Lords Sitting of 24 June 1936

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON.
The Right Honourable Freeman, Earl of Willingdon, G.C.S.I., G.C.M.G., G.C.I.E., G.B.E., having been created the Marquess of Willingdon—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD ST. JUST.
Edward Charles Grenfell, Esquire, having been created Baron St. Just, of St. Just in Penwith in the County of Cornwall—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
MEASUREMENT OF GAS.
Message from the Commons to acquaint this House that they have ordered that the Committee appointed by them to join with a Committee of this House to consider and report upon the matter do meet the Lords Committee, as proposed by their Lordships, in Committee Room A on Tuesday next at eleven o'clock.
HORNCHURCH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Beading read.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, it will be within your recollection that this is not the first time within recent months that a Bill dealing with weights and measures has been brought before your Lordships' House. About a year ago it was my duty to present to you a Bill dealing with weights and measures on which we had very considerable discussion during the Second Reading and on the Committee and Report stages. I see in his place to-day my noble friend Lord Eltisley who was one of the great
186
protagonists in those debates. He introduced many Amendments which were inserted in the Bill, and I am glad to say that if he looks at this Bill he will still find they are there. That Bill, having passed your Lordships' House, was sent to another place, but owing to the Dissolution of Parliament it never got beyond the First Reading there. It has occurred to the Government after due consideration that the part of the old Bill which dealt with bottles used as measures was a matter which ought to be dealt with separately, and one which required a great deal more consideration than they had been able to give it. Therefore this present Bill contains, as it were, the first part of the Bill of last year. That is to say, it deals only with sand and ballast.
The reasons for the Bill, which I may state shortly, are that there have been complaints from many quartet's for the past few years of short weight, short measure and pilferage en route. The Bill is demanded by all sections—by the producers, by the hauliers and by the consumers alike, and I do not really think that any appreciable body of opinion in this country is against the Bill as it now stands. To go briefly through the clauses, I might mention, first of all, Clause 1, where your Lordships will see that sand and ballast are only to be measured by weight or by the cubic yard. Clause 2 follows up this requirement by providing that receptacles used for measuring sand and ballast by the cubic yard must conform to regulations to be made by the Board of Trade and must be verified and stamped in order to ensure, that they are, and will remain, accurate. Clause 3 of the Bill requires that where material is sold or carried by weight, the vehicle must be marked with its tare weight, and similarly where material is sold or carried by the cubic yard, the vehicle must be calibrated so that it is possible to see at a glance how much material it contains. To complete the safeguards, the man in charge of any vehicle conveying sand or ballast along a highway is required to carry a conveyance note showing the quantity involved. That requirement will be found in Clause 4. Clause 5 gives power to inspectors of weights and measures to examine vehicles carrying sand and ballast and, if necessary, to check the contents to make sure that everything is in order.

187
As regards the rest of the Bill, it contains the necessary provisions for administration. Its date of operation is to be fixed by the Board of Trade in order to give time for the necessary regulations to be settled in consultation with the interests concerned before the Bill is brought into force. It applies only to England and Wales; the Scottish interests do not want the Bill, and in Northern Ireland it is a matter which falls within the province of the Northern Ireland Parliament. It should perhaps be added that in addition to the Amendments which were made to the Bill in your Lordships' House last year, which still remain in the Bill, a certain number of further Amendments were made in another place at the instance of my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary. The object of these Amendments is to avoid possible hardship in certain cases which have been brought to the notice of the Board of Trade. They do not affect the main structure and purpose of the Bill. As I see my noble friend Lord Bertie in his place, it only remains for me to say that I believe the grammar of the Bill is quite irreproachable, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, owing to the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lord Feversham, it falls to my lot to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill to-day. About a year ago the late Home Secretary appointed a Committee to inquire into the working of the temporary provisions contained in Section 2 of the Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act of 1920. Since 1925 this section has been continued by inclusion year by year in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. This Bill empowers the Home Secretary to authorise the employment of women and young persons of sixteen years and upwards in shops averaging not more than eight hours a day on weekdays, but not before 6 a.m.,
188
or after 10 p.m., or after 2 p.m. on Saturdays. I am advised that there are still about 800 orders in force to-day, applying to a variety of works, but the majority of the workers concerned are employed in a few industries in which there have been important developments since the War.
The Committee which the late Home Secretary set up examined the question very thoroughly. After a long and exhaustive inquiry it presented a unanimous Report in which it was recommended that the system should be continued on a permanent basis. Those of your Lordships who have read the Report will, I think, be forced to the conclusion that there is really no reason why powers to authorise this shift working should not be continued, subject to certain safeguards proposed in the Bill. It has many advantages both for the development of industry and for meeting the pressure of work which from time to time may occur, and from the point of view of ultimately shortening the hours of labour. There is very little more that I can usefully add to commend the Bill to your Lordships. The whole matter has been fully discussed in another place, and it now arrives in your Lordships' House, where I hope we shall be prepared to give it a Second Reading and so place these shifts in an Act of Parliament, thereby removing them from the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill which requires enactment from year to year. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Munster.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I have been asked to say a word on this Bill on behalf of my colleagues on these Benches because, although it may be in some respects a minor measure, it directly affects the lot of some 36,000 women and young persons, and may affect many more if employers make further application to the Home Office in order to operate this method in their business concerns. We object very strongly indeed to the principle of the double shift in industry. This Bill has always met with bitter opposition during its passage through another place. This opposition has been reiterated year after year, and I do not think it is idle to continue to put forward the arguments which we believe invalidate this double-shift

189
system in industry. I am sorry that the noble Earl did not go into rather greater detail in order to support the case for the Bill. I can perfectly understand why he did not do so. At the same time it is always easier to attack a measure when one has a target at which to aim. I am in the position of having to advance the arguments of my opponents in order to be able to demolish them.
The principal argument that has always been used in favour of this measure has been one of economic expediency. In certain peculiar circumstances such as the seasonal rush at Christmas or a sudden change of fashions, or it may be the acquisition of expensive machinery that has to be used regularly in order to cover the initial cost, it has been considered necessary to adopt the very abnormal method of working employees for double shifts from six o'clock in the morning until ten o'clock at night. Of course no single employee would work for more than eight hours at a stretch. I would respectfully suggest that employers should use every possible means of reducing their costs of production and acquiring an adequate remuneration for what they produce before they resort to this last expedient. I believe that demands should be made upon capital in cases of this kind as well as on labour. It is desirable to see what can be done about cheapening loans from banks or paying a rather smaller return on shares in the way of dividends before this exceptional procedure is adopted. It is only fair to point out that the sacrifice that the investor would have to make in terms of a slightly reduced income is nothing compared with the sacrifice the working man or working woman has to make if either has to work under these conditions, We are very strongly of the opinion that the double-shift system impairs the health of those who are engaged in operating it and also detracts very seriously from their educational opportunities.
It cannot be good for these married women or single women to have to rise, it may be, at four o'clock in the morning in order to get to work at six o'clock, and probably they have to trudge a very long distance in order to reach the workshop. That cannot be a healthy way of life. It cannot be desirable, instead of having regular meals at ordinary hours,
190
that they should have a cup of tea about four o'clock in the morning before they set out and a snack, not a real breakfast, at nine o'clock and, finally, their midday meal probably not until three o'clock in the afternoon. That is an interference with those regular habits which we believe to be conducive to good health. Let me point out that most of those who are affected probably fall into the category that Sir John Orr describes as under-nourished. He says in his report that about fifty per cent. of the population of this country are under-nourished. That being so, the strain and the fatigue imposed on those people will tell to a far greater extent than it would in the case of an average well-nourished person like any member of your Lordships' House.
To my mind, an even more serious argument against this system is that it effectually prevents the prolongation of education of young working men and working women after they have left school. Those of us who believe that education is the greatest good fortune that can befall a working man or any other citizen believe strongly that when people must leave school at a very early age they should at least have the full advantage afterwards of continuation classes. When a young man or young woman of sixteen or seventeen or eighteen has to work from two o'clock in the afternoon until ten o'clock in the evening it is quite obviously impossible for him or her to attend evening classes at those places where instruction is given. Even if they are employed in the morning shift from six o'clock until two in the afternoon, one cannot imagine they would have sufficient energy left to be able to attend evening classes and profit from the instruction they would there receive. I feel that the educational argument is the strongest objection by far to this particular measure.
I should like to point out that this measure was originally introduced during the War as an emergency measure that had to be put on the Statute Book because it was necessary to sacrifice what one might call humane considerations for the far greater interests that inspired all of us during those four critical years; but it has been continued from year to year under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. Now, for the first time, it will acquire its own independent place

