Lords Sitting of 10 July 1935

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
CITY OF LONDON (ST. PAUL'S CATHEDRAL PRESERVATION) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered and agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, I beg to move that Standing Order No. XXI be considered in order to its being suspended for this day's sitting, as stated in the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXI be considered in order to its being suspended for this day's sitting and that the Orders for the Third Readings of the Finance Bill and the London Passenger Transport (Agreement) Bill and for the House to be again in Committee on the Government of India Bill have precedence of the other Notices and Orders of the Day.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

IPSWICH CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
METROPOLITAN COMMON SCHEME (PALEWELL) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

MONEY PAYMENTS (JUSTICES PROCEDURE) BILL. [H.L.]
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend

191
the law with respect to the enforcement by justices of the peace of the payment of money due by virtue of convictions of courts of summary jurisdiction or of orders in matters of bastardy or enforceable as affiliation orders, or due in respect of rates; and to make provision with respect to the mode of proof in certain proceedings before justices of the payment of wages; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

FINANCE BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed.
LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT (AGREEMENT) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.
Order of the Day for the House again to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I wish to put a question to the Government. It is with reference to the Instruments of Instructions. I do not desire to press the Government for a moment in the matter; but your Lordships are aware that it is part of the Government scheme that, following the passage of this Bill into law, the Instruments of Instructions shall be submitted to both Houses of Parliament. I should be very glad if my noble friend can give us any information as to when that is likely to happen. I repeat I do not desire to press him at all in the matter, and I shall be glad to postpone the question to another day if he wishes.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND): My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Marquess for his question. If he puts the question on another day I may be in a position to give him a more definite
192
answer, but at the moment I do not contemplate that they will be taken before the autumn in any case.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
The First Schedule:

FIRST SCHEDULE.
Composition of the Federal Legislature.

PART I.
Representatives of British India.
The Council of State.
3. Of the one hundred and fifty-six seats in the Council of State to be filled by representatives of British India one hundred and fifty seats shall be allocated to Governors' Provinces, Chief Commissioners' Provinces and communities in the manner shown in the relevant Table of Seats appended to this Part of this Schedule, and six seats shall be filled by persons chosen by the Governor-General in his discretion.
4. To each Governor's Province, Chief Commissioner's Province and community specified in the first column of the Table there shall be allotted the number of seats specified in the second column opposite to that Province or community.
5. Subject to the provisions of the three next succeeding paragraphs, the term of office of a member of the Council of State shall be nine years:
Provided that a person chosen to fill a casual vacancy shall be chosen to serve only for the remainder of his predecessor's term of office.
6. Upon the first constitution of the Council of State persons shall be chosen to fill all the seats so allotted as aforesaid to Governors' Provinces, Chief Commissioners' Provinces and communities, but, for the purpose of securing that in every third year one-third of the holders of such seats shall retire, one-third of the persons first chosen shall be chosen to serve for three years only, one third shall be chosen to serve for six years only and one-third shall be chosen to serve for nine years, and thereafter in every third year persons shall be chosen to fill for nine years the seats then becoming vacant in consequence of the provisions of this paragraph.
7. Of the seats allotted to any Governors' Province, Chief Commissioners' Province or community the numbers specified in the third, fourth and fifth columns of the Table respectively shall be seats to be filled upon the first constitution of the Council by members chosen to serve for three years only, by members chosen to service for six years only, and by members chosen to serve for nine years.
8. Upon the first constitution of the Council of State two of the persons to be chosen by the Governor-General shall be chosen to serve for three years only, two shall be chosen to serve for six years only

193
and two shall be chosen to serve for nine years.
9. In each of the following Provinces, that is to say, Madras, Bombay, the United Provinces and Bihar, such of the members of the Legislative Council of the Province as are Mahomedans shall be entitled—

(a) upon the first constitution of the Council, to choose persons to fill two of the seats allotted to that Province, being two seats which under the foregoing provisions will by effluxion of time become vacant at different dates;

(b) at any subsequent triennial election when seats allotted to the Province fall to be filled, to choose a person to fill one seat; and

(c) on a casual vacancy occurring in a seat theretofore held by a person chosen in accordance with this paragraph, to choose a person to £11 that seat.

10.—(1) Subject to the provisions of the last preceding paragraph, persons to fill the seats allotted to Governor's Province shall, except in the case of a casual vacancy, be chosen according to the principle of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote—

(i) if the Province has a Legislative Council, by such members thereof as are not Anglo-Indians, Europeans or Indian Christians; and

(ii) if the Province has not a Legislative Council, by the members of a Provincial Electoral College constituted in accordance with the provisions of the next succeeding paragraph.

When a casual vacancy occurs in a seat theretofore held by a person chosen in accordance with this paragraph, a person to fill the seat shall be chosen by such of the members of the Legislative Council or, as the case may be, of the Electoral College as are members of the same community as the person by whom the seat was held.
(2) In Madras, Bombay, Bengal, the United Provinces, the Punjab, and Bihar the foregoing provisions of fins paragraph shall have effect subject to such modifications as may be prescribed for securing that in the case of each of those Provinces one at least of the seats filled -in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph is always held by a woman and, in that connection, for determining what male candidate, if any, who would otherwise be elected, is to be replaced by a woman.
11. The composition of the Provincial Electoral Colleges referred to in the preceding paragraph shall be as shown in the following Table:—

Province.

General Seats.

Sikh Seats.

Mahomedan Seats.

Total.

Punjab

16

11

30

57

Central Provinces and Berar.

31

—

5

36

North-West Frontier Province.

5

1

19

25

Orissa

27

—

3

30

Sind

10

—

18

28

The members of a Provincial Electoral College shall be chosen by voters possessing such qualifications as may be prescribed and voting in territorial constituencies formed for the purposes of this paragraph, being either general, Such or Mahomedan constituencies.
To each such constituency one or more seats in the Electoral College shall be assigned, and in any of the general constituencies one or more seats may be reserved for members of the Scheduled Castes.
In a general constituency formed for the purposes of this paragraph, no person shall be entitled to vote who is an Anglo-Indian, a European, or an Indian-Christian, or is entitled to vote in a Sikh or Mahomedan constituency so formed, and in a Sikh or Mahomedan constituency so formed no person shall be entitled to vote who is not a Sikh or Mahomedan, as the case may be.
A Provincial Electoral College shall be dissolved and reconstituted at such intervals or in such circumstances as may be prescribed, but may act notwithstanding any vacancy in the membership thereof.
12. Persons to fill the seats allotted to Chief Commissioners' Provinces shall be chosen—

(i) in the case of Coorg by the Legislative Council of the Province, and

(ii) in other cases, in such manner as may be prescribed.

13. Persons to fill the seats allotted to the Anglo-Indian, European and Indian Christian communities shall be chosen by the members of Electoral Colleges consisting of such Anglo-Indians, Europeans and Indian Christians, as the case may be, as are members of the Legislative Council of any Governor's Province or of the Legislative Assembly of any Governor's Province.
The Rules regulating the conduct of elections by the European Electoral College shall be such as to secure that on any occasion where more than one seat falls to be filled by the College no two of the seats to be then filled shall be filled by persons who are normally resident in the same Province.
14. A person shall not be qualified to hold a seat in the Council of State unless—

(a) in the case of a seat allotted to a Governor's Province, he is qualified to hold a seat in the Legislative Council or, as the case may be, the Provincial Electoral College of that Province;

(b) in the case of a seat allotted to a Chief Commissioner's Province or a community, he possesses such qualifications as may be prescribed.

The Federal Assembly.
16. To each 'Governor's Province and Chief Commissioner's Province specified in the first column of the Table there shall be allotted the number of seats specified in the second column opposite to that Province, and of those seats—
(ii) the numbers specified in the next eight columns shall be the numbers of seats to be filled respectively by persons chosen to represent (a) the Sikh community; (b) the Mahomedan community; (c) the Anglo-Indian community; (d) the European community; (e) the Indian-Christian community; (f) the interests of commerce and industry; (g) land holders; and (h) the interests of labour; and
18. The provisions of this paragraph shall have effect with respect to the general seats reserved in any Governor's Province for members of the Scheduled Castes:—
For the purposes of a general election of members of the Federal Assembly,—

(a) there shall be a primary electorate consisting of all persons who were successful candidates at the primary elections held, in accordance with the provisions of the Fifth Schedule to this Act, on the occasion of the last general election of members of the Legislative Assembly of the Province for the purpose of selecting candidates for seats reserved for members of the Scheduled Castes;

(b) the primary electorate so constituted shall choose such number of persons as is equal to four times the number of general seats in the Federal Assembly reserved in the Province for members of the Scheduled Castes; and

(c) no person who is not so chosen shall be qualified to be chosen to fill such a seat.

Rules made under this Part of this Schedule shall make provision as to the manner in which a casual vacancy occurring in a seat to which this paragraph applies is to be filled.
19. For the purpose of choosing persons to fill the women's seats in the Federal Assembly there shall be for British India an Electoral College consisting of such women as are members of the Legislative Assembly of any Governor's Province, and the person to fill a woman's seat allotted to any particular Province shall be chosen by the members of the College.
Rules regulating the conduct of elections by the women's Electoral College shall be such as to secure that, of the nine women's seats allotted to Provinces, at least two are held by Mahomedans and at least one by an Indian Christian.
General.
24.—(1) In the foregoing provisions of this Schedule the following expressions have the meanings hereby assigned to them, that is to say:—

"a European" means a person whose father or any of whose other male progenitors in the male line is of European descent and who is not a native of India as defined in Section six of the Government of India Act, 1870;

"an Anglo-Indian" means a person whose father or any of whose male progenitors in the male line is of European
196
descent but who is a native of India as defined in the said Section six;

TABLE OF SEATS.
The Council of State.

Representatives of British India.

1.

2.

Number of Seats to be filled originally.

1

2

3.

4.

5.

Province or Community.

Total of Seats.

For three years only.

For six years only.

For nine years.

Madras

20

—

10

10

Bombay

16

8

—

8

Bengal

20

10

—

10

United Provinces

20

10

10

—

Punjab

16

8

8

—

Bihar

16

—

8

8

Central Provinces and Berar.

8

—

8

—

Assam

5

—

5

—

North-West Frontier Province.

5

—

—

5

Orissa

5

5

—

—

Sind

5

5

—

—

British Baluchistan

1

—

—

1

Delhi

1

—

—

1

Ajmer-Merwara

1

—

—

1

Coorg

1

—

—

1

Anglo Indians

1

—

—

1

Europeans

7

3

1

3

Indian Christians

2

1

—

1

Totals

150

50

50

50

There shall also be six seats not allotted to any Province or community but to be filled by persons chosen by the Governor-General in his discretion.

TABLE OF SEATS.
The Federal Assembly.

Representatives of British India.

1.

2.

3.

4.

13.

General Seats:—

Province.

Total Seats.

Total of general Seats.

General seats reserved for Scheduled castes.

Women's Seats.

Bengal

37

10

3

1

PART II.
Representatives of Indian States.
8. The Ruler of a State mentioned in this paragraph when appointing in rotation a person to fill a seat in the Council of State shall, notwithstanding anything in the preceding paragraph, be entitled to appoint that person to fill the seat—

(a) in the case of the Rulers of Partabgarh, of Jhalawar, of Panna and of Mayurbhanj, for two years; and

(b) in the case of the Ruler of Pudukkottai, for three years.

TABLE OF SEATS.
The Council, of State and the Federal Assembly.

Representatives of Indian States.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

States and Groups of States.

Number of seats in Council of State.

States and Groups of States

Number of seats in the Federal Assembly.

Population.

DIVISION X

15. Partabgarh

1

12. Partabgarh

1

76,539

Jhalawar

Jhalawar

107,890

Shahpura

Shahpura

54,233

16. Jaisalmer

1

13. Jaisalmer

1

76,255

Kishengarh

Kishengarh

85,744

DIVISION XI

12. Barwani

1

10. Barwani

1

141,110

Ali Rajpur

Ali Rajpur

101,963

THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved to omit the paragraphs (3 to 14) in Part I relating to the Council of State and insert:
The Conned of State.
3. Of the one hundred and fifty-six seats in the Council of State to be filled by representatives of British India one hundred and fifty seats shall be allocated to the Governors' Provinces, the Chief Commissioners' Provinces and the Anglo-Indian, European and Indian Christian communities in the manner shown in division (i) of the relevant Table of Seats appended to this Part of this Schedule, and six seats shall be filled by persons chosen by the Governor-General in his discretion.
4. To each Governor's Province, Chief Commissioner's Province and community specified in the first column of division (i) of the Table there shall be allotted the number of seats specified in the second column opposite to that Province or community, and of the seats so allotted to a Governor's Province or a Chief Commissioner's Province, the number specified in the third column shall be general seats, the number specified in the fourth column shall be seats for representatives of the Scheduled Castes, the number specified in the fifth column shall be Sikh seats, the number specified in the sixth column shall be Mahomedan seats, and. the number specified in the seventh column shall be seats reserved for women.
5. A Governor's Province or a Chief Commissioner's 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—

(a) for the election of persons to fill the general seats, if any;

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

(c) for the election of persons to fill the Mahomedan seats, if any;
198
or, if as respects any class of constituency it is so prescribed, may form one territorial constituency.

To each territorial constituency of any class one or more seats of that class shall be assigned.
6.—(1) No person shall be entitled to vote it an election to fill a Sikh seat or a Mahomedan seat in the Council of State unless he is a Sikh or a Mahomedan, as the case may be.
(2) No person who is, or is entitled to be, included in the electoral roll for a territorial constituency in any Province for the election of persons to fill a Sikh seat or a Mahomedan seat in the Council of State shall be entitled to vote at an election to fill a general seat therein allotted to that Province.
(3) No Anglo-Indian, European or Indian Christian shall be entitled to vote at an election to fill a general seat in the Council of State.
(4) Subject as aforesaid, the qualifications entitling persons to vote in territorial constituencies at elections of members of the Council of State shall be such as may be prescribed.
7. In any Province to which a seat to be filled by a representative of the Scheduled Castes is allotted, a person to fill that seat shall be chosen. by the members of those castes who hold seats in the Chamber or, as the ease may be, either Chamber of the Legislature of that Province.
In any Province to which a seat reserved for women is allotted, a woman to fill that seat shall be chosen by the persons, whether men or women, who hold seats in the Chamber or, as the case may be, the Chambers of the Legislature of that Province.
9. Persons to fill the seats allotted to the Anglo-Indian, European and Indian Christian communities shall be chosen by the members of Electoral Colleges consisting of such Anglo-Indians, Europeans and Indian Christians, as the case may be, as are members of the Legislative Council of any Governor's Province or of the Legislative Assembly of any Governor's Province.
The Rules regulating the conduct of elections by the European Electoral College shall be such as to secure that on any occasion where more than one seat falls to be filled by the College no two of the seats to be then filled shall be filled by persons who are normally resident in the same Province.
10. A person shall not be qualified to hold a seat in the Council of State unless—

(a) in the case of a seat allotted to a Governor's Province or a Chief Commissioner's Province, he is qualified to vote in a territorial constituency in the Province at an election of a member of the Council of State;

(b) in. the case of a seat allotted to the Anglo-Indian, the European or the Indian Christian community, he possesses such qualifications as may be prescribed.

