Lords Sitting of 5 August 1941

Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
SCARISBRICK ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
Substituted Report from the Judges received.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Moyne, I beg to move the Motion standing on the Paper in his name.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being suspended until the House do adjourn for the Recess.—(Lord Snell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

SOUTH WALES ELECTRIC POWER ORDER, 1941.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Special Order be agreed to.
Moved, That the Special Order as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last be approved.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

PHARMACY AND MEDICINES BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, I beg to move that the House resolve itself into Committee on this Bill. It may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I state shortly the course which I should propose be taken in Committee. The interval which it was suggested we should secure between the Second Reading of the Bill and the Committee stage to-day has been made good use of, and the Government are indebted
1016
to my noble friend Viscount Plumer and those with whom he is acting for attending conferences, as a result of which I trust that most at any rate of the difficulties which suggested themselves at an earlier stage have been removed.
The Amendments which I myself have to move on behalf of the Government fall into two classes. In the first place there are some very technical Amendments relating to Clause I of the Bill, which really deals with a different subject matter, the subject matter of poisons. I doubt whether your Lordships would wish to have any prolonged explanation of those. I do not think the Amendments are resisted in any quarter and they are the result of careful revision of this clause by the Home Office, which is responsible for that branch of the matter. When we come to Clause 5 and onwards we reach more debatable ground. I hope it will be found that the Amendments which the Government are prepared to move will fairly meet certain difficulties which presented themselves to the minds of those interested in herbal remedies. It may be that in some places in the Bill the language was not of the clearest, and we are very glad to make it clearer and thereby to relieve the apprehensions of the Herbalists' Society.
The comment was made that certain clauses of the Bill—Clauses 8 and 9—would authorise proceedings without the previous authority of a Law Officer and in that respect contrasted with that requirement in earlier clauses. We have a proposal to make which we hope will meet that situation in Clauses 8 and 9. I hope therefore we shall find it possible to get through the Committee stage without consuming a great deal of time, and the Government will be very happy if at the end of it, although we cannot hope to satisfy everybody, it is realised in all quarters that the Government have really tried to meet these difficulties in a perfectly fair and candid spirit.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT PLUMER: My Lords, we have been into these matters, as the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack said, and I thank the Government for being so considerate in meeting us as far as possible. There only remain one or two minor points to be cleared up, which I

1017
believe, if I may put them in Committee, your Lordships will agree to. They are questions which I am sure the noble and learned Viscount can explain, as they are merely questions of drafting.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Alternative conditions to be complied with by authorised sellers of poisons.
1.—(1) Where a business comprising the retail sale of drugs is being carried on, so far as it concerns the retail sale of drugs, at two or more sets of premises, it shall not be necessary, in order that the person carrying on the business may be an authorised seller of poisons, to comply with the conditions requiring the business to be under the personal control of a registered pharmacist at any of those sets of premises where no poisons included in Part I of the Poisons List are sold, if the following conditions are complied with in lieu thereof—
(d) prescriptions must not be received at the premises, and drugs compounded elsewhere than at the premises for the use of a particular person must not be distributed at the premises or despatched therefrom;
(7) Where two or more separate parts of a single set of premises, at which a business which comprises the retail sale of drugs is carried on, are used for the retail sale of drugs, then, for the purposes of this section and of the principal Act, each of the separate parts so used shall be treated as being a separate set of premises.
(8) In subsection (1) of Section twenty-one of the principal Act, (which requires a local authority to keep a list of persons who, not being entitled to sell poisons included in Part I of the Poisons List, are to be entitled to sell poisons included in Part II of that List), the words "not being entitled to sell poisons included in Part I of the Poisons List" shall be repealed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in paragraph (d) of subsection (1), after "drugs," to insert "dispensed or." The noble and learned Viscount said: This is a clause which, as I said just now, is dealing with quite a different subject matter, a most technical subject matter, but a subject matter which I think is entirely uncontroversial. The subject is poisons, which is a topic within the general scope of the Home Office. These Amendments are all put down at the suggestion of the Home Office in order that the resulting situation may be quite satisfactory. The first Amendment is little more than drafting. In another place there was a change made in this part of the
1018
Bill. I think it was assumed that the word "compounded" would be wide enough to cover also the word "dispensed." I am advised that that is not necessarily so and I therefore desire to insert the words "dispensed or."
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 27, after ("drugs") insert ("dispensed or").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out subsection (7). The noble and learned Viscount said: The effect of this Amendment and several following the one which is to leave out subsection (7), is to substitute the first new clause for subsection (8) of Clause I and the second new clause for subsection (7) of Clause 1. This is, in part, a rearrangement for purposes of greater convenience and easier reading, and, in part, a slight modification. I doubt if your Lordships would desire to have a detailed explanation. I assure your Lordships that there is nothing controversial in this.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 15, leave out subsection (7).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out subsection (8). The noble and learned Viscount said: This is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 21, leave out subsection (8).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert after Clause 1:
Extension of local authorities list.
—(1) On the application of an authorised seller of poisons who wishes to sell at any premises poisons included in Part II of the Poisons List, but neither poisons included in Part I of that list nor drugs, the local authority for the area in which the premises are situated shall enter his name in the list kept by them under Section twenty-one of the principal Act as a person entitled, subject to the provisions of that Act, to sell on those premises poisons included in the said Part II:
Provided that the local authority may refuse to enter in, or may remove from, the list the name of any person who fails to pay the fees prescribed by rules or who in the opinion of the authority is, for any sufficient reason relating either to him personally or to his premises, not fit to be on the list.
(2) The provisions of subsections (2) to (7) of the said Section twenty-one (which relate to appeals from the decision of a local authority to refuse to enter or to remove a name from the list and other incidental matters) shall apply for the purpose of the foregoing provisions of this section as they apply for the purposes of that section.
(3) Where any premises of an authorised seller of poisons are entered in a local authority's list by virtue of this section, it shall be the duty of the authority under subsection (5) of Section twenty-five of the principal Act, and not the duty of the Society under subsection (1) of that section, to take all reasonable steps to secure compliance by him, as respects those premises, with the provisions of Part II of the principal Act and of the rules made thereunder so far as those provisions relate to poisons included in Part II of the Poisons List; and the provisions of subsections (5) to (10) of that section relating to inspectors shall apply accordingly."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This is the new clause which it was desired to substitute and which expresses the same general idea in a better form. I have gone through it and I think I should not be justified in detaining your Lordships about it. It provides for an extension of the; local authorities' lists, that is to say of the authorised sellers of poisons who wish to sell at any premises poisons included in Part II of the Poisons List. Broadly speaking, one may say that Part II contains poisons not so dangerous as Part I. This is really machinery for getting proper control over those vendors of poisons in Number II category. I ask your Lordships to accept this in place of what was originally in Clause 1.
Amendment moved—
Page 3 line 44, to insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert the following new clause:
Amendment as to separate sets of premises.
"Where a separate or distinct part or two or more separate or distinct parts of any premises at which a business which comprises the retail sale of drugs is carried on is or arc used for the retail sale of drugs then for the purposes of this Act and the principal Act that part or each of those parts as the case may be shall be treated as being a separate set of premises."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This is a new clause which, I think, will be understood by reading it. There is a complication because you may have an individual who has two sets of premises in an area, at one of which there is a retail sale of drugs carried on but at the
1020
other there may not be such a trade. It is consequently necessary to make this provision for the proper separation and treatment of the two premises.
Amendment moved—
Page 3 line 44 at end insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Powers of Statutory Committee over bodies corporate.
(2) Subsection (2) of Section fourteen of the principal Act (which provides that directions given by the Statutory Committee shall not take effect for three months) shall not apply to directions given under the said subsection (3) as respects a body corporate which is not an authorised seller of poisons.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (2), after "not," where that word occurs for the last time, to insert "at the time when the directions are given." The noble and learned Viscount said: This is as your Lordships see a proposal to insert on page 5, line 29, "at the time when the directions are given." The principal Act which is the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933, makes provision that the Statutory Committee which supervise these matters, when they make a direction, make one which does not take effect until three months after notice is given to the person to whom it relates. There are other limitations also. I think it is mechanically correct to provide that there should be an insertion of these words, and the result will be, in the case of a direction disqualifying a body corporate which is not an authorised seller, that the notice will take effect immediately. There is no reason in such cases for granting three months' grace and accordingly the provision will be "at the time when the directions are given."
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 29, after ("not") insert ("at the time when the directions are given.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 4, to insert:
Commencement of ss. 2, 3 and 4.
"The last three preceding sections shall come into operation on such date as His Majesty may by Order in Council appoint."
The noble and learned Viscount said: It has been pointed out that the authority, the jurisdiction, of the Advisory Committee cannot be exercised until new rules of procedure have been made. They are made, I think, by the Privy Council. It is therefore necessary to insert a provision of this sort to determine the date on which the new rules will be operative.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 44, at end insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Provisions as to offences under two preceding sections]:
VISCOUNT PLUMER VISCOUNT PLUMER had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out subsection (4). The noble Viscount said: This Amendment relates to the consent of the Attorney-General or Solicitor-General for prosecutions for offences against Clauses 6 and 7. The Amendment is consequential on the new clause on the Order Paper to be moved after Clause II, which is intended to mention all the clauses in the Bill in respect of which consent is required. As the subject of consent, however, is dealt with in an Amendment to be moved by the Lord Chancellor to Clause 10, it will probably be more convenient to discuss the matter then, and accordingly I do not move this Amendment.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Disclosure of composition of medicines.
8.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, no person shall—

(a) sell by retail any article consisting of or comprising a substance recommended as a medicine; or,

(b) supply any such article as a sample for the purpose of inducing persons to buy by retail the substance of which it consists or which it comprises

unless there is written so as to be clearly legible on the article or a label affixed thereto, or, if the article is sold or supplied as aforesaid in a container, on the container or a label affixed thereto or, if the article is sold or supplied as aforesaid in more than one container, on the inner container or a label affixed thereto—

(i) the appropriate designation of the sub stance so recommended or of each of the active constituents thereof; and

1022

(ii) in a case where the appropriate designation of each of the active constituents is written as aforesaid, the appropriate quantitative particulars of the constituents:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in paragraph (i) of subsection (1), after "thereof," to insert "or of each of the ingredients of which it has been compounded." The noble and learned Viscount said: This is, I think, the first matter on which some dubiety was expressed in our Second Reading debate. I agree that Clause 8 is in its nature rather difficult to construe. As the clause is printed in the Bill it provides, as your Lordships see, that the article recommended as a medicine must be labelled and it must be labelled in this way: The label affixed thereto must show
"the appropriate designation of the substance so recommended or of each of the active constituents thereof."
I think the anxiety which was expressed, more particularly on behalf of the herbalists, was that this might be understood to mean that they had to state what were the chemical constituents in the bottle, notwithstanding that there might be—as no doubt in many cases there would be—quite serious chemical changes after the contents had been put together. Whether that is so or not, that would be putting on the herbalists too severe a burden, and I therefore propose to insert "or"—not "and" but "or"—"of each of the ingredients of which it has been compounded."
To take a simple illustration, if the bottle has been filled with dandelion root it is enough to say on the bottle that the contents have been made of dandelion root, and it is not necessary to give the conceivably rather complicated and technical information as to what is the result of the chemical changes which have taken place because dandelion root has been combined with something else. That, I think, was the point which was a matter of anxiety to my noble friend Lord Plumer, and to those whom he has so ably represented here. I hope he will feel that by inserting those words we have in a very genuine sense met the anxiety which I know that some people entertain.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 17, after ("thereof") insert ("or of each of the ingredients of which it has been compounded").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 19, after ("constituents") insert ("or the ingredients").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 20, after ("constituents") insert ("or ingredients").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to
VISCOUNT PLUMER VISCOUNT PLUMER had an Amendment on the Paper, at the end of paragraph (ii) of subsection (1), to insert "though not necessarily the chemical analysis of those constituents or of any of them." The noble Viscount said: This is only following up what was said by the noble and learned Lord Chancellor. Our legal advisers did not feel that the wording was perfectly clear, and I therefore put down this Amendment, although after the explanation given by the noble and earned Viscount I do not think it is necessary; I think I am right in saying that what he has said covers this point. If he agrees, I shall not move this Amendment.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I should like to say a word on the question of drafting; there is a matter here which should perhaps be considered by the noble and learned Lord Chancellor. When you have added the words "or the ingredients" after the word "constituents" in lines 19 and 20, you may have this difficulty, that an ingredient may also be a constituent. I am not myself sure that the adding of the reference to "ingredients" will show that it is not necessary to give the quantitative particulars of the ingredients. The appropriate quantitative particulars of the constituents have to be given, and an ingredient is a constituent. I think that as a matter of drafting you have not sufficiently separated the ingredients from the constituents to show that for the purposes of this clause an ingredient is not a constituent. It is only a matter of drafting, because there is no doubt as to what is meant by the clause; but I think it is a matter which might be considered on the Report stage and, if any words are necessary, I think that they should be inserted.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps I may be allowed to say, in reply to my noble and learned friend, that I think it is really essential that we should deal with this Bill to-day, and therefore any observations that he makes must be addressed to the present time. A very great deal of care has, to my knowledge, been taken on this subject. Our legal authorities have examined it closely, and I understand that it has been examined by the herbalists with at least equal care and, for what it may be worth, they do not think that the words lead to any obscurity. Let me read the words as they would stand. The label is to contain:
"in a case where the appropriate designation of each of the active constituents or the ingredients is written as aforesaid the appropriate quantitative particulars of the constituents or ingredients."
I submit to my noble and learned friend that when in paragraph (i) you have an actual alternative between stating active constituents and ingredients, and when that is followed by paragraph (ii), which speaks of the case where "the appropriate designation of each of the active constituents is written as aforesaid," it is rather difficult to construe the second of those paragraphs as though a constituent were the same thing as an ingredient.
I conceive that an ingredient is something which is put into the whole for the purpose of animating it. You may remember Sydney Smith's lines—
"Let onion atoms lurk within the bowl And scarce suspected, animate the whole."
That, in my view, is an ingredient. The constituents—well, in this House we do not consider constituents very much, but the constituents of such a mixture I would conceive to be the things which are ascertained to be in it upon analysis.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I think that applies to an ingredient. I am not satisfied at all that this is clear.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: When it comes to discussing how words should be construed there is often a difficulty, but we have inserted these other words with no idea of misleading the herbalists. If we do meet with a difficulty, and if we find hereafter that the words do not produce the results desired, it may very well be that this provision will have to be revised; but I hope that my noble and learned friend will not feel it necessary to

