Sitting of 4 April 1935

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bill Petitions [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with).
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon, the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:
Bournemouth Gas and Water[Lords]
Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Maidstone Corporation Bill.
Read the Third time, and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  TRANSPORT.

    BUILT-UP AREAS (SPEED LIMIT).
    Major BEAUMONT THOMASasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department who are the manufacturers of the speedometers fitted to police motor cars; and in what manner are the tests carried out to ensure that these speedometers are accurate?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT(Sir John Gilmour): Speedometers used on Metropolitan Police patrol cars are not restricted to any particular makes and are those normally fitted to the various types of car employed from time to time. To ensure their accuracy speedometers are tested twice daily. The tests consist of timing the vehicles over a measured distance with chronometers which have been certified by the National Physical Laboratory as suitable for the purpose.
    Major THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the principal
    506
    manufacturers of speedometers in this country have stated that it is impossible to test speedometers accurately in this way, and will he, therefore, give directions that in future no prosecutions for exceeding the speed limit shall be instituted unless further evidence is available?
    Sir J. GILMOUR:The manufacturers are prepared to charge for them to the public as being of some use. I have yet to learn that they are not.
    Sir PHILIP DAWSONasked the Home Secretary the number of police now engaged in enforcing the 30-miles-perhour speed limit in the whole country, also the number engaged on this work in London; whether the number of police has been increased so as to perform these special duties or whether the number of police looking after their normal duties has thereby been reduced; whether the force has been increased, on whom does the additional expenditure fall; and what is the number and cost of vehicles engaged in this work?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: As I have already, informed the House the numbers and cost of the men and vehicles engaged on this work depend on circumstances and vary from time to time and I am not in a position to give particulars. The men now engaged, if not previously on motor patrol, are being drawn from other duties as opportunity offers. The cost of any increase in strength needed for this or other duties will fall equally on the. Exchequer and local rates.
    Brigadier-General SPEARSasked the Minister of Transport (1) whether he is aware that the road leading from Datchet to Windsor is a controlled area as far as the bridge over the Thames, although there is a golf course on one side of the road and fields on the other; and whether he will make representations to the local authority to have this road de-controlled;
    (2) whether he is aware that the road between Staines and the Colnbrook by-pass is a controlled area although it is a main trunk road wide enough for four cars to pass abreast; and whether, in view of the fact that this road was intended to relieve traffic congestion by providing a thoroughfare for the rapid

    507
    transit of motor-cars, he will make representations to the local authority to have this road de-controlled?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore Belisha): I assume that in question 50 the reference should be to the road between Slough and Colnbrook. The local authorities agree that these lengths of road should be de-restricted, and as soon as the statutory formalities are complied with I shall make the necessary Order.
    Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: Does not this show the necessity for the Minister to have made a survey before the limit came into force in order to see what roads ought to have been derestricted instead of waiting until afterwards.
    Mr. MARCUS SAMUELasked the Home Secretary whether he will instruct the police to comply with the request, when made by motorists, that they or their companion and the police observer shall change places, so that observations can be made of the speed registered on the motorist's car when the police car is travelling a fair distance at 30 miles per hour on its speedometer and vice versa, if the speeds do not agree?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir. It is no part of the duty of the police to check speedometers on private cars.

    FAWLEY LIGHT RAILWAY (COLLISION).
    Major MILLSasked the Minister of Transport whether an inquiry has been held by an official of his Ministry into the collision between a railway engine and a motor car, which occurred on 21st March at the open level-crossing in Jacob's Gutter Lane on the Fawley Light Railway; and whether he will require the Southern Railway Company to erect gates to guard the crossing?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: One of my inspecting officers was recently appointed to investigate the arrangements existing at the Jacob's Gutter Lane and other ungated level crossings on this light railway. As a result he made certain recommendations for improving conditions, concerning which I am in communication with the railway company.
    Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Will the right hon.Gentleman impress upon the
    508
    local authority concerned that the best solution of the problem is to take advantage of his offer to defray 75 per cent. of the cost of removing it?

    MOTOR DRIVERS (TEST)
    Sir JOHN PYBUSasked the Minister of Transport what proportion of those who have voluntarily submitted themselves to the new driving test have been successful?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: During the fortnight ended on Saturday, 30th March, 5,003 candidates were examined. Of these, 4,655 were successful and 348 failed. May I take this opportunity of calling attention to the fact that the whole organisation is now complete, and that it will shortly be my duty to appoint a date after which no person who was not licensed as a driver before 1st April, 1934, will be able to obtain a new or a renewal licence without passing a test. It will therefore avoid any subsequent inconvenience and delay if all those who are liable to the test will voluntarily present themselves. They may obtain forms of application from the office of any county council or county borough.
    Captain STRICKLAND: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that cases are arising now in which the tester has refused to divulge to unsuccessful applicants the cause of their failure?
    Mr. WHITESIDE: What is the position of a driver who has held a licence for years and who voluntarily submits to a test and fails to pass? Will he be allowed to drive a car?
    Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLENasked the Minister of Transport whether in view of the desirability that an applicant for a motor driving licence, on failing to pass a test of competence to drive required by regulations, should be informed by the examiner of the points specified in the regulations on which be has failed to satisfy the examiner, instructions will now be given to the examiners that they should not refuse to give such information when a request for it is made by the person who has failed to pass the test?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I do not think that it would be desirable for me to instruct examiners to discuss their decisions with candidates, particularly in

    509
    view of the fact that every candidate has the right of appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction
    Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: Without discussing it with the candidate, cannot the candidate be instructed as to the cause of his failure to pass the test?
    Sir W. BRASS: What objection is there to telling the prospective driver wherein he has failed?
    Captain STRICKLAND: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the impossibility of the applicant renewing his application unless he knows from what cause he has failed?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: There is no objection whatever to an examiner telling a candidate why he failed. The question is whether I should issue formal instructions to that effect. I think the House will appreciate the distinction
    HON. MEMBERS: No
    Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN; ALLEN: Will the hon. Gentleman not consider the issue of formal instructions?
    Sir W. BRASS: If the hon. Gentleman sees any objection to this procedure, will he give instructions the other way round?
    Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Will the hon. Gentleman make it plain that this charge is being made for examination and not for instruction.?
    Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: Will the hon. Gentleman go so far as to issue instructions to his inspectors to tell candidates who have failed whether they have failed in the theoretical test as to knowledge of the Highway Code, or in the practical test of driving?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I will, with pleasure, consider any representations made to me as a result of the experience which has been gained. I have not had a single complaint of the manner in which any of these tests have been conducted, and I do not want to over-burden the examiners with formal instructions

    ALIENS.
    Brigadier-General NATIONasked the Home Secretary how many aliens have been naturalised in this country
    510
    during the last 10 years; how many have changed their names; and how much money has been received for carrying out these transactions
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The number of certificates of naturalisation granted during the 10 years ended 31st December, 1934, was 14,506 and the number of exemptions granted in respect of change of name 2,404. The fees received for the certificates and exemptions amounted to £127,736 15s. and £13.212 16s. respectively.
    Brigadier-General NATION: Can the right hon. Gentleman say from what countries the greater proportion of these aliens have come?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Not without notice
    Mr. LOGAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say in how many cases special application has been made for naturalisation papers over the ordinary numbers which apply?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I cannot say.
    Captain WATERHOUSE: Has the right hon. Gentleman any figures to show how many of these aliens become chargeable on the rates?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I should require notice of that question.
    Mr. MABANEasked the Home Secretary whether he can say on what grounds H. J. Zum Sande is being required to leave this country on 10th April in view of the fact that he is staying with friends in this country; that he has not worked since arriving in this country; that he is not endeavouring to obtain work; that he has Jewish blood in his veins; and that he is faced with serious action against him if he returns to Germany?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Mr. Zuni Sande was admitted to this country in October last for a month's visit to friends, but enquiries made recently indicated that he did not intend to leave the country and that he is now desirous of obtaining employment here. After very careful consideration I decided that there was no ground for consenting to his establishment and he was requested therefore to terminate his visit in accordance with his statement made on arrival.
    Mr. MABANE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what authority he has for saying that this man is seeking work in the country?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I have no reason to suppose that he is not doing so, but, if the hon. Member will give me further evidence, I will consider it
    Mr. MABANE: If I give the right hon. Gentleman evidence that this man is not seeking to obtain work in this country, will he be good enough to reconsider his decision?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The hon. Member must understand that, while people may not be desirous of seeking work, they may become a burden on the State at a future time.
    Mr. MABANE: In this case, as the man is being supported by friends in this country, has the Home Secretary any objection to his receiving the support of these friends and remaining here on those terms?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: There are definite objections. There is no firm guarantee that friends can give that support.

    METROPOLITAN POLICE CANTEENS.
    Mr. BANFIELDasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that local tradesmen who have supplied the Metropolitan police canteens for many years have not been allowed the opportunity of tendering for future supplies; and whether he will make inquiries with a view to removing a possible injustice to tradesmen who have hitherto given every satisfaction to the managers and customers of the canteens?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The Commissioner informs me that the central canteen board decided to obtain their supplies of milk, bread and cake from firms who were in a position to deliver over the whole of the police district rather than from tradesmen who could only supply locally. The matter is one entirely for the board.

    EDUCATION (MILK SUPPLY SCHEME).
    Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board
    512
    of Education whether he will consider the advisability of obtaining powers whereby milk can be supplied to young children in nursery schools as is provided for children in elementary schools?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): The scheme for the supply of milk in schools at reduced rates applies to all full-time schools recognised for grant by the Board of Education and is therefore applicable to all grant-earning nursery schools.
    Mr. CROOKE: Is it the case that milk is supplied to nursery schools if they are recognised by the Board of Education?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I have just said that the milk scheme is applicable to all grant-earning schools, including nursery schools.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Am I not right in saying that milk is supplied to nursery schools which have not yet been recognised by the Board of Education?
    Mr. GORDON MACDONALDasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education the number of school children receiving milk, specifying the number receiving free milk, in Lancashire in December, 1931, and at the latest date on which figures are available, respectively?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: About 1,000 children were receiving free milk in December, 1931, in public elementary schools maintained by the Lancashire County Council. In February, 1935, the number had increased to about 10,000. No figures are available as to the number of children paying for milk in December, 1931, but I hope in a few weeks to be able to give the number of children receiving milk free and on payment in each area at the end of March this year
    Mr. MACDONALD: Is this increase due to the increase of poverty in Lancashire?
    Major COLFOX: Is it not a fact that many more school children would be receiving milk if the ridiculous regulation regarding pasteurisation was annulled?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The obvious answer is that there is a more efficient administration.

    HOUSING (LOAN INTEREST).
    Lieut.-Colonel APPLINasked the Minister of Health whether he will take steps to grant to borrowers under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts, who are still paying the old rate of interest of 5 per cent. and over, the present rate of interest of 3½ per cent., in view of the hardship inflicted on those borrowers whose incomes had been reduced proportionately by the conversion scheme which reduced interest on gilt-edged stock by 2 per cent.?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which was given to a similar question by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) on the 25th ultimo and of which I am sending him a copy.
    Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN: May I ask whether, in view of the fact that interest has been reduced in the case of those who have loaned money to the Government, it would not be fair and equitable to reduce the rate of interest in the case of those who have borrowed money from the Government?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: It would cut both ways. If a concession is made in this case, we should have to make a concession to those who are borrowing money at lower rates of interest?

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    PASTEURISED MILK.
    Major MILLSasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that some distributors of milk collect milk at country depots at considerable distances from London and pasteurise it there; that they then transport it to London in bulk and pasteurise it again to nullify the effects of contamination and deterioration before bottling it for distribution; arid whether he is satisfied that this second pasteurisation is a desirable practice in the interests of the health of the consumers?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend is advised that it is undesirable that milk should be heat-treated more than once, and he was not aware that this procedure is adopted at the present time. It is one of the conditions of the sale of
    514
    milk as "pasteurized" that the milk should not be heated more than once, and if my hon. and gallant Friend will supply any evidence of an infringement of this condition my right hon. Friend will bring it to the notice of the appropriate local authority.

    MALNUTRITION OF CHILDREN, DURHAM.
    Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Health what action he proposes to take on the report made on behalf of the President of the Board of Education and himself regarding the condition of children suffering from malnutrition in the county of Durham; and whether it is intended to publish the report?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: This report is now being printed with a view to publication. The question of any action to be taken on the findings in the report is under consideration.

    MEAT (NUTRITIVE VALUES).
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the Minister of Health whether his Department has made investigation as to the nutritive values of home-grown, chilled, and frozen meat and, if so, what results have been disclosed?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: No such investigation has been made by my Department.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Cannot such an investigation be made by the Health Ministry?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Of course, it could be made, but I would like to discuss with my right hon. Friend whether it is worth while making it.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is it not a fact that investigations made by outside bodies show that home-killed meat is superior?
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does it not all depend on the particular animal from which the meat is obtained?

    PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (TEST WORK).
    Mr. LOFTUSasked the Minister of Health whether in view of the postponement of the second appointed day under the Unemployment Assistance (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1935, and also in view of the fact that it is not at present the intention of the Government to put into

    515
    operation Section 37 (a) and (b) of the Unemployment Act, 1934, he will consider issuing instructions to public assistance committees that it is no longer obligatory for them to enforce test work as a condition for the receipt of public assistance by able-bodied individuals?
    SHAKESPEARE: I am very glad of the opportunity of making a statement about test work on behalf of my right hon. Friend, as there seems to be some general misapprehension. The main object of the requirement in the Relief Regulation Order, 1930, that able-bodied men should be set to work or trained or instructed, is to maintain the employability of applicants for relief by, at the least, providing them with some regular occupation during what must otherwise be a period of enforced idleness. Section 37 of the Unemployment Act, 1934, which empowers the Unemployment Assistance Board to provide training courses, is similar in its scope and will of course replace the requirement in the Relief Regulation Order as soon as the remainder of the able-bodied unemployed are transferred from the public assistance authorities to the board.
    At the same time my right hon. Friend fully realises that the provision of suitable test work is often a matter of great difficulty, and while he does not think that it would be in the best interests of the unemployed to relieve public assistance authorities generally of the obligation to provide work or training, he is prepared to investigate any case in which it is alleged that the arrangements actually made by the public assistance authority are such as to be detrimental to the interests of the unemployed persons immediately concerned.
    Mr. LOFTUS: Will the hon. Member be prepared to investigate, with a view to the removal of grievances, the circumstances in a certain district if I give him full particulars?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I shall be glad to investigate them
    Mr. T. SMITH: When the Unemployment Assistance Board starts to find work under the Act is it to be the same kind of work as public assistance authorities have been using as test work, and is the hon. Gentleman not aware
    516
    that test work as applied by some public assistance authorities is degrading to the individual?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: It is not a fair deduction to be drawn from the answer that the scope and training will be on the same lines. One of the main objects in treating this problem as a national one is to do it on a national scale.
    Major COLFOX: When is the present uncertainty with regard to unemployment insurance to be brought to an end?
    Mr. THORNE: Are the things that these men will be trained to make to come into competition in the ordinary market
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: No, certainly not. That is one of the conditions laid down.
    Mr. G. MACDONALDasked the Minister of Health whether he will give the number of persons receiving public assistance, including both indoor and outdoor, in Lancashire in December, 1931, and at the latest date on which figures are available, respectively?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The number of persons in receipt of poor relief excluding rate-aided patients in mental hospitals, casuals and persons in receipt of domiciliary medical relief only, in the administrative county of Lancaster and the 17 associated county boroughs on 26th December, 1931, was 168,654 and on 23rd March, 1935, was 256,196

    DEATH DUTIES.
    Lieut.-Colonel GAULTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the serious inroads now being made upon the capital resources of the nation by death duties and the incidence of surtax for the purposes of current expenditure, he can give an estimate of the new capital accumulating annually by which this loss is offset?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I am sorry that I am not able to furnish my hon. and gallant Friend with the estimate he desires
    Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is the only duty Oat nobody can put upon the consumer?

  AGRICULTURE

    IMPORT DUTIES (POULTRY).
    Colonel ROPNERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in connection with the recent application of the National Farmers' Union for an increased duty en poultry, any evidence was called for by the Import Duties Advisory Committee from his Department; and, if so, whether it was adverse to or in favour of such increased protection being given?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): The Import Duties Advisory Committee obtains its information from all relevant sources, including Government Departments; but that information is for the use of the Committee and it is not desirable that Government Departments should disclose whether information has been supplied by them in connection with a particular application

    POTATOES.
    Mr. GLOSSOPasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the Potato Marketing Board have recently made regulations prohibiting the sale of potatoes over 1 lb. weight; that this regulation is causing resentment amongst growers in South-west Yorkshire; and whether he will make representations to the Potato Marketing Board for the withdrawal of the regulation?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): I am aware of the regulation of the Potato Marketing Board to which my hon. Friend refers. As regards the latter part of the question, my hon. Friend will appreciate that the matter is one beween the board and their constituents in which it would be undesirable for me to intervene.
    Mr. GLOSSOP: Is my right hon. Friend aware that potatoes such as these, which are ideal for the chipping trade, cannot be sold because they are over 1 lb. in weight, and does he not think that in the interests of the producers and the fish and chip fryers these potatoes should be allowed on the market?
    Mr. ELLIOT: The representation in question seems a very suitable one to make to the Potato Marketing Board.
    Colonel ROPNERasked the Minister of Agriculture whether any consideration has been given to the possibility of absorbing surplus potatoes in this country by a process of drying; and whether, in view of the increasing need for dealing with the surplus, he will arrange that this matter is given full investigation at an early date?
    Mr. ELLIOT: The problem of finding profitable uses for surplus potatoes in this country is receiving the active consideration of the Potato Marketing Board, who have been investigating the possibilities of the industrial utilisation of potatoes and of drying potatoes for stock feed. I understand that the Board have recently concluded an agreement with a company for the supply of potatoes for use, dried, as a constituent of a balanced cattle food.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not the case that in France, Germany and America, surplus potatoes are used for distilling power alcohol?

    SUGAR-BEET INDUSTRY.
    Major CARVERasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is yet in a position to state what action it is intended to take following the issue of the report of the Greene Committee on Sugar-Beet: and whether he can give an assurance that the Government will not permit the output of British sugar-beet to fall below the average of recent years?
    Mr. ELLIOT: No, Sir. The Committee's report inevitably raises important issues which will call for the most careful consideration both by the Government and by Parliament before a decision on future policy is reached. Pending this full consideration, no statement of future policy could be made. It was, however, in order to give time for full examination of the report that the proposals for a further interim measure of assistance to the industry were put forward in the statement which I made on 6th February in reply to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Maldon (Sir E. Ruggles-Brise).
    Major CARVER: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this report has been promised for a considerable time, and can he expedite its publication?
    Mr. ELLIOT: There is a later question about the date of publication
    Viscountess ASTOR: Is it true that every day we wait sugar-beet is getting £2,000?
    Mr. MALLALIEUasked the Minister of Agriculture whether the report of the Departmental Committee on the Beet-Sugar Industry will be available before the presentation of the Budget?
    Mr. ELLIOT: As I indicated in the reply I gave on 29th March to questions by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Sir A. McLean) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Blackpool (Captain Erskine-Bolst), the report of the Committee of Inquiry under the chairmanship of Mr. Wilfrid Greene, K.C., has been presented and sent for printing, and will, it is hoped, be available for Members by 12th April.

    PIGS MARKETING SCHEME (TRANSPORT COSTS).
    Major CARVERasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has any information to show what has been the average saving per pig to producers on transport costs to bacon factories this year as a result of the monopoly transport scheme in the bacon contract; and whether it is intended to continue this scheme next year?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I understand that the Pigs and Bacon Marketing Boards estimate that the operation of the flat rate transport system will effect a saving of about £50,000 in 1935 or, on the average, roughly 6d. per pig contracted to be sold under the pigs marketing scheme. The question of continuing the system next year is for the marketing boards to decide, but I understand that they have not yet considered the matter
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that part of the surplus is due to the fact that certain curers collect the pigs in their own lorries and then are also charged by the railway companies?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I could not answer that question without notice

    FOOD PRODUCTS (MARKING).
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will consult the recently formed Retail Trading Standards Association as to the possibility of improving the present marks which distinguish British from foreign food products in retail shops?
    Mr. ELLIOT: My Department is already in touch with the association mentioned in the question, and I shall be happy to bear in mind my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Colonel ROPNERasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will consider the possibility of permitting hotels which make a practice of supplying national mark and other British agricultural produce to exhibit a national mark or other suitable sign, in order to encourage the extended use by British hotels of British food products and the patronage of such hotels by the public?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I would gladly arrange for the display of the national mark, under suitable conditions, for the purpose indicated by my hon. and gallant Friend, and any proposals submitted by organisations representative of hotels and restaurants, or by individual proprietors, will be very sympathetically considered by the Ministry
    Mr. LUNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when an investigation was made several years ago less than 5 per cent. of British beef was used in the hotels of London? Does he not think it is necessary to hold another inquiry and to see whether that percentage has been increased?
    Mr. ELLIOT: It is sufficient to say that we are perfectly willing to encourage anyone who is willing to do so.

    MILK
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Milk Marketing Board is taking any action to restrict the production of British milk and milk products; and if such action meets with his
    approval?
    Mr. ELLIOT: No, Sir. The Milk Marketing Board have announced that they will not give the slightest consideration to any proposal for the restriction of production. My right hon. Friend may have in mind statements to the effect that the board are considering an amendment of the Milk Marketing Scheme whereby each registered producer would be allotted a basic quantity in respect of which he would receive the full pool price, with possibly a smaller return for sales in excess of that basic quantity. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of

    521
    State for Scotland and I have referred this amendment with other matters to the Milk Reorganisation Commission for Great Britain, and I should, of course, under no circumstances express any opinion on the matter until I had read and considered their report.
    Mr. LAMBERT: May I take it that it is not the policy of the Government to restrict home Agricultural production?
    Mr. ELLIOT: Certainly, Sir.

    FRENCH WHEAT IMPORTS.
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that supplies of French denatured and coloured wheat are being offered at British ports; whether he will state the price of wheat in France and the offered price of denatured French wheat here; and whether such denatured and coloured grain is suitable for feeding pigs or poultry?
    Mr. ELLIOT: Yes, Sir, a number of transactions have been reported for April and May shipment at 14s. 9d. to 16s. per 480 lbs. c.i.f. plus duty. Native wheat in France was quoted last week at 72 francs per quintal, equivalent to 43s. per 480 lbs. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative
    Mr. LAMBERT: Has the Department any evidence that this denatured or coloured French wheat is suitable for feeding poultry and animals
    Mr. ELLIOT: Yes, Sir. As far as we know, it is quite suitable for feeding poultry and animals.

    EGG PRICES.
    Sir J. LAMB(for Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE) asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to National Mark eggs being sold below 8d. a dozen; and what steps he proposes to take?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I have no information that National Mark eggs have been sold below 8d. a dozen. The wholesale price quoted by National Mark Egg Central, Ltd., on 2nd April was equivalent to 1ld. per dozen for standard weight eggs, and 10d. per dozen for pullet weight eggs.

    COAST EROSION.
    Major MILLSasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has any funds
    522
    available with which he can help needy local authorities to fight coast erosion?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I have no funds at my disposal for the assistance of works designed to prevent coast erosion as such, but in a number of cases catchment boards constituted under the Land Drainage Act, 1930, find it essential to maintain the sea defences in their area for the purpose of preserving the main river system for which they are responsible. In such cases, I am prepared to consider applications from catchment boards for grants under Section 55 of the Act, provided that the works are new works or improvements of existing works. A number of grants have already been sanctioned for this purpose. I have, however, no power to make such grants to local authorities other than catchment boards.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    DUTY-FREE IMPORTS (PARCELS POST)
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of the goods from British countries imported by parcels post and not charged with duty would be so charged but for the provisions of the Import Duties Act and the Ottawa Agreements Act providing for duty-free entry o! goods produced in and consigned from British countries?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I regret that I am unable to furnish the desired information. It is not practicable to distinguish in the trade returns the various classes of goods imported by parcel post and not charged to duty.
    Mr. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade the value of the goods not charged with duty imported from India by parcels post during the first two months of the present year?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The estimated value of goods not charged to duty imported by parcel post into Great Britain and Northern Ireland and registered during January and February last as consigned from British India was £11,664. This value is exclusive of certain parcels of high value which are required to be entered in the same way as dutiable parcels and are included in the trade returns under the appropriate headings.

    523
    Particulars of such parcels imported from India, if any, could not be obtained without an undue expenditure of time and labour

    FINISHED CLOTHS (IMPORTS)
    Mr. SUTCLIFFEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the importation of finished cloths into this country; and whether he will give, in comparison with any similar period in 1934, the volume and value of such imports, together with the chief countries of origin?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: If my hon. Friend will let me know more precisely the kind of cloth he has in mind, I will endeavour to give him the information he desires.

    BULGARIA.
    Mr. SUTCLIFFEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the difficulties which face British firms importing goods into Bulgaria owing to the existing scheme by which exports of Bulgarian goods have to be arranged in compensation, and that on many occasions, when arrangements have been made by such firms for the export of a sufficient quantity of Bulgarian goods to this country for such purpose, the Bulgarian authorities subsequently withdraw such goods from the list of articles which can thus provide compensation value; and whether he can take any steps to remedy this?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware that the conditions attached to the export of Bulgarian goods, including exports under compensation arrangements, are varied from time to time. If my hon. Friend will send me particulars of any cases in which such variations have caused hardship to United Kingdom exporters I shall be happy to look into them.

    BELGIUM (CURRENCY DEVALUATION).
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS (for Mr. LIDDALL)asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he has had any reports as to the adverse effects likely to be produced among the heavy industries of this country by the devaluation of Belgian currency; and what action he proposes to take;
    (2) whether, having regard to the devaluation of Belgian currency, he proposes to take any steps to deal with the
    524
    situation in order to protect British industries likely to be affected?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): It is obviously impossible to forecast the effect of recent events upon the course of imports into this country, but I am informed by the Import Duties Advisory Committee that it is their intention to maintain a close and constant watch upon the movements of imports in case any action on their part should appear to be called for in regard to any particular industry. It is, of course, open to the Committee to make recommendations to the Treasury at any time without previous advertisement if they think it necessary.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I take it that where an application has been turned down but a new factor has arisen the Import Duties Advisory Committee can act without further application from the industry
    Dr. BURGIN: Yes, that is the effect of the last few words of the answer.
    Mr. PALING: Are we to take it that Belgium is likely to benefit because she has gone off the Gold Standard?

  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    STEAMSHIP "KELSOMOOR."
    Mr. LOGANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the steamship "Kelsomoor," which arrived in Hull in June, 1934, with a deck cargo of timber, had a heavy list of 25 degrees owing to the starboard side of No. 2 ballast tank having given way; that, after the discharge of her cargo and without any proper repairs, the vessel left Hull for Rimouski for the purpose of carrying a deck cargo of lumber across the Atlantic from Rimouski to the Bristol Channel; that the vessel has since been out to Haifa; and whether proper repairs have yet been made to the No. 2 ballast tank?
    Dr. BURGIN: The "Kelsomoor" arrived at Hull in June, 1934, with a list and was immediately inspected by a Board of Trade Surveyor. The list was found to be due to damaged tanks and the vessel did not sail until repairs had been executed to the satisfaction of the board's surveyors. Further in4spections of the repairs were made at Leith a few

    525
    days later, and again in the Clyde, after the ship had made a voyage to Canada, when the repaired tanks were found to be in satisfactory condition. I understand that the ship has since been through re-classification survey, in the course of which permanent repairs have been effected to the satisfaction of the Classification Society's surveyors.

    FOREIGN SEAMEN (NATURALISATION).
    Mr. LOGANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the recommendation of the Shipping Subsidy Committee that, British nationals should be given preference in employment in shipping, and that at Cardiff on Monday 1st April, about 1,000 application forms for naturalisation had been given to foreign seamen; and can he make a statement?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware that, in conformity with the views expressed on all sides of the House during the Debates on the British Shipping (Assistance) Bill, the Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee consider that owners wishing to qualify for the tramp shipping subsidy should employ British subjects as crews wherever possible. As regards the remainder of the question I have seen statements in the Press as to the issue to foreign seamen of application forms for naturalisation. Any question. about naturalisation is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
    Mr. LOGAN: In view of the circulation of this statement in the Press and the leaflet which I have sent to the right hon. Gentleman, is it not possible to make a survey of the various shipping centres in the country, and to verify whether such literature has been sent out all over the country so as to give an opportunity to foreign sailors to be naturalized?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have nothing to do with naturalisation papers. That is a matter which does not fall within my purview, but I will mention it to the Home Secretary
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman satisfied himself that seamen are signed on through the shipping offices in every case; and can he say whether it is not the practice in certain places to employ people to find crews and that they generally find foreign crews?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: They must all sign on, either in the mercantile marine offices, or elsewhere.
    Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Does "wherever possible" mean that no foreign seaman will be signed on while there is a single British seaman on the register of unemployed?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: A statement of that kind is just the kind of thing I wish to avoid. In some climates and on some routes it is impossible.

    FOREIGN POLICY.
    Mr. SANDYSasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the appearance of any serious divergencies between the foreign policy of the United Kingdom and that of the Dominions would result in the undermining of Imperial unity and in the weakening of British influence for peace, His Majesty's Government intend to take the opportunity of the approaching visit of the representatives of the Dominions' Governments to impress upon them the need, in the present unsettled international situation, for setting up permanent Imperial machinery for the joint direction of foreign policy?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): As I stated in reply to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hull (Brigadier-General Nation) on 2nd April, advantage will be taken of the presence of Dominion representatives in this country to discuss personally and informally any questions of particular importance outstanding, and I think my hon. Friend may be assured that consideration of any practical proposal that may be put forward for improving the methods of consultation and cooperation between this country and the Dominions in questions of foreign policy would come within the scope of these discussions.
    Mr. SANDYS: May I ask the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government recognise that the existing facilities for co-ordination of foreign policy between the United Kingdom and the Dominions are not adequate?
    The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend, I think, knows perfectly that the position is that if the facilities are not

    527
    adequate the Dominions themselves have to agree upon any change in the plan adopted. It has been a matter for consideration on various occasions between the Government here and the Governments of the Dominions
    Mr. SANDYS: May we rely upon His Majesty's Government taking the lead. in remedying the present inadequacy?
    The PRIME MINISTER: We have always taken the lead in raising the question.

    ROYAL PARKS (REFRESHMENTS).
    Mr. THORNEasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will arrange that teas and refreshments may be served in the royal parks and open spaces as from 7th April; if not, what objections prevent this being done?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): It is within the discretion of the refreshment contractors to reopen the restaurants at a date most suitable to themselves, provided that my Department agrees to the reasonableness of their proposals. The refreshment pavilion at Hampton Court is open all the year round and the remainder will reopen on the 17th April. I am afraid it will not be possible to alter these arrangements this year, but I shall be glad to give consideration to the matter in future years.
    Mr. THORNE: Have Good Friday and Easter anything to do with the time when refreshments are supplied in the parks?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No, the discretion is with the contractors as to what arrangements they make, and a good deal depends on the weather.
    Mr. PALING: Have the contractors ever made an application for opening earlier and been refused?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Not that I know of.

    HIS MAJESTY'S SILVER JUBILEE (CELEBRATIONS).
    Mr. CROSSasked the First Commissioner of Works (1) whether the stands erected by his Department in the Mall and Green Park will be filled for
    528
    the Royal processions on 9th May and 11th May in addition to 6th May; and, if so, by whom;
    (2) where the stands erected for Members of the two Houses of Parliament to view the Royal procession returning from St. Paul's on 6th May are situated; and what means of access, and up to what hour, will be available for those having tickets for these stands?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: On the 6th May, hon. Members' cars may set down opposite the stand reserved for Members of this House, which will be situated on the south side of the Mall opposite the western end of Carlton House Terrace, up to 9 a.m. Their cars may then be parked in the Horse Guards Parade, provided they fix to the windscreen of the car a parking label, one of which will be issued with every two tickets. Hon. Members may approach on foot up to 9.30 a.m., and, provided they approach from Bird Cage Walk across St. James's Park, the police will endeavour to keep a way open up to 11.30 a.m., at which hour the broadcast of the service in St. Paul's Cathedral will commence, being relayed to all stands. In view, however, of the fact that Mr. Speaker in his coach will pass the stand shortly after 9.30 a.m., I have no doubt that many hon. Members and their friends will desire to be in their places by that hour
    In view of the probable traffic difficulties, the Commissioner of Police is anxious that as many persons as possible will dispense with the use of cars and will come on foot.
    On the 9th May, the occasion of His Majesty's procession to Westminster Hall, the same seats, to the number of 1,200, will be allocated to Members of this House and their friends, and a similar number of seats will also be allocated to the House of Lords. A further allocation of a similar number will also be made to overseas visitors from the Dominions, Colonies and India through the Dominions Office. The balance of the seats in the Mall, numbering over 10,000, will be sold to the public through the British Charities Association, and the whole of the net proceeds from all these stands will be devoted to charity. All seats will be sold at 2s. 6d. The ceremony in Westminster Hall will be broadcast to the stands in the Mall.

    529
    On the 11th May, the whole of the stands in the Mall and Constitution Hill will be handed over, free of cost, to the London County Council for the use of the 70,000 school children who will be gathered together to see His Majesty pass on this occasion.
    In view of the difficulty of marshalling such a large number of children assembled from different parts of London, it will be necessary to close St. James's Park north of the lake and the Green Park, until 5 p.m. on this day.
    Mr. CROSSasked the First Commissioner of Works whether, in addition to Members of both Houses of Parliament, the Judges, and representatives of Dominion, Indian, and Colonial Parliaments or Legislatures, any accommodation will be available for other persons in Westminster Hall, on 9th May, on the occasion of the presentation of addresses to His Majesty; and, in particular, what arrangements are being made for wives of Members of Parliament?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes, Sir. Accommodation will be provided for ex-Cabinet Ministers not Members of either House, for representatives of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, for the Permanent Heads of the Civil Departments, for officers of the two Houses and a few representatives of the Press. In addition, a limited number of ladies will be personally invited, but I am not at the moment able to say what the number will be until the number of Members of both Houses who propose to attend is known. As soon as this is known, I propose to arrange a special ballot for the seats available for ladies through the Whips' Office.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the feeling that Members' wives should have priority over all other persons except Members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I think there certainly will not be room for all wives, even if we exclude the officers of the House, and I do not think it is altogether fair to exclude officers of the House and those who have anything to do with Parliament. As a matter of fact, the only other people who are not Members of Legislatures who will be present, apart
    530
    from the Royal Family and those in attendance on them, will be His Majesty's Judges, who, I am told, for this purpose are Members of Parliament.
    Mr. THORNE: Will the bachelors of this House be able to bring their sweethearts along?

    COAL INDUSTRY (CLOSED MINES,DURHAM).
    Mr. McKEAGasked the Secretary for Mines how many miners are affected by the closing down of the Hetton Lyons and Hazard Collieries, in the county of Durham; and whether he can make any statement as to the reasons for closing these collieries, and the probable length of time they are likely to be laid up?
    Dr. BURGIN: I have been asked to reply. The number of men affected by the closing down of these two collieries is 1,354. With regard to the second part of the question, my hon. Friend understands that the reason for the closing down is lack of trade. The period of the stoppage is indefinite, but it is hoped that a number of the discharged workmen will be re-employed in the near future at adjoining collieries belonging to the same owners.
    Mr. McKEAG: Having regard to this substantial aggravation of the depression in an already heavily depressed area, will the Minister consider whether any possible steps can be taken to secure the reopening of these two collieries at the earliest possible moment?
    Dr. BURGIN: Certainly.
    Mr. PALING: Are we to understand that some arrangement is being entered into whereby these men will first be reabsorbed into neighbouring collieries?
    Dr. BURGIN: The hon. Member must understand just what I said in the reply, that it is hoped that a number of the discharged men will be re-employed in the near future in neighbouring collieries.
    Mr. McKEAG: Can my hon. Friend give any indication of the number of displaced men who are likely to be reabsorbed in the adjoining collieries?
    Dr. BURGIN: No.

  SCOTLAND.

    HOUSING (COMPENSATION FOR DISTURBANCE).
    Mr. BURNETTasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will circularise local authorities drawing their attention to the powers which they possess under Section 30 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930, to pay a reasonable allowance towards loss sustained by disturbance of trade or business?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Jamieson): The attention of local authorities was drawn to this provision in the circular issued to them following the passing of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930. My right hon. Friend is sending the hon. Member a copy of the circular and will consider the question of reminding local authorities of the provision on the occurrence of a suitable opportunity.
    Mr. BURNETT: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this matter is very urgent, that there are a large number of persons who have received notice to quit on the 28th May, and that some of them will be destitute and deprived of their livelihood unless something is done towards compensation.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I understand that my right hon. Friend is inquiring into certain cases which the hon. Member has put to him, and he will communicate with the hon. Member.

    MILK MARKETING SCHEME.
    Mr. McKIEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can make any statement regarding the payment of levies under the milk marketing scheme by producers in the East of Scotland since the amendments to this scheme came into force on 1st January; and whether these payments are now on a satisfactory basis as compared with the prompt payments being received from the West of Scotland?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: My right hon. Friend asked the board if they will be good enough to supply the information desired, and he will communicate the result to the hon. Member.
    Mr. THORNEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can give the House any information in connection with the impounding of eight cows by the Milk Marketing Board;
    532
    whether he is aware that the cows were offered for twice in five days; for what amount they were sold at Paisley market; whether he is aware that the cows mysteriously disappeared after they were returned from the sale at Tranent; on whose instructions was the sale ordered; and where were the cows eventually located by the police?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: My right hon. Friend has no responsibility for the actions of the Scottish Milk Marketing Board in this matter. He has, however, communicated the terms of the question to the Board, and will be pleased to pass on to the hon. Member any information which the Board may be good enough to supply.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not the case that under the Milk Marketing Board a great many cows belonging to farmers are being impounded?

  INDIA.