191
on the Statute Book if it passes successfully through your Lordships' House. I suggest that a measure of this kind is not in accordance with the progressive improvements in the conditions of the working class of which we can in many respects be so justly proud in this country. It interferes with the education of many young people, and it accepts as normal the 48-hour week for such persons. Surely, in the mid-twentieth century we ought to be moving towards a 40-hour week. This is what we want if the working man is to have adequate leisure and, besides, if employment is to be spread as broadly as possible. I do not think we should allow Continental countries to take the lead in this matter. For these reasons I am bound to deplore this measure on behalf of my colleagues and on behalf of many educational bodies, such as the Workers' Educational Association and the Education Committee of the London County Council, both because it detracts from the opportunities that many young working-class people have to get as good an education as possible and because it stereotypes the status quo conditions of life in industry instead of marking a step forward such as should be taken in the middle of the twentieth century.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, when the noble Earl rose to address your Lordships against this Bill I was not altogether surprised to find that there were only two occupants of the Socialist Bench, neither of whom was in this House, I believe, at the time of the Socialist Administration. Your Lordships will remember that the Socialist Administration on two occasions at least caused this Bill to be renewed in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill notwithstanding the facts, according to the noble Earl, that the Bill impairs health, that there was always opposition to it, and that it was an emergency measure during the War. I think the present attitude is really rather trying to go back on what the Socialist Government did, which I should have thought they would have felt to be most humiliating.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I entirely agree with what the noble Viscount has said. May I suggest that all Governments, even the best Governments, and even in crucial matters of foreign policy,
192
are inclined now and again to change their minds.
VISCOUNT BEBTIE OF THAME: On two occasions the Socialist Government thought the Bill was working well. I suppose it has worked well, and I hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I do not know if the noble Viscount was deliberately throwing a fly over me. If so, I am rising to it at once, and I hope, if he throws a fly over a real fish, he will have equal success after the rise. I was not in the House, as the noble Viscount has unnecessarily reminded your Lordships, when the Labour Party was in office, but I was in another place, and I was a supporter of that Government and know exactly what happened. We had a Bill on the stocks, a very comprehensive Bill, to which Mr. Clynes had devoted a great deal of labour, for the re-modelling of the whole of the law with reference to factory work, and if we had not been thrown out by a disreputable plot that Bill would now be on the Statute Book. That is the short answer to the noble Viscount. With regard to his other point, he is entitled to say that there were only two of us on this Bench at the time my noble friend Lord Listowel made his pungent and useful remarks. That is quite true, and the noble Viscount has a right to say so, because he is one of the most constant attenders in this House. But he is a member of a Party that numbers some 600, and if he will do a little mental arithmetic, he will see that the proportion of my colleagues now present, numbering three, is quite reasonable compared with the proportion of his colleagues who have taken the trouble to come here this afternoon.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I rise to reply to some of the questions which have been addressed to me, and at the same time I may say with all respect to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that I very much doubt if he has read the Report at all. He will observe in that Report that his fears regarding the health and education of these young people are really quite unfounded. Moreover, he informed your Lordships that the Labour Party most strongly objected to the principle of the double shift. I am completely at a loss to understand why.

193
The noble Earl gave us no clear indications of the reason. Furthermore, the Labour representative on this Committee, I think it was Mr. Brown himself, in another place vigorously supported the whole of this Report and the working of the double shift. I turn next to the question which the noble Earl raised about shares and dividends, and I would point out that this Bill has really nothing whatever to do with shares or dividends. It deals with setting up a double shift permanently in industry.
On the question of the employment of young people on two shifts it is true that the system was severely criticised by the Trade Union Congress representatives together with their medical adviser. On the question of health he admitted that he could produce no proofs which would be regarded as scientific, but he gave his general impressions, derived from conversations with a number of boys employed on shift work, that they became nervy and irritable. But that was not what the Committee found. The Committee found that the other evidence they had before them did not in any way bear out the contention that young people are affected more seriously in health than other shift workers. Moreover, on the question of education, the Report says:
"It is common for young persons wishing to attend classes to be taken off shifts and put on day work. In others, when on the afternoon shift, they have been allowed time off to attend the classes, while some education authorities are said to have arranged for the same lecture to be given both in the daytime and in the evening, so that the workers on the morning shift can attend the evening classes and those on the evening shift can attend the day classes."
If the noble Earl had read the Report he would have observed that there is provision contained in it for reasonable facilities to be given for young people to attend continuation schools.
I do not think there is anything further that I can add on this question except that I am not in any way satisfied with the argument that the double shift is a most dangerous weapon for industry. I hope that one day it may fall to my lot to hear from some representative of the Labour Party a real and solid reason why they object to this double shift in industry.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PILOTAGE AUTHORITIES (LIMITA- TION OF LIABILITIES) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Ritchie of Dundee.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Limitation of liability of pilotage authorities]:
LORD STRABOLGI: When the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, moved the Second Beading of this Bill, I said that certain provisions in it had exercised the pilots of the country and that they would be very glad if opportunity were given them of examining further into the matter with the Board of Trade experts and the noble Lord and his friends. I want to thank the noble Lord for not attempting to bring on too quickly the Committee stage of the Bill and for giving time for consultations which, as he knows, have been quite successful. The agents for the promoters and the representatives of the pilots and the officials of the Board of Trade have gone into the whole question and the Board of Trade has given a certain undertaking which satisfies the pilots. The undertaking is that in connection with the point which had rather alarmed the pilots, if any authority suggests meeting a claim against it under the Bill by levying an increased contribution from the pilotage dues, the Board of Trade will listen to the pilots' case and arbitrate on the matter upon an application by the pilots under Section 18 of the Pilotage Act. I understand that that satisfies the promoters of the Bill. It was examined by the Conference of the United Kingdom Pilots Association at Bristol last week and it satisfies them. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the representative in your Lordships' House of the Board of Trade for the help and advice given by his advisers in the matter and I hope that the Bill will now have a quick passage into law and achieve its object.
LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE: I am obliged to the noble Lord. It is not for me, of course, to speak for the Board of Trade, but I should like to say how very

195
pleased I am to know that the Bill is now a generally agreed Bill.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Power of Courts to consolidate claims]:
LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE: The first Amendment on the Paper is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 11, after (" of ") insert (" Justice in ").—(Lord Ritchie of Dundee.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE: The second Amendment on the Paper is also drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 12, after (" Ireland ") insert (" or in the Isle of Man to the High Court of Justice of the Isle of Man ").—(Lord Ritchie of Dundee.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.