1025
raise the matter on the Report stage, because I hardly think that we could deal with it further, unless it is the general view of the House that the efforts of the Government draftsmen and of the experts at the Ministry of Health and of the herbalists have in this respect been quite fruitless.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I understand we are now engaged in discussing the Amendment of my noble friend which has been put on the Table.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The noble Viscount has withdrawn his Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I only rose to ask whether the Lord Chancellor is satisfied that my noble friend was right when "he said he understood that the Lord Chancellor's words covered his difficulty. If that is so, we need not spend any more time over that Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am obliged to the noble Marquess. The words "though not necessarily the chemical analysis of those constituents or of any of them" in my view are quite unnecessary, because the effect of the previous Amendment is really to secure that result.
VISCOUNT PLUMER: After the explanation which has been given I shall not move my Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendments to the clause are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 8, line 26, leave out ("or constituent") and insert ("constituent 0r ingredient").
Page 8, line 27, leave out ("or constituent") and insert ("constituent or ingredient").
Page 8, line 33, leave out ("or constituent") and insert ("constituent or ingredient").
Page 8, line 40, leave out ("or constituent") and insert ("constituent or ingredient").
Page 8, line 43, leave out ("or constituent") and insert ("constituent or ingredient").
Page 9, line 2, after ("constituents") insert ("or the ingredients").
Page 9, line 5, after ("constituents") insert ("or ingredients").
Page 9, line 6, after ("constituents") insert ("or ingredients").
Page 9, line 12, after ("constituents") insert ("or ingredients").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question Amendments agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 8, as amended, shall be agreed to?
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Before we leave Clause 8, may I raise a point which I do not think has been hitherto referred to? I do not expect we can deal with it now, but I would like to ask the Lord Chancellor if he would give it consideration. Clause 8 refers to substances recommended as medicine. I am rather afraid that by the definition clause that is limited to medicines for human beings. I would have liked to have seen medicines for horses—all veterinary medicines—included. I understand a great deal of quackery goes on and rubbishy stuff is sold to farmers at prices greatly exceeding its worth. It would have been a good thing if horses could have had the same protection as your Lordships.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the noble Lord for a moment must be content with dealing with human beings, because in page 13, line 30, as he has observed, the substance recommended as a medicine, at any rate when an advertisement is involved, is described as being expressed in terms "which are calculated to lead to the use of the substance for the prevention or treatment of any ailment, infirmity or injury affecting the human body."
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9:
Restriction of sale of medicines by unauthorised persons.
9.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, no person shall sell by retail any article consisting of or comprising a substance recommended as a medicine unless he is—

(a) a registered medical practitioner or a registered dentist; or

(b) an authorised seller of poisons; or

(c) a person not being a registered medical practitioner or a registered dentist or an authorised seller of poisons, but being a person who—

(i) has served a regular apprenticeship to a registered pharmacist, or to a body corporate authorised to sell poisons by virtue of Section nine of the principal Act; and

(ii) is at the date of the passing of this Act carrying on on his own account a business which comprises the retail sale of drugs.

(4) It shall be a defence for a person charged with selling an article in contravention of subsection (I) or subsection (2) of this section

1027
to prove that the sale was effected at a shop, and that the article consisted wholly either—

(a) of a substance produced by drying, crushing, or comminuting (but not subjecting to any other process) a plant or plants or any part thereof or of a mixture the sole ingredients whereof are two or more such substances or of a mixture the sole ingredients whereof are one or more of such substances and water; or

(b) of a natural mineral water, or an artificial imitation thereof.

(5) It shall also be a defence for a person charged with selling an article in contravention of subsection (I) or subsection (2) of this section to prove that the sale was effected at a shop, and that the article was sold under a proprietary designation and either—

(a) that the substance recommended as a medicine which the article consisted of or comprised was not described in any of the monographs contained in the edition of the British Pharmacopoeia or British Pharmaceutical Codex which was last published before the date of the passing of this Act or the date on which the substance was first sold by retail under the proprietary designation, whichever date is the later; or

VISCOUNT PLUMER VISCOUNT PLUMER moved to insert in subsection (1):
"Provided that nothing in this section contained shall prohibit a person who carries on a legitimate practice of herbalism and the sale of herbal preparations from selling herbal pre-parations which are medicines within the meaning of this Act."
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment was tabled because it follows the words used by the Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister in giving their assurances in another place. If it is accepted the subsequent Amendments on Clause 9 will not be required. We should prefer this Amendment because it expresses the intention that our business is not to be interfered with, but our discussions with the advisers of the Minister have shown that in their view the Amendment would have a much wider application than we intend.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 39, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Plumer.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I must ask my noble friend to accept my assurance that this Amendment is much too wide. I really do not know myself how you would construe the words "a person who carries on a legitimate practice of herbalism." Moreover, I can imagine its meaning is that herbalists and herbalists alone are to have the right to sell all medicines whose active constituents are
1028
produced wholly from plants. I speak subject to correction, but I fancy a very large number of chemical substances are derived from plants, and, without professing to more scientific knowledge than I have, I am advised, and I am myself convinced, that this would be much too wide a clause. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will be good enough to withdraw his Amendment. Some more detailed suggestions which I think he has to make will be separately considered.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT PLUMER VISCOUNT PLUMER had given Notice of two Amendments in paragraph (a) of subsection (4)—namely, to leave out "but not subjecting to" and insert "macerating, infusing, boiling, decocting, distilling, pressing, expressing and"; and, after "water," to insert "with or without the addition as preservatives of glycerine, alcohol, esters of parahydroxy benzoic acid, or such other preservative as the Minister of Health may sanction". The noble Viscount said: These are Amendments of subsection (4) and they describe the processes which are commonly used in the preparation of herbal medicines, but which are not mentioned in the Bill. It is an alternative to the Amendment at page 9, line 39. The Minister of Health has said it is not intended by the Bill to stop the legitimate business of the herbalist and he has pointed to subsection (4) as the protection provided for the herbalist. The subsection was amended in another place to meet the herbalist's objection, but the Amendments do not go far enough.
If the processes are to be specified in the clause they ought to include many liquid processes which are commonly used by herbalists. It is idle to say that because the clause does not mention either solid or liquid processes, liquid processes would be allowed. What the clause does is to name the processes which may be used and not the substances which are produced. The three processes named and permitted are "drying, crushing and comminuting." These are dry processes and they produce dry substances. There is nothing in the clause as it stands to permit the use of a liquid process which is necessary for the production of many tinctures, essences and oils commonly used by the herbalist, and sold by him in his shop. We have therefore specified in the Amendment the ordinary liquid processes which are in use.
Amendment moved—
Page lo, line 24, leave out ("but not subjecting to") and insert ("macerating, infusing, boiling, decocting, distilling, pressing, expressing and").—(Viscount Plumer.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Some of the considerations I mentioned just now apply to this proposal also, and I regret that I cannot advise the House to accept the Amendment. The object of subsection (4) (a), which is not the only provision of advantage to herbalists, is to give some protection primarily to the country herbalist. Many of us know such a shop in a small town or village which is engaged in producing comparatively simple remedies based, it may be, on tradition or experience. Hence the provision in the Bill,
"a substance produced by drying, crushing or comminuting … or of a mixture the sole ingredients whereof are one or more of such substances and water."
I should tell the House that I fell into error on the Second Reading, when I happened to say, in referring to some legal opinions which were quoted, that I thought their language was severe, and added that the Attorney-General had expounded some portions of the Bill. I was in error about that, and I wish to apologise to the House. I thought it was so; but, be that as it may, the clause is a clause of value, as your Lordships will see, although it is not the whole protection. If the herbalist chooses to produce his medicine as a proprietary medicine, and comes within the provisions of subsection (5), a very wide measure of protection is afforded to him there.
As regards this Amendment, a long list of additional processes is here suggested, the first of which is macerating. I am not quite sure that I know what that means. I imagine it means making things soft by stewing or something of the kind; but there is no merit in adding all these different words, "infusing, boiling, decocting, distilling, pressing, expressing," because when we come to the end of the catalogue there are the words "any other process." That is giving a great deal more latitude than ought to be given. If that were right, especially with the addition of preservatives, which is suggested next, then there would be a wholly exceptional position created for those who take advantage of the clause. I give this example, which I am told is chemically
1030
accurate. Take quinine salts. They begin from cinchona bark, which is no doubt a vegetable; it is part of a plant. From that it is possible to produce quinine. Having produced quinine, then by a series of other processes you can produce a number of quinine compounds which are used for the treatment of various ailments, and in the end you would get the production of an unlimited number of medicines whose efficacy depends on their chemical constituents produced under the alleged shelter of dealing with herbs and with herbal extractions. That, I am quite certain, is not the view which would be generally accepted in this House, and I must therefore ask my noble friend, though with much regret, to forgive me for saying that his Amendment must be resisted.
It really does proceed, as I said before, from an assumption which I believe to be unfounded, that there is some sort of sharp contrast in the world of Nature between vegetable products and chemical products. There is no such contrast. Vegetable products in themselves contain some of the most complicated chemical formulas. Therefore, if this assumption is going to give an unlimited licence to this class of product, without regard to the substance produced, it is necessary to resist the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am not quite sure what the intention of the Government really is, but I confess I am not fully reassured by the speech which the noble and learned Viscount has just delivered. He opposes these words. If the clause as it is drawn did not contain any directions, did not mention certain methods of production, why, then, there might be a great deal in what my noble and learned friend has said. But what is so striking in the clause as drawn is that certain things are mentioned which the herbalists say are not sufficiently inclusive. Is that so or is it not? If they are not sufficiently inclusive, then we ought to add the necessary words or, if the other words are not necessary, why in the drafting of the Bill were any words inserted? It appears to be a matter of ordinary interpretation, with which we are familiar, that the very fact that certain words are introduced in the Bill as it stands excludes everything else. Therefore it would follow, as a matter of construction, that all the words which my noble and

1031
gallant friend wants to insert are, ipso, facto, excluded by the Bill as drawn. That seems to be a very strong measure, very difficult to defend.
If no process had been mentioned, my noble friend might have taken his chance, if I may use the words, but as certain processes are inserted, it seems to follow that others are excluded. I am not a lawyer, I need not tell your Lordships—very far from it. I wish I were; but I should have thought that, by the ordinary rules of construction, every other process is excluded, and therefore all these points which my noble friend has mentioned, on behalf of the herbalists, are excluded. Henceforth it would not be possible for anybody engaged in herbalism to use any of these processes which my noble friend has mentioned. They would not be allowed to "macerate, infuse, boil, decoct, distil" or use any other process in producing their remedies. I am sure the noble and learned Lord Chancellor is fifty times better than I am at constructing the meaning of a Statute, but I should like him to explain to the House how we are to get out of that difficulty. It may be that the noble and learned Viscount intends, in an Amendment in the later clauses of the Bill, to use such language that all these things are unnecessary, that the herbalists are protected without these particular precautions but, if not, I must say I feel a little dissatisfied with the answer that the Lord Chancellor has given.
LORD HORDER: I should like to say a word on this Amendment. We are, of course, well aware of the transparent honesty of the noble Marquess. I am bound to say that there is a little simplicity also which on this occasion, perhaps, is not helpful to your. Lordships. I suggested last week, speaking on this Bill, that the rock which our friends the herbalists were bound to strike was the question of disclosure and, in particular, the question of quantitative disclosure. I was sympathetic, I said, towards that body of our fellow citizens who wished to take their medicines from, or through the means of, a complicated mixture of ingredients prepared in a complicated fashion. If and when certain mystic signs are made over preparations of that kind, I suggest that belief in the efficacy of the remedy is not lessened.
1032
Your Lordships have given our friends the herbalists a certain amount of what they have asked for by passing the Amendment to insert the phrase "or of each of the ingredients of which it has been compounded." Now they are asking that certain processes shall be permissible in preparing those ingredients which are calculated, so I believe—and I imagine His Majesty's Government have been duly advised by expert chemists—inevitably to result in so changing and confusing the ingredients as not to make it possible to state what finally are the constituents. I suggest that this is an effort to sidetrack one of the two main principles that the Bill establishes, and, having satisfied myself that the Bill does establish these two principles, I heartily supported it, but I must contest this Amendment very strongly. I think our friends the herbalists are in the same dilemma that the young lady found herself in when charged with driving her car to the common danger. She had collided with another motorist, and the magistrate was evidently patient and inclined to be sympathetic. He asked her: "But why did you not make some sign to let the other motorist know what you were proposing to do?" She shook her head and said: "I am sorry sir, there is no sign for what I was proposing to do." I cannot help feeling that this is the dilemma which faces our herbalist friends. They are manoeuvring for a position which will free them from the onus of saying what is the stuff that the patient is swallowing. I hope that your Lordships will oppose this Amendment.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I add something on this Amendment? The first thing I want to say is that I agree with my noble friend the Marquess of Salisbury on what the Amendment means. There is no doubt at all, as I conceive it, that the effect of Clause 9, subsection (4) is this, that the only things which are included in the possible defence for herbalists which we are concerned with under subsection (4) are articles consisting of substances produced in the way mentioned in paragraph (a), that is, by drying, crushing, or comminuting. I will add something about the mixtures a little later. That is perfectly clear because of the words in brackets "(but not subjecting to any other process)." Those are the only ways in which the herbalist can compound, for the purposes of this sub-section,

