Lords Sitting of 9 July 1935

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE.
The Right Honourable Charles, Baron Bledisloe, G.C.M.G., K.B.E., having been created Viscount Bledisloe of Lydney in the County of Gloucester—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR.
John Buchan, Esquire, C.H., having been created Baron Tweedsmuir of Elsfield in the County of Oxford—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (SCARBOROUGH) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.

SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Gainford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Amendment of s. 38. of 13 & 14 Geo. 5, c. 16]:
LORD GAINFORD: There are three Amendments to this Clause. The first two are only drafting, and the object of
64
the third is to meet the point raised on the Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell. The point which he raised was that though the Bill was an uncontroversial Bill certain fishermen would be deprived of their rights of fishing. I understand that the Amendments, which have been drafted by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, meet the noble Lord's points. All parties are agreed, therefore, and I now beg to move the first two Amendments, which are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Clause 2, page 1, leave out lines 14 to 18 and insert:
("The following amendments shall be made in Section thirty-eight of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1923 (which section specifies the matters which may be provided for by an order made under Section thirty-seven of that Act):
(a) in subsection (1), after paragraph (k), there shall be inserted the following paragraph")
Clause2, page 2, leave out lines 1 and 2 and insert:
("(b) at the end of subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following proviso:—").—(Lord Gainford.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved to insert at the end of the clause:
"(c) at the end of the section there shall be added the following subsection:—
'(4) An order under this Part of this Act for the regulation of eel fisheries or elver fisheries in any particular area shall not be made unless that order, or a previous order under this Part of this Act which is for the time being in force, contains provisions for securing that the members of any fishery board established within that area under this Act or under any Act repealed by this Act include one or more persons appointed by the Minister as representing the interests of persons who carry on in that area the business of fishing for eels and elvers otherwise than with rod and line.'"
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 8, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Gainford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: Before the clause passes I should like to thank the noble Lord and Lord Mount

65
Temple for their help in securing the passage of the Bill, and in meeting the point which I raised on the Second Reading.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Certain dealings with sand or ballast to, be by weight or by the cubic yard.
1.—(1) No person shall (whether on his own behalf or on behalf of another person) sell, agree to sell or agree to carry any sand or ballast otherwise than by weight or by the cubic yard:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply in relation to any sale, agreement for the sale, or agreement for the carriage, of a quantity of sand or ballast the weight of which is less than one ton and the volume of which is less than one cubic yard; and any such sale or agreement is hereafter in this Part of this Act referred to as "an exempted sale or agreement."
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR moved, at the beginning of the clause, to insert "Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act." The noble Marquess said: I venture to think that this Amendment is quite necessary on account of the wording of the title, where the word "conveyance" covers everything that is done in this Bill. It appears that no one can convey his own belongings without all sorts of conditions and restrictions, notwithstanding the fact that the things are his, that he has no agreement for sale or conveyance or anything at all, but is merely carting them about his own purposes, to maintain his own property. I think it will be conceded that there are a great many restrictions and conditions already in regard to the use of highways by vehicles, both commercial and private, and that it is undesirable to increase their number.
It is perfectly true that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill—and I have considerable sympathy with him, because he is not a Minister of the Department concerned, but merely represents it in your Lordships' House and therefore he is not exactly responsible for the exact terms of this Bill—has put down two Amendments to Clause 4 with the object of helping people who convey their own sand and ballast otherwise than on a highway. But there are still quite a number of landowners through whose property highways pass. It will therefore follow that they would not be able to convey their sand or ballast either across or along a highway, even if the Amendments of the noble Lord were agreed to. The whole object of my Amendment is to pave the way for the new clause of which I have given notice after Clause 6, and which lays it down, shortly, that owners of sand or ballast who are conveying their sand or ballast for their own purposes, and not by way of trade or sale or agreement, shall not be subject to all the restrictions and pettifogging conditions laid down by this Bill. In these times, when one wants to encourage people to do things for themselves, I do not see why, after paying for their licences and so on, people should not be allowed to carry their own goods on their own land or across a highway which passes through their own land, without being subject to the surveillance or inspection of the local authority inspector, Customs and Excise officers, and the like.
My proposed clause would also cover the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Eltisley, who wishes to exempt drainage boards from the provisions of the Bill. A drainage board must carry about sand or ballast for their business, but when they do carry it about it is their own property. Therefore I say that if my proposed clause is inserted after Clause 6 it would cover the Amendment of Lord Eltisley. I think it ought to cover all sorts of sand and ballast conveyance. Under the Bill, if a county council or a highway authority happens to go through another county, perhaps, or another authority's area, apparently it could not convey its sand or ballast for making roads without being subject to the inspection and surveillance of the neighbouring authority. This Bill may be de-

67
sirable in some respects, but I think it has been drawn up without very much knowledge of the actual use of sand or ballast; and, indeed, that is evident by the enormous number of Amendments which have been put on the Paper by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. In the hope that it may be able to help owners, whether public or private, in the carrying on of what they have been allowed to do in the past without let or hindrance, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 8, at the beginning insert ("Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act ").—(The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair.)
LORD TEMPLEMORE: At the outset I must express my gratitude to my noble friend the noble Marquess for his words of sympathy with me in the conduct of this Bill. Although I may be at a disadvantage in not being Parliamentary Secretary to this Department, and am only answering for it, as it were, in your Lordships' House, I assure your Lordships that I do not stand in any way in a white sheet and apologise for the badness of this Bill. May I say, with all due respect to my noble friend, though I make no complaint whatever, I think his speech was more suitable to some of the Amendments on which he is going to speak later than it was to this particular Amendment. Also he gave what I may call, without disrespect, a kind of dissertation on the evils of this Bill which was hardly suitable, perhaps, to the Committee stage. As regards this particular Amendment, I am afraid I cannot accept it, because the words which are proposed do not affect the sense of the Bill in any way, and are unnecessary. The noble Marquess will, I am sure, agree with me that there are obvious objections to including redundant words in an Act of Parliament. In that case I hope very much that my noble friend will not press his Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD TEMPLEMORE LORD TEMPLEMORE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out the proviso and insert:
"Provided that this subsection shall not apply—

(a) in relation to any sale, agreement for the sale, or agreement for the carriage,
68
of a quantity of sand or ballast, the weight of which is less than one ton and the volume of which is less than one cubic yard (any such sale or agreement being hereafter in this Part of this Act referred to as an 'exempted sale or agreement');

(b) in relation to any sale, or agreement for the sale, of any sand or ballast, being a sale or agreement of which it is a term that the purchaser is to take delivery of the sand or ballast in or from a vessel as defined by Section seven hundred and forty-two of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894; or

(c) in relation to any agreement for the carriage of any sand or ballast, it and in so far as the agreement provides for the carriage of the sand or ballast by water, and is made for the purpose of giving or taking delivery of that sand or ballast in pursuance of such a sale or agreement as is referred to in paragraph (b) of this proviso."

The noble Lord said: This Amendment retains the exception already provided in the Bill for the sale or carriage of small quantities, and adds a further exception which is intended to meet a point raised by Lord Clwyd in the debate on Second Reading. Dock and harbour authorities sometimes buy or sell sand or ballast by the boat-load. In such a case the quantity of the material is not computed by weight or by the cubic yard but by reference to the tonnage of the vessel in which it is loaded or by some other means. It has been represented on behalf of these authorities that it would cause great and unnecessary hardship to be compelled to weigh these large quantities of material or to measure them by the cubic yard. It is possible to exempt water-borne material from the operation of the Bill without interfering with the main purpose of the Bill, which is to regulate dealings on land. The conveyance of sand and ballast by water has not been subject to malpractices such as have occurred on land. Accordingly this Amendment provides that Clause 1 shall not apply to a sale or agreement for sale where the purchaser is to take delivery in or from a vessel, nor to an agreement for carriage by water for the purpose of giving or taking delivery in such a case.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, leave out lines 12 to 18 and insert the said new proviso.—(Lord Templemore.)
LORD CLWYD: I thank the noble Lord in charge of the Bill for the consideration which he has given to the

69
point I raised, and wish to say that the Amendment fully meets the difficulties I had in view.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ELTISLEY LORD ELTISLEY moved to insert at the end of subsection (1):
"Provided that this subsection shall not apply to the carrying of any sand or ballast by a drainage board or by any person on behalf of a drainage board in respect of sand or ballast which is removed or carried for the purposes of disposal only and not for sale."
The noble Lord said: Since I tabled this Amendment an Amendment has been put down by the Minister in charge of the Bill which goes some way, and perhaps the whole way, that I desire to go. My Amendment has beets tabled on behalf of the Catchment Boards Association, who are apprehensive to some extent as to whether they will get full exemption in cases where sand or ballast is being carried, not by themselves necessarily, but by someone whom they employ and by, perhaps, someone whom they actually pay to move that sand or ballast. I think the Amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, goes a long way to meet that case, and if he could give me an assurance on the point I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 18, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Eltisley.)
LORD TEMPLEMORE: As my noble friend has justly surmised, I am in a most reasonable mood this afternoon. The Government accept the principle of this Amendment, which is to exclude from the Bill contracts for the removal of refuse, and a Government Amendment to add a new subsection (4) has been put down to deal with it. The only difference in substance between the two Amendments is that, whereas Lord Eltisley's deals only with cases of removal on behalf of drainage boards, the Government Amendment deals with all cases. As regards the question my noble friend has asked, whether catchment boards would have full exemption in the case of other people disposing of their sand or gravel whom they have to pay to remove it, I understand they would have exemption in that case. In these circumstances I hope my noble friend will not press his Amendment.
LORD ELTISLEY: In view of that assurance I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD PHILLIMORE: May I ask one question: Does the noble Lord's new Amendment cover the case where a catchment board is moving sand or ballast on to somebody else's property, the consideration being really only that the board was glad to get the leave of the person concerned to have the ballast dumped on his property?
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I am glad to answer my noble friend. I understand that my Amendment is so thorough that it covers that and every other case that could arise.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD TEMPLEMORE LORD TEMPLEMORE moved, after subsection (3), to insert:
"(4) An agreement which, in a case where the owner of any sand or ballast undertakes to transfer the property therein to another person in consideration only of an undertaking by that person to remove the sand or ballast from the place at which the property therein passes to him, is made for the purpose of removing the sand or ballast as aforesaid, shall be deemed for the purposes of till; Part of this Act not to be an agreement for the carriage of that sand or ballast."
The noble Lord said: I now move the Amendment which is to meet the case of my noble friend. I should like to explain it in a few words. It is intended to meet a point which has been raised on behalf of certain dock authorities and catchment boards. It may happen that material such as sand or ashes, which falls within the definition of sand or ballast contained in this Bill, is forming an obstruction on land and someone has to be paid to take it away. It is clearly unnecessary that in such a case the material should be weighed or measured before it is carted away. This Amendment accordingly provides that where the only consideration which the contractor gives, in return for his obtaining possession of the material, is an undertaking to remove it, the contract shall not be deemed to be art agreement for the carriage of the material for the purposes of this Part of the Act. This has the effect of placing such transactions outside the scope of the Bill except in so far as the contractor, if he takes the material along a public highway, will have to provide the carter with a. conveyance note stating that the material is not

71
being conveyed in pursuance of a sale or of an agreement to sell or to carry.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 14, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Receptacles for measuring sand or ballast by the cubic yard]:
LORD TEMPLEMORE: The object of my Amendment to this clause is merely to make good an omission from the original text of the Bill. It is really drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 36, after ("re-verified") insert ("and re-stamped").—(Lord Temple-more.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Restrictions on use of vehicles for conveying sand or ballast.
(2) If any person conveys any sand or ballast in contravention of this section, or causes any sand or ballast to be conveyed in contravention of this section, he shall be guilty of an offence; and if any person, with intent to defraud or deceive

(a) forges any tare weight mark approved for the purposes of this section by the Board of Trade, or

(b) alters or defaces any such tare weight mark placed on a vehicle, or

he shall be guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to both such imprisonment and such fine.
In this subsection the expression "forges" has the same meaning as in the Forgery Act, 1913.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: The Amendments in my name on this clause are drafting. I beg to move them.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 11, leave out ("in any") and insert ("by means of a").
Page 4, line 12, leave out ("is accurately") and insert ("ascertained in such manner as may be prescribed, is").
Page 4, line 18, leave out ("in any receptacle forming part") and insert ("by means").
Page 4, line 19, after ("receptacle") insert ("in which the sand or ballast it so conveyed").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN THE EARL OF COURTOWN moved, in subsection (1), to leave eat "with intent to defraud or deceive." The noble Earl said: I do not think this is much more than a drafting Amendment. It is to delete the words "with intent to defraud or deceive." I submit that it is really impossible in a weights and measures case to prove intent to deceive, and therefore I hope the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 35, leave out ("with intent to defraud or deceive").—(Earl Courtown.)
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My noble friend says his Amendment is little more than drafting. I am afraid it is a great deal more than that; in fact I am told that if I accepted it I should infringe the Common Law of England. I am afraid, therefore, I cannot accept the Amendment for the reasons I will give. The clause as it stands imposes a fairly heavy penalty on a person who forges, alters or counterfeits a tare weight mark with intent to defraud or deceive. It should be explained that the words "defraud" and "deceive" have different applications: if the forgery or the counterfeit is made in order to mislead a purchaser it may be a case of defrauding, but if it is done in order to mislead an inspector, it can only be a case of deceiving. If these words were omitted a person who quite innocently placed on a vehicle a mark resembling the tare weight mark would be liable to a heavy penalty, even though the vehicle might never be used for carrying sand or ballast. Even if someone else painted the mark on the vehicle without the owner's knowledge, the owner would be liable to a penalty unless he removed the mark immediately. The Amendment would also have the effect that the alteration of a tare weight mark on a vehicle could be punished if it were done to defraud a purchaser, but not if it were done to deceive an inspector.
The clause as drafted follows the wording of the Forgery Act, 1913, and of other Acts which provide for offences of this kind, such as the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and the Improvement of Live Stock (Licensing of Bulls) Act, 1931. Forgery, that is, the imitation of a document or mark, is not a punishable offence under these Acts unless it is done with intent to defraud or deceive. It is an essential element of the offences created by these

73
Acts that there should be an intent to defraud or deceive, and I am informed it would be so serious a departure from the principles of the criminal law relating to this class of offence to omit these elements that it cannot be imagined that this is really the intention of the noble Earl. I hope my noble friend will not press the Amendment.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: I am afraid I cannot follow all the legalities which my noble friend has mentioned, if I may so call them, because I am not a lawyer. If this Amendment is entirely against the Common Law of England I would certainly not press it, but I am not sure that I am perfectly satisfied with the noble Lord's statement. I am advised that the working of the Weights and Measures Act would be made much more difficult by the retention of the words which my Amendment proposed to delete. In view, however, of what the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has said I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Conveyance notes in respect of sand or ballast.
4.—(1) The person in charge of any vehicle which is being used for conveying any sand or ballast—
(a) shall carry with him a note relating to that sand or ballast (hereafter in this Part of this Act referred to as a "conveyance note") in such form as may be prescribed, signed by or on behalf of the appropriate person and stating such matters as are required by this section to be stated in the note,
LORD TEMPLEMORE LORD TEMPLEMORE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "which is." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is intended to meet a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clwyd, and the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen, in the debate on Second Reading. Clause 4 requires that the person in charge of arty vehicle which is being used for conveying any sand or ballast must, except in the case of small quantities, carry a conveyance note. Such a requirement is clearly unnecessary where the material is being carted about a private estate. This Amendment accordingly is proposed with the object of limiting the operation of the clause to cases in which the material is carried on a highway, which
74
I am advised means a public highway. I know that my noble friend Lord Aberdeen objects to a conveyance note having to be carried about in these cases, but I would point out that this Bill interferes less than a great many Bills with people's private arrangements. I think this is practically the only obligation in such cases under the Bill, and it is really inevitable that this safeguard should be included in order to get the proper working of the Bill. I hope that this provision will go some way at all events to meet my noble friend's requirements.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 11, leave out ("which is").—(Lord Templemore.)
LORD CLWYD: I thank the noble Lord for again considering the point that I raised. What he has done is quite satisfactory to me.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: I think this goes some way to meet my views, bob it does not go all the way. Perhaps the noble Lord would say when he moves his later Amendment about the conveyance note whether a more or less formal printed document, which should be of stock pattern, would be sufficient to produce should an owner be carrying his own sand or ballast on the highway, or whether he must have a special conveyance note on each occasion.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: As I am informed, my noble friend need not be afraid. He will not have to have anything like so formal a document as a printed document. I think a mere written note signed by the owner or his agent would be sufficient.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TEMPLEMORE LORD TEMPLEMORE moved, in subsection (1), immediately preceding paragraph (a), to insert "on a journey any part of which is along a highway." The noble Lord said: This and the following Amendments of mine are intended to deal with the point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Eltisley, and the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen. Where an owner is carting his own material along a public highway it will be necessary for the carter to carry a conveyance note showing that the material is not being conveyed in pursuance of a sale or agreement. This makes it possible for regulations to be made to authorise the use of

75
a single general note in such a case and thus avoid unnecessary trouble. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 12, after ("ballast") insert ("on a journey any part of which is along a highway").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I have already explained the next Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 13 and 14, leave out ("relating to that sand or ballast").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ELTISLEY LORD ELTISLEY moved to insert at the end of subsection (1):
"Provided that where any vehicle is being used for conveying sand or ballast by or en behalf of a drainage board for the purpose of disposal only and not for sale the conveyance note shall be sufficient if it shall state that the vehicle is so employed and shall remain effective until such vehicle shall cease to be so employed."
The noble Lord said: The two Amendments which I have put down are designed to simplify procedure as far as possible. Since they were placed on the Paper the reasonableness of the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, has been again shown by the fact that he has himself put down an Amendment that different forms of conveyance notes may be prescribed in relation to different circumstances. I shall be grateful if the noble Lord could tell us what form the conveyance notes will take, because they might be fairly simple or they might be in a form that would be irritating. If we could have a statement from the noble Lord, it might be that I should not have to press my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 35, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Eltisley.)
LORD TEMPLEMORE: As I have already said, the Government accept this Amendment in principle, and I have put down Amendments, as my noble friend has said. I cannot tell him at the moment exactly what will be the form of the conveyance notes to be used, but I cannot see why they should be particularly irritating.
LORD ELTISLEY: Might the form be settled in consultation with the organisations concerned?
LORD TEMPLEMORE: Most certainly. I will give that undertaking.
LORD ELTISLEY: In that case I will not press my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I have already referred to the next two Amendments on the Paper and I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 5, lines 36 and 37, leave out ("relating to any sand or ballast conveyed in a vehicle").
Page 5, line 38, after ("ballast") insert ("to which the note relates").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: The next Amendment is in connection with the matter of which I spoke just now. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 20, at end insert ("(4) Different forms of conveyance notes may be prescribed in relation to different circumstances").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
Inspection, weighing and measuring of sand or ballast and vehicles conveying it.
5.—(1) Any inspector, and any officer of a local authority authorised in that behalf by them in writing, may inspect any vehicle which is being used for conveying any sand or ballast, and may, for the purpose of ascertaining the weight of the sand or ballast and of the vehicle, or the volume of the sand or ballast—

(a) cause the vehicle, as loaded, to be weighed by means of a weighing instrument stamped by an inspector, or cause the vehicle to be unloaded and the vehicle or the sand or ballast or both to be weighed by means of such a weighing instrument as aforesaid, or (as the case may be)

(b) cause the sand or ballast to be levelled in the vehicle, or to be unloaded and measured:

Provided that neither the vehicle nor the sand or ballast shall be required to be moved for a distance of more than one mile for the purpose of being weighed or measured under this subsection.
LORD TEMPLEMORE LORD TEMPLEMORE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "inspect any vehicle which is being used for conveying any sand or ballast, and may, for the purpose of ascertaining the weight of the

77
sand or ballast and of the vehicle, or the volume of the sand or ballast" and insert "so far as it is reasonable so to do for the purpose of giving effect to this Part of this Act, inspect any vehicle which is being used for conveying any sand or ballast, and either." The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the next one on the Paper is designed to meet a point raised in the debate on Second Reading. Clause 5 empowers an inspector of weights and measures to inspect a vehicle used for conveying sand or ballast and check its contents. There is no need for an inspector to exercise this power in a case where the owner is moving his own material since in that case there is no sale or agreement for the sale or carriage of the material. At the same time he must possess a general power which he is able to exercise if he has reasonable grounds for believing that there may be infractions of the Act. Accordingly the Amendment is proposed in order to limit the operation of Clause 5 to cases in which the use of the power of inspection is reasonably required for giving effect to this Part of the Act.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 23, leave out from ("may") to the end of line 26 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 32, leave out ("(as the case may be)"),—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN THE EARL OF COURTOWN moved to leave out the proviso in subsection (1) and insert:
"Provided that if the vehicle or the sand or ballast is required to be moved more than one mile for the purpose of being weighed or measured under this subsection and the weight or measure is found to be in accordance with the weight or measure stated in that behalf by the seller or consignor, the local authority, or the purchaser or consignee, as the case may be, at whose request the requirement is made shall be liable to the payment of all reasonable costs actually incurred in and incidental to the weighing or measuring and such amount in default of agreement may be determined by a single arbitrator agreed upon by the parties."
The noble Earl said: In rural counties the limitation of one mile would render the provisions of the Bill inoperative. The proposed wording will place the matter on a similar footing to the
78
weighing of vehicles under Section 27 of the Road Traffic Act and is, I submit, I reasonable. That section gives the limit of one mile, but gives the authority power to take a vehicle beyond one mile for the purpose of weighing, providing that if no offence is disclosed the owner of the vehicle is compensated for loss of time and inconvenience caused. It is not likely therefore that an inspector will exercise this power and have a. vehicle moved a considerable distance away unless he has very good reason for suspecting that an offence is being committed and has hope of getting a conviction. It would also afford more protection to the person who is most likely to require it, that is, the contractor who suspects that the sand or ballast being delivered to him on a job is short in weight or measure and who calls on the inspector to investigate.
In cases where the delivery is quite likely to take place several miles from the nearest suitable weighing machine it would be contrary to public policy for the inspector to have to admit that he had no power to do anything as the nearest weighing machine was more than a mile away. Where there is definite ground for suspecting that short weight or measure is being given, and the buyer appeals to the authorities for assistance in determining the question, it is detrimental to the credit of the administration when legislation is so framed as to restrict action. The section in the Weights and Measures Act, 1899, which prevents coal, carried in bulk, being taken more than half a mile for the purpose of reweighing operates distinctly to the disadvantage of buyers who live on housing estates in suburban areas or in rural districts. This disability has been manifest in recent years because of the removal of people to the outskirts of towns, and because of the wider distribution of the population it should not be retained in this proposed legislation. Unreasonable use of the facility for securing reweighing or re-measuring will be prevented by the provision that the person requiring the operation of the clause will have to take the risk of a charge for the service and only the fraudulent or careless seller will be penalised thereby. I submit that this is a matter of importance to people living on the outskirts of towns and in rural districts, and I hope to find the noble Lord