11. Subject to the provisions of the four next succeeding paragraphs, the term of office of a member of the Council of State shall be nine years:
Provided that a person chosen to fill a casual vacancy shall be chosen to serve only for the remainder of his predecessor's term of office.
12. Upon the first constitution of the Council of State persons shall be chosen to fill all the seats allotted to Governors' Provinces, Chief Commissioners' Provinces and communities, but, for the purpose of securing that in every third year one-third of the holders of such seats shall retire, one-third of the persons first chosen shall be chosen to serve for three years only, one-third shall be chosen to serve for six years only and one-third shall be chosen to serve for nine years, and thereafter in every third year persons shall be chosen to fill for nine years the seats then becoming vacant in consequence of the provisions of this paragraph.
13. In the case of a Province specified in column one in division (ii) of the Table of Seats, the numbers specified as respects seats of different classes in columns two to six, in columns seven to eleven and in columns twelve to sixteen respectively, shall be the numbers of the seats of the different classes to be filled upon the first constitution of the Council by members chosen to serve for three years only, by members chosen to serve for six years only, and by members chosen to serve for nine years.
14. The person chosen upon the first constitution of the Council to fill the Anglo-Indian seat shall be chosen to serve for nine years: of the seven persons then chosen to fill the European seats, three shall be chosen to servo for three years only, one shall be chosen to serve for six years only and three shall be chosen to serve for nine years; and, of the two persons then chosen to fill the Indian Christian seats, one shall be chosen to serve for three years only and one shall be chosen to serve for nine years.
15. Upon the first constitution of the Council of State two of the persons to be chosen by the Governor-General shall be chosen to serve for three years only, two shall be chosen to serve for six years only and two shall be chosen to serve for nine years."
The noble Marquess said: The Amendment which stands in my name, and which will be found on pages 1, 2, 3, and 4, together with the connected Tables on pages 7 and 8, is to give effect to the alteration which I promised to consider making in the course of our debates upon the method of election to the Council of State. Your Lordships will remember that, in reply to an Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Linlithgow, I said I was prepared to consider favourably an alteration in the method of
200
electing the members of the Council of State from the indirect system of election to the direct system. I said at the time that the kind of constituencies which I had in mind would be very similar to those which at present and under the present Constitution returned members to the Council of State. I pointed out that I thought, while the electorate should be restricted, so far as the qualifications of the electors were concerned, on a high property qualification franchise, that, nevertheless, the electorate would be considerably larger than the existing electorate for the Council of State. The present electorate for the Council of State, if you exclude Burma, is something like 20,000 electors, and the electorate which I have in mind would be some four or five times as large as that.
It will not of course be possible for me to-day to give your Lordships exact details with regard to the electoral qualifications. Further examination in India itself will necessarily be involved, and that examination will be carried on side by side with the investigations which are taking place at the present time with regard to the qualifications for the electors for the Upper Houses in the Provinces. It seems to me to be quite possible, in fact I might almost say probable, that the kind of electorate which I have in view will prove to be very similar to the electorates for the Upper Houses in the Provinces, and if, in fact, that does prove to be the case, it would no doubt be very much simpler to have the same electorate for the Upper House in the Provinces and for the Council of State.
I also pointed out at the time, and yesterday, that the actual changes in the Schedule which would be involved by this alteration are not, as a matter of fact, very large, and in their character they are comparatively simple. They are in the main two. The first change is switching over from the indirect system to the direct system, and that in itself is really quite a simple matter. The other alteration which will be necessary is really consequential upon that. Your Lordships will probably remember that under the scheme in the Bill no actual quotas for the different communities were laid down in the case of the Council of State. Under the scheme in the Bill we were relying upon the working of the system of proportional representation to give the different communities their proper repre

201
sentation in the Council of State. With the abolition of the system of proportional representation and the substitution for it of direct election, it will of course become necessary, as has been done in the case of all the other legislative bodies, to lay down the proportions of the Council of State which are to be allotted to the different communities, and if your Lordships will turn to page 7 of the Order Paper you will see that the quotas for the different communities are laid down in the Table which you will find upon that page.
I might perhaps add a word or two of explanation of how those quotas have been arrived at. The total number of seats is to be 150. Of that number 75 are to be general seats. Then we come to the seats for the Scheduled Castes, and the number allotted to the Scheduled Castes is six. I am aware that there are Amendments on the Order Paper for making changes in these percentages, and I might take this opportunity perhaps of explaining to your Lordships why, in the case of the Scheduled Castes we have arrived at the figure of six. Our first reason was that this is a number which we estimate that they would have received under the scheme of proportional representation in the Bill. Secondly, it does enable us to give each major Province, where the Scheduled Caste question is of real importance, one representative in the Council of State. It is for those two reasons that we have arrived at the figure of six. Then we come to the Sikhs, who have been allotted four seats, and that figure has also been arrived at as a result of a calculation of the number of seats which they would have secured under the system of proportional representation.
Next we come to the Moslems, who are given forty-nine seats, and that figure is arrived at in accordance with a general undertaking which was given to the Moslem community first of all at the First Round-Table Conference, but an undertaking which has been repeated on a number of occasions since, that approximately one-third of the seats in the Council of State which are open to election would be secured to them. Then, lastly, we come to the seats allotted to women, and the figure of six in the Table was really granted as a concession by the Government to representations which were made to them in another place.
Otherwise, I think, it was not contemplated that women, as such, would have seats in the Council of State. For the rest the Amendment which I have put down, though it appears to be of considerable length, makes no other changes in the scheme already set forth in the Bill.
I have been asked once or twice in the course of our debates whether this Amendment of the First Schedule would necessitate any consequential amendments of the clauses in the Bill. I have looked into that point and I can only find two small cases in which amendment of a clause of the Bill will be required on Report. Those two cases both occur in Clause 290 and the Amendments occur in paragraph (c) and paragraph (d) of that clause. Those paragraphs read as follows:
"(c) the qualifications for being elected at such election as a member of a legislative body or electoral college;"
"(d) the filling of casual vacancies in any such body or college."
The words "or college" will necessarily have to come out, because under the scheme of the Bill in those Provinces which possess no upper House a special electoral college would have to be constituted to take the place of the tipper House for the purpose of electing members in the Council of State. That provision of course will no longer be necessary on the assumption that your Lordships accept the Amendment which stands in my name. Apart from those two small alterations I have been able, so far as my search through the Bill has gone, to find no other alterations in the clauses of the Bill which will be required.
I hope that that brief explanation will have made clear the extent of the change which is proposed by this Amendment. I do not deny for a moment that the actual change is one of very considerable importance. So far as I have been able to gather the change is generally approved. I think it will meet with the general approval of your Lordships' House, because in the discussions on this matter in the course of the Committee stage, nearly every speech to which I listened on this subject, from whichever part of your Lordships' House it came, appeared to me to be in favour of a change of this kind. There is little doubt, I think therefore, as far as your Lordships' House is concerned, that this

203
Amendment will meet with approval. I am also in a position to inform your Lordships that, so far as it is at present possible to judge, the change will also be welcomed by the Government in India and I think without doubt by the people of India generally. With these few words I now move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 291, line 32, leave out from the beginning of the line to the end of page 294 and insert the said new paragraphs.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
EARL PEEL: May I just say a few words on the change, because I was one of those who put down an Amendment at an earlier stage. I did so because I strongly objected to the form in which the Bill was drawn as regards the composition of the Second Chamber. My main objection was that I thought it very undesirable that you should have these two Chambers, the Assembly and the Council of State, drawn from almost identical sources, which were likely to present too Provincial a front in the Central Assembly if the Assembly itself was selected by the Provincial Councils and if the Council of State was chosen, where there were Second Chambers, by those Second Chambers in the Provinces. I was very anxious indeed to secure that there should be different origins for the two Houses, not that I desire in any way that they should clash, but that they should present, first of all, different points of view and should not, as it were, bring too much pressure to bear upon the Governor-General as representing a Provincial point of view as against an All-India point of view, which may, in some cases, be a different and opposing view. As to the exact size of the electorate, I may say that from my point of view I think 120,000 is satisfactory. I should like to congratulate the Government on having made what the noble Marquess truly described as this very considerable change, which I believe will be of very great assistance in the working of the Bill in India.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I do not propose to detain your Lordships more than a very few moments. Naturally we on these Benches would have preferred acceptance by the Government of the Amendment which we proposed, to provide for direct election for the Lower House and indirect election for the Upper
204
House; but this will be an immense improvement on the original scheme. It does constitute one of the two Houses, at any rate, as representative of All-India opinion, and frees it, therefore, from that domination by the Party caucuses in the Provinces which I still think is going to be one of the most dangerous features of the Bill. To that extent we welcome this Amendment and will certainly support it.
The only other point I want to make is to represent to the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill the question whether the electorate he proposes is really quite adequate for the purpose which he and I think other noble Lords have in mind. The situation under this Bill is going to be very different from that which exists under the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms, under which the Executive is irresponsible to the Legislature and is, in effect, an emanation of the Secretary of State himself. The Council of State today is, therefore, merely, so to speak, an outer entrenchment of the irresponsible power vested in the Viceroy. Under this proposal the position will be changed. Except in the field of the reserved subjects the primary responsibility in Federal matters will rest on a Ministry responsible to the Federal Legislature. Therefore you will begin to get reproduced in India the same situation as you have long had in this country, in which you will have a Lower House which will claim to be representative of the masses of the people confronted by an Upper House avowedly constituted to act as a brake and a safeguard against the Lower House but which will represent the people to a far less degree.
If you make the franchise for the Upper House too low, if, for instance, the representatives from the Legislative Assembly are able to point to the fact that they, indirectly it is true, represent 33,000,000 votes and the Council of State represent only, say, 100,000 in sum total, you may get to the same position that has arisen in this country, where the Upper House is unable to exercise the very considerable powers conferred on it by reason of the fact that it lacks adequate authority to enable it to do so. That is not an imaginary possibility. It is exactly what has happened to your Lordships' House. Therefore I venture to think that if the purpose of this

205
Amendment is to strengthen the All-India point of view on the one hand as against Provincial separatism, and on the other hand make the Upper House a suitable Conservative body to act as a check on the possibly more reckless proceedings of the Lower House, it is well to consider whether 100,000 voters is not too small a number and whether it; would not be better to make it nearer the figure I suggested on the last occasion—namely, the voters who already for fifteen years have voted for this Assembly; because in the long run you thereby create a Council of State which will in practice be much more likely to do the work which you expect it to do than a House which is constituted on a mere narrow vision. I do not, propose to say any more about that to-day, because I imagine that the actual franchise proposal will at some time or other come before this House in the form of an Order in Council, but I would venture to press that, view on the Government and on the noble Marquess as worthy of consideration at a time when he and his col eagues are considering what the franchise for the Council of State should be.
There are certain other matters that I will not raise at the moment, but I should like to ask this question to clear my own mind, and possibly the minds of some of your Lordships. I understand that the work of the Delimitation Commission—or whatever its correct title is—will eventually be embodied in an Order in Council, and that that Order in Council will at some time come before this House and another place for approval or otherwise. Am I correct in that assumption? There are certain very important matters connected with the limitation of constituencies, and so on, on which possibly I might like to make a few observations at some future time. They are not appropriate at the moment, because there is no clause in this Bill which actually provides for them, but I understand that there will be an opportunity of considering these matters at a later stage. I beg to state, therefore, that we will gladly support the Amendment to the First, Schedule of this Bill.
LORD SNELL: We have had so very few concessions from His Majesty's Government in the process of this Bill that we ought to rejoice exceedingly that
206
something in the way of concession is at last reached. So far as this Amendment goes, we welcome it on this occasion. Unfortunately, I have not had an opportunity of reading very closely the Amendment which the noble Marquess is proposing, but I believe I am right in saying that if it is carried there will not be in the Council of State one direct representative of what we call Labour in India. We are grateful for the concession in regard to women, but sometimes I think that, important as it is that women should be represented in all phases of Indian Government, it is not less important that the at present unorganised masses of the Indian workers should be able to take part in the work of the State in all its departments. Some day the workers of India will be sufficiently organised to make their opinions felt in other ways, but until that arrives it seems to us that it is only in the political field that they can get the representation to which the importance of their cause entitles them. While thanking the Government for what they have given, we express our very great regret that, as far as we can understand, this Council of State will begin its work: without one representative of the millions of Indian workmen in the Continent.
THE MARQUES'S OF SALISBURY: I do not often find myself, I am sorry to say, in agreement with the noble Lord who has just sat down, but I think he is entitled to a great deal of sympathy when he says that he has hardly had time yet fully to familiarise himself with the proposed alterations in the Bill. My noble friend the Secretary of State has admitted that it is a change of very great magnitude, but the amount of information which has been conveyed to your Lordships when you are asked to embody it in the Bill is of a very sketchy description. The whole Bill, of course, is said to be a great experiment. This is one of the most experimental parts of it. Nobody seems to be very sure as to what precisely are the limits of the change which at the eleventh hour it is now proposed to put into the Bill.
The noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, said that after all we need not bother about the details—though he did not put it in anything like such colloquial language—because there will be an Order in Council sometime or other which we shall have

207
the opportunity of discussing. Do not let the noble Marquess rely too much upon the Order in Council. As I have already had occasion to point out to your Lordships, I am afraid with wearisome reiteration, there will be no opportunity of adjusting the alterations in the Order in Council. Of course we listened with the greatest interest to what my noble friend the Secretary of State had to tell us as to the conditions of the franchise. But, my Lords, does the noble Marquess think that he will have an opportunity of going in detail through all the clauses of the Franchise Order in Council when it appears? Supposing there is a difference of opinion with the House of Commons on the intricate details which it involves: how are these going to be adjusted? There is no machinery for it. I pointed that out to your Lordships and I received, as I always do receive, a most courteous reply, but no satisfaction. Therefore, if the noble Marquess relies upon that, may I venture to suggest to him that he is really relying upon a broken reed?
What is it that the Government have proposed to us? I do not dislike this particular form of election more than I dislike the alternatives, but I am bound to point out the kind of difficulties which there are in front of your Lordships. Sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 5 says:
"Subject as aforesaid, the qualifications entitling persons to vote in territorial constituencies at elections of members of the Council of State shall be such as may be prescribed."
That is a magnificent word, "prescribed"; it covers a vast extent. What did the Secretary of State tell us? He could not say for certain; he could not tell your Lordships and Parliament for certain how the franchise of this great Indian Dependency was to be arranged. That was all vague, and no one had made up his mind about that, although this Bill has been before your Lordships for a long time and before the country for much longer. No; he said, so far as I understood him, that the franchise was to be very much the same as it exists in the Bill already in the case of the Provincial Upper Houses, but he did not say so for certain, and we do not know.
Now may I remind your Lordships of this; that when the Bill—I believe I am accurate, though I may not be accurate—was introduced in another place, this
208
blessed word "prescribed" was used in respect of all the adjustments of the franchise which is now represented in the Sixth Schedule to the Bill? The Sixth Schedule was inserted in deference to pressure from the House of Commons. I have just looked at the Sixth Schedule, and I think it would be interesting to count the number of pages in it. There are fifty pages in the Sixth Schedule, so that the word "prescribed" probably corresponds with fifty pages which your Lordships are asked to accept. Is it not so? I am sorry if I have made a mistake, but, after all, I am wandering in the dark. I do not know, and it is not my fault that I do not know, quite what is in the minds of His Majesty's Government; I sometimes doubt whether there is anything very definite in their minds. All these things are left completely blank; it is a sort of blank cheque.
I wonder whether your Lordships have thought again of the size of the constituencies which are to be covered by these members of the Council of State. I really do not know, but I tried to make a hasty calculation this morning of the sort of population to which it corresponds, and I think, if you allow for the communal distribution of the membership, in Bengal I think each member representing Hindus, that is the general list, will cover a population of 2½ millions, and each Mahomedan will cover a population of 3 millions. Those are tremendous responsibilities to throw upon these Councillors of State. Then I would remind Lord Lothian that this will be, from his point of view, the only direct touch with the people. I want to dwell upon that for a moment, because I wonder if your Lordships have appreciated all the intricacies of the problem here. Of course we are establishing responsible governments everywhere, and especially in the Centre. We have had a great deal of difficulty in deciding what exactly responsibility means. Does it mean responsibility to one Chamber or to both Chambers? That has been asked again and again. Under the Constitution of this old Mother Country there is no question that responsibility is to the Lower Chamber, but what is it going to be in India? The vote of which Chamber will be able to turn out the Government? That is the real point. I wonder whether the Government have really contemplated

209
the question of which is the Chamber whose vote is going to turn out the Government.
As the Bill was drawn, with indirect election, there was no doubt that the greater weight of popular authority lay behind the Lower Chamber, because although indirectly elected the Lower Chamber was indirectly elected by a much more popular body; but now the weight of the direct Chamber is very different. It is the Upper Chamber. That is the only body to be directly elected, no doubt by a very high, mysterious franchise, but undoubtedly the members are to be directly elected. I put this question to the Government: In the altered circumstances, now that the Upper House, the House of Lords, is to be the democratic body, and the House of Commons is to be the Select Body, which Chamber will have the power of turning the Government out, because that is what responsible government means? It has no meaning at all except that the popular Chamber, or a Chamber, will be able to turn out the Government. I want to know in those circumstances which Chamber is going to have that power of turning the Government out.
Upon that this little question arises. Although I did put the question to my noble friend when we discussed the matter before, he did not tell us what financial alteration, or whether any financial alteration, would follow from this Amendment. At present the Upper Chamber has a certain authority in financial matters, but not equal authority with the Lower Chamber. There are certain limitations upon its power of appropriation, but still more limitations upon its power of taxation; that is to say, although the Appropriation Bill is more or less equally under the authority of either Chamber, the Finance Bill is not. The initiation of the Finance Bill entirely lies with the Lower Chamber. After the alteration which the Government are proposing is that going to be left the same? Are the indirect representatives of the people to have the power of taxation and the direct representatives of the people to have no Power of taxation? After all, we are in a great hurry now. We have been dismissing this now for seven years, and this Bill has been before Parliament for a considerable time, but now, just at the very end of the Committee stage in the
210
House of Lords, after it has passed through the House of Commons, this change is made, and we want to tell the country exactly what is proposed—what is proposed about finance.
Have the Government thought about that? They have! Have they come to any decision? They have! That is splendid. I am so glad I spoke, because we shall be able to learn something now. That is very important. I want to know a little more, and I hope my noble friend will not think me unduly inquisitive, but in the Press organ which represents the Government in this country, I mean The Times, we were told that the voting was to be by postal vote. Is that to be the case? Are we going to have no vote by ballot? Is that one of the things going to be prescribed, and afterwards put into an Order in Council which the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, may discuss, or not? Then, of course, we do not know how these Councillors are to address their constituents. Consider the vast size of the areas which they have got to cover. Have the Government thought of that too? Oh! that is to be clone by wireless. I think I. heard the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, who knows more about the intentions of the Government than I do, suggest that the addresses to the constituents were to be done by wireless.
Then there is one little machinery point upon which I would like to have some explanation. As your Lordships are aware, these members of the Council of State are to retire in three categories trienially, one-third to retire every third year. How are they to be selected for retirement? I can easily imagine a plan, but I should be glad to know whether that is going to be prescribed or how adjusted. Of course, as your Lordships are aware, this method of retirement in thirds is quite common in our knowledge of representative bodies. Sometimes, as the Bill seems to propose, it is that certain constituencies should be selected out of the mass, whose representatives should retire every three years, and sometimes it is the other way, of three members for each constituency and one retires every third year. I think perhaps it would be interesting to your Lordships to know which method the Government contemplate.

