prevented her from exposing them. Sir Henry Page Croft asked a question on the position of the Communal Award under the Amendment, but he was vouchsafed no reply or answer. Thus we have before us in all its naked ugliness a clause which, as we see it, involves a flagrant violation of an undertaking given and which may seriously damage all minorities.
I think it may be advantageous if at this point I read the undertaking given by the Government, which is quite brief:
"His Majesty's Government in the Award pledged themselves not to vary their recommendations to Parliament on this subject save with the mutual agreement of the communities affected, and themselves to take no part in any negotiations initiated by the communities with a view to revision of their decision. Once such variation has been made, namely, in respect of the arrangements for the representation of the Depressed Classes which have been modified in accordance with an agreement, now known as the Poona Pact, reached on the 24th September last between representatives of the Depressed Classes and the rest of time Hindu community.
His Majesty's Government stated in their Award that modification of the communal electoral arrangements might be made after ten years with the assent of the communities affected, for the ascertainment of which suitable means would have to be devised."
18
The Award was announced by Mr., Ramsay MacDonald in August, 1932. It was repeated on page 25 of the White Paper from which I have just quoted, on the 1st March, 1933. I think we ought to keep these words before us. I ask your Lordships if they are vague or indefinite or if more than one construction can be placed upon them? I think not. They appear to be perfectly clear and not to require any interpretation by lawyers. Indeed, the sentences might have been framed by laymen for laymen.
Now take the clause. The first subsection indicates the method of making proposals amending certain provisions of the Act or Orders in Council and the action to be taken by the Secretary of State. Subsection (2) defines the scope of such Amendments. Subsection (3) lays down the periods of time within which action may be taken. Subsection (4) shows what His Majesty in Council may do when and in what circumstances. Such a brief outline needs a little amplification. As a result of this clause, Governments and Legislatures in India after ten years may initiate proposals to modify provisions relating to Constitutions of Legislatures, including such questions as are covered by the Communal Award. The Governor-General or Governor will send his opinion on the proposals, and in particular will give his opinion on the effect of them upon the interests of any minority, and Parliament will be informed of any action lie proposes to take. Changes in constitutional provisions can be effected by Order in Council if the draft proposed Order is approved by both Houses, and that is secured by Clause 305, but before the expiry of ten years Legislatures in India have no such right. However, this clause enables changes such as I have indicated to be made, including changes in the Communal Award to be made at any time, and that is the casus belli. It is true that, save in, minor questions, the Secretary of State must consult Governments and Legislatures in India which are affected before any Order in Council is laid before Parliament for approval. Apparently the minorities are not to be consulted.
I think that the noble Marquess, Lord Zetland, will agree that the amplification which I have given is fair and accurate and so far complete. The words have been taken from the statement issued by the Government of India under

19
the authority of the British Government which appeared in The Times of 3rd July, so I think perhaps he may be satisfied on that point. As I see it, the Government stands condemned on their own statement. Clearly the Government pledged themselves that they would not vary the Award without mutual agreement with the communities affected, that the Government would take no part in any negotiations, that no modifications might be made within ten years and then only with the consent of the communities, for the ascertainment of which suitable means would have to be devised. The Government have gone back on their promises. Paragraph 4 of the Government of India's statement has explained what it thinks may necessitate what I call breach of faith. Paragraph 5 of this precious document stated that within the range of the Communal Award His Majesty's Government would not propose to recommend any changes unless such changes were agreed between the communities concerned. But how can we hind future Governments? In paragraph 6 it is emphasised that none of the powers of Clause 304 can, in view of the provisions in Clause 305, be exercised unless both Houses of Parliament agree affirmatively. That is how we stand.
Specious reasons are given to justify this; but it will not do. How can the Government bind future Governments and lay down that they may only do this and that, when we all know that they will be able to do exactly as they like? Not only must we adhere like glue to pledges given but also we must appear to do so. All these "ifs" and "ands" and "buts" and qualifications may constitute adequate whitewash in the eyes of some but will never satisfy minorities in India who live in deadly anxiety and look to us to act up to the pledges we have given. I entirely agree that the cast-iron nature of the promises given may be inconvenient, but that should have been thought of before. I believe it has been stated that members of one minority community only agreed to attend the Third Round-Table Conference on the strength of the inviolability of that pledge. I sympathise with the Government in their desire to introduce flexibility where flexibility is eminently desirable, but it must be introduced honourably. A pledge is a pledge, and upon this House rests the responsi
20
bility for seeing that it is adhered to both in letter and in spirit, since in another place honourable members have failed to do so.
Let me say this. Even after the expiry of ten years, no Resolution will ever reach the Secretary of State from an Indian Legislature to alter its composition unless it is forwarded by a majority in order to entrench themselves more firmly at the expense of a minority. There will never, in time that we can measure, be any altruism between the communities. There will never be any give and take, never any compromise. You may say that the special responsibilities will protect minorities. Perhaps they will, and perhaps they will not. If time and again Resolutions come up like importunate widows to the Secretary of State, passed over and over again by a majority of some Assembly in the same terms, what will be said? It will be argued that the essence of democracy, that garment that we are handing to India to wear, is majority rule; that properly elected Assemblies have repeatedly passed Resolutions, and that the minority must give in. All the arguments about minorities, all the anxieties expressed and all the talk of special responsibilities are fresh in our minds to-day, but inevitably they will become dulled and blurred with the passage of time. How can we expect future Secretaries of State or Governments to see things then as we see them to-day? Of course it is impossible, and we cannot harness them. To attempt to do so is foolish in the extreme.
We have drafted the Amendments with great care and thought under competent legal advice, and with a full sense of responsibility. We put them forward as an honest endeavour to enable the Government to have that flexibility that they desire, but that flexibility under our Amendments will not come at the expense of the pledge. I would liken them to hot water and soap to wash out of the Bill blots that make it a. discredit to any British Parliament. I may have spoken bluntly. In endeavouring to put a few sentences together at the beginning of last week when I was invited to move Amendments to this clause I felt it impossible to believe that the Government really meant to go back on a pledge, but we have seen no Amendment from the Government. We have seen a

21
statement in The Times which made it quite clear that they meant to stick to their guns, so hopes from that quarter appeared to be rather hazy. I do not wish to say any more now except to point out that my first Amendment is designed to enable Parliament to debate any proposal made and pass it or not as they may find it acceptable or the reverse. I will explain my other Amendments briefly as we come to them. Whether I inflict myself again on your Lordships will depend on the Government and the other speeches that will be made.
Amendment moved—
Page 188, line 29, at end insert ("and no such action shall be taken except in pursuance of an Address of both Houses of Parliament").—(Lord Middleton.)
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I find it very difficult to exaggerate the importance of these Amendments. Their purpose is to ensure that the clause no longer makes possible a violation of the Communal Award. The Award as laid down by the then Prime Minister, Mr. MacDonald, continued for the Provincial Assemblies the system of separate electorates which had been conceded to the Moslems in connection with the Morley-Minto reforms. It also extended the system to all religious minorities, including the Anglo-Indians and Indian Christians. And it went still further: I suppose it would include the Labour Party in India, which I believe is a minority. The Award stated in paragraph 6 that the Constitution would empower revision of this arrangement after ten years with the assent of the communities affected, for the ascertainment of which suitable means would be devised. This implied, of course, that no change might be made before ten years had passed.
In paragraph 49 of Part I of the White Paper this statement which I have quoted from the Award was repeated and was accompanied by the explicit assurance that "His Majesty's Government in the Award had pledged themselves not to vary their recommendations to Parliament on this subject save with the written agreement of the communities affected." That is a verbatim quotation. Now, the clause as originally introduced in another place did not permit, as I have been told, violation of the Award, because it only allowed amendments in the method of election to the Federal Legislature.
22
This had not been dealt with in detail in the Award so that the pledges I have mentioned did not refer to the Federal Legislature. But once the clause was made to refer to the Provincial Assemblies by an Amendment introduced by the then Secretary of State, it made possible violation of the Award in two respects. The first of these is that subsection (1), which enables Provincial Legislatures to ask for amendments of these matters after ten years, does not require the assent of the communities. That is of course a distinct violation of the pledge contained in the Award and it cannot be described as anything else. As your Lordships will have seen I have put down an Amendment requiring this specifically, but on consideration I am ready to support the noble Lord, Lord Middleton's Amendment, which I had not seen when I put my own Amendment on the Paper, as I think it would possibly enable his Majesty's Government and Parliament to get a truer picture of the views of the communities concerned than a mere record of formal assent by the leaders of the community as I have suggested. Therefore if the noble Lord's Amendment is accepted or an agreement come to in regard to it, I shall not move my own Amendment.
The other respect in which the clause permits violation of the award is subsection (4), which would enable His Majesty's Government to abolish separate electorates and to alter the allocation of seats, not only without the assent of the communities but at any time from the day the Bill becomes law. Any such case would of course also be a grave breach of the Award, and I can hardly believe that His Majesty's Government can contemplate this. The subsection only requires the Government to ascertain the views of the Governments and Legislatures concerned, which is a very different matter from obtaining the consent of the communities affected, as in those Provinces in which Hindus are in the majority the Legislatures would probably favour the abolition of separate elections.
One of the Moslem delegates, Mr. Ghuznavi, said in a written memorandum to the Joint Committee that the Moslem Delegation had only consented to come to the third Round-Table Conference to discuss the transfer of responsibility at the Centre on condition that the Com