79
in a reasonable mood in regard to the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, leave out lines 35 to 38 and insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Courtown.)
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I think I have shown that I am in very reasonable mood, and I am sorry to disappoint the noble Earl. I cannot accept this Amendment, although I should have liked to do so. I will state my reasons for not accepting the Amendment fairly fully, if the noble Lord will allow me. Under Clause 5 as it stands an inspector has power to require a vehicle or its contents to be weighed, but he is not authorised to take the vehicle more than a mile out of its way for this purpose. The noble Earl's Amendment proposes that an inspector should be able to take a vehicle any distance, and if the load were then found to be in order, the local authority, or the person at whose request the vehicle is weighed, would be liable to pay the costs. The loss to the owner of the vehicle, however, might be very much larger than the actual costs incurred, since not only would there be a considerable loss of time, but he might also lose business and good will by reason of the delay. I am informed that the Road Haulage Association, representing the trade interests concerned, is strongly opposed to the Amendment on these grounds. It is true that provision somewhat on the lines of the Amendment already appears in Section 27 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. That section, however, deals with cases of overloading which may be a very serious matter: questions of public interest may be at issue. Any weighing to be done under Clause 5 of the Bill, on the other hand, would be merely to detect cases of underloading; that is, cases in which the amount of material carried was less than the amount shown in the conveyance note. It is, of course, in the interests of the purchaser that short weight should be detected, but a purchaser might not appreciate a safeguard which involved several hours' delay in the delivery of his material. For these reasons I cannot accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR had given Notice of an Amendment after Clause 6, to insert the following new clause:
Saving for conveyance of sand and ballast by owners thereof.
". Nothing in this Act shall apply to the conveyance of sand and ballast by or on behalf of the owner thereof for use for his own purposes and not for the purpose of trade."
The noble Marquess said: I said all I had to say on this Amendment on the first clause. I understand that the noble Lord is not willing to accept it. I still feel that to leave the clause as it is will cause real trouble, but in the circumstance, as he has met several points I raised, I will not move it.
Clause 7:
Commencement and extent of Part I.
7.—(1) This Part of this Act shall come into operation on such day as the Board of Trade may by order appoint.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR moved, in subsection (1), after "day," to insert "not earlier than the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-six." The noble Marquess said: This is a very simple Amendment and I understand that the noble Lord is willing to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 18, after ("day") insert ("not earlier than the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-six").—(The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8:
Marking of bottles for use as measures.
8. A bottle of the prescribed form and material which is marked in the prescribed manner with—

(a) such marks indicating its capacity when filled to a certain point as may be prescribed, and

(b) such licence mark of uniform design, and such other marks, as may be prescribed,

shall, if the bottle is so marked by the manufacturer thereof under a licence granted to him in pursuance of this Part of this Act, be deemed for the purposes of the Weights and Measures Acts, 1878 to 1926, to be a measure duly verified and stamped under Section twenty-nine of the principal Act, and accordingly those Acts shall apply to the bottle as if the marks placed thereon as aforesaid were a stamp of verification duly affixed under that section.
LORD COZENS-HARDY LORD COZENS-HARDY moved, in paragraph (b), to leave out "licence". The noble Lord said: This is a minor Amendment consequent on the Amendment standing in my name on Clause 15. I thought it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I addressed to the Committee at this stage the very few remarks which I propose to make on the series of Amendments aimed at preventing the Board of Trade from having unrestricted powers to impose conditions on arty subject they please in the licence. For instance, as the Bill now stands they could impose the condition on a licence that It manufacturer should not work more than five days a week, or should not work more than so many hours a day. In fact, if the Government of the clay were in favour of anything of that kind, they could, as the Bill now stands, make it a condition of the licence and there would be no appeal at all against any condition imposed on the licence.
Since putting down the Amendments which stand in my name I have had the advantage of a conversation with the Government's advisers and they agree that the point raised by me is a real one, and that it might not be unreasonable to put some limit on the matters which could be dealt with by the Board of Trade in the conditions of the licence. If the noble Lord can give an assurance that the Government will consider the point and will put down any resulting Amendments at an early moment to give time for consideration before the later stages of the Bill, I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 28, leave out ("licence").—(Lord Cozens-Hardy.)
LORD TEMPLEMORE: As my noble friend has said, he has had the opportunity of consulting with the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade and the officials, and I have had the pleasure of a conversation whir him before we came to the sitting this afternoon. If I may say so at the outset, the noble Lord's premises are perhaps a little far fetched. Like many other people, he always imagines that Government Departments are going to do frightful things. I dare say that some of us have done them at some time of our lives, but on the other hand it is generally found that people are fairly reasonable. The
82
noble Lord's Amendment, however, is one of great substance to which I must give a full answer, and perhaps I may be allowed to consider the Amendments put down by the noble Lord on Clauses 9, 10 and 12, since all these Amendments have a single purpose: that is, to remove from the Bill all provisions relating to the licensing of manufacturers by the Board of Trade.
This licensing is an essential part of the scheme. This scheme will not work unless the manufacturer possesses machinery capable of turning out bottles to such a high degree of accuracy that, if a small percentage of the bottles in each batch are found on testing to be accurate, it is safe to assume that the whole of the bottles in that batch are accurate. Before a manufacturer can properly be allowed to mark bottles under the scheme, the Board of Trade must be satisfied that he actually possesses and is able to operate this kind of machinery. The only practicable way of ensuring this is to provide that the marking of bottles under the scheme shall be subject to a licence which will be renewable from time to time. The noble Lord wanted to know if I would undertake to put down any Amendment at a later stage. With the best will in the world I am afraid I cannot give him that undertaking, but I can tell him that the conditions governing the issue of licences will be set out in the Regulations to be made, and the Regulations will be published in draft and discussed with the manufacturers before they are made. In view of what I have said I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN THE EARL OF COURTOWN moved to leave out all words after "measure," and insert "and may be used or be in possession for use for trade for the purpose of gauging the quantity to be sold therein notwithstanding that it has not been verified and stamped in accordance with the provisions of Section twenty-nine of the principal Act." The noble Earl said: In moving this Amendment I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the position of local authorities under Part II of the Bill; that is the part relating to bottles. It is only of recent years that the practice of selling milk in bottles has been adopted, but it is very largely done at the present

83
time. The present law requires all measures used in the trade to be stamped by an inspector of weights and measures. As was stated in the debate on the Second Reading, during the past seven years or so it has become a trade custom to use receptacles, such as milk bottles, to determine the amount of milk or liquid which is sold in them. At the request of the Board of Trade I understand, no action has been taken by local authorities to enforce the law despite the enormous number of milk bottles so used.
This state of suspension was suggested in order that the parties concerned—namely, the trade, the bottle manufacturers and the Government—could find a satisfactory solution which would be fair all round. Obviously neither the trade nor the bottle manufacturers desire the law as it stands to be put into operation and every bottle used as a measure to be legally stamped. The cost would be enormous and would only lead to an increase in the price of milk, which we all wish to avoid. On the other hand, it is very unsatisfactory from the point of view of local authorities to leave the question as it is, because they are asked to connive at something which in law is wrong and there is no adequate protection of the public as to the quantity of milk which is sold in the bottles.
The solution, I suggest, lies in a sort of halfway house, and suggestions were put up to the Board of Trade some time ago by the Society of Inspectors of Weights and Measures which, to my mind, were fair and reasonable and offered a good way out of the difficulty. The manufacturers have stated over and over again that they can make bottles of greater accuracy than the Board require. Let them, therefore, make their bottles under the suggested licence, but a bottle bearing a licence mark must not be deemed to be a properly-stamped legal measure within the meaning of the principal Act. The proposed Amendment is therefore designed to meet this objection and to provide that a bottle so marked shall only be regarded as a measure for gauging the quantity of milk sold in that bottle, and not used as a measure for measuring anything else to be sold in some other receptacle. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will consider this matter very carefully. If he is not able to accept the Amend
84
ment at this stage, perhaps he will consider it with his advisers with a view to bringing up an Amendment at a later stage, because this is a question which those with whom I have been acting consider very important, and on which they lay great stress.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, leave out lines 34 to 38 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Cozens-Hardy.)
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment, because it is an essential part of the scheme that a dairyman should be able to take a bottle duly marked, fill it up to the mark, and sell it without bothering further about it. So long as there is a provision that the bottle is deemed to be a measure duly verified and stamped he can do this safely; since he will be protected from any possible prosecution for giving short measure by Section 12 (2) of the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act, 1926, assuming, of course, that he has acted innocently. On the other hand, a provision that the retailer is to be allowed to use the bottle as a measure although unstamped would do no more than absolve him from a penalty for using an unstamped measure. He would still be responsible for giving accurate measure and could not, for the purpose of pleading in his favour the protection afforded by Section 12 (2), rely upon the fact that he had used a stamped measure or a measure deemed to be such. The risk of inaccurate bottles getting into circulation will be very small indeed, but the protection given by the Statute will be necessary to maintain confidence in the trade.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: I do not quite take it in. My point was that it was all right for a bottle that had been used for measuring milk, for instance, to be used again for milk, but the desire is not to allow a bottle, said to contain a pint of something, to be used as a measure for something else. For instance, a bottle which has contained milk may be filled again with milk, but it should not be used for measuring beer or whisky.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I am afraid I do not quite see the point, but if the noble Earl will allow me I will look into it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
Licences to mark bottles.
(4) The Board of Trade may at any time revoke a licence if it is shown to their satisfaction that the holder thereof has contravened or failed to comply with any of the restrictions or conditions prescribed by virtue of this section, or has been convicted of an offence under this Part of this Act.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I am prepared to accept the first three Amendments in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie.
Amendments moved—
Page 9, line 1, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall")
Page 9, line 10, after ("revoked") insert ("or suspended")
Page 9, line 15, after ("revoke") insert ("or suspend").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "it is shown to their satisfaction that the holder thereof has contravened or failed to comply with any of the restrictions or conditions prescribed by virtue of this section, or, "and insert" the holder." The noble Viscount said: Before I come to this Amendment I would like to thank my noble friend for having been so reasonable. With regard to this Amendment, the tendency of Government Departments is to be too bureaucratic. Under this Bill there is no form of appeal whatever from the arbitrary decision of a Minister. I do not think any licence should be revoked except on conviction by a Court, especially where there is no power of appeal. If my noble friend will consider putting in something on Report to provide for an appeal from a Minister I shall be much obliged. Meanwhile, I will move my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 16, leave out from ("if") to ("has") in line 19, and insert;("the holder").—(Viscount Bertie of Theme.)
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment as it stands, but I think I can meet my noble friend. In order to obtain a licence a manufacturer will have to comply with the prescribed conditions. For instance, he must have suitable machinery which will turn out bottles of a high degree of accuracy. If the Amendment were
86
accepted he could cease to comply with the conditions as soon as he got his licence and the Board of Trade would have no power to take the licence away. It will not be sufficient to provide simply for revocation or suspension of the licence on conviction of an offence, because in some cases failure to comply with the conditions will not be an offence for which the manufacturer could be prosecuted; for instance, he could sell his accurate machinery and instal unsuitable machinery instead. If he did that he would not have committed any offence, but clearly he ought not to keep his licence. The Government are, however, prepared to accept the omission of the words "it is shown to their satisfaction that," and if my noble friend will move his Amendment in that form we shall be pleased to accept it.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Even in that case there is no appeal, and I think there ought to be an appeal from a Minister. I will consider the matter between now and Report, and perhaps I may be able to come to terms with my noble friend. Perhaps he will move an Amendment in the form he suggests.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I will move the suggested Amendment myself.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 16, leave out ("it is shown to their satisfaction that").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD COZENS-HARDY LORD COZENS-HARDY had on the Paper an Amendment to leave out Clause 9. The noble Lord said: I do not propose to argue the Amendment in my name, because the noble Lord says he cannot accept my Amendments; but if he can find a way of dealing with the matter perhaps he will be good enough to do so.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: Any Amendments or suggestions put forward by my noble friend or any other member of your Lordships' House will always receive my best consideration.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10.
Inspection of bottles marked under a licence.
10. A bottle marked under a licence shall not be removed from the premises at which

87
it was marked until authority for its removal therefrom has been given by an inspector, and the local authority for an area in which any premises occupied by the holder of a licence are situate shall arrange for an inspector to attend at those premises so often as is reasonably necessary for the purpose of examining and verifying bottles marked thereat and giving, or withholding, such authority as aforesaid.
LORD ELTISLEY LORD ELTISLEY moved to omit all words preceding "the local authority for an area." The noble Lord said: This Amendment, and also my other Amendments to this clause and to Clause 12, more or less hang together. In Part II, which contains "Provisions as to Bottles," the Bill provides that a bottle marked under a licence shall not be removed from the premises at which it was marked until an inspector has authorised its removal. It also provides that the local authority shall arrange for an inspector to attend at those premises as often as is reasonably necessary for the purpose of examining and verifying bottles marked thereat. The Amendments which have been tabled provide for an inspector to visit the premises on which bottles are being made for the purpose of inspecting bottles which have been marked there.
My Amendments do not remove the onus on the manfacturer of ensuring that the bottles contain proper measure. The attitude of the Association of Municipal Corporations, acting in conjunction with the County Councils Association, is that the attendance of the weights and measures inspectors cannot in fact be taken as verifying all the bottles, and that the licensee, that is to say, the manufacturer, who marks the bottles must shoulder the responsibility if the bottles turn out to be wrongly marked and become liable to a fine. He can provide against that contingency by means of insurance. We take the view that the casual inspection and verification of a small percentage of bottles must not be held to exonerate the supplier from giving fair legal measure. We understand that the Board of Trade propose to make regulations to the effect that a small percentage, about two per cent., of the bottles in every batch shall be verified. It is then assumed that the rest of the bottles are correct and have the same capacity and size as those which have been verified. We think that absolution should not be given in this way, but that if a man purchases a
88
bottle of milk or beer the liability for giving full and fair measure should be upon the seller. That is the purpose of these Amendments—to see that the onus of responsibility remains on the manufacturer of the bottles.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 21, leave out from the beginning to ("the") in line 24.—(Lord Eltisley.)
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: Before the Government replies, I should like to support the Amendments standing in the names of Lord Eltisley and myself, because these Amendments are supported by the Association of Municipal Corporations, as well as by the County Councils Association and the Society of Inspectors of Weights and Measures. Tinder the Bill as it stands, it will mean that about six authorities will be charged with the duty of examining and verifying the whole of the output of the glass bottles of this country, which I believe runs into something like thirty-six millions. That would mean also a very considerable increase in the number of inspectors which those particular local authorities would have to appoint, and it would also add very much to the cost; whereas if they were only charged with the duty of going in to inspect—which I suggest might also include testing—they would be able to see whether the conditions of the licence under which the bottles were being manufactured were being carried out, and it could be left to the large body of inspectors to test any particular bottle that they might suspect as having been inaccurately made, or not made under the licence and in accordance with the terms of the licence. I hape therefore that the Government will accept this Amendment.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: It will be convenient to consider the proposed Amendments to Clauses 10, 11 and 12 together, as they appear to be part of a single plan for altering the basis of the scheme provided in the Bill for the marking of bottles. That scheme depends essentially upon the fact that, if a manufacturer is provided with suitable modern machinery and also takes proper precautions in the operation of the machinery, he is able to turn out bottles to a very high degree of accuracy, so that if an inspector can ascertain by a sampling test that a certain percentage of the bottles in a particular batch are, in fact, accurate it

89
is safe to assume that all the bottles in that batch will be accurate. Accordingly, it is contemplated that after a sampling test, for which provision is made in Clause 11, the inspector should have power under Clause 10 to authorise the release of a complete batch of bottles. The effect of the proposed Amendments to Clause 10 is to delete the requirement that the removal of bottles from the manufacturer's works shall be authorised by an inspector. If this precaution is taken out of the scheme the responsibility for ensuring that proper safeguards are applied in all cases will rest solely with the manufacturer; and if, through any failure in these safeguards, some thousands of inaccurate bottles get into circulation, months may elapse before the error is detected and, even then, it will not be possible for the inaccurate bottles to be recalled.
The proposed Amendments to Clause 11 take away the power of the Board of Trade to make regulations as to a sampling test and to fix the fees, and would have the effect that it would rest solely with local authorities to decide how often an inspector should visit works where bottles were being made, and how many bottles he should test. It is possible that in one district an inspector might insist on testing every bottle made, while in another district thousands or millions of milk bottles might be put into circulation without ever being seen by an inspector. Such lack of uniformity in practice would have most unsatisfactory results from every point of view, and particularly from the point of view of the manufacturers. The proposed Amendments to Clause 12 (2) would have the effect of rendering every licensed manufacturer liable to a penalty if any bottle which he issued were found to be inaccurate. It is of course true that, by the use of proper machinery and by taking proper precautions, a manufacturer can be reasonably certain that all the bottles he issues will be accurate and can make the risk of an inaccurate bottle being sent out a very small risk. He cannot, however, eliminate this risk entirely, except by testing every bottle separately. I am informed that the glass manufacturers are strongly opposed to these Amendments and that the manufacturers would find great difficulty in working the scheme if the Amendments were
90
adopted. I cannot accept this Amendment, and I hope my noble friend will not press it.
LORD PHILLIMORE: This seems to me a point of very considerable importance. May I ask on whom the onus will lie if a bottle is found being used in retail sale so constructed as to contain short measure? Will there be no redress for the consumer against anybody at all? Or will there merely be blame attached to the inspector who passed the bottle inadvertently at the factory? Is that the correct picture, because, if so, it seems to me to be quite contrary to the usual practice of commerce and to be giving away a very valuable safeguard for the common people.
LORD ADDINGTON: May I ask how large the batches of bottles will be before an inspector passes them? Will it be every day, or every week, or every fortnight that the manufacturer will be able to send them out?
LORD TEMPLEMORE: That is obviously a question I cannot answer at the moment. It presumably will depend fin his activity and upon the other duties that the inspector has to perform.
LORD ELTISLEY: I hope the noble Lord will see his way to accept the Amendment. He has told us that the machines which make these bottles work with extraordinary accuracy, and there is very little chance of the bottles being wrongly made. At the same time there may be some temptation to make the bottles a wrong size. But be that as it may, I feel that the consumer's interest is the major interest rather than the interest of the manufacturer.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: Might I add one word to urge this very strongly. I do not think it is fair either to the local authority or to the inspectors. I believe the Board of Trade suggest making regulations under which 2 per cent. of the output of these factories will be examined and verified. Even though 2 per cent. may run into very large figures, I suggest that an individual inspector who has examined so small a proportion should not be made responsible for the output of the whole factory. We have heard that these factories can turn out these bottles so accurately that

91
if one batch is practically correct all the rest will be the same. But, even so, it will be possible for slips to be made, and it would be absolutely impossible for any inspector to inspect so small a quantity as 2 per cent. and be thoroughly satisfied that the output of that factory is as it should be.
LORD MARLEY: I think this is a very difficult point, and I cannot help thinking that the guiding principle in these Amendments should be the interests of the consumer, and the consumer ought somehow to have a remedy when he buys milk in a marked bottle which has by any chance been wrongly marked. It might be wrongly marked through a certain local authority appointing too few inspectors and bottles being emitted from a machine either fraudulently or of too small a size, and those bottles could never be traced. They would be measured bottles in circulation among millions of people, and constantly giving a wrong measure. On the other hand, you might equally have the case of a fraudulent inspector, a bribed inspector, who, by reason of a bribe, would pass millions of bottles which should not be passed and that would be equally damaging to the consumer. The point I want to ask the noble Lord to consider is this: whichever decision is reached—and I can see difficulties in both—can it be arranged that, to protect the consumer, every bottle should be marked, not only with a mark showing the size and the contents of the bottle, but with the manufacturer's mark, so that it could be traced back either to the manufacturer, to the machine, to the local authority, or to the inspector of the particular bottle?
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord opposite for his suggestion, and in view of the general sense of the Committee I will undertake to consider this matter before the next stage.
LORD ELTISLEY: I should like to thank the noble Lord, and I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: The next Amendment is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 28, leave out ("verifying") and insert ("testing").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
Offences
12.—(1) If any person—
(d) knowingly uses, sells, utters, disposes of or exposes for sale—
(iii) any bottle or other vessel which is marked in a manner so closely resembling the prescribed manner as to be calculated to deceive,
that person shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, and the bottle or other vessel, as the case may be, shall be liable to be forfeited:
LORD TEMPLEMORE LORD TEMPLEMORE moved, in paragraph (d), to leave out "or." The noble Lord said: This clause makes it an offence to use, sell, etc., certain bottles which are improperly marked. For the efficient administration of such a provision it is desirable to include the case in which a person has such a bottle in his possession for sale. There is precedent for this in the Merchandise Marks Acts, and my Amendments cover this.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 14, leave out ("or").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: The next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 15, after ("sale") insert ("or has in his possession for sale").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My next Amendments are drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 10, line 33, leave out ("or") after ("sale") insert ("or possession for sale").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13:
Commencement and extent of Part II.
13.—(1) This Part of this Act shall come into operation on such day as the Board of Trade may by order appoint.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR moved, in subsection (1), after

93
"day," to insert "not earlier than the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-six." The noble Marquess said: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 2, after ("day") insert the said new words.—(The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair.)
LORD TEMPLEMOBE: I accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:
Laying of regulations before Parliament.
15. Any regulations made under this Act by the Board of Trade shall, as soon as may be after they are made, be laid before Parliament.
LORD TEMPLEMORE LORD TEMPLEMORE moved to add to the clause: "and if either House of Parliament, within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such regulations are laid before it, resolves that the regulations be annulled, they shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to anything previously done thereunder or to the making of new regulations." The noble Lord said: This is to meet the point raised by the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen. It ensures that the regulations to be made under the Act shall be subject to the control of either House of Parliament. It is in the usual form.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 16, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 [Legal proceedings]:
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: I have not put down an Amendment to this clause, but, I may, I should like to detain your Lordships for a moment or two in order to draw the attention of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to a very important matter, and to suggest to him how the law could be clarified where at present there is confusion. I regret that the Board of Trade have not taken the opportunity of removing the anomalies caused by the words "construed as one" in Section 15 of the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act, 1926, which arose after the decision in the well-known
94
case of Hart versus Hudson in 1928. In that case it was held that the many safeguarding and other provisions (such as time limits and serving of notices, etc.), easily carried out in cases relating to short weight or measure in sales of food, were equally applicable to all other offences under the Weights and Measures Act by virtue of the words "to be construed as one" contained in Section 15 of the Sale of Food Act, a point unforeseen by the Board of Trade when the Act was drafted.
This is becoming a serious handicap, and, indeed, may have far-reaching effects which will cripple local authorities in their administration of the whole of the Weights and Measures Acts. Already inspectors are finding grave difficulties in the way, not only in cases of legal proceedings, but in the application of statutory duties which have been disturbed by the effect of the phrase quoted. The Lord Chief Justice, indeed, said in the case of hart versus Hudson:
"This case is a striking example of the difficulties and obscurity which arise from legislation by reference to and incorporation of other Statutes."
And in another case, Phillips versus Parnaby, 1934, which had the effect of applying an Act regulating the sale of food to coal, the Lord Chief Justice said:
"One is tempted to wonder whether, in Section 15 of the Act of 1926, the Legislature was consciously applying the provisions of that Statute to a sale such as at, present."
Definitely the Board of Trade did not intend to narrow the scope and operation of the whole weights and measures administration. The effect of the words "to be construed as one" were not contemplated when the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act was passed. The present Bill affords an opportunity to remove the many anomalies that have arisen already and will prevent others cropping up, the contemplation of which is a cause for grave alarm to the local authorities and their inspectors. I am not a lawyer, and therefore I have hesitated to put down any Amendment, but I suggest to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that he should consider the matter with his advisers with a view to seeing whether it is not possible to bring forward an Amendment at a later stage to clear up the position.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I had no notice that my noble friend was going to raise this very technical matter, but I shall consider it before the next stage.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Duties of inspectors]:
LORD TEMPLEMORE: This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 30, after ("Act") insert ("or any regulations made under this Act").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Interpretation]:
LORD TEMPLEMORE: These Amendments are all drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 12, line 15, leave out from the second "authority") to the end of line 18 and insert ("for the purposes of the principal Act")
Page 12, line 23, leave out ("stamped")
Page 12, line 25, after ("Act") insert ("and 'stamped' and 're-stamped' shall be construed accordingly").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
LORD GAINFORD: On the Second Reading I ventured to bring to the notice of your Lordships that the Board of Trade had omitted to consult with the various parties concerned. As the result of my protest, the various parties have now been consulted, and they desire to thank the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, and the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade for the way in which they have met them. The delays which have occurred in your Lordships' House to-day entirely arose because the parties were not consulted before the Bill was introduced.