211
I know my noble friend thinks this change a very simple change, and that it is quite easy to understand all its intricacies. If this were an ordinary small Local Government Bill every one of these details would be set out with precise accuracy in the Bill, would be debated at length, would be considered by your Lordships word by word, sentence by sentence, and by another place equally; but because it deals with the greatest Dependency under the British Crown, because it deals with that upon which we ought to feel a deeper responsibility than almost anything else, it has all to be prescribed.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: Perhaps I might reply briefly to the observations which have been made on this Amendment. First of all with regard to the point made by my noble friend Lord Lothian. He asked me to consider whether the electorate which I contemplate is really large enough for the purpose which it is designed to fill. I am very familiar with the view which the noble Marquess takes on this matter, and I do not deny the force of it, but I do not altogether agree with it. After all, when once you start, in the case of a direct electorate, going beyond a certain very clearly defined qualification—and it is the intention in this case that the qualification should be clearly defined as being a high property qualification—it is very difficult to know where to stop. We all know the old Latin phrase:

Facilis descensus Averni,

Sed revocare gradum, superasque evadere ad auras,

EARL PEEL: Hic labor, hoc opus est.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I am very grateful to the noble Earl for finishing the quotation. That means, to put it in very colloquial language, that- once you start down the slippery slope it is not only difficult to stop but it is almost impossible to return; and it is mainly for that reason that I am still in favour of a distinctly circumscribed electorate. And of course there is one other objection to enlarging your electorate in a case of this kind, and that really was the objection which was mentioned by the noble Marquess who has just sat down. It is quite true that your territorial constituencies will be very large in size indeed, and as I have always held, all these constituencies with a really large electorate, in the cir
212
cumstances of India as they are to-day, are not a practical proposition. They do not give you the representative system in the true sense of the word at all, and for that reason also—namely, the large territorial size of the constituencies—I would prefer to keep the electorate as small as one conveniently can.
That brings me to one of the points of the noble Marquess. He made the point that your constituencies are going to be very large, and he said that in what he regarded as the Government organ—though I was not aware myself that the Government had an organ, but the noble Marquess has kindly allotted one to us, namely, The Times newspaper—it had been suggested, if I understood what he said, that in the constituencies contemplated here, and with the electorate contemplated here, it would even be possible for the election to take place by post. I would never rule that out as a possibility. I believe the noble Marquess himself in certain cases in returning a member to the House of Commons votes by post.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I wish I did. I am not allowed to vote, being a Peer.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I understood that in the case of the representatives of the University the noble Marquess as a Master of Arts was entitled to a vote.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am sorry to say that lunatics, criminals and Peers are not allowed to vote.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: Of course the noble Marquess knows best. I was under the impression that in those particular cases an M.A., even if he suffered the disability of being a, Peer, was entitled to vote, but no doubt I am wrong in that. But an M.A. who is not a Peer does undoubtedly at the present time vote by post in returning his representative to the House of Commons. I only give that as an illustration to show that, after all, that method of voting is not an impossibility.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I was not saying it was wrong, but I thought the House of Lords ought to know whether it was going to be the case.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I will come to that point, because I think that

213
arises on another of the noble Marquess's points about the word "prescribed." The noble Marquess said that the qualifications of these electors were to be such as were to be prescribed. He is quite correct, and he will be aware that in the case of the Upper Chambers in the Provinces the actual qualification still remains to be settled. That also will be "such as may be prescribed." When the necessary details of the qualification have been worked out in India and submitted to us they will, of course, come before your Lordships' House for your consideration and for your comments. That is a provision of the existing Bill, and it is merely adding to this the prescription of the qualifications for the electors to the Council of State in addition to the electors for the Upper Chambers in the Provinces where they exist. Then the noble Marquess dwelt upon the question of finance, and he talked as though the Lower Federal Chamber was to be regarded as a nominated Chamber. Of course that is very far from the facts. We have never regarded a system of indirect election as a system of nomination.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I never suggested that. It is less popular than the other, that is it.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The noble Marquess thinks that the Lower Chamber now will be less popular than the other. I cannot agree with him, because after all the Lower Chamber is going to be elected by persons who in their turn have been elected by far larger electorates than the electorates which will elect to the Council of State. It is only a case of the election being one place removed: the election takes place in two stages instead of in one stage. The voters in the Provinces, to the number altogether of many millions, will vote for the representatives in the Lower Houses in the Provinces, and then in their turn those representatives, who have been elected by a very big popular electorate, will elect the representatives to the Lower Chamber at the Centre. I cannot therefore regard the Lower Chamber at the Centre as being of a less popular character than the Council of State will be.
With regard to the question of finance, the noble Marquess asked me whether any changes were contemplated in the arrangements for dealing with finance as the result of this alteration in the method
214
of forming the Council of State. The answer to that question is "No." No alteration will be necessary. The Lower Chamber will still be the Lower Chamber as it was before. There will be no difference in that respect whatsoever.
Finally, the noble Marquess asked for information with regard to the retirement by rotation of one-third of the members of the Council of State at three-year intervals. That is not a new proposal as the result of my Amendment. That has been a proposal of the Bill from the start, and I fail to understand why the noble Marquess should think I have suddenly introduced something entirely new in that respect. That has been a proposal from the start, and, as the noble Marquess will remember, we had very long discussions on this very point in the Joint Select Committee. The Joint Select Committee, after considering this matter from every possible aspect, decided upon this system, and it was upon their recommendation that this system was incorporated in the Bill. If the noble Marquess wishes to see how it is proposed to put that particular scheme into operation, he will find it set out in the Table on page 8 of the Order Paper.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I had a look at that Table, but I am afraid I misunderstood it. That Schedule sets out the number of seats which are to be vacated at triennial intervals, but it does not say how these seats are to be selected. That was my difficulty. I think it very likely that the noble Marquess will be able to explain it in a moment. If you take the case of Bengal, for instance. In Bengal there will be four general seats, one seat for the Scheduled Castes, and five Moslem seats to bridge over the first three years. There is to be no election at all in the second three years, but in the third of the triennial periods a similar number of seats are to be. filled. But how are they to be selected? I quite understand there are to be four general seats in the first triennial period and four general seats in the third triennial period, but how are these four general seats to be selected? That is all I ask.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I think I see the noble Marquess's point. Of course, the whole number will be elected at the start, but in the case of different Provinces different percentages of the whole number will be elected for three

215
years or six years or nine years. It only applies to the first election.
LORD LLOYD: The system I understand, but how is the selection to be made?
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: How do you decide how many are to serve for three years, and how many for six?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Supposing such a thing existed in this country, and members for constituencies of this country retired in rotation every three years? It might be there would be, say, thirty or forty members in England retiring at the first triennial period, but would they be for Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Devonshire, or what? That is the question.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I see the noble Marquess's point. The first point I wanted to make clear was that each county, so to speak, taking the English analogy, will elect the whole of the members to which it is entitled at the first election. Then the noble Marquess says: "Yes, but supposing it is entitled to send nine representatives altogether to the Council of State, how is it going to be decided which of these nine shall sit for three years, which of these nine shall sit for six years, and which of these nine shall sit for nine years?"
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Which territorial divisions are to be selected for the purpose?
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: No doubt that will have to be laid down.
LORD LLOYD: Prescribed by lot?
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: In consultation with those concerned. But the main point is that every area gets the whole of its representation from the start. You must make some arbitrary arrangement at the first election with regard to which of the particular representatives are to be returned for three years, which for six years, and which for nine years. Obviously you cannot avoid doing that in any system of this kind. When once that is done, after the first election, the thing will continue to work automatically.
LORD LLOYD: But it is not yet settled by the Government how this election is to be carried out. That still remains vague.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The Government have laid down nothing on that point. No doubt that is a very proper matter for the Delimitation Commission to consider and make their recommendations upon. So far as I can remember, I have dealt with all the points that have been submitted to me. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, will describe some of my observations as "answers" and some of them as "replies." I do not, myself, possess the necessary intellectual subtlety to distinguish very broadly between those two types of observation, but if he desires to divide my observations into those types I may regret it but, I suppose, I cannot help it.
LORD LLOYD: I am too completely confused to make any observations.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Your Lordships will see that on pages 4 and 5 there are two Amendments by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, which require to be saved in putting the Question. Accordingly the Question which I have to put is that the words from the beginning of line 32, on page 291, down to line 34 shall stand part.
On Question, Amendment to leave out the words on page 291, line 32, down to "India" in line 34, agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL had given Notice of an Amendment in paragraph 3 of Part I, after "India," to insert:
"ten seats shall be allocated to representatives to be elected by women members of the Legislative Assemblies, ten seats shall be allocated to representatives to be elected by members of the Legislative Assemblies who are of the Scheduled Castes, ten seats shall be allocated to representatives to be elected by members of the Legislative Assemblies representative of labour."
The noble Earl said: The substance of the Amendment that stands in my name still lives, though the form of it has been destroyed by the new machinery of direct election that has been invented for choosing the members of the Council of State. I should like, nevertheless, to say a few words on this Amendment. We on these Benches are profoundly dissatisfied with the provision that has been made by the Government for the representation of the majority of the people, the women, the labouring population, and the Depressed Classes, in the Second Chamber of the Federal Legislature. We

217
are not satisfied that there are sufficient numbers representing women and representing the Scheduled Castes, and we are still more dissatisfied with the position of Labour. There is actually no single seat reserved for Labour in the Council of State.
I think I am not mistaken in saying that the honourable gentleman the Under-Secretary of State, in another place, said that in the instructions which are given to the Governor-General a recommendation would be made that the voice of Labour should be heard in the Council of State. We are therefore led to suppose that among the seats which he is entitled to allot there will be at least one or two seats given to those whom he considers able to speak for Labour, but we are not really satisfied with that as a guarantee. We should like in the first place, naturally, direct election. It is the method which has been adopted in the case of the other members of the Council of State, but if we are not to have direct election, if the Government cannot meet us on that point, we should like it laid down in the Bill that at least two seats should be allotted by the Governor to the representatives of Labour, and, besides that, he should make his choice in consultation with organised Labour in the Provinces of British India. In view of this I should like to reserve the right to raise the question again at a later stage in our deliberations, while at the same time recognising that my Amendment has been entirely invalidated in its present form by the Government Amendment. I will not therefore move it.
On Question, the remainder of the Amendment moved by the Marquess of Zetland agreed to.
LORD FARINGDON LORD FARINGDON moved, in subparagraph (ii) of paragraph 16 of Part I, to leave out "(f) the interests of commerce and industry; (g) land holders." The noble Lord said: We have not been fortunate in regard to the Amendments that we have moved on the Bill on this side of the House. The Government have not given us very much in the way of concessions in spite of the fact that the Amendments which we have put down have been those which have seemed to us likely to be helpful to the Government, who presumably wish the
218
Bill to work. It is, therefore, not with much hope that I move this additional Amendment. It is, in fact, rather in the spirit of protest. I do not know why the Government have insisted on putting in these additional representatives for commerce and industry and for landowners. I can only think that it is from some fear of Congress, for really, with a franchise such as that which is going to choose the representatives for the Legislative Assembly, I do not think that anybody need have much fear of hotheadedness or that the particular classes I have just mentioned will not be represented.
Unfortunately, I am afraid the representation of those classes will have a very disastrous result. Surely the first work of the new Indian Government will be to press forward certain reforms for the benefit of Indians, more particularly reforms of the land tenure and methods of coping with the present debt situation in India and Factory Acts and social legislation of that kind, and this legislation is pretty certain to be fairly strenuously resisted even under the present franchise. I hardly think there is very much hope of necessary reforms coming about with the full weight which has been given to just those classes which profit by the abuses and which are bound to resist their removal.
For the landowners, of whom I have spoken to your Lordships before, not I am afraid too kindly, the Government seem to have had a curious affection, and it is just those who are bound to resist any kind of agricultural reform, which I think the noble Marquess, Lord Linlithgow, has pointed out is so absolutely essential for India. Some landlords are bound to resist any alteration or enforcement of the present usury laws and any overcoming of the present debt position, being, as they are in a large measure, the usurers. The Factory Acts or the enforcement of Factory Acts, and the enlargement of them will at the same time inevitably be resisted by the commercial and the industrial representatives. I happened in your Lordships' House on another occasion to mention the fact that there were in India 10,000,000 persons working in factories who did not come under the Factory Acts and I gave your Lordships some rather hair-raising details. I was myself a little surprised at

219
that figure and took the trouble to confirm it. I am assured that it is anything but an overestimate. These unfortunate people will continue, so far as I can. see, to be exploited by these Governments you are setting up in India, which cannot possibly pass legislation which will improve the condition of those persons.
A point which seems to me to be of some importance is the fiscal one. These new Governments are going to cost money, everybody says so; in fact that is one of the principal grounds of attack; and to pay for them new taxes will have to be raised. The only forms of taxation that I can see available are a proper enforcement of Income Tax which, as is known, is not properly enforced in India on those most capable of paying it; and the taxation of incomes from land. I hardly see any prospect whatever in these new Assemblies of effecting these forms of taxation. Fiscal reports suggest taxes on matches and some other little detail which will, quite certainly, not produce anything like the necessary money which is required. Money can be raised from those two sources I mentioned, but it cannot be raised from elsewhere, and I am convinced that the new representatives will not allow the Government to raise the necessary money from those sources. You are, therefore, reduced to adding further taxation upon those who are already paying excessively and, in point of fact, have nothing to pay. I fully expect to see an enormous increase in the tax on salt, than which nothing in the world would be more unpopular in India and nothing is more likely to cause trouble to the Government.
It has been suggested that the Government have been most generous in the matter of an increase in Labour representation and that therefore we on this side of the House should not protest against the representation of those other special interests. I admit frankly that I myself do not like any kind of special representation, but I do recognise, with this particularly limited franchise which you are imposing on India, and with no necessary machinery which will force the enlargement of the franchise, that Labour has a very strong claim to special representation, otherwise it is not going to be represented at all. No doubt the Government will say that they have in
220
creased Labour representation—I think it is said tenfold—and that they have only very slightly increased the representatives of commerce and industry and of landowners; but it seems to me that that merely is a reflection on the previous Constitution, making it therefore even less creditable, rather than a proof that Labour representation is adequate or that special representation for this particular class is needed at all. I cannot protest too strongly against this most invidious weighting of the Legislature. It is weighted in any case. The franchise weights it, but special representation seems to weight it unnecessarily and is hound to make the working of the Constitution more difficult and its financial support impossible.
Amendment moved—
Page 295, line 19, leave out from ("community") to the second ("and") in line 20.—(Lord Faringdon.)
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: So far as I understand this Amendment, the effect of it would be to omit the provision for the representation of commerce and industry and of the landlords in the Federal Chamber while retaining the representation of Labour. The noble Lord said he did not expect this Amendment to receive very favourable consideration from the Government, and the noble Lord is quite right. In view of the fact that the representation of special interests in the Federal Assembly is a recognised part of the scheme we could not now possibly agree to cut out particular categories of those special interests. The Franchise Committee which was presided over by the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, considered and discussed this question very fully and I think they gave cogent reasons for retaining certainly the representatives of commerce and industry in the Federal Legislature, which will deal with an enormous number of matters of first importance to commerce and industry. They also recommended the retention in the circumstances of India of a small representation of the landowning class. That being so, I am afraid I could not accept the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved, in paragraph 18 of Part I, to leave out subparagraph (b) and insert:
"(b) the members of the primary electorate so constituted shall be entitled to

