Lords Sitting of 16 July 1947

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

LORD ROBINSON.
Sir Roy Lister Robinson, Knight, O.B.E., having been created Baron Robinson of Kielder Forst in the County of Northumberland and of Adelaide in the Commonwealth of Australia—was (in the usual manner) introduced.

BOROUGH OF CROYDON (RATING) BILL. [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA): My Lords, in moving that Standing Order No. 147 be dispensed with in respect of this Bill, I should perhaps explain that this is in order that the Bill shall not have to be deposited for three clear days in various public offices after it has been amended in unopposed Committee, and the result will be that it will be able to be taken in another place during the present Session, which otherwise it would not. I beg to move.
Moved, That Standing Order 147 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bill, and that the Bill be now read 3ª.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly: Bill read 3ª and passed and sent to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Orders Nos. XXI and XXXIX be considered in order to their being dispensed with for the pur-
800
pose of giving the Indian Independence Bill precedence over the other Notices and Orders of the Day and of passing the Bill through its remaining stages.—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

VICTORIA TOWER GARDENS.
LORD REA: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government, the question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, under what authority the public have been deprived of the use of a further large section of the Victoria Tower Gardens, for how long this encroachment is to continue, and whether a definite undertaking can be given that there will be no permanent interference with the amenities of this popular public resort, and, in particular, that none of the trees at the north end of the Gardens, in the neighbourhood of the Rodin statue of the Burghers of Calais will be felled or mutilated.]
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, part of the Victoria Tower Gardens has been authorized for use as a builders' yard, and for a workmen's canteen, which are needed in connexion with the rebuilding of the House of Commons. No other practical site is in the vicinity. In addition, a much-needed permanent underground boiler house for the Palace of Westminster is to be constructed, with the agreement of the Lord Great Chamberlain, beneath Black Rod's Garden and a small adjacent portion of the Victoria Tower Gardens. The boiler house will be completely underground and oil-fired, and will in no way interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood. The excavation for this purpose involves the removal of a few small trees and some shrubs from a point about twenty feet from the Rodin statue to the entrance to the Royal Court. This work is due to be complete by 1950, when the enclosed area will be restored and replanted to advantage.
LORD REA: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for that very satisfactory answer.

GREECE.
VISCOUNT LONG: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name on the order paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, whether it is a fact as reported in the National Press that a foreign brigade is being raised outside the frontiers of Greece, and further, whether His Majesty's Government have any confirmation of the fact that it is to be used against Greece.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR.(VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I have been asked to reply. There have been various reports, which your Lordships have seen, that a foreign brigade is being raised outside Greece for service with the Greek bandits. His Majesty's Government are not, however, in a position either to confirm or to deny these reports.
VISCOUNT LONG: In thanking the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack may I ask, in view of the grave menace of this guerilla warfare, supported by the countries outside Greece, as it is at the moment, would His Majesty's Government take every step, with the co-operation of the United States of America, to grant the request of the Greek Government to increase their forces adequately to deal with it, and especially at this moment to let them have all the equipment that we can?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I cannot say more than this, that His Majesty's Government are obviously aware of the gravity of the situation.

HERRINGS.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, why it is so difficult for the ordinary consumer to procure herrings even when, according to Press notices, a large surplus of them has been caught?]
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, although landings of herrings have been
802
higher, and although surpluses have been available on many occasions during the present Scottish summer season, the quantity sold in the home market has, so far, been somewhat less than last year. This is largely due to the poorer quality of the herrings landed in the principal fishing area, and to the lack of demand by the public and the trade during the periods of very hot weather. In hot weather the trade is naturally reluctant to handle herrings—particularly to send them long distances. Moreover, at such periods the general demand is slack, although some people may still look for them. The distribution of herrings has never been subject to control, but my right honourable friend, the Minister of Food, has endeavoured to stimulate demand by means of publicity, and to encourage retailers to handle herrings by increasing their margins of profit on this fish under the Maximum Prices Order, and by paying for the use of a refrigerant on all herrings dispatched south of the Scottish Border. It is hoped that the quality of herrings will improve and that fishmongers will make an effort to satisfy the requirements of their customers for herrings.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I am much obliged.

INDIAN INDEPENDENCE BILL.
2.50 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I have it in command to acquaint the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the contents of this Bill, is prepared to place his Prerogatives and interests, so far as concerns the matters dealt with by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament. I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill, the Indian Independence Bill. His Majesty's Government have asked Parliament to assure for this great measure a passage so rapid as to be almost unprecedented. It may be that to some of your Lordships it will appear that we are dealing, with this Bill with its vast and unforeseeable consequences, with a degree of haste that is almost unseemly. But

803
this rapid passage is desirable for the following reason. Once a decision in principle has been taken to partition India, the difficulties of carrying on the government of the country by a Cabinet which is still unitary in form, but which is in fact divided by sharp differences of view, are naturally becoming increasingly acute. The sooner, therefore, that the two new Governments can start on their separate tasks the greater the advantages to them both. I think that probably there are a certain number of noble Lords opposite who have had experience of Coalition Governments which have had some difficulty in coalescing.
This is a short Bill, for it is mainly an enabling Bill, but it holds the fulfilment of a great purpose. The establishment of self-government has long been the aim of British rule in India and the goal is now within sight. The Bill which I am submitting for the approval of the House will mark the emergence of the two new Asian Dominions as free and equal partners in the British Commonwealth, and the deliberate conclusion of our long Parliamentary responsibility for the welfare of the Indian peoples and the good government of India. Our record during the phase of the British connexion that is now drawing to a close, is, as I believe your Lordships will agree, on the whole and in spite of mistakes and failures which we must hope that our Indian friends will forgive, a record of efficient administration, ungrudging service and broadening freedom of which we and our fellow-countrymen can feel justly proud. I think we can claim that during this period the authorities at home and in India have displayed an understanding not exceeded by the genius of the Romans, of the political requirements of a society utterly different from their own.
I must ask the indulgence of the House while I recall some of the milestones on the road that has been travelled to full nationhood. It was eighty-nine years ago that Parliament, by transferring to a Minister of the Crown the powers of the existing directors of the East India Company, acknowledged that order and social progress in India should be a public responsibility rather than a casual by-product of commerce, or business enterprise, and that its British rulers must be made accountable to Parliament. We began almost at once to associate Indians more
804
closely with the government of India. In 1861 Advisory Councils, with nonofficial Indians, were set up for consultation with the Central Government and certain Provincial Governments. During the 1880's elected Indian members first appeared on local government bodies. These years also witnessed the birth of the Indian National Congress, fostered in its infancy by an Englishman, to which both the great political bodies of to-day owe the impetus from which they have derived their strength. The Morley-Minto Reforms of 1909 brought a number of representative Indians into the Legislative Councils of the Governor-General and of the Lieutenant-Governors of the Provinces, though the function they discharged was still advisory and persuasive. For the first time also non-official Indians were appointed as members of some of the Executive Councils.
During these years several far-sighted administrators and statesmen foresaw that India would one day manage her own affairs. But it was not until during the latter years of the First World War, in which India played such, a magnificent part, that responsible government within the Commonwealth became the main objective of British policy. The declaration of August 20, 1917, pointed the way that all subsequent Governments have followed. Henceforward self-government for India became one of the fundamentals of British politics, and whatever differences might arise about the means and the conditions and the pace of its attainment, there was a common goal that Party controversy might obscure but never wholly conceal from view.
This historical declaration was shortly followed by rapid political and constitutional advance. Full membership of the League of Nations was a stride forward in the direction of equal status, and the great Act of 1919 initiated a system of government responsible only to the people of India which the new Dominion Constitutions seem likely to complete. The Act was followed in December by a Proclamation of the King Emperor which describes the penetrating influence of our British ideas of freedom and foreshadows how the policy of a Party would gradually change into the resolve of a nation. It is summarized, I think, in one paragraph:
"In truth the desire after political responsibility has its source at the root of the British

805
connexion with India. It has sprung inevitably from the deeper and wider studies of human thought and history which that connexion has opened to the Indian people. Without it, the work of the British in India would have been incomplete. It was with a wise judgment that the beginnings of representative institutions were laid many years ago. Their scope has been extended stage by stage till there now lies before us a definite step on the road to responsible government."
It was the same policy of gradual advance to self-rule by subtracting from Parliamentary authority at home, that informed the 1935 Act. This was the longest and most complex piece of constitutional legislation which we have ever enacted and the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, will always be associated with it. It may well be that much of that great Act will, with suitable modifications form an enduring part of the future Constitutions of the two new Dominions.
The course of subsequent events is more freshly in your Lordships' minds. I will not recall the Cripps offer, or the Cabinet Mission Plan, except to say that they were inspired by a great hope and were in themselves a logical development of the liberal trend of British policy since 1917. But the most lasting benefit derived from Parliament's long connexion with India may well be the universal respect it has earned for Parliamentary institutions, and its pervasive influence in shaping the political convictions of those who will lead India in the years to come. The new Dominions will retain the form as well as the spirit of political democracy. It is reported in a most interesting account that the Committee of the Indian Constituent Assembly which has been considering the Union Constitution, has recommended for the new Dominion of India a bi-cameral Federal Legislature to be known as Parliament, of which the upper House will be called the "Council of States" while the lower Chamber will be called the "House of the People."
The legacy we are now bequeathing to our successors in India comprises much else besides the taste for freedom. For it will include the longest period of internal peace in the turbulent history of India and a system of impartial justice, administered without fear or favour, which has made the sweeper and the, Brahmin, the millionaire and the pauper, the Government and the humblest citizen equal and identical in the eyes of the law. We cannot, I think, call to mind these enduring achievements of two hundred years of British rule
806
without remembering with pride and gratitude the individual men and women whose service to India has been their life's work. We think instinctively of the multitude of Government servants, soldiers, teachers, civilian officials, and others, who went out there in their youth to serve far from home, possibly under great difficulties and most hazardous conditions, with no reward to look forward to but the satisfaction of having done their duty.
In many families service to India has become a cherished tradition and love of India mingled with their family affections. Of this devoted band of servants of the Empire it might truly be said: Si monumentum requiris, circumspice. The value of their service has, of course, been understood and appreciated in India as well as at home, and the invitation extended by the Government of India to many British officers and members of the fighting Services to remain after the Dominion Governments have been set up, offers them a grand opportunity to continue the fine work of their predecessors.
I should not like to pass from recollection of service rendered without mentioning the valuable and unique contribution of this House in an individual as well as corporate capacity, to the long evolutionary process now culminating in self-rule. The experience of many of your Lordships in posts of high responsibility in India has always lent great weight to Indian debates in your Lordships' House. Both Parliament itself and successive Governments over long periods of time have received and benefited on many different occasions from the advice tendered to them by distinguished soldiers and elder statesmen with special knowledge of Indian affairs. The forbearance and restraint of the House in refraining from initiating a discussion at many times of crisis, when the urge to express an opinion must have been almost overwhelming have also considerably lightened the burden of those directly concerned with the handling of Indian problems.
Many noble Lords have played an important part in shaping the course of recent events in India, but we must wait for the historian to assess the precise value of their individual achievement. What we can be certain of is that he will not overlook the report of the Royal

807
Commission of which the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, was Chairman. It forms an indispensable link between the 1919 and 1935 Acts.
The 1935 Act is another landmark he will surely not omit. Its successful passage through Parliament owed much to the brilliant advocacy of the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, both on the floor of the House and in giving evidence before the Joint Select Committee of both Houses. Nor will the prelude to this great measure of constitutional advance during the Viceroyalty of the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, fail to find a place in the record. The Viceroyalty of the noble Viscount marked a profound change in the spirit of our relationship with India. It is not too much to say that the good will he first established, in place of bitterness and distrust, made it possible for the Indian leaders of to-day to preserve for the time being at any rate the link between India and the British Commonwealth. Subsequently, the noble Earl assisted with notable effect in preparing the ground for the three Round-Table Conferences and by canvassing the idea of federation between the Indian States and British India, a prospect which seems likely to be partially realized in the not distant future.
It fell to others to enlist Indian cooperation in the working out of that elaborate constitutional plan, and none strove harder to bring about its successful application to conditions in India than the noble Marquess, Lord Linlithgow. I am sure that we all regret that indisposition has prevented him from taking part in this debate. The coming of the war made the safeguarding of existing liberties more vital than their future extension, and it was the noble Marquess who led the way when India mobilized its vast resources behind our war effort, and converted its territory into a military base, which enabled our gallant Armies to repulse and finally defeat the Japanese.
The noble Marquess's successor, the noble Earl, Lord Wavell, was able, with the war flowing strongly in our favour, to resume the effort to conciliate the political Parties, and to employ the constructive gifts of their leaders in positions of responsibility and prominence. The Simla Conference of 1945, though it failed in its immediate objective, restored a
808
waning and almost vanished belief in the sincerity of British intentions. It resulted in the growth of a new spirit of good will towards us, and confirmed an absolute trust in the impartiality of the Viceroy, which paved the way for the efforts of the Cabinet Mission to maintain the unity of India. A former Chairman of the Congress Party, Dr. Azad, speaking in February of this year, described the aftermath of Simla in a public tribute, from which I would like to quote one sentence:
"Nor can I forget that the credit for the changed atmosphere in Indo-British relations to-day must be traced back to the steps which he (Lord Wavell) so courageously took in 1945"
The noble Earl played a great part in the work of the Cabinet Mission, as I know my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence, himself a worthy protagonist in that heroic endeavour, would, if required to do so, bear witness. The noble Earl will always be remembered as the Commander who, in face of the heaviest odds, held in 1940 the gateway to India in Egypt, and subsequently played the foremost part in organizing the magnificent fighting force that won the war in the Far East. But I believe that his fellow countrymen will also think of him as one of these rare soldier-statesmen who, like Wellington and Allenby, have combined in a conspicuous degree the qualities of leadership in war and peace.
I must apologize to your Lordships for speaking at considerable length about the past, but as this will be the last occasion when Parliament will discuss British responsibility for India, it is perhaps not altogether inappropriate that we should examine our consciences. I will now deal briefly with the present political situation as it affects the Bill, and with some of the political consequences that the Bill foreshadows. It is a matter of great regret that British India will reach maturity as two nations instead of one, and that the unity from which so many blessings have sprung in times past will soon be broken. But the dilemma with which we were faced made self-government impossible without partition.
When it became clear that the Cabinet Mission Plan for an Indian Union would never be accepted, and that there was no alternative form of common government to which Hindus and Moslems would consent, we had either to agree to implement their separation, or to remain

809
indefinitely in control of India, until such time as the two communities had composed their differences and decided to live together. The deadlock between the parties has, as all will recollect who have attended previous debates in your Lordships' House, always been a formidable obstacle in the path of constitutional advance. It is surely better that India should be divided by mutual consent, than that she should remain united against her will, and be thrown ultimately into the convulsions of civil strife, as the only possible means of securing the form of government her peoples desire. It is greatly to be hoped that, when the disadvantages of separation have become apparent in the light of experience, the two Dominions will freely decide to reunite in a single Indian Dominion, which might achieve that position among the nations of the world to which its territories and resources would entitle it.
There is one circumstance that will mitigate considerably, and may counterbalance, the disadvantages of partition. Both Dominions will start their career of full independence as partners in the British family of nations, and will each share with the other members of the Commonwealth the advantages added by this intimate relationship to equal and independent nationhood. Partition will leave the two nations which emerge from British India not foreign countries in relation to each other, but members of a group of like-minded nations that mark their affinity by common citizenship under a common Crown. Their membership of the Commonwealth will impose a moral obligation to remain at peace, to support one another and to co-operate in all matters of external policy and defence, and to organize their trade and production in a complementary instead of a conflicting pattern.
I am sure we would all wish to acknowledge that this happy consummation of British rule is due in no small measure to the gifted personality of the Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten. Those turning points in history that decide the fate of nations occur when the right or the wrong man appears on the scene at the critical moment. Lord Mountbatten has shown exactly the qualities required to set India and Pakistan upon the favourable course they are now taking. Everyone will rejoice that he is to continue to serve the
810
new Dominion of India after the change of regime. The gratitude and affection he has earned from Indians in so short a time are also felt for Lady Mountbatten, whose tireless energy and unfailing tact have been a far from negligible factor in his success.
People are sometimes, I think, apt to forget that the final and most difficult and anxious decisions are taken where ultimate executive responsibility also rests. Anyone who had seen things from the inside in recent months would know that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has been the outstanding figure in carrying this policy through and in converting what might have been the programme of a Party into the gesture of a united nation. If credit is granted where credit is certainly due, my right honourable friend's name will be associated with the name of Mountbatten in the way that for all time Morley is linked with Minto and Montagu with Chelmsford.
Let me now turn to the provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 sets up the two Independent dominions of India and Pakistan with effect from August 15. The word "independent" emphasizes the absence of any external restraint. Independence in this sense is a universal attribute of Dominion status, a fact that is often misunderstood by the outside world. It is also in accordance with the famous definition of the British Empire in the Report of the Imperial Conference of 1926:
"They (the self-governing members of the Commonwealth) are autonomous communities, equal in status, and in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs."
Clause 2 defines the territories of the two new Dominions and makes possible the adjustment of existing boundaries, and the accession of other territories by mutual consent. Clauses 3 and 4 provide for the partition of Bengal, the Punjab and Assam, after the procedure laid down to elicit the wishes of their inhabitants has been carried out, and also for the fixing of the final boundaries of these provinces by the awards of boundary commissions appointed for that purpose.
Clause 5 prescribes the appointment of a Governor-General for each Dominion by the King, unless the same person remains the Governor-General of both. The assumption made by this clause is that the King will act on the advice of His

811
Ministers in the Dominion concerned, who will recommend the name of the Governor-General for the Dominion they represent. Your Lordships are aware that on the advice of the Indian leaders Mr. Jinnah and Lord Mountbatten have been recommended for appointment as Governors-General in Pakistan and India respectively, and that His Majesty has let it be known that he will make these appointments in due course.
Clause 6 gives each Dominion Legislature complete authority to legislate for the Dominion, including laws having extra-territorial operation. Henceforward the legislative power of the new Dominion Parliaments will be just as comprehensive as that possessed by our own, or by any Dominion Parliament under the Statute of Westminster.
Clause 7, subsection (2), records the assent of this Parliament to the omission from the Royal style and titles of the words "Indiae Imperator" and "Emperor of India," a necessary corollary of the new constitutional relationship. The alteration of the Royal Title requires the assent of Dominion Parliaments as well as that of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The Governments of the Dominions have been consulted and have agreed to take the necessary steps to obtain the assent as soon as possible.
Clause 7, subsection (1) and the proviso to the clause deal with relations with the Indian States. Your Lordships will remember that the Cabinet Mission in their Memorandum of May 12, 1946, informed the States that His Majesty's Government would in no circumstances transfer paramountcy to an Indian Government. To that pledge we firmly adhere. But the time is fast approaching when the transfer of power to two Dominion governments will make it quite impossible for us to carry out our obligations towards the States, which depend for their fulfilment on the continuing responsibility of Great Britain for the Government of India. If we cannot in future discharge our obligations, we must clearly release them also from their engagements. We are, therefore, proposing that from the date when the new Dominions are set up the treaties and agreements which gave us suzerainty over the States will become void.
812
From that moment the appointments and functions of the Crown Representative and his officers will terminate and the States will be the masters of their own fate. They will then be entirely free to choose whether to associate with one or other of the Dominion Governments or to stand alone and His Majesty's Government will not use the slightest pressure to influence their momentous and voluntary decision. But I think it can hardly be doubted that it would be in the best interests of their own people, and of India as a whole, that in the fullness of time all the States should find their appropriate place within one or other of the new Dominions. It would be a tragedy for India, if the States were not to enrich the Motherland to which they belong with the martial valour for which they are renowned, and which they have displayed so gallantly in two world wars, with the tradition of service that animates their rules, and with the advanced social institutions that some of them possess.
Whatever the future relationship between the new Dominions and the States may be, it will require prolonged consideration and discussion before the final adjustment can be made. We, therefore, welcome the setting up by the Interim Government of States Departments, to handle negotiations with the Governments of the States. But the success of this negotiating machinery pre-supposes genuine goodwill and absence of suspicion on both sides. The assurance given by Sardar Patel, the Home Member, that it is not the desire of Congress to meddle in the domestic affairs of the States, is a welcome indication that Congress will not use its political strength to exert unfair pressure on their rulers. Sardar Patel's statement that the federal subjects on which the States are invited to accede are limited to defence, foreign affairs and communications, and the moderation and reasonableness of his whole approach, are another sign that the Dominion of India will scrupulously respect the autonomy of the States. Mr. Jinnah has also stated most emphatically that the Government of Pakistan will endorse the free choice of the States.
But apart from the political relationship between the States and British India, there have grown up a vast number of economic and financial agreements about

813
matters of common concern—posts and telegraphs, customs, transit, railways—and it would be disastrous to India if these arrangements were suddenly terminated on the transfer of power. The proviso, therefore, in Clause 7 maintains the status quo in such matters as a temporary measure, and for so long as it is desired by the parties, or until replaced by fresh long-term agreements between the States and the Dominion Governments.
His Majesty's Government recognize that on August 15 the negotiations between the States and the representatives of the successor Governments may not be concluded, and that the subjects of Indian States who may on that date be abroad, under the protection of passports issued to them as British protected persons, may require some reassurance. We do not, of course, contemplate that that form of protection will cease. As has been said in another place, existing passports will continue until the date at which they will expire in the normal course. What will happen about the issue of new passports is one of the matters which we hope will be solved in the negotiations, due to begin in Delhi next week, between the future Dominion authorities and the States. We hope that, pending the final decision as to the States' accession to one or other Dominion, the respective Dominions will assume some of the duties of protection hitherto borne by the United Kingdom. It would, of course, be possible for His Majesty's Government to contribute in some measure, by agreement, to easing the transition, were they to continue on behalf of any State whose position remains undecided, some of the protective functions abroad which they have hitherto discharged. We do not, of course, propose to recognize any States as separate international entities. Paragraph (c) of subsection 1 of this clause applies the same principle to the common economic interests between the Dominions and the tribal authorities, without prejudice to the re-negotiation of the existing political agreements of the tribes with the appropriate successor authority.
Clause 8 confers on the two Constituent Assemblies—the existing Assembly in the case of the new India, and the Assembly of Pakistan when it is convened —the full Legislative power which by Clause 6 (1) is vested in the Legislature of
814
each Dominion. This power is conferred in that context for the purpose of framing the final Constitution of the new Dominion. While that Constitution-making process is proceeding, it is obviously essential for the government and administration of the two Dominions to be carried on. In order to meet this requirement, subsection (2) of Clause 8 prescribes that the government of each Dominion will be carried on as closely as possible in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1935, subject to certain important qualifications contained in the provisos. These qualifications make it clear that those features of the present system that would be inconsistent with Dominion status—namely, control by the United Kingdom Government and the means through which it has been exercised under the Act of 1935—do not remain in force. They also sweep away the present Central Legislature for the whole of India.
Subsection (3) fills the gap which would otherwise be created in the structure of the 1935 Act, by conferring temporarily on the Constituent Assembly in each Dominion the Legislative powers previously exercised by the Central Legislature. Thus, the Constituent Assemblies are given a dual role; the making of a Constitution, for which purpose they have complete power to do anything, and the temporary function of acting as a Central Legislature for each Dominion in the exercise of the limited powers in the central field which were given to the Federal Legislature by the Act of 1935. There will, of course, have to be extensive adaptation of the Act of 1935 to fit the new circumstances. This is to be done by Order made by the Governor-General under Clause 9 of the Bill.
Clause 9 gives the Governor-General wide but temporary powers to make orders for effecting partition at the centre and in the provinces and for administering the common services and other central functions pending their division between the two Dominions. It confers similar powers for the purpose of partitioning in the Punjab, Bengal and Assam on the Governors of those Provinces. It is obviously essential that there should be means of giving rapid effect to the agreements or arbitral awards relating to the division of the army, the sterling balances, the public debt, and other property or services at present handled or directed by the Government of India.