1033
either an ingredient or a constituent. If the Lord Chancellor is right this clause should be confined to ingredients, but I apprehend it relates both to constituents and ingredients, though that I need not deal with for the moment. Those are the only ways in which the substances can be produced.
I wholly agree with the Lord Chancellor that the addition of all the words mentioned in the proposed Amendment that Viscount Plumer is making goes a great deal too far, because, instead of having a simple mixture of certain herbs, if the words the noble Viscount has put in his Amendment were added, totally different chemical substances might be produced, such as poisons of the most terrible kind, which it is not intended that the herbalists should be allowed to use at all. I would mention the one thing which some of your Lordships might. not think so very serious an objection to the Amendment from your point of view. If the word "distilling" were there the herbalists could make a substance known as whisky by distilling barley, and it cannot be intended that that should be within the power of the herbalist to do for the purpose of obtaining a defence for persons charged with selling an article in contravention of subsection (1). For my part I do not know, and I am venturing now to ask the Lord Chancellor what is the objection to the word "boiling" which is suggested in the Amendment. As I understand it, the subsection does not permit the herbalist to take a plant and, in addition to crushing it, boil it. I apprehend that boiling or steeping the herb in water for the purposes of making the herbalist's particular substance is not really a thing which the Government would wish the herbalist not to be allowed to do for the purposes of this defence.
I do not myself know what the effect of macerating the herb would be, nor why there is any particular objection to its being infused in some way. I can conceive, as I have said, that distilling or decocting might lead to a wholly different chemical. I do not know about pressing and expressing, but I imagine simple pressing would be a thing necessarily done when the herbs were being pressed for the purpose of making them into a cake of soap. Surely that is not objectionable. I rather am inclined to regard this Amendment, though it goes too far, from a very
1034
sympathetic standpoint, because I do not believe that the substances produced by boiling or by pressing of the various herbs would really result in anything but that which herbalists do every day, and which the Government do not want them to stop doing, and in giving them every liberty to do those things which are the everyday practice, as a defence for an act in contravention of Clause 9. I state these things with the greatest humility, because I am not a chemist and I accept for my part as gospel truth whatever has been said on this subject by my noble friend Lord Horder.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I would like to ask the Lord Chancellor whether, if these words which Viscount Plumer proposes to insert, were not included, it would not be almost impossible for the herbalists to carry on their trade.
LORD ADDISON: I would like to express the hope that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will not accept this Amendment. If these processes were included it might be possible to produce highly poisonous medicines and sell them without disclosure. We ought to obtain disclosure of what is being sold and these other processes would cover practically the whole of the British Pharmacopoeia so far as it is produced from herbs or plants. It would apply to some of the most potent things and people ought to know what they are buying.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I must ask leave to intervene for a minute or two in order to deal with two or three points. The noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, asked a very natural question, but I must point out, as I did on Second Reading, that this is not the only provision for the benefit of the herbalists and that in subsection (5) a much more extensive provision is made if the article is sold under a proprietary designation and the most important herbal preparations are now so sold. In that case there is a much more elaborate provision in subsection (5) which inures for their benefit. This subsection (4) was designed to cover simple herbal remedies. As has been pointed out by my noble friend opposite, if you once begin to add other words to it you will be inevitably carried into districts which nobody would be willing to occupy. For example, if you were to apply the Amendment

1035
authorising other preservatives that would authorise treatment with a mineral acid. You would need to be a very good chemist and I dare say a very good doctor before you would know what would be the effect of taking certain vegetable products and treating them with mineral acid. You might produce a wholly different substance quite outside the range, I should have supposed, of herbalist activities properly so-called. Therefore, speaking for the Ministry of Health, which has been advised on this matter by extremely competent medical authorities, I cannot possibly take the responsibility of agreeing to such an addition as this.
I doubt very much whether the full effect of what my noble friend is proposing can be realised unless one looks at the next Amendment by which he proposes to add to water other preservatives. If you take these two Amendments together, and imagine in place of water the use of alcohol and the use of many forms of chemical products, the result would be that the ordinary shopkeeper—because it is not limited to herbalists—a person who has no knowledge whatever of the operation of medicines or their composition, would be given a whole range of things which could be put into a bottle with preservatives and sold for what they might be worth. As the noble Lord, Lord Horder, said, the object of this Bill is not to inflict injury on anybody, but to make sure that in the future people who buy medicines not specially prescribed for themselves shall have the means of knowing what it is they are going; to swallow, and that their doctors should know by examining the bottle what they have swallowed. The whole of that object would be defeated if we take this subsection which is intended to apply to simple herbal remedies and transform it into something more elaborate.
THE EARL OF STAIR: I am a little worried by the idea of saying that any preservatives should not be allowed. It came to my notice quite lately that you can convert a vegetable which is poisonous in a green state to a perfectly harmless substance by ensilage. That can be done with things like potato tops. If that can be done with potatoes for animal food something of the same kind might be done for
1036
human food. One would hope that the farmer is not going to be landed in trouble when he produces animal food by the process of silage.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Bill does not apply to animals at all. It only applies to medicines for human beings.
THE EARL OF STAIR: If a process can be used for animal food presumably it can be used for human food as well.
THE Marquess of SALISBURY: I understand from the reply of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor—or rather from his silence—that the interpretation that I ventured to put on the terms of the clause was accurate, that as a matter of fact by mentioning certain processes and leaving out what my noble friend wishes to insert those other processes will be actually forbidden. I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount if he would address himself to that point.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry that I did not make myself plain. The noble Marquess will appreciate that this is not the only clause in the Bill which protects the herbalist. So far as this clause is concerned it deals, as I endeavoured to make plain, with simple herbal remedies and the interpretation which the noble Marquess put upon the clause is quite accurate. Where I venture to think he fell a little into error was in supposing that this was the sum total of the protection given to herbalists. It is not. I am quite unable to see how you can extend the provisions in this subsection without producing the sort of consequences which medical members of your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord Horder, and the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition, have already pointed out. The place where the herbalists gets additional protection, if I may repeat myself, is in subsection (5), to which we shall come shortly.
VISCOUNT PLUMER: I am not perfectly satisfied with the reply of the noble and learned Viscount and I should like to deal with one point raised by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham. He pointed to the fact that distilling would be permitted and he mentioned whisky as something which a herbalist might produce. If a herbalist produced whisky he would find the Customs and Excise authorities coming down on him, so I do

1037
not think that comes into the argument. These processes have been used by herbalists for a long period. As I say, I do not think the noble and learned Lord Chancellor's answer is entirely satisfactory, but we have been willing to meet the Government as far as possible and if the Lord Chancellor assures me that herbalists are going to be protected by subsection (5) I will withdraw this Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Subsection (5) is the one to which attention should be directed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT PLUMER VISCOUNT PLUMER moved, after "water," to insert "with or without the addition as preservatives of glycerine, alcohol, esters of parahydroxy benzoic acid, or such other preservative as the Minister of Health may sanction". The noble Viscount said: This Amendment deals with the use of preservatives. It is absolutely impossible to produce a herbal medicine without some form of preservative, and at a conference with the Ministry of Health legal advisers it was suggested that I should propose an Amendment introducing three well-known preservatives which herbalists wished to use. I have added the words "such other preservative as the Ministry of Health may sanction" in order to cover further experiments and researches which may reveal better preservatives than the ones I have included in my Amendment. It must be obvious to anybody that no herbal remedy which is pure can be kept for any length of time without the addition of some form of preservative, and I should like to be able to put it to your Lordships that a herbal preparation which has gone bad is far more dangerous, and is liable to cause far more injury than a herbal preparation which has an appropriate form of preservative in it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 28, after ("water") insert the said words.—(Viscount Plumer.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I cannot, of course, claim to have the scientific knowledge with which to judge of these particular preservatives. I do not know if my noble friend opposite has observed the Amendment. It may be that he is able to advise the Committee about it.
1038
The one matter about which I have had some information is the proposal that alcohol should be a permitted preservative—I mean alcohol in the chemical sense. My information is that, if alcohol is used as a preservative in these cases, a percentage of something like 20 per cent. of the whole mixture will probably be necessary for that purpose. Alcohol might, in fact, result in the preparation of a tincture, I think it is called, which is a manufactured article quite remote from the simple herbal remedy and one having wholly different results. It being now understood, I think, that this clause is intended to preserve the right to make simple herbal remedies, and that more elaborate proposals are to be found in subsection (5), I think your Lordships will see why I cannot, on behalf of the Government, accept this proposal. Originally it was suggested that any preservative might be permitted, then, after seeing the Ministry of Health, the noble Viscount made the list which is now before us. I certainly could not accept the proposal to use as a preservative the one which I have mentioned and on which I have received advice, nor could I agree to permit these others with more elaborate names, which I think sound distinctly alarming. I regret, therefore, that I cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD HORDER: I think that the vast experience which the noble and learned Viscount has had in being briefed has not misled him on this occasion. By that I mean that I think the experts on the chemical and medical side who have advised the Government on this matter have not misled your Lordships. I will admit, now that the noble Viscount has withdrawn the previous Amendment, that I personally could see no reason why individual ingredients by themselves should not be macerated, infused, boiled, decocted, pressed or expressed, but I see every objection to the mixture at any stage being subjected to any one of those processes. On the question of preservatives, the same objection in general applies to the addition of glycerine, alcohol and this chemical item—which perhaps not unnaturally is a mystery to your Lordships, but which is itself alcoholic—esters of parahydroxy benzoic acid, or such other preservative as the Minister of Health may sanction.

1039
Dealing with glycerine, alcohol and other alcoholic preparations for use as preservatives, no quantity is suggested and no minimum amount. That, of course, is very pertinent. The action of these preservatives upon the questionable derivatives remaining after macerating, infusing, boiling, and so on, is such as to render the principle of the Bill which calls for disclosure—the principle which has been admitted both by your Lordships' House and by another place—of no effect.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: After what my noble friend Lord Horder has said, it seems to me to be perfectly impossible to support the present Amendment. I must admit that, with greater reason for frankness, I do not think that the last Amendment was completely dealt with or answered on behalf of the Government. I also wish to say, because what I said on the last occasion might be misunderstood, that I quite agree with what my noble friend the Lord Chancellor says—that subsection (5) does in fact provide a method by which the herbalists' legitimate business can, I think, be completely protected. Therefore I think it does not matter very much if the net result of subsection (4) is that it is a subsection that will not in the least help them.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I understand that chemists are allowed to use other preservatives than water, and therefore I do not see why herbalists should not also be allowed to use them. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gender. I also understood from the noble Viscount, Lord Plumer, that when he saw the Ministry the officials there said that certain preservatives would be allowed. Now the noble and learned Lord Chancellor comes before your Lordships' House and says he cannot accept anything in the way of preservatives. Of course, as the Bill is being rushed through so rapidly, it is rather difficult to get an Amendment on Report. What I would suggest to my noble friend is. that he should modify his Amendment so that it would read as follows: after "water" insert "with such preservative as the Minister of Health may sanction."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I did not
wish to rise to speak again on this matter, but I do so out of respect to my noble friend behind me who has just referred to
1040
the matter of the goose and the gander. I do not desire to use these analogies, but after all, the chemist is an individual who has been through an elaborate scientific training and prolonged examination and has received the necessary certificate of his technical fitness. I have not the slightest desire to cast any reflection on the herbalists, but I merely say that they have been through none of these things. That is, perhaps, the reason why the goose, as my noble friend might say, cannot be treated in the same way as the gander.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: The noble and learned Lord Chancellor did not say whether he would be prepared to accept an Amendment such as I have suggested?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry, I did not know that I was being asked that question. I am afraid I could not accept such an Amendment. It would not refer to the quantity, and for all I know if there is liberty to add other preservatives there might be cases where preservatives would form the largest part of the mixture. I do not think the best medical or scientific opinion would regard that as being an appropriate arrangement. I have explained to the Committee, with some reiteration I am afraid, the reasons why I think the present provisions in the Bill are correct. I can assure noble Lords that there is no sort of conflict between myself and the Ministry of Health. I have naturally informed myself of the views of that Department. Now that we have had this discussion I would ask that this Amendment should not be persisted in.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: There is one word which I should like to add. The noble and learned Viscount said that it would not be known what quanties of preservatives are used, but the words "including the quantity" could be inserted.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR had given Notice of Amendments in subsection (5) for the purpose of omitting "an article" and, after "section," of inserting "an article consisting of or comprising a substance recommended as a medicine." The noble and learned Viscount said: I am asking the Committee to leave out the words "an article," because

1041
I am proposing to insert, a little lower down, words which I think will give some satisfaction to our herbalist friends. Anxiety was expressed as to whether the phrase in subsection (5) (a) "the substance recommended as a medicine which the article consisted of or comprised" was such as to make it plain that the "substance" is the whole substance, the thing sold—the cough mixture, for example—or whether it applied to each element in the mixture itself. The intention was that it should be the whole substance contained in the article—the bottle of cough mixture, or whatever it might be—and that it did not refer to each one of the constituents of, for example, the cough mixture.
Obviously the point is of very great importance, to herbalists among others. If you have an ingredient of the mixture which is itself recommended as a medicine and is described in the British Pharmacopoeia, would they be able to use it in compounding a more elaborate medicine? It may be that that was the effect of the clause as drawn; at any rate, the clause was drawn in a form which gave them that anxiety. We wished to remove that anxiety entirely, because that was not our intention, and therefore I propose this Amendment and those which follow in order to make the necessary change. Subsection (5) of Clause 9 will therefore read:
"It shall also be a defence for a person charged with selling in contravention of subsection (t) or subsection (2) of this section an article consisting of or comprising a substance recommended as a medicine to prove that the sale was effected at a shop. …"
and so forth. To give an illustration which is not intended to be frivolous, but which shows what I mean, take the composition of a cocktail made of tomato juice and Worcester sauce, and assume that tomato juice and Worcester sauce are both in the British Pharmacopoeia. In that case it would still be permissible, under a proprietary designation, giving the thing some fancy name, to sell the mixture of those two things without their being sold by a chemist at all, because the test is not whether each of the elements which are combined, or any of them, is or are in the British Pharmacopoeia, but whether the sum total is in the British Pharmacopoeia, and whether it is sold under that designation. I hope that I have made the point clear. I believe it is a matter of some importance
1042
to those whom my noble friend is representing, and I shall be very glad indeed if he finds it possible to say that this really does meet a portion of his difficulties.
Amendment moved—
Page to, line 31, leave out ("an article").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT PLUMER: I think that the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment meets our difficulties to a certain extent, and if it is taken in conjunction with the Amendment which I shall move later, to insert after the word "comprised" the words "as distinguished from individual constituents of that substance," I believe that that would make the clause absolutely plain and would meet all our objections. That is the view of our legal adviser.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should like to say—I hope to give pleasure by saying it—that I am quite willing to accept that proposal.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 32, after ("section") insert ("an article consisting of or comprising a substance recommended as a medicine").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 34, leave out from ("medicine") to ("was") in line 35.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT PLUMER VISCOUNT PLUMER had given Notice of an Amendment, in paragraph (a) of subsection (5), after "comprised," to insert "as distinguished from individual constituents of that substance." The noble Viscount said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I speak with deference here, because for the moment I do not quite understand the view of the noble and learned Lord Chancellor on how far "constituents" mean something different from "ingredients"; but should not the words here be "constitutents or ingredients"? Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will consider whether