    BENGAL CIVIL SERVICE (MEMORIAL).
    Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOXasked the Secretary of State for India whether he has considered the memorial sent to him from members of the Bengal Civil Service; what representations it contains regarding the proposed constitutional changes in India and the rights of the Civil Service; and what steps he proposes to take to meet the wishes of the memorialists?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I am placing a copy of the memorial in the Library. The memorial contains no general observations on the policy of the Government of India Bill, and apart from a reference to the effects of the terrorist movement on members of the Security Services in Bengal, is entirely confined to presenting the case for certain specific amendments to those parts of the Bill which relate to the Services. As regards the last part of the question, I have received a deputation from the Indian Civil Service Association, the European Government Servants Association and the Indian Police Association on the 29th March on these questions. As a result, I have put down certain

    533
    Amendments to the Bill to supplement the provisions it already contains for the protection of members of the Services.
    Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Is it not a fact that the memorial has disclosed grave anxieties in nearly all ranks of the Civil Service in regard to the Bill as it stands?
    Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir, that is not the case, as my hon. and gallant Friend will see when he reads the memorial in the Library. The memorialists refer to terrorism in Bengal, and do express anxiety about that, but they express no anxiety about any other part of India. By that I do not mean to suggest that they express approval of the Bill; they have expressed no special opinion about it at all.
    Sir H. CROFT: Has not the right hon. Gentleman received memorials from civil servants in various Provinces in which they express grave anxiety as to the conditions of service and as to the adequacy of the safeguards?
    Sir S. HOARE: Yes, Sir, that is exactly what I said in my answer. The anxiety expressed, apart from the one subject of Bengal, is about the various conditions of service, and it is in connection with them that I have put down Amendments to the Bill.
    Sir A. KNOX: Is it not a fact that in the covering letter to that memorial they said that only one out of the nine representations made has been adequately met in the Bill now before the House?
    Sir S. HOARE: I do not carry in my mind the contents of the covering letter; in fact, I am not sure whether I have received a covering letter. I will look into that point.
    Sir A. KNOX: They said the family pensions was the only point that had been met.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Is there any ground for the statement in the Press that the right hon. Gentleman has suppressed or withheld from the House information which it was his duty to place before the House?
    Sir S. HOARE: So far from having suppressed information, I have actually put the memorial in the Library of the House. Hon. Members will see when they read it that no new requests are being
    534
    Made—nothing other than requests already made to the Joint Select Committee, which have been under consideration now for many months and, indeed, for years.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: May I ask when the right hon. Gentleman received that memorial?
    Sir S. HOARE: I think some time in January.

    CENTRAL LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.
    Sir A. KNOXasked the Secretary of State for India in what number of divisions in the Central Legislative Assembly since the recent elections the Government has been successful; and what proportion these successes bear to the 13 Government defeats?
    Sir S. HOARE: The number of divisions in the Legislative Assembly since the recent elections and up to the 25th March in which Government have been successful is five. The number of adverse divisions in the same period is 17.
    Sir H. CROFT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government would have been successful on any occasion without the support of the nominated members?
    Sir S. HOARE: I could not answer that question without looking into the figures, but in any case I see no reason to differentiate between one class of member and another.
    Sir A. KNOX: Did the right hon. Gentleman say the Government had been successful on five occasions and unsuccessful on 17?
    Sir S. HOARE: Yes.
    Mr. KIRKPATRICK: Does not this position show the urgent need for us to get on with the Bill?

    GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL (FRANCHISE).
    Mr. DONNERasked the Secretary of State for India whether he has come to any decision in regard to the scheduling of the franchise for the Provincial Legislatures to the Government of India Bill; and, if so, on what date the proposed schedule will be available to Members?
    Sir S. HOARE: I propose in due course to move as an amendment to the Government of India Bill a schedule

    535
    embodying the franchise for the territorial constituencies in Provincial Legislative Assemblies. To meet the convenience of Members, provisional draft copies of the provincial franchise schedule will be placed in the Library in the immediate future. In view of the great bulk of the schedule and the cost of reprinting I should prefer not to place the schedule on the Order Paper as an amendment until immediately before it is due to come up for discussion.
    Miss RATHBONE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Schedule will form part of the Bill?
    Sir S. HOARE: The Schedule will certainly form part of the Bill.

    BURGLARIES, LONDON.
    Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONEasked the Home Secretary how many burglaries have been reported in the Metropolitan police district during the last six months, and how many convictions have been obtained?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Statistics of indictable offences are included in the annual reports of the Commissioner of Police and in the annual volumes of the Criminal Statistics, and I trust that the hon. Member will not press for the supply of special figures for periods other than the calendar year. The extra labour involved in compiling such special returns is great and out of proportion to the value of the information.
    Mr. JOHNSTONE: Do the figures of convictions for which I asked appear in that publication?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, Sir, I think so, but I will look into that point.

    PENTONVILLE PRISON.
    Mr. SUMMERSBYasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that graves prepared for condemned persons at Pentonville are visible and within a few yards of ordinary prisoners while exercising; and whether he will give immediate orders to prevent any recurrence of this?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The limited space available within the prison walls makes
    536
    it impossible altogether to isolate the ground used for burials from parts used for other purposes, but steps are taken to screen it from the view of prisoners whenever a grave has to be prepared and until it is filled in.
    Mr. SUMMERSBYasked the Home Secretary whether the prison staff at Pentonville are previously informed of any visit of inspection about to be made by a deputy commissioner?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: It depends upon circumstances whether or not the governor is informed.

    DARTMOOR PRISON.
    Mr. SUMMERSBYasked the Home Secretary whether he will take steps to remove any ground for the complaints now made by released prisoners from Dartmoor that the walls of the cells are damp and the bedclothes are also imperfectly dried?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: All cells and the storerooms for bedding at Dartmoor are provided with efficient central heating and the Prison Commissioners are satisfied that there is no general ground for complaints of the kind referred to. All cells are inspected daily.

    NONSUCH PARK (PROPOSED SCHOOL).
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS(for Commander BOWER)asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether the Board have approved the proposal of the Surrey County Council to erect a. secondary school in the ancient royal park of Nonsuch?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The Board have approved in principle the proposal of the Surrey Local Education Authority to provide a new secondary school for girls in the Cheam and Sutton district and have confirmed an Order made by the authority for the compulsory purchase of a site in Nonsuch Park on which the school is to be erected.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that apparently the local authority is reconsidering its decision in view of the agitation?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I have seen a statement to that effect.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS(for Commander BOWER) asked the Minister of Health whether he will take steps, in exercise of his powers under the Town Planning Acts, to prevent the erection by the Surrey County Council of a secondary school in the ancient royal park of Nonsuch?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend has not received any application from the County Council in respect of the erection of the proposed school, and he is not therefore in a position to take any action in the matter.

    EUROPEAN SITUATION.
    Mr. LANSBURY(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will be in a position to make any statement concerning the recent visits to Berlin, Moscow and Warsaw before he leaves for the Stresa Conference?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): The Lord Privy Seal only gets back to this country to-night, and I should therefore be glad if this question might be put down for Tuesday, when I will do my best to give an answer.
    Mr. THORNE: Can the Foreign Secretary clear up one matter in regard to the statement made yesterday? Has he seen in the daily Press a statement made by the German Ambassador in this country contradicting the statement made in the House yesterday, and saying there was no truth at all in it?
    Sir J. SIMON: I have seen no such statement.
    Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Is my right hon. Friend in a position to say now, or will he say on Tuesday, what Ministers can proceed to the meeting at Stresa?
    Sir J. SIMON: I have no doubt that the information would be given if the right hon. Gentleman put down a question to the Prime Minister. I think that question could be raised on Monday.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
3.41 p.m.
Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Prime Minister what business he proposes to take next week?
The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, the Government of India Bill.
On Friday, consideration of Motions to approve Additional Import Duties Orders Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9; Report and Third Reading of the Northern Ireland Land Purchase (Winding-up) Bill.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders may be taken.
Mr. LANSBURY: In view of the importance of at least two of the Import Duties Orders which the right hon. Gentleman proposes that we should take on Friday, is it not possible to change the arrangement and to take them on Wednesday in order to give the House a breather in the prolonged discussions on India?
The PRIME MINISTER: I am aware that there has not been complete agreement as to the order of this programme of business, but the inquiries that we made seemed to indicate that, as I have announced it, it will meet the convenience of the majority of Members. We are also unwilling to take more Fridays than absolutely necessary for the India Bill, and perhaps the House will agree to the procedure which I have announced.
Mr. LANSBURY: Obviously, the majority must, I suppose, have their way. The questions to be discussed, certainly the iron and steel duty, are of the utmost importance to the well-being of this country and ought to have a full day for their discussion. They are of equal importance with the India Bill. I very urgently ask the Prime Minister and the Patronage Secretary to reconsider the matter and to let us have a full day's discussion of these very important Orders. We think the convenience of us all should be studied, and I make that request to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. CHURCHILL: May I venture to ask the Prime Minister whether he will consider having only three days next week for the India Bill, dropping out Wednesday and consigning it to the purpose suggested by the Leader of the

539
Opposition? There was an understanding, to which the Prime Minister has made an indirect reference in his remarks, that there should not be too many Fridays included in the number of days allotted to the India Bill, Friday being virtually only a half-day. May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will consider taking only three days next week for the India Bill, as that will be very much more in accord with the general view?
The PRIME MINISTER: On account of the business that must follow the India Bill, we must go on with it on four days next week. I am very sorry that, because of the progress that is required to be made, we must have four days for the India Bill next week. My information is quite authoritative, but, if I could be persuaded that the majority would welcome the alteration, I should not want to impose anything upon the House that would not meet the wishes of the majority. My information at the moment is that the programme which I have announced, and in the order in which I have announced it, meets on this occasion the convenience of the House as a whole.
Mr. LANSBURY: I am not questioning the fact that those concerned in discussing these matters—they may be a majority—have come to this conclusion. I only want to enter a very strong protest against matters such as this being put down for Friday. They are of such tremendous importance to the industrial welfare of this country that they ought to be discussed, not on what is always regarded as a sort of holiday, but on a day when we can make progress. I am not questioning whether the other Whips agreed or whether they did not; I am protesting, as a matter of public duty, against the arrangement.
Mr. CHURCHILL: Further to the question of business, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he is yet in a position to give any indication to the House that the House will be afforded facilities for discussing the general defence position, either on his salary or on some other Vote, in view of the fact that the basis on which the Government were proceeding in regard to air defence has been found to be not related to the actual facts?
The PRIME MINISTER: No, I am not in a position to make a statement on the subject. In any event, the time for business is completely mortgaged with absolutely necessary business, and I am not in a position to state now what is likely to be the course of business after Easter. Before the House adjourns I should be better able to say what is likely to take place.
Mr. CHURCHILL: Am I right in inferring that, in the event of no day being found, it will be open to Members who are interested in this topic to raise it on the Adjournment for the Easter Recess?
The PRIME MINISTER: That is so. I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point. Certainly, on the Adjournment for the Easter Recess, opportunity can be taken by Members who wish to do so.
Mr. MAXTON: In the arrangement for business next week, has the Prime Minister considered that the House may desire an opportunity of discussing the statement that will be made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who, we are told, proposes to make a statement on Tuesday in reply to a question? If that is an important statement, there will probably be a very strong desire, and a proper desire, on the part of the House to discuss the statement. Have the Government taken that into account in the arrangement of business?
Mr. LANSBURY: I understood that. the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary hoped to be able to make a statement on Monday and not on. Tuesday.
Sir J. SIMON: The answer I gave was that I should be glad if this question were put down for Tuesday, when I would do my best to give an answer.
Mr. MAXTON: Can I have a reply from the Prime Minister to my question as to whether it has been contemplated that when we have that statement the House may very strongly desire to discuss it, and whether a day will be provided?
The PRIME MINISTER: My hope is that when the House has heard the statement it will not wish to carry it further at the moment.

BILL PRESENTED.
  UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) (No.2) BILL,
  "to make temporary provision for the financial adjustments necessary by reason of the second appointed day for the purposes of the Unemployment Act, 1934. having been postponed from the first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-five; and to authorise the borrowing by public assistance authorities of sums required for the purpose of meeting expenditure incurred by them for the year ended on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, in excess of their estimates for that year", presented by Sir Hilton Young; supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Godfrey Collins, the Attorney-General, and Mr. Shakespeare; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 53.]
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Captain Crawford Browne; and had appointed in substitution: Brigadier-General Nation.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to, Saltburn and Marske-by-the-Sea Urban District Council Bill, with Amendments.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.
  Considered in Committee [SIXTEENTH DAY—Progress, 2nd April.]
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.

    CLAUSE 231.—(Application of preceding section to railway services, and officials of courts.)
    Amendment proposed [2nd April]: In page 127, line 23, to leave out "the recruitment of officers generally," and to insert:
    "recruitment to such posts and in recruitment generally for railway purposes shall have due regard. to the past association of the Anglo-Indian community with railway services in India and." —[Sir R. Craddock.]
    Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    3.51 p.m.
    Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: I hope the Committee will forgive my continuing my remarks with regard to this important subject—for I think the Committee will recognise, especially having regard to some of the views which have been expressed before very important tribunals, that this, perhaps, is one of the most important matters in the whole Bill that we, as trustees, have to consider. Some of us have raised the question of British interests on several occasions, and I am afraid the Committee have thought it almost vulgar that we should stress the position of British trade and industry in India. To-day, however, we are not making any such demand upon the Committee; we are asking for their good will and for their altruistic attention in order that we may secure the lot of a section of people who deserve their very special consideration. The proposal that we make is a very simple one. It is that we want to do everything in our power—and we are not denying for a moment that the Secretary of State has the interests of this community at heart—to prevent the doom of the Anglo-Indian in India under the reforms.
    This is a community to whom our nation owes much, and whom, as I think all Members of the House will agree, it should be our special care and, duty to
    548
    preserve. Their position is really a tragic one, because their whole existence has been bound up with British rule and administration. Their loyalty has been consistent throughout, and their efficiency has been proved. The Montagu-Chelmsford reforms, when they were introduced, were a great shock to the Anglo-Indians, because they had imagined that the British Raj was in India for all time. Since the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms the Anglo-Indian and the docimiled European have been slowly but surely crushed out of their employment owing to the Indianisation of the Services, and Sir Henry Gidney, who represented this community, in evidence given on their behalf before the Select Committee and on other occasions, said that:
    "If our experience of the past few years is to continue, then indeed we can see no hope."
    I think it will be admitted on every hand that under the present reforms, unless, in handing over the reins of government, we give at the same time some very complete protection to this community in the matter of fair play, they will be facing a future more bleak and more hopeless than they are at the present time, and indeed, from their point of view, the position may become desperate.
    The Committee may be aware that, of this small community, something like 80 per cent. of the adult males took part in the Great War in one form of service or another. I doubt whether there is any part of the British Empire that can show a record superior to that. I do not think that even in this House we could in any way emulate that record. In the building up of the Indian transport system, which has made the India that we know to-day, with its 40,000 miles of railways, in the running of services which, like the telegraphs, are essential to the railways, and also in the Customs and in the Post Office, we find that Anglo-Indians have taken a very great part in the past. In fact, it is hardly an exaggeration to say that, in building up the whole of these services, this community has provided the key men under the British administrators and leaders in days gone by. When I remind the Committee that there are 800,000 employés on the Indian railway system at the present moment, and that only 3,500 of these are British-born, I think they will realise how essential it has been to

    549
    have this intermediate class connecting up the British leadership with the very large number of Indian workers.
    I think it will be admitted that the greatest risk of all in these reforms, in case of sudden emergency or great disturbance in India, would be a breakdown of the railway system. If the railways were brought to a standstill on account of a strike, even on one particular section of the line, at a time of some great disturbance such as has been seen in recent years at Cawnpore, the effect would be very serious. We might well find, if communal disturbance took place in a certain part of India and a railway line in that part of the country was manned almost entirely by either Moslems or Hindus, that the whole life of that part of the railway would be brought to a standstill. For this reason, I think it will be agreed that it is essential to endeavour to have in your employment at least an element of those upon whom you can absolutely rely as being distinct from these communal differences. During recent years, as Lord Hardinge mentioned in his special Memorandum published in Volume III of the Joint Select Committee's Report, this community have been slowly but relentlessly sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. Everyone is aware of the tremendous interest that Lord Hardinge has always taken in this community, and these words, coming from him, are very striking. As the services become still further Indianised, which is, of course, contemplated under this Bill, these people, for whom India is their motherland, will undoubtedly be more and more eliminated unless we take steps to see that the proportion of their employment is preserved. They cannot adopt Asiatic conditions without complete humiliation and great suffering. I think that that is understood. I believe it costs them 50 rupees a month to educate a child, and the work on the railways, if they were subordinated to the ordinary Indian coolie position, would bring them in something like 10 rupees a month. That is some indication of what their total income would be, and how hopeless it would be for them to maintain those standards which they have had up to the present.
    The only way to stop the decline in the appointment of Anglo-Indians is to have a fixed, or as nearly as possible a fixed, number of appointments to maintain the
    550
    percentage. I think the Committee will probably agree, if they read the evidence on this subject, that on the grounds of efficiency it is justified, that on the grounds of defence it certainly would be far-sighted and wise, and that on moral grounds the claim is overwhelming. But let the Committee realise that this community of, perhaps, 150,000 souls at the present time in India are really nobody's affair—in fact, they fall between the stools of the two civilisations, and when the inevitable struggle for life is going on in the days to come, with this vast mass of people living in India who have so enormously increased in numbers—I am not sure, but I think the Secretary of State will probably agree, that in the last 20 years the population of India has increased as much as the total population of this country—every day that this progress of population goes forward, the difficulties of the minority are going to be greater and greater in order to secure any jobs.
    The hon. Member behind me frequently suggests, if one refers to the great religious beliefs of India, that one is therefore criticising. I am not. Whenever I refer to the great religious forces in India, it is because of the very sincerity, the very intensity of that religion, the fact that religion is to both Hindus and 'Moslems greater than life it self, that I point out this very great danger to small minorities who do not share those religious opinions. Suppose you have Hindus in control, and there is employment on a section of railway, from the nature of the case, with many of their own relations and friends out of work and appealing for a job, is it not almost inevitable that the Anglo-Indian Christian will be eliminated from employment? I do not think in suggesting that there is anything which is contrary to what some of us might even' feel ourselves if the-position were reversed. Take the question of promotion. It would seem to be almost inevitable, where these religious feelings are so great, and where you have Hindu or Moslem in whatever department or business they are concerned always trying to keep the end of their people uppermost, that the Anglo-Indian will have a bias against him. I will read, if I may, a few words from Sir Henry Gidney's evidence before the Select Committee in order to show the

    551
    House how he, speaking on behalf of this community, felt. He said:
    "So long as Indians identify us with the British, the question for every Briton to ask himself is When full measure of self-government is given to India, what will be the fate of our descendants and kinsmen in that land? In the circumstance we must look to the British Parliament to safeguard our interests—our religion, our education, our admission into the public services. If India is to have Dominion Status, England must demand, and India must guarantee, that we are effectively protected as citizens of India. We lo not seek preferential treatment. We aspire to equal partnership, and for this reason we must not be called upon to sacrifice anything which our Indian fellow-countrymen retain. We cannot give up our Christian Faith, our British ideals, our Western culture. Ask the devout Hindu to exchange his ancestral caste for secular advantage. Ask the pious Musalman to abandon his holy creed for temporal gain. Ask us to sell our British heritage for a mess of political pottage. In every case the answer is instant and clear. Ours speaks in the heart of each of us. It throbs in the blood that mingles with our breath. It leaps to our lips in the soul-stirring appeal—
    'O England! who are these if not thy sons?'"
    That is a very pathetic statement from a gentleman who has devoted so much of his life to protecting this community, and I have read it in order to point out to the Committee that the very fact that the Anglo-Indians have been so consistently loyal to the British Raj in the days gone past, makes them suspect among the more extreme elements of Indian politicians such as we see in the great organised forces of Congress. I, therefore, urge the Committee to give their full, sympathetic consideration to this question, because after all it is not now a question of trying to placate those who are hostile to the British connection, but those who have been loyal, and who are unfortunate in having very few people to protect them. In 1919, it was stated in evidence, in the Punjab trouble, which almost developed into revolution, when telegraph wires were cut and many messages were distorted, I believe I am right in saying that the Anglo-Indians were called in to fill the posts of those who had failed in their duty. It has always been found that you can rely in that respect upon these people. In the Government of India's Despatch on Constitutional reform, September, 1930, they expressed views very similar to those in this Amendment. It reads:
    552
    "In view of the history of the community, a special obligation, we think, rests Parliament before relaxing its own control, to ensure as far as may be practicable, that the interests of the Anglo-Indian community are protected."
    The cruel fate of the Irish loyalists, I think, affects many of us, and makes us bow our heads in shame. I therefore ask the Committee to make every effort to prevent a similar fate befalling this community to which we are seeking to give some protection in India. With the Government pressing through this Measure on four days a week, people have not got time properly to study these big points. The Government may be determined to go on with the Measure in spite of Indian opinion, in spite of the fact that they have not the sanction of the British electorate, but I do beg in this special case that they will do everything in their power to see that these people have as large a proportion of employment as can with justice be given, and, if possible, maintain the percentage of employment as it was at the time of the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms. If we fail to do something like this, I venture to think that, in days to come our conscience will not be very clear and we shall feel that it is a great blot on the escutcheon of Parliament.
    4.9 p.m.
    Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for allowing me to speak before he replies, for I should like to address something in the nature of an appeal to His Majesty's Government on this subject. I do not think that my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment, if he will allow me to say so, is really suitable for adoption in the Bill, and I do not desire at all to press that form of words, or to provide at this stage any form of words of my own, but I do feel that for this particular community we have, perhaps, a more direct, a deeper moral responsibility than for any other section of the Indian people. Other races and communities we found. This community is the creation of British rule in India, and its situation, in any case a very difficult one, in many ways rather a pathetic one, may be made more difficult than it has been in the past by the process of these reforms and the Acts which follow, unless we take special measures in their behalf.

    553
    I am not quite content with the words in the Bill. I do not think they discharge our obligation to these people. I do not say in the words of the Amendment that it should be the duty of the Railway Authority to protect them, but I think you want something more than the vague words of the Bill to see that they are not edged out by degrees from employment in which they have so largely been engaged, and in which they have rendered services which everyone connected with the Government of India has been glad to recognise. I, therefore, beg the Government—it was for this reason. that I wanted to rise before they expressed their view—to consider this question more deeply, or afresh, and see whether they cannot bring up a form of words of their own which will meet the purpose of my hon. and gallant Friend opposite, and, I believe, the feeling of the whole Committee in respect of the duty that we owe to this special class of the community in India.
    4.12 p.m.
    Mr. ATTLEE: I think that everybody must be impressed with the very unfortunate position of the Anglo-Indians. I was in very close contact with Sir Henry Gidney for many months in India, and I saw a great number of that community. One has to recognise the enormous difficulty of their position—a position for which they are not responsible. They are people of a certain standard of life, and are now in competition with people coining from different communities. Years ago they were more or less in a simple position, because they were the only English-speaking people who took these posts. Now every community is competing for these posts, and it is a competition between people of different standards of life. I am opposed to the Amendment, because if this obligation is on anybody, it is on the British people, and you are trying to put it on to the Indian people. You are saying that certain posts must be reserved for these people, who are a small community, while there are a very large number of other communities among them. You say that this community shall be given a privileged position as against other Indian communities. I say that if there is a moral obligation—and I think there is—it should be shouldered by this country and not put upon the people in
    554
    India. By taking this kind of line in respect of this community vis-à-vis
    the rest of the inhabitants of India, you would make the position far worse than it is now. By all means let us meet this obligation, but let us meet it ourselves, and not put it upon someone else.
    4.15 p. m
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): I feel sure that, the Committee will bear testimony to the intense sincerity of the many speeches which have been made both at our last sitting and this afternoon on this important subject about this vital community. I think that all the testimony which has been borne to the work which the Anglo-Indian community have done in the past, to their influence and to the place that they hold in India has not been exaggerated. The Committee will be grateful to hon. and right hon. Members for the trouble they have taken, and, if I may say so, I do not think that, in the speeches of those who have felt themselves responsible in this matter, there has been any sign of haste or lack of preparation in dealing with that excellent community. It only needs a word or two of mine to supplement what has been said about the services of the Anglo-Indian community. All of us recollect the services they rendered in the Indian Mutiny, the famous message of Brendish to Umballa which saved the Punjab at the time of the Mutiny, at the time when they composed three-quarters of the Indian auxiliary forces. To the fact that their services in the War were of a definite nature, to a great extent testimony has been paid in our Debates, but I think that few people realise, except those who perhaps have studied Sir Henry Gidney's memorandum to the Joint Select Committee, that both Lieutenant Robinson, V.C., who brought down the first Zeppelin in England, and. Lieutenant Warneford, V.C., who brought down the first Zeppelin in France, were members of the Anglo-Indian community with domiciles in India.
    The hon. Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock), in introducing the discussion, spoke from his great experience upon the position of the Anglo-Indian community, and he told us that it was not good to ignore their position. The hon. and gallant Member

    555
    for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) said he did not think that my right hon. Friend was giving their proper rights to this community. We had the advantage of the help of the hon. Member for the English Universities, of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), of the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) and of Lord Hardinge in the Joint Select Committee, and these hon. or right hon. Gentlemen and Noble Lords have assisted us in this Debate or taken part in the question of deciding the future of this community in India. If Members of the Committee will turn to paragraph 321 of the Report of the Joint Select Committee, they will see that every care and attention was given to this particular subject, and that reference was made to a resolution of the Government of India published on the 4th July, 1934, with regard to the position of the minorities in the public services. If hon. Members will turn to paragraph 9 of that particular resolution, they will see that it has been decided by administrative order, dated 4th July of last year, to reserve to Anglo-Indians 8 per cent. of all vacancies to be filled by direct recruitment in the subordinate grades of the railway service, and this Amendment relates particularly to the railway service.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: How many does that mean?
    Mr. BUTLER: Very much what they are at present. To put it in general terms, it consolidates the position at the 4th July, 1934. The recommendation goes on to say that this total percentage will be obtained by fixing a separate percentage, first for each railway having regard to the numbers in this community at present employed, and, second, for each branch or form of the railway service, so as to ensure that Anglo-Indians continue to be employed in the branches in which they are at present principally employed. These are the mechanical engineering, civil engineering and traffic departments. The object, therefore, of the Government of India in entering into these matters was to secure by this resolution a proportion of places for the Anglo-Indians in the subordinate posts of the railway service. My hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities asked us to ensure that some practical
    556
    effect is given to that rule in the case of appointments. I am going to try and tell the Committee now how we propose to give practical effect to that particular rule, and I presume, therefore, to meet the wishes of the community that definite posts will be reserved broadly in proportion to those which the community at present hold.
    No reference in the several speeches which have been made bas been made to the instruments of Instructions. If the Committee will turn to the Instruments of Instructions they will see, for example, in the case of the Provinces, in paragraph X:
    "Further, Our Governor shall interpret the said special responsibility"—
    this is the special responsibility for the legitimate interests of minorities —
    "as requiring him to secure a due proportion of appointments in Our Services to the several communities, and, so far as there may be in his Province at the date of issue of these Our Instructions an accepted policy in this regard, he shall be guided thereby, unless he is fully satisfied that modification of that policy is essential in the interests of the communities affected or of the welfare of the public."
    That is the Instruction which is to be given to the Governors and that was the understanding to which the Joint Select Committee came, and we believe that by including those provisions in the Instruments of Instructions we are implementing the general decision of the Joint Select Committee, that the present ratio as announced in the resolution of 4th July shall be fulfilled and ensured for the future. We believe that that therefore fulfils the wishes of the Joint Select Committee arid, as I have said, the noble Lord, Lord Hardinge, whose interest in this community is so well known, agreed with us at that time that that was a satisfactory method of ensuring a proportion of this community in this particular service.
    Sir A CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that the Joint Select Committee had the Instruments of Instructions before them. What the Select Committeee agreed, if I remember rightly, and particularly my Noble Friend Lord Hardinge, was that it should be dealt with in the Instruments of Instructions.
    Mr. BUTLER: My right hon. Friend is perfectly correct. That is exactly what happened on that Committee, and thus

    557
    by this insertion in the Instruments of Instructions we have fulfilled the wishes of the Noble Lord and other members of the Joint Select Committee when they considered this important subject.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Has any comment been made by the organised members of the community expressing any opinion upon the Bill itself? Are they dissatisfied with the Bill as it at present stands?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: That is all right; knock them on the head.
    Mr. BUTLER: I was just coming to that particular point and to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain). No complaint of this suggestion or provision has come to our attention, and from what we have heard from Sir Henry Gidney, he has been satisfied with the arrangements made to secure a proportion in the railway service. As regards the point of view put by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham, we consider that what we have suggested in the Instruments of Instructions fully bears out the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee. But so important is this subject, and so clearly is the Committee interested in it that, if it be thought that this does not bear out the wishes of the Joint Select Committee, or if it be considered that some further safeguard is necessary, my right hon. Friend will be perfectly ready to look into the matter again. It is our opinion, however, that this does safeguard what would be the best interests of the members of this community.
    The hon. Member for the English Universities expressed some doubt as to whether the Governor-General or Governors would be in the possession of the facts and whether they would know the proportion of the minority communities in the subordinate posts of the railway services. If the Committee will remember the terms of Clause 178, particularly Sub-section (2) which regulate the conduct of business between the railway authority and the Federal Government, they will see that in all cases where the Governor-General's special responsibility is involved there is special provision for information to come to him so as to ensure that the special responsibility is carried out. Further, it is the practice of ordinary business government in India
    558
    that a statement of the proportion of communities in this particular service is brought to the notice of the highest executive authority. I am therefore satisfied that the Governor-General or Governors will have the full necessary information brought to them in order to ensure that they carry out the terms of the instruction which I have read out to the Committee.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Before the hon. Gentleman goes any further, may I ask him to specify once again exactly what paragraph in the Instruments of Instructions he is relying upon as fulfilling the purposes of the Joint Select Committee?
    Sir A CHAMBERLAIN: What are the words in the Instruments of Instructions which apply to the Governor-General to see that the Minute of the Government of India is complied with?
    Mr. BUTLER: The particular Section from which I read is on page 13, paragraph X, and the actual words—I will repeat them again to the Committee—are these; or I will read the similar paragraph with regard to the Governor-General:
    "Further, our Governor-General shall interpret the said special responsibility as requiring him to secure a due proportion of appointments in Our Services to the several communities, and he shall be guided in this regard by the accepted policy prevailing before the issue of these Our Instructions, unless he is fully satisfied that modification of that policy is essential in the interests of the communities affected' or of the welfare of the public."
    Therefore, I think that the words upon which my right hon. Friend would rely are the "accepted policy prevailing before" that date, and that accepted policy in the particular case of the railway authority is the resolution of 4th July, 1934, which controls the proportion of the minorities in these particular public services.
    We feel that to insert the Amendment as it stands in Sub-section (2) of Clause 231 would not really meet the interests of the community so well as the method which we propose. For instance, to pick out in particular the Anglo-Indian community in this case would, we think, not ensure their proportion in any more efficient manner than by the method which we have suggested. We think, in fact, that by mentioning this particular community, we might excite the jealousy or the anxieties of every other

    559
    minority, and that the particular end in view would not be achieved in the particular way that I have described. I therefore hope that, with this undertaking, which I am sure I can give on behalf of my right hon. Friend that this matter deserves the most serious and widest consideration, and believing that we have fulfilled the wishes of the Joint Select Committee in this matter by our insertion in the Instruments of Instructions, my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities will not press his Amendment.
    4.29 p.m.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not quite clear from the speech of the Under-Secretary what is the new undertaking that he has given. It is evident to the Committee that he wishes to give a new undertaking and that he has recognised that the provisions at present included are not adequate. It is recognised that the provisions at present included are not adequate; otherwise, why should he give a further undertaking?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): For greater caution, and to remove any unnecessary suspicion.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: In order to remove any unnecessary suspicion, but not because he considers it necessary. On this showing, the latest version, he is ready to cumber his Bill with otiose provisions in order to remove unnecessary suspicions, which he does not himself share and which he thinks are not at all valid. I think my right hon. Friend must not rest himself upon such a very insecure and abnormal foundation as that: otherwise, his Bill will very quickly be encrusted with a host of meaningless provisions. No, I take it that when the Under-Secretary of State was instructed and authorised to state that the matter would have further consideration and to give the new undertaking, it was because a point of substance had been raised of which the Government felt conscious and against which they wished to provide. I think, at any rate, that that really would be the best way for us to look at it.
    I am not clear what is the new undertaking that has been given. If the new undertaking is simply to give, as I think the Under-Secretary said, careful and
    560
    serious attention to this matter, that is what is called common form. I hope there is no part of this extended Bill to which careful and serious attention has not been given. I trust there is no point that is raised in these debates which, if it strikes a new chord in the breast of the Administration, will not win from it sympathetic consideration. But what does it all amount to? I was impressed with the tribute which the Under-Secretary paid to this community of Anglo-Indians, or Eurasians, as they used to be called in former years, to their great services and to the prowess of some of their young men, the brilliant prowess in deathless feats of arms to which he referred. He spoke of the service they had rendered, but we must be careful that their service is not repaid by the Under-Secretary's lip service. I do not see what the Anglo-Indians have got out of all these tributes, except this vague undertaking to do something or other, to give careful attention to the matter, and that only given to us, as the Secretary of State has said, in order to allay suspicion, not because the Government think it necessary. Therefore, the Government are contented with the existing proposals so far as the Anglo-Indians are concerned.
    What are those existing proposals? Their highest aim is to stereotype the disastrous position to which the Anglo-Indian community has descended since the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms. A terrible blow has been struck at these men during the 15 or 16 years since those reforms were passed. Just at the moment when, after the Great War, 80 per cent. of them having volunteered, they had rendered these extraordinary services, which no one can deny and to which the Government have afforded a verbal, oratorical tribute, just at that very moment began these disasters, and whereas they were obtaining employment on the railways, for which they were well fitted and which fitted in so well with our schemes for maintaining peace and order in India, and military communications, just at that very moment, when they were looking forward to this employment, when they had rendered service in the hour of need, down through the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms fell this continued succession of blows.
    It may be said that I was a Member of the Government which passed the

    561
    Montagu-Chelmsford reforms. That is true; and what a lesson that has been to all of us, that a Parliament should not neglect its duties in regard to India and should not be easily gulled by a lot of tame magnates brought home from India to assure us that it will be all right, but that Parliament should go into the matter itself in great detail, because there is no doubt that the working of the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms inflicted horrid injury upon the Anglo-Indian community and was in effect an instance of base ingratitude on the part of the Imperial power to those who had so newly served them, and served them well. But the highest aim which His Majesty's Government have in view, according to the accounts which are now laid before us, is to stereotype this poor remnant, this fragment, of their previous employment. I am told that over 20,000 adult males of this community in India are now without employment, without the means of educating their children, invited to compete with coolie labour, which has entirely different requirements from the point of view of maintaining their standard of life.
    The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) presents himself to help the Government out of its difficulties. He is so afraid that something more may be done for the Anglo-Indian that he gives him a good, Liberal whack on the head. It astounds me that an hon. Member with such warm-hearted sympathies in some directions should have the knack of putting up certain shutters in his moral and mental house and thereupon excluding all rays of light which might reach him from those quarters. No one can be harder than the hon. Member on causes which do not stir his imagination at the moment. But I hope the Secretary of State will not harden his heart because of the support which reaches him from almost the only other Member in this House besides himself who is enthusiastic about this Bill. I hope he will still continue to examine this question of the Anglo-Indians with patience and with care, not with perfunctory assurances. Something should be done to assure this community that in the present transference of sovereignty they are not merely to be stereotyped at the position which they now hold, but are to have an opportunity of expansion, because of their merits, in these services for which
    562
    they are so peculiarly fitted and in which their collaboration is an 'essential part of the defensive arrangements of the British power in India.
    The right hon. Gentleman spoke of Colonel Sir Henry Gidney. I have had the pleasure of making his acquaintance and of having some conversation with him on several occasions, and I must say that when I looked into Sir Henry Gidney's eyes I saw fear, and grief, and almost despair
    Lord EUSTACE PERCY: You must have depressed him.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I wish I could inculcate a similar disciplinary effect upon the Noble Lord by the mere power of a glance, but I do not know why he should suppose that I should have depressed him except for the fact that I may exert a melancholy influence upon those with whom I talk. But he approached me as one of those to whom he looked in this House possibly to help them to state their case, and I thought when I saw him that he was a man in a most unhappy position. What was his position? Here was a great National Government, with a majority of hundreds in the lower House and with as many backwoodsmen as it cared to bring up in the Upper House; here was this National Government proceeding upon this path, with all the Conservative party joining with the Socialists and Liberals to carry this Measure, taking over Socialist schemes and ramming them forward with their mighty force; here was all the power of the Government of the day and the Secretary of State and the Viceroy, exercised through a thousand channels, certainly exercised upon a thousand occasions at least, to shape and turn and smooth the passage of this policy; and here was this poor Sir Henry Gidney come over here to represent the Anglo-Indian community. Anything more unequal I cannot imagine. And you say he is satisfied with what he has got. I believe that to be a most profound misrepresentation of anything which could, by the widest stretch of fancy, be brought into relation with fact. It is the most extraordinary mistake.
    Of course, you can get away with anything, I agree. With this particular Government and this particular Parliament, you can get away with anything, but their day of accounting will come,