815
These powers are not absolute—the powers I am describing in Clause 9—and their duration is limited by the terms of the Bill. In the case of the Governors, the powers in this clause will expire on August 15, while the Governors-General cannot use them after March 31, 1948. They are also limited by the right of either Dominion Legislature to repeal or amend any Order, and to deprive the Governor-General of the Order-making power itself by passing a law to that effect.
VISCOUNT SIMON: Might I interrupt the noble Earl in order to follow him? Clause 9 begins with the phrase, "The Governor-General shall by order" and so on. I understand the noble Earl to mean by "Governor-General" Lord Mountbatten. Is that so?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: May I refer the noble Viscount to the Interpretation Clause, Clause 19, at the end of the Bill? He will there see that after the appointed day the Governor-General becomes the two Governors-General acting jointly. I was coming to that point.
VISCOUNT SIMON: If you please.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: After August 15 Orders affecting both Dominions can only be made by the two Governors-General acting jointly. Noble Lords will observe that subsection (3) will give Orders of the Governor-General retrospective effect to June 3. The business of partition, being a matter of the utmost urgency, has already begun, and this provision will enable any actions necessitated by these preliminaries, and not in strict accordance with the 1935 Act, to be validated. Emergency powers are clearly needed to meet what is in fact an unprecedented situation. Even the prescience of the 1935 Act did not anticipate the partition of India, and we have therefore had to improvise machinery that can be used immediately, and for the purpose of a smooth and orderly transition to the firm establishment of two separate Dominion Governments.
Clause 10 deals with the future of the services. Subsection (2) of this clause has been included at the express request of the present Interim Government of India. It guarantees that Judges and members of the Secretary of State's Services, European and Indian alike, who
816
continue to serve the governments of the new Dominions, will enjoy their existing terms of service as regards pay, leave and pension. This fulfils the undertaking given by the leaders of both Parties. The Indian leaders have also promised continuance of their present terms of service to the many civil servants and employees of the Central or Provincial Governments who were not appointed by the Secretary of State, subject, of course, to the right of any Government to revise in the light of events, the salaries paid to their servants.
His Majesty's Government recognize a special responsibility to European members of the Secretary of State's and analogous Services and we intend to ask the new Governments when established to negotiate an agreement to set aside a capital sum in sterling to cover their pension rights. We have also given a public assurance to those concerned that these pensions will, in fact, be paid.
It is the intention of His Majesty's Government to endeavour to secure the inclusion in the agreements which it is proposed to negotiate with the two Dominion Governments, of formal undertakings in respect of European officers of the Central and Provincial Services who were not appointed by the Secretary of State.
Clauses 11 to 13 give effect to policy relating to the Armed Forces in India. Your Lordships will remember that the Partition Council, a body consisting of two leaders each from Congress and the Moslem League, with the Viceroy in the Chair, has decided to divide the Indian Army, Navy, and Air Force between the two Indian Dominions. The first stage of this division, a rough and ready separation of units on communal lines, will give each Dominion operational control of its own Armed Forces by August 15. The second stage, which will allow each officer and man the choice of which Dominion he intends to serve, will, it is hoped, be completed by April 1, 1948. While the intricate process of sorting out is taking place, and until the two Dominion Governments are able to administer their own forces, all the existing Armed Forces in India will remain under the administrative control of the present Commander-in-Chief, who will be termed the Supreme Commander. He will be responsible to a Joint Defence Council, consisting of him-

817
self, the two Defence Ministers, and Lord Mountbatten as Chairman. His function in relation to the Indian forces will be purely administrative, and all operational responsibilities, such as the maintenance of law and order, and external defence, will be discharged by officers subordinate to the Dominion Governments.
Control of the British Army and the Royal Air Force will pass to a chain of command leading from a British G.O.C. and A.O.C. to the Supreme Commander, and from him to the Chiefs of Staff in London. These British forces will, naturally, lose their operational role, and, while they remain in Indian territory, will assume the position of visiting British Forces in a Dominion. They will start to be withdrawn from India on August 15, and this withdrawal will be carried out as rapidly as shipping permits, and is expected to be completed by about the end of this year. Your Lordships will observe that subsection (1) of Clause 11 says that the Indian Armed Forces are to be divided by orders made by the Governor-General. Clause 12, subsection (1) makes it clear that British Forces in India will be controlled, from August 15, by the U.K. Government, so that they will occupy the position appropriate to the new constitutional relationship directly the new Dominions have been set up.
I should like to direct your Lordships' attention in passing to one other feature of the Bill: the provision in Clause 16, which safeguards the future of Aden by removing authority for its administration from the 1935 Act, where it at present lies, to the British Settlements Acts. I will not develop further points in the Bill but I shall, of course, be willing to answer any question that noble Lords may ask during the course of the debate.
My Lords, that a vast population of non-European origin is about to achieve the independent status of the old Dominions, shows that the Commonwealth, with its flexible and dynamic structure which responds so readily to the pressure of events, can still succeed in combining the contrary ideals of freedom and unity in international relations. This achievement is all the more remarkable in the case of peoples who differ from ourselves in race, in language, and in history, and may be the opening of a new chapter in the growth of freedom under British rule. For what we are now doing is to carry a step
818
further the progressive enlargement of the Commonwealth within the Empire and the steady replacement of the responsibility of trusteeship by the no less weighty responsibility of partnership. Our new partnership with India will start under the most promising auspices. The difficulties and misunderstandings that have clouded our relations with India in the past will have disappeared, and there will be a greater fund of good will between us than ever before in the history of our long relationship. It will also be strengthened by a multitude of common interests, and by the personal friendships that will continue, or be made afresh.
It will surely transform the Commonwealth into an even more impressive and useful example of international co-operation, than it has been hitherto, as a group of countries sprung from Europe and with their roots in the West. For our association of nations will now comprise a union between the ancient culture and civilization of Asia, and the scientific and practical genius of peoples of European origin and descent. The friendly collaboration that this will entail will bring lasting benefit to future relations between the most densely populated of the five continents, where powerful forces of change are vigorously at work, and those parts of the world in which industrial and military power are mainly concentrated. I need not enlarge upon the potentialities of this new association between East and West, as a stabilizing influence, and as a means of maintaining the delicate and often precarious equilibrium that is indispensable for peaceful progress.
The statesmanship revealed by the Indian leaders in arriving at an agreed settlement about the future of India, and the wise tolerance of their attitude to religious and social minorities, are a good omen for the successful discharge of the immense political responsibilities and the complex administrative tasks that will soon be entirely theirs. I know that their fellow citizens throughout the Commonwealth will wish them success in their great venture, and that we can assure them that each of their sister nations will do its utmost to give them any help they may require. I am certain that I shall speak for every member of this House when I say these concluding words. We wish India, from the bottom of our

819
hearts, the tranquillity, the growing prosperity and the moral stature which are the true qualities of national greatness. Our love of India, and our desire to serve her, are stronger than ever. We only ask for the opportunity.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
3.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: My Lords, the noble Earl, the last of a long line of Secretaries of State for India, sub limine mortis so far as the Seals of the India Office are concerned, has given the House a very comprehensive description of this Bill, and he has paid a generous tribute to the men and women, both past and present, who have helped in the progress of Indian self-government. I rise to re-echo the words with which he ended his speech, to give my support to the Bill and to express the hope that it will be passed into law as quickly as possible. But, as I say, that does not mean that I do not approach these complicated questions without a mixture of hope and fear.
It was always my wish, perhaps the central wish of my political life, to see a single united Federal India take its place amongst the free and friendly peoples of the British Commonwealth. Events were too strong on the other side. What may have been possible in 1935 at a time when no one mentioned the separation of India —when to give a single example I think I answered 11,000 questions, in the proceedings before the Joint Parliamentary Committee upon the Government of India Bill and not a single suggestion, even by name, was made of Pakistan—what may have been possible then has been proved to be impracticable now as the result of communal divisions. The hope has not been satisfied. May it not be irrevocably repudiated but deferred to a future date! Meanwhile let us realistically, but none the less sympathetically, look at the actual state of affairs and sincerely express the wish that the very grave difficulties with which we see the future surrounded will be successfully surmounted.
First let me draw your Lordships' attention to what I believe to be the very typical British way in which we are holding this discussion this afternoon. The British people and the British Parliament are not greatly influenced by theory and
820
general principle. They prefer to act empirically; they prefer to adapt themselves to changing conditions and they are ready in due course to recognize accomplished facts. That is the history of what we call Dominion status. Dominion status is not the result of some carefully thought out Constitution, still less is it a prize that you give to a deserving Government; it is the recognition of accomplished facts. It is the recognition that de jure it is necessary to recognize the facts that have been established de facto.
When I look at the proposals of this Bill, although I might have made criticisms as to the details, although I might say that the approach to Dominion status ought to have been more methodical and better considered, yet I see that in actual fact the British Raj to-day has no effective power in the Indian sub-continent. That being so, I say it is better to recognize that fact and to transfer with the effective powers that India now possesses full responsibility for carrying out those powers. I venture to say that the sooner this Bill becomes operative, the sooner full responsibility is placed upon Indian shoulders, the better for the British Parliament, and the better for the whole relations of the British Commonwealth.
To-day I will not attempt either to dramatize this occasion or to sentimentalize it. I do not regard these proposals as in any way revolutionary. They seem to me to be yet another step in a whole series of steps that, as the Secretary of State himself has pointed out this afternoon, we have been taking for the last century and a quarter. I said just now that I trust indeed that this is not the last step, and that the final step will be the step that brings into being a united federal India. Nor do I attempt to sentimentalize the occasion. It would be very easy to give a long description of the many and varied achievements of the British Raj, but I do not wish to do so. I am more content to leave the ultimate verdict of the British achievements in India to history. I am quite confident that when history comes to give its verdict it will say that we gave to India those two invaluable treasures, peace and justice.
I would only say that if India has gained a great deal from the British connexion, we also have gained not a little here from our connexion with India. I am not interested to-day in the past; I am

821
thinking of the future. And, as one who has spent many years of his life in constant contact with these difficult Indian problems, I cannot help asking myself a number of grave and sometimes disturbing questions about the future. Let me put in the form of two or three sentences what is in my mind. Here are some of the questions that disturb me. Will the two Indias live together in peace, and succeed in eradicating Communism? Will a satisfactory place be found for the Sikhs, a great and vigorous community now inevitably divided as a result of partition? Will satisfactory relations be established between British and Indian India? Can Indian defence be assured under two separate Governments? Will Untouchability be abolished in the nearly 750,000 Indian villages? Will Communism during the next twelve months prove the most urgent danger in the Indian subcontinent? I put these questions to myself, not in any way to imply a pessimistic view that the two Indian Governments will not vigorously grapple with them. I put them this afternoon to show your Lordships how difficult is the situation with which these two new Governments are faced.
I take of those questions three in particular, not to make about them a long argument, but to show in a few sentences how profoundly they are fraught with the gravest possible consequences. I take firstly the question of defence. I take secondly the question of Untouchability; and thirdly the question of the relations between the two Dominion Governments, and the Indian State. Hitherto the defence of India has rested mainly upon the Indian Army supported by the whole resources of the British Empire. The Army is now to be divided, and divided at a time when it may well be said that the Indian sub-continent and the Indian Ocean have become the greatest strategic centre in the world. Will it be possible, with a divided Army, to assure Indian defence, and to maintain that treasure of peace that the British Raj has given to India over the last century and a half? If the two defence forces drift into watertight compartments I am convinced that the defence of India will be irrevocably damaged. I hope, therefore, that the utmost possible co-operation will be maintained between the two Governments. I am encouraged in that hope by what is already happening. I am informed that
822
the first steps for the dividing up of the units of the two Armies is proceeding amicably and satisfactorily. I am encouraged also by the fact that Lord Mountbatten—in the tribute to whom I sincerely join—is to be Chairman of the Joint Council of Defence. That is an encouraging sign. I hope also that the defence authorities in India will take particular account of the experiences of the war, when the Allied Staffs, particularly the British, French and American, worked together in full harmony to prepare their plans of campaign, and did so without the least infringement or derogation of sovereignty of any of their Governments. It seems to me that along that road lies Indian safety. Along the road of division and separation lies almost inevitably the road of invasion and aggression.
I come to the second of the subjects upon which I wish to make one or two observations. I come to the question of Untouchability. Your Lordships will remember that in every debate that has taken place in recent months in this House the question of the Scheduled Castes has rightly loomed very large. My friends and I on this side of the House have not raised it to put obstacles in the way of full Indian self-government; we have raised it because we have felt that around it have grown up obligations that were vitally important throughout all our relations with India. I should not be frank if I did not say that I personally have regretted what has seemed to me to be the gradual whittling down of our responsibilities to the minorities. It may have been inevitable. I am not now arguing whether, as self-government developed, it was possible to maintain them. But there is the history of the various White Papers and the various discussions in which, to start with, great prominence was given to this question, and which gradually faded out. Be that as it may, the fact remains to-day that the responsibility for dealing with the minorities and particularly with the Depressed Classes will rest upon Indian shoulders.
I can only say that we here shall watch with sympathy, not unmixed with anxiety as to how far the two new Governments are able to deal satisfactorily with this very grave problem. I remember very well, when I was Secretary of State for India, many talks with Mr.

823
Gandhi upon the subject of Untouchability. Mr. Gandhi, as noble Lords will remember, has devoted a great part of his life to removing Untouchability. I remember him saying to me: "You here in England, a foreign Power, will never be able to carry through a great social revolution of this kind in India. The only people who will be able to carry through a revolution of this kind are the Indians themselves." Now the Indians themselves have the responsibility of dealing with this problem. They have rightly put a clause dealing with human rights into the provisional Constitution of the Constituent Assembly. We shall now watch with anxious sympathy how the provisions of the Constitution, if the ultimate Constitution includes a stipulation of this kind, will be applied in all the almost innumerable villages from one end of India to the other.
Now I come to the third of the questions with which I am attempting to deal, the question of the relations between British and Indian India—the India of the States, the India that comprises a third of the territory of the Indian sub-continent, and a quarter of the whole Indian population. We on this side of the House have again constantly urged the need for taking into the fullest and most sympathetic account the future of the Indian States. We have felt that we were under grave obligations to them. Time after time the Indian States have helped us in the hour of our country's need. We feel that we are under an obligation to them at the present moment for another reason.
As a result of the partition of India, the Indian States are being forced into this dilemma: shall they, or shall they not, join one or other Dominion, each of which is fundamentally based upon communalism? Hitherto, speaking generally, the Indian States have been substantially free of communal bitterness. When in 1930 they made the offer to enter an Indian Federation, I remind noble Lords, it was a federation for the whole of India, and it was to be assumed that, in a federation of the whole of India, communalism would not be a prominent factor. The position to-day is very different, when they are asked to join one or other of the two Dominions each of which is founded upon communalism. I think it is sufficient to make that observation to show that we are under a very definite
824
obligation to offer our best services to them in the most sympathetic way, and to make it as easy for them as possible to come to a free choice as to what they should do when they have had sufficient time for deliberation.
I was very well satisfied with what the Prime Minister in another place said upon this subject. He made it quite clear that they should be absolutely free to make what choice they wished. The Secretary of State to-day made it equally clear that no pressure was to be put upon them. At that stage of his speech I was completely satisfied with what he said, but when he came to deal later with the question of passports he made use of words that caused me a certain amount of disquiet. If I understood him aright, he said, "We do not intend to recognize any States as international entities." I would ask whether that statement refers only to the temporary period when there are these complications with passports, and so on, or is it meant to be a declaration of Government policy for all time?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Would the noble Viscount like an answer to that question now?
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: Please.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I was making a statement of Government policy as it is at this moment, and I am sure the noble Viscount would not expect me to answer now a question the answer to which must depend on events that no one can foresee at the moment.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: Then I understand the noble Earl to say that the question of recognition is a question that is left open for the future. I do not know what else it could mean from what he has just said.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: We shall, of course, consider the position that will arise after the States have settled their future relationship with the Dominions, and all these problems will fall to be considered at that time. I am sure the noble Viscount will appreciate that I cannot go any further than that at this moment.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I do not wish to embarrass the noble Earl at all, but let me be clear about the matter, because this is a very important point. I do not wish to press that the Government should, here and now, make a statement

825
as to what should be the exact relations with an Indian State that eventually finds itself unable to join one or other of the Dominions, but what I want to be quite clear about is that the question is left open to be considered on its merits when such a position arises. Is that so?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL indicated assent.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: Then I am quite satisfied. I think I have said enough to the House to show how serious and disturbing these questions undoubtedly are. We sincerely wish the Indian Government every success in dealing with them. They are intractable, they are urgent, they cannot be avoided. Some of them may take time for ultimate decision. I can assure the noble Earl that we here will show ourselves both sympathetic to these difficulties and patient in following out how they are treated. We realize that a great experiment is being made. The experiment may not work exactly upon the lines that any of us this afternoon think likely, but we wish to give the experiment every possible chance and to show it all possible good will. The two new Governments are, as the noble Earl said at the end of his speech, pioneers of a great experiment in Asia. They are pioneers also of a great experiment in the British Commonwealth of free peoples. We, to-day, an ancient and historic people, hand to them well-tried political principles —freedom of speech, toleration of minorities, government by discussion. And, greater even than those political principles and institutions, the two invaluable gifts of peace and justice. Let them take those two treasures which we have ensured over more than a century. Let them maintain them in their own country, and let them help to spread them over the whole world. It is peace and justice that the world chiefly needs to-day. Let the two new Governments of India take their share in spreading the fruits of these gifts from one end of the world to the other.
4.4 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, noble Lords on the Liberal Benches also desire to support this Bill and are ready to expedite its passage. I have heard some expressions of regret that the title of the Bill should be so blunt; that this measure
826
should be called the Indian Independence Bill. There are some who would have preferred some pleasant euphemism to disguise what to them may seem a very disagreeable fact. I do not, myself, hold that view. I think that the stark bluntness of the title of the Bill serves a useful purpose, for it emphasizes the fact that membership of the British Commonwealth, the position of a Dominion, is consistent with actual independence. It has usually been thought that the two were alternatives, that a State might choose whether, on the one hand, it would be a member of the British Commonwealth, or whether, on the other hand, it would be independent. But this Bill underlines the fact that membership is independence. In all the old books on political science, from the works of Artistotle onwards, monarchy and democracy were similarly regarded as incompatible alternatives, but we have shown, in this country, that the British constitutional monarchy is democracy.
The world has taken a long time to understand the essential nature of the British Commonwealth, especially as it is after the passage of the Statute of Westminster. That remark applies particularly in the case of the United States, where every citizen from boyhood has been schooled in what, we might call "1776 and all that" and fails to recognize, in adult life, that there is a difference between King George III and King George VI, and that the Twentieth Century is something other than the Eighteenth. So it is well that by the title of the Bill, the Indian Independence Bill, the people of India them selves should realize that their aspirations have now, in fact, been achieved, that other members of the Commonwealth should realize it also, and that in the United States and throughout the United Nations this fact should now be established when both Houses of the British Parliament, without a hostile vote, pass into law the Indian Independence Act.
The noble Viscount who has just spoken and I arrive at the same end but from a different starting point. He has just said that he supports this Bill because it is, after all, no more than recognition of an accomplished fact, and he, for his part, is prepared to accept, in a philosophic spirit, what we in any case would be powerless to refuse. That is not how I regard the matter. I support the Bill

827
because it is in the spirit and, indeed, in accordance with the definite terms of principles of policy to which this country, and all Parties in this country, have given their adhesion in the Charter of the United Nations and in the Atlantic Charter. The very first article of the Charter of the United Nations declares: "respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples," and the Atlantic Charter, signed by the President of the United States and by the British Prime Minister on behalf of our two countries, declares that those countries "respect the rights of all peoples to choose the form of Government under which they will live."
Do those declarations mean something or nothing. If they mean something, then surely we are bound to apply them in this case, for indeed for more than half a century the Indian people have adopted every means in their power, short of open rebellion, to express their view that they do desire the fullest self-government for their country. Nevertheless, the severance must, of course, give to the people of this country, after these last two centuries—to the achievements of which tribute has been paid by the noble Earl, the Secretary of State, and the noble Viscount who has just spoken—a sense of sadness that the close connexion should be over. We have taken great pride and satisfaction in having in large degree endowed India with order and justice and the elements of prosperity and economic development. And we have taken a special pride in the devoted service of the Indian Civil Service, recruited from the people of these Islands. But, at the same time, this very stage in the development of India has always been declared to be the consummation for which we ourselves wished.
One clause in this Bill recognizes that the title of Emperor of India for the British Sovereign must be discarded, but that, after all, is a new addition to the historic designations of our Sovereigns. It was enacted only in the year 1876, therefore in the lifetime of the oldest of your Lordships who sit here to-day. It was at that time resisted with passionate intensity. It gave rise to a bitter controversy throughout the country and to animated debates in both Houses of Parliament. In the House of Commons the
828
sanction of the title of Empress of India to be taken by the Queen was carried on the Third Reading only by a majority of seventy-five, and a strictly Party majority at that, while in your Lordships' House, when an Address to the Crown, moved by Lord Shaftesbury, praying Her Majesty Queen Victoria not to adopt the title of Empress of India, was voted on, the Contents numbered ninety-one and the Not-Contents 137, so that the sanction for the title was carried in this House by a majority of only forty-six.
At that time Mr. Gladstone, who made two speeches in another place opposing the proposal of Mr. Disraeli, then Prime Minister, said in one of these speeches, dealing with the wider issues involved:
"If it be true—and it is true—that we govern India without the restraints of a law except such law as we make ourselves—if it be true that we have not been able to give to India the benefit and blessings of free institutions … that, so far as it is true, I feel to be our weakness and our calamity."
Those words, spoken with great foresight, recognized that the ultimate aim of this country, if we wished to avoid weakness and calamity, must be the establishment of free institutions. Ever since then British Liberalism has supported at every stage the extension, step by step, of Indian self-government and, having no faith in Imperialism or in what that word has always been understood to stand for throughout the history of nations, Liberals have disapproved of the title which was assumed in 1876, and will witness its disappearance to-day without regret.
Incidentally, this severance, which on many grounds gives rise to a feeling of sadness, from a purely practical point of view may be regarded as being in some degree an alleviation for this country. Our Army has always been organized with an eye to the requirements of the garrisoning of India by a very large number of British troops, and ever since the Cardwell reform after the Crimean War and the Indian Mutiny, the British Army has been organized on a basis of linked battalions with a view to providing a continuous series of reinforcements for a great army in India. Now that obligation is brought to an end there may be a welcome lightening of the burdens that lie upon the manpower of this country and strain so greatly our resources, and it may be possible when the whole question is reconsidered to

829
review the present arrangements for determining the numbers and methods of recruitment of the British Army.
When we recently discussed this Indian question—it seems only the other day but was as long ago as last February—great anxiety was expressed in some quarters of this House at the decision of the Government to name a fixed day on which British rule in India should come to an end. Since then events have moved very fast, and the improvement in the situation has been most remarkable. It has justified the action of the Government in fixing that date, and this House, looking back to the debate in retrospect, will feel pleased that it did not place itself on record as condemning that action of the Government. This unexpected improvement has undoubtedly been due in no small degree, as has been mentioned by the noble Earl the Secretary of State for India, to the personality of the Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten. I do not know any example in modern times so striking and so remarkable of the influence of a single personality on the development of great events. I think those who are acquainted with the course of these events will join with the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in thanking Lady Mountbatten for the share she has had in fostering that atmosphere of friendship and good will which has so largely contributed to the results that have been achieved.
I think we must congratulate also the Prime Minister, who has been personally responsible for this choice, on the wisdom of his selection. Everyone is glad that Lord Mountbatten has consented to remain in India at this moment of transition in accordance with the demands of all sections there. If the Government had announced that in a month from now Lord Mountbatten's term of office was to end and he was to leave India, it would be regarded both here and there as a great calamity. His wise, sincere, firm and persuasive influence is needed in the actual transition that is to take place in the corning months. For the Indians probably by now are well aware, probably more fully aware than ever before, of the great dangers to which the situation gives rise. The freedom of a people to govern themselves is also freedom to mis-govern themselves, and liberty from domination from abroad is also liberty to create dictatorships at home. Just as a monarchy may mean freedom, so a republic may
830
mean a tyranny, as we have seen in many cases in history and in recent history, and if we look round the world we may see some to-day.
I have regretted the possibility of the partition of India because it is there that I see the greatest danger of all. Someone has said that there is nothing in the world more evil than a frontier; and the fewer of them there are the better. Here you are creating new frontiers and new independent States. You are breaking up an integration which already existed, whereas what the world needs is to create more integrations. But let us trust that these two great communities, Moslems and Hindus, if they are firmly established as separate States, may find it easier to come together on an equal footing than when they faced one another within the same State boundaries as a minority of 100,000,000 on the one hand, and a majority of 300,000,000 on the other.
With regard to the other problems, the one which relates to the future of the States is apparently well on the way to solution. Already a month ago, States with a population of 54,000,000, out of 93,000,000 in total, had associated themselves with one or other of the new Dominions, and we may confidently expect, especially after the statesmanlike declarations of late by Congress leaders, that that process will be carried to its conclusion. As to the Depressed Classes, it has often been urged that we ought not to leave India without having insisted upon some pledges from our successors, whoever they might be, that the Depressed Classes would be relieved from their disabilities; and furthermore, that other minorities should be protected. A paper undertaking of that sort would, in any case, have had little value.
Now we have what is far more trustworthy and more likely to command confidence—namely, a Declaration of the Constituent Assembly of India itself which, before the advent even of the Moslems and with a very large Hindu majority, not long ago passed this provision to be inserted in the new Constitution that they were drafting. That would be a Constitution, they said:
"Wherein shall be guaranteed and assured to all the people of India justice, social, economic and political; equality of status, of opportunity, and before the law; freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship, association and action subject to the law and

831
public morality. Wherein adequate safeguard shall be provided for minorities, backward and tribal areas, and depressed and other backward classes."
Such a provision, enacted freely and on their own initiative—not imposed by an alien former ruler as a parting message, but accepted voluntarily and freely—they will surely regard as one which they are bound in honour to fulfil.
In any case, no actual power resides in this Parliament to intervene with the new regime on behalf of the Depressed Classes, or of other minorities, or of the Princes; and any endeavour to do so would perhaps arouse false expectations in their minds which could not by any possibility be supported. A man making his will can impose obligations on his heirs, executors and assigns, but in this case there are no heirs, executors and assigns to whom we can give instructions, who would be in a position to fulfil those instructions and willing to accept them. It would be futile to attempt to leave behind some titular official representing the British Crown—as a sort of ghost of the British Raj, gibbering along the corridors.
This Bill, which your Lordships are asked to pass with so much celerity, raises many points of detail, to some of which the noble Viscount who has just spoken has referred, and perhaps during this debate and during the Committee stage further details may be elucidated. But in the main the House to-day is asked to pass less a Statute which it is concerned to draft correctly than to ratify a Treaty which has been arranged by plenipotentiaries, and which must in its substance be accepted as a whole. As I have said, the Indian people during the last half century and more have used every expression of public opinion at their command, short of open rebellion, to show what their wishes were; and, looking back, I think it is right to say in retrospect that the fact that there has been no open rebellion in India during all the stages of this dispute is very largely due to the influence of Mr. Gandhi, and to his creed of non-violence, which represents one of the essentials of the pacific spirit of the Hindu religion. But for that the course of events in India might have been very different.
It is rare that such a spirit of nonviolence among the governed evokes
832
a similar response from the governors. As a rule, in history, if the people adopt the policy of non-violence, and rest under their grievances without taking any form of military action, the governors merely welcome that as a convenience, and as an encouragement or a justification for effecting no change. But we in this country, and in this Parliament, claim to be a civilized people, loving liberty for its own sake; and not only for ourselves, but for everyone else in similar circumstances. On the whole we have met this spirit of non-violence in the same temper. So we reach what is in fact the finest culmination of British rule in India: That is, it has provided for its own ending, and for that ending to be effected without any upheaval. It may be said of the British Raj, as Shakespeare said of the Thane of Cawdor: "Nothing in his life became him like the leaving it." People sometimes ask why it is that the nations are not wise enough to have their peace conferences and to make their treaties before the wars begin, instead of only at the end of years of conflict and bloodshed. This Bill is a model to all future generations: it is a treaty of peace without a war.
4.28 p.m.
THE EARL OF HALIFAX: My Lords, it will be quite clear from the speeches that have been made that there is no desire in any quarter of your Lordships' House to delay the progress of this Bill. But I think the speeches that have been made also show that it would have been quite inappropriate that such a Bill as this, which must be of such great future significance, should have failed to attract the attention in your Lordships' House which, as we have seen, the House is so peculiarly qualified to give. In saying that, I am conscious that there may be many of your Lordships who think that there are many ex-Secretaries of State, Indian administrators and Viceroys, who think that no Indian debate can be quite complete without their doing their best to add somewhat to the wisdom of the world. Therefore, being quite unofficial, I only speak with a word of apology to your Lordships; and I promise, in view of the wide range of speeches to which we have been fortunate enough to listen, not to detain your Lordships for more than a few moments.