23
munal Award remained unaltered. It is not too much to say that the Award is a sheet anchor of the minorities generally. The Joint Select Committee recorded their belief that to alter or modify it would be disastrous; that is the word they used. In a statement issued the other day by the Government of India an assurance was given that His Majesty's Government had no intention of taking action to violate the Award, but I need hardly point out that this assurance could not bind, as Lord Middleton has said, any future Government and therefore cannot be expected to allay the anxieties which have been aroused in India.
At a public meeting of the Moslem All-India Conference held a day or two ago, a resolution was framed and sent to the Government thanking the Government for the assurance that they gave that they would not alter the Award without the consent of the communities concerned, but asking for this assurance to be embodied in the Bill. In fact, they got rather muddled as to what the section in the Press which I may call the "Government Party" really meant, but one thing of which they are quite certain is that they want to be perfectly secure themselves. This was sent from the President of the All-India Moslem Conference. Since then I have seen a telegram from India, which I need not read out, giving the same expression but somewhat stronger. I therefore earnestly hope that your Lordships will agree to the Amendment, which will enable the pledge given both in the Award and in the White Paper to be made good. Remember, my Lords, that this pledge was given by the last Prime Minister as head of the National Government, and it is surely incumbent upon every member of your Lordships' House to see that a British national pledge is honoured.
LORD SNELL: We are interested in this discussion from two points of view. First, it would seem as though those of us who are in a minority in this Committee are to support enthusiastically any defence of minorities which may be made. We find it refreshing to hear this new-born enthusiasm for minorities, even though they are in India. I hope that some of that enthusiasm may on future dates be available for minorities in your Lordships' House. The other
24
point is that, if the Government have modified the Communal Award, we should very much like to know about it. We have never approved of the Communal Award; we wish that another arrangement could have been made; but if the matter has been disturbed, that fact opens up a serious field of enterprise for those who do not like it. As I have gathered the intentions of the noble Lords who have introduced this Amendment, it is to protect the minorities India; and I hope that includes the minor minorities, such as Labour, the Depressed Classes, and other sections, and is not entirely restricted to the great minority of the Moslem people, who are on the whole very well able to take care of themselves. On this side we shall wait to hear what the Government says before we decide whether we can support these Amendments or not.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: May I ask the noble Lord whether he is not interested in the question of a pledge of honour? It is the only thing to which he has not referred.
LORD SNELL: I said I was not aware that that pledge had been violated. If it has been violated, that is another story.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The noble Lord who moved this Amendment told us that he had spoken frankly. I am not sure that the word he used was not something else, but at any rate he intended to convey that he had spoken frankly, perhaps a little brutally, on this question. May I say that I think the speech which has been delivered by the noble Lord is a. monstrously mischievous speech? It will have the effect of creating an impression in India—if it reaches so far—that His Majesty's Government are prepared to break a solemn pledge and that by the machinery of this clause they enable themselves to do so. My Lords, he has wholly misunderstood or misread Clause 304 of the Bill. This clause, so far as the first subsections of it are concerned, has been drafted to give effect to the pledge. It has been drafted at the actual suggestion of the Indian delegates who attended the Joint Select Committee. If I remember rightly, the machinery proposed here for effecting the consideration at the end of ten years of the communal arrangements, if that is desired by the communities themselves, was proposed by

25
an Indian, and, so far as I remember, no objection was raised to it by any one of the Indian delegates on the Joint Select Committee.
It is really subsection (4) of this clause which has given rise to the misunderstanding which has taken place in India. What is the object of subsection (4)? The only object of subsection (4) is to enable Parliament—not the Government; Parliament—if it is found desirable after this Constitution comes into operation, to make small amendments which may be necessary and which probably will be necessary in such matters as the franchise, in questions connected with the representation of women, and so on. There never was and there never has been the smallest intention of repudiating or in any way upsetting -the Communal Award under the provisions of this clause. Surely the noble Lord will see that it would be extremely inconvenient, after the new Constitution has come into operation and some small change of the kind which I have suggested is found to be desirable and possibly necessary, to have to bring in an entirely new Act of Parliament in order to do so.
The only object of that part of the clause is to enable Parliament—once again I lay stress upon that, Parliament, not the Government—to make such small changes of that kind as experience may show to be required. It is quite true that supposing before the ten years have expired some community, such as the Indian Christians, were really anxious to give up their special electorates and to take part in the joint electorate, it would then be possible, if they made that perfectly clear, for Parliament to take action under this clause; but if the noble Lord will refer once more to the wording of the clause, he will see that before they did so there is this proviso:
" Provided that if no such Address has been submitted to His Majesty "—
that is to say, an Address which is referred to in the earlier part of the clause, which comes into operation after ten years—
"then before the draft of any Order which it is proposed to submit to His Majesty is laid before Parliament,"—
that is, before Parliament is given an opportunity of making a change of this kind—
"the Secretary of State shall, unless it appears to him that the proposed amendment is of a minor or drafting nature,
26
take such steps as His Majesty may direct for ascertaining the views of the Governments and Legislatures in India who would be affected by the proposed amendment."
Now let me say once more, and I hope once and for all, that not only is it not the intention of the Government to make any alteration in the Communal Award, unless it is desired by the communities themselves, but that no such alteration could be made under this clause without the specific consent of Parliament. It would be Parliament that would make the alteration.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My point is that it is the consent of the communities directly affected that I am chiefly concerned about. That does not come in.
LORD MIDDLETON: May I ask where anywhere in this clause is to be found the machinery for ascertaining the views of minorities?
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: With regard to the first three subsections of the clause, if the noble Lord will look at the procedure to be followed he will see, I think, that it is quite obvious that the views of the minorities themselves must be made perfectly clear:
"Subject to the provisions of this section, if the Federal Legislature or any Provincial Legislature, on motions proposed in each Chamber by a Minister on behalf of the council of Ministers, pass a Resolution recommending any such amendment of this Act or of an Order in Council made there under as is hereinafter mentioned, and on motions proposed in like manner, present to the Governor-General or, as the case may be, to the Governor an Address for submission to His Majesty praying that His Majesty may be pleased to communicate the Resolution to Parliament, the Secretary of State shall, within six months after the Resolution is so communicated, cause to be laid before both Houses of Parliament a statement"
and so on.
The noble Lord does not suppose, does he? that a discussion either in the Federal Legislature, or in any Provincial Legislature, on a matter vitally affecting the interests of minorities, is not going to draw from the representatives of minorities their views on the question. Surely it must be obvious that the whole of the Report of the debates will be before the Governor and the Governor-General, and the whole of the Report of the debates can of course be submitted to Parliament also, and there is no doubt