FINANCE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, I think I shall be
96
probably meeting the convenience of your Lordships if I reduce my remarks on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill to the shortest possible measure. Last year I stated that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had decided to use his surplus in a reduction of the standard rate of Income Tax, believing that in that way he would best stimulate trade. Has he been justified? I think your Lordships will all agree that railway traffics, bank clearings, and retail trade have all shown a steady rise, so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was right in the action that he took.
My noble friend Lord Arnold, who always positively revels in becoming a Jeremiah on these occasions, read us a whole chapter of the Book of Lamentations on the effect of the Budget of last year, how it was going to benefit only the large taxpayer, and would not help the small taxpayer at all. I do not know what is the level above which Lord Arnold considers a man to be a rich taxpayer. I suppose that a man with an income of £500 is not rich, but there are only one million taxpayers with £500 income and upwards, and something like 90,000 taxpayers pay 60 per cent. of the direct taxes which are raised by the whole community. That being the case, I think Lord Arnold must be given some figures to digest. Eighty thousand tons more sugar were consumed in 1934 than in 1933—a very large consumption for 90,000 rich taxpayers; 6,500,000 lbs. more of tobacco was smoked, 270,000,000 more pints of beer were drunk, and 700,000,000 more cups of tea were consumed—a very large consumption for the rich taxpayer. In other directions, too, it is obvious that the prosperity of the country of all classes, and not of the rich taxpayers only, has been going up during the past twelve months.
This year, I suppose, my noble friend will complain that the small taxpayer alone has been selected for the benefits of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he will see when he looks at the Budget, as I know he has done, that the proposals of my right honourable friend bring relief principally to the small taxpayer. Once again the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been following the rule of restoring the cuts which were imposed in 1931, and so reliefs have gone to places where they did not go last year. These

97
alterations, contained in Clauses 19 to 22, are four in number. First, there is a reduction from one-half to one-third in the standard rate of tax on taxable incomes below £135; and this relief affects some two and a quarter million taxpayers, or seventy per tent. of the whole body of Income Tax payers. Secondly, there is an increase in the personal allowance for married men. Thirdly, there is an increase in allowance for the second and additional children. Fourthly, there is an exemption limit of £125 for all incomes and not only a limit of £125 for earned income. The cost of these concessions is £4,500,000 this year and £10,000,000 in a full year. I do not suggest that these proposals put the taxpayer back into exactly the same position that he occupied prior to the second Budget in 1931. That Budget of 1931 increased the earned income allowance from one-sixth to one-fifth, and that concession is retained. While, therefore, perhaps my noble friend may attack me for the fact that the personal allowances for single and married men under these proposals are not as good as they were in 1930, he must also take into consideration that the earned income allowance is now higher than it was at that Gate, and that the charge on the first Mice of a taxpayer's income is now to be lower.
Another considerable benefit to a very large number of people occurs in the Budget, and that is the restoration of the remainder of the cuts imposed in 1931. That will affect no less than 1,200,000 persons. Then there is the removal of the Entertainment Tax on cheaper seats, which will also benefit perhaps the less prosperous individual. On the other side, there is an increased tax on heavy oils, and that was attacked in a good many directions in another place. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, pointed out that the efficiency of the Diesel engine is such that if he had intended to place an equal tax on Diesel engines to that which existed on petrol engines, the tax, instead of being 8d. to the gallon should have been 1s. 2d., so that the Diesel engine still gets a considerable benefit, and that will encourage inventors to go on improving the Diesel engines as they have been doing during the past few years. One other point was raised in criticism, and that
98
was what was called the raid on the Road Fund, by which the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes over £4,470,000 from the Road Fund, and uses it for the purposes of general revenue. That, of course, was merely the balance of a payment of £7,210,000, which was advanced by the Treasury in the years 1931 and 1932.
I am not going to claim that the country has completely emerged from its difficulties. I can, however, claim that the Government have restored a feeling of security to this country which was sadly lacking four years ago, and which is still, indeed, the state in too many countries in the world. Until those other countries also succeed in balancing their Budgets, and in achieving stability, we cannot hope for a. full return of prosperity in the United Kingdom. But, at any rate, that we are on the right road is proved by the numerous signs of prosperity to which I referred a few moments ago. As trade increases—and the Chancellor of the Exchequer remarked last week that our exports for the first five months of this year are up by no less than £10,000,000 over the same period of last year—we may hope that more of our people may be restored to industry and the numbers of the unemployed be still further reduced. We only regret that we are not to-day just below the two million mark instead of just above it, and we hope, whatever Party we may belong to, that we may make a very big hole in that far too high figure. This Budget has been described as an Election Budget, I suppose because it is popular. It is not an Election Budget; but it is the fruits of sound finance and of good government, backed, as it has been, by the patience, the wisdom and the sound common sense of the people. That being so, I believe that your Lordships will welcome the Finance Bill, and I beg to move that it be given a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Stanhope.)
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, the noble Earl in moving the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, has made, as he always does, a speech of commendable brevity, and I will endeavour to emulate his example, because I know your Lordships are wishful to proceed with the discussion on the Government of India Bill. And indeed, my task this afternoon is

99
rendered comparatively easy in that direction, because I will say this to the noble Earl. Having had some experience of Budgets, I do not think I can recall one which, on the whole, was less controversial than the present one. I do not propose to go into the very interesting, though comparatively minute, points about remissions of Income Tax and so forth. The Budget, though it is not controversial, is not, however, as the noble Earl might seem to suggest, a perfect one. There are certain things that can be said about it. In the course of his con-chiding observations he referred to the fact that we, in this country, had balanced our Budget, and that many other countries had not balanced their Budgets. I feel obliged, in the interests of financial truth, to point out that, strictly speaking, this Budget is not balanced. The reason for that is that there is no Sinking Fund. The Sinking Fund has been suspended. I am not saying there ought to be a Sinking Fund; at this particular moment I think there is a great deal to be said for there being no Sinking Fund, but the fact remains that there is no Sinking Fund. When there is no Sinking Fund it is not in accordance with the most meticulous fiscal truth to regard the Budget as balanced. That is the first point I make. I do not say it is one of the most important, but I think attention should be called to it.
The noble Earl dealt with the question of remissions of taxation and suggested that last year I was full of woeful foreboding in regard to the reduction of the Income Tax. I do not remember that I indulged in any very lugubrious prognostications about that. Having looked at the Report of my speech while the noble Earl was making his observations I cannot see that I said anything of the kind. What I did say was that in their remissions the Government had given back to the wealthier classes—by those I mean people with incomes beginning at £800 and including all Super-Tax payers—more than they had given back to those with incomes below £800. As a matter of fact on incomes over that figure of £800 relief has been 38 per cent. of the burden, while in regard to incomes below £800 the relief has been somewhere about 16 per cent.
100
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the Third Reading of this Bill in another place, said he had very nearly accomplished his ambition and that he had very nearly removed the burdens which were imposed in 1931. I do not think that that statement will bear very close examination. The remissions of taxes made by the Government, to which the Prime Minister, Mr. Stanley Baldwin, quite naturally called attention, amount to £60,000,000, but in 1931 the taxes imposed amounted to £81,000,000 and next year they were brought up to £85,000,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Baldwin did not, however, in any way refer to the fact that the Government had imposed tariff duties amounting to about £35,000,000, and they bring up the total to roughly £120,000,000. I am not going into the controversy about tariffs, although it is a very tempting theme, but I do not think it will be argued by any one that tariffs are not a burden on anybody. Taking the total at £120,000,000 it means that roughly half the taxation has been removed. I leave it there.
The next point to which I want to refer is that of the Death Duties. I have frequently called attention to the fact that the Death Duties are underestimated year by year, and the same thing happened last year. In the last Budget they were under-estimated by no less than £5,356,000. I have dealt with that before and I have given one reason why I think it happens, but unfortunately no change is made in the estimate. We are very proud of the way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his advisers estimate the yield of the Income Tax but unfortunately they are not equally successful when they are dealing with the yield of the Death Duties.
Before I leave this subject I should like to refer to a. controversy which was waged in The Times newspaper about two months ago. This is not a matter in which I blame the Government. It is even conceivable that what I say may have some modest usefulness for the Government. If that is so, it will make me very happy because I always like to be of assistance. The Times raised the old idea that the country was living on its capital. I think an analysis of the position will show that that statement cannot be sustained. When people say

101
that because of the Death Duties this country is living on capital and because of the Death Duties the capital of the country is on balance being reduced, that is not true. The fact is that the capital of the country is being increased almost every year because annual savings, after all taxes and Death Duties have been paid, amount to a considerable sum practically every year. Seven or eight years ago the Colwyn Committee estimated them, at between £400,000,000 and £500,000,000, and I should think that in 1928–29 the figure was more than that. Probably in 1932, in the middle of the economic crisis, there may have been no savings at all, but last year it was estimated that there were about £200,000,000. I dare say that really they were rather more. In any case they amount to something substantial after all Death Duties have been paid. Therefore it is not true to suggest that on account of the Death Duties this country is living on its capital, because year by year the capital of the country is increasing on balance.
There is one further point I should like to make in this connection, and that is to call attention to the fact that unfortunately in this country there is a great dearth of official statistics. I have said that it is believed that savings last year were about £200,000,000, but I do not know, and nobody knows, because there is no official estimate. Neither is there any official estimate of the national income, though we have sometimes got some help in that matter from the census of production. There is no official estimate either of the national capital. I should like to suggest to the noble Earl that he should take this matter into consideration and put before his colleagues the desirability of setting up a Committee to consider the whole question of official statistics. In most big countries they have official statistics—I do not say they are always reliable—and if we could have more statistics in this country they would be very useful.
When I was in office, I was asking for statistics from time to time and my requests were received with blank amazement. I might have been asking for information about the indivisibility of the atom or something like that. What happened was that I had to go to my old friend Sir Josiah Stamp and ask him what was the reply to my conundrum.
102
The good nature of Sir Josiah Stamp and his statistical knowledge are almost unlimited, but I think the Government Departments ought to have statistics of their own and that if a Committee could be set up to look into the matter a great service would be rendered. I should have liked to deal with the question of expenditure now in relation to expenditure in pre-War years, because I think there is a large amount of misconception abroad when it is suggested that expenditure has increased three or four times. I feel sure that a true analysis of the position would show that no such statement as that can possibly be sustained. However, I do not wish to detain your Lordships longer, because, as I sense the House, your Lordships are anxious to get on with the Government of India Bill.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I shall be very brief in answering the points raised by the noble Lord. I am grateful to him for saying that it is a much less controversial Budget than some which have preceded it. I thought that probably lie would find it difficult to criticise it severely. He did refer to one point with regard to the Sinking Fund. The Chancellor of the Exchequer justified making no express provision for the Sinking Fund on the ground that there was in fact a redemption of debt last year of £20,000,000 and if, as is in fact proving to be the case, interest an Treasury Bills remained at anything like its then level, there would be something available for dent redemption out of revenue this year. At the present moment the rate for Treasury Bills is in fact much the same as last year, so that there would seem to be ample ground for thinking that we shall be able to repay debt out of revenue without actually having a Sinking Fund. The noble Lord said again that we had underestimated Death Duties. I was prepared for that charge because he has made it before. I would point out to him that in 1931–32 there was a deficit in Death Duty revenue of £18,000,000. In 1932 there was a surplus of over £1,000,000; in 1933 a surplus, and in 1934–35 a surplus.
LORD ARNOLD: The noble Earl is always very courteous and perhaps he will allow me to make myself quite clear. Everyone knows that in 1932 there was a deficit, but in practically every year since

103
the War, with that one exception, there has been an underestimate.
EARL STANHOPE: That is true, but I think it should be pointed out that this year there is an estimate of a further £4,000,000. The noble Lord will recognise, of course, that provision for Death Duties must inevitably be a gamble because, while it is comparatively easy to make an estimate of Income Tax, that is not so with Death Duties, which not only depend on mortality statistics but, on whether people who die are those with large estates instead of those with small ones. There is also this point to be borne in mind, that if there is an underestimate things turn out more satisfactorily for the revenue, while if there is an over estimate there might be a deficit which is so serious for the country as a whole. He remarked that Death Duties did not reduce the capital of the country. It is quite true that the capital of the country appears to be increasing, but I think he will agree that if Death Duties were not levied on the scale that they are savings would be thereby increased and the capital of the country would increase more rapidly than it does with Death Duties at their present level.
As to the cuts not having been entirely restored, it is true that the amount raised by direct taxation is higher than that raised prior to 1931, but that is being raised on Surtax payers and large estates by Death Duties. I was glad to hear that the noble Lord relies for statistics on Sir Josiah Stamp. It would appear that the capitalist is still of considerable value, and that, even when we come to the Socialistic State, we shall have to keep people like Sir Josiah Stamp, with all their knowledge, all their experience and all their value to the country, if we are to get the statistics that we want. I will certainly consider suggesting to my right honourable friend that he should set up a Committee to go into the question of statistics. Whether it would be a popular move is another matter, because most of us find that we fill in returns more often than we care to, and if we are going to be asked to send in returns on Heaven knows how many other questions, I think we shall feel that we are being overwhelmed with statistics and shall be glad to be without them.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Stanhope.)
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: My Lords, before the Lord Chancellor puts the Question, might I ask the Leader of the House one question? I should like to ask him what principle the Government follow in putting down business in your Lordships' House. We have before us a very important Indian Bill in the Committee stage, and it seems to some of us that it is difficult to follow the continuity of that Bill when contentious business is put down in the House in advance of it. I should like to ask the noble Marquess what principles have been followed in putting down business before the consideration of the India Bill in Committee, and what it is proposed to do in the future.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, I think that the proper time for the noble Lord to ask me this question is on the adjournment of the House at some time, when I have the opportunity of informing your Lordships of the business of the House. We are now in process of negativing the Committee stage of the Finance Bill and I do not know, but I think that even within our wide terms of Order it may not be proper for me to reply to the noble Lord now. I shall be very happy to give him an answer to his question on some other occasion; probably on going into Committee on the India Bill, or on the adjournment of the House.
On Question, Committee negatived.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.
Order of the Day for the House again to be put into Committee read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND): My Lords, in moving this Motion I should like to say one word with regard to the Amendment which appears in my name in connection with the First Schedule of the Bill. I hope that noble Lords who have now read the Amendment will realise that, important though the proposed change is, it is really quite simple. It involves merely this: that we pass from indirect election to direct election in the case of the Council of State; and that in itself involves only one other alteration

105
of any importance: the consequent alteration that, instead of relying upon the system of proportional representation to secure the proper representation of the different communities, which was the proposal in the Bill, the proportions will now have to be laid down as they have been in other cases. Those are really the only two changes which this Amendment involves. I appreciate, however, the fact that the Notice which I have been able to give of the Amendment has necessarily been very short. That being so, I should like to ask noble Lords and my noble friend the Marquess of Salisbury whether it would suit their convenience if, when we come to the First Schedule, I were to propose that the consideration of the First Schedule be postponed until the conclusion of the consideration of the other Schedules to the Bill. If that met with their convenience we should then, I think, deal with the First Schedule to-morrow instead of to-day. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, as my noble friend has been good enough to mention my name in this connection, all I can say is that, as far as I am concerned, I think his proposal is a very reasonable one. It will be very difficult to enter upon a discussion of the new First Schdule to-day, because it raises very difficult points. I do not desire, of course, to lave the appearance of being very much opposed to this new proposal. That depends upon the tenour of the debate. I have to choose between alternatives none of which seems to me extremely admirable. But I do not of course intend now to discuss the merits of the case. As my noble friend has been good enough to refer to me, I understand his proposal to be a very reasonable one—namely, that we should dispose of the other parts of the Bill and that then we should revert to the new First Schedule. Personally, I am very sanguine as to the amount of time which it will take to finish this Bill. There are one or two important Amendments on fiscal matters which may perhaps be taken to-day; I thought that they might be taken before dinner, but perhaps it is a little difficult to take them then. Afterwards, however, there will be very little left in the Bill except, what is important, the question of direct or indirect election.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I think the noble Marquess will find it difficult, for technical reasons, to take the Sixth Schedule before the First. The two Schedules are to a certain extent interlaced, and if we were to pass the Sixth Schedule before the First, he would find himself landed with certain inconsistencies.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I should like to look into that and let the noble Lord have my opinion before we reach it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 357 agreed to.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD THE EARL OF MANSFIELD moved, after Clause 357, to insert the following new clause:
Provision as to Bills imposing or increasing duties an Imports.
".—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section the Governor-General in the exercise of his functions under the section of this Act of which the marginal note is 'Special provisions as to financial Bills' shall not recommend the introduction or moving of any Bill or amendment making provision for the imposing or increasing of any duty of customs, tax, or import on goods imported into the Federation unless in his discretion he is satisfied that such Bill or amendment makes provision for securing that the duty of customs, tax, or impost for the time being levied on British goods is substantially lower than the duty of customs, tax, or impost for the time being levied on other like goods:
Provided that notwithstanding anything in this section, the Governor-General may recommend the introduction or moving of any such Bill or amendment as aforesaid if in his discretion he is satisfied that such Bill or amendment, if enacted and brought into operation, will not subject British goods in the Federation to less favourable terms generally than the terms to which Indian goods in the United Kingdom are for the time being subject.
(2) In this section the expression 'British goods' means any goods consigned from and in whole or in part produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom; and the expression 'Indian goods' means any goods consigned from and in whole or in part produced or manufactured in the Federation."
The noble Earl said: In rising to move the new clause which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Rankeillour and myself, I respectfully suggest to your Lordships that it would be for your convenience if we considered this proposed new clause and the one that immediately follows it in the name of ray noble friend

107
Lord Islington together, because both deal with the same subject although they approach it from slightly different aspects. Lord Islington has been good enough to inform me that he has no objection to this course. I must apologise to your Lordships for the fact that these proposed new clauses appear in what is not really their proper place in the Bill. That is not the fault of those who put them down; they somewhow seemed to have got mixed up somewhere, but I hope your Lordships will overlook this because, in the event of either of them finding their way into the Bill as a result of our deliberations, it will be easy enough at a later stage to put them in their proper place. There is one other point, and that is that in each of the clauses the term "British" at the present moment is taken only to refer to goods coining from the United Kingdom. Again, should either of these clauses be accepted or passed, we will ask your Lordships at the Report stage to sanction certain Amendments whereby the advantages accruing would be extended to all products produced within the British Empire. It would, of course, be unthinkable that the United Kingdom itself should seek to gain advantages not shared by the rest of our Empire.
The question raised by these two proposed clauses is, I submit, one of the greatest importance. We are told that there are no safeguards with regard to trade which are of very great value, and that we have to trust to the good will of the Indian people. But if no safeguards in regard to trade are any use, neither are safeguards with regard to anything else, and of these safeguards—or so-called safeguards—there are a great many in the Bill. The difference between the two clauses proposed is briefly this, that one would confer a right of Imperial preference, and the other merely the advantages of the most-favoured-nation clause. For myself, I should have thought that as we are giving this new Constitution to India of our own free will, and it is not being extorted from us by force, it would be only reasonable that we should have as a result some form of Imperial preference in India. Of course, we would naturally be prepared to accord a similar favour to India in return, and if such a suggestion does not appeal to your Lordships, I think you would all approve of the prin
108
ciple that it should not be possible for India to put the manufacturers of this country in a worse position, with regard to the entry of goods into India, than the manufacturers of, say, Czechoslovakia or, still more, of Japan.
The Secretary of State, in introducing this measure on the Second Reading, made an almost impassioned appeal to us not to say anything which would hint that we did not trust the Indian people or the Indian political classes. I do not think anybody would say that he distrusted the Indian people, but I am afraid the noble Marquess is asking a little too much when he expects us to have unlimited trust in the Indian political classes, because I cannot feel, and I think few of your Lordships would feel, that the actions of these gentlemen in the past have been of such a character as to make us feel that their actions in the future towards this country are likely to be tinged with gratitude such as we have a right to expect. I do not distrust them because they are Indians, but because they are professional politicians, and I distrust professional politicians wherever I find them, whether among the Communist classes in India, or the trade union circles in this country, or among the occupants of the Front Bench in another place. I look upon them wherever I find them with the most jaundiced suspicion.
All I suggest is that it would be utterly improper for your Lordships to pass this Bill without ensuring that we shall not run the risk of losing more of our trade than we have done already through hostile action, directed from political motives on the part of Indian politicians. It is quite true that they may represent only a minute portion of the Indian people, but it is that minute portion which is likely to have control in India for years to come. It is with this that we have to reckon. There is only one more point to which I would like to refer, and that is to direct your attention to the word "substantially" in the third line from the bottom of this proposed new clause. The reason we do not ask for any fixed preference to be given to British goods is that it would be quite impossible to lay down that any one percentage would be suitable in all cases. Twenty per cent. would be much too low in some cases, and ridiculously high in others. Therefore, it is proposed to leave the exact figure to the discretion

109
of the Governor-General. It is true that that superman has already cast on his shoulders a greater burden than any one man can assume without going insane, but this extra task is so small that I trust it will not be the last straw which will break the camel's back.
Amendment moved—
Page 224, line 20, at end insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Mansfield.)
LORD LLOYD: I desire to support this Amendment, and to ask your Lordships, before we go any further with this Bill, to reflect upon how dramatic has been the decline of our trade position in India it a very short time, and to reflect further how urgent is the need of some sort of Amendment such as is proposed. Before the reforms in India, some fifteen years ago, India was our greatest market—some £200,000,000 worth of trade annually with India. We exported, as your Lordships know, mostly Lancashire piece goods and steel goods to India, and we bought an immense volume of India's raw materials in return, and over this vast volume of transactions profitable to both countries the protection of the British Navy was extended, solely at the expense of the British taxpayers. Since the reforms, whereas in 1924 we exported some 1,640,000,000 square yards of piece goods to India, in 1934 that figure had shrunk to about 582,000,000 square yards. In 1924 our total exports were £90,000,000, and in ten years they have fallen to £30,500,000. Such is the terrible and tragic story of the decline of our trade in India, which had been, up to the reforms, constantly and steadily in the ascendant ever since William Leedes mounted the twisted steps of Akbar's throne at Fahtepur Sikri and obtained that permit which was to have such unforeseen and yet colossal results for the benefit of both countries.
Then, as to the causes of the decline. They have been obviously very varied—partly world causes, partly due to Japanese competition, partly clue to the competition of the Bombay and Ahmedabad mills, but very largely due to discriminatory action on the part of political India against our trade. There is plenty of room both for the Lancashire and Indian mills, provided the consumers' interests are consulted, and provided—a very large proviso in this
110
case—not only the interests of the consumer are safeguarded but that the Indian buyer is allowed to buy what he wants, and given due protection against intimidation and boycotting. How significantly in 1923 Sir Charles Innes spoke, in words to this effect: "If the Indian ryot had a vote, he (Sir Charles) would not be proposing to increase the tariff duties."It is essential, if the standards of living in this country are to be maintained—and the standards have been based on East Indian trade—that we should secure, in this Bill, some security for fair trade for British goods in the Indian market. Our claims for this fair play are solid and good. Surely they are these: first, and foremost, that it is due solely to the protection we are affording on the sea routes of the world that Indian exports are able to travel, that it is on our naval protection that they depend; secondly, that we give access to Indian trade, on exactly equal terms to our own, in the vast Crown Colony markets, which we protect and which our energy and our money have developed; and thirdly there is the actual right of partnership which has been laid down by Sir Samuel Hoare when he was Secretary of State as an essential condition of this Bill. There is no partnership if economics are to be excluded and if there is to be discrimination again our trade. Those, to mention only three, are ample reasons for claiming that our trade in India should be secured under this Bill and given, not only equal, but preferential treatment; we have a right to be treated better than foreign countries who discharge none of these duties and give none of these benefits to Indian trade. That case is unanswerable.
Yet right through the process of this Bill the Government have steadily refused to take the steps necessary to give any virtual security, as we think it—or anyhow sufficient security—for fair treatment for our trade. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State's predecessor always justified his refusal either by misquoting the Fiscal Convention, which he always has entirely improperly described as fiscal autonomy—he has always used the argument of the Fiscal Convention of 1919 in support of his view that he is debarred from taking effective