1043
that is right or not, having regard to his view on the preceding clause.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that my noble and learned friend's suggestion is a useful one. Perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Plumer, will move his Amendment in the form of inserting "as distinguished from individual constituents or ingredients of that substance."
VISCOUNT PLUMER: I will move the Amendment in the form suggested by the noble and learned Viscount.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 35, after ("comprised") insert ("as distinguished from individual constituents or ingredients of that substance").—(Viscount Plumer.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Defences to and evidence on charges under two preceding sections]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to the clause:
"(3) No prosecution for a contravention of any of the provisions of the last two preceding sections shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney-General or Solicitor-General:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply to a prosecution for a contravention of any of the provisions of Section eight instituted by the Society or by a food and drugs authority within the meaning of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938."
The noble and learned Viscount said: On the Second Reading, one of the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Plumer, was that although the requirement of the previous approval for a prosecution by a Law Officer appeared in subsection (4) of Clause 7, at the top of page 8—
"No prosecution for a contravention of any of the provisions of the last two preceding sections shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney-General or Solicitor-General"—
in relation to Clauses 5 and 6, there was no similar provision in relation to Clauses 8 and 9. I think that there is some force in that observation. I should like to reassure my noble friend and others as far as I can, and therefore I move this Amendment. Clause 8 is that which compels disclosure of the composition of the medicines, and Clause 9 restricts the sales of medicines by unauthorised persons. I feel obliged to ask, however,
1044
that the qualification which I suggest should be given by way of proviso—
"Provided that this subsection shall not apply to a prosecution for a contravention of any of the provisions of Section 8 instituted by the Society or by a food and drugs authority within the meaning of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938."
That exception is limited to Clause 8, which deals with the disclosure of the composition of medicines. The Pharmaceutical Society is a statutory body. It is charged by Parliament with the duty, through its inspectors, of examining medicines which are believed to contravene the law. It is by no means a body which exists for the purpose of pursuing herbalists, and I do not think anyone will suggest that it has ever shown an unfair spirit in that respect. It is largely engaged in the business of examining as to compliance with the law relating to poisons and, being the statutory body for the purpose, it is necessary that it should have authority to do this.
I can speak as an old Attorney-General and say that the instances in which you should put upon the Attorney-General the responsibility of authorising a prosecution are limited. He takes it, and he ought to take it, very seriously; he will not sign his name just because you tell him to do so. He has to go into the details and understand them. There are very good reasons why we should require the Attorney-General's previous consent, for instance, in a prosecution for corruption, to prevent blackmailing actions. I am perfectly prepared to put that burden on the Law Officer in the case of the sale of medicines by unauthorised persons, but I am advised that it would be quite wrong to deprive this statutory body of its formal duties under Clause 8. I would wish to point out to my noble friend that I think by doing it in this way those he is particularly interested in are absolutely protected where I believe they felt real concern. I gather from the Ministry of Health that they were concerned lest a rival chemist transacting business in the same neighbourhood should seek to institute proceedings against some shop further down the street. That is absolutely protected because there cannot be such a prosecution except with the authority of the Attorney-General. I do not think I can go further than this. I have no doubt my noble friend will realise it does go a large part of the way.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 35, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
VISCOUNT PLUMER VISCOUNT PLUMER had given Notice of an Amendment to insert the following new clause:
Consent of Attorney-General or Solicitor-General to prosecutions.
".No prosecution for a contravention of the provisions of Sections five, six, eight or nine of this Act shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney-General or Solicitor-General."
The noble Viscount said: After the noble and learned Lord Chancellor's explanation I shall not move this Amendment, which will save your Lordships' time, as the learned Lord Chancellor's Amendment has covered the subject.
Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.
Clause 14:
Interpretation.
(I) In this Act the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them—
"substance" means a preparation.
VISCOUNT PLUMER VISCOUNT PLUMER moved, in subsection (1), after "'substance' includes a preparation," to insert "and when used in relation to recommendation as a medicine means the sum total of all the active constituents of the medicine recommended." The noble Viscount said: This is a definition of the word "substance" used frequently in Clauses 8 and 9 and it is necessary in order to make the meaning clear. Many doubts about the meaning of those clauses will be cleared up if this definition is adopted. Discussions we have had with the Minister's advisers show that this is the meaning they intend to attach to the word. Therefore, I cannot see any reason why it should not be used. I have an opinion here from learned Counsel, Mr. Montgomery. He says:
"'Substance,' when used in relation to recommendation as a medicine means the sum total of all the active constituents of the medicine recommended. Without a definition it is impossible to tell what 'substance' means, and I feel sure it would be held in the Divisional Court—the final Court for Criminal offences—that substance means or, at the least, includes each active constituent or ingredient."
1046
The Amendment is intended to be additional and to make any question or doubt impossible.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 12, after ("preparation") insert the said words.—(Viscount Plumer.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry the last matter should be one in which I cannot accept the Amendment. I would be very glad to do it if I could. I think this Amendment should be resisted. It is a most technical matter and it comes in the definition clause. The Bill, as drafted, is drafted on the basis that where a medicine is a mixture the substance which is recommended is the mixture. It may of course contain both active constituents and inert constituents. It is the whole medicine that is recommended and not any part thereof. The effect of the Amendment combined with the Bill may not be very clear, but apparently one effect would be, in the wording of the requirements of Clause 8, in relation to the disclosure of proportionate quantities of active constituents. At present under the Bill what has to be stated is the approximate percentage of each active constituent in the mixture. Under the Amendment, what would happen would be the proportion expressed as a percentage of each active constituent to the total of active constituents. Those two things are by no means the same.
To give an extreme example: if one had a mixture containing two active constituents which was as to 99.9 per cent. water and as only to 1 per cent. active constituents divided equally between the two of them, then under the Amendment it would be legitimate to say 50 per cent. for constituent A and 50 per cent. for constituent B, whereas under the Bill it would be necessary to say 05 per cent. in each case. That makes a very material difference, and supposing there was reason to investigate what it is a patient has been swallowing it would obviously make an enormous difference whether the active constituents are stated according to their correct quantitive measure or whether you simply keep your proportions. The disclosure required by the Bill gives useful information both to the individual who buys and to anyone subsequently treating that individual and requiring to know what he has been taking. The disclosure which would be legitimate under the Amendment,

1047
would, with great respect, be useless for those purposes altogether. Indeed the smaller the proportion of active to inert constituents the more misleading would this sort of disclosure be. It is not in any real sense a disclosure at all. I apologise for having to inflict upon the Committee this short lecture, partly on chemistry and partly on arithmetic, but I hope I have made it plain that the draftsman knew what he was about. I could not accept the Amendment.
VISCOUNT PLUMER: I am not at all satisfied with what the Lord Chancellor has said because I have been advised that these words are the actual words the Ministry intended to use. I fail to see that the rather complicated explanation which the noble and learned Viscount has given has any bearing at all. This is merely an amplifying clause to prevent prosecution, and I repeat that I fail to see that the explanation given has any bearing on it.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Application to Scotland]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendment to this clause is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 24, after ("seven") insert ("subsection (3) of Section ten").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Amendments reported.
Clause 9 [Restriction of sale of medicines by unauthorised persons]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie of Thame, has an Amendment he wishes to move on Clause 9, page 10, line 28. The noble Viscount wishes to leave out the word "water" in paragraph (a) of subsection (4) and insert "with or without the addition of such preservatives and the quantity thereof as the Minister of Health may sanction."
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount, in Committee, resisted an Amendment by my noble friend Lord Plumer which was desgined to include certain preservatives which could be used by herbalists, and in order to try and get over that difficulty I have handed in this manuscript Amendment which the noble and learned Viscount has read out. It seems to me that unless such an Amendment is accepted it will be very difficult indeed for herbalists to carry on their trade. It certainly does enable the Minister of Health to give that help to herbalists of which they stand so badly in need. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 28, leave out ("water") and insert ("with or without the addition of such preservatives and the quantity thereof as the Minister of Health may sanction").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I thoroughly appreciate the spirit in which the proposal is made. The House will have noticed that my noble friend, in framing his Amendment, has endeavoured to meet a. comment which I made on the Committee stage—namely, that the Ministry of Health could not give leave for preservatives in complete ignorance of what quantity of preservatives was going to be used. My noble friend has therefore drawn his Amendment with the words "and the quantity thereof as the Minister of Health may sanction," but I very much fear that in drawing his Amendment to meet one difficulty he has created a far greater one. The Amendment in the form in which he now moves it would involve the Ministry of Health in examining the proposed formula of every herbalist for every substance he proposes to make and judging what was the proper quantity of preservative to be admitted in each particular case. A whole Department would be needed for such a purpose. It is not to be supposed that a certain percentage of, say, glycerine or alcohol is right for every substance. There must be different degrees or maxima for different substances, and my noble friend will see that it is really a quite impracticable duty to place on the Ministry of Health. I hope, therefore, that he will withdraw his Amendment.

1049
He ended by saying—and here he strikes a sympathetic chord in everybody's mind—that he was afraid that if this was not done the herbalist would not have the opportunities he ought to have for carrying on his business. I must repeat—for the last time—that in order to ascertain what this Bill does to the herbalists one must not concentrate on subsection (4) (a), and that a far more important provision is the provision contained in subsection (5), which gives him extremely wide latitude as long as he sells his production under proprietary designation. For these reasons, which I hope I have made entirely plain, I am unable to accept the Amendment.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I do not desire to press the Amendment, but it does show what a bad precedent this is in rushing this Bill through. There has been no time, in consequence, to draft a proper Amendment which might be acceptable to His Majesty's Government. I am sure your Lordships will agree with me that it amounts almost to a scandal that this Bill should be rushed through, as it has been, in this House. It is a Bill of such a nature that it might have been introduced here some weeks ago and properly considered.
VISCOUNT PLUMER: My Lords, surely the Lord Chancellor's objection might be met by limiting the amount of preservative that should be added? There is no reason why a limitation clause should not be put in. That is very usual, and surely the chemists of the Ministry of Health would be able, without any great additional amount of work, as the Lord Chancellor fears, to arrive at a solution. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to this fact, that the use of preservatives was discussed with the Ministry, and we were practically assured by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health that if we submitted three names they would be sympathetically received. I fail to see that this is very sympathetic treatment which the Lord Chancellor has given.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I should like for one moment to give my support to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. Really I should be horrified to think what this Amendment would mean to the Department—if I had the misfortune to be at the head of it. I want to know, first of all, what is a preservative. The Ministry would have to satisfy
1050
themselves what is a preservative. Suppose you say alcohol is a preservative, which it is.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Surely chemists know what preservatives are?
LORD ADDISON: I am speaking now with some knowledge of chemistry. Directly you add a preservative like alcohol, you immediately change a very considerable number of ingredients. In the things to which you are adding alcohol, you immediately produce a tincture of something or other. For instance, if alcohol were added to aconite, it would not merely preserve the aconite leaves, but it would cause a change, and the result would be an exceedingly dangerous and potent poison. I sincerely hope that, in endeavouring to make the Bill workable, the Minister of Health will not be asked in every case, not only to define and decide the preservative, and try and invent a preservative if he can which would not change any of the constituents of the things being preserved, which would be extraordinarily difficult, but, apart from that, define the quantities in each individual case. It would not damage the herbalists to leave this out, and it would not help them in the least to add the Amendment, whereas it would make the work of the Department almost impossible.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, may I ask one question which I hope will enable us to understand what we are talking about? Is it not the fact that the herbalists will be able to put preservative in their concoctions and be protected under subsection 5 (a)?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I believe the answer is "Yes."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should like to say first of all how very grateful we all ought to be for the courteous way in which the noble and learned Viscount has conducted this Bill through your Lordships' House, but I am afraid that is rather the limit of my satisfaction at the way in which this Bill has been brought before us. I am quite sure there is no member sitting on the Front Bench who cannot but feel something amounting almost to shame at the way this Bill is being put through your Lordships' House. The truth