27
whatever that the views of the minorities themselves will be made perfectly plain and explicit. If they were not I can assure the noble Lord, from my experience of India, that representations and petitions would speedily pour in, both to the Governor-General and the Governor. Under his special responsibility the Governor-General would, of course, have immediately to take into account the representations made to him, and when reporting to the Secretary of State he naturally would say that he considers that the minorities are not in agreement with the Resolutions passed by the Legislatures, and that in view of his special responsibility for safeguarding the interests of minorities be must point out to the Secretary of State that the Resolution submitted by the Legislatures in India does not represent the views of the minorities. No further action then could be taken.
Let me just touch on another point. The noble Lord said it was all very well to say that this Government, or even this Parliament, was pledged to the terms of the Communal Award, but how, he said, can we bind future Governments? I ask him how can he bind future Parliaments. Supposing he amends the Bill in the way he suggested, can he give me a guarantee that no future Parliament will ever amend the Act? Of course he cannot. That is inherent in our Constitution; but so long as Parliament retains control you are giving the only definite pledge you can give. Of course if Parliaments of the future violate pledges we cannot help it, but I hope that Parliaments of the future will be as anxious as he is, and as we are, to keep pledges. I must repudiate the suggestion of the noble Lord that I or anyone else is making provision for breaking in any way the pledge which has been given. I had thought, indeed I had hoped, that the statement which had been issued by the Government of India, with the full consent of His Majesty's Government, a day or two ago, had made the position perfectly clear. Let me repeat once more that there is absolute security in the clause as it stands, as much security as anybody can give, that the pledge contained in connection with the Communal Award will not be broken. I cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD MIDDLETON: May I ask a specific question'? Is there any intention
28
of altering the Communal Award within ten years or not?
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: There is no intention of altering the Communal Award within ten years, or after ten years, except with the agreement of the communities themselves.
LORD MIDDLETON: That is not quite an answer to my question. In any circumstances can the Communal Award be upset within ten years or not?
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAN'D: I gave an example of the sort of way -in which an alteration might be made in the case of the Indian Christians. If they make it perfectly clear that they desire that alteration to be made, then it would be open to Parliament to make that alteration if they were satisfied.
LORD MIDDLETON: Have I understood the noble Marquess rightly that it is possible in certain circumstances to alter the Communal Award within ten years? This is very important.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: Yes, in the circumstances which I have explained.
LORD MIDDLETON: Then how can the Government reconcile that reply with what was said in the Award? His Majesty's Government stated in their Award that a modification of the communal electoral arrangements might be made after ten years. It seems to me that is going back on their statement, and that is the cause of my complaint.
LORD LLOYD: I confess that I did not at all understand the noble Marquess's statement. I may be very obtuse, but it is extremely vague and unsatisfactory. The noble Marquess accuses my noble friend of having made a monstrously mischievous statement. What is mischievous is making this change and not fully explaining it, and upsetting the minds of people all over India. They certainly do not understand it, and if it is not clear to us here, really they must not be blamed. Consultation is not agreement. I am sorry if I do not understand this, but I, like my noble friend Lord Middleton, deduce from the noble Marquess's answer quite clearly that, whereas the Government gave the minorities in India to understand that the Communal Award would not be changed for ten years, and even then only in consultation with, and

29
with the agreement of, the communities concerned, I now understand that in certain circumstances it can be altered. The noble Marquess mentions the Indian Christians, but there may well be another example. How does the noble Marquess square one statement with the other?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am quite certain that my noble friend the Secretary of State is incapable of breaking what he recognises to be a pledge. Of course he is, but I think he has very imperfectly understood the actual effect of the words in the Bill. After all, when a future Government, let us say, come to interpret the Act, they will look at the words of the Act, and the words of the Bill as they stand are perfectly clear—namely, that all they have got to do is to consult the Legislatures and the Governments. There is not a word from beginning to end of the clause which indicates for a moment that there will be any consultation whatever with the minorities. Of course, the word "minorities" is mentioned, but only to say that the Governor in transmitting these Addresses to the Secretary of State has to say what effect he thinks they are going to have upon the interests of the minorities. But that was not the pledge of the Communal Award. The pledge of the Communal Award was that it was only to be done with the assent of the minority.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not imagine for a moment there would be the slightest difference between myself and my noble friend as to the actual terms of the Award. What is the definite and absolute pledge is "after ten years with the assent of the communities affected." Now, there will be no difficulty whatever in drafting words in the Bill to convey that. My noble friend seems to think that it is a difficult thing to do. My noble friend who submitted the Amendment puts in the words which are requisite. Why should they not be put in? The very fact that the Secretary of State resists the Amendment will have a most formidable effect in India, because they will say: "Here are the terms of the Communal Award, which say definitely that the communities are to assent"—not to be consulted but to assent. Then they will say: "When
30
Lord Middleton, a member of the Joint Select Committee, submitted the necessary words in Parliament, the Secretary of State said he would not accept them." I confess I am amazed at that attitude.
Of course your Lordships are quite aware that I hold no brief for any particular community. I do not admire these community registers and creed registers, and provisions in a democratic Constitution which can only affect people belonging to a certain religious belief. I do not believe in that system at all, but that is the system to which the Government are absolutely pledged. There has been a great deal in this controversy about keeping pledges, and all sorts of pledges are read into the Act of 1919. It is said that in the Act of 1919 everybody was pledged up to the hilt to pass this Bill. I have always been amazed at that doctrine, and of course I have absolutely denied it. But that is quite a different thing from a pledge by the Government itself as to its specific action in respect of the Bill which is to follow upon the pledge. It is absolutely distinct. I am quite sure that my noble friend thinks that when the Parliament of the future comes to consider these Addresses it will consider itself bound by the Communal Award. But, after all, I think that the new Parliament will look at the terms of the Act. They will not be able to study the OFFICIAL REPORT; they will not say, "What did Lord Zetland say in his place in the House of Lords on this day in July, 1935?" They will look at the Act and they will say: "Our business is to consult the Legislature, because that is all that is said in the Act—the Governments and the Legislatures." That is not the minority: that is the majority.
I hope your Lordships will realise that it is the very contrary of what the pledge said, because the Governments and the Legislatures are the majority. They cannot be anything else. The minorities are always distinct from them. Then how can it be said that that is a fulfilment of the pledge, if you are pledged to consult the minority, and you only consult the majority? It really is a contradiction in terms. Of course I know that my noble friend thinks it is all right. He has been advised it is all right, but sometimes you are advised that things are all right and they turn

31
out to be all wrong. This is no reflection on my noble friend's honour, but these are men of business, reading an Act of Parliament, and they will say: "We find that the pledge says that you are to consult the minority, and the Act of Parliament says that you are to consult the majority. "We really must ask the Government to reconsider that. I am sure they cannot intend it. I am sure there must be a slip somewhere. There is not the slightest difficulty in redrafting it so as to comply with the Communal Award. I hope my noble friend will not put us in the position of opposing the Government in a matter of this kind. I know quite well that a great many things are forgiven in this tolerant England. Here they understand the difficulty; but what are you to say about the Oriental minds, when they see these apparently absolute contradictions? I am sure the Government must make some kind of concession on this.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: There is evidently a good deal of misunderstanding about the meaning of this clause, and I would like to put a question to the Secretary of State which might perhaps help to clear it up. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State has assured us that there is no intention to alter the Communal Award. We will, of course, accept the statement that he has made.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: What, I think, my noble friends who moved this Amendment wish to know is whether, supposing there is hereafter a change of Government, and there is a Government which does want to change the Communal Award, there is machinery in this clause which will enable it to be done. My noble friends are nervous that if the Legislatures in India propose a. change, and in the course of the discussion of that change it becomes quite clear that one of the parties concerned is not agreeable to it, it might still be possible under this clause for an Address to be presented and for Parliament to carry out the change. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State assured us—and I entirely agree with him from my own experience—that is will not be possible for such a change to be attempted in India without the views of the com
32
munities concerned becoming known. We can all agree that their views will become known; but the point at issue is this: Supposing their views, when they become known, are hostile to the change, what is going to happen? The noble Marquess said that if their views are hostile no further action will be taken. I rise to put this question to the noble Marquess: What are the words in the clause which will ensure that if the opinion of the communities is hostile to the change no further action will be taken?
I do not see, in the clause as it stands, any words which will ensure that if there is opposition to the clause the proposed Amendment will not be proceeded with. I fully accept the statement of the noble Marquess that it is not intended, and that the clause is not so drafted to enable a change in the Communal Award to be made without the consent of the parties, but it is not clear yet to my mind that the words of the clause will prevent such a change from being carried out if the views of the communities are hostile to the proposed change. If the noble Marquess could clear up that point it might help to get rid of the misunderstanding.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: Before the Secretary of State rises to reply, I wonder whether he will take into his consideration a suggestion which I should like to make at this stage—namely, that at the end of proviso (i) in subsection (4), some such words as these might be inserted, "and the views of the representatives in any such Legislatures of any minority likely to be so affected. "The proviso would then read:
" … take such steps as His Majesty may direct for ascertaining the views of the Governments and Legislatures in India who would be affected by the proposed amendment, and the views of the representatives in any such Legislatures of any minority likely to be so affected."
That would make it perfectly plain that you were not going merely to consult the Legislatures by the ordinary machinery which lays emphasis upon the opinion of the majority, but that you were going to use the elected representatives of the people in order to ascertain, not merely the views of the majority, but also the views of every minority. If I understand the mind of His Majesty's Government aright, that is, in effect, the sort of machinery which they contemplate, and