221
take part in a primary election held for the purpose of electing four candidates for each seat so reserved; and"
The noble Marquess said: This is a draft-Mg Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 296, line 14, leave out sub-paragraph (b) and insert the said new paragraph.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The next is also a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 296, line 19, leave out ("chosen") and insert ("elected as a candidate").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN moved to add to paragraph 19 of Part I the words "and one by a woman belonging to the Scheduled Classes." The noble Marquess said: This is a small Amendment. Last night I gave in substance the reasons for it in speaking on another Amendment which the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill could not see his way to regard with enthusiasm. I hope he will be more friendly to this Amendment. It has always been one of the grievances of Bengal, with which the noble Marquess is well familiar, that it has only one representative in the Federal Assembly whereas Madras and Bombay have two each. The purport of my Amendment is that we should solve that difficulty and give two women representatives to Bengal in the Federal Assembly by taking one of the seats reserved to the Scheduled Classes and substituting a woman for a man.
I venture to think there is another reason for accepting this Amendment apart from the desirability of giving adequate representation to the Bengal women in the Federal Assembly. It is that I do not think provision is made anywhere that women belonging to the Depressed Classes or the Scheduled Classes shall sit in any of the Legislatures. Social problems, problems specially affecting women and children, are if anything more acute amongst the Scheduled Classes than amongst others. If a method can be devised of ensuring that at least
222
one woman member should have knowledge of the peculiar difficulties of these classes it would be entirely to the good. The method adopted in my Amendment has the advantage, as I think the noble Marquess will agree, that the definition of Scheduled Classes in Bengal has a certain element of unreality. Probably the Depressed Classes in Bengal are very considerably less than those in the Scheduled Classes. You are more likely to get a woman representative of that class in Bengal than in any other Province. Therefore if you bring the representation of women in Bengal up to the same level as in Madras and Bombay you may secure at any rate one woman from the Depressed Classes, the Scheduled Classes, to sit in one of the Legislatures.
Amendment moved—
Page 296, line 33, at end insert ("and one by a woman belonging to the Scheduled Classes").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I ventured last night to congratulate the noble Marquess on his gallantry, but I really think in this case he is carrying his gallantry a little too far. He wishes to lay down by Statute that one of the nine women who are to be elected to the Federal Assembly is to be a woman of the Depressed Classes, and not only that, but she is to be be chosen from amongst the Depressed Classes in Bengal. While I quite agree with what the noble Marquess said as to the unreality of the arrangement in Bengal which has been made to arrive at a sufficiently large number of the Depressed Classes, yet I think the Depressed Classes question in Bengal is practically non-existent. By far the greater part of those persons who now are described as members of the Scheduled Classes are not really members of the Depressed Classes. I think therefore it is very unlikely that, by restricting this proposal to Bengal, the noble Marquess would achieve what I believe he wants to achieve—namely, that a woman representative of the real Depressed Classes should have an opportunity to make her voice heard in the Federal Assembly.
Apart from that I would suggest that at any rate at this stage it would be on the whole unwise to restrict the field

223
from which the women representatives are to be chosen. I think myself that it would be very much better to allow those who have to select the women representatives in the Federal Legislative Assembly as unrestricted a field as you can give them, in order that you may secure those ladies who are really best qualified to speak for the women in a public Assembly. I feel very doubtful as to whether it would be possible to find a suitable person amongst the Depressed Classes. In any case I should wish not to restrict but to leave as wide a field as possible.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Will the noble Marquess agree to there being two women from Bengal?
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: No, I am afraid at this stage I could not agree to the alteration.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved, in the definition of a "European" in paragraph 24 (1), after "in the male line is," to insert "or was". The noble Marquess said: This is little more than a drafting Amendment in the definition of a "European" and of an "Anglo-Indian," but perhaps I should explain the necessity for it. The definition of "a European" as it stands in the Bill is as follows:
"A European means a person whose father or any of his other male progenitors in the male line is of European descent."
My Amendment would insert "or was". Since we must regard it as an open question whether in the future world the existing racial distinctions will be maintained, I think it is desirable that we should put in the words "or was" with regard to the earlier progenitors of the persons concerned.
Amendment moved—
Page 298, line 6, after ("is") insert ("or was").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: These are similar drafting Amendments and are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 298, line 10, after ("whose") insert ("other")
224
Page 28, line 10, after ("is") insert ("or was").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved to delete the Table of Seats for the Council of State and insert:

"TABLE OF SEATS.

The Council of State.

Representatives of British India.

(i) Allocation of seats.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Province or Community.

Total seats.

General seats.

Seats for Scheduled castes.

Sikh seats.

Mahomedan seats.

Woman's seats.

Madras

20

14

1

—

4

1

Bombay

16

10

1

—

4

1

Bengal

20

8

1

—

10

1

United Provinces.

20

11

1

—

7

1

Punjab

16

3

—

4

8

1

Bihar

16

10

1

—

4

1

Central Provinces and Berar.

8

6

1

—

1

—

Assam

5

3

—

—

2

—

North-West Frontier Province.

5

1

—

—

4

—

Orissa

5

4

—

—

1

—

Sind

5

2

—

—

3

—

British Baluchistan.

1

—

—

—

1

—

Delhi

1

1

—

—

—

—

Ajmer-Mervara

1

1

—

—

—

—

Coorg

1

1

—

—

—

—

Anglo-Indians

1

—

—

—

—

—

Europeans

7

—

—

—

—

—

Indian Christians.

2

—

—

—

—

—

Totals

150

75

6

4

49

6

(ii) Distribution of seats for purposes of triennial elections.

Number of seats to be filled originally for three years only.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Province.

General seats.

Seats for Scheduled castes.

Sikh seats.

Mahomedan seats.

Women's seats.

Madras

—

—

—

—

—

Bombay

5

—

—

2

1

Bengal

4

1

—

5

—

United Provinces.

5

1

—

3

1

Punjab

2

—

2

4

—

Bihar

—

—

—

—

—

Central Provinces and Berar.

—

—

—

—

—

Assam

—

—

—

—

—

North-West Frontier Province.

—

—

—

—

—

Orissa

4

—

—

1

—

Sind

2

—

—

3

—

British Baluchistan.

—

—

—

—

—

Delhi

—

—

—

—

—

Ajmer-Merwara.

—

—

—

—

—

Coorg

—

—

—

—

—

Totals

22

2

2

18

2

Number of seats to be filled originally or six Years only

1.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

Province.

General seats.

Seats for Scheduled castes.

Sikh seats.

Mahomedan seats.

Women's seats.

Madras

7

—

—

2

1

Bombay

—

—

—

—

—

Bengal

—

—

—

—

—

United Provinces.

6

—

—

4

—

Punjab

1

—

2

4

1

Bihar

5

1

—

2

—

Central Provinces and Berar.

6

1

—

1

—

Assam

3

—

—

2

—

North-West Frontier Province.

—

—

—

—

—

Orissa

—

—

—

—

—

Sind

—

—

—

—

—

British Baluchistan.

—

—

—

—

—

Delhi

—

—

—

—

—

Ajmer-Merwara

—

—

—

—

—

Coorg

—

—

—

—

—

Totals.

28

2

2

15

2

Number of seats to be filled originally for nine years.

1.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

Province.

General seats.

Seats for Scheduled castes.

Sikh seats.

Mahomedan seats.

Women's seats.

Madras

7

1

—

2

—

Bombay

5

1

—

2

—

Bengal

4

—

—

5

1

United Provinces.

—

—

—

—

—

Punjab

—

—

—

—

—

Bihar

5

—

—

2

1

Central Provinces and Berar.

—

—

—

—

—

Assam

—

—

—

—

—

North-West Frontier Province.

1

—

—

4

—

Orissa

—

—

—

—

—

Sind

—

—

—

—

—

British Baluchistan.

—

—

—

1

—

Delhi

1

—

—

—

—

Ajmer-Merwara

1

—

—

—

—

Coorg

1

—

—

—

—

Totals

25

2

—

16

2"

The noble Marquess said: This is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 299, line 15, leave out from the beginning of the line to the end of the page and insert the said Table of Seats and distribution of seats for purposes of triennial elections.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved, in paragraph (8) (a) of Part II, to leave out the words "Partabgarh, of Jhalawar, of." The noble Marquess said: This is an
226
Amendment to make a small alteration in the allocation of seats to certain of the Indian States. The Amendment is designed mainly to rectify an anomaly which consists in according to Partabgarh alone amongst the fifteen-gun States a less representation than half a seat in the Council of State. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 303, line 5, leave out ("Partabgarb, of Jhalawar, of").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS of ZETLAND: The next is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 307, leave out line 38.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LLOYD LORD LLOYD moved, in Division X of the Table of Seats in Part 11, to leave out:
"16. Jaisalmer Kishengahr}1")
and insert ("16. Jaisalmer 1.
Kishengahr 1."
The noble Lord said: I am not quite clear whether the Amendment I have tabled is expressed correctly, but its object is to give to the Jaisalmer State a full seat instead of merely half a seat. I should very much like to ask the Secretary of State if he could tell us why Jaisalmer, which is one of the oldest and most distinguished States in India, should receive only half a seat when so many others which are inferior to it in many ways are given a full seat. Jaisalmer State cannot possibly be ruled out on the score of insufficient population, for in paragraph 19 of the White Paper the allocation of seats ire the Council of State, unlike the Assembly, was to depend "on the rank and importance of the State as indicated by the dynastic salute and other factors," but in the case of the Lower Chamber "it should be based in the main on population."
Clearly by inference population was not to be the decisive factor in the Council of State. Even if Jaisalmer were to be judged by that kind of factor, it is, I understand, about the eighth largest State in India, and is the third largest of the Rajputana States after Udaipur and Bikaner, which have been allotted two seats. In age it is the first or the second ruling house in India and is twelve

227
hundred years long in its dynasty. But apart from all that, if it is to be judged on the basis laid down in the White Paper—namely, its dignity, its rank and its precedence. The dynastic salute is particularly mentioned. We find that Jaisalmer is a fifteen-gun State and there are plenty of fifteen-gun States, no fewer than twelve of them, which have been given full representation. It is rather hard to see, therefore, why Jaisalmer should be ruled out. Many thirteen-gun States, definitely inferior in dynastic salute, have been given full representation.
I should like to ask the noble Marquess why, when dynastic salute has been definitely quoted in the White Paper as one of the most important decisive factors in the allocation of seats, Jaisalmer should have been so definitely ruled out. If you come to the question of precedence, Jaisalmer has, I am informed, always had precedence over a large number of States which have been given a full seat. No fewer than twenty-one other States, one of which is a seventeen-gun State, have been given a full seat, while Jaisalmer, whose Ruler is the head of one of the two great Rajput races, which ranks as virtually equal or second only to Udaipur. one of the oldest ruling houses in India, and which has had precedence over twenty-one States which have been given a full seat, has been given only half a seat.
I will not weary your Lordships with the various signs and indications of its rank and precedence; they are numerous. But if you take one of the well-known tests of rank and dignity in Indian States, whether they pay nazaranas or not, the evidence of tribute and accession, never has Jaisalmer paid nazaranas, though plenty of other States which have been given a full seat have paid it. There is a first-class State which, by virtue of the terms of its kharitas and any other evidence or proof of dignity, rank or precedence is more amply qualified than a great many other States that have been put above its head.
I cannot help believing that there must be some better reason than that which is apparent why Jaisalmer State has been given this very unfortunate and, it would seem, harsh treatment, which has given the greatest offence and unhappiness. I forgot to mention the question of revenue.
The revenue itself compares favourably with that of many States that have been treated better. Whether it be on dynastic salute, precedence, kharitas, nazaranas, or anything except population—which is not to be a test—Jaisalmer qualifies more than fully for better treatment than it has received. I should be grateful, therefore, if the noble Marquess could give us something of the circumstances.
Amendment moved—
Page 307, lines 39 and 40, columns 1 and 2 leave out (" 16. Jaisalmer 1 Kishengahr} 1")
and insert ("16. Jaisalmer 1.
Kishengahr 1.")—(Lord Lloyd)
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I suppose no more difficult question has had to be dealt with by the Government of India than the allocation of representation amongst the different States of India. It is an enormously complicated matter; since a large number of considerations necessarily come into the question. About this particular case I have been in consultation with the Government of India, and I regret to say that neither the Government of India nor I have been able to see our way to make an alteration in the arrangement with regard to these States made in the Bill.
The noble Lord who has moved this Amendment dwelt upon the prestige and the importance of the States from various points of view, and I do not dissent from anything he has said under that head, but although it is no doubt the case that where the Council of State is concerned the rank and the importance of the State, as indicated by the dynastic salute, is an important one, it is not the only consideration. Among other factors there is the consideration to which the noble Lord referred, although he did not attach much importance to it, and that is the consideration of population. The noble Lord shakes his head, but I assure him it is so. Jaisalmer, with all its social and dynastic prestige, has a small population consisting of only some 76,000 people. The noble Lord referred to other States of less dynastic importance, which had been treated as well as or better than Jaisalmer. It is quite true that there are a certain number of 13-gun States which have been treated as well or better—
LORD LLOYD: Better.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND:—so far as representation on the Council of State is concerned. But the deciding factor in their case has been population, and if you take States like Cooch Behar, Bhavnagar, or Benares, you find that although they have two guns less than these two States, their population is enormously greater. The population of Bhavnagar is over half a million, as compared with the 76,000 of Jaisalmer, and the 85,000 of Kishengahr, and in Gooch Behar the population is little short of 600,000. And so I could go on, and after all, when it is a case of returning a person to a legislative body, you must, whether it be an Upper or a Lower House, take into consideration the question of population.
Let me make this quite clear, that the fact that these two States have not got as much representation in the Council of State as the noble Lord would wish to give them does not in any way detract from their prestige and from their precedence. The precedence attaching to their dynastic importance remains attaching to; hem just the same. That is not affected in any way by the amount of representation which they are given in the Council of State, and I would ask the noble Lord to bear that in mind. Moreover, there is, as I see it, a practical difficulty in any case in the way of accepting the noble Lord's Amendment. If the noble Lord's Amendment were accepted it would involve the creation of an additional seat for the States in the Council of State, and as there is no source from which one could be subtracted, to accord the extra representation desired, the only alternative would be to create a new seat, and that would upset the balance between the representation of the States and the representation of British India. On that ground also it is impossible to accept the Amendment.
LORD LLOYD: I really feel that I must press the noble Marquess a little bit on this matter. Words have no meaning at all if his estimate of the situation is to be accepted. May I read the actual words of paragraph 19 of the White Paper, for I am sure that no fair-minded person reading those words would doubt that they virtually dismiss population as one of the tests. The paragraph says:
"His Majesty's Government are accordingly unable at the moment to put forward
230
specific proposals. But their view is that the detailed allocation of seats which will eventually be provided for in the Constitution Act should be based, in the case of the Council of State, on the rank and importance of the State as indicated by the dynastic salute and other factors, and that in the case of the Lower Chamber it should be based in the main on population."
Words have no meaning if that does not virtually, if not entirely exclude population as a factor. The main factors were to be the rank and importance of the State as indicated by the dynastic salute, and so on.
Here you have a State which, as a matter of fact, has not a large population but the noble Marquess would appear to be muddled about the figures. He might, for instance, have mentioned Bundi and other States. I do not think you would find so very much discrepancy, and my information is that there are States which have been included which on a population basis are only a few thousand different. Admittedly in the case of this particular State population is weak, although even there I believe that this State has suffered by grave epidemic, which gave it an abnormally low population for the moment. Is a State of this quite unusual precedence, dignity and dynastic salute, with a history which has almost no comparison in India, to be thus treated? It is no good the noble Marquess saying that this does not affect the precedence of the State. It does not affect the actual precedence when the Ruler takes his place in India amongst his brother Princes, but it is going to be a severe blow to a Ruler of that kind. It is a matter of great regret to us that every kind of disturbance and annoyance is going to be brought by this Bill upon the most loyal subjects of His Majesty in India, and I do beg the noble Marquess to see that States are not treated like this. It is not right that a State of such importance should be treated in this cavalier manner, and I hope that, even now the noble Marquess will promise me that he will further consult the Government of India on this matter, which is really of very great importance. It; is the only case I press, although I have had many other cases brought to my notice. I agree that you cannot get content everywhere in these matters, but, this is a particularly bad case, and I hope the noble Marquess will promise

231
further to consider it. If not I shall be bound to bring the matter up again on the Report stage.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I think I told the noble Lord that I had been very recently in consultation with the Government of India about this very case. I have been in consultation with them. I told him that neither the Government of India nor I had been able to find any means of making an alteration in this case. The noble Lord talked about my being muddled about the figures. I am sure I am not muddled about the figures; he is the person who is muddled about the figures. He does not seem to realise that his Amendment would involve the creation of an additional
LORD LLOYD: I am sorry if I used a discourteous phrase. I know it would mean a dislocation of the Table, but that seems to be of less importance than doing a grave injustice to a State.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: The noble Marquess has based his claim for rejection of this Amendment on the ground that it would be impossible to provide an additional scat. Can we take it therefore from his answer that the noble Marquess did admit that a mistake has been made and an injustice inflicted?
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: No, the noble Earl cannot take it in that sense at all.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND moved, in Division XI of the Table of Seats in Part II, to leave out "Barwani" and "Ali Rajpuri" and insert:

"12. Barwani

1.