1051
is that last week, when it became dear that it was a controversial Bill in certain particulars though not in its main outline, the Leader of the House was good enough to feel constrained to give time for my noble friend Lord Plumer and others acting with him to put down Amendments, but the consequence was that all the stages of the Bill—not only the Committee stage but the Report stage and Third Reading—had to be dealt with at once without notice, and therefore the Amendment which my noble friend Lord Bertie has proposed cannot be adequately considered. I am afraid I could not have supported him in the Lobby, but the matter he has raised is evidently one that requires very careful consideration.
There are now no means of considering it properly in this House of the Legislature. This House is not allowed to consider a point of that kind. The proper thing is that this Amendment should have been considered on the Report stage at a later time. You cannot consider a matter of this kind without adequate notice because it all depends upon very accurate drafting. But no: the House of Lords, sitting here to do business and to see that the legislation of the country is properly carried out, is absolutely deprived of its immemorial right to discuss these things in stages. For instance there is the Third Reading. Your Lordships' House has one great advantage over the other House of Parliament that it is able to amend Bills after Third Reading. This Bill which, as my noble and learned friend Lord Maugham has pointed out, raises many intricate legal difficulties, ought to have been properly discussed. One would have thought it was the business of the Liberal Party or the Labour Party to try and vindicate the liberties of the country and its opportunities of legislation. But no; they are all for putting the Bill through as quickly as possible. I regret very much that that should have been the case. Perhaps I may respectfully say to the Lord Chancellor that he would add to the great courtesy of his demeanour in carrying through this Bill if he would use his influence in another sphere when he is consulted to see that these intricate Bills are presented to your Lordships in proper time.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I have taken no active part in this Bill, and indeed I have no disposition towards
1052
either side, but I cannot help saying a word in support of what has just fallen from the noble Marquess opposite. I have for more years than I like to say been asserting over and over again that it is impossible for your Lordships' House to give full consideration to important measures because they have only reached us at the very end of the Session, sometimes in the last days, and that they have had to be hurried through all their stages in far too short a time. That is what is occurring now, and, it seems to me, occurring without any really adequate reason. I can quite understand that the questions with which this Bill is concerned have been too long postponed, and that His Majesty's Government naturally desire to see the Bill on the Statute Book as soon as possible. But why would it not have been feasible, and indeed easy, when it was found there was a mass of opposition to some of the provisions of this Bill, to have gone to-day only as far as the Committee stage, and to postpone further consideration of the Bill until we meet again in the autumn? It might indeed have been possible to postpone even the Committee stage until then. I do not know. It is a question of the ordinary business; but it seems to me that it would have been quite possible, and that no risk whatever would have been run to the passing of the Bill to have postponed it until we meet again after the Recess.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, with reference to the observations of the noble Marquess opposite, may I say that we are with him entirely in endeavouring to support the proper procedures being adopted with regard to the consideration of Parliamentary business? We are all aware of the many occasions on which Bills have been introduced at the last moment and the House has been expected to pass them without fair opportunities for consideration. In his protest against that I am entirely at one with the noble Marquess; but it would hardly apply as a matter of fact historically to the controversies connected with this Bill, which have been extremely prolonged, because they have been the subject of discussion and dispute for at least twenty years. Nevertheless, I think it would have been seemly, and would have been showing proper consideration for the dignity and work of this House, if the Bill had been introduced at an earlier stage so that it would have been

1053
possible to give more time to its consideration.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD MOYNE): My Lords, I think in view of what has fallen from various noble Lords I should just explain the circumstances, which really were quite beyond the Government's control, that caused this Bill to be taken at such short notice. As the noble Lord opposite has just mentioned, historically this is a very old controversy, and it was the purpose of the Government to find a settlement which should impose no injustice upon any of the varied and legitimate interests concerned. Negotiations went on for many months past, and they took a much longer time than had been expected. I will not go into the reason for that, or as to whether anyone was to blame, but when the Budget was passed it was assumed that the Bill would be put through Parliament in time for the new system to be in force by the beginning of September. If the Bill were not put on the Statute Book before that date very serious grievances would have sprung up. What would have been recognised to be interferences with the legitimate future interests of the chemists will not according to the agreed terms of the Bill now arise.
It was a choice of evils, either to put the Bill through without the ordinary opportunity of Parliamentary discussion, or have a hiatus, and I think on the whole the House will recognise that the Government, much as they regret the necessity of passing this Bill somewhat in haste, in view of the long discussions which had taken place previously outside the walls of Parliament and the pains at which they had been to avoid any feeling of injustice, were right to ask both Houses of Parliament to allow this Bill to pass so as not to create any injustice by having a hiatus between the lapse of the patent medicine duty and the institution of the new system. I hope your Lordships will not feel that it was from any discourtesy or any desire to restrict the right to put down Amendments that this unfortunate necessity arose.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.— (The Lord Chancellor).
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

INDIA AND BURMA (POSTPONEMENT OF ELECTIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, the law as it stands provides that the Provincial Legislative Assemblies in India and the House of Representatives in Burma shall expire in a few months. In the case of the Burma House of Representatives that would be in February, in the case of five Indian Provinces—Assam, Bengal, the North-West Frontier Provinces, the Punjab and Sind—it would be in April next, and in the case of the other Provinces next July. The actual Elections would probably be held before then, because they have to be held in the cold weather. After very careful consideration it has been decided in consultation with the Governor General and with the Provincial Governors that the present time is not suitable for holding Elections in India. There is unfortunately a certain amount of communal tension and it is thought that the holding of Elections at the present time would almost certainly lead to aggravation of that tension. Moreover, India like ourselves is engaged in a gigantic war effort which would be distracted to some extent by the holding of the Elections at the present time. For that reason this Bill extends the maximum life of the various legislative bodies from five years to an indefinite period—namely, one year after the termination of hostilities.
The reason for that is that as I have already said Elections must be held in the cold weather, and it is not possible to foretell exactly when the war will end. This latitude is therefore allowed. In the case of Burma, there is no communal tension, and the present intention is that Elections shall be held in Burma, but events are developing in the Far East which are bringing Burma very much nearer to the war than it is now. It cannot be certain that conditions will remain

1055
such as to make Elections in Burma desirable. The present intention is, however, that in Burma, unlike India, the Elections shall be held This is a permissive Bill. It does not say that Elections shall not be held. It merely permits the prolongation of the life of Parliament. It is a very small measure and I hope your Lordships will be prepared to pass it. I understand that some noble Lords would like to take this opportunity of referring to recent developments in India which have been dealt with in a White Paper—the expansion of the Executive Council and the formation of a Defence Council. I hope it will meet your Lordships' convenience if I reserve any remarks I may have to make on that subject until those who are interested in the matter have spoken, and I now move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I can say at once that in my opinion His Majesty's Government had no choice whatever except to introduce this measure. It is clear they could not have proceeded with the attempt to carry on the Provincial Governments as authorised by law, except by making complete surrender to the more extreme opinions either of Hindu or Moslem Leaders in India. Therefore His Majesty's Government had no choice; but it certainly is a matter of real regret that it is necessary to make a halt in the progress of India towards self-government, and to me personally it is a matter of particular regret because I have always been one of those who believe that that march towards a self-governing India would be best carried out through an extension of the powers of Provincial Governments rather than by attempting at once to create a powerful responsible Central Government, such as exists in some parts of His Majesty's Dominions.
That is by no means a new view because so long ago as 1858, after the suppression of the Mutiny the view was expressed by many, of whom the most prominent and distinguished representative was John Bright, that it would be wise to weaken the central authority and to give more power to the different Presidencies. Some went so far as to suggest
1056
that the Governor-Generalship ought to be abolished altogether and that the different Presidencies should be in fact independent States as separate as the different nations in Europe. Without going so far as that, the opinion was held by many responsible people for many years that the Provincial Governments ought to be strengthened. In 1911 a Dispatch was written in which it was pointed out that to strengthen Provincial Administration there should be autonomy in all local affairs, leaving to the Central Government only those matters which are of distinct Imperial concern, such for instance as Defence, Customs, coinage and so on. With regard to Defence, I, personally, would like to go further and see the different Presidencies or Provinces furnished with troops—with a force sufficient to support and, if necessary, replace the local police in case of serious civil disturbances without calling upon the Central or Federal authority to send troops. Therefore, I think we may all venture to hope that when these present clouds have blown away it will be the object of His Majesty's Government and of the Government of India to strengthen the Provincial Administrations and make them within the proper limits independent so far as possible.
The noble Duke mentioned that it would be not unfitting to say a word on the proposals made by the Government of India and expressed in the White Paper which we have had distributed. I think this is reasonable because it is desirable to show that the policy of His Majesty's Government for India is by no means purely negative, as it is expressed in this Bill. It desires to make a positive advance in associating Indians more closely with the Government. There is no need to enter into the details of the White Paper, but I am sure it is a real satisfaction to us all that two distinguished gentlemen of whose personal merits we have experience in this country are being added to the Viceroy's Executive Council. The only criticism which I have seen levelled against that proposal is one regarding the allocation of particular offices. It has been suggested, I think, in India that one or two still more responsible offices might have been filled by Indian representatives. On that point I do not attempt to express an opinion. The two offices which the two gentlemen to whom I have referred are

1057
going to fill are highly responsible and of the first importance, and I do not desire to say anything more on that subject.
There is, I think, nothing to be said except with approval of the appointment of the Advisory Defence Council. I do not profess to know much of the personnel of that body for it is so many years since I had any responsibility in Indian affairs, but I understand that it can be regarded as a really representative gathering of experienced men and is by no means composed of those who are likely always to be in agreement with the opinions of the Government of India. We are likely, therefore, to be able to get a foretaste of what may happen when the independent views of Indian representatives—very often, extremely divergent views, no doubt—will be expressed without fear or favour. In these circumstances, I can only say that I am glad to give my support to the measure which the noble Duke has introduced.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition has asked me to say a few words, on behalf of the Party we represent in your Lordships' House, concerning this measure. Having had the opportunity of consulting with my friends in another place and having studied the Bill, I was advised to ask for a full explanation from the noble Duke as to its necessity and meaning. But we do not, otherwise, propose to offer any opposition to the Bill. The noble Duke has been good enough to give your Lordships an explanation, and has also invited us to make any comments which appear to us appropriate on the recent attempts to reach some further agreement concerning the Constitution and Government of India. The noble Marquess who preceded me made it perfectly clear that this was the appropriate occasion. If we allowed this measure to go through just as a small measure, as the noble Duke called it, it might lead to some misunderstanding. It is, from our point of view, a very important measure. A very important discussion took place on Friday in another place on the White Paper. This appears to be the only opportunity for your Lordships to make any observations on the same subject as well as on this Bill. Such observations as I propose to make will be very few, but, as I say, the subject is regarded by us of great importance.
1058
It is all very well postponing Elections here in this country, where the Constitution is generally accepted. Here we can plead the exigencies of the situation. There is very little argument about it. In India the Elections are to be postponed partly because of the war, as the noble Duke has reminded us, but also because the Constitution is not accepted in certain important quarters, and there is a deadlock which persists in spite of the, no doubt, perfectly sincere efforts of His Majesty's Government to remove it. If I may say so very respectfully I agree with the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, about the composition of the enlarged Council. It does contain very distinguished names indeed, names of sons of India of whom the whole of India can be very proud. The fact remains that very large and important sections of Indians are not represented, for reasons which we all understand, in the enlarged Council. This is unfortunate. I read very carefully the speech made by the Secretary of State in another place last Friday, and I did not detect any air of finality about these proposals; at the same time, I did not myself read into what was said any intention of making a further effort to resolve the present deadlock. No doubt the Government intend to see how the present enlarged Council functions, and what considered opinion is formed of it in India itself; but I would suggest that already the reception given to the proposals has been such as to make it necessary that another effort should be made as soon as possible to resolve this deadlock.
The Party for whom I have the honour to speak agree with the noble Marquess in considering that the enlarged Council and the War Committee constitute an important step forward. We thought that they marked a substantial advance, but that does not appear to be the view taken in important quarters in India. I hope—and this is also the hope of my Party—that the matter will therefore receive further study. While this important step was being taken, we cannot avoid expressing our regret that it was not found possible to release the great majority of the Indians who are at present held as political prisoners. No doubt the Government consider that impossible, but we must express our regret that it was not done. I must once more on my own behalf, and also on behalf of many of my friends,

1059
repeat the proposal made in your Lordships' House and elsewhere over a year ago that the Secretary of State should visit India, that he should go out there with wide powers and accompanied, if necessary, by representatives of other sections of political thought in this country who will inspire confidence in India and here.
I am hoping that the events which we have recently observed in the world will mean that the appeal which has been made by the Government to the Leaders of Congress and to the Leaders of the Moslem League, to make one more effort to reach a measure of agreement, will not be made in vain. The great change in the situation, speaking from the point of view of the Indian Nationalists, and particularly of the Leaders of the left wing of Congress and of the Moslem League, is the forcing in of Russia as an Ally on our side in the present war. In the eyes of those of whom I am speaking, this should change the complexion of the war and should remove the foundation for the accusation that it is an imperialist war which the whole of India cannot support. I believe that in this country those who declared this war to be an imperialist war were and are a very small and almost negligible minority; but in India a great many influential people have been preaching to the masses that this is an imperialist war, and their utterances are on record. Surely the foundation for that accusation has now been removed by the alteration of which I speak in the whole character of the war brought about by the entry of Russia? I hope that a political change will take place in India which will lead to a further step, in the direction to which the noble Marquess has referred, in satisfying the legitimate aspirations of the masses of the Indian people.
LORD HAILEY: My Lords, I think that no one will have any difficulty in agreeing with the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, that the step which the Government have now taken was inevitable, that there was no way of avoiding it. Indeed, I think one would like to go further and express a great deal of satisfaction that the Provincial Governments have been able to carry on in these very difficult circumstances, in spite of a great deal of opposition from certain quarters, and have carried on under their old system,
1060
and that all the essentials of law and order have been maintained. The noble Duke suggested that some of us might care to take this occasion—as has already been done by the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, and by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi—to speak of the recent changes embodied in the White Paper. I suppose that it is an unusual experience to find that one who has been connected for many years with administration in India in the past confesses to great hesitation in speaking on Indian questions; nevertheless, there are some of us who now must make that confession. We took a part—so far as officials may, a somewhat prominent part—in supporting the legislation of 1935. I am not going to trouble your Lordships now with the reasons which prompted us to take that attitude, an attitude which brought us into conflict and almost to a parting of the ways with many old friends and associates for whose career we had the greatest admiration and for whom personally we had the greatest respect.
I will not enter into those reasons, but I must take the opportunity of saying that we had at that moment also formed certain anticipations of the course which might be taken by politics in India in the immediate future. We believed that there was in India a great body of moderate opinion sufficiently strong to form what I may call a central party, a party which would place the needs of stable government above other considerations, and that that body of moderate opinion would have the courage and the good sense to support its own position. We thought that India would have a certain breathing space, a time of trial and experiment in the new Constitution, sufficient to enable it to make up its own mind what modifications were required in the Constitution which was conceded to it by the Act of 1935; for we realised that no Constitution will work, no form of government will succeed, unless it has behind it not the acquiescence but the belief and the faith of the people themselves. After all, our own Parliamentary institution is not such a logical and perfect form of machinery that we could trust to its working unless we had in Great Britain at large the faith that it is the one possible agency for securing our well-being and for solving out internal differences, and that it must stand supreme. We thought this moderate