833
In the well-deserved tribute which the noble Earl who introduced the Bill paid to the Services, civil and military, for their record over a long period of years—a tribute in which he carried the support and the concurrence of every member of your Lordships' House—he was kind enough to pay an over-generous tribute to myself, which somewhat fortifies me in saying a word. But it also so happens— if I may touch upon a personal note—that my grandfather was Secretary of State for India fur the seven years following the passing of the old East India Company, and, therefore, I had a certain desire, I admit, for historical reasons, to say something as the next great period of the India record passes into history.
As has been said, this Bill constitutes the greatest—as I suppose of its kind it will certainly be the last—contribution by Parliament to the constitutional history of India. It is, I think, eloquent of the speed with which events and thought have moved that this new chapter of Commonwealth history—which in the case of the other Dominions was recorded by Parliament only after it had been written through practice and spontaneous growth—should in the case of India be the subject of formal legislation.
I am one of those who think that His Majesty's Government, speaking broadly, have deserved well of the Commonwealth for the approach that they have made to this problem in the last few months, culminating in their principal proposals of June 3. As one looks back, I think one can see that all too often in India has British policy suffered the frustration and condemnation of "Too little and too late." I think it has meant much for the long-term hopes which we may all cherish, that the approach of His Majesty's Government to this tangled problem should have been inspired, as it has been, with courage and with imagination, supported, as it has been, by the indomitable vigour and unrivalled resource of His Majesty's representative in India to-day. One of the most significant comments, as I thought, on the June 3 proposal was made by Mr. Amery who was the Secretary of State in Mr. Churchill's Government, and which indeed shows—as did the debates in another place, and the debate in your Lordships' House—how large is the substantial unity of all Parties at the present time.
834
Writing in The Times of June 4, Mr. Amery, after saying that he took full responsibility for the policy announced in his time as Secretary of State, of accepting India's unrestricted right of self-determination once she had agreed upon her future constitution, went on to say these words to which I venture to call the attention of your Lordships. He said:
"But I have long realized that this was an inversion of the right order of procedure, and that it is only in the atmosphere of complete liberation from even the shadow of Whitehall control than Indian legislators can concentrate whole-heartedly on the great constructive task before them."
As we all know, and as has been said this afternoon, henceforth the new Governments in India will be masters of their own destiny. Their choice of it will be absolutely free, absolutely uncontrolled; and in the atmosphere of complete freedom which this Bill establishes they will, as the noble Earl told us, at once become autonomous members of the Commonwealth and as such inheritor beneficiaries of the incentive and the strength of friendly co-operation which every member of the British Commonwealth enjoys. In any case, they will know that in the British Government and people they have friends who will be prepared to place an unrivalled political experience and a measure of unstinted help at the service of the new Indias which are now emerging. They will know that behind that possibility of help, should they desire it, there is no hidden purpose and no self-seeking.
There will be much, I doubt not, which in the months ahead will demand patience, restraint, wisdom and good temper. There will be endless questions arising from partition, some large, some small, but I suspect all difficult. There will be questions arising from particular obligations, so long accepted by the British Crown and Parliament, that now pass to other hands. I was glad to hear my noble friend who spoke from the Bench opposite give particular attention to the position of what we now know as the Scheduled Castes, and what we used to know better as the Depressed Classes. I have myself always felt, and felt I must admit with a measure of sorrowful regret, that in the case of an alien Government the capacity to deal with a great social domestic problem like that

835
reaching so far back as it does into the history of India, was inevitably and necessarily limited. We have repeatedly promised to do, and I think we may claim that we have done, our best. What the noble Viscount who spoke last said as to the absence of power in our hands as we leave India is indubitably true. As we are leaving, the British people will earnestly hope that those who will occupy the seats of power will be sensible both of the responsibility and, I would add, of the opportunity that this great human problem will present for them.
A word or two, if I may, in regard to the Indian States. The noble Earl who is responsible for these affairs certainly will not forget how solemn were the treaties by which they were bound to the Crown, treaties which we to-day, through unilateral action, find ourselves compelled to void. None of us will forget how the States, over many generations, have fulfilled, with constant and complete loyalty, the obligations that those treaties imposed upon them. So far as I am aware, they have never sought in any way to obstruct the progress of British India towards responsible Government. There was the occasion in 1930, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, alluded in another connexion, when the Princes made a notable declaration in favour of an All-India Federation. I have little doubt that he would agree with me that that declaration was very important at that moment in bringing forward the whole question of responsible government for British India into the field of practical politics.
I mention those cases because, with their roots set deep in history as they are and also in the traditional regard and affection of their peoples, and occupying a somewhat middle position between the British Government and the forward-looking nationalist aspirations of British India, many had hoped that it would be possible to see the States exercising a mediating influence in the handling of India's difficulties. In the event, of course, as we all know, things have turned out very differently, and it is not hard to imagine the embarrassment which the present position, as Lord Templewood has shown, has caused for many of the ruling Princes of India to-day. There is no need to repeat what he well said, and I only add
836
this: that, while we must recognize the difficulties in which they have been placed, the Secretary of State for India and everyone, wherever he sits, must also, no doubt, recognize the extreme difficulties, on the other side, of His Majesty's Government and of what we used to call British India—the two new Dominions that are now emerging in India. The conclusion, of course, is that, as matters stand to-day, you are face to face there with what has been truly called a dilemma, from which no easy escape offers. I was very glad indeed to hear the Secretary of State for India say that, of course, problems of that sort must be judged in the light of facts prevailing at any particular time, or words to that effect. I was glad for this reason: that, to my mind, it is essentially the kind of problem for which time is far more likely to bring a solution than any amount of logic—time, time, time and patience.
Therefore, my Lords, if that be the spirit in which, as I am sure it is, His Majesty's Government are prepared to approach that problem, and if that spirit be, as I hope it may be, the spirit in which it will be approached in India where the settlement will lie, then I think that there will be ground, perhaps, for taking hope from the fact that it does seem, as I think Lord Listowel reminded us, to be the particular genius of the British Commonwealth to adjust apparently incompatible thoughts. He said, quite truly, that we have been successful in maintaining unity through wide diversity; that is certainly true. We have also been successful in seeing that the right to and the enjoyment of full independence has in no case prejudiced the not less powerful capacity for close and intimate collaboration. I do not think, perhaps, it is quite irrelevant to assert that we have also been responsible for what impresses other nations as quite a remarkable achievement. We have managed to combine great reverence for our historic monarchy with all the practices and the attributes of a vital and a very adventurous democracy. We are about the only people in the world who have done this sort of thing, and I do not think it is too much to say, therefore, that the life of this strange political entity, the British Commonwealth, has been founded and fostered in this soil of apparent contradictions.

837
If your Lordships ask yourselves why we have managed to do that, I offer you one explanation. It is largely because we have been fortunate enough, through a series of perhaps partly accidental, partly historical, circumstances, to learn what I believe to be one of the deeper laws of life—namely, that in the long run influence is a very much finer and more durable and more eternal thing than power. We have realized that, in the affairs of men, it is human feeling and human sympathy that are the essential conditions of understanding. There are mistakes sometimes, but, on the whole, that is the background of our thoughts, and that is why we get along pretty well. I always remember—and some of your Lordships may remember—that the late Lord Grey said something, which is published in one of his books, to the effect that nothing so much predisposes men to understand as the consciousness that they are understood. That is very profound wisdom. Therefore, I would hope that this good fairy of our political society may be powerful enough to guide all those who are concerned to lay the foundations of the new India so to do it and so to build as to enable and encourage all the constituent elements in the new India to bring their particular gifts and contributions to her common service.
4.48 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, it is with a sense of profound thankfulness that I rise to take part in this historic debate. It will not surprise your Lordships when I say there have been times when I have viewed the future prospects in India with grave misgiving. First, there was a danger that the sense of frustration at the long delay in obtaining self-government would flare up in open clash between the British and Indian peoples. Secondly, there was a danger that the removal of the British overlord-ship would usher in a period of communal strife in India which would leave indelible stains of blood. Thirdly, there might have been such acute disagreement in this country over the nature of the settlement and the method of our departure that Indian independence would have appeared to be the gift of one British Party and not the free choice of the British people as a whole. I am happy
838
to think that all these dangers have been averted.
The sense of frustration in India has disappeared, and with it any animosity towards ourselves on the part of the responsible leaders of Indian public opinion. Instead, we are starting the new chapter of British-Indian relationship with a splendid fund of good will and good fellowship. There is reason to hope that, as the settlement has been agreed on by the principal figures in Indian political life, communal bitterness will now tend to subside. The debate that took place last week in another place and that which is taking place to-day in your Lordships' House indicate that there is substantial agreement amongst all Parties and I am confident that that agreement reflects the general feeling of the people of this country.
Of course, this is not to say that the solution which has been reached is either in itself ideal or presents no anxiety for the future. In times gone by great statesmen in our own country and great men in India have envisaged the birth of one great nation of India's people that would take its place among the free nations of the world; but that is not to be the case, at any rate for the time being. I remember, when I was an undergraduate at Cambridge, that the College porter left us one afternoon to go to his own home, and he told us that his wife was expecting to give birth to a child that evening. He came back next morning with rather a long face and told us that, instead of the single child that he was expecting to receive into his home, his wife had presented him with twins. Something like that has happened in India. Mother India has been in labor" for a very long time, and everyone has been wondering what would be the character of the infant that would come into being. Lo and behold! instead of one State emerging from the womb of Mother India, twin States are emerging, as described in this Bill.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, reminded us earlier on, that is a very different result from that contemplated in the 1935 Act; and further, it is a very different result from that which we members of the Cabinet Mission who went to India last year contemplated. We drew up a scheme that we hoped would commend itself to all sections in India;

839
and perhaps I shall be pardoned if I adhere to the view that, as an ideal solution, the federal basis envisaged in the 1935 Act or the federal system which we proposed last year in India would have been better than the scheme which is now being put into operation. Our proposal would not have involved the partition of India; it would not have carried out the partition of Bengal or the partition of the Punjab. But that proposal of ours did not survive the fire of criticism and the doubts and suspicions which prevailed in the minds of various sections of the people of India. I think undoubtedly that it is much better to have a solution that may not appear so good on paper but that commands the real and genuine support of all sections or at any rate leading sections of India, than one which may ideally and theoretically be better but which is really planting an apple of discord in their midst. Further, I would remind your Lordships that we who went to India last year frankly said that there was a solution which we offered to them, but if they were prepared instead to agree on some different solution we were quite willing that they should take that course.
The noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of this Bill to-day spoke of the great praise that was due to the Viceroy of India, Lord Louis Mountbatten. I would like to re-echo that sentiment and to express our tribute and our debt of gratitude to the man who has succeeded in bringing the Indian Parties together to accept, even if with some reluctance, this solution of Indian problems. I should also like to express my agreement with the noble Earl in paying a tribute to the Prime Minister who has never failed to push forward a solution of this problem in the face of very grave difficulties which any of your Lordships who have followed this matter with any knowledge cannot fail to have observed. I agree also with what the noble Earl said of the political leaders in India. We must never forget that a political leader has not merely himself to consider; he has a large mass of followers; and it represents a degree of courage on the part of the leaders of the political Parties that they have agreed to recommend to their followers this solution, which, as much from their point of view as from ours, is not an ideal solution of the difficulties which confronted their country.
840
I may perhaps be permitted to pay a tribute also to my noble friend, the Secretary of State himself, who, undoubtedly, during these months that he has held this office has faced great difficulties and anxieties, and brought them to a successful result. It is only right too that I should say a word for the staff of the India Office. They have given not only the devotion and loyalty to the members of the Government that we have learnt to expect from members of the Civil Service. They have shown as well exceptional zeal and efficiency in tackling this astoundingly difficult problem of India. When I was Secretary of State, I confess I had a good deal of doubt whether we could produce a Bill and carry it through all its stages in both Houses of Parliament and get it implemented by the date that had been fixed, the end of June, 1948. The Government have now accelerated and antedated that by months. And yet those who were responsible for drafting this Bill have put together a measure which, neither in another place nor in your Lordships' House, has been found gravely deficient in any substantial item. I think that does represent a work of skill, devotion, and initiative, which is worthy of the highest praise.
When I was at the India Office I always felt a deep sense of responsibility for those servants of India whose personal lot was being substantially changed by the reforms which were coming into effect. I had particular concern for the members of the Secretary of State's Services. They of course have never stood alone; there is a large number of other devoted men who have worked for India who were not members of the Secretary of State's Services, and I was very glad to read what was said in another place, and to hear what was said by the noble Earl to-day, of the intentions of the Government to stand by all those worthy and devoted servants of India.
There is one small section of people that I should like to mention, who I think have not hitherto been referred to. I mean those men who were transferred, I think it was in 1921, from the Indian Office to India House, and I feel sure that the Secretary of State will be able to give me a satisfactory answer with regard to them. The Office of the High Commissioner was, I think, created in the year 1921 to take over direct control from the Government of India of certain of the Agency functions

841
previously exercised by the Secretary of State, and the whole of the stores of that department, and about half of the Accountant-General's Department of the Indian Office. In consideration of their existing service, on that transference from the Home Government to service under the Government of India, they were given a written undertaking by the Secretary of State that their conditions and terms of service and salary and pension scales would in no way be impaired by this transfer. I understand that the small number of men who are left in that service from that date are in some anxiety as to their position, and I feel sure the Secretary of State will be able to say that the promise given to them then will be fully executed in practice.
It only remains for me to say two things. First of all I would congratulate the Indians upon the fact that they are getting to-day full equality with the people of these islands. The noble Earl, Lord Halifax, said that they were getting complete freedom and, of course, that is true, but I stress, even more than complete freedom, they are getting complete equality with the United Kingdom and other members of the British Commonwealth. I am sure it is that combination of complete freedom and complete equality, that status, which they prize above everything else, and I offer my congratulations to them that that is now coming about. I also offer to them, not only on behalf of myself but I think on behalf of the great bulk of the people in this country, my good wishes for their future. I am sure there are many in India who are prepared to put aside past controversy and sectional differences, and who are thinking in terms of the constructive work that lies before them in the future. Not least among those are many Indian women who have, in recent years, been taking an increasing part in public life, and who bring a special viewpoint of great value to the future. Those who have followed those activities will, I am sure, reckon that a feature of good promise for the future of Indian life.
I am glad to think that, for the time being at any rate, both India and Pakistan are staying within the Commonwealth, and I shall be glad if they can find a lasting home therein. But, if they decide otherwise, I am certain that they can still count on the help and encouragement of members of our own family
842
in setting up housekeeping on their own. For me friendship and good will are more permanent and fundamental bonds of unity than mere constitutional structure. We in the United Kingdom shall continue to watch the growing activities and progress of the Indian peoples, not merely without any feeling of jealousy or envy, but with a sense of pride, and an active hope in our hearts that increasing prosperity may be theirs, and that they may play a beneficent part in the annals of the world.
5.7 p.m.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, I shall not keep your Lordships long and, as I dare say you know, my only locus for speaking at all is my service on the Committee which held such long sittings before the Act of 1935. I am afraid I must strike a discordant note and, in particular, I cannot share the optimism of Lord Halifax. I know he has had to leave, and I wish I could have said it in his presence. I have long been a friend of his and have admired him greatly in his capacity as Leader of this House, and as Foreign Secretary and, from all I have heard of him, as Ambassador; but I have always felt that, like most of the Bishops of the Seven Churches, there was just something against him, and that was that he carried the law of charity and thinking no evil to such a degree that I was tempted to suppose that he abjured the doctrine of original sin. Unfortunately, when you come to legislation you must contemplate the possibility, and perhaps even the probability, of evil resulting, and you must avert it if you can. That is exactly what I think in these proposals the Government have failed to do.
Certainly in so much as this Bill will prevent immediate civil war, to that extent, but no further, it must be welcomed. But for a long term, or even a comparatively long term of a few years, I think it is simply grotesque, and I base that view on, among other things, the particular statement that the 'Commissioners made last year as to the difficulties. What are the first fruits of this division? Separate and perhaps multiple Armies, separate and perhaps multiple Customs, the breaking of communications, impairment of defence, and—something that has not hitherto been alluded to at all—separation of the Judicature. That is something in regard to which nothing has been

843
said hitherto, as far as I know. In regard to questions like that of division and separation, you must not draw a comparison between India and small fairly divisible countries like Ireland or Switzerland. You must compare what is happening on this great sub-continent with what might happen if you applied the same principles to Europe. More than once in this debate to-day, and even from the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel—who, I venture to think, should not use it—I have heard the expression: "the Indian people." There is no Indian people, any more than there is a European people. What would happen if you applied some system like this to Europe? Suppose you set up two great divisions, with the iron curtain between them, which you might call, perhaps, Muscovistan and Frankistan, and at the same time others and perhaps ourselves, detached states like Portugal and Greece, remained standing aloof. And suppose, in particular, that you gave Muscovistan a great slice of France with not even the makeshift of a corridor between them. What would happen? That is precisely what you are doing here.
There are a great many things which are important but which I will not dwell upon. Some have already been touched upon in the debate and some have not—relations with States or with other Dominions, division of the armies, apportionment of debt (nothing has been said about that to-day I believe) and division of the Judicature. All That I wish to speak on, and I have spoken with perhaps wearisome reiteration upon it before, is the subject of the protection of minorities. In that connexion may I draw the attention of the House to Clause 6 (2) of the Bill which says that:
"the powers of the Legislature of each Dominion include the power to repeal or amend any such Act"—
that is, Act of the Imperial Parliament—
"order, rule or regulation in so far as it is part of the law of the Dominion."
It gives an absolutely unlimited power of legislation from the time when this Bill becomes an Act. In the very next sentence it takes away any veto of even the most temporary kind from His Majesty or this Government. If there is to be any real protection for minorities there must be three things. First there must be an organic law which protects
844
them, as it does in America, even though that is, in some cases, violated. Secondly, there must be an independent Supreme Court to interpret it. Thirdly, there must be reserve powers to enforce it.
Under this clause, Clause 6, there are none of these things. Anything that is passed now, anything that the Constituent Assembly may put in, with the best of sentiments and the utmost good will, will all go for nothing if the new Legislatures are given complete power to alter them at any time. To give them power subject to organic law is not at all incompatible with Dominion status. That obtains in Canada. It has obtained there ever since the Quebec Act of 1774. It was embodied and confirmed by the British North America Act of 1867, and no one can say that Canada is in any way prejudiced by having those powers subject to that reserve. What now will happen is this. There will be a Hindu minority in Pakistan, and there will be Moslem minorities in India, or, as I would prefer to call it, Hindustan. They will have some protection but it is protection of a very dangerous character. It rests on each having hostages and on their mutual fear of those hostages being oppressed. For the others there will be nothing but smooth words, alterable at any time.
It is not only the Scheduled Castes who are concerned. Once again, I must remind your Lordships that there are primitive Indian tribes, native Christians, Anglo-Indians, Parsees, and a few Jews. All these will have no protection at all against a Government which can alter the terms of the Constitution as and when they please. As the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, pointed out, it is perfectly true that we have not been able to alter the social status of the Depressed Classes. But, at any rate, we have given them equality before the law, and reserve powers for their protection, whether in administration or legislation, to the Governor-General. All that will be gone. So far as other minorities are concerned, I am told that in the case of the Anglo-Indians, preparations are already made for mass emigration from India.
But that is not quite all, because if you go on to Clause 8, which is a somewhat extraordinary clause, you find it says there that the Constituent Assembly shall, for the purpose of making provision

845
as to the Constitution of a Dominion exercise all the powers which are provided by Clause 6 for the new Dominions. That means that you can have no second thoughts at all in this matter: that once this Bill becomes an Act you can do no more; you have completely disburdened yourself of all responsibility. That has not been so in the case of other Dominions. In the case of Ireland, for instance, a treaty was made. There is no need for a treaty here—they will do just as they like. It is true that in the case of Ireland I do not think that all the stipulations were satisfactory, and one—namely that relating to treaty ports—was very wrongly, as I think, given away. This brought us into great embarrassment and but for the control which remained of the northern ports might even have prejudiced the whole issue of the war. In this case, there is nothing whatever, except words backed up by no legal authority at all, to prevent a violation by the new Dominions, in the course of time. I do not say that the immediate leaders now would do such a thing, but the power is there, and some day it may be exercised. This hasty throwing away of constitutional power is not a system that is acted upon by France in respect of her Eastern Dominions, nor, so far as I can understand, by Holland, Who seems to have arrived at what I hope may prove to be a tolerable compromise.
I beg your Lordships to believe that I am not speaking from any sentiment of pride of Empire, though one cannot but remember great men of the past, devoted civil servants and others, who have built up a great heritage. It is what I regard as a dereliction of duty that appals me. I have said that we have a great heritage, and with that is coupled a great responsibility. Both these, however unwittingly, are being thrown away. I have been told—I know not whether it is accurate—that in the calendar of the Ethiopian Christian Church a place has been found for Pontius Pilate, on the ground that he washed his hands. If disclaimer of responsibility by ablution is a necessary qualification for sanctity we ought shortly to have a Saint Clement, not of Alexandria, but of Limehouse. I remember as a small boy reading a speech in this House by Lord Cairns on the Majuba surrender, which, as you know, cost in its sequel an infinity of
846
blood and treasure, and the quotation with which he ended his speech is as true now saving that episode as it was when he said it.
"In all the ills we ever bore,
We prayed, we sighed, we wept:
We never blushed before."
5.21 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I am sure we have listened with sincere interest to the noble Lord who has just spoken and he can truly claim that he is consistent, but I asked myself whilst he was speaking, what course would he have pursued?
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I can tell the noble Viscount that at once. I would have been prepared to negotiate a treaty with the leaders of the Indian Parties.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: And the Bill that is now before us is a result of negotiations with those Indian leaders. It is not backed by the oppression and force majeure which seemed to be behind whit the noble Lord was saying. It is because they and we believe in liberty, it is because we sincerely believe, as the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, said, that the greatest safeguard for minorities is to give responsibility for government of a country to those who live in it, that we make these proposals. I regard this as a very great historic Bill. I think it is unprecedented in history that the government of a great continent should be voluntarily handed over to its people after a long period of rule by others—voluntarily, with good will on both sides. I think we can fairly say that in this act of conferment of complete self-government upon the varied peoples of a continent we shall have the sympathy and support, so far as it can be given, of every other self-governing member of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
From August 15 next, these two Dominions, Pakistan and India, will share as equals with ourselves, and Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the Union of South Africa, the full power of self-government. As the noble Viscount who spoke from the opposite Bench early on said, there is a multitude of different questions which still require to be dealt with, but we have the reassurance that machinery is being set up to enable them to be dealt with by those concerned. Moreover, it is a great reassurance and an indication of the good will that exists, that Lord Mountbatten should have been asked by both sides to be Chairman of

847
the Defence Committee. There is no doubt that in due time one by one and in various ways these different problems will be solved.
One of the outstanding problems, as the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, said, is that of the States. We are glad that already the Governments have set up their own States Department to deal with this, but in dealing with them I am sure that what the noble Earl said, was right: time will be required, my Lords, much time and an infinity of patience. At the present moment we can truly claim that there is increasing evidence of the desire of responsible statesmen on all sides in India to promote conditions which will bring more and more into the common life of India the co-operation and good will of the States, and it is significant that this Bill contains the arrangements for the maintenance of common services like posts and telegraphs, customs, and communications, and no doubt they will be maintained until they are superseded later on by more organic and compact arrangements.
I venture to intrude into this debate to say something of a somewhat more personal character. I think something should be mentioned of the experiences which lie behind this rapid and, to many, unforeseen development. I accept to the full what we owe to the Act of 1935, which has been of immense service in providing the machinery of government. We ought not to forget, although my noble friend the Secretary of State did not say anything about it, what is really owing to the Cabinet Mission. It was their detailed, patient work which created, or at all events proposed, much of the machinery that is gradually coming into use. Their forethought and previous preparation were the indispensable preliminaries to the conduct of the business of the Government. We ought to fill a blank in the tribute which my noble friend paid to his immediate predecessor, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, by recognizing the infinite patience which the noble Lord displayed and his constant concentration upon the main purposes that he had in view and his loyalty to that purpose all the time he was Secretary of State for India.
I also wish to take this opportunity of saying something which I can say because it has been my privilege for many months
848
past to be a member of the India Committee. We ought to say something to-day of the share in this historic development which belongs to the Prime Minister, and to Lord Mountbatten. The Prime Minister was Chairman of the India Committee under previous Governments throughout the war, and he has been Chairman under this Government. It is impossible to exaggerate the perils which confronted us in India in the autumn and winter of last year.
For reasons which it is difficult to discover, there was a growing hostility at that time; there was a distrust and disbelief in us, and a growth of communal disturbances which was really alarming. It was quite obvious that there was an overwhelming need to take some step to reverse these hostile currents, if possible, and to inspire confidence and gain trust, and, above all, to induce a state of affairs in which Indian statesmen would willingly co-operate with us in making the arrangements which would have to be made if India was to achieve self-government. Quite frankly, I had the impression that, notwithstanding all that had happened before, there was still a widespread and quite unfounded distrust of our intentions. That was the reason, at rock bottom, for the Declaration of February 20, made after some months of anxiety. I think to-day that history will record that in the discussions in Parliament on that Declaration very much is owing to the courageous interposition of the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, in your Lordships' House. It was a turning point.
The decision to make that Declaration has been remarkably and unexpectedly justified. Distrust has given way to confidence, and animosity has been replaced by friendship in an entirely unexpected way. The impulse to separate from us has been replaced by a willingness to join with us in a common effort to think out and deal beforehand with the problems of the future Government of India. I would say to your Lordships that, in my judgment (in saying this I am, I know, doing what strictly I ought not to do, but I am doing it on my own responsibility, for I am speaking as myself a member of the Cabinet, which is quite improper), what we owe in respect of this outcome to the Prime Minister cannot be overstated. He had a deep knowledge of India, of course, but I may say that by day, and often by night, we sat