OLD AGE PENSIONS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the House to be put into Committee on re-commitment of the Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Application to Scotland and Scilly Isles]:
VISCOUNT GAGE: Perhaps it would be convenient to your Lordships if I make the very few remarks I have to make on this Bill and the next two Bills on the Order Paper at this stage. The three Bills have been considered by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. They have reported that with the Amendments which they propose to be made all three Bills are pure consolidation and are consistent with the present law. They draw particular attention to the fact that these Bills represent a much needed simplification of the existing law. Therefore, I move that the Amendments proposed by
196
the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills to this Bill be agreed to en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Page 12, line 23, leave out (" or any other age ")
Page 12, line 24, leave out (" or other ")
Page 12, line 25, leave out (" as the case may be ") and at end of line insert (" and similarly with respect to the other ages ").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the House to be put into Committee on re-commitment of the Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
VISCOUNT GAGE: As in the case of the last Bill, I beg to move that the Amendments proposed by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills be agreed to en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Clause 3, page 3, line 23, leave out (" twenty ") and insert (" twenty-two ")
Clause 52, page 31, line 24, leave out (" poor ") and insert (" out-door ")
Clause 55, page 32, line 27, after (" hospital ") insert (" including mental hospital,")
Clause 62, page 37, line 32, after (" hospital ") insert (" including mental hospital,")
Clause 120, page 82, line 14, leave out (" has ") and insert (" have ")
Clause 128, page 88, line 31, leave out (" pays ") and insert (" pay ")
Clause 154, page 113, line 1, after (" hospital ") insert (" including mental hospital,")
Clause 183, page 135, line 20, after (" is ") insert (" or are ")
Clause 221, page 163, line 29, at end insert.
(" (2) In the event of any Act being passed by the Parliament of Northern Ire land repealing and re-enacting with or without amendment—

(a) provisions of the Common Law Procedure Amendment Act (Ireland), 1856, with respect to arbitration: or

197

(b) provisions of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts (Northern Ireland), 1925 to 1935, corresponding to any provisions of the Contributory Pensions Act; or

(c) provisions corresponding to any provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935;

then, as from the commencement of the said Act of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, a reference in this Part of this Act to any provisions which are repealed and re-enacted as aforesaid shall be construed as a reference to so much of the said Act of the Parliament of Northern Ireland as repeals and re-enacts the last-mentioned provisions.")
Clause 228, page 170, lines 15 and 19, after (" regulation ") insert (" arrangement,")—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.

WIDOWS', OBPHANS' AND OLD AGE CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the House to be put into Committee on re-commitment of the Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
VISCOUNT GAGE: I beg to move that in the case of this Bill also the Amendments proposed by the Joint Committee on Consolidations Bill be agreed to en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Clause 12, page 13, line 6, leave out (" is satisfied ") and insert (" certifies ")
Clause 12, line 27, leave out (" is satisfied ") and insert (" certifies ")
Clause 13, page 14, line 19, leave out from (" (2) ") to (" all ") in line 20.
Clause 15, page 16, line 14, after (" particulars ") insert (" for the purposes of this Act ")
Clause 17, page 17, lines 41 and 42, leave out (" who under this section are ") and insert (" who being persons employed in an employment which is an excepted employment by virtue of a certificate given under paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) of Part II of the First Schedule to the Insurance Act, are under this section ")
Clause 21, page 22, line 5, after (" any ") insert (" other ")
Clause 27, page 27, line 8, leave out (" unemployment ") and after (" under ") insert (" Part III of the ")
Clause 28, page 27, line 29, after (" desire ") insert (" in consequence of the provisions of this Act ")
page 28, line 19, after (" objection ") insert (" so made ")
page 29, line 14, after (" objection ") insert (" so made ")
Clause 30, page 31, line 22, leave out from (" respects ") to (" any ") in line 23.
Clause 31, page 33, line 8, after (" to ") insert (" the ")
Clause 31, lines 8 and 9, leave out (" in cases of fraud and in other cases ") and insert (" of sums overpaid ")
Clause 32, page 35, line 8, after (" any ") insert (" other ")
Clause 38, page 40, lines 14 to 17, leave out paragraph (b) and insert:
(" (b) in any other case as part of the general expenses of the council. ")
Clause 44, page 44, line 37, leave out (" for Scotland ").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (PROVINCIAL ELECTIONS) (CORRUPT PRACTICES AND ELECTION PETITIONS) ORDER, 1936.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND): My Lords, I have to commend to your Lordships this afternoon five Orders made under the Government of India Act and the Government of Burma Act, and I think it will be for the convenience of your Lordships if we first take the two Orders which deal with the question of corrupt practices. Having disposed of them, I suggest that we should then consider together the other three Orders which hang together and are concerned with the necessary operations which have to take place before effect can be given to the new Constitution in India. Since there are some small Amendments to the first two Orders, the Motion I shall have to move in connection with them is that these Orders be now considered. The Amendments will then be considered and if they are agreed to I shall then move that the draft of the Orders be approved, as amended.
The purpose of these first two Orders is, of course, to prevent, so far as that is possible by means of legislative or administrative action, the perpetration of corrupt practices in connection with elections. Of course, it has been recognised on all sides, from the time when