111
steps to protect British traders from the hostile attacks of Indian politicians—or by relying upon the argument that any steps such as we propose would do something to damage the good will which he very strangely believes is going to result from this Bill. I am going to ask the Secretary of State to give us, if he will be so good, a much clearer reply to our question on the Fiscal Convention than that which we have been fortunate enough to obtain so far from the Secretary of State in another place.
May I remind your Lordships what the Fiscal Convention was? It originated, after all, in the India Bill of 1919 and the Simon Commission described it in these words:
"The Secretary of State does not interfere with the enactment of any tariff measure upon which the Government of India and the Indian Legislature are agreed"—
here is the operative part—
"but as a member of His Majesty's Government he cannot divest himself of responsibility for ensuring that no such measure cuts across general Empire policy or is so unfair to any constituent part of the Empire as to bring India into conflict with it."
That would obviously, without any question at all, include the Ottawa policy, which is a preferential policy. Therefore the Secretary of State has the right to interfere: indeed it is his duty according to the Simon Commission's view, if this policy, the present India Bill, should possibly cut across the Ottawa policy.
It goes on to say:
"This responsibility he can, in the last resort, fulfil by exercising his right of advising the Crown to disallow the measure if passed. But in order to avoid such a conflict if possible, he is kept informed … before the Legislature is consulted, and therefore before the Convention operates."
I only read that last passage to show that it is not only apparently his duty to intervene under the Convention where any policy runs athwart of an Empire policy, but it is made very simple without friction for him to do it. It is therefore to be seen that there are three limitations on the grant of fiscal autonomy. The first one is when the Government of India and the Indian Assembly are not in agreement; the second is, if a tariff proposed by them cuts across the general lines of Imperial policy—and I speak with special reference to Ottawa—and the third if any proposal were so unfair to any constituent part of the Empire as to bring India into conflict with it.
112
Over and over again in another place and in the country we have put questions to the Secretary of State, and he has merely ignored our questions, or he has repeated entirely fallaciously that India has been given fiscal autonomy. When the late Secretary of State moved the Second Reading of the Government of India Bill on February 6 he said:
"Our intention is substantially to continue the same fiscal autonomy that has existed in India for the last fourteen years …"
And he was corrected. The Simon Commission's Report was put before him. My right honourable friend Mr. Churchill, on the Second Reading in another place, made a very clear statement about it in the following very important passage. Referring to another member of Parliament he said:
"He asked me whether we who constitute the Conservative Opposition adhere to the so-called Fiscal Convention of 1919. I do. But"—
Mr. Churchill said, and said for all of us—
"I place a very different interpretation on it from that of the Government spokesmen. The Fiscal Convention of 1919 is not a Convention in the sense of being a treaty. It is a unilateral declaration of policy. It does not confer fiscal autonomy upon India or upon the Government of India. It does not transfer British sovereignty to an independent external body. The Government of India is not an independent body, it is a projection, to a very large extent, of the Government of Great Britain. It is open to the Secretary of State to address, and if necessary, to instruct the Viceroy and through him the Government … To say that we have transferred fiscal sovereignty, that India has complete fiscal autonomy, is not warranted either by the letter or by the spirit of the so-called Convention."
The only Minister, Mr. Baldwin, who immediately followed Mr. Churchill, made no reference to, and no denial of that doctrine. I want to ask the Secretary of State whether he supports or does not support Sir Samuel Hoare's contention that India has been given fiscal autonomy, and I hope he will make his position quite clear on that point. It is enormously important, because if fiscal autonomy has been given to India, then we have lost all power in the future of giving any protection to British trade, and we have been grossly misled all these years upon the matter.
At the Ottawa Conference India became a party to the principle of Imperial preference. We are told by

113
the Government to rely upon the good will of political India in the future for security to our trade. At Ottawa Indian politicians who took part pledged India to the principle of Imperial preference, and the Legislative Assembly only on January 30 last passed a Resolution by a large majority denouncing it. Where is the security for our trade there, or the good will that is supposed to flow? On April 28, the Punjab Trades Association passed a resolution not only to promote Swadeshi industries—it would be perfectly natural that they should try to do all they could for their own industry—but they went on to urge that trade should preferentially be done, when dealing in foreign goods, in non-British goods! Is there no reason for us to ask your Lordships to see, in the interests of the distressed areas up North, with two million people still out of employment, that some definite security should be given that our trade be treated a trifle better than foreign trade? Again, the Bombay Merchants Chamber—that is a very important Chamber. It contains merchants and traders of the highest standing in India, and certainly of the greatest stability. They are not just a noisy crowd of unimportant people; they are responsible people. Over and over again they have passed resolutions aid made statements of great hostility to British trade.
In these circumstances I beg your Lordships to consider whether it is not of vital importance that we should do something to secure fair play for our own traders. Just think of the vast markets which we give for nothing to Indian trade. Every Crown Colony—free entry into these markets. They do not pay a penny; we pay; and yet in the Bill there is nothing whatever to secure for our people better treatment than foreign countries receive. We are told that we have to rely on political good will; that good will is the first essential of mutual trading between two countries. I ask forgiveness for repeating myself, for I have said the same thing in the House before, but good is not the first essential of mutual trading. Purchasing power is the first essential of mutual trading. Therefore we need to look into this Bill to see whether the purchasing power of the people of India is likely to be increased or decreased.
114
I have a quotation which I should like to read from Mr. H. P. Mody, author of the recent agreement between Lancashire and India. Speaking on April 20 Mr. Mody said:
"It is true that India's credit stands high and her budgetary position is better than that of most countries in the world. But the limit of taxation in this country has been reached, and it is almost impossible to find additional sources of revenue for financing the numerous developments which require to be undertaken if India is to find a worthy place among the nations of the world. This does not take into any account the seriousness of the agricultural situation in the country and the difficulties in which Indian trade and industries are finding themselves as a result of the numerous restrictions on international trade. It would be foolish—"
Mr. Mody concluded—
"to sound a note of alarm; but the situation is developing in such a manner that there is every likelihood of the Socialist element in the country sweeping aside Right Wing Congressmen and acquiring dominance everywhere. The Indian arena will be occupied in the next few years with a conflict between the town and the countryside, between the forces of Socialism and of Capitalism. A substantial world-recovery may avert such a catastrophic development, but the future at best is very uncertain."
That is one of the leading industrialists and traders in India. There is not a member of your Lordships' House who would not agree—I am sure my noble friend the Secretary of State would be the first to agree—that the proposals for which he is making himself responsible are more than likely, for many years to come, to reduce administrative efficiency and probably the purchasing power of India. If that be true we have to think very carefully as to what we should put into this Bill to secure our trade. Sir Austen Chamberlain fifteen years ago was using just the same arguments as are put forward to us now. My noble friend Lord Derby will remember perfectly well that Lancashire was bidden by Sir Austen Chamberlain, then Secretary of State, not to protest against a 4 per cent. tariff because, he was told, if they did not they would earn Indian good will and all that flowed from it in the interests of trade. What has been the result? Four per cent has gone up to 14 per cent. and 25 per cent. in some cases, and on some goods to 10 per cent.
I cannot see what possible objection can be raised by the Government to the principles of Ottawa, all principles

115
announced by the Government, to giving some measure of protection for fair trading between this country and India. Least of all people in this House do I desire anything which will destroy the welfare of the Bombay mills, in whose growth and industry I have taken a personal interest for many years past. There is plenty of room for both. What I am asking your Lordships to agree to is that we should have some measure of protection against the Nationalist bitterness that is likely to be found in Congress politics for some years to come if this Bill is passed into law. We hope that time will assuage it, but it is more than likely that British trade will suffer so grievously in the first ten or twenty years of the reforms that it is absolutely imperative to do something to protect our people.
LORD STRABOLGI: This is a very large subject, and a few words are called for from this side of the House on behalf of my noble friends. Your Lordships have listened to a very powerful plea both from the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat and from the noble Earl who moved this Amendment. I will, if I may, sum up our point of view in a very few sentences. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, spoke of the two requisites of trade. He left out a third. As he was speaking I put down what I think your Lordships will agree are the three conditions on which we can trade with India or any other country. No number of Amendments, no amount of safeguards or Government checks or vetos will enable us to trade unless these three conditions are fulfilled. Two of them have been mentioned by the noble Lord. In the first place the goods that we offer must be suitable and cheap; and by cheap I mean cheap in respect of quality, not necessarily that they should be shoddy: and that, as regards textiles, depends on Lancashire herself. The second necessity of trade in any country is good will. The boycott weapon to-day has been so developed in various countries that it will defeat any political or artificial preference that is given. The third condition is ability to purchase.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, doubts whether this Bill will produce good will. We on this side have our doubts too, but whereas he goes rather further than doubt—he is sure it will not—we on this side hope that it will. We feel that any
116
artificial restriction as proposed by the noble Earl in his Amendment will weaken still further the chances of that good will which is so precious for the future. With regard to ability to purchase, that we hope will in future be allowed to be a matter for Indians and Indian economists to bring about themselves. The whole economic system in India needs reorganising. I might remind your Lordships of one remark made by the late Lord Ampthill, in the very powerful speech which he made on the Second Reading of this Bill, when he said that the problem in India is more economic than political. When we talk of Indian boycotts and Indian ill will and artificial restrictions, we must look to our own example. We have not set a very good example in the Empire recently. I ask the noble Lord and others who support him to reflect on what we have done with regard to Ireland. We have put on trade barriers against Ireland. We have tried for political reasons to ruin her principal industry, her stock-raising industry, in a way that has not escaped notice in India. I only mention that in passing. We cannot blame the Indians for regarding our action against Ireland although I admit that they began the discrimination against our goods during the boycott period. We cannot blame the Indians in the future if we ourselves do not behave with the most perfect propriety with regard to Empire trade. These are the views of my noble friends, and in a controversy of this great and vital importance I feel that they should be expressed.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I would like, first of all, to express my gratitude to the noble Earl who moved this Amendment for clearing up what I admit was to me a great puzzle—namely, why in the midst of clauses dealing exclusively with Burma I should suddenly stumble across a most important Amendment not referring to Burma at all but referring to the Federation of India. The noble Earl has explained how that point arose. He said that the Amendments got somehow mixed up, and that this one got into its wrong place. I can quite understand that in a Bill of this kind, with the large number of Amendments with which noble Lords have been dealing, that might easily happen. I would also like to express my

117
gratitude to the noble Lord for excluding me, if I understood him rightly, by a process of elimination, from that class of person which excites the noble Earl's particular animosity—namely, the professional politician, and my noble friends behind me also. I am duly grateful to the noble Lord for that.
The Amendment which the noble Lord has moved, at first sight, is one of great attraction. It seems to be a very attractive thing to do to lay down in a Statute governing the Constitution of India that India shall provide a preference in her markets for British goods, but, though that is a very attractive proposition at first sight, I am quite sure that it would be an extraordinarily unwise proposition if it was actually acted upon. Let me first of all say a word about the Indian Customs tariffs. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, unless I misunderstood him, talked as though the Indian Customs tariffs were imposing upon British goods Customs duties at least as high as those imposed upon the goods from other countries. That is by no deans the case. At present the preferences granted by the Indian Customs tariffs to the goods of this country are considerable, and I think in the very case of cotton goods, which naturally are uppermost in the minds of noble Lords, because we all regret so much that period of economic depression through which the industries of Lancashire have been passing—even in the case of cotton goods I believe it is broadly true to say—I have not verified the figures—that whereas the import duties imposed upon British cotton goods going into India are at the rate of twenty-five per cent.—a high duty certainly—the rates of Customs duties imposed upon cotton goods coming from other countries is at least fifty per cent., so that under the Indian tariff at the present time British cotton goods are enjoying a very substantial preference in the Indian market. Let me also point out that the height of the Indian Customs duties is not really mainly due to a protective policy on the part of the Indian Government. It is perfectly well known that these Customs duties have had to be raised steadily year by year during the past few years, not for the purpose of granting protection in India but for the purpose of raising the necessary revenue to enable the Indian Government to balance the Indian Budget, and
118
that should also be borne in mind when you are considering these matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, asked me a question with regard to what is known as the Fiscal Convention. The noble Lord reminded us that this Fiscal Convention had its origin in the 1919 Act. That, of course, is true. But let me remind your Lordships that under this Convention, when the Government of India and the Indian Legislature are in agreement on tariff questions, the Secretary of State does not interfere. Let me also remind your Lordships that that Convention had its origin from a British Parliamentary Committee itself. It was a proposal by the British Parliament. Let me refer the noble Lord to the actual origin of the Fiscal Convention. It was put forward by the Joint Select Committee, not the Joint Select Committee over which my noble friend Lord Linlithgow presided so ably last year, but the Joint Select Committee which dealt with the India Bill of 1919. Let me read to the noble Lord a few words of what that Parliamentary Committee said. They said that they had been giving careful consideration to the whole question of what should be the future relations between the Secretary of State in this country and the Government of India under the Constitution which they were then proposing to set up.
They went on to say this:
"This examination"—
the examination of the question to which I have referred—
"of the general proposition leads inevitably to the consideration of one special case of non-intervention."
Non-intervention, that is to say, by the Secretary of State.
"Nothing is more likely to endanger the good relations between India and Great Britain than a belief that India's fiscal policy is dictated from Whitehall in the interests of the trade of Great Britain. That such a belief exists at the moment there can be no doubt."
That was in 1919.
"That there ought to be no room for it in the future is equally clear. India's position in the Imperial Conference opened the door to negotiation between India and the rest of the Empire, but negotiation without power to legislate is likely to remain ineffective. A satisfactory solution of the question can only be guaranteed by the grant of liberty to the Government of India to devise those tariff arrangements which seem best fitted to India's needs as an integral portion of the British Empire."

119
I should have thought that those words were pretty clear.
LORD ISLINGTON: May I intervene for a moment? That was not in the Act. That was a Report of the Joint Committee. It had no validity nor legality.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: Quite so. I do not quarrel with the noble Lord. All I was saying was that the origin of the Fiscal Convention came from a Parliamentary Committee in this country. That was the recommendation made by a Parliamentary Committee. And not only was that recommendation made, but it was accepted, and that has been the policy with regard to India ever since. And I can tell the noble Lord this, that there is not a single occasion on which the Secretary of State has ever intervened since the Report of that Committee to overrule the Government of India on a question of this kind.
LORD ISLINGTON: I do not want to interrupt my noble friend again, but it was the Report of a Commission which had no more validity than the Report of the Simon Commission or any other Commission. It is not an Act of Parliament. Therefore the Secretaries of State who have worked on that have worked really ultra vires.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I really think the noble Lord must have missed my point, but I will not weary your Lordships by repeating it. I have said it twice and I do not think it is necessary that I should say it a third time. Let me say, however, that it has been the policy of this country for the last sixteen years, or whatever number of years it is, and it is the policy of this Bill to continue, not by means of a Convention because a Convention will no longer be necessary, but to continue under the Constitution which this Bill proposes to confer upon India the policy embodied in the Convention—namely, that India shall be free to arrange her tariff policy to suit her own needs.
It is quite true that as a result of the Report of the more recent Joint Select Committee which sat in connection with the Bill now before your Lordships one case was put forward in which it was recommended that the Governor-General should have a special responsibility in the matter of Indian fiscal policy. That one case was the case in which a tariff
120
measure was being enacted by the Indian Legislature which was clearly designed to have a penal effect upon British trade. The safeguard under that head was included in the Bill and your Lordships will find it in Clause 12 (1) (f). In that case the Governor-General will be called upon to exercise the special powers which are conferred upon him. That, broadly and briefly, is the present position. What would be the effect of inserting in this Bill the Amendment which my noble friend has proposed? I do not suppose that even the noble Earl himself would suggest that it would be viewed with enthusiasm in India.
A NOBLE LORD: Nor is the whole Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The noble Lord thinks that neither is the whole Bill, but certainly he would not suggest that this particular proposal would be viewed with enthusiasm in India. My considered and sincere opinion is that nothing is more likely to be damaging to future British trade in India than to give the impression which this Amendment would give that you are dictating a fiscal policy, not in the interests of India herself, but of this country.
Let me in conclusion remind your Lordships that it is not only tariffs which prevent the importation of goods from outside into a country. There is an even more effective weapon than tariffs, and we have had experience of it in India itself. That is the boycott of the goods of a particular country. If noble Lords will cast their minds back to 1930—my noble friend who sits beside me can speak with great authority on the point—they will realise, I think, that the boycott against British goods which was the result of the fear on the part of Indians that we were not going to carry out our promise did a great deal more harm to British goods than any tariff is likely to do. While I recognise the sincerity of noble Lords who have supported this Amendment, and recognise the fears which they entertain with regard to the possible future of British trade in India, I do say that in my opinion this Amendment would be far more damaging to British trade in India than any fiscal freedom which you can give to the Indian people.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I hope the Government will not think that we are anxious to take an extreme view upon this question. We want to take a most moderate view upon it, as I venture to think we have taken upon almost every part of this Bill. We were, of course, opposed to the Second Reading—that is to say we wished to have a limiting Amendment on Second Reading—but in all the Amendments subsequently moved by any of those who are acting with me I think I may say that we have never challenged in Committee the fundamental principles of the Bill. I will not make an absolute statement, but broadly speaking we have tried to work upon the foundation of the Bill.
Now we come to the fiscal question which is so vitally important to this country, and I hope your Lordships will allow me to say that every commercial interest, especially in the County of Lancashire, is regarding to-day's proceedings in your Lordships' House with great anxiety. The question is how far in granting self-government to India we are to go in the matter of fiscal freedom. Let me consider for a moment whether the argument which the noble Marquess the Secretary of State has just delivered to your Lordships is really well founded. I am not going to repeat what was so well said by my noble friend that the so-called Fiscal Convention was a limiting Convention. There was always an ultimate power in the Secretary of State to override the fiscal autonomy of India.
I do not need to dwell upon that, but I must recall to your Lordships the fact that the Fiscal Convention turned upon the fact that the Government of India agreed with the Indian Legislature upon a particular fiscal policy which the Secretary of State was very reluctant to override and, as my noble friend said, was in point of fact not overridden. But you are now going to have a wholly different Government of India. Is it reasonable to argue that every attribute that belongs to the old Government of India ought to apply to the new Government of India? They are wholly different. The old Government of India was a Government under British influence with a British Governor-General instructed by a British Secretary of State, who was all powerful. Now we are going to have a responsible Government. The situation is quite different.
122
The noble Marquess, the Secretary of State, said it is very dangerous to override the fiscal autonomy of India. To hear him speak one would have thought that no limitation on fiscal autonomy was contained in the Bill. But the whole Bill is full of what the Government call safeguards which are really limitations. There is the penal clause, which the noble Marquess himself recited, to prevent anything like penal use against the Mother Country of fiscal autonomy. Then there are all the clauses dealing with discrimination. We do not allow India under this Bill to do what it likes about policy. All these clauses which are designed to prevent discrimination are all limitations. My noble friend does not use menacing language about the indignation which will be felt in India if they are not allowed to discriminate in their policy against commercial interests in this country. He does not say that it will result in a boycott. Why not? If one kind of discrimination is so formidable, why not the other kind of discrimination? Really, the whole thing rests upon a complete misunderstanding of the actual policy of the Bill. I need not mention to your Lordships that in respect of Burma, as the Bill stands, the fiscal policy of India towards Burma is to be limited. I cannot understand, therefore, why this very menacing language should be used.
In what I may call the peroration to the Secretary of State's speech just now, he said how dangerous it would be if it were thought in India that we were going to use this Bill in order to further the interests of this country at the expense of India. You would think that he suggests that we are to reserve, under this clause which my noble friend has proposed, a power of raising unlimited taxation—of unlimited limitation of Indian fiscal freedom. Of course, all that we are trying to enforce is what is known as the Ottawa policy—namely, that this country shall be better treated than any foreign country. That is the Ottawa policy: not an unlimited power of interfering with Indian finance, but merely saying that when it comes to that critical moment, then there must be just a preference for this country. It is impossible to represent that as fiscal oppression of India.
But if my noble friend will be good enough to allow me to press him, I will

123
go a step further. There are two Amendments on the Paper. One of them prescribes—the one which my noble friend Lord Mansfield has moved—that preference should be given to British trade. We do not say how much preference, but some kind of preference. Then there is another Amendment which merely says that most-favoured-nation treatment should be accorded to British trade: not that we should be treated better than other countries, but that we should be treated not worse than any foreign country. Now I make this offer to the Government. If they will accept it, I will in that case very respectfully suggest to my noble friend who sits behind me that he should withdraw his Amendment and allow us to put in the second Amendment, the more moderate Amendment; that is to say, that we shall take a step forward to meet the Government. They say preference is dangerous—preference for this country; that the Ottawa policy would excite the antagonism of India. To think that such a thing should be said by this Government, who have made it their greatest boast that they have promoted the Ottawa policy, which has been greeted all over the Empire with enthusiasm! However, he thinks that India would be offended by the Ottawa policy—
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: No, no; the noble Marquess has rather missed the point. The Ottawa policy is already in force as far as India is concerned.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Then what objection has the noble Marquess to the Amendment?
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: Because at Ottawa India negotiated as a free negotiating party. The noble Lord says, "No, they must not do that; they must do what we are stating here."
LORD LLOYD: And we are to take no account of the fact that the Congress Party repudiated it afterwards.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Secretary of State thinks that he can rely upon Indian public opinion in the future to carry out the Ottawa policy. Will he rise at that Box and say that he can rely upon it? I am quite certain he will not! He knows far too well that there is no such reliance to be placed upon the Indian policy. But he is again back to the question of allowing them to be free
124
in this country. My Lords, the Bill crawls with limitations and fetters, as I have shown in the earlier part of my remarks. There is no reason why they should suddenly find that they think that in this one respect they should be so free. I suggest that the noble Marquess is forgetting that the British Government exist, not only to defend the interests of India, but also to defend the interests of Great Britain, and the attitude that the Government take to-night on this matter will resound right through the North of England. I warn them how dangerous the ground is on which they are treading.
I make once more this offer to them, that if they will allow us to put in the most-favoured-nation clause, then I will ask my noble friend to withdraw this Amendment. The most-favoured-nation clause is almost universal between this country and foreign countries—or at least it has been up till quite recently. All we should ask would be that, when we are making this vast change in the Indian Constitution, at any rate one additional limitation shall be made: that they shall not be able to treat this country worse than they treat any other foreign country. I make that offer to the noble Marquess and ask him to rise in his place and say whether he will accept it.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I am afraid I cannot accept the noble Marquess's offer, for the same reason; that you are once more imposing upon India instead of allowing India: to negotiate freely.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I hardly expected to find myself in opposition to my noble friend who has just sat down on a subject of this kind; but I seem to remember, in years gone by, advocating in your Lordships' House Imperial preference and other measures of that kind when my noble friend was not quite so persistent in his advocacy of it as he has been to-night.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I beg my noble friend's pardon. He will never find a single word that I have ever said in my public life which was not advocating preference.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: He was advocating it, but not with the same persistence as to-night in connection with this Bill. I have given this question very serious and anxious consideration.