849
through these deliberations and there was always something fresh, and always something tantalizing, and not seldom something disturbing. But the Prime Minister's patience and composure were never ruffled. By this persistent concentration upon gaining good will and co-operation a measure of success was beginning to be achieved. I will put it no higher than that. It is due to the Prime Minister that we have got Lord Mountbatten out in India. For my own part, when I first heard the suggestion, I was somewhat taken aback, but at the same time I must say I thought it was a brainwave.
May I just say a little—as I think it ought to be said—of how much is due to Lord Mountbatten? In the discussions we had with him, his alertness and willingness to absorb the different problems which presented themselves to us and to him, were really amazing. I think in India there cannot have been many cases where a man with his extraordinary readiness to grasp new situations has obtained the confidence of men of all Parties with such great rapidity. It is very largely due to him, I think, that the misgivings and difficulties of the autumn and winter of last year can be replaced by the proposals of the Bill that are before us. We are all only too deeply conscious of the manifold difficulties that still confront Indian statesmen and ourselves. I have been anxious, as one who knows the circumstances and who took part in the deliberations, to take this opportunity on this very historic occasion of saying (rather on the lines of the somewhat ironical suggestion of the noble Viscount below the gangway, but from another viewpoint) that, just as in those days the name of Campbell-Bannerman was associated with the self-government of South Africa, so will that of Clement Attlee be associated with the establishment of the Dominions in India. I think it is only right that this should be said.
It seems to me, my Lords, that this Bill opens out before us a wider conception of the Commonwealth than we hitherto had. As the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, put it, we feel our way with our characteristic adaptability to changing circumstance's. We do not shape them beforehand for ourselves. We have a most remarkable genius for adapting ourselves to changing conditions. Often enough, as your Lord-
850
ships are aware, it has been urged that there should be some formal machine for central commonwealth organization; but it has not come into existence. And it has not come into existence, in the main, because we are free members of the Commonwealth and confidence and trust between ourselves is a much stronger bond than anything you can write upon paper. We sincerely hope these sentiments will progressively be strengthened between ourselves and these two new great Dominions. I do know—and I can say this with full confidence—that those of us here who will have responsibility in connexion with relations between this country and the new Dominions can be assured that the other members of the Commonwealth will lend their aid to us and to India and Pakistan, with all good will and by all the means in their power, and will do whatever they can to strengthen and develop this new and beneficent association.
5.40 p.m.
LORD HAILEY: My Lords, it would be tempting to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, on one point he has mentioned, and to ask how far the decision announced on February 20 really had the exact effect that the Cabinet expected of it. But that, my Lords, belongs rather to the field of Party controversy, which is one in which I am not an expert, and for which I certainly have no taste. I am much more conscious at the moment of the many grave considerations which have been put forward in your Lordships' House about this Bill, and about the situation which is likely to arise when it is passed. They are far-reaching considerations of great weight and they have been put forward, if I may be allowed to say so, in a manner which must impress upon everyone the deep sense of concern which your Lordships must feel and do feel for that situation.
If I do not myself attempt to add to those general considerations for the moment, it is because I would ask your Lordships' leave to confine myself in the first instance to a much narrower and more restricted field. But it is a matter which is of the gravest concern to a large body of men who have very special claims on our care, claims in which your Lordships have always shown a ready and a generous interest. I refer to the question

851
of the pensionary rights of officers who have served India in the past, and to the conditions of service, including of course pensionary rights, of those who will continue to serve the Indian Governments. These are matters which I had previously desired to raise by Motion before your Lordships, but for reasons which I shall afterwards explain, I refrained from doing so. I think it is incumbent upon me to mention them now, because when once this Bill becomes law, the matter will have passed beyond the control of Parliament.
It may be necessary to bring to your Lordships' notice some of the facts which form a background to this question, but I shall try to be as little technical as possible. Let me make it clear—since I think there has been some confusion upon the subject in another place during the debate on the Committee stage—that there were certain of the services, and notably those recruited by the Secretary of State, such as the Indian Civil Service as a whole, the Police Service as a whole and some other services to a measure determined by the date of their appointment, who have had right to a pension, guaranteed by Statute, and enforcible by law against the Secretary of State for India. Other services, though they had not such definite guarantees provided by Statute, nevertheless felt that they could rely upon the general protection of the British Government so long as it remained in control of the finances of India. It was always envisaged that before that control ceased through the complete transfer of power, an agreement having the force of a treaty would be concluded with the new Government of India by which arrangements would be made for securing the payment of these pensions. But this procedure is, of course, not possible in present circumstances.
In that statement of last April, relating to the grant of compensation to officers whose careers will now be terminated, it was declared that the Indian Government —by which, of course, was meant the Interim Government of India—had accepted liability for the payment of pensions of officers of the Secretary of State's services. It said nothing as to other services. But even the members of the Secretary of State's services felt that they had obtained a very inadequate measure of
852
guarantee in place of the statutory provision that they had hitherto enjoyed. There was nothing unnatural or unreasonable about this feeling. Many of the men whose services are now being prematurely terminated might have to look to their pensions as the means for maintaining themselves and their families over a period which might well extend to forty or fifty years. In the meanwhile, much might happen. All might go well, and the undertaking might be implemented. On the other hand, the outlook of the new Government or Governments in India might not be the same as that of the recent Interim Government. Public finances in India might be strained to a point at which the Governments might be unwilling or perhaps even unable to implement their liability. Difficulties might arise through the operation of exchange or similar controls. At the very best, therefore, these officers might remain throughout this protracted period in a position of anxiety to which no one, I am sure, would like to see them subjected. They felt that the only measure which would give them an adequate feeling of security would be for the sterling liabilities represented by these pensions to be capitalized under some procedure which would place it within the power of the British Government itself to arrange for their payment.
I am not going to dwell on the merits of this proposal because we have been well aware that it was one which the British Government was already considering and, as we also believed, with some good will. But it involved a somewhat delicate process of negotiation with India, and it was for that reason that we abstained—as the noble Earl, the Secretary of State for India is aware—from pressing it on the Government in any manner which might involve a public discussion on it. The members of the Secretary of State's services must now have heard with a definite feeling of relief the statement made on the subject by the Prime Minister on July 9, and which has been repeated here today by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. He made it clear that negotiations are going forward for setting aside a capital sum in sterling to cover the liability for these pensions. He stated that in the meanwhile those concerned will have the assurance of His Majesty's Government that they will receive the pensions to which they are entitled. As I have said,

853
the members of those services will have received this declaration with a great measure of relief. The noble Earl, the Secretary of State for India, will, I am sure, be willing to give them an assurance that His Majesty's Government will use every effort to bring these negotiations to a successful issue. But I am, at the same time, bound to point out to the noble Earl certain other points in which the position does not give the same ground for satisfaction.
The Prime Minister's statement refers only to the Secretary of State's services and analogous services—a term to which I shall afterwards return—and only to the European members of those services. I would ask, in the first place, for an assurance that this procedure of capitalization will apply also to Indian members of the Secretary of State's services who have hitherto drawn sterling pensions in this country and are to all intents and purposes domiciled here. They are not many, but their position must be respected. My major point in this connexion, however, concerns Indians or Anglo-Indians who are drawing or will draw their pensions in India. These are, of course, far more numerous than Indians who have drawn sterling pensions in this country. I am sure I am speaking for others than myself when I say that there will be a great feeling of regret by the European members of the Secretary of State's service if they alone are to get the benefit of this measure of capitalization, and if their Indian colleagues are to be excluded from it. There may have been motives of expediency which limited the grant of compensation announced last April to European members of the Secretary of State's services, but that consideration cannot apply to pensionary rights which have hitherto had the statutory protection to which I have referred, and every endeavour should now be made to secure, by some analogous form of capitalization, the security of the pensions due to Indian members of those services, and which will be payable in India.
My next point raises an even more important, though I admit, a more difficult issue. I said just now that the Prime Minister's statement referred only to the Secretary of State's services and to analogous services. But this, as was explained by the Under-Secretary of State in the course of the Second Reading in
854
another place, meant the officers of the various Defence Services. At the Committee stage he emphasized this point and made it clear that it was not intended to cover the numerous civil officers, both European and Indian, who had not been recruited by the Secretary of State but had been recruited by the Governor-General in Council or by Provincial Governments. Now what is to be the security that these officers will have? They are, as I have said, numerous. They range from public works officers, irrigation officers, railway officers, through a variety of services down to European sergeants of police. In some cases, the distinction between officers of the Secretary of State's services represents a real difference in status; but there are cases in which the distinction is purely fortuitous. Thus, if I may take the railway department, there are some 95 officers who were recruited by the Secretary of State before 1935, when the Act of 1935 removed his power to do so; but there are over 300 others, holding the same class of post and doing exactly the same work, who were recruited after that date by the Governor-General in Council. There is a similar position in certain parts of the Public Works Service.
It is not, of course, the fact that His Majesty's Government has been insensible of this position. The Prime Minister announced on the Second Reading of the Bill that
"as regards persons who have been in the Government Service"—
I take it that means pensioners—
"whether Central or Provincial but whose service has not been specifically under the Secretary of State, the leaders of the Indian Parties have guaranteed the existing terms and conditions of service, of all this employees, including Europeans."
Then he added:
"This covers pensionary and provident fund liabilities."
There is in this case, it is true, no discrimination between Europeans and Indians. But how far can they feel that they have adequate security for their pensions? They have not the security which would be derived from inclusion in the present Bill of a provision equivalent to that of Clause 10. The latter applies only to men who continue in the service of the Indian governments.
It was included, as the Prime Minister stated, at the request of the Indian leaders

855
themselves. Clearly, they suggested this because they wanted to ensure that as many existing officers as possible of the Secretary of State's services should reengage with them. Did they then object to an equivalent provision for officers who had retired in the past, because they felt they had nothing more to gain from them? The undertaking of the Indian leaders is apparently only an oral agreement given to the Viceroy, the terms of which the Government have been unable so far to give us. It still remains to be embodied in legislation by the new Indian Legislatures. Will it give pensioned officers a right of legal action if their pensions are not paid? Again, the undertaking given by the leaders does not provide for compensation or for proportionate pensions where officers are not invited to renew their service with the Indian Governments or do not desire to do so. Surely they have a right to such terms.
This is a very serious matter for all this very large body of officers, both European and Indian, and one which is, I know, causing them the very gravest anxiety. It is true that they did not have the same statutory guarantee as officers recruited by the Secretary of State, but the distinction between them, as I have explained, was in some cases purely fortuitous. All of them feel and feel with justice that they were engaged by authorities who were at the time subject to the ultimate control of Parliament. What right has the British Government now, they ask, to transfer the pensionary liability to a new Government without making adequate arrangements to see that the liability is implemented? Viewed in the light of the work which these men have done for India and not in the light of some purely technical distinction, viewed in short in the light of the obligations which we owe to them, there can be no distinction between them and the members of the Secretary of State's services, and all alike should be equally the concern of the British Government.
Thirdly—and this perhaps is a smaller point—I would ask for an assurance that the procedure of capitalization should apply not only to pensions of officers but to that portion of the family pension funds which has not so far been transferred to the charge of Commissioners in England. That is a matter on which I feel the noble Lord, the Secretary of State
856
for India, will have no difficulty in giving an assurance.
I come now to the provisions of Clause 10 of the Bill in regard to the protection to be given to members of the services who elect to continue in the service of one or other of the Dominions of India. The measure of protection to be given is not, of course, equal to that now enjoyed because, among other things, there can now be no appeal on the part of the services to a Governor or Governor-General who is subject to the control of the Secretary of State. But I do not complain of that for it is inevitable in the circumstances. But there is once more the same unhappy distinction between the Secretary of State's services and other services. The former are given such protection as this Bill can afford; the latter are excluded. It would not, I think, have been impossible by some more considered drafting to have included in the Bill some measure of protection which would have served to relieve the very natural anxiety which they feel about their future. It would appear that all parties in our Parliament have agreed to avoid suggesting any such changes in this Bill as would delay its passing. I deeply regret this; for, in my view, an Amendent of the Bill is required here if we are to avoid making an invidious and unfair distinction against men to whom we have moral obligations as strong as the legal obligations we owe towards members of the Secretary of State's services.
I make no apology for occupying so much of your Lordships' attention in the interests of the past and present services in India. For, my Lords, if we are today passing a Bill for the complete transfer of powers to Indian Governments, it is largely the work of the services of the Crown in India which has made this possible. Parliament may have made its own contribution to the higher policies of rule, but the India of to-day, so different from that which we found when we took over the shattered remains of the Mogul Empire, is largely what the administrative and judicial services, the engineers, the medical and educational services have assisted Indians to make it.
Finally, there is naturally much that I could wish to add on the policy of which this Bill is the expression, and on the circumstances in which it will operate. But I bow to the sentiments which have, I think, determined the attitude of all

857
Parties, both here and in another place. No one, I suppose, can feel that this final stage of our connexion with India is of the character which this or any previous Governments in this country anticipated, or could really have desired. In fact, we had a clear confession on that subject just now from the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence. No one again could feel that this Bill, almost an apology for a constitutional Act, is of a form which, compared with the other great constitutional Acts in our Statute Book, we are likely to view with much satisfaction. But we have come to the launching of the ship and it seems of little avail now to emphasize that neither its structure nor its equipment is all that we could have wished it to be. We are aware of the difficulties of the course it will have to take and of the dangers that it may encounter. It is proper that our feelings on that subject should be voiced here and should be on record. But it is now more dignified and perhaps it is even more profitable that the ship should go down to the waters with our prayers for its success, and with what hopes we can find it in our hearts to give it.
Since I have endeavoured, however, to voice the feelings of the Indian Services on some of the matters in which their personal interests are concerned, may I venture to voice also what I believe to be their feelings on the situation which will arise as the result of the passing of this Bill? They are not preoccupied by the sense that they will no longer be the agents of a system of rule ultimately controlled by the Government and Parliament of this country. They have long accustomed themselves to the fact that India was about to achieve complete self-government and to the constitutional changes which this would involve and the changes it would make in their own careers. But their primary interest has always been in the maintenance of the standards of good administration in the country. They think of the future of that great mass of the Indian population whose fortunes and whose future have been so much the concern of their working lives—the peasant in the field, the small trader in the towns, the labourer in industry. We gladly share the prayers of those who desire that this constitutional change, so far-reaching, so momentous, may not prejudice the future
858
of those people. But if fate should rule otherwise, and if the achievement of India's political aspirations should give those people reason to complain that the standards of order and of justice have suffered, and that they no longer have any recourse against communal violence or partisan prejudices, then the members of the Services would have a very special ground for a feeling of frustration and an abiding sense of regret. May heaven grant that we may never see that day!
6.3 p.m.
LORD SINHA: My Lords, it is with mixed feelings that I rise to-day, after the galaxy of talent which has addressed your Lordships. I have long been a very silent member of your Lordships' House, in a remote corner of die Back Benches. But on this historic occasion I feel I must say how the British people have amply justified the reputation that they have had throughout the world of keeping their word—a reputation which they very nearly lost in India during the last two or three years. I was horrified at the bitterness and racial hatred that existed in India during that time. Some of us often triad to speak to our friends and to other people to try to combat this. But people were just berserk, and they would not see. I think that the whole world owes a great debt of gratitude to His Majesty's Government for their act of faith—I can only call it an act of faith—in this great Bill that has been passed through the other place and is now passing through your Lordships' House so quietly and unobtrusively.
It is with very mixed feelings that we hear talk of partition. That is a word, nobody likes, and it always leads to trouble. But the world is very troubled just now, and again I think His Majesty's Government have given a great lead to all the nations by evaluating spiritual values. That is what is needed so badly in this world to-day. I am not here to preach, but I do feel that India, as your Lordships know very well, has a great spiritual background; and this act of faith by His Majesty's Government has made a strong appeal to them. In the midst of all the killing and riots that have been going on in the last year or so, not a hair of the head of any British man, woman or child, or any of their property, has been touched or damaged. I was there only last winter, and heard how much the Indian people feel that the

859
British had justified their faith in them. Say what they would, they did have faith in the British, and that is why there was never any question of rebellion in India, as there was in other places.
I can only hope and pray, in the circumstances, that this great Bill will help India to realize her responsibilities. I am sure that the leaders of that great country are realizing their responsibilities. Mr. Jinnah said he would never accept a truncated Pakistan; but he has accepted it. There were other people who said they would not accept it but who have done so. I believe that this great offer of Dominion status, ably elucidated as it has been in your Lordships' House, will enable both Dominions after the transition stage to play a great part in the British Commonwealth of Nations, fighting side by side for liberty and freedom, as you have done for generations. Freedom is a great thing, but equality impresses even more; and as some of your Lordships have said, freedom and equality have been conferred on India by this Bill—so rightly named the "Indian Independence Bill." This act will greatly enhance your country's prestige in India.
6.7 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the debate which is now gradually drawing to its close has been, I imagine, for all of us a deeply moving experience. It has become a commonplace in recent debates on the Indian question to describe them as "historic." I suppose the reason is that in that great area of the world's surface events have been developing, as I think the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, said, at such a tremendous speed that on each occasion on which we have discussed this subject we have been faced with an entirely new situation. In that respect I feel there is a marked difference as compared with the situation which we have had to look at, say, in Europe. With regard to Europe, until at any rate the last few weeks, our anxieties have for months past been that there had been no concrete developments. In India, on the other hand, the danger that has tended to oppress some of us has been that events have been moving, in our view, too fast. New situations have been created for which rightly or wrongly we have felt that there has been no adequate preparation.
860
That was our main preoccupation on the last occasion on which this subject was discussed.
There has never been—and I want to emphasize this very strongly—any difference of view, in any part of your Lordships' House, as to the desirability of transferring the reins of government into Indian hands—never. All Parties alike have been pledged to that for many years. What has worried us on this side of the House has been an anxiety lest the decision of His Majesty's Government to leave India on a fixed date might mean the abandonment of the responsibilities without adequate arrangements for handing over those responsibilities. We feared that over-hasty action would lead to the rapid disintegration of the existing system of administration without putting anything in its place, and so bring nearer the very peril which I know the Government, like ourselves, are most anxious to avoid. I am sure the Government will agree, whether they acquiesce or not in this preoccupation, that it has not been an unworthy preoccupation, and that it has arisen from a very deep conciousness on our side of the responsibility this country has had for the Indian peoples.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in the eloquent speech in which he moved the Second Reading of this Bill, rightly paid a tribute to the notable part which Britain has played in India, and we must all recognize to the full the responsibilities which we have assumed with regard to the multifarious peoples and races of that great country. We have moulded them and welded them into one nation, with a common language—English, which is the only common language in India—a common standard of administration, and a common standard of justice. We have regarded it as our sacred trust to protect the poor and the weak, to provide for the defence of the country against foreign aggression, and to promote general prosperity in the Indian communities. That was our duty, which we have performed, I think everybody will agree, to the best of our ability. No doubt we have made mistakes; we are fallible, like all humanity, and it was inevitable that mistakes should be made from time to time. But I do not think we have any reason to be ashamed of our record in India. It is one of which any nation in the world might well be proud. But the very extent

861
of our success undoubtedly did raise new and anxious problems, problems which affected the statesmen not only of this country but of India too.
With the apparent disappearance of those yawning fissures which had hitherto divided the country, and with the emergence of India as a whole and unified nation, there arose a very natural and proper desire on the part of the Indian leaders that they should manage their own affairs. No one could complain of that desire, but it did raise a new and perplexing question. We had hitherto acted as a cement which held the unity of the country together. Was that cement any longer necessary, or had the need for it passed? That was a question which, unfortunately nobody could answer. All we could do was to feel our way forward and prepare, as best we could, for a gradual evolution of the country towards the goal of complete self rule, which is, after all, the goal of all British policy. That, as I understand it, and as I think was said by Lord Listowel this afternoon, is the purpose of every step we have taken from Minto-Morley Reforms onwards, and even before that date. It clearly involved statesmanship of a very high order. If we went too fast, we ran the risk of fatally injuring the structure of unity which had been built up with so much care and devotion over so many years. If, on the other hand, we went too slow, we were liable to create an exasperation and suspicion in Indian minds, and this was bound to undermine that essential confidence in British intentions, which was the very basis of our rule. That was the dilemma in which British statesmanship was placed throughout the whole of this period.
It is with the pace of that advance and not over the objective that the whole controversy over India has been mainly concerned during the last quarter or half century. We, on this side of the House, tended to feel that the Government was going too fast. We feared that they might be imperilling all that had been gained by so much effort, and abandoning minorities to majorities who were not yet fully equipped to assume responsibility for them. Those were our preoccupations. They were not, as I feel, unworthy, and in some respects it may be said they have been justified. For undoubtedly the situation, though in some ways it may have improved, as I think
862
Lord Addison said, in some respects has slid away from under the Government's feet, and they have had to act as a result with more speed and less preparation than they had intended. As a result, we are now faced with the regrettable division of the country into two, with all the difficulties and dangers which that involves, and the advent of a United India is unfortunately postponed into the unforeseeable future.
However, as the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, said in the speech With which he opened the debate from this side of the House, it is not our intention to-day, either to carp at or to criticize the terms of the Bill which is before the House. It would be very easy to criticize, it would be very easy to suggest Amendments to this Bill, a great many Amendments, but I do not personally believe, and I am sure I am speaking for other noble Lords on this side of the House, that that would serve any useful purpose at all at this juncture. Whatever our feelings with regard to these matters, we have got to face the fact that the die is cast. Moreover, we must, of course recognize the immense difficulties with which the Viceroy himself has been faced. I know we would all wish to pay—and here I should like to associate myself with other noble Lords who have spoken—a whole-hearted tribute to the undaunted spirit and the single-minded courage with which he has tackled this gigantic task. We are glad to know that his wise counsel is not going to be withdrawn from India at the present time. But for him and the confidence which he has inspired the situation might be far more perilous than that with which we are at present faced.
At any rate we can register satisfaction over one thing. By an extremely wise decision, which I hope and believe augurs well for the future, the leaders of the Indian Parties have decided not to cut themselves off completely from the Commonwealth. They have decided to remain part of this great association of free nations. As members of the Commonwealth they will have, of course, full responsibility for their own affairs, external and internal. Their future, whether inside or outside the Common-wealth, will be theirs to decide. They will be arbiters—and complete arbiters—of their own destiny. But so long as they decide to remain inside the family

863
of nations of which we are members, they will, of course, retain also those advantages which that membership confers. It is for that reason, if I may say so, that I, personally, rather regret the emphasis which was thrust upon the word "independence" in the title of the Bill; not for any of the reasons which the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, mentioned, but rather for exactly contrary reasons.
Of course, these new Dominions will have the same complete independence of decision as is enjoyed by other members of the Commonwealth. Indeed, they will have exactly the same independence of decision that we ourselves have in this country. They will be adult nations, with the responsibility of adult nations. But in the modern world there really is, in fact, no such thing as independence, in the sense of the old English rhyme "I care for nobody, no not I, and nobody cares for me." To-day all nations are interdependent and they are becoming more closely interdependent with every day that passes. Their fortunes are most indissolubly linked with those of the other nations of the world by every invention of the scientist. It is a steady and progressive evolution. That is the underlying principle and the essential meaning of the covenant of the League of Nations and the Charter of the United Nations. In those circumstances I personally feel that an over-emphasis on the word "independence" is really out of date. It belongs to the past and it is not a thing which should be stressed at the present time.
Indeed we must, I believe, at the present time, carry the word "interdependence" even one stage further. Even in these great world organizations which have been successively built up to get us out of our present troubles there must inevitably be groups of nations more closely associated with each other than they are with the other members of the organization, and the co-operation between the members of those groups undoubtedly increases the power and the authority of the members themselves, and what is more, is helpful in buttressing the world organization as a whole. Such groups are encouraged by the Charter of the United Nations, and in my opinion, rightly encouraged. Such, as the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, knows
864
well, is a main function of the British Commonwealth. It is world wide in character. It is able in a way that no other similar group is able, to take a world view and to make its influence felt throughout the globe. Into this great association of free peoples, we are all of us glad to welcome the two new members, India and Pakistan.
But if those two countries acquire a new and enhanced status, as the result of this Bill, I hope very much that they will recognize that they will assume also new and formidable responsibilities for their own future. This is not in fact a Bill to grant new Constitutions to India and Pakistan. It is, as I think the noble Earl, Lord Listowel said, "an enabling Bill." It enables new Constitutions to be worked out by the Dominions themselves; and it depends, of course, entirely on them whether those Constitutions lead to prosperity or to chaos. After August 15, His Majesty's Government, here in Great Britain, will have no more to say in the matter. The whole responsibility will rest with the new Indian Governments. And the problems which they will have to face will be very intricate and very complex.
There are many strands if I may so express it, in the brilliant but infinitely complex and varied tapestry that constituted the United India of the past, which will have to be unravelled, sorted out and rewoven in a completely different form. The boundaries of the two new States, the customs, the whole structure of finance, the Judiciary, the Armed Forces, the system of communications, will all have to be worked into the new pattern. Satisfactory solutions of the problems of minorities, of the relationship of the States to the two Dominions, of the problem of defence—to which the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, so wisely adverted early in the debate and which, as he has said, affects not only the future of India but the strategic future of the world—satisfactory solutions of all these immense problems will have to be found by agreement if chaos and bloodshed is to be avoided. That is a task which will evidently require statesmanship of the very highest order.
There is one aspect of the Indian position of which a good deal has been said this afternoon, and about which I should like to add a word or two—that is the