199
the democratic system was first introduced in India, that it was not only desirable but also essential that provisions as stringent as possible should be made against these practices. The matter was carefully considered by the Joint Select Committee which dealt with the Act of 1919, and that Committee approved the Rules which were drawn up under the Act of 1919 for dealing with these matters. They further expressed the opinion that it was desirable that the Corrupt Practices Act should be passed in India, and, in accordance with the recommendation which they made, legislation was in due course placed upon the Statute Book in India. But I would point out that the Act has no bearing on the effect of the commission of these offences upon the elections themselves. The Act merely makes certain practices criminal offences and therefore renders anybody who is guilty of them liable to prosecution under the Criminal Law. The bearing of what is contained in the Act upon the actual elections themselves is provided by the Rules which were made under the Act of 1919.
The Act of 1919 is now about to expire, and it is for that reason that I have to ask your Lordships to re-enact, in the Orders which are now before you, the Rules which have been in existence since the Act of 1919 was passed. That being so, there is very little that is new in the two Orders which deal with corrupt practices. They reproduce substantially the Rules which are already in existence, with one or two very small exceptions. Perhaps I might just mention the exceptions and apprise your Lordships of the reasons why these exceptions are made. Under the existing Rules, treating at the time of an election is treated as a corrupt practice. Treating will, of course, continue to be treated as a corrupt practice, but the bodies which are to be set up under the provisions of this Order to inquire into petitions bringing a charge of corrupt practices against persons will be given certain guidance as to the way in which they should interpret this particular corrupt practice. It has been found by experience that an election in India is treated very much, I think, as a fair in that country or in this country: it is an occasion for general merry-making and enjoyment, and it is a universal practice for light refreshments to be provided by generously-disposed persons for the
200
advantage of those who are taking part in the proceedings. It has been realised that there is really no possibility at the present time of eradicating this very deeply engrained practice, and I will explain the way in which it is being dealt with under this Order.
The Commissioners who are set up under the provisions of this Order to make an inquiry into any petition of this kind are told, on page six of the Indian Order:
"If the Commissioners report that a returned candidate has been guilty by an agent, other than his election agent, of any corrupt practice specified in Part I of the First Schedule to this Order, but further report that the candidate has satisfied them that "—
and I need not trouble your Lordships with the next two paragraphs; I go on to the third paragraph:
" (c) the corrupt practices mentioned in the report were of a trivial and limited character or took the form of customary hospitality which did not affect the result of the election;…
then the Commissioners may "—
it does not say "shall," but "may"—?
" find that the election of the candidate is not void."
That is the first-named change which has been made in the existing Rules.
The other change is with regard to the hiring of vehicles and boats for the purpose of conveying persons to the poll. Here again, experience has shown that in India it would be almost impossible in existing circumstances to secure a reasonable percentage of the electors polling unless they were entitled to be conveyed to the poll in conveyances which had been hired. The proposal therefore in this case is that that should not be a corrupt practice in the case of India, but that the candidate and his election agent should be obliged to enter in the return of their election expenses the amount which has been expended in that way. On the other hand, owing to circumstances peculiar to Burma itself, we propose to retain the hiring of conveyances as a corrupt practice, and the reason for that in the case of Burma is that boats in particular which are available for hire are in the hands of a very limited number of persons, and it would be perfectly possible in those circumstances for a candidate or his agents to make a corner in boats for the day of the election, thus preventing his opponent from hiring any

201
boats to take his friends to the poll. In those circumstances it was thought better to retain, in the case of Burma, this particular provision in the existing Corrupt Practices Rules.
That, in brief, is the purpose of these two Orders dealing with corrupt practices. Your Lordships will all agree that it is, as I said, not only desirable but also essential to do what is possible to prevent corrupt practices at elections in India, as in any other country. Under these Orders we give power not only to a candidate or to a voter to bring a petition on the ground that corrupt practices have been committed, but we also give power to the Government themselves to order that a petition shall be brought if they have reason to believe that corrupt practices have been indulged in. In that way we think we have done as much as is possible by legislation to counter the evil of corrupt practices in connection with elections.
But, having said so much, let me say that I have always felt that the best cure for a tendency to indulge in corrupt practices of this kind is not so much legislation as education and experience. After all, we in this country were not altogether blameless, at any rate in the earlier days of democracy, in this respect. I remember reading interesting records of elections in parts of this country, notably the elections which used to take place at Aylesbury, in the County of Buckingham, where the returning officer used to sit with a bowl of guineas on one side of him and a bowl of punch on the other, and the honest electors impartially helped themselves from both bowls. There are many other instances of elections of that kind which those who have studied the electoral history of this country will, I am sure, recall to mind. So I look as much to education and experience as to legislative action to bring about improvements in that respect. And may I say that, although I should be the last to deny that the Indian peoples in these earlier stages of their experience of democracy have indulged in practices which come within the meaning of these Orders, it is a fact that the last Committee which met to inquire into matters of that kind—namely, the Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Laurie
202
Hammond—gave on the whole an encouraging report as a result of the investigations into the matter. Its conclusion was that these practices are not nearly so widespread in India to-day as they were in this country in the early days of its experience of the democratic system.
Perhaps it would be convenient to your Lordships if, at the same time, I were just to explain the Amendments, which are of a very trivial character. In the case of the Burma Order there are two small Amendments. The first one is on page 8, line 7, and is in paragraph (4) of Part IV. It is to leave out the word "any" and insert the word "that." The purpose is merely to correct a printer's error. The paragraph ought to read:
" Where under either of the two last preceding paragraphs a person is, in connection with an election in a commerce and industry constituency, disqualified for voting for any period, then, if that person "
not "any" person—
"was at the date of the election "—
and so on.
The other Amendment applies to the India Order as well as to the Burma Order. In the case of the India Order the Amendment is in paragraph 6 of Part I of the First Schedule, and is on page 11, line 10, after the first "of" to insert the words "this Order or of," so that the line will then read "in contravention of this Order or of any Act of the Provincial Legislature or Rules." The purpose of that Amendment is as follows: We laid down in the earlier part of the Order that a candidate shall not appoint as his agent a disqualified person, but by an oversight we omitted to say in the later part of the Order what should happen if he did, and the effect of the Amendment is to make the appointment of a disqualified person a corrupt practice. With that explanation I beg to move that the Government of India (Provincial Elections) (Corrupt Practices and Election Petitions) Order, 1936, be now considered.
Moved, That the Draft Government of India (Provincial Elections) (Corrupt Practices and Election Petitions) Order, 1936, as presented to Parliament and reported from the India and Burma Orders Committee on the 11th instant, be now considered.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, I think your Lordships will have heard with gratification how the austerities of democratic institutions in India are mitigated by the charming amenities to which we have just heard allusion, and I trust that the standard of electoral good-fellowship in India will approximate to that which prevailed in England in the middle of the eighteenth century. I do not wish to dwell, however, on matters of that sort, but I wish shortly to say a word on behalf of my noble friend Lord Salisbury, the reason for whose absence I am sure the whole House will deplore. It is the view of those who opposed the Government of India Act that these Orders only carry out what is necessary as regards the establishment of the Provincial Part of that Act. They do not go beyond anything that appeared in that Act, or that could have been expected from it, and it is not the wish of the opponents of the India Act to do anything to obstruct the progress of provincial autonomy, or to do anything which will hamper my noble friend Lord Linlithgow in carrying it out. Therefore we do not intend to raise any small points, or indeed any point at all, on these Orders. I hope, however, that the noble Marquess will not conclude from that that there are not vigilant eyes which are ready to scan each Order as it comes up, and I trust he will not think—perhaps I should say I know that he does not think—that when he comes with the draft Instrument of Instructions every word will not be scanned to see that the words of that instrument carry out the assurances which he, and others responsible for the India Act, gave in the course of the protracted proceedings on that Bill. For the moment we can only hope for the best with regard to provincial autonomy, and do nothing to impair its success.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, my noble friends and myself do not propose to raise any objection to the Rules or the Amendments which the noble Marquess is to propose. We regard it as right, and probably as advisable, that at the very beginning of these experiments the Indian people should be encouraged to adopt a certain austerity in regard to their electoral processes, and that some of the merry incidents connected with elections heretofore, both here and elsewhere, should not be repeated. I confess I am
204
somewhat surprised to learn that the Indian people have learned so much with regard to the English practice in the conduct of elections. For myself, in regard to the conduct of elections, so far as corrupt practices are concerned, I am as innocent as Mr. Pickwick himself. I have never had to face an election where my opponents have used such practices, nor have I any reason to think that they so influenced any votes. I am quite sure that in starting these elections it is right that we should express a hope that they will be conducted with strict integrity and also that we should make any provisions that are necessary for keeping corrupt practices in check.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, may I ask a question of my noble friend? Is there any provision in these Orders, or indeed in the Act, to limit or prevent the formation of uniformed political volunteer forces for electoral purposes? The overthrow of democracy in a great many countries has begun by the formation of such bodies, which in the first instance are purely political in character but, because they are disciplined and in uniform, begin to resort to electoral and other violence. I would like to ask whether there is any provision by which the formation of such bodies is to be forbidden, and I do so with all the more assurance because a very distinguished Indian politician, when I was in India some years ago, told me that he thought the most ominous feature of politics in India at that time was a tendency to form such political bodies. That tendency, I am glad to say, seems to have disappeared, but if these Orders do not deal with the matter, I suggest that the matter might be considered as to whether in some way or other the formation of such very dangerous organisations should be prohibited.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, the noble Marquess will not find any specific provision in these Orders themselves for prohibiting the enrolment of uniformed electoral bodies, but these Orders, of course, give power to make further Rules. The Orders, broadly speaking, lay down the main principles on which corrupt practices are to be dealt with, and I can hardly suppose that the enrolment of a uniformed body can be regarded exactly as a corrupt practice. I think it will have to be dealt with in

