Sitting of 20 February 1935

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Harrogate Corporation Bill (by Order),
Read a Second time, and committed.
Southern Railway Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    ARMS TRAFFIC.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Chaco Committee of the Assembly of the League of Nations has obtained, or will obtain, information from the South American Governments who are not prepared to interfere with the transit of arms to Bolivia and Paraguay, while other Governments fail to keep arms from being exported, as to the quantity of arms allowed through in this way?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): So far as I am aware the Chaco Committee has not recommended that this information should be asked for, but the whole question will no doubt be further considered when the Advisory Committee next meets.
    Mr. MANDER: Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to see that this suggestion is brought to the notice of the Chaco Committee?
    Sir J. SIMON: I will consider that. But I do not think, as a matter of fact, that it is yet known what is the answer of the South American Governments to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
    Mr. JOHN WILMOTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the committee established by the League of Nations to study the question of prohibiting, under the provisions of
    324
    the Covenant, the supply of war materials to belligerents has yet met; who has been nominated by His Majesty's Government to sit on the committee; and whether he can make any report on its work?
    Sir J. SIMON: The committee in question has not yet met, and I am, therefore, not in a position to make any statement in regard to its work. Sir William Malkin, legal adviser to the Foreign Office, has been appointed by His Majesty's Government to serve on the committee.
    Mr. WILMOT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects that the first meeting will take place?
    Sir J. SIMON: I cannot give the date, but the first meeting will be convened by the Rapporteur of the Council after consultation with the Secretary-General of the League of Nations.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the reasons why the Government is opposing inspection of armament factories at the traffic in arms commission meeting now proceeding at Geneva?
    Sir J. SIMON: The Committee on the Regulation and Control of the Private and State Manufacture of, and Trade in, Arms has met, in accordance with the decision of the Bureau of the Disarmament Conference on the 20th November, to pursue a limited objective and is not discussing proposals for the limitation of armaments, either qualitative or quantitative. His Majesty's Government consider that an elaborate system of permanent and automatic supervision, with local inspection, is not suitable for such a limited objective, but that, in order to achieve results, the machinery of supervision can and should be simplified without lessening its effectiveness as regards the immediate object in view. The United Kingdom Delegation at Geneva will submit in due. course proposals in this respect. As regards the attitude of His Majesty's Government to a system of permanent and automatic supervision in connection with a convention for the reduction and limitation of armaments, I would refer the hon. Member to the Memorandum on Disarmament issued by His Majesty's Government on the 29th January, 1934.
    Mr. MANDER: Is it not the fact that the American, French and other Governments are in favour of local inspection even for this limited purpose?
    Sir J. SIMON: I do not think that that is an entirely accurate statement. There is a general agreement as to the general scheme. The matter is now being considered in all its details. As far as I know, many Governments have got some suggestions to make, and it is even possible that the British Government may be able to improve on the American suggestion.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: Are we to assume from the reply of the right hon. Gentleman that the Government are in favour of the proposal for inspection?
    Sir J. SIMON: I think that Lord Stanhope has already stated at Geneva the general support that we give to the general scheme of the American proposals.

    ABYSSINIA.
    Mr. WILMOTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether an agreement or understanding between the Governments of the United Kingdom, Italy and France, or between the administrations of British Somaliland, French and Italian Somaliland, and the Italian colony of Eritrea, concerning police action to be taken in case of necessity for maintaining law and order in the portions of Abyssinian territory adjacent to these colonial administrations, has been registered with the League of Nations; and will he state its terms?
    Sir J. SIMON: There is no agreement or understanding between the Governments or the Colonial administrations mentioned for any action of the kind suggested for the maintenance of law and order in those portions of Abyssinian territory adjacent to French, Italian or British Colonial possessions.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: Are we to take it that the report in the public Press that the British Minister at Addis Ababa is engaged in pressing advice upon the Abyssinian authorities in the direction of conceding the Italian demands is not justified?
    Sir J. SIMON: I have seen no such report.

    JAPAN (BRITISH SUBJECT'S ARREST).
    Mr. WILMOTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now make a statement regarding the compensation to be paid to Mr. William Maxwell Bickerton in respect to his ill-treatment by the Japanese Government; and whether any assurances have been given that British subjects will not be so treated in Japan in future?
    Sir J. SIMON: I have considered the reply by the Japanese Government to the representations made by His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo. The reply contains satisfactory assurances regarding the future treatment of British subjects arrested in Japan. There is, unfortunately, a conflict of fact between the Japanese Government and Mr. Bickerton as to the latter's allegation of ill-treatment and I do not consider that in the circumstances a claim for compensation could be usefully made.
    Mr. WILMOT: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply and for the trouble which he has taken in this matter, may I ask him whether he feels that nothing more can be done, having regard to the fact that this British subject was arrested, thrown into prison for no other crime than that of harbouring dangerous thoughts, and that there is little doubt that he suffered much indignity and some ill-treatment?
    Sir J. SIMON: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is well advised in putting these matters of detail, but, if he puts them, of course, I must answer them. In the first place, to be quite fair to everybody, it is not the case that this gentleman was merely arrested on the ground suggested. He was arrested on a charge of a breach of the Japanese law. Whether it was right or wrong, I have not the least idea, but no one can complain because he was arrested. As regards his treatment, that, of course, is a different matter. Unfortunately, as I have said, there is a difference as to the facts, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will see what a difficult thing it would be, therefore, to carry the claim for compensation further.
    Mr. WILMOT: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that this British subject was arrested, de

    327
    tained, and, after a long period, released—
    Mr. SPEAKER: This matter cannot be discussed at Question Time.

    ROYAL NAVY: HIS MAJESTY'S SHIPS "HOOD" AND "RE NOWN" (COLLISION).
    Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to make any further statement with regard to the extent of the damage done to His Majesty's Ship "Hood" in the recent collision; and what will be the approximate cost of repairing this damage?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): The extent of the damage to His Majesty's Ship "Hood," as revealed by examination in dock, is as given in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for East Dorset (Mr. Hall-Caine) on the 30th January, except that in addition the starboard wing tail shaft is slightly bent and requires straightening, and that it will be necessary to replace the starboard wing propeller by a new one. The approximate cost of making good the damage is £8,000.
    Captain MACDONALD: Can my right hon. Friend say when the repairs will be completed?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: Fairly soon. I cannot say exactly, but it will not be long.

    PALESTINE (JERUSALEM MUNICIPAL COUNCIL).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will obtain from the High Commissioner for Palestine a report on the division of functions between the Arab Mayor and the Jewish Vice-Mayor in the Jerusalem municipality; and further, whether he will secure that any additional councillor appointed shall be of English birth, so that English standards may be initiated in Jerusalem?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I understand that the first part of the question relates to the arrangements proposed for the conduct of the business of
    328
    the Jerusalem Municipal Council in the absence of the Mayor. The position is that the High Commissioner has decided to appoint two Deputy-Mayors, one a Jew and the other a Christian, and has decided that the Jewish Deputy-Mayor shall invariably take the place of the Mayor and act for him whenever he is absent through sickness or any other cause. The Mayor has not been absent from duty since the date of his appointment. With reference to the second part of the question, I have already informed the right hon. Gentleman on two occasions that I am not prepared to interfere with the High Commissioner's discretion in the matter of the nomination of additional Councillorso. Sir Arthur Wauchope has recently informed me that he does not propose to make any nominations until he has watched the working of the Councils in Jerusalem and Haifa. He will then consider whether he should exercise his power of nomination or not.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is not aware that we hold him responsible and not the High Commissioner?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir, but it seems to me that it is rather a question of whether the discretion for appointing the additional members of the Council should rest with the High Commissioner as vested by law, or with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: That is absolutely insulting. Is it in order to insult a fellow Member of this House? Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that the Secretary of State is responsible for the administration of the law in Palestine, and that there is in Jerusalem a majority of Jews, and that the High Commissioner or himself has appointed an undue preponderance of Arabs?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir, I cannot take that for a moment. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has raised that question over and over again.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I shall do so in future.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The law lays down that the High Commissioner shall have the discretion to make or not to make appointments as he thinks fit, and I propose to rely completely in this

    329
    matter upon the discretion of the High Commissioner, who, I am sure, has the complete confidence of this House.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: That is not the question. [HON. GENTLEMEN: "Order!"] On a point of Order. Is it in order for a right hon. Gentleman on that bench to pretend that this House must not look to him for responsibility instead of looking to other officials?
    Mr. SPEAKER: No point of Order arises in the answer the right hon. Gentleman has given.

    KENYA (TAXATION).
    Mr. BANFIELDasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the failure of the alternative schemes to raise sufficient revenue from the non-native population in Kenya, it is now intended to introduce a graduated income tax?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Budget for the current year is estimated to balance on the basis of existing taxation; and there is no present intention to change that basis.

    INTERNATIONAL LOCUST CONFERENCE.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir ARNOLD WILSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is satisfied that the Governments which attended the third international locust conference in 1933 are actively giving effect to the programme of work elaborated by the conference; and whether, in view of the expansion of cultivated zones in Africa, he is satisfied that no further steps are at present necessary?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The conference in question (which took place in September, 1934) was one of research workers, and I have no reason to suppose that the other Governments represented are not, like His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdoms taking action to implement the research programme which was then drawn up. As regards locust control measures, to which the second part of the question refers, I am satisfied that the Governments concerned are, having regard to the conditions in the various territories, doing all in their power to deal effectively with the locust
    330
    menace, particularly as regards the protection of cultivation. The Inter-State Locust Conference held at Pretoria last August recorded that the states and territories concerned were dealing with the locust menace with appreciable success and that as regards the protection of crops the efforts made have been generally successful.

    COLONIAL SERVICE (LEAVE AND PASSAGE CONDITIONS).
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now make any further statement with regard to the views of the various Colonies upon the recommendations contained in the recent report on leave and passage conditions in the colonial service; and whether he can indicate what reforms are to be introduced to implement such report?
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether decisions have yet been reached by any Colonial Government on the report of the committee on leave conditions in the Colonial service; if so, of what nature; and whether he can, in particular, make any statement with regard to the specific recommendation of the committee that Colonial officials should be enabled to use air transport wherever possible?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have not yet received the definite views of any Colonial Government on the report and am therefore not in a position to make an announcement. Nor, in view of the variety and importance of the issues involved, do I anticipate that I shall be able to do so for some considerable time. As regards air transport, I may say, in order to remove any possible misapprehension, that the principle that Colonial officers should be at liberty to travel by air, when proceeding on leave, is already accepted, where facilities exist.

    ROYAL AIR FORCE.
    Dr. LEECHasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether it is proposed to form an auxiliary Air Force squadron in Northumberland and, if so,

    331
    at what date; and whether applications for service will be invited?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): It is not proposed to form such a squadron, for the present at all events.

  TRANSPORT.

    LOWER THAMES TUNNEL SCHEME.
    Rear - Admiral Sir MURRAY SUETERasked the Minister of Transport when he will be able to make an announcement in connection with resuming work on the Lower Thames Tunnel as approved by Parliament?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I will inform my hon. and gallant Friend.

    HIGHWAY CODE (PEDESTRIANS).
    Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the Minister of Transport whether, in order to save loss of life and prevent accidents, he will consider the advisability of issuing an order compelling pedestrians to keep to the left on all footpaths and to keep to the right of the road, meeting the on-coming traffic, where there are no footpaths?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I propose, with the concurrence of Parliament, to insert in the Highway Code provisions in the sense indicated by my hon. Friend, namely, advising pedestrians not to proceed alongside the kerb of the pavement in the same direction as the nearer stream of traffic. Pedestrians will be further advised to walk on the right of the carriageway where there are no footpaths so as to face the oncoming traffic.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: When the hon. Member came to his decision had he before him the report of an experiment which was carried out in. London some 12 years ago, at great expense, which showed that the scheme had completely failed?
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is it not desirable to issue instructions to pedestrians either to go to the right or the left, and not have the confusion that exists at present?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: In answer to the first supplementary question, it seems
    332
    to me that we have to determine what is right and not to be deterred by previous failures. On this occasion, it will have the full force of the Highway Code and Parliament behind it.
    Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: Is the Minister aware that there are made in this country, by first-class engineers, road studs which are useful and helpful and not detrimental to those who use the road, and will he not try to use them?
    Dr. ADDISON: Does the hon. Gentleman propose that the unfortunate pedestrian is to be punished if he walks on the wrong side of the road?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, Sir. This is a question of sound advice.
    Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: Is the hon. Member aware that the only place where this rule is enforced at the present time is in Rome by the Fascists?

    ROAD LIGHTING.
    Mr. GLOSSOPasked the Minister of Transport whether, with a view to encouraging the provision of overhead central lighting for roads in built-up areas, he will consider giving local authorities a grant from the Road Fund towards the capital cost involved?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have no power to make grants from the Road Fund towards the cost of street lighting.
    Mr. GLOSSOP: What steps is the Minister taking to encourage the provision of central lighting in built-up areas?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have no power in the matter at all.
    Mr. GLOSSOP: Has my hon. Friend a little persuasion?

    SILENCE ZONES.
    Sir W. BRASSasked the Minister of Transport whether he has consulted any motoring organisations as to the advisability or not of experimenting with silence zones over the whole 24 hours before he came to his decision to give favourable consideration to applications from local authorities on this matter?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It is not my practice to consult motoring organisations before answering questions in the House of Commons although I am always glad to have their suggestions and observa

    333
    tions. I would point out that of the 250,000 persons killed and injured on the roads in the course of a year only a very small percentage of the victims are motor drivers. There is therefore a very large volume of other opinion to be considered. I can only repeat that If any responsible local authority makes an application on behalf of its citizens as a whole for an experimental extension of the silence zone or for the trial of any other experimental safety measure it cannot but receive my favourable consideration.
    Sir W. BRASS: Is it a fact not only that the Minister did not ask any motoring organisation but that he did not ask the Road Traffic Advisory Committee or the committee which was set up to advise him, and that he has acted entirely on his own?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I do not understand the position in which my hon. and gallant Friend is desirous of placing me. I was asked a question by an hon. Friend of mine in this House, and given two days' notice, whether I would favourably consider an application by a local authority. I fail to see why I should consult anybody before saying that I will favourably consider it.
    Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: Before considering this matter, will the Minister consider the fact that at night time the silence zone is all right because there are lamps which indicate the coming of the car, but in daylight they do not give any indication at all?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I will certainly consider that, and I am obliged for the suggestion. I may perhaps recall to the House that on the institution of the original silence zone I was advised against it by every motoring organisation in the country, except one, but they now unanimously approve it.
    Sir W. BRASSasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of his intention to give favourable consideration to applications from local authorities for silence zones over the whole 24 hours, he will inform the House what form of sign he proposes to have placed on the roads in the silence zone areas, and at what intervals they will be erected in order to make quite certain that drivers when in the areas shall know that the sounding of a horn is forbidden?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I do not propose to authorise the use of any signs for this purpose.
    Sir W. BRASS: How does the hon. Member think that any driver going through one of these zones will understand that he is not allowed to blow his horn when somebody steps off the pavement? Will he give an assurance that he will not bring in these regulations, as he has brought others in, under the Rules Publication Act, 1893, where he stresses urgency?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: With regard to the first part of the question perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will recall that when the silence zone was originally instituted it was instituted within a radius of five miles of Charing Cross. No signs were considered necessary because the motorist understood that if he was in any doubt on the matter he could give the benefit of the doubt to the public and not sound his horn. Here, we are only dealing with the hypothetical case of a particular locality of a well-defined town, asking for the silence zone to be extended within its borders, for an experimental period. I do not consider that the authorisation of signs is necessary for this particular purpose. In regard to the second part of the question, I never make orders or regulations except within the terms of the powers conferred upon me by Parliament, and upon the legal advice of the Counsel placed at my disposal.
    Sir W. BRASS: Does my hon. Friend realise that there is a great deal of difference between a silence zone at night and a silence zone in the day time?
    Sir W. BRASSasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of his intention to give favourable consideration to applications from local authorities for silence zones over the whole 24 hours, he proposes to alter or revoke Regulation No. 72 of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations, 1931, by which the driver of every motor vehicle is required to give audible and sufficient warning of the approach or position of his vehicle?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: If it be decided to extend the period of the prohibition of hooting either generally or in par

    335
    ticular areas, it will obviously be necessary to amend the regulation referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is the Minister of Transport aware that if these regulations come into operation a motorist may be fined in one area for hooting and in another for not hooting?
    Sir W. BRASS: Is my hon. Friend aware that the first question asked by any insurance company is whether the driver blew his horn before the accident occurred?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am aware of that. But I would ask the hon. and gallant Member to realise that we are faced with a very grave problem in the number of road accidents, and, if by any experiment whatever, we can diminish them, it is our duty to do so.
    Sir W. BRASS rose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think I am becoming in favour of silence zones.

    GREAT WEST ROAD.
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Minister of Transport whether he will ascertain from the Middlesex County Council what approximate proportion of the grants made by his Department in respect of the maintenance of the Great West Road has been spent in rendering the grass margins thereto ornamental and therefore unavailable for pedestrians and riders; and whether in future he will not allow Road Fund grants to be used for such purposes without his specific approval in each case?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The Middlesex County Council, who are the responsible highway authority, estimate that during the current financial year they will spend on the maintenance of the Great West Road approximately £15,400 including £2,100 in respect of the grass margin. The rate of Road Fund grant applicable to the approved expenditure is 60 per cent. The Roads Improvement Act, 1925, empowers a highway authority to provide, maintain and protect trees, shrubs and grass margins, so long as they do not thereby hinder the reasonable use of the highway by any person entitled to its use. The same Act enables me to make grants out of the Road Fund towards expenditure on such purposes.

    SMALL TRADERS (RECORDS).
    Sir COOPER RAWSONasked the Minister of Transport whether he can give any information regarding the proposed amendment of the regulations relating to the keeping of records by small traders?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I gave notice in yesterday's Gazette of my intention to make amending regulations, and I have sent my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of these.
    Sir COOPER RAWSON: May I thank my hon. Friend for the copy which I have already received and for the concession he has very kindly made?

    WESTERN AVENUE.
    Mr. DUNCANasked the Minister of Transport whether, in considering the extension eastward of Western Avenue, he will consult the local authorities as to what measures can be taken to ensure the safety of people, especially children, using the present quiet streets in North Kensington through which the increased traffic making for Western Avenue will pass?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, Sir.

    DOCK AREAS (LIGHTS ON VEHICLES).
    Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLENasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to road accidents which have happened at night in the neighbourhood of the Mersey Docks by collisions with unlighted horse-drawn goods vehicles; whether such vehicles are exempted from the obligation to carry lights by regulations made by the Ministry of Transport under the Road Transport Lighting Act, 1927, even when not carrying inflammable goods; and whether, inasmuch as inexpensive safety lamps are now obtainable, he is prepared to withdraw these exemptions so that it may be compulsory for all horse-drawn vehicles in the dock areas to carry lights as required on other vehicles, with the object of minimising the risk of this type of road accident?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: In certain special dock areas where inflammable or explosive goods are handled vehicles whether horse-drawn or otherwise are exempt from the obligation to carry lights. My attention was recently drawn to a fatal accident in Bootle in which an

    337
    unlighted horse-drawn vehicle was involved, and I am in communication with the Bootle Corporation on the matter.

    PARKING REGULATIONS.
    Mr. BURNETTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Metropolitan Police take action when danger or actual obstruction is caused by vehicles standing in the highways; and will he request the police to see that this policy is more closely followed in the central parts of London, as the present use of the highways as parking places has been declared by the Minister of Transport to be a source of danger to human life?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that the police in central London are fully alive to the desirability of taking action in cases of the kind referred to, and no fresh instructions on the subject are considered necessary.
    Mr. BURNETT: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that Quebec Street, near the Marble Arch, is almost completely blocked by cars?

    TOLL RIGHTS, BOROUGHBRIDGE, SOMERSET.
    Mr. T. SMITH (for Mr. THORNE)asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that a 17-years-old farmer's son has purchased the toll rights of Boroughbridge, Somerset, for £1,430; in what manner the auction was conducted; what are the toll charges for pedestrians, cars, cycles, etc.; and whether he has any intention of making an inquiry with a view to abolishing this toll?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am aware that the toll rights for the year 1935–36 for the bridge on the Taunton-Glastonbury Road, Somerset, were purchased at a recent public auction, the accepted bid being the highest obtained during three consecutive operations of a sand glass. The tolls vary from ¼d. per head for cattle to 1s. 6d. for locomotives of 11 tons or more, cars and motor cycles under two tons pay 3d. and those over two tons, 6d. No charge is made for pedestrians. The bridge is owned by the Boroughbridge Commissioners and no proposal for abolishing the tolls has been submitted to me; but I am prepared to
    338
    consider an application to that effect from the responsible highway authority.

    LEVEL CROSSING, WARRINGTON.
    Mr. T. SMITH (for Mr. THORNE)asked the Minister of Transport whether he has been in communication with the Warrington Town Council in connection with removing the Wilderspool level crossing, which is situated in the centre of Warrington and creates a dangerous bottle-neck; what the approximate cost will be for the removal of the level crossing; and whether the Warrington Council will receive a grant of 75 per cent. of the cost from the Ministry of Transport?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My divisional road engineer has been in communication with the county borough council regarding the removal of Wilderspool level crossing, but the council have not yet submitted details of their scheme. I am prepared to entertain applications for grants up to 75 per cent. of the net cost falling upon highway authorities in respect of approved schemes for the construction of bridges in lieu of level crossings.

    HIS MAJESTY'S SILVER JUBILEE (CELEBRATIONS).
    Mr. MANDERasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether arrangements will he made for those British troops which formed part of the international force in the Saar to take a prominent part in the military review on the occasion of the celebration of the Jubilee of the King's accession, in view of the service which these troops have rendered to the cause of peace?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Douglas Hacking): The only special arrangements with regard to these troops are those already announced for the 22nd and 28th of this month when two battalions will march across London. The troops will take part in the Jubilee celebrations which may be arranged at their stations, but will not be specially brought to Aldershot for the review of the troops of that Command.
    Mr. MANDER: In view of the unanimity of feeling in this country as to the great service rendered by these troops, will not the Financial Secretary give further consideration to this point?
    Mr. HACKING: The review at Aldershot is not a review of the Army as a whole, but a review of the troops under the Aldershot Command, and in any event I would remind the hon. Member that, while we all must appreciate the great success of this unique experience in the Saar, it has always been the main desire and endeavour of His Majesty's troops to maintain peace and never to create friction.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Does not the Financial Secretary think that any other British troops would have done equally well?
    Mr. HACKING: That is the gist of the answer I have given.

  SCOTLAND.

    LICENSED PREMISES, GLASGOW.
    Mr. McGOVERNasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the proposed cutting down of the number of licensed premises in Glasgow; and, if it is to be carried out, whether he will take steps to see that the decisions of the premises that are to be eliminated should be placed in the hands of the sheriffs?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): I am aware from the newspapers that the Glasgow licensing court recently decided to review the number of licensed premises in the city with a view to reducing the number in wards which are considered to be overlicensed. It is outwith my power to take any action in this matter. Under the Licensing (Scotland) Acts the responsibility for the elimination of any licenses is vested in the licensing court and the Court of Appeal.
    Mr. McGOVERN: In view of the feeling that the vast cutting down of licences has not been on a basis of justice but that there were people who were able to give most money to the magistrate concerned will the right hon. Gentleman consider amending the law with a view to seeing that justice is not administered on a basis of palm oil?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I have had no representations that there has been any such practice as that indicated by the hon. Member, and, if anyone knows of any
    340
    such practice, it is his duty in the public interest to make representations to the procurator-fiscal.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) must not make such improper observations. In a supplementary question it is most improper to make such insinuations against magistrates.

    HOUSING (COMPENSATION FOR DISTURB ANCE).
    Mr. BURNETTasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many and which of the local authorities in the larger cities have put into operation Section 30 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930, with regard to loss sustained by reason of disturbance of trade consequent upon removal?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I am informed that only one city (Glasgow) has made payments to shopkeepers under Section 30 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930. In Edinburgh one application is under consideration by the local authority, and in Dundee the only application received was met by an offer of tenancy of a new shop to be erected on the site. In Aberdeen no application has been received. Of other large towns no applications have been received in Greenock, Perth, Paisley, Motherwell and Inverness.
    Mr. BURNETT: Is the Under-Secretary aware that a shopkeeper who paid £60 for fittings and goodwill made an application in Aberdeen and was informed that there was no such scheme?
    Mr. SKELTON: I have given the hon. Member the information in my possession. If he has any further information, I shall be glad to have it looked into.

    MILK MARKETING SCHEME.
    Captain McEWENasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the committee of investigation for Scotland have reported on the complaints by the Association of Certified and Grade A (T.T.) Milk Producers with regard to the Scottish milk marketing scheme; if so, what are the committee's findings; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    Sir G. COLLINS: The committee's report has been received. They find that the provisions of the scheme relating to the contributions payable by producers of certified milk are contrary to the interests of such producers, and are not in the public interest, and they recommend that the scheme should be amended to provide for the fixing of the contribution payable as from 1st May, 1934, in respect of certified milk sold as such, at the rate of one halfpenny a gallon, or an equivalent rate per cow. They do not find that the provisions of the scheme are contrary to the interests of the producers of Grade A (T.T.) milk. I hope to intimate a decision on the committee's findings at an early date.

  HOUSING.

    STEEL WINDOW FRAMES.
    Mr. BANFIELDasked the Minister of Health whether he has issued to any and, if so, which local authorities in North Wales or elsewhere in the United Kingdom instructions that a fixed proportion of steel windows must be used in the building of municipal houses under the new housing schemes; and under what statutory authority he acts in making the use of a proportion of such windows compulsory upon the authorities concerned?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): No instructions of the kind indicated have been issued. The second part of the question does not therefore arise.

    WATER SUPPLY, CHWILOG (INQUIRY).
    Major OWENasked the Minister of Health whether he will state the reasons why it has not been possible to comply with the request of the Lleyn Rural District Council that an inspector conversant with the Welsh language should be appointed to conduct the public local inquiry into the council's scheme for a water supply for the village of Chwilog?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend is always prepared to arrange for the presence of a Welsh-speaking inspector where this is really necessary. My
    342
    right hon. Friend has not received information that difficulties will arise in this case.
    Major OWEN: Has the Parliamentary Secretary forgotten that, in replying to the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Llewellyn-Jones), he said that there were five inspectors available for holding these inquiries who were conversant with the Welsh language and that where an application was made a Welsh speaking inspector would be sent? Why, in the case of the Lleyn Rural Council who made such an application, has it been refused—in a purely Welsh speaking district?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: It has not been found necessary in the past, but, if the hon. and gallant Member will see me about this case and convinces me that it is necessary, I will see that a Welsh speaking inspector is sent.
    Major OWEN: Is it not the fact that in many inquiries in the past the Department has had to engage another official to act as interpreter to the inspector? Has it not occurred in this particular county? Why should public money be wasted in this way?
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: May I ask who decides what is necessary in cases of this kind?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The usual consultations take place with the local authority, but there are parts of Wales where the preference is for an English inspector.
    Major OWEN: Is it not the case that the local authority in this instance specifically asked for a Welsh speaking inspector, and that the Department in London, pursuing its usual policy of ignoring everything Welsh, refused the request?

    SOUTHERN RHODESIA INDUSTRIAL CONCILIATION ACT.
    Mr. GEORGE HALLasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, in view of the fact that under the constitution of Southern Rhodesia he may withhold his assent to any legislation which enforces disability or discrimination on the ground of race, he can give any information upon the position as regards the Rhodesian Industrial Conciliation Act; and whether the Act

    343
    is yet in operation or whether, on the ground that natives are excluded from the scope of the Act, any advice has been tendered to His Majesty as to the exercise of His Majesty's power of disallowance?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): The Southern Rhodesia Industrial Conciliation Act, 1934, contained provision that it should not come into operation unless and until the Governor had declared by Proclamation in the Gazette that it was His Majesty's pleasure not to disallow the Act. After careful consideration of the terms of the Act, as passed by the Legislature of Southern Rhodesia, I informed the Governor on the 12th June last that His Majesty would not be advised to exercise his power of disallowance. A Proclamation was accordingly issued by the Acting Governor bringing the Act into operation as from the 20th July, 1934?

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    HOSIERY AND UNDERWEAR.
    Mr. CAPORNasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that over 3,500,000 dozens of hosiery and underwear were imported into this country during 1934; and whether he can give any estimate of the number of persons who could have been employed if these articles had been manufactured in this country?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As the imports of these commodities are of a varied character the second part of the question could only be answered on the basis of arbitrary assumptions.

    HERRING EXPORTS (GERMANY).
    Mr. HENDERSON STEWARTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that exporters of herring at Anstruther are experiencing great difficulty in obtaining currency transfers from Germany; that there is a danger that the whole export trade may be held up on this account; and whether he can make any statement on the subject?
    Dr. BURGIN: A complaint has been received from one herring exporting firm of the alleged failure of the German Government to grant facilities for the import of United Kingdom herring into Germany. The firm have been asked to produce evidence in support of their complaint and my right hon. Friend will be happy to consider this when it is received, together with any further information which my hon. Friend can supply.
    Mr. STEWART: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that, with that exception, there are no difficulties at the present time in the way of the transfer of currency from Germany?
    Dr. BURGIN: The matters upon which the German Government agreed to provide currency in recently concluded agreements are in normal practice proceeding satisfactorily. I was surprised to learn that a herring exporting firm had found a difficulty, because herring is one of the special commodities to which these exchange facilities were directed. It is only a matter of clearing up what is possibly a misunderstanding.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mary McLahaney, of 13, Lyon Street, Hebburn-on-Tyne, whose father, the late A/Corporal, No. 21,270, Durham Light Infantry, was killed in the Great War and whose mother is also dead, who was receiving a weekly allowance of 12s. from the Ministry which was withdrawn when the rating authorities in county Durham made a supplementary allowance of Ss. weekly on the ground that the Ministry is not responsible for making the grant if public provision is otherwise available or in issue; and whether he will, under the circumstances, restore the grant or at least make an allowance of 4s. weekly to bring the blind orphan's income up to the original amount of 12s.?
    Sir VICTOR WARRENDER (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend is making inquiries into the facts of this case and when they are completed he will communicate with my hon. Friend.

  POST OFFICE.

    SUB-POSTMASTERS (REMUNERATION).
    Mr. H. STEWARTasked the Postmaster-General whether he proposes to use any part of the increasing surplus of the Post Office to provide better pay and improved conditions of service to sub-postmasters, especially to those in rural areas?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Ernest Bennett): Sub-postmasters benefited from July last to the extent of about £50,000 per annum by the pay consolidation scheme which was then put in operation, and this amount will be increased to £100,000 per annum, if and when the emergency reductions of 1931 are fully restored. The question of further improvement of the pay of sub-postmasters is at present under examination in relation to claims by the Sub-Postmasters' Federation.
    Mr. STEWART: In addition to the pay, will my hon. Friend consider the conditions under which these men have to work, especially in view of their quite heavy responsibilities?
    Sir E. BENNETT: Obviously, those matters will be dealt with in the examination that is taking place.

    LOTTERIES (TELEGRAMS).
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Postmaster-General whether he can state the number of telegrams referring to lotteries that have been held up during the past 12 months?
    Sir E. BENNETT: It would, I think, be contrary to the public interest to give the information for which the hon. Gentleman asks.
    HON. MEMBERS: Why?
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Why should it be contrary to the public interest The question does not ask for any particular telegrams. Surely the House ought to know how many telegrams have been held up.
    Mr. DAVIES: Will the hon. Gentleman go into this matter again and see whether we cannot have this information, because it does not appear clear to the House that it is wrong to give the information?
    Sir W. BRASS: Is it not a fact that the Post Office has lost on telegrams for many years?

    VICKERS-ARMSTRONGS, LIMITE (SIR CHARLES CRAVEN).
    Mr. MORGAN JONESasked the Solicitor-General whether he has now caused an investigation to be made into the relationships between Sir Charles Craven, of Vickers-Armstrongs, Limited, and Mr. Spear, of the Electric Boat Company of America; and, if so, what was the result of such investigation?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): Neither I nor my hon. and learned Friend have any power to cause such an investigation to be made, but I am informed by my right hon. Friend the First Lord that, as he informed the House on the 17th December in answer to a question by the hon. Member, the Electric Boat Company, of which Mr. Spear is an official, are licensors for the construction of submarines by Messrs. Vickers-Armstrongs, of which Sir Charles Craven is managing director.

    ANTHRAX (IMPORTED GOATS' HAIR).
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Home Secretary whether he will consider, with a view to the prevention of anthrax in this country, making it compulsory to disinfect all imported goats' hair at the Government station in Liverpool?
    Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLEasked the Home Secretary whether, having regard to the danger of infection with anthrax from imported goats' hair, he will take the necessary steps to ensure that all goats' hair imported into this country, including existing stocks, is thoroughly disinfected?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I have now given full consideration to all the representations submitted to me, and, after careful inquiries, I have reached the conclusion that the present arrangements for the compulsory disinfection of goat hair at the Government station should be extended to imported goat hair generally. It is proposed that the necessary Order should be made at the Privy Council meeting to-morrow and take effect two months hence.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the excellent work that has been done, may

    347
    I ask him to bear in mind the very large amount of goats' hair in stock already and alleged to be full of disease?
    Mr. EADY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is going to have a very serious effect on the use of goats' hair in manufacture? Can he state the number of cases of anthrax that have occurred during the last year?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I have considered the matter very carefully and have come to the conclusion that the proposal would not be an undue burden on industry, and, in view of the evil which arises, I think the proposed action is right.
    Sir F. FREMANTLE: Will my right hon. Friend have the existing stocks disinfected?
    Sir J, GILMOUR: What has been proposed will only come into operation two months hence.
    Sir F. FREMANTLE: Does my right hon. Friend realise that there are stocks which will possibly last two years, and that they will spread infection right and left if he does not deal with them?
    Mr. EADY: Will my right hon. Friend take into consideration the fact that these stocks are already partly in machinery, partly in manufactured cloth?

    INDICTABLE OFFENCES ACT.
    Sir A. WILSONasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the existing procedure under the Indictable Offences Act has not been modified since 1848, at which time illiteracy was common, and that it tends to add to the cost of and delay in criminal proceedings; and whether he will consider the possibility of introducing proposals to amend the Act in order to improve, simplify, and cheapen the administration of justice?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: My hon. and gallant Friend is mistaken in thinking that the procedure has not been modified since 1848. The Indictable Offences Act has been considered and amended from time to time and I do not see my way at the present time to initiate any legislation on the subject.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    MARRIED MEN (DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCES).
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider amending the regulations, issued wader the Unemployment Acts, to provide that a married man separated from his wife and family, with an order of the court for their maintenance made against him, shall not be deprived of dependants' allowances?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): This matter is one of those which are at present under consideration.
    Mr. DAVIES: Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to make representations to his chief, as it is indeed anomalous that a court of law should decide that a man is responsible for his wife's maintenance, but that his Department, on the other hand, should regard a man as not responsible for her maintenance at all?
    Mr. HUDSON: It is a question whether or not such an alteration in the regulations can be made within the terms of the Act.

    EXCHANGE ACCOMMODATION, STOCKSBRIDGE.
    Mr. GLOSSOPasked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the representations from the Stocksbridge Urban District Council regarding the provision of a shelter outside the Employment Exchange; and whether he is now in a position to make a statement?
    Mr. HUDSON: It is not usually necessary for applicants to have to wait outside Employment Exchanges for any length of time, if they attend at the time previously indicated, and no provision of the kind mentioned is normally made. The Stocksbridge branch employment office has been converted into an employment office and arrangements are in hand for increased and improved accommodation.