865
situation of the Princes. They are our oldest and most tried friends. They have stood by us in fair weather and in foul. They have been bound to the British Crown by perpetual treaties. To them, one would have thought, we are under very special obligations. I confess that to me it seems that they have had, on the face of it, rather a raw deal. Under Clause 7 of the Bill, bleakly and uncompromisingly, those treaties are abrogated and the Princes and their States are left to their own resources. And I gather, from what Lord Templewood has said this afternoon—and it has not been contradicted—that this was done without any prior consultation with them at all. That is a fact which is bound to come with a sense of severe shock to a great many of us in this House. The Prime Minister —and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has repeated it this afternoon—has expressed the hope that all the Princes will enter one or other of the new Dominions. If that is their decision, certainly none of us will seek to dissuade them. That is clearly a matter for their free decision, and one with which we are not concerned. But should one or more of the rulers of the greater States reach the conclusion that the interests of their peoples would be best served by their staying, at least temporarily, outside these Dominions, what will be their position then? Surely this country, which owes them so much, cannot abandon them. To do so would be an eternal shame to us, and it would not be in the interests of the great Indian sub-continent itself.
I was rather perturbed, as I think were other noble Lords, by one phrase which was used by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, to the effect that His Majesty's Government did not intend to recognize the, States as separate international entities. Even now, after further elucidation has been attempted by the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, I still do not quite know what the Secretary of State for India meant. If one or more, at any rate, of the greater States, do not enter either Dominion—and I understand from the Government that it is going to be left entirely to them; no pressure is to be brought to bear on them—they will in fact be separate international entities, whatever we may say. There is surely a real danger that if it is not made clear that the phrase used by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, only refers to the
866
immediate interim period, it will be regarded by the Princes and by the States as indicating that His Majesty's Government are attempting to exert an indirect pressure upon them to join the Dominions—a thing which the Government have said they do not intend to do, and I am sure that they mean entirely what they say. As I say, there is that danger.
We quite recognize that it may be impossible for His Majesty's Government to give a very definite answer on this point to-day and I do not press them to do so. But I would say that we, on this side of the House, have for this reason welcomed warmly the statement, or perhaps I should say the implication, that I gathered from the reply made by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, to questions put by the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, to the effect that this phrase which he used was not intended to apply beyond the interim period. I do hope most profoundly that should any of the greater Princes—because it is the greater Princes who are principally concerned in this matter—after August 15, approach us and ask for a renewal of those alliances which have been so fruitful, both to them and us, we shall show ourselves very ready to renew relations with them. That, I submit, is the only course which is consistent with our national honour.
I would also like to say one word about the situation of the minorities, and especially about the situation of the Depressed Classes. After August 15, as the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has said, their fate and their future will be out of our hands. We shall not be able to do any more for these people who have relied so greatly in the past on British justice and British protection. Even at this late time, it is surely not improper for us in this House to express our concern for their future welfare and to urge that they may be treated with wisdom and tolerance and may be given in the future, in the new Dominions, the full rights which properly pertain to them. They are weak and they are helpless, and it would ill befit us not to do all in our power to ensure for them a happy and prosperous future. I hope, in this connexion, that His Majesty's Government will give full attention to what was said to them this afternoon by the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, who speaks with such authority on this subject.

867
It is clear, I think, from what has been said, in all the speeches to-day, that this Bill, whatever its merits or demerits, will not solve the Indian problem. All that it can do is this. It can make it possible for the Indians themselves to solve the Indian problem, if they have the requisite wisdom, toleration, and administrative ability, all that we comprehend in the word "statesmanship." The eyes of the whole world are to-day upon the leaders of India. It is by their success or failure in the gigantic task which faces them that history will judge them.
There is one further word that I would say in conclusion. While we are animated by a strong glow of hope, we must all of us feel that there is an element of sadness in our deliberations this afternoon. The passage of this Bill marks the end of an epoch, a proud and splendid epoch, in the closely linked history of India and Britain—not, I hope, the last epoch, but the end of an epoch. And I feel that here around us this afternoon stand in spirit a great and noble company, all those men and women who have gone out from these islands and given their lives for India. Of them I think the fine and famous words in Ecclesiasticus may well be quoted:
"There be of them, that have left a name behind them, that their praises might be reported.
And some there be, which have no memorial; who are perished, as though they had never been; and are become as though they had never been born.
But these were merciful men, whose righteousness hath not been forgotten.
Their bodies are buried in peace; but their name liveth for evermore."
To these men, some of whom were renowned and some of whom were humble, we pay our tribute to-night, though I hope that some future opportunity may occur when we may speak more fully of this.
My Lords, during the long period of our stewardship of the affairs of India we have endeavoured to show ourselves worthy of our trust. To-day we hand over that trust to others, to the people of India themselves. Our relationship is not ended, but it has taken a new form. As a result of this new evolution, the leaders and people of India have a great and splendid opportunity. It is for them to show they are worthy of it. At this great moment, for them and for us, there will be, I am sure,
868
none of us, in whatever part of the House we sit, who will not wish them success.
6.34 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, in winding up this debate my first words must be of thanks to the House for the long series of speeches delivered by noble Lords well versed in Indian affairs who have given general support to the Bill. It is a matter of much importance to India and to the outside world that the Bill should have the backing of all Parties in both Houses of Parliament. And this support has been forthcoming in the course of this debate. It is also a matter of much importance to India that the Bill should be passed in this unceremonious and rather exceptional manner. I am indeed grateful to your Lordships in speeding the passage as you have done. It will enable the new provisional Dominion Governments to be set up, as we have all hoped, at the earliest possible moment.
I think the keynote of this debate was struck by the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, when he said that sympathy and goodwill count for much more than formal constitutional relations and achieve more lasting results in the relations between nations. I am sure that is the message that noble Lords would wish to go out from this House to India. And I am quite certain that it will give the Indian leaders the maximum encouragement as they are beginning their great new task. I cannot, I fear, refer to more than quite a few of the many important points that have been made during the debate, but I should like to touch on one or two matters which, although they might have been emphasized more in some speeches than in others, seem to be matters of common concern to your Lordships.
The first of these is the anxiety which was expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, about the danger of communal tension in the two new Dominions. I think there is good reason to suppose that the fact that each community will now have a State of its own, a State in which its members will have a substantial majority, will ease the tension which has been so severe over a long period of time, and I have evidence in support of that view to show that it is not mere optimism. I can inform the House that the announcement made on June 3 about the partition of India has already resulted in a diminution of the

869
disorders in British India which had recently reached such serious proportions. This is based on the statistics collected in the Provinces which show that crimes of violence and crimes against property have been fewer in number during this period as compared with such crimes in the weeks before.
So far as the position of minorities is concerned I think it is very reassuring that both Parties have guaranteed that they will respect the rights of religious and social minorities. There is the charter of fundamental rights to which the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, referred and which will be included in the new Constitution of the Dominion of India. It is important to remember that this is not merely a declaration of religious freedom, but the desire is that its provisions shall be enforcible in the courts. I should like to mention an encouraging experience of my own in this connexion. The other day I had lunch with the Minister of Labour in the Indian Interim Government, who is himself a member of the Scheduled Castes. That would not have been possible, as I am sure noble Lords with experience would agree, a number of years ago, and I think it is in itself evidence of the direction in which the social evolution of India is moving.
I should also like, because at present the emphasis has been one-sided, to remind your Lordships that Mr. Jinnah has made a public statement in which he guarantees that the Moslem League will respect the rights of the minority communities. He is reported to have said that one cardinal principle which he had followed and adhered to was that minorities, to whichever community they belonged, should be treated fairly and justly, and every effort should be made by the majority community to create a sense of security and confidence in them.
I fear that in reply the noble Lord, Lord Hailey, I cannot go much further than I went in my remarks. The general principles which we are following were laid down in a White Paper on the compensation of the services published in April and amplified since by the statement of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in the course of the Second Reading debate in another place. The only help I can give him is to say that I gladly assure him that the Govern-
870
ment will do their best to make a success of the negotiations, to which he referred, that will now take place with the Dominion Governments for the earmarking of a sum out of sterling balances from which the payments of pensions to members of the Secretary of State's services will be made. I can also give him, I think, one further particle of satisfaction. It is our intention in the course of these financial discussions, which will centre mainly upon the Secretary of State's services, to inquire whether a capital sum might not also be set aside in discharge of liability for pensions, provident funds, etc., of the members of the uncovenanted services who draw their pensions in sterling. Beyond that I am afraid I cannot go at this moment.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, both for what he said about India and the point he raised in connexion with the Services. I should like to inform him that all members of the staff of the High Commissioner for India are covered by the Indian leaders' guarantee of the continuation of existing terms and conditions of service. Those who were formerly on the establishment of the Secretary of State in Council also fall within the category of analogous services to which the noble Lord, Lord Hailey, referred. His Majesty's Government's assurances regarding the payment of pension applies to them, of course, in the same way as to the other members of the Secretary of State's services. They will be included in the proposed arrangements to pay their pensions out of a capital sum earmarked from the sterling balances. This, of course, is a matter which will be taken up in the course of the general negotiations which will follow the establishment of the two Governments, and which it has been impossible for us hitherto to take up.
I should like also to thank my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence for his reference to the staff of the India Office. This Department, which has since 1858 been the organ in Whitehall for handling our relations with India, will cease to exist as a separate Department of State from August 15. During these years its officials have rendered devoted service to a succession of Governments, and have been an indispensable instrument in bringing about self-government and the other benefits of British rule for India. They have never

871
been under a heavier strain—as I can bear witness—than during the last few weeks, and anyone who has had the privilege and good fortune of working among them would wish to acknowledge their cheerfulness and fortitude, in spite of the fatigue of abnormally long office hours. This, I think, has been a fine close to a record that is worthy of the best traditions of the British Civil Service. I have nothing more to add, except as a final word to express on behalf of India my gratitude to the House for the last but not the least of the services it has rendered.
6.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I rise only because I think it is important that we should say what we feel at this moment. I do so after the noble Earl has sat down because I was given to understand that that would be for his convenience or the convenience of the House. I feel it is important to say what one has very much at heart, and especially if one's views happen to be unfashionable. The events which have led up to this development, to my mind, can be regarded only as a great human catastrophe. The withdrawal of British authority from India has already led to the loss of millions of lives in rioting and famine. About 2,000,000 people lost their lives in last year's famine. Famine had been banished from India since the Curzon Code, and that catastrophe can only be attributed to Indian incompetence and corruption. But the human misery that has so far occurred is small compared with the slaughter that is to follow.
Everyone must admire the adroitness with which Lord Mountbatten has achieved the transition stages, but we shall be merely deceiving ourselves and other people if we believe that any of the fundamental problems of India have been solved. What we are doing now is in fact to Balkanize India. There will be Pakistan, and there will be Hindustan and The States. Hyderabad has already declared that it is going to announce its independence and I understand that Travancore and other States are likely to take the same line. At the same time, racial and religious fires have never burned more fiercely. I was very glad to hear what the noble Earl said just now that there had been fewer riots and atrocities in the last few weeks—but only
872
"fewer." The amount of violence there has been in India during the last two years is something terrible. The Army is now being divided into Hindu and Moslem, in the manner in which sides are picked before a football match. It is impossible to believe that peace will be maintained.
I am aware that I am in a small minority and very unpopular in saying this, but for God's sake do let us try to look facts in the face. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Vansittart, who said: "It was the cardinal vice of the inter-war period not to call a spade a spade." I believe there is a great truth in that statement. It seems to be a failing that affects this country after every great war. I cannot but regard the future of India under this settlement as a relapse into that internecine warfare from which Britain rescued her, and I shall be surprised if other countries do not intervene in that warfare, either openly or secretly. One thing we can be sure of, and that is that there cannot be democracy in India. There never was any hope of democracy in India in the Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian sense of the term, because the conditions which make democracy possible do not exist.
In our last debate, the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay of Birker, paid me the honour of saying that he did not fundamentally disagree with my forebodings of slaughter. He appeared, however, to view that prospect with comparative equanimity. He was able to regard the matter from the detached standpoint of the historian. I understood him to say that in his view all this was inevitable and always had been inevitable—rather like the overwhelming of Europe by the Goths. But that seems to me to be relegating the politician's rôole to that of the spectator, and I cannot so conceive our duty. Some human disasters are acts of God, but a great many more are acts of man; and this belongs to the latter category. We have, in fact, been talked out of India. We have been talked out by theorists in India, in America and in England, most of whom never did a thing in their lives to better the lot of the peasants of India. We have been pursuing a false ideal in trying to inculcate and establish a democracy in a Continent where it was never possible. If we had come to the conclusion that we were unfit

873
to govern India, it would have been better to have handed government over to enlightened Rajahs than to the politicians.
I am aware that this is merely lamenting over what I regard as spilt milk, and the question before the House is what policy we ought to pursue. It is easier to bring about disaster than to remedy it. It is easier to run a motor car into a ditch than to get it out. In the circumstances in which we are placed I am not criticizing Lord Mountbatten's policy. If Britain is to walk out of India, the quicker we walk out the better, but I believe that in doing so we are washing our hands of a trust which we should never have betrayed. When I am told that good government is no substitute for self-government, I reflect that it is equally true that self-government is no substitute for good government. The greatest boons that statesmen can confer upon their peoples are peace, justice, and individual liberty. Our modern politicians have thrown away the substance for the shadow of political liberty which, under the present conditions and development of India is, I believe, unattainable. In doing so, they have betrayed the trust of scores of millions of simple peasants who will be the innocent victims of our folly.
6.55 p.m.
THE EARL OF SCARBROUGH: My Lords, so much has already been said in this debate that there is really nothing new which can be said, and I do not propose to repeat remarks already made. I rise merely to add just one thing. I would like to strike a final note in this debate, a final note which I should like to go out from this House to India. We shall pass this Bill, not without anxieties but also not without hopes; and I, for my part, believe that those hopes can be founded on sufficiently solid ground. To those hopes we can add one other thing which I feel will not be without its effect. We can, as we pass this Bill, make it clear to the peoples of the two Dominions that we pass it with unstinted good will towards them—unstinted good will to all that vast population in the Indian peninsula. Among them are many who have been our loyal and faithful friends. There are others who have been our opponents in recent times—very friendly opponents for the most part—with whom it has
874
always been possible to observe the courtesies of the contest.
With the passage of this Bill all past controversies will be wiped from our minds. We wish them all well—our former loyal friends and our former chivalrous opponents alike—and if, in our new relationship, there may come opportunities for assisting these new Dominions on their way, we will surely regard it as a sacred task to be undertaken, if humanly possible. When we see, as we hope we shall, these new Dominions advancing successfully to a great future, we shall rejoice with them, and we shall feel that the British task in India has not been unfulfilled.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been dispensed with, House in Committee: Bill reported without amendment, read 3ª, and passed.
[The sitting was suspended at seven o'clock, and resumed at half past eight.]

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 4 [Local planning authorities, etc.]:
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, this and the following Amendment in line 37 are drafting Amendments to an Amendment moved by Viscount Ridley in Committee and accepted by the Government. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 36, leave out ("Where") and insert ("(3) Where").—(Lord Henderson.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: That is quite right. They tidy up a point that was left somewhat loose after the Amendment was accepted on Committee stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, this is purely drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 37, leave out ("this") and insert ("the last foregoing"). — (Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, this Amendment remedies a technical defect in an Amendment which was moved by Viscount Ridley in Committee and accepted by the Government. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 42, at end insert—
("In reckoning for the purposes of this subsection any such period of forty days, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.")—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Surveys of planning areas and preparation of development plans]:
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. As the subsection is drafted at present, it might be open to doubt whether land which ought to be developed as a whole, partly for dealing with war damage and partly for relocation of industry, could be included in a single area of comprehensive development. This Amendment is designed to remove any such doubts as there may be, and enables the authority to develop an area of comprehensive development for all or any of the purposes named in the subsection. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 32, leave out ("whether") and insert ("for any one or more of the following purposes, that is to say ").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 [Obligation to obtain permission for development]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved at the end of subsection (3) to insert:
"Provided that nothing in this paragraph shall be deemed to require permission in respect of the deposit of refuse or waste materials on a site already used for that purpose if the height of the deposit does not exceed the level of the land adjoining such site, and the superficial area of the deposit is not thereby extended."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, perhaps I might, with the permission of the House, alter the Amendment which stands in my name, so that the first line of the Amendment reads:
"Provided that nothing in paragraph (b) of this subsection shall be deemed ",
and so on. I explained this fully on the Committee stage. I do not think there
876
is any necessity to weary the House by going into the full details again. At this stage, I formally beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 24, at end insert the said proviso, as amended.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Applications to local planning authorities for permission]:
LORD SAVILE LORD SAVILE moved at the end of paragraph (b) of subsection (3) to insert:
"and for authorising the local planning authority to pay compensation not exceeding the amount of any development charge paid under Part VII of this Act in respect of development carried out in accordance with provisions of the development plan, where on a claim made to the local planning authority within the time and in the manner prescribed by the order it is shown that the value of the interest of any person in the land on which such development has been carried out is less than it would have been if the permission for development which does not accord with the provisions of the development plan had not been granted."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is a corollary to one I moved on the Committee stage. Your Lordships may remember that my original Amendment provided for the payment of compensation where the value of any property was depreciated by carrying out operations in accordance with a development plan as provided for under this paragraph. A short debate followed and the noble Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, pointed out that no compensation would be payable at the present time for any obstruction of view. He also said that the power to depart from the development plan was one which would be very sparingly used. I was prepared then to withdraw that Amendment.
As Lord Llewellin pointed out afterwards, something entirely new has come up in this Bill, due to the development charge which is assessed by the Central Land Board. That entirely alters the plea of the person who has something to grouse about. After all, any individual or estate developer who pays a development charge is entitled to something if a gasworks or something of that kind is put up, and, as I said on the Committee stage, I think he ought at least to be refunded something out of the development charge to cover the damage caused to his plans as a developer. The Central Land Board will have taken the money, and everything

877
was meant to be as it was originally planned, perhaps ten years before. I feel he ought to be given something out of the development charge, at any rate. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 28, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Savile.)
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, this is a point we desire to meet, but I will ask the noble Lord to withdraw this present Amendment, because the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, has put down an Amendment to Clause 72 which provides for the consideration of the point which the noble Lord has in mind. In these circumstances I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. Through the courtesy of the noble and learned Viscount, I have seen his Amendment. It does, I think, meet the point that my noble friend and I have in mind, and meets it at a more convenient place in the Bill.
LORD SAVILE: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved to insert at the end of paragraph (c) of Subsection (3):
"including the owner and occupier of the land to which the application for permission relates where the applicant is a person other than the owner or occupier thereof."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment was put down because of a fear that the planning authority may grant permission to somebody who was not the owner of that land to develop it, and to develop it without the knowledge of the owner. It was discussed on Committee stage. One hopes that the owner of land would be amply protected under such circumstances in the matter of making his voice heard at least in the disposal of the land. I do not think I need go into great detail on the matter. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 33, at the end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Radnor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the point which the noble Earl
878
raises is a very real one. He is alarmed lest somebody should go and ask for planning permission to build a house, let us say, on somebody else's land without having had the courtesy or, I may add, the good sense, to tell the owner of the land what he is doing. Then, when he receives, if he does receive, planning permission to build on that land (he has to get the land to build on; it is no good having planning permission unless you have the land to do your building), he goes to the owner and says "Pleased to meet you; I have come to tell you that I have got permission to develop your land. That is all there is to it. Will you please show me the land so that my permission will become effective?" The owner will perhaps be surprised. If he is prepared to sell his land, well and good; if, on the other hand, he is not prepared, then the gentleman who has been foolish enough to get planning permission can go to the Land Board or the central authority and ask them compulsorily to acquire the land on which he may build. At that stage there is ample protection for the owner. I agree with those who are anxious not to encourage the gentleman who goes and asks for planning permission with regard to another person's land, but I think the owner of the land is adequately protected at a later stage. I hope that with that explanation the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I should be grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for a little more information about this. He has explained on previous occasions that it is all right for an owner to charge a reasonable amount above the agricultural value for his land, but if he charges too much that is recalcitrance, and he may find that the land is bought over his head. I think the noble and learned Viscount said protests were made that the sum of £300,000,000 was not sufficient, and that it was that extra value that the owner could get which would have to be taken into account. So a small profit is all right, but a large profit is not. If an owner refuses to sell, however, on both of those occasions it is recalcitrance. There is obviously no exact definition as to where good business ends and where recalcitrance begins, and it really is anybody's bet as to the exact point where the Central Land Board will take action. I think on a previous

879
occasion the noble and learned Viscount told my noble friend, Lord Radnor, that the cases in which the Central Land Board would take action would be fairly rare. I think he said they would be bizarre and exceptional. That, of course, may be true, but I cannot see how anybody can foretell what the reaction of the public will be to this new idea. It seems to me that anybody who is aggrieved in regard to a refusal to sell can jump to the conclusion that the owner is being recalcitrant, and he has a perfect right to put in plans and to apply to the Board for compulsory acquisition.
One thing I have not been able to understand from the noble and learned Viscount's explanation is exactly what is the position of the local planning authority in relation to this new procedure. Have they got any power of discrimination in regard to these plans, or have they not? The owner may have a whole variety of reasons for refusing to sell to a particular applicant. He may be really recalcitrant, but, on the other hand, he may wish to develop the land himself at some future date, and unless somebody is in a position to go through those reasons to discover exactly why the owner has refused, it really is impossible to form a proper conclusion as to whether those plans should be sent forward or not. It does seem to me rather hard on the local authorities that they should have to consider what may be perfectly cock-eyed schemes, if I may so describe them, put up possibly by some irresponsible person for the development of somebody else's land. I think that may well happen under the Bill as drafted. Of course we have not seen the regulations but, from what we have been told, there is no reason why a local authority should not be really inundated with such applications, and I think that the proper course for a local planning authority to pursue would be, when they get some applicant about whom they know nothing, to consult the owner and find out something about his reasons for refusing to treat. Whether they have the power to do so or not, I think that is what a number of local authorities would do.
But if a local authority had a "down" on an owner they might be perfectly prepared to send these plans on, and to put him to a certain amount of embarrassment. The noble and learned Viscount
880
said that the owner had plenty of facilities for being heard at some later stage. That may be so, but I think I am right in saying that the Central Land Board can act under a quick procedure, in which case the owner would, it is true, have an opportunity of being heard, but it would be a very late and a very short opportunity. I rather hope that the noble and learned Viscount will reconsider this, because I think it is what in most cases a local authority would do—they would consult the owner. I think, however, it ought to be made mandatory, and that the local authority ought, as a matter of normal practice, if they get an application from a person about whom they know nothing, to consult the owner. In doing so they would save a lot of unnecessary work.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, if I may be permitted to say a word in support of my noble friend, I do think that it is probable that a great deal of saving of public time and money, and also of a good deal of irritation, would be effected. The proprietor of the land should be brought in to anything that is going on at the earliest possible moment. I say that for this reason. It is quite possible, in fact it is almost certainly probable, that the proprietor knows more about his land than does anyone else. It may be that the people who want to get planning authority are some minor local authority. I do not want to take up your Lordships' time unnecessarily but let me give a case of which I have particulars.
This was a case in which a minor local authority, wishing to get some land for housing, put it into a planning scheme to their planning authority, just as would happen under this Bill. For about a year the proprietor had no knowledge of what was going on. Now that land was open at certain seasons to the danger of serious flooding and as it was in a fairly elevated situation that was not known to a great many of the people concerned. The flooding could be obviated only by very expensive works. It was never possible for the proprietor, who, of course, knew it very well, to point that out to the people who were concerned in the scheme until quite late in the negotiations. When it was pointed out it naturally led to a lot of irritation and disappointment, the more so because certain experts had advised the use of