33
I would venture respectfully to suggest to my noble friend that between now and the Report stage we should consider the insertion of some such words as I have indicated in order to give confidence to those in India who desire to be assured that the minorities will, in fact, be consulted in this matter before any change is made.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I should like on behalf of my noble friends to support the proposal which has been made by the noble Marquess who has just sat down. I think a large part of this debate is in the nature of a mare's nest. There is no doubt there has been a certain amount of disquiet aroused in India, and it is, I think, quite true that people want to feel assured that the declaration in the Communal Award, that the opinions of the minorities shall be definitely ascertained, will be carried out. The insertion of some such words as the noble Marquess has suggested would make that certain. I do not think we should put in the Bill how the assent shall be determined. What matters is that it should be quite clear that the opinion of the minorities concerned will be consulted. It is then for Parliament to consider whether it has assent or not.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Is it not the case that the whole idea is to obtain the assent of the communities concerned.? It does not concern Parliament. The point is that you have given a promise, and now you are going to break it.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: It is for Parliament at the time to determine whether there is assent. I am considerably surprised at the noble Lords who have moved these Amendments. They have completely disregarded the pledges made by the National Government regarding central responsibility in the past, and I should feel a good deal more assured if noble Lords who have put down these Amendments had voted for the Second Reading of this Bill; but they have voted to repudiate the pledge made to the Round-Table Conference by the National Government. The kind of sincerity which I feel bursting from their remarks does not impress me in view of the fact that they have gone back on the pledge made by the National Government in 1931. Their remarks would have been a good deal more effective if they had voted to fulfil the pledge then given.
LORD LLOYD: I shall not follow the noble Marquess into a discussion on central responsibility, although, obviously, I could make a fairly complete answer to that. I desire to point out that the words of the noble Marquess, Lord Linlithgow, while obviously desiring to clarify the matter, clearly do not require assent; they are in the form of consultation. Nothing will satisfy us and those for whom we are acting unless it is made perfectly clear that the assent of the people concerned is the condition adhered to in the machinery of this Bill. Nothing else will comply, in our view, with the original promise of the Government.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I certainly do not quarrel in any way with the desire of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, to see that some machinery is provided, if that is possible, which will satisfy Parliament that the minorities do agree to any change which is to be made. It is quite true that part of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, was designed to that end. He wanted to insert this statement, which appears in the next Amendment on the Paper:
"A statement formulated after due investigation, as to the extent to which the minorities affected are in favour of the proposed amendment."
The objection to putting phrases of that kind in an Act is this. Who is going to decide what is "due investigation"? May I call your Lordships' attention—because I think this point has been a little overlooked—to the fact that the Governor-General or the Governor, as the case may be, when forwarding any such Resolution and Address to the Secretary of State, shall transmit therewith a statement of his opinion as to the proposed Amendment, and, in particular, as to the effect which it would have on the interests of any minority, and the Secretary of State shall cause such statement to be laid before Parliament.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is his opinion; not the opinion of the minority.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: How is he to form his opinion without consulting the minority? That is the difficulty. He has got to ascertain whether the minorities do, or do not, approve of a particular course of action.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What the Bill says is that he has to form his opinion of the effect it will have on the interests of minorities. The minorities may be ill-advised. They may be wrong in their view as to their own interests. The point is that the Communal Award has nothing to do with that. The minorities may be as wrong as possible, provided they do not assent. Then the Communal Award operates, and the Government are pledged. Therefore it is not a question of the Governor reporting upon the effect this will have on the interests of minorities. He may say: "These are very foolish people, who take a wrong view of their interests, and it cannot be helped."
LORD MIDDLETON: May I say one word upon this? Indians read the pledge that was given to them in the way I have already indicated, and unless suitable words are devised to give them what they understood they were given in the Communal Award, they will look at the Bill and say: "Where is it?" The Bill as it stands will cause much confusion and doubt and suspicion, and that is why Indians feel the necessity of the words of my Amendment being inserted.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I really do not see how the Governor-General or the Governor can give his opinion upon the effect which the proposed alteration would have upon minorities without ascertaining whether the minorities approve of it or not; but if there is doubt on that subject, I am quite willing to accept words such as those proposed by my noble friend behind me; or, at any rate, I am quite willing to consider words of that kind, because I agree it is essential that Parliament should know whether the minorities do or do not approve of any change which is proposed. As I have already said, no Governor-General will ever be left in doubt as to whether minorities approve or disapprove of a change of that kind which is proposed affecting their interest, because they very soon make their voices heard. I think the only way in which you can ascertain whether minorities wish a change to be made, or whether they do not wish it to be made, is by listening to what they say. I can imagine no other way in which it can be done, but I am certainly prepared to consider whether it might not
36
make the intentions of the Bill still clearer if words—I do not pledge myself to the actual words of my noble friend—of the kind suggested were added to the clause. If that is accepted, I shall be very glad to accept an Amendment moved by my noble friend, or will move an Amendment myself on Report stage of the Bill.
LORD MIDDLETON: May I reply very briefly? It is obvious that the noble Marquess has studied the implications of this clause with his legal advisers, but they do not see eye to eye with mine, and have come to a diametrically different conclusion. Therefore, the matters must be somehow in doubt, and it does seem essential that this clause should be understood and that its implications should be fully understood in India. I am perfectly willing to withdraw Amendments that are in my name if the noble Marquess can look into things again and make this perfectly clear. It seems to me the most vital clause in the Bill, because of the misunderstandings that must arise if it is not made perfectly clear. The noble Marquess admitted—I hope I am not saying anything misleading—when I asked him a specific question two or three times, that it was possible to make a change in the Communal Award within ten years in certain circumstances, but in the pledge it is stated that that cannot be so. It is just that kind of thing which is so confusing to poor laymen like myself, and is beyond our comprehension. How can it be laid down that it must not be done within ten years while in the Bill it is possible to do it? I ask the noble Marquess if he will himself bring this matter up again on the Report stage with the Amendments, which must be carefully worded if we are to accept them. It must be left in no doubt that the terms of the Communal Award are not in any way touched upon.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I think I told my noble friend I would do that.
LORD LLOYD: My noble friend suggested that words would be introduced, or that lie would consider introducing them, on the lines of the noble Marquess. That, I would point out again, is merely another aspect of consultation and not of assent. May I put it this way? Will he, at any rate, give us this pledge, that