    ASSISTANCE BOARD (PROVISION OF INFORMATION).
    Mr. BURNETTasked the Minister of Labour whether he will communicate with the Unemployment Assistance Board with a view to arranging that

    349
    Members of Parliament may obtain from their local. office any information on the local working of the regulations which they may require for the discharge of their duties, instead of having to rely for their information upon complaints which may be made to them by constituents 'as to reductions of allowances?
    Mr. HUDSON: The information provided to the officers of the board by applicants is obviously of a confidential nature and the board's officers could not disclose this information even to the local Member of Parliament, without the applicant's consent.
    Mr. BURNETT: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that at the Employment Exchanges and public assistance committee offices information can be obtained as to general working, but that the instructions are that such information must not be given by the Unemployment Assistance Board?
    Mr. HUDSON: The information available at the Unemployment Assistance Board offices is not of the same nature as that available at the Exchanges. The information available at the Unemployment Assistance Board offices deals with the intimate family circumstances of an applicant, and is not, I think, the sort of information that ought to be given to any one without the applicant's consent.
    Mr. BURNETT: The information asked for is not confidential information about cases, but general information about increases or reductions in allowances.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the offices of the board in the districts are much more remote from Members than the ordinary Employment Exchange offices?

    Insured persons, aged 16 to 64, in the hosiery, and shirts, collars, underclothing, etc., industry classifications recorded as unemployed in Great Britain at the undermentioned dates.

    Date.

    Hosiery.

    Shirts, collars, underclothing, etc.

    Wholly unemployed.

    Temporarily Stopped.

    Total.

    Wholly unemployed.

    Temporarily Stopped.

    Total.

    20th January, 1931

    …

    8,399

    13,084

    21,483

    4,472

    3,291

    7,763

    25th January, 1932

    …

    7,495

    6,338

    13,833

    4,470

    2,644

    7,114

    23rd January, 1933

    …

    6,597

    10,462

    17,059

    4,802

    3,997

    8,799

    22nd January, 1934

    …

    4,054

    6,336

    10,390

    2,913

    1,843

    4,755

    28th January, 1935

    …

    5,812

    14,217

    20,029

    3,807

    3,519

    7,326

    Mr. HUDSON: Yes, Sir, but they are dealing with a totally different type of applicant. The information at the Employment Exchanges is as to whether or not a man complies with certain statutory rules and orders. The information at the board's office is information about intimate details which ought to be regarded as confidential.
    Mr. LAWSON: Are they not both dealing with the unemployed, and should there not be just as much information available to Members at the board's-, offices as at the Employment Exchanges?
    Mr. HUDSON: If an hon. Member goes to one of the board's offices at the request and with the consent of an applicant, no-doubt the board will give him the information that he desires. What I want to avoid is Members being able to go in and get any sort of information without the consent of the applicant.

    HOSIERY AND SHIRT TRADE.
    Mr. CAPORNasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons registered for employment in the hosiery and underwear trades who were, respectively, wholly and partially unemployed at the end of January, 1935; and the corresponding figures for each of the last four years?
    Mr. HUDSON: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. CAPORN: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the present unemployment is higher than that of last year or lower?
    Mr. HUDSON: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will await the answer.
    Following is the reply:

    PERSIA (OFFICIAL NAME).
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any steps and, if so, of what nature, have been taken by his Department to give effect to the desire of the Persian authorities that Persia should henceforward be known officially as Iran?
    Sir J. SIMON: On the 25th December last the Persian Ministery for Foreign Affairs addressed a circular memorandum to the Foreign Diplomatic Missions in Tehran requesting that the terms "Iran" and "Iranian" might be used in official correspondence and conversation as from the 21st March next instead, of the words "Persia" and "Persian" hitherto in current use. His Majesty's Minister in Tehran has been instructed to accede to this request.

    SUTTON-IN-ASHFIELD (SEWERAGE).
    Mr. BANFIELD (for Mr. CHARLES BROWN)asked the Minister of Health why he refuses to allow the Sutton-in-Ashfield Urban District Council, Nottinghamshire, to carry out a closet-conversion scheme?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Applications for sanction to loans for closet conversion have been refused because the provision for sewerage and sewage disposal is inadequate. My right hon. Friend is now informed that the council hope shortly to submit a scheme for improved provision. If and when a satisfactory scheme is undertaken, my right hon. Friend will be prepared to reconsider the council's application.

  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: Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allen; and had appointed in substitution: Captain Briscoe.
    Report to lie upon the Table.

    NAVY ESTIMATES, 1935.
    Estimates presented,—for the Navy for the financial year 1935 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.
  Considered in Committee [SECOND DAY].
  [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Proclamation of Federation of India.)
    Amendment proposed [19th February], in page 2, line 33, to leave out from "Majesty," to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert:
    "to declare by proclamation that as and from the day therein appointed there shall be established an advisory council styled the Council of Greater India, constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Fourth Schedule to this Act."—(Viscount Wolmer.)
    Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'if,' in line 35, stand part of the Clause."
    3.40 p.m.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Last night when the discussion on this Amendment was interrupted I had only just begun my speech. I shall endeavour to carry out, both in the spirit and the letter, the request made by the Chairman yesterday that we should be brief. I take the view that it is better that one's speeches should be frequent and brief rather than infrequent and long. I was endeavouring last night to establish the fact that there is a measure of analogy between the existing Constitution in India and that form which prevails in the United States of America and to show that the form which exists in the United States of America has certain grave defects. I have always held that it is a great mistake to have the executive and the legislative authorities separate. It is true that in India, ministers speak in the Assembly whereas in the United States they do not. Nevertheless, the one branch is independent of the other. The executive is not responsible to the Assembly and that, I think, is a bad system. It is also bad if the executive is responsible for some things to the Assembly or Parliament, and not responsible in other matters because then conflict is bound to arise.
    An irremovable legislature and an irresponsible executive seems bad. The system which prevails in the Indian Provinces at the moment and which we call
    364
    dyarchy involving an executive which is only partially responsible also seems bad Therefore we are driven to the conclusion—at least I am driven to it—that there are only two workable schemes, either one involving complete responsibility or one in which the Assembly is consultative or advisory, or perhaps both consultative and advisory. I do not think that anyone at this moment is prepared to urge the possibility of setting up at the Centre in India a Government entirely and completely responsible to the legislature or, in other words, reproducing at the Centre in India the system which at present prevails in this country. It is because we are forced from all those possible schemes to the only remaining alternative that I am supporting the Amendment which is on the same lines as, though different in form from certain Amendments put down by me to Clauses 18 and 23. In order to save printing expense I have taken those Amendments off the Paper as I anticipated that they would not be called having regard to the discussion on the present Amendment.
    I gather that some members of the Joint Select Committee who, while acting on that body underwent a certain process of conversion, were much impressed with the parliamentary abilities of the delegates, if that is the right term to apply to them, who came over from India and sat as assessors with the committee. They are said to have exhibited great parliamentary talent in the sense of facility of speech. Indeed it has been said that their facility of speech was such that extraordinary measures had to be taken to restrain it, but that is only what rumour says, and whether it is true or not I cannot say. It has been the case, however, that a number of the members of the committee were influenced by the ingenuity of mind displayed by these Indian politicians. Although this institution of which we here are all Members is called Parliament because it is a place where we speak, it is not merely the capacity to speak with some degree of success which constitutes ability to govern. The sense of responsibility, the moral quality, is in the long run much more important than the mere ability to express one's ideas with facility. It seems to me that there exists profound doubt as to whether any substantial proportion of the inhabitants of the Indian Empire possess those qualities of respon

    365
    sibility which it is our good fortune to find existing to such a large extent among the inhabitants of this country—those qualities without which representative and responsible government is in fact impossible and bound to break down. The experiment that has been conducted since 1919 in the Provinces does not seem to indicate that there has grown up that sense of responsibility which is vital, and it is obvious that the Government do not believe that that sense of responsibility has grown up, because if they did, there would be no safeguards. The bare existence of Safeguards—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): I must remind the hon. Member that the point we are discussing is Federation. The Debate has been given a great deal of latitude, but I hope the hon. Member will confine his remarks a little more closely to the Amendment.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: The Amendment, as I interpret it, proposes to displace responsibility at the centre within the Federation by something involving a central council, in which there would be no responsibility, and it is because the whole question of responsibility arises that I was dealing with that issue. I am never one of those who seek to go beyond the limits of debate allowed, and I will do my best, but it seems to turn so largely on the question as to whether the people concerned have the sense of responsibility. If this Amendment is carried, we shall be setting up responsibility in the Provinces without any form of responsibility at the centre. It does not rule out a measure of federation, because the Bill would still definitely link the Government at the centre in the way the Bill lays down with the Government in the Provinces. There would still be a federation, but a federation in which the executive had no responsibility whatsoever to an elected assembly and where the elected assembly would not have, as I interpret the Amendment, any legislative powers.
    It is because this Amendment would lead to that, that I support it, because if the system failed, it would be easy to restore effective control throughout India without the bloodshed which otherwise might be necessary, whereas if responsibility at the centre is transferred to a substantial extent, to the setting up of a legislative assembly with ministers
    366
    partly responsible to that assembly, it would not be as easy to deal with the matter as under the provisions of the Amendment. The views I am now expressing are not views which I have acquired from other people. The Secretary of State may possibly remember my writing to him on this matter as long ago as July, 1931, before he held his present exalted office, and I gave arguments to him in a personal capacity—I will not read them out, but the right hon. Gentleman may remember them—in which I indicated that it is vital that we should not lose that effective control without which we cannot restore stability, if stability breaks down through the fact that the Indian politicians do not possess that essential sense of responsibility without which, as I have said, Parliamentary institutions cannot work.
    3.44 p.m.
    Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: I too will try to follow the rule, both in the spirit and the letter, of being quite brief. I wish to address myself simply to the Amendment and to do so from the ordinary, matter of fact standpoint of asking what would actually happen if such a Council of Greater India were brought into existence as is proposed in the Amendment. From that point of view, I think it would be wise to contrast it with what would have occurred under the Simon Report, the report from which the idea of a Council of Greater India is apparently drawn. Under the Simon Report we should have, of course, as indeed we have under the Fourth Schedule to this Bill, an assemblage of princes or their representatives from the great Indian States, and we should have also representatives from the Provinces. When they met together at the centre it is to be supposed that they would discuss "matters of common concern", just as is suggested in the Simon Report, and such as indeed the Assembly very largely does discuss at the present time. Certainly they are the matters which it is contemplated it should discuss in. the future—Customs, tariffs, the salt tax, central taxation for the Indian States, railway policy, air communications, trunk roads, posts and telegraphs, currency, and coinage, together with the rest of the list that is set out in the Simon Report.
    The Simon Report envisages that they should have debates on these

    367
    subjects, that they should on occasion bring forward concrete proposals on the subjects, that the council should itself be able to appoint committees, and that either the reports of those committees or the resolutions that might emerge from their debates and their proposals should be in turn submitted to the Central Legislature, which under the Simon Report would continue to be in existence. I hope that every Member of this Committee will mark what a vital difference that makes. The Central Legislature at this moment is not a responsible body in the technical meaning of the term, but at any rate it does exert a very great deal of influence. As a matter of fact it does do a great deal of work. Its powers are considerable. In the years from 1921 to 1928—and again I quote from the Simon Report—it passed very nearly 200 laws, five of which were rejected and four the Viceroy had to certify, including the Budgets in 1923 and 1924. But even when the Viceroy and the Legislature were in conflict, it is clear, and is now a matter of common knowledge, that the influence of their expressions of opinion upon the action of the Viceroy was very considerable indeed. Under such conditions the Council of Greater India, as envisaged by the Simon Report, might indeed have been a body with influence. Its resolutions, its proposals, would have been passed on to the Central Legislature, and they, no doubt, would have taken these into very serious consideration as containing the opinions of the Princes as well as of the representatives from British India. From that point of view also it is easy to recognise how, under the conditions envisaged by the Simon Report, the creation of the Council of Greater India, coupled with the continuing existence of the Central Legislature, might indeed be a bridge towards ultimate Federation.
    But I ask the Committee to contrast that with what would be the case if this Amendment were passed. The Central Legislature, when this Bill is passed, will no longer be in existence, and if it is no longer in existence, the Council of Greater India, if this amendment is passed, will be a pure debating society and nothing else. It might pass its resolutions, and they might be taken into
    368
    consideration by the Viceroy, but they would not have anything like the same effect as an actual Act being passed, and In these circumstances I can conceive of two results which seem to me to be inevitable. There could be nothing which would more create discontent and annoyance among the representatives of British India than a retrogression to a condition of this kind. They would no longer have the same influence on affairs at the Centre as they have at the present time. It would create an amount of discontent and continued agitation which would only have extraordinarily harmful results. It seems to me that if the Princes of British India or their representatives were to come to a body of this kind, where it was made clear from the outset that the result of their deliberations would not have even the weight that has attached to the deliberations of the representatives of British India under previous conditions, one could no longer count on their support and good will in the future to the same extent as in the past.
    That being so, I cannot imagine, if these ordinary plain facts are considered by hon. Members that they will really continue to believe that the institution of a council of Greater India under the conditions of this Bill would be likely to be anything but a perfectly disastrous experiment if it were ever carried out. Nobody, however, really envisages that it will be. It seems to be very much like one of those proposals which are brought forward by certain Indian members and which are very much criticised in this House and in India. I refer to proposals brought forward in the provincial councils by Indian members which are calculated to cause embarrassment to those in authority, but which those who bring them forward do not really wish to see them passed. The Princes themselves have stated that they would never wish to enter Federation unless they had a responsible share in government, and in view of that statement I cannot imagine that any one really wishes to see the Amendment passed.
    3.52 p.m.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I wish to follow the point that has been deal with by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tam-worth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland), because yesterday an important statement was mine—important not only because it was

    369
    said in this House, but because it has been so often repeated outside. It was said by the Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) that, whatever might have been done and whatever may have been thought in the earlier stages of this discussion, we could not now reply upon the assistance of the princes in this matter. I was astonished by the interruption that was made when my hon. Friend the Member for Broxstowe (Mr. Cocks) was speaking. He stated what I think was recognised as a truism. At the beginning of his speech he said:
    "The short answer to the hon. Member who has just sat down"—
    he was referring to the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox)—
    "is that the princes have let it be known that they would not come into any scheme at all unless it gave responsible government."
    The hon. and gallant Member interrupted to say, "which princes" and my hon. Friend said "All princes." Then the Noble Lady said:
    "Has the hon. Member read the full report of the speech of the Maharaja of Patiala"?—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th February, 1935, col. 29.5, Vol. 298.]
    The issue that was then raised, and which was dealt with later in the Noble Lady's speech, was that the basis upon which we have hitherto proceeded during the last four years, namely, that the Princes would not come in except to a Centre that was self-governing and responsible, no longer exists. That was certainly put before the Committee yesterday. I have perhaps in this matter an experience that is not shared by all hon. Members. I remember the very definite declaration in the first instance. I had the honour of serving upon the First Round Table Conference, and I heard the historic declaration that was made by the Maharaja of Bikaner. I had the opportunity of hearing at that time the right hon. Gentleman speaking in the early stages of the conference, and I would like to remind the House of the categorical statements made upon this matter. This was said by His Highness the Nawab of Bhopal:
    "We have made it clear that we can only federate with a self-governing British India, and that if British India is not self-governed any federation will be to our own disadvantage."
    370
    That was the first clear declaration, whatever may have been his views since—
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Or the history behind it.
    Mr. FOOT: Or the history behind it. I assume that when this colleague of ours came from India at great inconvenience to put his views before the Round Table Conference, he was stating his own mind. The Maharaja of Bikaner on the same occasion said:
    "The Princes have made it clear that they cannot federate with the present Government of India, and we are not going to make any sacrifices and delegate any of our sovereign powers unless and until we can share them honourably and fully with British India in the Federal Executive and Legislature."
    The concluding speech at the Round Table Conference was made by a Prince whose name has been frequently quoted in these Debates, and who was quoted by the Noble Lady yesterday. The Maharaja of Patiala, speaking at the last plenary session on the 19th January, 1931, said:
    "However that may be, the main principle of Federation stands accepted: and I echo the confident hope expressed the other day by His Highness the Maharaja of Bikaner, that by far the larger proportion of the States will come into the federal structure at once, and that the remainder will soon follow. We have all made it clear, however, that we consider certain things to be essential. We can only federate with a British India which is self-governing, and not with a British India governed as it is at present."
    I have quoted three statements that were made at that time by those who were, I suppose, qualified in many respects to speak for their fellows as well as for themselves. It may be suggested that the position has been changed by what has happened. So far is that from the truth, that when we had the sitting of the Joint Select Committee and evidence was given by Sir Michael O'Dwyer, Sir Akbar Hydari, representing the greatest of all the States, reaffirmed the position which had been taken up in January, 1931, and put to him specifically the difficulty that Federation could not be brought within the ambit of consideration unless they were able to federate with a self-governing India. If that be denied, let us know the authority on which it is denied. If it be the fact, it is the Gibraltar of the situation, and nothing that has been said by the Maharaja of Patiala in the speech

    371
    that was quoted yesterday in the slightest derogates from that main position.
    I have read very carefully the words which the Noble Lady quoted. All that the Maharaja of Patiala had to say, according to the quotation which was given from the "Hindustan Times," was—I am paraphrasing his words—" We offered to come in with them in a system of federation. We understand that some of our Indian friends think that that might be to the disadvantage of India. We have no wish to force federation upon them, and if we come in we must come in in an honourable partnership." For him to have said that is quite consistent with the attitude they have taken all along if there is to be a federation, and all this talk about a council of State, a little debating society, and the formation of academic bodies to discuss matters outside the government of India itself, are entirely irrelevant.
    The Noble Lady yesterday put another argument before the Committee which is having some influence outside. She said that the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman about Dominion status had caused alarm among the Princes, that whatever might have been their position before, now that that statement had been made by the right hon. Gentleman, it put them in difficulties. I do not want to take up the time of the Committee, but if there is any challenge upon it, I can go through the speeches. I spent some time this morning in going through the speeches made at the Round Table Conference in which every one of the Princes urged the claim of India to take its equal share with the other Dominions in the Commonwealth. One of the final speeches made at the Conference was that of Sir Akbar Hydari, who, speaking with great authority, said:
    "I hope that in two or three months' time the work of this conference will secure such measure of support in India that it will be possible for the various expert committees to get to work and draft a detailed constitution on sound lines. Let us all resolve"—
    and the word "all" is printed in italics—
    "to convince our countrymen in India that we are on the road to Dominion Status, and let us put the weight of individual effort to achieve success and reach the goal which we have set before us."
    He used the words "Dominion Status." Sometimes that phrase was not used by
    372
    other princes, but we have the words of the Maharaja of Patiala, who spoke of the
    "anxiety of the Indian States that India shall rise to her full stature within the British Commonwealth of Nations."
    The Maharaja of Nawanagar said:
    "I feel sure that only by federation can those aspirations for the dignity and status of India, which we all of us entertain, in due time be achieved, namely, the equality of status with the sister Dominions within the Empire."
    So far from the words of the right hon. Gentleman being likely to cause apprehension among the princes, he is only carrying out what they urged upon him or his predecessors in the Government three or four years ago.
    There is only one other criticism to which I wish to reply. It was, I thought, a very effective criticism that was made by the hon. Lady the Member for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone). She raised a matter which is very much in the minds of people in this country, namely, the position of the Indian Indians as distinct from the British Indians. She said she had voted against the Second Reading of this Bill, and I gathered from what she said last night that she had a little nervousness in talking about it. I wonder whether, if this Bill rested entirely upon her decision, she would kill it. It is one thing, of course, to vote for an Amendment to express one's disapproval of some parts of the Bill, but if the lever were in her hands, if the decision rested solely with her, would she destroy this Measure, with very little prospect of any other agreed Measure being brought before this House?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Agreed? Who agreed? The hon. Member used the expression "any other agreed Measure." I venture to ask who agreed here or in India?
    Miss RATHBONE: If I had a lever in my hand I would kill this Bill if I believed the majority of Indian people would rather have no Bill than this Bill. It is only on that part I feel very grave doubt; I cannot feel certainty in any way.
    Mr. FOOT: When I said "agreed," I did not intend to suggest agreed in India. What I meant was on the lines

    373
    I have previously spoken in this House, that while there were many among my friends who disagreed with parts of this Bill, we thought that a common body of agreement had been arrived at between representatives of India and ourselves. It was not in any sense a wholly satisfactory measure, but was a bridge between politically-minded India and politically-minded Britain.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: What the hon. Member meant when he said "an agreed measure" was a measure which carried the agreement of the Liberal party.
    Mr. FOOT: I do not know that the Liberal party would be agreed in whole support of this measure. As I understand, when we were called into consultation in 1930, no one contemplated that you could, after four years' discussion, get a Conservative, or Liberal, or Socialist measure. Surely the purpose was to see if there could be some measure of agreement, despite our political differences upon it, which could gain the co-operation of India. The hon. Lady took an attitude which I fully approve. She said that if politically-minded India would rather have no Bill than this Bill, it should be rejected. I will accept that myself. If politically-minded India, if those upon whom we have to depend for the working of this measure, will not have the Bill, all that they have to do is to reject it. [Interruption.] It is my good fortune in this House to attract a good deal of interruption, but it is all very good-natured. If, as a matter of fact, when this Bill has passed through all its stages, and is then submitted to India, and the politically-minded Indians would rather have no Bill than this Bill, they have the remedy in their own hands. They need not work it, and, if they need not work it, there is no power in this country which could force the Bill upon a universally unwilling 'people, because we depend upon consent. We have not the people to send over—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that the hon. Member is getting perilously near a Second Reading speech.
    Mr. FOOT: I was referring to the criticism yesterday as to the reception of the Bill in India. Objection has been raised on the ground of Dominion Status, secondly, because of indirect
    374
    election, and, thirdly, on the ground of the Safeguards. I want to deal with the question raised by the Noble Lady as to the subjects in the States. She asked whether we were, by this Measure, going to confirm the disabilities of those people. Is anyone in this House expected by the passing of this Bill to say that we approve of the conditions in the Indian States? I do not know very much about them. I suffer from a disability because I have nere been in India. Some hon. Members have been in the Indian States, and are able to speak from personal experience. But I have read something about the conditions in the Indian States, and I protest against the suggestion that because we pass this Bill we are anxious to perpetuate the conditions now obtaining in some of the States. As I understand it, the difference is very great between one State and another. I think we have to accept the fact that the Princes are there. They have been there a long time. The right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) the other night mentioned the lady who began her treatise with the words "I accept the Universe," and Carlyle commented, "Gad, she'd better." We have to accept India, and we have to accept the Princes. They have been there a long time, and nothing we can do can alter the thing. Our whole trouble in this problem is dealing with the material we have. Perhaps I might venture to remind the hon. Lady the Member for the Combined English Universities of Browning's lines:
    "The common problem, yours, mine, everyone's,
    Is not to fancy what were fair in life
    Provided it could be—hut finding first
    What may be, strive to make it fair,
    Up to our means—a very different thing."
    That is our problem. We have the Princes and the States there, and, so far from this Bill making things worse, I believe that upon the passing of this Bill two things are likely to happen in the States, namely, in those States where the conditions are worse, that as a result of meeting together in the Federation, as a result of the comparison that will then be established in the Central Parliament, those who are in the worst States will be brought up inevitably towards the standard of the better State. At present you have no such collaboration except in the Chamber of Princes. You will have members coming from

    375
    the several States sitting side by side with representatives of the Provinces, and with criticism being brought to bear upon ill conditions, it will inevitably tend to raise the worse conditions to the standard of the better. I think that that will be the first result, and I think, further, the result will be that the healthy rivalry which exists at present between some of the Provinces and some of the States will be for the better of the States concerned. I have heard some of the States claim that education and literacy are better than in the Provinces. It is a very proud boast that they make.
    Does not the Committee think that when you have a federation in which the representatives of the States will be sitting side by side with the representatives of the Provinces, there will be every effort on the part of the representatives of the States to justify their presence there, to justify the work of their own Princes and leaders, and that, instead of conditions being worse in those States as a result of Federation, it will be better? I think it is not an unfair suggestion to make that the probable result will be that the States will be desirous of being on terms of comparison with the provinces, and I further suggest that when you have established a federation where the representatives of the Princes sit side by side with the elected representatives of the Provinces, you will have established in that self-government and in the desire for self-government, a leaven which is bound to work irrespective of political boundaries. In some time that I cannot contemplate the desire for self-government will grow up in every part of India, and if that self-government does not express itself in the forms we have in the provinces it will express itself in a desire by the people of the States for a fuller share in the management of their States, and when that desire is expressed the princes are wise enough men to see that that desire will somehow have to be met. It is for that reason that I would like the hon. Lady to know that we—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] I am sorry if I have offended against the Rules of the House. I turned towards the hon. Lady, as I was addressing my remarks to her. While we appreciate the enthusiasm which she has in this matter, and know that she has
    376
    taken a leading part in it, I hope we are not less concerned as to the men and women who live in the States of India, and I am a supporter of this Bill because I do not think it will make their conditions in days to come worse, nor even that it will stabilise present conditions, but that it offers the only hope for those improved circumstances which we trust will come about.
    4.16 p.m.
    Mr. RAIKES: The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) takes the view that this Amendment is impossible because the princes have laid it down in the past that they would not come into a council of Greater India. He assumed that that must dispose of the whole matter. It is rather curious that my hon. Friend advances that assumption, but is not prepared to accept also the correlative fact that the Indian politicians have already rejected this Bill. They have already passed an Amendment in the Legislative Assembly in which they have denounced the principles of this Bill, and if my hon. Friend were logical he would say that we must go no further with this Bill now.
    Mr. FOOT: Can the hon. Member inform me of any responsible body in India, or any responsible politicians in India, who have said they will not work the Bill?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the Debate is now getting to the point of a Second Reading Debate, against which I warned the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot).
    Mr. RAIKES: In the circumstances I shall, of course, proceed no further in dealing with the hon. Member for Bodmin, although I could deal with him most adequately did opportunity offer. I would like to pass to the general criticisms advanced by hon. Members who are opposed to this Measure, and by so doing I think I can keep in order. It is not our wish to be obstructive in any way whatever. Those who are opposed to Federation are anxious to tackle the problem, and we very much welcome the observations made by the Secretary of State himself to show how he welcomed the fact that we were sincere in the line we are taking. The right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) said a few moments ago that if we set

    377
    up this Council of Greater India, we should, in effect, be setting up a mere barren debating society, possessed of no power at all, and that as the present existing Central Legislature would go out of existence the Indians at the Centre would have considerably less power than they now have, and that very considerable friction would result. As a matter of fact, the object behind the setting up of a Council of Greater India is not at the moment to dissolve the Central Legislative Assembly as such. Undoubtedly its powers will be diminished, because at the same time powers will be transferred from the present Central Legislature to the Provinces—though it is not possible for me at the moment to go into that side of the question—and we shall be giving more power to Indians in the Provinces than they enjoy at the Centre; and it is going a long way for my right hon. Friend to suggest that if such a council could be set up, a council which comprised representatives of the Indian States, leading politicians in India, and so on, even though they were then in an advisory capacity, it would be nothing more than a mere empty debating society. It is obvious that a body of that character, airing opinions far more widely than it would be possible for them to do in the proposed Central Legislature, because there would be no bounds to the things that might be discussed, would be able to exercise an influence which would be very potent.
    Various other points were raised last night by hon. Members who were criticising this proposal and I would like to touch shortly on one or two of them. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) tackled the whole question of dyarchy, and said that, after all, dyarchy will matter less under the existing scheme than under any other scheme which is possible to consider, because the line of division will simply be defence and foreign affairs, will, in fact, be a very easy division between those things for which Ministers are responsible and those for which they are not. But the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that defence touches the whole question of finance in India. In the present budget of the Central Legislature the army estimates, leaving out debt and pensions, amount to somewhere about £34,000,000 out of the £58,000,000 which makes up the central budget, and if we
    378
    add pensions and debts it will be found that in the new legislature somewhere about three-quarters or more of the money raised under the budget will be outside their scrutiny. I cannot imagine ministers will say that this is a pleasant form of dyarchy under which they are allowed to play about with £9,000,000 or £10,000,000 and cannot touch the remaining £50,000,000. Whatever may be the merits of this scheme it is dyarchy at its worst, because it is dyarchy under which a considerable degree of paper power is given to ministers in the Central Legislature, but a power which is found to be of comparatively little value when we come down to the "brass tacks" of money. That is why I was very much surprised when I heard a new voice uplifted last night. The hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. G. Nicholson) leapt to his feet to tell us, after a very short visit of discovery to India, that he had found a very remarkable thing. He discovered in the course of those few weeks that the new scheme is the best we could have bcause there ought to be no half-way house between responsibility and irresponsibility. I wish the hon. Member were now in his seat, because if he were I should suggest to him that he is the only person either in India or in this country, who really believes that this scheme means no half-way but complete responsibility for Indians and India. Indeed, if he became unique by going out to India for a few weeks he might have been wiser if he had stayed at home and saved his fare, because whatever the scheme may do it does not pretend to give complete responsibility. It is dyarchy and it must be accepted as dyarchy.
    The hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan) very fairly faced the question of dyarchy last night. He said the Simon Commission had protested against dyarchy, but that he and other Members had since decided that it was impossible to avoid having dyarchy, and dyarchy we were faced with. It is easy enough for the hon. Member to say that, but the fact remains that every single argument that the Simon Commission raised against the perpetuation of dyarchy remains as when laid down in their report. There is a further point which I do not think has been touched on very much recently. It was assumed by the hon. Member for Finchley, and, indeed, it has been assumed throughout, that if the Princes

    379
    had shown any real sign of coming-in in the days of the Simon Commission the commission would not have played about with this idea of a Council of Greater India, but would have jumped the whole chasm at once and would have recommended All-India Federation. That may be so, but, nevertheless, as I recollect it, the Simon Commission did lay down among certain other things in regard to British India that one of the difficulties was that the individual units in British India had not yet in many instances achieved political consciousness, and until there was political consciousness among the various units in a subcontinent like British India it was very difficult to envisage a Federation. The Princes may or may not become politically conscious, nobody knows that, but there is no evidence that political consciousness in India has developed among the Indians themselves, outside the political class, to any great extent, since 1928, when the Simon Commission went out.
    The difficulty which many of us find who are opposed to this scheme of Federation is that we can understand a scheme for handing over complete control to India, though we should disagree with it, but the scheme brought forward to-day does not pretend to do that. It does undoubtedly give political power to a certain class in the Central Legislature. It gives them power, if they wish to do so, to tax the poor more than they are taxed at the present time, but it gives little in the way of complete responsibility. If the safeguards are successful there will be continual bitterness in India. Indians will be saying time and time again, "People have talked about Dominion status, but the safeguards are operating and we have not got Home Rule at all." On the other hand, if the safeguards do not work a Bill will have passed through this House which will have the very effect which we have been told in every Government speech it would not have, and in the view of many of us there will be complete chaos. The object of this Amendment is to try to be rather more practical with India as it stands at the present time. It is perfectly obvious that any scheme put up will be denounced in India, is being denounced by the Indian politicians—no one denies that—and that
    380
    being so it is just as well to give India a, scheme at the centre which we think is the best scheme for her, rather than to try to please people by putting forward schemes which they do not like and which a very great number of Members of this House dislike equally. By establishing a council of British India you would avoid considerable difficulties. You would avoid the vexed question of unequal power between the Provinces and the Central Government; you would avoid the difficulty as to the uncertainty regarding the character and the position of the Central Government in relation to the princes; you would avoid the break in continuity which there is at the present time when the Viceroy's various councils are being altered and changed under the Bill, and you would avoid that morass of difficulty in regard to direct versus indirect election in which question the hon. Member for Bodmin is so greatly interested. If you have direct election, which I know my hon. Friend would desire, it will be based mainly on ignorance; if you have indirect election the position will be still more corrupt. We believe that the Amendment is reasonable. We ought to put forward what we consider the best for India and to anticipate the dangers of a scheme under which, even if the safeguards are active, they will result in considerable danger from the Indian politicians.
    4.32 p.m.
    Mr. MAXTON: I remember a statement made by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot), at an earlier stage of these discussions, in which he said that in all these matters we were faced by the alternatives of abdication, domination or co-operation. We are told that this is the co-operative way. Having listened to the discussion on this Amendment, I am afraid that most of us want to say, "Why could we not have abdication or domination, one, or the other, rather than this totally unsatisfactory attempt at cooperation between things that do not naturally co-operate?" I and my hon. Friends have stood consistently for a number of years for the abdication policy, but that has never been the popular view in Great Britain. There is an overwhelming mass of opinion in favour of the view that our power in India should be maintained, and that view is held by all sections in the House, excepting, of course, the small minority who sit here.