881
the land for the purpose for which it was wanted. That sort of thing can be avoided, it seems to me, by bringing the proprietors in at the earliest possible moment. Therefore I beg the noble and learned Viscount to consider this rather carefully. I do not put this forward purely on the ground of the owner's interests. Indeed, that is not the real point at all. But I think that the proprietor ought to be brought in at the earliest possible moment.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I wish to support the Amendment of my noble friend the Earl of Radnor from the point of view of the planning authority. It is most important that before giving permission or consent a planning authority shall not work in the dark, as it were. They must take all the factors into consideration, and they cannot take all factors into consideration unless, in some way or other, they are in touch with the owner, because the reasons of the owner for refusing or not wishing to sell land for this type of development may be extremely material. They may be material to the decision of the planning authority, and unless the planning authority who have to give the consent know the reasons of the owner, they cannot give a reasonable answer to an application. Therefore, in the interests of the planning authority, I would ask the noble and learned Viscount if he would look into this.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Will the noble Lord forgive me for interjecting a few words here? I am not, of course, entitled to make a second speech. May I say that I entirely agree with what he says, but I do not think that a planning authority should entertain any application seriously unless the owner has been consulted about this matter, for the very reason that has just been given. But let me point out the extreme difficulty which there may be sometimes in ascertaining who is the owner. You cannot possibly expect a local planning authority to take upon themselves the task of investigating titles.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, I find myself in considerable difficulty in answering this brief debate. I am not at all sure that for the purpose of doing so I ought not to move over to the other side of the House. Three noble friends of
882
mine have spoken in support of the Amendment, but I find myself in the position of being, at least in part, convinced by the arguments of the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack. I think my noble friend Lord Saltoun is confusing the issue a little. This is not a question of planning permission but permission to develop. I would make it clear that, so far as the plan is concerned, long before anything may arise under the clause or the Amendment the owner will have the opportunity of making the necessary objections to that plan, so far as subsequent operations may be concerned. I am inclined to think, in view of what the noble and learned Viscount has said, that the owner of land has a sufficient safeguard against anybody who wishes to acquire his land by underhand means in order to develop it and make money out of that development.
It was the purpose of my Amendment to prevent some entirely extraneous scoundrel, to put it bluntly, coming along and bribing a member of the planning authority to allow him to acquire land which belonged to somebody else in order to develop it to his own private profit. I am assured that there is adequate safeguard in the Bill to prevent any underhand work of that nature, because if that man does come along and get permission to develop, as soon as he receives permission someone, if not himself, will have to get in touch with the owner of the land because someone, whether by compulsion or otherwise, has to acquire that land before he can begin to develop it; and over the process of compulsory acquisition I think the owner of land has considerable powers of complaint. I am sorry if some of my noble friends wish to see this Amendment pushed to the last degree. I am not prepared to do so and unless the House forces me to do so, I prefer to beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in the proviso to subsection (4), after the first "that" to insert:
("(a) no such certificate as aforesaid shall be required in respect of the erection of any industrial building if the building does not cover an area of more than five thousand square feet; and
(b)")
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, your Lordships will remember what this point was. The Bill requires permission of the Board of Trade, in addition to all the other permissions, in order to enlarge or construct a factory and in the Committee stage I promised to give your Lordships an Amendment providing that it would be unnecessary to obtain the consent of the Board of Trade so long as the alteration did not exceed 5,000 square feet or 25 per cent. of the factory, whichever was less. I am glad to say I have been authorized to do rather better than the undertaking I gave, because I can knock out the 25 per cent. altogether and give your Lordships the straight Amendment, that up to 5,000 square feet the Board of Trade's consent is not necessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, lime 11, after ("that") insert the said new paragraph.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount. Two points were made on this clause on the earlier stages, if I remember rightly. The first was that there ought to be the power of the Board of Trade to give a blanket certificate over a whole area which was an industrial estate. That Amendment we moved here in Committee stage. There was the further point, with which the present Amendment deals, that a man should not have to apply for permission to the Board of Trade for quite small factories. What the Board of Trade really ought to give their permission for is a large industrial factory which will make a great difference in the labour situation in a particular area which may already be over-industrialized. We pleaded that the small factory should be exempt from this position of obtaining a certificate from the Board of Trade in every case, and we are now obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for putting down and moving this Amendment. It is even rather better than he said, because the factory can cover an area of not more than 5,000 square feet, which means that if you build on two floors you get 10,000 square feet, and if you are allowed to build a factory three storeys high you get 15,000 square feet. I think that has handsomely met our point.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
8.56 p.m.
Clause 16 [Appeals to Minister]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am glad to be able to say, with slight malice, that this is an, Amendment to correct a technical error in an Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan. It is pleasant to think that even the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, sometimes nods! His mistake necessitates not only this Amendment, but the next also. I have great pleasure in moving this Amendment to correct the noble Lord's Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 5, after ("days") insert ("from the receipt of notification of their decision.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD O'HAGAN: I am always subject to correction, and I am very glad to be corrected on this occasion.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment. This is to correct the other mistake of the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 43, at end insert ("and as if notification of their decision had been received by the applicant at the expiration of the period prescribed by the development order or the extended period agreed upon as aforesaid, as the case may be").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I would like just to congratulate my noble friend Lord O'Hagan on having effected at any rate some improvement in this Bill, even if it has to be further improved at a later stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Obligation to purchase land on refusal of permission in certain cases]:
LORD O'HAGAN LORD O'HAGAN had given notice that he would move, in subsection (2) after "the Minister shall" to insert "within six months of the receipt by him of the said copy." The noble Lord said: My Lords, in this case there is no doubt that the point I raise has been covered by the next Amendment of the noble and learned Viscount. In the circumstances, I would not dream of pressing the words that stand in my name. I am very much obliged to the noble Viscount for putting down this Amendment.
LORD HENDERSON LORD HENDERSON moved to insert after subsection (2):
"(3) If within the period of six months from the date on which a purchase notice is served under this section the Minister has neither confirmed the notice nor taken any such other action as is mentioned in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of the last foregoing subsection, nor notified the owner by whom the notice was served that he does not propose to confirm the notice, the notice shall be deemed to be confirmed at the expiration of that period, and the council on whom the notice was served shall be deemed to be authorised to acquire the interest of the owner compulsorily in accordance with the provisions of Part IV of this Act, and to have served notice to treat in respect thereof at the expiration of the said period."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, said, this Amendment fulfils an undertaking given by my noble and learned friend on Committee stage, and also meets the point of the Amendment which the noble Lord had down. The broad effect of the Amendment is that if at the end of six Months the Minister has not taken action on a purchase notice, or announces his decision not to confirm, the notice is deemed to be confirmed. I think that fully meets the point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 44, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Henderson.)
LORD O'HAGAN: I quite agree with what the noble Lord has said.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20 [Compensation for refusal of permission in certain cases]:
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment, consequential on an Amendment to the previous subsection which was made on Report stage in another place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 37, leave out from ("extent") to ("it") in line 40 and insert ("the value of any interest in land is less than it would have been if the permission had been granted or had been granted unconditionally").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [Revocation and modification of permission to develop]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, at the end of the clause to insert:
"(4) For the purposes of this and the next succeeding section, where permission to develop land has been granted on an applica-
886
tion made in that behalf under this Part of this Act and the land, or any part thereof, in respect of which such permission has been granted is compulsorily acquired by a government department or a local or public authority within the meaning of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, such permission shall be deemed to have been revoked in respect of the land so acquired."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, you will remember the Amendment which I moved on the previous stage of the Bill. This Amendment deals with the question of abortive expenditure, which anyone may have cause to incur, on the question of developing land which is subsequently acquired compulsorily by a local authority or a Government Department. The noble and learned Viscount asked me to get in touch with his advisers. I have not had the opportunity of doing that, but I have been in touch with other people who have been advising me, and I would like to know from the Lord Chancellor whether he is certain that the views which he expressed on a previous occasion dealing with compensation are correct. If indeed they are correct, and he is still of that opinion, then obviously I will not press the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 41, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Munster.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Earl for the way in which he has approached this matter. I have gone into this with some care, and I have consulted the Valuation Office. I am quite satisfied that the advice which I gave the noble Earl on the previous occasion was correct. The Valuation Office are quite clear that abortive expenditure not reflected in the value of the land would rank for compensation under the heading of "disturbance," and therefore no Amendment is required on this point. Indeed, if we did accept this Amendment there would be a risk of argument that the same thing was to be taken into consideration twice over. I can, without any hesitation, give the noble Earl the assurance for which he asks.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24:
Supplementary provisions as to enforcement.
(5) Provision may be made by regulations under this Act for applying in relation to steps required to be taken by an enforcement notice under the last foregoing section all or any of the following provisions of the Public Health Act, 1936, that is to say—

(a)Section two hundred and seventy-six (which empowers local authorities to sell materials removed in executing works under that Act, subject to accounting for the proceeds of sale);

subject to such adaptations and modifications as may be specified in the regulations.
9.2 p.m.
LORD ADDINGTON LORD ADDINGTON had given Notice that he would move, after paragraph (a) of subsection (5), to insert:
"(b) Section two hundred and ninety-one (which provides for expenses recoverable from owners to be a charge on the premises)."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment was put down in order to see that the expenses incurred by local planning authorities in enforcing planning control should be made a charge upon the land itself. There have been consultations, and I understand that the point is fully met by the next Amendment and therefore I will not move this. I am grateful for the words put down in the following Amendment.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, the next Amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, says, deals with the point of the Amendment to which he has just referred. Its purpose is to give the local planning authority an alternative method of recovering their expenses when they themselves (in default of an owner) take steps required by an enforcement notice. At present, under Clause 24 (1) they can recover their expenses as a simple contract debt, by court action. The Amendment enables the regulations made under Clause 24 to provide for charging the expenses on the land. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 10, at end insert ("and any such regulations may provide for the charging on the land of any expenses recoverable by a local authority under this section").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25[Agreements regulating development or use of land]:
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I will speak on this Amendment and the next two together. These three Amendments to Clause 25 (3) are all drafting Amendments, the only object of which is to improve the wording of the proviso which was moved in an Amendment by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, and which was accepted. Similar Amendments will be moved to paragraph 10 of the Tenth Schedule, which preserves agreements already in force. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 28, leave out ("or requiring"). —(Lord Henderson.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I would again like to express gratitude for this concession.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 31, at end insert ("so long as those powers are exercised in accordance with the provisions of the development plan or in accordance with any directions which may have been given by the Minister under Section thirty-six of this Act, or as requiring the exercise of any such powers otherwise than as aforesaid").—(Lord Henderson.).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, leave out lines 32 to 35.—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 27 [Provisions supplementary to s. 26]:
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on a Government Amendment in Committee to Clause 19 (1) (a). I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 12, leave out ("then state of development") and insert ("existing state"). —(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29 [Orders for preservation of buildings of special architectural or historic interest]:
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, this Amendment brings the wording of Clause 29 (2) (c), which deals with compensation payable under a building preservation order, into line with that of Clause 28 (1) (d) which deals with compensation pay-

889
able under a tree preservation order. The provision in Clause 28 was amended in Committee by the acceptance of an Amendment moved by the Earl of Radnor. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 27, leave out from ("authority") to ("conditions") in line 28 and insert ("subject to such exceptions and").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 38:
Compulsory acquisition of land for development.
(2) If during the period before a development plan has become operative under this Act with respect to any area, the Minister is satisfied that the acquisition of any land under this section is expedient for a purpose which appears to him to be immediately necessary in the interests of the proper planning of that area (not being a purpose for which a local authority could be authorised to acquire the land compulsorily under any other enactment) he may authorise the council of the county borough or county district in which the land is situated to acquire the land compulsorily in accordance with the provisions of this section.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR had given Notice to move two Amendments to subsection (2) the first being to leave out "for a" ["for a purpose"] and insert "(a) for any," and the second being after "enactment" to insert: "(b) for any other purpose for which, by virtue of paragraphs (c) or (d) of subsection (1) of Section ten of the Act of 1944, a local planning authority could be authorised to acquire land before the appointed day."
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, the Amendment is a preliminary Amendment to the one which follows, which perhaps I might discuss at the same time. The object of the second Amendment is this. Viscount Gage was good enough to point out to us that there were certain powers in the Act of 1944 with regard particularly to buying land for exchange, and so on, which he was anxious to see retained in this Bill. At a later stage, after the plan has been prepared and the land has been designated, no doubt there is no difficulty about it. I am very much obliged to the noble Viscount for pointing out what was a flaw in the existing Bill, in that we had not retained the 1944 powers. The noble Lord has down on the Paper to-day the next Amendment, but I rather
890
think if he has looked up (as I have no doubt he has) subsection (1) of Section 10 of the Act of 1944, he will have seen that the provisions under paragraph (c) and (d) of that subsection go a little wider than the Amendment which he is submitting. I would suggest that we can meet the point which the noble Lord so rightly refers to by incorporating into this Bill the pre-plan stage of the powers of the 1944 Act, without which there would be an obvious defect. We can do it in this way by referring to the Act of 1944. With regard to these purposes the Act of 1944 does bring in the considerations of the public interest, and it is right that before a county council, county borough or county district purchase land for the purposes of exchange there should be consideration of the public interest. In that sense my Amendment is a little narrower than the Amendment of Lord Gage which follows, but it brings in paragraphs (c) and (d) of Section 10 of the Act of 1944. The noble Lord will see that the Amendment is rather wide, and it is with the endeavour to meet the point to which he has so rightly called our attention that I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 11, leave out ("for a") and insert ("(a) for any").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Lord Chancellor for meeting my suggestion in this way. I feel sure that it will mitigate a number of real cases of hardship amongst those who own small plots, whose land will be sterilized and who will have to wait for compensation, whereas they really need their land. I am informed that this Amendment covers entirely my point as the noble and learned Viscount says, the only difference being that in the Lord Chancellor's Amendment the public interest is mentioned, while in my Amendment the consent of the Minister is mentioned. As I understand that Ministers always act in the public interest, I do not see that there is much distinction between them. At any rate I will be willing not to move my Amendment. I again express gratitude to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 15, after ("enactment") insert: "(b) for any other purpose for which, by virtue of paragraphs (c) or (d) of subsection (1) of Section ten of the Act of 1944, a local planning authority could be authorised to acquire land before the appointed day").(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 41:
Power to acquire buildings of special architectural or historic interest.
41.—(1) Where a building preservation order is in force as respects any building and it appears to the Minister that reasonable steps required for properly maintaining the building will not be taken unless the building is compulsorily acquired, the Minister may authorise the council of the county or county borough or county district in which the building is situated to acquire compulsorily under this section the building and any land comprising or contiguous or adjacent to it which appears to the Minister to be required for maintaining the building or its amenities, or for affording access thereto, or for the proper control or management thereof.
(2) Where a building preservation order is in force as respects any building and it appears to the Minister of Works that reasonable steps are not being taken for properly maintaining the building, that Minister may be authorised under this section to acquire compulsorily the building and any land comprising or contiguous or adjacent to it which appears to him to be required as mentioned in the foregoing subsection:
Provided that any person who is aggrieved by a decision of the Minister of Works under this subsection that reasonable steps are not being taken for properly maintaining the building may, within twenty-eight days of receiving notice of such decision, appeal against the decision to a court of summary jurisdiction for the petty sessional division or place within which the building is situated, and any person aggrieved by a decision of such court may appeal against that decision to a court of quarter sessions.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 16, leave out ("required") and insert ("are not being taken").—(Lord Henderson.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, this is a point that my noble friend Lord De L'Isle and Dudley raised in Committee in regard to the subsequent subsection. It is right that the two should be brought
892
into line. I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 17, leave out from the first ("building") to the first ("the") in line 18.—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (1) to leave out "maintaining," where that word occurs a second time, and insert "preserving." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a manuscript Amendment. On the Committee stage I had some doubts about the exact meaning of the phrase "appears to the Minister to be required for maintaining the building or its amenities." It might have a much wider significance. I had some doubts whether the word "maintaining" might suggest the possibility of obtaining rent or other forms of income in order to keep the building in proper order. I think the suggestion that the word "maintaining" should be taken out of the Bill and the word "preserving" put in, probably meets the case. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 22, leave out ("maintaining") and insert ("preserving").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for moving the Amendment and suggesting a better word. I did not realize at the earlier stage that the word "maintaining" might have that double meaning. I thought it might mean maintaining the fabric. But you could maintain a thing by raising a fund with which to do it, and that is not what I had in mind. By accepting this suggestion, we make it plain that we are dealing with the more limited sense of the word, and we shall do better by getting rid of the word "maintaining" altogether. I have much pleasure in accepting the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON LORD HENDERSON moved to leave out the proviso to subsection (2). The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to leave out the proviso to Clause 41 (2). This proviso was moved by the noble

893
Lord, Lord Llewellin, in order to provide an appeal against a proposal of the Minister of Works to acquire a building subject to a preservation order on the ground that the building is not being properly maintained. It is now to be replaced by a new subsection (contained in my next Amendment), which enables a court of summary jurisdiction, on the application of any person interested in the building, to hold up proceedings on a compulsory purchase, whether it be initiated by the Minister of Works or by a local authority, if they are satisfied that the building is being properly maintained. The effect of these Amendments is to preserve Lord Llewellin's proviso in an improved form. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, leave out lines 32 to 40.—(Lord Henderson.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, this follows a suggestion that we made on the Committee stage that there ought to be this right of appeal, and I am much obliged to the noble Lord for incorporating it here.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 9, at end insert:
("(4) Any person having an interest in any building which it is proposed to acquire compulsorily under this section may, within twenty-eight days after the service of the notice required to be served under paragraph 3 of the First Schedule to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, apply to a court of summary jurisdiction for the petty sessional division or place within which the building to which the notice relates is situated for an order staying further proceedings on the compulsory purchase order, and if the court is satisfied that reasonable steps are being taken for properly maintaining the building, they shall make an order accordingly.
Any person aggrieved by the decision of a court of summary jurisdiction under this subsection may appeal against that decision to a court of quarter sessions.").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 43 [Acquisition of land by Central Land Board]:
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved to insert after subsection (4):
"(5) Upon the disposal by the Central Land Board of any land acquired by them under
894
the provisions of this section the Central Land Board shall upon the written request of any person inform him in writing of the name and address of the person to whom, and the price at which, such land has been disposed of by them."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, on the Committee stage I made the point that it was very desirable, if anybody acquired land for development from the planning authority, that it should be known who had acquired that land, and at what price. It was to be made quite certain that there should be no underhand business going on. Certain objections in. detail were put forward by the noble and learned Viscount. My purpose was not that that knowledge should be made available at any particular time, but that it should be made available so that the public could see what had happened with land which had been disposed of by a public authority, and to make quite certain for their own satisfaction that that public authority was doing its duty properly. I have therefore put down this Amendment, which does not seek to give any particular time as to when the knowledge should be available, and I hope that that will give the necessary security to the public in ensuring that the knowledge will be available at such times as it is ready to be made available. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 6, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Radnor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I find myself largely in sympathy with the noble Earl who has moved this Amendment. We should be very rash if we dispensed with publicity in any of these cases. Even in such well-tried institutions as our courts of justice, I think it is a mistake to dispense with publicity, and when you are dealing with the activities of the Central Land Board, which is, after all, a new institution, I am quite sure that it would be undesirable to have things done under a bushel. Indeed, public confidence in the activities of the Central Land Board would be very much greater if their transactions were open to the light of day. I think this particular Amendment has this objection: that it would place upon the Central Land Board a very great burden. All sorts of people —Tom, Dick and Harry—whether they were interested or not, or who had any cause or right to be interested, might write

895
to them and ask: "Please tell me what price John Jones paid for this, that, or the other." I do not think that is desirable.
One way of dealing with the matter would be to start a register like there is at Somerset House, which on payment of a small fee you may inspect. And perhaps the mere fact that you have to pay a small fee will prevent the mere curiosity merchant going and doing it. I will give the noble Earl an assurance that the Minister will endeavour to see that a register is kept of the dealings with which the Central Land Board is concerned, and that that register shall be open to public inspection. I think that in that way we shall achieve the object which he and I both have at heart—that of giving the necessary publicity and therefore winning the necessary confidence of the public in this matter. I hope that in view of that assurance he will think it unnecessary to press the Amendment.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for the way in which he has received this Amendment. I think that his suggestion of a register is an excellent one—much better than my Amendment. I could wish, though, that he could find some means of putting that suggestion into the Bill on Third Reading. But if that proves to be impracticable, I am prepared to accept his assurance that a register will be kept. I think the point that the noble and learned Viscount made, that it will prevent any Tom, Dick and Harry bedevilling the Central Land Board with correspondence is rather an important one. The imposition of a small fee for inspection of the register is also, as I know from my experience in other connexions, a very good deterrent to those idle curious people who are sometimes found in this world. I hope that possibly he may be able to include something on Third Reading to make that clear, because this is a matter of some public concern. By putting it in the Bill it will give it greater publicity than would result from a mere assurance. However in view of the fact that the noble and learned Viscount has met my point so well I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 51:
Compensation for compulsory acquisition after appointed day.
(2) The value of any such interest shall be ascertained on the assumption that planning permission would be granted under Part III of this Act for development of any class specified in the Third Schedule to this Act, but would not be so granted for any other development:
Provided that where at any time before the date of the notice to treat permission for development of the land of any class specified in the said Third Schedule (other than development specified in paragraph 1 thereof) has been refused or granted subject to conditions, or, having been granted, has been revoked or modified by the imposition of conditions, it shall be assumed for the purposes of the ascertainment of the value of the interest in question that such permission would not be granted, or, as the case may be, would not be granted otherwise than subject to those conditions.
(3) Where, at any time before the date of the notice to treat, planning permission has been granted under Part III of this Act for any development of the land, other than development of any class specified in the Third Schedule to this Act, or is deemed to have been so granted, then unless either—

(a) any sum has been paid under Part VII of this Act by way of development charge in respect of that development; or

(b) no such charge is payable in respect of that development by virtue of any of the provisions of Part VIII of this Act;

the value of the interest to which the notice to treat relates shall be calculated as if that permission had not been granted.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords this is a drafting Amendment preparatory to the next Amendment but one. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 4, leave out ("where") and insert ("(a) where").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords this is a drafting Amendment consequential on the splitting of the Third Schedule into two parts in the Committee stage and the resulting Amendments made in Clause 20 (1) at the same time. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 6, leave out from ("in") to ("has") in line 7 and insert ("Part II of the said Third Schedule").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON LORD HENDERSON moved, in the proviso to subsection (2), after "imposition of conditions" to insert:
"and compensation has become payable in respect of the refusal, revocation, or conditions, as the case may be, under Section twenty of this Act."
The noble Lord said: My Lords this is in substance a drafting Amendment. It might conveniently be taken with the Amendment at line 13 which covers a similar point. The point is rather technical. Clause 51 (2) provides that compensation on compulsory acquisition is to be assessed on restricted value, that is value for existing use, including the Third Schedule tolerances. The intention of the proviso is to secure that the full value of the Third Schedule tolerances shall not be included if the owner has been refused permission to develop up to the Third Schedule limit. Such refusal is treated like an interference with existing use and attracts compensation from the planning authority under Clause 20. Without the proviso, that compensation would be duplicated in the compensation on compulsory acquisition.
The proviso as drafted, however, covers refusal under the previous planning code to carry out development of the kind now covered by the Third Schedule. This produces the wrong result, and the Amendment inserts words which make clear that the proviso applies only where the refusal has attracted compensation under Clause 20. This was always the intention.
The next Amendment covers a similar point. An order under Clause 26 requiring the removal of an existing building or the discontinuance of an existing use is an interference with existing use, which under the general principles of the Bill attracts compensation from the local planning authority. In such a case, likewise, it is necessary so to calculate the compensation on compulsory acquisition as to ensure that it does not duplicate that compensation. Accordingly the Amendment imports the assumption that the interference already made and paid for will not be reversed. Incidentally, these two Amendments bring the clause, as is proper, into line with Clause 68 (3), which provides that if these two kinds of interference with existing use are later reversed, development charge will be payable on the development, the previous refusal of
898
which attracted compensation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 9, after ("conditions") insert the said new words.—(Lord Henderson.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, before I heard the very lucid explanation of the noble Lord, I was told this Amendment was perfectly all right, and thus reinforced we have no objection to it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 13, at end insert:
("(b) where at any time before the said date an order has been made under section twenty-six of this Act requiring the removal of any building or the discontinuance of any use, and compensation has become payable in respect of that order under section twenty-seven of this Act, it shall be assumed for the purposes aforesaid that planning permission would not be granted for the rebuilding of that building or the resumption of that use.")—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, after subsection (2) to insert the following new. subsection:
"(3) Without prejudice to any rule of law affecting the assessment of compensation in respect of the compulsory acquisition of and in pursuance of any enactment; no account shall be taken, in calculating the value of an interest in land designated by a development plan under this Act as subject to compulsory acquisition of any depreciation in the value of that interest which is attributable to the designation."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, since the Marshalled List was marshalled I have put down another Amendment in lieu of the one standing in my name at the top of Page 7, and I will move this Amendment in the Supplementary Marshalled List. Those who were here during the Committee stage will remember that the point was made that it would be quite unfair to designate land some little time before a compulsory acquisition—perhaps it might be farming land which gets into a very bad state if nothing is done to it during the period of designation—and then for the local authority to buy it at a reduced price because of depreciation arising solely out of designation. The position I put then I reiterate now. Surely the right value is the value without any