    563
    and these statements will be brought home. You say the Anglo-Indians are satisfied with the treatment you are giving them in thus stereotyping them at this disastrous level to which they have fallen. They have fallen into the pit, and all you say is that they are to remain in the pit, but not to fall to a deeper deep which still opens to devour them. That is all you are doing for them, and because they dare not say a word, because they are prostrate before your conquering footsteps, you say, "We have had no complaint from the Anglo-Indian community. Here is Sir Henry Gidney, who represents them, and he has not made to us any recriminatory representations since our Clauses have appeared in the Bill." The Government know well that this particular case of the Anglo-Indians is poignant. We who know India can see what their lot will be. We can see the terrible future which awaits them. But this case is only one of a score of similar cases in which enormous misery is going to be inflicted on large masses of loyal people because His Majesty's Government, on whom they relied, are fundamentally altering the conditions under which the sovereignty of the King-Emperor has been exerted throughout India.
    4.42 p.m.
    Mr. AMERY: The right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) has made it quite clear that this community, in which this House rightly takes so deep an interest, has suffered tremendously in the last 15 years. Its whole position has been steadily weakened, and obviously it will continue to be weakened under any alternative scheme of reform that my right hon. Friend has in view. What we have to consider is what we can do to help them, and I am sure the Government are alive to the fact that we have to do our best for them, and that the consideration which they have promised is not merely perfunctory. The real difficulty is that I doubt whether there is anything you can do, on the service and on the administration side, that will really meet their need. The real thing that this community have to face is that, after living for generations upon Government service, they have now to find in large measure a new opening for a career in India.
    564
    They are alive to that fact. Some years ago I had a talk with a very eminent member of that community, who said that the only thing they could do was to take up settlement on the land, and a very gallant effort has been made, entirely financed among themselves, to set up an agricultural community some 200 miles from Calcutta. Whether on those lines or on lines of engineering and business, this community, which has an undoubtedly high average of ability, ought to find a place in India if it can be given a sufficient initial start.
    There I come to a point raised just now by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee). That initial start must cost money, and if it is not put into this Bill, the moral obligation remains upon this country all the same. I would make a plea, most earnestly, to the Government that when their scheme is initiated, they should, out of British funds, apply a substantial endowment, whether it be for a technical, an agricultural, or an engineering college, for something which will not only be an indication of our moral obligation to that community, but of our good will, and which would be the most practical way of giving them a new start under conditions which will hold out hope for the future. This is not a unique problem. More than once we have had to face it when we have been doing what we thought to be the right thing in granting self-government, and I am afraid that at times we have ignored our responsibilities to those who have served us well and who have been left in an invidious position. Not only the loyalists in Ireland but the Assyrians in Iraq have suffered from our ignoring this country's responsibilities towards them. I have known few things meaner than our offering to do something towards any scheme the League of Nations might do for the Assyrians, instead of frankly acknowledging our obligations to them. Do not let us make the same mistake vis-á-vis the Anglo-Indian community. Let us in this Bill do everything that we possibly can to ensure their position. Over and above all let us as a nation, as a Parliament doing what we believe to be a great and generous thing towards India, do something which is not merely generous, but also just for those who have sprung from our own blood and who have served us so loyally in India.
    4.46 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN: I am glad that I was unable through illness to take part in the Debate last night and that I have been called to-day, because as the representative of the Anglo-Indians in this country and President of their Association, I may be able to throw some little light on this Debate. Many misstatements have been made, not deliberately but through ignorance of the circumstances. The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) said that we should be responsible for the Anglo-Indians, and not the Indians. The hon. Member made a mistake. He entirely forgets that the Anglo-Indians are statutory natives of India. They have as much right in India as any man born there. Because they have white blood in the veins that does not do away with their nationality or their right to their position in India. They are a small community, mostly Christians, none of them Mohammedans, none Hindus, and because of this fact they fall between these two mighty forces which are going to govern India in the future, and not only will they be the underdog but they will be crushed in the mud and disappear.
    They have a right to their position on the railways and the telegraphs of India. We made and built those railways with British money, British engineers and British labour, and we put the Anglo-Indians there in a large percentage. I am not going to say what the percentage is to-day; I do not think that anyone knows what it is, but it was then somewhere between. 40 per cent. and 60 per cent. The main positions were held by Anglo-Indians. Practically every railway station had an Anglo-Indian stationmaster and 'an Anglo-Indian ticket collector. Practically every engine was driven by an Anglo-Indian, and a vast number of other minor posts were held by Anglo-Indians. Knowing that they have a right to those positions, and having to sit here and listen to statements that we cannot do this or that for fear that we may hurt the feelings of somebody, makes my blood boil with indignation.
    We are giving to India our form of self-government, probably the greatest gift that has ever been given by any one nation to another people, but we are giving it in haste, and possibly our gift will be useless because we are giving it
    566
    in haste; but there is no reason why we should penalise the people whom we deliberately created. It was an order of the old East India Company that their soldiers, and even their officers, should 'ally themselves with Indians in marriage. They were given houses when they took Indian wives, and it was in that way that the Anglo-Indian community was created, not by illegitimate alliances but by legitimate marriages fostered by the Government of that day. Therefore, the present Government in this country is peculiarly responsible for the sons or the grandsons of that Anglo-Indian community that we thus created. That community has inherited the best of both sides. They have the best blood of the Indians and they have all the virtues of the Englishman. They are proud of their mother country and loyal to it. They are the people of all others who ought to be employed on the railways. If Sir Henry Gidney said that they were content with only 8 per cent. of employment on the railways I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that he was wrong. As the representative of the Anglo-Indians in this country I know that the whole Anglo-Indian community are horrified at the idea of 8 per cent. Forty per cent. is what they would like. That is what they had before the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms. That was what they had before they were gradually pushed out.
    Let me give a much bigger reason than the sentimental one on behalf of the Anglo-Indians. The railways can only be rim in India so long as they are worked under peaceful conditions. A railway is one of the easiest things to destroy when there is a riot. It is easy to take up a rail and wreck a train. Nothing can be more easily destroyed than a railway in India. The Anglo-Indians form the railway volunteers, manned by Anglo-Indians. Those regiments can only exist if the men who belong to them are employed on the railways, because the various companies are formed at the depots and the railways carry the companies to their central positions. I know something about this matter because I happened to be commanding officer at Satara and was ordered to inspect an Anglo-Indian regiment down the Madras line. I went there and found something like 1,000 officers and men, I watched their manoeuvres, their shooting and their drill and I could not wish to see more efficient

    567
    men or a more excellent regiment than that railway volunteer regiment. That regiment were mobilised in the Moplahs rebellion. They held that line and the line ran throughout the rebellion with little interruption.
    Without these men we cannot run the railways. In view of any possible trouble in the future, apart from the frontier, we must have men on the railways and who are loyal, who are capable of forming small groups of trained men to defend the railway stations and the line. Who can do that better than those who are railwaymen themselves? If it were only for strategic reasons and for the sake of the railways of the country the Anglo-Indians ought to be retained on the railways in a very much larger percentage than the figure quoted by my right hon. Friend. The figure of 8 per cent. will certainly not satisfy the Anglo-Indian community. Eight per cent. is an infinitesimal proportion of the people who are on the railways. We do not know how the 8 per cent. is applied. To what category is it applied? If it applies to a very small category it may be a large proportion but if it applies to all categories, station masters, ticket collectors, guards, engine drivers, engineers and so on. it is very small.
    There is another point which I would stress. I want the Committee to realise that the Anglo-Indian community is a very wide and diverse community. Every grade of society is represented by the Anglo-Indians. You have what would be called by hon. Members opposite the capitalist class represented. I am sorry to say there are very few of them. There are also those who are sent over here as young men to our hospitals and to our Inns of Court and become doctors and barristers. There are men whose fathers and grandfathers were on the railways and who themselves come over here, go through our engineering colleges pass with the highest honours and go back to India fully qualified engineers. I do not mean engineers who drive trains, but fully qualified engineers who have passed through our engineering colleges and have gone out to India as skilled railway engineers and have obtained high posts on the railways. There are men among the Anglo-Indians capable of becoming the general managers of a whole railway. The various grades are represented, down
    568
    to men who are only capable of greasing an engine.
    It is because of the diversity of the Anglo-Indian community that we must see that something is done to ensure that the community, from the highest to the lowest, shall have a share of the work which the government can give them and which they had before the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms. We have a moral obligation towards them, and something more. We have an obligation to the people of India, the 320,000,000 of people who go up and down the Indian railways. We must see that when they are carried they travel in safety. No community that I can think of in India is better fitted to ensure the safety of the railways and the passengers than the Anglo-Indian community who have been tried in the fire and not found wanting and who have served us so well in the past. I trust that in the future they will receive a reward for their services by being allowed to have their due proportion of work on the railways, where they can still render such excellent service in India.
    4.56 p.m.
    Sir S. HOARE: I yield to no one in my appreciation of the services of the Anglo-Indians, and certainly no one could have championed their cause more eloquently than my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Enfield (Lieut.-Colonel Applin), who for many years has taken a very close personal interest in their fortunes. Let us not enlarge the field of the controversy. I believe there is very little controversy between one section of the House and another on this matter. Let us, in particular, not assume that some of us are only paying lip-service to our intentions to do well by this deserving community. Let us, least of all, none of us
    "put up the shutters in our moral and mental homes to exclude all rays of light from us."
    I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) for that phrase. As the discussion proceeds my vocabulary is becoming more and more varied, and I thank my right hon. Friend for that illustration.
    Let us look at the actual facts. The two main interests of the Anglo-Indian community are, in the first place, education and, in the second place, a proper share in public employment. As far as

    569
    education is concerned, I think it will be admitted by every Member of the Committee who has studied the Report that we have safeguarded their future. Education is the key to their position. One of the difficulties in their future in the public services is connected with education. The fact that their percentage of public service has fallen from the higher percentage of some years ago to something like 8 per cent. now is not solely due to the rivalry of other communities, but is due to a great extent to the fact that the standard of education of the other communities has risen, and that in the competitive examinations other communities, owing to that rise in the standard, are getting a bigger and bigger share in the appointments. We have to take that fact into account, and, while we are all of us most anxious to do justice to the Anglo-Indian community, we must not ignore the position of the other communities who, owing to better standards of education, are gradually making a bigger way for themselves in the public services.
    The difficult problem is to hold the balance between the various communities. We have attempted to do that. What we did some months ago was to have a very full inquiry made throughout India as to the share that ought to be given to the various communities in the public services. We went rather further than to stereotype the existing position. We arrived at a series of percentages that did seem to us to be fair, taking the interest of one community with another. Those percentages were inserted in a resolution of the Government of India, and we intend that, there shall be no alteration in those percentages without the assent of the Governor-General or the Governor. We are prepared to make that clear, either in the Instruments of Instructions or in the Bill itself. I gather that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) was doubtful whether we had made that sufficiently clear. I own that, looking again at the words in the Instrument of Instructions, they do appear to me to be too general. I think we might well tie the phraseology in the Instrument of Instructions much more definitely to the resolution of the Government of India, under which the percentages for the various communities are set out. I will certainly look into the
    570
    Instrument of Instructions from that angle, and also into the body of the Bill from that angle, to see if we could not make it more explicit.
    So far as the percentage is concerned, I was rather taken aback by the demands made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping. I am told that any percentage such as he mentioned—30 or 40 per cent.—is a percentage which may have been in existence in the very early days of the railways 40 or 50 years ago, but that within his memory and mine nothing like that percentage has been in vogue. I am told that in the years before the War the percentage was nearer 15. The Committee may ask why, if it was 15 per cent. 20 or 25 years ago, it is now only 8 per cent. There are two reasons for that. The first reason is the great reduction in employment on the railways; and the large number of Anglo-Indians unemployed at the present moment, I imagine, is very largely due to the big reductions made over the whole field of railway employment in the last 15 years—and particularly' in the last 10 years.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Why has there been this reduction.
    Sir S HOARE: Because every railway system in the world, owing to the bad times that there have been, has had to make heavy cuts, and particularly in recent years. The fall in the percentage is to a great extent due to these higher standards of education in the other communities. It would not be fair—and I could not admit it would be fair—to ignore that fact and to attempt to continue the system that was in vogue when the Anglo-Indian community were almost the only community, from the educational point of view, competent to hold these posts. I do not know what may have been the views of my colleagues on the Joint Select Committee, but I certainly gathered that so far as the percentage was concerned —and we did consider it in some detail—there was general agreement that the fair course to take was to stereotype the existing position and prevent it from going lower. In actual practice. we may send it up a little, but to go further would inevitably lead us into injustices towards other communities. With regard to my hon. and gallant Friend's remark I have no reason to think that Sir Henry Gidney was horrified at this percentage.

    571
    I did not gather that impression at all. I gathered that we were doing what Sir Henry Gidney asked for.
    Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN: I said that the community did not in the least agree with what Sir Henry Gidney accepted, any more than the Bangalore community agreed with him. It was exactly the same thing; he let the community down.
    Sir S HOARE: Sir Henry Gidney did come here as the representative of the community, and we were in very close communication with representative members of the community throughout all our discussions. I certainly did gather the impression that the main interest in the minds of the Anglo-Indian community was that at least this percentage should not go lower. We have prevented it from going lower, and we are quite prepared to make that clear in the Bill.
    Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: What particular section does this 8 per cent. refer to?
    Sir S HOARE: It is 8 per cent. in the subordinate posts, and 9 per cent. in the higher. But over and above this minimum it is open to the community to get as many posts as they can in the competitive examinations. This is a minimum and not a maximum. In view of the explanation I have given, that so far as the Joint Select Committee could judge we are meeting legitimate demands, that if we go further inevitably we shall be driven into acts of injustice against other communities, and that I will make these changes as clear as I can, either in the Instruments of Instructions or in the body of the Bill, I hope the Committee will feel that we have not ignored the just demands of this very deserving community, but that, while meeting their demand, we are anxious to avoid doing injustice to any other community.
    5.8 p.m.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I should like to ask a question about what the right hon. Gentleman said as to the superior attainments of Hindus and Moslems in examinations as compared with Anglo-Indians. I can understand that may apply with regard to the Hindus, but is he sure that is the case also in regard to the Moslems? I was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that the Moslems outshone the Anglo-Indians.
    Sir S. HOARE: I never suggested that the Moslem community outshone the Anglo-Indian community. What I did say—and it is a fact which cannot be contradicted—was that the general standard of education in the other communities has risen. This applies to the Moslem community, too, and the most significant feature of recent years is that the Moslems have taken a, much greater interest in education. The old days, when the Anglo-Indians were the only educated community, have come to an end and these other communities are better qualified.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: Then the right hon. Gentleman did not mean that the Moslems generally outclass the Anglo-Indians?
    Sir H. CROFT: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question. I did not quite gather what his intention is. We feel very strongly that special reference should be made to the Anglo-Indian community. As I understand it, nothing in the Instrument of Instructions or in the Bill makes that clear. We find that they are in the same position as any other community, and we want particularly to call attention to them. Is the right hon. Gentleman definitely going to put in words to that effect?
    Sir S. HOARE: My difficulty is this. I have no objection to putting them by name into the Instrument of Instructions, but I would ask the Committee whether they think this is really the wisest course? Is it wise to single out one particular community? I should have thought that the wiser course was to make specific reference, in the Instrument of Instructions, to the Government of India Resolution under which all the percentages are set out. The reason against the other course is that you thereby isolate the Anglo-Indian community. There is already a good deal of bitter feeling among certain sections in India against them, and you may make matters worse.
    5.12 p.m.
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not entitled to speak for anybody else, but the Secretary of State has met the request I put when he undertakes that the Bill shall link up with the Resolution of the Government of India, either directly or through the Instrument of Instructions. I was afraid that the Instrument of Instructions and the Bill,

    573
    as drawn, did not make clear that the policy that was to prevail was the policy of the Resolution of the Government of India.
    5.13 p.m.
    Earl WINTERTON: I understand that several of my hon. Friends have made several speeches on this subject, and I should now like to make my first, because of my great interest in this matter. The hon. and gallant Member for Enfield (Colonel Applin) will recollect that I had the pleasure on several occasions of being his co-guest at the dinner of the Anglo-Indian Association in London; and I have also had the pleasure of being associated with him in the past in making representations on behalf of this community. I have listened with great interest to the eloquent speech he has made. None of us can fail to realise the enthusiasm and sincerity with which he approached this matter. But there was one reference he made which. I rather regret, and that was to our mutual friend, Sir Henry Gidney. I should like to say that Sir Henry Gidney, who was the representative of the Anglo-Indian Community at the Round Table Conference and the first Committee, has been for many years the respected leader of the community in India. Like the leader of every other community in a matter of this kind it was not possible for him always to obtain unanimous support. But, speaking generally, he was not only their accredited representative in the literal meaning of the term, but he was the representative accepted by all. I have no doubt that any Member of the Joint Select Committee would agree that Sir Henry Gidney, though in other directions he did wish further concessions to be made, was satisfied with the actual question of percentages. I think that should be on record.
    If I am right on that, the only thing that requires to be done from the point of view of Sir Henry Gidney as the representative of the community was to do what, in fact, the Secretary of State promises to do—to make it clear in the Instrument of Instructions that the intention will be carried out. With regard to my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion that Sir Henry Gidney was repudiated by the community, I think that was not so. I am convinced that the main reason why there has been such a great reduction in the number of Anglo-
    574
    Indians on the railways is the reason given by the Secretary of State, and that it is because of the question of education. I do not think there is the bias which is alleged against the Anglo-Indian community. It may exist to some extent, but the main reason has been education; which of course it is not in order to discuss at the moment. At the same time I think that the Anglo-Indians have a very substantial grievance in the provisions for educational facilities which have been provided for them, but these grievances will be removed by the proposals to which the Secretary of State has referred. I suggest that my contention is right, and that there is likely to be a far greater percentage of Anglo-Indians employed on the railways because of their success in competitive examinations which is, of course, the subject mainly at issue in this Amendment.
    5.17 p.m.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am disappointed with the reply of the Secretary of State, who while doing his utmost to put himself into agreeable relations with the Committee, really said nothing at all. He satisfied the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) by making some rather clearer definition in the Instrument of Instructions, but on the essential point of giving this community a larger percentage of the appointments, when we are handing them over to a government quite different to anything which has ruled India hitherto, and when we might have insisted on a larger percentage, the Secretary of State said nothing. He said no more than the Under-Secretary of State. This community is going to be left in the miserable position to which it has been reduced, and the method by which it has been reduced is so characteristic of the relaxing control by Great Britain over India that I must refer to the speech of the Noble Lord the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). The Noble Lord is a warm sympathiser with the Anglo-Indian community, although I do not think that they are going to get fat on his sympathy judging by the character of his intervention.
    Earl WINTERTON: I said that I had received the thanks of the community in the past. Whether they will accord it in the future, I do not know.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: As to the measure of gratitude they will owe to the Noble Lord they must be the computants. I cannot attempt to estimate it, although I imagine it will not be such a sum as will take a long time to calculate. The Noble Lord, who has long been saturated with the fetishism which prevails in certain British circles in regard to India, and who has certainly given great attention and careful study to the matter, has explained why it is that the percentage of Anglo-Indians has fallen. He says it is because of their education. How absurd to allow education alone to be a test of fitness for employment on the railway services. The passing of a literary examination—how absurd to let that be the only test. Surely a sensible administration, having the safety of the travelling public at stake, and the safety of military communications in time of war, would have provided other tests than a mere literary test. The hon. and gallant Member for Enfield (Colonel Applin) spoke of the battalion with which he was connected. Why should there not be a test of military service, some qualifications of having served for some time in a railway cadet corps or battalion? Why should these not play their part in the qualifications for fitness? If you are going to find reasons for leaving them out and casting them aside, you can discredit every reason; but if the whole bias instead of being turned against British Indians and the interests of their friends in India was sometimes exerted in their direction, there would be no difficulty in finding good, sound arguments which Parliament would understand, and which would make their appeal to the country on the grounds of justice and practical good sense.
    Let these appointments on the railways be governed not merely by educational tests, but by these tests supplemented by an examination of the personal qualifications of the parties, or alternatively by some service in the territorial army, or a military or a railway unit. Then you would have good ground not for having a wretched 8 per cent.—I hesitate to say what the percentage should be—but 15 per cent. which I should have thought was the least to aim at now that you are handing over your responsibilities in India. If 15 per cent. were achieved, and it could be achieved perfectly well by a sensible system of exam-
    576
    inations which took into consideration all forms of fitness, and not merely literary fitness, you would render a service, and you would not, in handing over your responsibilities, leave behind this trail of human and moral injustice.
    5.25 p.m.
    Mr. WISE: I want to put one question to the Secretary of State. The fall in the percentage of the Anglo-Indians employed is alleged to be due to the rising standard of education on the part of other communities. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee what proportion of these subordinate posts on the railways are filled as a result of competitive examinations, and what proportion are appointed without such examinations? I cannot believe that the Government of India have a literary qualification for engineers and apprentices. These are the posts which we are discussing, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some information on the matter.
    Sir S. HOARE: I have not the figures with me, but I am told that they are very substantial. Whole branches of the railway administration. are filled by examinations.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Is there any possibility of the right hon. Gentleman considering the broadening of the process by which the fitness of candidates for this employment is determined, so that physical and moral fitness and military fitness can be taken into consideration, as well as literary fitness?
    Sir S HOARE: Even if that were so, I am doubtful whether the percentage of Anglo-Indians would rise very much. There are other communities who also have a fine record as to military aptitude and physical fitness. The question of recruitment in the future will be in the hands of the Federal Railway Authority. They will run the railways as a business concern, and it will be for them to settle the question.
    5.27 p.m.
    Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: I am sorry to keep the Committee, but having recently been to India and talked with members of the Anglo-Indian community, I should not be doing justice either to them or myself if I did not say that I am not quite satisfied with the reply of the Secretary of State. Honestly, I

    577
    fail to see why the Committee should be tied hand and foot by percentages which were arrived at without discussion by this Committee. The Secretary of State may be right, and far be it from me to pit my puny knowledge against that of the Government of India, but I want to say that if any injustice is being done to any community in India, we would rather it was being done to any community but the Anglo-Indian. Speaking as a convinced supporter of the Government of this Bill, I hope they will keep as open a mind as possible on the matter.
    5.28 p.m.
    Sir REGINALD CRADDOCK: As the Mover of this Amendment I should like to say in a few words why I cannot see my way to accept the explanation of the Secretary of State, and withdraw it. People will not look at facts as they are. Everyone must know of a certainty that you want auxiliary forces in India, and that the main source of recruitment for the auxiliary forces is the Anglo-Indian community. In a number of instances the existence of the Anglo-Indians on the railways, and the fact that they are enlisted in railway battalions, has been a source of strength in troublous times. Why cannot you enact in this Bill that the Governor-General, in his reserved powers of defence, shall decide how many men of this class shall be recruited on the railways for the purposes of the protection of the railways and the safety of the country in troublous times? That is the reasonable way of doing it, instead of trying to satisfy this person and that, and the aspirations of Hindus or Mohammedans.
    The Secretary of State has said that there are other martial races in India. Yes, but they have plenty of opportunities of serving in the army while the Anglo-Indian has not. He has asked for it over and over again, and I feel convinced that if the military authorities had given them more opportunities of justifying their claim to be numbered among the martial people of India they would
    have fully justified it. The reason why he has not been given this opportunity is that the question of pay has made it difficult for the military authorities to agree to it. There is no doubt that he is perfectly fit to take his place with the martial races of India if he is given a chance, and there is no doubt that the, railway battalions were extremely efficient. There is also no doubt that you want a man of his class on the railways for purposes of defence. If that be the case, why not have the courage to say so, and not be always looking to find out what the Saprus and Jayyakirs will say on this subject? Say so firmly, and none of them would say a word.
    Sir HOARE: This is what you agreed to.
    Sir R CRADDOCK: I did not agree to it
    Sir S. HOARE: The hon. Member did.
    Sir R. CRADDOCK: No, no; I did not agree. It was agreed to by Lord Hardinge and others, but I did not agree. I might not have said anything. I put before the Committee once or twice the suggestion that the matter might be dealt with on defence, but I could not get support. It does not follow that you need to increase the percentage. The requisite number of men which will fulfil the percentage on the railway should be determined by a certain strength of the auxiliary force. I do not make a similar suggestion for the Customs and the Post Office. They are under a different ruling. But so far as the railways are concerned I do ask the Secretary of State to reconsider the question whether the railway battalions and the necessity for the auxiliary force, which is very urgent should not justify him in declaring the number of Anglo-Indians required for service on the railways.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 232; Noes, 52.

    Division No. 142.]

    AYES.

    [5.35 p.m.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T.(Leeds, W.)

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Braithwaite, J. G.(Hillsborough)

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com P. G.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Albery, Irving James

    Batey, Joseph

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    Belt, Sir Alfred L.

    Buchanan, George

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Bernays, Robert

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Assheton, Ralph

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Blindell, James

    Butler, Richard Austen

    Cadogan, Hon Edward

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Peat, Charles U.

    Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

    Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J.(Aston)

    Petherick, M.

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Hornby, Frank

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Potter, John

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Cazalet, Capt. V.A. (Chippenham)

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm., W.)

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Radford, E. A.

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Cleary, J. J.

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H.

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Jamleson, Douglas

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Joel, Dudley J Barnato

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Cook, Thomas A.

    John. William

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Cooke, Douglas

    Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Rlckards, George William

    Crlpps, Sir Stafford

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C.(Galnsb'ro)

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Cross, R. H.

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward

    Culverwell, Cyril Tom

    Kirkpatrick, William M.

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Daggar, George

    Knight, Holford

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon George

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Salmon, Sir IsIdore

    Davies, Stephen Owen

    Lawson, John James

    Salt, Edward W.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Leckle, J. A.

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Denville, Alfred

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).

    Dickle, John P.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Sandys, Duncan

    Dobbie, William

    Lewis, Oswald

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Doran, Edward

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Both well)

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Smithers, Sir Waldron

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Lumley. Captain Lawrence R.

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Emrys-Evans, A. V.

    Lunn, William

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Mabane, William

    Spens, William Patrick

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)

    Stevenson, James

    Evans, R.T.(Carmarthen)

    MacAndrew, Capt. J.O.(Ayr)

    Storey, Samuel

    Foot, Dingle(Dundee)

    Macdonald, Gordon (ince)

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Foot, Isaac(Cornwall, Bodmin)

    MacDonald, Malcolm(Bassetlaw)

    Strickland, Captain W.F.

    Fox, Sir Gilford

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D.(l. of W.)

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    McKeag, William

    Thorne, William James

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. A Hamilton

    McKie. John Hamilton

    Tinker, John Joseph

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Tree, Ronald

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Macmillan, Maurice Harold

    Tryon, Rt. Hon George Clement

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Goldie, Noel B.

    Mason, David M (Edinburgh, E.)

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewlck (Wallsend)

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Maxton, James

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nichotas

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Meller, Sir Richard James

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    West, F. R.

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'tles)

    White, Henry Graham

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Mulrhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Hall. George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

    Munro, Patrick

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Wilson. Clyde T (West Toxteth)

    Harris, Sir Percy

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Winterton, Rt. Hon Earl

    Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)

    Orr Ewing, l. L.

    Womersiey, Sir Walter

    Haslam, Henry (Morncastle)

    Owen, Major Goronwy

    Worthlngton, Dr. John V.

    Headiam, Lieut.-Col Cuthbert M.

    Paling, Wilfred

    Hellgers, Captain F.F. A.

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Henderson, Sir Vivian L.(Chelmsl'd)

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Sir George Penny and Major George

    Herbert, Major J. A (Monmouth)

    Peake, Osbert

    Davies.

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Pearson, William G.

    NOES.

    Acland-Truyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

    Bailey, Erie Alfred George

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Donner, P. W.

    Lees-Jones, John

    Burnett, John George

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Burton, Colonel Henry Walter

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)

    Carver, Major William H.

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    McConnell, Sir Joseph

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    580

    581

    Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Sanderson Sir Frank Barnard

    Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n,S.)

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Templeton, William P.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. Wise and Mr. Ralkes.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: There is one question I wish to ask. I have on the Paper an Amendment which has not been selected. I wish to know why it is contemplated that, generally speaking, it should not be an obligation on the Railway Authority to consult the Federal Public Service Commission in connection with all appointments on the railway.
    5.41 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLER: As the hon. Member said, he had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out the last three lines of Subsection (2). This Sub-section requires the Railway Authority to consult the Federal Public Service Commission on the question of recruitment,
    "but save as aforesaid it shall not be obligatory on the authority to consult with, or otherwise avail themselves of the services of, the Federal Public Service Commission."
    The Federal Railway Authority will be a, big undertaking run on business principles, and it is not proposed to impose an obligation on it to consult the Federal Public Service Commission, save as is stated in this particular Sub-section. That does not mean that it will not be possible for the Authority to consult the Commission, but merely that there shall not be an obligation on it to do so. This is put in with a view to the particular nature of the Railway Authority, but it does not stop the Authority from consulting the Commission if it so desires.

    CLAUSE 232.—(Special provisions as to police.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    5.43 p.m.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: This Clause refers only to the subordinate ranks of the various police forces in India, I would like to know whether the same -conditions will apply to the senior ranks of the police, and what is embraced in these subordinate ranks. The Clause is not quite clear.
    Mr. BUTLER: The Clause states that, notwithstanding anything that has gone before in this Chapter, the conditions of service in the subordinate ranks of the various police forces shall be such as may be determined by or under the Acts relating to those forces. Of course, the members of the senior branches will be appointed by the Secretary of State. The Noble Lady will remember that in previous discussions reference has been made to many police Acts which cannot be altered without the previous sanction of the Government. It is those Acts which control the recruitment and conditions of service of the subordinate ranks referred to in the Clause.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: Below what ranks are the police classified as subordinate?
    Mr. BUTLER: The Indian Police Service includes all those who are recruited by the Secretary of State from the earliest stage. The subordinate ranks would be those below the rank of inspector—sergeants and so forth—and they will come under this particular Clause.
    5.45 p.m.
    Earl WINTERTON: May I point out to the Noble Lady that the intention of this Clause is to give to the subordinate ranks a protection somewhat similar to that which is given to the higher ranks by other provisions of the Bill? Under the Clause it would be impossible to employ a police constable except under the protection of the various Acts which are in force and if this Clause is passed, such a police officer will have a statutory right under those Acts which he would not otherwise have.

    CLAUSE 233.—(Services recruited by Secretary of State.)
    Mr. DONNER: I beg to move, in page 128, line 28, after "(Civil)," to insert:
    "the Irrigation Branch of the Indian Service of Engineers, the Indian Forest Service, the Indian Forest Engineering Service."
    5.46 p.m.
    The CHAIRMAN: I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that if we are to have a discussion on this Amendment it will have to be taken as covering the Amendment in the names of the same hon. Members on the next Clause.
    In page 129, line 7, to leave out from, "secure," to the end of the Clause, and to insert:
    "efficiency in any Province he may appoint persons to any Civil Service of or civil post under the Crown in India."
    A Division, of course, will be taken on the further Amendment, if it is thought necessary but the discussion must be on the Amendment which I have just called.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: On a point of Order. I would submit that Clause 234 does not embrace merely the Irrigation and Forest services but other services as well, such as agriculture, which are not mentioned in Clause 233.
    The CHAIRMAN: I realise that fact, and if the Noble Lady prefers not to have this Amendment called but to have the other Amendment called I will do so, but I do not propose to call both Amendments for discussion.
    Mr. DONNER: In that case might we have a discussion on both Amendments in one as you, Sir Dennis, have suggested
    The CHAIRMAN: Certainly.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: Do I understand from your Ruling, Sir Dennis, that we cannot discuss both these Amendments but have to take our choice as to which one we are going to discuss?
    The CHAIRMAN: I thought I had explained it. We are following a practice which is very common in Committee. There are two Amendments on the Paper. They are different Amendments, I agree, but they are directed practically to the same point, and a great many of the arguments on the one would apply to some extent to the other. On the Amendment which I have called I propose to allow the discussion to be such as will cover the Amendment standing in the names of the same hon. Members on the next Clause. In that event, if those bon. Members desire, when we come to the later Amendment they can
    584
    have a Division upon it. I should be prepared to select it for the purpose of a Division, but not for the purpose of a discussion, and therefore all arguments which hon. Members desire to address to the Committee on this matter, whether in relation to this Amendment or in relation to the Amendment on the next Clause, will have to be put on this Amendment
    5.49 p.m.
    Mr. DONNER: I thank you, Sir Dennis, for your Ruling. I should explain, at the outset, that it has been arranged that I should move this Amendment in order to put the case for it as broadly as possible before the Committee because we believe that we have an overwhelming case. That will enable the Noble Lady, the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl), later in the Debate to raise any points which, from her greater knowledge, she will be able to show that I have omitted. Under the Act of 1919 the Irrigation and Forestry Conservancy were made provincial subjects, but owing to their importance, as far as the welfare of the peoples of India were concerned, these two services were retained as reserved subjects under the control, not of Ministers but of the Governor and the Executive Council. These two services in the superior grades were maintained as all-India services and recruited by the Secretary of State and it is our object to try to retain that recruitment in future in the hands of the Secretary of State. The Lee Commission in 1924 retained that system and indeed laid down that for the future the Irrigation service should be 40 per cent. British and that 40 per cent. of the Forestry Service should also be British. Unless the Amendment is accepted these two departments will be transferred to the control of Provincial Ministers and British recruitment by the Secretary of State will be stopped. That will mean in practice the disappearance of the British element.
    I need not weary the Committee with the reasons for that assertion because I understand that copies of the memorandum published on 1st April in the "Morning Post" by Sir Michael O'Dwyer have been supplied to all members of the Committee. Therefore there is no need to over-emphasise this point. But I would say that those two

    585
    services are a purely British creation. I do not wish to side-track the discussion or to get out of order, but I do not think I would be breaking the rules, if I asked the Committee to bear in mind that the lesson to be derived from all other transferred departments is a lesson of deterioration of efficiency and of administration. I would also draw attention to the range and extraordinary importance of the subject of irrigation in India. There are 75,000 miles of branch canals and distributaries in India and the value of the crops supplied with water through Government works was no less than 86 crores of rupees in 1934. These two services have brought prosperity to great masses of the people of India. I should like next to read an extract from the first volume of the Report of the Statutory Commission. The Commission say on page 274, in reference to irrigation:
    "The progress made in the last generation is astonishing. In 1926, 28 million acres, or nearly 13 per cent. of the total cultivated area of British India was irrigated by Government works. New projects under construction will add 10 million acres, Dart of them in Indian States, to the total."
    Therefore the Statutory Commission supports my Amendment. In fact the Bill as it stands is contrary to the Simon Report. I notice that the Secretary of State shakes his head. Perhaps he will allow me to quote from the second volume of the Statutory Commission's Report which uses very strong language indeed on this subject on page 289:
    "There is also some evidence that political necessity"—
    That is, as distinct from administrative necessity—
    "requires that these services should be provincially recruited. But some of the heads of these departments take another view. We ourselves see strong advantages in the preservation of all-India recruitment particularly for the irrigation service."
    On the same page we find these words:
    "We very much doubt whether India is yet in a position to find all the personnel which it requires to maintain the administration of these two departments, both of which demand not only the highest technical knowledge but the most resolute administrative zeal. If European recruitments in these two branches were to cease to-day or were reduced to the occasional enlistment of European experts on short time contracts—as we feel would be the case if these services were now entirely
    586
    provincialised in all provinces—a risk would be taken which would be on a purely administrative view very hard to justify."
    That is the view of the Statutory Commission—that from a purely administrative point of view, the transfer would be very hard to justify. To take that one point of recruitment on, short time contracts to which I have drawn attention, surely in practice that would not be possible for this reason. If you once transfer the Department and the British element in the service either stops altogether or is decreased, you cannot draw sufficient recruits from this country because India has been up to now the nursery and training ground of these experts and it takes them up to 10 years to reach the standard of technical knowledge adequate for these purposes. If the Government intend to pursue this course —I hope they will not do so—they will be attempting to apply a political remedy to an economic grievance. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks he is really justified in taking this risk which the Simon Commission considers would be hard to justify. In the first volume of the Statutory Commission's report we find on this subject very strong language indeed. It speaks of the maintenance of the channels of distribution of supply among the cultivators as being of great importance and on page 275 we find this statement:
    "Unjust or illicit distribution may lead to fierce disputing between neighbours and water in a thirsty land is a terrible temptation."
    That is the verdict of the Statutory Commission and you could not use much stronger language than that, apart of course from bad language. But if that is the verdict of the Statutory Commission may I now draw attention to the Majority Report of the Joint Select Committee which, as Sir Michael O'Dwyer points out had not the courage of its convictions. On page 188, paragraph 309, the report states:
    "The continued recruitment of an adequate number of highly qualified engineers, European as well as Indian, is clearly essential to the efficiency of the irrigation system on which the prosperity and indeed the very existence of millions of the population depend … after a close examination of the question our conclusion is that the irrigation service ought to become a provincial service."
    Here we have the Majority Report of the Joint Select Committee which gives

    587
    reasons against the Government and then decides in favour of the Government and then has the assurance to say that the Committee was not packed! In paragraph 311 of the Report we find this addition:
    "Our recommendation does not of course imply that the Governments in India should abandon the recruitment of necessary personnel from England."
    Unless my Amendment is accepted that is precisely what the Government are going to do. They go on in the next sentence to say:
    "The High Commissioner for India in London already recruits specialist and expert officers of various kinds in England, as the agent of the competent authorities in India, and the Governments in India will doubtless continue this practice."
    That brings us back to the point with which I have endeavoured to deal, namely, that it is not possible in practice to recruit men on short-term contracts on account of the number of years it takes to train such men and because India has been the nursery and training ground for these men in the past. May I draw the attention of the Committee to the position in China. Since 1911, since the days of Sun Yat Sen, irrigation has fallen to pieces and there have been great epidemics of cholera. No man can say by how many tens of millions of people the population in China has decreased. I had a letter last week from China which estimated the decrease at over 100,000,000 people. That may be an exaggeration, but, in any case, it is clear that the population has decreased owing to epidemics and the breakdown of irrigation by a very great number. What is the position in British India? Surely it is that, thanks to the efficiency of the irrigation service and its extensiveness, the population in the last 60 years has increased by 60,000,000 people, and practically the whole of that increase is due to and depends on the efficiency of the administration in the irrigation service. If that service went wrong, or if it were to deteriorate as a result of the transfer, as other departments have deteriorated after transfer, the Government would have to face a drop in the population and the responsibility for that drop. Again, if I may refer the Secretary of State to the Simon Report, Vol. 1, page 274, we read a striking and significant sentence:
    588
    "In the Punjab over 10,000,000 acres are already artificially irrigated."
    May I draw attention to the words "artificially irrigated"? That means that if that service were to deteriorate cultivation would no longer continue. If it does not mean that, the word "artificially" has no meaning at all. The Report continues:
    "Modern engineering skill has diverted water from the rivers and created on these barren plains three great 'colonies' peopled from overcrowded districts elsewhere."
    It goes on to say how much the people themselves have benefited from it and how the Provincial Government have benefited by £1,000,000 a year. Are the Government prepared to brush aside what I submit is the extremely powerful argument contained in the Simon Report, and even to brush aside what the Majority Report of the Joint Select Committee emphasised when they said that the very existence of millions of people depended on this service of irrigation? If that be so, surely the Government are risking the well-being and safety, and indeed, as the Majority Report said, the very existence of millions of the population, and put no greater value on these lives than they would on a 5-franc counter in the Casino at Monte Carlo. I cannot believe the Government will do such a thing. If by transferring these two great services you get deterioration of efficiency, no one can tell the limit of the lamentable results that may ensue. Even now erosion and water-logging through ignorance are not unknown, which leaches the fertility of the soil and reduces the value of the crops.
    In all I have said I have left out the one great Oriental factor which I do not believe that this Committee or any other responsible body can afford to leave out in considering this question. That is the question of bribery. I have said that irrigation is a purely British creation brought about by British integrity, resource and impartiality, which has no counterpart in present times or during the centuries in the past. Certainly, therefore, bribery is going to enter into this question of water. If any hon. Member disbelieves that, I would ask him to consider the position for centuries past when, throughout Asia, the question of water has never yet been divorced from the question of bribery. There will