205
some other way. But undoubtedly the Governors of Provinces would have power, as they have now in the event of anything of that kind becoming a serious trouble, to use their executive authority to prevent it. But it is not dealt with specifically in these Corrupt Practices Orders.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I beg to move the Amendment which stands on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
In paragraph 6 of Part I of the First Schedule, page 11, line 10, after the first (" of ") insert (" this Order or of ").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, I now beg to move that the Draft Order be approved, as amended.
Moved, That the Draft Government of India (Provincial Elections) (Corrupt Practices and Election Petitions) Order, 1936, as presented to Parliament and reported from the India and Burma Orders Committee on the 11th instant, be approved as amended.—[The Marquess of Zetland.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GOVERNMENT OF BURMA (COR- RUPT PRACTICES AND ELECTION PETITIONS) ORDER, 1936.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, I beg to move that the Burma Draft Order be now considered.
Moved, That the Draft Government of Burma (Corrupt Practices and Election Petitions) Order, 1936, as presented to Parliament and reported from the India and Burma Orders Committee on the 11th instant, be now considered.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I beg to move that the Amendments on the Paper be agreed to.
Amendments moved—
In paragraph 4, Part IV, page 8, line 7, leave out (" any ") and insert (" that ")
In paragraph 6 of Part I of the First Schedule, page 10, line 10, after the first (" of ") insert (" this Order or of ").—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: I beg to move that the Draft Order be approved as amended.
Moved, That the Draft Government of Burma (Corrupt Practices and Election Petitions) Order, 1936, as presented to Parliament and reported from the India and Burma Orders Committee on the 11th instant, be approved as amended.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (COMMENCEMENT AND TRANSITORY PROVISIONS) ORDER, 1936.
GOVERNMENT OF BURMA (COMMENCEMENT AND TRANSITORY PROVISIONS) ORDER, 1936.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (DISTRIBUTION OF REVENUES) ORDER, 1936.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, I now have to commend to your Lordships' notice the three Orders which deal with the bringing into operation of the Government of India Act, 1935, and the main object of these Orders is, of course, to lay down the date, which Parliament is required to do before the Act can come into operation. These Orders provide that the Act, with the exception of Part II, which deals with Federation and with certain other provisions about which I shall say a word in a moment, shall come into operation on April 1, 1937. Those parts of the main body of the Act which we do not propose shall come into operation on that date are substantially these: the provisions for setting up the Railway Authority, which will not be required until nearer the time when Federation comes into operation, and the provisions for setting up the Federal Court. It is more than likely that we shall require to set up the Federal Court soon after the new Constitution comes into operation in the Provinces, but I shall in any case have to ask your Lordships to agree to an Order dealing with the salaries and appointment of the Judges of the Federal Court; and, since it is not necessary that the Court should come into existence until some little time after provincial autonomy has started, that particular provision of the Act is excluded from this Order.
In the case of India, if your Lordships agree to this Order, the new Constitution

207
will have come into operation by this time next year. A great change will have been brought about in the system of government in that country. In the case of Burma not only will the people be starting upon a new form of government, but they will be weighing anchor and sailing forth under their own pilot, for the effect of this Order will be to separate Burma from India. Of course, though Burma is setting forth on a new voyage under her own pilot, she will still remain in contact with this country and with the Government of this country through the agency of what will then be the Secretary of State for Burma. It is proposed that, to start with at any rate, the Secretary of State for India and the Secretary of State for Burma should be the same person. I noticed that in another place my right honourable friend Mr. Winston Churchill at once likened the future occupant of these two offices to that immortal character created by the late Sir W. S. Gilbert, Pooh Bah. Well, I always enjoy the frolicsome humour of my right honourable friend, but I would suggest that in this particular case the closer analogy would, as a matter of fact, be that of the Colonial Office and the Dominions Office in this country when they were first constituted as two separate Departments of the Government. For some time after the creation of the two Departments the offices were held by the same individual.
May I return for a moment to the India Order? Besides bringing the main part of the Act into operation on April 1, 1937, the Order provides for certain provisions of the Act to come into force in advance of that date. The reason for that is, of course, that if you are to start your new Constitution on April 1 you must have carried your elections through before that date. Certain provisions of this Order enable the Government, therefore, as at present constituted, to complete the electoral rolls and to hold the elections so that the new Governments may actually come into existence on April 1. Perhaps I might give your Lordships a brief picture of what the procedure will be. The electoral rolls are even now being drawn up. By August I should hope they will be ready for scrutiny, and objections can then be made. After that process has been gone
208
through, a little later in the autumn, the final rolls will be published, and before the end of the year I should hope the primary elections in the case of the Scheduled Caste elections will be held. If that is so, it will enable us to hold the General Election in India about February, and once the General Election has been held the Governors in the different Provinces will be in the position to select their Ministers and appoint their Governments so that they may take over on April 1—that is to say, at the beginning of the new financial year.
It will, of course, be obvious to your Lordships that in these circumstances the new Governments will not be in a position to present Budgets at the normal time at which Budgets in India are presented—that is to say, in February or March; and in order that no inconvenience may be caused on that account the Governors of the Provinces are given power to arrange for the necessary expenditure in the Provinces for a period of six months or until the new Governments are able to present their own Budgets, whichever is the earlier. What will probably happen in most cases will be this. The new Ministries, as soon as they take over the reins of government, will consider the financial position. They will probably arrange for a meeting of the new Legislatures in July or August, 1937, and by that time they will be in a position to lay before the new Legislatures their proposals with regard to finance for the remainder of the year.
In the case of Burma, there is necessarily some variation of that timetable. For climatic and agricultural reasons there are very few periods in the year when it is conveniently practicable to hold an election in Burma. Broadly speaking, the only times at which an election can be held in Burma are late October or November or in February; but February is an inconvenient month, partly because a large part of the poorer population at that time are migrating with a view to obtaining employment for the hot weather, and partly because the collection of the revenue is at that time at its height, and Government would be hard put to it, therefore, to spare the necessary staff to carry out the election. In the case of Burma, therefore, it is proposed that the election should be held next November, and that in the