    381
    One of the anomalies in the talk about co-operation is revealed by the speech of the hon. Member for Bodmin, who is the great disciple of Cromwell in this country, the chief spokesman on behalf of the parliamentary system and of constitutional, limited monarchy. He comes here and makes a defence for the granting of exceptional powers to absolute monarchs, survivors of times infinitely farther back than the Cromwellian struggle in this country. All the time he was defending the princes to-day and quoting the utterances of the prince of this and the Maharaja of So-and-so and the something else of somewhere else, I thought that he was not as effective as usual. Why should I listen to the utterances of any Maharaja or Prince or some absolute Potentate of an Indian State?
    It was one of the most interesting and amusing things to listen to the speech of the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman) last night when he told us how these princes had cheeked, bought and betrayed their way into their positions. Our colleague from Oxford University, and from the chair of history, told us that the Princes of India had got their princely rank in exactly the way that princes have always got their princely rank, by treachery, graft and frame-ups of one kind or another. That was the honoured voice of Oxford University. I know that the hon. Member for Oxford University does not command such a hearing in this House as others who are more parliamentary and less academic sometimes do, but I listened carefully to everything he said and that was the story he told me on history, and I am prepared to accept him as an expert. Now the hon. Member for Bodmin defends the princes and says we have to give them a greater status than they have had before.
    Mr. FOOT: I have never defended in this House or elsewhere injustices that may take place in an Indian State. I only said that I believed they would not be worse and that I hoped they would be better.
    Mr. MAXTON: We are taking the princes into a partnership and giving them a status in all-Indian affairs and, indeed in the affairs of the British Empire. I take this simple view about the British Empire, that once these men are admitted into a share of self government
    382
    they get the same status as the hon. Member for Bodmin or myself. I do not want to have any monarch, wielding absolute power of tyranny in his own territory unchecked and able to do what he likes in that territory, to have also some say in what I am doing here. That is going rather farther than I care to go.
    The alternative proposed by the Noble Lord who moved this Amendment offers me no way out and that is why I am completely lost in regard to these attempts at co-operation. If the proposal made here said: "Look here, we have only been playing at ruling in India for a couple of hundred years; let us go in and rule it, and if the people will not come up to date let us make them up to date," it would not be one which would appeal to me, but it would be an intelligent proposition which could be pushed to a logical conclusion. On the other hand, if the proposal were, "We have been there a couple of hundred years and have made no impression on the situation; we are coming out, to let the Indian people work out their own Constitution, and if that can only be done by slaughter, well, human history has been full of it, and it seems to be a necessary thing in human progress," that too would be understandable. Those are the two alternative propositions, but the proposal that comes before us to-day is for a bastard hybrid assembly. I do not see that the proposals in the Bill or in the Amendment carry us one step forward towards a solution. The absolute monarchy of these men has remained during all the time British control has existed in India and for more absolute time than has been contemplated by this House. What are the possibilities of these monarchs ruling better or worse? I can see not the faintest tittle of difference between the one proposal and the other. The mass of the people in the Indian States will have to fight for their freedom just as any other workers have had to do. I cannot see the Bill making it easier for the people of the Indian States to secure their freedom, just as I cannot see that the old position made it easy for them to maintain their freedom.
    As between the Bill and the Amendment, I can see nothing of such vast importance as to justify the argument between the two sides. The hon. Member for Bodmin says, "Give us the Bill,"

    383
    and the hon. Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Raikes) says, "Reject the Bill and give us the Amendment because it is rather more frank with the people of India than is the Bill." Is that the way to govern? One is a little less disingenuous than the other. This Federal Council will have no effective power. All the real power is withheld from them; it gives an appearance of a central Indian council representing the Indian people. What is the Amendment? Again, an appearance. That is not Government at all; that is playing with the whole problem of Government. Either you are going to rule or you are not going to rule, and there is no half way out.
    4.44 p.m.
    Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) made some reference to the very vigorous speech yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman). I do not intend to tread beyond the terms of the Amendment, but I must, in justice to the University of Oxford, dissociate the university from some of the observations of the hon. Member for Oxford University. The hon. Member for Bridgeton knows perfectly well that the hon. Member for Oxford University, though a professor of history, is a professor of military history and is in no sense a professor of the history of the Indian Empire. I feel it necessary to say quite emphatically that a good many of the suggestions of the hon. Member for Bridgeton that the Princes of India acquired their power by bribery, corruption and subterfuge are entirely without foundation. The Princes of India, in addition to giving loyal service to this country in some difficult hours of our history did a very great deal to make possible, by their support in the War, the orderly and peaceful conduct of our deliberations here, because the victory of our armed forces enabled the British Constitution to flourish and to work smoothly and in peace.
    The hon. Member also made some reference to the situation in regard to the citizens of the Indian States. I would ask him to look at last year's figures of migration from British India, into Indian India. If the hon. Member will do me the courtesy of looking at the figures, I am sure he will realise that there has
    384
    actually been a drift of population from British India into Indian India in the course of the last few years, so that those on whose behalf he claims to speak have thought it worth their while to move from the democracy of British India into territories which are under the benevolent autocracy of Indian Princes.
    Mr. MAXTON: I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that I did not mean to show any want of courtesy. I was looking at the speech which the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman) made last night, to see if I had misquoted him. I hope the hon. Gentleman does not think that I was defending the condition of the people in the Indian Provinces as against the condition of the people in the States. They are both wrong.
    Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) declared emphatically that, if politically minded India was not prepared to work these reforms, there was little use in proceeding with them. I do not think he will accuse me of twisting his observations. Later on this afternoon we shall have an Amendment in the name of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle - under - Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), which will give my hon. Friend an opportunity of implementing those observations, and I very much hope he will lend the powerful support of the party on whose behalf he speaks to an Amendment to provide that these proposals shall not be implemented unless the Legislative Assembly in India expressly asks that they shall be implemented.
    There were one or two thoughts underlying the speech of my hon. Friend to which I should like to make a brief reference. Apart from his assumption that this is an agreed Measure in India, he also seemed to believe that it was an agreed Measure in the United Kingdom; but nothing emerged more clearly from the discussion in the Committee yesterday afternoon than the complete unreadiness of His Majesty's Opposition to accept this federal proposal as a permanent settlement of the Indian constitutional problem, and I feel that many of those in the Conservative party who are being prevailed upon to vote for the federal system, in the belief that it will be a final settlement of India's

    385
    constitutional agonies, will, after listening to the observations of hon. Members opposite, be inclined to pause in their acceptance of that view. The hon. Member for Bodmin also suggested—I think he will agree with me that it was implicit in his observations—that the Amendment standing in the name of my Noble Friend the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) rather implied a belief that the Princes of India might be prepared to associate themselves with the existing Government at the Centre. It is not, however, the case that we had any such idea in mind. We recognise quite fully that you cannot expect the Princes of India to associate themselves with the present Central Government in India—
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Not only did they say that they were not prepared to associate themselves with the Government as at present constituted, but they said that they would not come into a Federation where there was not a self-governing India at the Centre.
    Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: I do not think there is very much in dispute between my hon. Friend and myself on that point. I think he will agree that those on whose behalf I am now speaking fully appreciate the immense value of the collaboration of the Indian Princes in the Central Government of India. We fully recognise that the situation will be changed if they are fully and freely prepared to associate themselves with the Central Government. We recognise what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster described in such graphic terms, namely, the stability and confidence which the collaboration of the Indian Princes would bring; but we urge emphatically that a far safer opportunity of securing this collaboration for the benefit of the Indian people would be found if, in the initial stages, constitutional development at the centre takes the form of an advisory council.
    I am not going at length into the arguments advanced yesterday, but the hon. Member for Bodmin and the hon. Member for Bridgeton dismissed the advisory council as an academic debating society. One of my hon. friends dealt very fully with the position under the proposed reforms at the Centre, whereby some 80 per cent. of the revenue to be dealt with will be outside the direct control of the Indian Ministry. I hold strongly that it is far
    386
    better frankly and freely to recognise that what we expect, both from the Indian politician and from the Indian, Princes, is advice and collaboration, rather than a share in the direct executive authority at the Centre. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) made some suggestions yesterday which might give the impression that my Noble Friend and myself are anxious to keep the Indian States out of India. We have no such ambition at all. I repeat once more how anxious we all are that the interests of Indian and British India should be regarded as so closely interlaced that they cannot be considered apart; but we would ask whoever replies to this Amendment to give stronger reasons than have hitherto been advanced why an advisory council will not at this stage meet Indian and British needs.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan), in the course of a very able defence of his change of attitude, made very little reference to certain statements in the Simon Report which we claim are in no way altered by the possibility of the Princes coming into the Government at the Centre. The Simon Report said that:
    "Constitutional progress should be the outcome of practical experience."
    We hold very strongly to the view that a central advisory council will provide full and free opportunities for practical political experience. It will demonstrate quite conclusively, and we are prepared to recognise the lesson if the lesson is shown, their capacity to work in the spirit of partners institutions which have never before been attempted at the Centre. The "Times" newspaper, before it had lost all sense of proportion on the subject of Indian Constitutional reform, at a time when my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) was describing it as the oracle of mugwumpery—that was a little before his intervention on the Government side of the Indian dispute—the "Times" newspaper, on the occasion of the report of the Simon Commission, dealt with one of the commission's recommendations, that there should be an all-India advisory council. There was no suggestion made then that this idea of an advisory council was derogatory to the Indian people, or that it would not afford full and free opportunities of bringing both princes

    387
    and British India together to collaborate on matters of common Imperial concern. The "Times" newspaper urged Indian politicians, to quote its own words:
    "to ponder on this report, and to find in the following passage the most complete refutation of the theory that the change of direction suggested by the report tends away from Dominion precedents."
    This brings me in conclusion to some observations made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg), who said last night that you cannot do with one part of the Empire what you are not fully prepared to do also in every other part. The Simon Report—and it was to this passage that the "Times" called the attention of Indian politicians—said quite clearly
    "that in Australia and South Africa unity at a common centre was only brought about a substantial time after each of the constituent units, or at any rate most of them, had achieved self-government. The same thing is in substance true of the Dominion of Canada."
    I have long and earnestly pondered on this question of responsibility at the Centre and a Federation of all India. It is in no desire to find fault with every detail of the Government's programme that I would urge the Secretary of State to deal in more detail than has hitherto been done with the terms of the Amendment, which proposes that an All-India advisory council should be set up. I hold very strongly to the view that Indian politicians, if they carry out that proposal in the proper spirit, will show their aptitude for Western institutions, and the Indian States, if they can bring their great influence to bear, will have deserved the tributes which in all quarters of the House we are fully prepared to pay them.
    4.55 p.m.
    Mr. MOLSON: The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) has asked for some reasons why at the present time we who support the Bill do not regard the proposal of an advisory council as adequate. I will try, before I sit down, to give some reasons as to why, in the first place, the Indian States expressed their willingness to enter into Federation. I could not help being struck by the strange agreement between the hon. Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Raikes) and the hon. Member for
    388
    Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), two hon. Members who do not generally find themselves in agreement, when they both came to the conclusion that there were only two logical paths for this country—either to rule India or to get out. That appears to me to be an unintentional confirmation of the line of argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) last night, when he pointed out that some kind of dyarchy is necessary and inevitable if India is to make steady progress towards self-government in the way laid down in the Preamble to the Act of 1919. Without some kind of dyarchy it would be necessary to make a complete and sudden transition from a state of affairs in which responsibility for the government of India rests upon this House to one where it is entirely transferred. That was logical enough, coming from the hon. Member for South-East Essex, who on a previous occasion went much further than those hon. Members with whom he is associated, and said that he was not in favour of any increase in self-government for India.
    The idea of Federation as the ultimate goal in India goes right back to the time of the Montagu-Chelmsford Report. When the Simon Commission came out to India, two bodies with which I was then connected—the Associated Chambers of Commerce and the European Association—both put forward proposals with regard to Federation. I mention that fact because it has been suggested that the idea of Federation only developed at the time of the Round Table Conference. In the original evidence which they put before the Simon Commission, the Associated Chambers of Commerce said that any Constitution which did not include the Indian States would have to be regarded as merely provisional, and the European Association went so far as to put forward definite proposals to the effect that the Viceroy should have two councils, the Viceroy in Council of British India and the Viceroy in Council of Indian India.
    The Simon Commission, after devoting two whole chapters to emphasising the importance of Federation, said that, as it was not within their terms of reference to receive any evidence from the Indian States, they wrote to the Prime

    389
    Minister and recommended that some sort of conference should be called together in order that representatives of British India and of the States should meet representatives of the Government in this country with a view to arriving at the greatest possible measure of agreement in regard to the new Constitution, and making adequate provision for the voice of the Indian States to be heard. At the Indian Round Table Conference the Princes came forward with a. proposal for Federation. That fact has been denied so often that I had prepared a, few quotations regarding it, but the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) has already dealt with the matter, and I do not wish to repeat what he said. It has been so often suggested that there must have been some sinister motive, some secret influence brought to bear upon the Indian Princes, that I would like to suggest some reasons why the Indian Princes did independently think at that time that it was desirable in their own interests that they should enter into a Federation. A book has been written recently by Mr. Panikkar, an adviser to the Indian States, who has pointed out that in fact there does exist at the present time in India something that is very much in the nature of federation, but it is a federation in which all control is in the hands of the Government of India and the Indian States have no voice and no control in it. He writes:
    "In legal theory the States are independent, isolated units, in actual fact they have ceased to be so long ago…The Central Government has exclusive authority by treaty in all matters of defence and international relations and by practice exercises jurisdiction in matters affecting all-India currency, posts, telegraphs, trunk telephones, Excise and maritime Customs, etc. Thus the central authority in India has gradually become an all-India authority in many matters and the legal isolation of the States remains purely theoretical."
    The position, then, has been that the present Government of India exercises control in at least three most important subjects which are in most federations subject to the control of the Federal Government. You have the customs, the railways and salt, and all these subjects being administered by the Government of India in the interest in many cases of British India. When, for example, it was decided to stabilise the rupee at 1s. 6d. instead of 1s. 4d., that was a matter
    390
    which vitally affected the Budget of every Indian State, and yet there was no constitutional means by which the Indian Princes were able to express their views on the subject. Take the case, again, of salt, because salt is a Government monopoly and an important source of revenue to British India. It has been necessary for the Government of India to enter into agreements with each individual Indian State in order to prevent the manufacture of salt in that State and its export across the frontier and sale, to the injury of the revenues of British India.
    Take perhaps the most striking example of all, and one of the causes of the great and growing dissatisfaction of the Indian Princes with the present Constitution. Thirty years ago only about 5 crores of revenue were raised by customs duties. Since that time the policy of discriminating protection has been adopted by British India, and the customs revenue is 50 crores. The vast majority of the Indian States have no seaboard and, as the result of that, the subjects of the Indian States are compelled to pay enhanced prices for whatever imported goods they need to buy. The proceeds of those customs go into the revenues of British India and, where a protected policy has been adopted, it is in the interest of industry located in British India in almost every instance and not in the Indian States. That is the principal reason that I would adduce why an advisory council is not adequate for the purpose. It is of the utmost importance that the Indian Princes, who at present so often suffer from the policies that are adopted by the Government of British India, should be in a position to influence the fiscal policy of that Government.
    Let me give another and, as I think, a very cogent reason why the Indian Princes at that time decided to enter into Federation. The opponents of this Bill have after some hesitation admitted that, owing to expectations which have been aroused, it is necessary to be prepared to hand over to Indian politicians the administration of the British Indian Provinces. They have never concealed the fact that they feel much doubt as to how the administration of the British Indian Provinces will be carried on by Indian politicians. They have indicated their fears that there may be a decline in law and order and respect for authority

    391
    in British India, and yet they are prepared for a policy of that kind to be followed. What must be the attitude of an Indian Prince who shares their fears and sees the prospect of British India becoming more and more democratic? Surely he would feel that it is impossible to stop ideas at any political frontier and that the Indian Princes and their States might very well be in the position of a number of small and scattered autocracies surrounded by the swirl of democratic ideas in British India. It would, therefore, only be a matter of time, if British India to some extent fell into chaos, before the ideas that were prevalent in British India began to penetrate into the Princes' States. I believe that is one of the things that weigh very much with the Indian Princes, that they thought it was more prudent in the interests of themselves and their descendants rather to take a share in the government of the whole of the sub-Continent and to add a conservative and authoritative element to the Government of India in order to make certain that there should not be the unrestricted development of democratic ideas and, at the same time, a deterioration in the standard of administration and rule in British India.
    One of the greatest hopes for British trade in the future is that the Indian States should have a greater influence upon tariffs than they have had in the past. Under the existing Constitution the wealthy millowners of Bombay have found it extraordinarily easy to influence Congress and Indian politicians. There has been a great increase in the duties on imported piece goods. As I mentioned in conection with the question of customs, that has meant that the subjects of the agricultural Indian States have been compelled to pay an enhanced price for the piece goods that they needed, because the Indian mills desired a high protective tariff. It is of the utmost importance, in order to obtain a fair and reasonable tariff policy in India, that the agricultural districts in the Indian States should be more fairly and adequately represented.
    I should like to express my great regret at the speech made last night by the hon. Lady for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) and, not greatly to my surprise, she was supported to-day by the
    392
    hon. Member for Bridgeton. I should be sorry if no protest was made against the attitude those two hon. Members have taken up that there is something wrong in the attitude of His Majesty's Government that certain treaties entered into 100 or 130 years ago to maintain the integrity of the Indian States are a pledge that is binding upon us to-day in law and in honour. In the Harcourt-Butler Committee Report, to which the hon. Lady referred with criticism, a proclamation made by the present King is quoted that those treaties are inviolate and inviolable. Those treaties were entered into at a time when British rule in India was not as firmly established as it is at present, when we stood in great need of faithful friends, without whose assistance there might now be no British rule in India. It is strange to me that the hon. Lady, who is so apt to draw attention to pledges such as that made in 1917 to British India by which we undertook to introduce self-governing institutions into India, should regard pledges given to native India to maintain their existing constitutional system as being less sacred and less binding.
    Miss RATHBONE: Has the hon. Member also considered the explanation given by the Harcourt-Butler Committee itself, that the relationship of the paramount power and the States is not merely a structural relationship resting on treaties made more than a century ago. It is a living, growing relationship shaped by circumstances and policy which is, as Professor Westlake has said, a mixture of history, theory and modern fact. If that be the correct interpretation, is it not justifiable to consider whether the modern fact which we are creating in this Bill is the kind of fact which will shape this living, growing relationship in a right direction or a wrong one?
    Mr. MOLSON: Without accepting the Harcourt-Butler Committee's Report as being in all matters binding, I would draw the hon. Member's attention to the circumstances in which the committee was appointed. It was appointed because the Indian States were dissatisfied with what they believed to be the encroachments and the increased intervention by the paramount power in the administration of the Indian States. That has been because, as circumstances have changed, the British Government has considered

    393
    itself entitled to an increasing extent to intervene in the Indian States in order to safeguard the interests and the welfare of the subjects of the princes. That is a point which I thought should not be allowed to pass unreferred to.
    It has been alleged—and there is no information on the subject—that, when this Bill has been passed, and the exact conditions upon which the Indian Princes may come into the Federation are known, they will refuse to do so. The Conservatives opposite seem to think that they will refuse. The Government on the other hand, whose information I suppose is at any rate as trustworthy as theirs, think the Indian Princes will be prepared to come in. But, whether they do or do not, that is no argument against this Bill, because it provides that, if the Indian Princes are not prepared to come in, if we are not going to have that conservative and stabilising element at the centre, the whole question of responsibility at the cenre will have to be reconsidered.
    5.14 p.m.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not rise for the purpose of continuing the Debate so much as to ask when we are to have some reply from the Government to the prolonged discussion that has taken place. Since dinner time last night debate has been in progress upon an Amendment of consequence, and so far we have had no information from the Government whether they will accept it or not. We have had no attempt to meet any of the arguments that have been employed in favour of the Amendment and against the policy of the Government. This is a very far-reaching and weighty Amendment and you, Sir, following the convention that is ruling us, that our arrangements give more and not less liberty to the House of Commons of discussion, have allowed us a full discussion of this super-imposition of the federal Constitution upon the broad foundation of the Statutory Commission's Report. That really is the issue. It is not the only time the issue will be raised. It comes up on a great many Amendments. There are a score of Amendments any one of which, if carried, would be fatal to the federal scheme, but this is the first major time at which the matter comes before us. There has been this Debate and there have been all these arguments. We have had no answer whatever from the Government. I sup
    394
    pose the Secretary of State is going to make sure that he has the last word in the Debate.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare) indicated dissent.
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Then, may I suggest that really on this occasion be might run a little risk and give some guidance as to what his purposes are For my part, I am prepared to discuss the matter and support the Amendment, and show, as far as I can, the many vicious Clauses which render the Government policy of Federation at the centre injudicious and most pregnant with evil consequences. We have had already two long Debates in which this topic has been greatly raised, and many arguments have been used against the policy of Federation at the centre and no Minister has given any answer of any sort or kind to any of those arguments. Statements have been made in previous Debates on this matter by the Lord President of the Council which have not dealt at all with the arguments used in the Debate, not in the least. They have dealt with questions in connection with groupings of party votes and so forth. No attempt has been made to answer all these arguments. I really consider there is a great volume of argument against the introduction of this federal scheme to which my right hon. Friend might find it worth while to address himself. I am sure that, if he did so, he would strengthen the volume and current of the Debate in the Committee and put us in a position to know the mind of the Government. So far many arguments have been used against Federation, and all that has happened is that Ministers and supporters of the Government who have spoken have confined themselves to saying, "You must have Federation because the princes made an offer and said that their offer only held if there was responsible government. Consequently, there is nothing for it but to put the Bill through." We ought to have something better than that, and I ask my right hon. Friend: Will he reply now to the Debate?
    5.18 p.m.
    Sir S. HOARE: I really cannot understand the attitude of my right hon. Friend. He has taken part in these Debates several times during the last 24

    395
    hours, and he has never failed to make a personal attack of some kind upon me. I should have thought that this was not the best way to start a Debate which everyone in all quarters of the House wished carried on in a most friendly atmosphere. We wish to hear each other's points of view with as little heat as possible, and I appeal to hon. Members in every part of the Committee in claiming that I have never avoided, in all the discussions of the last three or four years, any issues that have been raised. I have never failed to deal with any questions which any hon. Member in any part of the House has put. The only reason—and it is a very simple one—why I have not hitherto taken part in this Debate is that I regarded it as a general Second Reading Debate, or something very like it, on the main issue of the Bill, and an issue upon which I have spoken, I do not know how many times. It is a question upon which, time after time, I have endeavoured to give every conceivable detail, and I was under the impression that what, at any rate, most Members of the Committee desired was to put their own views and not to have the whole time taken up with long speeches from this bench. As however my right hon. Friend has thought fit to make these charges against me—
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have not made any charges.
    Sir S. HOARE: No, but it is the whole underlying tone.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Really, I think it is rather childish to talk about charges, when all I said was that after six hours debate we should have some answer from the Government. If you call that a charge, you will have plenty of them.
    Sir S. HOARE: I take it that the Committee will decide between my right hon. Friend and myself. Anyhow, so far as this Committee is concerned, as my right hon. Friend seems to wish me to give my answer now, I am perfectly ready to give it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] I must not be drawn aside further, but I thought that my right hon. Friend was quite capable of looking after himself. Anyhow, be that as it may, let me get back to the Amendment. The purpose of the Amendment is to substitute for the federal proposals in the
    396
    Bill, a proposal for an advisory council of Greater India. I have observed that the Noble Lord who moved the Amendment and my hon. Friends who have supported him have for the most part based their contention upon the recommendations of the Statutory Commission. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I notice that one or two of them by saying "Hear, hear" imply that I rightly interpret their attitude towards this Amendment. Let the Committee observe the great difference of spirit with which, at any rate, some of my hon. Friends advocate this proposal, compared with the spirit underlying the recommendations of the Statutory Commission. The Statutory Commission recommended a council of Greater India as a very tentative and a very temporary proposal. Let me remind the Committee of the words the Commission actually used:
    "The council of Greater India was designed to make a beginning in the process which may one day lead to Indian Federation."
    How different is that attitude from the attitude taken up by more than one of my hon. and right hon. Friends, from which it is quite clear that they regard this, not as a tentative proposal, but as a definite substitute for a long period of time. I think that the Noble Lord who moved the Amendment said 30 years.
    Viscount WOLMER: No, a generation.
    Sir S. HOARE: He now says a generation. It is longer still. If he will look, he will see that he said 30 years.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Twenty-five years is a generation.
    Sir S. HOARE: Anyhow, for a long period of time, as a definite substitute for anything in the nature of a responsible federal centre. Moreover, my Noble Friend and the hon. Friends who support him have ignored a number of other recommendations which the Statutory Commission also made for dealing with the Centre. For instance, the Statutory Commission recommended that the number of the elected members in the British India Legislature should be increased. They recommended further that the official block should be diminished. In other words, my Noble Friend and his hon. Friends select from the Statutory Commission those recommendations that suit them.
    Viscount WOLMER: That is exactly what you have done.
    Sir S. HOARE: They ignore, on the other hand, those that do not.
    Viscount WOLMER: Which you have done, also.
    Sir S. HOARE: No, I do not accept that. Instead of a tentative and very definite interim arrangement, they make what is really a permanent proposal of irresponsibility at the centre for an indefinite period of time. The whole essence of the recommendations in the report of the Joint Select Committee is that, over as wide a field as we can safely do it, we should give more responsibility both in the Provinces and in the centre. This proposal, so far from giving more responsibility at the centre, would sterotype irresponsibility for an indefinite time. If it is bad enough to have one irresponsible body at the centre in the shape of a legislature for British India, how much worse it is when you add to it another equally irresponsible body in the shape of the council of Greater India. The council of Greater India will be an advisory body. The whole history of advisory bodies in India has several lessons to teach us. Deprived of any power, they very much tend in some cases to drift into inanition and uselessness. My strong view is that, since the Princes made their offer to come into a federation, it would be the gravest possible mistake to go back to a proposal that was only made by the Statutory Commission upon the assumption that the Princes were not likely to come into a. federation for a considerable length of time. Moreover, as far as the Princes are concerned, I feel pretty confident that that the Princes on no account would cooperate in a body of this kind. They made their offer four years ago. They stated then quite definitely that they were only prepared to take a part in the central government of India provided that the central government was not a government under Whitehall, but was a responsible government. Time after time they have made that statement, and from all that has happened since the statement was originally made, I have no reason to suppose that they have withdrawn in any way from that attitude.
    398
    And, surely, what attitude could be more reasonable? The Princes are not in the least interested in academic discussions about all-India questions. The Princes are directly interested in certain specific features of the modern government of India, and particularly interested in the question of Customs. I would remind the Committee that indirect taxation, including, that is to say, Customs, amounts to about four-fifths of the revenues of India, and in that part of the revenues of India the States pay a very large share. They pay a very large share of the customs without having control over Customs policy at all. I am convinced that one of the main reasons which have prompted the Indian Princes to insist upon responsibility for an all-India centre is the need that they have felt for having an effective control, not simply an academic voice in a debating society, but an effective control in a. policy which so directly concerns them at every turn. In view of these statements, I feel convinced that they would not be prepared to co-operate in a Council of this kind.
    I have said a word or two about the actual form of the Amendment to set up an advisory council. Let me, before I sit down, say something about what I believe to be the feeling behind the Amendment. I have been very conscious throughout all these years that a great many people, at any rate when they first came to consider this question, have taken the view that the wiser and the safer course is to proceed stage by stage, to make your advance in the Provinces and not to make your advance or to prepare your advance in regard to the Centre simultaneously with the movement that you are making in the Provinces. I daresay that almost every hon. Member has at one time or another been influenced by a feeling of that kind. Certainly, I myself have more than once been influenced by that feeling, and certainly many hon. Members who were on the Joint Select Committee at one time or another were influenced by a similar feeling. But the significant fact is that, with so many of us, the further we have considered these problems, the more we have gone into the details, the more closely we have studied Indian conditions, the more we have been inevitably driven to the view that that course so far from being the safer and the wiser

    399
    course is really the more foolish and more dangerous course.
    I will not delay the Committee with a detailed discussion of all the reasons that have driven us along that road. Let me rather summarise them in a few sentences. First of all, I think the reason that has weighed with a great many of us, and it is a reason which we ought not to ignore, is the present position of Indian feeling on the subject. There is, no doubt whatever but that Indian feeling—when I speak of Indian feeling I mean Indian feeling both in the States and in British India; I mean feeling among all sections, the right, the centre as well as the left wing, is very strong upon the need of dealing with the Centre simultaneously with the Provinces, particularly for the reason that they feel that without action at the Centre, Indian status will still remain inferior in the eyes of the world and in the British Empire as a whole. That feeling is very deep and very universal, and if it is deep and if it is universal it means that it is a mistake to ignore it. If you ignore it you will run the risk of making your Provincial autonomy experiment, an experiment which most Members of this House are willing to make, in the worst possible atmosphere. You are more likely to get non-co-operation in the Provinces if you flout Indian opinion and take no action at the Centre.
    It is no answer to urge that there is a wave of criticism going on in India against the Government's proposals. Least of all is it a good argument to say that a very confused debate and a number of more or less contradictory Amendments passed in the Indian Assembly are a reason why this House should eliminate a great chapter from this comprehensive scheme. It might be supposed from some arguments we have heard in the course of the Debate that members of the Assembly in passing the Amendments that they passed the other day were in agreement with the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and those who sit around him. I observed that my right hon. Friend, I think for the first time, cheered enthusiastically the mention of Mr. Gandhi's name.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Mr. Gandhi is not a member of the Legislative Assembly.
    Sir S. HOARE: No, but he is a typical personality in the various sections that oppose the Government's proposals.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: He was mentioned last night.
    Sir S. HOARE: Why has there been this opposition in the Assembly? The opposition in the Assembly comes from two sections, first of all from Congress, who are prepared to take no proposals from this House at all, and who are prepared to accept no safeguards of any kind, and, secondly, from other parties who prefer responsibility in British India to responsibility in an All-India Federation; surely a very different attitude from the attitude taken up by my right hon. Friend and hon. Members who wish not to go further in advance than the Government are proposing but to have a more restricted advance. Be that as it may, the first reason that has driven us along the road for including in this Bill the chapter dealing with federation, is the almost unanimous feeling of political India upon the subject.
    Secondly, we have been gravely impressed with the danger of starting these great autonomous provinces without a federal link at the centre, with a body of popular opinion behind it, without which there would be the imminent danger of India breaking up into fragments. I go so far as to say that if we started on the road of provincial autonomy, and did not at the same time make the framework of an All-India Federation, the result would almost inevitably be that we should never have an All-India Federation at all. The provinces would grow up with a very strong provincial feeling behind them, and with every kind of centrifugal force at work. We should have the provinces, with popular support behind them, and we should have a centre weak enough now in many respects but immensely weaker with provincial autonomy once started. We should have these great autonomous provinces, many of them with divergent interests one from the other, but united upon one objective and one objective alone, namely, to extort from the British India centre, a centre without any popular support behind it, the largest amount of money that it could possibly succeed in extorting.

    401
    That state of affairs would be bad enough for India and scarcely less bad for Great Britain. Great Britain has very important interests in the Centre. Take, for instance, the financial interest that we have at the Centre, the interest that depends upon the large sums that are due for meeting the obligations of India to this country, the obligations of the debt, the cost of Indian defence, the cost of pensions for pensioners in this country. I think from the British point of view it would be extremely dangerous to leave the Centre unreformed and at the mercy of these great autonomous Provinces, whose chief objective would be to extort more revenues from the unreformed Centre. That is the second reason why we think it necessary to include the Federal proposals in the Bill.
    There is a third reason, which is connected with the position of the Princes. It might be assumed from some criticisms to which we have listened that our sole object in hoping that the Princes will enter the Federation is, to use the words of my Noble Friend the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer), that they should pull the chestnuts out of the fire for us. That is not in the least the real state of affairs. Obviously, we should all of us welcome the entry into the Central Government of India of a great force of stability and Imperial feeling such as is represented by the Princes. That, in my view, would be a great gain to the Central Government of India, but I am thinking rather of the Princes' position and their own interests in the matter. If I were an Indian Prince I should be extremely nervous in seeing these great Provincial autonomous Governments growing up around me, with popular support behind them, and with the Centre remaining in its present unreformed position. I should feel extremely nervous of the constant pressure that the Provinces would be putting on the Centre for additional revenue. After all, the Indian States are interested in keeping indirect taxation low, and not high. They pay a great part of the indirect taxation of India, but they have no say in the Customs policy. With these great autonomous Provinces constantly pressing the Centre more and more, it would put the Princes in a most dangerous position so far as their future is concerned.
    402
    For these reasons—I have purposely gone into them in greater detail than I intended in order to meet my right hon. Friend's request—the more I think of the problem the more sure I am that the wise and the safe course is to deal with the whole question at once both in the Centre and the Provinces. Any course which eliminates the proposals for the Centre and substitutes for responsible Federal Government the kind of advisory body that is suggested in the Amendment, and does nothing to remove the weaknesses now inherent in the Central Government, so far from being the wise and safe course would be a really dangerous course, that would plunge not only ourselves in great difficulties in the future, but make the position of the Indian Princes much more precarious than it would be if they entered the Federal Government.
    Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Before the right hon. Gentleman concludes his speech, may I ask if he will inform the Committee how it is that the Government are putting forward the proposition of federation at this time when it is an undisputed fact that the federating units in the provinces are not ready for federation for the many reasons so clearly set out in the Simon Commission Report. All his arguments assume that the units in the provinces are ready for federation, but there is not the slightest question that these provincial units are not ready for federation.
    Sir S. HOARE: I do not know upon what the hon. and gallant Member bases his conclusion. I take a directly opposite view, I think they are ready.
    5.46 p.m.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The Committee will feel indebted to the Secretary of State for the clear and full exposition he has given of the views and position of His Majesty's Government on this serious issue. If I found it necessary to apply a blister in order to procure from the right hon. Gentleman this highly agreeable exertion, I can only feel that it has been attended with success, and, if he is satisfied with his efforts, we are entirely grateful to have received from the Government some guidance as to their views on this subject. The Secretary of State has reaffirmed the Government's case without

    403
    attempting in any way—naturally he could hardly do so in so short a time—to deal with the arguments which have been advanced. He has restated the Government's main position. The Princes made their offer to come into a federal system; the Princes said that if they came into a federal system they must be responsible and, therefore, it is necessary for the Government to set up this federal system now. That, in short, is the main position of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman also said that if we were to proceed only with provincial home rule, a centrifugal tendency would be developed in the povinces, and the united focus and harmonious action of India would be destroyed. That is a clear statement of the position taken up by the Government, and also by the Joint Select Committee.
    When it is given out, as it has been to-night, with an air of expert authority which the Government quite rightly are entitled to assume, one is entitled to be allowed to point to the fact that other expert bodies, who have given great consideration to this matter, have taken an entirely different view of the philosophical and fundamental basis on which this issue turns. My hon. and gallant Friend, in asking his question was really leading up to a quotation I am about to make from the report of the Statutory Commission. [Interruption.] I do not know why hon. Members opposite should laugh; I am surprised at such irreverence. This was a body which contained eminent Liberals, the most pre-eminent Liberal was at its head, and hon. Members laugh because I venture to quote him. I have always noticed that the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) mocks at every authority which does not suit his argument at the moment, but I will admit that he is not the only man in the House who does that. This is what the Statutory Commission said:
    "Even if we were to ignore the Indian States and were to rest content with the provinces as at present constituted, the necessary conditions for bringing a full federal constitution into being are not yet present. The provinces must first become political entities."
    I should have thought there was some importance in that. Before we can become political entities, before we can join ourselves together in political parties,
    404
    we must first be born into this world of sin and woe. The commission go on:
    "Even when our proposals for the constitution of the Governors provinces have been embodied in a Statute, the process is not completed. The provincial constitution only begins to exist as a living thing when the forces which operate it are at work and provincial opinion gives it inspiration and direction. Every federal union means the coming together of constituent elements which, while preserving their identities, look to the Centre to deal with matters common to all. Thus the nature of the constituents themselves has a great influence on the form which the federation takes. It is a difficult task."
    These are not my words; they are not the words of Tory diehards. This is the Statutory Commission, with the Foreign Secretary at its head, surrounded by Liberals and Labour representatives.
    "It is a difficult task to combine the process of devolution with that of integration on a new basis."
    These are solid propositions and arguments provided for us in the House of Commons and Lords by our own Statutory Commission, which was sent out and worked in India for two years. They gave us these solid bases of argument and, therefore, I am not so hopelessly divested of authority when I am confronted with the statements of the Secretary of State, which are absolutely contradictory to these main basic propositions. It is by no means the only time that we shall raise this federal issue in its different aspects, but it is the prime occasion. Having listened to many able speeches made by the supporters of the Government from time to time—there are some of them, certainly, who are very able in their statement of their views—I must say that I remain bewildered as to the initial motive power and impulse which lead the Government to insist on bringing a federal system into operation now, and forces us to take this position on the Bill. I have searched to find some adequate and satisfactory reason for it. Nobody wants it in India. With great difficulty the Princes are being brought up to scratch or not, as the case may be. We do not know. The Government have a great advantage over us in this respect, because the Debate is taking place without our knowing the decision of the Princes. With the greatest difficulty the Secretary of State set himself out to have three-quarters of the Princes as the test, but very quickly he had to write it down to one-half—
    Sir S. HOARE indicated dissent.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: A larger number than the present number was originally put forward by the Secretary of State.
    Sir S. HOARE: I do not think so.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is not a question of thinking; it is a question of fact.
    Sir S. HOARE: If the right hon. Gentleman doubts my word, I will say "No".
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not doubt my right hon. Friend's honesty and good faith in the matter, and I hope that such things are not going to be suggested. In this controversy many things have happened during the last four years and I certainly was under the impression, just as honestly or almost as honestly as the right hon. Gentleman, that a higher number of Princes was chosen in the first instance, and, in fact when we put down our Amendment about the three-quarters we understood that we were basing ourselves on the original view. However, the Princes are to be represented, they made this offer and demanded responsible government at the Centre. It reminds me of a saying of the Duke of Wellington to a man who accosted him with, "I believe you are Mr. Smith?" The Duke said, "If you believe that you will believe anything." Why these autocratic Princes should demand responsible government at the Centre I cannot conceive. What happened, as far as we have heard—names have been mentioned, but I will not repeat them—was that some of the Princes, believing that under the Secretary of Stateship of Mr. Wedgwood Benn England was really determined to move out, lock, stock and barrel, met representatives of Congress and did what in ordinary English language is called a deal. The Princes were to be left to run their territories as despotic and hereditary rulers and to help Congress to get responsible government at the Centre. That was the situation which preceeded the so-called offer of the Princes, and that is the explanation, and the only explanation, of their enthusiasm for responsible government.
    What will be the plight of the Princes in this new Assembly? Anything more lamentable can hardly be conceived. They will be expected to uphold stability, the Conservative point of view, to sustain
    406
    the Imperial authority, and be as it were behind the Viceroy. The Chancellor of the Duchy made a most interesting and revealing speech a few days ago, in which he spoke of the advantages of having the Princes in. He made a confession of faith on the matter, very characteristic, very natural and very sincere, in one who has been a party manager. He said: "Here is this large block of votes, one-third of the Assembly, they will put things straight and counteract the evil of democratic and revolutionary tendencies which are manifested in the Congress of India." That is the position. The Secretary of State has shown how much hope he is putting upon this. What is to be the position of the Princes under this ordeal? Congress are not going to be idle in the new Assembly, and any Prince who makes himself prominent in defending Imperial interests and in acting in accordance with his sentiments of loyal allegiance, will be a marked man. He will be the subject of a double attack. Agitation will be raised in his dominions behind him, disorders will occur, comments and criticisms will be made, and there will be pressure at the centre, to show how he is a reactionary, is neglecting his State and how much happier they are in the States of those Princes who have conformed to the views of Congress. I say they will be in a dreadful position. If you imagine that they are going to be an element of stability, I believe that you make a profound mistake. There will be no element of stability there. Once the British power has definitely disinterested itself in this aspect of our affairs in India the Princes of India have no choice whatever but to throw in their lot with their own fellow-countrymen, and that is what they will do under the remorseless pressure of political events.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Safety first.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: As my hon. and learned Friend says, "Safety first" will not necessarily be a motto confined to the Treasury Bench. In regard to this new register, by going forward in this matter and enforcing a federal system on top of this very large measure of provincial home rule you create, and set Parliament to authorise, a strucure of constitutional polity, a legislative assemby more curiously constituted, more illogically