    589
    be in India, whether bribery and ignorance, or both, enter or do not enter into it, those who will get too little and those who will get too much water. In the case of those who get too little, the value of their crops will decrease; and in the case of those who get too much, the value of their crops will decrease also through water-logging. If there be any deterioration of this service there will plainly be a drying up of the sources of revenue over an area of 30,000,000 acres, the largest area irrigated in the world. The amount of producing land will therefore contract, and there will be no place to put the dispossessed people. In that connection, may I remind the Committee that the land titles that exist in India were decided to a large extent by us when we first entered that country? Therefore, if the value of the land of the peasants, who are doing their best to eke out a living, decreases, they will turn upon us in their rage and fury, because they will say that we are responsible for their poverty. Surely the position is ticklish enough already. Agricultural prices are low and are likely to remain low. Therefore, the slightest derangement or deterioration in the irrigation service cannot but cause the most lamentable results.
    I would like to say a word about the forestry service and the need for the maintenance of the British element. Here we have a chorus in unison in support of this Amendment. We have not only the evidence of the Statutory Commission; we have the emphasis which has been laid upon the value of this element in the Majority Report of the Joint Select Committee, and the Lee Commission's report of 1924. In the Statutory Commission's Report, Volume I, there is a passage, in paragraph 306, of the greatest importance. It deals with the valuable economic asset which the present forestry administration is, and says:
    "It is an asset which could easily be frittered away and the pressure for a shortsighted exploitation of forest resources is strong. … It is not enough that Government should nave a right policy in the matter; expert knowledge, professional enthusiasm and firmness in administration are essential in the controlling staff. From the nature of the work, defects in forest administration may not show their full efforts for many years."
    590
    That seems to me most significant, and it is particularly significant because, in the next Clause of the Bill, something is said about the Secretary of State being able to intervene if there is deterioration, but the Simon Report makes it clear that the results of that deterioration may not show for several years. That surely strengthens the argument in favour of this Amendment. Lastly, the Statutory Commission say:
    "The heads of Forest Departments in their evidence stressed the need for the maintenance of the European element in the Service and we were the more impressed by their view because the life of a forest officer, which has many attractions for young Englishmen, makes less appeal to the educated Indian than a career in any other service."
    If European affairs were not so serious, I am sure the Foreign Secretary would have been present to speak in favour of the Amendment because, although the passages I have read are from the Statutory Commission's report, it is, none the less, the Simon Report. We have then this great weight of evidence, and I hope the Government will accept the Amendment. I will trouble the Committee with one further quotation only. It is from "The Moral and Material Progress and Condition of India," which was published by the India Office on 18th December. On page 87, this report says:
    "Proper conservation has a far-reaching value in the sense that forests have an acknowledged influence on the character of the climate, the extent and distribution of rainfall, the depth and quality of the soil and the prevention of erosion which either destroys the soil entirely or leaches away its most valuable chemical properties."
    I do not believe that that has ever been disputed. If the forestry service is not maintained, you will get too much water rushing down from the Himalayas in one season and too little in another, and the country will be in a perpetual condition of feast or famine. The Statutory Corn-mission have pointed out that it would be hard to justify transfer on the grounds of political demand, and that on purely administrative grounds alone this transfer is not justifiable, and will create great risks. If the Government withstand this Amendment, surely they will be guilty of nothing but arrant defeatism and the most shameful betrayal of the best interests of millions of people, about whom their own Majority Report says

    591
    that their very existence depends on the efficiency of the irrigation service. If the transfer is made and our fears fructify, then we shall be guilty of and will witness a shameful retreat of civilisation.
    6.13 p.m.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: My hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Donner) has clearly brought before the Committee the magnitude of this problem and the tremendous effect which it has on the welfare of millions of peasants in India. I should like to bring before the Committee some striking evidence on which the Statutory Commission framed their recommendation—at least their opinion—that it was desirable that British recruitment for irrigation and forests by the Secretary of State should continue.
    Lord E. PERCY: They did not make that recommendation.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: If my Noble Friend had listened, he would have noticed that I altered the word "recommendation" to "opinion." I will come to the details of what they said later. There is no doubt what their opinion was.
    Mr. ATTLEE: If the Noble Lady quotes from the Statutory Commission, she should quote them correctly. The commission said that this was a matter which was worthy of the further consideration of the Government.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I intended dealing with this matter later, but as the hon. Member, who was a member of the commission, has challenged me, I wilt deal with it now. In paragraph 330 of their report the commission devote nearly a page to this subject. First they speak about irrigation, and then go on to say:
    "The work which the Forest Department performs may be less spectacular in its immediate results, but in many parts of India it is scarcely less important than irrigation. It is a matter of great moment both for the revenues and for the contentment of India that this asset should be prudently developed and skilfully exploited. We very much doubt whether India is yet in a position to find all the personnel which it requires to maintain the administration of these two departments, both of which demand not only the highest technical knowledge but the most resolute administrative zeal. If European recruitment in
    592
    these two branches were to cease to-day or were reduced to the occasional enlistment of European experts on short time contracts —as we feel would be the case if these services were now entirely provincialised in all Provinces—a risk would be taken which would be, on a purely administrative view very hard to justify."
    I ask the hon. Member for Lime house and my Noble Friend if those words do not constitute an opinion in favour of the continuance of British recruitment for those two services.
    Lord E. PERCY: Will the Noble Lady read the words at the end of the preceding paragraph, on which the whole of her quotation depends?
    Duchess of ATHOLL: It says:
    "We think that the question in relation to irrigation and forests is of such importance that the authorities in India should have an opportunity of considering it further in the light of the general scheme of constitutional reform which we are putting forward, and we therefore do not propose on this head to do more than summarise the evidence we have received and to indicate some of the considerations that must be weighed in coming to a final decision."
    What I previously read seems to be a logical sequitur of this. It means that after penning the sentence which my Noble Friend asked me to read they arrived at this conclusion:
    "If European recruitment in these two branches were to cease to-day… a risk would be taken which would be, on a purely administrative view, very hard to justify."
    They went on to refer to the fact that the Royal Commission on agriculture in India, presided over by Lord Linlithgow, which had reported two years before, had recommended—anyhow expressed an opinion—in favour of the value of European experts in agriculture in India.
    Mr. ATTLEE: It is a fairly long pasage. They put forward a number of considerations and also set out other considerations with regard to the transferred services but, as the Noble Lord pointed out, it is not a recommendation, they refer to it as a matter which should be considered.
    Duchess of ATH0LL: I am ready to waive the point that this was not a definite recommendation, though I think the absence of one was rather a failure of duty on the part of the Statutory

    593
    Commission. I think it was their business to make definite recommendations, but it does not seem to be correct to say that they only put forward considerations. The sentence I have read clearly indicates an opinion:
    "If European recruitment in these two branches were to cease to-day or were re-duced to the occasional enlistment of European experts on short time contracts…a risk would be taken which would be, on a purely administrative view, very hard to justify."
    If that is not an expression of opinion I do not know what is.
    Mr. DONNER: I would point out, in support of the Noble Lady's contention, that the very next words are:
    "Our opinion in this respect is reinforced."
    Duchess of ATHOLL: The Commission definitely use the word "opinion," which was the word I used before my Noble Friend interrupted me. But this is not the only reference the Statutory Commission make to the subject. Later, when summarising their recommendations, after expressing the opinion that the recruitment for the security services, the police and the Indian Civil Service, should continue, they say:
    "It is a matter for consideration whether the irrigation service and the forest service should not be similarly recruited."
    I agree that that is a weaker statement than the former, and, if the hon. Member for Limehouse will forgive me for saying so, I think the fact that the two statements are not actually on all fours is a weakness in the report of the Commission of which he was a member. Still, I do not think he is entitled to say that the Statutory Commission expressed no opinion on the subject. They at least asked in their final sentence that the matter should be considered, and, therefore, with all due respect, I do not think that the Secretary of State, in giving evidence before the Joint Select Committee, gave a correct interpretation of this passage when he said that the Statutory Commission left the matter open. I only hope that the Joint Select Committee had the advantage of being presented with some of the evidence which the Statutory Commission had had before them when they arrived at the pronouncement they made. I will now try to give this Committee some idea. of what that evidence was.
    594
    They heard evidence from the then chief engineer of the Sukkur barrage in Sind, Sir Charlton Harrison. He stressed the tremendous importance of the impartial distribution of water, which must be perfectly obvious to us all. It has been well said that the man who controls the distribution of water in an irrigation scheme has power equal to that which would be possessed by the man who could give or withhold rain in this country. It is a tremendous power, and anyone can see the endless opportunities there may he for evading the obligation of impartiality; how easy it may be through inefficiency or other reasons, to let a canal get silted up and in that way, or by not opening a sluice at the right moment, to prevent water reaching a particular area of land, with the result that that land will produce nothing and the people dependent on it may starve. The Simon Commission were told by Sir Charles Harrison that Indian engineers, though often technically efficient, were subject to outside influences pressing on them to make a partial distribution of water, influences which often made it difficult for them to carry out their duties as efficiently and impartially as they would wish to do. This witness told the Commission how his own Indian officers had said to him that they themselves recognised that British officers were in a far stronger position than they were, because they were not exposed to the pressure of members of their community or their family to give them more than their fair share of water.
    The chief irrigation engineer of the United Provinces spoke of the fact that there was a considerable amount of corruption in the service, that the wealthier landowners and cultivators tried to bribe Indian subordinate officers to give them more than their fair share of the precious water. This officer told the Commission how both British and Indian engineers tried to stop this corruption, but how the British were more insistent on checking it. He said the only way to stop this corruption was by insistent Checking of the amount of water allowed to everybody, and that in this work the Indian officers helped, but that the British officers were more insistent and more conscientious, and did not hesitate, in cases where they found there had been a breach of trust, to dismiss a man. Therefore,

    595
    they were better able to keep up the standard of probity.
    Then the chief engineer of the Sukkur Barrage said that because of the pressure to which Indian officers might be subjected to make a partial distribution of water there were demands from all over his area to supply British officers. Cultivators felt that that was the only guarantee of an efficient distribution of water, and that with even 58 per cent. of his officers British he could not meet the demands. The chief engineer of the United Provinces said that his Indian officers had frequently told him that the complete Indianisation of the irrigation service would be disastrous. Could there be any stronger expression of opinion than that from men who might think that British officers stood in the way of their employment and promotion 4 He said that if the services were entirely Indianised appointments would not be made on merit, but that communal and domestic pressure would largely influence them. Again, the Joint Select Committee heard a very strong and comprehensive statement on this matter from the late chief engineer of irrigation in the Punjab, Sir Raymond Hadow. He told them how the Punjab peasants desired British officers, because it gave a security that there would be impartiality, and he told the Committee that he had frequent appeals to replace Indians by British officers. He also said that the Indians were not always such good administrative officers as the British, and that they might be hampered by complaints made on a communal basis. A Moslem might fear that a Hindu irrigation officer would not give him a fair deal in the matter of water or a Hindu might fear the same of a Moslem officer. He said that there were frequent complaints which, when he inquired into them, were often found to be quite frivolous and made only on communal grounds. Most interesting and most important of all, he said that he had often been assured in private by politicians that they would be glad for British recruitment to continue but that it was very difficult for them, with all the Nationalist feeling, to express that opinion openly. It seems tragic to think that information given by this chief engineer should not have carried more weight with the Joint Select Committee. Sir Raymond Hadow advocated the
    596
    definite retention by the Secretary of State of recruitment of 40 or 50 per cent. of British officers. He stressed the point that the recruitment must be by the Secretary of State. He said provincial recruitment would not be of the slightest use, chiefly because the colleges and universities of this country would not trust that method of recruiting. He said the Secretary of State's guarantee was greatly valued, and that he did not think that any other method of recruiting would secure the men necessary. It does seem tragic that the Report, while stressing so strongly the need of recruiting an adequate British element for the Irrigation Service should not have made a definite proposal for the securing of that element by the only assured means possible.
    I now pass for a few moments to the question of recruitment for the Forestry Services. Forests are of very great importance to human welfare in India, because they prevent erosion and so minimise the flooding which might overwhelm valleys and render thousands of people homeless. It is not too much to say that if the forests of the United Provinces and the Punjab were destroyed the peasants of Bengal would be bound to suffer. Then the individual in the villages derives great value from the forests. They provide him with fuel, and that saves him from having to burn manure, which is a very common form of fuel there. The use of manure for fuel is of course a very bad thing for agriculture, as the people are not able to use the manure for improving the land. Witnesses before the Simon Commission and the Joint Select Committee stressed the difficulty of getting the right type of Indians into the forest service. That service has been open to them since 1893, and so we have had time in which to test them. All the witnesses stressed the point that it is not a service which always appeals to those Indians who can pass the necessary examination. Such men tend to prefer a less lonely life and have not always got the physique that enables them to stand the fatigues of the life. On the other hand, it is a life which is very popular with many British young men, and it therefore attracts a good type.
    It was said that as a. result of the transference of forests in Bombay no Britishers had been recruited since that

    597
    time. The Conservator of Forests in Bombay told the Statutory Commission how forests had worsened since the transfer in view of the fact that there had been more forest fires. He therefore regretted the transference, but he was more nervous still about complete Indianisation of the service. After his experience for some years of being in charge of the transferred forests department in Bombay under an Indian Minister, he still wanted 50 per cent. of British officers chosen by the. Secretary of State. Provincial Governments would not be able to attract the right type of man. The ex-Inspector General of Forests for India, Sir Alexander Rodger, told the Joint Select Committee that one result of the transference of forests in Bombay and Burma had been a tendency to understaffing of the various services or the promotion of unsuitable people.
    Then we have again to recognise that Indian officers may have to meet greater difficulties than British officers in carrying out their duties. The country is overrun with cattle and the villagers are apt to want more grazing in the forests than is compatible with the due conservation of the forest and that results in much trouble and often in incendiarism. The Statutory Commission had evidence that members of the Legislative Council might bring pressure to bear on forest officers if they got into conflict with people who were grazing too many cattle in the forests and it was obvious that such pressure was more difficult for Indians to resist than for British officers.
    Again, all witnesses before the Statutory Commission and before the Joint Select Committee were strong for the retention of British recruitment. The Bombay Conservator wanted 50 per cent. and Sir Alexander wanted 25 per cent. He expressed a preference for recruitment by the Governor-General rather than by the Secretary of State, but his main point was that he wanted central recruitment, and, like all other forestry officers examined by the Statutory Commission, he wanted retention of some powers of guidance or control by the central Government. But Forestry is now to he completely provincial and the Federal Government will have no power of supervision over provincial forest departments. As the Central Government is to lose
    598
    the power of guidance, we more than ever need the retention of British recruitment. We ought to bear in mind and have clearly before us the fact that there was the strongest possible evidence before the Statutory Commission for the retention of a strong British element recruited by the Secretary of State, both in irrigation and in forestry, and that there was equally strong evidence for the retention of British recruitment in irrigation and forestry before the Joint Select Committee.
    I turn for a minute or two to the retention of the power of British recruitment in the services already transferred to Indian Ministers, such as agriculture and education. It is all the more important to draw attention to these, because no evidence was heard by the Joint Select Committee in regard to most of them. The Committee only heard evidence in regard to one transferred department, namely, the transferred department of health. That fortunately is safeguarded in the Clause as it stands, but in regard to the other departments of agriculture, education and public works, no evidence was heard by the Joint Select Committee from men who had served in those departments, and who could speak as to how the departments had fared under Indian ministers and since the British element had been disappearing. As a result of the adoption of the Lee Commission's recommendation in 1926 that Provincial Governments should. be responsible for recruiting for the departments transferred to Indian Ministers, there has been little or no British recruitment in those services.
    I quite understand the Government adopting this recommendation, as an experiment was being made in handing over those departments. Any further advance was to depend, under the 1919 Act, on the use made of the powers which were transferred, and it was perhaps natural that it should be felt, "let us give them complete charge and put the power of recruitment into their hands." But there is clear evidence of deterioration since then, arid we have every right to ask whether we should still cling to our decision to give effect to the Lee Commission's recommendation, and whether we are still justified in acting on it. Take, for instance, agriculture. Anyone who

    599
    has read the report of the Royal Commission on Agriculture will know how many recommendations were found to be necessary in that Service, which is of vital importance to the community. They will remember the numerous recommendations that were made and the opinions arrived at by the commission, which I have already read, as to the European experts who were necessary to promote the' welfare of agriculture. I understand that what was said about agriculture includes also the veterinary service.
    In education, as we know, the Statutory Commission made very full inquiry through a special auxiliary committee. That committee presented a very depressing picture in regard to primary and secondary education, and the Report summed up that education was now in a most critical position. One of the chief recommendations of the Hartog Committee in regard to remedying the serious deterioration which has taken place in education was that the recruitment of Europeans should be put in an unassailable position. Yet the Joint Select Committee heard not one witness who could tell them about education. No doubt they had seen the report which has since come in from the education commissioner of the Government of India, saying that there has been very little improvement in education since the Statutory Commission's Report, but the Joint Select Committee ignored the very strong recommendation in regard to recruitment which was made by the committee appointed by the Statutory Commission. Again, the Simon Commission had evidence of deterioration in public roads since the transference. There is striking evidence of the condition of the roads in India a few years after the transference, in that the Government of India took back into their own control all roads of strategic importance. They laid down in 1926, five years after the transference, that they should say exactly how the Provincial Governments should keep up those roads and how they should be constructed. That was a clear indication that they were not satisfied with the upkeep of the roads by Provincial Governments.
    All these services are essential to human welfare and to the success of the provincial autonomy which the Bill brings into operation, and I earnestly beg the
    600
    Committee to consider seriously whether they are prepared to let this invaluable power of recruitment pass out of the hands of the Secretary of State by passing the Clause as it stands. No one associated with the Amendment suggests that the appointment of a Britisher should put an Indian out of a job. The Amendment is not proposed in any narrow spirit. We wish to bear witness to the fact that there are many capable Indians in the Services who have done admirable work, but we say that so long as there is strong community feeling, or very strong caste or family feeling, and a very generous sense of family responsibility, it is inevitable that Indians must be subject to a great deal of pressure which makes it very difficult for them to carry out their duties as conscientiously as they would wish to do. Very often they may be put into impossible positions in which it is not fair that they should be placed. Because we feel that to-day and probably for many years to come India will need British help to get the best out of her own sons and because we want to see the two nations working together in co-operation and partnership, we ask the Government to consider the Amendment.
    6.42 p.m.
    Mr. KIRKPATRICK: If I had oratorical power like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), I might string together a number of synonyms and suggest that the Amendment is shallow, hollow, without depth and inconsequent—to sum up—inconsistent. The Amendment directly negatives the purpose of the claims advocated by the Noble Lady the Member for Kinross and Western (Duchess of Atholl). It is calculated to deprive the Anglo-Indian and the domiciled community of opportunities which they have had and will have, and of which they have taken full advantage in the past. Those opportunities have proved the very great capacity in the Indian Service of engineers in all branches of civil engineering such as irrigation and certainly railways.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: Are there any domiciled Europeans who have been recruited by the Secretary of State?
    Mr. KIRKPATRICK: I am sure there are and many have been promoted by the Executive Government. The hon. Member for the English Universities (Sir R.

    601
    Craddock) has extended experience and technical knowledge of India, and he would agree with me that many of the most distinguished officials and engineers, not to mention soldiers, police officers, forest officers and irrigation officers who have risen to the highest posts in India, especially engineers, were members of the Anglo-Indian domiciled community. I refer particularly to the engineers turned out by the Engineering College of Roorkee from which came one of the foremost most irrigation engineers of our time with a, world-wide reputation. I prefer the Clause as it stands, as it will enable the Anglo-Indian and domiciled European communities to be eligible for and to secure just such appointments as the proposed Amendment seems to seek to remove from their scope.
    Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Does my hon. Friend suggest that we should be actually debarred from making any appointment of this kind?
    Mr. KIRKPATRICK: No, but you are not obtaining at the present moment the recruits for these posts that you are able to obtain in India. The Clause as it stands would continue to give to the Anglo-Indian and British communities in India. the opportunities of which they have in the past so creditably and successfully taken advantage—not for employment as subordinates, as depressed classes, as segregated depressed people, such as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth and others who supported a previous Amendment were so anxious to secure for them. Perhaps the Secretary of State will confirm my statement that the Clause as it stands is specially designed to give special opportunities to engineers trained in the engineering colleges and universities in India.
    6.47 p.m.
    Lord E. PERCY: I wonder if my hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Donner) and my Noble Friend the Member for West Perth (Duchess of Atholl) will allow me to say that the first rule of wisdom in a committee of the House of Commons is not to alienate from yourselves every possible support that you may get from any quarter of the Committee except what happens to be your own quarter; and that the best way to alienate support is to exaggerate your facts and at the same time to insult everybody within hail that you possibly can.
    602
    [HON. MEMBERS: "Who insulted any body"?] My hon. Friend the Member for West Islington, in a moment of oratorical fervour, threw down the Report of the Select Committee, and said that that was surely a packed committee.
    Mr. DONNER: What I said was that the Majority Report gave explicit reasons in favour of my case and my Amendment, and against the present proposal of the Government. All that I said was that, this being so, they had the assurance to say that they were not a packed committee.
    Lord E. PERCY: That is precisely what my hon. Friend says. His argument was a perfectly legitimate and very interesting one, but it was perhaps not exactly tactful. My reason for opening my remarks in that way was to protest against the assumption on which I think the Amendment is based. The Amendment, however, contains a point which the Committee ought to consider very carefully. It is a point which has caused me, and I think many other supporters of the Government's scheme, more hesitation and more difficulty than any other point. I am not now referring to the question of occasional appointments in the already transferred services; I do not think that that proposal would be of very much use to anyone; but I want to concentrate my remarks on irrigation. The Mover and Seconder of the Amendment both re-referred to the report of the Statutory Commission and the majority Report of the Joint Select Committee, but, because they were very anxious to prove their case, they missed what was obviously the most remarkable fact about those two reports in relation to irrigation. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Islington pointed out, both committees felt very strongly the necessity for continued European recruitment, and yet the Statutory Commission, in spite of their very strongly expressed opinion, explicitly refrained from making a recommendation, and merely suggested that the matter should be reconsidered. What, then, does my hon. Friend the Member for West Islington say? He says that the Joint Select Committee made a recommendation which was not easily reconcilable with the opinion they had already expressed.
    What was the reason for this strange hesitation on the part of both these com-

    603
    mittees? The reason, I think, is clearly this: It is all very well to say that you are weighing an economic as against a purely political consideration, but there are political considerations which are not considerations of mere political amour propre, but considerations of government. In this matter of irrigation, the fact which, if I may use a vulgar expression, sticks out all over it, and which was referred to by the supporters of the Amendment, is that irrigation is of the very life of especially one Province in India, the Punjab. It is of its very life, and therefore of the very essence of its government. If you were to reserve the whole irrigation service and refuse to make it a transferred department, you would, as I think everyone will admit, prejudice the reality of provincial self-government, especially in the Punjab. Indeed, you would almost destroy that reality. That, of course, is not a proposal that is being made at this moment, and it was not made by the Statutory Commission. But, short of that, if you retain recruitment of the whole of the superior irrigation service in the hands of the Secretary of State in London, you are not merely retaining here functions which are equivalent to the functions of a public service commission charged with recruitment. This Amendment would place the irrigation officers recruited by the Secretary of State in precisely the same position as the police officer or the Indian Civil servant; that is to say, the Secretary of State would really control, not only the pay and pensions and general conditions of service, but every post, every appointment, and every promotion in the service; and it would be fair and reasonable for Indian Ministers, or, indeed English administrators, in a Province like the Punjab, to feel that the intrusion of that continuous control over all the administrative machinery of a service like irrigation was an almost intolerable interference with the administrative freedom of action of the Minister. The Minister responsible to the Legislature for the welfare of irrigation, for the welfare of a certain irrigated tract, would not be able to send there the officer whom he considered to be the most efficient officer, because there would be this control from London.
    604
    It is for that reason that there was such hesitation on the part of the Statutory Commission and on the part of the Joint Select Committee in drawing what otherwise appeared to be the 'logical conclusion of the situation, namely, that the Secretary of State should for the present retain the recruitment of the irrigation service. I would ask my Noble Friend the Member for West Perth to observe that that was not the proposal to which she referred, made by Sir Raymond Hadow. His recommendation, which he stated in his preliminary memorandum, was as follows:
    "I recommend that recruitment be done by the Secretary of State, on the understanding that the recruits are servants of the Government for which they are recruited for all purposes of promotion, censure, etc. It may possibly be necessary for the Secretary of State to lay down the scale of pay and pensions which he finds necessary to secure satisfactory recruitment, though this is to be avoided if possible."
    Duchess of ATHOLL: My Noble Friend will agree that Sir Raymond was very strong on the question of British recruitment by the Secretary of State.
    Lord E PERCY: That is precisely my argument. I speak entirely for myself, but, I did not follow up that recommendation, because it was introducing an entirely new kind of relationship between the Secretary of State's services and the local government. It was introducing a system by which the Secretary of State was the recruiter for the service, but, beyond a certain very small minimum, retained no control, or very little control, over the recruit's subsequent service. At the moment I did not feel that that innovation, which some people might have regarded as the thin end of the wedge for similar treatment of other of the Secretary of State's services, was a feasible proposition. But, the more I have thought over this subject since then, the more doubtful I have become about the particular compromise which the Joint Select Committee recommended. They recommended provincialisation of recruitment plus a power of the Secretary of State to resume. I do not think that resumption of recruitment by the Secretary of State would be a very easy thing to effect when once recruitment had been transferred away from him. I do not think it would be

    605
    possible to prove inefficiency; I do not think it would be possible to say, once recruitment had been handed over, that only two Englishmen had been recruited in the last three years, and the Secretary of State thought that four ought to have been recruited, or that none had been recruited and he thought there ought to have been two. I do not think that that compromise will work. I have come increasingly to the conclusion that the recruitment for these services ought to be retained in the hands of the Secretary of State, and that that ought to be done— and here I hope my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) will support me, as I am trying to support himߞ on the basis recommended by Sir Raymond Hadow, namely, that recruitment by the Secretary of State for this purpose does not entail the full responsibility of the Secretary of State and the full control of the Secretary of State over all the subsequent service of the recruit.
    I believe that this in an innovation that we must make if we are to combine the necessity for retaining a strong European element in the service with giving to Ministers, especially in the Punjab, a reasonable feeling of control over the administration of the service. I believe that we must make this innovation, and that we must endeavour to work out a proposal which will enable Sir Raymond Hadow's suggestion to be combined with the reality that the irrigation engineer is in the service of the local government and under the control of the local government, subject only to certain overriding conditions. Clearly if that is the line on which you try to go, this Amendment in itself will not do. The Amendment would go further than we reasonably can. I want to ask the Secretary of State whether—I do not suppose that he is prepared to say what an irresponsible Member of the House, like myself, can, that I have changed my mind on this important issue—he is prepared to consider this change in policy. I do not ask him for an answer immediately. It is certainly a change which would make for the greater security of India in a most important service, a change which would satisfy much hesitant opinion in this country, and a change which, under the conditions I have suggested, need not entail any invasion of what I think the Ministers of the Punjab
    606
    Government may fairly claim, that their responsibility to their Legislature for the efficiency of irrigation shall be a real responsibility, and that they shall have sufficient control over the service to make that responsibility a reality.
    7.2 p.m.
    Sir S HOARE: Three separate issues have been raised in this discussion. Let me say a word about each of them in turn. First the Noble Lady the Member for Kinross and West Perth (Duchess of Atholl) made the proposal that we should go back to the state of affairs in which we appoint officials to transferred departments. I suggest 'to the Committee that it would be a great mistake to contemplate a return to a state of affairs of something like 20 years ago when we really have no evidence to show that Indian Ministers on the whole have not administered satisfactorily the transferred departments. There have been, no doubt, faults in the administration of the transferred departments, as indeed there have been faults in the administration of every department both here and everywhere else in the last 15 years, but there is no evidence to justify us in going back on the advance that we made at the time of the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms; and it would be, in my view, the gravest possible error to make a reversal of policy of that kind just at the moment when we are to extend the field of Indian responsibility.
    The next point that was raised was in connection with the forestry administration, the proposal being to reserve the recruitment for the forestry department in the hands of the Secretary of State. Here, again, I suggest to the Committee that we should be unwise to alter the proposal of the Joint Select Committee. The administration of the forests, I quite admit, is of very great importance, particularly in certain Provinces. It is, however, worth noting that in the province where forests play the biggest part in the provincial life, namely Burma, the forestry administration has become a provincial administration, the local Government has continued the recruitment of British recruits, and upon the whole the administration of the forests has not been unsatisfactory.
    Wing-Commander JAMES: Not in Bombay?
    Sir S. HOARE: In Bombay there has been no such recruitment of British officials. None the less I do suggest to the Committee that we should be unwise to retain the recruitment as the service of the Secretary of State. It would considerably diminish the field of responsibility in a good many Provinces, and I do not see any justifiable reason for taking action of that kind. I do, however, admit that we might wisely, at an appropriate place in the Bill, emphasise the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee that in an expert service such as the forestry service central recruitment by the Public Service Commission has many advantages, and I think we might emphasise what was in the minds of the Joint Select Committee, that we should stimulate and encourage the provincial administration to make use of the Central Public Service Commission for that type of recruitment.
    Now I come to the much more difficult question of irrigation. I agree with my Noble Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) as to the difficulty of this question, so difficult in fact that the Statutory Commission could not make a recommendation about it, so difficult in fact that the Joint Select Committee's recommendation is in the nature of things of a very experimental character. Let me divide the question into two parts. There has been underlying one or two of the speeches to which we have just listened, the suggestion that the irrigation department ought to be reserved and not transferred to the local administration.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: No.
    Sir S. HOARE: Why does the Noble Lady always think that what I say is directed to her?
    Lord E. PERCY: And what everybody else says.
    Sir S. HOARE: I repeat what I said. It seemed to me in the course of the discussion—I am not referring to anything the Noble Lady said—that there was underlying the speech of my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment the feeling that the department ought to be reserved. The second issue is the method of recruitment. I believe that it would be a profound mistake to reserve the department. I believe, further, that you cannot have effective provincial autonomy
    608
    in a province like the Punjab if the department of irrigation is reserved. Irrigation enters into almost every detail of the life of the Punjab, and to reserve the department in the Punjab would be really to reserve nine-tenths of the life of the province. That, I suggest to the Committee, would be a mistake for more reasons than one. In the first place, it would cut right across our attempt to initiate provincial autonomy. Secondly, I am assured that it would set against us almost the whole of the provincial opinion in the Punjab, and that in it self would be a disaster. The Punjab is one of those provinces which, I believe, is going to administer its affairs very efficiently. It is one of the provinces in which, I believe, provincial autonomy is going to be eminently successful, and it would be a profound mistake by attempting this comprehensive reservation to turn against us the province which, above all others, is determined to make its autonomous government a success.
    Mr. DONNER: I certainly never suggested that it should be reserved. I said that under the 1919 Act it was reserved.
    Sir S. HOARE: May I take it that we are all agreed that the department should not be reserved?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: No.
    Sir S. HOARE: We are all agreed except my right hon. and gallant Friend—Athanasius contra mundum.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Leave it to the people of the Punjab to decide for themselves.
    Sir S. HOARE: As there is—I will not say unanimity but general agreement that the department should be transferred, let me pass to the other issue, the issue of recruitment. There have been three separate propositions made to the Joint Select Committee. The first proposition was that the recruitment should remain in the hands of the Secretary of State. Against that proposition there was a very considerable opposition in India. Next there was the proposition that the Secretary of State should recruit, but that the Provincial Government should settle the terms of service and be responsible for these officials' subsequent career. Thirdly, there was the proposition made that instead of the Secretary

    609
    of State recruiting, the recruiting should be by the Governor-General. Let me dismiss the third proposition. The Joint Committee came to the view that there was no great advantage in considering a proposal of that kind. If it meant nothing more than a, change of name, there were objections against doing it, and if it meant a substantial change in the type of recruitment it was likely to effect injuriously the type of recruit.
    Having dismissed that compromise type of proposal, let me come back to the issue between the Secretary of State recruiting and the provincial Government being responsible for the conditions of service of the men the Secretary of State recruited. I am inclined to think, much as I would like to consider the suggestion of my right hon. Friend, that it is very difficult for the Secretary of State to recruit and then to free himself of responsibility for the recruit's subsequent career. There is no advantage to be gained by the Secretary of State recruiting, and then the local government imposing such conditions of service as would make it impossible for the recruits to remain in service or to have a suitable career. When it comes to the Secretary of State recruiting and being responsible for the subsequent career of the men that he recruits, it means a considerable change of method in contrast with the proposal that we are making in the Bill. Our proposal is that the local government should recruit and administer the service, that the Governor should keep his eye very closely upon the recruitment and upon the administration of the Irrigation Service, and that there should be a power of resumption of recruitment if an adequate number of British recruits is not being appointed.
    That is frankly an experiment, 1 agree, and as an experiment it is open to criticism, but I would not at all say that it is the last word to be said upon the subject. I am prepared after the Debate to-day to look into the question again. After all, it is a question of method rather than of principle. We are all agreed that for many years to come we wish to see an adequate number of British engineers in the Irrigation Department, and particularly in the Irrigation Department of the Punjab, and it is a question which of these two methods it is better to adopt. I am very anxious myself to
    610
    adopt a method, that, while effective in itself in securing the purpose which we have all in mind, will not turn public opinion in the Punjab or in India solidly against us. I think, therefore, that the best of the courses I can adopt this evening, is to say to my right hon. Friend and to the Committee that I will look again into this question of method, but I feel that if we do make a change in method we should find difficulties in the proposal which my right hon. Friend has made, and we should probably find that it would mean continuing the Secretary of State's recruitment, reserving certain posts as we reserved them in the case of all the Secretary of State's services, and giving the recruits the same protection that we give to officials in the other Secretary of State's services. But, as I have said, I will look into the question again. It is a question of method; it is not a question of principle. A satisfactory result has been reached, namely, that almost the whole of the Committee are definitely against the reservation of the service and the only question between us is the question of method as to the actual recruitment.
    7.19 p.m.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I wish that the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge of Church history was as adequate as is his knowledge of India. It will be remembered that although there was a time Athanasius was contra mundum there became a time when the mundum was with Athanasius, and only a year ago I was called Athanasius on the ground that I was the only person who was opposed to the Federation of the Indian States whereas now the entire mundum of British-India has come round to my point of view.
    Sir H. CROFT: I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will withdraw that because I have never been led back again. I have always had the same views.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: And me, too.
    Sir H. CROFT: I am part of the mundum.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Good, but at the time of the Round Table Conference I was in a very small minority and I am glad that at that time I had such good company. But India has become the mundum. Here too I think that the Com-

    611
    mittee will find that I am speaking what India will be thinking and that is they are put by the Government into an extremely difficult position. We are dealing with the whole of India where the problems are diverse from Province to Province; we should be tackling all these problems from the point of view of each Province in turn. There is no satisfactory ground for treating the decentralisation of the whole of India on exactly the same lines. I am perfectly certain that in the Province of Madras for instance all the subjects will be dealt with admirably by the Provincial Government. The real difficulty is that we are dealing at one and the same time with civilised Provinces like Madras and with completely uncivilised Provinces like Sind and the North-West Frontier. We may leave out the North-West frontier in the particular question of irrigation. But as the Noble Lord said it is a problem more particularly of the Punjab and of Sind, and we must look how it affects those particular provinces. I ventured to say that I thought it was for the people in the Provinces to decide on a matter like this, and I still adhere to that view. Throughout we have disregarded in all our Debates the opinion of the people of India and now we disregard the people who have to suffer from partial irrigation.
    I am prepared to say that in nine out of 12 of the provinces of India the proposal of the Government would meet with the approval of all the people who want the water, but I am doubtful whether that would be so in the case of the Punjab, and I am certain that it would be disastrous to the Hindus of Sind. You have two provinces where you are imposing upon the people a Government totally different from this and from the rest of India. You have the communal problem run mad in both those provinces. You have in Sind, which under the new irrigation scheme is even more intimately affected by the question of irrigation than the Punjab itself, a permanent Mohammedan Government. The Hindus might just as well have no votes; under this communal electorate system in Sind, the minority has no protection whatever. At the present time most of the cultivators in Sind are Mohammedans, but there are certain communities of Hindus coming in, particularly under the new barrage
    612
    scheme, to cultivate in Sind. What is the position of those people in Sind going to be? If they are dealt with, as they have been up to now, by a completely impartial administration all would be well, but the Hindus know that they cannot expect impartial administration from a permanent Mohammedan majority. It is no use to say that they ought to expect it or that they are wrong. They do not believe that they will get it. I am not acquainted with the facts in Sind, but from the stories they tell me the power you put into the control of the people who control the water is even stronger than the power put in the hands of the people who control the land.
    We know that in the Punjab they passed legislation debarring, not by name, but in effect, Hindus from acquiring agricultural land which has ever been in the hands of the Mohammedans, of the agricultural tribes, which are the Mohammedans. If they deprive them there already of all the opportunities of getting land, is it really very far-fetched to say that the administration of irrigation would be directed in exactly the same direction, both in the Punjab and in Sind? If you are convinced that it is vital that one particular caste or class in the community should cultivate the land and that another particular caste should be merchants, that one population should be town dwellers and the other agricultural cultivators, can you be surprised if, when you put the power into the hands of the agriculturists they use that power to squeeze out cultivators of the other class and prevent any more of the Hindus coming in to cultivate the land? I say that in these provinces you are putting a power which not only may be used but will be used, used with the conviction that the people who are using the power in that way are doing the right thing by their country and by their people. Ought we to inflict upon the minority in these two provinces the danger of being deprived altogether of the protection of this House?
    I come to the second point. In the first place I say that it is a problem which should be faced by different methods in each Province, and it will make no difference either to Sind or the Punjab whether the original appointment is made by the Secretary of State or by the Provincial Government. There

    613
    may be a few more Englishmen appointed but most of the actual operation of irrigation is done by subordinates and by Indians. The real point of the Amendment is that if it is carried, not for India but for Sind and the Punjab, then you would then have this House responsible and the Secretary of State could be asked questions about it and he would be responsible for the whole of the administration of the irrigation service. The whole Debate has been on the question of appointment, whether a few more Englishmen shall be appointed or not. I do not think that that is a matter which concerns us by any means. It is not by any means the most important part in this Amendment. The real importance is the responsibility of the Secretary of State and therefore this House for the administration of this particular service.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): I think that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is mistaken. Whether this Amendment is carried or not, cannot affect the responsibility of the Secretary of State in regard to irrigation.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: If pay and promotion are reserved to the Secretary of State that is what I consider to be responsible administration. As long as the Secretary of State is responsible for this he is still the person to be asked as to the conduct of the people who are actually administering the water supply. I think that that is rather a wider question than the mere appointment of a few Englishmen. I am ready to believe particularly in these two Provinces that it is much wiser to have Englishmen responsible than to have people who have the narrow caste view of responsibility. The main thing is that we should be able to ask questions about it and criticise it, and it should still be in the power of people here to correct what may be the manifest injustice of the actual administration of this life-giving service in India. It is by far the most important service. The forests are of very little importance compared with water, and the railways are of very little importance. It is the actual life-blood of the whole of the people of the Punjab, and there are the whole of the people of Sind in future dependent upon this question. Therefore, if it were possible to make any change in the Bill at all and for instance to leave Sind to remain with
    614
    Bombay so that there should be no danger of racial oppression there, if it were possible in the Punjab to have a general electoral roll so that—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman should try and keep more closely to the Amendment.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am trying to show that this Amendment would depend very largely upon the form of government administering the Clause. That form of government depends immensely on whether the Government is an irremovable partisan Government or whether it is a government such as we have here, which is always anxious to meet the wishes even of the other side of the House. If the right hon. Gentleman is considering the possible Amendment of this Bill in the interests of the people of India, and not of a few appointments of English officials, will he bear in mind that most of our objections to the Bill arise from the establishment in four Provinces of a statutory majority and a helpless minority.
    7.31 p.m.
    Sir H. CROFT: I do not want to stand between the Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Sir M. Macdonald), who is able to speak with such experience on this subject, but I will not detain the Committee long. We are very grateful to the Noble Lord opposite for his remarks on this question, but I do not think his suggestion would meet the point or give any satisfaction to the politically minded people of the Punjab. Why we feel so strongly on this point is that many of us have been brought into touch with some who have given lifelong service in the irrigation work of India, and, quite frankly, we have heard the most alarming stories with regard to the future. We have been told again and again by men who have held responsible positions that, although Indians are training hard and in 50 or 100 years' time you may find them equally qualified to look ahead, you cannot at present get many Indians employed in the irrigation service to think five, 10, or 15 years ahead; and the stories which one has heard and firsthand evidence with regard to the extraordinary neglect of the little mechanical, engineering appliances necessary to maintain the efficiency of irrigation are most startling. Indeed, we have heard upstairs