37
he will consider putting in words which will maintain the actual condition of insisting on the assent prescribed in the Communal Award as it is to-day? If he will, that will be another matter. There must be assent, not another form of consultation.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: I think those anxious to assist in this matter would be glad if the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, or the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, would give us some indication of what is really implied by the phrase—"after due investigation." I have not gathered from the speeches which I have listened to exactly what machinery they are thinking of which would be of assistance. Those of us who are anxious to help would be glad if we had some information about that.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Are we not rather getting at cross purposes? Would it not be better to accept the suggestion of the noble Marquess? I am sure he will consult the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, and the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, to see if they can arrive at some agreed form of getting the machinery. As I am on my feet I would like to say one word in regard to the remark of the noble Marquess who suggested that the speech of Lord Middleton would be mischievous in India. I think that if these Amendments had not been put down after we had received telegrams from India to put them down, that would have been a cause of mischief in India.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: If my suggestion is not accepted, the House will draw its own conclusions.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think that the noble Marquess, Lord Linlithgow, was reasonable. Let me make a suggestion on my own responsibility for the drafting of the Amendment. I do not speak with any authority, but I think it will be quite easy to leave out the words "after due investigation," and leave the words to read: "a statement formulated as to the extent of which minorities affected are in favour of the proposed Amendment." That is as clear as daylight, and is absolutely the terms of the Communal Award. Surely we are not going to find in the House of Lords a reluctance to fulfil what is quite obviously a pledge which the Government have made. I do not think there
38
can be the slightest doubt about it. I am astonished that my noble friend Lord Lothian should have made the parallel with the so-called pledge as to the passing of the Second Reading. This is a question of what the Government themselves have promised. They have promised that machinery shall be provided. I wonder whether they remember that. I suggest to my noble friend Lord Linlithgow, for whose opinion I have the very highest respect, that if I persuade my noble friends to leave out those few words "after due investigation" and make the reading thereby translucently clear, he, on his part, will support us in trying to persuade the Government to reconsider it. If my noble friend the Secretary of State says he is much impressed by the debate and would like to have time to consider it all, we would all wish to give him time. I must say that I do not think it is fair to say that consultation is the same thing as assent. That really is not the case.
LORD MIDDLETON: The noble Marquess, Lord Linlithgow, put a specific question to me. I would like to say that our Amendment was drafted by an eminent lawyer and his note was that it carries out the pledge in the White Paper and embodies the assent of the communities themselves. I think the noble Marquess, Lord Zetland, indicated that he would be willing to reconsider the whole question.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I am sure the noble Lord will realise that these matters have been gone into over and over again with the greatest care and I really do not think the result of my going further into the matter would be in the least likely to alter my views with regard to it. What I did say was that, with a view of trying to make it quite clear that the assent of the minorities is to be secured, I would consider accepting words on the lines put forward by the noble Marquess, Lord Linlithgow. Beyond that I cannot go.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD MIDDLETON LORD MIDDLETON had given Notice of an Amendment, to insert in the second paragraph in subsection (1), after "therewith," the words:
"(a) a statement formulated after due investigation, as to the extent to which the minorities affected are in favour of the proposed amendment; and
"(b)
The noble Lord said: I would like to revise the terms of this Amendment and to move it in this form: after "therewith" insert:

"(a) a statement as to the extent to which the minorities affected are in favour of the proposed amendment; and

(b)".

I hope that will meet the view of the noble Marquess, Lord Linlithgow. The Amendment is the same as on the Paper with the words "formulated after due investigation" left out.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN moved to add to paragraph (c) in subsection (2): "or that in any Provincial Legislature in which no seats are reserved for women not more than two seats may be so
Amendment moved—
Page 188, line 33, after ("therewith") insert:
("(a) a statement as to the extent to which the minorities affected are in favour of the proposed amendment; and
(b)").—(Lord Middleton.)
On Question, Whether the proposed words shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 28; Not-Contents, 88.

CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Bertie of Thame, V. [Teller.]

Lloyd, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Middleton, L.

Salisbury, M.

Milne, L.

Abinger, L.

Monkswell, L.

Balfour, E.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Mount Temple, L.

Effingham, E.

Carrington, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Lindsay, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), L. [Teller.]

Phillimore, L.

Mansfield, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Morton, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Rochdale, L.

Strange, E. (D. Atholl.)

Islington, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Lawrence, L.

Straehie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Peel, E.

Faringdon, L.

Plymouth, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Hailsham, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Powis, E.

Gainford, L.

Stanhope, E.

Greenway, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) (L. Privy Seal.)

Strafford, E.

Hampton, L.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Allenby, V.

Hastings, L.

Somerset, D.

Elibank, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Wellington, D.

Falmouth, V.

Jessel, L.

Goschen, V.

Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

Bath, M.

Halifax, V.

Lamington, L.

Crewe, M.

Mersey, V.

Marley, L.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Ullswater, V.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Linlithgow, M.

Meston, L.

Reading, M.

Portsmouth, L. Bp.

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Zetland, M.

Ormathwaite, L.

Alness, L.

Palmer, L.

Albemarle, E.

Arnold, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Bathurst, E.

Askwith, L.

Rennell, L.

Bradford, E.

Biddulph, L.

Rhayader, L.

Cavan, E.

Bingley, L.

St. Levan, L.

De La Warr, E.

Chesham, L.

Sanderson, L.

Denbigh, E.

Claawilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Snell, L.

Derby, E.

Stafford, L.

Feversham, E.

Clinton, L.

Stanmore, L.

Fortescue, E.

Cornwallis, L.

Stonehaven, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

de Clifford, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Iveagh, E.

Desborough, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Lichfield, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Templemore, L.

Lytton, E.

Tenterden, L.

Midleton, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Wakehurst, L.

Minto, E.

Elton, L.

Wolverton, L.

Woodbridge, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

reserved. "The noble Marquess said: This is an Amendment to make it possible, with the consent of the Legislature, to reserve a, certain number of seats for women in each of the Provincial Legislatures. Noble Lords will remember that subsection (3), on the

41
whole, makes provision that the Legislatures in India may not make, on constitutional grounds, recommendations for the alteration of the Constitution within ten years—that is, alterations which must be submitted to Parliament with a Report from the Secretary of State. Clause 304 (2) (c) makes it possible for the Legislature to make a recommendation for the alteration of the Constitution in certain respects within less than ten years. It reads:
"any amendment providing that, in the ease of women, literacy shall be substituted for any higher educational standard for the time being required as a qualification for the franchise, or providing that women, if duly qualified, shall be entered on electoral rolls without any application being made far the purpose by them or on their behalf."
Subsection (3) provides that such a Resolution may be submitted to Parliament for consideration in less than ten years.
The proposal I have to make is to acid to paragraph (c) the words of my Amendment, the effect of which is to make possible the reservation within ten years of a seat for women in the North-West Frontier Province if the Legislature of that Province desire, or to, make possible in certain other Provinces the reservation of two seats instead of one. The position of a woman in a Legislature of 109 or 200 is a very difficult one, and from her point of view and from that of representing women's interests it is very desirable that not less titan two women should sit together. My general reasons for this are reasons which I think will have the support and sympathy of your Lordships and will have the support and sympathy of a very large number of people in another place. Students of social conditions in India realise and agree that one of the main difficulties in India are social conditions associated with such matters as child marriages. The conditions are very difficult and are entrenched in social customs of the country. Noble Lords often talk very eloquently about the great services which this country has rendered to India, and concerning this I have no challenge to make. It is, however, common ground that British rule has been unable in such matters to have much effect, for the reason that it is almost impossible for an alien Government, or a Government situated 6,000 miles away, to affect the
42
social and domestic customs of the country.
Now if there is one thing which is really going to benefit India, it is that some of these customs have been reformed; there is a very large body in India which seeks to reform them, and the head and front of that movement is the women themselves. Nothing is more remarkable than the growth of the women's movement in India. It has, it is true, been mixed up with the agitation against British rule, but much the greatest reform is that which is concerned with the reform of some of the customs which lie at the root of the weakness of women in India and their ill-health. In this Bill, therefore, some provision is made to secure not only the inclusion of women on the roll but also the reservation in each Legislature of a certain number of seats for women. Noble Lords will agree that nobody can express effectively before the Legislature what women feel in matters affecting women and children in some of these customs but women themselves. It cannot be done by a man. Therefore, if the Legislatures are going to be brought together to consider some of these matters—for instance, to enforce the Sarda Act, which we have been unable to enforce—it will be because there is adequate expression of opinion by women from their places in the Legislatures.
Therefore, I attach the very greatest importance to there being one or two women in every Legislature to bring these matters before the Legislatures direct. In this Amendment, while I do not propose that the Government should alter the actual distribution of seats now, I do suggest that it should be within the power of each Legislature within the next ten years, if so desired, to ask Parliament to reserve one or two seats for women in those Provincial Legislatures which either have no women, or only one. I think the Government can hardly resist the Amendment. It is entirely in conformity with their own policy elsewhere, and it puts the initiative on the Legislature itself. I do not propose that we should impose anything on the North-West Frontier Province which it does not desire, but I suggest that we make it possible for that Province to bring forward this proposal in an authoritative way, and in a way which would induce Parliament to agree to it if the Legislature so desires. In the