125
Naturally, I agree with my noble friends who have moved this Amendment that trade is a. most important and fundamental question in connection with any new Constitution which we may give to India. But I have to address to myself the practical question as to how we can best achieve good trade conditions under this Bill. I have consulted many friends in commercial circles; I have consulted many friends who have been connected and who still are connected with Indian affairs and Indian commerce, and I have come to the conclusion that it would not be wise, nor would it be prudent, to incorporate either one or the other of these two Amendments which have been suggested in this Committee to-night.
What are we seeking to impose upon India by the first Amendment? We are seeking to impose upon India in the new Constitution a limitation which we have not even incorporated in the Constitution which was given to Ceylon last year. How then can we, in this Constitution to be granted to 460,000,000 people, not give the same fiscal freedom as we are giving to a neighbouring Colony which consists of only about four million people? My experience of the Colonies and elsewhere is that this country has never attempted to impose Imperial preference upon people without their consent, and here we are endeavouring to do this, through this Amendment, to a country which I agree has had fiscal autonomy for ever fifteen years. The question of Ottawa has been referred to. I attended the Ottawa Conference, not in an official capacity, but I was there throughout the whole proceedings, and I am aware that the Indian delegates entered into the arrangements with this Government, and other Governments represented there, voluntarily of their own free will, and without any compulsion whatever. Supposing we incorporate this Amendment, or either of these Amendments, in the Bill to-day, we are suggesting to India that we cannot rely upon them in the future in order to carry out these arrangements, or any future arrangements, or that we cannot even rely upon their good will at all. So far as India is concerned, good will does count for a very great deal.
My noble friend who moved this Amendment knows just as well as I do what were the effects of the boycott in
126
Bombay two or three years ago. We know that the effects of that boycott have hardly disappeared to-day, and probably the alarming figures given by Lord Lloyd are due, in great measure, to that boycott, or the aftermath of that boycott, in Bombay two or three years ago. I suggest that we cannot afford, in the future, to risk boycotts of that nature in India. Boycotts have now been worked out, if I may put it in that way, on such a basis, and so scientifically framed, that they would be extremely difficult, especially after a. Constitution of this kind had been passed, to contend with, and to find a solution. I believe, from all I can learn, that our best method under this Constitution, so far as trade is concerned, is for this country to rely upon the future good will of the people of India. Unless we do that, I fear there may be very disastrous results. I agree entirely with what the noble Marquess, the Secretary of State for India, said on this subject, and I, for one, will go into the Lobby, if a Division is taken, against both Amendments.
THE EARL OF DERBY: It is twelve years since I last inflicted myself on your Lordships, and therefore feel a certain amount of nervousness in addressing you now. I am practically out of all political life, but that does not mean that I am out of what is, after all, the chief life of the country, the industrial life of the North, and although I speak more or less in favour of the Amendment, rather than against it, I do not do so in any way as an opponent of the Government. I think the noble Marquess and those associated with him know that I have been throughout an ardent supporter of the Bill. Therefore, he may rest assured that if I support any particular Amendment it is not with any intention of injuring the Bill, but simply because I think an improvement can be made, and that the Amendment proposed would not be injurious to the general construction of the Bill. Two Amendments are on the Paper, and they are being taken together, and it is a little difficult to speak on them when you entirely disagree with one and agree, in the main, with the other.
The difference between the two is, to my mind, a very vital one. In the first Amendment you are dictating to India and definitely telling India that she is to give preference to this country. With

127
that I entirely disagree. I do not think you have got the right, and I think India would resent that. The other is entirely a different matter. It says to India: "You shall not discriminate against the Mother Country." For that I feel there is a great deal to be said. I ask myself the question which I know I shall be asked in my own industrial district: Is there anything wrong, when you give a new Constitution, in saying to those to whom the Constitution is given: "You have got to put the Mother Country on the same footing as other countries" We ask for no favour whatsoever, but we do ask and we put it in as an order, let us say, that no favour shall be given to other countries as against the Mother Country. I confess that it seems to me that an answer to that is very difficult to find.
The Ottawa Convention has been alluded to. I am one of those who believe that from the Ottawa Convention, although it is of slow growth, there is an enormous amount of good to come in the future to the industries of this country, and I am therefore very reluctant to see anything done which could in any way interfere with the growth of that Convention. It seems to me that if, in your new Constitution, you empower the country to which it is given to make a preference for other countries as against this country, you are cutting at the very root of that Convention. You are destroying, to ray mind, for all time, if they do such a thing, that which is the dream of many of your Lordships, myself included—namely, free trade within the Empire. The noble Marquess the other day, in speaking on Clause 296, said the clause was intended, as far as possible, to establish free trade within British India. May I not go a little further, and say that I can only support the second Amendment because I think that by doing so I am doing something which will help on, or at all events prevent the stoppage of, free trade between the Mother Country and India. For that reason, and for that reason alone, I should support it.
But I think there are other points that have to be considered. First of all, do not your Lordships think that it must be an advantage to the Viceroy in the future to let it be known that this House has decided against any question of discrimination against the Mother Country? That superman, as he must be, has any
128
number of obligations put upon him in which he has to act on his own discretion. Do not your Lordships think it would be advisable to give him one in which his discretion would not be called into play, when he would not find himself in conflict perhaps with his Legislature, but it would be put in definitely in the Act that there was to be no discrimination against the Mother Country?
There are other points which others have made and which others will make, but I should like to allude to one thing and that is the question of good will. I entirely agree with the last speaker that good will is essential. We cannot continue trade to the advantage of this country unless there is good will. You must have not only a willing seller but a willing buyer, and if I thought that this was going to the extent of destroying good will I should be very reluctant to support the Amendment. But I cannot believe that this is so. I cannot believe that by asking India, to whom you are giving this new Constitution, simply to put the Mother Country on the same footing with other countries, you are going to destroy their good will. I had the opportunity of talking with many Indians who were here on the Joint Select Committee and with many who came over during the sittings of that Committee. All of them assured me of the same thing, that there was no real ill will against England and that if this Constitution were granted then good will would most certainly come. I may have been simple to believe them, but I did believe them, and I do still believe them. I believe that they have got good will for this country, and I do not believe that this restriction—which, after all, is in a way a very minor restriction, the prevention of discrimination against this country—will in any way impair their good will.
I hope that the noble Marquess, with whom one has worked for so long, will see his way to put in something in the Bill which would allow one to answer one's friends in the industrial North and say: "There is something in that Bill which is going to prevent discrimination against you. I believe there is no discrimination against you. With the good will of the Indian people, which I believe will come, you will see in future years that this Bill has been of benefit, not only to India but to this country, and

129
your trade will prosper in the future as it has in the past."
LORD HASTINGS: The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, made clear to the House that he was intending to invite the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, to withdraw the first Amendment on the Paper and to ask the Committee to rely upon the second Amendment which stands in the name of Lord Islington and Lord Darcy (de Knayth). He argued that surely it would be right and essential that the most-favoured-nation clause should be inserted in the Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Derby, has very strongly emphasised the same point. The Secretary of State when he spoke drew attention to Clause 12 of the Bill. May I invite the attention of the Committee very closely to that clause? Clause 12 (1), which has already been passed by your Lordships without amendment, says:
"In the exercise of his functions the Governor-General shall have the following special responsibilities, that is to say:
(f) the prevention of action which would subject goods of United Kingdom or Burmese origin imported into India to discriminatory or penal treatment."
Is it not possible for noble Lords interested in the industrial North to make it clear to those who place reliance upon the defence of their interests that already those interests are defended? The Bill contains the words which I gather are so much desired. It is already not legal for discrimination to be exercised against the importation of British goods into India. If that were not already so I fancy that many of your Lordships would be determined to insist that they should be so inserted. But if it is a fact that they are already there, and indeed they are, surely the case so amply made by noble Lords has already been met. I suggest that it is so, and that being so, I am inclined to think that noble Lords who are pressing for its reiteration now are surely asking for that which is unnecessary.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Why will the Government not accept this?
LORD HASTINGS: I am not competent to speak for the Secretary of State, still less for the Government, but I take it that, as it is already there, they think it is not necessary to put it there again.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord evidently did not listen to the Secretary of State's speech.
LORD HASTINGS: The noble Marquess may be assured that I did listen with great care to the Secretary of State's speech, and I was rather struck by the fact that he did not rely entirely upon this clause and subsection. At that moment the Secretary of State was endeavouring to show that the first Amendment which stands on the Paper was one which it was impossible for the Government to accept. It was not until after the Secretary of State had spoken that the noble Marquess suggested to the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, that the first Amendment should be withdrawn and that the second should take its place, and it was only on that account that I rose to point out that already the conditions desired are provided.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I of course respond at once to the appeal of my noble friends, Lord Salisbury and Lord Derby, but before asking leave to withdraw the first Amendment, I wish to ask your Lordships to divide on the second. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, that it is in any way superfluous. I beg leave to withdraw.
LORD ISLINGTON: I assume from the fact that no member of the Government has risen that they intend to continue to resist this most reasonable Amendment for most-favoured-nation treatment. It is clear to everyone. It prevents the efforts of those who are vindictively raising a tariff against British goods, and surely it is worth while putting it in the very forefront of the Bill. I still hope—although it is very difficult for me to hope—that the Government will accept it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DARCY (DE KNAYTH)LORD DARCY (DE KNAYTH) moved, after Clause 357, to insert the following new clause:
Higher duties not to be imposed on United Kingdom imports than on other imports.
". Nothing in this Act shall be taken to empower the Federal Legislature to impose or increase ally duty of customs upon goods imported into the Federation winch are consigned from or in whole or in part manufactured in the United Kingdom if such imposition or increase would impose on such goods a higher duty of customs than the duty for the time being imposed on like goods

131
imported into the Federation which are consigned from any country other than the United Kingdom."
The noble Lord said: After the observations which have fallen from the noble Earl, Lord Derby, I feel it is wholly unnecessary to say anything further in support of this new clause, and I should like to pray in aid every word he has said. I think I have never known an occasion in the whole time I have sat in this Chamber, about eight years, in which such a speech has been made containing not one superfluous word. It was certainly one designed for the benefit of the country as a whole. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 357 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Darcy (de Knayth).)
THE EARL OF DERBY: After that, I can assure the noble Lord he will never hear me speak again! May I say in answer to my noble friend Lord Hastings that I was perfectly aware of that paragraph in the Bill which he mentioned? I quite agree that that does in a way cover this question, but it places the sole responsibility on the Governor-General. I do not want to put more on the shoulders of the Governor-General than T can possibly help. I feel that in this Amendment you are removing this responsibility from the shoulders of the Governor-General and putting it on this House by putting it into the Bill itself.
On Question, Whether the proposed new clause shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 47; Not-Contents, 64.

CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Exmouth, V.

Kilmaine, L.

Wellington, D.

Falmouth, V.

Lawrence, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Lloyd, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Salisbury, M.

Aberconway, L.

Middleton, L.

Addington, L.

Monkswell, L.

Albemarle, E.

Boston, L.

Palmer, L.

Derby, E.

Carrington, L.

Phillimore, L.

Effingham, E.

Conway of Allington, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Lindsay, E.

Cranworth, L.

Redesdale, L.

Mansfield, E.

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

Remnant, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Rochdale, L.

Midleton, E.

Daryngton, L.

Rushcliffe, L.

Morton, E.

Greville, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Onslow, E.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Strachie, L.

Scarbrough, E.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Strickland, L.

Islington, L.

Wolverton, L.

Bertie of Thame, V. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Radnor, E.

Digby, L.

Rothes, E.

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

Hailsham, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Sandwich, E.

Spencer, E.

Elphinstone, L.

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

Stanhope, E.

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

Strafford, E.

Hampton, L.

Hastings, L.

Northumberland, D.

Elibank, V.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Somerset, D.

Goschen, V,

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Halifax, V.

Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

Bath, M.

Hambleden, V.

Lamington, L.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Luke, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Abinger, L.

Marks, L.

Reading, M.

Annaly, L.

Marley, L.

Zetland, M.

Arnold, L.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Ashton of Hyde, L.

St. Levan, L.

Airlie, K

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Sanderson, L.

Bathurst, E.

Biddulph, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Feversham, E.

Bingley, L.

Stafford, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Chesham, L.

Stanmore, L.

Iveagh, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Strabolgi, L.

Lichfield, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Clinton, L.

Lutton, E.

Chwyd, L.

Templemore, L.

Peel, E.

Cornwallis, L.

Woodbridge, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clauses 358 to 364 agreed to.
Clause 365 [Medical qualifications]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The Amendment to this clause is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 233, line 7, leave out ("of") and insert ("in force in").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 365, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 366 to 368 agreed to.
Clause 369 [Expenditure defrayable out of revenues of Burma]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: This Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 236, line 11, leave out ("the government of Burma"; and insert ("Burma or some part of Burma").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 369, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 370 agreed to.
Clause 371 [Duty of the Government of Burma to keep Secretary of State supplied with funds]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: Both these Amendments are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 236, line 35, leave out ("or such person as lie may appoint") and insert ("and any High Commissioner representing the Government of Burma in the United Kingdom")
Page 236, line 37, leave out ("in the United Kingdom out, of the revenues of Burma") and insert ("out of the revenues of Burma in the United Kingdom or through officers accounting to the Secretary of State, or to any such High Commissioner as aforesaid").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 371, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 372 to 381 agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: It will probably meet your Lordships' convenience if we adjourn these proceedings now and resume them at half-past nine.
[The sitting was suspended at ten minutes before eight o'clock and resumed at half-past nine.]
Clause 382:
Executive authority in respect of railways to be exercised by Railway Board.
382.—(1) The executive authority of Burma in respect of the construction, maintenance and operation of railways in Burma shall be exercised by a Railway Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board").
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved in subsection (1), before "construction," to insert "regulation and the." The noble Marquess said: The first Amendment in my name on this clause is to regularise the position with regard to a private railway in Burma, the existence of which was a little overlooked when the Bill was drafted. It so happens there is a railway which is available to the public belonging to the Burma Corporation, and it was never intended that a private railway of that kind should actually be run by the Railway Authority, though it may be intended that it should be under the general control of the Railway Authority. My first Amendment is to regularise that position.
Amendment moved—
Page 243, line 25, after ("the") insert ("regulation and the").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved, at the end of subsection (1) to insert the following new subsection:
"(2) The said executive authority extends to the carrying on in connection with any railways operated by the Board of such other undertakings as either were being carried on in connection therewith by or on behalf of the Governor-General in Council immediately before the commencement of this Part of this Act or as the Board may be authorised to carry on after the commencement of this Part of this Act by or under any Act of the Legislature."
The noble Marquess said: This Amendment is similar to an Amendment which I moved on the Indian clause of the Bill to enable the Railway Authority to embark upon operations which are ancillary to the actual running of trains, making agreements with regard to road transport and so on. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 243, line 27, at end insert the said subsection (2).—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 382, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 383 [Composition &c. of Railway Board]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 243, line 39, after ("railways") insert ("operated by the Board").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 383, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 384 to 387 agreed to.
Clause 388 [Provisions as to certain obligations of the Railway Board]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The Amendment in my name on this clause is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 248, line 18, leave out ("railway premises") and insert ("the premises of railways operated by the Board").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 388, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 389 to 391 agreed to.
Clause 392 [Audit and annual reports]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The Amendment in my name on this clause is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 249, line 16, leave out ("persons using or desiring to use the railways and the Board"), and insert ("the Board, and persons using or desiring to use the railways operated by the Board").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 392, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 393 to 399 agreed to.
Clause 400 [Additional appeal to His Majesty as respects interpretation of this Act]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The Amendment in my name on this clause is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 253, line 22, leave out ("criminal").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 400, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 401 to 406 agreed to.
Clause 407 [Saving of rights of appeal]:
LORD RANKEILLOUR: May I ask whether the Governor of Burma is in precisely the same position as regards
136
defence as the Governor-General of India and has he the same powers?
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: Yes he is in the same position.
Clause 407 agreed to.
Clauses 408 to 417 agreed to.
Clause 418 [Conditions of service, pensions, etc., of persons recruited by Secretary of State]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: These Amendments are consequential. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 261, line 7, after ("service") insert ("or civil post")
Page 261, line 10, at end insert ("or was appointed to his post").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 418, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 419 and 420 agreed to.
Clause 421 [Application of four last preceding sections to persons appointed by Secretary of State in Council, and certain other persons]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The Amendments in my name on this clause are consequential. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 263, line 21, after ("service") insert ("or civil post")
Page 264, line 2, after ("service") insert ("or was appointed to his post")
line 13, leave out ("subsection (4)") and insert ("subsections (2), (3) and (6)").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 421, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 422 to 426 agreed to.
Clause 427 [Provision for protection of existing officers of certain Services]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: There are two consequential Amendments to this clause. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 267, line 22, leave out (" to ")
Page 267, line 27, after (" of ") insert (" or civil post under ").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 427, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 428 to 439 agreed to.
Clause 440 [Persons not to be disqualified by sex for holding certain offices in Burma]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: This is a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 274, line 13, after (" service ") insert (" of ").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 440, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 441 [Transitional provisions]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: These are consequential Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 274, line 22, leave out (" service of ") and insert (" services of or civil posts under ")
Page 274, line 26, leave out (" then ")—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 441, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 442 [Interpretation, etc.]
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: There are two consequential Amendments to t his clause. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 275, line 5, after (" to ") insert (" and to the dependants of persons who are or have been ")
Page 275, line 6, after (" provided ") insert (" or preserved ").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 442, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 443 to 447 agreed to.
Clause 448:
Provisions as to Customs duties on. India-Burma Trade.
448. With a view to preventing undue disturbance of trade between India and Burma in the period immediately following the separation of India and Burma and with a view to safeguarding the economic interests of Burma during that period, His Majesty in Council may give such directions as he thinks fit for those purposes with respect to the duties which are, while the Order is in force, to be levied on goods imported into or exported from India or Burma, and with respect to ancillary and related matters.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved to leave out "in Council may" and insert "may by Order in Council." The noble Marquess said: This Amendment is to a large extent of a drafting character, but I should like to say that it is put down to meet a point which my noble friend Lord Rankeillour has brought before
138
your Lordships on more than one occasion in the course of these debates. I do not think I need say anything more about the Amendment which explains itself.
Amendment moved—
Page 278, line 25, leave, out (" in Council may ") and insert (" may by Order in Council ").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I am extremely grateful to the noble Marquess for having met me. It would be ungenerous to observe that I have been met only at the fifth time of asking. I have been met, and I thank him. I think it is quite clear now that simply to say His Majesty may do something in Council does not necessarily mean that he does it by Order in Council, the effect of which would be to bring that action under Clause 305 so that it would come before the notice of Parliament. That is the whole point and it is rather an important one. It arises again, if I may say so, on Clause 471, and on the strength of this Amendment I. think a similar Amendment will be necessary there. Otherwise the pledge that there should be a review by Parliament, especially a review of finance before Provincial Autonomy comes in, would not necessarily be fulfilled. However, I do not want to pursue the matter any further. I thank the noble Marquess for having met me and I hope that he will repeat it, as I think logically he must, on Clause 471.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF DERBY THE EARL OF DERBY moved to insert:
"Provided that no Order in Council shall be made which shall authorise for a. longer period than two years the imposition of duties in India on Burmese, goods or duties in Burma on Indian goods at levels lower than the duties applicable at the same time to like goods of United Kingdom origin."
The noble Earl said: Two hours ago I said I would not inflict myself again on your Lordships, but I hope you will allow me to go back On my word for a very few minutes. I had put down this Amendment to Clause 261, but I was told that it was there out of place. Therefore I have put it down on this clause and I would ask your Lordships to consider it at this juncture. It is a little difficult for me to move the Amendment without giving a slight sketch of the history which led me to make this proposal. Let me say at once that I agree that an interim agreement between India and Burma is essential I have not the least objection to urge against any agreement

139
to which they may come, provided that it does not last too long, and provided also that this country has a say in that agreement before it becomes too much a settled purpose.
Now, when it was contemplated—as it always has been from the very beginning, and in the Joint Select Committee—that there should be such an interim agreement, my friends in my own part of the world, in Manchester, asked that they should be allowed to make certain representations. They were told that certainly they could, and when they asked if they could send up a deputation they were told that it was a little too early to send it up. Nothing more did they hear until, by quite a different channel, they heard that negotiations were not only in progress but had practically come to completion. They then asked whether they might not be heard, and they were told that it was too late to be heard. They now very naturally feel that they were not very well treated. I want to say at once that I am perfectly certain that there was no question of sharp practice on the part of the noble Marquess's predecessor. It was a misunderstanding; but because of that misunderstanding I hope that I may be allowed to-night to put the case as briefly as I can for a short period in which that interim agree-merit shall last.
If I remember correctly, on the Select Committee we discussed this question and, although no time was definitely stated, my impression is that it was always spoken of as one year. Now if I had wanted any other incentive to put forward this Amendment to get justice—I will not say "justice"; to get opportunity for British traders to have their case put before the two Governments of India and Burma, I could have found it in the speech of the noble Marquess's predecessor. If I may quote at some length what Sir Samuel Hoare said in another place:
"I agree with my honourable friends from Lancashire that that agreement ought not to be of undue length. It should be of sufficient length to enable the new Governments to settle down and to enable the Indian Government and the British Government to enter into negotiations with the Burma Government and to make what agreements are possible. I hope then that the British Government and the Burma Government will come together, and we shall see that we have much in common
140
between us in the future. For the moment there must be this interim agreement—"
as I have said, I entirely agree with that—
"and it can only be on the lines I have suggested. How long that agreement should last is a matter for argument. The negotiators in India have suggested five years."
And this is the remark which gives me, if I may say so, the reason why I should bring the matter before your Lordships' House:
"If my honourable friends from Lancashire or honourable friends representing any other substantial section of British trade think that the period should be a shorter period, and they will discuss the question with me or the Board of Trade, let us by all means have a discussion on those lines. We are not to-night taking a final decision. The agreement has not been placed before me yet in detail."
Now it seems to me that that must be my justification for bringing this matter at this moment before the Committee. I have, as I have said, absolutely nothing to say against an interim agreement being arrived at, but what I do want to protest against is that it should be of such a lengthy duration as to give an undoubted preference to India as opposed to this country. At the present moment India and Burma are one; the tariffs of one are the tariffs of the other, and the consequence is that there is a tariff against Great Britain which does not exist between Burma and India; in other words, the traders in this country are paying a heavy tariff while traders in similar goods in India are going in free into Burma.
That may be all right for a short period, and a status quo which it may be necessary to maintain for a period while matters are settling down, but I do say that five years is too long, and I hope His Majesty's Government will see their way to reduce that period to two years. There is a great difference in some matters between two and five, and in the extra three years, which I ask shall be taken out of the agreement, there is time for the competitors with British trade to dig themselves in, so to speak, in Burma; and everybody who is connected with trade knows that once a clientele is established it is extremely difficult for other competitors to get in. Therefore you will find that when the time comes for the agreement to lapse, those who are our competitors in certain trades in India will have established such a hold

141
as will make it very difficult indeed for our people to get any footing whatsoever. Please understand that I do not, for one moment, challenge tae time for which this interim agreement shall stand if Burma and India enter into separate negotiations. They are perfectly at liberty to do what they like, and I do not want to interfere with their discretion, but I want to limit the time during which we have not got a say in the matter, and to allow free discussion between ourselves and Burma and ourselves and India to conic at the earliest possible moment. I suppose it is almost out of order in this House to give a racing illustration—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No! No! Go ahead.
THE EARL OF DERBY:—but still, at the same time, it is one that I think the noble Marquess and other noble Lords will understand. If you have two equal horses, and it is a "toss-up" which is likely to be the winner, if you give one a. flying start has the other got much chance of beating him? In this particular case I hold that by this agreement, if you extend it to the length of five years, you are giving to one of our great competitors, in one particular trade, a flying start, and that is what I ask the noble Marquess, if he possibly can, to see is obviated, so that we are put on an equal footing. For that reason, without wishing in any way whatsoever to hamper the ultimate arrangements which Burma and India may come to with each other, or with this country, I ask the noble Marquess whether he does not see that it is possible to limit the five years—which was never mentioned in the Select Committee—to a much shorter period, and I suggest, for his consideration, that the period should be two years.
Amendment moved—
Page 278, line 30, at end, insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Derby.)
Loan HARDINGE OF PENSHURST: I should like to add just a few words in support of the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Derby. I have had the pleasure of meeting, in company with the noble Earl, some of the gentlemen interested in questions affecting their commerce with India and Burma, and I was impressed by their moderation and desire to fortify by good will their commercial relations with both India and Burma. The period of five years appears
142
to me to be much too long and at the same time quite an arbitrary period, for which so far there does not seem to be much justification. If this period is maintained, the existing tariffs will have become so fixed and definite as to make it difficult for new arrangements to be made which would place British trade on a fair and equitable basis with Indian and Burmese trade.
When I was in India there was a cotton Excise duty which had been imposed on India as a protective measure for the cotton industry of this country. This Excise duty was regarded as a. great injustice in India and exposed the British Government to the charge that India was being governed in the interests of Lancashire, rather than of India. As a result of many representations a definite assurance was given by the Home Government to reconsider the economic position of India with a view to the abolition of this cotton Excise duty. Finally, the Excise duty was abolished a short time after the end of the War. It seems to me that this proposed delay of five years is almost an analogous case, but of course the other way round, and Indian and Burmese trade are to be protected to the detriment of British trade for the space of five years. This seems to me hardly right or fair. The demands of the British traders appear to be extremely moderate, and I trust that it may be possible to adjust this matter in a manner that would be equitable in the interests of British trade. I hope therefore that my noble friend will be able to accept the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I can assure your Lordships that nothing would give me greater pleasure than to feel that I could accept the Amendment. But there is, as a matter of fact, a great deal more at stake in this matter than the actual trade between Lancashire and Burma. First of all let me point out, adopting the metaphor of the noble Earl, that the horse which he was thinking of has had a flying start for the last fifty years, because for the last fifty years free trade has existed between India and Burma, and it would not appear therefore that it would make really a vast difference if the flying start were to go on for a few years longer. Let me put it another way. If two horses are running a race and one has a start of fifty yards out of 100 or 200 yards, it.