    615
    in the Committee room real authorities state that they believe that if we do not keep a firm control, at any rate for some time, we may have a reversion to the most appalling famine conditions such as we had in years gone by. For that reason I feel that it is most important that the Secretary of State should maintain his hold over recruitment and over the general scheme.
    I think the Secretary of State would find it amazingly difficult to reassume control of recruitment, as is suggested in the Bill, once he had passed it on. You never can reassume this power, in any scheme of devolution or self-government, once it has been given, and therefore I hope the Committee will not rely on that possibility. We hear Members in many quarters of the House say, "After all, we must not offend the Indians by refusing to give them full control of irrigation," and so on. But these ideas did not spring from Indian minds. It is one of the greatest tributes to the whole British system in India that we started out on these marvellous irrigation schemes, and I feel that it would be madness, where the whole life and fortunes of such vast numbers of people depend on the efficient running of irrigation, if we did not do everything in our power to see that the Secretary of State still retains control of that vital service. I support the Amendment.
    7.35 p.m.
    Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: I was very surprised to hear the Secretary of State at the end of his speech state that this question of recruitment for the irrigation services was not a matter of principle, and that there was no difference of opinion between those who supported the Amendment and those who supported the Bill. I could not understand that statement, because it is fundamentally a matter of principle in the Amendment, as to whether we shall or shall not continue to have in the irrigation service in India a continuation of a proportion of English officials. I consider that it is definitely a question of principle. The principle which obtains at present, that European officials shall continue, will be done away with under the Bill. The whole basis of the irrigation service, the efficiency, integrity, good administration, and freedom from the corruption and bribery which, unfortunately, undoubtedly
    616
    exist in India as in other places, is lessened because of the English element in the service, and those who support the Amendment feel very keenly that if we eliminate the English official from the irrigation service, there is no question that the administration of that service will go down.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State also said that this was an experiment. If that experiment should fail, the results of that failure would be disastrous to the welfare of millions of people. Some 270,000,000 people are dependent for one-quarter of their food on the efficiency of the administration of this irrigation service, and 60,000,000 cultivators are directly dependent upon it for their livelihood, and I do not consider this Committee is justified in sanctioning an experiment being made in the irrigation service. We have no right to make an experiment as regards this service. It is entirely due to British engineers and British capital that we have built up what is one of the greatest boons and blessings to the people of India and a bulwark against the recurrent famines from which India has suffered in the past. We have no right to take the risk that such a state of affairs might be brought about again, either partially or to a very great extent due to the lowering of the efficiency of this irrigation service. We feel most strongly that it is absolutely essential that the English officials should be continued in the irrigation service.
    Evidence has been given from various parts of the Committee this evening in support of that contention, and the evidence given by irrigation and forest department officials was very definite on that point. The Statutory Commission and the Joint Select Committee were in favour of it, although they did not recommend that it should be put into the Bill. They realised the risk, but, as the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) said, it was really a political question which decided their recommendation that this matter of the appointments to the irrigation service should be transferred to the Provinces. That is not a very good argument when the results of a failure in the irrigation service would be so disastrous to the people of India, and I do not think we have any right to take that risk.
    7.40 p.m.
    Sir MURDOCH MACDONALD: What
    offends me is that in the actual Clause of the Bill, not in the Amendment now being discussed, the irrigation service should not be, equally with the Indian medical service, put under the Secretary of State, but apart from that point as to whether one service or another should be reserved, I think I can agree with the Secretary of State that it would be very wrong to take out of the hands of the people of India the control of the irrigation service. If I understood the Under-Secretary rightly, British subjects will still be appointed to these services, at least for quite a number of years to come, because, as I understand it, the appointments will fall under a board, and the actual Governments themselves, while asking for recruits, will get them through this particular board on which there will still be a certain number of English people, and, as a consequence, the service will be recruited very much in the normal manner as it has been in the past.
    As to the special case referred to by the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), where communities exist in an area which are totally at variance with each other, there I can understand a great difficulty will arise if the members of the service controlling, say, the water supply are wholly of one religion. But is that at all likely to follow? I can imagine the present colleges of India turning out young recruits, and I do not suppose that in those 'colleges they look for a moment at what their religion is. They are turned out on their merits, and they will be seconded to the various Provincial Governments and put into positions in the various irrigation services arid it is not at all likely that any Provincial Government will insist on all its staff being of one particular religion, notwithstanding the fact that there might be a very strong majority of people of a different religion from whom that staff has been recruited, so that the particular point that my right hon. and gallant Friend was attempting to make I do not think really holds water.
    In the case of the country with which I have been associated for very many years, namely, Egypt, I have been trying while sitting here to think if I ever heard of a Christian being oppressed by a
    618
    Mohammedan in regard to his water supply, and never once do I recollect having heard of such a case. There are Christians in the irrigation service in Egypt, although the country is very largely—14 to one, I think—Mohammedan, and these officers rise up in the service and some of them whom I know personally now occupy very responsible posts. There is no differentiation as far as I know made between them.
    There is no ordinary likelihood of a, breakdown in an irrigation service being caused by corruption. Corruption depends entirely upon the question of whether or not there is an adequate supply of water. Whenever there is an adequate supply of water, there is little or no possibility in the lower ranks of anybody doing anything to help one particular person or hinder another. When there is an adequate supply of water everybody must get their fair share and the people who control the water cannot just help whom they please. I have known in Egypt of difficulties arising when there has been a shortage of water. I remember a very high authority in Egypt asking me if I controlled the irrigation service. I replied, "Well, I think I do." He replied, "No, you do not." He further said, "Do you think the inspector-generals control it; they do not?" He went through the list from the inspectors down the various ranks until he came to the people who turn the smallest valve, and he said they control the water supply, and I have to pay them when water is short to get a supply.
    In the case of India I have no doubt that exactly the same thing will arise. In Egypt that form of corruption was not controllable even at the time when there were plenty of English people on the staff. The English staff kept the senior Egyptian staff right and helped to keep them right. I must say this for the Egyptians, that during the long years that I was connected with Egypt, only two senior Egyptian officials were accused of doing anything that they ought not to have done in regard to their work. So far as the irrigation service in Egypt was concerned, the real trouble was, and is, and always will be, that when there is a shortage of water there will be corruption in the lower ranks and in the very humblest servants of the irrigation service. I believe that that also would be the case in India.

    619
    As to the necessity for the Secretary of State controlling the irrigation service, it is not apparent to me why he should do so. If for a number of years to come there is an adequate number of English engineers added to the service, to help the senior men and to advise on new schemes, and India is only partially completed yet so far as irrigation is concerned. Egypt is about two-thirds complete. In view of the work that has to be done in India, I hope that the Secretary of State will see that there is a strong irrigation service maintained. He has taken power in Clause 244 to see that a sufficient number of efficient people are employed in the irrigation service. I feel, therefore, satisfied with what the Secretary of State has said this evening. So long as I understand from him that the local Governments of India will depend on the Civil Service Commission to appoint the men and to select them, there is no reason why he should interfere except a serious breakdown should take place, when his duty would be to step in and see that an efficient service was secured.
    7.49 p.m.
    Sir H. CROFT: Can my right hon. Friend give us an indication that he will be able to meet the general idea that has been put forward on the Report stage. If so my friends and I will endeavour not to prolong the discussion.
    Sir S HOARE: I would repeat what I said earlier, that I am ready to look into the question of method. By that I mean that I will consider the proposal that the Secretary of State should make recruitment of officers, and should be responsible for their subsequent careers. I must, obviously, consult the Government of India. However, I am prepared to look into the matter with an open mind, and in view of what I have said I hope the Committee will accept the assurance from me that I am prepared to look into it sympathetically.
    Mr. DONNER: In view of the assurance given by the Secretary of State that he will look into the matter between now and the Report stage, I have no desire to press the Amendment.
    7.50 p.m.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not wish to prolong the discussion but this is one of the most frightful responsibilities that the
    620
    House of Commons has ever been asked to take, in my experience. I am not in the least bit moved by the extremely well-informed and weighty speech of the hon. Member for Inverness (Sir M. Macdonald). The fact is that one-fourth of the food of India is grown on artificial irrigation and that of the 353,000,000 who live in India more than 100,000,000 have been brought into existence during the last 50 years. Now you are taking a step which although it may seem quite safeguarded for the first few years, undoubtedly means the jeopardising of that service and its efficiency.
    Sir S. HOARE Sir S. HOARE indicated dissent.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I do not know whether he will live long enough to see the results, I hope he may, and I hope they will not be what I think they will be. This is a step more fraught with peril to the lives of 100,000,000 of people than any that the House of Commons has taken. It is against the advice of the Statutory Commission.
    Sir S. HOARE: No.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think it is so. I have read their very clear statement on the subject. Undoubtedly you are going to take upon your shoulders the responsibility of undermining the means by which these new-come millions get their new-found food. You are doing that. It is only part of the general wreckage. It is only part of this vast process of liquidation of what Britain has done in India. What can we do on these benches. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) has said that we will submit and not press this matter to a division because the Secretary of State used some words, words which may mean anything or may mean nothing.
    Sir S. HOARE: Then why do you not divide
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is not for me to decide whether I will divide. The right hon. Gentleman has used certain words which we understand will mean some reconsideration. It is little enough of concession that we get. It is rarely that we get the slightest suggestion made that there will be any response to the arguments we put forward, but on this occasion the Secretary of State has said that

    621
    he will consider the matter again with an open mind, and he even went so far as to say that he would consider it sympathetically. That may be a reason for our not dividing but it is no reason for any man in this House who holds the views which some of us hold bearing in the slightest degree the responsibility which rests upon those who are, in my opinion, tearing to pieces the under pillar upon which the lives of the Indian masses depend.
    7.54 p.m.
    Earl WINTERTON: I should not have taken part in this Debate except for the closing words of the right hon. Gentleman. I consider that he has made a most serious charge against the Indian people; a charge of a most wounding and injurious character. He began by saying, quite truly, that this matter concerns some 100,000,000 of the Indian people and he then went on to argue that the entrusting of responsibilities to Indian hands will ipso facto undermine the whole fabric of the irrigation system of India. Has ever a more serious charge been made against any people? I do not recollect in the history of this House to have heard against even an enemy of the British Empire a more wounding charge than that which the right hon. Gentleman has made against our fellow subjects in India, by suggesting that they are so corrupt, so incompetent, so inefficient that if they are entrusted with this great charge they will undermine the whole fabric of India. Is that the way in which good will between Great Britain and India is being endangered by opponents of this Bill?
    We have every reason to protest, and for this reason, that before the right hon. Gentleman's speech we had just heard an address from the greatest authority on irrigation in this House, the hon. Member for Inverness (Sir M. Macdonald), whose whole life has been devoted to this subject. In words which are memorable he described how the irrigation system worked in Egypt and said that in the whole of his recollection of that system he only remembered a few cases where any servants of the irrigation service in Egypt had failed in their duty.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT Mr. ISAAC FOOT rose—
    Earl WINTERTON: The hon. Member is in the habit of interrupting even when he agrees. It is a growing habit. I was
    622
    not referring to him, but to my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill. I do deplore the speech which my right hon. Friend has just made. I do not think that it is going to help either the administration of this Bill when it becomes an Act or the relationship between this country and India. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a perfectly fair offer which I understood was accepted by an hon. Member who is associated with my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping in connection with the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has promised to look into the question of whether recruiting for the irrigation service shall be in the hands of the Secretary of State. Surely, we can leave the matter there until the Report stage.
    Duchess of ATHOLL Duchess of ATHOLL rose—
    7.59 p.m.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Islington, West, (Mr. Donner) said that he did not wish to press the Amendment, and, in view of that fact and the fact that we have spent a considerable time on the discussion, I think we might dispose of the matter now.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I merely want to ask a question of the Secretary of State, because we are not quite clear on a certain matter. We are very grateful to him for saying that he will look again into the extremely important question of British recruitment for irrigation. Is he prepared also to look into the question of the continuance of British recruitment for the forest services?
    Sir S. HOARE: What I said about the forests was that I would look into the possibility as to putting a paragraph in about central recruitment on the lines of the Joint Select Committee. Further than that I cannot go.
    8.1 p.m.
    Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: The Noble Lord has protested against the insult offered by the opponents of this Bill to the people of India.
    Earl WINTERTON: I never said anything of the sort. The hon. Gentleman must really not misunderstand me.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Do not interrupt.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: It is becoming a habit.
    Earl WINTERTON: He made a direct reference to me, and I made no direct reference to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot). I was going to say that the hon. Gentleman has no right to say that I stated that Movers of the Amendment had insulted the people of India. I said the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) had made a serious charge, and J confined it to him.
    Mr. SOMERVILLE: My recollection was that the expression used by the Noble Lord was "the opponents of the Bill."
    Earl WINTERTON: No, and I never used the word "insult."
    Mr. SOMERVILLE: What we were hoping to gain by this Amendment was to ensure that a sufficient supply of efficient experts would be available for these services and more particularly for the irrigation service. There is a doubt in the minds of Indians themselves whether they can supply a sufficient number of efficient personnel. I was very pleased to hear the response of the Secretary of State to the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy).
    Amendment negatived.
    8.3 p.m.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: I beg to move, in page 128, line 30. to leave out "Secretary of State," and to insert "Governor-General."
    I have listened patiently to the last half-hour's discussion on the other side, and I felt very much like the Irishman asking the old question, "Is this a private quarrel, or may anyone else join in?" The only one who has ventured to say one modest word immediately had his head almost bitten off in what seemed a most undeserved way.
    Earl WINTERTON: Take care you do not get yours bitten off.
    Mr. JONES: May I venture now to direct the attention of the Committee to the Amendment I have in my own name and in those of my hon. Friends? May I ask, Captain Bourne, whether I may take together this Amendment and the other two Amendments—in page 128, line 32—to leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Governor-General," and in
    624
    line 41, to leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Governor-General"?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think it is obvious that these three Amendments cover the same point and the same applies to the next Clause. The point is whether the appointment should be in the hands of the Secretary of State in this country or the Governor-General in India.
    Mr. JONES: I am much obliged. In the three Sub-sections of the Clause the Secretary of State is made responsible—in the first Sub-section for the appointments to the Indian Civil service, the medical service and the police service; in the second Sub-section he is to make appointments to those civil posts that will be held in connection with the discharge of the Governor-General's responsibilities; and in the third Subsection it will be the responsibility of the Secretary of State to determine the respective strengths of the services. The point that we are making is short and quite clear, namely, as to whether that responsibility should be exercised by the Secretary of State in this country or by the Governor-General in India. I do not at this point want to enter into the larger issue as to whether the Provincial Governments or the Federal Government should have a much larger voice in these appointments than will, in fact, be the case under the operation of this Bill if it is carried as it now stands. That is another issue entirely.
    The point that we are raising is a more limited one, as to whether it would be more appropriate that the Governor-General should make the appointments than that the Secretary of State should make them. The Secretary of State, some time ago, in reply to a speech which I did not myself hear, made the observation that it really is a limited point, a more restricted point, and with that I entirely agree. Throughout the discussion on the previous Amendment, expression has been given constantly to the sentiment that the Indian people will not be fit to discharge this or that function. If I were moving on this occasion that the Provincial Governments or the Federal Government were to exercise this responsibility, I should controvert the argument used on the previous Amendments, but what is the merit of our proposal? In practice I suppose

    625
    there is not very much difference between the appointment by the Secretary of State and the appointment by the Governor-General. The chief merit of our proposal is that when the appointments are made by the Governor-General, the responsibility does remain in India, and it is not exercised in this country. In practice, perhaps, there is not very much in it, but it must have a very different psychological appeal to the Indian people when the appointments are made by the Governor-General rather than by the Secretary of State. I am assuming that what in practice will happen will be that the Secretary of State, who will be 6,000 miles away from India, will naturally not know very much about the characteristics and the competence of the various people who apply for these posts. He must, to a very considerable extent, rely upon the advice he gets from India as to the type of work which has to be done and the functions which have to be discharged. Indeed, should imagine that in so far as it applies to Indian applicants, he must rely upon advice as to their suitability as well as upon the Governor-General.
    It is true that in the case of applicants from Britain who want to enter Indian service, perhaps the Secretary of State would be in a better position than the Governor-General, because the Governor-General would then be 6,000 miles away, but it seems to me that on merits, so far as determining the suitability of the candidates for particular posts is concerned, the Governor-General would be in just as favourable a position, to put it no higher, as the Secretary of State himself. There is the second section, the recruitment to the Governor-General's staff, that is to say, that cartel of people to fill the civil posts connected with the discharge of the Governor-Generals special responsibilities. Why should the Secretary of State in this country be better able to determine who are most suitable people to discharge that function than the Governor-General would be 2 Clearly, on the face of it, the Governor-General would be much better able to do that than the Secretary of State. Lastly, what special grounds would there be for insisting that the respective strengths of these services should be determined by the Secretary of State? Why should this problem be determined here in London rather than by the Governor-General?
    626
    As a matter of practice in the operation of the function of appointment I see nothing to justify the reservation of the appointment to the Secretary of State as compared with the Governor-General. On the other hand, there is the additional merit in favour of our Amendment of the psychological effect produced on the Indian people by reserving the appointment in India. Clearly the sum total of advantage lies in our Amendment rather than in favour of the proposal of the Bill as it stands.
    The principle is very narrow, but I would like to make this appeal to the Committee. I have sat here day after day listening to all sorts of arguments, and I have seen this reservation and that reservation, this service gone and that service gone, and I am beginning to wonder what in the mind of the Government themselves the Indian people are deemed fit to exercise. If you are some day hoping to see these Indian people discharging this function of self-government efficiently, you really must capture their good will. You cannot do it if you keep on frittering away these little details of functions here and there, and making them feel that though you are ostensibly giving them some form of home rule, in practice you are reserving these things to people from this country. I cannot imagine that the reservation to the Secretary of State of these functions, as laid down in this Clause, can have any other meaning or intention than to make quite sure that the proportion of Britishers in these services is not to be reduced below a certain figure. That may be a point of view that hon. Members on the other side think defensible. but I think it is indefensible, because for me, if I may borrow a phrase which sometimes is used by the Secretary of State, the outward and visible sign of self-government, after all, is that they have a, larger share in determining the personnel of those who manage the various services in the land. I am not actually urging in this Amendment that the Federal Government or the Provincial Governments should do so. I am asking that if you will not grant that, at least leave the appointment itself in India, even if it cannot be discharged by the Governor-General. I think I have conveyed the intention that we have at the back of our Amendment.
    8.14 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLER: The Committee, I think, will appreciate very readily the point which has been put so clearly by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), and they will sympathise with him for the time he has had to sit listening to what he regards as a domestic quarrel. I can assure him that it was a matter of extreme importance—
    Mr. JONES: All family quarrels are.
    Mr. BUTLER: The hon. Member wishes that the recruitment for the All-India services should be in the hands of the Governor-General. I take it from his speech that the Amendment should read, "the Governor-General in his discretion." He does not mean that the Governor-General in this case should act on the advice of his Ministers.
    Mr. JONES: It will not, of course, surprise the Under-Secretary if I say that we should prefer "the Governor-General acting on the advice of his Ministers." As we cannot get that we take the next best thing—"the Governor-General in his discretion."
    Mr. BUTLER: We have to choose one or other, and I am obliged to choose that hon. Members mean "the Governor-General in his discretion," as that was the sense of the hon. Member's speech. The hon. Member is suggesting something which the Joint Select Committee regarded as being a question of form rather than of substance. In reality the "Governor-General in his discretion" would be the representative of the Secretary of State; he would be performing the office of recruiting for the All-India services for the Secretary of State. The Amendment does not go as far as the memorandum of the Joint India Delegation which took up the point which was considered in some detail by the Joint Select Committee and the hon. Gentleman discards what was desired in the memorandum, that the officers under the Federal Government should be recruited by the Federation and that the officers under the Provincial Governments should be recruited by the Provincial Governors.
    Mr. JONES: We desired to move the Amendment in the sense that the Governor-General should act on the advice of his Ministers, and I was only discussing what is set out in the event
    628
    of the hon. Member not being able to accept it.
    Mr. BUTLER: I think we are now clear as to what the hon. Member desires. It being really a question of form rather than of substance, the Amendment does not assume the importance it might if it had been definitely a case of transferring this recruitment to the hands of Indian Ministers. However, the hon. Member raised some important points. He considered that it would be more convenient for the Governor-General on the spot in India to recruit these essential services, and that this would in fact give greater confidence in India. If this were really an Amendment under which the Governor-General in his discretion did the recruiting of the All-India staff, I do not think Indians would consider that the position was very much different from that which we suggest, that the Secretary of State should recruit and control the conditions of the services. We envisage it from the point of view of securing the best men to serve India in the future, as indeed they have done in the past, and we are obliged to take the advice of the Joint Select Committee. We consider that you will get the type of officer required more successfully if you recruit these All-India services through the Secretary of State, and let him control their conditions of service. If it were thought it would result in any ill-feeling in India, I could understand the wish to adopt the other course, but if you refer to the testimony of the Lee Commission on the services in India and to the Statutory Commission, you will find that they tell us of the loyalty with which members of the All-India services have served Provincial Governments, and, in the transferred services, how they have done their duty in the way that we should expect. Judging from experience, there has been no difficulty at all, and the minimum of friction is evidenced by the fact that members of the All-India services have served under Indian ministers and Indian Provincial Governments. By adhering to the provisions of the Bill, we see no future grounds of difficulty. After the visit of the Lee Commission to India and in the years following certain services were transferred for recruitment to Indian authorities. It is proposed in the Bill to reserve three main services: the Indian Civil Service, the India. Medical Ser-

    629
    vice and the Indian Police. We regard these services as absolutely vital to the future of India, they have vital tasks to perform, and in order to fulfil these tasks we must adhere to the form of recruitment suggested in the Bill.
    Let me deal with two other points in answer to the hon. Member's speech. I think it would be a mistake, at a time when we are introducing such vast changes in the Government of India, to make this immense change as well. Certain services have been transferred; we intend these three important services should remain. Following the advice we have received, we consider that it would be a mistake to make another big change in the method of recruiting at a time when we are making these changes in the government of India. There is no question of absolute finality in our decision. The Joint Select Committee recommended that after a certain period there should be an inquiry into the operations of these services. I will not develop that point, because presumably we shall have an opportunity of discussing the matter on a later Clause which provides the necessary machinery to operate any future change which is made. There is, therefore, this provision for a future inquiry. On the strength of this future inquiry, because it would be a pity to make an abrupt change when there has been no ill will or difficulty in the All-India services serving under the Indian Government, and because it will lead to greater efficiency, I shall have to refuse the Amendment.
    8.23 p.m.
    Major MILNER: I am rather disappointed at the speech of the Under-Secretary. He knows that there is great attraction to the Indian mind in something that is done in the same form in India as it is done in this country. When I was in India I met a number of well-educated men who had the OFFICIAL REPORT sent out to them, and who knew a great deal more of what was going on in this country than a great number of people in this country. The real significance of the Amendment is to make sure that these appointments, if only in form, are made by the responsible Governor-General in India and not by the Secretary of State in this country. I have referred on previous occasions to the objections which Indians have to so-called government from Whitehall. It is a real
    630
    and substantial objection, and I sympathise with it very strongly. If these appointments are made by the Governor-General in his discretion, although he makes them under the direction of the Secretary of State, the Indian public will think that a, considerable concession has been made to their point of view. They will feel that greater regard will be paid by the Governor-General to their interests than is likely to be paid by the Secretary of State, although the Secretary of State will still be advised by the Governor-General in these appointments. I should have preferred, and my party would have preferred, that these appointments should be made by the Governor-General in the case of the Federal Government or by the Governors in the case of any of the Provincial Governments. But there was no point in moving the Amendment in that form. As there is no possibility of the Government agreeing to these particular appointments being made either by the Governor-General on the advice of his Ministers, or by a Governor in the case of a Provincial Government on the advice of his Ministers, my hon. Friend moved the Amendment in the form in which it is before us, desiring that the appointments should be made by the Governor-General in the exercise of his discretion.
    I do not know whether or not there is any likelihood of the Under-Secretary reporting to the Secretary of State the feeling of those on this side of the Committee, which I should have thought the Under-Secretary would have felt was the-right one in the eyes of the Indian public. I hope that my hon. Friend will go to a Division on this matter if same indication is not given that the matter is likely to receive consideration. I always recollect what happened on an occasion when I desired to recommend an-individual for appointment, not to a post but to a certain list. I inquired from the appropriate Government Department whether they were in a position to put this individual on the list. I was told by the Department, "Oh, no, we have. nothing to do with it at all. The appointments are made by So-and-So," and they mentioned a high functionary outside. I asked, "How does the high. functionary know the right man to appoint "The answer was, "If you press the point, the high functionary does not know; he has to refer the matter back to us." I wrote

    631
    and made my recommendation to the high functionary, who took the advice of the Government Department concerned and the gentleman was appointed.
    That is a ridiculous and roundabout way of dealing with a matter, but it is precisely what is likely to take place in these appointments. An appointment, according to the Bill, is to be made by the Secretary of State. Except in the case of a few appointments from this country, where examinations may be held, the Secretary of State has no knowledge whatever of the respective capacities of those who are to
    undertake the duties. He therefore refers back to the Governor-General, who will make inquiries as to the Indian competitors or applicants and will advise the Secretary of State accordingly, and the Secretary of State will then appoint. That is an absurd way of doing the thing, and one which of necessity cannot appeal to the Indians.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 193; Noes, 30.

    Division No. 143.]

    AYES.

    [8.30 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Gluckstein, Louis Halls

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Unlver'ties)

    Albery, Irving James

    Granville, Edgar

    Morrison, William Shepherd

    Alien, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Mulrhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

    Apsley, Lord

    Greene, William P. C.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Grimston, R. V.

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Bailey, Eric Alfred George

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Pearson, William G.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)

    Penny, Sir George

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Hartland, George A.

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n)

    Petherick, M.

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Bernays, Robert

    Haslam, Henry (Horn castle)

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Blaker, Sir Reginald

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Radford, E. A.

    Blindell, James

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Braithwalte, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Hornby, Frank

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Burnett, John George

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

    Remer, John R.

    Butler, Richard Austen

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

    Rlckards, George William

    Cadogan, Hon Edward

    Jamleson, Douglas

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

    Jennings, Roland

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Wood bridge)

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)

    Jones. Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Cazalet, Thelma (lslington, E.)

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Salt, Edward W.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Kirkpatrick, William M.

    Samuel, M. R. A. (W' ds' wth, Putney).

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Sandys, Duncan

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark. Bothwell)

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Leckle, J. A.

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

    Lewis, Oswald

    Smiles, Lieut,-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Croom-Johnson R. P.

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Smithers, Sir Waldron

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

    Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Lovat,-Fraser, James Alexander

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Dickle, John P.

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Donner, P. W.

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Spens, William Patrick

    Doran, Edward

    Mac Andrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Patrick)

    Stevenson, James

    Dunglass, Lord

    McConnell, Sir Joseph

    Storey, Samuel

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Strickland. Captain W. F.

    Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

    McLean, Dr. W. H.(Tradeston)

    Sutcllffe, Harold

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Magnay, Thomas

    Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n,S.)

    Fleming, Edward Lascelles

    Maitland, Adam

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Fremantle, Sir Francls

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Fuller, Captain A.G.

    Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Meller, Sir Richard James

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Waterhouse. Captain Charles

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Gledhill, Gilbert

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

    Weymouth, Viscount

    White, Henry Graham

    Wise, Alfred R.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Womersley, Sir Walter

    Captain Sir George Bowyer and

    William, Herbert G, (Croydon, S.)

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Major George Davies.

    Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

    NOES.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Batey, Joseph

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Cleary, J. J.

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Milner, Major James

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Daggar, George

    John, William

    Thorne, William James

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Davies, Stephen Owen

    Lawson, John James

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Dobbie, William

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    Lunn, William

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Mr. Groves and Mr. Paling.

    Resolutions agreed to.

    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    8.38 p.m.
    Wing-Commander JAMES: I apologise to the Secretary of State for protracting the discussion on this Clause but I wish to take this opportunity of getting information upon a rather important matter. When we were considering Clause 11 the right hon. Gentleman told us that the Governor-General could have any staff he wanted to enable him to carry out his special responsibilities in respect of the protection of minorities, and I believe that the functioning of that staff can be discussed or at any rate referred to on Sub-section (2) of this Clause. I wish to ask the Secretary of State how he visualises the actual working of a staff appointed by the Governor-General in connection with the special responsibilities which I have mentioned, and perhaps the simplest way of making my point plain and of getting information upon it, would be to indicate the sort of situation which I believe may have to be met.
    Not only in Clause 11 of the Bill but also in paragraph 11 of the Instruments of Instruction to Governors and Governors General it is made clear that the special responsibility of the Governor extends to the safeguarding of the rights of racial minorities, and I wish to know how this responsibility would apply in the case of primitive tribes. Purely for purposes of illustration and elucidation of the kind of situation with which I w ant the right hon. Gentleman to deal I would ask the Committee to suppose that it has been reported to the Governor-General that there is oppression of a primitive minority, say in the Central Provinces. No doubt there will be plenty of busybodies like myself or the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood)
    634
    who are interested in these matters, and by whom such things will be reported or it may be reported to the Governor-General by the counsellor whom he has perhaps, under Clause 11, detailed specially for this particular duty.
    In such a case, the first thing the Governor-General would do would be to examine the situation for himself. He would find that in that Province—and I repeat I am only using this as an illustration—there were some 4,065,000 odd members of the primitive tribes out of a total population of 15,000,000, and that in the Legislature of that Province they had only one seat out of 112. And that, of course, perfectly useless to them, as the Franchise Committee expected. He would also find that these 4,000,000 people had no direct measure of protection by exclusion or partial exclusion, that is to say that the ordinary law made by caste people for caste people was running in the Province. That is a supposition which at the present stage of the Bill is not unwarrantable, although I hope it may be corrected later in the Bill. Suppose that the people whom I have described were being oppressed—not a wide assumption in view of the past record of that Province. For example, one remembers the liquor laws of 1921, and the question of labour recruitment in which no doubt, hon. Members opposite take a great interest.
    The Governor-General faced with that situation might also be faced—again not an unwarrantable assumption in view of past history—with a Government in that Province which is at best negligent of, or at worst actively hostile to the interests of those people and therefore unwilling to act on its own initiative. The Governor-General would then feel obliged to make special appointments under Subsection (2) of this Clause in connection

    635
    with the exercise of his responsibility. How does the Secretary of State visualise the situation which would then develop? How will the appointments be made; and, when they have been made, how, in these circumstances, can the holders of those appointments be expected to carry out their functions?
    8.43 p.m.
    Sir S. HOARE: I am not sure how far the hon. and gallant Member's question is relevant to this Clause, but as you, Sir Dennis, have allowed him to put the question I will give the answer. The answer is that in the case of an excluded area—
    Wing-Commander JAMES Wing-Commander JAMES rose—
    Sir S. HOARE: I gather from my hon. and gallant Friend's attitude that that is not what he wants me to deal with, and I will stop at once. I will deal only with the case of the scattered aborigines in a Province like the Central Provinces.
    Wing-Commander JAMES: But at least half the primitive tribes in the Central Provinces are in homogeneous blocks.
    Sir S. HOARE: In any event, the answer is that the Governor, in a case like that, would act under his special responsibility and would see that a sympathetic official was posted to deal with the situation.

    CLAUSE 234.—(Special provision as to irrigation.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    8.47 p.m.
    Viscount WOLMER: I understand that you are not, Sir Dennis, selecting any Amendments on this Clause. Certain Amendments which were put down on the Order Paper raised an important point which I think it necessary I should raise on the question, "That the Clause stand part." I was here when my right hon. Friend gave his promise to look further into some of these matters, but we put down this series of Amendments in order to widen the scope of the Clause.
    Sir S. HOARE: I have dealt with those points on the previous Clause.
    Viscount WOLMER: If I am trespassing on a subject which was dealt with when I was not here, I will not pursue the matter further.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendments to which the Noble Lord refers were specially mentioned in connection with the Amendment on the previous Clause when that Amendment was called and it was arranged that the discussion of the Amendment on this Clause should take place on that Amendment to the earlier Clause.

    CLAUSE 2–35.—(Reserved posts.)
    8.49 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, in page 129, line 15, to leave out, "are normally," and to insert:
    "subject to the provisions of this subsection, are."
    The Committee will see that the conditions under which persons other than the Secretary of State's men shall have reserved posts are to be prescribed by rules which will deal exhaustively with the matter. Therefore the words:
    "which are normally to be filled by persons appointed by the Secretary of State."
    are not only unnecessary but might be misleading in that they might suggest that there was some other standard than that prescribed by the rules.
    Amendment agreed to.
    8.50 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 129, line 25, after "Appointments," to insert "and postings."
    Viscount WOLMER: Are we not to have a word of explanation, as this is a new point.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The Noble Lord is quite right; this is a different point. As the Clause is drafted at present, it deals simply with appointments and says that they are to be made by the Governor-General in his individual judgment, or by the Governor in his individual judgment, as the case may be. It was always intended that appointments should include postings, which in one sense are appointments subsequent to the original appointments,

    637
    but in case anybody should take "appointments" as simply referring to the initial appointments, it is proposed to insert the word "postings."
    8.51 p.m.
    Viscount WOLMER: Can the Solicitor-General explain what is involved in the word "postings"? I notice that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) has an Amendment which, I understand, is not likely to be called, which seeks to put in the words"—
    "and the promotion, posting, transfer, orders relating to leave, and suspension of persons occupying the said posts."
    I should have thought that those particulars which my, hon. and learned Friend wishes are really covered by the word "postings," but I should like to have an assurance from the Solicitor-General on that point.
    8.52 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: We think that the Amendment in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) goes too far. "Orders relating to leave and suspension of persons" cover a very wide field. What we desire to keep within the purview of this Clause are appointments and postings. We certainly intend to include transfers, and we are considering whether the word "postings" would include transfers. If there is any doubt about it, we will include "transfers" at a later stage.
    Viscount WOLMER: Would it include promotions?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Yes, it would. That is our intention, and we will consider whether the words "appointments and postings," with the addition of "transfers," include promotions, because it is our intention that they should.
    Mr. SPENS: May I express a word of thanks to my hon. and learned Friend. I agree that the word "postings" should include promotions, but it was too much to hope that orders relating to leave would be put in the Bill. If my hon. and learned Friend will make sure that whatever words are put in they include promotions, everyone will be satisfied.
    8.53 p.m.
    Viscount WOLMER: I understand that it is the intention of the Government to
    638
    include appointments, promotions, postings and transfers, but not "orders relating to leave and suspension of persons occupying the said posts." I understand that the men serving in the Indian Civil Service attach the greatest importance to the latter words. While they accept with gratitude what the Government are doing by their Amendment, I am authorised to state that in the view of the Services it does not go far enough. Their view is that unless these words are put in, the position of a civil servant might be made very difficult by unreasonable orders in these respects. They have not confidence that in certain circumstances those particular conditions of their existence would be equitably dealt with. May I ask the Secretary of State whether representations have been made to him to that effect, and what was his reply to the point?
    Sir S. HOARE: This is certainly one of the points that some o the service associations have raised. We feel that really we are covering the whole position and that, in the case of unfair conditions being imposed upon a civil servant about leave, the case would be certain to come to the Governor-General. Under Clause 237 there is a series of provisions whereby he can make his case known to the Governor-General or the Governor, who, in the case of his own services, can deal with it under the powers be has in connection with his own services. In the case of the other Services, it would come under his general powers of safeguarding the interests of those Services. We think that Clauses 236 and 237 are an effective safeguard.
    Viscount WOLMER: On both those points the Services have been turned down?
    Sir S. HOARE: We think they are met in the way I have stated.
    8.56 p.m.
    Sir R. CRADDOCK: 'With reference to what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, I do not know whether he realises what a very dangerous thing it may be if a power of suspension is used against an officer without due discretion, or summarily and in haste, by reason of the penalties which suspension carries with it. A man who is suspended is not entitled to have more than subsistence