43
general interests of social reform in India I think it is very important that you should make it possible for women to speak their minds on these matters in every Legislature in India.
Amendment moved—
Page 189, line 24, after ("behalf") insert ("or that in any Provincial Legislature in which no seats are reserved for women not more than two seats may be so reserved.").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I should like, in a few sentences, to support the Amendment which has just been moved, and to express the hope that the Government may see their way to accept it. The noble Marquess has quite shortly and clearly put before your Lordships the reasons which lie behind this Amendment. I have already, in this place, more than once, emphasised the profound impression which I have received, from such study as I have been able to make, of the steadily growing place which the better educated women of India are taking in the affairs of that country. It is, I think, not merely in matters of social reform that their influence is and ought to be great, but also in moral matters, to which I will not allude, but which require, in some parts of India, the strictest attention, and which are best dealt with by women themselves. There is nothing more remarkable in some parts of India than the place which women, even in the villages, are now taking in domestic affairs. I think some of us scarcely realise how, in this matter, in the last ten years, there has been a remarkable extension of the influence of women. If the franchise is to be extended it will be largely nugatory unless women are able to ensure that in every Legislature there shall be at least one, and if possible more than one, spokeswoman who can represent them and their point of view. This particular Amendment comes at the end of a paragraph which contemplates giving the Legislature, within ten years, the power to extend the franchise to women in two defined respects, and I venture to hope that the Government will not feel that the addition of the words proposed by the noble Marquess will upset the scheme which they have in view. I am sure it will be of great value, small though it may seem, and I hope it may be accepted.
LORD SNELL: My noble friends and myself would very much like to give the fullest support to the Amendment suggested by Lord Lothian. I need not detain your Lordships by repeating the arguments used in favour of an increase in women's representation, or to urge upon your Lordships the enormous importance for the future of India of the active participation in its administrative and social life of an increasing number of intelligent and well-informed women. Events are moving quickly in India, but in no Department more quickly than in the awareness of women of the part they can play in the reorganisation of social life, and on those grounds I very much hope that the Government will be able to accept the Amendment.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): With all that has fallen from the noble Marquess who moved the Amendment, and the most reverend Primate, and the noble Lord who supported it, as to the importance of women in the present and future political life of India, I find myself in the most complete agreement. I think there has been no phenomenon of the last five or even ten years which has been so remarkable, or indeed can be so readily measured, as the degree to which the education of women has come into prominence and the womanhood of India over an immensely wide field has wakened to the possibilities of new powers for good of women generally. With all that I am in entire and complete agreement, but I am bound to say that I think the argument on those lines that has been advanced has been a great deal wider than the Amendment itself. Your Lordships will not forget that it was those very considerations that led the Government to include in the Bill provision for the representation of women in every Legislature except one, where special conditions prevailed—the North-West Frontier Province. When the noble Marquess opposite speaks of the loneliness of a single woman in a Legislature, it is fair to point out that his Amendment would not touch that, because all that his Amendment does is to give power to the only Provincial Legislature affected—namely, the North-West Frontier Province—to make provision that not more than two seats may he reserved for women.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I recognised that difficulty, and I am prepared to modify my Amendment by saying that in any Provincial Legislature not more than two seats may be reserved.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: That is the answer which I anticipated the noble Marquess would make when I pointed out the effect of his Amendment, because, of course, as the Amendment stands, the only effect of his Amendment is the rather narrow effect of permitting the North-West Frontier Province to make provision for the inclusion of women inside ten years. He knows as well as I do that there are rather special conditions prevailing in the North-West Frontier Province that on the whole would make it improbable that they would desire to exercise this power, even if it were given to them. I myself would have felt that it was for that reason unnecessary to accept this proposal, having regard also to the fact that if this Amendment is not made it will always be possible, provided the rest of this clause is accepted by Parliament, for His Majesty's Government to make this alteration for the benefit of the North-West Frontier Province, should they so desire. It would be possible for His Majesty's Government to do that at any time. Incidentally, if this Amendment were accepted, it would involve, I am advised, a certain measure of redrafting in the matters set out in subsection (2) (c), which of course could be done at a later stage of the Bill.
Therefore the position of the Government is this. They do not regard this Amendment as necessary, though they are in complete agreement with everything that has fallen from those who have urged it; but if, in spite of what I have said as to the improbability of any use being made of the Amendment, and as to the power of His Majesty's Government at any time to make the change themselves, the noble Marquess and those associated with him still adhere to their view and desire to press it upon the attention of the Government, then I have no doubt that my noble friend would certainly be prepared to give weight to what they have said and consider inserting words on Report, which would in any case, I think, have to be in somewhat different form from those which stand at present on the Paper.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Do I understand that the Government state quite definitely that if any of the Legislatures, without exercising the peculiar constitutional method which is provided in this proposal, pass a Resolution dealing with this matter, it will, as far as they can commit their successors, be the policy of His Majesty's Government to try to give effect to it?
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: So far as I have any authority to answer, my answer would be that it would certainly be in their power, and I assume that it would certainly be their policy.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Before ten years?
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: Within ten years.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Then I withdraw the Amendment now, and I will consult my friends with a view to bringing forward a further Amendment on the point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MIDDLETON LORD MIDDLETON moved to leave out subsection (4). The noble Lord said: We hold that subsection (4) is one that should be eliminated, because it contains the elements of a breach of faith. I asked the Secretary of State this afternoon whether in any circumstances whatever the Communal Award could he set on one side or altered. I think when I put the question three times he admitted that it could be. If it can be altered within ten years, then I hold that there has been a departure from the pledge given, and the object of my Amendment is to remove something which contains what I believe is a breach of faith. There may be explanations of why it is necessary to do this, but that is the plain English of it.
Amendment moved—
Page 139, line 39, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Middleton.)
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The noble Lord cannot expect me to go over the ground all over again that I have already traversed several times this evening. It does not seem to have occurred to the noble Lord, however, that a pledge of the kind contained in the Communal Award must, of course, be read with the Bill itself. I cannot accept this Amendment because that would deprive us of the power of making any