899
ill effects, if there be ill effects of designation. If there be no ill effects, this Amendment will not alter the position at all. It is only where there has been some deterioration of land because of designation that a fair and just position for the owner would be safeguarded by my Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 13, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Llewellin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think this is a fair Amendment. Where there is compulsory purchase following on designation I think it would not be right that the value of that which is to be purchased should be pressed down by any depreciation there may be owing to designation. That is the sum and substance of the noble Lord's Amendment, and I am prepared to accept it.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am very much obliged.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved in subsection (3) to substitute the words "except where" for "unless." The noble Lord said: My Lords, although this is going to be rather confusing, with permission, I will not move the next Amendment on the Marshalled List but will substitute the following manuscript Amendment—
Page 62, line 18, leave out ("unless") and insert ("except where").
The point of this Amendment is that a local authority who are buying this land would be entitled to carry out the development specified in the clause dealing with ripe land. The position is as follows. The people who are owners of ripe land pay no development charge and have no claim to any part of the £300,000,000. If they then have their land acquired, and it is used for a different purpose, such as is set out in subsection (3) (b) on page 62, then the local authority may come along and buy that land at its present user value, although the owner has not had any claim on the £300,000,000.
This was a point that was raised in another place, and on which assurances were given by the Attorney-General in speaking on the Report stage there. In consequence, I believe, subsection (3) of
900
Clause 51 has since appeared for the first time. That says that, unless either (a) or (b) has happened, "the value of the interest to which the notice to treat relates shall be calculated as if that permission had not been granted." That implies that if (a) or (b) had happened it should be taken that it had been granted. But the word "unless" seems to me not to point that out so well. I suggest that instead of "unless" we put the words "except where." If the Government will accept them, those words will fulfil the purpose of my far longer Amendment on the Marshalled List, which I have not moved. I beg to move the short and simple Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 18, leave out ("unless") and insert ("except where").—(Lord Llewellin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I fully understand what the noble Lord has in mind. I confess that my intention was to say that in the cases specified by (a) and (b) the value of the interest to which the notice to treat relates should be calculated in accordance with the real circumstances, and as if permission had been granted. However, I think that perhaps there is a slight ambiguity about that, and if we accept this Amendment we make it quite plain that that is the state of affairs where (a) or (b) prevails, and it is only in the absence of the (a) and (b) cases that the other circumstances prevail. Accordingly, I am happy to accept this Amendment.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 52:
Temporary provisions for eliminating special value attributable to vacant possession.
52.—(1) Where the notice to treat giving rise to the claim for compensation is served at any time before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and fifty-four, and the interest in land in respect of which the compensation is payable carries the right to vacant possession of the land or any part thereof, or the right to obtain such possession at any time before that date, then, unless the land is agricultural property within the meaning of this section, the value of that interest shall be calculated as if there were derived there from a lease of the land, or of that part thereof, as the case may be, for the term, subject to the conditions and at the rent specified in this section.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER moved, in subsection (1), to substitute "nineteen hundred and fifty-two" for "nineteen hundred and fifty-four." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, those of your Lordships who were present during the Committee stage will appreciate the purpose of this Amendment. It is designed to protect the owner-occupier in the case of compulsory acquisition. Your Lordships will recollect that the 1939 price as the basis of compensation was dispensed with, and instead we were given the existing value, subject to a notional lease lasting seven years. My proposal is that the notional lease should be taken as being of five years' duration only. The only section of the community with which I am concerned in this Amendment is the owner-occupier who is ejected from his house, and who has to go out into the market to get himself a new house at whatever price he can.
I do not think it meets the case to be told that such occasions are rare. I do not think it is an answer to say that this kind of thing will not happen. If it does happen it is not only unjust but at the same time it inflicts hardship. I suggest that it would not have been unreasonable to ask that in such cases the idea of the notional lease should be abandoned altogether. To suggest that it should be reduced from seven to five I hope is not an unreasonable proposal. My noble friend Viscount Samuel suggested that it might be possible to find some means whereby the owner-occupier could be protected and the theory of the notional lease would be preserved in regard to other properties or other cases. Whether that be so I do not know, but I do hope that the noble Viscount will not harden his heart against something which to me is fundamentally just and which must tend to reduce hardship. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 63, line 3, leave out ("fifty-four") and insert ("fifty-two").—(Viscount Buck-master.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry to say that I cannot accept this Amendment. We had this matter fully discussed on the Committee stage. I can understand the objection on principle to the idea of the notional lease, but this Amendment accepts the principle of the notional lease and really cuts down the period from seven years to five. I am afraid that we
902
cannot accept this Amendment. With regard to the owner-occupier in whom the noble Viscount says he is interested, I considered most carefully whether we could in some way differentiate between the owner-occupier or the investor generally. I am quite satisfied that it is impossible to do so. The suggestion thrown out by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and I think by the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, has received careful consideration. If it had been possible to do something to limit that class of case it would have been done, but we are quite certain that it is impossible. That being so, we think the period of notional lease which we suggest is the right period, and I am unable to accept this Amendment.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: I am sorry to hear the noble and learned Viscount's answer, but in view of what he has said I have no other course but to beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 53 [Compensation for compulsory acquisition of land attracting converted value payments]:
9.37 p.m.
LORD HENDERSON: This is a drafting Amendment consequential on a Government Amendment to subsection (1) moved in Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 26, after ("under") insert ("paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON LORD HENDERSON moved, at the end of the clause to insert:
"(5) Subsection (4) of section sixty-nine of the War Damage Act, 1943 (which makes special provision with respect to payments under that Act in respect of war damage sustained by hereditaments held for charitable purposes) shall not apply to any payment which, by virtue of this section, vests in the person by whom an interest in land is acquired."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this new subsection is necessary in order to deal with a technical point which has come to light in the working out of the new clause which will come after Clause 55 relating to "Rule (5)" properties. I may say that it has nothing whatever to do with

903
the discussion about charities which will take place on a later clause. Section 69 (4) of the War Damage Act, 1943, provides among other things that if the property of charities is damaged and the case would normally attract a cost of works payment, the War Damage Commission may, after the appropriate consultations, make either a cost of works payments or a payment in lieu, and they have the further discretion to make the payment to such person as they think fit.
Clause 53 provides that on the compulsory acquisition of a property which has suffered "cost of works" war damage the converted value payment which becomes payable is to be diverted from the owner to the acquiring authority. This Amendment will make sure that this result is secured in the case of charities' property, notwithstanding the special provisions of Section 69 (4) of the War Damage Act to which I have just referred. This is most conveniently done by excluding the operation of section 69 (4). The result is that when a charity's land which has suffered "costs of works" war damage is compulsorily acquired, the War Damage Commission will have no discretion but to pay the converted value payment to the acquiring authority in the same way as with property not owned by a charity. Since the property of a charity may or may not be a "Rule (5)" property, the provision is necessary, both in this clause and in the new clause dealing specially with "Rule (5)" properties. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 40, at end insert the said subsection."—(Lord Henderson.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: This and the new clause that appears later on seem to me to raise a completely new point that has not come up hitherto in this Bill. It is a point that has been found at a late stage. We have no objection to this, or to the subsequent Amendment, which no doubt the noble Lord will shortly move. I would only say that it does show the value of having a revising Chamber to pick up those points which might have been missed in all stages at another place.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 55 [Compensation for compulsory acquisition after passing of this Act and before appointed day]:
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, this is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 26, leave out ("the service of").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON LORD HENDERSON moved, after Clause 55 to insert the following new clause:
"Special provisions as to war-damaged land where compensation assessed by reference to cost of equivalent reinstatement.
56.—(1) Where an interest in land which is compulsorily acquired in pursuance of a notice to treat served after the passing of this Act is an interest in a hereditament or part of a hereditament which has sustained war damage, any of which has not been made good at the date of the notice to treat, then if—

(a) the appropriate payment under the War Damage Act, 1943, would, apart from the compulsory acquisition or apart from any direction given by the Treasury under paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section twenty of that Act, be a payment of cost of works; and

(b) the land would, but for the occurrence of the war damage, be devoted to any such purpose as is mentioned in Rule (5) of the rules set out in section two of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919.

the provisions of the said Rule (5) shall have effect for the purposes of the assessment of compensation payable in respect of the compulsory acquisition as if the land were so devoted as aforesaid.
(2) Where any such interest in land as is mentioned in the foregoing subsection is compulsorily acquired as therein mentioned, then if the conditions specified in paragraph (a) of that subsection are satisfied, and the compensation payable in respect of the acquisition falls (whether by virtue of that subsection or otherwise) to be assessed in accordance with the said Rule (5), the reasonable cost of equivalent reinstatement shall be ascertained for the purposes of the said Rule (5) by reference to the state of the land immediately before the occurrence of the war damage, and the right to receive any value payment or share of a value payment which, under the War Damage Act, 1943, is payable in respect of the interest which is compulsorily acquired (including interest thereon) shall, notwithstanding anything in that Act, vest in the person by whom the interest is so acquired.
(3) Where any such interest in land as aforesaid is acquired by agreement in pursuance of a contract made after the passing of this Act by a person authorised by virtue of any enactment to acquire it compulsorily, then if

905
the conditions specified in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section are satisfied in relation to the land, and the compensation which would be payable in respect of the acquisition, if the acquisition were compulsory, would fall (whether by virtue of the said subsection (1) or otherwise) to be assessed in accordance with the said Rule (5), the right to receive any value payment or share of a value payment which, under the War Damage Act, 1943, is payable in respect of the interest acquired (including interest thereon) shall vest in the person by whom the interest is so acquired.
(4) Subsection (4) of section sixty-nine of the War Damage Act, 1943 (which makes special provision with respect to payments under that Act in respect of war damage sustained by hereditaments held for charitable purposes) shall not apply to any payment which by virtue of this section vests in the person by whom an interest in land is acquired."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment may seem a formidable Amendment but it is not so difficult as it might appear to be. The new clause is required in order to deal with a highly technical point which has just come to light in dealing with Rule (5) properties.
Rule (5) directs that in the cases of such properties—that is to say, schools, almshouses, town halls, police stations, and so on—the compensation on compulsory acquisition is to be, not the market value, because this cannot be ascertained, but the reasonable cost of equivalent reinstatement. Clause 53 of the Bill provides that in the case of war-damaged property attracting a cost of works payment, the compensation on compulsory acquisition is to be assessed as if the damage had been made good. It also provides that the converted value payment which, on the compulsory acquisition, takes the place of the prospective "cost of works" payment, is to be diverted from the owner to the acquiring authority. This new clause marries up these two conceptions in the case of Rule (5) "properties which have suffered 'cost of works'" damage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 55 insert the said clause.—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 60:
Ascertainment of development values of land.
(5) For the purposes of this section, the restricted and the unrestricted values of interests in land shall be calculated by reference to prices current immediately before the seventh day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-
906
seven, and for that purpose any such interest shall be treated as if it had been subsisting immediately before that date with all incidents to which it is subject on the appointed day (being incidents which are relevant to the calculation of the restricted or unrestricted value of that interest, as the case may be), and the land shall be treated as having been immediately before that date in the same state as it is on the appointed day:
Provided that in computing the restricted value of an interest in land, no account shall be taken of the provisions of this Act except in their application to that land.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER moved, at the end of subsection (5) to insert:
"and the development value of any interest in land upon which estate duty has been paid on the excess principal value thereof, as defined in the Finance Act, 1925, shall be assumed to be not less than the amount of the excess principal value of such land upon which duty has been paid."
The noble Viscount said: This is a perfectly simple Amendment, though unfortunately it involves a degree of technicality. Its purpose is plain. It is to ensure that which I believe to be just; that is, that a man should not have the development value of his land taxed on one basis and then assessed for compensation on another basis. The problem arises through the Finance Act of 1925 which took the unrestricted value of agricultural land and called it the excess principal value. That Act laid down that that excess principal value should pay a higher rate of duty. I suggest that it is unjust and unfair that the difference between the restricted and the unrestricted value should be assessed for taxation on one basis, and that when you come to compensation it may possibly be assessed on a lower basis. I would emphasize that no question whatsoever of taxation is involved. There is no question of proposing or suggesting that any rate or incidence of taxation should be varied. The rate of incidence of development charge is not affected. It is purely a question of establishing a minimum basis for a claim on the £300,000,000.
The noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor was good enough to say that the Amendment appealed to him, and he gave your Lordships a skilled, and if he will allow me to say so, a somewhat complex answer. He invited me to seek a further opinion on this matter, and I sought the best advice I could obtain. I went to the largest firm of surveyors and valuers I knew, and in order to satisfy

907
myself as to what they said, I re-checked it with another equally powerful and eminent body; and I may say, with the greatest respect to the noble and learned Viscount, that both of them were unhesitating in their answer that the difficulties which were adduced did not amount to quite what the noble and learned Viscount felt, on the instructions of his advisers, that they would amount to.
These objections amounted, I think, to three things. First, it was suggested that the excess principal value under the 1925 Act was not the same thing as the development value in the present Bill; but whether you are taking land as subject to a perpetual agricultural covenant as in the 1925 Finance Act, or whether you are accepting the definition in this Bill, it boils down to one and the same thing; the existing use value. That really eliminates that point. The second point was that timber presented a difficulty. I do not know how this can be so for I believe it to be the case that timber is separately valued in every instance, and its value is perfectly easily ascertainable. The third point was that difficulty would arise in the event of an estate being separated afterwards —if, after the Estate Duty had been paid, the land were divided between, let us say, four different people. But here again I believe, with great respect, that the difficulty is non-existent. My advice, which is supported by those of your Lordships who spoke on this matter on the Committee stage, is that it is the practice of valuers to value land in several parcels, that they make a note of the separate parcels and that the value of these parcels can readily be ascertained.
I am in the position of not being touched or affected by this matter in any shape or form, but some of your Lordships are affected by it; and I hope that if you feel as strongly as I do you will not be deterred by that reason from speaking. It is simply a matter of justice and the Government objections are illusory. I hope the noble and learned Viscount will see his way to accept the Amendment with which I believe, if I may say so, in his heart he is in sympathy. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 73, line 31, at the end insert the said words.—(Viscount Buckmaster.)
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, I feel, and I think everybody in your Lordships' House feels, that this Amendment, apart from possible technical difficulties, is absolutely just. I am not quite sure that the noble Viscount who moved it would not be willing to meet to some extent the difficulties that were mentioned on the last occasion by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, by limiting the date at which the Estate Duty had been paid on the excess principal value. I can conceive some difficulty in doing that in practice in the case of a death in, we will say, the year 1926, but, if the Amendment were limited in some way to a period of years shorter than that, the difficulty would largely disappear. The most unkind case of all is that where somebody has inherited an estate, we will say a few months before the coming into force of this Bill, he finds himself immediately after that confronted with the fact that the value of his property is far less than he had to pay under the Act of 1925 for the excess principal value of the land, and the amount of compensation which would be given under this clause would be assessed on a totally different value. Accordingly, I suggest that if the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack is willing to meet my noble friend, Lord Buckmaster, in that respect, a good many of the difficulties which have been mentioned would cease to exist.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, I would beg His Majesty's Government to give this Amendment as favourable consideration as they can. It seems to me that it is a matter of great justice that those who have had to pay Death Duties on a value of land should be compensated at the value, or thereabouts at least, upon which they have already paid the Death Duties. There is nothing less than common plain justice in the Amendment of my noble friend, Lord Buckmaster, and as I believe His Majesty's Government are sincere in their desire that they should be just and that there should be fair dealing over the legislation which they are introducing, I beg of them to look at it from that point of view. I know perfectly well that in this Bill, and in the other Bill dealing with land which is now before your Lordships, the unfortunate landowner is the grist between the nether and upper millstones, and he is coming out at the bottom to be consumed, I was

909
going to say, by Moloch, although that is not quite the right term—perhaps the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will find the right word—but, at any rate, to be consumed subsequently. Even grist likes to have a fair deal, even when it is between the millstones. It likes to be ground fairly and evenly, and the proposal that the owner of land should pay Death Duties at one value and that the land should be valued for subsequent leases on quite a different basis seems to me to be not a fair way of doing it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, let us see first of all what is the Amendment that the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, has moved. It is very simple. If I understand it aright, it is simply this: he is saying that the amount of the claim to be assessed on the £300,000,000 should not be less, broadly speaking, than the excess principal value. That is the amount assessed; he is not saying anything about the amount of the payment to be made, which depends on whether you get a dividend of 100 per cent. or some smaller sum out of the £300,000,000. I can quite see that in regard to some of the recent deaths there is a strong case for consideration as to whether they ought not to be in the special category of what I have called "preference shareholders." That is what the noble Viscount claims and on the face of it it looks sound enough. But I should think that in the great majority of cases, unless there has been some change of circumstances, this will be the fact. After all, you have got to have valuers now, and they have got to assess the value that must rank. It depends on the amount of the development value. As, speaking broadly, the value of land tends to rise, it is a high probability that in the great majority of cases the value at which the land will rank for its claim against the £300,000,000 will be higher than the value at which it ranked some years ago for the payment of Death Duties—how much higher depends very largely on how far you go back.
One of the difficulties here, as has been pointed out, is that this Amendment goes back to the imposition of the 1925 Finance Act. In those cases where there has been any change of circumstance, which is the sort of case that I have been considering, I do not think this Amendment is necessary, because in the vast majority of
910
cases the values will be higher. In the small number of cases where the value of the land has gone down since the death, it is quite clear that that should not happen. We all agree about that. If, because of any deterioration in the neighbourhood or something of that sort, the value of the land has gone down, there is no reason why the value against the fund to-day should be assessed at the same figure at which it was assessed fifteen or twenty years ago. Therefore, in most cases it is unnecessary, and in some few cases it would be quite wrong.
Then we get back— and I really have considered this again with my valuers—to the old question as to what may have happened between 192:5 and the present time. All sorts of things may have happened since then. The land may have been developed. What was then a field may have became an area covered with cottages. But, observe, there is still development value in that land, because potentially you might have a right to erect factories, and the right to erect factories must be taken into consideration in assessing present development value. You have different matters altogether to consider. Suppose, for example, that part of the land has been sold off. In the great majority of cases the land would have been changed either in extent or in conditions or by reason of the fact that part of it has been developed. I am assured by my valuers that it is quite impossible to apply a standard derived from a different Act with different criteria to the new standard which we have under this Bill.
This is the fact—and I do not think that any surveyor can get away from it. Let me put it quite accurately. Even in this limited range of cases there would not be a real correspondence between the two values. Both, broadly speaking, represent a difference between a restricted and an unrestricted value, but the restricted value for the 1925 Act is not the same as for the present Bill. The restricted value in the first case—that is to say for the purpose of Death Duties—assumes a permanent restriction to farming uses, whereas under the Bill it assumes a restriction to the while range of agricultural uses as defined by the Bill, including forms of agriculture which are more profitable than farming uses. Other things being equal, therefore, the develop-

911
ment value under Part VI of the Bill will be less than the existing principal value, and that is logical and right, since the Bill leaves the owner with a more valuable existing use than that on which Estate Duty is charged. So that apart altogether from the probability of a change in a unit of land, there are these other considerations which my experts tell me it is quite impracticable to consider.
Therefore I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment, but I hope I give consolation to the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, who knows much more about these things than I do, when I tell him that I am assured by my advisers that in normal cases where the value of land has tended to go up, in all probability the claims will be taken in as against £300,000,000 at at least as high a figure as the Death Duty figure. There will be some few cases in which the value of land has gone down, and there the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, would certainly not desire that that land should rank as against the £300,000,000 at a higher figure. The noble Viscount has not gone into the further question as to whether there is to be any sort of preferential call upon the Fund, and I am not going to make a statement. It would be quite idle to speculate about this until we see what the figures are. We will have to go into that when we see the scheme, but I realize that where you have a man who has paid Death Duties at £x, it would be unfair that the compensation he got should be one-quarter of £x. I realize that that point arises at a later stage when we are considering what we will do about preferential claims against the Fund; but as regards ranking, the vast majority of claims will rank against the £300,000,000 at generally a higher figure than the figure for Death Duties, assuming that since the time of the payment of Death Duties the value of land has gone up. I have considered this very carefully and with a real desire to help, but I cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, as the noble and learned Viscount said, there are two points here. The first is at what valuation a claim is put in, which is the point the Amendment we are dealing with seeks to make firm. The second point is whether in the share-out of the
912
£300,000,000 the people who have paid Death Duties at a higher value should get preferential treatment. There are reasons, although I think they could have been overcome, for not accepting this Amendment, but it seems, especially in the case where a man is still liable to pay Death Duties when this share-out is taking place that he will have to pay the Treasury with one hand, say £10,000, and perhaps get only £4,000 to £5,000 back. When that kind of thing comes to light it will quite clearly have to be altered, because the Treasury simply cannot with one hand reap Death Duties at a certain valuation and refuse to pay out of the £300,000,000 a similar sum in respect of exactly the same property. There is an extremely strong case for this class of claim to come into the category of preferential treatment. Certainly if anybody suffers hardship it will be the man who is asked to pay out double as much as he is receiving in respect of exactly the same kind of interest. It is for those reasons that I hope His Majesty's Government will look into this most carefully before their scheme of preferential duties comes before this House, because I am quite certain that people will not bear this injustice of the Treasury taking with one hand and refusing to pay out a similar amount from the Central Land Fund in respect of the same land. I hope that matter will be dealt with in the scheme. If it is not, I am certain that it is one of the things that will just have to be corrected at a later stage in the history of Parliament.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I listened with great interest to the courteous answer of the noble and learned Viscount, who, indeed, has been very patient over a matter which is technical and somewhat wearisome. I am encouraged by the fact that he appeared to me to abandon his stand on the points which he had originally taken, and adduced other apparently cogent arguments. With one of those arguments I must confess I cannot agree. The noble and learned Viscount said that if the value of land has fallen, then it is only reasonable that owners should be assessed on a lower basis for their claim on the £300,000,000. Surely, with respect, that overlooks a fundamental point. The landowner is not handing over his land or anything else freely; he is being forced to hand over his develop-

913
ment value. If you are buying a man out at the bottom against his will, surely you are creating an injustice. A parallel illustration would be the case of people who owned American securities which had heavily depreciated, and which were requisitioned by His Majesty's Government. If there be cases where land has depreciated in value, surely the landowner is entitled to say: "I am not prepared to part with my development value. I do not want to lose it on this basis; I would rather keep it." That, if I may say so, answers the point that if the landowner's property has depreciated in value he has no right to any more sympathetic treatment. However, in view of the consideration which the noble and learned Viscount has given to this matter, and the fact that even now it seems to present technical difficulties, I can only beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 61 [Supplementary provisions as to development values]:
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved after subsection (2) to insert the following new subsection:
"(3) Where under the provisions of the Tenth Schedule to this Act an agreement for restricting the planning development or use of land made under section 34 of the Act of 1932, with any such authority as is mentioned in subsection (2) of that section or made or having effect as if made under a planning scheme with the responsible authority for the purpose of the scheme, is modified or rescinded at any time within the period mentioned in subsection (1) of section 59 of this Act the unrestricted value of any interest in the land shall be treated as if such agreement had not been subsisting immediately before the appointed day excepting in so far as the owner had received any payment or other consideration in respect of the agreement."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, on the Committee stage I moved an Amendment on the subject of these Section 34 agreements. I had occasion to express a somewhat poignant sense of disappointment at the fact that the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, did not seem to me to deal with the arguments I advanced. However, from reading the debate in Hansard it occurs to me that a possible explanation of the matter is that, although I think the speech I made was quite a good speech, it did not entirely relate to the Amendment I
914
had put down and, naturally enough, the noble and learned Viscount dealt with the Amendment rather than with my speech. I am now hoping, perhaps by making almost the same speech over again but by relating it to a different Amendment, that I may have a little better luck.
The point I am trying to make is really a simple one. It is this. I submit to your Lordships that if an owner has made an agreement and if that agreement is brought to an end by the Minister using the powers conferred upon him by this Bill, that agreement ought to be completely washed out, and the owner ought to be treated in matters of compensation as if he had not entered into the agreement at all. That really seems to me to be perfectly fair. Ii the owner's agreement is cancelled he can get no further benefit from it. In fact, the local planning authority may not only remove the advantages he has got, but they may prejudice him. If these agreements are scrapped it must mean that the local planning authority wants to re-zone the land. They might possibly—to put an exaggerated case—want to put a sewage disposal works on his land. I really think it is quite probable that with all these boundary extensions taking place a council of a borough might take a different view from that of a council of a county, and they might wish to cancel the open space agreement an owner had made and put council houses on that land.
If that happens the owner might say, "Well if houses are going to be put here I really might never have made this agreement. I might have sold my land for housing in the past and made a profit out of it, but I have not done so. But when now I try to claim compensation I am told that, because I have committed this clime of making an agreement in the past, therefore I do not qualify for any share in this £300,000,000." That is what the Bill says in Clause 60 (2) (b), and I do not think there is any dispute about it. This does seem to be a complete travesty of justice. When the noble and learned Viscount answered before, he was referring as much as anything to the case of where agreements are carried on by the new provisions, as they may be under the Tenth Schedule of the Bill. At the time I put down my Amendment those new provisions were not in this Bill, and since they

915
have appeared in the Bill I quite agree that my original Amendment might have had that construction. Actually what the noble and learned Viscount said in regard to that case was that if an owner has made such an agreement, he
"…has consented to restrict himself in the way in which he is going to deal in land. He has, to use a piece of jargon which is now popular, voluntarily sterilized a piece of land. That land is not sterilized by this Bill but by the voluntary act of the man which, no doubt, as I have said, is a public-spirited act. The question therefore is whether some part of the £300,000,000 fund which is provided for the owners of land who are damaged by the Bill ought to be utilized to compensate those owners of land who are not damaged by the Bill, but who are already affected because they have made this covenant.''
What I am suggesting to-day is that this Amendment relates solely to people who will be damaged by the Bill. It refers solely to people whose agreements are brought to an end because of the passing of this Bill. Further, it relates solely to people who have made some sacrifice in order to be, as they imagined, public-spirited. I am not asking that anything should be given to those who have already received either compensation or some quid pro quo. All I want is that they should be put into the same position as those other owners who have made no such agreement. I think the noble and learned Viscount earlier on expressed some fears that the sum of £300,000,000 might not go round if there were so many claimants on it, and this small class of owner would add to their numbers. I think that the number of owners who are likely to put in their claims is not very great, and I am quite certain that, if the noble and learned Viscount wants advice as to how he can reduce the payments on this £300,000,000, my noble friends will be able to make some excellent suggestions to that effect. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 23, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Gage.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have given very careful consideration to this question. I am sorry that the speech I made on the last occasion was not the right speech, but perhaps I turned up the wrong piece of paper. I have not looked at it since, but I can afford to take, with regard to this topic, a detached
916
and almost an Olympian view. This is a question as to who shall come in and claim on the £300,000,000. The more people who come in, the less there will be for each and all of them. The problem is: ought we to allow those particular people who are dealt with in this Amendment to come in? They are very worthy people, no doubt. The people dealt with in the noble Viscount's Amendment are people who have entered into agreement voluntarily to restrict the use of their land in some way or another. Ought they to come in and have a claim on the £300,000,000? There are two schools of thought about this, and I think there are two schools of thought also amongst my own advisers. One school of thought says: "These people, excellent people though they are, have really been injured not so much by the Bill but by the fact that they had already entered into a covenant, and that is the cause of their injury. Therefore, you ought not to let them come and claim on the Fund at all and leave less to the others."
The other school of thought is this. The Amendment deals only with those cases where the agreement is being altered or modified, and if you are altering or modifying the agreement in one respect, surely you cannot hold to the agreement in another respect and say, "By reason of the agreement you cannot claim on the Fund." I confess, if I may say so, that personally I belong to the latter school of thought, and what I am going to ask the noble Viscount to do, if he will, is to withdraw his Amendment now and I will see whether I cannot myself introduce an Amendment on Third Reading—it will have to be rather different from this, I think—to meet the point which the noble Viscount has in mind. I shall be very pleased if he will co-operate with me in seeing that I am able to introduce an Amendment which will meet his point. At any rate. I will do my best if, on that understanding, he is willing to withdraw his proposal. He has, at least, this assurance: that I will do my best to see whether I cannot introduce an Amendment of my own on these lines on the Third Reading.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I feel that I have been lucky, and I am very grateful to the noble and learned Viscount. Naturally,