    639
    pay, probably, during his period of suspension, and the investigation of his case may take months and months. There have been many cases in which great hardship has been caused. A man has been suspended, put on subsistence pay and not reinstated until after a long inquiry, which possibly involved proceedings before a court. Ultimately, if he is found not to be guilty, he may get his back pay, but in the meantime he has incurred heavy expenditure while receiving only subsistence pay. If such a man has a wife and children at home it will run him into serious debt. He has to support his wife and children at a time when his pay is barely sufficient for himself, and when he is involved in heavy extra expenses in the effort to clear his character. Therefore, it is most important that when we are reserving to the Government these special powers in regard to discipline that suspension should on no account be left out. There is a great feeling in the Services on this point. They can refer to cases in which men have been suspended for about two years pending an inquiry. The point ought to be reconsidered, because suspension is a powerful weapon in the hands of an enemy or anyone who may make false charges against a man. It may look prima facie as though there were something in those charges and the man may be suspended, and the consideration of his case may be protracted owing to the dilatoriness of the courts or the delays inseparable from a Government office, where a Minister is apt to sit on a case. Therefore, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider this question of suspension.
    8.59 p.m.
    Lord E. PERCY: Surely the way of dealing with suspension is found in Clause 229, Sub-section (2), where it says:
    "No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed from the service of His Majesty by any authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed."
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. SPENS: Do not the questions of suspension and leave, both as regards these reserved posts and the others, come under Clause 237? Is not that an answer to those who say that the words ought to be inserted in this Clause? I had put down an Amendment, but on further
    640
    consideration it seemed to me that both leave and suspension are covered.
    Mr. BUTLER: That is so.
    9.1 p.m.
    Mr. WISE: I wish to add one plea on the point relating to leave. It is true that under Clause 237 any person who is aggrieved by an apparent injustice may have an extremely elaborate inquiry—
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member unfairly, but it seems to me we are almost discussing Clause 237. It might be for the convenience of the Committee, as I think the hon. Member would agree, to deal with these points on Clause 237.
    Mr. WISE: If that is your wish I am prepared to raise the question on Clause 237, but I was not sure whether it would then be in order. What I want to put to the Committee is that under Clause 237 a person has inadequate powers—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now dealing with Clause 237. I am in the hands of the Committee and only want to facilitate business, but I think it will be better to leave this matter till we come to Clause 237.
    Mr. WISE: If I should be in order in raising it on Clause 237 I should be prepared not to deal with it now.
    The CHAIRMAN: Certainly, that would be in order.
    Mr. BAILEY: Would it be possible when discussing Clause 237 to make suggestions for alterations in Clause 235, because it is Clause 235 that we want to get altered?
    The CHAIRMAN: No, the hon. Member knows that when we have passed a Clause we cannot go back to it to make alterations in it. The point is that by the arguments of hon. Members themselves, Clause 237 seems to be the one which deals with this matter much more directly than this Clause. If it should be found necessary to make Amendments in Clause 237 which make it inconsistent with this Clause, any consequential alterations in this Clause could be made on Report Stage.
    Amendment agreed to.
    9.4 p.m.
    Major COURTAULD: I beg to move, in page 129, line 34, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided that any appointment to any such post as aforesaid of a person who is not a subject of His Majesty or the subject of a Ruler of an Indian State Shall be made by the Governor-General acting in his discretion or, as the case may be, by the Governor of a Province acting in his discretion, and no such person shall be appointed unless such person is possessed of special scientific or technical qualifications."
    The object of this Amendment is to ensure as far as possible that a, foreigner can only be appointed to a post in the services by the Governor-General or the Governor of a Province, and that no foreigner shall be appointed unless a British subject with the necessary qualifications is not available. It would, of course, have been easy to put down an Amendment to suggest that no foreigner should be appointed to any post, and that all posts should be confined to subjects of His Majesty or subjects of a ruling Prince, but I think it is agreed that in certain cases foreigners may have to be chosen, as I believe they are already, for special purposes and in respect of special qualifications. The Government will probably agree that we all want, other things being equal, that the maximum number of British subjects shall be chosen to fill vacant posts.
    I dare say that the Labour party will not agree with me. They will no doubt be of opinion that the Indian people should have perfect freedom to choose a foreigner instead of an Englishman, and that the Indians should not be tied down by any order or rule or Act to select subjects of His Majesty. I do not agree with that point of view, and I do not know that the Labour party would agree with it, but I can foresee the argument being raised. From a good many points of view, British subjects should have a monopoly, as far as possible, of posts in the Service in India. The average Englishman is better than the average foreigner. I hope I shall not be accused of insulting any friendly nation in saying that. I think also that because of our previous position in India we have a certain prescriptive right to such posts as are available. I do not think I need labour this point, because I believe that the Government intend the same thing.
    642
    It may be that my ideas and my intention in moving the Amendment could be expressed better or more clearly in other words, and in that case I shall be anxious to hear what my right hon. Friend may say.
    This is an important point, and, if it can be secured with any words whatever, I believe it is advisable that such words should be included. If we could be perfectly certain that the people of India would have so much good will towards the British in the future that they would inevitably choose British subjects to help them in ruling their country, no words would be necessary, but it is often said in India that some people would prefer, if they got the chance, to appoint foreigners than Englishmen. There is much good will in India towards us, but there are certain sections of political opinion which bear us no good will and which would be very pleased if they could use their influence to secure the appointment of a German, or an American, or a Russian to a position, instead of Englishmen.
    9.9 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLER: I think the Committee will appreciate the hon. and gallant Member's point. These reserved posts mentioned in Clause 235 are reserved to the Civil Services recruited by the Secretary of State, and under Sub-section (2) it says:
    "Appointments to the said posts (hereafter in this Part of this Act referred to as reserved posts') shall—
    (a) in the case of posts in connection with the affairs of the Federation, be made by the Governor-General, exercising his individual judgment;"
    and in the same way with the Provinces. In each case the Governor-General or the Governor acts on his individual judgment. It would be impossible to appoint a foreigner to any of these posts without the Secretary of State having first appointed a foreigner to the Indian Civil Service, and the Governor-General, if he had appointed a foreigner, exercising his individual judgment. It is not our intention that the Secretary of State should appoint a foreigner to the Civil Service. If I give my hon. and gallant Friend an assurance that we shall see that that is carried out in the Bill, I hope that he will not press his Amendment.
    Major COURTAULD: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    9.10 p.m.
    Mr. RAIKES: I beg to move, in page 129, line 34, at the end, to insert:
    "(3) The provisions of the last preceding Sub-section shall apply to any person appointed by the Secretary of State in Council, or by the Secretary of State, to a civil service of, or civil post under, the Crown in India notwithstanding that such person is not for the time being holding a reserved post."
    This is little more than a drafting Amendment. One realises that the number of reserved posts will be very considerable, but it is possible that they may not cover all the officers appointed by the Secretary of State. The object of the Amendment is to suggest that those officers who will be over, pending their advance to reserved positions, should he given the same protection as other officers who are actually in the reserved posts.
    9.12 p.m.
    Sir S. HOARE: In one or two sentences I think I can show my hon. Friend, first of all, that the Amendment is unnecessary, and, secondly, that it would do harm to the Service if it were passed. We intend that the list of reserved posts shall be comprehensive and shall cover all the officers. Secondly, if this Amendment were incorporated it would have this effect: Suppose that a civilian voluntarily obtained for himself, as very often happens in the Indian medical service, a post in a university, and was also seconded to the Government service. There are conditions connected with the Secretary of State's service of the Crown under which only the Secretary of State may dismiss. The result would be that the university would never make an appointment of that kind. While o he was a professor at the university he would be subject to the conditions of the post, but when that appointment came to an end he would revert to the Government service and he would come under the safeguards connected with the Secretary of State's post. The effect of passing an Amendment of 'this kind making it obligatory that the body which appointed him should be subject to all the Secretary of State's conditions would mean that the university
    644
    would never make an appointment of that kind. The main answer is that all the posts will be covered in the reserved list, and that there will be no Secretary of State man out of it.
    Mr. RAIKES: In view of my right hon. Friend's assurance, I have much pleasure, on this occasion at any rate, in begging to ask leave to withdraw.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made and Question proposed,
    "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    9.14 p.m.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: May I point out that it is possible, as the Clause stands, for the right hon. Gentleman to have abolished some reserved posts before laying any rules in regard to this before the House. I do not know whether I am right, but, if so, does that not seem rather serious from the point of view of the interests of the Service? I would ask my right hon. Friend if it would be possible under rules presented to this House for any reserved posts to be abolished. If so, this might have slipped through and become effective before the Committee had had an opportunity of considering it.
    9.15 p.m.
    Sir S. HOARE: I think it might be possible for the Secretary of State to abolish posts, but it is our intention that the rules shall be made at once, and that is one of the objects of the procedure of this Clause. I am reminded also that if the Secretary of State did abolish any posts he would have to make new posts to replace them.
    9.16 p.m.
    Miss RATHBONE: I want to ask the Secretary of State one or two questions, but I am not sure whether they will come most fitly on this Clause or on the next. However, I propose to ask them on this Clause. In the first place, will it be within the power of the Secretary of State under this or the next Clause to open the Indian Civil Service, or any other of the Services to which he has the power of appointment, to women and, secondly, will it be possible for the Secretary of State to establish a special branch of the Civil Service for women? If the answers to these two questions are in the affirmative, is there any way in which the initiative in the matter can

    645
    be taken by Parliament and a question brought up in Parliament as to whether these services should be open to women? We have already had long discussions during the last few days about the necessity of safeguarding the interests of various other groups of persons, in the railway service, the irrigation service, and so on; but the one set of people whose potentialities of service in India are not in any way safeguarded under the Bill have not been dealt with. It cannot be said that it is for the purpose of safeguarding existing rights, because very little use has been made hitherto of women's services in India; but when in this Bill we are transferring great powers to the Indians themselves we should not forget that we are providing absolutely no safeguards for the interests of women except through the enlarged franchise and a certain number of seats on elected bodies. It is equally important, if the interests of women in all these social matters where it is recognised that women suffer so greatly in India are to be properly safeguarded, that as time goes on increasing use should be made of the services of women.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Lady is going far beyond the Clause.
    Miss RATHBONE: I am sorry if I am doing so, but I want to know exactly where we stand.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am very sorry, but I am afraid it would be improper for me, or at least I am thankful to say not my duty, to advise hon. Members on all occasions as to where they should move Amendments or make speeches. My duty is to tell them when their speeches are improper, and I must on this occasion rule that the hon. Lady is going far beyond the Clause, as she may see from the marginal note.
    Miss RATHBONE: May I explain my position? Clause 235 begins with the words:
    "The Secretary of State shall make rules specifying the number and character of the civil posts under the Crown,"
    and so on. Clause 236 begins:
    "The conditions of service of all persons appointed to a civil service by the Secretary of State shall,"
    and so on. But nowhere in these Clauses or in any other Clause—and I have read them very carefully—can I find any expression which exactly indicates the
    646
    qualifications of the people who are to hold these posts.
    Sir S. HOARE: On a point of Order. May I suggest to you, Sir Dennis, that this question is really quite out. of order on Clause 235, and that, if it did arise, it would arise on Clause 233. My answer in a sentence is that the Secretary of State is free to make appointments of women.
    Miss RATHBONE: Under the Civil Service as it is now constituted, or to create a fresh special branch for women?
    Sir S. HOARE: Certainly.
    9.21 p.m.
    Mr. BAILEY: I should be glad if the Secretary of State would clarify a little Sub-section (3) of Clause 235, in connection with the question which was asked by the Noble Lady just now. What we are troubled about is that Parliament in these days has such an enormous variety of Orders laid before it, and time is so congested, that in practice the laying of an Order before the House of Commons is no security whatever, because not a single Member of Parliament will consider or appreciate its contents. That is why we regard it as fundamental that Orders affecting such safeguards for personnel as remain should not be lightly east aside without full discussion in the House of Commons. We hope there will be no need for repeated alterations, and possibly, if the assent of the House had to be obtained, there would be fewer alterations of an unnecessary character.
    We do not suppose for a moment that the present Secretary of State will require such supervision; we are sure that anything that he does will not in practice require the assent of the House. But, as he has been reminded before, a day may come—we hope it never will—when a Secretary of State sits there who is not animated by the same high principles and the same stern sense of duty in the alteration of these rules as my hon. Friend, and, while we are thankful for the best while we have it, we must provide for the worst. Supposing that a day should come when the then Secretary of State was determined to make radical alterations in the rules, is it not essential that there should be practical control by the House of Commons? At present there is no such practical control. It is not only those who sit on these Benches that would be reassured if my

    647
    right hon. Friend could see his way to reverse the process and provide that the consent of the House must be obtained, rather than that the House may raise objections; it would also reassure those in the Services, who are very anxious as to what their position may be if there should come into power in this country a government lacking in sympathy with them and lacking in Imperial ideas. Therefore, I would appeal to my right hon. Friend to make the alteration which we so much desire.
    9.23 p.m.
    Mr. WISE: I desire to ask your guidance, Sir Dennis. I know you cannot tell us where we should raise these points, but would it be more pleasing to you if questions regarding these Orders were raised on the Question that this Clause stand part, or on the Question that Clause 237 stand part?
    The CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. Member referring to the question on which I ruled some time ago or the question of rules being laid before Parliament?
    Mr. WISE: It is the question on which you ruled before.
    The CHAIRMAN: I have already dealt with that question. I told the hon. Member that he would have an opportunity on Clause 237.
    9.24 p.m.
    Sir S. HOARE: I can explain in a sentence the position with regard to the rules. I suggest to the Committee that it is unnecessary to have an affirmative resolution in this case. I think the House must accept the fact that it cannot possibly attempt itself to administer India. It must trust somebody, and clearly that trust must be exercised with caution. But the caution in this case is the safeguard of the Secretary of State's advisers. He cannot make alterations in the rules without the concurrence of the majority of his advisers, and his advisers are expressly given the obligation of watching Service conditions. I think that my hon. Friend can rest assured that with the concurrence of a body of advisers and the publicity which will be involved in laying these rules on the Table of this House there will be sufficient safeguards.
    9.25 p.m.
    Mr. DAVID MASON: In the last Subsection it states that 28 days is the period during which these rules must remain laid before this House. We know that that is too short a time even in the ordinary course of events in matters dealing with this country. There are many questions here under paragraphs (a)and(b)which involve the Governor-General, and which would take a considerable amount of time. I quite agree with the Secretary of State that we must trust somebody. At the same time, as the rules are subject to this House and as we are responsible we might be given some longer period than 28 days. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind the question whether the time could not be extended a little, having regard to the fact that we have to consider the views of the Governor-General and other authorities in India before finally deciding.

    CLAUSE 236.—(Conditions of service, pensions, etc., of persons recruited by Secretary of State.)
    9.27 p.m.
    Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: I beg to move, in page 130, line 15, to leave out from "Governor-General" to "and" in line 18, and to insert:
    "in the exercise of his individual judgment."
    I gather that civil servants who have been appointed by the Secretary of State are not altogether satisfied with the first part of this Clause. Under Section 1 (a) the rules regarding their pay, leave, and pensions are to be prescribed by the Secretary of State, and with that they are perfectly satisfied. But under Subsection (b) it is laid down that many other things which are very important such as home allowances, travelling allowances, medical attendance and such like may be handed over to the Governor-General to make the rules. That, they do not like so much, but what they really object to is the power of delegating that rule-making power from the Governor-General to subordinates, who may possibly be Indian Ministers. They do not like that; and, therefore, to meet their wishes it would be very much better, if possible, to omit lines 16 and 17 and to put in the words which I suggest.
    9.30 p.m.
    Sir S. HOARE: I suggest to the Committee that there is no need to accept this Amendment. The principle of the Clause is this: We are taking out the important conditions that really matter to an official, namely, pay, leave and pensions, and with reference to those things we say that the Secretary of State must prescribe the rules. With reference to the less important matters, we say in the subsequent paragraphs of the Clause that the Secretary of State has the power to prescribe them if he wishes, but if he wishes to delegate any of them to an Indian Minister or to another authority he can do so. I think that is quite safe, and I think it is a necessary provision. Some of these rules will be of a very detailed character. Some of them will vary constantly. For instance, I am told that travelling allowances, which are meant to be charges for the reimbursement of travelling 'expenses, do change constantly as new methods of communication develop. It would be putting too great an obligation on the Governor to say that he must make rules about all these detailed matters. The Clause leaves him free to make rules if he thinks it necessary. It also leaves him free to delegate his power. I suggest to the Committee that this is really the wise thing to do—to pick out the important rules and to ensure that in these cases the Governor does make the rules; but in the more detailed rules to give him the power of delegation. If my hon. and gallant Friend or any other hon. Member can suggest to me rules equal in importance to the categories mentioned in paragraph (a), we might put something more in that Sub-section but I feel sure there must be the power of delegation.
    Mr. G. NICHOLSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee whether the power to make these rules, having been delegated by the Secretary of State, or the Governor-General or the Governor, can be resumed?
    Sir S. HOARE: Certainly, at any time.
    9.32 p.m.
    Mr. WISE: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has not made entirely clear to the Committee what the Government really mean by this. The Amendment proposes to leave the power of delegation still to the Governor-General, but prescribes that this must be in the exercise
    650
    of his individual judgment. But without the Amendment the power of delegation is in the power of the Ministers who advise the Governor. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, what he really wants to get is purely the power of delegation. Could he not make this concession and allow the Governor or Governor-General to make his delegation without consulting his Ministers? I think that would entirely satisfy those who put forward this Amendment, and would withdraw the thing front the sway of party politics, against which we wish to protect these servants of the Crown.
    9.34 p.m.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: We would really like to know whether, if these words are inserted, the Governor-General or the Governor will have the power in the exercise of their individual government to delegate rule-making power. Will they be perfectly free to withhold the power if they wish to do so? If they have delegated the power, will they have power to require the rules to be submitted to them for final approval? That seems a very important matter. My right hon. Friend spoke of only one of the subjects with which these rules would deal. He mentioned by name the question of travelling allowances, and said that the manner in which such allowances might be assessed might vary from time to time. I am told that such things as house allowance, and perhaps medical treatment, would also be among the rules with which this Clause gives power to deal. Provision for medical treatment and house allowances are not things which are likely to vary in the way that transport may vary. These matters are of great importance. The question of house allowance is a very important pecuniary consideration. It is a considerable part of a man's means. To hand over that power to an Indian Minister without the Governor-General being free to say whether it should be given over or whether any powers should be retained for the approval of any rule is a matter of considerable importance. It is the same with regard to medical treatment. I do not know what it covers, but it is an important matter and a considerable pecuniary consideration. 1 should be very grateful if the right hon. Gentleman could give answers to the questions which I have put, because I do

    651
    not think that the statement which he has made to the Committee completely covers the point.
    9.36 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN: I do not think that that is really the worst of the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at lines 16 and 17, or 20 and 21, he will see that the Governor-General and the Governor might hand over authority to make rules to an Indian official, and it is obvious that very great pressure might be put upon him in those circumstances. He might be compelled to do things under the rule that he would not do if he had acted in the exercise of his own individual judgment. Therefore, I think that the proposed words are really essential. I cannot see any harm in them. That is done to protect civil servants because they would know that whatever rules and regulations were delegated it would be done in the exercise of the individual judgment of the Governor-General or the Governor.
    9.37 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I hope that it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I intervene at this stage. It is worth while, before coming to the particular points which have been raised on this Clause, to make passing reference to the many safeguards in the Bill with respect to conditions of service, emoluments and so on not being impaired below the level of the conditions when the officers received their appointment. Also the special provision with regard to complaints and the special responsibility in the interests of members of the services arc factors in the consideration of this Clause. In considering special points raised on the Clause, I think that the whole Committee will agree that it is undesirable and unnecessary for us to raise or to anticipate conflicts between ministers and the Governor. If you can get adequate safeguards, it is evidently better to contemplate the machine going forward on the main lines.
    In this matter, as the Committee will see in paragraph (b), the Secretary of State has complete power to make rules himself on any conceivable subject, as, for example, house allowances, which are no doubt important. If there are any complaints, or any anticipation that just treatment may not be exercised, the
    652
    Secretary of State has complete power, in any part of the area to be governed by these rules, to step in himself and see that the rights of the servants as provided for by the rules are protected. With that overriding power in the background, we think that it is better that the responsibility should be put upon the Minister in advising the Governor or Governor-General, and, if necessary, in minor matters delegating them to take the responsibility themselves of framing proper rules. If there is any complaint, there is always power in the background for the Secretary of State to step in, and we think that that is better than putting in the words "in the exercise of his individual judgment" to anticipate, to some extent, what would obviously be undesirable. If Ministers did not make proper rules in these matters for their officials and put the responsibility on the Governor it would enable the Ministers to wash their hands of the responsibility. We believe that the position is completely safeguarded, and that everything that has been done in the Bill to safeguard the position is better than the method suggested in the Amendment.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I thought I understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that no officer would have any allowances less than what were due to him when he joined the service. Does the word "remuneration" in the proviso to Clause 236 cover all these various allowances as well as pay?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I did not mean to put that matter too widely, I may have gone too far. I merely wanted to remind the Committee that on the major conditions of service there are—and I do not want textually to tie myself down to what exactly they cover—the broad safeguards that the conditions of service which exist when a man's contract is made are not to be altered to his detriment. I do not want to tie myself down to any particular question of allowances or anything of that kind but I merely thought it right to remind the Committee that there was that safeguard behind these conditions.
    9.41 p.m.
    Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Are we to understand that normally the position is that in formulating these Instruments of Instructions the Governor-General or

    653
    the Governor, as the case may be, acts on the advice of his Ministers as to whether or not he should make a delegation of his duties in some parts, and that the safeguards would be first, the Secretary of State's power to make covering rules over the whole field and, secondly, the Governor-General or the Governor specially responsible with regard to conditions of service. Is that the position?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Textually, that is so.
    Sir A. KNOX: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of amending these three categories of home allowances, travelling allowances and medical attendance by adding them to paragraph (a), that is, to reserve them to the Secretary of State? Would he consider the possibility of 'doing that before the Report stage?
    Sir S. HOARE: I do not think that we could put in lines like travelling allowances. I ask the same question myself and the answer is that it varies almost from week to week and from month to month, and from one place to another, and you could never make a uniform rule. I will look into the other two questions. They do not come into the same categories but I will look into the matter.
    Sir A. KNOX: In view of the explanation which has been given by the Secretary of State, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    9.45 p.m.
    Mr. BAILEY; I beg to move, in page 130, line 28, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided further that no such person as aforesaid who is for the time being suspended from office shall suffer any reduction of pay (unless the Governor-General or the Governor in his discretion otherwise directs) during the period of such suspension until the final order relating to the matter for which he is suspended of the final authority leas been made and any reduction of pay ordered by or after such final order shall not be operative in respect of any period previous to the date of such final order."
    In moving this Amendment, which also stands in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Thorp), I would ask the Government, if they possibly can, to accede to the purpose of the Amendment.
    654
    It is not an Amendment brought forward with any desire to embarrass the Government. It is not one of those Amendments, the origin of which, is in the minds of those of us who are opposing this Measure on these benches. The Amendment proceeds from the deep fear of the sense of peril, if something of the sort is not introduced into the Bill, which exists in the mind of those Civil Servants in India to-day who have been exposed in one way or another to terrorism and so forth. They fear that unless this question of suspension is placed in the hands of the Governor-General or the Governor, in fact suspension will be another word for dismissal, and that when a man has been suspended his case may very well not be heard for several years afterwards. In order to show that this point is no mere figment of the imagination of my hon. Friends and myself, I should like to trouble the Committee with the actual words of the memorial of the Indian Civil Service (Bengal) Association itself. They say:
    "We apprehend that, especially in the peculiar conditions existing in Bengal, under the new Constitution it may be possible for political animus to operate against an officer in such a manner as would, under the existing rules, demand his suspension. Even under present conditions the delay in passing orders in such eases is very considerable, and we feel that in the future such delay may be extended. The existing rate of subsistence allowance is insufficient for an officer to defend himself or to fulfil his obligations to his family, except by borrowing, or spending his savings, if any."
    That is the opinion of the men on the spot, and no amount of soporifics should allow the consciences which I believe exist somewhere among hon. Members who support the Government to be lulled into the belief that the fears of those who will have to face the situation in India when this Bill has become law, if it does become law, are not justified. As has been said many times before, we can only oppose reason to force. We cannot call 200 persons or more from the smoke-room to reinforce our opinions. All we can have is a majority in this Chamber listening to the discussion, but we cannot, as it were, drive reason through a brick wall. I am speaking in a spirit of truth, rather than with any intention to wound the feelings of those who may not be listening to what I am saying. But can we not on this

    655
    one occasion have a concession from the Government, when we are appealling for our fellow countrymen and asking for a concession which experience has shown to be needed? Surely the Minister will be able to see his way to make what is, after all, a very moderate concession. Why should this concession in any way worry the Indian Ministers? Why should it hurt their pride that the Englishman who is suspended should have his case tried?
    I imagine this Amendment will appeal to the sense of justice of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and some of his friends. [An HON. MEMBER: "Get up and bow!"] I do not want any such public demonstration from the right hon. Gentleman, but surely to ask that Englishmen in the civil service in India who are faced with the utmost difficulties, perhaps under ministers who are disloyal, should, if they are suspended, have their cases heard through is not asking anything unreasonable or unjust. If the actual reason of our case does not commend itself to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, I am afraid that no words of ours can, but I would say to the Government that it is taking upon itself a heavy burden of responsibility if it refuses to grant that which those who have experience of the matter in India say ought to be granted, if injustice takes place in the future and if in fact, through the weapon of suspension, the efficiency and even the integrity of the civil service in Bengal is broken up.
    9.50 p.m.
    Sir S. HOARE: My hon. Friend has his own way of making an appeal, I will not say an appeal to our reason, because it is obvious that in his opinion that does not exist, but, apart from the manner of his appeal, let us look at the substance of the Amendment. I am anxious wherever it is possible to leave responsibility on the shoulders of ministers. For good or bad responsibility is the basis of the proposals which we are making, and I think that, provided there are cases which are safeguarded, it is better to leave this responsibility in the first instance with the ministers. I do not see how there can be the kind of delay suggested by my hon. Friend and by the memorialists,
    656
    but I think that neither he nor they have given sufficient attention to Clause 237, which gives these officials a. very effective and prompt way of getting their complaints heard at once by the Governor or the Governor-General.
    I should have thought that Clause 237 really did give the official all the safeguards which he needs in the event of his being unfairly treated by a minister or by a departmental chief. Clause 237, in addition to the Governor's special responsibility for safeguarding the interests of the service, I should have thought was sufficient. The last thing in the world that I wish to do, or that I wish the Committee to do, is to commit any act of injustice upon the civilians or to make their work any more difficult than it need be otherwise, but I should have thought myself the right course would be to leave the primary responsibility with the ministers, provided that we do ensure the official being able to make his complaint without delay to the Governor, the Governor being himself responsible for redressing the legitimate grievances of the officials.
    9.54 p.m.
    Viscount WOLMER: This Amendment surely does not impinge in any appreciable degree on the powers of an Indian minister, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is so anxious to preserve. The Amendment says that a civil servant who has an accusation brought against him should not have his pay reduced until he has been tried and found guilty. That is the only effect of the Amendment, and the Amendment is moved at the request of the Indian civil servants themselves, the men on the spot. The Secretary of State referred to the memoralists. He admitted that the memoralists have put this demand forward. He did not mention, but I know that he will not deny, that the memoralists represent a committee elected by the civil servants of Bengal, at any rate, and I think the memorial is endorsed by the civil servants in other parts of India as well. Therefore, it is not an individual memorial but a representative memorial that has embodied this point. Why did they embody it? Why do they attach so much importance to it? Because they have had bitter experience. There has been under the

    657
    present regime, and the Secretary of State knows it perfectly well, cases of officers who have had very serious allegations brought against them and who have been suspended and kept on half pay for six, eight, ten and I believe even more than 12 months before the matter has been disposed of and the officer acquitted.
    We say and the memorialists say that it is utterly unjust to put any servant of the British Crown or any individual in such a position. These men have not great private resources. They may have large families who are being educated in England. They may have heavy personal. commitments. What we are asking for in this Amendment is that their pay should not be reduced until they have been found guilty of the offence with which they have been charged. The Government are asked that by a committee representative of the Civil Service in India, whom the Lord President of the Council has assured us are in favour of the Bill and whom the Lord President of the Council and Secretary of State have given us to understand are wholehearted supporters of their policy. They put this matter forward because they have a real fear. Is that fear exaggerated? Let hon. Members consider what happens. What happened at Karachi the other day There was some communal disturbance. The British troops fired on one party and killed a number of members of that party. At once the protagonists of that party, the leaders of the party, bring accusations against the Government, against the agent of the Government of having been either callous, negligent, or mistaken or panic' stricken. They bring accusations against them and the whole neighbourhood is in a state of hysteria.
    In many cases it is not unreasonable for the Government to say that the matter should be inquired into and that the accused should be put on trial and answer for his action, but if he is suspended during that period, and if the inquiries take months, as they have done in the past—the Secretary of State will bear me out when I say that some of these inquiries have gone on for a year— is he to be kept on half pay all the time? Are you going to put these men, who are bearing the responsibility of the whole British raj on their shoulders in these
    658
    areas, in the position that for eight, nine or 10 months or more. they may have to live on half pay, educate their families and bear all their charges all the time? We are asking for a small thing which is not likely to affect more than a very few individuals. We are asking that these men shall be safeguarded from rank injustice. The Secretary of State in giving us what we ask for in this Amendment will not be acting contrary to any principles for which he is standing in the Bill, but he will be doing something which will enormously relieve the minds of civil servants in India
    10.0 p.m.
    Mr. D. D. REID: Is not the Secretary of State suffering from some common fallacy in the reason that he gives for rejecting the Amendment? He talks about the responsibility of Ministers. I can understand if you are setting up a professedly democratic system of government that the responsibility of Ministers is a necessary part of that system. What does the responsibility of Ministers mean? It means the responsibility of Ministers to the Parliament or legislative body which has the executive power. We have seen in this House in past days, even during my membership of it, occasions where the police were supposed to have acted in a somewhat arbitrary way, and the House has risen as one man almost to defend the rights of the subject. But we have not got that sort of case here. This is the case of a man who is a member of the Civil Service in the employ originally of a legislative body not of the same race, not of the same colour, not of the same religion. Why should that legislative body act in such a case when the bulk of them would consider him an alien official in India? It seems to me that when the Secretary of State talks about the responsibility of Ministers in a case like this he is merely being blinded by the similarity of words. I always thought that it was a maxim of English law that a man was innocent until he was proved guilty. If a native Minister chooses to suspend a member of the Indian Civil Service, why should not that member of the Indian Civil Service be considered an innocent man until the charge against him has been proved? I do not know what the answer may be, but I should be surprised if there is an answer.
    10.3 p.m.
    Sir S. HOARE: My hon. Friend seems to think that this is a racial question. It is not that at all.
    Mr. RElD: No, I think you made a mistake in using the word "responsible."
    Sir S. HOARE: The hon. Member talked as if this affected Europeans only. Certainly half the officers affected would be Indians. I thought that Clause 237 and the special responsibility of the Governor did cover the position, and still think that the Governor could stop a suspension if he thought that it was an unfair suspension. However, I am most anxious to stop even the possibility of an injustice, which I think is much more remote than my Noble Friend fears. Be that as it may, I am prepared to accept the substance of the Amendment, although I am not quite sure about the drafting, in order to make the position doubly sure.
    Viscount WOLMER: May I thank my right hon. Friend for the action he has taken. I think we might pass the Amendment and leave the wording to be put right, if necessary, on the Report stage.
    10.4 p.m.
    Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: I should think that the right hon. Gentleman is not accepting the last line of the Amendment. I do not think that the Noble Lord would want that. Suppose a man should be found guilty, it is clearly right that the deprivation should go back to the date of the original crime.
    Viscount WOLMER: That would depend upon the sentence of the court.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: Surely in the event of his being found guilty the deprivation should go back to the period when the suspension was made. Obviously, there are grave things that might happen where it would be right that the man should immediately suffer deprivation of office, but the Amendment, as worded, would make it impossible for that to happen until the final verdict in the case. I hope the Secretary of State will make the necessary alteration in the Amendment so that it will not be a permanent provision that in no case could it happen that deprivation could not take place until the date of the final decision.
    Sir S. HOARE: I suggest to my Noble Friend that the best course would be for his friends to withdraw the Amendment, and I will consult them as to the words.
    10.5 p.m.
    Viscount WOLMER: If the right hon. Gentleman says that he will give us what we ask for in detail, we will leave the wording to him.
    Mr. BAILEY: On behalf of my hon. Friends arid myself I completely accept the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman and we are exceedingly indebted to him for the way in which he has met us. I have pleasure in withdrawing my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir H. CROFT: I beg to move, in page 130, line 42, to leave out from "made," to the end of the Sub-section.
    I should be distinctly grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would consider accepting this Amendment, because it appears to us that it would be highly desirable if the Section stopped at the words "shall be made." We see no reason why the consent of the Secretary of State should be called into this matter at all, arid we think the words without that point are quite clear and definite.
    10.8 p.m.
    Sir S. HOARE: This provision is, so I understand, continuing the present arrangement. We continue the rights and privileges of the service of the Crown as they exist to-day, and this is one of the conditions under which, I understand, they now serve. I suggest to the Committee that there may be cases in which the Secretary of State might have to exercise his power. It does seem possible that there might be cases of an official in which for some reason or other he is not entitled to his full pension, and unless I hear some stronger reason for making me think that we ought to change an arrangement that has been in existence for many years, I am inclined to think that we ought to retain it.
    10.9 p.m.
    Sir R. CRADDOCK: The provision covers a particular class of cases in which extra pensions are given to persons who

    661
    hold administrative posts like supervising engineer, conservator of forests, and inspector-general of police. They are given them on condition that their service while they hold the post is approved. It is clear that future approval might be unfairly withheld by the Minister in charge, and in that case the Secretary of State might find it difficult to overrule the position of the Governor given on the advice of his ministers. What is aimed at is that if an officer is allowed to complete his tenure of a post that carries this extra pension, presumably the service is approved, otherwise he would have been put under disciplinary action or would not have held it all these years. The rules about this approved service are very hard to work for this reason. A man is appointed to be a chief engineer or a conservator of forests, which gives him, if he holds it for three or five years, a considerable increase of his pension, providing his service is approved. A man having held a post for the three years the general tendency would be to allow him to have the extra pension carried by the post, but in the past it has sometimes been prescribed that his approved service means something rather above the average, and consequently it is a very difficult question sometimes when a man comes to retire whether his service has really qualified him for a pension or not. The ordinary class of person who is- fairly easy-going, as long as a man has done tolerable work, would pass his service as good enough for a pension.
    This particular condition of service ought to be modified so that if a man has held a post and not been turned out of it, censured or otherwise punished, his service should be regarded as approved for the purpose of this pension. If the rule is left as it is now, it is possible for a minister to hold up this question of a pension for a long time, and it would be certainly much better that that should be prevented. I have known one or two cases of heads of State departments in which the question of whether they should get this little extra pension or not was held up for months by the minister, and it was with some difficulty that eventually at the instance of the Governor the minister was persuaded to pass it. That is the special grievance that it is thought to avoid by not allowing this pension to be reduced in any case.
    10.15 p.m.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: It seems to me that the Movers of this Amendment have gone badly adrift. The Subsection says:
    "No award of a pension less than the maximum pension allowable under rules made under this section shall be made."
    Then we come to the words which hon. Members desire to cut out:
    "except in each case with the consent of the Secretary of State."
    If these words are cut out, it means that you will not be able to grant a beneficent pension to someone who has served well but who has not just qualified for pension. You will make the position worse for civil servants.
    Viscount WOLMER: The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) is quite wrong. If he will read the Subsection again he will see that it states that a person must receive the maximum pension which the rules allow, unless the Secretary of State allows otherwise. We want to cut out the latter words in the Sub-section. We think that men who have served a certain number of years and have qualified for pensions should get them.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I quite agree. I do not want to give power to cut down pensions, but if people have not qualified in point of time and the Amendment is accepted you cannot make a beneficent pension to them.
    10.17 p.m.
    Sir S. HOARE:.The speech of the hon. Member for English Universities (Sir R. Craddock) confirms me in my view that we should do better to leave the position as it is in the Bill. He admitted that there may be cases in which a pension might be reduced. I should have thought that the general position is safeguarded under paragraph (a)of the Clause under which the Secretary of State draws up regulations and rules for pensions. In those rules he can make it clear that in the first category of cases mentioned by the hon. Member for the English Universities cases, where adequate time has been fulfilled and a satisfactory report has been made, the full pension will be given, but over and above that there is a necessity for Sub-section (4) to enable some exception to be made sometimes in the cases to which the hon. Member himself referred.
    Sir H. CROFT: I do not press the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Sir H. CROFT: On a point of Order. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) rose to attract your attention before you had put the question.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am very sorry, but really I looked all round the Committee before I put, the question, and I paused before doing so. There must be some limit to the extent to which the Chair is asked to go outside the rules. I paused before I put the question.
    Sir A. KNOX: I thought that you were going to call the hon. Member opposite who has an Amendment to leave out Clause 236.
    The CHAIRMAN: A notice to omit is not an Amendment. It is true that the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Wise) has been interesting himself in matters which do arise on this Clause and I therefore looked specially at where he sits, but he did not rise when I put the Clause to the Committee. I saw nobody rise.
    Sir H. CROFT: I think that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wycombe did address you before you actually put the question.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Although it is true that you rose to put the question you did not declare it carried, and, in those circumstances, I think that the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) is entitled to speak.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am very much obliged to the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) for giving me his opinion, but I do not agree with his view. My Ruling is that the voices had been collected.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: You had not.
    The CHAIRMAN: I have given my Ruling and have collected the voices. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) will please treat the Chair with respect. Otherwise, I must ask him to leave the Chamber.

    CLAUSE 237.—(Rights in respect of complaints, appeals, etc.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Viscount WOLMER: The Secretary of State has more than once laid great emphasis on this Clause, and I would like to ask him whether, when he received the deputation representing the Civil Service, they expressed themselves as satisfied with this Clause as it now stands.
    10.22 p.m.
    Mr. WISE: I wish to raise the point whether this Clause is adequate to cover the question of officers who feel themselves aggrieved on the question of orders as to leave. Leave is a very much more important thing to officers serving in a country like India than it is to, let us say, civil servants here at home. To British officers serving in India leave is an extremely precious thing, a thing which is mentally essential as well as physically essential. In fact they cannot carry out their duties efficiently without a certainty of receiving that leave at the correct time or as near the correct time as possible. Even in the case of the Indian Officers I can see occasions arising, with the increased Indianisation of the Service, when leave may be just as precious to them as to the British officer. It is quite possible that in some inter-racial or inter-religious turmoil trouble may arise which it is rather beyond the power of a Minister to deal with. It may affect the officer and may compel that officer to be retained under the Minister's instructions long after his period for leave is due.
    I am not sure that all the Committee realise how much that may mean. It can only be realised when one has been in the State, within three months of one's leave, of aching for it to come, and then realising how appalling it is when it does not come. I have, I regret to say, had the experience myself. When I was actually due for leave on one occasion I received orders to transfer myself to another station, which meant postponement of leave for six months, and I very nearly laid my head on the table and wept. That may happen to many officers and I wonder if it would be possible for the Secretary of State to give an assurance that on the Report stage

    665
    he will move this question of leave into the province of the Governor-General or the Governor. I think to do so would give serving officers greater assurance that they were not likely to be unduly delayed in getting leave and I do not think it would be detracting from the responsibility of the Ministers. It would give a certain heartening to men who are a little apprehensive because they know the physical as well as the mental results of leave being delayed. India is a long way from this country and officers who serve there give up a great deal for very inadequate wages. I do not think that in this country we fully realise how cheaply we get our Colonial and Imperial administrators. This one gesture that I suggest, would inspire them and give them a comfort which they lack at the present time.
    10.26 p.m.
    Sir H. CROFT: In supporting my hon. Friend's plea may I point out that in Ceylon this question has become one of acute importance to British officers. It is noteworthy that the State Council there on numerous occasions recently have raised this whole question of leave and endeavoured to make difficulties with regard to leave warrants and so forth. This is therefore not a question which has never arisen in practice and I hope that my right hon. Friend will give consideration to it
    10.27 p.m.
    Sir S. HOARE: I think the position is quite safe. If my hon. Friends will look back at Clause 236, Sub-section (1, a) they will find that there is an obligation on the Secretary of State to make regulations about leave. The Secretary of State in regard to other matters of detail can delegate the power of making rules but he is not to delegate those powers as regards leave. It is he who will have to make the conditions of leave. Then if hon. Members refer to Clause 237 they will find that members of a service can complain if they consider that their conditions of service are disadvantaged. Leave is included in those conditions of service. Therefore, in the first place, the Secretary of State makes the rules and in the second place officials who are aggrieved can at once make complaint and I should have thought that that made the matter quite safe. My noble Friend the Member for Aldershot (Viscount
    666
    Wolmer) asked me a question about a deputation from the various service associations. They made no criticism of Clause 237. They raised a. point with which I have already dealt about suspensions and upon that point I met them. Otherwise, they made no complaint at all.
    10.28 p.m.
    Mr. WISE: I do not wish to be obtrusive but I would point out that while under Clause 236 the conditions of leave are laid down as the right hon. Gentleman has described, it is the actual application of the orders for leave which is really worrying me. Perhaps I may give an example from my own service. The conditions of leave in the East African service were that an officer was entitled to leave after a turn of duty of from 20 to 30 months. In fact no officer ever got leave until he had served at least 30 months and he was very lucky if he got leave after he had served 33 or 34 months. The exigencies of the service very often required a man to delay his leave. I realise that the actual conditions of leave are safe in the hands of the Secretary of State, but what I fear is the application of those conditions and the control which can be exercised over officers when their leave becomes due. If the exigencies of the service require a postponement of leave an officer is always prepared to sacrifice a good deal, but the question of the application of the conditions is a very important one and that was why I originally wanted to raise the point on Clause 235 and bring this matter into that Clause dealing with reserved posts. I hope the Secretary of State will do what I have requested on the Report stage because I do not think that Clause 236 sufficiently covers the officer against all possible difficulties in this respect.
    10.30 p.m.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I have an Amendment down in page 131, line 26, after "Governor," to insert, "in his discretion." I put that down with a view to getting an interpretation of some rather curious wording. We have to realise that in this Bill we are doing something rather novel. When we say that the Governor-General or Governor is to do something and we do not qualify it we mean that he has to do it on the advice of his Ministers and that he has

    667
    to take that advice. When we insert "in his discretion," we mean that the Governor-General or Governor can do as he likes subject to consultation with the Secretary of State. When we insert the words "in his judgment," we mean that he must listen to what his Ministers have to say and then take his own decision after, where he thinks it necessary, consultation with the Secretary of State. The end of Sub-section (1) of the Clause, which deals with complaints by civil servants, says that—
    "the Governor-General or Governor, as the case may be, shall examine into the complaint and cause such action to be taken thereon as appears to him in his discretion to be just and equitable."
    In other words, the Governor-General or Governor, after the complaint has been examined, acts without reference to his Ministers and only after reference to the Secretary of State, where it is necessary or desirable. It is not clear whether he can examine the complaint if his Ministers advise him not to examine it. I do not want to be pernickity in this matter, but we are setting up a Constitution of a rather novel character, and it is important that we should be clear. I am inclined to think that any action that the Governor-General or Governor takes shall be without reference to his Ministers after he has examined the complaint, but as these words read it is conceivable that his Ministers might be able to stop the Governor-General or Governor examining into it. I am not raising this point with any desire to obstruct, but in order to make sure that from the point of view of legal drafting there is no doubt that the words "in his discretion" in this place not only govern the action he will take, but also govern whether or not he is free to examine the complaint. It is of the utmost importance to civil servants that not only should the Governor-General or Governor, after having looked into the complaint, be free to take action, but also that he should be free to examine the complaint if it is made.
    10.34 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The matter is, I think, completely watertight in this Clause. It says that complaints shall be examined. That examination would be with the Ministers and it has to take place. There are provisions in another part of the Bill whereby the
    668
    Governor-General or Governor can see that all proper information on proper matters is reported to him. Having examined a complaint with his Ministers, he acts in his own discretion. The action is taken after the joint examination, and it is taken in his own discretion. The hon. Member fears that the Ministers might stop the procedure going forward by saying to the Governor-General or Governor, "Do not examine it." That cannot take place under the Clause.