47
alteration of any kind, such as that which has just been proposed by the noble Marquess with regard to women. We should be precluded from making any alteration of that kind.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I only rise to be quite sure how we stand as regards the proposals made by the noble Marquess, Lord Linlithgow. Lord Linlithgow tried to save the Government from the discredit which I am afraid will attach to them on their proceedings this afternoon, and I should be very glad to know how we stand about it. We must be satisfied with what crumbs we can get, and we understood from what passed that my noble friend the Secretary of State was going to consider favourably—I cannot be quite sure whether I ought to say favourably; but was going to consider Lord Linlithgow's Amendment. Would he make it quite clear exactly how the thing stands?
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: Yes. So far as subsection (4) of this clause is concerned, I have already said I will consider the Amendment proposed by Lord Linlithgow.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Your Lordships will see that after this there is a second Amendment—after "may" to insert "by order." There is also a manuscript Amendment of Lord Linlithgow, and so I will put the Question that the first five words of the subsection stand part.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD RANKEILLOUR LORD RANKEILLOUR moved, in subsection (4) after "His Majesty in Council may", to insert "by order". The noble Lord said: This is a very small Amendment, and has nothing to do with the main controversy. It is really a reversion to King Charles's head. I have brought this up on several occasions, and have never yet had an answer, but unless these words are in, Parliament need not be consulted at all. The subsection is open to the construction that you may bring in an Order in Council or you may proceed otherwise, but the words as they stand leave a doubt whether proceedings might not be taken under this subsection without confirmation by Parliament.
Amendment moved—
Page 189, line 39, after ("may") insert ("by order").—(Lord Rankeillour.)
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I think the noble Lord will find that this point and many similar points to which he has directed our attention during these debates will be met by the Amendment which I propose to move to Clause 305.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I thank the noble Marquess. I hope it will be so. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW had handed in a manuscript Amendment in subsection (4) to insert at the end of proviso (i) "and the views of the representatives in any such Legislature of any minority likely to be so affected". The noble Marquess said: I do hope that my noble friend the Secretary of State will consider some words of this kind. They would secure that the representatives of minorities would be consulted before the Governor or the Governor-General came to a view as to the opinion which a minority might hold on any particular subject. In truth, I can conceive no other machinery for ascertaining the views of a minority than by consulting their chosen representatives unless noble Lords who take a view somewhat different to me in this matter really contemplate a plebiscite of the whole minority, an expedient which I should think is ill-suited to the conditions in India in a matter of this kind. I am glad to think that the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill is prepared to consider some such words as these and, I should hope, consider them favourably. After what has been said do not propose to proceed with my Amendment at this stage.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am very much obliged to my noble friend for his intervention, but perhaps I might be allowed to make it quite clear that we never suggested a plebiscite or anything so absurd as that. Of course communities must speak through their representatives; that is clear. The difference between us is the difference between consultation and assent. That was the whole point. If the Amendment is not going to be dealt with on the present occasion, which I understand to be the ease, then I hope, between now and Report stage, the Government may see fit to go a little further than even my noble friend has suggested.
EARL PEEL: May I say this to the noble Marquess, Lord Linlithgow? He has alluded to representatives in the Upper Chamber or Assembly, but in all these communities they have well recognised leaders who are not always sitting in these Assemblies. I just mention that point.
Clause 304 agreed to.
Clause 305:
Orders in Conned.
305.—(1) Subject as hereinafter provided, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament the draft of any Order which it is proposed to recommend His Majesty to make in Council under any provision of this Act which expressly authorises the making of such an Order, and no further proceedings shall be taken in relation thereto except in pursuance of an Address presented to His Majesty by both Houses of Parliament praying that the Order may be made either in the form of the draft, or with such Amendments as may have been agreed to by Resolutions of both Houses.
Provided that, if at any time when Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or when both Houses of Parliament are adjourned for more than fourteen days, the Secretary of State is of opinion that on account of ugency an Order in Council should be made under this Act forthwith, it shall not be necessary for a draft, of the Order to be kid before Parliament, but the Order shall cease to have effect at the expiration of twenty-eight days from the date on which the Commons. House first sits after the making of the Order unless within that period Resolutions approving the making of the Order are passed by both Houses of Parliament.
(2) Subject to any express provision of this Act His Majesty in Council may by a subsequent Order, made in accordance with the provisions of the preceding subsection, revoke or vary any Order previously made by hint in Council under this Act.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved, in subsection (1), to leave out the words "which expressly authorises the making of such an Order," and, after subsection (2), to insert a new subsection. The noble Marquess said: This is an attempt to meet a criticism which has been. levelled more than once against this clause, by my noble friend Lord Rankeillour. I think I told him on a previous occasion I was in no doubt, myself, that all Orders in Council would require to come before Parliament and receive the assent of Parliament; but, in order to make assurance doubly sure" I propose now that we should leave
50
out the words "which expressly authorises the making of such an Order." The clause will then read as follows:
"Subject as hereinafter provided, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament the draft of any Order which it is proposed to recommend His Majesty to make in Council under any provision of this Act.…
I think that will cover every possible contingency so far as laying Orders in Council are concerned. If that is done, I must insert a proviso to safeguard Orders, such as Orders of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, in appeal cases and so on. The second part of my Amendment is designed to safeguard that by including the provision:
"Nothing in this section applies to any Order of His Majesty in Council made in connection with any appeal to His Majesty in Council."
Amendments moved—
Page 190, line 2.3, leave out ("which expressly authorises the making of such an Order").
Page 191, line 5, at end insert:
("(3) Nothing in this section applies to any Order of His Majesty in Council made in connection with any appeal to His Majesty in Council.")—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I think this does effect a very great deal of improvement, and makes it clear that any Order in Council comes before Parliament. What I am afraid it does not make clear is that His Majesty in Council might proceed otherwise than by Order. For instance, under Clause 471, on which the noble Marquess relies for the inquiry before Provincial Autonomy comes in, His Majesty may direct. It does not say "by Order in Council." I imagine that decisions are made in the Privy Council which, technically, are not Orders in Council. For instance, if Proclamations are issued they get approved by the Privy Council. Unless the words "by Order" are put in there might be decisions in Council which will not come before Parliament. I would ask my noble friend to look into this matter before we come to Clause 471.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I shall be very glad to look into the point now raised by the noble Lord. I thought, and hoped, I had met the whole of his case, but if there is still a loophole I shall have it looked into.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I am afraid it is a fairly large one.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 305, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 300 agreed to.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Your Lordships will see that the first name on the next Amendment, to insert a new clause entitled "Commission to enquire into financial position," is that of the late Lord Ampthill, to whom tributes have come from every part of the House this afternoon, and with which I would take this opportunity of associating myself. I therefore call on the noble Lord, Lord Islington, whose name is also associated with the Amendment.
LORD ISLINGTON: I do not move.
Clause 307 [Interpretations, etc.]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The next two Amendments are drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 192, line 24, leave out from ("of") to the end of the line and insert ("Bengal, the State of Manipur, Assam, and any tribal areas connected with Assam;")
Page 192, line 33, leave out ("a Ruler") and insert ("or under the suzerainty of a Ruler who is").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved to insert "'High Court' does not, except where it is expressly so provided, include a High Court in a Federated State." The noble Marquess said: This is not much more than a drafting Amendment, but it is necessary in order to make it clear that the State High Courts are not referred to. We must have a definition to say that "High Court" does not, except where it is expressly so provided, include a High Court in a Federated State.
Amendment moved—
Page 194, line 7, at end insert ("High Court' does not, except where it is expressly so provided, include a High Court in a Federated State;")—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 307, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 308 agreed to.
Clause 309:
Executive Government.
(3) References in the provisions of this Act for the time being in force to the Governor-General and the Federal Government shall, except as respects matters with respect to which the Governor-General is required by the said provisions to act in his discretion, be construed as references to the Governor-General in Council, and any reference to the Federation, except where the reference is to the establishment of the Federation, shall be construed as a reference to British India, the Governor-General in Council, or the Governor-General, as the circumstances and the context may require.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved to insert in subsection (3):
"Provided that—

(a) any reference to the revenues of the Federation shall be construed as a reference to the revenues of the Governor-General in Council;

(b) the revenues of the Governor-General. in Council shall, subject to the provisions of Chapter I of Part VII of this Act with respect to the assignment of the whole or part of the net proceeds of certain taxes and duties to Provinces and to the provisions of this Act with respect to the Federal Railway Authority (so far as any such provisions are for the time being in force), include all revenues and public moneys raised or received either by the Governor-General in Council or by the Governor-General;

(c) the expenses of the Governor-General in discharging his functions as respects matters with respect to which he is required by the provisions of this Act for the time being in force to act in his discretion shall be defrayed out of the revenues of the Governor-General in Council."

The noble Marquess said: I had hoped that my noble friend the Lord Chancellor might have been in his place to deal with this Amendment, because it raises legal points. The object of this and the next Amendment, to insert a new subsection, is to give to the Governor-General during the transitional period discretionary powers and the powers of acting on his individual judgment. The Lord Chancellor, who has now arrived, can explain these matters much more clearly than I can. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 2, at end, insert the said proviso.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry if there is any confusion. There are two Amendments here, and they are both

53
really necessitated by our using what I may call a shorthand expression which is thought to be watertight, and which has to be slightly modified in order to deal with one or two uncovered cases during the transitional period—that is to say, when Provincial Autonomy has been introduced but when the Federation at the Centre has not come into existence. These two Amendments, one with regard to the revenues and the other which comes immediately afterwards with regard to the expression about the exercise of individual judgment, are both designed to stop the hole which would otherwise exist in the Bill by reason of the fact that there are some references in parts of the Bill which are not in Part II which have to be covered during the transitional period.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved to insert after subsection (3):
"(4) Any requirement in this Act that the Governor-General shall exercise his individual judgment with respect to any matter shall not come into force until the establishment of the Federation, but notwithstanding that Part II of this Act has not come into operation, the following provisions of this Act, that is to say—

(a) the provisions requiring the prior sanction of the Governor-General for certain legislative proposals;

(b) the provisions relating to broadcasting;

(c) the provisions relating to directions to, and principles to be observed by, the Federal Railway Authority; and

(d) the provisions relating to Civil Services to be recruited by the Secretary of State,
shall have effect in relation to defence, ecclesiastical affairs, external affairs and the tribal areas as they have effect in relation to matters or Functions with respect to, or in the exercise of, which the Governor-General is by the provisions of this Act for the time being in force required to act in his discretion, and arty reference in any of the provisions of this Act for the time being in force to the special responsibilities of the Governor-General shall be construed as a reference to the special responsibilities which he will have when Part II of this Act comes into operation."