    407
    framed and based than any which has ever been seen in the whole history of constitution-mongering. Here is this body, and you say that it is responsible. I thought that the demand of the Princes for responsible government at the centre was a sham. But the response is also a sham. This is not responsibility at the centre; it is a pretence of responsibility. Almost every conceivable function in which responsible government resides, has been reserved. The protection of minorities, defence, the foreign situation; finance, except 20 per cent. of it—the whole basis is reserved.
    What you are giving at the centre is not responsibility. What you are giving is the power to extort responsibility. What you are giving is, by Parliamentary method and by Parliamentary arguments, you having conceded all the argumentative positions, the power to extort inch by inch, and month by month, the full responsibility. But you are not giving it now. In the meantime a constitution is being created, infinitely laborious, infinitely complicated, people voting in and out according to instructions, people voting as representatives of the ancient monarchies, and as newly-elected representatives in the new-Assembly, an Assembly which cannot be rectified by any dissolution, just the Princes, representatives and others elected by indirect election—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes, it is so! It is an extraordinary situation, a piece of work most laborious but most lamentable when completed. The industry and labour and good will put into it do not remove the fact that the result is wholly undesirable and one which is resented and disliked and repudiated everywhere. You cannot get the Princes, or you will very doubtfully get the Princes, to come forward.
    I am not going at this moment into all the methods that have been used. I may have something to say about them later on. But as for the Indian Assembly, an hon. Lady who spoke last night—an independent Member, an independent lady Member—made it quite clear that the dominating opinion in India now is that, rather than have this Bill, they would have the matter reconsidered from the beginning. And that would be a very-good thing. You would get a better result, because after all the fighting and nagging and general badgering that have
    408
    been going on we are getting to a fairly proper comprehension of the situation.
    Would it not be wise of the Government, therefore, not to drive the scheme through this Parliament just because they have a very large number of gentlemen here who are ready during the closing months of this Parliament, to walk through the lobbies behind them? The scheme cannot come into operation for four or five years. Why not look a little further ahead? I know the lust of power, the sense of having such a very large majority in both branches of the Legislature, so that what you put on paper with your initial is settled. It is very affecting to the mind. I am bound to say that when I continue my search for any reason which the Government could possibly have had for assenting to the federal system at such great cost to themselves, at such great cost to their party, at such great cost to the people of India, and forcing the system through, I find that a handful of individuals of reputation and strong conviction were engaged at the beginning of this matter, and that these men have had their hands on the lever of power and can pull the great machine of party and Government. I find that to be the principal explanation of the situation in which we find ourselves to-day. It would be perfectly simple for the Government to proceed with the provincial, and to say that the federal system would come into being if the provincial aspect is found satisfactory, if it has made good in the provinces; and that the Government of that day in another Parliament—not this Parliament, but another Parliament—must face the responsibility and the burden of passing the detailed Clauses, instead of bringing the scheme into operation by an Address to the Crown from both Houses, and ramming it through after a single Division.
    It is a very grievous thing. I do hope that we are not going to drag the House of Lords into this fight. We are told to attach great importance to an Address from both Houses. As far as I have been able to inform myself, the passing of an Address is not a matter governed by the Parliament Act. So that here you have not the dilatory veto of the House of Lords as affirmed by -the Parliament Act. Here you have the absolute veto of the House of Lords, without any reference to the Parliament Act. But this

    409
    is a very serious thing. If you suppose that the House of Lords is going to be put into the position of standing against the House of Commons on a matter of this kind, when no doubt there will be a situation of great excitement in India at the same time, I think you are resting absolutely upon an unsure and insecure foundation.
    We consider that the plan which is put forward in this Amendment, which may be called the Salisbury Plan—it is not a bad name, for, after all, Lord Salisbury took a great deal of trouble in studying the matter—is really what the Statutory Commission advised, with certain modifications. In principle it is what the Statutory Commission advised, that there should be provincial government, provincial home rule, that integral control should be maintained at the centre and that a consultative body should be provided. That is, in sub stance, the Salisbury Plan. That is the issue. Imagine what would happen if we heard next week that the Princes were not coming in. There would be a sigh of relief from all over India. But that would be nothing like the sigh of relief which would go up all over the Tory party, and indeed far outside the
    bounds of party—a feeling of great relief that this wedge which is being driven in to split a great political organisation had ceased to operate and that there would be unity. Not only would there be relief in India, but a greater measure of unity at home, and we should have freed ourselves, we should have prevented the writing of one of the most melancholy, one of the most perverse, one of the most unnecessary chapters in the whole history of the British people.
    6.11 p.m.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: I would like to concur in what has been said in support of the Amendment. I have studied the question very carefully, and my view is that to force on an Oriental people a system of Western government is just as foolish as to put British clothes on tropical African negroes. It has very frequently been done in the past, to the damage of their health. The Bill is an absurd proposal.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'if,' in line 35, stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 308; Noes, 50.

    Division No. 52.]

    AYES.

    [6.12 p.m.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Eales, John Frederick

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony

    Allen, U.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)

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

    Edwards, Charles

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Apsley, Lord

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Cleary, J. J.

    Elmley, Viscount

    Assheton, Ralph

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V,

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Balniel, Lord

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

    Banfield, John William

    Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

    Cooke, Douglas

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Bernays, Robert

    Copeland, Ida

    Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Blindell, James

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

    Borodale, Viscount

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

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Bossom, A. C.

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    Boulton, W. W.

    Cross, R. H.

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

    Bower, Commander Robert Tatton

    Crossley, A. C.

    Gillett, Sir George Matterman

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

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

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Culverwell, Cyril Tom

    Gledhill, Gilbert

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Curry, A. C.

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Dagger, George

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.

    Brown, Col. D. c. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

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

    Golf, Sir Park

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Davies, David L, (Pontypridd)

    Goldle, Noel B.

    Bullock, Captain Malcolm

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)

    Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)

    Butler, Richard Austen

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Grattan-Doyle. Sir Nicholas

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Dickle, John p.

    Graves, Marjorie

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Drewe, Cedric

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Cape, Thomas

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Duggan, Hubert John

    Griffith. F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Dunglass, Lord

    Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

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

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Grigg, Sir Edward

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Grimston, R. V.

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

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Groves, Thomas E.

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Salt, Edward W.

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Gunston, Captain W.

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

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

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Savery, Samuel Sarvington

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Magnay, Thomas

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Fortar)

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Smithers, Sir Waldron

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A,

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

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Mason, Col. Glyn K, (Croydon, N.)

    Soper, Richard

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

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

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Hornby, Frank

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Spens, William Patrick

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Milne, Charles

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Milner, Major James

    Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Stevenson, James

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Storey, Samuel

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. sir Thomas W. H.

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

    Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Morgan, Robert H.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)

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

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

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

    Morrison, William Shepherd

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Jamieson, Douglas

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Janner, Barnett

    Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Munro, Patrick

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Jennings, Roland

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J, H.

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Thorne, William James

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

    Tinker, John Joseph

    John, William

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

    Train, John

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    Tree, Ronald

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Paling, Wilfred

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Peake, Osbert

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Pearson, William G.

    Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)

    Kirkpatrick, William M.

    Peat, Charles U.

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

    Kirkwood, David

    Penny, Sir George

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Knight, Holford

    Petherick, M.

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Potter, John

    Watt, Captain George Steven H.

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

    West, F. R.

    Lawson, John James

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Weymouth, Viscount

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Pybus, Sir John

    White, Henry Graham

    Leighton, Major B. E. P,

    Radford, E. A.

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Leonard, William

    Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

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

    Wilmot, John

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. G'n)

    Ramsbotham, Herswald

    Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Womersley, Sir Walter

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Wood. Sir Murdoch McKanzie (Banff)

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R,

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Lunn, William

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Mabane. William

    Rickards, George William

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

    Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Mac Andrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Captain Sir George Bowyer and

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward

    Dr. Morris-Jones.

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.

    Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

    Alexander, Sir William

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

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

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Maxton, James

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Dawson, Sir Philip

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

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

    Nunn, William

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Donner, P. W,

    Oman, Sir Charles William C

    Bracken, Brendan

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Burnett, John George

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Carver, Major William H.

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Cobb. Sir Cyril

    Lees-Jones, John

    Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Levy, Thomas

    Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.(P d'gt'n, s.)

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)

    Templeton, William P.

    Cranborne, viscount

    McGovern, John

    Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

    412

    413

    Wayland. Sir William A.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

    Mr. Lennox-Boyd and Mr. Kimball.

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    6.26 p.m.
    Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: I beg to move, in page 2, line 35, after "and," to insert:
    "by a majority of the elected representatives of each Chamber of the Indian Legislature, and."
    In the scheme which is down for the consideration of the Committee, I think it will be agreed that we are abandoning all the precedents which might otherwise guide us. There is nothing in the history of the world, as far as I know, comparable with the federal form of government which we propose to set up in India. All previous federations have been federations of countries, colonies, provinces or states which have come together after having had long experience of self-government, and have joined as willing partners in a federal system or federation. In other words, if I may use the term broadly—I think it covers the ground although in other countries and in the Dominions this has not always been the case—provincial self-government has first been tried and proved and the various provinces have then graduated by consent into a federal union.
    In India all those conditions are absent. So far from the provinces in India having had the opportunity of proving themselves capable of the responsibility of government, I think it has been the contention from the Front Bench that they have had very little experience of responsibility at all. We might go even further in regard to municipal government in India and say that the municipalities there are still suffering the pains of birth, and have shown clearly that they are not yet capable of interpreting the democratic conditions and ideals of the Western world. Again, we have in India, and I shall only refer to it very briefly, the great clash of religious rivalries which are more intense, I think, than religious differences in any other part of the world and we have also the permanent segregation of the communal populations of India as a result of that condition. However necessary that may be, clearly it presents difficulties which are perhaps only appreciated fully in India and which make democratic institutions as we understand them in this country practically impossible there.
    414
    I may add that the divisions of caste make federal union still more difficult. Anyone who has made a real study of the question will agree that the differences of caste in India are such that we here can hardly conceive them. If we were to attempt to apply a strict interpretation of the caste system we would require to have a large number of different libraries, smoke-rooms, and dining-rooms and even toilet tables, with the result that there would be great confusion. Here in the House of Commons it is possible for me to sit on this bench next to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). But if he were a Brahmin and I were an Untouchable, it would he essential for him, repeatedly, to go away not only to wash his hands but to have a complete bath and change of raiment. There is no doubt whatever that after going through the Lobby the greatest difficulties would arise among the various gentlemen of these different religious distinctions.
    The CHAIRMAN (Sir Dennis Herbert): I hope the hon. and gallant Member will avoid discussing federation generally. We have dealt with that, and I think the Committee must be very careful on this Amendment to keep to the point raised by the Amendment.
    Sir H. CROFT: I will endeavour to conform to your ruling, Sir Dennis, but I was trying to convey to the Committee the necessity for Indians having some say in their own questions, because they alone can understand these fundamental differences and difficulties, of which we here know nothing. Under this Bill, after an address from both Houses of Parliament, we find that these reforms will operate, and we are asking that the people of India, who have for all time to live under the reforms which we are passing through this House, should, through their elected representatives, also give their assent. I know that unless there are very grave reasons to the contrary, men of every party in this House must assent to that principle. There would be no question about that on any other issue whatsoever, and if you persist in declaring that India wants this reform and that it is a form of government which is not being imposed upon them against their will, then I say to the Government, "Prove your case,

    415
    prove you have no fears, prove that you really believe this is representing the views of India."
    I would remind the Secretary of State that he has no other machinery at the present time to which he can refer for endorsement than the machinery set up under the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms, which this House, in its wisdom or in its folly, decided should be the form of government in India. The whole contention of the Government is that these very, electors and leaders of political thought -whom we are now considering are ripe for these democratic, self-governing institutions embodied in the Bill. If there is a shred of sincerity in the case which is presented, we are bound to consult these people, these elected representatives who are in contact with their electors in India. I realise that the legislative assembly may not be the same one then as it is now, but surely we are not going to depart from the principle of every single federal union we have ever heard of by saying that in this case of India alone the people who are really concerned shall not be consulted.
    His Majesty's Ministers again and again have denied that these people to whom we are looking to work this reform are irresponsible. They have always said that their actions are irresponsible because we are only asking them to vote without any executive power; but they would never suggest that the people concerned, the political-minded people in India, are not responsible persons. I say then, Give them that responsibility, give them this opportunity of a sober, wise, executive decision, by saying that they assent to these reforms which you are proposing. To persist without their sanction—indeed, in direct opposition to their will as expressed at the recent elections—would be to violate the traditions of British constitutional history, as far as vie know it, from all time. I think it is a mockery of our standards of progress. It is forcing the true spirit of constitutional evolution upon which we have all been brought up in this country.
    I want to remind the Committee of how large sections of the Press in this country, when a certain form of government was imposed upon Germany, took it upon themselves to lecture the Government of Germany and to say that what they were doing was very wrong, that the
    416
    establishment of the Hitler régime was only carried out under duress. Was all that nobility of thought mere eye-wash? I cannot believe it. I believe it was sincere. But if we declaim against the establishment of a form of government that apparently has not got the assent of the people of Germany, or which certain newspapers think has not got their assent, surely we ought not to impose a form of government upon citizens of the British Empire unless we are quite convinced and certain that they desire that particular form of government themselves. Without ever consulting the people of this country, we went through, first, the Montagu-Chelmsford reform, the Simon Commission, and then the federal scheme, and ultimately we have threatened Dominion status, and the British people have not been consulted. We have been slithering along this course from surrender to surrender, but at least it is our duty to consult the people of India.
    My concluding word is this: The right hon. Gentleman, as everybody knows, believes in this policy. He would not have driven it along this tortuous path, with all its dire consequences, unless he had a very profound belief in the thing, but he believes that under his scheme, or he did believe at the commencement, he was going to bring peace, contentment, and settlement to this Indian constitutional question. All organised political opinion in India has declared that it will not bring peace, that it will not bring contentment, that it will bring far greater agitation than we have known in the past; and if that is a fact, surely it is our bounden duty to consult India before the country is plunged into that agitation which all their political-minded people tell us is inevitable. I, therefore, urge the Government to accept the Amendment, because I think it is really in consonance with the whole idea of British constitutional government. It would be regarded as intolerable in any other country in the world if you were to force this particular reform upon a people where there was any indication from the elected representatives that it was not such a reform as they believed would bring about the contentment which we and they desired.
    6.39 p.m.
    Sir S. HOARE: I am astonished—
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: On a point of Order. Would it not be possible to have some debate on this Amendment before the right hon. Gentleman commits himself?
    Sir S. HOARE: May I point out that it was only five minutes ago that my Noble Friend the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) asked me to speak?
    The CHAIRMAN: May I remind the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and the Committee that at the beginning of these proceedings it was suggested, and I think it was suggested by the Committee upstairs, that it might be convenient for the Government to give its views on an Amendment early? That does not for a moment mean that the Debate is closed or anything of that kind, but it may shorten the Debate considerably if those who propose to take part in the discussion on the Amendment later know what the Government's views are.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: That is my point of Order, and I want to ask whether the only case is to be stated by the extreme Conservative wing, or whether we may not put forward the point of view of plain, ordinary, common sense people.
    The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has already been called on numerous Amendments, and I have every intention and expectation that it will be my duty to call him a good many times in future. It is my duty and I intend to try to see that every section of opinion in the Committee is heard in the Debate.
    Sir S. HOARE: I would like to hear the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's views.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: No, you speak.
    Mr. EMMOTT: On a point of Order. Who is in possession of the Committee?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I cannot believe that the Government are going, at this early hour, to refuse to sanction an Amendment which no Government in this country ever before would have refused to accept. There never has been in all history a case of England giving a constitution to any country in the teeth of the opposition of that country. There is plenty of opportunity of questioning whether the Indians are against this or not. The right hon. Gentleman may say that this is a Bill which will be
    418
    acceptable to India, which will be good for India, but he is not, as a Minister of the Crown, entitled to say that we will give this constitution to India whether India likes it or not. There are plenty of precedents. Take the case of Ceylon. We passed a constitution for Ceylon only three years ago—Ceylon, a small country. That constitution, which had the backing of the Labour Government and of the Conservative Government, was not forced upon Ceylon against their wishes. The -Ceylon people were told that they might accept it or not, that they might go on with the status quo or accept that constitution. Are you really going to refuse to India what you conceded to Ceylon, and on what ground?
    Who are the people who are to enjoy or suffer this constitution? The Indian people. This Bill has hitherto been put forward as being a Bill for the good of India. If you refuse this Amendment, you must obviously abandon for all time any idea that it is for the good of India that you are acting, or any plea that this is wanted in India. You must fall back upon the argument, which I do not believe the right hon. Gentleman would use, that we are putting this Bill through in order to help England control India. There are certain advantages in this Bill which we know of, from the point of view of England. We get established in India a constitution which nothing could ever upset, because it is based on treaty rights between the Indian Princes and the British Government and the British Crown, and, therefore, this thing cannot be upset. That may be of advantage to England. We may be able to continue to control India in spite of the unanimous opposition of the Indian people. We may be able, by getting under cover of the Indian Princes and millionaires, to find it easier to rule India in the future than in the past. All those arguments in favour of this Bill will have to be used, and you will have to confine yourself to them, if you refuse an Amendment allowing the people of India to decide for themselves the simple question of whether they prefer—
    Mr. COCKS: The people of India?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Certainly—whether they prefer the status quo or this Bill. I say "the people of India," because the assembly is the nearest approach to the people of India that you

    419
    can get. There is no system by which you can consult them all. The Committee will see an amendment in my name which will allow the provinces to contract out, and to say whether they prefer the status quo to their position under this Bill. The Assembly is the proper body to consult. Are we going to assert that the Indian people have not the right to say, "We would rather go on as we are than take this step," and of saying whether they want this Constitution or not? The view has received great support in the Committee and the Press of the country that the people of India. are not really opposed to this Bill, and that they are only objecting to it because they want more. When the Bill is through and when they know that they cannot get more, perhaps they may be in favour of it, but for goodness sake let them, say so.
    I am perfectly certain that no party in India, no body of electors in India, will support this Measure or would not prefer the status quo to the new scheme. Here we are passing a constitution for a country which permanently divides it into castes and sects. I do not altogether agree at any time with the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft). I do not believe that Indian democracy cannot work because of castes, for I am certain that the best and only way to break down caste in India is through democracy. In legislative councils in India I have seen Brahmins sitting beside the scheduled castes. They are mixing together. We had an admirable speech by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Kirkpatrick) the other day in which he pointed out that in his big jute companies in Calcutta they had Indians as well as Englishmen on the boards, and they got along and understood each other, and were friends in consequence. Ten years ago they did not get on. The jute companies in Calcutta were almost purely Scottish, and they would hardly admit an Englishman. Then the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms got through against the wishes and ideas of the hon. Member for Preston, giving the beginnings of democracy to India. Then you got Indians coming on to the boards of companies and Englishmen and Indians of all creeds sitting together at the green benches at Delhi and Madras.
    Mr. BRACKEN: One of the reasons why the Indians were on the boards of these companies is that they bought the shares, not that they were convinced by the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: How little the hon. Member knows about these jute companies. Indians had the shares before, but when the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms went through they got on the boards. Now those companies are all the stronger and all the better because they have mixed communities on the boards. The most remarkable change is in the various legislative councils in India. There you are getting people who would not sit and kneel together before sitting and kneeling together now. Caste is breaking down under the influence of democracy, and probably the greatest contribution which we have made to India is that start in the breaking down of caste. It is possible there are a great many people in this House who prefer caste and do not want to break it down. All people who love the Indians and all the administrators out there who are deadly in earnest in their desire to help the Indian people, know that caste is the one barrier to progress. They look forward to representation together as being the best chance of breaking it down. To put through this constitution will make it impossible for all time for a Mohammedan to ask a Hindu for a loaf, or for a Hindu to ask a Mohammedan. The consecration of caste is embodied in this Bill.
    The CHAIRMAN: I have already ruled that the Committee must not discuss the question of federation as such on this Amendment.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: My remarks do not arise out of federation, and I was not alluding to it. I am anxious to point out that the people of India are against the Bill, not because they want more, but because they do not want the Bill. If they do not want the Bill and prefer the existing system, we really ought to let them say so. Has it not struck hon. Members as extraordinary how those wretched Indians in Tangasseri are so desperately anxious not to lose their British citizenship and go into an Indian State? The tragedy of that small community can be seen also in Bangalore, but more markedly in Berar. The question

    421
    of handing Berar over to the Nizam has been discussed for many years. The people of Berar are vocally and enthusiastically anxious to remain inside the British Empire instead of being handed back to the Nizam. Under this Bill you expect Indians as a whole to welcome the scheme which deprives them of their rights as British subjects and puts them under new masters worse than us. I admit we have not governed India always wisely, but at least the people of India know the value of being under Britain, under this House, rather than under the Princes.
    The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not to discuss the merits of the Federation proposal, but to confine himself to the question of the scheme being adopted by a majority of the elected representatives.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I have stated the case from the point of view of the Indians; it is their right to be consulted and to decide whether this scheme shall come into operation, or whether they shall stand pat where they are. From our point of view, does not the Committee think it is rather scandalous that we should deliberately hand people over to a different rule against their wishes? What about our traditions? Is it not a little cowardly to run away from our responsibilities for the people whom we are deserting and who do not want us to desert them? If we do not give them this opportunity, if we really pass this Clause without giving them a chance of expressing their wishes, we are betraying the people of India and, still worse, betraying all the decent traditions of Englishmen. We should not do this for any Crown colony. We should not allow America to take over the West Indies or allow the native inhabitants of Tanganyika to be handed back to Germany, but when it comes to 350,000,000 people, we take a different line. If they want it, by all means do it, but if they do not want it, what right have we to commit the crime of forcing them out of the status in which they are at present, and putting them in the miserable position of being serfs for all time of the Indian Princes and millionaires, a position which perpetuates caste and makes it impossible for India ever to be free?
    6.56 p.m.
    Sir S. HOARE: I do not propose to follow the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just addressed the Committee in the wide field that was really covered by the Second Reading Debate. It seemed to me he covered much wider considerations which had very little to do with this Amendment. I propose rather to address myself to the Amendment only. I am astonished that of all hon. Members my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) should have made this proposal. I was under the impression that he had the lowest possible opinion of Indian politicians, and particularly of Indian politicians in the central Assembly. Now my hon. and gallant Friend is throwing over all his old true Tory traditions and constituting the Indian politicians, and in particular the Indian Central Assembly, into being virtually a constituent assembly to undertake what is really the duty of the Imperial Parliament. From the very start of these discussions, now ranging over more than four years, every British representative, so far as I know, who has taken part in the discussions, has made it clear that the responsibility, for better or worse, is the responsibility of the Imperial Parliament, and that the decisions must be taken here.
    Further than that, my hon. and gallant Friend has so far abandoned his Conservative traditions as to draw a distinction between elected and non-elected members. Does that mean that he regards another place as of less account in the constitution than this distinguished assembly? Moreover, he and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) seemed to think that the Central Legislature is India and that India is the Central Legislature. I demur entirely from that contention. I wish to say nothing in disparagement of either the Council of State or the Central Assembly, but I do wish to urge the strongest possible protest against this House surrendering its responsibility as to what it thinks is the best government for India into the hands of anybody in. either of those two bodies. Let the Committee note this. Why should we surrender this responsibility in this particular instance I The present Legislature, supposing the Bill goes on to the Statute Book, is the last of its kind. Its

    423
    place is to be taken by a totally different kind of legislature, namely, the Federal Legislature. To what worse body could you refer for an opinion of this kind than the body whose place is to be taken by a different kind of assembly, and which would obviously be firmly and resolutely opposed to its own extinction?
    What would be the action of this House if at the next General Election a totally different kind of assembly were going to take our place? Should we not see in every quarter of the House considerable dissent from a proposal of that description? The future constitution of India being federal, why should we accept a body of opinion which is non-federal? If we are going to consult any legislature, we should consult the provincial legislatures, but I am not prepared to surrender our responsibility. The proper bodies to consult, if we did so, would be those who are going to take part in the federal system of the future. For all these reasons I say that this Amendment ought certainly to be resisted, for it would mean the surrender of the Imperial Parliament in a matter of vital importance, and make this a reference to the one body which is extremely biased on this question.
    7.2 p.m.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: The situation confronting us is intriguing if not amusing. The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) seems to have discovered some political light at last. The hon. and gallant Member has steadily argued throughout these discussions that the people who constituted the Central Legislature in India were of the unfortunate tribe designated by him as Indian politicians. I gather from that term of opprobrium that there is some essential difference between Indian politicians and the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth. I want to welcome the hon. and gallant Gentleman's early conversion. There has been talk about conversions recently, and I would like to hear the hon. and gallant Member tell us how he came to be converted to this principle of representative government for the Central Legislature in India. We are going to support this Amendment, and I have not the faintest doubt that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be glad to be associated with us for once in
    424
    the Lobby, because he has disclosed that he is no longer prepared to leave the matter of the decision when the proclamation of federation should be made simply to the British Parliament. He wants the Indian people to be associated with this matter.
    Sir H. CROFT: I would much prefer the opinion of the British electorate: this is only as an alternative to that.
    Mr. JONES: I thought that British opinion had been taken at Wavertree. At least we got as near a view as we could, though he did not appear to get much satisfaction out of it. He takes the view that in a matter of this prime importance the Indian people should have a voice, and not only the Indian people but their directly elected representatives. Here, again, is an even greater advance than I anticipated from the hon. and gallant Member. Let me say that I entirely dissent—and I am sure my hon. Friends do—from the proposition that the Secretary of State laid down, that the only people who should be consulted are those assembled in the British Parliament. I hold an entirely contrary view, and indeed the right hon. Gentleman himself does not take that view in practice, for we have elaborate machinery whereby one section of Indian opinion is being consulted—the least representative opinion—that of the Princes. I ventured to say on the Second Rading that one of the most striking features of the Government's attitude to this problem was the difference of their approach to the Princes and to British India. The Government always takes meticulous care to find out in advance whether the Princes will accept a plan or not. As an example, there is a provision that if this constitution is altered one jot, then all or each Prince is entitled to withdraw from the federation. When it comes to British India, the right hon. Gentleman who, as Secretary of State, ought to reflect their opinion in this House, takes the view that the people he represents here ought not to be consulted at all, that the whole decision rests with the House of Commons alone. We cannot accept that philosophy. We advanced the contrary point of view in the Statutory Committee steadily and without any faltering. So far as I can see, this may be the only occasion when we shall have occasion to second the hon. and gallant

    425
    Gentleman in vindicating the electoral rights of the Indian people in the Lobby.
    7.8 p.m.
    Colonel GRETTON: I have not intervened much in this discussion, but perhaps the Committee will bear with me one moment while I say why I am supporting this Amendment. It was a strange and extraordinary argument which was advanced by the Secretary of State. Really there seems to be very little weight in it, and he did not meet that part of the case referring to Ceylon. The Indian legislature is as nearly a popular assembly as has been set up in India. I cannot understand the argument why the question should not be referred to a body of that kind, because it is referring to a body that is to be destroyed. This measure we are now discussing, if it means anything at all, means an extension of that body on a more liberal basis. Surely this House, when it has reformed itself, has never hesitated on such occasions as the extension of the franchise to replace itself by another House: not perhaps by revolutionary stages, but step by step it has changed its character very materially. And why should the Secretary of State appeal to this House to impose on the people of India measures that he has laid before us, whether the people of India want them or not? It is a strange position which needs more justification. If you are going to set up democratic institutions, set them up in a democratic way, and do not impose them by a dictatorial act.
    7.12 p.m.
    Sir EDWARD GRIGG: I do not want to make a speech, but to offer two observations and to ask a question. To my mind it is the right and duty of this Parliament to give India, a constitution without consultation. This Parliament will remain for a long time responsible for the peace and unity of India. That being the case, I can see no reason for giving the power of veto to an assembly representing only one part of India. I listened with immense interest to the eloquence of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) on the duty democratically of consulting India about the future constitution. If he is prepared to apply that argument to the constitution in India,
    426
    why is he not prepared to apply it to tariffs?
    7.13 p.m.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: This matter was discussed in some way by the Joint Select Committee. It had the advantage of the evidence of the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). That right hon. Gentleman in the course of his evidence suggested his own scheme as against the proposals in the White Paper. He was then examined by the Aga Khan, who put to him the question why he did not accept the White Paper, which was generally supported, rather than his own scheme. The right hon. Gentleman replied that he was not prepared to surrender the rights of Parliament in this matter, and that the decision rested with Parliament. There was then a very interesting conversation between the right hon. Gentleman and Mr. Jayakar, who was one of the foremost representatives to come over from India. Mr. Jayakar asked the right hon. Gentleman how he proposed to test the question of whether India should be governed by Britain or by the Indians themselves. In the end Mr. Jayakar suggested that a plebiscite might be taken of the masses of the people of India to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred so frequently. What was the right hon. Gentleman's answer? That Parliament in this matter had its responsibilities which it could not delegate. I am not suggesting that T agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but I was a little astonished to find that this Amendment was down, and perhaps it is not surprising that the right hon. Gentleman, having taken so definite a position about the Imperial responsibility when he was giving evidence as a witness, is not in his place to support an Amendment on the opposite lines. I am sorry the hon. and gallant Member has not the support of the right hon. Gentleman for this Amendment, unless, indeed, he has changed his opinions. I understand from the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the right hon. Gentleman is having a cup of tea, and I must say I think he selected a most opportune moment for his refreshment.
    The hon. and gallant Member asked why the Indians should not have some say in these matters. I think they must have a say in these matters, but surely

    427
    the history of the last seven years is that they have had a great deal of say in these matters. When the Statutory Commission was set up, perhaps a mistake was made. When history comes to be written it will recognise, perhaps, that a mistake was made then in not doing in 1929 what was more wisely done later; but whether that was so or not, the Statutory Commission when in India made every effort to get in touch with Indian opinion. What has been done since? When the First Round Table Conference was called ample opportunity was given to Indian representatives to Eave their say. I think there were 13 or 14 members of the First Round Table Conference representing the British Parliament—at any rate under 20—and the membership of that Conference was over 100.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: They were nominated by India, not elected.
    Mr. FOOT: I never suggested they were elected. There was no machinery under which they could have elected representatives for that purpose. What was done was to take the opinion of those in India who were best qualified to advise. Those sent over here were, as far as could be seen, representative of every class of Indian opinion. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that Dr. Ambedkar was not a representative of the opinion of the depressed classes?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Most certainly not.
    Mr. FOOT: I understand that Dr. Ambedkar and I think Mr. Srinivasa Sastri are not entitled to speak for the depressed classes of India, but that the right hon. and gallant Member is? [Interruption.] That may be so, but his claims may not be recognised so easily.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Oh, yes, they are.
    Mr. FOOT: At any rate, we had every section of Indian opinion represented.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Represented?
    Mr. LANSBURY: Except Congress.
    Mr. FOOT: Even Congress was represented. When the First Round Table Conference met, out of more than 100
    428
    members less than 20 represented the British House of Commons, and the rest were representative of every class of opinion in India. That Conference took a long time. Its work extended over many years, and if any Members of the House have any doubt as to whether Indians had an opportunity to have a say in these matters let them go into the Library and take down from the shelves—though some of the books are not on the shelves; there are so many of them that they are in the cellar—the full records of evidence taken at that time, and they will show that men like Mr. Joshi, representing Labour—
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: You say that Mr. Joshi represented Indian Labour. Have you overlooked the fact that for 10 years he was picked out by the Government to sit at Delhi to pretend to represent Labour?
    Mr. FOOT: I would like to know whether that view is shared by the other Members on the Labour benches. I should be 'very reluctant to express such condemnatory opinions upon those who, at much sacrifice to themselves, and at great risk, because of the high state of emotion prevailing in India, risked their political future to come over and take part in those deliberations.
    Miss RATHBONE: Did the Joint Select Committee take their advice?
    Mr. FOOT: I am not speaking of the Joint Select Committee, but of the First Round Table Conference. Afterwards, there was the Second Round Table Conference, when Gandhi and others associated with him came, and I suppose they are recognised as being representative. After that there was the Third Round Table Conference. Other steps were also taken. A Franchise Committee was set up to deal not merely with the question of the franchise but with the constitution of the Central Chambers. The report of the Franchise Committee, which was under the chairmanship of Lord Lothian, shows that when he and his colleagues went out to India not only did they travel many thousands of miles, not only did they call into their committee a larger number of Indians than they were themselves, but in every Province a committee was set up for the express purpose of dealing with this question. The report of the Franchise Committee is not the

    429
    work of British politicians. It was, to a very large extent, to the extent probably of nine-tenths of its activity, because of the provincial committees and the assistance they gave, an expression of Indian opinion.
    When we come to the Joint Select Committee it may be true, as is suggested by the question which was put to me, that many of the recommendations made by the delegates were not accepted. I admit that the term "delegates" is not strictly true, but it is difficult to find a, term which would accurately describe their position. These gentlemen and one lady who came from India to take part in the Joint Select Committee were highly qualified by their experience to do so, and I do not know what other machinery could have been adopted. I would be prepared to take their advice quite as readily as the opinion of the present Assembly. It is not a new Assembly. It is the old upper chamber, or, rather, the present upper chamber and the present Assembly, which had not actually before them when elected the terms of this Bill or the report of the Joint Select Committee. Some of the elections took place before the report of the Joint Select Committee was available. It is altogether preposterous to submit that we ought to take the opinion of those two chambers, elected on a narrow franchise, and certainly not fully representative of Indian opinion, when those chambers had no mandate in respect of this Measure and are therefore in no sense qualified to express an opinion.
    I would go with the Mover of this Amendment to this extent, that we cannot force this scheme on the people of India. No one suggests that we can force upon people a scheme which they will refuse to work. The consent of the Indian people, in so far as we can obtain that consent, the consent of right and left and central opinion in India, will be expressed in their willingness to work it. If they do not work it all our debates count for nothing. Who is to work it if Indians do not? If it were boycotted by every section of opinion in India it means that we have been condemned to futility in the work we are doing. Therefore, the test comes with the number of people who are prepared to work this scheme, and when we find people to work this scheme we have that measure of approval which will make it possible. I should be very much sur
    430
    prised if those who had spent most time on the Bill—those like the Secretary of State for India—thought that because a Bill were passed in this House and had the consent of the House of Lords and of His Majesty it must be forced upon people who do not wish to touch it or work it. If it ever comes into operation it will be because of that measure of consent that consents to work it, and I should look upon that consent as being much more effective than the chance majority that one might get from two Chambers not qualified to speak for the whole of India and elected upon almost entirely other issues.
    Sir H. CROFT: Does not the hon. Member, as a Member of the Liberal party, think it desirable to ascertain whether India wants this reform; and, if so, is there any other machinery by which it is possible for the Indian people to give expression to their views?
    Mr. FOOT: The hon. and gallant Member asks, first, whether I think we ought to ascertain whether India wants this reform. The answer is, "Certainly," and we shall ascertain it not by an express question, but from those who will show themselves willing to work it. [An HON. MEMBER: "What do you mean by working it?"] Showing they are willing to stand as candidates under the scheme. It may be that a great many who are at present opposing the scheme will, when they see others prepared to stand, themselves come forward. Next I was asked what machinery there was for ascertaining opinion. I do not believe there is any machinery at present under which we could ascertain the minds of the people of India. The only suggestion is a plebeseite and a plebescite was definitely turned down by the right hon. Member for Epping when the suggestion was put to him as a witness before the Joint Select Committee.
    7.28 p.m.
    Viscount WOLMER: The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) is the only Member who has attempted a reasoned argument against this Amendment. I apologise to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) for having suggested that the Secretary of State should speak early in the Debate, but my hon. Friends and I were genuinely anxious to know the grounds on which

    431
    the Government proposed to resist the Amendment. I am bound to say, with all respect to my right hon. Friend, that all we heard in his speech was hairsplitting and persiflage. If the Government had ever been able to deal candidly with the Indian question they would have made the suggestion we are now putting forward an integral part of their scheme. It does seem to me to be madness to think that any Constitution is going to work effectively in which the Indian people refuse to take any sort of responsibility. It is like directors saying they will join the board after allotment. We want to make them responsible for the prospectus.
    The right hon. Gentleman said this House must not divest itself of its responsibility. A phrase like that comes ill from a Government which is throwing the Indian police to Congress, and the Untouchables to the Brahmins. I wish the Government took a higher view of their responsibilities in this matter. But it is not a question of this House shirking its responsibility. We are not proposing that. We propose that we should frame a Bill, and then take the elementary common sense step of asking elected Indians whether they are prepared to work it. They will then have the chance of either accepting or rejecting it, and the only reason why the Government and the Liberal party are not prepared to take that obvious step is that they know that the Constitution will be rejected.
    We hear a good deal of what we have done in connection with Canada, Australia and South Africa, and about General Smuts and others; but have we ever treated any one of the Dominions in this way? Have we ever attempted to bring about the federation of South Africa or Australia without getting the votes of the Legislatures? I would say to the Secretary of State, "You have before you at this moment a signal example of the immense difficulties which attend these great geographical federations, in the case of Western Australia." The right hon. Gentleman spoke to-day about centrifugal autonomy if you did not have Federation; how are you going to strengthen this Federation by trying to force it upon the people of India without their elected representatives taking the slightest responsibility
    432
    for it? If you try to create centripetal forces to prevent the break up of the Federation, is it not an elementary precaution to ask the representatives of India in the Legislative Assembly, which this Parliament has created and which the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms brought into existence, if they are prepared to take some responsibility for the Constitution which we propose?
    What moral authority will this Constitution have in the eyes of Indian politicians if their opinion has never been asked? As the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones) has so cogently pointed out, we are asking the opinion of the States and of the princes. What right have the princes and the States to be consulted—moral right I mean; I am not talking about legal right—upon this issue which the Provinces have not? There are two parties to the Federation, and you have to frame the terms of your Bill in such a way that these will be acceptable to the princes and to the States. By doing that you have admitted your obligation to consult the representatives of British India.
    Therefore, in refusing this Amendment the Government are doing two things: first, they are divesting this Constitution of the moral authority it would otherwise have, and, secondly, they are allowing the elected representatives of British India to have it both ways. They are to be presented with a Constitution for which they have no responsibility. They can abuse it and decry it as much as they like. They have had no responsibility for it in any degree. The hon. Member for Bodmin spoke about the representatives at the Round Table Conference. Why were those people brought in? They were brought in in order that we should ascertain Indian opinion; but this is surely the final and obvious stage of ascertaining Indian opinion. It is all very well for us to consult the gentlemen whom we nominate, but why should we not consult the gentlemen who have been elected by the only Indians who have the franchise? How hollow that sounded when we were told that an assembly which is going to be superseded could not give a candid or honest opinion. If that motive obtains among Indians how very different they must be from English politicians. No considerable Reform Bill would ever have passed this House if considerations like that had prevailed. Does the hon.