    CLAUSE 238.—(Compensation for loss of rights.)
    10.35 p.m.
    Mr. BAILEY: I beg to move, in page 132, line 6, to leave out "Part of this."
    In moving this Amendment, I hope I shall have permission to discuss the next Amendment standing in my name.
    Sir S. HOARE: I am prepared to accept the first Amendment.
    Mr. BAILEY: I am very much obliged to my right hon. Friend. In regard to the second Amendment—
    The. CHAIRMAN: In the circumstances, I suggest that the hon. Member should move the first Amendment and let that be dealt with.
    Mr. BAILEY: Then I will formally move it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. BAILEY: I beg to move, in page 132, line 6, after "Act," to insert:
    "and any Act of any Indian Legislature."
    My right hon. Friend has shown himself to be in such a gracious mood to-night, and so amiable in entertaining appeals, that I do hope he will be able to make a concession on this point, which would give a great deal of comfort to members of the Civil Service. In the memorial which I mentioned earlier they laid particular stress on the desire that their rights should not be whittled down. It is of the utmost importance to any man joining the Indian Civil Service that he should not join under one set of conditions and find, when he is no longer in a position to make an independent contract, that the contract of service has been very largely altered. Before deciding whether to withdraw or to press this Amendment, I should like to ask two

    669
    questions. First, does my right hon. Friend consider that this Amendment adds anything or not to the Clause? Would an act of an Indian Legislature be an act done under this part of this Bill? If the answer be "Yes," I should like to ask the second question. If this is merely a question of clarification, would it not be better, for the sake of clarity, to make it perfectly certain, so that at no time hereafter may there be any doubt as to whether an Act passed by an Indian Legislature is an act done under this Bill?
    10.38 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I suggest to my hon. Friend that it would be better not to insert these words. This Bill has been carefully drafted so as to cover exhaustively the conditions of service of the Secretary of State's Service, and therefore no act of an Indian Legislature could affect those conditions, because it would be repugnant to this Bill. It would be very inadvisable to insert these words. If we were to do so, any court dealing with this Clause would say, "There must be some respect in which an act of an Indian Legislature might deal with conditions of service one way or the other, making them worse or improving them, otherwise these words would not have been put in." If anybody can show us any place in the Bill where the conditions of service are not covered, we shall look into it; but at the moment we are satisfied that the conditions are covered, and it would be unwise to insert these words.
    Mr. BAILEY: In view of the very full and reasonable explanation of my hon. and learned Friend, which is quite a reassurance on this point, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    10.40 p.m.
    Mr. D. D. REID: I beg to move, in page 132, line 15, at the end, to insert:
    "If the sterling value of the rupee should at any time fall below one shilling and sixpence, any such person as aforesaid shall be entitled to receive from the revenues of the Federation or, as the case may be, from the revenues of a Province in respect of any payment of salary falling due to him at such time an additional sum equivalent to the difference between the sterling value of such salary at the date of payment, and the sterling value of such salary calculated at the rate of one shilling and sixpence to each rupee."
    670
    I understand that salaries are paid in rupees, and although any depreciation in the value of the rupee might not technically be an alteration in the conditions of service under the control of the Minister it might be of great detriment to an officer whose salary is so calculated. I have noticed that the Secretary of State has been very anxious that nothing should be done which would cast any slur on any Indian Minister or any Indian Legislature, and I think I can say that this Amendment casts no slur of that kind. It is true, I believe, that there is a movement among persons in India to depreciate the value of the rupee. I remember in my early school history books instances in which drastic action was taken against persons who had depreciated the currency, but I think the Secretary of State is bound to admit that in these later days depreciation of the currency has become a perfectly respectable thing. It is happening all over the world. Even in the Indian Legislature at some future time they might do it for their own purposes and very unwittingly and unintentionally affect the salaries of officials. I do not think that the words of the Clause as they stand are wide enough to cover a thing of that kind. It might be that depreciation will take place in some indirect way, and the result would be the same. There does not seem to be any reason why the salary should not have reasonable security. I hope that the Secretary of State will think this is a case in which precautions should be taken.
    10.44 p.m.
    Sir S. HOARE: If the rupee were to depreciate and if the cost of living did rise, certainly the Civil Service should be compensated. The question I put is whether it is wise and necessary to put a provision of that kind into the Bill. My advice to the Committee is that we had better not put such a provision in the Bill. We have never had such a statutory provision before. The rupee has depreciated at times, and the Civil Service has been compensated. We certainly regard ourselves as under a moral obligation to make a compensation to them in future. I suggest that it is much better to leave the matter at that point, rather than introduce a provision of this kind, for the following

    671
    reasons. First of all, a provision of this kind would suggest that a depreciation of the rupee is likely. I do not want to make that suggestion; I do not want it to appear that depreciation of the rupee is likely.
    Secondly, it may well be that, if the rupee were depreciated, an exchange compensation of this kind would be less easy to work, and less beneficial to the civilians themselves, than some other method—for instance, a rise in their rupee salaries. We have found in recent years, in the diplomatic service, how difficult it is to apply exchange provisions of this kind, and it may well be that a better way of meeting the situation would be to raise their salaries generally. For these reasons I suggest to the Committee that it is better not to alter the present state of affairs, which has worked satisfactorily in the past, and has given the Services compensation where there has been depreciation. A provision of this kind, in the first place, would disturb a very sensitive opinion in India on the question of the exchange, and, secondly, may not be the best means of giving compensation.
    10.47 p.m.
    Sir H. CROFT: When the Secretary of State says that he deprecates any suggestion that there may be a fall in the value of the rupee, would he consider whether it is not a fact that active Indian politicians have definitely stated that they intend to do what they can to depress the value of the rupee? Accordingly, I feel that we have to contemplate that possibility. It may be that the rupee will be strengthened as a result of these reforms, but our powers are going to be very much decreased in those days, and that is why we ask that the officials should have some security. This is a matter which is taken very seriously by civil servants, and I think the right hon. Gentleman agrees that it is one of the points about which they are generally very much concerned. When he says that if the cost of living should rise action will possibly be taken to meet the 'case by a rise in salaries, I would point out to him that that is not quite the point. The Indian civil servant has to continue to pay the £100, or whatever it is, in this country for the education of his children, for keeping his wife, and
    672
    so on, and that has always been taken into account. We want to make quite certain, that it will be taken into account in the future.
    Sir S. HOARE: It will still be the Secretary of State.
    Sir H. CROFT: I should have thought that the Secretary of State, when he finds this angry surge of opinion against him in India, would be immensely strengthened by being able to call attention to the fact that it is provided for in the Act. We cannot be guided by what has happened in the past. It is unfair to all those who are serving in India that we should make that our criterion. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will continue to reconsider this question.
    10.50 p.m.
    Mr. AMERY: I am sure the House accepted with satisfaction my right hon. Friend's assurance that this point will not be left out of account, and that if civil servants in India do suffer for an alteration in the exchange, provision will be made to compensate them. On the other hand, my own experience in dealing with similar problems in the Colonial Service makes me doubt very much whether it is possible to fix the matter beforehand in anything of the nature of a definite, rigid provision such as is embodied in this Amendment. The fall in the rupee in terms of sterling may not involve any increase in the cost of living in India itself, although undoubtedly involving a loss to the civil servant in that part of his salary he has to transmit home for the education of his children. Therefore, if you raised the whole of his salary it would not be fair to the Indian taxpayer; nor could you have such a provision as this without some corresponding provision if the rupee rose. In that case the Indian civil servant would gain nothing. I cannot see how it is possible, as the variations of exchanges and then economic consequences may be so very different in different circumstances, to prescribe beforehand any definite rigid rule by which the compensation shall be paid. It will be better to rely on the very definite assurance of the Secretary of State that this matter is in his mind, and that where civil servants suffer in consequence of an alteration of the rate of exchange they will be compensated.
    10.52 p.m.
    Viscount WOLMER: The point which neither the Secretary of State nor the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) meets is that in the Indian Civil Service you will have two great different interests in this respect. The Indians who are members of the Indian Civil Service will not be affected by the alteration of the value of the rupee to the pound sterling in the degree that British members of the Indian Civil Service will be Their position will be totally different.
    Mr. AMERY: But this Amendment will not fit the case.
    Viscount WOLMER: No, but I do not think the solution which the Secretary of State proposes fits the case either. What we want is the establishment of the principle in this Bill that if the relation between the pound and the rupee alters to the disadvantage of the man who has commitments in India, he shall have compensation for that fact. The Secretary of State has given a sort of personal assurance. He has given an official assurance which he thinks would be binding on his successors, and he says to me, by way of interruption, "We have given it for years." My point is that the situation in the future will be totally different from what it has been in the past. As the services in India get more and more Indianised, the number of Civil Servants who will be affected in this way by the depreciation of the rupee will get less and less. The Secretary of State says, "Do not suggest in the Bill that there may be a depreciation in the rupee." I never heard such rot in my life.
    He knows perfectly well it is a, burning question. He knows that not only a great many Indians, but a great many English think that the Indian Government might be well advised to depreciate the rupee in the interest of India. The idea of our suggesting it to them in this Bill is absolute nonsense. The rupee may depreciate for two great sets of reasons—either because of misgovernment or because affairs in India are going from bad to worse; or as part of a perfectly sound financial policy on the part of the Indian Government desiring to improve their agriculture or their export industries. In either of those cases the Civil Servant who has to make heavy remittances to England will be very
    674
    much prejudiced, whereas the Indian who is a Civil Servant will not be affected in anything like the same way. The cost of living will rise or fall with the value of the rupee. It may not rise or fall absolutely concurrently with it, but roughly speaking it will follow it. The dwindling minority of European civil servants who have heavy charges to bear in England will be placed in a very different position. It is not merely the civil servant who is educating children in England. A civil servant may have all sorts of other charges. He may be supporting aged parents or invalid relatives, and there may be all sorts of obligations of that sort which it is impossible to define in an Act of Parliament.
    Let us consider the position of the Indian Government that deliberately decides to devalue the rupee. The Indians who are civil servants will not be in the least affected, but the Europeans who are civil servants may be very much affected. Then the Secretary of State says, "I can use my powers to see that the Indian Government give special compensation to those civil servants who happen to have commitments in England." Will not that be an increasingly difficult position for the Secretary of State to take up? It will become increasingly difficult to recommend to a democratically elected Government, "You must give compensation to these particular members of our Civil Service because they happen to have children whom they choose to educate in England." That will be an attitude which will become increasingly difficult for the Secretary of State to maintain in face of the sort of glamour that any hon. Member can visualise for himself. Therefore, I suggest that if we put the principle in this Bill that, if there is depreciation of the rupee as against the pound sterling, those civil servants who are Europeans who have commitments in England should have a statutory right to have made good to them any loss they may thereby suffer, we are giving to these people a guarantee they cannot possibly get by any promise such as the Secretary of State has just made. I want to ask the Secretary of State this question: Is not this one of the points which the deputation he received the other day stressed most strongly? If the Indian civil servants feel very strongly on this point, and when we consider the matter from an

    675
    intimate knowledge of the facts of India, it is one which this Committee ought not to pass by lightly.
    Sir S. HOARE: It is one of the points which were raised
    Mr. WISE rose—
    The CHAIRMAN: I think that the Committee are ready to divide. Does the hon. Member realise what he is doing?
    Viscount WOLMER: The Secretary of State has not made any attempt to give an answer, and I think that we are entitled to press for one. It is a very vital point and there has been no attempt—
    It being Eleven of the Clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow

SUPPLY.
  REPORT [3RD APRIL.]
  Resolutions reported,
CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1935.

  CLASS VII.
  1. "That a sum, not exceeding £150, 960, be granted to His Majesty to complete the
  676
  sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, for Expenditure in respect of Labour and Health Buildings, Great Britain."
  2. "That a sum, not exceeding £50,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, for Expenses connected with the Celebration of the Twenty-fifth Anniversary of His Majesty's Accession."
  3. "That a sum, not exceeding £75,500, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, for Expenditure in respect of Public Buildings Overseas."
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Three Minutes after Eleven of the Clock.

  EGG AND POULTRY MARKETING (SCOTLAND).
  EGG AND POULTRY MARKETING (SCOTLAND).
  ANCHOR SHIPPING LINE (STAFFPENSION FUND).
  ANCHOR SHIPPING LINE (STAFFPENSION FUND).
  IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY (COAL CONSUMPTION).
  IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY (COAL CONSUMPTION).
  TRANSPORT (ROAD ACCIDENT-PRONENESS).
  TRANSPORT (ROAD ACCIDENT-PRONENESS).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (STATISTICS).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (STATISTICS).
  RADIO RECEPTION. (TROLLEY VEHICLES).
  RADIO RECEPTION. (TROLLEY VEHICLES).
  UNSUBSIDISED HOUSES.
  UNSUBSIDISED HOUSES.
  BUILDING INDUSTRY (EMPLOYMENT).
  BUILDING INDUSTRY (EMPLOYMENT).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LAND DRAINAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
READING CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a.
SHEFFIELD AND SOUTH YORKSHIRE NAVIGATION BILL.
Read 2a.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
Read 2a.
SALTBURN AND MARSKE-BY-THE- SEA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

LIFE PEERS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD ROCKLEY: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I should like to express an earnest wish, which may or may not be fulfilled, that the Government would take up this whole subject as a Government task. I do not know precisely what they are going to do. So far as it is a large task it seems to me to be a Government task, but so far as we confine ourselves to the subject matter of this Bill—which I have purposely limited very closely—I think it may not be above the capacities of a private member of your Lordships' House to endeavour to do something towards advancing the task. It seems to be opportune, because the Government have quite clearly said, on the very interesting Bill which my noble friend Lord Salisbury introduced last year, that they would not proceed further this Parliament with
578
this subject or with any subject connected with it, as far as they personally were concerned.
It therefore falls to the duty, as I think, of a private member to do what he can. For that reason I think the moment is opportune. It is my own independent action, and I think that this question needs to be kept in the foreground. My noble friend Lord Rankeillour has given notice of another Bill next week in connection with the amendment of the Parliament Act. I want to say at once that these Bills are in no way intended to overlap. They stand on somewhat different ground, and I do not propose to discuss the other question. This debate is entirely to be confined, as far as I am concerned, to the matter of Life Peers. It is a simple Bill and does not want much elucidating. It is quite easily read, it is perfectly plain, I think, in its language, and, as it seems to me, it should command widespread approval and sympathy on its own merits. It does not pretend to deal with the whole Constitution of this Kingdom—far from it—nor does it pretend to be a Party Bill. It is essentially a non-Party Bill, and I have very carefully worded one or two phrases in it in order to show that this is the fact.
Again, in asking that your Lordships should pass it I am not addressing any members—if there are any—who think that no Second Chamber ought to exist, however constituted. It is no use appealing to views of that kind. I remember once a well-known Labour Member in the House of Commons, Mr. Hudson, who represented—I think—Newcastle, saying to Lord Bryce in my presence that he had never found a satisfactory Second Chamber. Lord Bryce replied that he had never found a satisfactory First Chamber, except possibly in the Orange Free State and in Switzerland. Whatever Chamber you constitute, and in the case of this one, whether there are Life Peerages or not, I do not suppose that any Chamber will ever be perfect. But your Lordships' House has real use. We had an illustration of this fact the other day when the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, put down a Motion about imprisonment for debt and, as it appeared to me, we had a very practicable and, I hope, useful debate, from which something may ensue. He could put that Motion down and have it discussed on short notice, which, as all members of this House

579
who have been in another place know quite well, it is impossible to do there.
One thing more. I am not trying to make this House stronger than the House of Commons; not at all. The broad purpose underlying this Bill is not to thwart the First Chamber, but to help towards ensuring that the will of the people should be really carried out. I do not want to go at great length into the history of the matter; it is not as if this were a new and original subject. Your Lordships have often heard the history at greater or lesser length, and I would very briefly recapitulate it. I shall not go further back than the Wensleydale case of 1856. There have been a good many attempts to deal with the subject since then. Earl Russell, in 1869, brought the matter conspicuously forward. In 1876 the Act for instituting Law Lords was passed, and in 1884 Lord Rosebery moved in the matter. In 1888 Lord Dunraven brought in a very elaborate Bill, dealing not only with the question of the Life Peerage, but also with a great deal else. In the same year the late Lord Salisbury brought in a Life Peers Bill, on the groundwork of which the present Bill is largely planned, with certain variations which deal with changed conditions. In 1907–8 there was the Rosebery Select Committee; in 1917–18 there was Lord Bryce's Conference, of which I had the honour to be a member. In 1927—to miss out one or two other cases—the noble Viscount, Lord FitzAlan, brought forward a Motion which my noble friend who is moving an Amendment this afternoon quotes verbatim. In 1928 Lord Clarendon put forward a reform scheme. in 1929 my noble friend Lord Elibank brought forward a Life Peers Bill and sketched out in some detail the history of this Chamber.
As recently as last month, Lord Merrivale published a pamphlet setting out the whole history and position of these debates throughout many years, a very useful little pamphlet in which he urges that it is quite time that something was done. That is very much my own humble view. It is quite time that we should do something, but it seems extraordinarily difficult to get anything like a unanimous opinion of your Lordships generally. In this Bill I am endeavouring to focus the question as much as ever possible upon a simple issue, that of Life
580
Peers; which, after all, gives it a far greater chance of arriving at some attempt to come to an agreement. After all, also, it seems to me very unsatisfactory that in General Election after General Election it should be said that some reform of this House is to take place or some alteration is to be made, and yet nothing is ever done. If we try to do this much, to pass a Bill of this kind, and send it down to the House of Commons, then, if the Bill gets blocked there, we at any rate can say that we have done our best to do something with the constitution of this House, and it is not our fault in those circumstances if nothing comes off.
That is sufficient as far as the history of the Bill is concerned. I should like to draw attention to one or two of its provisions, simple as they are. There are limitations in the Bill, as your Lordships will be aware. More particularly there is the limitation in Clause 1, that not more than five persons shall be appointed Life Peers in one calendar year. I am not wedded to the figure five. It seems to me that that is largely a Committee point. So long as we pass the provision that some Life Peers may be appointed in a given year, and there is a maximum number, I am content to listen to any arguments that may be put forward to change that figure. Perhaps, more or less, the same applies to the limitation in Clause 4, that at no one time is the number of Life Peers under this Bill to exceed fifty. There again, if alteration is to be made, it seems to me a matter for the Committee. In fact, the figures are the same as in Lord Salisbury's Bill of 1888. The population changes, circumstances change, and even the machinery of the Constitution changes, and therefore I do not bind myself absolutely to those figures. But I cannot help being rather amused when some of my friends come forward and say: "You are limiting it much too closely, you ought to enlarge it considerably"; while, on the other side, it is said: "If you enlarge it very much, you will be so enormously adding to the numbers of this House that the whole place will be quite unbearable." I will refer to that matter later.
The other clause to which I want to call attention is Clause 2, where there is a careful definition of what I may call

581
the pre-eminence entitling anyone to be considered for life-membership of this House. It is very difficult to draw definitions which cover every conceivable case—I was painfully conscious of that in trying to word this clause—but it is intended to go a very long way to make eligible those who have done well for their country. If holes can be found in it, there again the matter can be considered in Committee. One reason why I put a definition in is that you have also got to look at the matter from another side. You have got to make an effort to regulate what I may call the idiosyncrasies or vagaries of any particular Prime Minister who may have to advise His Majesty. It is not as if we had not had some experience in that direction. I took the trouble to look up only this morning a debate in this House on June 29, 1922, when where was a matter before this House as regards Sir Joseph Robinson of Wynberg, South Africa, who had been gazetted a Peer two or three weeks previously. A letter was then read in which he ultimately declined. On the same day them was an apologetic speech by another newly-created member of this House explaining his position to your Lordships. If there is any danger of future Prime Ministers making recommendations to His Majesty which can be challenged to that extent, I think it, is very desirable to have some definition which more closely makes clear what the qualifications of Life Peers are to be. That is the reason why Clause 2 is framed in that form, and it is a matter for this House to consider further.
Certain comments have been made about this Bill in other directions. Sometimes I have been told that there is a danger that recommendations by Prime Ministers will be entirely of men of their own political Party. Possibly! After all, the Law Lords are not so appointed. Is it quite impossible to enlarge the numbers of the Law Lords so as to contain other professions, and other important aspects of political or public thought? After all, when a new Speaker is appointed, it is more or less a Party matter, but nobody in these days disputes that every Speaker, at any rate for many years past, Las been of a very impartial opinion. I should be glad if, in this connection, representatives of our overseas Dominions could be qualified.
582
That would help to cement and link the Empire. It could not do any great harm, and it might do much good. Another comment which is made is that this Bill is enlarging a House which is already quite large enough. We are very large with a membership of 750 or so. As your Lordships know, about 100 members of the House come here regularly. It may be that a separate Bill might well be brought in to limit the attendance or membership of such noble Lords as do not regularly attend, but I hardly think that it is the task of a private member to endeavour to do that in present conditions, seeing what has happened last year and recently. At any rate I do not think a Bill of this character can properly be subjected to this criticism.
Just look at it from this point of view. If you have a certain number of Life Peers, say fifty in all, at one time, you are in practice much more limiting the numbers of this House than you are if you leave it open for a number of Hereditary Peers to be appointed in perpetuity. Had the plan of appointing Hereditary Peers been curtailed, as it was in the day of Mr. Gladstone, who was very particular, there would not have been so great a number, for whereas Mr. Gladstone appointed three or four on occasions, and quite often none, in the Honours List, during the last six years there has been an average of ten per year appointed, and that is not counting the Law Lords—the Lords of Appeal. Therefore, whatever may be said of this Bill, and however partially it deals with the subject, at any rate I am not proposing to enlarge this House more than it would get enlarged if this system of appointing Hereditary Peers twice a year continues. The whole matter may want overhauling, but I do not think this Bill should be attacked on the ground that it would seriously increase our numbers. Life Peers can be alternatives to Hereditary Peers. Possibly they would attend more regularly and their counsels would be useful, so that we should not be any the worse off but probably a good deal better.
I think I had better come now to the Amendment that my noble friend Lord Midleton has put down. He quotes the words of the Motion proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord FitzAlan, on

583
June 20, 1927. My noble friend, in speaking of my Motion on March 7 for getting His Majesty's leave to discuss this subject, told me I was most embarrassing, that this was a backward step instead of a forward step, and that it could not possibly affect the main arguments for the reform of the House of Lords. I confess I was astonished. I do not see the application of his arguments at all. It appears to me that the Amendment that he has put down now is a mere sidetracking of the issue. Just look at the Amendment. It practically challenges me on the ground that this Bill does not attempt to limit or define the membership of this House. No, the Bill does not, but there is nothing on earth in it to prevent my noble friend from bringing in a Bill of that kind if he wants to. I do not see what cause of complaint he has against my Bill because it does not do something else that he wants done.
But he tells me that I have taken a backward step instead of a forward step. I cannot see that. I should have thought this was sensibly advancing the question, and advancing it along the only channel that at this moment seems to be practicable and one upon which many people might agree. He complains that this Bill does not define membership of this House. There is nothing to prevent his bringing in a Bill to define membership of this House. That, again, ought not to be a complaint against my Bill. Thirdly, he complains that this Bill does not deal with the long-standing declaration of Ministers about the reform of the Second Chamber. It does not go very far. Purposely it does not go very far, but again there is nothing to prevent him from bringing in a. Bill of that sort himself and making himself responsible for it. After all, he has not been very successful in getting anything done for many years past.
He postulates that the House would welcome a reasonable measure for doing all these things. Why, we know from many years' experience that this House violently disagrees upon what a "reasonable measure" means. What is "reasonable"? Does he suppose that we shall get a Bill through easily when there are intense disputes on all these subjects? I see, looking back, that when the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, on February 28, 1929, moved a Motion about Life Peerages, Lord Midleton moved an
584
Amendment, which was to leave out all the words after "That" and to insert:
"this House, while welcoming proposals for broadening the constitution of the House, declines to proceed with any measure which does not deal with the general question of reform."
Well, that is a very dogmatic Motion. I hope my noble friend will not be annoyed with me if I say that his position seems to me to be rather that of a spoilt child, who, because he cannot get the whole cake, will not take a small part of it. Nothing has been done in all these years while these stern Resolutions and Bills have been put forward. Because this is a modest Bill trying to move along lines with which most of us agree he will do nothing for it. It is really like running one's head against a brick wall. I prefer myself to try diplomatically to climb over the wall step by step, and I do hope that the path which the Bill indicates as one along which we may wisely proceed will not be blocked by any obstinate resistance.
I had better now just summarise the situation. I am not asking for much. Your Lordships will be well aware of that. I think if I did ask for much I should not get it under present circumstances. The glory of the British Constitution has been its gradual, almost imperceptible development. Cannot that continue? The Bill does not involve tearing down the Constitution, or even re-planning and re-fashioning it; it merely enables the Crown to exercise the Royal Prerogative by two different methods, Life Peerages and Hereditary Peerages; and, as I submit, the system of Law Lords is a good beacon for us to follow in part. The Bill avoids the almost interminable controversy of what form of election is best for a Second Chamber, if a form of election or selection be adopted. Those of us who have studied the question know well that that is one of the greatest stumbling blocks in all these discussions, and no agreement has yet been arrived at upon it.
Once more, the Bill makes possible the appointment of members of any political Party, or of no political Party, to a Life Peerage. Appointments would be made on grounds of knowledge, stability of character and independence. The Bill would be very useful if for any reason a proposed recipient does not desire an Hereditary Peerage at all. There are such persons—quite a number of them.

585
We have had a recent instance which I can quote, the late Speaker, Mr. J. H. Whitley. It is public knowledge that he refused a Peerage. He was a man of much experience, he may be said to have originated the Whitley Councils, which are so useful in industrial disputes, and I think this House was the poorer for not having had the advantage of his experience in its debates. There are also other persons of whom I know, who feel that to take an Hereditary Peerage would handicap their sons in their future careers in the professions which they have selected. It may seem strange to say so, but there are such cases. There again the Bill would enable us to get those members without risking the damage they fear to their sons. All these arguments appear to me to make it plain that the passing of this Bill would be a practical gain to the British Constitution, for it would enable His Majesty to reinforce your Lordships' House by eminent men whose fortunes may be inadequate to support an Hereditary Peerage, but, whose abilities might enhance the usefulness of a Second Chamber. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Rockley.)
THE EARL OF MIDLETON THE EARL OF MIDLETON had given Notice that on the Motion for the Second Reading, he would move to resolve, That having regard to the Resolution passed on the 20th June, I927, by a very large majority, that "this House would welcome a reasonable measure limiting and defining membership of this House and dealing with the defects which are inherent in certain of the provisions of the Parliament Act," this House declines to proceed with a measure which makes no provision for dealing with the long standing declaration of Ministers that reform of the Second Chamber is of urgent importance to the public service.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, my noble friend has made a very moderate speech in appealing to your Lordships to pass what he described as a very small measure of reform. He has shown such an acquaintenance with what has taken place in this House during past years that I am almost astonished he has not been more impressed by it. Having regard to the fact that he is one of eight members of the illustrious house of which Lord Salisbury is head who have seats
586
in this House, I do not know whether I must put it down to his becoming modesty, but he has endeavoured within a few months of Lord Salisbury's proposals to feed us with a few crumbs from the much more bountiful table with which the head of his house provided us. Although I take his proposals in all seriousness, the plea on which he occupied a considerable portion of the time during which he was commending his measure to us was really that old plea of the housemaid that it was "only a little one" and that we need not be unduly disturbed. We think there is every reason for grave disturbance if we do pass this, as I think, inadequate and, I am afraid I must also say, ill-timed measure.
I should like your Lordships to take the common ground on which all those who have dealt with the reform of the House of Lords in recent years have moved. I would ask the House whether my noble friend's proposal meets in any sense any one of the strong arguments which have been put forward for a general scheme of reform. Take first the question of the numbers in this House. This House has grown in recent years to the number of 750. Already it is overflowing, and it is common ground with all the reformers that by some principle to be adopted the number should be reduced from the number who may appear at any moment to something like the working power which is employed here, not every day, but on all occasions of importance.
I do not know whether anybody present really realises what the effect is on this House of these enormous numbers who have not got the feeling of responsibility that they must attend. Many years ago, long before I was a member of this House, I remember I compiled some statistics, when standing as a bystander on the steps of the Throne, of the members who did attend, and I can assure your Lordships that at that time, when the numbers in this House were between 300 and 400 less than they are at the present moment, the attendance at every class of debate was infinitely greater. On a great occasion the numbers polled were greater, on a moderate occasion there were far more noble Lords in attendance, and even on an evening when there was little to do there were more than there are now. We have only to look round your Lordships'

587
House to see if this is a proposal which, if Lord Rockley is to be believed, will exert a very considerable and mollifying influence, and we find a very modest attendance. Is it wise, when we all know that the difficulty is to find out how this House can preserve its identity and yet be reduced within moderate limits, that we should proceed as the first measure to appoint a body of thirty, forty, or fifty Life Peers who can only swell the number which we have taken no step to reduce?
I feel very deeply that we are losing some of the very best elements in this House by that want of sense of responsibility. Take what occurred the other day. A challenge was given to a noble Lord to come down here and answer some speech which had been made. Lord Rothermere took his seat. Now, Lord Rothermere is not only a great leader of public opinion in this country, but he was not an undistinguished member of this House when he first joined. He had a seat on this Front Bench as a Minister of the Crown, and I remember his taking part in important discussions. Lord Rothermere was raised in the Peerage sixteen years ago, and for sixteen years he felt, with all his interests in political life and with all the very strong interest which he has in the future of the country, which he has shown, that this House was not the place where it was worth spending the time which is so valuable to him in coming to advise us, no matter what the discussion might be. And that is the case, not of Lord Rothermere alone, but of about 400 Peers who have the right to come here, from time to time, if they so desire but who, as a matter of fact, hardly appear once in a single Session. I cannot help feeling that is a state of things which is not only unjustifiable but cannot possibly continue indefinitely, and I have the strongest fear that if the people of this country ever find themselves in a mysterious manner thwarted in their desires by any action of this House they will give very short shrift to a system by which more than half the members of this House take no part whatever in its deliberations. I say the first point of objection to this Bill is that it does not attempt to deal with the great question of numbers but, if anything, accentuates
588
the difficulty by the addition of a new set of Peers.
The second point is this. There must be, I am sure, in this House itself a feeling that the immense disparity of Parties is an impossible thing to defend. I do not have to make public speeches on platforms perhaps as much as I did in past years, but nobody can get up before a body of his fellow countrymen and say that a House in which there are some 600 members of one point of view, and between twelve and twenty of a point of view which returns a very large number of members to the House of Commons, can be considered a fair, decisive tribunal when a difference arises. I do not want to labour the point, but, personally, I think that while on the one hand it is essential to preserve the character and traditions of this House, it is absolutely necessary that a large and definite change should be made in the distribution of Parties. That is the second point on which there has been up to now no agreement.
There is another. If I may say so with great respect to my noble friend, he has not sat very long in this House, but he sat and had a long and distinguished career in the House of Commons. I have sat, I think, on nearly every Committee which has gone into this question, and I have sat with a good many members of the House of Commons. I have never known members of the House of Commons who were content to sit with Parties so substantially unrepresentative as they are here, or who would be content to sit with Life Peers if this Bill passes. Consider what a life membership means. A man may have earned his spurs well before the age of forty, and he may be made a Life Peer at an early age. Will anybody assert that any one sitting in this House who had been appointed, say, in 1905—that is, thirty years ago—would be representative of the modern trend of opinion which is represented on those Benches? From the point of view of those who want the House to be really in touch with the country, a Life Peerage is very little different from an Hereditary Peerage. I shall listen with interest to what the noble Lord who represents the Opposition will say when he gets up to speak upon this Bill, and to hear his opinions of the qualifications set out in Clause 2. I can hardly think that he, or any noble Lord opposite, will consider that the appointment of a

589
few Major-Generals and Air Vice-Marshals and other gentlemen who have distinguished themselves for long periods in the public service would bring us into close touch with that electorate which may, at some not very distant date, be predominant in the House of Commons. I do put it to your Lordships that we cannot make a greater mistake than to begin the question of reform of this House by ignoring the distribution of political power in the House, and by including in the House men who will not be in anything like immediate touch with the electorate whose opinions we are bound to study.
That is why I think this step which my noble friend suggests is a backward step and not a forward one. It is not a question between the noble Lord and myself, or between the noble Lord and any other individual in this House. Look at the mass of evidence that the view which I have endeavoured to put forward is shared by almost every body of persons which has had to consider it. You have had the Bryce Conference and the Rosebery Committee, and you have had the FitzAlan and the Clarendon Motions adopted by very large majorities in this House. You can go even beyond that. You have had the declaration of a Prime Minister who is still alive that the reform of this House would be dealt with by his Government before the end of that Government. And it has not been touched, With all that in front of us, my noble friend asks us to-day to put everything aside, and to add to the difficulties. When you come to recast this House, one of the greatest difficulties is how to preserve the best of the existing elements, and if you are to have a House of 300 instead of 750, and if, of that House of 300, a considerable proportion is to be brought. in from outside for the object which I have endeavoured to point out, then the existence of your fifty Life Peers will be one of the greatest barriers to free discussion and to free dealing with the large body of Hereditary Peers who, I might say in passing, would alone be quite sufficient to man the House of 300. You have, therefore, to cut down the number in order to bring in others from outside. I urge your Lordships not to add to that difficulty by putting in some fifty Life Peers who will stand on a different level from the other members of the House
590
when attempts are being made to redress grievances.
I can only appeal to my noble friend not to press this Bill. I cannot believe that it is required in any quarter whatever. If it is passed in this House that will be done against the opinion of every Committee which has sat upon the question in living memory, and it will be done against the express convictions of every Leader of the House, so far as I know, who has sat since the late Lord Salisbury, including the Duke of Devonshire, Lord Rosebery, Lord Lansdowne, Lord Curzon and my noble friend the present Marquess of Salisbury. With that weight of authority against him, I urge my noble friend not to proceed with this Bill. He belongs to a family who are not only experts in politics but of very high public spirit, and I ask him not to put us in the position in which we shall be put if we give this Bill a Second Reading. In his appeal to us a few minutes ago he said that if we are blocked by the House of Commons, we will have done our best. This is not our best. I do not think it can be taken that we have done our best if we agree to this, which I regard as a wholly insufficient proposal. I, therefore, ask your Lordships to accept the Amendment which I now move to the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Leave out all words after ("That") and insert: ("having regard to the Resolution passed on the 20th June, 1927, by a very large majority, that 'this House would welcome a reasonable measure limiting and defining membership of this House and dealing with the defects which are inherent in certain of the provisions of the Parliament Act,' this House declines to proceed with a measure which makes no provision for dealing with the long standing declaration of Ministers that reform of the Second Chamber is of urgent importance to the public service."—(The Earl of Midleton.)
LORD SNELL: My Lords, in taking part in this debate those of us on this side of the House feel almost as if we were guilty of impoliteness in entering into a family quarrel on the other side. This discussion so far proves once again that upon this question there is no possibility of agreement, and that even a small measure like this gives rise to the most pronounced differences. I feel some hesitation, too, as a comparatively new member of your Lordships'