10. Barwani

1.

141,110

Ali Rajpur

Ali Rajpur

101,963

Shahpura

Shahpura

54,233"

The noble Marquess said: These three lines must be taken together. Their object is to raise the representation accorded in the Council of State to the States of Partahgarh and Jhalawar from two-fifths to half of a single seat; in other words to enable the two Rulers to appoint jointly to a continuous single seat, or in yearly rotation, instead of appointing for two years in rotation in every five years.
Amendment moved—
Page 308, leave out lines 29 and 30, and insert the said words.—(The Marquess of Zetland )
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: May I take this opportunity to call attention to a somewhat unsatisfactory piece of drafting on page 298. In line 7, in the definition of "European" you will find the words "who is not a native of India as defined in Section six of the Government of India Act, 1870"; and in line 11, you will find "who is a native of India as defined in the said Section six." This House has very frequently beard protests against legislation by reference. I suggest that this is a particularly bad example of legislation by reference, since I am informed that the Statute of 1870 has, in fact, been repealed. We are providing India in this Bill with a Constitution, and we ought to be able to put this Bill into the hands of Indians and say: "From this you will see how your country is governed." It is a pity, I think, that we should have to add a rider to that to the effect that "You will not really understand it unless you have a set of repealed Statutes of Queen Victoria." It would be just as easy and more convenient if the actual words of the definition, which are excellent words and thoroughly satisfactory words, were inserted in this place instead of this reference to the Act of 1870, and it would have this advantage that you could then insert a reference to Burma as well as India.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I will certainly look into that point before the Report stage, but I am informed that it would mean putting quite a number of additional lines into the Bill, and, of course, in India this definition of the Act of 1870 is a very well known thing. But certainly I will look into it and see whether it would be possible to avoid the legislation by reference.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: I am much obliged. The number of words is really quite small.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
LORD RANKEILLOUR LORD RANKEILLOUR had given Notice of an Amendment to insert the following preamble:
"Whereas in the preamble to the Government of India Act, 1919, it was recited that it was the declared policy of Parliament to provide for the increasing association of Indians in every branch of Indian Administration and for the gradual development of self-governing institutions

233
with a view to the progressive realisation of responsible government in British India as an integral part of the Empire
And whereas in that preamble it, was further recited that progress in giving effect to this policy could only be achieved by successive stages:
And whereas the provisions of the Government of India Act, 1919, represented a substantial step towards the giving of effect to such declared policy of Parliament:
And whereas it is expedient that further substantial steps in this direction should now be taken.
TILE LORD CHAIRMAN: There is no preamble to the Bill At the beginning of our proceedings the noble Lord, Lord Snell., put down an Amendment to put in a preamble. He has now withdrawn that, and since then the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, has put down an Amendment to insert a preamble. This is a new suggestion which has come since the preamble was considered in the first instance.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: On a point of order, I do not think I quite understood what the Lord Chairman said. I understood that my noble friend Lord Snell withdrew his Amendment because it was understood not to be in order, and I did not quite understand why the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour's, Amendment should be in order now.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: It is for your Lordships to decide whether it is in order. I thought it was in order.
LORD SNELL: I can only say that if I had understood it was in order, I should quite certainly have proposed my Amendment. I understood it was a decision that there should be no preamble and that could get what I wanted by moving it at a later stage.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): As far as the noble Lord, Lord Snell, is concerned, he will remember that having originally put it down as an Amendment to the preamble, in which event the discussion would have come on, if at all, at the conclusion of the whole proceedings, he ingeniously put it down as an Amendment to Clause 1, which we discussed, so that it came first in our proceedings and was, in fact, debated and negatived. On the other point, whether or not an Amendment to insert a preamble is in order, as your Lordships
234
know, we in this House, are more elastic in our procedure than another place. I have looked into the precedents as far as I can. I find it laid down by Erskine May that it is not in order to insert a preamble in this Bill. It has been ruled in another place that it is out of order to insert a preamble, and that ruling followed on earlier rulings, one or two of which I have here if any of your Lordships are interested in them. Notwithstanding that, I suppose we can create a precedent, but we should be departing from, so far as I know, an unbroken history of centuries if we did insert a preamble; and although we can do it—because we can do what we like in this House; your Lordships are masters in your own House—I venture to think that your Lordships would expect rather an exceptional case to be made out to justify such a departure from a long established precedent.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: Might I ask the Lord Chancellor whether in express terms Erskine May lays it down that a preamble cannot be inserted in this House?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: He does not refer to one House as apart from the other. The passage is on page 411 in the note, which says:
"Where a Bill has not a preamble it has been held to be out of order to move one.''
The actual precedent is a House of Commons precedent. But he is not distinguishing in his note between the House of Lords and the House of Commons. So far as I know, there is no distinction in principle, and so far as I know also—I speak, of course, subject to correction—it has never been done in this House. When I say that, I mean I have not been able to find a case where it has been done, but I admit at once I am not asking your Lordships to accept from me that your Lordships cannot do it. I think you can. I think we can stretch our rules, if it is convenient, and that is one of the great advantages of debates here, that we are able to adapt our procedure to meet the circumstances as they arise. I was only suggesting, as the point had been raised and I otherwise was not going to speak quite so soon, that probably your Lordships would think that, whereas that is not a sufficient ground for refusing to discuss the Amendment, it might be a relevant factor in considering whether

235
you would create a new precedent and that, in fact, the precedent would be entirely new, and would apparently conflict with the practice which has actually been established in another place.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I am sure the House is very much indebted to the Lord Chancellor for having so very clearly put before your Lordships what the practice in this House has hitherto been, and also what the precedent is as quoted from Erskine May. In these circumstances, knowing that the noble Lord, Lord, Rankeillour, is a very punctilious stickler for all forms of procedure, whether in this House or the other, I feel sure he will not proceed with his Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think nothing could be better, if I may venture to say so, than the way the Lord Chancellor has addressed himself to this point. I hope he will not consider my observation in any way patronising, but I think that it is precisely in the right spirit that he has done so. He is quite right in saying that, in the spirit of our proceedings, we are elastic, and it is also true to say that if a preamble is to be discussed at all it should be discussed at the end of the Bill and not at the beginning. We may take both those points as settled. The question is whether or not we should establish a new precedent. Here I rather regret the last observation of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, because I am going to say, quite frankly, it would not be right to establish a new precedent except with general consent. If the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition persists in resisting, as far as I am concerned I shall not be in favour of pursuing the matter further because a new precedent should have general consent.
May I say, in reply to one observation by the Lord Chancellor, that this is rather a special case, not because it is the Government of India Bill on which I happen to take a strong view—I am trying to be quite judicial in what I am saying now—but it is a special case because of the very curious proposal of, as it were, keeping in being a preamble when the rest of the Bill is to be repealed. That is, I am sure, unique. Whatever else is unique in the proceedings of Parliament, it is unique to keep a preamble by itself when the rest of
236
the Bill has gone. It is a dislocated kind of situation, and it does seem to me it would be more orderly, more regular, to put back the preamble, in so far as it may be put back in its original form, attached to this new Bill, rather than keep this disembodied preamble floating about in space without any attachment.
I believe that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is quite as anxious as I am to have our proceedings as reasonable and practical as possible. It seems to me it would be more reasonable to revive the preamble in a form actually attached to this Bill rather than continue a perfectly disembodied preamble. Therefore I do think it is rather a special case; but if the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition persists in his wish that the new precedent should not be made, as far as I am concerned I should deprecate going on with the matter.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I should be very sorry if anything I say should be accepted by your Lordships unless you were fully convinced it was the right course to take. I was only endorsing what the Lord Chancellor had said with regard to the situation as we find it, and I thought, in the circumstances, it would be better for us to adopt this course and for the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, not to proceed with his Amendment; but I do not want that to be any pronouncement. I have no sort of authority to make a pronouncement on the subject.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: May I say that when I observed on the Order Paper the suggested preamble put forward by Lord Snell, I made some inquiry into the matter, and I understood, perhaps mistakenly, that the objection to his preamble was that it was put down at the beginning of the Bill and not at the end. So I thought there was no doubt that a preamble could be moved at the end. May I say, as to what Lord Ponsonby has mentioned, that it is a very different thing when you have to enforce meticulously rules in another place and come here and hope that you may abound in the licence that your Lordships allow. Therefore, I do not think his reference to my rigidity of ruling elsewhere was relevant to this particular instance. However, as there is some doubt about this matter, and as I did not know any objection was going

237
to be taken, I should like to consult my noble friends and go into the precedents a little further. I will not at the present stage attempt to move my Amendment.
House resumed.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, in moving the Second Reading, I must crave the indulgence of your Lordships to make a rather full statement on this Bill, which is one of great importance to Scotland. It is a Bill complementary to the English Bill, and it has had a long and severe passage through another place. I am aware that some of your Lordships still do not like some of its provisions. To take the general situation first of all, I would remind your Lordships that various causes have operated during the, last twenty years or more to create a serious shortage of working-class houses in Scotland. Building was at a complete standstill during the War, and in the post-War period private enterprise has been unable to provide houses within the means of the low-wage earner. On the other hand, the demand for houses has in no way diminished. Indeed, the cessation of emigration in recent years, and the increase, if not in population, at least in the number of families requiring houses, has aggravated the pressure on that available accommodation. Steps taken by successive Governments since 1919 have produced a total of 189,000 houses with the aid of public funds, sufficient to accommodate 760,000 persons, yet large numbers of additional houses at cheap rents must be provided before the people of Scotland are satisfactorily housed.
It is the policy of the present Government, by means of subsidies to local authorities, to encourage the provision of decent low-rented houses in sufficient numbers to rid Scotland of her slums and deplorable overcrowding and to leave the provision of houses for persons who can afford to pay an economic rent to be undertaken by unassisted private enterprise. The first step towards the realisation of this policy was taken in 1933, when an Act was passed to free
238
private enterprise from the fetters of subsidised competition by local authorities and to concentrate the energies of local authorities on the task of clearing the slums. These objects are being amply achieved. Immediately after the passing of the Act the number of un-subsidised houses built by private enterprise in Scotland increased by three and a half times, and this increased output is being maintained. So also with the slum clearance operations of local authorities. At the beginning of 1934 the Government launched a vigorous five-year slum clearance programme, having decided to continue the generous State grant that is available for this purpose. Already, only seventeen months after the commencement of the drive, no fewer than 30,500 houses out of the 47,000 which local authorities have undertaken to provide during the five-year period have been contracted for, and these include over 8,000 which have actually been completed and nearly 16,000 which are under construction. The Bill continues the slum clearance grant at its present rate up to March, 1938, and there is every hope that when that time arrives slumdom will have almost disappeared from Scotland.
This Bill, to which I am asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading, inaugurates the latest stage in the Government's housing policy—namely, an attack on the serious and deep-seated evil of overcrowding in Scotland. The precise magnitude of the problem will not be known until the surveys for which the Bill provides have been made, but its seriousness can be judged from the figures given in the census of 1931. According to that census 1,600,000 persons, or 35 per cent, of the entire population, were living more than two to a room; in Glasgow the figure of overcrowding is over 42 per cent, of the population; and in Mother-well the figure is 55 per cent. The great mass of the overcrowding in Scotland exists in houses of one and two apartments, which constitute the very large proportion of 46 per cent, of the houses in the country. That is an appalling situation, fraught with so much danger to the physical, moral, and social wellbeing of the nation, that confronts His Majesty's Government and this Bill is designed to deal with it.
For the first time in history it is proposed to lay down a national minimum

239
standard of accommodation which working-class families of Scotland will in future be entitled to enjoy. Noble Lords will find the definition of overcrowding and the details of the standard in Clause 2 and the First Schedule to the Bill. Without going now into details, I would draw attention to the two principles on which the standard is based—namely, the proper separation of the sexes and the occupation of houses by not more people than they can properly accommodate. The standard has been criticised elsewhere on the ground that it is too high and that it is not a practicable standard for adoption in Scotland at the present time. It is essential, however, that in the interests of health, comfort and common decency the standard to be adopted should be adequate to effect a real improvement in the deplorable conditions to which I have referred, and the Government think that the standard in the Bill is the minimum which meets this need.
As to its being practicable, let me inform your Lordships that the Bill provides a subsidy which has been calculated to enable local authorities to provide the necessary additional houses in the numbers and of the sizes required. The Government do not claim that the standard is an ideal one or that it defines the level up to which it is hoped that the housing conditions of Scotland will ultimately be raised, but they do think that it is a minimum standard which will serve for some years to come and that it represents a reasonable and practicable effort to deal with the realities of the overcrowding problem as it exists to-day. I should perhaps explain that the standard and the penal provisions of the Bill will not be enforced in any district until the greater part of the additional accommodation shown to be necessary by the survey of overcrowding has been provided. This virtually means that no occupier will be liable to prosecution for the offence of overcrowding before he has had an offer of suitable alternative accommodation, and even after the standard comes into operation on what is called "the appointed day" it will be possible under the Bill to relax the overcrowding provisions to meet particular circumstances.
Sitting tenants are afforded ample protection against prosecution under Clause 3. Provision is made under
240
Clauses 4 and 5 to modify the standard in its application to districts as a whole or, by a system of licences, in its application to individual houses should circumstances make this necessary or desirable. Further, Clause 6 provides for the temporary relaxation of the standard in holiday places during periods when the pressure of accommodation is great through an influx of visitors. By these and other means the machinery in the Bill is made sufficiently flexible to cope with the varying conditions that prevail in this different districts and also in the same district from time to time.
If your Lordships will turn to Clauses 13 to 18 you will find provisions, to which the Government attach considerable importance, dealing with the redevelopment of congested areas. Very largely housing effort in the past has been devoted to the development of areas round the fringes of the urban districts of Scotland while the mass of the bad housing at the centres of the large towns has been allowed to remain. Of necessity the greater proportion of the houses to be provided for the relief of overcrowding must be built on suburban sites, and an inquiry which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland recently conducted showed that there was an overwhelming preference among the tenants themselves for residence in the new rehousing areas in the interests of health and the wellbeing of children. But, in addition, it is the Government's intention that a determined attempt should now be made to put an end to the unwholesome congestion that exists in central areas, and the redevelopment provisions in the Bill form the instrument which they have chosen for that purpose. The aim is to replan the centres of our towns so that the present congested and unhealthy areas may be replaced by more pleasing and ample environment. The task will not only be heavy but costly. That is a consideration which the Government have recognised by making additional financial assistance available to the large local authorities for redevolpment schemes.
Another important feature of the Bill is the provision which it makes to secure that the new houses and those already built by local authorities will be let to the right people at rents within their means. It has for some time been a matter for criticism—not wholly unjustified—that in