    433
    Member for Bodmin suggest that there are fewer Indians capable of taking a broad-minded and progressive point of view than there were in English Parliaments which have passed Reform Bills?
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Would the Noble Lord accept any recommendation that is deliberately adopted as to the Government of India by the two bodies which he now wishes to consult? Would he accept their declaration upon the whole of this matter?
    Viscount WOLMER: I would not accept anything until I had seen it. What I am asking for is their right to be consulted. There are two parties in this matter. I am not denying the responsibility of this Parliament, but I say that we can consult, and that it would be a sensible thing to consult, Indian elected representatives without in any way abrogating our responsibility. We have the responsibility of framing the Bill; it is madness and it is not candid to try to pass it into law or bring it into force without consulting Indian representatives as to their taking the slightest responsibility for its well-being. That is part and parcel of the way in which the Government have treated this problem from beginning to end. They have tried to trick English public opinion, and they have tried to trick Indian public opinion, and then they expect their scheme to work. It has not the slightest chance of working when it is based on foundations of that sort.
    7.38 p.m.
    Miss RATHBONE: I wish to explain why I am not supporting this Amendment, though I hold strongly the view, as I said last night, that the crucial test is: Would India rather have this Bill or no Bill? I refuse to accept this proposal, and I appeal to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) and the Labour Opposition and ask them whether they are prepared to say that the test they are going to set up is a good test. They are going to make the rejection or adoption of the present Constitution depend upon the present Council of State and Legislative Assembly. What are those bodies? The Secretary of State has pointed out that one reason why they would not represent the true voice of India is that they would be biased because they are bodies which would be
    434
    swept away under the new Constitution. I think he was under estimating the strength of his own case when he rested it all on that. Is not this the stronger reason?—Whom do they represent'? I am speaking from memory; am I right in saying that the present Legislative Assembly is elected by something like 1,000,000 voters.
    Sir S. HOARE indicated assent.
    Miss RATHBONE: About 1,000,000 of the population of India. Can you say, if you want to listen to the voice of India, that you are going to do it by listening to people who were not elected on this particular issue and who, even if they were, represent the votes of an excessively narrow franchise containing hardly any representation of the women, the depressed classes or labour, and who are naturally prejudiced as everybody in similar circumstances is likely to be, against an enormous enlargement of the electorate which will abolish the privileges of the class which elected them?
    I did riot rise only to say that, because other Members have said incidentally that this is a narrow electorate and that it is biased. I want to make the further point that it is essential that we should know what the voice of India really is though the Amendment will not show it. It is not true that there is no way. A plebiscite is probably impossible for administrative reasons. Who is going to take a plebiscite of 350,000,000 people? But we are under this Bill proposing to set up provincial legislative bodies all over India by a fairly wide franchise—not so wide as I and many of us would like to see, but reasonably wide so far as the men are concerned and not too bad so far as the women are concerned. Why should this not be our way of testing the opinion of India? Why should it not be incorporated in this Bill that immediately the Provincial Legislatures are called into existence the question should be put to them whether they accept the Measure or not?
    The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Lady is going beyond the terms of the Amendment when she discusses alternative forms. One particular method is proposed in the Amendment, and I think we must keep to that in the discussion.
    Miss RATHBONE: I yield to your Ruling, and I do not wish to discuss the matter at length. I merely wish to put

    435
    forward the point that we need not think, if we reject this Amendment—I shall feel obliged to vote against it myself—that there is necessarily no way of making sure whether India wants this Bill or does not want it.
    7.42 p.m.
    Mr. AMERY: I only want to put two questions very briefly to the Committee. First, do the Committee realise into what an unfair position the passage of this Amendment would put the Indian States They are already prejudiced by not being represented in the Assembly which is in the position to pass tariffs which have affected them very definitely. If the Amendment is passed, there will be a position in which the assembly in British India can exercise a veto upon the Princes entry, and can continue to impose upon the Princes policies which are against their interests. It would be a very unfair use of the power and authority of this House if we were to put a British Indian assembly into such a position of unfair advantage over the States. Secondly, is the criticism of my hon. Friends because Parliament has abdicated too much of its powers or because it has not abdicated enough? For four years I have thought that the criticism was that we were surrendering. I remember that my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) objected to the whole Round Table procedure. He resented that Indians should even be asked to talk about their future constitution. Yet in the last 24 hours we have been asked successively to abdicate the powers of Parliament in favour of a Statutory Committee to appoint the Viceroy, in favour of an irremovable Viceroy, and now we are asked to abdicate them in a speech made by my Noble Friend the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) which, if it means anything, means that the only body which would be competent to frame the future Constitution of India is either a majority of the elected representatives of the present Assembly or an all-Indian constituency. All I ask is, where are we?
    7.45 p.m.
    Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: May I try to reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), who asks if our argument for
    436
    the past four years has not been that Parliament has abrogated its rights. Most certainly it is. Here you have the Secretary of State and his supporters refusing to submit to the vote of the Legislative Assembly and the Council of State proposals which, if they are not framed with the object of placating the politicians in India, heaven knows why they are framed. As the hon. Lady has just said, it is impossible to get a plebiscite in India, but is it not well known that, anyhow, the cultivators in India would not vote for any scheme like this? What they want is to have British officials near them, and a sense of justice in all their dealings. The hon. Lady says that this would be giving the decision as to the whole future of India to a small assembly elected by some 1,000,000 people. But 'even if it is small, is it not well known that the politicians of India, who have been agitating for these reforms all along are far less than 1,000,000 in number? Is not the whole object of the reforms to try to placate the politicians; and, if the politicians cannot calculate on the acceptance of the reforms by a majority in the Legislative Assembly, what hope is there of their being of any use?
    Several HON. MEMBERS rose—
    The CHAIRMAN: I hope the Committee will allow me to remind them that there are on the Order Paper many Amendments of very much more importance than this one—
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No.
    The CHAIRMAN: If the right hon. Gentleman regards it as being of so much importance, that is another matter, but, as far as I can gather from the Debate, there is beginning to get into it a condition of repetition. I am sure we are all anxious to try to do our best to get through the Amendments, so that as many of them may be taken as possible.
    7.47 p.m.
    Mr. TINKER: I rather resent what you have just said, because there has only been one speech from the Labour benches on the Amendment, and we should like it to be known that the Indian debates in the House of Commons do not depend only upon two parties—the Conservative opposition and what is called the Government; and, whatever may be the wishes of the Chair as to getting through the Bill, we want it to have a proper show.

    437
    When I saw this Amendment on the Order Paper, I felt that it was one which ought to have been moved from these benches, because the mention of elected representatives to any democrat at once arouses his attention, and we always consider that they ought to have our sympathy. On going through the Clause, I found that it provides that this matter shall depend on the two Houses of Parliament, and I asked myself whether either House has any right to say what the Indian Constitution ought to be, as against the elected representatives of India. I admit that I do not know very much about India, but I am a Member of one of the two Houses of Parliament, and am one who will have to say what India is to have; and I think that, if I have that right, the elected representatives of India are entitled to it also.
    The Amendment is on the right lines. I do not like to think that we, as English people, ought to dictate to the people of India as to what constitution they should have, without at least giving them some opportunity of saying what they want. The hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) said that the present elected bodies are not representative of India, and, therefore, ought not to have a voice in this matter, but I do not think it would be fair on that ground, seeing that they have some kind of elected representatives, to debar them altogether from having a voice in regard to what their constitution is going to be. On the broad facts of the case I support the Amendment. My only objection to it is in regard to the names attached to it. I am inclined to believe that the hon. Members who have put it down are hardly sincere in what they are proposing; I think it has been put down from some ulterior motive to prevent the passage of the Bill; but, on the broad issue that it would give to the elected representatives a voice in what is desired, I shall, whether that be true or not, accept the letter of it, and therefore shall vote for it in the Lobby.
    7.51 p.m.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: I am sorry to speak so late, but it is not my fault, and I hope I shall not be guilty of repetition. Who has made it difficult to govern India in the last few years? The Congress party. And they will be able to make it difficult afterwards. If an amendment of this kind is not passed, they will be able
    438
    to say: "We did not want these reforms; we never asked for them." It is no use saying that the elected representatives are few in number and do not represent India. They are the best we can get. Members of this House were not elected to support this policy. If we could first get the elected representatives, such as they are, to say that they wanted the reforms, it would be an immense advantage. I recollect, in connection with the South African War, near the end, an instance of the wisdom of securing concurrence. The great Marquess of Salisbury, or some other leading Conservative politician, said that we must dictate terms to the Dutch Boers, but that wise politician, Lord Rosebery, who was once a Prime Minister, said, "No; you must not dictate, for there is no moral weight behind it. You must have a treaty behind it. You must get something signed, to which you can in honour hold them." The Treaty of Vereeniging followed. It was made with General Botha, General Smuts, and others, and we know how loyally they have kept that treaty. There is no man more honoured to-day than General Smuts in this country as well as Africa. He gave us some advice on India the other day when he was here. I hope he will not resent my retaliating with the suggestion that he give equal votes to our black fellow-subjects in South Africa, who are good citizens. One piece of good advice deserves another.
    In the case of Ireland, too, we looked around for representative men with whom to make a treaty. Michael Collins and Arthur Griffiths lost their lives through signing that treaty, but we carried them with us. In that case the treaty has not worked out quite as we wanted, but we at least tried to take the Irish with us. We must try something of that kind in India also. It is all very well to have these nominated committees, but, if we do not get something representative, all moral weight will be absent, and then how terribly foolish we should look in the face of a refusal to work the reforms which the hon. Member for Bodmin says is necessary if the Bill is to be any good. He is prepared to gamble and speculate, and we might be placed in an intolerably foolish position as a result of such a gamble. If, however, we got the men who have been making the trouble—the politicians, such as they are,

    439
    such representatives as the existing machinery has enabled India to give us—if we got them, because they are representatives, to agree, we should be in a strong moral and political position. At present we do not know where we are, but are going through the motions of making a constitution which may never get into real, practical life.
    7.57 p.m.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: The Secretary of State for India and those who support him have been holding up to ridicule those who are associated with this Amendment, because they say that hitherto we have not attached much importance to the opinion of politically-minded Indians. But that is not the point. The point is that the whole object of these reforms is to meet the aspirations of politically-minded India, and, if they do not meet the aspirations of politically-minded India, what is the good of proceeding with them? The other point to which I desire to direct the attention of the Government and the Secretary of State is that the Government should accept this Amendment because it is only a paraphrase of their own words in the introduction to the White Paper, which, on their recommendation, has received the approval of the House. I have referred to the point before, but have had no reply from the Secretary of State. In that introduction, a certain basic assumption is definitely laid down. A basic assumption is something upon which the whole proposal put forward rests. The White Paper lays down in the following words the basic assumption on which all these reforms rest:
    "The present proposals in general necessarily proceed on the basic assumption that every endeavour will be made by those responsible for working the constitution to approach the administrative problems which present themselves in a spirit of partnership in a common enterprise."
    I have already given instances to show that every class of political opinion in India—Congress, Mr. Sastri and the Liberals, the Friends of India, the Cham
    bers of Commerce of India, and the Depressed Classes—one and all decline to accept this proposed constitution, and most of them have said that they vastly prefer the present situation. I say to the Government, "As partnership is your basic assumption, surely you have to ascertain whether the politically minded classes of India are going to accept your proposals. Otherwise they are a sham and a futility." What is the good of scrapping this wonderful organisation to which India owes so much, of which we are all so proud, of which Indians are themselves proud, and which, as everyone knows and as every Indian will admit, has rendered enormous services to India in the past, before ascertaining that the politically minded classes of India, for whom these reforms are specially devised, are going to accept and work them in a spirit of partnership in a common enterprise?
    I ask the Government to reply to that perfectly simple point. I have asked them to do so before, but throughout this Debate they have merely reported what has taken place at some Round Table Conference, and have entirely evaded the points put before them in the House against this Measure. I ask the Secretary of State, what does he mean by saying that all this rests on the basic assumption of partnership in a common enterprise if it is not the intention to ascertain that the people of India ask for it and are going to work it in that spirit? I have quoted every class of the community in India, who say they will have nothing to do with these reforms. If that is not sufficient evidence, and if the proposal of the Amendment is not the right way of ascertaining it, let the Government put before the House some means of showing that the politically minded people, and the people of India as a whole, are prepared to work the reforms in a spirit of partnership in a common enterprise.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 77; Noes, 230.

    Division No. 53.]

    AYES.

    [7.58 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Bracken, Brendan

    Cleary, J. J.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Alexander. Sir William

    Brown, C. W. E. (Nona., Mansfield)

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Burnett, John George

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    Ballour, George (Hampstrad)

    Capo, Thomas

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Banfield, John William

    Carver, Major William H.

    Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Daggar, George

    John, William

    Paling, Wilfred

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Joan. Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Davies. Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Kirkwood, David

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon, George

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Edwards, Charles

    Lawson, John James

    Templeton, William P.

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Lees-Jones, John

    Thorne, William James

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

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

    Leonard, William

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    Levy, Thomas

    Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Lockwood, Cant. J. H. (Shipley)

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Lunn, William

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Wilmot, John

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

    Marsden. Commander Arthur

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Milner. Major James

    Mr. Donner and Mr. Raikes.

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    NOES.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.)

    Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    McLean, Dr. W. H, (Tradeston)

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

    Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

    Magnay, Thomas

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Ganzoal, Sir John

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Assheton, Ralph

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

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

    Balniel, Lord

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Goff. Sir Park

    Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

    Beauchamp. Sir Brograve Campbell

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Maxton, James.

    Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'tn, C.)

    Graves, Marjorie

    Mayhew, Lieut. Colonel John

    Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

    Griffith. F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)

    Mills, Major J. O. (New Forest)

    Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

    Grigg, Sir Edward

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Bernays. Robert

    Grimston, R. V.

    Molson. A. Hugh Elsdale

    Birchall. Major Sir John Dearman

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Blindell, James

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

    Boulton, W. W.

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Morgan, Robert H.

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

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

    Braithwaite. J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

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

    Brass, Captain Sir William

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

    Morrison, William Shepherd

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    Munro, Patrick

    Butler, Richard Austen

    Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Healdam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Cadogan. Hon. Edward

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

    Campbell. Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

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

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Hornby, Frank

    Ormsby-Gore. Rt. Hon. William G. A.

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Owen, Major Goronwy

    Clarke, Frank

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Clydesdale, Marquess of

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Pearson, William G.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon, A. D.

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Peat, Charles U.

    Colman. N. C. D.

    Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)

    Petherick, M.

    Colville. Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

    Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Potter, John

    Cooke, Douglass

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

    Cooper, A. Duff

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

    Pybus, Sir John

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Janner, Barnett

    Radford, E. A.

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

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

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Ramsay, T. B W. (Western Isles)

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Ramsbotham, Horwald

    Cross, R. H.

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Crossley, A. C.

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Ratcliffe, Arthur

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Culverwell, Cyril Tom

    Kirkpatrick, William M.

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

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

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Drewe, Cedric

    Law. Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

    Rickards, George William

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Leech. Dr. J. W.

    Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

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

    Leighton, Major B, E. P.

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Eales, John Frederick

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Rothschild. James A. de

    Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Ellis. Sir R. Geoffrey

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Salmon. Sir Isidore

    Elmley, Viscount

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

    Salt, Edward W,

    Emrys-Evans. P. V.

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Samuel. Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

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

    Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D,

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F,

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    442

    443

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Shute, Colonel Sir John

    Sueter, Bear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Watt, Captain George Steven H.

    Smith, Sir J. Walker (Barrow-in-F.)

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    White, Henry Graham

    Smithers, Sir Waldron

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Whiteside, Sorras Noel H.

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Soper, Richard

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

    Spender-Clay. Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Train, John

    Womersley, Sir Walter

    Spent, William Patrick

    Tree, Ronald

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Stevenson, James

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Strause, Edward A.

    Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)

    Sir George Penny and Major George

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

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

    Davies.

    8.8 p.m.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I beg to move, in page 2, line 35, after "if," to insert:
    "a commission appointed in accordance with the provisions of this Act has reported that the financial position of India justifies the establishment of a federation and if."
    I do not wish to use exaggerated language, but I regard the omission of any financial conditions for bringing Federation into operation as staggering. I could hardly believe my eyes when I read the Bill and saw that it ignored altogether the financial question in regard to the inauguration of Federation, and later on of Provincial Autonomy. It is all the more strange because two years ago, when the Government published their White Paper, they did not shirk this question. In paragraph 60, they said:
    "His Majesty's Government attach the highest importance to securing to the Federation adequate resources, without which the Federal Government cannot ensure the due fulfilment of liabilities upon which must depend the credit of India as a whole. A possibility which cannot be dismissed from consideration is that economic and financial conditions might on the eve of the inauguration of the new Constitution be such as to render it impracticable to supply the new Federal and Provincial Governments at the outset of their careers with the necessary resources to ensure their solvency. If, after the reviews contemplated above, the probability of such a situation should be disclosed, it would obviously be necessary to reconsider the position and it might, inter alia, be necessary to revise the federal finance scheme contemplated in these proposals. Attention may be drawn in this connection to the observations already made at the end of paragraph 32."
    If we turn to paragraph 32, we find that another addition is attached to the inauguration of the Federation. The paragraph runs as follows:
    "The proposals relating to responsibility for the finance of the Federation are based on the assumption that, before the first Federal Ministry comes into being, a Reserve Bank free from political influence will
    444
    have been set up by Indian legislation and be already successfully operating. The bank would be entrusted with the management of currency and exchange."
    The paragraph concludes:
    "If a situation should arise in which, all other requirements for the inauguration of the Federation having been satisfied, it had so far proved impossible successfully to start the Reserve Bank, or if financial, economic or political conditions were such as to render it impracticable to start the new Federal and Provincial Governments on a stable basis, it would inevitably be necessary to reconsider the position and determine in the light of the then circumstances what course should be pursued. If, unfortunately, such reconsideration became necessary, His Majesty's Government are pledged to call into conference representatives of Indian opinion."
    We, therefore, have in the White Paper the Government laying down as two essential conditions of the inauguration of Federation and of Provincial Autonomy that India's finances should be in a position which will enable her to fulfil the liabilities which the new Constitution will inevitably bring upon her, and also that there should be already in existence a successfully operating federal reserve bank free from political influences. When the White Paper was published, I do not think that either this House or the country had had any indication given to it of what the cost of the new Constitution was expected to be or what would be the additional burden which would be placed upon the centre as the result of having to make good deficits in the already existing or proposed new Provinces. But since then the Joint Select Committee has had presented to it very full and extremely serious figures by Sir Malcolm Hailey, who placed at the disposal of the Government and the committee his great knowledge and experience of Indian finance. Paragraph 6 of that memorandum, presented in July, 1933, sets out three objectives which he conceives it will be necessary for the Gov

    445
    ernment to pursue, objectives each of which will require financial provision. The first is described as follows:
    "To provide the centre with (a) a secure means of meeting the normal demands on account of services for which it is responsible, together with adequate reserve power to raise from its own resources the additional funds which those services may in an emergency require, and (b) some additional reserve to meet necessary developments in its own sphere of work, of which civil aviation may be taken as an example."
    The second objective he described as -follows:
    "To secure to the Provinces, as a minimum, the amounts now available to them, together with the sums required to meet the ascertained deficits of certain Provinces and to establish the newly-created Provinces."
    And the third objective he describes as follows:
    "To secure that, when (1) and (2) are satisfied, the main benefits of any improvement in Central finances will inure to the benefit of the Provinces."
    Then in paragraph 19 we read:
    "Before the first principle put forward in paragraph 6"—
    that is to provide the Centre with a secure means of meeting normal demands and so on—
    "could be regarded as satisfied it might be necessary to stipulate at least that the pay-cuts should be remitted"—
    that is cuts in the salaries of Civil servants—
    "(involving the provision of about 1¼ crore)—that is, about £1 million sterling—and that the emergency surcharges should be withdrawn. The latter postulates that the amount of over 13 crores at present attributable to the surcharges,"—
    those are surcharges on taxation put on in the economic crisis of 1931, amounting to nearly £10 millions—
    "should, owing to economic recovery, be produced by taxes at unsurcharged rates. It may be assumed roughly that other prospective debit and credit items at the Centre will strike a balance. Thereafter the question of creating new Provinces, including the separation of Burma has to be considered. For this purpose further improvement of the Central position would be necessary up to a point at which sums, the range of which may be placed roughly at 6 to 8 crores"—
    or from £4,500,000 to £6,000,000—
    "could safely be spared. It must be realised that, even with this provision"—
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that the Noble Lady now is anticipating the whole of one chapter of Part VII of the Bill, and we cannot discuss the whole
    446
    system of finance or the form of financial arrangements for the future. We must confine ourselves on this particular Amendment to the question which is set out there of a commission in order to ascertain whether "the financial position of India justifies."
    Viscount WOLMERSurely, my Noble Friend is entitled to discuss the financial conditions which have to be fulfilled on the Government's own policy before the Federation can be inaugurated. Surely she can describe them.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think that if the Noble Lady will consider for a moment her first words, the whole of that point should arise on the first chapter of Part VII. I think it is obvious that having a whole chapter of some eight Clauses—Clauses 134 to 142—we cannot have a discussion here on an Amendment which would come more appropriately on them.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I am not going to suggest any reform of the financial system of the Government of India, or of the Provinces, as you, Sir Dennis, seemed to think I was going to do. I was merely trying to set forward the evidence presented to the Joint Committee showing the serious financial position in India at the present time and the further obligations which are to be imposed on Indian revenues by the proposed Constitution, and asking that in the Bill there should be inserted a clause requiring the inquiry which the Government themselves said in their White Paper would be necessary, and would even lead to the whole reconsideration of the measure if the financial position of India was found not to be good enough to stand the whole strain.
    The CHAIRMAN: If the Noble Lady will confine herself to those limits, I shall certainly not interfere. She has given a most admirable definition of the limits of this Debate.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: It was not my intention at all to trespass beyond those limits, but to do my best to keep within them.
    The CHAIRMAN: I would suggest that possibly the Noble Lady might expurgate some of the long extracts which she is reading.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I thought that the Committee would be more ready to listen if I quoted the exact statements made to the Joint Committee by the expert whom they called in to advise them; otherwise I have no wish to inflict long extracts upon the Committee. Sir Malcolm Hailey went on to say:
    "Whatever the precise value of these figures"—
    Those are the figures I have quoted, showing how much of India's revenue at the present time is due to these emergency surcharges of nearly £10,000,000 that were imposed in that financial crisis, that is, about 16 per cent. of the present revenues of the Government of India, and how also it has been necessary to reduce the pay of Government servants by another £1,000,000, and how this would have to be made good before any new expenditure was undertaken. I might say that a most solemn statement to that effect was made by the finance member of the Government of India, in 1931 when the surcharges and salary cuts were carried through. This must be done before Provincial Autonomy can be brought into operation. Sir Malcolm goes on to say:
    "Whatever the precise value of these figures, it is in any case clear that some considerable betterment of Central finances, and on an assured basis, must take place before the Centre can make the surrenders necessary to establish the Provinces as independent units on such terms as will allow them to rest securely on their awn resources."
    I estimate that the cost of what would have to be found for the Provinces is something between 7 and 10 per cent. of the existing central revenue. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the other day said that the central revenues would have to find some £4,000,000 for the Provinces. He assured us that that was quite irrespective of any cost of the new Constitution itself. You have to give to the Provinces £4,000,000 of a revenue of about £58,000,000, which is about 7 per cent. If Sir Malcolm, Hailey's higher figure of £6,000,000 be taken, it is something like 10 per cent. That, plus the replacement of these surcharges imposed in 1931 and the abolition of the reductions in pay means that something like 16 per cent., plus some 2 per cent., plus 7 per cent., in all about 25 per cent., improvement has to take place in the central revenues before
    448
    Provincial Autonomy can be brought into operation. In view of that fact, it was not surprising that Sir Malcolm Hailey reminded the Joint Committee that the States had asked for the assurance of the solvency of the Federation before they entered it. And we remember that if and when they should enter there is to be a gradual remission of the annual tributes which they now pay to the Government of India, which will gradually rise to £750,000 a year. Then, the establishment of the reserve bank means a loss of currency receipts of about the same amount in the first few years of its inauguration, Again, to that £750,000 of the tributes must be added £560,000, the cost of setting up the proposed federal constitution, that means that fully 2 per cent. more must be added to the 25 per cent. I have already mentioned, making a total improvement of something like 27 per cent. in the central revenues which is necessary before you can inaugurate both Provincial Autonomy and Federation. Sir Malcolm Halley goes on to say that:
    "It may be felt necessary to examine the fundamental questions whether financial conditions are such as to affect any assumption we may make as to the date on which provincial autonomy can be introduced; and further, whether we can assume such further general recovery as will enable us now to plan out the lines of a Federation on terms which will satisfy the States on the one hand that their financial future under Federation is secure, and British Indian units on the other that under Federation they can hope to obtain the funds to which they look for development."
    The question of looking for funds for development purposes brings me to another point, that this increased revenue of 27 per cent. which is necessary to inaugurate Provincial Autonomy and Federation makes no allowance for the increased cost of Government departments at present administered by officials responsible to the Viceroy or to the Governors and which under the Government proposals will be administered by Indian Ministers responsible to an elected Legislature. I think it is common ground between us that when a Minister is responsible to an elected Legislature he necessarily has many demands made on him for increased expenditure. The cost of government in India 'has very greatly increased since the introduction of the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms. The cost

    449
    of government in the Provinces has gone up about 20 per cent. The report of the Statutory Commission shows how enormously the expenditure upon education had increased, even by the year 1928. Other services also have been treated generously. I think the Governors in all the Provinces have wished to give the utmost help they could to Ministers in administering the new departments placed under their care.
    If we look at central expenditure we find that excluding army expenditure the cost of administering the civil services has also increased by about 20 per cent., no doubt in order to meet the demands made by the Indian Legislative Assembly. Therefore, we are faced with the prospect of further demands being made on the central revenues and the Provincial revenues or the departments which will pass into the hands of Ministers who will, no doubt, have great pressure brought to bear upon them for one purpose or another, which will involve increased expenditure. Then we must realise that the army has been cut down to the bone in recent years. To-day, army expenditure is £7,500,000 below what it was in 1929–30. The late Finance Member, in one of his budget speeches, stated that in 1927–28 it had been agreed that on account of the economies carried out on the recommendation of the Inchcape Committee army expenditure on equipment had been so much cut down that £7,500,000 more would have to be spent in making good this equipment in the next few years. The financial slump followed shortly after that statement and it has not been possible to make up for that shortage, or for a greater part of it.
    Therefore, we are faced with the fact that the Joint Select Committee had put before them in the gravest possible terms the abnormal position of the finances of the Central Government at the present time, and the solemn pledge of the Government of India to restore the abnormalities before any new expenditure was undertaken either at the Centre or in the Provinces. Further, we are faced with the inevitability of greater expenditure in the transferred departments and a liability to considerably increased expenditure upon the army. Yet we find that the Bill says not
    450
    one single word as to financial solvency being necessary before Federation and Provincial Autonomy are inaugurated.
    It is obvious that the position of the Government has weakened very much on this matter from the position they took up in the White Paper. They made most specific statements in the White Paper that it might be found impossible to inaugurate this experiment through lack of finance. But the Joint Committee said no more than that the Government would undoubtedly assure Parliament that India's financial position was all right before Federation was inaugurated. Provincial Autonomy was apparently dropped out of sight. It is most essential that the condition proposed in the Amendment should be put in the Bill, for the reason that if nothing is said on the point there will be unceasing pressure from many politicians in India to ignore the financial position. Indians are not always very good at facing up to realities. They are full of ideas which they can often express very effectively, but they are not equally good in getting down to brass tacks and standing on solid ground.
    Mr. MOLSON: Did I understand the Noble Lady to say that this pressure will be brought to bear to get the Constitution introduced before the necessary finance is available I was under the impression that in the Debate this afternoon there had been an attempt on the part of those opposed to the Bill to say that there is no chance at all of the Constitution being welcomed or worked.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I do not think that that affects my argument in the least. We have every reason to believe that there are many Indian politicians, a majority, at any rate, who do not want this Constitution, but if the Government insist on bringing it into effect there may well be men who will say: "Then let us have whatever is provided, at the earliest possible moment." There may well be great pressure on the Government to ignore the difficulties of finance and to bring on Provincial Autonomy first and then Federation, quite irrespective of the financial position. I feel bound to say that that pressure may be all the more likely because, quite contrary to the position in this country, those who will be chiefly vocal in this matter do not repre

    451
    sent the section of the people of India who chiefly have to provide the revenue. There are only 500,000 people assessed to income tax in India and only about 167,000 persons, including officials, and excluding Burma, who have incomes of over £225 a year.
    Therefore, unlike the position in this country, where income tax contributes so very greatly to the revenue, income tax contributes only a minority of the revenues of the Government of India. The great mass of the revenue, some £37,000,000 out of £58,000,000, is contributed by the Customs, by import duties on various commodities, duties which I think we all agree are bound to be paid by the mass of the people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, they are paid by the mass of the people in India because India's industries are in such a very infant stage that India is not able to make all the things that she imports and on which high duties have to be paid. The position in this country is totally different. I am sure than hon. Members opposite cannot deny the capacity of the workers of this country and of the directing brains of this country to ensure that there is practically nothing that we cannot make in an unlimited degree, provided that it is made worth our while to do so.
    The result is that when you get something which will add enormously to the financial burdens of India, these burdens will fall largely on the peasants. In a debate on the trade agreement in the Indian Assembly the other day opinions were expressed which no one would think of expressing in this House. It was said that it did not matter what the burden was that would fall on the peasants. There is this further point, that revenue from customs is dwindling, and is dwindling also from income tax. All sources of taxation have been tapped, and it is impossible to see what other sources are available for the additional revenue which will be needed to finance this new Constitution. Finally, nothing is said as to the operation of a reserve bank, which is to be free from political influences and is to have control of currency and exchange, very controversial matters on which Congress politicians have for some years been advocating drastic measures.
    452
    The clause therefore ignores a primary responsibility of Government, to see that no burden is put on the shoulders of the people which they cannot reasonably be expected to bear. It is a going back on what the Government themselves have pointed out as a precedent absolutely necessary to Federation and Provincial Autonomy. It is raising hopes which, if we have any regard for financial considerations, we cannot hope to fulfil in full at any date which we can now foresee, unless we are ready to plunge India straight into bankruptcy. It is, therefore, essential that there should be a thorough inquiry into this matter before Provincial Autonomy or Federation is brought into operation, and it is desirable that such an inquiry should be made by an impartial commission free from political influences, which are not always easy to escape at home and from which it is difficult to escape in India. I hope that the Government will consider most carefully the Amendment, which we regard as one of the most important we shall have to bring forward.
    8.38 p.m.
    Sir S. HOARE: I think I had better intervene at once in the Debate if for no other reason than to disabuse my Noble Friend of a great many anxieties which seem to me to be without foundation. If she will allow me to say without offence, her speech was founded on one misunderstanding after another. First, she seemed to think that in the Bill we have gone back on the Report of the Joint Select Committee, and that the Joint Select Committee had gone back on the White Paper, so far as financial security is concerned. That is not the case. The Joint Select Committee considered these complicated questions in great detail and in no way went back from the position set out in the White Paper. In the Bill the Government are following exactly the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I am sorry to interrupt, but this is most important. Are we to understand that if the finances of India are not sufficient to enable them to bear the expenses of this new Constitution for Provincial Autonomy or Federation, the Government will be ready