209
case of Burma is possible because, happily for that country, they have not the difficulties which exist in India in connection with special elections for representatives of Scheduled Castes and so on. That being so, it would obviously be absurd if the new Legislature came into existence in November and did not meet before the following July. In the case of Burma, therefore, it is proposed that the new Legislature should meet in February and that it should consider a Budget presented to it by the old Government. We contemplate, of course, that the old Government will probably contain amongst its Ministers some who will be Ministers in the new Government, but, be that so or be it not so, the new Legislature will consider a Budget presented to them by the old Government towards the end of the financial year—that is to say, in February or March; but until April 1 they will only function with the existing powers under the Act of 1919.
Now I turn to the question of finance, and, after all, that is the main question which your Lordships will have to consider, for it was common ground both by those who supported and those who opposed the Government of India Bill last year that before the new Constitution came into operation there should be a financial settlement between the Centre and the Provinces and they should be satisfied that the finances of India were such that that financial settlement could conveniently be made. Indeed I gave an undertaking in the course of the discussions on the Bill last summer that I would supply your Lordships, before I asked you to agree to the commencement of the new Constitution, with material provided by an expert financial inquiry which would enable your Lordships to decide whether or not the financial position was such that the new Constitution could safely be brought into operation. In pursuance of that pledge I was fortunate enough to persuade Sir Otto Niemeyer to undertake during the past winter an expert financial inquiry in India. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my profound gratitude to Sir Otto Niemeyer for having undertaken this very difficult and arduous task and for the admirable manner in which he discharged it. Sir Otto Niemeyer, it will be universally agreed, is a man not only of very high standing in the financial world in this
210
country, but a man who has had immense experience of finance in many parts of the world. He has, for example, surveyed the finances of Australia, of Brazil, and of the Argentine, he is a director of the Bank of International Settlements, and I think he was at one time Chairman of the Finance Committee of the League of Nations. Over and above all that, for this particular purpose, Sir Otto had the supreme merit that he was wholly divorced from the Indian controversy. So far as I know, until I invited him to undertake this task, he had taken neither part nor interest in the question of the future government of India.
Sir Otto Niemeyer's Report has been before your Lordships for some little time, and those of your Lordships who are sufficiently interested and who have studied it will see that on the main question upon which he was asked to report—namely, whether there was or was not any obstacle on financial grounds to the bringing of the new Constitution into operation—he has reported that he considers that there is no obstacle. On that point he is sufficiently definite. It will be for the convenience of your Lordships who wish to refer to his Report that I should call your attention to what he says in paragraph 8 of his Report on page 6. He says:
" On a general review of existing tendencies, I should conclude that the budgetary prospects of India, given prudent management of her finances, justify the view that adequate arrangements can be made, step by step, to meet the financial implications of the new Constitution."
Finally, on page 12, as the end of paragraph 18, he says definitely that:
" From the financial point of view, I conclude that His Majesty's Government may safely propose to Parliament that Part III of the Government of India Act, 1935, should he brought into operation a year hence."
But there were three other main questions upon which Sir Otto Niemeyer was asked to report. He was to make recommendations with a view to establishing the Provincial Governments on an even keel from the financial point of view—that is to say, he was asked to make recommendations which would start the new Provincial Governments with balanced Budgets. Then he was asked to make recommendations in connection with Section 138 of the Government of India Act, which lays it down that in the future

211
the proceeds of Income Tax shall be divided between the Centre and the Provinces. And thirdly, he was asked to say in what proportions the proceeds of the Income Tax which were eventually allotted to the Provinces should be distributed amongst the Provinces inter se. I will say a few words with regard to the first of these three main heads for it is obvious that unless the Government of India are in a position to grant to the Provinces the aid which in Sir Otto's view is necessary to enable them to start their new careers with balanced Budgets, we should not be justified in passing this Order this afternoon.
If your Lordships will look at page 12 of the Report you will find that after a careful inquiry he has come to the conclusion that the financial aid which the Government of India will be required to grant to the Provinces amounts approximately to 4½ crores of rupees or 450 lakhs. Since I have to deal for a few moments with figures, may I remind your Lordships that a lakh is 100,000 rupees, the equivalent approximately in sterling of £7,500, and that a crore is 10,000,000 rupees, the equivalent approximately of £750,000 sterling. The Centre has to find 4½ crores for the Provinces. But that is not the end of the bill. Since Burma is to be separated from India, India stands to lose financially as the result of the separation a sum which is estimated at approximately 2¾ crores of rupees. The whole sum, therefore, which the Government of India have got to find amounts to 7¼ crores of rupees. What ground have we for assuming that the Government of India can find this sum of money? Sir Otto Niemeyer has no doubt whatsoever that in, say, two years time the increased resources which he foresees in the case of the Central Budget will be adequate to produce that sum. But we have to find this sum, not in two years time, but next year, and the crucial question therefore is this: Can the Government of India provide a sum of 7¼ crores of rupees in time to start the Constitution on the first of April next? I think that the answer to that question is that they can.
To begin with, the Government of India have provided in their Budget of this year subsidies for three of the Indian Provinces, in other words, the North-West Frontier Province, Sind and Orissa, and the amount of the subsidies provided
212
for these Provinces is something more than 2½ crores of rupees, leaving a sum of 4¾ crores to be found. Fortunately, as a result of the more rapid improvement in the finances of India than at one time seemed in the least probable, the Government of India have a large surplus in respect of the accounts for the past year, and of that surplus they have put into a suspensory account to be used in the year 1937–38 a sum of 2 crores of rupees. That, therefore, now leaves the sum of only 2¾ crores to be found to complete Sir Otto Niemeyer's sum. What justification have we for supposing that this 2¾ crores of rupees will be forthcoming? Sir Otto Niemeyer estimates that they will be covered by the expansion in the net revenue of the Government of India by next year, and we have good grounds for supposing that in that estimate he will prove to be correct. During the past few years the average annual increase in the proceeds of Customs and Excise duties in India has been approximately 2 crores of rupees, and during the same period the average natural increase in the proceeds of Income Tax has been three-quarters of a crore per annum. Such expansion may be expected to account for at all events a large part of the 2¾ crores which are required.
But I am not relying merely upon an increase in the proceeds of taxation. I am also relying upon a considerable reduction in the interest charges which the Government of India at present have to meet. I cannot hope, of course, to carry through a conversion scheme on anything like the scale of that which was carried through by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this country not so very long ago, but I do expect to pay back next month a loan of some £17,000,000 which is at present running at a rate of interest of 5½ per cent. A short time ago, not long after Sir Otto Niemeyer's Report was published, India was successful, for the first time I think in her history, in floating a loan at par at a rate of interest of 2¾ per cent. Other loans will be coming to maturity in the near future and further savings may, I hope, be made in that way. I hope I have said enough to satisfy your Lordships that this sum—a large sum for India—of 7¼ crores of rupees is in sight and will be forthcoming by April 1 of next year.