241
many cases the rents charged for sub-sidised houses have been such as to place the houses beyond the reach of the poorer section of the community for whom Parliament intended them and that, as a result, they have been occupied by persons who could afford to pay an economic rent. The Bill seeks to remove these anomalies. In the first place, by the somewhat technical provisions contained in Clauses 36 to 45, it effects the necessary consolidation of the housing finance of local authorities with the object of creating a single pool of houses and a single rent pool to take the place of the separate pools which at present exist under the different Acts. It then replaces the various conditions affecting rents and lettings imposed by the different Acts from which the anomalies have sprung by the unified conditions contained in Clause 46.
In order to secure that the houses will be let to the right people, this clause requires local authorities in the selection of their tenants to give a reasonable preference to persons living in insanitary, overcrowded or otherwise unsatisfactory housing conditions. Moreover, a specified proportion of houses is to be definitely reserved for occupation by low-wage earners and agricultural workers. Rents of the houses are to be fixed in relation to the ordinary market rents of working-class houses in the district, but to ensure that no working-class family will be deprived of the opportunity of obtaining a house through the rent being beyond their means, the clause provides fox rebates from the market rents being given in cases where the financial circumstances of the tenant warrant this course. In the Government's view the clause will effectively secure the object in view—namely, that the houses erected by local authorities with State assistance will be let to the right people and at the right rents.
There is one other feature of the Bill to which I will refer at this stage—namely, the facilities which it provides for the enlistment of voluntary agencies in the housing field. Clauses 23 to 28 contain provisions relating to housing associations, with whom local authorities are empowered to make arrangements for the building or reconstruction of working-class houses for the accommodation of families displaced from unfit
242
or overcrowded dwellings or removed from houses dealt with in the course of redevelopment operations. Very little has hitherto been done in Scotland by voluntary housing efforts. For the first time, however, the Bill proposes that Exchequer grants will be paid through the local authorities to those housing associations for rehousing work done under approved arrangements, and in addition facilities are being given to the associations to obtain up to nine-tenths of their working capital by way of loans from public funds. Together, these proposals should greatly assist any voluntary agencies who may enter into arrangements with local authorities to make a valuable contribution towards the solution of the housing problem.
These, my Lords, very broadly, are the main essentials of the Bill. There is no reason why a start should not be immediately made by local authorities to deal with overcrowding in their districts, as subsidies will be given for houses begun on or after February 1 last, and I am informed that already about twenty local authorities have had contracts approved for a number of houses approximating to 1,000. It is the policy of the Government that the worst cases of overcrowding will be dealt with first. In order to carry out this policy, the local authorities will be expected to provide a substantial proportion of houses of the larger types in their first instalments. They will further be discouraged from building small houses in their schemes, having in view that the decrowding operations may be expected to set free a sufficient number of houses of one and two apartments for persons whose needs can adequately be met by houses of these sizes. The Government propose also to make every effort to secure that houses will be well planned and that the outward amenities of housing schemes will be improved. Much has been heard in Scotland of the drabness and architectural dullness of council houses. The Government consider that without adding to the cost the attractiveness of housing schemes, from an architectural point of view, can be greatly improved, and Clause 72 of the Bill accordingly enables the Department to give directions to local authorities for the better lay out, planning and treatment of their houses in any case where this becomes necessary. The clause also

243
empowers local authorities to appoint local advisory committees, including architectural and artistic representatives, to assist them to prepare their schemes, and further gives the Department power to require any local authority to appoint such a committee if the circumstances make this course seem desirable.
I should like to add a few words about certain criticisms against this Bill. In the first place, it has been described as a measure designed to deal with conditions in the urban rather than the rural areas of Scotland. Housing provision in the country districts must inevitably have regard to the needs of agriculture. In general, houses of farm servants are tied to the farm; that is to say, they form part of the remuneration of the workers and remain at the free disposal of the farmer. This presents peculiar difficulties to local authorities whose powers are limited to the provision of houses for the use of the working population as a whole. Moreover, the rural population of Scotland is diminishing. In view of these special problems the Bill was amended elsewhere to provide for the appointment of a rural sub-committee of the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee to be set up under Clause 22, and the Government propose to seek the advice of this body at the earliest opportunity, regarding the steps which should be taken in connection with the improvement of rural houses in its various aspects. Meantime the Bill extends the period by nearly two years during which grants may be obtained under the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts, and this will enable the very useful work which is being done under these Acts for the reconstruction of existing cottages to be continued.
Another criticism comes from owners of property, particularly in the West of Scotland, who have complained that the publication of the Bill has had the effect of depreciating the market value of working-class houses and that as a result the compensation provisions in the Bill are inadequate. It is said that this will involve great loss among others to charitable and educational authorities and other public bodies. The Government understand that most of the heritable property which the institutions themselves own, or which is the security
244
for investments made by them in feu duties, ground annuals and the like, is already property in good condition. Inquiries which they have made have revealed no evidence of any general drop in the value of this type of property or of any substantial reason for believing that the operation of the Bill will adversely affect the reliability of good working class property as a source of income.
Indeed, there appears to be no ground for the assumption that compensation will be payable for any property upon values which have been artificially lowered by this Bill. Where it becomes necessary for a local authority to purchase property in connection, for example, with a redevelopment scheme, the owner will receive the agreed price or, failing agreement, compensation assessed by an independent arbiter under the existing statutory provisions which have been in operation for several years. Where the Bill alters the basis of compensation the alterations made are in favour of the owners of property and not to their detriment.
The only remaining criticism of substance, I think, is that the Bill does not provide for liberal grants to private owners for the reconditioning of working-class houses. Noble Lords will not expect me to deal at length with the details of this question. I would only say that a policy of reconditioning would not increase the accommodation required for decrowding purposes, which is the primary object of this Bill. It would not facilitate, but might conceivably hinder, the redevelopment of the congested and badly-arranged centres of our large towns. Taking the long view, the Government consider that it would be wiser, when conditions of finance and the supplies of labour and materials are so favourable to a forward policy, to use public money for the provision of new houses rather than for the reconditioning of existing properties which must sooner or later again become derelict, when there would be a recurrence of our present housing difficulties. Much emphasis has been laid on the fact that the Whitson Committee recommended that grants should be given for reconditioning those old houses, but it is necessary to point out that the Committee's recommendation was subject to owners being required to bring the condition of their property up

245
to a higher standard of habitability, which was definitely specified in the Committee's Report.
The Bill, however, contains no provisions which set up a new standard of habitability for existing houses. It does not authorise a local authority to condemn such houses because they are not equipped with modern sanitary conveniences. Nor does it enable a local authority to compel owners to carry out improvements under by-laws unless it is reasonably practicable for them to do so, and on this point an Amendment was made elsewhere giving owners a right of appeal to the Sheriff where they are of opinion that it is not reasonably practicable to carry out any improvements asked for by the local authority. In view of this radical difference between the requirements of the Bill and the conditions laid down by the Whitson Committee, the Bill makes no provision for a reconditioning grant from public funds. The introduction of any such provision now would be incompetent, since it would be outside the term s of the Financial Resolution. I think I have now covered the main points arising in connection with this Bill, and as I am aware that a certain number of noble Lords from Scotland wish to speak, and that a great many points have to be threshed out in detail when we come to the Committee stage, I will not detain your Lordships further. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill he now read 2a.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I understand that it is convenient now to adjourn during pleasure.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:—

Finance,

London Passenger Transport (Agreement),

Counterfeit Currency (Convention), Defence (Barracks),

Glasgow Corporation Sewage Order Confirmation,

Lanarkshire County Council Order Confirmation,

246

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Guildford),

Sheffield Corporation Tramways Order Confirmation,

Portsmouth Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation,

London Midland and Scottish Railway Order Confirmation,

London and North Eastern Railway,

South Essex Waterworks,

Southern Railway,

Rhyl Urban District Council,

West Hampshire Water,

City of London (St. Paul's Cathedral Preservation).

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Debate on the Motion for the Second Reading resumed.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, on the objects of this Bill, which has been so lucidly explained by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, there can of course be no two opinions. This Bill is a most admirable one in its intentions, but unfortunately its intentions are by no means adequately carried out by its provisions. It has a number of omissions and blemishes, some of which are reparable in your Lordships' House, some of which unfortunately are not. Some of your Lordships may not be aware that when this measure was considered by the Scottish Grand Committee it occupied what I believe is the unprecedented number of twenty-four days, on several of which the Committee sat morning and afternoon, and a great volume of protests was received, not merely from private individuals and associations representing property owners, but also from many public bodies. There are, indeed, so many defects in the Bill as at present drawn that I should take up an absolutely unreasonable amount of your Lordships' time if I attempted to do more than mention quite briefly a few of the most serious.
The Bill, in the first place, takes no account of three factors which at present are operating very unfairly in Scotland. The Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord

247
Strathcona, said at the end of his speech, makes no provision for reconditioning grants in urban areas and, frankly, I cannot accept the reasons given by the noble Lord for the non-inclusion of this provision as in any way valid. The Rural Housing (Scotland) Act has been of the greatest possible benefit, to such an extent that I should have thought it would have been well worth the Government's while to show a more sympathetic attitude towards those who are pressing for a similar measure in regard to town property. I myself speak with a perfectly open mind as I am not in any way personally interested in town property, because I do not possess any. The second question is that of the increase of rent which was allowed to Scottish urban landlords after the War. That increase amounted on paper to 40 per cent., but while the Government of that day gave that with one hand, they took it away with the other, for they passed an Act whereby it was impossible, and has been ever since, for property owners to recover from their tenants any increase in local rates which occurred after 1920. In many areas there have been considerable increases of rates. In a number of instances these have practically devoured the extra 40 per cent., which of course was given with the idea of making it possible to bring properties up to date after the War. This position is likely to become worse, especially in the City of Glasgow, whose finances are now being sadly mismanaged by a Socialist Town Council.
The third great omission is in regard to rating of unoccupied property. In Scotland unoccupied property is rated. The rating is shared as a rule between landlord and tenant equally in the country areas, and in the proportion, I think, of 54 per cent. paid by the tenant and 46 per cent. paid by the landlord in urban areas. Where there is no tenant, naturally the landlord has to pay the whole amount, and when an unfortunate small proprietor, the whole of whose property consists perhaps of a row of small houses, has one or more of them empty in a heavily-rated district and has to pay the rates which the tenant would have paid had there been a tenant, this condition of things inflicts an undue burden upon the small proprietor, and one which this Bill
248
might well have removed. But unfortunately all these three matters are out-side the scope of this Bill. It was not found possible in another place, and would not be found possible here to remedy these serious omissions, and we can only regret them. There is also an omission to deal with the position of the grants given in the crofting counties under the Rural Housing (Scotland) Act to a certain type of landholder. Into this somewhat complicated subject I do not propose to go at length to-day, but this is a point where your Lordships' House may, I think, remedy another glaring defect.
The next respect in which this Bill is by no means what it might be concerns the standard of overcrowding and the size of houses mentioned in the Bill, which are drawn entirely by analogy with England. Anyone who has a knowledge of both Scottish and English houses will know that there is a very great difference between the housing conditions of the two countries. It has been laid down that not more than two persons may occupy any one room if that room is of 110 square feet of floor space or larger. That may be a very wise provision as far as England is concerned, but there are very few houses in Scotland where the rooms are of such exiguous dimensions. In Scotland there are few cases in which the floor space of a one- or two-roomed house is less than 160 square feet, and there are a great many in which it approaches 200 square feet. At the same time, whereas the normal height of an English room is assumed to be in the neighbourhood of nine feet, the vast majority of Scottish rooms are ten or eleven feet high, and even, in some cases, twelve feet. Taking all in all, I think it would be a very great improvement if at least one extra half person were permitted in rooms where there were 130 or 150 square feet of floor space. I suggest it is very unwise to assume that what is suitable for England is naturally suitable for Scotland as well. The two countries are different in many respects. We have in Scotland our own laws and our own conditions. That, I think, has not been sufficiently taken into account by the Government in framing this measure.
There is also another very important point in regard to the right of appeal

249
of an owner who is being forcibly dispossessed of his property. At the present time, although some sort of Committee has been vaguely promised to consider these cases, there does not seem to be any appeal to the Courts but only to some Government Department or official. That, I submit, is a very undesirable state of affairs, and I hope that in the course of the passage of this Bill through the Committee stage your Lordships will press, and the Government will accept, Amendments making an appeal to the Courts possible in all circumstances. Then there is a question of the basis of compensation. Into this again rather complicated question it is not my intention to go deeply, but merely to assure your Lordships that, in the view of many authorities, the present proposed basis of compensation is usatisfactory, unfair, and inadequate.
Another point which, although it cannot be incorporated in a Bill, ought to be borne in mind, is that a very great deal of the overcrowding, especially in the urban districts of Scotland, is due to the fact that we have in many areas, especially in the South-West of Scotland, a problem which does not affect. England, save possibly in Liverpool—that is, the presence of many hundreds of thousands of Irish immigrants who have come there in the past fifty years, and whose presence, with their extraordinarily large families, renders conditions infinitely more unsatisfactory than would be the case if the persons living in these areas were all of Scottish origin.
In regard to the question of rural houses, if this Bill is passed, I am afraid that one of the most worthy and deserving members of the Scottish nation is going to be very hard hit. I refer to the ploughman or other agricultural worker who has a large family. If the present standard is to be accepted, it will mean that the man who has anything from four to eight children, either of school age or living with him and hoping to obtain agricultural employment on the farm he himself is working on, will find the utmost difficulty in obtaining fresh employment should he lose his present situation. It is going to be very difficult for any farmer, whether a tenant-farmer or an owner-occupier, to employ a ploughman with a large family, no matter how excellent he knows the man to be, if
250
he is going to render himself by so doing liable to prosecution.
There is also this other point, that surely the conditions of overcrowding and of air space which are applicable to crowded industrial areas can scarcely be compared with the conditions in the rural districts of Scotland. To compare a slum or, at any rate, a densely populated area in Glasgow or Dundee with isolated cottar houses, it may be in Galloway, Perthshire, or Sutherland is surely rather absurd. Surely in cases where we get the complete system of ventilation which these isolated houses in fact enjoy in rural areas, there might be some relaxation of the standard which, justifiably or not, is sought to be imposed in the urban areas.
It is not my intention to take up more of your Lordships' time, nor have I any desire to ask your Lordships to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, for, obviously, a Bill which, seeks, however unsatisfactorily, to improve the housing conditions of the working classes of Scotland, must have your Lordships' unanimous support. At the same time I trust I have said enough to show that this Bill does, in fact, possess many defects, and I hope your Lordships will support those of us who have intimate knowledge of Scottish conditions in our attempt during the Committee stage of this measure to rectify many of these glaring errors, and make the Bill in fact, what it is in theory, a great advancement in the conditions of life of the working classes of Scotland.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, first of all may I congratulate the noble Lord who has introduced this Bill on the fact that this is his maiden effort in introducing a Scottish Bill, or indeed any Bill, in your Lordships' House? I am glad to feel that Scottish matters are not only in capable hands, but in those of one who is anxious to be of service to Scotland. Those who are interested in the Bill have, I think, some reason for complaint at the very short time that has been given us to examine it. The Bill was only available on Monday and, as your Lordships know, we have, thanks to the Government of India Bill, had no time even to look at it since then. I am not, however, blaming the noble Lord personally, but rather the methods of the Government in general in crowding in important Bills at

251
the last moment, across which we can almost see printed: "Take it or leave it." I certainly feel that this last five-months-old Government baby is a distinct case of overcrowding, and might have waited a little longer.
Now the Government advocate this Bill on the grounds of the very serious overcrowding in our big cities. As Lord Mansfield has pointed out, no one denies that this evil exists, and everyone wishes to see it ended at the earliest possible moment. The local authorities are steadily dealing with this problem in their slum clearance campaigns. The figures of the Whitson Report show that, as a result of a great housing drive in Scotland under successive Acts, there has been a steady diminution of one- and two-roomed houses and a great increase of three- and four-roomed houses. The problem of overcrowding, as far as it is injurious to health—and that is the main point—is not only gradually, but swiftly, on its way to a final solution, and the Government, we know, are setting before themselves the commendable aim of getting rid of all slums within three years from now. In my opinion, this Bill is not really necessary and, like all other measures, will probably be extremely expensive and, in the end, will have to be paid for by a great number of the very people who come under its provisions. I believe that the best way to get rid of overcrowding is to have more houses. This, and reconditioning, which is ruled out, can be, and is being, done under other Bills. Further, I believe, if we had had no big towns, this Bill would never have been introduced, or, in other words, that it is quite unnecessary for the rural areas and that therefore—without detriment to the urban population—the rural population need never have been burdened with it.
Subject to what I may say later on, I believe that there are quite sufficient local by-laws, health, police, and otherwise, to deal with the whole problem as far as these rural areas are concerned, and in a much more happy, less expensive, and less inquisitive way than is suggested by this Bill. At this juncture I would say that these are my personal opinions, and probably, having gone so far as we have, the Bill will at least have to come into being for the urban parts of the country. But I do hope the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will consider,
252
before we reach the further stages, whether it might not really be wiser not to have it as it is, because to a great extent it is unsuitable in rural areas, but, possibly, have some other regulations later on to strengthen the existing regulations for urban areas. I would ask your Lordships to realise clearly that the aim of the Bill is not merely to get rid of overcrowding that is injurious to health, but also to fix the exact number of persons who will be in any house up to a rental of £45—that is to say, the great majority of houses in Scotland—the number of persons being based on the number and the size of the rooms. It is not necessary to point out to your Lordships that families are not static in the lives of most married couples. If the Bill be properly carried out, it will inevitably mean constant and irritating inquiry as to the number and ages and so forth of children, and frequent moves on the part of the families, all of which, naturally, would be troublesome to the mothers especially, and, with the constant moves that are adumbrated, fatiguing and also expensive to the family income.
Moreover, with the cheapening of travel and increase of trade-holidays, people even of small means visit each other much more than formerly, and particularly in country districts. Local authorities are to be allowed to permit the standards to be exceeded for four months in the year in places which are holiday resorts. For the concession with regard to holiday places which was made in another place, people who criticise this Bill in other respects are grateful. In other cases, by granting licences in exceptional circumstances the permitted standards can be exceeded, but the authorities are to prescribe the limit within which the standards may be exceeded. This will inevitably restrict the letting of rooms to summer visitors on which the great majority of persons in the Highlands depend for their income, and may become a very serious matter. It is also bound to restrict the visits which relatives may pay one another. Take the case of a boy at the University, for instance. The maximum exemption allowed of fifteen days would not cover his summer holidays, and as he might become technically a cause of overcrowding, I presume his father would have to get a