1061
party would secure for us that breathing space, that opportunity, for considering the most appropriate lines, lines considered most appropriate by India itself for its own future Constitution. We were disappointed. Our forecast was wrong.
That moderate party existed. There were solid elements among landowners and among commercial men, and solid elements among the Party which we call the Liberal Party in India. Those elements existed. They had not the cohesion; I say it with regret, they had not the courage to withstand an attack that was made partly in the interests of the domination of one religious Party, and partly, I think it is true to say, also prompted by a spirit of racial and anti-British attacks. They had not the strength to combine and withstand that attack and they were swept aside. Therefore, you have seen a series of events which cannot have proved but a great disappointment to all those who stood for the legislation of 1935. It has not made us despair of India, but it has made us speak with less confidence when we approach any discussion of Indian questions. We do not despair of India, because we see many reasons in what has happened since for something like renewed hope. I think there are solid reasons for believing India itself is becoming more realistic in its views of politics. Events themselves are teaching India a lesson that it would never learn from us. It is beginning to realise that no Constitution with liberal tendencies, no Constitution that points towards responsible government can operate successfully in the face of an overweening Party spirit; it cannot operate successfully unless there are those who will support it with courage and a strong civic sense, and it will not operate successfully unless the majority can learn the lessons of tolerance towards minorities.
We have felt that all subsequent events were gradually bringing that lesson home to India. The growth of something like political anarchy in the country, the threat to law and order, indeed, the rioting that has taken place of late in Bombay and elsewhere, has prompted one of the most independent of India's papers to demand something like a return to a strong Executive Government. We felt further that there were in the events of the war itself
1062
lessons that would bring home to India a sense of greater realism. After all, this is the first time that India has felt danger at her doors. This is the first time that it has felt the real need of a strong Executive Government and full co-operation by the people themselves if they are to be successfully defended against attacks from an enemy which they have always had a particular reason to dread and dislike. In these circumstances there are many of us, certainly I among them, who would have preferred that His Majesty's Government should have made no move at all which had even the appearance of modifying existing institutions. That feeling was not merely due to the sentiment that no such change should be made during the war; it was due to a belief that there was taking place in India itself a change, a change in the political sense, which would lead people to a greater sense of unity, to a greater appreciation of the need for combining to find a solution of their own difficulties. It was in that sense that we felt it was inopportune for His Majesty's Government to make any change in the existing form of institutions.
There are many of us who have spent their whole lives in discussions about deadlocks, and in proposals for their solution by gestures of various kinds, and long and somewhat bitter experience has taught us not to attempt to rely on palliatives of that nature. I am not going to suggest that the step which has been taken by His Majesty's Government is a result of impatience or merely a gesture intended to meet the present situation. It is a measure of great importance. It does not pretend to make any radical change in the Constitution. That must be admitted. It is for that reason that none of us would wish to oppose it. It is for that reason that we shall watch the results with interest and with good will. We are particularly glad to find there are Indians who are prepared to serve on the larger Executive Council, and on the Council for Defence. We know many of them. They are men of proved experience and they are men, as the noble Marquess has said, of independent points of view. I am not sure that the measure really would have been assisted if the Leaders of the great political Parties had themselves agreed to join in the enlarged Council. I feel, and I think many others feel, that it was far

1063
better we should secure the assistance of men of tried experience and very considerable reputation in India itself, who came in on a basis of co-operation, and not merely on a basis of political representation of Parties that were unwilling to co-operate in the war effort.
It is to be hoped that the step which has been taken by His Majesty's Government will lead to better co-operation in the war effort, which, after all, is the. one and only thing that matters at the moment. I may venture to express a hope—and I think there are others who will join me—that this measure will not lead His Majesty's Government to attempt on its own motion to go further and make mort radical changes in the Constitution in an attempt to find a solution for difficulties which must be resolved in India itself. Their solution does not lie in our hands, it lies in the hands of Indians, and in their own sense of unity. I hope that the time will come, a more opportune moment will arrive, when it will be possible to make such changes, when there has been a change in the attitude of Indian political Parties themselves. We do not simply ask that that change in attitude should take the form of an expression of a greater sense of loyalty to Great Britain or the Empire. We make an appeal to another, I think more fruitful, sentiment—a sense of loyalty to the needs of India itself.
LORD CATTO: My Lords, I need hardly say that I agree with the words which have fallen from the noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, and even with the restrained words which fell from the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and especially with those which have fallen from my very old friend Lord Hailey. Changes of an important character have been announced. I confess they came to me as a surprise because for many months we had been told that nothing could be done, that the Indian political Parties must first compose their differences. Yet here we have what, in my opinion, are fundamental changes. I am glad indeed that the policy of negation is over. It seemed to me to be an attitude of mind that got us nowhere. Plainly we had either to leave things altogether alone or get on with the job. Some of your Lordships may have felt it was better to leave things alone in the hope that time might bring
1064
its own solution; but we are living in anxious and quickly-changing times. The Viceroy and the Secretary of State have decided—and I must say I think they have wisely decided—that the exigencies of these conditions make it advisable to expand the Executive Council in India and also to form a National Defnece Council.
The mere expansion of the Executive Council would not, by itself, be a fundamental change. What is fundamental is the form of the change. For the first time in the long history of our relations with India, the principle is established of a large non-official majority, and the Executive Council is now to consist of eight Indians and four Europeans. In their full significance such changes must have far-reaching consequences, and in my opinion must greatly accelerate the pace of India's constitutional development. They open wide the door to what must come. Indeed, it may well be that the proportions of the different communities in the expanded Executive Council may adumbrate a solution of one of the most difficult problems in the whole range of India's constitutional advance—that is, the adequate representation of minorities in the Central Government of the country. It is, of course, a tragedy of the first magnitude that the Leaders of Congress and of the Moslem League have not seen fit to grasp the opportunity of participating in these important changes and thereby taking a full part in the councils of their country at this time of anxiety and danger—I go further and say perhaps even helping to mould there its constitutional future. There are many amongst them who are my friends. They know full well my sympathy with India's political aspirations. To them I would say they are missing a great opportunity. With a world on fire, and with history in the making—in which by their own actions they will have no place—they publish to the world that India is still, as of old, divided against itself.
I see from extracts from the Indian newspapers that Leaders of Congress and the Moslem League are trying to belittle the importance of these changes. They claim that the chief portfolios are still mainly in the hands of the British members of Council. I use no hard words, but this is unfair criticism. It is unfair to their Indian fellow countrymen who have accepted positions in the expanded

1065
Executive Council. It is unfair to the British members, for it is well known that all members of Council have equal status. There is no such thing in India as senior and junior Ministers. All are alike, and what will count will not be the particular post each may hold, but the personality of the man and the wisdom he displays in Council. This brings me to a reference to those distinguished Indians, some of them my old friends, who have accepted positions in the expanded Executive Council. They have, Hindu and Moslem alike, displayed courage and patriotism of the highest order. Few men understand better than I do, how difficult it is for an Indian to act contrary to his friends and coreligionists of his own community. I salute these men, and I know your Lordships will salute them for their ready response to the call of their Motherland.
The Government of India Act of 1935 was a magnificent conception. In the Provinces it has on the whole worked well, largely, I think, because the provisions of the Act for the Provinces followed closely the recommendations of that remarkable work, the Indian Report, of the noble Viscount who sits on the Woolsack—and, may I say in passing, a work for which in the welter of argument over Indian affairs, he has never received sufficient thanks and appreciation. I can assure him that the first volume taught me more about India than I ever learned by much residence there. But the Act of 1935 completely broke down in its provisions for the Central Government. Let us be quite clear—the Act is dead so far as that part of it is concerned. It would be idle to analyse all the causes of failure. There were many; but time does not permit me to enter in any detail into these matters. Obviously, however, the next attempt must begin with British India alone. Once a constitutional system is working there on some really practical basis, there will be less difficulty in persuading the Indian States to join in a greater federal system.
In the fashioning of India's constitutional future, the Central Government provisions will have to be on a far simpler and more practical basis than in the Government of India Act of 1935. They will have to fit better into the complicated and patchwork structure of Indian conditions. There will have to be adequate participation of minorities in the Central Government. And by minorities I mean,
1066
not only the great Mahomedan minority, but also others, and especially the British minority in India. We have been too little in the picture. Perhaps there would have been greater speed in constitutional advance had we been more in the picture; for whatever our shortcomings, it is the British who have given to India that national consciousness out of which has grown the spirit of India as a nation as we know it to-day. In the varied conditions that exist there, British co-operation—and by that I mean non-official and official—is essential, for in very truth are we not still the only cement that will hold together a united India? And by a united India I mean, as Indians do, an India in which all important minorities—of which the British are one—will take their proper part.
Only last week I read a letter in a Calcutta newspaper the Statesman from an old-time political extremist in which he pointed out—and he used the identical word—that the British must be the "cement" of any really practical constitutional structure. He realised, as all thinking men must realise, that without that cement there will be Pakhistan and other disintegrations in the structure. Yet in the expanded Executive Council there is not even one non-official British representative and in the National Defence Council only one out of, I think, forty members. It is true that in the Executive Council there are four British members; but they are all officials. There would have been less criticism even from Indians if some of these had been British non-officials. I have, as is well known, a profound admiration for members of the Indian Services, and some are my intimate friends—one in particular and a very distinguished one, to whom we have just listened with so much pleasure and instruction. But I believe these men themselves would admit that if India is to advance constitutionally officials must of necessity appear less in the rough and tumble of the political arena.
The noble Duke who will be replying in this debate will probably remind me that the Viceroy is working under the 1919 Act, which makes it statutory that a certain number of experienced officials should be in the Executive Council. I entirely agree. But it does not say that these should be all British, and, if my

1067
memory serves me well, the statutory number is only three. When the time comes to attempt again to create a constitutional structure—and I hope it will be soon—I firmly believe, as I have already indicated, that the form of the expanded Executive Council and the experience gained there by non-official Indians, and perhaps in time by non-official British, will be of immense help in the solution of many of the difficulties which have wrecked previous attempts to solve this vast and complicated problem.
It is a pity that the present Viceroy's term of office, already extended once, is drawing to its close. He has great knowledge, great experience, and, above all, great wisdom in these matters. I am sure he would have liked to have guided India in her early constitutional steps. Perhaps he may yet do so; indeed it may well be that these changes in the Executive Council may prove to be a first step. But do not let us look at the Indian constitutional picture with too pessimistic an eye. My noble friend Lord Hailey has already spoken on the same topic, and I agree with him. Let us remember that much has been done, that constitutional government has been well and truly laid in eleven Provinces, even if, in some, men who began the work so brilliantly now refuse to carry on. But the structures are there, and the time will come when these men and others will resume the good work. When that time comes we shall forget the past and look only to the future, believing in India's destiny, as we believe with all our hearts in the destiny of the Empire in this her hour of danger and of trial.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, the House will be of one mind as to the necessity of passing the Bill which is now before us. At the same time I agree with my noble friend Lord Strabolgi, as I am sure noble Lords also will, that this cannot be done without some reference to the wider issues of the Indian situation. We cannot treat this merely as a semi-routine matter and proceed on our way as if all were well in India. There is in many quarters deep disappointment that the high hopes which were raised at the time of the passing of the Act of 1935 have been clouded, and that political controversy is once more rife in India. The speeches that have been made with
1068
so much weight by two noble Lords with long experience of India, Lord Hailey and Lord Catto, indicate the disappointment which is widely shared on that ground. But this is not an occasion on which we need repeat over again debates that we have had on previous occasions in which the whole ground has been surveyed. For my part I am far from absolving from blame the British Government for the course of policy that has been pursued since the time of the passing of the Act and also since the outbreak of war in relation to Indian constitutional aspirations, but at the same time I cannot conceal my view that the chief measure of blame should fall upon the Congress Leaders who have not realised that this is an hour in world history when all sectional claims in every direction should be postponed and all efforts concentrated on the main issue.
One of the leading friends of Indian national aspirations in this country, a distinguished member of the other House, Miss Rathbone, wrote a letter in The Times not long ago in which she expressed in eloquent terms the regret felt by those (among whom I would like to count myself) who have supported Indian national claims in days gone by, at the attitude taken during this war by the Congress Party. It is the ruin of democracy when, in moments of overwhelming crisis, various Parties are unable to combine for the sake of an overmastering cause. If you look at the history of Europe since the last great war you can see how, in Italy, the downfall of democracy was brought about by the inability of politicians to- combine to form strong Governments. In Germany the same thing occurred, and in France also the absence of political concentration and combination was unquestionably the main reason of the instability of Governments which discredited the Parliamentary régime. Here in this House there are some of us who have partaken three times in the formation of Coalition Governments, in 1915, in 1931 and again in 1940, when, if that step had not been taken, the same degree of confusion and anarchy might have appeared in Great Britain as has afflicted the democracies of other European countries and disaster here might have been as grave. But in India there is not at present—naturally there could not be—any mature political