213
May I just say a few words as to the method by which this money is going to be distributed to the Provinces? Part of the financial settlement between the Centre and the Provinces consists of a scheme for the decentralisation of balances and the consolidation of the provincial debts. The details of that scheme are not included in the Order in Council. They are of a technical nature and they can be carried out by the Government of India under their existing powers. I am prepared to give your Lordships an undertaking now that these proposals shall be given effect. As a matter of fact they form an integral part of the whole scheme of financial settlement. When the decentralisation of balances and the consolidation of the provincial debts has been made, we shall know exactly what the Provinces owe to the Centre, and, as Sir Otto Niemeyer points out, the most obvious way in which a creditor can grant financial aid to a debtor is by cancelling the whole or some part of his debt, and that in fact is what we propose to do. There will be a cancellation of provincial debt, which will result in a recurring benefit to the Provinces of over one crore of rupees. The second method by which aid will be given to the Provinces will be by allowing to those Provinces in which jute is grown an additional proportion of the proceeds of the Jute Tax. At present they benefit to the extent of 50 per cent. under the Act of last year, but in future they will benefit to the extent of 62½ per cent. That will provide them with approximately another half crore of rupees. The third method is the actual grant of annual sums by the Central Government to the Provinces. That will be approximately three crores.
With regard to the provisions of Section 138 of the Act, I admit that the section is somewhat technical and is a little difficult to follow, but I will try to explain in as simple language as possible what it is that Section 138 contemplates. The underlying intention of the section is that at some time in the future some proportion of the proceeds of Income Tax shall be allotted to the Provinces. The date is left to be prescribed by Order in Council. The proportion of the proceeds of Income Tax to be allotted to the Provinces is also left to be so prescribed. In accordance with the recommendation made by Sir Otto Niemeyer, the proportion
214
which will eventually be payable to the Provinces is to be 50 per cent. The date when, not the whole of that 50 per cent., but some part of the 50 per cent., shall become payable will be after a period of five years from the coming into operation of the Act. It is contemplated therefore that for the first five years the Central Government may (except in certain circumstances) retain the whole of the proceeds of Income Tax, but that after the first five years the Provinces will be allocated for a period of another five years step by step the amount of Income Tax to which they will eventually be entitled. That is to say, in the sixth year, if all goes well, they will receive one-sixth and in the seventh year one-third, and so on until, at the end of the ten years period, they will be receiving the whole of the proportion of the proceeds of Income Tax to which they are entitled.
The other point upon which Sir Otto Niemeyer was required to advise was as to the distribution between the Provinces of their share of the amount of Income Tax to which they are entitled. In regard to that I would suggest to your Lordships that you should do what the Government have done, and that is accept Sir Otto Niemeyer's suggestions as a quasi-arbitral award. You will find the percentages set out on page 19. I need hardly say that there is not a Province in India which is not dissatisfied. That, I think, was almost inevitable. Those Provinces which enjoy a high standard of administration to-day are disappointed because they are not being awarded further sums. Other Provinces which do not enjoy a high standard of administration are disappointed because they are not receiving larger sums than they have been promised. But, as Sir Otto Niemeyer himself said, he was out not to give tips to the virtuous but to distribute alms amongst the needy. I would suggest that it would be quite impossible for your Lordships to vary the percentages which, after careful inquiry by an obviously entirely impartial authority, Sir Otto Niemeyer, have been arrived at. I think that explains broadly the financial implications of the Orders.
May I say what satisfaction it is to me, and also I am sure to all those who, for a good many years past, have been

215
devoting a great deal of their time and their thoughts to the planning of the new Constitution in India, to feel that to-day we are actually giving the word for the new Constitution to come into operation, that we are authorising the throwing open of the new edifice—or at any rate those rooms in the new edifice which have been prepared for them—to the new Governments in the Provinces in India? It is, as I say, with feelings of satisfaction therefore that I commend to your Lordships the three Draft Orders which are now before you.
Moved, That the Draft Orders, as presented to Parliament and reported from the India and Burma Orders Committee on the 11th instant, be now considered.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
LORD SNELL: My Lords, it is with very great gratification that one takes part in what is really an inaugural proceeding for the future government of India. What we are doing to-day is, as it were, the culmination of ten years of Very earnest thinking and concentrated work and preparation. I should like to remind your Lordships, in the few moments for which I shall address you, of the attitude which I and my friends who were my colleagues on the Joint Committee, as well as the Party which I represent, have taken on this great and important matter. We—as no one knows better than the Secretary of State himself, whom we troubled greatly and incessantly—desired greatly to extend the provisions of the Government of India Act. We exhausted our own strength, his patience and a good deal of time in trying to convince the majority of the Joint Select Committee of the wisdom of our cause. But the Report was made and the India Act was passed. We are realists in politics, and we accept that Act as having been passed; we do not quarrel to-day with its limitations. At the same time the House, I am sure, will forgive me and allow me to say that we do not retract in the least degree any of the propositions which we then made.
To-day, my Lords, we accept this Act as a basis of work, and we are gratified that we think we can see most promising signs of co-operation on the part of the people of India for the preparation and conduct of the great task that is before them. We always expected that would be so, and I think everybody is to be
216
congratulated and comforted that, so far as I can see without having any official information, the various sections in India are looking forward with great anxiety and with a desire to co-operate with each other in the work that is before them. We agree also that these Rules are necessary and that it is right that they should be accepted at this time, so as to give as much opportunity as possible for the proper preparation which has to be made. I do not propose to-day to enter into any discussion of the problems that are indicated, at least, by Sir Otto Niemeyer's Report. We are enormously fortunate in having a Report from one of his great experience and authority, and because of that Report I think that we can pass these Orders with a certain comfort that they have the approval of a very distinguished and competent examiner. I should have hoped for a better outlook in regard to railway finances, but even so I think probably the conditions may be better in a short time than they are to-day.
We on these Benches—as we say—support the passing of these Orders to-day, and those of us who took the part that I have mentioned would like to commend them to the Indian people: and we are entitled to expect that all persons in India will work honestly and loyally together to get the best out of what Parliament has tried to do for them. Also I think we ought to expect everybody in England, the Act having been passed, to sink their differences, as we have sunk ours, and to give every encouragement that the united voice of Parliament can give to the Indian people in their great task.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I want to add a few words only in support of what has just fallen from the noble Lord on my left, and to congratulate the Government on being able to take the first practical step to bring the new Constitution into operation in April next. There are, however, two general observations I should like to make. The first is that I hope that, when the Act comes into operation in the promised April next, it will be on the basis of the full responsible government which the Act itself provides. Whether that will be possible will depend no doubt mainly upon the decision which the Congress Party will