253
licence to have his son home at that time. I might instance another case. Supposing a relative was asked to a place where they were just able to get one more in, say, a sister of the wife. The sister might be a married woman, and perhaps have a small infant which she could not very well leave at home. Because of the baby she would be unable to visit her sister. That kind of thing does seem absurd and stupid when you are dealing with the country side of the question.
I firmly approve of the idea of separating the sexes, but I would point out that, as the Bill does not seek to lay clown how many persons are to sleep in any one room, this separation may not, in actual fact, be achieved. Although, for instance, not mote than three people may sleep in a two-roomed house, it does not seem to matter in the least whether all the three sleep in one room or not, according to the Bill. Supposing the house contains two rooms. Only three people will be allowed to sleep in such a house, though the two rooms are of the same size, but there are no provisions to say that three people may not sleep in one room and no one in the other, or two people in one room and one in the other or vice versa. Both rooms are exactly the same size. Why, therefore, cannot two people sleep in each of them at the same time? All this may seem a little narrow-minded, but I am not suggesting that the Secretary of State for Scotland is narrow-minded, because he puts in a special clause that in a one-roomed house two people may sleep, provided they are living as husband and wife, but there is no suggestion that they must show marriage lines to the inspectors who may come round to visit them from time to time.
Now I come to another question. The custom in England is, I believe, for the farm workers to live in villages. In Scotland, certainly the ploughmen, and probably most of the farm workers, live upon the farms. Shepherds, and keepers especially, have to live in out-of-the-way places on the ground of which they are in charge. A very great number of these men's houses have two rooms and a sort of bed closet facing the back which is too small to be counted as a room under the provisions of this Bill. This means that only the couple and one child over ten years old can be allowed to live in such
254
a house. The children of these people, who live healthy outdoor lives, are nearly always numerous and certainly the most healthy in the whole country. I admit that possibly the space may be rather cramped, but the results achieved are not those which the Bill is trying to prevent. In the case of keepers and shepherds their families gradually leave home as they grow up, because the father's work is of the type that can be continued in old age, and they can stay in their occupation quite a long time. But it is different with the ploughmen, who, on account of the severity of their work, have to be in the prime of life and have, therefore, probably got young and growing families.
Inevitably, if the Bill passes in its present form, farmers will be very chary of engaging men with families, and this very important class of worker will be seriously handicapped in obtaining employment. The result will, I think, be that the ploughmen will be either unmarried, or will exercise some form of birth control. At this very day farmers' sons who are working on their fathers' farms are finding it more convenient to live at home unmarried, with the result that there is considerable reduction of the rural population, and we surely do not want this extended to the potential farmers of the future, the ploughmen. We have to remember that the ploughman is a migratory man, and naturally, if he leaves one place, he is not likly to get employment in another if he has a large family, as the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, pointed out. If, on the other hand, all the tied houses are to come within the scope of the Bill, it will take years for most estates to make the necessary additions to their cottages, more especially as the Bill only prolongs the Rural Housing Act for three more years. All houses are not suitable for additions, and no funds are now available to enable proprietors to build new ones.
I know it is impossible in this Bill, hut. I hope something may be done to extend the period of the Rural Housing Act, which is one of the best and most useful Acts we have ever had. It is impossible for the local authorities to build these new houses under the conditions of employment of those principally concerned. Further, it is difficult at the present moment to see how either the proprietors or the farmers themselves, who are all

255
on their last legs financially, can afford the necessary additions or new buildings. As I have said, ploughmen are a very migratory class; frequent difficulties will arise, and those with families are likely to get left out. Therefore I do feel that tied houses of this sort should be exempt from the Bill, and I think it is easy to give exemption without impairing the Bill. It can be well justified because the surroundings of these rural houses are, as has already been pointed out, so open and so airy. In this connection may I put in a plea for the house known as the "but and ben," with its bed closet. It is not the size of the latter that matters, but that it should be properly ventilated. The regulation of fifty square feet may cut out a very large number of these small cubicles which are in some ways the best room in the house for the purpose for which they are used.
To my mind in these localities it is far more important to see that the roofs and walls do not leak and that the house is generally sound and free from damp. That is not a matter which comes under this Bill at all. I have met many town clerks and provosts of small burghs and expert officials in Scotland. Politics did not enter into the question. I was really anxious to find out the extent of overcrowding in these rural areas and how far it was possible to deal with it. We always had a free discussion and all the pros and cons were very carefully gone into. The constant opinion was not only that the Bill is not wanted but that in many directions its provisions would be against the interests of the rural areas. The view held was that if passed it would only bring in a lot of fresh regulations whereas the existing powers of local authorities, with possibly some small additions, were quite sufficient—and in fact better suited—to deal with such areas as we have that are injurious to health and to morals.
As time is short I have not said a word with regard to compensation to owners or overcrowding in the big cities because I feel that those matters will be better dealt with by other speakers. There is little more to be said on the subject, but I would like to refer noble Lords to what was said by Sir Robert Horne in another place. I hope noble Lords will take the opportunity of reading what he said, and I should like to support it.
THE EARL OF MAR AND KELLIE: My Lords, as the noble Duke has indicated, this Bill is in effect a premium on small families and indirectly on birth control, but I am not quarrelling with it on that ground. I think the Bill is on the whole a good Bill, though it will cause hardships in many instances, especially in the agricultural districts where, as has been pointed out, the agricultural labourer with a large family of young children will have great difficulty in obtaining employment. Thanks to the great boon of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, innumerable cottages, mostly of the "but and ben" type have been reconditioned with the addition of a third room and other conveniences, but I am bound to say that in my experience the third room is often not used and that the whole of the family insist on sleeping in the room where there is a fire, generally in the kitchen, the agricultural worker not having the means to light a second fire. No Act of Parliament can prevent that sort of thing happening. As to the standard of overcrowding, I do not altogether agree with my noble friend the Earl of Mansfield. I do not think it would be possible to have a worse standard in Scotland that has been already decided upon for England. There is only one real argument in my opinion, for a worse standard in Scotland than in England and that is the more rigorous climate. We do not like to stress that point too much for fear of frightening the Sassenach from visiting our delectable country.
I alluded just now to the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, which has been an enormous benefit to Central and Southern Scotland, but that Act has broken down in the Highland counties and the crofter counties, notably Inverness-shire. In those districts, you come across people called squatters who build their houses themselves on the crofts of friends or relatives. They pay neither rent nor rates and the crofters themselves only pay rates on one-eighth of the value of their land and nothing on their cottages. That means, of course, that they pay an infinitesimal sum. It is not surprising, therefore, that more substantial ratepayers through the county councils decline to go halves with the National Exchequer in providing grants up to £100 per house for these people. The question of housing in the Highlands and

257
crofter districts and in the Islands of the Hebrides is a real and very difficult one, but I think that question should be tackled by an entirely separate measure. I wish the Government had agreed to help certain landlords in the towns who have good houses, net quite up to modern standards, but which could be quite easily reconditioned. I think the Government might have treated them on the lines of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act.
As has been pointed out, this Bill has been subjected to minute examination in another place and it is a far better Bill now than it was when it was first introduced. Many of your Lordships must have been struck by the knowledge and ability displayed by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh" a Scottish Representative Peer, when the House was in Committee on the English Housing Bill. I was hoping that he would have the details of this Bill also at his finger ends and help us in Committee. This Bill will doubtless cost money. It will cost money to the ratepayer and to the taxpayer, but I think that experience teaches that all reforms, whether they are for the better or for the worse, cost money. When Bills are introduced into Parliament promises of economies are rarely, if ever, fulfilled. I instance as an example of that the Local Government Act, 1929, which was introduced with promises of great economies through centralisation. Those economies have not materialised up to now, and I am afraid they never will. There is little pretence about economy in this Bill. As I have pointed out, it will be expensive, but the cost will be worth while if it is to relieve and mitigate the great evil of overcrowding in Scotland, which, no doubt, is undermining the health of the people.
LORD ALNESS: My Lords, may I, as one who—if a personal allusion be forgiven—was responsible for six years for housing administration in Scotland, be allowed, despite what has been said in criticism of this Bill, to offer it a very warm welcome in your Lordships' House and to congratulate respectfully the Secretary of State for Scotland and those who are associated with him upon their success in piloting their legislative ship in another place, despite the heavy weather which it occasionally encountered, safely into harbour? The need, the urgent need,
258
in Scotland of a Bill to deal with the crying evil of overcrowding does not really require stressing in your Lordships' House. I think it has been conceded by those noble Lords who preceded me, but I should like, without wearying your Lordships, to supplement the figures which were given by my noble friend who moved the Second Reading of the Bill by adding one or two more which I think present, in more graphic form than I in any words of mine can hope to do, the state of matters in Scotland to-day. I give round figures.
At the present moment 9 per cent. of all the houses in Scotland are houses of one apartment, and 36 per cent. of all the houses are ho-.uses of two apartments Seven per cent. of the population in Scotland live in one-apartment houses, and 36 per cent. live in two-apartment houses. The persons who are living more than two in a room in Scotland are equivalent to 35 per cent. of the population; the persons who are living more than three in a room are equal to 14 per cent, of the population. These. last figures which I have cited, when you compare them with England, show that the state of matters in Scotland is ten times worse at least than it is on this side of the Border. I venture to think that the figures which I have cited are arresting, are staggering, are indeed shameful figures, and that therefore neither argument nor eloquence on my part or on the, part of any other noble Lord is required in order to demonstrate that a remedy for such a, state of matters is urgently required.
When one considers whether the remedy proposed by the Bill is an appropriate remedy, I am well content to leave the measure to speak for itself. On Second Reading, as I conceive it, one, is remitted to a bird's-eye view, so to speak, of the provisions of the Bill and to discussion of the basal principles upon which it is founded. Questions of whether the provisions which it contains are suitable for particular circumstances; questions with regard to the cheeks and the safeguards which the Bill contains, are also questions winch I venture to think are more appropriate to the Committee stage of the Bill than to its Second Reading. I have little doubt, although I have no right to speak for the Government or for anybody representing the Government, that the

259
instructed and informed criticism to which the Bill has been subjected by several noble Lords, speaking with expert knowledge, will be fully and sympathetically considered at the Committee stage, where that is possible.
Of course I quite recognise that, with regard to certain points relating to finance, the Financial Resolution is an end of the matter, but many of the points—I think I should be correct in saying most of the points—which have been mentioned by noble Lords are points which can quite properly and appropriately be dealt with, and which I hope will be dealt with, in the Committee. At this point let me say that I do hope that the Government will see their way to give adequate time for the Committee stage of the Bill, because it appears to me that then rather than now is the time at which the real fight, if there be a fight, must come off.
One thing which emerges from the welter of housing legislation by which we are confronted is that to-day some sort of national standard of accommodation is essential, if you are on the one hand to remedy the overcrowding which prevails now, and on the other hand to prevent the recurrence of that overcrowding. I concede that the national standard which is proposed by the Bill is a novelty. I understand that it has never been done before. But this Bill provides such a standard, and that standard is based, as I think has been pointed out, on two considerations which public opinion today requires. The first of these is the separation of the sexes, and the second is the superficial space which should be adequate both for living and sleeping conditions. The Bill lays down the standard. It is a minimum standard, and, I venture humbly to think, from any knowledge which I possess of Scotland, a practicable standard, but it is not necessarily, I should have thought, a final standard. It is, on the other hand, not an ideal standard, but a very real one. The point is this: that the standard, whatever it may be, must be such as to ensure without undue delay an adequate and definite improvement in housing accommodation for the working classes in Scotland; and it must also be fenced with statutory sanctions which can be applied, if need be, at the appropriate time.
May I say a word about another matter? It seems to me that, asso
260
ciated with the policy of decrowding, necessarily must be a policy of redevelopment—that is, of replanning congested areas. To decrowd houses and to leave static, so to speak, the areas in which they are situated would not solve the problem, whether it be regarded from the social point of view, from the public health point of view, or from the industrial point of view. Accordingly it is essential that small houses should, if possible, be replaced by larger houses. That is the object, I apprehend, of the redevelopment scheme in the Bill—namely, to replace the congestion of unfit and crowded houses by houses of sufficient size to meet the needs of the working class population, in healthy and open environment. I was glad to hear what the noble Lord said in moving the Second Reading of the Bill that it deals with the question of amenity. There is no doubt at all that our houses in Scotland, unfortunately, in the poorer districts, are of a dreary and bleak character—mere units of housing, so to speak; and I gather from what the noble Lord said that the Bill will propose to deal with these questions from the point of view rather of architectural beauty, where that is feasible, following the Continental lead, in which we can see many exemplars which might afford a lead to us in Scotland in this matter, and recognising, as everybody must, the immediate and the profound effect of environment upon the life and character of the individual.
Just a word, my Lords, in conclusion. The working-out of this scheme which the Government propose is to be, as I apprehend, by a partnership between the State and the local authority. If one is asked the question: "Why not leave this to private enterprise?" I am afraid that the answer is only too plain—namely, that private enterprise, because of the cost of building, particularly since the War, has been quite unable to cope with the demand for small houses for the poorest section of the community. Accordingly, subsidies, and adequate subsidies, are necessary, and are provided in the Bill. For myself I have an optimistic view with regard to the working of this partnership between the State and local authorities. I had experience of local authorities in Scotland during the six years that I had the honour of occupying the office of Secretary for

261
Scotland, and I am here to say without fear of contradiction that they are well fitted to be the instruments of reform under this measure. As regards the State, all I can say is that the subsidies provided are adequate, almost to the point of generosity, and I would take this opportunity, as a patriotic Scot, of publicly thanking the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the manner in which he has recognised the special and urgent needs of Scotland, relying, no doubt, as he does, upon a social and national up-lift in return, which will be well worth the expenditure of public money.
The Bill, I venture to think, whatever its defects may be, and however capable of improvement it may be, is a statesmanlike imeasure—comprehensive, challenging, courageous in its provisions. It is designed to achieve, and I hope it will achieve, the result of removing what is a. black stain upon the national life of Scotland. It is in that sense—by no means representing the Bill as a perfect instrument, but hoping that, if necessary, Amendments may be made in Committee, by which the instrument which has been forged by the Government will be rendered even better fitted for its purpose—that I welcome the measure, and I am glad to think that your Lordships' House is to give it a Second Reading.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: My Lords, the ground has been so well covered that I would not wish to detain your Lordships for more than a few seconds, and in rising I do not wish to appear at all antagonistic towards this Bill in principle. I believe it is a measure that is intended to deal with one of the greatest evils that we have in the land. That it, is to deal with it drastically is, I suppose, under modern conditions, right, and the sooner it is dealt with the better; but it must be remembered that it is a measure which may have very far-reaching and serious effects. I am not an owner of land in the towns, and therefore I cannot speak with authority; but it is claimed that it is giving a very serious set-back to real estate-owners and others in such large Cities as Glasgow and Dundee, and is tending seriously to reduce the value of real estate. This is one of the occasions when I presume we should endeavour to
262
take the broadest and most far-sighted view we can, but I equally agree that it is not quite so easy a course to take when one is deeply concerned in the subject. One of the greatest difficulties, from the Scottish point of view, in this housing question, is the fact, of the Irish invasion. Until you are able to deal with that to a. great extent I cannot see how you will get great amelioration of the problem. On the whole, I believe the principles of the Bill are sound, but what I am anxious to know is what effect the provisions of this Bill will have upon rural areas.
I do not wish to speak long on this point, but T would like to say this, that you will find in the Bill, and I understand that it was also given effect to in another place, that it is intended that questions of housing should be investigated by a Committee. I hope and trust that it will be discussed and dealt with from two points of view—namely, the urban and the rural. If that is able to be done, I hope all these difficult cases which have been mentioned by noble Lords will be considered, and also one to which I wish specially to draw attention: that is, the effect on those men who, after the appointed day, wish to move of their own free will—it is called "flitting "—to another job, and who may find it exceedingly difficult to find work, for the reason that they cannot get a house because the housing accommodation is not according to the standard of the Bill. It is true there is a three-years extension of the rural housing subsidy, but I submit that that is not sufficient, because although we have this Rural Housing Act which has been of the greatest help to us all—I am grateful for it—you must remember that the ground which has to be made up in housing in rural areas is very great. If we are able to get some satisfaction that this matter will be regarded sympathetically, not only by the Government but by the Committee which sits on the subject, I, for one, will feel hopeful with regard to the present situation.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: My Lords, at this rather late hour I do not wish to detain your Lordships long, but I cannot help rising to congratulate the Government on the courage they have shown in introducing this Bill. I agree with the Bill in its main principles and general clauses, but I have some criticisms which I hope to develop on the Committee