143
would probably win just as easily as if it had a start of fifty-five yards. It would not really make very much difference.
What I want to make quite clear to your Lordships is that this Amendment really involves a great deal more than Lancashire trade. It involves the whole of British trade with India, and for this reason. The noble Earl, in speaking to his Amendment, rather overlooked the last part of it. The noble Earl suggested that the result of his Amendment would be to curtail the interim agreement between India and Burma from five years to two years; but if noble Lords will look at the Amendment they will see that at the end of these two years a condition is laid down in the noble Earl's Amendment, and that condition is this. At the end of the two years there shall be duties—this is what it amounts to—on Indian goods going into Burma and on Burmese goods going into India at the same rates as the Customs duties charged on British goods. That is to say, at the end of the two years free trade between India and Burma is to come to an end. Not only that, but Burma is not to be a free agent at the end of the two years to negotiate for herself. It would be laid down by the Amendment that the Customs duties that Burma is entitled to levy on Indian goods must in any case be as high as the Customs duties levied on British goods. That is a very important addition to the Amendment.
The arrangement which has been negotiated between India and Burma is not a final, signed agreement. I have not seen the final text of it; it has not yet reached this country, and as far as I know it is not signed. But it is general information that the effect of the agreement will be to maintain the status quo so far as Indo-Burmese trade is concerned. That is a great advantage to Burma, and not only to Burma but to vast British interests which have grown up in Burma. If noble Lords will consider the character of Burmese trade they will see that by far the greater part of the exports of Burma find a free market in India. Rice, oil and teak are among the chief exports from Burma, and so much is that the case that last year 62½ per cent. of Burmese exports found a free market in India. Two-thirds of her rice, varying from 1,500,000 to 2,000,000 tons a year, was sold in the free
144
market of India. The whole of her oil products found a free market in India, and 80 per cent. of her teak exports found a market in India. I recall these facts because it roust be clear from them that India is in a very strong position to retaliate against Burma if Burma adopts a policy which is contrary to the interests of India.
Let me ask your Lordships to bear this in mind, that the amount of British capital invested in these great interests in Burma is estimated at from £40,000,000 to £50,000,000 sterling. That capital is spread over a very large number of shareholders, and I have got to consider, not only the shareholders in Lancashire businesses—I agree they must be considered, too—but also the shareholders in other large enterprises. I have got to think of the owners of this £40,000,000 or £50,000,000 sterling invested in Burma if India retaliated on Burma. If Burma excited her to do so by adopting a policy of taxing Indian goods entering Burma, that would be the result, and it is unhappily the case that in this country we have not got an alternative market we can offer to Burma for her products. We do not eat rice to any extent in this country. Though we use a certain amount of teak, we do not use anything like the amount that Burma exports to India.
That is the position with regard to Burma. India likewise desires to retain free trade with Burma, certainly for the sake of her cotton products. She sells a very large part of her cotton goods in the Burmese market. That is not all. I have, since the Amendment of the noble Earl appeared on the Paper, received representations from the Chambers of Commerce in India, representing British trade in India and representing those who import goods from this country to India, protesting strongly against the Amendment which stands in the name of the noble Earl. I think the reason why they protest is pretty obvious. At the present time the imports from this country into Burma are enjoying the advantage of the preferences granted under the Ottawa Agreement. The Ottawa Agreement, in the case of India, does not last for a specified number of years, as it does in the case of the other Dominions. It was only agreed to in India on these terms, that it, might be reconsidered at the end of any period of six

145
months. In point of fact the Government of India did give an undertaking to the Indian Legislature that at the end of three years, in any case—that is to say, in December next—they would re-submit the matter to the Indian Legislature for their consideration.
The point I want to make is this, that if you are going, once again, to attempt to impose, whether upon Burma or upon India, conditions with regard to her tariffs, as would be done by the last part of the noble Earl's Amendment, you are going to produce in India a very unfavourable atmosphere for the reconsideration of the preferences which are at present granted by India to the trade of the United Kingdom under the Ottawa Agreement. I have figures which will give your Lordships an idea of the advantage of these preferences. Under the Ottawa Agreement, so far as it affects India and the United Kingdom, goods amounting to 28 per cent. of the total exports from this country to India are at present receiving preferential treatment. More than that, as a result of the policy adopted by the Indian Legislature some few years ago of discriminating protection, the cotton imports and the iron and steel imports from the United Kingdom to India even before Ottawa, were receiving preferential treatment as compared with similar goods which came into India from other countries. In that respect, therefore, India has been treating the trade of this country, may I say, very reasonably. I ask your Lordships to consider this point. The export of cotton goods from Lancashire to Burma in any case amounts to less than 10 per cent. of the total amount of cotton goods exported from Lancashire to India and Burma combined. I think it is appreciably less than 10 per cent., something between 7 and 9 per cent. What I would venture to submit for the consideration of the noble Earl is whether it is worth while creating in India an atmosphere hostile to Lancashire by making this arrangement with regard to the 9 per cent. of her goods which she sends to Burma and overlooking altogether the 90 per cent. which Lancashire sends to India. That, I submit, is a very material consideration.
There is one further point which I think your Lordships would do well to bear in mind. As a result, of the agreement
146
which was recently contracted between India and Japan an arrangement was made which limited the imports of cotton goods from Japan into India and Burma to specified quotas. Anybody who is familiar with the circumstances of the cotton trade in India in recent years will realise that the really dangerous rival of Lancashire in that market is Japan, and I would ask your Lordships to consider, if, as a result of an Amendment of this kind, Indians who have not yet signed the Indo-Burmese Trade Agreement said, "Very well, we will not have any agreement at all," what would be the result so far as Japanese quotas are concerned. They would no longer apply in the case of Burma. I am bound to say I think Japanese competition would be a very serious item in the case of the cotton trade of the United Kingdom.
I have devoted the greater part of my remarks to the second part of the noble Earl's Amendment to which, if I may say so, he really did not refer at all in the course of his speech. The noble Earl was talking only of the question of the period of the validity of the Indo-Burmese Trade Agreement. I think the question of period is a matter to which India and Burma would very likely be quite prepared to give further consideration. The question of the actual period of the interim agreement has, as a matter of fact, been referred to—as I think the noble Earl reminded us—by my predecessor in another place. He stated that the provisional agreement effected by the Government of India and the Government of Burma contained a provision preserving the status quo for five years. He said that he had formed no decided opinion himself as to the actual period. On the one hand, the period must not be so short as to fail to achieve the purpose in view—namely, the prevention of the undue disturbance of the existing trade between India and Burma. On the other hand, he laid it down that if it was for too long a period it would involve an unnecessary and an undesirable encroachment by Parliament on the fiscal autonomy which India has and which Burma after separation will enjoy.
In the past few weeks I have myself been in consultation with the Government of India with regard to this matter, and I can at least inform the noble Earl of this, that I have some reason—indeed I think I may say I have good reason—to

147
hope that the two Governments, before they finally sign their agreement, may themselves come to the conclusion that the period of five years which was originally proposed for this agreement might be unnecessarily long. I understand from the consultation which I have had with them that they both hold the opinion that a period of three years is the minimum which would be of any value for the purpose for which it is required; that is to say, maintaining the status quo during the interim period. But I have every hope that they may come to the conclusion that a period of five years may prove to be unnecessarily long, for the reasons which I have given, and that when we eventually receive the agreement which they have been negotiating we shall find that it is proposed that it should extend for a period of only three years.
There is only one other observation that I need make and that is this. When the agreement reaches this country it will have to be dealt with by an Order in Council, and it will therefore be open to noble Lords on that Order, when they have the full terms of the agreement before them and when they know precisely how long it is intended that the agreement shall last, to come to their decision as to what action, if any, they should take.
THE EARL of MANSFIELD: At an earlier stage in your Lordships' deliberations the noble Marquess, the Secretary of State for India, I think, plumed himself that I had given him a certificate of exemption from the ranks of professional politicians. But the noble Marquess is learning very rapidly, and I am afraid that before long I may have to endorse, or even suspend, his licence! The noble Marquess—I hope unintentionally—has not dealt at all with the real point which I am sure lies at the back of the proposal of the noble Earl, Lord Derby. The people about whom the noble Marquess is apparently most concerned Are that very sensitive body the Indian politician, the importers in Burma, and the shareholders in various countries. The people to whose fate I should like to direct attention are the scores of thousands of workers in Lancashire who have already lost their livelihood, and the other scores of thousands of workers who may lose their livelihood. I have not heard from the Front Bench any allusion to that.
148
I submit that in the rather cavalier way in which the noble Marquess is turning down every suggestion which may possibly help to minimise the blows which Indian politicians are likely to strike at British trade, the Government are vitally neglecting the interests of British workers, which it ought to be their chief object to protect and foster.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I must point out that the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, was not entirely accurate when he suggested that there are some thousands of Lancashire workers who may lose their livelihood by this proposal. I would remind him that, after all, Lancashire will be no worse off under the proposed clause than it is now. Lancashire is not now enjoying the preference that it desires to secure. When £50,000,000 of British capital is involved in this matter and the whole of the Burmese commercial people are very anxious to have this agreement ratified, it is a little hard that Lancashire should press its claim once more, as it has pressed it so very often during the last three years, for preferential treatment over the rest of British capital and British industry. We have heard a great deal about Lancashire trade, and no one is more anxious than I am that Lancashire should have a very fair deal in this matter and in the matter of Indian trade. But the whole of Lancashire trade is only a quarter of our exports to India. We have metal and machinery trade; we have soap and woollen trade; which all amounts to three times as much as our total exports from Lancashire. Therefore I think that in pressing the claim of Lancashire, of one particular county and industry in that way, the noble Earl is doing grave injustice to all those other British interests which are vitally concerned in keeping the Burmese export trade to India.
LORD LLOYD: I really think the Government may very well pray to be protected from their friends. If the best thing that the noble Marquess can say for the Government's Bill is that it is not going to make the plight of Lancashire's distressed areas worse than it is now, then I am even more sorry for the Bill. Surely, it is the duty of the Goernment to take into account, not shareholders, but the distressed areas in

149
the North, to which their Indian policy has already done so much damage.
THE EARL OF DERBY: May I say one word in answer to what the noble Marquess has said? Nothing disturbs me more when any question of this kind arises than that it should be looked upon as a question of Lancashire versus India. That is the last thing that I wish. I think it is the one thing which might ensure bad will, and. it is good will that I am asking for all I can. There are, however, certain things which are not really Lancashire versus India which I think, and I thought in this case, it right to bring forward. It does not apply only to Lancashire trade, but to all trades, and here, if I may say so, I think the noble Marquess a little misunderstood me. I do not, for one moment, question the validity of any arrangements that Burma and India may arrive at together for the interim period. They are at perfect liberty to come to any arrangement they like. All I want to do is to limit that arrangement to a comparatively short period, and that then there should be a free discussion and a free entry by Burma, which is now part of India, into any relationship she likes with this country, or any other country. The noble Marquess said that I did not allude to the last part of my Amendment. My Amendment is this. There is an Order it. Council which will have to come before both Houses, which will make valid the interim arrangement arrived at between Burma and India. I want that interim arrangement confined to two years, and that is why, in that part of my Amendment, I say that the duties in India on Burmese goods, or the duties in Burma on Indian goods, shall not be at levels lower than the duties applicable at the same time to like goods of United Kingdom origin. In other words, I only want it to be for the same time as the interim arrangement is arrived at.
With regard to the answer of the noble Marquess to my Amendment, I want to thank him for the courteous way in which he dealt with it, as he deals with all Amendments. I am not going to enter into discussion of the question as to whether a horse which would win at fifty yards would also win at fifty-live yards. I will only say I would sometimes like those five yards to my credit. Although I am naturally disappointed by the
150
answer, and his not being able to accept my Amendment, I do thank the noble Marquess for the ray of hope he has given—that he will consult with the Indian Government and the Burmese Government in the hope that at all events a portion of my Amendment can be accepted. If he does so and succeeds, I can assure him he will confer a great benefit on the industrial part of the world in which I live. I have such confidence in the noble Marquess and the way in which he has always tried to help us in various matters that came before the Select Committee that, rather than divide the Committee, I would leave it to the noble Marquess to endeavour, as he has promised, to secure some revision of the terms in which the Order in Council is framed and to get that revision accepted by the Burmese and the Indian Governments. With the permission of the Committee I will withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 448, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 449 agreed to.
Clause 450 [Provisions as to monetary system]:
LORD STRABOLGI: I gave what I am afraid was rather short notice to the Government that I wanted to raise a matter on this clause. The clause is very widely drawn indeed. It gives His Majesty in Council powers to make provision with respect to the monetary system of Burma and matters connected therewith or ancillary thereto, and then it goes on to say that the Governor of Burma, with the approval of the Secretary of State, may also make certain arrangements. May I ask the Secretary of State if he will be so good in the first place as to explain why Clause 448 has been altered with regard to the way in which Orders may be made. Instead of saying that His Majesty in Council may do so and so, in that clause, we have just passed a drafting Amendment by the Secretary of State laying it down that His Majesty may by Order in Council do certain things.
On Clause 451 there is another Amendment down in his name proposing to alter the powers of His Majesty in the same way; that is, altering them from "His Majesty in Council" to "by Order in Council", and as your Lordships will

151
appreciate there is a slight difference. With regard to this clause now under discussion it is proposed to leave the original wording in and my noble friends would like to know why it is not proposed to alter that also. By Clause 469 of the Bill it is laid down that Orders in Council should be laid before Parliament, but I believe I am right in saying that "His Majesty in Council" means "His Majesty in the Privy Council" and the Order does not come before Parliament; but the matter is a little obscure, and I have sought guidance in various expert directions but so far without complete success.
May I also ask for an explanation from the Secretary of State as to the intention of this clause? We understand that if you are separating Burma you must presumably separate the Burmese currency, which is at present the rupee linked to sterling. What is intended to be put in its place? This is a matter of very great importance to all business men and to the future trade of Burma. Secondly, is it intended that these powers shall be permanent or not, or is it only for the transitional period? The position is this. We are separating Burma from India, and that means, apparently, a separation of the monetary system, though I do not know that that should have been quite necessary. Very wide powers are accordingly given under this clause to His Majesty in Council and to the Governor of Burma in Council, with the approval of the Secretary of State. Are these powers going to be permanent?
I would point out that these tremendous powers are not given to the Governor-General in the Part of the Bill dealing with India. I have searched the Bill, but I have not been able to find that similar powers are given to the Governor-General of India. Both Governors-General have financial advisers; both Governors-General have certain responsibilities placed upon them to see that nothing is done to imperil the financial stability of their respective charges; but these particular powers under this clause I have not yet found are being conferred on the Governor-General of India. I therefore make so bold as to take up the time of your Lordships to ask for enlightenment on what I think your Lordships will agree is a matter of some importance.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE, FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): The noble Lord has asked two questions with regard to this clause, the first of a drafting nature and the second in the nature of a more general inquiry. With regard to his first question, if I understood it correctly, he suggests that a drafting Amendment is required in regard to these words, "His Majesty in Council may," similar to that which my noble friend introduced a few moments ago. I have not had an opportunity of a full consultation with the draftsman on the point since the noble Lord raised it, but in the few moments at my disposal I have taken such opportunity as I could, and I am advised that, having regard to words that occur later in the Bill, a change at this point is not necessary. If I find on fuller examination that I have unwittingly misled the noble Lord in that regard, I will give him an undertaking that it shall be put right at a later stage, but I believe I am not misleading him.
With regard to the second point, as to what is the meaning of these wide words in the clause, I think I can in a very few words tell the noble Lord what the position is. At the present moment, as he knows, Burma and India enjoy the same rupee currency. It may very well be that that arrangement will continue indefinitely. At all events it is clearly necessary to make some interim arrangement to ensure that it does continue for a period of time until the Governments of India and Burma have had an opportunity, if they so desire, of making an agreement with regard to it. At the present moment, I am informed, an agreement is under consideration between the two Governments for the continuance of the same currency, which is clearly in the interests of both; and if, and when, that agreement is made, I am advised that it will be necessary for it to be brought before Parliament in order to be ratified by an Order in Council which will come before both Houses. I think, therefore, the noble Lord will recognise that the object of this clause is to give powers, in words, indeed, somewhat wide, the object of which is, as I have stated, to ensure that there should be no rude disturbance of an arrangement which is to the interest of both parties until they have been able to come to an agreement.
One other word I may add. I hope that as part of that agreement, and as

153
part of the genera system that will be established, the same system of rupee currency will be maintained, and that, connected with it, Burma will both bring strength to, and draw strength from, the Indian Reserve Bank. I am quite sure that., having regard to all these considerations to which the noble Earl, Lord Derby, drew attention, your Lordships will feel that the more close this arrangement can be made the better it will be.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount. If he is looking into this drafting question, perhaps he will, at the same time, look into Clause 449 which is in the same position. I am delighted to hear, if he will allow me to say so, what has just fallen from him with regard to the currencies. I was afraid it was proposed to set up a brand new currency in Burma, whereas throughout the world it is the different currencies and the different exchanges that are causing so much difficulty to trade. I am more delighted than I can say to find that the Bill is less reactionary than I feared.
Clause 450 agreed to.
Clause 451 [Provisions as to immigration from India]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The Amendment in my name on this clause is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 279, line 6, leave out ("in Council may") and insert ("may by Order in Council").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 451, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 452 [Power of Governor to issue Proclamations]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The Amendments in my name on this clause are consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 280, line 24, leave out ("six") and insert ("twelve").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved to insert after subsection (3):
"(4) if the Governor, by a Proclamation under this section, assumes to himself any power of the Legislature to make laws, any law made by him in the exercise of that power shall continue to have effect notwithstanding the revocation or expiration of the Proclamation, and any reference in this
154
Act to Acts of the Legislature shall be constructed as including a reference to such a law".
The noble Marquess said: This amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 280, line 27, at end insert the said subsection (4).—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 452, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 453 to 456 agreed to.
Clause 457 [Persons not to be subjected to disability by reason of race, religion, etc.]:
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN moved to insert the following new subsection:
"(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as derogating from the special responsibility of the Governor for the safeguarding of the legitimate interests of minorities."
The noble Marquess said: This Amendment is really con sequential on an Amendment agreed to in Clause 297. It is giving the same power in the case of Burma. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 283, line 8, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I accept this.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 457, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 458 [Compulsory Acquisition of land, &c]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The Amendments in my name on this clause are consequential. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 283, line 9, leave out ("in Burma").
Page 283, Line 10 after ("property") insert ("in Burma").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 458, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 459 agreed to.
Clause 460 [Courts of Appeal in revenue matters]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The Amendment in my name on this clause is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 284, line 12, leave out ("in revenue matters") and insert ("or revise decisions

155
in revenue cases.")—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 460, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 461 to 464 agreed to.
Clause 465 [No proceedings to lie against Governor or Secretary of State]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The Amendments in my name on this clause are consequential. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 285, line 16, after (" in ") insert (" and no process whatsoever shall issue from ")
Page 285, line 17, leave out (" subject to the provisions of Chapter X of this Part of this Act ")
Page 285, line 20, after (" otherwise ") insert (" and, except with the sanction of His Majesty in Council, no proceedings whatsoever shall lie in any Court in Burma against any person who has been the Governor or the Secretary of State ")
Page 285, line 21, at end insert (" in performance or purported performance of the duties thereof ")
Page 285, line 21, at end insert:
("Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed as restricting the right of any person to bring against the Government of Burma or the Secretary of State such proceedings as are mentioned in Chapter X of this Part of this Act.")—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 465, as amended, agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved, after Clause 465, to insert the following new clause:
Removal of certain disqualifications of the occasion of the first elections to Legislature.
".For the purposes of the first elections of persons to serve as members of the Legislature, 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 of Burma or as a Minister in the Province of Burma;

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

The noble Marquess said: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 465 insert the said new clause.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 466 to 468 agreed to.
Clause 469 [Orders in Council]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The Amendments in my name in this clause are consequential upon the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Rankeillour. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 287, line 34, leave out ("which expressly authorises the making of such an Order")
Page 288, line 12, 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.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 469, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 470 [Interpretation]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved to insert:
"'Burma' includes (subject to the exercise by His Majesty of any powers vested in him with respect to the alteration of the boundaries thereof) all territories which were immediately before the commencement of this Part of this Act comprised in India, being territories lying to the east of Bengal, the State of Manipur, Assam, and any tribal areas connected with Assam;
"'British Burma' means so much of Burma as belongs to His Majesty."
The noble Marquess said: This is only an Amendment to insert a definition of Burma in the Burma part of the Bill. I think it would be rather invidious if Burma had to go after separation to the Indian Act to find out a definition of Burma.
Amendment moved—
Page 288, line 16, at end insert the said words.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 289, line 4, at end insert ("railway' includes a tramway not wholly within a municipal area;").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 470, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 471:
Commencement.
(2) The remainder of this Act shall, subject to any express provision to the contrary, come into force on such date as His

157
Majesty in Council may appoint and the said date is the date referred to in this Act as the commencement of Part III of this Act and referred to in Part XIV of this Act as the commencement of that Part.
Loan MIDDLETON Loan MIDDLETON moved, in subsection (2), after "may," to insert "by Order." The noble Lord said: I hope I may share the pleasure experienced by my noble friend Lord Rankeillour, when he was met the whole way over a similar Amendment in Clause 448. I do not think I need say anything further about this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 290, line 3, after (" may ") insert (" by Order ").—(Lord Middleton.)
THE MARQUESS OE ZETLAND: I have attempted frequently to meet my noble friend Lord Rankeillour's point, and I am afraid I have succeeded in the end rather clumsily. I have put Order in Council in place of other words in a number of clauses, yet, on searching through the Bill, I find these are a large number of other clauses in which, in the interests of grammatical accuracy, it would be desirable to make this alteration; but I think I can do it in a different way and really a much more comprehensive way. If the noble Lord, Lord Middleton is prepared to withdraw his Amendment now I will be prepared on the Report stage to move to insert new words at the beginning of Clause 305 and also at the beginning of the corresponding Burma clause, Clause 469. The new words I would propose to insert at the beginning of the clause are:
"Any power conferred by tins Act on His Majesty in Council shall be exercisable only by Order in Cc tuned and "—
and then the rest of the clause will follow. I hope my noble friend will feel that this time I really have met him. Indeed, I feel almost astonished at my own generosity.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: May I say that I most heartily appreciate what has been said by the noble Marquess? I have pursued this matter of King Charles's head from clause to clause, and I now feel that it has been given me on a charger with all the grace of the daughter Herodias.
LARD MIDDLETON: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 471 agreed to.
Clause 472:
Charge of expenses on revenues raised in India or Burma.
472. Where under the provisions of this Act any expenditure is charged on, or is to be defrayed out of, the revenues of any of the Governments constituted by this Act or of the Governor-General in Council, that expenditure, whether expenditure heretofore charged on or defrayable out of the revenues of India or not, shall be charged and defrayed in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved to leave out Clause 472. The noble Marquess said: This really ought to have been done in another place. Those of your Lordships who have served in another place will remember that in Bills submitted in another place, all clauses and lines of clauses which deal with finance have to be printed in italics. By an arrangement, which I will not characterise by any adjective, between the officers of another place and the draftsmen of this Bill the trouble and expense of printing lines in italics all over the Bill was got over by inserting Clause 472, which then appeared in italics. By introducing Clause 472 they achieved the object which it was desired to achieve but, that object having been achieved, the clause of course is no longer required. Indeed it is entirely superfluous and in those circumstances I beg to move that it be omitted.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 472.—(Th e Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment, agreed to.
Clause 473:
Repeals.
473. The Government of India Act shall be repealed and the other Acts mentioned in the Sixteenth Schedule to this Act shall also be repealed to the extent specified in the third column of that Sehedule:
Provided that—

(a) nothing in this section shall affect the preamble to the Government of India Act, 1919;

(b) without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act and to the provisions of the Interpretation Act, 1889, relating to the effect of repeals, this repeal shall not affect any appointment made under any enactment so repealed to any office, and any such appointment shall have effect as if it were an appointment to the corresponding office under this Act.