1069
experience, and Indian politicians have not yet learnt that there are times when it is right to be combative and times when it is right to be conciliatory. This is a war between two philosophies of life, and the whole future of mankind depends upon which side wins the victory. As to the direction in which opinions in India tend, there is no doubt. The detestation there among all Parties of the Nazi philosophy is as great as in any other liberty-loving people. It is all the more lamentable that some five thousand Indian political leaders, many of them men of the highest character and greatly respected, are at this moment in prison, because it gives an impression to the world which can only be deleterious to the cause for which Great Britain is fighting. It is lamentable that Congress Leaders by this action should be helping in some degree the cause which they themselves detest, and hampering the cause in which they themselves passionately believe. Perhaps that action is most regrettable, not only for the slackening in some degree which it involves in Indian war effort, but also for the moral effect in other countries remote from the conflict, particularly in the United States of America. There, where public opinion is not as a rule very fully informed upon Asiatic problems such as that of India, this fact that there is division, that there is political controversy, that Ministries have resigned, that leaders have deliberately courted imprisonment, gives a false impression as to the real merits of the case.
However, it would appear that those who have hitherto in India supported the Congress Leaders to a great extent disapprove of the course which has been taken. That is evidenced by a remarkable decline in the membership of the Congress Party. A few days ago, in The Times on July 31, there was a statement as to the membership, apparently compiled from returns provided by the Congress Party itself. It appears that before the outbreak of the present war the Congress adherents numbered more than 4,500,000, in 1939–40 the number was fewer than 3,000,000, and in the present year it has fallen to 1,500,000, a loss of two-thirds of the membership. In the United Provinces, the part of India where Congress was strongest, the membership has fallen from 1,472,000 to 259,000 at the present time. I have not seen any comment
1070
upon these figures from the Congress side, and it may be that there is some explanation of which we are unaware, but if these figures are accurate and complete, these facts must appear highly significant. It may be that the masses of the Indian people are awakening to the great danger of the present international situation, affecting not only Europe but also themselves, and it may be that they disapprove of the withdrawal of the Congress Ministries from the Provinces, without any consultation with the electorate—indeed a negation of the democracy which they profess to serve.
It may be that as the military danger comes nearer, as Japan already in Indo-China may extend the shadow of her hand over Thailand and Malaya and Burma, and as Germany may carry further and further possibly, though I hope it may not be so, her intrigues and activities in Iran, then at last India may come to realise that the danger may affect herself, and that she should throw her energies whole-heartedly into the prosecution of the war. But in spite of this we should not for a moment forget the very great contribution that India has made towards the military effort. Gifts have been made, and immense supplies have been forthcoming of materials of all kinds of Indian manufacture. A statement issued by the Ministry of Information leads us to conclude that about 90 per cent, of India's own military requirements are now being manufactured in India. Recruiting has been exceedingly active. Of course, all the soldiers drawn from India are voluntary troops—there is no question of conscription there—and they crowd into the recruiting offices. Last year, in October, 1940, when the Indian Air Force advertised that there were vacancies for 300 pilots the number of applicants was 18,000 or 60 for each post that was open.
All that is so far satisfactory. Still the impasse remains on the constitutional side, and I think the Government of India has been wise, since there is that block in the way of progress, to turn to the administrative side, for I regard these changes as administrative at least as much as political. There were four Europeans and three Indians on the Executive Council; now there are four Europeans and eight Indians. I hope attention will be paid to the plea of the noble Lord, Lord

1071
Catto, that while the proportion should not be altered, it might be well if the unofficial European element were to receive representation as well as the official. I am sure that all members of your Lordships' House who know them (and many of us do), will be glad to note that two distinguished Indians should have found places—Sir Akbar Hydari, the Chief Minister of Hyderabad, and Sir Firoz Khan Noon, the popular and efficient High Commissioner in this country for several years. In the new national Defence Council which has been created, there are only two Europeans and there will be twenty-eight or more Indian representatives. Not least important—it has not been mentioned I think in this debate—is that an Indian is to be appointed at Washington as Agent-General with the rank and status of Minister Plenipotentiary. One may hope that that may be a channel through which American opinion may become more fully informed as to the realities of the Indian situation. For my own part I am very glad that, unlike what has happened in previous debates in your Lordships' House in the last few years, on the subject of India, we are able now to point to something definite which is actually accomplished, small it may be yet not unimportant. Hitherto these debates have always ended in offers, expectations, hopes, promises, but to-day in this White Paper we have something done. While the regret remains that the constitutional difficulty still continues unchanged, at all events on the administrative side, with a political tendency also, a definite step forward has been made.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords with your permission I will reply briefly to the very useful and indeed valuable debate which has arisen. The Government can certainly find no possible cause of complaint in the reception which the White Paper has received in all quarters in your Lordships' House. Many observations made this afternoon will have a really valuable effect in India. The object of the Government remains as it was last year when efforts were made to approach the principal political Parties in India with a view of bringing about such a state of affairs in India that she would be able to attain Dominion status; that is to say, to full self-government as an equal partner in the British Commonwealth of
1072
Nations. Since the Government of India Act was passed, new difficulties in the way of attaining that object have cropped up, but the objective remains the same. It was in pursuit of that objective that the Viceroy made his effort last year, the effort to associate the political Parties with the Government of India. It will be within your Lordships' recollection that when that effort broke down it broke down because the principal Party, the Congress Party, which is much the largest Party in India, refused to co-operate at all, and the other Parties, while willing to co-operate in principle, found that for various reasons there was no basis of agreement on which they could, in fact, co-operate.
I think it was Lord Hailey who pointed out the fact that there must be some national loyalty over-riding Party loyalty before you can really co-operate in forming a Government. In the case of these Indian Parties, there appears to be no over-riding loyalty to India rather than to Party—an over-riding loyalty such as all of us here feel. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, referred to this matter and spoke of the three Coalition Governments which we have had in this country. All of us, of course, feel loyalty to the political Party to which we belong, but we all feel an over-riding loyalty to the country which is immeasurably more important than any Party allegiance. It is the absence of that over-riding loyalty in the bulk of the politicians, the members of the Parties in India, which has so far made political advance so difficult. The Congress Party rejected the proposals out of hand, and the others, for the reasons which I have mentioned, were not able to co-operate to form a Government. But the door still remains open, and it still remains the object of the Government to see India enjoying self-government on the lines of the Dominions.
The difficulties are very great, and it may be, one does not know how long. As your Lordships will be aware a great movement has grown up in India lately, the Pakhistan Movement. The Moslem League, by far the largest Moslemic Party and representative of the very largest sections of Moslem opinion, have deliberately formulated a policy of partition rather than live under the majority Hindu rule. I only give that as an example of how deep-seated these political differences are.

1073
In spite of these great political differences, India, like us, is at war. The overwhelming majority of the Indian people are whole-heartedly with us in our war effort. I think that, without exception, the peoples of India dislike Hitlerism and all that it stands for as much as we do, in spite of the fact that it has been impossible to make the political advance which we have earnestly striven to make. I should like to pay a tribute to the unwavering patience of the Viceroy in his efforts in approaching the Parties last year, and for the efforts which he has made so successfully in approaching eminent Indians not associated with the principal Parties. In spite of the tremendous patience which he showed in his dealings with the Parties, his efforts failed, but he is going on. This is, I believe, though not a constitutional advance, an effort which does hold out definite hopes that some further constitutional advances may be made in the future.
We have on this new Council, as Viscount Samuel pointed out—this Council which now consists of eight Indians and four Europeans—a number of people whose names are household words in India and who will command a very large measure of respect throughout the whole country. We have Sir H. Mody, a great industrialist, at the Department of Supply. Then there are Mr. Ragavendra Rao and Sir Firoz Khan Noon, both friends of ours, both of whom we shall sadly miss from London, at Civil Defence and Labour respectively. Here, if I may break off for one moment, I would like to refer to the criticism of the allocation of certain offices. I think Lord Catto dealt admirably with that criticism. It surely must be left to the Viceroy to distribute portfolios as he thinks fit. He has chosen Indians of great eminence for the most important tasks. The criticism can be dealt with by pointing out that there are no such persons as junior or senior Ministers. These Ministers are equal. They will have equal voices in respect of the weighty measures which they will discuss, and equal powers of making their views known to the Viceroy. The criticism I think was unworthy.
To return to the constitution of the Council we have also got an elder statesman of unrivalled experience, Sir Akbar Hydari, as Member for Information. We
1074
have that independent and courageous politician, Mr. Aney, and a very eminent lawyer, Sir Sultan Ahmed, and others. I need not recite the names of them all. It is a list which does really represent a tremendous body of authority and which will, as I have said, command respect throughout India. The newly-formed Defence Council will be composed almost entirely of Indians, except for one representative of the European commercial community and one of the Anglo-Indian community. It contains many Indian representatives of Labour and it contains a woman, the Begum Shah Nawaz. I have been at pains to make it clear that this development is not a constitutional development, and it is not intended as a constitutional development. I want to make this plain because I think that criticism which has been passed on this development in India is based partly on the belief, or perhaps I should say on the suspicion, that this is an effort to show constitutional advance and to fob India off with a nominated rather than a popularly-elected Government. This is not so.
I have been at pains to emphasize that this is not regarded as a constitutional advance—not even as an instalment of constitutional change. Having said that much, I think it not inappropriate to express the hope that it may in time lead to constitutional advance. It is an earnest of our real desire to associate Indians with the Government of their country and with the war effort. It is evidence of the fact that we trust Indians and are willing to give them a majority on the Executive Council. The spectacle of Indians of the eminence of these gentlemen who will now be associated with the Government carrying on the vital business which they will be carrying on, will, I believe, not fail to have a beneficial effect upon Indian opinion generally and will ultimately, I hope, make it possible for that constitutional change which we so earnestly desire to see come about, when we may see Indians governing their country and India taking her rightful place as a self-governing member of that great Commonwealth of Nations which is now giving such a wonderful example to the world.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE, CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS AND WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
WAR DAMAGE TO LAND (SCOT LAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

EMPIRE MIGRATION.
LORD BARNBY LORD BARNBY had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government what assistance is being currently given to overseas Empire settlement of juveniles; whether any assisted movement of adults is being continued; and on what Department is responsibility at present placed for the study of post-war Empire migration; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in putting down this Motion I was fully conscious that it was unlikely that I should receive any committing reply, but conversations with those responsible for long-term planning—not merely with members of the Government, but with various civil bodies who must necessarily be consulted on such matters, and with individuals concerned with them—seem to show that there is a disquieting insufficiency of consideration being given to matters connected with Empire migration and the ancillary matters relating to it. It is unfortunate that the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs is prevented by indisposition from dealing with this question himself to-day, but I understand that the reply on behalf of the Government will be given by the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, who, while perhaps not able to commit the Dominions Office, is well qualified personally by his long connection with these matters and by his travels and knowledge to give them sympathetic consideration. Again, the successive visits of Dominion Prime Ministers to this country—visits which we hope will be progressively repeated—provide an additional reason for raising this matter in Parliament, so that their attention may be drawn to the fact that the subject is prominently before the country and before Parliament. Apart from those considerations,
1076
it might have been preferable to delay presenting this Motion until the return to your Lordships' House of the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, but I hope that the reasons which I have given will be felt to justify me in raising it now.
I find that there has been a steady development of the realisation of the need for long-range planning. It may perhaps he said, and with some show of reason, that such a matter as this is not one which has any bearing on the carrying on of the war, but in fact the study of such questions as that of surpluses of primary produce inescapably involve the consideration of such questions as this, because the Dominions are involved, and consideration has to be given to the realignment of United States and Empire economies, and that in itself brings under review the Ottawa agreements and the most-favoured-nation clause. Moreover, it would seem that reconstruction and long-range planning in the United Kingdom itself has to be taken into consideration. Whole blocks of residents in our cities have been moved, together with their employment, to other places, and after the war this action may be repeated over much greater distances.
We have to recognise that the industrial development stimulated in the Dominions by the war will continue. It is hardly reasonable to suppose that the whole social structure developed in the Dominions as a result of this industrial expansion can be demobilised, and therefore account must be taken of it. Moreover, we have just been listening to an interesting debate on the future status of India. The population of India is between three and four hundred millions, and what the future industrial development of India will be cannot be foreseen; but we know that the Eastern Supply Council has consciously aimed at and planned for a larger supply of essential war requirements from the territories east of Suez, and this fact is itself going to contribute very considerably to the economic problems which must be considered in connection with the question of the future population of the Dominions.
At home we must recognise that agricultural development is affecting the situation. Only last week the noble Lord, Lord Brocket, made an eloquent appeal in