The noble Marquess said: The noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, has already explained this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 198, line 2, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 309, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 310:
Control of the Secretary of State.
(3) While this Part of this Act is in operation the advisers of the Secretary of State shall not be more than twelve, nor less than eight, in number.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved to add to subsection (3):
"and, notwithstanding anything in Part XI of this Act with respect to their term of office, on the establishment of the Federation such of the advisers as the Secretary of State may direct shall cease to hold office."
The noble Marquess said: This is another Amendment which is necessary to deal with the transitional period before the Federation comes into operation. The Secretary of State's Council in this country may number from eight to twelve. On the other hand, when the new Constitution comes into operation, this Council will be a small one, and the number permitted will range from three to six. The appointments actually are for five years, and it might happen, therefore, that when the provisions of this Bill come into operation, necessitating a reduction of the number of the Secretary of State's advisers from a maximum of twelve to a maximum of six, and. from a minimum of eight to a minimum of three, he might still find himself enjoying the advantage of a larger number of advisers than he would be entitled to, and this Amendment is in order to prevent that eventuality taking place. It may be said that it is possible that certain of his advisers might find themselves put off, so to speak, before their five years had expired, and that that might be regarded as rather unfair to them, but anyone who was appointed to a position of that kind would, of course, have it made clear to him that, if the new Constitution came into operation before he had concluded his five years, he would not be entitled to serve the full term. That is the object of this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 198, line 25, at end, insert the said words.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
LORD RANKEILLOUR: May I ask the Secretary of State a question? I think it is provided elsewhere that this reduces the number of Councillors. Will they have

55
the same powers as the present Council during the transitional period?
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: Yes, during the transitional period.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: The same powers as now?
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: Yes.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 310, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 311 agreed to.
Clause 312 [Legislature]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The Amendment in my name to this clause is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 199, line 30, at end, insert ("and references in those provisions to Federal taxes shall be construed as references to taxes imposed by laws of the Indian Legislature:").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 312, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 313 agreed to.
Clause 314 [Provisions as to Federal Court and certain, other Federal authorities]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved to insert:
"(2) Nothing in this section affects any power of His Majesty in Council to fix a date later than the commencement of Part III of this Act for the coming into operation, either generally or for particular purposes, of any of the provisions of this Act relating to the Federal Court, the Federal Public Service Commission or the Federal Railway Authority."
The noble Marquess said: This is not much more than a drafting Amendment. Certain bodies will come into existence which are really Federal bodies before the Federation actually comes into operation—that is to say, after Provincial Autonomy has been established; bodies like the Railway Authority and the Federal Court. Now it is conceivable that it might not be possible to bring one or other of them into existence exactly at the same time; that is to say, at the moment of the establishment of Provincial Autonomy; and this Amendment is merely to safeguard that position and to enable, say, the Railway Authority to be brought into existence at a slightly later period, if it was found impossible to bring it in before.
Amendment moved—
Page 200, line 23, at end insert the said subsection (2).—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 314, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 315 to 338 agreed to.
Clause 339 [Disqualifications for membership]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: These Amendments are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 212, line 24, after ("offence") insert ("or corrupt or illegal practice")
Page 212, line 27, leave out ("conviction whereof is a") and insert ("or practice entailing").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 339, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 340 to 349 agreed to.
Clause 350 [Previous sanction, of Governor required for certain legislative proposals]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 218, line 40, at end insert:—
("(g) affects the grant of relief from any Burma tax on income in respect of income taxed or taxable in the United Kingdom; or").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 350, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 351 to 356 agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I understand that this is a convenient moment in accordance with the arrangement announced by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House to break off the consideration of this Bill and to go on to the next business. Therefore on behalf of my noble friend I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT (AGREEMENT) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, last year, during the debate on the Finance Bill I was asked if the Government had given up all ideas of instituting schemes of public works and I replied that when schemes of a remunerative character were produced and it appeared either advisable or necessary that Government assistance should be given, the Government would give favourable consideration to the proposal. This Bill is an example in proof of the correctness of my statement. The Schedule attached to this Bill is an agreement which has been signed by the Treasury, the London Passenger Transport Board, the Great Western Railway and the London and North Eastern Railway Company for a great scheme of transport development in North and North-East London. The scheme of works is given in the first Schedule of the Bill on pages 14 and 15. They provide for a number of matters, but the principal works are the building of twelve miles of new tubes, the electrification of forty-four miles of railway, the doubling and electrification of a further twelve and a half miles of railway and the substitution of trolley-buses for trams on 148 route miles. I believe that affects something like one quarter of the passengers carried by trams in the Greater London area. It also provides for the reconstruction of stations at King's Cross, Post Office and certain other stations in the Central London area, and the power supply of the London Passenger Transport Board is to be enlarged and improved, the scheme being undertaken in close consultation with the Minister of Transport.
In order to make the scheme possible the Government is prepared to come to the assistance of the three companies concerned by guaranteeing the money required so that it can be raised at a sufficiently low rate of interest. Parliament is asked to give its approval to this scheme in the Bill which actually consists of only two operative clauses. Clause 1 (1) enables the Treasury to guarantee pay-merit of the principal and interest of an issue of securities sufficient to raise a sum not exceeding £40,000,000. This is an outside figure to cover interest during construction and other contingencies in addition to the capital cost of the work
58
which has been provisionally estimated at £35,000,000. The issue of securities will be made for convenience by a holding company with a nominal share capital which will be formed for the purpose under the ægis of the Bank of England. Under subsection (2) any payments by the Treasury in fulfilment of the guarantee will be met from the Consolidated Fund and repayments will be paid into the Exchequer.
Provision is made in subsections (3) and (4) for Parliament to be informed of any guarantees given under the Act and of any payments from the Consolidated Fund and repayments to the Exchequer. These provisions follow generally the precedent of similar legislation in the past. By subsection (5) it is provided that if the Agreement is amended by any further Agreement or by a certificate of the Minister of Transport—to allow, for example, of a variation of the works which are shown in the Schedule—copies of the Agreement or certificate will be laid before Parliament. Some variation in detail may perhaps prove to be necessary in the working out of the scheme, and if so Parliament will be informed. The undertakers will of course be under obligation to carry out the scheduled works as they stand as soon as Parliament has given the necessary powers. Any minor variations will require agreement between the Government and the undertakers, and it will be unnecessary and inconvenient to require the consent of both Houses to such changes once the scheme has been agreed in general principle.
Clause 2 of the Bill relates to exemption from Stamp Duty. The guaranteed securities to be issued by the new holding company will pay the loan capital duty of 2s. 6d. per £100 in the ordinary course, and the effect of this provision in the Bill is to relieve the undertakers from additional Stamp Duty which would otherwise be payable as a result of the-method of borrowing adopted in this case. The proposal of the Government is that there shall be a holding company which will issue capital as required to these three railway companies as they undertake the work. It would be impossible to have three Bills for the three companies because it would take up too much Parliamentary time and we wish to get on with the work. There

59
fore the idea is to have one holding company set up and it would be obviously unfair to expect the railway companies to pay Stamp Duty on the shares issued by the holding company a second time when they have to borrow from the holding company for any purpose. Therefore Clause 2 provides that Stamp Duty shall be paid once, as would normally occur if there had not been a holding company.
Your Lordships will observe that under Clause 1 of the Schedule the transport undertakers engage to come to Parliament as soon as possible for the necessary statutory powers, and, if they are granted, to complete the whole work within five years from September 30 next. There is a clause in the Agreement that the Minister of Transport may be authorised to extend that period if it is considered advisable, but it is hoped, and we think it will probably happen, that these works will in fact be completed within the five years period. Under Clause 3 of the Schedule it has been agreed that these guaranteed loans shall mature for repayment at some date to be fixed by the Treasury between fifteen and twenty-five years of the date of issue with an option of prior redemption. There is no sinking fund, the proposal being that as these works will at the end of fifteen or twenty-five years be earning money the respective companies should be in a position to be able
60
to issue stock themselves in order to repay the holding company the amount borrowed.
In the Second Schedule your Lordships will see on page 16 the borrowings to be allotted to each of the undertaking companies—70 per cent. to the London Passenger Transport Board, 5 per cent. to the Great Western Railway and 25 per cent. to the London and North Eastern Railway. I do not know whether your Lordships would like me to go further into the scheme, but perhaps the best thing would be that I should be prepared to answer such questions as your Lordships may desire to ask. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CROYDON CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
WEST HAMPSHIRE WATER BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.