591
House in trying to state the opinions on this matter of the Party to which I belong, and I am only consoled by the fact that the mover of this Bill is an even more recent member than myself. When the noble Lord announced this measure our first thought was that the creation of Life Peerages might be a comfortable way of getting rid of a tedious and very difficult question. We all of us know men who by their services, their character and capacity would add weight and dignity to any assembly, however distinguished, in this country. We know, too, that many possessing those qualities would be glad to give their services to the nation, but would not contemplate the possibility of accepting Hereditary Peerages. We can also concede that there might be some convenience to your Lordships' House in manning some of the specialised Committees to have more men of special qualifications available for that purpose. So it is possible, my Lords, for us to sympathise with the idea behind the Bill without agreeing at all with the provisions of the Bill, the scope of it, or indeed its general proposals.
When notice was given of this Bill our interest on this side was immediately aroused, and we permitted ourselves to indulge in visions of an increased number of people to help us in our work in your Lordships' House. We said to ourselves that at last, moved by a sense of political justice and perhaps of sympathy for the miserable loneliness and numerical ineffectiveness of my noble friends and myself, some one was prepared to do something to add to our numbers. This Bill illustrates the insight and wisdom of the man who said "Happy is he who expecteth nothing for he shall not be disappointed." This Bill scarcely touches a matter which must be as unsatisfactory to most of your Lordships as it is to the unfortunate minority in your Lordships' House. It does not specifically mention the question of an increased number of Labour Peers. Even if the whole of the Peers to be created were Labour it would still leave us as hopeless prisoners in the hands of a numerous and hostile majority on the other side of the House.
Then again the Bill does not say that no more Hereditary Peerages shall be created. If it is true, as the noble Lord
592
has suggested, that on an average for the last six years ten hereditary Peers a year have been created, then, supposing half of them were Life Peers, it would leave proportions in your Lordships' House precisely what they are to-day. And remember that it is not inconceivable that there might be a Prime Minister who had—I think the word used by the noble Lord was "idiosyncrasy." Suppose a Labour Prime Minister had an idiosyncrasy for appointing only Labour Peers and that that went on for ten years—and your Lordships may contemplate that as a possibility. If you had only Labour Peers created each year for ten years, you would not get any of those distinguished persons which the noble Lord has in mind, nor would you in the end greatly relieve the numerical disadvantage on this side of the House.
I do not propose to discuss the problem of Clause 1. That seems to raise constitutional difficulties concerning which I imagine lawyers in your Lordships' House will enjoy themselves immensely. To a mere layman it would appear that it would reduce the powers of your Lordships' House and increase the Prerogatives of the Crown. It is with Clause 2 that I desire to deal this afternoon. So far as I understand the Bill, five Life Peers are to be created annually from specially selected categories—law, diplomacy, Admirals, Generals, ex-Governors, and representatives of science, art, literature, commerce, and so on. The qualifications for which people in those categories are admired are not those that are most urgently required in the service of your Lordships' House. We have already distinguished representatives of all those categories except, perhaps, commerce, literature, and "industrial work," whatever that may mean. To duplicate them is merely to increase the numbers in your Lordships' House without increasing its debating or its deliberative strength.
I do not suggest for a moment that they would ruin your Lordships' House, but they certainly would not redeem it. The proportion of Parties would not be seriously altered and there would be little addition to the kind of experience which in my judgment your Lordships would find most valuable. The one thing that would strengthen the deliberative

593
quality of your Lordships' House would be an increase in the number of those who as industrial organisers and as the leaders of friendly societies, trade unions and the working-class movement generally, could take part in your work. As I read the Bill, the only chance for people of that kind would be through the House of Commons and there they must give twenty years of service.
LORD ROCKLEY: May I interrupt the noble Lord to say that the words "social and industrial work" in Clause 2 exactly define the people to whom he is referring?
LORD SNELL: I said whatever the words "industrial work" may mean. How, if this Bill were passed, would it affect the House as a whole? There are, as I calculate it, 733 members of the existing House excluding Princes of the Blood Royal and minors. Of those we on this side number a round dozen. I do not try to separate the Liberal members from the general majority, because I do not know the number that rightly belong to the Liberal Party. But they, too, have a claim that should be considered. The Liberals never give us anything except advice and that is often given in the tones of the heavy father reproving a wayward son. I have, however, some affection for the quarry-whence I was hewn, and I feel that they, too, have a certain claim.
What may Labour hope for from the Bill that is before your Lordships' House? I think your Lordships can contemplate that, whether you like it or not, Labour is going to be a permanent factor as a political organisation in this country. It may happen that at the next Election a quite surprising number of people will vote for what you consider the heresies which we specially represent. Now we can only judge of what is intended, not merely by this Bill, but by other Bills presented to your Lordships' House. The Bill. presented last year by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, proposed to reduce the number of those Labour members who sit in your Lordships' House to about two and a half. We were promised that we should be reserved in proportion to our numbers, and that came out at about two and a half. That Bill was apparently modelled on the principle that:
594
"Whosoever hath, to him shall be given; and whosoever bath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have."
The House accepted that Bill and thus revealed its outlook.
In this Bill, if it does not reduce, it unsatisfactorily increases Labour representation. Even if all the Life Peerages were Labour, it would make us some 60 as against 650 on the other side. My Lords, with the best will in the world you can scarcely expect us to be wildly enthusiastic about the Bill which is before you. But our opposition to it is not because it continues a designed and controlled discrimination against a minority. It is because it patches up an institution which, in its present form, shows signs of wear and which does not play an essential part in the service of the nation. It perpetuates the hereditary principle; it continues, without serious modification, the anomaly of a non-representative and therefore irresponsible Assembly; and it perpetuates this House as an honourable retreat for a selected number of men who may have deserved well of their country, rather than as a workshop for those who, with unexhausted powers, are willing to give to the nation the best that they have. It is due to your Lordships to say that we cannot agree to a Bill, with whatever motive—and I am sure it was a kindly motive—it was introduced, which merely touches the problem without in any way solving it.
Our views on this matter are, I think, well known. They are that, because of its constitution and its one-sided composition, because of its tradition and our own experience of its attitude, we should prefer that, as now constituted, this House should come to an end. Then, if that were determined upon, the question of a Second Chamber could be considered on its merits. The questions of its constitution, its scope, its function, the method of its appointment, the authority to which it should be responsible, could then be examined. But this Bill does not sensibly remedy any weakness that may exist in the constitution and purpose of your Lordships' House, and because it provides no adequate proposals for its reform, we much regret that we can give the Bill no assistance.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, the noble Lord who has introduced

595
this Bill certainly made no extravagant claim for it. He professed that it was a simple Bill, a modest reform. As I understand his observations, it is not intended as part of a plan for the general reform of this House; it is not introduced as an instalment. As I listened to him I heard that the Bill which is to be introduced by Lord Rankeillour next week is really in no sense a part of the plan which is proposed by the noble Lord, and I hope I may infer from that that the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, is not something which is consequent on the introduction of this Bill, with the assent of the noble Lord, the introducer of the Bill.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: The noble Marquess, I may say, is quite correct.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I had somewhat assumed it, because after what had been said by the noble Lord who was the introducer of the Bill, it seemed to me that it must necessarily follow. I propose to deal with the matter as it is placed before your Lordships' House, and to discuss it for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not, in my view, this Bill will to some extent—to a modest extent—alleviate some of the difficulties that surround this House when it is discussed, particularly outside your Lordships' House. I suppose there is nothing with which we are more familiar than that it is apparently not possible to arrive at agreement between the members of your Lordships' House as to what precise course should be followed by those reforming it. We have had the advantage of hearing in recent times the proposals of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and we have discussed them. We have heard the noble Earl, who has spoken to-day, move Amendments on various occasions relating to this matter. We are familiar, if I may use the expression, with the views that both of those noble Lords have put forward. The difficulty is to find some means of agreement.
Now I desire to-day to avoid entering into these discussions for the reason that I cannot think that they help us in dealing with the present Bill as it is put forward for your Lordships' consideration. The real question, as I follow it, is whether or not we are prepared to accept the proposal of creating a number of Life Peers over a period of ten years and limited to the total
596
number of fifty at any one time. The noble Lord who has moved the Amendment has expressed himself very emphatically against the Bill and asked your Lordships to reject it because it does not deal with the general reform of this House. The noble Earl has made his position quite clear, but, with the greatest respect, I venture to put this question to him and in relation to his own argument: Is that quite a reasonable frame of mind for members of your Lordship's House to take? Knowing as we do the difficulties with which we are confronted among ourselves, realising the many attempts which have been made by some of our most distinguished members to arrive at some kind of agreement in regard to it, and appreciating as we do the views of the Party led by Lord Ponsonby, for whom the noble Lord, Lord Snell, has just spoken, and the views of those who are also associated with me, we quite understand that nothing can he done—at least nothing has hitherto been done. We do not seem to have advanced one scrap over all these years.
It is perfectly legitimate to make the observation that when the Parliament Act was introduced in 1911, and had passed your Lordships' House, it was understood that the reform of this House was a matter of urgency, and would be dealt with, and that hitherto no one has been able to find a plan which would commend itself either to this House or the country. If that is the case, are we really in this House setting ourselves to reject everything that may be put forward, either as a modest reform or, it may be, something which would deserve an adjective of a wider description? Are we to reject it simply because we cannot agree upon the general form? I hope that that will not be the view taken by this House. I cannot myself agree with the noble Earl, or with the argument which he has put forward. It seems to me that it really shuts the door to any proposal which has been brought forward which is not a general reform to which he would agree, and that is really an absolutely impossible situation, if I may say so with respect, for members of this House to take. After all, we ought to consider the proposal as it is put forward and see whether, though we can only go a small step, we shall nevertheless take that step.

597
I shall unhesitatingly vote for the Bill. I believe it to be a step in the right direction. I followed what was said by the noble Lord who spoke on behalf of the Labour representatives in this House. I quite understand the view which they put forward, and if I may say so, I sympathise with them. I hope I shall not be thought to be giving fatherly advice. I am merely expressing a view which we hold here, and not only with regard to ourselves, because vie do not suffer as members of the Labour Party do. We have sufficient numbers to enable us to put forward our views. But taking into account the representatives in the House of Commons, the elected representatives, remembering that this, after all, is a democratic country, and that we pride ourselves on our representative institutions, can any one of us assert that this House is truly representative, when we have, as at the present moment, such insignificant representation—in numbers, not in quality—of the Labour Party? It seems to me that we cannot truly say so; and I am sure there is no member of this House who has not again and again in discussion, or in thinking over the problem, wondered how it would be possible to increase the Labour representation.
I quite agree that this Bill does not go very far; but it does seem to me that it would confer this advantage. It would enable a number of men who have taken part, in various ways, either in public affairs or in arts, sciences or other work, to be represented without, at the same time, having to limit in a sense the future of a son and heir, by making him ultimately a Peer, which would, in all probability, seriously interfere with his ordinary avocation in life. I am sure your Lordships are aware of numbers of men who would like to become Peers, in order to take part in public affairs, but are unable to do so simply for the reason that they do not want their sons to follow them. They realise that whereas their public work may have entitled them to a seat in this House, and to take part in the affairs of the country and the Empire, nevertheless, their sons have done nothing to deserve it, and must wait and merit it, before getting that promotion. There are numbers of men who, for such reason, think it quite impossible to come here. Lord Snell mentioned, and I was glad he did,
598
men who have taken considerable part in the work of friendly societies and trade unions. I assert that we cannot in this House have a representative House unless we have men who can speak, and are entitled to speak, to us on the friendly societies and trade unions. This House will not suffer, but will benefit by the inclusion of such members, limited as they are.
For myself, although I do not bind my Party in any way, I would be satisfied to go further, if it were possible to carry it in this House, because I think it would be to the advantage of this House to have a more liberal representation of a Party which is very great in numbers and power in the country, and which could contribute much to our discussions. Having said that, I shall pass from the main question because really, holding the views that I hold, and that I am venturing to put before the House, I suggest that on the merits of the case, and taking the Bill as it stands, asking us to vote for a limited number of Life Peers in order to give men an opportunity of coming to this House who would be prevented from doing so if they had to take Hereditary Peerages, we are taking a step which will assist this House, raise it in the public esteem, and at least show that we are ready to consider any measure which may be proposed for the purpose of improving the character of the House and making it more general than it is.
Now, may I make a very few observations in relation to Clause 2, which was mentioned by Lord Snell, and as to which, if he will permit me to say so, I will not attempt to play the heavy father. I do not think he paid sufficient attention to the words at the end of the clause, which extends the qualification to "social and industrial work." I think those words would cover the case that was put forward by Lord Snell. In any event, when in Committee, we could make it perfectly clear that the words were wide enough without question to admit men of the character which he mentioned. The point which I would urge upon the noble Lord to consider is whether it is really worth while to have Clause 2 at all. Is it not sufficient to confer upon the Crown the Prerogative of appointing Life Peers? That is done in Clause 1, and why should we place this limitation upon that Prerogative? I agree, in

599
general, with the view put forward that these are the men whom we would like to see in this House, but I confess that I dislike the use of such a word as "pre-eminence" as one of the necessary qualifications. It leads to much discussion as to what is meant by it, and I think it should be left to those who would be responsible for making the appointments. Especially in the case of those engaged in social and industrial work it would be difficult to say what would be pre-eminence.
But these are rather criticisms for the Committee stage. I have only made these observations because I would like the noble Lord to consider whether he thinks it is necessary to proceed with Clause 2, whether he could not limit the Bill to conferring upon the Crown the Prerogative of creating Life Peers not exceeding five in any one year, and limiting the total number of Life Peers in this House to fifty. That is a perfectly simple matter. It leaves it open to those who are responsible hereafter for recommending the Crown to confer Life Peerages, to select the type of man who would be most desirable, and I very much hope that that would have the effect of giving us the benefit in this House of just the type of representative to which the noble Lord, Lord Snell, referred.
Having expressed those views I leave further discussion until we come to the Committee stage, but I would urge with all respect upon your Lordships that we should leave the door open, that we should accept the proposal now put forward, which is truly modest in its proportions, without prejudice to the introduction hereafter of a measure of far greater general reform. Nothing in this Bill prevents it. When we have passed this Bill we are left just where we were. It will be still open to any member of your Lordships' House to make any further proposal. And I cannot for the life of me follow the argument of the noble Earl that because we have 733 members of this House we should not add to their number in this way. We know perfectly well that we are not encumbered by too great an attendance in this House. Our difficulty is rather that of getting a good attendance in order that we may have good debates and of inducing those who have the privilege of being Peers of Parliament
600
to realise that they also have an obligation to take part in the work of Parliament.
It has struck me again and again during the last ten years how few of those who, after they have been created Peers, have taken their seats, take the trouble to carry out the obligation placed upon them as Peers of Parliament, and simply' content themselves with the honour of the title. I hope these Life Peers will include those who would represent the Labour Party, which has become such a great Party in the country. I earnestly believe that if you create those men Life Peers you will have men who will attend, who will realise the obligation upon them, who will do their best to support their own Party and who will give the benefit of their views to your Lordships' House.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, I think perhaps that at this stage of the debate your Lordships will think it right that I should state the line which the Government take on this measure. Your Lordships will remember that when the discussion took place on the Bill introduced by the noble Marquess who sits below the Gangway (Lord Salisbury) the Government said that that was a measure which could not go forward in the present Session, and that it was impossible that a measure of that kind could be proceeded with or would have any chance of passing into law unless it were brought forward by the Government of the day. And I think your Lordships will understand that in relation to this measure, which is one of a far smaller character, the same attitude applies, and that the Government can take no part in it beyond personally expressing those opinions which we feel about it.
The noble Lord, as he would do, has introduced this measure in a very interesting speech, and it has certainly given rise to a very interesting debate. The Bill is a very small one and suggests the recruiting to your Lordships' House of not more than five Peers a year, amounting to an addition of fifty Peers in ten years. Even if it becomes law, therefore, it cannot bring a great influence to bear on your Lordships' House, and I am bound to say that I feel myself more in agreement with the noble Earl who sits behind me (Lord Midleton) in his view that in dealing

601
with what we call the reform of the House of Lords it would be much better to do so by some measure of a more comprehensive character, rather than by smaller measures which really make very little contribution to the solution of the problem, except the contribution of principle.
We have found in all this time that the difficulty which really confronts us all on the practical, and perhaps the theoretical side, is the multitude of opinions which exists as to how the change can be brought about. Noble Lords who sit opposite have made up their minds very definitely that there is no reform of your Lordships' House which can give them and the Party they represent the proper position which they feel that they should occupy, and that all measures of reform which have been brought forward have really only reduced the discrepancy between the two Parties, but have done nothing whatever to remedy the defects and difficulties with which they tell us they are confronted.
The Bill which the noble Lord, Lord Rockley, has introduced is one which initiates a new principle. Perhaps it is not altogether new, because Life Peerages are already conferred on Law Lords. But it is a new principle in that such Life Peerages would be conferred on those who otherwise would occupy exactly the same position as the Peers of Parliament who now sit in your Lordships' House. The noble Marquess opposite has suggested that there are a great many people in this country who would appreciate that privilege, and who world go further and would not feel that their sons should occupy the position after them. I do not desire to go into an argument on that point, but I am not sure that I entirely agree with the noble Marquess, and I am inclined to think that there are not so very many people who would prefer a Life Peerage rather than that the honour conferred upon them should be transmitted to their families. But that is a small issue, into which I do not wish to go.
The noble Lord, Lord Rockley, both in this House and in another place, has invariably done his best to make his contribution to the public good, and he feels that by the creation of Life Peerages he will bring into your Lordships' House a contingent of men who
602
perhaps—although I do not entirely agree with him—may be said to be more in touch with the everyday life of the country to-day than are those who occupy their position by an hereditary title. Perhaps one might say that the establishment of Life Peerages in this House is a contribution in that direction, but I would venture to say that that is not altogether necessary. It is quite true that your Lordships' House consists of considerably over 700 members, and I think we can find among the members of your Lordships' House individuals who fully represent everything that is best in public life in this country, and who, in ever-increasing number, are daily and continually in touch with modern and progressive life. I think your Lordships will also agree that whenever there is a debate in this House, though it is invidious ever to draw comparisons, it compares very favourably with any debate which takes place in another place, whatever the importance of that debate may be.
There is no need to concentrate our attention on the smallness of the number of Peers who come to the Chamber on any particular occasion. It is very regrettable, as the noble Marquess has said and as my noble friends behind me have said, that the number is not larger, but still you will find that the members who do attend are the Peers who are interested in the subject, and who in their speeches can bring very valuable contributions to bear on the matter under discussion. It really amounts to this, that whenever we are discussing a subject in your Lordships' House the Peers who attend constitute themselves into what amounts to a committee of very valuable opinion for giving expression to what they feel or to views formed from a study of subjects with which they are familiar. Your Lordships will, I think, also agree with me when I say that the debates in your Lordships' House are watched with great interest in the country. That shows that a great measure of importance is attached to the decisions which your Lordships may arrive at. The Select Committees which are appointed by your Lordships' House invariably do very useful work, and it is for this reason that I feel that though the composition of your Lordships' House is certainly susceptible to changes with which we all could agree, and which one

603
may hope will one day be brought about, and though on account of the divergencies of opinion that exist at the present moment we feel there are almost insuperable difficulties in front of us, there are, nevertheless, members in your Lordships' House who are fully capable and competent to deal with all the great subjects with which we may be confronted.
The noble Lord, in Clause 2 of his Bill, has gone so far as to specify the people on whom the honour of a Life Peerage should be conferred, and the noble Marquess dealt with that point in a very proper manner. If such a principle was enacted it is not; the older men on whom your Lordships would like to see this honour conferred. It really is the younger men one would like to see coming into this House and taking part in our debates. I always feel, in the responsible position which I may be said 'to be occupying at the present moment, in speaking on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that it is our duty to do whatever we can to encourage younger men to come and take part in these debates, and it is a matter of sincere regret that a smaller number take part than the numbers spoken of by the noble Earl behind me, although I would not say that the number is decreasing as time goes on.
I do not feel I can add anything in regard to my own personal point of view. My only duty in rising to-day was to inform your Lordships of the attitude of the Government, which is that they feel, if any measure of this description is undertaken, it should be as part of a larger reform, and that on the question of a larger reform the same remarks apply which my noble friend Lord Hailsham made on the Bill brought forward by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, when he said:
"I ought, however, to make it clear that it is not possible to hold out any hope that this Bill, or any Bill dealing with this subject, can pass into law during the present Session."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am very sorry to stand between my noble and learned friend Lord Merrivale and your Lordships' House, but I shall be very brief. Allow me to say a word or two on this subject. May I begin by once more trying to convince noble Lords who represent the Labour party in this House that we who sit on
604
this side of the House are not so one-sided in our opinions as they seem to imagine? I hoped I had convinced the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and others that Conservatives really have a sense of fairness in this matter, and that we are most anxious that in any reform in your Lordships' House there shall be adequate representation of Labour, but I noticed that the old cliché of attack upon Conservatives, and myself as one of them, still found its place in the speech of my noble friend Lord Snell. I am very sorry I have not been able to persuade him. We should like to see a great many more Labour Lords here if that could be managed.
I have listened to this debate with great interest and a good deal of sympathy. My noble friend Lord Rockley has introduced this Bill and has recommended it to your Lordships in a speech of studied moderation. There was very little in it to which anybody could object and the noble Marquess who leads the Liberal Party has strongly supported it. It is an unusual position in which I stand, but there was very little in the speech of the noble Marquess with which I did not agree. He is quite right in saying that as a matter of theoretical arrangement it would be a very good thing if, by means of Life Peerages, you could have a, larger number of Labour representatives and a better distribution of Parties in the House. The difficulty is, I am afraid, that my noble friend's Bill will not do that. But it will do something, and if there was any chance of its being a practical Bill which Parliament was going actually to pass—I shall say a word or two about that in a moment—I am not sure I should not be anxious to see something on these lines done.
It would be a good thing if you could have representatives of the trade unions and of labour organisations in this House. But the truth is there is no such chance of anything of the kind occurring. The noble Marquess who has just spoken from the Front Bench has told you in very familiar words why it is that nothing can be done. I am very much obliged to the noble Marquess. He spoke as he always does, clearly, and explained many of the qualities of your Lordships' House, which we all know and value. He said nothing can be done in the way of reform so far as the Government were concerned.

605
I was not surprised to hear him say so; I knew he would say so. What is the position then? Suppose your Lordships thought fit to carry this Bill?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I do not know whether I ought to correct the noble Marquess, but what I thought I had said, and what I meant to say, was "in the present Session."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I will riot go into what possibly may happen next Session, but, at any rate so far as my noble friend's view is concerned, we only have to deal with the present Session, because by the rule of Parliament cur proceedings come completely to an end at every Prorogation. We really are not dealing with any substantial matter of reform. If I may use the phrase, this must be a purely academical discussion, admirably sustained, I agree, in the speeches which have been delivered, but it is merely an academical exercise on your Lordships' part in order to show what views you take upon the subject. Upon the academical side of it, I am largely in agreement with my noble friend and the noble Marquess. There is no measure, as far as I know, of the reform, of this House which has been proposed which does not embrace the particular feature which this Bill presents. Life Peerages in one form or another have more or less entered into almost every 'scheme that I have ever seen. Therefore, in that sense, it is a step in the right direction. But it is not going to be effective. It is not going to pass into law.
Supposing your Lordships were to carry it, what would be the result? People would say: "This is what the Lords want for the reform of their House. Here it is, fifty Life Peers in. ten years. That is their idea of reform. After all these great discussions, all these wonderful ideas of root-and-branch reform, all the questions of what is going to happen to the Parliament Act and so forth, it all conies down to fifty Life Peers in ten years." I think if that were the conclusion which the country drew, it would be a very unfortunate conclusion, and I cannot help thinking, when I say so, that I shall command almost universal assent in your Lordships' House. I believe there is hardly anybody sitting on any of the Benches in this House who would regard
606
that result as anything but a very poor and almost a contemptible result. In saying that I am not meaning anything disrespectful to the Bill. I mean that it would be considered almost a contemptible result looked at as a measure of what the reform of your Lordships' House ought to be. Therefore, personally, I should be sorry to see this Bill pass through your Lordships' House, because I think it would mislead public opinion.
If it was going to be taken up by the Government, if it was going to be given time in another place so that it might pass, then we should have to look at it from quite a different point of view. Then all the arguments which the noble-Marquess and my noble friend have put forward would become matters of very, serious consideration. We should have to think whether we ought not, upon that footing alone, to take a measure by which we might increase Labour representation to a very limited extent, and by which we might introduce one or two distinguished gentlemen of other persuasions who are unwilling to take Hereditary Peerages. I think there are many fewer of those than noble Lords seem to think. There are, of course, a certain number, especially of the Labour Party, who, for very honourable reasons, have a difficulty in accepting an Hereditary Peerage, but it is not a very common difficulty if you take all ranks of society. Most of them, I think, if they were asked, would very much prefer an Hereditary Peerage.
That being the position in which I stand, I have to ask myself what I propose to do with my own humble vote if your Lordships go to a Division. I cannot see myself voting against the Second' Reading of my noble friend's Bill, because, in principle, I think it is a good' measure; but to pass it through your Lordships' House and to give people the, impression that this is House of Lords' reform of 1935, that this is really the thing which they have come to, I think would be unfortunate; and certainly hope, whether your Lordships accord a Second Reading to my noble friend's Bill or not, that my noble friend will see, in the absence of any support from the Government, for which I do not criticise the Government for a moment, that he will be very unwise to ask us to go any further in the subsequent stages of his Bill.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, if I may occupy your Lordships' time for a very few minutes, I should like to associate myself in principle with what the noble Earl, Lord Midleton, said, in regard to this Bill. The matter really has to be looked at as a practical question—that is how it strikes me—in view of the existing circumstances and the outstanding problems of our time. The noble Marquess on the Front Bench reminded us that this is a democratic country, and we are proud of it. In this democratic country you have at the present time a body of upwards of 700 legislators, nine-tenths of them representing the privileged classes of the community, and if you have that state of things in a democratic country, it is pregnant with danger. We have been reminded, not very long ago, of dangers which may threaten the country, because there are people who take the view that, the Parliament Act being what it is, you could, for all practical purpose, disable the House of Lords. And so you could. How you could do it has been pointed out. The question is whether, in a democratic country with an Hereditary House of between 700 and 800 members, most of them members of the privileged classes in the country, it is a judicious thing to add a new privileged class. That is what my noble friend's Bill proposes to do.
He will quite understand that I do not lightly criticise a Bill of his, but I think the substance of the matter is that he proposes to add to this House a new privileged class. Are you going to strengthen the House by that means? Are you going to reinforce it for useful purposes? Are you going to achieve any of the objects which you ought to have in view in a democratic country with a working Legislature dealing fairly as between, class and class with the great questions that arise? My noble friend says quite fairly, "Oh, we really want to introduce the principle of a Life Peerage." If this were a Bill introduced in the year 1888—when I think the noble Lord's uncle took an active interest in these matters—and there were a proposal then for sanctioning Life Peerages, it would be a different matter. But how must it appear to the masses of the people of this country if this House, when one of the great problems of the time is reform which shall adjust it to modern conditions, says:
608
"The kind of reform we will give you is to add to the 730 odd members of privileged classes the members of a new, order of merit"? As it seems to me, a proposal of that kind does not really present the views of this House in the proper light to the country at large.
If my noble friend were proposing that there should be Life Peerages I should be with him. I very greatly regret what I think was a mistake made seventy years ago or thereabouts, when it was decided that the Crown was not able to appoint Life Peers. But you cannot go back upon that by side-tracking the question as it is proposed to do. Here is one of the great questions of our time—to adjust the relationship of the House of Lords to its position in a democratic country—and the contribution which this House is asked to make is the really fanciful contribution which my noble friend proposes! I was very much struck by reading in one of the London newspapers, I think it was yesterday, an article written by a very capable writer with much experience of political questions. Discussing this matter which is now before your Lordships' House he wound up with this observation:
"To-day the proposals put forward by Lord Rockley are like an architect's plan for the addition of an oriel window to an ancient hall whose preservation urgently requires new foundations and a new lead roof."
Taking those views, of course I cannot support my noble friend on the Second Reading of this Bill.
EARL PEEL: My Lords, I do not wish to detain you more than a few minutes, but my point of view is rather different from that of some noble Lords who have spoken. May I say that I was very interested in the speech of the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, particularly in his references to the Parliament Act and to the Preamble of that Act. I thought that the Liberal Party had forgotten all about the Preamble of the Parliament Act, and I am greatly relieved to know that it still lives in their consciousness. I feel—rather on the lines of the two noble Lords who spoke recently—that the real attitude of your Lordships' House on this important question, and on the relation of this House to another place, has been defined over and over again in the last few years. It has been defined, indeed, in very drastic measures of reform which in

609
certain circumstances this House is ready to accept. My noble friend Lord Rockley, recited several of the proposals and Resolutions that have been passed, but there were a good many others that he did not recite. There were, for instance, the proposals laid before your Lordships' House by Lord Cave on behalf of the Government of the day, and remember perfectly well as a member of that Government the way they were treated in another place, not by the Opposition but by our own side. There has remained in my mind the immense difficulty of dealing with a subject like this in regard to what happened in another place. That, to my mind, really governs the Whole matter, and it is to that that we ought to direct our minds.
If I may just refer to what my noble friend the Marquess of Salisbury said, I think there is a very great danger if we say that we have abandoned all those rather large schemes of reform and send down now to another place something which I agree is quite useful—I do not object to Life Peers—but which is so different in scope and in magnitude from the proposals we have dealt with in the last dozen years. I am afraid there would be a great danger of misapprehension in the country. The Parliamentary shores are, as it were, full of the wreckage of the proposals for the reform of this Chamber. Let us, if we can, recognise the basic fact of the situation. There is undoubtedly in another place—I speak of it with all respect—a feeling of corporate jealously of a great Chamber which will not agree to any reform in this place, however useful that reform may be, if it increases the power of this House and thereby necessarily diminishes the power of the other House. That is the rock on which all these proposals stumbled. We have asserted our readiness to be reformed. We have proclaimed it again and again, and to my mind there is something a little lacking in dignity in sending fresh proposals down to another place and asking it to accept them. I think we have already done enough in the way of laying our suppliant crowns before another place.
I am convinced that, the initiative has now passed to the House of Commons. If we are to have a. reform of this place—and surely the country must acquit us of any reluctance on that subject—initiative ought to conic from another place
610
and the burden, I consider, of dealing with this great constitutional question now rests on the House of Commons. That is the point of view I take of these proposals, and in closing I would only say that I was much struck by the carefully guarded phrase used by my noble friend the Marquess of Londonderry as to reform not taking place this Session. I should like to know if the inference to be drawn from that is that the members of this Government—a National Government, which must be better equipped to bring in a measure of reform than any other Government—have at last made up their minds as to the measures they are going to bring forward, and that, this Session having been devoted to reform in India, the next and last Session is to be devoted to the reform of the House of Lords.
LORD HUNSDON OF HUNSDON: My Lords, I have no great contribution of value to make to this debate, but I want to assure my noble friend Lord Rockley that there is one person at all events on this side of the House who agrees with him. Speakers from this side of the House have laid great stress on the necessity of a comprehensive scheme. You know perfectly well that there have been countless numbers of comprehensive schemes put before us, and I think I am right in saying there is not one Party in the State which has agreed on any one of those schemes. Now we have a National Government composed of three Parties. Is it reasonable to think, is it the least likely that a National Government composed of three Parties will agree to any of these schemes?
I am most anxious for the reform of this House, as I believe all of us are on this side. My opinion is that if we go on with these comprehensive schemes—and whether we are lacking in dignity or not by putting forward other suggestions I do not care a straw—the only way to get the reform of the House of Lords is to proceed by steps. The noble Lord behind me has indicated one step. I do not in the least say that the addition of fifty Life Peers will do very much to improve the personnel of this House, but I believe that it would make this House appear more authoritative in the minds of the people and give us a better chance of introducing further reforms. For that reason I intend to support my noble friend Lord Rockley.
LORD ROCKLEY: My Lords, as the introducer of the Bill, I should merely like to deal with two or three of the speeches which have been delivered. I cannot see that we have got any further in this debate than mildly to bless the principle of Life Peerages and to say that we still disagree about everything else. I indeed wish that the Government would take more active steps in this matter, and make up their minds on any similar matter connected with the reform of this House, but I fear that beyond airing the question to-day we have done very little. I should like warmly to thank the noble Marques's who sits on the Front Bench, the Marquess of Londonderry, for his kind words about the Bill, and the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, for what he said on the whole of the subject-matter of the Bill. I entirely agree with practically every word he said on that subject.
As to the suggestion which he made about Clause 2 being partially dropped, I am quite prepared to consider it if we get to Committee. I think, indeed, that I indicated in my former remarks that I felt some difficulty about a definition and that I was not sure that the definition in the clause was absolutely watertight. The reason why I endeavoured to put in a definition was, however, what I described as illustrated by the debate in this House in June, 1929. I wanted to be sure that as far as possible any choice by leading authorities should be closely circumscribed by the necessity to appoint really eminent and proper persons.
So far as Lord Snell has spoken, I am sorry that he does not go very far towards assisting the Bill, if at all. He points out a great many difficulties, and hardly recognises the effort—though he agrees that there is a kindly motive—which I made in bringing forward a side of the question which might possibly have been agreed upon more unanimously. He only said that it is patching up an institution which he does not appreciate. The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, also mentioned the question of trade unions being represented in this House—as indeed several other noble Lords have also desired. I want to make it perfectly clear that one of my objects in bringing in this Bill was to give some further representation to trade unions or
612
others—to use the words of the Bill—"in social and industrial work."
Further, I quite appreciate the kind words which my noble friend Lord Salisbury has spoken about the Bill itself, and I think I understand his attitude. I cannot, however, help feeling that this Bill was brought forward as, and still remains, a gesture indicating that we want to do something effective in this House, and as a gesture I feel that we certainly ought to give it a Second Reading; I am not prepared at the present moment to say how much further we should go. We want to show that this is a serious question with us, and I do not think the question is always answered by trying to arrive at more or less agreed, or disagreed, schemes which in the end evolve into nothing. I had some hopes that this Bill might evolve into something if the Government were prepared to give it a less cold shoulder. As it is, I see the difficulty of the situation, and I can only hope that the Government will on another occasion take a more active line.
I have not overlooked the proposals of the late Lord Cave, to which my noble friend Lord Peel referred, but I cannot quite see, either with him or with my noble friend Lord Salisbury, why the passage of this Bill into law would cause serious misapprehension in the country. I do not think it would. In view of the debate that has taken place here, I should have thought that it showed we really meant business. I know that we have often tried to mean business which has not effectually come off, but that is no reason why this debate should be so interpreted in the country. I should have thought that many of us could proclaim in the country, by speech and otherwise, that this was a serious gesture and not a farcical one. I do not think I have anything further to add. I am surprised that my noble friend Lord Merrivale considers that I am putting up a new privileged class. I do not follow his argument in the least. I should not have thought that it was in any way setting up a privileged class to put fifty new Peers into this House, and I should not have thought that at all a good reason for opposing the Bill. I think I have dealt with all the speeches that have been made, and I am much obliged to your Lordships.
On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Motion?
Resolved in the affirmative, and Bill read 2a accordingly.

METROPOLITAN POLICE (BORROW ING POWERS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) Bill reported without amendment.
ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, before the House adjourns, may I ask the Leader of the House if he will be good enough to tell us what is the business for next week, and if there are any additions to what is already on the Paper? Perhaps, also, though it is some distance ahead, it would be for the general convenience if the noble Viscount could tell us the arrangements with regard to the sittings of your Lordships' House in Jubilee week.
Their Lordships divided;—Contents, 44; Not-contents, 14.

CONTENTS.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Ullswater, V.

Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

Reading, M.

Kinnaird, L.

Salisbury, M.

Winchester, L. Bp.

Marks, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Dudley, E.

Alvingham, L.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Feversham, E.

Askwith, L.

Palmer, L.

Iveagh, E.

Biddulph, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Lucan, E.

Clwyd, L.

Redesdale, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Remnant, L.

Strafford, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Rhayader, L.

Wicklow, E.

Greenway, L.

Rockley, L. [Teller.]

Hampton, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Elibank, V.

Hanworth, L.

Stanmore, L.

Hailsham, V.

Howard of Penrith, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Halifax, V.

Hunsdon of Hunsdon. L. [Teller.]

Mersey, V.

Trent, L.

Plumer, V.

Illingworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Bayford, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cranworth, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L. [Teller.]

Rochester, L.

Midleton, E. [Teller.]

Sanderson, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Arnold, L.

Marley, L.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for asking me the question. So far as next week is concerned, there are the two matters on the Paper for Tuesday, the Second Reading of the Bill of my noble friend Lord Rankeillour, and the Motion in the name of Lord Eltisley. There will also be the Third Reading of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, and the Second Reading of the Land Drainage (Scotland) Bill. That last Bill is, I think, quite uncontentious. It passed through the other place without any difficulty, and it is desired, if possible, to get it on the Statute Book next week. Then, on Wednesday, there is a Motion that stands in the name of my noble 'friend Lord Cranworth, the Second Reading of the Vagrancy Bill, and the Committee stage of the Land Drainage (Scotland) Bill. I understand also that the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, has put clown a Motion dealing with ribbon development, the exact terms of which I have not seen. On Thursday there will be the Third Reading of the Land Drainage (Scotland) Bill and a Royal Commission to give the Royal Assent to such measures as have passed, before the Adjournment.

615
I thought probably it would be for the convenience of your Lordships if we adjourned on the 11th. There is no urgent business for the days of the following week, and. it makes a much better break if we get away on Thursday of next week. I propose to ask your Lordslhips to return to work on April 30, which 1 think is the same day as is intended in another place. I have not yet got any business for that day, and I am sure there will be nothing very contentious, though there may be some formal business. On Wednesday, May 1, there is a Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, with regard to Geneva and the Covenant of the League of Nations. I have not got the details of the business on Thursday the 2nd on Tuesday the 7th.
On Wednesday, May 8, I am proposing to put down a Motion to present a loyal Address of congratulation to His Majesty on the occasion of his Silver Jubilee, and on Thursday, May 9, as your Lordships may have seen in the public Press, Addresses from this House and from another place are to be presented to His Majesty in Westminster Hall. I cannot give your Lordships very full details about that arrangement at present. Inquiries have been made of every member of your Lordships' House as to whether or not he desires to be present on that occasion, and space is of course being reserved for all those
616
who have intimated their intention of coming. So far as I can understand at present, it will be necessary for us to meet probably at eleven o'clock on Thursday, May 9, and we shall then proceed in procession, headed by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, to Westminster Hall, and there we shall find the House of Commons already assembled, and I think His Majesty is due to arrive at twelve o'clock.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBBEDE: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount.

  IMPORTS.
  IMPORTS.

MAIDSTONE CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the Petition for the following Bill—
Bournemouth Gas and Water.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

BOURNEMOUTH GAS AND WATER.
  PETITION FOR BILL.
  Examiners' Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
Sunderland Corporation Bill
ought to be dispensed with, and that the Standing Orders not, complied with in respect of the Petitions for the

Bournemouth Corporation Bill, and the

Boston Corporation Bill

ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to introduce the Bills; and that the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for Additional Provision in the
Southern Railway Bill
ought to be dispensed with:
Read, and agreed to.

BOSTON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Presented (pursuant to leave given this day); and read 1a.
BOURNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Presented (pursuant to leave given this day); and read 1a.
SEVERN NAVIGATION (CHARGING POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
  SEVERN NAVIGATION BILL. [H.L.]
  Leave given to the Committee to consolidate the Bills into one Bill.
BRISTOL TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
  MEDWAY LOWER NAVIGATION BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments.
BAILDON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
SOUTH SUBURBAN GAS BILL. [H.L.]
The King's consent signified; and Bill reported, with Amendments.

CHESTER WATER BILL.
Reported, without amendment.
READING CORPORATION BILL.
SHEFFIELD AND SOUTH YORK SHIRE NAVIGATION BILL.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
Committed.

SEA FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.
[From Minutes of Judicial Sitting, April 8.]

WEYMOUTH AND MELCOMBE REGIS CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
The meeting of the Select Committee which stands appointed for to-morrow at eleven o'clock, put off to Tuesday the 14th of May next at eleven o'clock,