1077
your Lordships' House for a long-term agricultural policy, and this appeal received emphatic endorsement from your Lordships, and in particular from the many speakers in the debate. If that be the hope of this country and the intention of the Government, it must be admitted that it is going to have a profound effect on questions of primary and secondary production in the Dominions. There is involved, however, the recognition of the principle, now so clearly established, of generous subsidies of a character and in directions which until recently seemed too courageous and revolutionary to be adopted. I have been impressed by the campaign advocated in various directions, and among the advocates has been the present High Commissioner for Australia, Mr. Stanley Bruce, that a wider recognition of the need for minimum nutrition values is going to be accepted as a fundamental in the future. If that be so, of course, one can readily understand that the anxieties of disequilibrium following from the stimulus of production under war conditions, will be less in the future than they have been or were in the past. Moreover, if that be accepted as a policy, one can readily see the great extension of international trade which would follow from the movement of the necessary services to make possible the maintaining of those minimum nutrition values. The world has proved that it can spend without limit to exterminate life. Can it resist the right of the appeal to the democracies to spend to strengthen life?
Returning to our own industrial problems, there are many who think that with the expected standard of living we will have difficulty in avoiding a shrinkage of our export trade. Can we then maintain our recent populations in effective or justifiable employment? It may be that a large-scale transfer of population with industrial plant to the Dominions is a constructive solution. There existed before the war the Overseas Settlement Board, of which I had the good fortune to be a member, which was charged with exploring all possibilities with regard to Empire migration and to advise on the grants under the meagre annual sums voted by Parliament. Its last Report, issued, I think, in 1938, was an example—as was the previous Report issued in 1934—of how fully matters connected with this are, or were then, being considered. Advice then prepared for the
1078
Government would doubtless, under existing conditions, be to some extent out of date and largely changed, but the claim is that the past policy in Empire settlement has been far too timid. I think in another place some ten years ago or more, a strong plea was made for a bold plan of spending one hundred million sterling spread over ten years, which was going to achieve a real volume of movement of people and industries, which would, of course, involve the co-operation of the Dominions. Indeed, i would here like to interject what I omitted in my opening sentences, to emphasize that it is fully realised that the major interest in these matters lies with the Dominions, and without their co-operation little can be accomplished, but the scheme to which I have just referred would have been a cost to the Exchequer relatively small compared with the big expenditures to which we are accustomed to-day, and it would have been well worth while.
The schemes which have been tried in the past twenty years were frequently ill-conceived and did much disservice; they indeed gave ammunition to opponents from the Dominions. This came largely, as far as Australia is concerned, from trade union leaders. These men were themselves migrants from England, or the sons of migrants from England, who had carried with them the prejudices and the view-point held fifty or sixty years ago by English trade union leaders. In that way those views had remained stationary at that great distance from England, during the period when British trade union leadership was moving steadily forward with a flexibility which we admire and which has made possible the admirable labour relations which exist at the moment. It must be admitted that land colonisation of the Cyrenaical or Abyssinian brand did not give help, nor did the subsidized Japanese plans in Manchukuo make any headway against the inflow of Chinese from Shantung and other Provinces. Australia must be becoming more alive to the long-term strategic disadvantages of low population, and New Zealand as well, located in the Pacific among high fecundity countries.
It is a debatable point, what is the potential reasonable population of Australia and New Zealand. I am fully conscious there are so many angles to an examination of that point, so many pleas

1079
which could be advanced for a large or a relatively small population; but there are on record the opinions of experts, who, taking the above twelve-inch rain-fall country as a standard of measurement, and applying to it the achievement of the settlement in the North American Continent, claim that Australia could carry eighteen to twenty million people. Certainly New Zealand could carry two or three times her existing population. In referring to any such figures I realise the danger and the possible disservice that may be involved, because it may be misleading in the Dominions and do more harm than good. In mentioning them I would not suggest that even within a long range of succeeding generations can we hope to attain to any such population in those areas. As to Canada and South Africa, the facts regarding the former are better known. Its propinquity with the United States suggests the obvious possibilities. As to Africa, there are many of your Lordships who know that Continent well, and I shall not take up time by referring to it.
I would interpose two illustrations which will perhaps show how slow our minds are to picture the changes in the Dominions. At the outbreak of the present war the population of Canada was nearly twice what it was in 1914. Its industrial capacity was fully three times as great as it was in 1914. Turning to Australia, over 50 per cent. of the 1914 Expeditionary Force, I have read, were men born in the United Kingdom. How different to-day. With your Lordships' indulgence, I would quote a personal recollection. Living in the United States for six years before 1914, largely in Boston, I there saw the effect of a steady inflow averaging in the last four of those years 900,000 immigrants into the United States. One realises what a vast movement was possible in those days, and that was achieved without the agony of the vast movements of population which are occur-ring in the world to-day through circum-stances very much less happy. As regards Canada, it is certainly regrettable that at he outset of war, when vast expenditure on new plants in the North American Continent was inevitable, priority of industrial development was not primarily directed to Canada rather than to the south of the line.
Turning to the Motion, which is under three heads, I cannot anticipate that the answer my noble friend will be able to make will give much indication of achievement under the first two heads; but I hope that under the third head, in addition to the plain indication of where responsibility at the moment lies, he will be able to add some encouragement that there is conscious direction in all matters affecting long-range planning in connection with this problem; that the direction is receiving fullest consideration. Further, I hope he will be able to give some encouragement on the four particular heads with which I shall finish in a moment. I should like to remind the House that the Fairbridge Farm Schools movement is a scheme admirably conceived and well known to your Lordships. I see my noble friend Lord Stonehaven, who was formerly Governor-General of Australia, present. He will be intimately acquainted with the fine work that movement has done.
It serves as an illustration of what can be done; and there are many other bodies which have made admirable contributions for juveniles and females, while the Government scheme dealt with adults. It would be an encroachment on your Lordships' time to attempt any reference in detail to any of these movements. It is recognised that whatever is done, now or in the future, must be governed by shipping considerations, and in this connection I should like to refer to the admirable scheme being worked by Mr. George Gibson, Chairman of the Trades Union Congress, who, as a former member of the Overseas Settlement Board, inspired with lofty ideals, is giving to-day his time to this question, and I am sure his aims justify the strongest support. I would like here to say that I have been privileged to have some conversation with my right honourable friend the Minister without Portfolio, Mr. Arthur Greenwood, who is concerned with long-range planning. I am indebted to him for several very sympathetic hearings, and I am encouraged by the realisation of his complete understanding of the problem.
To summarize then, I would say that the first of the four points mentioned in the Motion to which I hope attention will be directed is that the problem be kept fully in mind by all those charged with long-range planning. It cannot be dissociated from reconstruction at home.

1081
In some places one sees street after street in which, as the result of enemy action, hardly a house is occupied. Employment has gone, whole populations have been moved. Much of that may be an advantage and convenience, but it easily suggests what can be done on a bolder basis. Secondly, in connection with demobilization plans and war gratuity grants, the possibility of this matter should be considered. Thirdly, under the Social Services in Great Britain, plans should be worked out with the Dominions for the transfer of capitalized contributions so that migrants may receive the full advantage of any earned benefits. Fourthly, the Minister of Education may be appealed to, to grasp the possibilities that lie in his hands to bring home to the children of Great Britain what the Empire means.
It is easy to see how the imagination of the young can be fired with the possibility of a career as citizens in one of the great Dominions by the inspiration of the current achievements of the soldiers of our Dominions. Here it is the vocational instruction that wants to be consciously planned. If juvenile migration is to be made a feeder, even in modest measure, there must be an extension of the existing contributions by the State. The present offers an exceptional opportunity. Think, for instance, of the children who have been orphaned in the war, having lost both parents in raids. The Prime Minister has promised that children are to have a new chapter. If time permitted I could enumerate many possibilities by means of which these opportunities for children could be extended, but I will content myself by merely saying we have seen with what effect and with what speed an instruction by the Cabinet can be carried out in order to produce training centres for war instruction. Is it not possible that training centres for young children could be instituted? If this were done it would prove that there is an earnest intention to do something in this matter. We have not been deterred by errors in starting new factories all about the country. Probably for good reasons, after millions of pounds have been spent upon them, they have been proved by subsequent events to have been an error. You have only to read the Report of the Committee
1082
of National Expenditure to find proof of that.
Surely a bold attempt at long-range planning for the Empire should be undertaken even if subsequent events following a victorious peace should call for some revision of what has already been done. I think it would be worth while that a courageous expenditure should be embarked upon in the direction I have indicated at the present moment. I appreciate that this is not a matter upon which my noble friend with the best intentions can give me categorical assurances, but with the interests that noble Lords take in all these matters affecting the Empire, I think I can say there is amongst us a conviction that the matter upon which I am speaking merits the undertaking of more effort than has hitherto been attempted. I hope my noble friend will be able to give me particulars of the Government's intentions with regard to juveniles at the present time, and that something more may be possible later on. I beg to move.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, I am very sorry that the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs is unable to be here, but I have had the advantage of consulting him, and I think I can tell the House the present position. The noble Lord has asked various specific questions, firstly, what is the position with regard to the overseas settlement of juveniles? Owing to the danger of shipping crossing the oceans the scheme of assisted settlement, and indeed the scheme of the Overseas Reception Committee, which had nothing to do with permanent migration, were both suspended, and the only form of assistance which is now being given to the overseas settlement of juveniles takes the form of maintenance allowances or after-care grants for the children who have already been sent out. The Overseas Reception Scheme for children had, of course, nothing to do with overseas settlement, but at the same time it is no doubt building up valuable contacts which may prove the seed from which fruitful developments after the war may take place.
As to the assisted movement of adults, before the war the cost was shared with the Dominions. The Dominion chiefly concerned was the Commonwealth Government of Australia, but, for very

1083
much the same reasons as the suspension of the scheme for children at the outbreak of the war, the assisted movement of adults was also brought to a stop. The only cases which are now considered are those where family reunion is necessary to avoid hardship. The noble Lord has reminded us of the very valuable work which was done by the Overseas Settlement Board over which my noble friend who sits beside me presided and of which Lord Barnby was a member. That Board carried out very valuable researches into the whole problem, and its Reports, to which my noble friend alluded, are well worth reading. I confess I had not read them until I was warned about this debate, but I hope noble Lords will look at them because they tell us very interesting facts about this problem. They tell us that block settlement is not now found to have been very satisfactory, and that infiltration has given very much better results—that is, to introduce your emigrants into existing communities rather than to try and set up new ones.
There is no doubt that national opinion on this subject recognises that the problem is one of the widest importance. The main foundation of the British Dominions was the original migration of British stock. It was a natural movement, and in its early stage it needed very little deliberate Government action, but the last war was a turning point, and it was succeeded by an inward movement which first turned the scale in the early thirties and reached its peak in 1932, when we received a net increase from overseas of over 30,000 in our own home population. The Report of the Overseas Settlement Board draws attention to another very important change. Both in the United Kingdom and in the Dominions the birth-rate of British stock shows a downward trend, and the population is becoming older in composition. That must necessarily have a great bearing on the problems of migration. Originally, this country was very glad to see migration in the days of severe unemployment. No one can foretell what may be the conditions in that regard after the war, and, in view of our falling population, it may well be that in the narrow local British interest it may no longer be so greatly to our advantage to part with many of the best and most energetic of our younger people. But there is still a
1084
very great contrast in the density of the population in various parts of the Empire, and with a view to strengthening the position of our Dominions, we must, of course, take a much wider than a purely local view for the British Isles.
The noble Lord asked what Department was responsible for this matter, and he said that he had air reads had various discussions with the Minister without Portfolio who is charged with planning ahead for economic reconstruction after the war. The noble Lord mentioned that we should try to work in the problems of the areas devastated by air raids in connection with Empire migration, and that we should consider it in connection with the very big problems which will arise through the demobilization of people from the armed forces and war industries. In that connection he pointed out the necessity of arranging for the transfer of the contributions standing to the benefit of individuals in our Social service insurance scheme. All these matters and also the necessity of educational means to bring home the meaning of the Empire are of course of great importance, and they affect other Ministers besides the Minister without Portfolio. The whole question of the system of overseas migration affects the Dominions just as much as it does this country, and therefore the Dominions Office are very closely concerned as the channel of communication and are necessarily just as much involved as the Minister without Portfolio.
It is of course impossible to foresee the conditions with which we shall have to cope after the war and it is also impossible in present conditions to expect the Dominion Governments to devote much attention to the detailed solution of this hypothetical question. I can therefore only give the noble Lord the assurance that at the present time the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs and the Minister without Portfolio are in closest touch, and that this matter is recognised as being of such very great national importance that he need have no apprehension that there is any danger of it being overlooked.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, and the reply from the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, but I must confess that I am not altogether satisfied that sufficient is

1085
being done in the way of long-range planning for migration after the war. I feel that it is a thing which should be given immediate thought. In the first place conditions of migration will be very different after the war. Secondary industries in the Dominions will have enormously expanded and agricultural industries in this country will have greatly expanded, so that very likely it will not provide the market for the primary products of the Dominions whch was given before the last war. I think it is generally agreed that the best way of increasing your market for primary products is to increase the population. Therefore I think it will be to the advantage both of the Dominions and of this country that there should be a great increase in migration after the war.
I would humbly suggest to the Government that they should take steps to give early consideration to this matter. There are a number of organisations, such as the Fairbridge Farm School already mentioned, the Big Brother Movement, with which I happen to be connected, and the Church Migration Society, all of which have had considerable experience. I would suggest that representatives of these bodies should be called together and some thought given to this matter right away. There was one remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, which I was horrified to hear, though he afterwards qualified it—that it might not be in the best interests of the British Isles to send the best of our manhood overseas after the war. I know he qualified it afterwards, but I think it is necessary to emphasize that the people who are sent overseas as migrants must be of the very best. It is not the slightest good, as was done in the past, to send unwanted members of the community.
LORD MOYNE: If the noble Lord will forgive my interrupting, I never wished to suggest for a moment that we should send overseas anything but the very best. I wished to distinguish between our purely local interests and the wider interests of the Empire at large; but I would not like it to be thought for a moment that our local interests should override the larger interests of the Empire.
LORD GIFFORD: I quite accept that, but I did want to emphasize that it is absolutely necessary to send only the best. I hope His Majesty's Government will give
1086
consideration to this question of migration after the war in its broad sense, and will discuss the matter with the Dominion Governments with a view to planning a long-term policy.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I should like to say how much I appreciate the careful and patient reply of the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, but I would like to comment upon the fact that he did not give any information as to whether the subject had been discussed, or was being discussed with the Prime Ministers from the Dominions who come to this country. Neither did he seem to give any encouragement to the hope that the sums now allocated by the Government to movements like the Fairbridge Farm Schools might be increased. They are very meagre and it would be constructive if something more could be given. I appreciate that he drew the attention of your Lordships to the Report of the Overseas Settlement Board made in 1938, which fully covered the ground; but with the indulgence of the House, I would like to draw attention to the point made with regard to the then view, that a falling population in the United Kingdom would dispel an illusion widely held in the Dominions as to the movement being a necessity to the United Kingdom. Under the conditions which we may expect after the war and the unlikelihood of an export market in the world for the employment of our industrial population, the fundamentals are changed. It was considerations of that kind that prompted me to bring forward this matter. And, lastly, if I may have the indulgence of the House, I would ask that he should bear in mind this question of the transfer of the accumulated contributions under the Social Service schemes. If it is to be made a constructive possibility after the war, it must involve action now in working it out currently with the Dominions so that it is a possibility in the demobilization scheme. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.