263
stage. This Bill has been long wanted in Scotland, especially in dealing with urban areas. Any one who knows the conditions in Glasgow and Dundee, and other large towns in Scotland, is 'aware of the awful conditions which exist there, and Lord Alness, who knows so much about this, developed the point. The statistics of the awful conditions of overcrowding in some of the dark back streets in our larger cities show that the time when it should have been remedied has long passed. Again and again we have had Scottish Housing Acts of Parliament. We have been full of hope, those of us who want to improve the housing conditions of the people in Scotland, that they were going to give us at last what we wanted, but every one of those attempts has failed us. Every one of them has brought some amelioration, but not one of them has really tackled the root of the problem. I regard this Bill as giving us renewed hope that at last this overcrowding is going to be efficiently tackled.
Of course there are weaknesses in this Bill. No reforming Bill like this can fail to tread on the toes of vested interests, but we have got to look at a much wider field than the small vested interests which come in the way. I am glad indeed that this Bill constitutes an Advisory Committee, which is going to add ginger to the various authorities who are going to act under this Bill and push along the necessary reforms so needed in the Scottish housing problem. I do not take the view that the standard laid down in this Bill is too high. If anything, I think it is on the low side. At all events some will say it is too high and others that it is too low, but I am very glad indeed that a standard has been laid down which will gradually get the housing of our people up to a better level.
I do hope that in the reconditioning of the older section of our town property the matter will be looked at in two aspects: first, the totally derelict and hopeless property that ought to be pulled down; and secondly, the properties that can be reconditioned and used. Undoubtedly in some of our areas there are very fine buildings, with sufficient light in those buildings, which would repay the expenditure of money on them in reconditioning, and I think that the Advisory Committee set up under the Bill could very well look into that problem of divid
264
ing the sheep from the goats. Money would be well spent, not only in reconditioning these houses, but in helping property owners to carry out improvements in these properties which the owners have not the capital to carry out themselves. You would thereby provide better houses for the poor at a much quicker rate than by any other means.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Does the noble Lord realise that that is cut out of the Bill?
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: I realise that it is not in the Bill and that an Amendment ought to be inserted. That reconditioning, which did an immense amount of good in the rural areas, would certainly be of great value in the case of certain urban properties. The other point I would like to make is the question of the development of new areas, and here I hope that the very greatest care will be taken that sufficient ground is provided for the various adjuncts of a collection of houses—not just houses thrown down in rows, but the proper development of a Scottish village, with a hall for the amusement of the people, space for a church room, and for the various playgrounds that are so necessary for the better life which we hope our people will have in future. All that sort of thing must be planned.
I was much struck in my sojourn abroad, especially in Germany, by the foresight shown in the development of new areas for building. In some of our larger villages, where we have been encouraging the local authorities to build houses, it is quite hopeless to expect them to build unless you have a decent drainage and water supply. In the development of these smaller villages, therefore, the first requirement is that the Government should come forward and offer a large proportion of the money required for the provision of the amenities of life in the form of drainage and water before the building of new houses. In many parts of Scotland, especially in Dumfriesshire, for example in the towns of Moffat and Beattock, the local authority is entirely crippled in its desire to build new houses which are badly wanted, owing to an excessive level of rates, which prevent their developing the necessary drainage systems. Money spent for this purpose would help the rehousing of those areas. This Bill, of course, depends en

265
tirely on the energy and the enterprise and the amount of money devoted by the local authorities to the purpose. I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has shown great courage in producing this Bill, will see that the Advisory Committee follows it up, and that the local authorities really carry out what the Government have set out to do. This Bill has been long wanted. In general terms I am delighted to give it support on Second Beading, reserving the right to amend it in Committee.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I am no less a believer in the necessity for this Bill than my noble friend who has just sat down and other Lords who have spoken. We have all felt for a long time in Scotland that such a Bill was necesary. It has been perfectly obvious that the time is long past when we ought to have removed our people from some of the slum dwellings in which they live, or rather exist, in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee and other large cities in Scotland, or to have made provision with that object.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Alness, in his very admirable speech, said he was glad that this Bill was being placed entirely in the hands of the local authorities and not of private enterprise. I cast my mind back to the years 1919 and 1920, when my noble friend and I were members of another place, and he introduced and passed a Bill which provided for the rehousing of the people in Scotland entirely through the local authorities. At that time I suggested that private enterprise should be given an opportunity under that measure, and what actually happened was that at a later date that was found necessary, because it was not possible for the local authorities to cope with all the housing that was required will the resources at their disposal. The noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, might consider during the Committee stage whether it is possible to introduce some provision enabling private enterprise to undertake part of the duties imposed in this Bill on the local authorities. I believe that if this work is left entirely in the hands of the local authorities the three years which it is supposed to take to carry out the provisions of the Bill will not be enough.
With regard to reconditioning, I regret that more account has not been taken of
266
the difference of conditions as between England and Scotland. Everyone in Scotland is perfectly aware that the houses in our large cities in Scotland are of a more solid and more durable type than houses in England, and consequently many of them are capable of being reconditioned and put into a more modern condition so as to enable them to tide over the time until the new houses are built. I understand that it is not possible to-day to incorporate in this Bill provisions to enable these houses to be reconditioned. I suggest to the noble Lord that if we pass the Second Reading and the subsequent stages of this Bill, the Government should consider immediately the preparation and passing of a Bill for the reconditioning of houses in Scotland which are capable of being reconditioned. If full advantage of this Bill is to be obtained within the time laid down, I can see no other way of obtaining it. I urge on the Government, as I think other noble Lords have done, perhaps not with the same emphasis, the necessity of bringing in immediately a Bill supplementary to this Bill on the question of reconditioning.
One other point I should like to mention is that of compensation. It is a matter which one always approaches with some diffidence, because one is apt to be accused of belonging to the class which is always trying to obtain compensation out of everything. I do not ask that anything more than reasonable and fair compensation should be paid under this Bill, and I suggest that under the clauses which provide compensation in this Bill such compensation will neither be reasonable nor fair. Let me put this point to your Lordships. Urban property in Scotland is of a more solid and enduring character than property of a similar type in England. Consequently, mortgages have been made on these properties of a very much larger character, involving higher figures, than would be made on the same class of properties in England. There is another reason for that. A property in England is almost invariably on a leasehold basis. In Scotland it is held on a feuing basis, or what may be termed a perpetual lease. Consequently, financial houses or institutions which are prepared to lend money on these properties have lent more money on properties in Scotland than they would

267
be prepared to lend on similar properties in England.
What is the position to-day as the result of this Bill? Let us assume that a certain property is valued at £2,000. There is a mortgage on it of £1,200, about two-thirds of its value. Under this Bill the compensation that will be paid upon that property would be only the site value. Consequently, mortgages of that character in Scotland to-day have descended to a value of probably half the amount raised on the property, not £1,200, but £600. Who is going to be the loser of that difference? The unfortunate property-owner, if he can pay it. Cases of that kind are in existence to-day and are probably multiplying every day as this Bill is coming into force. I suggest to the noble Lord that the question of compensation should be reconsidered by the Government, not because it is for Scotland, but because the conditions in Scotland vary to such an extent from the conditions in England. Those are the two principal points which I wish to bring before your Lordships' House. There are others, but at this late hour I do not wish to detain your Lordships any longer. I only ask once more the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to bring to the notice of the Government these two points which I have raised, and which I regard as of the utmost importance, in the hope that we may get something out of them.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: My Lords, the noble Lord in charge of the Bill and other noble Lords have referred to the position of local authorities. I confess I am not quite clear as to what is the definition of a local authority so far as this Bill is concerned. I understand it to mean a. county council or a town council; but does it include small authorities? The only reference I see is in Clause 29 where it refers to a. "town council of a large burgh." That seems to me to exclude the town councils of small burghs; it seems to me to exclude district councils; it seems to me to exclude ward councils. I think that for the efficient working of this Bill it is highly desirable that the words "local authority" should include small bodies working in a restricted area, because they understand better than anyone else the conditions of housing within their area.
Those of your Lordships who live in the Islands will understand the importance
268
of the suggestion that the words "local authority" should mean the island authority for public purposes. The noble Lord himself will understand that those of us who live in the Islands are not enamoured of having our affairs managed by big authorities on the mainland who do not understand our conditions. Therefore I suggest that in the "definitions for purposes of provisions relating to this Act" the words "local authority" should be defined, and the definition should include district councils and town councils of small burghs, if not ward councils.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I think it is fair to say that every noble Lord who has spoken this afternoon is agreed that he is individually desirous of seeing the very great overcrowding in Scotland put an end to. The only differences which have manifested themselves are really differences of method. This Bill has been subject to criticism, but I think not even the noble Lords who have criticised it would differ from the view that we all want to see a remedy by one means or another for the overcrowding problem in Scotland. We have this position. It is admitted that overcrowding in Scotland is worse than it is in England. It is evident from the figures given by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill and by the noble Lord, Lord Alness, that we have got to admit that overcrowding in Scotland is more intense than it is in England. A Bill to deal with England preceded this Bill. What were the Government to do?
Were they to say: "Overcrowding in Scotland is so bad that it is impracticable to bring in a Bill now"? Were they to say: "Overcrowding in Scotland is so bad that even this low standard, the penal standard we are applying in England, is too high to be enforced and therefore we must have a different standard for Scotland than for England"? I think the Government were right in rejecting both these courses. The only remaining alternative was to introduce a Bill with the same standard for Scotland as for England. I think that, in spite of the criticisms of one or two of my noble friends, the Government were right in taking that course. I think that some of the apprehensions of my noble friend the Duke of Atholl are just a little bit exaggerated.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Would the noble Lord say what my apprehensions were?
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My noble friend's apprehensions were, I think, that it was impracticable to apply this standard in numerous cases which he gave, such as the but-and-ben and the cottar houses. I shall come to them in a moment. I think these difficulties may be overcome.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I said I thought it was unnecessary.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I think, possibly, these difficulties may be overcome by the application of the powers in Clause 4 and Clause 5 of the Bill. It is quite clear that if the appointed day is to be an early day, these powers will have to be very freely used. But, on the whole, I do not think that he would have liked it in Scotland if a lower standard had been put into the Bill than the standard for England. I think it is better to have the standard and reconcile ourselves to the more belated application of it than may possibly be the case in England. I think it is quite possible that other conditions which differ in Scotland from those in England have not been given sufficient weight by the Government in considering this Bill. There are numerous other conditions. There is the condition of the materials of which many of the houses are built. I so well remember as a boy, going home for the holidays, how glad one was to see brick houses giving place to stone, as one got nearer home.
It may well be that this may require special consideration. There is the very urgent case which has been very ably stated by noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, of the rural areas. I think there there is a case for special consideration, but it does not alter the fact that the problem is there and has to be dealt with. After all, the standard is too low in those isolated cottages, and we want to see the standard raised. There are difficulties. People do not want to sleep away from the fire, as my noble friend suggested. Those difficulties require special consideration. Another very important point, which may have a bearing on the compensation question, is the difference in rating. So far as the English Bill is concerned, I
270
am quite satisfied that the property owners now are being given an answer to all their grievances. The English Bill has removed, I am satisfied, in a generous way the grievances of property owners, whether that be the case in Scotland or not. I am not so familiar with the details, either of the legislation or the conditions possibly in urban areas in Scotland as I am with those in England, and it may be that there is a case for greater consideration owing to the difference in the two rating systems. But be that as it may, the Government are right to introduce the Bill, and I therefore support the Second Reading.
I will only add one or two words upon the question of private enterprise. I am afraid it is true that private enterprise cannot fill this need for low-rented housing for the working classes, for the simple reason that such housing does not give a sufficient return. To provide housing at the standard which public opinion now demands will not give a yield over the life of the houses of, say, eighty years, of more than two and three-quarters or three per cent., and private enterprise is not satisfied with that. If the site value is higher it will not even yield that return, and that is why it is necessary to depend so largely on the action of the local authorities. I regret that one form of private enterprise, that represented by the housing association, is not given greater encouragement under the Bill. I think it is a pity that the Government have decided that all these new houses should be the property of the local authorities. I think the ownership by the local authorities of a great mass of low-rented property will, in future, be a source of great difficulty, and I would have preferred to see the accommodation provided through the medium of housing associations, which really are a form of philanthropic private enterprise. That movement has been more developed possibly in England than in Scotland, but there are housing associations in Scotland, and it may be that some Amendments will have to be proposed to bring this Bill into line with the concessions which I hope are going to be given in the English Bill.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, this Bill has been greeted with a mixed chorus of congratulation and criticism. I am grateful to noble Lords for the measure of their

271
congratulations, and, in the other ease, for the moderation of their criticism. I fully realise the amount of criticism that has been raised by this Bill in another place, and I would only assure those noble Lords who have mentioned the matter that it is my intention to ask that we should have as much time as is required to go thoroughly into all the points raised by noble Lords to-day on the Committee stage of this Bill. I do not intend, at this very late hour, to inflict another speech upon your Lordships, or to endeavour to answer all the points which have been raised by various noble Lords, a great many of which will. I think, be more suitably dealt with in Committee. The whole of the criticism of this Bill has turned out to be, as I foreshadowed in my speech in moving its Second Reading, upon the two questions of reconditioning and the conditions in the rural areas. On the question of reconditioning I would only say now, in addition to what I have already said, that that will not, in the opinion of the Government, really deal with the question of overcrowding. It is the firm opinion of the Government that the one thing to do is to get new houses built, and get rid of those congested areas to which I have already referred.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I ask the noble Lord, does that mean that the Government will not consider the questios of reconditioning in any form?
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: Not under this Bill. No doubt the Government are considering it in another form, and I have taken note of the noble Viscount's suggestion, which on a suitable occasion will be taken into consideration. With regard to the question of rural areas, the majority of the critics of this Bill to-day have brought their broadsides to bear on the question of the difficulties in rural areas. I have no doubt that is a matter which also can properly be dealt with in Committee. But I would like to point out to your Lordships one fact. We have made inquiries, and we have found, contrary to what many noble Lords think, that the average size of families in rural areas is not very much larger than their size in urban areas. Just because they see one big family in one particular house noble Lords are apt to think that every occupant of a house in a rural area has
272
a large family. The actual figures show that about 4.8 is the average size of families in the country, and about 4.4 in the towns.
As I have said, the standard of the penal provision under the Bill will not apply until the greater part of the additional accommodation, as we hope, has been provided—not until after the appointed day. There are various other provisions which, I hope, will make it not so difficult to deal with the rural problems. I think the noble Duke (the Duke of Atholl) suggested the example of what would happen to young men at the Universities when they were on holidays staying with relations or friends. I would only refer him to subsection (3) of Clause 3, which says that the student is entitled to stay for sixteen days, and after that it is only a question of getting a licence in order that his stay may be further extended.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I do not want to interrupt, but it seems rather hard that every time you want your boy to come home from the University, you have to get a licence, as if for a dog.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: We are not dealing so much with young men from the University as with overcrowding in Scotland in this Bill. The noble Duke asked me for a definition of "local authority." I understand that a local authority under this Bill is simply an urban, town or county council. One or two noble Lords lamented the fact that no subsidy was given to private enterprise in this Bill. The Government decided that could not be done. On that point I would also refer noble Lords to Clause 27, to which I made reference in my previous speech. This shows that various voluntary agencies not only are being encouraged to proceed with rehousing, but that a great many have already begun to do so. A great many other points which have been raised will no doubt be gone into in Committee. I think I have dealt generally with the criticisms made by noble Lords this afternoon and I ask your Lordships now to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROV ISIONAL ORDER (LEIGH JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.