LORD RANKEILLOUR: On this clause I must really ask the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor

159
what is the position of the preamble to the Act of 1919. A preamble usually implies that something follows. Will this preamble be really embodied as a preamble to this Act by the fact of its being kept alive? If not, what validity or effect will it have? Will it be simply suspended in space, or will it have any effective force at all? Or will it be left—that might be very valuable—as a signpost for the further activities of Parliament?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): I hesitate a little to embark upon a discussion of an obscure constitutional point, which occupied a great deal of attention in another place and which was the subject, I gather, of some substantial differences of opinion; especially as my noble friend Lord Rankeillour did not have the opportunity of calling my attention to the fact that he was going to raise the point, so that it is sprung upon me without any previous notice.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: May I say that it was an inspiration?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I wonder where the inspiration came from. I think I can, provisionally and subject to second thoughts, give an answer to my-noble friend. There is a considerable body of authoritative opinion which supports the view that the repeal of an Act of Parliament does not repeal the preamble, the reason being that the preamble has no operative effect at all. My noble friend asked me whether the effect of preserving the preamble would give it any operative effect. The answer is "No"; it never had any operative or executive effect. That is why it is a preamble and not an enacting part of the 1919 Act. But doubts were expressed in certain quarters as to whether that was so, and it was suggested that if the complete Act were repealed, some persons who know no better would imagine that that involved the repeal of the preamble and the cancellation of the assertion contained in the preamble as to the objects of the legislation which the 1919 Act embodied and in pursuance of which this Act has taken another step. That was obviously undesirable, because Parliament did not intend, and Parliament does not intend, by the enactment of this Bill, in any way to depart from the
160
statement of intention contained in the preamble to the 1919 Act.
In order to prevent any misconception, it has been thought desirable expressly to retain the preamble in existence, so as to show quite plainly, to anyone who otherwise might draw a false inference, that there has been no change in the policy and no departure from the principles which the preamble contains. Therefore, when the preamble remains, it will not be suspended in space. It will remain as it was, a statement of the intention of Parliament, and it will remain as it was, without any enacting force, because that is never the function of a preamble. I hope that that answer will make the position clear to my noble friend.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I thank the Lord Chancellor. He has made a most valuable declaration riveting attention on the preamble to the Act of 1919, which is the only thing to which Parliament has hitherto been pledged. I am sorry that I did not give him further notice, but I am bound to say that I admire the process whereby his intellectual agility overcomes the want of preparation.
LORD STRICKLAND: May I add that it is quite in accordance with constitutional practice that before a Bill arrives at the Third Reading stage, if the Bill is not congruous with the preamble, the preamble has to be altered accordingly, and therefore the difficulty should not arise.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Would your Lordships give consideration to one point? It is of the utmost importance that this preamble should be preserved. I do not want to go into the particulars of it, but if my noble and learned friend would look at the Schedule of Enactments repealed he would find that there is no exception made: the whole of the Act is repealed. I should have thought that, when you get a Schedule completely repealing the Act, then, whether the preamble is operative or not, the whole Act goes. Although there are these words in the clause, I suggest to my noble and learned friend that it would be worth while considering, possibly on the Report stage, whether, when you come to the Sixteenth Schedule on page 416, there should not be some words in the repeal of the Act saving the preamble.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: There are.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: You have done it in the Act of 1919, and it is not necessary in the Act of 1935.
Clause 473 agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I propose now that the consideration of the First Schedule be postponed until after the other Schedules.
LORD STRABOLGI: Before we postpone it, I would point out that there is a misprint in the sixth line on page 11 of the Marshalled List of Amendments.
Moved, That consideration of the First Schedule be postponed.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Second Schedule [Provisions of this Act which may be amended without affecting the accession of a State]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved, to add to the reference to Part II, Chapter III, "and the protection of Judges of the Federal Court and State High Courts from discussion in the Legislature of their conduct." The noble Marquess said: Perhaps I might just remind your Lordships what is the object of the Second Schedule to this Act. This Schedule is the one referred to in Section 6, subsection (5). Its, object is the following: Since the Princes enter the Federation, as set out in the Act, of their own volition and in accordance with their Instrument of Accession, it would, of course, have been quite unfair to them, and indeed their adherence could never be obtained, if there was an unlimited power for subsequent Parliamentary legislation to alter the. Federal Constitution, leaving the States completely bound by the amended Act, which might constitute a Federation of a totally different type to that which the Princes had agreed to accede to. On the other hand there are, of course, provisions in the Bill, and in particular nearly all those relating to the purely British India side, to the subsequent amendment of which the States cannot possibly offer any objection.
The solution of this difficulty which has been adopted is the following: Those provisions of the Act which it was proposed should be amendable without the States being able to object, are set out in Schedule 2, and under Clause 6 (5) Amendment may be made of these pro
162
visions of the Act "without affecting the accession of the State" with the addition that no such amendment (unless agreed to by the State) should extend the powers of the Federal authority in relation to the State itself. These provisions are set out, as I have said, in Schedule 2. They may be amended without affecting the accession of the States, and may be conveniently referred to as "unprotected" provisions of the Act. Those provisions in the Act which are riot mentioned in the Second Schedule may be called the "protected" provisions of the. Act. These are, of course, the provisions which deal with the fundamental parts of the Federal Constitution, and with other parts which directly affect the States. It will be noticed that Clause 6 (5) does not say positively what is to happen if a "protected" section is amended by Parliament, but by implication such an Amendment would be one which "affects the accession of the States," that is to say if the "protected" provisions are amended by Parliament the State has the right to reconsider its position, or in more technical language it may be said that if "protected" portions are amended, the State's Instrument of Accession is voidable, though not void.
I have on the Order Paper a number of Amendments to the Schedule, the object of which is to make a few additions to the list of "protected" clauses of the Bill. None of the additions is of any very substantial importance, and one or two of them are put down to cover undertakings given in another place. The time was so short, I understand, that it was not possible in the time available to insert these in the Schedule, or to remove them from the Schedule as the case might be. The others concern relatively small points, on which we have been doing our best to meet the legal advisers of the Princes, who are interested in this particular matter. With that preliminary explanation, I may now move the different alterations to the Second Schedule which I propose.
Amendment moved—
Page 313, line 36, at end insert ("and the protection of Judges of the Federal Court and State High Courts from discussion in the Legislature of their conduct").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I presume all these are extensions of the "protective clauses?
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: Yes, that is so.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 313, line 43, leave out from (" special ") to the end of line 48 and insert (" responsibilities of the Governor relating to the rights of Indian States and the rights and dignity of the Rulers thereof and to the execution of orders or directions of the Governor-General and the superintendence of the Governor-General in relation to those responsibilities.")
Page 314, line 4, at end insert (" and the protection of Judges of the Federal Court and State High Courts from discussion in the Legislature of their conduct")
Page 314, line 16, after (" Act ") insert (" any power of a State to repeal a Federal law, and")
Page 314, line 32, at end insert ('or empower the Governor-General to issue orders to the Governor of a Province for preventing any grave menace to the peace or tranquillity of India or any part thereof")
Page 314, line 35, at end insert ("and the appointment, removal and conditions of service of the Auditor-General")
Page 314, line 36, leave out (" The whole Chapter ") and insert (" Save in so far as it affects suits against the Federation by a Federated State.")
Page 314, line 46, leave out (" the power of the Governor-General to refer questions of law to the Federal Court ")
Page 315, line 16, after (" relations ") insert (" the limitation in relation to Federated States of His Majesty's power to adapt and modify existing Indian laws; His Majesty's powers and jurisdiction in Federated States;")
Page 314, line 20, at end insert (" and save also the provisions relating to the interpretation of this Act so far as they apply to provisions of this Act which may not be amended without affecting the accession of a State ").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Third and Fourth Schedules agreed to.
Fifth Schedule:

FIFTH SCHEDULE. COMPOSITION OF PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES.
Legislative Assemblies.
4. In the Legislative Assembly of each Province specified in the first column of the
164
Table of Seats there shall be the number of seats specified in the second column opposite to that Province, and of those seats—

(i) the number specified in the third column shall be general seats of which the number specified in the fourth column shall be reserved for members of the Scheduled Castes and, in time case of Bombay, seven shall be reserved for Marathas;

(ii) the numbers specified in the next ten columns shall be the numbers of seats to be filled by persons chosen to represent respectively—(a) backward areas and backward tribes; (b) the Sikh community; (c) the Mahomedan community; (d) the Anglo-Indian community; (e) the European community; (f) the Indian-Christian community; (g) the interests of commerce, industry, mining and planting; (h) landholders; (i) universities; and (j) the interests of labour; and

5. A Province, exclusive of any portion thereof which His Majesty in Council may deem unsuitable for inclusion in any constituency or in any constituency of any particular class, shall be divided into territorial constituencies—

(i) for the election of persons to fill the general seats;

(ii) for the election of persons to fill the Sikh seats, if any;

(iii) for the election of persons to fill the Mahomedan seats;

(iv) for the election of persons to fill the Anglo-Indian seats, if any;

(v) for the election of persons to fill the European seats, if any; and

(vi) except in the case of Bihar, for the election of persons to fill the Indian-Christian seats, if any; or, if as respects any class of constituency it is so prescribed, may form one territorial constituency.

In the case of each such class of constituency as aforesaid the total number of seats available shall lie distributed between the constituencies by the assignment of one or more of those seats to each constituency.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved, in paragraph 4 (ii), to leave out "(b) the Sikh community; (c) the Mahomedan community." The noble Lord said: This Amendment raises the question of the communal system of elections. I do not want to argue the case for the Amendment at length at this time of night, but I must take the opportunity of making one protest in Committee—as I did indeed on the Second Reading, but the Secretary of State was unable to reply (about which I make no complaint at all)—against this whole system of the Communal Award. The first observation I would submit to your Lordships is to ask you to notice, with regard to the intricate provisions for representation of the Indian States in the

165
Council and in the Assembly—and the same principle, of course, applies to the Provinces we now have under discussion—that there is no mention of communal representatives. Where British India is concerned there are provisions reserving so many seats for Moslems, so many for Sikhs, so many for Hindus, etc., but with regard to the Indian States, which form one-third of the total area of India and contain about one-quarter of the population, if you leave out Burma, there is not one word about communal representation.
Observe that in the case of the largest State, Hyderabad, that State will have five members of the Council and sixteen members of the Assembly. There you have a State, with a predominantly Hindu population, governed by a Mahomedan dynasty. One would have thought, if this Communal Award was so necessary to get this Bill through, or indeed to have any kind of assent in India—we were told it was necessary for the then Prime Minister in August, 1932, to meddle in this hell's kitchen, which is what it is—that there would have been some provision made for communal representation from the States. But here you have Hyderabad, and as far as the Bill is concerned every one of these twenty-one representatives may be Moslems. In practice the matter does not arise, because only in recent years has there been any communal disturbance in the State at all. Similarly with regard to Kashmir, which is a predominantly Moslem State ruled by a Hindu ruling house. Kashmir is entitled to send three representatives to the Council and four to the Assembly. As regards the Bill all these seven representatives of the State of Kashmir may be Hindus, to represent an overwhelming Moslem population. But, in practice, we know perfectly well that the representatives sent from Hyderabad, Kashmir, Mysore, and the other States, with multiple representation will represent the population of the States as a whole. That should have been the case with British India.
I speak with int.ch diffidence in the presence of so many great experts in your Lordships' House on recent Indian history, but I believe I am right in saying that the communal differences, about which we hear so much now, were not very noticeable before the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms, and that, as has
166
been described to me and to other noble Lords many times, when we were seeking to find an explanation, they have been made more acute by the scramble for loaves and fishes—in other words, by the competition for offices and places and jobs and posts, whether for the principals themselves or for their nephews and cousins and other relations; and that that is the real explanation beneath the communal troubles. If that is the case—and it seems to be generally accepted—what becomes of this intense religious feeling? The intense religious feeling may be felt by the masses, but it is exploited and taken advantage of by self-seeking politicians. We have surrendered to this, we have given way to it, and this alone condemns the Bill in my eyes.
If my casting vote could destroy this Bill, I would vote against it for that reason, because you are perpetuating this terrible rift in the democratic life of India, which I believe will be permanent. We were told it was necessary to make this Award by the former Prime Minister, now Lord President of the Council, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, in August, 1932, because the different communities could not agree among themselves as to the fractional proportion of seats they were to have in these Provincial Legislatures we are now discussing. Was there any reason at all why we should give way to that kind of pressure? If they could not agree, was it for us to impose this division upon them, this which I am afraid will be a permanent division? I am speaking with the greatest seriousness. Could we not have told them to come back to us when they had agreed? Could we not, above all, have insisted on the common electoral roll?
On the Second Reading I took it upon myself to question a remark of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State—I question any remark of his on India with the greatest reluctance and hesitation—when he said this was the only protection for minorities. I ventured to show then that, as your Lordships well know, in the case of countries where there is a common electoral roll, minorities are taken care of by the majority because of their voting power and because of the general decency of public life. Jewish and Catholic minorities are well looked after in this country, not because they have separate representation as Catholics

167
or Jews in the House of Commons, but because Members naturally look after their own constituents once they are elected. The same thing, we believe, would happen in India. I do not want to dwell on this matter at great length at this time of night. I would only point out that there is a most welcome movement in India amongst the younger men against this exploitation of communal feeling for political ends. Young Moslems, young Parsees and young Hindus are beginning to come together in the ranks of Congress and other political bodies. There is, I am informed, not much communal difference or feeling in the trades unions.
Where Labour has began to be organised in India—organised, I am sorry to say, against much opposition from Government—where trades unionism has made headway, there is no communal feeling. They act together as workmen seeking to improve their material lot. I am afraid that the explanation in years to come of why this crime was committed—I am not using hasty language, I am using language most deliberately—why we have given way to this claim of the Sikhs and the Moslems and others who demand separate representation is that we have harked back to the old system of "Divide and rule." You have been weak in this matter because you thought to base future Government on a minority of Moslems and, in one Province, of Sikhs. I think it will be proved in years to come a very great blunder. I have made my protest against this, and I have done it in the way open to me by putting an amendment on the Paper. I have made my protest with a very great feeling of sincerity in the matter. I think a very short-sighted view of the future of India has been taken in this whole system of communal representation as embodied in the Bill, both with regard to Provincial Legislatures and in the arrangements for electing the Councils. It is against the best interests of India, and therefore of this country, and for that reason I protest.
Amendment moved—
Page 319, line 13, leave out from ("tribes") to ("d") in line, 14.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: I could wish that the noble Lord who has just sat down had contented himself with the earlier part of his speech, and had
168
refrained from using the language that fell from him towards the end of it. I can imagine nothing more mischievous and more dangerous than that there should be transmitted to India that in his judgment it is the considered policy of Parliament and Government in this country that Government in India should pursue the policy of "Divide and rule." He used those words at a moment when he ought to know of the most tense and anxious position in the capital of the Punjab Provinces, and when he ought also to know that every district officer up and down India who is ever faced with communal anxieties would give anything he possessed to be able to allay the communal tension and so get rid of his greatest anxiety. I am certain the noble Marquess opposite, and anyone who has had the honour of serving in India, will regret profoundly that the noble Lord should have thought it wise to give his authority to a statement to which one is not unaccustomed from irresponsible quarters in India, but, luckily, unaccustomed from responsible quarters in this House.
The noble Lord spoke of communal electorates with a great warmth of condemnation, in regard to which he is, of course, quite entitled to hold any opinion that he likes. He has said a great deal about them. There would be, if I wished to detain your Lordships, a great deal more that might be said on the other side which would, I think, put the whole question in more true perspective, but I am bound to make plain, what, indeed, no doubt is plain to all your Lordships, that it is no new proposal of this Bill to establish communal electorates. They have been in existence for a great many years past, and all your Lordships are perfectly well aware, I doubt not, of the reasons that were held first by Lord Minto and ever since, to compel their recognition. It is significant, surely, that any bodies that have examined this problem over the whole of the last seven years—the Simon Commission, the Government of India of that day, the Round-Table Conferences, the Joint Select Committee—have all recognised that, whatever might be their personal opinions, and many members of them shared the opinion that is held by the noble Lord, communal electorates must only and can only go by the consent of the communities affected.

169
I am not concerned here to argue whether or not the present Lord President of the Council and the Government of that day was justified or compelled to assume the responsibility of issuing the Communal Award. I think, if he will allow me to say so, the noble Lord was a little ungenerous in not recognising that, without such an assumption of responsibility, further constitutional progress would in fact have proved impossible. But that is a matter of history that both he and I at this stage are quite powerless to change, and those of us who were in the House yesterday and who heard the concern with which many of my noble friends contemplated what they wrongly, as I think, conceived to be a possible violation of the sanctity of the Communal Award, will be with me and with His Majesty's Government, in asserting, if it needs asserting, that there can at this stage be no question. of altering the Communal Award and—this is fundamental—since that is what the noble Lord would contemplate, we may regret it or we may not but as practical politicians we have to face the facts, and for that reason and refraining from entering into those wider powers of controversy upon which the noble Lord would perhaps think it so important to embark, I must ask the Committee not to accept his Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: May I add one word to what the noble Lord has said in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has said about the Communal Award? I was a member of the Round-Table Conference from the beginning, and I know by experience the supreme efforts which were made by the then Prime Minister, who was then the Leader of his Party, and by other members of his Party, to try to avoid the perpetuation of the system of the common electorate. I remember very well the endless sessions of the Committee appointed to deal with the matter, sessions which took place during the Second Round-Table Conference under the presidency of Mr. Gandhi himself, when it proved impossible to reach any agreement. Therefore the Government was faced either with suspending all constitutional advance or continuing a system which it found to be the basis of the existing Constitution. I think, therefore, that there is no foundation whatever for the view that the appearance of the communal system, the separate electorate,
170
in this Bill is due to any ulterior motive on the part of any of the Governments of this country who have had anything to do with it. It is inherent in the situation, admittedly regrettable, in India itself, which has been in existence for the last twenty years.
LORD STRABOLGI: I do not want to press the point. I think that both the noble Marquess, the Secretary of State for War, and the noble Marquess on the Liberal Benches have given my words a rather stronger emphasis than I meant. What I meant was that perhaps that memory of our old policy in the past suggests that we are not quite strong enough in forcing a common electoral roll on to those delegates. I can quite bear out what the noble Marquess has said about the First Round-Table Conference. I remember then the tremendous fight about two Sikh seats in the Punjab; it held things up for weeks. I should have liked to support the broad-minded Hindus and the handful of broad-minded Moslems who wanted to have a common electoral roll. I should have liked to hold the thing up for two or three years more until we got the common electoral roll. I entirely accept what the noble Viscount said, that we ought not to cling to this remnant of the past, which colours our policy.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN moved, in paragraph 5, at the end, to insert: "In any territorial constituency to which more than one seat is assigned each voter shall exercise one vote only." The noble Marquess said: This is an Amendment which I hesitate to bring before your Lordships at this late hour, because it brings up what has been a matter of endless discussion; the technical method of election. On the other hand, it goes very deep into the possibilities of election in India itself. We have all had experience in this country and in other countries—I need not go into details—of the effect of the single vote in a single constituency producing a. Legislature which is quite unrepresentative of the main elements of public opinion in the country. I am not suggesting for one moment that it is possible or desirable at this stage to introduce proportional representation into the ordinary elections in India to-day. But you have under the Bill proposals whereby in a certain number of constituencies there will be

171
multi-member constituencies; that is to say, the constituencies will elect anything from one to four members. I venture to think that it is highly desirable that the Government should give consideration whether it is possible to prescribe in this Bill that a system should be adopted to secure the representation of large minorities, or the possibility of their receiving representation, in multimember constituencies.
Under the more usual practice of the block vote—that is to say, that each voter casts as many votes as there are candidates for election—it means that if there is a majority party they carry all the seats, even though they may have only a small majority in the constituency. Perhaps for that reason it was arranged in the Poona Pact that in the primary election in which the candidates of the Depressed Classes were standing, the method by which they would be selected is by the effect of the single vote and the effect of the single vote is to make it possible for a constituency in which there is a very considerable minority—say 2,000 out of 6,000—to return one member. I do not know whether the Government will agree to put this into the Bill, but if they feel some difficulty I venture to suggest that they should put this as a definite instruction to the Delimitation Committee to consider very seriously the advantages of this system.
Amendment moved—
Page 319, line 45, at end insert:
("In any territorial constituency to which more than one seat is assigned, each voter shall exercise one vote only").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I confess I have always been a good deal attracted by this method of voting. It would of course involve, as the noble Marquess has said, plural constituencies, and on that ground there are some objections to it in the case of India.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I am not suggesting that this Bill should make any more plural constituencies than are in existence.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I am sorry I misunderstood the noble Marquess. As I have said, I have been much attracted to this system of voting, but at this stage I should be rather
172
unwilling, I think, actually to insert these words in the Bill itself. I quite agree with the noble Marquess that it is a matter which might very suitably be submitted to the Delimitation Committee as one of the matters which they might investigate under their terms of reference. If that was done the noble Marquess and indeed your Lordships generally would have an opportunity of considering the matter at greater leisure when the recommendations of the Delimitation Committee were brought up, as they must be brought up, by Order in Council, for the consent of Parliament. If the noble Marquess would be satisfied with that I would ask him to withdraw his Amendment on that condition.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Then it would be an instruction to the Committee from the India Office to consider this proposal?
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: Yes.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: On that understanding I am glad to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN moved, in the Table of Seats for Provincial Legislative Assemblies, to substitute "77" for "78" as the total of general seats for Bengal. The noble Marquess said: This, and subsequent Amendments, are quite simply a further attempt to give a little more representation to women. If your Lordships turn to page 324 of the Bill, which sets forth the exact representation of various classes of the communities in the Provincial Assemblies, you find a curious discrepancy. In the case of Madras, which has a total of 215 seats, eight seats are reserved for women. In Bombay, with only 175 seats, six seats are reserved for women. In Bengal, with 250 members, only five seats are reserved for women. If there is one Province in India in which I think it is important that women should be directly represented in the Legislature it is in the Province of Bengal; where social conditions are exceedingly difficult it is more important that you should have a certain number of women in the Legislature than anywhere else. Therefore the effect of my first Amendment is that there should be one seat added for a Hindu and one for a Moslem, so that out of 250 seats