    453
    to reconsider the whole proposal, as they said they would in the White Paper?
    Sir S. HOARE: The Noble Lady must allow me to make my speech in my own way. Of course I am going to deal with a question like that, but I must be allowed to deal with it in my own way. In the next place, my Noble Friend was under a series of misapprehensions with reference to the figures and the relevancy of the figures so far as Federation is concerned and so far as Provincial Autonomy is concerned. I gave the figures during the Second Reading Debate, and I based them on what I assumed to be the likely cost of both Provincial Autonomy and Federation. Speaking in round figures, I assumed that the cost so far as the centre is concerned will be from £4,000,000 to £4,500,000.
    Colonel GRETTON: Is that in addition to the present expenditure of the Central Government?
    Sir S. HOARE: The right hon. and gallant Member will, I am sure, allow me to deal with the matter in my own way.
    Colonel GRETTON: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon, but this is extremely important.
    Sir S. HOARE: Certainly, and I am going to deal with it. The total expenditure likely to fall on central funds will be something in the nature of from £4,000,000 to £4,500,000 per year. It should be noted that this is not new expenditure. It is expenditure as between the Central and Provincial Governments, and the whole of it is due, first, to a reallocation as between the centre and the provinces which are in deficit, and, secondly, to make up what extra expenditure will fall on the centre as a result of the separation of Burma. The Committee will see that this sum is not due to the institution of Federation at all, but to a reallocation as between the Centre and the Provinces; and it is a reallocation which, in the opinion of most financial experts in India, should be made in any case, whether there is Provincial Autonomy, Provincial Autonomy and Federation or whether there is neither. Secondly, the Committee will note the fact that, assuming that this expenditure is involved in setting up Provincial Autonomy it means that, a very small sum is involved in setting up Federation. As
    454
    far as the setting up of Federation is concerned, the additional amount is something in the nature of £500,000 a year. If, therefore, there is to be an inquiry, it should be an inquiry into the provincial position rather than into the federal position, the! larger sum of money being necessitated not by the institution of Federation but by the institution of Provincial Autonomy.
    The Joint Select Committee considered this question in great detail and took the view, I think unanimously, that there should be an inquiry, presumably as soon as the Bill passes on to the Statute Book, into the provincial position. That inquiry would be carried out by a small body of impartial experts, working no doubt with representatives of the various provinces, province by province, in the capacity of assessors. That would be the nature of the inquiry. Thus, so far as Federation is concerned, the position is much simpler owing to the fact that the sum of money for setting up Federation is only comparatively small. It means that if there is sufficient money for setting up the provinces the test that will have to be applied is two-fold: First of all, is the federal budget in a satisfactory position That is a test that can very easily be applied. Suppose that the economic position has improved. India reacts very favourably to improvement, and almost without any inquiry at all it will be seen whether there is sufficient money at the centre. If, on the other hand the budget is not in a satisfactory condition, then obviously the Government of the day could not contemplate recommending this House and another place to address the Crown to issue a proclamation that would bring Federation into operation.
    The Noble Lady will see that neither the process for testing the provincial position nor the process for testing the federal position needs anything in the nature of a statutory inquiry. I would have thought that everyone who had followed these questions in any detail in recent years would have come to the conclusion that the fewer statutory inquiries we have the better from every point of view, and that the time has come when all the material is at our disposal. The decision as to when and whether Provincial Autonomy is to start, and as to whether and when Federation is to be

    455
    set up, must be the decision of the Government of the day, supported by a resolution of both Houses. The check against irresponsible action and against the bringing into operation of Federation when the funds of the Federation are in an unsatisfactory state, is the test of the resolution of both Houses, in my view a very effective test.
    A statutory commission would do, first of all, what is not needed, and would do what is essentially the duty of the Government of the day. It is a proposition which I could not possibly accept. This is one of many cases that we have had in the last two days of proposals being made under which Parliament is asked to divest itself of all its inherent responsibilities, and to place those responsibilities upon the shoulders of irresponsible bodies of a different kind. Let me say with all the emphasis that I can command that I think proposals of that kind ought to receive little or no support in this Committee. The data will be made available, first of all, by inquiry into the provincial finances, and, secondly, by the test that we shall apply to the federal system before we submit a motion to the Crown to issue a proclamation. The decision must then rest with the Government and both Houses, as to whether or not Federation should come into operation, and the responsibility should not be pushed off upon some statutory body such as that suggested.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I think that what my right hon. Friend has said is really in the direction of objecting to the method of inquiry proposed in the Amendment. He has let us see that he recognises that an inquiry of some kind will be necessary. If, therefore, he attaches importance to this matter and regards it as essential that there should be an inquiry, will he not bring forward his own proposals in such a way as to make it perfectly clear in India that the finances of that country will have to be in a suitable condition before this Constitution can be brought in? Otherwise, there will be a great deal of misunderstanding and false hopes.
    Sir S. HOARE: I do not think that that is in the least likely. The Joint Select Committee report will bear out my statement that time and again this
    456
    matter has been discussed with Indians. There never has been any secrecy about it at all. I cannot do better than read the relevant passages of the Joint Select Committee's report on the subject. That will give full publicity to the position. Paragraph 273 of the report says:
    "It has been argued in some quarters that constitutional change should be postponed until the financial horizon was clearer, but the additional difficulties attributable to the change (and such as they are they relate mainly to Provincial Autonomy and not to Federation) are but a small part of a financial problem which has in any event to be faced, and is, we hope and believe, in process of solution. No doubt before the new Constitution actually comes into operation His Majesty's Government will review the financial position and inform Parliament how the matter stands."
    I undertake to carry out that pledge.
    "It is suggested in the White Paper that at the last possible date there should be a financial inquiry. This seems to us a suitable procedure, but we do not conceive, nor do we understand that it is intended, that any expert body could be charged with the duty of deciding whether the position was such that the new Constitution could be inaugurated without thereby aggravating the financial difficulties to a dangerous extent. On this point, as we have said, Parliament must at the appropriate time receive a direct assurance from His Majesty's Government."
    I give my Noble Friend an undertaking that it is the intention of the Government, in the spirit and in the letter, to carry out that paragraph.
    8.53 p.m.
    Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: Particularly after the assurance of the Secretary of State, and in view of his very courteous observations, I hope he will not think me offensive if I say that he has failed entirely to clear the air of one or two doubts. I shall be grateful if he will say some words in regard to the emergency surcharges and the pay cuts. The former would cost about £10,000,000, and the restoration of the pay cuts would involve some £1,000,000. Is it intended that the Federation should be implemented before the emergency surcharges have been withdrawn and the pay cuts restored? Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously contend that revenue based mainly on import duties can be reconciled to the role of economic nationalism which the advent of power to Indian government at the centre will obviously inaugurate? We are the last people in this Committee who wish to see innumerable commissions

    457
    sent out to India or elsewhere. Indeed, speaking personally, one of my chief complaints against the Government, not in the Indian sphere but in other spheres, has been the multiplicity of commissions behind which, on great issue of State, the Government have been fully prepared to shelter themselves.
    I feel strongly that, on a question of this kind, to ask for a commission of this nature is not an unwarrantable request. We whole-heartedly accept the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that Federation will not be implemented unless the financial conditions justify it, but we feel that there ought to be inserted at this point in the Bill some wording to show conclusively to the Indian politicians that that is in fact the case. As long as His Majesty's present Government are governing this country—and I hope it will last for a considerable time—there is no fear of Federation being implemented unless financial stability is secured. We have some hesitation, however, as to what is likely to happen should the wheel of political fortune unhappily translate the present Opposition into the seats of political power. We feel that hon. Members opposite are likely to be persuaded, even against their own better judgment, to create by comfortable words an appearance of financial security in India. We feel that they might be hesitant and possibly quite unequal to withstanding the mass pressure of the Indian politicians whose ambition they have so recklessly aroused. Therefore we should insert some words here which will give certainty on this vital matter.
    One of our charges—and it has been by no means confined to those who support this Amendment and who criticise the Government on this question—is that we have in the last few years developed an unhappy tendency to speak on these matters in two languages, using one in England and the other in India. We cannot believe that the many references to our past Imperial history, which the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to enlist in support of his views, can seriously be enlisted in support of a policy, by which the House of Commons is asked to give its approval to a system of saying here what we feel will reassure our own people, and saying in India what we hope the Indian politician will accept willingly.
    8.59 p.m.
    Sir H. CROFT: It seems to me that the Committee is in great danger of being carried away by the optimism of the Secretary of State. One of his main arguments in reply to my Noble Friend is that if things get better in India and if economic circumstances improve there will be a wonderful change in the situation. There are several people in gaol who would never have gone there but for the fact that they honestly thought that things were going to improve in commercial circles in this country and banked on that belief. We cannot run the risk of being dependent upon an improvement in economic conditions when we are dealing with a matter of this kind. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is satisfied that the figure which he has given of the cost of bringing about Federation covers all the possibilities. I am sure he is aware of the fact that the figure which he has given is much less than the estimates made by some of the great authorities who have served with distinction in connection with financial matters in India. I presume that the right hon. Gentleman is at the moment being advised or that he has been advised on this subject by Sir George Schuster. I imagine that Sir George Schuster must have had a great deal to say on the budgetary position in India and I think I am entitled to quote to the Committee what he said in 1933 on this subject. I may say that he expressed a feeling which is rather like my own feeling to-day in this Committee. Sir George Schuster in 1933 said:
    "I feel that in this discussion and in all discussions which are going on to-day, finance is being considered in an atmosphere of unreality."
    He went on to say:
    "Then we have the constitutional changes impending which show a vast amount of additional burdens."
    That is very different from the way in which the Secretary of State brushes all this aside by saying that it is only a small amount. After all, however small, it is going to be a great burden on the ryots in India. Sir George Schuster also said:
    "Let us take a few of the main items: Separation of Burma which means a loss of 3 crores to the central budget; surrender of half the tax on jute to Bengal—a loss of about 2 crores to the central budget; subventions to the deficit provinces; 80 lakhs in Sind, 25 lakhs for Orissa and money for

    459
    Assam and Behar—altogether, say another 2 crores; setting up a reserve bank—a loss of direct receipts to the Government from currency by something like 2 crores."
    I should imagine it to be likely that some of these figures have since been increased. Sir George Schuster proceeded to say:
    "All these items together—I have not got them in my head—but the total of these and other charges will come to about 11 crores."
    That is something like the sort of figure which the right hon. Gentleman gave but Sir George Schuster then says:
    "On the top of that the Central Government are supposed to hand over more than half the Income Tax."
    If that estimate is correct the figures at that time would have come to something like £15,000,000 sterling. I realise that Sir George Schuster may have been a little out in his figures but there seems to be a great variation between his estimate and that of the right hon. Gentleman. Anyhow this is a question involving very serious consequences to India. The consequences might be such as to bring the whole scheme to complete disaster should there be any serious mistake and I think that the right hon. Gentleman ought to accept the assistance suggested in this Amendment, by having a committee to advise him as to when it was safe to take this very grave step.
    9.2 p.m.
    Sir S. HOARE: I wish, if I can, to remove some of the doubts which appear to be in the mind of my hon. and gallant Friend. I would again point out that in the first place there is, definitely, going to be an inquiry into the question of the provincial finances, and secondly that there must also be an inquiry before Federation is brought into being. The point at issue between us, if there is one at all, is as to what kind of inquiries these ought to be and what ought to be the terms of reference. I have followed the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee in both those respects, namely, as regards the character of the two inquiries and also as regards the terms of reference. The executive decision must remain in the hands of the Government of the day. Whether I am too optimistic or my hon. and gallant Friend is too pessimistic is a question for the future, but the check, as I have said, is the check of Parliament, namely that there
    460
    must be a report to Parliament on these matters and that Parliament will have the power to delay or to refuse the passing of the Address asking for the Proclamation, if Parliament is not satisfied that the financial position is satisfactory. Further than that I will not go into details at the moment. My hon. and gallant Friend has quoted certain figures and if I had time and if he wished me to do so, I could clear up the apparent differences between Sir George Schuster's estimates and mine. There is in fact no real difference. Indeed, the conclusion of the speech of Sir George Schuster from which my hon. and gallant Friend read certain extracts, was that Sir George Schuster saw no reason why the financial position, assuming that finance went on normally, should hold up the inauguration of the Constitution.
    9.4 p.m.
    Colonel GRETTON: I have listened carefully to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman and I am not going to challenge his statement as to the figures. I am going to ask him to turn to another matter raised by this Amendment. Supposing that a Commission is set up to examine the financial position of the provinces and the central government before it is finally determined to issue the proclamation and put the provisions of this measure into operation. The Secretary of State suggests that the Government should appoint an inquiry by experts, who should report to this House, which, by a vote, would approve or disapprove. The experts appointed by the Government, however, would be Government servants, not anxious to disoblige the Government, and unless there was some very drastic and dangerous situation which could not be ignored, they might be expected to give a reply favourable to passing this measure into operation. It is a perfectly sound idea that nothing should be done to set up the new Government and establish a new order of things in India unless and until the financial position to be handed over to the new authorities there is sound. Is there not something to be said in favour of sending out a commission, so that the Government and Parliament can, at any rate, rely upon it to give an impartial report, or as impartial a report as is possible in the circumstances, on the situation? That is what is intended by the Amendment now before

    461
    the Committee, and I must say that I think it has great merits. It would prevent the Government from being placed in an impossible position and ensure for Parliament an impartial inquiry, and we should, at any rate, in this matter be dealing more fairly and more justly with the people of India than we can under the Bill as it is at present drawn. I therefore support the Amendment.
    Several HON. MEMBERS rose—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would remind the Committee that we are working under a voluntary time-table and that if we take so much time on every Amendment, we cannot possibly keep to it.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 31; Noes, 230.

    Division No. 54.]

    AYES.

    [9.8 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

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

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

    Apsley, Lord

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

    Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Knox, sir Alfred

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Levy, Thomas

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Burnett, John George

    Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Raikes. Henry V. A. M.

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Major Courtauld and Mr. Lennox-

    Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Boyd.

    Donner, P. W.

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    NOES.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

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

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

    Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)

    Eales, John Frederick

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)

    Edwards, Charles

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Jackson, J. C. (Heywood A Radcliffe)

    Assheton, Ralph

    Eimley, Viscount

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

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Balniel, Lord

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Banfield, John William

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

    John, William

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Batey, Joseph

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Kirkpatrick, William M.

    Bernays, Robert

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Boulton, W. W.

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

    Braithwalte, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Gillett, Sir George Matterman

    Lawson, John James

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Goff, Sir Park

    Leonard, William

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

    Goldle, Noel B.

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Butler, Richard Austen

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)

    Lunn, William

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)

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

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Grimston, R. V.

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Cleary, J. J.

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Macdonald Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Clydesdale, Marquess of

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

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

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

    Cooke, Douglas

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Copeland, Ida

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    Magnay, Thomas

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Headlam, Lieut.-Cot. Cuthbert M.

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

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

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Hills. Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

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

    Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard

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

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Culverwell, Cyril Tom

    Hornby, Frank

    Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Daggar, George

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Mayhew. Lieut.-Colonel John

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

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

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Milne, Charles

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Milner, Major James

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. H. (Ayr)

    Held, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Morgan,. Robert H.

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Thorne, William James

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

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Tinker, John Joseph

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

    Rickards, George William

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Muirhead, Lieut-Colonel A. J.

    Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    Munro, Patrick

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Rothschild, James A. de

    Tutnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)

    Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Salt, Edward W.

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Watt, Captain George Steven H.

    Owen, Major Goronwy

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Paling, Wilfred

    Shute, Colonel Sir John

    White, Henry Graham

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Skelton, Archibald Noel

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Pearson, William G.

    Smith, Sir J. Walker (Barrow-in-F.)

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Penny, Sir George

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Petherick. M.

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Wilmot, John

    Potter, John

    Soper, Richard

    Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)

    Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

    Pybus, Sir John

    Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Womersley, Sir Walter

    Padford, E. A.

    Stevenson, James

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

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

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert

    Ratcliffe, Arthur

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Ward and Mr. Blindell.

    9.17 p.m.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in page 2, line 41, after "Provinces," to insert, "which have acceded or may thereafter accede to the Federation."
    This will make this part of the Clause read:
    "there shall be united in a Federation under the Crown, by the name of the Federation of India—
    (a) the Provinces hereinafter called Governors' Provinces which have acceded or may thereafter accede to the Federation."
    That makes the accession of the Provinces exactly similiar in wording to the accession of the Indian States in paragraph (b). It puts them absolutely on a par with the States so far as joining the Federation is concerned. I have deliberately left it open as to how the Provinces should show their accession. The difficulties that arise in the case of the present Assembly at Delhi voting on this question apply equally, but not so strongly, as I shall show, to the Provincial Legislatures. Obviously, with the smaller number of electors in a province it is much more practicable and possible to take a plebiscite of the actual voters in the province as to whether they should come in or not. The first thing to note is that, in this case at any rate, there is a much wider electorate than there is for the Assembly; and, moreover, there is a much greater incentive upon the population to vote themselves into this Bill, because, whatever we may say about the bad part of Federation and the bad
    464
    nature of the Central Government set up, it is undoubted that there are advantages to the Provinces in securing Provincial Autonomy, for their powers are wider and greater and the electorate is still further widened. Most of the Provinces of India, if they were consulted as to whether this Bill should become law, would vote for it, because the advantages to them are obvious and the disadvantages in the centre would not bulk so largely in the minds of the electors in the Provinces.
    While we can say with certainty that the Government would not slip up and lose the accession of most of the States, yet it is certain that we should not get a vote from Bengal or from the Punjab in favour of this Measure. Anyone who listened the other day to the noble speech by C. F. Andrews on the wireless must have realised that feelings on this Bill are much more strongly held in Bengal and the Punjab than anywhere else in India, and feelings on the question of communal representation are certainly much more stirred in those two Provinces. The question is what special advantage does it give to the people of those Provinces not to have the chance of voting themselves out of this Bill for all time, but of delaying their accession to the Federation. That is the power which I want to give them—the power, not of shutting themselves out for all time, but of delaying in order to bargain a better system of representation in those Provinces.
    It must be made clear why there is a special case in Bengal and the Punjab.

    465
    In Bengal the representation at the present time is that 60 per cent. of the seats are Hindu and 40 per cent. Mohammedan. Under the Bill the Hindu seats are 78, plus two for women, making 80, and the Mohammedan seats are 117, plus two women, making 119, so that the whole balance of power between Mohammedans and Hindus is changed by the Bill. Therefore, the Hindus oppose this Bill mainly because of the fear that the Bengal Hindus will be subjected to the tyranny of the Mohammedans for all time. If you give these people the chance of delaying their entry into the Federation, you will give them the chance of bargaining with the Mohammedans, and if the Mohammedans want to come in and want this Bill, they will be more reasonable than they have been up to now. This representation, or, as I would call it, misrepresentation in Bengal so strongly struck Lord Zetland that he tried to get an amendment on the Joint Select Committee. He had been Governor of Bengal and he was so impressed by these proportions that he tried to get a fairer representation, but he was voted down by a majority. I want to preserve the chance of all the people of Bengal, not merely the Hindus, to get better terms for coming into the Federation—not better terms as against the British Government, but juster terms as regards the actual representation of the people. The population of Bengal is 45,000,000, and the majority are Hindus.
    Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Is it not a fact that there is a six per cent. majority of Mohammedans?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I do not think so.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Is it not generally considered without question that the majority in Bengal is Moslem?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: If that be so, then they would vote for the Bill. There are enough Hindus, Untouchables and Anglo-Indians to demand a juster basis of representation. They would be able to secure juster terms in accordance with the wishes of Lord Zetland, and also prevent the coming into existence in Bengal of a statutory majority which cannot be shaken. A statutory majority means that a minority need have no vote at all. It is to stop the establishment of a system of Hitlerite dictatorship, as
    466
    well as to secure justice of representation, that I ask the Committee to accept this Amendment to give this elementary right to human beings to decide for themselves by a majority vote whether they will or will not stand out of this decision. Exactly the same argument applies with even greater force to the Punjab, for there Sikhs as well as Hindus are protesting against the domination of the Mohammedans. These Sikhs are an extremely warlike race, and the Mohammedans are also warlike. It would be a domination of one particular creed. I do ask the Government to give this to the Provinces, to give them a chance to stand out to get fairer terms from the present majority. It is possible that the Government in reply may say that when we get to the Schedules they will alter the appalling schedule for Bengal and the Punjab. That might be a way out on ordinary grounds of decent humanity, of British justice. You might give the Provinces of India, not merely Bengal and the Punjab, through a plebiscite of the inhabitants the right to say whether they will come in or stop out.
    9.29 p.m.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): The Committee have already considered the principle upon which this Amendment was based, that is, the 'consultation with Indian opinion before the introduction of this Bill. In this case we are concerned with consultation with the Provinces, in order to enable them to decide whether they are going to enter the Federation or not. This seems to imply a radical misunderstanding of the intentions of the Government in the Bill. We stand by the terms of the Preamble of the 1919 Act, that Parliament is the sole judge of future constitutional development in India. I base myself on that. I think that this Amendment implies a further misunderstanding of the relationship of the Provinces and the States in the future Federation. The States, on the one hand, are sovereign states with sovereign powers, who have, as described in this Bill, acceded to the Federation by treaties being in a correct manner. With regard to the Provinces, in the Government of India Act, 1919, this House decided the question and prescribed the future position of the pro

    467
    vinces. The Government proposed to follow the principles followed in the 1919 Act in dealing with the future of the Indian Provinces. In regard to some of the details, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman went on to deal with the taking of a plebiscite of voters in Indian Provinces. To my mind that would be a totally impossible administrative operation. We have had to restrict the figure of the franchise for the reason that the administration would be overwhelmed. That would not be all the difficulties of a ballot. I believe it would be impossible to have a plebiscite in the Indian provinces on a question such as this.
    I am afraid that I fail to see any improvement in the communal award by the adoption of the principle of a plebiscite in the Indian provinces. I fail to see why a majority could be split on this question, and why delay in the coming into operation of the scheme in any particular province should achieve the aim desired. The confusion that would arise if this Amendment were 'adopted would be extraordinary. There would be a Federation where certain Provinces had voted themselves in, and certain States by treaties of accession had acceded to the Federation, as well as one or two States that had not acceded for certain reasons. Presumably there would also be certain provinces which had not voted themselves into the federation. There would, therefore, have to be a transitional government at the centre to control those Provinces which had not voted themselves into the Federation, and which would be in an entirely different relationship to the Federation. For these reasons, I regret to say that the Government are unable to accept the Amendment.
    Sir H. CROFT: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Amendment was not laying down any particular suggestion as to how the vote should be taken, but rather left that to His Majesty's Government, because it is the Government's Bill. I want to make this very brief protest. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to my hon. Friend's strange company in favour of this democratic vote. We say that if you believe that the Government have a right to say what the constitution should be, and believe that these people are com
    468
    petent to vote, you should prove your sincerity by going to the people and asking them whether this is the scheme they want. It is not fair to us to say that we are eating our words and to accuse us of being inconsistent. We are trying to make the Bill a better Bill. If the Government are right and we are wrong, if India has progressed so far in the last four or five years, if the "unchanging East" has in a few months moved so far towards the democratic possibilities of the West, all we say is, "Prove your case." In an earlier Amendment the right hon. Gentleman has said, "If you really believe this policy is required and demanded by India, if it is really going to bring contentment and not more agitation, as the Indian Congress and Indian Liberals say, put it to the test and let the Indian people themselves say whether they want it or not."
    9.36 p.m.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: I am very sorry that it will not be possible for us to support the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in his Amendment. I appreciate some of the difficulties which he anticipates in regard to the Federation, and some of those misgivings I certainly share; but a few minutes ago we supported a proposal from the other side in which the whole of the elected representatives of the whole of British India would be involved, acting as one body. It is also within the knowledge of those who were with us on the Joint Select Committee that we steadily took the view that we were in a favour of a federation—not this federation, but a federation—and consequently we held that once a Province or a State was in the federation it could not have the right to withdraw. Similarly, I take the view that it is no use attempting to have a federation at all unless the Provinces all go in at the same time. It would be a futile business to have two or three Provinces electing to go in and the others just marking time until it pleased them to go in. If there is to be a federation at all we must enable all to join at the same time. The conditions under which they join may not be agreeable to us and we shall move Amendments at the proper time to deal with that question, but for the present I desire to say that we are in favour of all the Provinces going into the federation.

    469
    We rather deprecate any intention to let matters rest upon the ipse dixit of any individual Province at any given time.
    9.39 p.m.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am awfully sorry to hear that speech. It is so unpleasant for me to differ from my colleagues. Really, this is a matter of great principle. If it is a federation which is compulsory we shall be storing up difficulties for the future. It is much more important to have a few people voluntarily coming together than the Socialistic proposal of compelling everybody to come in. It is a shocking example of Bolshevic collectivism. I shall vote in favour of this Amendment and against the principle of coercion, and I hope there will be others whose voices will be raised against the coercion of any Province that considers itself unjustly treated by the Federation.
    9.40 p.m.
    Miss RATHBONE: I agree with what the Under-Secretary has said as to the impossibility of the contracting out principle of my right hon. and gallant Friend, but I wish to make a point in reply to the Under-Secretary when he seemed to press a good deal too far the argument, drawn from the Preamble I think, that the final decision must rest with this Parliament. That is perfectly true, but it does not at all involve the conclusion that Parliament may not desire to take the opinion of the people for whom this Constitution is destined before they finally go into it. I suggest that none of his arguments against my right hon. and gallant Friend's proposal apply to the proposal that the provincial legislatures elected under the new franchise should be allowed to express their opinion before the Federation should come into being.
    Amendment negatived.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment I select is that standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood)—in page 3, to leave out "lines 3 to 5." I think it would be convenient if at the same time we discussed the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) and the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks)—
    470
    In page 3, line 5, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided that it shall be lawful for His Majesty on an address presented to him at any time after the expiration of five years from the passing of this Act by the Federal Legislature to issue a proclamation conferring an a Chief Commissioner's Province the status of a Governor's Province as from the date to be mentioned in such proclamation."
    Reserving to those hon. Members the right to take a Division on their Amendment if they so desire.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I hope this time I may have support. This Amendment would allow the inclusion in the Federation of only those States which have representative institutions, in order that the States represented should have the opportunity of being represented by representative people instead of by the nominees of the Princes.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. and gallant Member is moving an Amendment which I have not selected.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: The Amendment I wish to move is one to leave out the words "the Indian States" and to insert "those Indian States which enjoy representative institutions and."
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That Amendment has not been selected.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: It was selected—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is not an Amendment which I have selected, and that is the end of it.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 3 to 5.
    I will read the lines it is proposed to omit so that the Committee may be cognisant of their meaning:
    "And in the Federation so established there shall be included the Provinces hereinafter called Chief Commissioners' Provinces."
    I do not want the Chief Commissioner's Provinces included in the Federation.
    Amendment negatived.
    9.43 p.m.
    Mr. COCKS: I beg to move, in page 3, line 5, at the end to insert:
    "Provided that it shall be lawful for His Majesty on an address presented to him at any time after the expiration of five years from the passing of this Act by the Federal Legislature to issue a proclamation confer

    471
    ring on a Chief Commissioner's Province the status of a Governor's Province as from the date to be mentioned in such proclamation."
    I formally move this Amendment, the effect of which is to allow the Chief Commissioners' Provinces, after the expiration of five years, to be raised to the status of Governors' Provinces, after the Federal Legislature has passed an address to His Majesty asking for that to be done.
    9.44 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLER: If I tell the hon. Member that when Clause 272 of the Bill is submitted to the Committee he will find that it actually achieves the purpose which he desires he may not find it necessary to press his Amendment. Under the procedure provided in that Clause a Chief Commissioner's Province could be converted into a Governor's Province. I do not think the actual procedure of his Amendment is in that Clause, but it could be converted into a Governor's Province.
    I will read the words:
    "Subject to the provisions of this Section, His Majesty may by Order in Council alter the boundary of any Province if, with a view to the creation of a new province or on other grounds, he deems it expedient so to do."
    The Clause continues to give, under Subsection (2), an opportunity for creating new provinces. I think that will probably meet the wishes of the hon. Member for Broxstowe (Mr. Cocks), and, if so, I hope that he will find it unnecessary to press the Amendment.
    9.46 p.m.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: The hon. Gentleman has not given us a very adequate answer to the Amendment. There are, as he knows, certain areas called chief commissioners' districts or areas, which are not subject to anything in the nature of the form of government which will prevail in the Governors' provinces. It is true that Clause 272 provides, after an indefinite period, for the transference of those areas to the status of Governors' provinces, but if after five years the Federal Assembly presents a petition to His Majesty that an area should be raised in status to that of a Governor's province, we feel that His Majesty should be able to accede to that request. The whole point is that it is possible for the people living in Governors' provinces to exercise very
    472
    considerable control of their destinies, whereas in chief commissioners' provinces there is no such control, because the matter is entirely in the hands of the chief commissioner and those who advise him. This is a matter of some substance. Five years should be ample time limit before the Federal Assembly is able to approach His Majesty by way of petition.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: May I point out that under Clause 272 that may be done at any time without waiting for the expiry of five years?
    9.48 p.m.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: This is rather important. When can a chief commissioner's province become a Governor's province? It is not clear from Clause 22 when they can come in. What will be the actual procedure which will enable a chief commissioner's province to become a Governor's province? It is true that powers are taken in the Bill to issue periodically fresh instruments of instruction; must we wait while those instruments of instruction are passed by both Houses of Parliament before the change is made, or can the change be made by the Government of India without any interference from this House? What powers have the Government in the matter? Further, we want to know—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am quite clear that this discussion ought not to take place on this Amendment, and that it ought to be raised on Clause 272. I must, therefore, declare this Amendment out of order, because I am clear that the matter should be raised on that Clause.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Yes, I am quite clear on that point, too.
    9.49 p.m.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I beg to move, in page 3, line 10, to leave out "fifty-two," and to insert "seventy-eight."
    The effect of the Amendment would be to require that Princes representing three-quarters of the seats in the upper chamber should have signified their adherence to the federation before it comes into operation, instead of only half of those seats, as the Bill requires. Whenever a decision has to be taken in this country by a large number of persons upon an issue which affects their economic interests, it will be found that a majority of something like two-thirds is regarded

    473
    as necessary. Hardly a voluntary association in this country does not require a two-thirds majority for the alteration of its constitution. Again the marketing schemes on which producers in various branches of the agricultural industry have, in the last year or two, had to decide, can not come into operation until about 67 per cent. of the producers have voted for them.
    We all regard that as just and necessary, because we recognise that the operation of those schemes may vary in regard to various producers, bringing benefit to one set of producers and loss to others. In this tremendous matter of the 562 Indian States deciding whether they will or will not enter a federation with the democratic provinces of British India, States representing not more than a half of the seats in the upper federal chamber will give one of the only two conditions precedent to federation. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman) spoke last night, out of his great knowledge, of the enormous variety of character of the Indian States, and of the variety of their history and of their connection with the British Raj. I do not know that he said very much about the geographical position and other factors which we have to take into consideration in regard to this question. The situation of a State upon the sea coast entitles it, in present conditions, to maritime customs, which is a privilege not enjoyed by inland States. The natural resources of some States include salt, and therefore these have privileges in regard to the manufacture and sale of salt. Coming into the federation would mean renunciation of that right of maritime customs, and a loss of the privileges of manufacture and sale of salt. On the other hand, to other States who have for years been paying annual tribute to the British Raj, it will mean gradual remission of that tribute, while to others it will bring payment for territories which they have ceded at any time during the last hundred years to the Government of India in return for assurances of protection of their territories or the recognition of a dynasty, or whatever it may be. The net result is a total payment of some £750,000 a year which will have to be made by the Federal Government to the Indian States.
    474
    The point I stress is that federation will bring advanages to some States and disadvantages to others. The incidence of federation upon this enormous mass of Indian States will be extremely unequal. I feel, therefore, obliged to say that the barest idea of justice requires the Government to ensure that no federation should come into operation until a very large majority of the States, both those who would benefit and those who would not benefit, have signified their adherence to the proposals. Again, States vary enormously in their size, and the larger States, very naturally and properly, are allotted more seats in the Upper Chamber than the smaller States. Out of a total of 104 seats in the Upper Chamber, it actually comes about that not more than 27 large States will provide the necessary number of 52 seats which gives the first condition precedent to federation.
    As we know, important negotiations are in progress with the Nizam of Hyberabad with regard to the Berars. We do not know what the nature of those negotiations is. We have been assured that the Government do not intend to transfer the administration of the Berars to His Exalted Highness, and we hope very much that the agreement which is being negotiated does not mean any going back upon that undertaking. We know, again, that the population of the civil station of Bangalore, European, Anglo-Indian and Moslem, numbering some 40,000 people, have protested against the suggestion that they are going to be transferred to the State of Mysore. I earnestly hope that the Government are not going to yield on that matter. It seems to me a terrible thing that any people should be forced to renounce their British citizenship and become citizens of another State.
    Again, there has been a. proposal to transfer to Travancore the inhabitants, mainly Christian and partly European, of Tangasseri, who have always been under European rule. There again the inhabitants are strongly protesting, for the third time, against being transferred to a Hindu State, which, although it has a considerable number of Christian subjects, is nevertheless not satisfying those Christian subjects in its administration on matters relating to their religion. I only mention these cases to show the special inducements that are being given to the three largest States in British

    475
    India to get them to regard favourably entry into this Federation; and those three States between them contribute seven of the 52 seats which are necessary as a first condition precedent.
    Some three years ago we understood that a much larger number of States would have to accede to the federation than is indicated in the Bill. My right hon. Friend's memory on this matter seems to have betrayed him to-day, because I understood him to say that he did not remember having at any time mentioned a number larger than the number mentioned in the Bill. I have looked up the Debate of 27th June, 1932, in which he referred to this matter. I can never forget the announcement that he made on that day. I listened to it very carefully, and it was an enormous relief to me to hear him make it. He said:
    "No one in any part of this House can categorically say that an All-India Federation Bill can be produced until we know in detail and for certain that the Indian States are going to be an effective part of the Federation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1932; col. 1495, Vol. 262.]
    When I heard my right hon. Friend make that statement, I thought I heard him use the word "all" before the words "the Indian States," and it was that word "all" which I thought I heard, and the general sense of the declaration, that made an enormous impression on my mind. On the following day, when I read the right hon. Gentleman's speech, I found the word "all" in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but it does not appear in the volume. I know that this was brought to my right hon. Friend's notice, and I remember that he gave an assurance that he did not use the word "all." I accept that assurance. I only mention the matter because the whole sense of the passage, even in the final version, seems to me to indicate that the right hon. Gentleman was intending to convey that substantially all the Indian States—the Indian States as a whole—would have to accede to the federation before it could come into being. So far as my recollection goes—of course I may be entirely at fault in this matter—it was not until some six months later, namely, in his speech at the end of the Third Round Table Conference, that my right hon. Friend made a declaration to the effect that States representing not less than 50 per cent. of the total population
    476
    of the States, and not less than half the seats in the Upper Federal Chamber, would have to signify their adherence. By that time it had begun to be apparent that there were important Princes who were viewing the idea of federation with considerably less favour than those few influential Princes who had supported it at the first Round Table Conference.
    I remember that the publication of my right hon. Friend's speech at the Round Table Conference coincided, I think to a day, with a statement made to a Reuter representative by the late Jam Sahib of Nawanagar, who was then Chancellor of the Chamber of Princes. His declaration was to the effect that the Round Table Conferences appeared to have done very little to meet the Princes' demands. He proceeded to state what those demands had been, and clearly expressed very grave disappointment with the attention which they had received. As a matter of fact, that declaration of the Jam Sahib got extremely little publication in the English Press. I myself never saw it in any English newspaper but only in the Scottish Press, as I happened to be in Scotland at the time. I cannot help thinking that, as my right hon. Friend began to see that the idea of federation was losing favour with certain very important Princes, he felt it necessary to tighten up the conditions, and to require the adherence of a very much smaller number of Princes than, apparently, was considered necessary when he made his speech in June, 1932. I must say I deeply regret that the Government of this country should attempt to press into a federation men who have long been rulers of autonomous States—States whose fortunes will, as I have said, be affected in such very varying degrees by entry into the federation; and I most earnestly hope that the Government, even at this hour, will see that it is really unfair that a great paramount Power like this should pay so little consideration to the desires and circumstances of the Princes of India, and will yet accept the substantially larger figure which I have mentioned in the Amendment.
    10.4 p.m.
    Sir S. HOARE: I am afraid my Noble Friend still suspects me of some evil design in this matter. I thought I had