917
on that assurance, I am very pleased to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 69:
Determination of development charge by Central Land Board.
(3) Subject to the provisions of the last foregoing subsection, regulations made under this Act with the consent of the Treasury may prescribe general principles to be followed by the Central Land Board in determining under this Part of this Act whether any and if so what development charge is to be paid thereunder in respect of any operations or use of land, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, such regulations may in particular provide for securing that the amount of the said charge shall be determined on different principles in relation to operations or uses of different classes, or in relation to operations or use carried out or begun at different periods.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, at the end of subsection (3) to add:
"and shall provide that the amount of the said charge shall having regard to the terms and conditions on and subject to which planning permission has been granted be determined without any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to one applicant over another."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move the Amendment on the Supplementary List to the Marshalled List of Amendments. I put down a somewhat similar Amendment on the Committee stage of the Bill, and I wished to ensure that the powers which the Central Land Board possessed should not be used to favour one claimant as against another when both of them were undertaking development of the same or similar localities. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor was not unsympathetic, and he said he would certainly examine the matter again and see whether his advisers or he himself could find some words which would meet the point which I put on that occasion. I have put down this Amendment in the hope that it might have more success than the rather different Amendment which was discussed on the Committee stage. As I have said, I believe the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor was in sympathy with it, and I trust he is in sympathy with it now. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 47, at end insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Munster.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have always been in complete sympathy with the broad general principle that the noble Earl has in mind, but I have found it exceedingly difficult to find a formula or set of words which would translate that sympathy into practical effect. However, the ingenuity of the noble Earl has triumphed where mine has failed, and with a sincere tribute to that ingenuity I have much pleasure in accepting the Amendment.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, and I will pass on his compliment to the persons who advised me.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, this is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 82, line 2, leave out ("by an order made").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved to insert after subsection (3):
"(6) For the purposes of an appeal under the last foregoing subsection the Central Land Board shall at the request of the appellant or of the Tribunal furnish to the appellant and to the Tribunal a statement setting out the particulars of the grounds upon which the development charge was determined by them, together with any facts and contentions relevant thereto."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, you will remember that we had a Division on the Committee stage of the Bill, in which we put in a provision for an appeal from the Central Land Board to the War Damage Valuation Appeals Tribunal. You will also remember that the Amendment which I had on the Paper just before that time set out the preliminary matters which had to be furnished, before it went to appeal, otherwise the appeal would not be effective. We discussed the two Amendments together and it was decided to take a Division only on the more important one. This Amendment is really consequential on what we did on Committee stage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 82, line 25, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Llewellin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This, as the noble Lord says, really arises out of the little controversy we had about

919
whether there should or should not be an appeal from the Central Land Board. I was opposed to an appeal, and I did my best to convince your Lordships that there should be no appeal, but your Lordships took a different view and an appeal provision was inserted in the Bill. I find myself in agreement, however, that if you are going to have the appeal provision then this clause is really consequential. Therefore if I may take this line, I will accept this Amendment, it being understood that by accepting it I am not weakening in my objection at all over the question of an appeal. I will accept it, if I may say so, with a grumble; but so long as I do accept it I dare say the noble Lord will overlook the grumble.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 70 [Payment and security for payment of development charges]:
LORD HENDERSON: This Amendment implements a promise made in Committee stage on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Amherst. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 82, line 36, at end insert ("after taking into account any representations made by the applicant").—(Lord Henderson.)
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: I should like to thank the noble Lord very much for his Amendment, which absolutely meets the point I raise. I shall not move the next Amendment standing in my name.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
10.24 p.m.
Clause 72 [Variation of determinations and repayment of development charges in certain cases]:
LORD HENDERSON: This Amendment implements a promise which was made in Committee to bring the wording of Clause 72 into line with the Scottish Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 86, line 15, leave out from ("compensation") to end of line 16 and insert ("representing such proportion of the sums so paid by way of development charge as may be agreed between the Board and that authority or person, or, failing agreement, as may be determined by the Minister, to be appropriate in all the circumstances of the case."—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 74:
Existing development contravening previous planning control.
(2) Where any such works as aforesaid were carried out, or any such use as aforesaid was begun, during the war period as defined by the Building Restrictions (War-Time Contraventions) Act, 1946, then—
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR had given Notice of an Amendment to insert at the end of subsection (2):
"(c) Where the works were carried out or the use begun either by or on behalf of the Crown or of a local authority and the compensation payable in respect thereof, or the claim for such compensation was assessed or considered without regard to any requirement that the land would be required to be restored to its condition before such works were carried out, or that further works would be required to be carried out in order that the works would conform with planning provisions, any person who carries out works in compliance with an enforcement notice in respect thereto shall be entitled, on a claim made to the local planning authority within the time and in the manner prescribed by regulations under this Act, to recover from the local authority compensation in respect of any expenses reasonably incurred by him on that behalf in excess of any compensation which has been received by him in respect of the failure to reinstate the land to its former condition."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a very similar Amendment to an Amendment which I moved in the Committee stage. The noble and learned Viscount then expressed considerable sympathy with the intention of the Amendment and, indeed, I think, agreed that something could be done at this stage of the Bill. I put this Amendment down only because I was a little afraid that the intentions of the noble and learned Viscount were not going to be translated into action. If your Lordships will look at the following Amendment, you will see that it is prefaced with a star, which means that it did get on the Paper rather late. I think, in spite of that lateness, it does cover the point which I wish to make in my Amendment, and therefore I shall not move my Amendment, and shall agree with the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after subsection (2) to insert:
"(3) Where, by virtue of this section, an enforcement notice is served in respect of any works being government war works within the meaning of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945, then, subject as hereinafter provided—

921

(a) if the steps required by the notice are taken by the owner or occupier of the land, any expenses reasonably incurred in that behalf shall be recoverable from the authority by whom the notice was served;

(b) if the steps required by the notice are taken by the said authority, that authority shall not be entitled, under Section twenty-four of this Act, to recover the expenses incurred by them in that behalf:

Provided that where, under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Section two of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, compensation has been paid equal to the full cost (as estimated for the purposes of that compensation) of taking the steps required by the enforcement notice, the foregoing provisions of this subsection shall not apply; and where compensation has been paid under the said paragraph (b) (otherwise than as aforesaid), or under subsection (4) of Section three of the said Act, in respect of the land, the amount which, by virtue of this subsection, is recoverable from the authority by whom the enforcement notice was served or, as the case may be, is not recoverable by that authority, shall be reduced so far as may be just having regard to the compensation so paid."
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this is my endeavour, belated it is true, but none the less sincere, to meet the undertaking I gave to Lord Radnor to look into this point, and to see if I could do something about it. It deals with the case where an owner is required by a local planning authority to remove works carried out on his land by a Government Department or local authority in the exercise of emergency powers. The owner will probably have received compensation in respect of the works under the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, but, as we all know, if you have to remove a heavily reinforced concrete building the cost of removing it may be very much more than any compensation you get. The Amendment secures, broadly, that the owner will not be out of pocket if he is called upon to remove the works. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 35, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, after Clause 77 to insert the following new clause:
Road and Other Works.
(".—(1) Where the construction of roads has been commenced before the 7th day of January, 1947, by the laying of sewers and the mating of a carriage way, and the plans thereof have been approved by the local authority under any bye-laws or other enactments applicable thereto and such works have
922
been carried out in conformity with the provisions of a planning scheme, or in accordance with permission granted by or under an interim development order, planning permission shall by virtue of this section be deemed to be granted under Part III of this Act in respect of the completion of those works by the making of a proper surface to the carriage way and footways to the said roads.
(2) For the purpose of calculating the restricted and the unrestricted value of any interest in land fronting, adjoining or abutting on the roads, the construction of which has been commenced as aforesaid, the works referred to in the preceding subsection shall be deemed to have been completed immediately before the 7th day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, and no development charge shall be payable under Part VII of this Act in respect of such land."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I had a similar Amendment down to this, only a much wider one, on Committee stage, and I was rather reinforced in my views that this was most reasonable by the reply I had on that occasion from the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, who was answering for the Government. He offered then to do something in regard to the point raised by my new clause which, he thought, raised a real problem that ought to be met. He said he hoped he would be able to find some suitable words to cover the questions involved.
As your Lordships will see, the roads to which this applies and the frontages are carefully limited. They have to be commenced before the seventh day of January, 1947, by the laying of sewers and the making of a carriageway, and the plans thereof have to be approved by the local authority. The work has to be carried out in conformity with the provisions of a planning scheme, or in accordance with the permission granted by or under an interim development order, and it can only be completed by the making of a proper surface to the carriageway and footways of those roads. My Lords, it is of no advantage to any man to build a road, or to complete a road, unless he is able to get some enhanced value for the land beside it, and that is the reason why I included subsection (2). Nobody is going to build a road for the sake of building a road, because you do not get anything back for that in these days. It is not like the days of old, when you might have been able to put up a toll gate on the road. You cannot do anything like that now, and you cannot get anything back unless it is from the surrounding land.
It seems to me that this is the kind of Amendment that the Government ought to accept, if they want to get on quickly with this kind of half-completed building development. If they do, they will free this from development charges. They will go on ahead and be finished, and get the houses up, because, after all, at this time, it is more important to get houses built quickly than that the Treasury should have a few more pounds by way of development value. That is the sole and simple reason for this extremely moderate little Amendment. I hope that the Government will now be prepared to accept it and so show that they are really as keen on the housing programme as appears from speeches which we hear at week-ends. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 77, insert the said clause.—(Lord Llewellin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, and I hope that it will not be too much of a shock to him when I tell him that we cannot accept his Amendment. I quite realize the object of his Amendment, namely, to extend the principle of Clause 77, the "Unfinished buildings" clause, to the completion of roads which were in course of construction at the date of the introduction of the Bill. The new clause purports to provide that where sewers have already been laid and a carriageway made, the road may be completed by laying a proper surface; the frontage land will be free of development charge, and, of course, there shall be no claim against the £300,000,000.
If the purpose of subsection (2) of this Amendment is to exclude the frontage land from a share in the £300,000,000, the drafting, which is copied from Clause 77, is defective. The provision in that clause that an unfinished building shall be treated for purposes of calculating development value as if it had been completed before the appointed day, excludes from the £300,000,000 the land on which the building stands, since the completion of the building will, in practice, usually exhaust the development value of the land, and the difference between restricted and unrestricted value of the land will be nil, or nearly nil, In the case of frontage land the development value is likely to
924
be greatly increased by the completion of roads, especially if at the same time the restricted value drops below agricultural value, and the effect of the clause as drafted would therefore be to give the developer the right both to make a claim on the £300,000,000 and to cash in on the development value when he sells off the building plots free of development charge.
Quite obviously, that is not what the noble Lord for one moment intends. Let us assume that that flaw could be repaired and further that the length of roads and sewers actually "begun to be laid or made" could be identified (no very easy task in some cases), then it is possible that the clause itself would only let into the dead ripe category a strictly moderate amount of land. But we cannot accept even that, because if this concession were made in a case of land on which roads were in the course of construction, it would be impossible not to extend the concession to all lands fronting on roads which were completed before January 7, 1947. Between the two, a very large proportion of the land in suburban districts and building fringes of big towns, which carry a great deal of the development value in the country, would be included. If all this land were excluded from payments out of the £300,000,000, the effect would be that the £300,000,000 would be left to be distributed very largely among claimants with highly speculative values, whose claim to any substantial compensation is at least doubtful.
The Minister has considered most carefully whether it would be possible to make a concession on the lines of the Amendment, but he knows that logically it is inevitable that the effect of this Amendment in a posteriori cases must mean that you would have to extend it to other cases and the result would be to take in a great deal of the land which should pay development charge. We are sorry but we cannot accept this Amendment. It is quite true that my noble friend, Lord Chorley, said in Committee stage that construction in progress at the appointed day must not be held up while planning permission to continue is sought. In most cases the work will be subject to an express post-1943 planning permission, which will be preserved by Clause 76; but this will not always be so in areas covered by an operative scheme. An appropriate transitional provision may have to be

925
inserted in the first general development order allowing work to go on without individual permission, and, if necessary, an exemption from development charge could be provided for in the regulations made under Clause 68. On this latter point no decison has yet been taken one way or the other, but the matter is certainly going to receive careful consideration. For these reasons I cannot carry out the hope which my noble friend Lord Chorley gave in the best good faith.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, before we leave this point I would like to say that I do not see why it should not include roads that have been made. Take the case which happens in England quite frequently, I am told, where a man develops his own land and makes up streets to the conditions laid down by the local authority and hands the streets over in perfectly good order to the lessee or sells the land alongside these streets. During the whole time of the development of the land he has not the use of the money actually laid down for the streets. To-day he is not only losing all the money and interest on the money he is actually out of pocket; and he will also have to pay development charges on the land out of which he expected to be reimbursed for what he has already paid out. It is taking away honest expenditure in the public interest made by the man out of his own pocket. I hope the noble and learned Viscount will give this point a little more consideration if possible, in line with my noble friend's Amendment.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, one point which the noble and learned Viscount made was that he did not know how far these roads and works would go. I did point out to him that the plans have to be approved by the local authority. My Amendment deals only with the completion of those works by the making of a proper surface to the carriageway and footway to the said roads, so really you have quite a manageable problem, the extent of which you know because plans have already been approved for it. You cannot go, as was said about one of my other Amendments, from Land's End to John o'Groats. I appreciate that this will not be accepted here in the Bill but if the Government want to see these roads completed, they should not put them in the category of having to pay development charges and wait some five
926
years for a share-out of this £300,000,000. If they desire that, there is not a single developer laying these roads at present who will spend another penny upon them. If you sincerely want roads to go ahead and houses to be built by the side of them, you cannot hamper development by requiring all sorts of permissions to be obtained. You can only do it by excluding these people by regulations from paying this development charge. We will just watch and see whether the Government do that, or whether their theories of what should be ripe land under this Bill are stronger than their practical will to build more houses in this country. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.40 p.m.
Clause 78 [Compensation, for abortive expenditure on refusal of permission for other development authorised before appointed day]:
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 94, line 5, after ("scheme") insert ("or of permission granted thereunder").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 79:
Land ripe for development before the appointed day.
79.—(1) Where planning permission is granted under Part III of this Act in respect of any development consisting of the erection, extension or alteration of buildings, or is deemed by virtue of section seventy-six of this Act to be so granted, then if the Minister is satisfied, on application made to him within one year after the appointed day or within such extended period as the Minister may in any particular case allow—
(b) that a building Contract made in relation to that development within the period of ten years before the seventh day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, was in force on the appointed day, or that a byelaw submission or a building application, had been made in respect thereof within that period; or
Provided that if it appears to the Minister that proceedings should be taken with a view to the revocation of the permission granted or deemed to be granted as aforesaid, he may postpone the issue of a certificate pending the taking of such proceedings, and if the permission is revoked he shall not be required to issue the certificate.
(4) For the purposes of this section—
(b) the expression "building application" means an application including such plans as aforesaid and made by any such person as aforesaid to a local or other authority under the Town and Country Planning Acts, 1932 and 1943, or under any byelaws or other enactment requiring the consent of that authority to be obtained for the construction, extension or alteration of buildings.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) after the second "made" to insert "or a licensing application has been granted." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a simple matter which was discussed in the Committee stage. It is just a question of whether, when a licensing application has been granted, that will show enough desire and willingness to complete the provision for which a licence has been given, and so bring the matter into the category of ripe land. Having had several attempts in this matter of ripe land, I appreciate that this might have been engraved on one of the tablets that was brought down from the top of the Mount, because it seems to me that the strict words which have somehow become enshrined in this Bill are thought of in much the same light as one of the Ten Commandments. This, after all, is a very small Amendment. The number of cases in which an application for a licence has been granted in this particular period of time seems to be quite minute. It seems to me to show a very strong intention to go ahead, as will be realized by any noble Lord who knows what opposition usually faces any application made under the Licensing Acts to the licensing justices. So it is not done vainly and vaguely, but with a real intention to proceed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 95, line 26, after ("made") insert ("or a licensing application has been granted").—(Lord Llewellin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Lord is trying to break into my fastness of dead ripe land. He is putting up a case for something which is not dead ripe land, but which just misses being dead ripe land. For instance, the grant of a licence does not absolve the applicant from taking other steps—application for planning permission, by-law submission, etc.—all of which are necessary before the building can be begun. No doubt normally all these
928
steps will follow immediately. If that is so, there is no hardship in applying the tests laid down in the Bill. But if for any reason these steps have not been taken, the applicant will be in precisely the same position as any other intending developer who is nearly but not quite ready to develop; and there is no reason to single out one particular class of applicant—very estimable class though it may be—for favourable treatment.
We have asked the Home Office about their experience in these cases, and I gather that the common form of procedure is for the brewers to apply for a provisional licence under Section 33 of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910. Once that is granted the licensing authority have no statutory duty to see that the work is carried out within any specified period; indeed, it is not uncommon that the brewers do not begin to build until a considerable time has elapsed. The only interest which the justices have in inspecting the finished building is to make sure that it conforms to the terms of the provisional licence before confirming the licence. Therefore, I am sorry I cannot accept this Amendment. It would let in to the special category of dead ripe land, land which does not satisfy the requirements of dead ripe land. It is nearly ripe, but not quite ripe, and that being so we cannot let it in without letting in a whole host of other land and enlarging very substantially the precious category of dead ripe land. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, as far as I can see the sad business about this is having the expression "dead ripe land." If we had only had something like "Matured in bottle for five years," I feel that I might have got a little Amendment into that category. But as a different set of words have been chosen I will not press this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER had given Notice that he would move, in subsection (4) (b) to leave out "including such plans as aforesaid and", and to insert at the end of the subsection:
"which has been supported by such plans or particulars as were required to be furnished under the said Acts or the said bye-laws or other enactments, as the case may be, being an application in respect of development

929
which was or would have been but for circumstances arising out of the emergency which was the occasion of the passing of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 5939, immediately practicable at the date of the application and for which there was at such date a demand for such development which 'it was the intention of the applicant to satisfy."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I think it would probably be for the convenience of the noble and learned Viscount if I spoke on this Amendment and the other Amendment which stands in my name, because the two are closely associated with one another. Some of your Lordships may remember that during the Committee stage of this Bill I moved an Amendment somewhat similar to this. It was designed to amend an Amendment which had been inserted in the Bill in another place and moved by the Minister himself. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, in the course of his reply, gave indications as to why the Amendment which I had then moved could not be accepted. The chief objection which he raised was that there was nothing in these two Amendments to indicate that the building application was in fact to be followed by the actual carrying out of the building work.
In the second of these two Amendments I have tried to make it clear that it covers any development which was or would have been practicable but for the emergency, which was the occasion of the passing of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1939, and for which there was a demand which it was the intention of the applicant, when applying for the licence, to satisfy. I feel that by this I have met the objections which were voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, during the Committee stage of the Bill. I might add here what I said on the previous occasion. I am not seeking to widen in any way whatever the definition of ripe land, and although the noble Lord was not certain of my assurance on the previous occasion, I would now tell him that it is still my intention not to widen the definition of ripe land, but merely to amend the Amendment which was moved by the Minister in another place to bring it into accord with what I am given to understand is the general and usual practice. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 96, line 26, leave out from ("application") to end of line.—(The Earl of Munster.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will do with this Amendment what I have done with the previous Amendment—I will accept it with a grumble. My grumble is that I regard this Amendment as really consequential on the Amendment which was carried against the Government in Committee with regard to the definition of dead ripe land. So long as that Amendment is there it is part of the Bill, and I think it is not unreasonable to have this Amendment. But though I accept it, let no one hereafter ever say that in any way the Government are committed to adhere to it in all circumstances. So long is that is plainly understood—and the noble Earl will, I know, realize why I say that—and that nothing I here say is to be used in evidence against me hereafter, I will accept this Amendment.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount, but I still wish the Amendment could go back to another place not with a grumble but with his blessing. However, I am grateful that he accepts it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This is purely consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 96, line 32, at end insert ("which has been supported by such plans or particulars as were required to be furnished under tae said Acts or the said bye-laws or other enactments, as the case may be, being an application in respect of development which was or would have been but for circumstances arising oat of the emergency which was the occasion of the passing of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1939, immediately practicable at the date of the aplication and for which there was at such date a demand for such development which it was the intention of the applicant to satisfy.")—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 80 [Mineral workings]:
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved in subsection (3) (a) to leave out "terms of" and insert: "royalty or other payment required to be made under." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have put in a manuscript Amendment which is rather in lieu of that Amendment that stands in the name of my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, who unfortunately has to be away in Scotland at this time. As I understand the drafting of this clause, it means that the tribunal shall alter the terms of a lease so far as they are affected by the new charge and

931
not further, and so it seems to me that what they want to alter, or perhaps may want to alter, is the proportions of the royalty and the other payment required to be made under the terms of the lease. Probably we do not want the tribunal to go much wider than that. I am not quite certain that it will completely fulfil the wishes of my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch, who, as I say, has unfortunately to be in Scotland on duty. It may well be that he will come back before the Third Reading takes place and tell me that I have done all wrong, but then, in accordance with the practice of this House, he may well be able to put down a written Amendment in time to get it accepted. At any rate, for the moment I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 97, line 44, leave out ("terms of") and insert ("royalty or other payment required to be made under.")—(Lord Llewellin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have looked at this manuscript Amendment of which the noble Lord was good enough to give me a copy. I am quite prepared to accept it. I hope it will meet the wishes of the noble Duke, but, if it does not, we can turn back to it on Third Reading.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved in subsection (6) after "of" ["working of minerals"] to "any such minerals as are mentioned in paragraph 5 of the Third Schedule to this Act, or to the winning and working of any." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is preliminary to the Government Amendment to the Third Schedule, dealing with existing use, which exempts from development charge the working of minerals for purposes incidental to farming operations. I promised the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, that I would introduce this Amendment, and this is preliminary to the real business end of the Amendment which comes later in the Schedules. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 98, line 42, after ("of") insert ("any such minerals as are mentioned in Paragraph 5 of the Third Schedule to this Act, or to the winning and working of any"). —(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Viscount
932
for this consequential Amendment that leads to one later on.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 82:
Land acquired by local authorities and development corporations for comprehensive development or re-devlopment.
82.—(1) No payment shall be made under Part VI of this Act in respect of any interest in land, being—

(a) the interest of a local authority in land acquired or appropriated by that authority under Part I of the Act of 1944 for the purposes of the development or redevelopment of any area as a whole; or

(b) the interest of a development corporation in land acquired by the corporation under the New Towns Act, 19.

LORD HENDERSON LORD HENDERSON moved at the end of subsection (1) (b) to insert "and where a local authority or a development corporation have before the appointed day disposed of an interest in any such land, no payment shall be made under the said Part VI in respect of that interest." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is and the next five Amendments are all related. The object of the Amendments is to bring within Clause 82 the whole of any land in an area of comprehensive development or redevelopment that has been purchased under the 1944 Act, irrespective of whether disposals take place before or after the appointed day. Under Clause 82 as drafted, no payment is to be made in respect of the interest of a local authority in land in a redevelopment area and no development charge is to be paid in respect of approved development, but a "block" development charge can be settled up later on covering the whole of the area. It will be calculated, of course, with full regard to the financial results of the re-planning of the area, and in many cases—for example, where a congested area is being thinned out—it is unlikely that any payment will have to be made; on the contrary a grant may be payable under Clause 92 of the Bill.
A number of areas have already been purchased under the 1944 Act, or may have been purchased before the appointed day, and under the clause as drafted any person taking a lease or entering into an agreement for a lease before the appointed day would be able to claim on the 300,000,000 fund and would have to pay development charge when he carried out the development authorized by his lease.
Obviously it is undesirable to split up a war damaged area in this way and to treat some of the land in the area differently from other land in the area according to whether it happened to be disposed of before the appointed day or afterwards. The effect of these Amendments is to enable the whole of the area to be treated alike. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 09, line 46, at end insert the said new words.— (Lord Henderson.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: We have no objection at all.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, these are drafting Amendments.
Amendment moved—
Page 100, line 5, after ("in") insert (? paragraph (a) of").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 100, line 16, leave out ("is"), and insert ("has been").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 100, line 17, after ("corporation") insert ("whether before or after the appointed day").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 100, line 18, leave out from ("of") to the first ("of") in line 19 and insert ("the carrying out of any operations on the land or the institution").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 100, line 21 at end insert
("or, in the case of land disposed of before the appointed day, in respect of the carrying out of any operations on the land or the
934
institution of any use of the land carried out or instituted in accordance with the terms of the instrument by which the land was disposed of.")—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment: agreed to.

PRESTON CORPORATION BILL.
The King's consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.
PUBLIC OFFICES SITE BILL.
Reported without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.

LORD CROFTON.
Report made from the Lord Chancellor that Edward Blaise Baron Crofton, in the Peerage of Ireland, has established his succession to the Barony of Crofton, and his right to vote at any elections of Representative Peers for Ireland which may be held in future under the Statutes in force relating thereto, to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
Ordered, That the Report of the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom, made to the House of Lords this day, that Edward Blaise Baron Crofton, in the Peerage of Ireland, has established his succession to the Barony of Crofton, and his right to vote at any elections of Representative Peers for Ireland which may be held in future under the Statutes relating thereto, be sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, together with a certificate stating that such Report has been made, and that the House has ordered it to be sent to the said Clerk of the Crown in Ireland.
House adjourned at eleven o'clock.