217
take, in those Provinces in which it may obtain majorities, as to whether it will or will not accept office. But it may also depend a little on the attitude of British authority to that problem in the meantime.
I should like to observe that, much against our will, during the last six or seven years India has had some of the characteristics of what has sometimes been described as a "police State"—that is to say, a State in which the repression of certain political opinions has been a central and a cardinal fact. That this has been so has been the inevitable result of the adoption by Congress of the policy of civil disobedience. Such a policy is a challenge to the existence of Government, and any Government worthy of the name must meet it. As a consequence, my noble friend who leads this House, one of the most humane and sympathetic Viceroys which India ever had the fortune to enjoy, had, I believe, under his control at one time in the prisons of the country no less than 50,000 political prisoners, while his successor the Marquess of Willingdon had at least 30,000. That kind of repression was, as I have said, inevitable; but there is no use disguising from ourselves that many years of that kind of police repression, however much it may be forced on us, and its correlative government by certification, inevitably tend to produce abuses in police administration, to create estrangement between the political classes and the Government, and to give rise to deplorable psychological and political consequences on all sides. If the new Constitution is to come into operation with a real chance of success, it is essential that that era of Indian Government should come to an end when provincial autonomy is inaugurated. The only way of doing that is to place full responsibility for law and order on the shoulders of those who have a majority; that responsibility should be assumed by the parties with a majority.
Once Provincial Government represents the majority of politically-minded people in India or a Province, the major cause of that political crime which has caused most of the police action in recent years will automatically disappear. The Provincial Governments will be able to maintain order, so far as the major political issues are concerned, without police repression,
218
because they will represent the people and not a distant and an alien authority. That is the central virtue, the cardinal virtue of the system of responsible government for which we on these Benches have persistently stood once the effective demand for self-government became apparent in India. I am sure the Secretary of State will do everything in his power to pave the way for the transfer of responsibility in the Provinces on that date, and to make it clear that the quickest way of getting rid of those aspects of Indian government which have been unfortunately forced upon us in the last six years will be that the majority in the new Legislatures should assume full responsibility for law and order in the Provinces, subject only to the special responsibility of the Governor to intervene if in his opinion there is a grave menace to the peace and tranquillity of the Province.
The second observation I would like to make concerns finance. It a little surprised me that my noble friend Lord Snell did not claim that the Report of Sir Otto Niemeyer is one of the first instalments coining from the National Government of Socialist finance, for it is a well-known Socialist doctrine, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need "—a principle which I should like to observe has recently been thrown over in the new Soviet Constitution, for "each according to his labour" is a very different principle. I think we should all feel deeply gratified that Sir Otto Niemeyer has felt able to recommend that the financial condition of India does make it possible to bring in provincial autonomy so soon. The central fact is that, while he feels that the financial situation makes possible the inauguration of the Constitution, there will be singularly slender financial resources available to the new Governments during the first five years of the Constitution, even taking the temporary grants which he recommends from central sources into account. If things go well after that the Provincial Governments may, I think, have not inconsiderable resources to spend on social reform, and, as it is called in India, national development; but for the first five years they will be very short.
I think the Secretary of State will agree with me that one of the reasons, though not by any means the only reason, why the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms did

219
not work more successfully was that the Ministers then responsible for the transferred services had very little money to spend on those aspects of Indian reform in which they were most intimately concerned. They could do very little for social reform and national development, because of the financial stringency which followed the great extravagance of the War period. I hope it will be possible for him to do something to prevent a repetition of that experience when the new Constitution comes into being. Nothing would send it off under worse auspices than that the new Provincial Ministries should have to sit and maintain law and order for the first five years, and be unable to inaugurate any substantial part of that programme of social reform or nation building, which India so urgently needs, during that period. Is it not possible by some means, by loan or otherwise, to give to the Provincial Governments during that first period of stringency some revenues which they can spend on social reform at the start? I do not think that anything would do more to smooth the way for the working of the provincial parts of the new Constitution, or prepare the way for the inauguration of the second and far more difficult part of it, Federation. India has profited greatly from the point of view of her credit by the orthodoxy of her finance, but there are times when human and political considerations may make a temporary lapse from the strictest tenets of Gladstonian Treasury rectitude an even higher form of finance.
The National Government have not hesitated to throw over certain tenets of British fiscal and economic orthodoxy. They have, I think, thrown them over too completely, and been unduly extravagant in their abandonment of principles which have served this country so well in the past. I think, however, they might in this case, with advantage, consider whether a little temporary laxity from those standards in the first few years of the new Constitution might not be the greatest wisdom. I am not a bit afraid of the great battle waged between Socialism and Individualism here or in India, provided it is fought out on democratic and constitutional lines. We shall then work out a wise and practical compromise. What is fatal is that it should be fought out as a battle between Fascism
220
and Communism. And nothing will do more to show that there is no need to resort to these revolutionary and despotic methods than that the new Governments in India, when they do come into being, responsible as they will be to the people, should be able to bring about almost at once, within the Constitution, great social and economic reforms which are of lasting benefit to the people. That means, as I see it, that by some means or other the new Provincial Governments should have placed at their disposal for a time a larger measure of revenue than will clearly come to them under the Niemeyer Report, excellent as that Report may be. I do not expect that the Secretary of State will be able to make any remarks in reply to my suggestions to-day, but I recommend these points of view to his sympathetic consideration.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, the noble Marquess has just said that he did not expect me to make any remarks in reply to his observations. There is one remark that I should like to make in reply to what he said in regard to starting the new Constitution off by giving to the new Governments real responsibility. Of course the Act contemplates that they will be given real responsibility; that is assuming, of course, that they show that they are intending to act in a responsible manner. But I would like just to make this observation. If the policy which is advocated in some quarters of Congress is to be the policy generally adopted in India—namely, the policy of entering the new Constitution in order to destroy it from within—then there will be a grave risk of the Governor having to exercise, to an extent which I hope will not be necessary, the special powers conferred upon him by the Act.
Then, with regard to what the noble Marquess said on the subject of finance, of course I agree with him that it is desirable that the new Governments should find themselves in a position to spend money on the social services. I think it is possible, if the improvement in the economic situation continues, that even before the passage of the first five years the Provinces may draw something from the proceeds of Income Tax, because it is also laid down in these Orders that if the proceeds of the Income Tax, plus the net surplus of the railways, amounts to more than thirteen crores of

221
rupees, then there shall be allocated to the Provinces during the first five years any sum in excess of the thirteen crores which may be brought in. There is also hope that the provincial taxes themselves may show an increased yield.
May I say one word about the railways to which the noble Lord opposite referred? He said he could wish that the prospects of the railways were brighter than they at present appeared to be, though he admitted, I think, that they did show some signs of improvement. It is admittedly the case that during these years of depression the railways of India have been very disappointing, but we have had a similar experience in other parts of the world. In this country our railways have had similar difficulties; in Canada, in the Argentine, indeed to whatever part of the world you turn you will find that during this period of depression railways all over the world have been suffering grievously. I am not satisfied that it may not be possible to do something to make the railways of India more productive than they are at the present time. They are up against the same problem which railways in this country have been up against—competition with road transport and so on—and I am in communication with the Government of
222
India in connection with matters of that kind.
But, even apart from possible improvements in efficiency, and so on, that may be made, the prospects are not quite so gloomy as they have sometimes been painted. Let us remember that since the railway finances were separated from the main finances of the Government of India in 1924, during the first seven years they contributed to the central revenues of India a sum amounting in all, I think, to over £31,000,000 sterling; and it was only when the severe trade depression came along that that happy state of affairs came to an end. I am grateful to your Lordships for the manner in which you have received these Orders.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Orders be approved.
Moved, That the draft Orders, as presented to Parliament and reported from the India and Burma Orders Committee on the 11th instant, be approved.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes past six o'clock.