    477
    cleared up once and for all the suggestion, which has been made several times in this House, that I have said one thing in a Debate and have subsequently altered it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I assure my Noble Friend and the Committee once again that I never suggested that all the Princes were to come in. Indeed, it is palpably absurd to think that I should ever have made that suggestion. No one who has studied this question has ever imagined that it must be a condition of All-India Federation that all the 600 and more States, some of them with territory about the size of this Chamber, were essential to a federation. The very suggestion is too foolish for anyone in a responsible position ever to dream of making.
    Sir A. KNOX: Will the right hon. Gentleman say who altered the OFFICIAL REPORT?
    Sir S. HOARE: There is no secret at all. I never said it. I imagine that every hon. Member can make an alteration in the report of his speech and it rests with the Speaker at the table to accept or reject the alteration. When I say to the Committee that I never said "all," I expect the Committee to believe what I say. If they do not believe what I say, I had better not stand in the position in which I am now standing.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I said I accepted the right hon. Gentleman's assurance. I said I thought that, even without the word "all", his speech as reported in the corrected copy gives the impression that he meant that substantially all the princes would have acceded. If not, will he tell the Committee what he did mean?
    Sir S. HOARE: I was referring to the intervention of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox), who seemed to doubt what I said. Let the Committee, putting suspicions out of their minds, look dispassionately at this problem. We want the all-India Federation to be an effective Federation. We have no intention of bringing into operation a Federation which is not definitely an all-India Federation. The question then arises, what should be the conditions which make it an effective Federation. Quite obviously, if it is to be an effective Federation it must be generally representative of the Indian Princes. There are, speaking
    478
    generally, three classes of Indian Princes. First of all, there is the strictly limited number of very big States, headed by the great State of Hyderabad. Secondly, there are a number of less great States of intermediate size, in particular the States which have hitherto taken an active part in the business of the Chamber of Princes. Thirdly, there are a number of quite small States, some of them, as I say, being little more than estates, with very limited revenues. It is our desire that the Federation should be representative of all these groups, not only the very big States, like Hyderabad, not only the intermediate States, like, shall I say, Patiala, and Bikaner, but also we think the lesser States should be represented. The question then arises, assuming that we want all these various classes of States represented, what should be the percentage on which we should insist as a condition for an effective all-India Federation? We might take the test only of population, but in that case it would mean that a mere handful of the greater States would provide a sufficient population as a precedent condition of Federation. It would mean that the Federation might then start with quite a limited number of great States and that none of the other States would be in it at all.
    We, therefore, came to the conclusion—I am speaking now not only of the Government but of the Joint Select Committee—that there should be a further test, namely, the test of status in addition to the test of population. The best way to apply the test of status is to take the right of representation in the upper chamber. We came, therefore, to the view that, if these two tests should be applied, the right kind of percentage was a percentage of 50 per cent. of population and a percentage of half those with the right of entry into the upper house, namely, half the States which have the right of being represented in the upper house. I daresay hon. Members are asking themselves why the test should not be a higher one. I will tell the Committee. The risk of putting the test higher is that we should then put ourselves into the hands of a few States which could virtually dictate their conditions of entry into the Federation, and could by that means hold up the coming into operation of Federation altogether. If we take a percentage of 90 or 85, or even the

    479
    percentage of my Noble Friend, 75, it means that a small number of States could stand out and only come in upon their own terms. That means that the operation of Federation is really put into the hands of a very limited number of States. The Government took the view that that course was very unwise. The Joint Select Committee considered the question in great detail, and came to the view that much the safer course was to take the percentage that we have in the Bill, 50 per cent. of population, and 50 per cent. of the States competent to be represented in the Upper Federal House, and that to go further than that would be dangerously to put the Government into the hands of a, few States.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: Is it not the case that there are about 117 States each of which has separate representation in the Chamber of Princes, and another 100 or so States which are represented by, I think, 12 members in the Chamber of Princes Is it not also the case that on the basis of population alone the nine largest States provide 50 per cent. of the total population of the States, and that, on the basis of the States represented in the Upper Federal Chamber, not more than 27 States are necessary, so that in either case it is not a case of a minority being left out under the proposed condition, but it is the great majority of the States that would be left out?
    Sir S. HOARE: Certainly. There is no question of disclosing them. They are well known to everyone. After all, those 27 or 28 Chamber States are very important States. The great States, from the point of view of Federation, are of immense importance. My own view—and it is supported not only by my advisers in India but, I think, by my colleagues on the Joint Select Committee, and certainly by the Indians who took part in our discussions representing British India and Indian India as well—is that if these States enter the Federation a great many more States will undoubtedly enter. The story does not end, however, where the Noble Lady left it. There are a number of minority States—States now administered by British administration during the minority of the Indian Princes. They cannot come into the Federation owing to the long-standing procedure in India
    480
    that no decisions of that kind can be taken without the express wish of the ruler. That in itself tightens, to a substantial extent, the condition we are imposing. My advice to the Committee is that they had much better follow the unanimous opinion of the Joint Select Committee, namely, that this percentage is, on the whole, the soundest percentage to take as a test, and that to go further than this percentage will be to put ourselves dangerously into the hands of a few States who will be compelled to hold up the Federation, even though a large number of the States are anxious that the Federation should start. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will reject the Amendment, and will follow the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: Would my right hon. Friend kindly tell the Committee exactly how many more States would have to signify their adherence owing to the fact that some are ruled by minors at the present time?
    Sir S. HOARE: It is difficult to give the answer in the form which my Noble Friend wishes it, because she will see at once that a State which is under minority administration to-day may not be under minority administration when the Federation comes into being. If the Federation came into being to-morrow, I think it would mean that something like 9 per cent. of the States are now tinder minority administration.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: Nine per cent. of the 562, or of the 117 larger States?
    Sir S. HOARE: It is 20 States representing 7,000,000 of the population.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: That is on the basis of population, 20 States, and on the basis of State seats, may we know how many?
    Sir S. HOARE: I cannot give the Noble Lady that answer at once—I will look it up for her—but she can take it from me that it is a substantial factor in the problem. The single instance of the State of Gwalior, which is at present under minority administration, will show her that some of the more important States are in this position.
    Mr. BRACKEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what happens to a

    481
    State like Alwar, whose ruler first used the phrase "United States of India," and has now been exiled by the Government of India? Is his State to be represented in the federation, or does his temporary absence militate against it being represented in the Chamber of the Princes?
    10.19 p.m.
    Viscount WOLMER: I do not think that the speech of the Secretary of State for India in the least disposes of the Amendment of my Noble Friend. It really is a most amazing thing that the Government propose to bring this vast federation into being on a bare majority either of the population of the States or of the number of seats that they have. I submit that this matter is far too important to be disposed of in this way. After all, you are not going to make this federation a success on the basis of anything like a snap vote. I cannot help feeling that one of the most fundamental mistakes the Government are making is that they think they can manoeuvre first one party and then another into their scheme. Just as, in our opinion, they have not been candid with the British electorate, and just as in the last Amendment they have not been candid with British India, I do not think they are treating the States properly. This is a vast and fundamental departure in the whole history of the States, something which is going to have an immense influence on the whole of their future careers. Should we in any simpler walk of life think of coming to a decision like that on a bare majority? I do not see either the Minister of Agriculture or the right hon. Member for Swindon (Dr. Addison) here, but if they were here they would bear me out when I remind the Secretary of State that even if the Government want to get a marketing scheme through they have to get a 36 per cent. majority of the acreage farmed by the farmers concerned, and a 66 per cent. majority of the number of farms. Therefore, they have to get, a two-thirds majority of the big farmers and a two-thirds majority of the small farmers.
    Mr. MOLSON: This is the second time that an analogy has been drawn between the Indian States and the marketing schemes. In the case of the marketing schemes those who are not in favour of
    482
    the schemes are compelled to come in. It is a case of the majority coercing the minority. If the Indian States do not wish to come in, they need not do so.
    Viscount WOLMER: I should like to hear from my hon. Friend what he thinks the position of the Indian States who do not come in will be after the Federation has come into operation. We know perfectly well that once the Federation has been established there will be no alternative but for every State to come in. Otherwise, they will be completely left out in the cold.
    Sir S. HOARE: Then what does it matter about the percentage?
    Viscount WOLMER: My right hon. Friend asks, what does it matter.
    Sir S. HOARE: What does it matter about the percentage if they all come in?
    Viscount WOLMER: It matters very much. It matters in this sense, and this is an aspect which I think has never appealed to the right hon. Gentleman that if you are going to apply coercion, as you are applying coercion, you ought not to apply it unless you have an overwhelming majority in your favour. The analogy of the Marketing Acts is a perfectly proper one. The right hon. Member for Swindon quite rightly saw, when we pressed him from the Conservative party to make the percentage even higher when the Bill was in Committee, that you cannot get a successful marketing scheme unless you have a preponderating majority of the big men and the small men voluntarily coming in. If you have that, then he saw that it was legitimate to coerce the small minority. But any attempt to do a thing of that sort by a bare majority would inevitably end in failure. You are here dealing with something which is infinitely and immeasurably greater than a marketing scheme, and the same considerations apply. The whole of this thing will automatically come into force when you have got the required number of States, and their decision is going to settle not only their own destiny but the destiny of every State in India as well. We say that a decision of that sort ought not to be come to on such a small majority.
    I am very sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) is not here. In a speech that

    483
    he made on the setting up of the Joint Select Committee he drew special attention to this point, and I think that anyone who considers the question must see that this is one of the fundamental and key points in regard to the whole of the Government's scheme. The right hon. Gentleman says that if you put the percentage too high you put it in the power of a small minority of States to hold up the Government to ransom. That would only be a small number of big States, and if the information which has reached us through the public Press as well as from private sources is correct the Secretary of State has already squared these people. [Interruption.] I mean the agreements which have been prepared during the last 18 months, such as the retrocession of Bangalore.
    Sir S. HOARE: There is no agreement.
    Viscount WOLMER: The proposal leas been revived; and I should be exceedingly surprised if that matter is not settled before Federation takes place. The right hon. Gentleman will have no difficulty in making agreements with the big and important States and therefore the danger that a small number of important States can hold up the whole of this Federation is not very real. If they had real and substantial reasons for holding it up I should say they were right, but you ought not to do a thing of this sort unless you have an overwhelming majority of the States coming in. The Committee must remember that this country is bound to the Princes of India by the most sacred treaties, and a treaty must be honoured in the spirit as well as in the letter. If the Amendment is rejected there is grave danger that while we shall continue to honour the letter of our treaties we shall not be honouring the spirit, because the moment a declaration of Federation is made it will be practically impossible for any State to remain outside federation.
    HON. MEMBERS: Why?
    Viscount WOLMER: Because you will have an all-India Federation in which their neighbours with rival interests and claims will be represented, and they will feel that they have been left out in the cold. Apparently, the Attorney-General agrees with what I am saying and, therefore, the Government agree that directly
    484
    you have your required majority the others will be bound to come in. I have never heard anyone with a knowledge of India express a contrary opinion. I say that it is all the more incumbent upon us to see that there is not a snatch vote, a bare majority. If we coerce 45 per cent. or so of the Indian States to come in against their will we shall not be honouring our treaties with them in the spirit, although we may be honouring them in the letter. Surely the way in which we honour the spirit of our treaties is more important than honouring them in the letter. It is because we have honoured our treaties in the spirit as well as in the letter that has given us our position in India to-day. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, even if he cannot agree with the suggestion of my Noble Friend, to give us something more than a bare majority. What is suggested in the amendment is 75 per cent. If he will fall back on 66 per cent. the figure in the Government's own Marketing Acts it would give a two to one majority, and that is the sort of figure which may make all the difference between acquiescence on the part of the minority and a sullen resentment and feeling that they have been tricked and betrayed into a system of which they heartily disapprove. I do wish that the Government, pursuing this great constitutional experiment, would not be so eager to snatch the advantage of position by manoeuvring tactics, but would try to get a Constitution which is based on a measure of real consent, even though it might take them longer. Then they would be building on a far firmer foundation.
    10.30 p.m.
    Mr. AMERY: I confess that I have rarely heard an argument that I have found more difficult to follow than the suggestion that if 51 per cent, of the princes and people of the Indian States accede to the Federation, that involves a coercion of the remaining 49 per cent. The main reasons why any of the Indian States would wish to join the Federation would be to have a say in the framing of the Indian tariff, Indian railway policy and other policies that affect them. In so far as a certain number of the States join the Federation, that is not going to increase the hostile pressure on the remaining States. Indeed, to some extent it may make the position of the remaining States easier, and some States, those

    485
    which have got seaboards and collect their own Customs, have not got the same pressure upon them, and may not feel the same desire to federate. It seems to me that the analogy of the Marketing Acts, under which a 66 per cent. majority is required to coerce all, has no bearing whatever upon the question of what proportion of those who want to enter the Federation is sufficient for this Parliament to allow them to enter. This is a restrictive veto on the right of those who want to enter until the 50 per cent. has agreed.
    What really does surprise me is this: A good many hours last night and this afternoon I have listened to speeches pointing out that the Government were entirely wrong in assuming that the princes wished to join the Federation. If that is so, why do my hon. Friends want to make so high a fence that the princes cannot jump over it even if they want to do so? I really would make an appeal to my hon. Friends who differ from me, I know from motives which are not foreign to any of us. If they object, let them object upon some definite principle, and let us have rather less of Amendments which are impracticable and purely destructive and wrecking.
    Viscount WOLMER: My right hon. Friend has appealed to me. Here is a principle for his attention. It is, that there should be a scheme which has some measure of consent behind it.
    Mr. AMERY: I should think that if Parliament is to be the deciding factor, then if any scheme has ever had the consent both of Parliament and of administrative authorities of experience, no scheme has had a greater measure of such consent behind it than this. On the other hand, if you are to have a scheme which will have vocally expressed Indian consent the moment it is put forward, then Parliament ought to do nothing but wait for an Indian Constituent Assembly. If that is the project of my hon. Friends it certainly is not mine.
    10.35 p.m.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: This matter is really crucial. The essence of the Government's scheme has been based upon the offer of the princes. That was the statement made by the Lord President of the Council—whom I do not see in his place to-night—at the critical
    486
    meeting of his own party. We were told the princes had come forward with their offer and the suggestion was made "How can you reject these good gifts which are so freely proffered to your hand?" Now we are right down to the bones of the offer. There was the speech of the Secretary of State in which he said that the Indian States would come in. By a misprint in the OFFICIAL REPORT, such as often occurs to us, he was reported to have said that "all" the Indian States would come in. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says he did not say "all" and, whether he said it or not that he did not mean to say it, which is quite the same thing. No one is going to hold a Minister in high office and in a great critical position, responsible for the exact terms of the phrases which fall from his lips, but at any rate it was said that the Indian States would come in.
    That is a very important point. The whole essence of the matter as presented to us was, "They want to come in." We were told that they had come forward with their offer and that all they said was, "Do let us be responsible. Do let us have democracy. Do let us have the will of the people prevailing." But they were to come in. Here was this great offer, enabling us to build up this vast megalomaniac palace of Indian Federation. This thing was presented to us because of the Indian States. All was put upon their offer. Now we are told it is only to be half. I am not going to argue with my right hon. Friend. He says he did not say "all" or did not mean to say "all" and that-is the end of it. But between "all" and 50 per cent. there is a pretty wide margin. He brushed that aside, but the Government are basing their case on the offer of the States. We are told that we ought to give up our views because of this great ugly rush of the Princes of India to get into the Federation—on a. purely democratic basis, of course. That is understood all the time. But between "all" and 50 per cent. cannot we come to an agreement with the right hon. Gentleman? Cannot we split the difference and accept this Amendment of 75 per tent—three-quarters instead of half?
    What is all this talk about the blackmail which is to be exerted by the outstanding of a few States or whatever it

    487
    may be—that if you ask too many to come in the last lot might make conditions, and that you have to ask a very few to come in so that you can square that lot—and you have got them very well sized up I must say? Add up the big States of India and see the ones that have been dealt with—Travancore, and Bangalore, and so forth. But when you come to the focus of this matter you find that this point diminishes under the criticism of the Committee. Personally I think this is the weakest point in the Government's case. I think they make a great mistake to force it so much. If the great mass of the Indian States were really so sincere in their desire to participate in the newly created Federation of All-India, with responsible government, with the full surge of democratic processes operative at the centre, you would not have had this awful comedown to 50 per cent. and that 50 per cent. just about what can be managed and manipulated.
    The right hon. Gentleman will tell me, no doubt, that the Joint Select Committee have considered all this, and settled it all, and examined it all so nicely. My right hon. Friend made a great mistake in not having a better committee of inquiry, people who would really make a searching examination of these problems. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why did not you join it "] Because the composition of it was so unfair—about four to one, between three and four to one. Let us be quite frank about it. An hon. Member looks at me in a questioning manner. We are fighting this policy, fighting this Bill, and we have to judge whether we shall fight it, on the committee or outside the committee, entirely from the point of view of whether we can make a better fight; but if the committee had been a fair one, if it had been one which gave a fair representation—and we are not fighting it with such ill-effects as you suppose or as your majorities in this House may lead you to imagine—if the committee had been a fair one, it would have been quite possible to go on it. The right hon. Gentleman, however, so managed this committee that, instead of being a committee to inquire into these matters, it was a sort of recruiting agency for supporters of the Bill. But I am not
    488
    going to discuss the committee. On the contrary, all I say is that if this matter had been properly thrashed out in the committee, the right, hon. Gentleman would not be in the position in which he finds himself at the present moment.
    Mr. AMERY: Why did not you thrash it out then?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: If I am to take up the point which has been flung at me by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), I may have to put some strain upon your indulgence in presiding, Mr. Chairman, but I will leave it entirely with this observation, that it was not a committee of inquiry; it was a mutual admiration society, with a few increasingly embarrassed spectators. I come back to the point that, in default of fair and searching criticism, this is the first criticism which has come upon these plans. This is the first time they are dragged to the light, I will not say of day, but to the broad light of Parliamentary discussion, and here we have—
    Sir S. HOARE: This percentage has been in the White Paper, all through the Indian discussions, and the Round Table Conference, and the Indian Princes themselves have agreed to it throughout.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if I was not right in saying that he first publicly mentioned-this percentage at the end of the last Round Table Conference?
    Sir S. HOARE: I do not know whether that is so or not, but even so, that was how many years ago? [An HON. MEMBER: "Two years."] I should have said much longer.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: We know that India is progressing at an enormous rate. We are told that it is progressing at such a rate that any man who came home before the Secretary of State took office has no opinion about it worth considering, so no doubt his own views will change from time to time. But let me put before the Committee the brutal fact that whereas the sort of general idea was that it was to be the offer of the Indian States, that they all wanted to come forward, now it has been cut down to 50 per cent., and those 50 per cent. can be pretty well made up out of the States which we allege, and will increasingly assert and endeavour to prove,

    489
    have been in one way or another got at, approached, developed, by the right hon. Gentleman through all the sources that are open to him. What is the use of telling me that there is this talk about pressure and bribery? Let us withdraw all invidious expressions. The facts are quite good enough. Here are these territories which are to be retroceded. Here are these tributes which are to be forgiven. Here are these alterations in the financial arrangements with the Government of India. We heard representatives of the princes appealing that these concessions should be made to them, and they were only to be made if there were Federation. All this only operates on the basis of 50 per cent.
    One could have understood if, with all these adventitious aids, the right hon. Gentleman had worked it up to 75 per cent., but 50 per cent. is all he is able to get. With all the pressure of the Government, and all the power and might, majesty and dominion at the disposal of a National Government in the full plenitude of power, they can get only 50 per cent. This is the crux of the whole matter. Here is the basis on which the Conservative party were induced to consent to this measure; they were told that here was this offer of the princes. I must say we thought it was a stream, but it is a pump, and the pump only works to the extent of 50 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to accept the Amendment; there is no reason why he should not. Why should he not accept three-quarters? He says that the odd balance of States would blackmail him. On the 50 per cent. he thinks he has got them pretty well fixed up now. The Committee can judge between those two propositions. If the Government are going to give a foundation to your Indian policy, if the great States of India are to come into a federal system, and if they desire to come in so long as it is democratic, have not the Government the courage to put their convictions to the test of 75 per cent.?
    The right hon. Gentleman is here on the weakest point of his case. I should say the weakest point of his case up to the present time. I can only speak as a political friend of the right hon. Gentleman, and even that would be subject to some discount, but if he would accept the Amendment, on which we intend to divide, and take three-quarters as a
    490
    broad test of the willingness of the States to come in and as a broad guarantee and vindication of the statement of the Lord President of the Council as to the offer being the thing that moved him—this offer which is petering out and shrinking down, and all the available pressure only working it up to 50 per cent.—if he would take this on the basis of three-quarters, even if they do not all come in, even if the decision were adverse to it, would he be so much the worse off? Would the Government be so much the worse off? Would India be so much the worse off? Who would be the sufferers by it? The right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to accept this further definition. If he 'has faith in his policy, cannot he trust it beyond an even-money chance?
    10.50 p.m.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is it your intention, Sir Dennis, to call my Amendment—in page 3, line 14, to leave out "one-half," and to insert "two-thirds"?
    The CHAIRMAN: We have not reached that point yet.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Then I would like to make a few observations on this Amendment. The Secretary of State, so far as I could judge, based his case on arithmetic. While he was speaking I, also, on the basis of the statistics on pages 269 and 273, have done some arithmetic. I find that in one case a seat represents a population of 50,000, while in another case it represents 1,200,000. Unless the statistics in both cases are made satisfactory, this arrangement will certainly not be satisfactory. It is suggested that the Princes have been squared. The Secretary of State was very indignant at this. I should be surprised if reasonable precautions have not been taken to ensure that if this Bill passes a sufficient number of Princes will accept it. Unless such an arrangement has been arrived at, we are wasting our time. Numerous promises have been made for a further advancement of self-governing interests in India, notably that in the summer of 1931. At that time there was the first offer of the Princes. Up to that time every promise had been made by Ministers here and by official pronouncements here. The promises were made quite out of relation to the question whether the Princes would come into the

    491
    Federation or not. It seems to me that these promises were made on the assumption of a federation, whether or not the Princes would come in. Now we have a Bill presented, which, if I understand it aright, must lapse, unless something never contemplated four years ago comes into operation. I do not wish to detain the Committee, but I happen to have taken a very definite view on this point. [Interruption.] I have not, occupied much time of the House and I see no reason when I want to take part in the Committee stage why I should not. If private Members are to be denied reasonable right of audience, then they are per
    fectly capable of wrecking any arrangements made by any other Members.
    The CHAIRMAN: It would be just as well if the hon. Member kept to the Amendment.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I was only saying that if a Member is to be denied the right to speak, if hon. Members deny me the opportunity to exercise my rights—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has the protection of the Chair.
    Question put, "That the word 'fifty-two' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 282; Noes, 36.

    Division No. 55.]

    AYES.

    [10.57 p.m.

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

    Crossley, A. C.

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Culverwell, Cyril Tom

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)

    Daggar, George

    Headlam, Lieut-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Hicks, Ernest George

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

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

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Apsley, Lord

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

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

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

    Hornby, Frank

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Balniel, Lord

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Banfield, John William

    Dickie, John P.

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Duckworth, George A, V.

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Barrle, Sir Charlee Coupar

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Bateman, A. L.

    Duggan, Hubert John

    Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)

    Batey, Joseph

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

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Eales, John Frederick

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)

    Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

    Edwards, Charles

    Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)

    Bernays, Robert

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Eillston, Captain George Sampson

    Janner, Barnett

    Blindell, James

    Elmley, Viscount

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Borodale, Viscount

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Jennings, Roland

    Boulton, W. W.

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Sower, Commander Robert Tatton

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    John, William

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Fermoy, Lord

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

    Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Buchan, John

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Kirkpatrick, William M.

    Buchanan, George

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Burghley. Lord

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

    Butler, Richard Austen

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Lawson, John James

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Gluckstein, Louis Halls

    Leckie, J. A.

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Goff, Sir Park

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

    Goldle, Noel B.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Leonard, William

    Cazalet, Theima (Islington, E.)

    Graves, Marjorie

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Cleary, J, J.

    Grenfell, David Ress (Glamorgan)

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd.Gr'n)

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (MIddlesbro, W.)

    Loder, Captain J. de Vera

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W.Riding)

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Grigg, Sir Edward

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Lunn, William

    Cooke, Douglas

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Mabane, William

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.

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

    Copeland, Ida

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    McCorquodale. M. S.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

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

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

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

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Croom, Johnson, R. p.

    Hammersley, Samuel S.

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F,

    Cross. R. H.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Pearson, William G.

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

    Peat, Charles U.

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    McLean, Dr W. H. (Tradeston)

    Penny, Sir George

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)

    Macmillan, Maurice Harold

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Steel Maitland, Rt. Hon. sir Arthur

    Magnay, Thomas

    Petherick, M.

    Stevenson, James

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bllst'n)

    Storey, Samuel

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Potter, John

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton

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

    Pybus, Sir John

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Radford, E. A.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Maaon, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

    Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Maxton, James

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Ratcliffe, Arthur

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Milne, Charles

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Milner, Major James

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Tufnell, Lieut-Commander R. L.

    Morgan, Robert H.

    Renwick, Major Gustav A.

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

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

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)

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

    Rickards, George William

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

    Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Munro, Patrick

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Nation, Brigadier-General J, J. H.

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Watt, Captain George Steven H,

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    White, Henry Graham

    Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Salt, Edward W.

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

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

    Wilmot, John

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)

    Owen, Major Goronwy

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

    Paling, Wilfred

    Shute, Colonel Sir John

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward

    Peake, Osbert

    Soper, Richard

    Sir Walter Womersley.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Bracken. Brendan

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Carver. Major William H.

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

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

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Levy, Thomas

    Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)

    Wells, Sidney Richard

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Raid, David D. (County Down)

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

    Donner, P. W.

    Remer, John R.

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Commander Marsden and Mr. Raikes.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    It being after Eleven of the Clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  WAR DISABILITY PENSIONS.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
  11.8 p.m.
  Mr. GUY: I wish to raise a question in relation to the employment of independent medical specialists in cases
  494
  where the claimant is in Scotland. The point is a narrow and simple one, but is of considerable importance. I am not in any sense attacking the administration of the Ministry of Pensions, or criticising the use of independent medical specialists in appropriate cases. I am altogether opposed to criticism of the high qualifications, impartiality and skill of those independent medical specialists to whom cases have been remitted for consideration in the past.
  The use of the independent medical specialist in pension cases was inaugurated in 1929 by the late Minister of Pensions, Mr. Roberts. He revised the existing system for dealing with late claims, and one item which was in the nature of an innovation was that, in certain late cases which raised difficult

  495
  medical questions, there was a remit to an independent medical specialist, who was nominated, not by the Minister, but by the President of the College of Physicians or of the College of Surgeons. It is important to keep in mind that these independent medical specialists are not Ministry officials. On the other hand, they are not so completely independent as in the case of the medical referee in workmen's compensation cases. But I understand that the Minister usually, if not invariably, accepts the advice of the independent medical specialist when it is tendered to him.
  In many cases where there has been a remit to an independent medical specialist, an examination of the claimant by the specialist is necessary and advisable. In that case it is important that the examination should be conducted by the independent specialist himself. Where both the claimant and the specialist are in London, no difficulty arises, but where the claimant is in Scotland and the specialist is in London serious difficulties at once arise. There is the question of delay before the examination can take place; there is the question of inconvenience; and there is the question of the expense either of the specialist going to Scotland or of the claimant coming from Scotland to London. There is also the possible consideration of prejudice to the health of the claimant if he had to travel from Scotland for a medical examination. My request to the Minister is that in these cases—they are only a limited number of exceptional cases—where there has been a remit to an independent specialist and where an examination is necessary and the claimant is in Scotland, the specialist should be a Scottish specialist in Scotland who would be nominated not by the Minister but by the President of the Royal College of Physicians or the Royal College of Surgeons in Scotland.
  The Minister may say that it might be considered advisable or necessary to have a consultation between the Minister and the specialist and that there would be difficulties if the specialist were in Scotland. But that would be treading on dangerous ground because, assuming that the specialist is independent of both the Minister and the claimant, it would be inadvisable to have any opportunities for persuasion, however peaceful, by the Min
  496
  istry, when there were no opportunities for consultation between the claimant and the specialist. The Minister might suggest that the examination might not be conducted by the specialist himself but by a deputy. There would be grave objection to that because where a difficult question arises as to the condition of the claimant, or the cause of his condition, it is important that the examination should be conducted by the specialist himself because if it were conducted by a deputy, the Minister would not have the best evidence available. The Minister might suggest that it is not advisable to have a Scottish specialist in Scottish cases. If that argument were put forward, the converse would apply, that all English cases should be examined by Scottish specialists. I submit that my suggestion would improve a very valuable piece of administrative machinery. The question is quite open as far as any statement has been made in Parliament. The question was raised in 1929, and the Minister of Pensions said:
  "It is not, in my judgment, practicable or desirable at this stage to define minutely the procedure on points which experience alone can properly determine."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1929; col. 966, Vol. 232.]
  In the following column of the OFFICIAL REPORT it appears that my hon. and learned Friend the Treasurer of the Household asked whether any arrangements had been made as to how medical experts would be selected for Scotland. Mr. Roberts replied by asking for notice of the question. The question, I understand, as a result of my inquiries, was never repeated in this House. That was six years ago. I hope that now the question has been raised again, my right hon. and gallant Friend will be able to reply to it in the way I suggest. If he can see his way to do so, I am sure it will give considerable satisfaction to ex-service men in Scotland.
  11.16 p.m.
  The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend for raising this question, if only because it is really important that it should be cleared up and that there should be no misapprehension whatever about the position of these independent medical specialists. To clear the ground, perhaps, he will allow me to say that there need be no anxiety what

  497
  ever about the care or treatment of ex-service men in our hospitals in Scotland. I have often visited those hospitals, and I have found the hest relations there between patients, doctors and nurses, and the staffs of the hospitals are doing all they can for them. If there were the smallest doubt which we wish to resolve about the nature of an illness or the kind of treatment needed for a particular case, we should not hesitate to call in from Scotland specialists of the kind needed, so that the fullest possible treatment is given and specialists from Scotland are fully available already for the Scottish cases.
  The point raised goes beyond that. It deals with the question of the independent medical specialist. In the great majority of these cases, there is no doubt whatever about the condition of the patient or the nature of the illness or wounds from which he may be suffering. The only point to be decided is whether the illness from which he is suffering to-day, the nature of which is fully known, can in any way be connected with his War service which ended, perhaps, 16 years ago or even longer. When Mr. Roberts regularised the arrangement which had been used occasionally he made an announcement in the House of Commons part of which my hon. Friend has quoted. Mr. Roberts, who was then Minister of Pensions, said on 18th November, 1929:
  "I intend, in addition, to secure the assistance of independent advice by the appointment of medical experts (to be nominated by the presidents of the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons), who will be associated with the Department in advising on all cases on which there is material conflict of evidence on the claim."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1929; col. 25, Vol. 232.]
  So far as any national question comes into this, we have about 11 of these experts. The number seems large, but the fact is there are so many difficult subjects which arise that we had a number of different experts to deal with the variety of illnesses and troubles from which the ex-service men are suffering in our hospitals or in other hospitals. Of the experts who have been nominated two of the 11 have Scottish qualifications which my hon. Friend recognises is more than a national claim. There is, in addition, another expert who holds the great distinction of being one of the examiners at Glasgow University, so that so far as
  498
  the Scottish outlook on these cases is concerned it is fully provided for, and we are very fortunate to have this Scottish assistance given to us in dealing with these Scottish cases.
  What my hon. Friend has not quite appreciated is that if the patient were seeking advice and he went to a doctor, and, not being satisfied, he saw an expert, the expert would be called in and would advise him on the spot, coming from one of these many sources which are available in Scotland; but in this case it is not a question of the patient seeking advice, it is the Ministry of Pensions seeking advice; and, as Mr. Roberts clearly indicated was done, and as we have invariably done, the expert actually comes to the Ministry of Pensions. My hon. Friend would not go so far as the suggestion that any pressure is put upon him, for of course we should not call him in if we did not want his advice. Could it be said that on a highly technical and difficult medical question he, a great expert, would be influenced in any way by what any officials or any one said?
  The kind of thing that happens is that some case comes up and we are genuinely in doubt about it at the Ministry. We feel that there is an element of doubt and that there is not sufficient evidence to enable us to grant a case. We cannot on the available evidence grant a case for pension, and we must have proper authority behind the case before we can authorise the expenditure of public money upon it. Therefore, sometimes, on the initiative of the Ministry itself, we seek advice, and these men come to us at our headquarters in London, and, through them, we obtain advice. I am not prepared to define now or to illustrate the infinite variety of problems that arise, but anyone can imagine for himself the great difficulty of associating an illness now in existence with any past war record of any post-war record of a particular man. Whatever the poblem may be—the connection between one illness and another, or a present illness or a past illness—we seek the advice of a medical specialist in London, because it is in London that the headquarters of the Ministry are. The hon. Member raised the question of a medical examination. It is not in every case that the expert examines the man; but in every case the expert does come to

  499
  our centre in London and give us his valuable advice. The expert comes to give us his advice, but whether there is an examination or not depends on the independent judgment of the expert.
  Mr. GUY: Would it not be possible for the specialist to send his advice by post?
  Major TRYON: That would not be nearly as satisfactory, although it would be possible for an expert in Scotland to send his opinion, in which case it would receive due consideration. What we want is a personal opportunity of putting our difficulty to the expert and getting his advice. The experts are perfectly free to examine a man, if they wish to do so; or, if they like, we are perfectly willing that the man should be examined by anyone whom the expert wishes should examine him; that is, a man of any position, and we would equally allow a man to be examined in Scotland or anywhere else by some recognised authority independent of us if so desired on the suggestion of the medical expert. The main point is that the experts come to help us in difficult cases. We want to see them and ask their advice on these cases and if we were not to have the advantage of experts
  500
  coming to us in London and advising us Scottish ex-Service men would be placed in a position where it would be more difficult to decide their case than under the present arrangement.
  11.25 p.m.
  Mr. BRACKEN: This is the first time for two years that we have had the advantage of listening to a speech from the Minister of Pensions. He is one of the least advertised Ministers and therefore one of the best. Anyone who has had anything to do with the Ministry of Pensions is grateful to him for the great work he is doing for those who were wounded in the War, the attention he gives to their case and the care he takes with those who are still suffering as the result of war wounds. I am sure that every hon. Member will regret that the right hon. and gallant Member should only make one speech in two years and sincerely hope that we shall have an opportunity of hearing him oftener, perhaps in a position of greater eminence in the Government.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-six Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

AGRICULTURE.
  BARLEY (BREWING).
  BARLEY (BREWING).
  BULBS.
  BULBS.
  MARKETING BOARDS (LOANS).
  MARKETING BOARDS (LOANS).
  MILK AND BREAD (CONSUMPTION).
  MILK AND BREAD (CONSUMPTION).
TRANSPORT.
  PEDESTRIAN CROSSING PLACES (FRENCH STEEL STUDS).
  PEDESTRIAN CROSSING PLACES (FRENCH STEEL STUDS).
  WESTERN AVENUE (EXTENSION).
  WESTERN AVENUE (EXTENSION).
  OMNIBUS SERVICES, FULHAM AND CHELSEA.
  OMNIBUS SERVICES, FULHAM AND CHELSEA.
PUBLIC HEALTH.
  SCARLET FEVER.
  SCARLET FEVER.
  DIPHTHERIA.
  DIPHTHERIA.
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (INSTRUCTION, JAPANESE OFFICERS).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (INSTRUCTION, JAPANESE OFFICERS).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  FOREIGN BRICKS.
  FOREIGN BRICKS.
  IMPORTS AND EXPORTS, WELSH PORTS.
  IMPORTS AND EXPORTS, WELSH PORTS.
  HIS MAJESTY'S JUBILEE (CELEBRATIONS, SCHOOLS).
  HIS MAJESTY'S JUBILEE (CELEBRATIONS, SCHOOLS).
  COAL INDUSTRY (EXPORTS; GOOLE).
  COAL INDUSTRY (EXPORTS; GOOLE).
  ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.
  ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.
  TELEGRAPH SERVICE (LOSS).
  TELEGRAPH SERVICE (LOSS).
  BETTING AND LOTTERIES ACT, 1934 (PROSECUTIONS).
  BETTING AND LOTTERIES ACT, 1934 (PROSECUTIONS).
  HOUSING (SCOTLAND).
  HOUSING (SCOTLAND).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, the LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