173
there should be seven women where there are only five. In view of the sympathy expressed by the noble Viscount yesterday in response to the appeal of the most reverend Primate, I hope that the noble Marquess will give favourable consideration to this proposal.
The second Amendment really affects Assam, where in a Legislature of 180 it is proposed only to reserve one seat for a woman. I remember well the pathetic evidence of the Assam Provincial Committee in which one member somewhat exaggeratedly alleged that there was only one woman in Assam suitable for representing it in the Legislature. That was an exaggeration, but I think your Lordships will realise that it is an extremely difficult position to put a single woman to sit alone in a Legislature of 180 men.
Amendment moved—
Page 324, line 324, column 3, leave out ("78") and insert ("77").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I desire on behalf of the Opposition to support the Amendment. The noble Marquess in charge of the Bill may not find this particular method of increasing the representation of women one that he would approve of, but I hope, in view of the sympathy shown on this question by the Government the other day, that they will be prepared to make some concession. My noble friend Lord Snell would certainly have supported it had he been here, and I can only endorse what he said the other day on this question, which I think is not one of detail but really of fundamental importance.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The noble Marquess is a most gallant and persistent supporter of the ladies, and I admire greatly the consistency with which he has constantly urged their further representation. With regard to Bengal, it would, I am afraid, meet with very considerable opposition from the community in that Province which happens to be in the majority, and which does not always take the same view of the advantages of women in public life as the noble Marquess does. But all these figures which are delicately balanced have been worked out very carefully and in constant consultation with the local Governments, and I should really be rather averse at this stage from accept
174
ing an Amendment of this kind. So far as Bengal is concerned, I am afraid I should be very unwilling, but if the noble Marquess wishes to press me very hard with regard to Assam, I would enter into further consultation with the Government of Assam, where I think perhaps popular feeling would not be quite so strong as in Bengal, with a view to seeing whether they would be willing to agree to the alteration proposed by the noble Marquess. I am afraid that he will not regard that answer as very satisfactory, but I have done my best.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I am very glad to accept the noble Marquess's suggestion. If he will press, with that fervour which I believe he really feels, the position of the single woman on the Assam Legislature, I think they would give way. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
LORD CHARNWOOD LORD CHARNWOOD had given Notice that he would move to reduce from "30" to "10" the number of seats reserved for the Scheduled Castes in the Bengal Legislative Assembly.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: If it were not for the sight of the clock, I would gladly move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend, because this raises the whole question of the Poona Pact, and it is really far too important to embark on at this time of night. I think it only fair to say, however, to the noble Marquess, with a slight adaptation of the usual caution that is given, that anything he has said may be used against him on Report.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: May I retort to the noble Lord that that might apply to him also? I understood that the noble Lord yesterday would have been horrified at any suggestion being made that the pledge contained in the Communal Award might be altered. Now the noble Lord comes down and actually proposes an alteration of this solemn pledge!
LORD RANKEILLOUR: May I say to the noble Marquess that if he will study this Amendment he will find that it seeks to restore the Communal Award as it was.
Fifth Schedule agreed to.
Sixth Schedule [Provisions as to franchise]
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I assure noble Lords that this will be my last utterance to-night. I suggest that the Schedule be postponed merely in order to elicit some information from the Government. It may be awkward to take this Schedule before the First Schedule is discussed. It is quite true that this refers to Provincial constituencies, but the first words talk about territorial constituencies and so on, and I suggest it may run counter to something that may be done under the First Schedule. This is a very strange Schedule, because as far as I have been able to discover, there are no words in any of the main clauses of the Bill setting up this Schedule at all. I have looked through the Bill, and cannot find any such words. In the case of the other Schedules, there are clauses setting them up in so many words, and I would ask the noble Marquess to say what words set up this Schedule.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I would ask the noble Lord whether it is really necessary that there should be a parent or god-parent for a Schedule?
LORD RANKEILLOUR: So I have always understood.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The noble Lord is a much greater authority on these matters than I am, but I certainly was not aware myself that it was necessary that a Schedule should be set up by a particular clause. Perhaps I might shorten discussion if I were to give a brief explanation of the object of these various Amendments to the Sixth Schedule. Apart from two Amendments relating to matters of local detail in Oudh and Bihar, the remainder of the Amendments relate to the following points. First of all, the removal of the necessity for application by a woman for inclusion in an electoral roll in virtue of her husband's qualification after the first election. Secondly, the omission in a number of places of the references to the franchise qualification and the police. It is not necessary, in view of the terms of paragraph 12, which will be found upon page 328, of Part I of the Schedule, where the definition of "military" covers police, and a drafting change is proposed in a number of places to make clearer what is intended by the meaning of the words "preparation of the first electoral
176
rolls under this Act." These are not Amendments, I imagine, which will give rise to much, if any, discussion. I have explained the object of the Amendments, and I will move them seriatim if that is desired.
Amendment moved—
Page 326, line 11, after the second ("time") insert ("in whole or in part").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved to add to paragraph 12 of Part I:
"and a reference to an officer, non-commissioned officer or soldier of the Auxiliary Force (India) or the Indian Territorial Force, not being an officer, non-commissioned officer or soldier who has been dismissed or discharged from the force for disciplinary reasons, or has served in the force for less than four years".
The noble Marquess said: I may point out that this Amendment is moved to carry out an undertaking given in another place.
Amendment moved—
Page 328, line 13, at end insert the said words.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I have already explained the next two Amendmerits. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 330, line 30, after ("Act") insert ("1908").
Page 332, line 1, leave out from ("forces") to the end of line 3.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved, in paragraph 10 of Part II after "five," to insert "or"; after "six" leave out "or paragraph eight" The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Snell I beg to move the Amendment standing in his name. As the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill will realise, the purpose of this Amendment is to exempt women where qualified for the vote from having to make a special application in the prescribed manner. I am not quite sure if in the Amendments moved by the noble Marquess just now he referred to certain women who would be exempted and this Amendment really is an attempt to exempt all women from the need of having to make special application. I

177
am not quite sure whether the noble Marquess on a previous occasion did not express himself favourably towards this and I hope he may now accept the Amendment that I move.
Amendment moved—
Page 333, line 4, after ("five") insert ("or"); after ("six") leave out ("or paragraph eight").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I think the Amendment which I have already moved substantially meets the point of the noble Lord. I do not say that it does so altogether, but it does provide that in those Provinces where there is no social difficulty in connection with the registration of women the wishes of the noble Lord will be met after the first election, and if the noble Lord is satisfied with that I would be very glad if he would withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The rest of the Amendments on pages 20, 21, 22 and 23 to the Sixth Schedule, all in the name of the noble Marquess, Lord Zetland, if he has already dealt with them in his speech, I will, if your Lordships will allow me, put them en bloc.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
Amendments moved—
Page 333, line 8, at end insert:
("Provided that except in relation to the original preparation of electoral rolls and revisions thereof within three years from the commencement of Part III of this Act, this paragraph shall, as respects women qualified by virtue of their husbands' qualifications, have effect only where the husband's qualification is that mentioned in sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph nine of this Part of this Schedule.")
Page 336, line 14, leave out from ("forces") to the end of line 16.
Page. 338, line 15, at end insert:
("Provided that except in relation to the original preparation electoral rolls and revisions thereof within three years from the commencement of Part III of this Act, this paragraph shall, in relation to women qualified by virtue of their husbands' qualifications, have effect only where the husband's qualification is that mentioned in sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph seven of this Part of this Schedule.")
Page 341, line 20, leave out ("preparation of the first electoral rolls under this Act") and insert ("original preparation of electoral rolls and revisions thereof within three years from the commencement of Part III of this Act")
178
Page 344, line 37, at end insert:
("(d) is an under-proprietor in Oudh of land in the constituency in respect of which under-proprietary rent of not less than five rupees per annum is payable; or")
Page 345, line 11, leave out from ("forces") to the end of line 13.
Page 346, leave out lines 29 to 44 and insert:
("10.—(1) No person shall by virtue of paragraph five of sub-paragraph (a) or subparagraph (b) of paragraph eight of this Part of this Schedule, or by virtue of her husband being a retired, pensioned or discharged officer, non-commissioned officer or soldier, be included in. the electoral roll for any territorial constituency unless application is made in the prescribed manner by, or if it is so prescribed, on behalf of, that person, that that person should be so included.
(2) On the preparation of the original electoral roll for any rural constituency or on any revision of the electoral roll for a rural constituency within three years from the commencement of Part III of this Act, no person shall by virtue of her husband possessing any of the other qualifications requisite for the purposes of the said paragraph eight be included in the electoral roll unless application is made in the prescribed manner by her, or if it is so prescribed, on her behalf, that she should be so included.")
Page 347, line 8, at end insert ("under-proprietor' means an under-proprietor as defined in the Oudh Rent Act, 1886.")
Page 349, line 10, leave out from ("forces") to the end of line 12.
Page 353, line 1, leave out ("preparation of the first electoral rolls under this Act") and insert ("original preparation of electoral rolls and revisions hereof within three years from the commencement of Part III of this Act ")
Page 353, line 19, leave out ("preparation of the first electoral rolls under this Act") and insert ("original preparation of electoral rolls and revisions thereof within three years from the commencement of Part III of this Act ")
Page 353, line 34, leave out from ("forces") to the end of line 36.
Page 354, line 4, leave out ("preparation of the first electoral rolls under this Act") and insert ("original preparation of electoral rolls and revisions thereof within three years from the commencement of Part III of this Act ")
Page 356, line 38, leave out ("shown") and insert ("proved")
Page 357, line 1, leave out ("accepted by the Provincial Government") and insert ("prescribed")
Page 357, leave out lines 10 and 11.
Page 357, line 16, after ("Hyderabad") insert ("or a retired, pensioned or discharged officer or man of the Hyderabad State Police")
Page 357, line 27, at end insert:

179
(" (2) Subject as aforesaid, a person who is a woman shall also be qualified to be included in the electoral roll for any territorial constituency in Berar if she is the pensioned widow or pensioned mother of a person who was an officer, non-commissioned officer or soldier of the regular forces of His Exalted Highness the Nizam of Hyderabad or an officer or man of the Hyderabad State Police.")
Page 358, line 16, at end insert ("or a retired pensioned or discharged officer or man of the Hyderabad State Police ")
Page 358, line 23, leave out from ("four") to ("be") in line 27 and insert ("of this Part of this Schedule or by virtue of being a pensioned widow or mother, or of being literate or the holder of a primary school certificate, or of being the wife of an officer, non-commissioned officer, soldier or man of any force,")
Page 360, line 2, leave out ("cantonment or railway settlement") and insert ("or cantonment")
Page 360, line 4, at end insert ("and any prescribed railway settlements")
Page 360, line 29, at end insert:
(" (5) Any reference in this Part of this Schedule to a retired, pensioned or discharged officer or man of the Hyderabad State Police shall be deemed not to include a reference to any person who has been dismissed or discharged from the police for disciplinary reasons.")
Page 362, line 3, leave out from ("Rifles") to the end of line 4.
Page 363, line 6, at end insert:
("Provided that except in relation to the original preparation of electoral rolls and revisions thereof within three years from the commencement of Part III of this Act, this paragraph shall, in relation to women qualified by virtue of their husbands' qualifications have effect only where the husband's qualification is that mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph seven of this Part of this Schedule.")
Page 366, line 5, leave out from ("forces") to the end of line 7,
Page 366, line 17, leave out ("preparation of the first electoral rolls under this Act") and insert ("original preparation of electoral rolls and revisions thereof within three years from the commencement of Part III of this Act")
Page 369, line 21, leave out from ("forces") to the end of line 23.
Page 369, line 37, leave out ("preparation of the first electoral rolls under this Act") and insert ("original preparation of electoral rolls and revisions thereof within three years from the commencement of Part III of this Act")
Page 370, line 10, leave out ("preparation of the first electoral rolls under this Act") and insert ("original preparation of electoral rolls and revisions thereof within three years from the commencement of Part III of this Act")
180
Page 371, line 19, at end insert:
("Provided that, in relation to the original preparation of electoral rolls and revisions thereof within three years from the commencement of Part III of this Act, this paragraph shall have effect as if for the references in sub-paragraph (a) thereof to one rupee and one anna there were substituted respectively references to two rupees and two annas")
Page 374, line 27, leave out from ("forces") to the end of line 28.
Page, 376, line 24, leave out ("In this Part of this Schedule") and insert ("In this Schedule, in relation to Sind").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Sixth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Seventh Schedule [Legislative Lists]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved, in paragraph 1 of List I after "Governments", to insert "any armed forces which are not forces of His Majesty but are attached to or operating with any of His Majesty's naval, military or air forces borne on the Indian establishment." The noble Marquess said: Item 1 of List I, which is descriptive of part of the content of the subject compendiously known as Defence, as at present drafted relates only to His Majesty's forces and other armed forces raised in India by the Crown. It is, however, necessary to include in the forces over which the Federation is to have control any contingents which, by arrangement with neighbouring countries, for example, Nepal, may be lent to the Federation for the purposes of defence, as was the case in the War.
Amendment moved—
Page 377, line 9, after ("Governments") insert ("any armed forces which are not forces of His Majesty but are attached to or operating with any of His Majesty's naval, military or air forces borne on the Indian establishment ").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The next four Amendments are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 377, line 32, after ("Federation") insert (" (not being naval, military or air force works) ")
Page 377, line 34, at end insert ("and as regards property in a Federated State held by virtue of any lease or agreement with that State, subject to the terms of that lease or agreement")
Page 378, line 23, leave out ("terminals") and insert ("terminal charges")

181
Page 379, line 18, after ("corporations") insert ("whether trading or not").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved, in paragraph 35 of List 1, which reads "Regulation of labour in mines; safety in mines and oilfields," to leave out all words after "regulation of labour" to the end of the paragraph and insert "and safety in mines, quarries and oilfields." The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Marley I beg to move this Amendment, which is to include quarries with mines and oilfields as Federal subjects. In another place this was debated on May 30 and in column 1398 of the OFFICIAL REPORT it is recorded that the learned Solicitor-General said: "I will certainly have that point looked into." Again, at column 1400, the Solicitor-General is reported as saying: "I have already said that we will look into what is really the drafting point, and, on the general question, we will certainly reconsider quarries." He went on to make some reservations about the number of small quarries and then said:
"The coal mines in this country are disposed together in districts, whereas ordinary quarries are scattered up and down every field in the country. We will certainly look into the matter but that is the difficulty which led us to omit quarries."
There the matter rested.
Apparently there was a congestion of business at the end of the consideration of the Bill and no final decision was taken. Therefore my noble friend put down this Amendment to give the Government the opportunity of carrying out the Solicitor-General's obvious intention. The case does not need arguing. Coal in India is quarried in some cases, I understand, and I think it will be generally agreed if mines and oilfields are Federal subjects as regard labour regulations that should apply also to quarries. To the objection that some Provinces, if left to themselves, might be more progressive than the Federation, the answer is that local opinion in any Province, if strong enough, can insist on more advanced local regulations.
Amendment moved.—
Page 379, line 22, leave out from ("labour") to the end of the paragraph and insert ("and safety in mines, quarries and oilfields").—(Lord Strabolgi.)
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My noble friend is much obliged to the noble Lord for bringing forward this matter. He will see that if the next Amendment in the name of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State is accepted item 35 of List I would read:
"Regulation of labour and safety in mines and oilfields."
If the Amendment moved by the noble Lord is accepted it would read:
"Regulation of labour and safety in mines, quarries and oilfields."
I think substantially the point made in another place by members of the Party to which the noble Lord belongs is met by the Amendment in the name of the noble Marquess. If, as the noble Lord says, coal is in fact extracted from quarries, then those quarries come within the operation of the Indian Mines Act and rank as mines. Therefore it only leaves in dispute small quarries which may be found in every field which it would be practically impossible I am assured to bring under Federal authority. Therefore I hope the noble Lord opposite will feel that we have done our best to secure and safeguard the main point about which I think his friends are concerned, and will be content to allow his Amendment to be withdrawn and to accept the Amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend.
LORD STRABOLGI: Yes, certainly.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 379, line 22, leave out ("in mines") and insert ("and").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved, in paragraph 37, after "insurance," to insert "except as respects insurance undertaken by a Federated State." The noble Marquess said: These two Amendments to paragraph 37 go together. They make it plain that the entry has no application at all to any insurance carried on by a State Government itself. There seems to be very strong reason for enabling the Federal Legislature to regulate this kind of activity, which will obviously have no effect outside the State and which is not, and probably never will be, very widespread. Probably if the entry were left at it stands, many States would desire to make reservations when they were acceding to the Federation.
Amendment moved—
. Page 379, line 28, after ("insurance") insert ("except as respects insurance undertaken by a Federated State").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 379, line 29, after ("business") insert ("except as respects business undertaken by a Federated State").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX VISCOUNT HALIFAX moved to insert the following new paragraph:
"41. The salaries of the Federal Ministers, of the President and Vice-President of the Council of State and of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Federal Assembly; the salaries, allowances and privileges of the members of the Federal Legislature; and, to such extent as is expressly authorised by Part II of this Act, the punishment of persons who refuse to give evidence or produce documents before Committees of the Legislature."
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment and the next three go together. The first three supplement the entries in List 1 and the third adds an entry in List 2. The only purpose of all these additions to these two lists of legislative powers is to include in them a description of certain powers that have been conferred by specific sections of the Bill, with which perhaps it is unnecessary to trouble your Lordships as they are technical. So far as that goes, these Amendments may be termed partly consequential, but the insertion of these entries in the lists has on the whole been thought desirable; partly in case it might be contended that, as the lists purport to be a complete enumeration of the legislative powers of the Federal and Provincial Legislatures respectively, there would be a conflict between the lists and the sections referred to if there were no corresponding entry in the lists to fit the sections; and partly because difficulties might arise in relation to the States if they were not enabled to accept alterations made in these classes as applying to themselves.
Amendment moved—
Page 380, line 3, at end, insert the said paragraph.—(Viscount Halifax.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved, to leave out paragraph 51 of List 1: "Regulation of the working of mines, but not
184
including mineral development." The noble Marquess said: This is an Amendment to omit item 51 in List 1. It has been pointed out to us that, as the result of entries 35 and 36 as amended in another place, entry 51 has now become in one sense inconsistent with these entries, and in another sense redundant. In those circumstances it seems to me very desirable to get rid of it.
Amendment moved—
Page 380, leave out lines 24 and 25.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 380, line 28, at end insert ("and, to such extent as is expressly authorised by Part IX of this Act, the enlargement of the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Court, and the conferring thereon of supplemental powers")
Page 381, line 31, at end insert:
("12. The salaries of the Provincial Ministers, of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, and, if there is a Legislative Council, of the President and Deputy President thereof; the salaries, allowances and privileges of the members of the Provincial Legislature; and, to such extent as is expressly authorised by Part III of this Act, the punishment of persons who refuse to give evidence or produce documents before Committees of the Provincial Legislature.")—(Viscount Halifax.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: This is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 385, line 22, after ("labour") insert ("conditions of labour").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Seventh Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Eighth Schedule agreed to.
Ninth Schedule [Provisions of Government of India Act continued in force with Amendments until the establishment of the Federation]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: This Amendment is really consequential upon an Amendment made to Clause 309.
Amendment moved—
Page 394, line 29, at end insert:
(" (vii) Expenditure of the Governor-General in discharging his functions as respects matters with respect to which he is required by the provisions of the Govern

185
ment of India Act, 1935, for the time being in force to act in his discretion;").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Ninth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Tenth Schedule [Provisions as to Governor of Burma:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: Consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 402, line 19 after ("shall") insert ("during, and in respect of, the peroid")
Page 402, line 20, after ("powers") insert ("privileges and immunities").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Tenth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Eleventh Schedule [Areas in Burma to which special provisions apply]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved to insert:
" (3) The Kyain township, the Myawaddy Circle of the Kawkareik township, and so much of the Karen Hill tracts situate in the eastern half of the Toungoo District and in the Thaton District as may be prescribed by His Majesty in Council."
The noble Marquess said: This Amendment is consequential upon correspondence with the Government of Burma in the course of which it has been agreed that the Karen hill tracts here specified should be partially excluded areas. The areas in question are all close to if not actually contiguous to the Salween district which also is populated by Hill Karens. They are very primitive folk, and the obviously correct course in the case of Salween where they form almost the entirety of the population is to make the whole district totally "excluded" It is not practicable to do more than exclude partially the comparatively small areas in the three neighbouring districts of Amherst, Toungoo and Thaton, the inhabitants of which are predominantly Hill Karens. The Hill Karen areas in the Amherst district coincide with the administrative areas mentioned by name at the beginning of the Amendment: in Toungoo and Thaton they do not and it will be necessary to specify nomination by Order in Council the villages which are to be "partially excluded.'
Amendment moved—
Page 403, line 23, at end, insert the said paragraph.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Eleventh Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Twelfth Schedule [Composition, of the Burma Legislature]:
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: These are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 405, line 3, leave out from ("in") to the end of line 5 and insert ("the two last preceding paragraphs")
Page 405, line 32, leave out (" (who shall not be persons holding office under the Crown) ").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The other Amendments are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 406, leave out lines 16 to 18 and insert:
(" (2) For the purposes of this paragraph:
(a)where a firm has been assessed to Income Tax in Burma in any year, every partner in that firm shall be deemed to have been assessed to that tax in that year to an amount, to be certified in the prescribed manner, equal to his share in the firm's income on which the tax was so assessed;
(b)where water rate is levied in addition to land revenue, payment thereof shall be treated as payment of land revenue.")
Page 406, line 24, after ("is") insert ("or was")
Page 406, line 28, after ("whose") insert ("other")
Page 406, line 28, after ("is") insert ("or was").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Twelfth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Thirteenth Schedule [Provisions as to franchise in Burma.]
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The first and third Amendments are consequential and the second and fourth drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 408, line 25, after the second ("time") insert ("in whole or in part")
Page 409, line 34, leave out ("if he") line 37, at end insert:
(" (c) is a retired, pensioned or discharged officer, non-commissioned officer or soldier of the Auxiliary Force (India), the Indian Territorial Force, or any prescribed Burman auxiliary or territorial force, not being a

187
person who has been dismissed or discharged from the force for disciplinary reasons or has served in the force for less than four years; or")
Page 412, line 39, leave out ("constituencies other than general") and insert ("labour").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Thirteenth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedules agreed to.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: That concludes the Bill and Schedules, except the First Schedule, which should now be taken, unless—
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: It is proposed that the First Schedule should be postponed and taken to-morrow.
House resumed.

LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT (AGREEMENT) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Second Report from the Select Committee.
The Committee reported as follows:
1 CIVIL SERVICE PAY AND SUPERANNUATION (CONSOLIDATION SCHEME)
The Committee sanctioned the adoption, in relation to the staff of the House of Lords, of the Full Consolidation scale of pay and pensions authorised by the Treasury as from 1st July, 1935.
2 HOUSE ALLOWANCE TO RESIDENT SUPERINTENDENT.
The Committee sanctioned the payment of an annual sum of £45 14s. as from 1st April, 1935, for services in connection with the flat occupied by the Resident Superintendent during the temporary vacation of his official quarters.
3 CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENTS' MESSENGERS.
A report from the sub-committee appointed to consider the rate of pay of messengers in the Parliament Office was laid before the Committee, and a new scale, as recommended by them, was agreed to as follows:—
The scale to be £90 rising by£5 to£150 with extension to£170 for four posts, and to operate as from 1st April, 1935; certain extra payments in connection with the Victoria Tower allowed under the existing scale to be abolished.
4. DOORKEEPERS.
The Committee sanctioned the extra payment of£20 each to two doorkeepers in connection with the reallocation of duties for the Judicial work of the House; this payment to commence on 1st October, 1935.
5 GRATUITY TO A CUSTODIAN.
The Committee sanctioned a compassionate gratuity, in accordance with Section 4 of the Superannuation Act, 1887, amounting to£46 to Mr. J. J. Searle, who retired, owing to ill health, from the Custodian staff on 3rd March last.
6 SUN-BLINDS.
The Lord Chairman was invited to convey to the Office of Works the necessity for sun-blinds for certain offices on the west front of the building.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I have to move that the Report of the House of Lords Offices Committee be considered and agreed to. I think there is only one point to which I need draw attention, and that is the last item, which deals with sunblinds. The sunblinds in your Lordships' House are becoming somewhat the worse for wear, and it is hoped that your Lordships will consent to the Office of Works being moved to renew them.
Moved, That the Report of the House of Lords Offices Committee be now considered and agreed to.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: May I ask whether the House will meet at three o'clock to-morrow, and whether the First Schedule of the Government of India Bill will be the first Order?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I am proposing to put down a Motion to suspend Standing Order No. XXI for to-morrow's sitting in order to enable the House to take the various Motions on the Paper in an order which is necessitated by the fact that certain Bills on the Order Paper require to be dealt with before the Royal Commission sits at five o'clock, and to give the Committee stage of the Government of India Bill precedence over the remaining Orders of the Day. The House will meet to-morrow at three o'clock I think that will meet the convenience of your Lordships.
House adjourned at seven minutes before twelve o'clock.