BRIAND-KELLOGG PACT.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention had been called to the Budapest Conference of the International Law Association held in September, 1934, and the articles of interpretation of the Briand-Kellogg Pact of Paris unanimously adopted by the conference, and whether they consider that these articles of interpretation correctly represent the effect of the Briand-Kellogg Pact on International Law and the obligations of this country; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Question and Motion that I have on the Paper relate to the Briand-Kellogg Pact, a famous document which was signed in 1928, and the interpretation that has been given to it by a conference of international lawyers, which met at Budapest last year, and which, although there was some difference of opinion as to various clauses of the Draft Convention, arrived at a unanimous decision upon the interpretation which they finally promulgated. The noble Lord who will reply to my Question and Motion should, I think, have little difficulty in doing so, because I notice that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the first time that a document was sent formally to him upon the matter, replied in these words:
"The exact fulfilment of treaty engagements is a matter which affects the national honour; precision as to the scope of such engagements is, therefore, of importance. Each of the suggestions made by the French Government has been carefully considered from this point of view."
Therefore the Foreign Office, before engaging this country to the Pact, evidently had given it the most careful consideration.
The point to which this Question is directed is as to what is the scope of these engagements. Is the Pact a vague declaration of good will, or is it a real advance towards peace—" a new ideal of nations, an era in world history," as it was proclaimed at the time of the signa-
1008
ture. If so, is it a change in the aspect of International Law and an alteration of the policy of the sixty-four nations who have adhered to it and who have accepted this Pact? If it is a proclamation of peace and a change of law, how is the law changed, and what are the implications attached to the change, especially in any action in which this country is implicated in the exact fulfilment of its engagements? Or, as a noble Viscount who does not any longer sit on this side of the House, Lord Snowden, wrote in one of the Sunday papers a few weeks ago, is it "a scrap of paper"? "The Kellogg Pact is a mere scrap of paper," he said. I regret much that Lord Snowden, by doctor's orders, is prevented from attending to-day, although he wrote to me a most kind letter in which he said he would gladly have taken part in the debate otherwise.
Now I recognise that a treaty of this kind cannot be construed in the same way as you would construe a contract for a cargo of wheat, nor I think in the same way as some of the innumerable contracts which have been registered at Geneva, generally upon legal questions, might be construed. It stands rather in an order of its own, with the Covenant of the League of Nations and the Treaty of Locarno; indeed, the Permanent Court of International Justice has pointed out that in the interpretation of treaties of this kind it is necessary to consider the social, economic and political circumstances under which they are in being. Therefore it is possible that the reply that is made to me will necessarily be somewhat indefinite as to the exact interpretation of this Pact, and will not dot the i's and cross the t's too much. But I would submit that the Pact must mean something. That is what these gentlemen at Budapest have considered, and upon which they have made a pronouncement. Many of your Lordships are well acquainted with the Kellogg Pact, but others are not so well circumstanced, and some may be inclined to look upon it in the same way that the old branch of Plantagenet Kings alluded to "the liberties and rights being given as in the time of our grandfather," without going into an inquiry as to what those rights and liberties might be.
May I therefore give some little history of this matter It was on June 20, 1927,

1009
that M. Briand informally sent the terms of a Pact to Mr. Kellogg in the United States. The terms that he sent for signature were those that have been adopted by all these nations, with one addition. The preamble describes how deeply sensible of their solemn duty to promote the welfare of mankind these nations were, and goes on:
"persuaded that the time has come when a frank renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy should be made, to the end that the peaceful and friendly relations now existing; between their peoples may be perpetuated;
"Convinced that all changes in their relations with one another should be sought only by pacific means and be the result of a peaceful and orderly process" …
and then comes the addition put in by America—
"and that any signatory Power which shall hereafter seek to promote its national interests by resort to war should be denied the benefits furnished by this Treaty."
It goes on to express the hope that their peoples will be brought
"within the scope of its beneficent provisions, thus uniting the civilised nations of the world in a common renunciation of war as an instrument of their national policy,"
and then states that the Powers have decided to conclude a Treaty.
That Treaty is comprised in three paragraphs only. The third paragraph is a paragraph giving the form of ratification. The first two paragraphs are:
ARTICLE 1.
"The high contracting parties solemnly declare, in the name of their respective peoples, that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another."
ARTICLE 2.
"The high contracting parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts, of whatever nature or whatever origin they may be, winch may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means."
It is on these simple paragraphs, the only change being in the introduction to the preamble, that the nations have come to an agreement.
There had been correspondence. It was six months before Mr. Kellogg replied. He then questioned the idea of a unilateral Pact between France and America only. He suggested that other nations ought to come France did not object to the other nations coming
1010
in, but they put in the word "aggressive" war, to which America objected. America took the line that an aggressive war was difficult to define, that it was not a provision which the United States considered would be of much advantage by itself, and that it would be better to put forward a simple Pact abolishing the institution of war. That was finally done, it being intimated by the French Ambassador to the Secretary of State that if one of the signatories should fail to keep its word the other signatories should be released from their agreement, and that the Pact would not deprive nations of the right of legitimate defence; further, that the Pact should not be substituted for, or take the place of, the Covenant of the League of Nations or the Locarno Agreement; and altogether that in that form there was a practical chance of its being adopted by other contracting Powers who might conic into it on its being put forward. These reservations appeared in a letter on March 30.
On April 13, the United States sent the proposed Pact to a number of nations—Great Britain, Germany, Italy and Japan—enclosing a draft. The nations replied in terms of a favourable character. The close of the German answer, which came first, was:
"This new guarantee for the maintenance of peace must give a real impulse to the efforts for the carrying out of general disarmament. And further still, the renunciation of war must as a necessary complement enlarge the possibilities of settling in a peaceful way the existing and potential conflicts of national interests."
Italy replied on May 4, Great Britain on May 19. Sir Austen Chamberlain, in his reply, put in a further reservation which was not alluded to in any of the subsequent correspondence, except in his own last letter, in which he said that he understood it was agreed to, being looked upon as a matter of defence. He said that there were certain obligations resting on this country which we must keep. He also laid stress upon the importance of the Treaty of Locarno and of adhering to it. He spoke about the position to which I have already alluded. He mentioned that self-defence was an inalienable right, and in his reservation, his most important reservation, he mentioned that
"there are certain regions of the world the welfare and integrity of which constitute a special and vital interest for our peace and safety,"

1011
that "interference with these regions cannot be suffered," and that "their protection against attack is to the British Empire a measure of self-defence." Japan replied that she took it to imply "the entire abolition of the institution of war," and "an era of permanent and universal peace." New Zealand, the Irish Free State, Canada, Australia, and South Africa all followed suit.
Therefore, it was heralded as a very important document by all States at that time, and the American Government replied, sweeping away some of the difficulties and mentioning the fact that, in their opinion, this Treaty would bring the world nearer to a practical fulfilment of peace than anything that had yet been accomplished. The reply ended up:
"My Government is confident that the other nations of the world will, as soon as the Treaty comes into force, gladly adhere thereto, and that this simple procedure will bring mankind's age-long aspirations for universal peace nearer to practical fulfilment than ever before in the history of the world."
On receiving that document, Sir Austen Chamberlain repeated his reservation, mentioning that he considered it self-de-fence, and on August 27, 1928, when the document was signed, M. Briand made a remarkable speech at Paris. I do not wish to tie French statesmen down too much to the actual words he spoke, particularly when he must have been so glad and delighted that a suggestion made by him had apparently borne such fruit. He spoke of it As "the greatest collective deed born of peace," and proceeded:
"It will be, I hope, no exaggeration to say that to-clay's event marks a new date in history-making… For the first time, on a comprehensive and absolute scale, a Treaty is truly devoted to the very establishment of peace initiating a new law and freed from all political contingencies. … For the first time in the face of the whole world through a solemn covenant involving the honour of great nations, all of which have behind them a heavy past of political conflict, war is renounced unreservedly as an instrument of national policy. … Branded with illegality, it is by mutual accord truly and regularly outlawed so that a culprit would incur the unconditional condemnation and probably the enmity of all its co-signatories. It is a direct blow to the institution of war, even to its very vitals."
He ended with an appeal of an emotional character:
1012
"And there is not one of the nations represented here but has shed the blood of her children on the battlefields of the last War. I propose that we should dedicate to the dead, to all the dead, of the Great War, the event which we are going to consecrate together by our signatures."
M. Briand was a very eloquent statesman and those are strong words. They were to a certain extent discounted by the severe criticism that came in shortly afterwards from the Soviet Government in words of pungent force. That Government alluded to the small reception that had been given to their efforts, first of all, for entire disarmament, secondly, for partial disarmament—efforts made at Geneva—and said that unless there was a limitation, the Briand-Kellogg Pact would remain a dead letter without real meaning. They thought it necessary to point out the insufficient definiteness and clearness in the first clause concerning the formula of the prohibition of war itself, this having the effect of permitting various and arbitrary interpretations. They referred to the reservation of the British Government, and said:
"By virtue of this reservation the British Government reserves a freedom of action toward a series of regions which it does not even enumerate. If it means provinces already belonging to the British Empire or its Dominions, they are already included in the compact in which are foreseen cases of their being attacked, so that the reservation of the British Government regarding them must seem at least superfluous.
"However, if other regions are meant, the participants of the compact are entitled to know exactly where the freedom of action of the British Government begins and where it ends. But the British Government … reserves the right to an arbitrary definition of what is considered an unfriendly act ' of interference,' justifying the commencement of military action on the part of the British Government.
"Recognition of such a right of the British Government would mean justification of war and could be a contagious example …"
In the last paragraph the note says:
"Summarising what has been said above, one must state the absence from the compact of obligations concerning disarmaments, which is the only essential element of peace guarantee, the insufficiency and indefiniteness of tin formula itself for prohibition of war and the existence of several reservations having as their object beforehand the suspension of even any appearance of obligations towards the cause of peace."

1013
These were the opinions that that Government gave upon the matter and upon that there came the question of what the matter (lid really mean. I would allude to some statements that were made upon it at the time. M. Briand himself later said: "La pain proclaimée, c'est bien, c'est bien, c'est beaucoup. Mais il faudra l' organiser." He did not treat it as final. Then, in 1932, the American Secretary of State, Mr. Stimson, made a very important pronouncement. He claimed on behalf of this Pact that
"war between nations was renounced by the signatories of the Briand-Kellogg Treaty. This means that it has become illegal throughout practically the entire world. It is no longer to be the source and subject of rights. It is no longer to he the principle around which the duties, the conduct and the tights of nations revolve. It is an illegal thing. Hereafter, -when two nations engage in armed conflict, either one or both of them most be wrongdoers—violators of this general treaty-law. We no longer draw a. circle about them and treat them with the punctiliousness of the duellist's code. Instead, we denounce them as lawbreakers. By that very act we made obsolete many legal precedents and have given the legal profession the task of re-examining many of the codes and treaties."
As to that last part that is exactly what this conference has been doing. The conference is one of International Law and is, I believe, sixty years old. It has contributed much in the past to the study of international Law. On this occasion it met at Budapest and was presided over by Professor Manley Hudson, Professor of International Law at Harvard University and editor of The American Journal of international Law. There were present several English lawyers, a Norwegian Judge, two or three Hungarians, delegates from Yugoslavia, Italy, Austria and Czechoslovakia and two or three from the United States. After debating for several days and, as I said, having some difference of opinion upon some of the points of the draft proposals, they came to a conclusion in which they said after bringing in a preliminary article which I need not read:
"1. A signatory State cannot, by denunciation or non-observance of the Pact, release itself from its obligations there-under.
"2. A signatory State which threatens to resort to armed force for the solution of an international dispute or conflict is guilty of a violation of the Pact.
1014
"3. A signatory State which aids a violating State thereby itself violates the Pact."
Then it goes on to state what may be done if the Pact is violated either by a threat to resort to armed force or by a signatory State aiding a violating State. They say that:
"4. In the event of a violation of the Pact by a resort to armed force or war by one signatory State against another, any signatory State, not being a party to the original dispute, may, without thereby committing a breach of the Pact or of any rule of international Law do all or any of the following things:

"(a) Refuse to admit the exercise by the State violating the Pact of belligerent rights, such as visit and search of blockade, etc;

"(b) Decline to observe towards the State violating the Pact the duties prescribed by International Law, apart from the Pact, for a neutral in relation to a belligerent;

"(c) Supply the State attacked with financial or material assistance, including munitions of war;

"(d) Assist with armed force the State attacked.

"5. The signatory States are not entitled to recognise as acquired de jure any territorial or other advantages acquired de facto by means of a violation of the Pact.
"6. A violating State is liable to pay compensation for all damage caused by a violation of the Pact to any signatory State or to its nationals."
Then it goes on to save humanitarian obligations.
The question is, have these gentlemen gone too far? Are they right in saying that a State that threatens in this way violates the Pact and that anyone who assists it also violates the Pact? I cannot help thinking that they have gone too far, and that the Pact does not mean so much as they have put in this document. It may he that it was a most useful matter for them to discuss, but when they made the great claims that they did and declared that it would affect generations to come, I think that what they decided at Budapest was rather too much. It is not for me to interpret the Pact, but after studying it as far as I have been able, I cannot help thinking that the real importance of it was that it was a declaration to the whole world that the policy of war was not one that the nations would pursue; that for the first time it brought the United States into the general view of that position with the rest of the important nations of the world; that it

1015
was in a sense less than the Treaty of Locarno because it mentioned no sanctions and did not say what was to happen in that way, except that it gave rights to certain nations as against a belligerent violator.
It may be, and I think it is, very important that the laws of neutrality which existed in the nineteenth and in the eighteenth centuries should be revised and considered with the utmost care, to see what difference there may be when you have made war in certain circumstances illegal, instead of its being considered a legal right belonging to a sovereign State, to be waged either by the will of the Sovereign, if he was an autocrat, or by the will of Parliament, or the decision of any legislative body that might have the power to bind a country. That is the real importance of the Pact. It does not mention any sanctions, as I say. It does not mention any method of settling disputes such as by reference to the Arbitral Court at The Hague or the Permanent Court of International Justice. It does not hint at anything of that kind.
It may be, as has been suggested, that it is a useless document until proper machinery for dealing with non-legal disputes is established. But it may be noted that Mr. Stimson, who was Secretary of State in the United States after the Treaty had been in force for four years, said:
"The Briand-Kellogg Pact provides for no sanction of force. It does not require any signatory to intervene with measures of force in case the Pact is violated. Instead, it rests upon the sanction of public opinion, which can be made one of the most potent sanctions of the world."
Surely that is the real effect of the Briand-Kellogg Pact—to interpret the will of the people to peace, to interpret the desire of all nations who adhere to it to co-operate with a view to peace, even though it is not being followed out apparently in some countries of the world. But once you have got that idea gradually gaining force, the Pact may become by the will of the people one of the most important documents of all those signed at the beginning of this century.
It is useless to prophesy, and I have no right to say what is the will of the people towards peace, but I can say that I have found in one serious international
1016
dispute and in scores, if not hundreds, of industrial disputes, that it is not the desire of the people as a whole to have war or to have disputes and a struggle to the death. They desire to live in peace. Anything that would bring the nations of the world to a better sense so that they should maintain peace—and I believe all Governments in Great Britain have been anxious towards that end—is an excellent thing; but it is not well to put into black and white obligations which could scarcely be fulfilled as a whole, and which might not be kept.. I am going to be followed, I believe, by my noble friend Lord Howard of Penrith, who will address your Lordships' House for the first time. He was Ambassador at Washington at the time the Kellogg Pact was signed and he may be able to throw some interesting light upon its meaning. I move for Papers in case there may be any documents in the Foreign Office which would throw further light on the meaning of the Pact, because if they could be published for the use of the nation as a whole, then the nation would not be likely to find itself bound by obligations it did not understand or faced by difficulties that it had not foreseen.
LORD HOWARD OF PENRITH: My Lords, I have never before dared to address your Lordships' House because I always felt that there must be many present who would be able to say all I had to say and say it much better. On this particular occasion I am afraid I shall be ploughing what one may call a lonely furrow, and my only consolation perhaps will be that I shall not detach anybody from the cause I am desirous to promote. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Askwith for the kind reference which he made to me in his speech. Although I confess that I do not entirely agree with his point of view with regard to the Kellogg Pact, I agree to this extent, that I have often felt that, perhaps owing to the very fact that it has no teeth in it, it is being relegated in public opinion to the limbo of forgotten and almost useless things.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Askwith, very much for at any rate drawing attention to the articles of interpretation of the Kellogg Pact which were arrived at by the International Law Association at Budapest. It struck me at the time as most extraordinary that these articles of interpretation, which appear to me to be

1017
extremely important, should have been passed over by the Press almost entirely in silence. That is surely a sign that public opinion is not interested any longer in the Kellogg Pact, and does not believe in it as a living thing, and that if we are to make it a living thing we really have now to take some kind of action in order, as the American saying is, to "put teeth into it." The truth is, I think, that either the Briand-Kellogg Pact is going to play a most important part in world politics in the interests of peace, or it will finally remain what it is now, unfortunately, generally treated as being, a very Utopian pious opinion having no practical effect whatever.
I agree with Lord Askwith to the extent that I think two of the articles of interpretation certainly go well beyond the meaning of the Kellogg Pact. Those are the articles which declare that no signatory State can release itself from the obligations of the Pact, and that any signatory State which threatens to resort to armed force for the solution of any international dispute is thereby guilty of a violation of the Pact and should be dealt with accordingly. I do not understand either of these obligations to be inherent in the Pact as it stands, though therein probably lies, in my opinion, a part of its present weakness, which causes it to be generally regarded merely as a pious opinion and lacking in all force. Indeed, if I understand it aright, each signatory of the Pact is responsible only for himself and is under no obligation whatever to take any action against another who violates the Pact. On the other hand the words of the preamble to the effect that:
"Any Signatory Power which shall hereafter seek to promote its national interests by resort to war should be denied the benefits furnished by this Treaty,"
mean that other co-signatories would be at least at liberty to take not only measures of necessary self-defence, but also (if I may call it so) such police action as may be required to cause the violator to cease from his illegal acts.
That seems at any rate to be explicitly stated in the explanatory Note addressed by the Government of the United States to the British Government and the other Governments who were being asked to join the Pact at the time, on June 23, 1923, before the Pact was signed. Mr. Kellogg therein stated:
1018
Firstly, that there was nothing in the Pact to restrict or impair in any way the right of self-defence. Secondly, that there was no necessary inconsistency between the idea of an unqualified renunciation of war for national ends and the Covenant of the League of Nations which admitted of collective action to end a war. Thirdly, as to the Treaties of Locarno, Mr. Kellogg pointed out that if all the parties to the Locarno Treaties were under any positive obligation to go to war, such obligation would certainly not attach until one of the parties had resorted to war in violation of its solemn pledges thereunder. It was therefore obvious that if all the parties to the Locarno Treaties became parties to the multilateral anti-war treaty proposed by the United States of America, there would be a double assurance that the Locarno Treaties would not be violated by recourse to arms. Fourthly, Mr. Kellogg likewise did not consider that the multilateral anti-war treaty could conflict with already existing treaties of neutrality, since no signatory would be compelled by it to take sides against a country with whom he had a treaty of neutrality.
Fifthly, Mr. Kellogg pointed out that undoubtedly, as a matter of law, any violation of a multilateral anti-war treaty through resort to war by one party thereto, would automatically release the other party from their obligations towards the treaty-breaking State. That is to say, if I correctly grasp the meaning of this Note, that any signatory may, as Article 4 of the articles of interpretation correctly states, without committing a breach of the Pact or of any rule of International Law, either assist with armed forces the State attacked, supply that State with financial or material assistance including munitions of war, refuse to admit the exercise by that State of belligerent rights, or decline to observe towards the violator the duties prescribed by International Law for a neutral in relation to a belligerent. This article of the articles of interpretation seems, then, to me to be entirely consistent with Mr. Kellogg's explanatory Note of June 23, 1928, which was accepted fully at the time by all the Governments to which it was addressed, including His Majesty's Government.

1019
We may, I think, therefore fairly conclude that the other articles of interpretation, in stating that any signatory may take any of the actions mentioned, which are those of a belligerent and not of a neutral, against a violator of the Pact, is fairly interpreting the meaning attached to it by all its signatories. What, however, the Pact does not say, and this the Budapest articles also most properly do not say, is that such police action shall be taken against a violator of the Pact, nor does it prohibit—and this is in my opinion a great flaw in the whole Pact—the interference by co-signatories with such police action on the basis of previously accepted neutral rights in war. It is hardly necessary to point out that such interference with a State acting in accordance with the provisions of the Pact would be tantamount to taking sides with the violator of the Pact.
The sixth point in Mr. Kellogg's explanatory Note emphasises the desirability of the new anti-war treaty being as universal as possible. Although the last point does not come into the matters treated of in the Budapest articles, I may perhaps be allowed to say a few words on, the subject, for it is one of the most important and novel features of this Pact and gives it its special significance for the future. It can forthwith, just on account of its universality, be converted into a real genuine shield against war much more readily perhaps than any other international instrument, treaty, pact or covenant actually in existence. It is this which takes it in my opinion out of the category of mere pious opinions, provided it receives some necessary additions which may make of it a power for the maintenance of peace throughout the world, and of confidence in security, which is without doubt the most important single factor for world recovery to-day.
It is curious that wherever two or three are gathered to talk of armaments and disarmaments, of economic disturbances and economic recovery, or to talk of international relations or of internal conditions, they almost invariably come at last to discuss questions of security and of confidence in security, without which no genuine progress can possibly be made. Particularly so is this the case as regards negotiations and discussions about disarmament. It has always been the French thesis that confidence in security must
1020
precede any genuine scheme of armament reduction for which every country in Europe, without exception, is sighing. Quite early in the disarmament discussion M. Briand or M. Herriot, I forget which, produced the motto, "Arbitration, Security, Disarmament." All nations hastened to make arbitration treaties with each other and deposited them at Geneva, where they lie. Did these produce confidence in security and promote disarmament? I fear not. Then we had Locarno, which imposed in certain circumstances the most serious obligations upon us, full belligerent obligations which the Dominions wisely declined to share and which may, therefore, easily cleave the British Empire from crown to heel, for we have yet to see a political Commonwealth that can be at once belligerent and neutral as regards another State. Yet has that produced such confidence in security that general reduction of armaments is in sight? Again I fear not. And now we have discussions about new Pacts for extending Locarno so to speak into the air, and into Eastern Europe, and into the Pacific. Will these all give us that confidence in security which is really the inescapable basis of disarmament and recovery? I rather doubt it.
It is difficult after all these set-backs not to become sceptical. The necessity of universality, which is the special feature of the Kellogg Pact, becomes with every new effort to avoid it more and more evident, while the prospect of attaining, by regional pacts alone, this confidence seems to recede ever more and more. I therefore venture must diffidently to submit to the consideration—and I hope the favourable consideration—of His Majesty's Government a very skeleton of a plan, a suggestion of an idea, which, based mainly on the Kellogg Pact, should also embrace the Covenant of the League and existing regional security treaties. Anything short of universality equal to that of the Kellogg Pact, which, be it remarked, we have all accepted, cannot be satisfactory, because otherwise it will always be uncertain that any country which adopts police measures against a violator may not be brought up against another country acting in defence of neutral rights as understood by the Law of Nations before the War.
Under this new plan for giving practical effect to the Kellogg Pact all that

1021
would be required would be a further Protocol enabling signatories to take police action against a violator without danger of interference on the part of other signatories on the ground of ancient neutral obligations and rights. It may well be argued that these neutral rights as between co-signatories have been actually abolished by the Pact itself, if we are to accept the view of such an authority as Mr. Stimson, former Secretary of State of the United States, whose speech my noble friend has just quoted. The whole of this speech is worth study, but the particular sentence to which I would refer is that in which he says that war
"is no longer to be the source and subject of rights. It is no 1onger the principle around which the ditties, the conduct and the rights of nations revolve. It is an illegal thing. Hereafter, when nations engage in armed conflict, either one or both of them must be wrongdoers—violators of this general treaty law."
He continued:
"We no longer draw a circle about them and treat them with the punctiliousness of the duellist's code. Instead we denounce them as lawbreakers. By that very act we have made obsolete many legal precedents and have given the legal profession the task of re-examining many of its codes and treaties."
Again, he said
"The only limitation to the broad covenant against war contained in it was the right of self-defence."
This right seemed so inherent and universal that it appeared unnecessary even to insert it in the Treaty.
According to Mr. Stimson, therefore, and indeed according to many authorities, the whole conception of war and neutrality since the Pact has been revolutionised, because any country using force against another for a national purpose is a violator of the Pact and, therefore, of the new Law of Nations, and so becomes an outlaw who may legally be treated as such. It is, undoubtedly, in deference to this modern conception of a 'preferential neutrality in favour of one belligerent as against another, that Mr. Eden, replying in another place on February 4 to the honourable Member for Hertford, made the most important statement that His Majesty's Government had informed the Secretary-General of the League of Nations that they were prepared to accept and carry out the recommendation of the Advisory Committee, to
1022
the effect that the embargo on the supply of arms against the belligerents in the Bolivian-Paraguayan war should be raised as far as Bolivia was concerned. This ends, once and for all, the principle of International Law established hitherto, and generally strictly followed, that neutrality implied inpartiality towards both belligerent—the open door, so to speak, to both sides.
Now this ruling, which has, I believe, also been agreed to by the United States, makes it clear that a, State, without becoming an ally or associate in a war, may establish in the interests of peace a boycott, or, as Mr. Gladstone preferred to call it, a condition of exclusive dealing as against one of the belligerents, thus cutting at the very roots of neutrality as formerly understood. Are we, therefore, at war with Paraguay? Apparently not. At least the papers have not reported it, and I suppose that if we were it would be what in the United States is called "front-page news value." I should have supposed that the Press, if it failed to scent out the importance of the Budapest articles of interpretation of the Kellogg Pact, might at least have realised the extreme importance of the consequences of this decision of his Majesty's Government and of the United States Government to jettison not only platonically but actually in fact the whole previous conception of neutrality.
They might even go a step further and deduce the necessary consequences of this act, for these fundamentally alter the whole code of law regarding neutral rights by land or sea. For if this act means anything it means this: Assuming that the Powers of the League and the Pact agree to practice what I may call exclusive dealing against a persistent violator or violators of the Pact for the purpose of re-establishing peace, which has now become a recognised common interest, and assuming that some country claiming the benefit of neutral rights insists on supplying both or either belligerent party with their needs and so helping to continue the war, the supplier must himself become, morally in any case, guilty of violation of the Pact and be liable to be treated accordingly. This point does not seem to have been sufficiently realised. Further, could we acquit those of violation of the Pact who, having solemnly renounced war as an instrument of national policy, should, nevertheless, for

1023
purposes of trade, have recourse to war in order to enforce their neutral rights against co-signatories who were engaged in carrying out police measures to restore peace in accordance with the provisions of that Pact?
The possibility of coming to such an agreement with the United States Government about neutral rights on these lines seems especially hopeful at the present moment. The Times correspondent in Washington cabled to his newspaper on the 17th instant that Mr. Cordell Hull, the Secretary of State, had at a public dinner reiterated the statement made three years ago by Mr. Norman Davis at Geneva to the effect that the United States was prepared, in the event of an effective disarmament agreement, to join a consultative pact for the maintenance of peace and to forswear any interference with collective action taken against an aggressor. In this statement, it seems to me, we have the framework of a Protocol to the Kellogg Pact such as I have suggested which, if universal or almost so, would provide a real basis for a genuine disarmament treaty. Only it would be necessary that the two instruments should, of course, be negotiated pari passu and signed simultaneously. Personally I cannot understand the mental attitude of those who talk about "outlawing war" and at the same time cling fondly to their old neutral rights of making money by selling commodities of all sorts to the belligerents, and so enabling them to carry on war till one or both are exhausted.
I hope I have said enough to show that the Budapest articles of interpretation are in the main justified by the correspondence that passed between the respective Governments concerned at the time of the signature of the Pact, excepting only, perhaps, Article 2, which laid it down that a threat of war constitutes a violation of the Pact. I may be allowed, perhaps, to conclude by repeating that some system of preferential neutrality seems to me to be eminently desirable in itself, in order to make the Kellogg Pact sufficiently effective as a deterrent to war, to act as a foundation on which to build confidence in security, which is so needed for a real treaty of disarmament, for general economic recovery throughout the world, and, lastly, but by no means least, to hold together that great British
1024
Commonwealth of free nations which is in itself one of the principal guarantees of peace over at least one-fifth of the globe.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, it gives me a sense of great privilege to be the mouthpiece of your Lordships' House in congratulating Lord Howard of Penrith upon a very remarkable maiden speech, and in expressing a hope that he will very frequently exercise his powers again, especially on this subject, on which he is admitted to be a very great expert.
One of the members of this important Budapest Conference remarked that the Kellogg Pact had two aspects. It might be regarded in the first place as a philosophical or moral declaration of the very greatest importance. When I say that I prefer to regard the Pact as a philosophical, rather than as a legal, document, I am far from characterising it as what my noble friend Lord Askwith calls a "vague declaration of good will." To my mind the moral aspects of this Pact are of supreme importance. It was a renunciation by all civilised States of the Clausewitzian doctrine of war as a legitimate continuation of national policy, and it was a most distinct reversal of the tenets of that school of philosophy which holds that the State is above morality and cannot be judged on moral grounds. For these reasons I conclude that the Pact has a very great importance indeed, and I entirely share the regret of my noble friend Lord Howard of Penrith that that importance is not more frequently remembered and realised.
In the second place, the Pact can undoubtedly be regarded as a legal document, like any other treaty, only of a more important kind. Naturally the Budapest Conference, being composed of jurists, concentrated upon this legal aspect of the Kellogg Treaty. But it has always seemed to me that the main flaw in the Kellogg Treaty, regarded as a legal document, is that it does not make any attempt at the definition of an aggressor. The representative of the Soviet Government made this point at the time when the Pact was signed, and I cannot but feel in agreement with that gentleman. It may be, perhaps it is, impossible to make a satisfactory definition of an aggressor, but surely it would

1025
have been very helpful if this conference of jurists had laid down some general principles, some considerations which ought to be taken into account by any tribunal which may be set up to decide Whether the Pact has been violated by a particular State or not. Such an approach would, I believe, have been of very considerable value. And I admit also the great value of the attempt recently made, again by Russian statesmen, to give a definition of the aggressor, though am far from suggesting that that definition is in all respects satisfactory. Our reservations to the Kellogg Pact do go some way to define what we should mean by a, violator of the Kellogg Pact, and to that extent have very considerable value. The whole subject seems to me to need very serious and earnest discussion, even if it is impossible to arrive at a completely satisfactory conclusion.
But when this is suggested, one is very apt to be told that an aggressor is a thing very hard to define but very easy to decide. There is a school of thought that considers that, in fact, when any actual case of war comes along it is perfectly easy for fair-minded people to make up their minds which State has violated the Pact. It may be easy to decide, but it is not at all easy to decide either truly or unanimously. We had no difficulty in deciding that the Central Powers were the aggressors in the Great War. The Central Powers had no difficulty in deciding that the Allies were the aggressors in the Great War, and neutral opinion remained, until at any rate the later stages of the war, very much divided upon the question. Again, we could point to a great many other wars, such as the Boer War in which the majority of our nation decided, without any doubt, that we were in the right, but most of the Continental nations were rather inclined to the opposite view.
And indeed, if this had been a conference of historians and not a conference of jurists, and if the question has been posed: Is it really easy to decide in any given case at all which State was the aggressor? the answer would have certainly been a decisive "No." And although those persons who hold the doctrine of the recognisability of the aggressor are perfectly entitled to point to Japan as an instance in which the League found found no difficulty in
1026
making up its mind, I must venture to remind them on the other side that think it is for two years that the League Council has been discussing the war between Paraguay and Bolivia, and that the League Council has only just been able to make up its mind which of those countries was the aggressor. The need of some kind of a code in this matter is intimately connected with the need of a court. One of the jurists at this Conference, the learned Dr. Paul de Auer, pointed out that so far satisfactory arrangements have not been made for courts to be established in the various classes of dispute to which the Kellogg Pact may be applicable.
With the permission of the House I will read a short paragraph from his speech. Dr. Paul de Auer said:
"It should be pointed out, however, that it is not enough to declare war illegal if there is no satisfactory provision for settling all disputes by peaceful means. Article 2 of the Briand-Kellogg Pact declares that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts shall never be sought except by pacific means. The Pan-American Conference at Habana in 1928 maintained that 'there are no international conflicts, however serious, which cannot be settled by pacific means.' All these declarations are of rather platonic value if we have not complete instruments for settling the conflicts by pacific means. It has to be pointed out that such instruments are not at present at our disposal."
He goes on to point out that in the case of the Arbitral Court of The Hague the usefulness of the body is vitiated by certain reservations, and in the case of the Permanent Court of International Justice the disputes to be settled are only juridical disputes.
In this connection I may mention that Sir John Fischer Williams added a desideratum, which was not discussed, to these articles of interpretation. He suggested, if I understand him rightly, that the World Court should be empowered to give an opinion, even in non-justiciable cases. That seems to me an experiment fraught with very great danger to the Court. It is asking the Court to undertake a, branch of work in which it does not profess competence, and to violate its rule of proceeding only in those subjects with regard to which there are fairly clear principles of International Law. Again, there is the League Council, and, apart from the fact that there are many States which are not Members of the Council I suggest that some con-

1027
fusion is likely to arise since the Council's main function, and surely its most important function, is conciliation to end wars or to prevent their occurrence, rather than the exercise of judicial functions. There may be a very real difference between conciliation and judicial functions, and I think most of us would prefer that the World Court remained primarily a conciliatory body. If I am challenged in this assertion that there is no adequate body to deal with the matter of defining an aggressor, I can only refer noble Lords to the very lucid speech of Dr. Paul de Auer, contained in the little memorandum which I have in my hand.
If I may turn briefly to a consideration of the articles of interpretation themselves, I would direct your Lordships' attention to Article 2 in the final text. It was Article 4 in the first text, but it is now Article 2. This article reads as follows:
"A signatory State which threatens to resort to armed force for the solution of an international dispute or conflict is guilty of a violation of the Pact."
A legal document of this character is of very little value—we may say of no value whatever—unless it is extremely precise; and it seems to me that the word "threatens" contains a great deal of imprecision. I am not quite convinced that even in the case of a direct threat the threatening State necessarily violates any moral principle. After all, we threatened Germany in 1914 that we would go to war if she invaded Belgium. I do not think we were guilty of any moral obliquity in threatening Germany on that occasion, and one can imagine many cases, even to-day, in which a State may legitimately threaten war.
Let us suppose that its neighbour has been acting in a very hostile manner for a considerable space of time, and let us suppose the neighbour refuses to submit the matter to arbitration. Surely the Kellogg Pact was not designed to prevent an aggressed State from threatening as a last resort to go to war to bring its neighbour to reason, especially if the neighbour has already refused to submit the matter to arbitration? After all, what does "threatening" mean? If the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, were here, he would probably tell us that the mere existence of an armed force is a threat to go to war, and he would be perfectly right. Is the mobilisation of the army
1028
a threat to go to war? Is partial mobilisation a threat? Might not manœuvres conducted in a certain part of your territory be a threat to go to war in certain eventualities? I see a very great danger in, as it were, complicating the already difficult task of the body that has to decide upon the question of violation of the Pact by adding this new and, so to speak, irrelevant consideration.
With regard to the other interpretations, with which I shall not deal in detail, I should like, with very great respect, to dispute the right of my noble friend Lord Askwith to describe them as having been unanimously adopted. If you study the proceedings of the Budapest Conference you will find that this is what occurred:—An article was read out and discussed and in every case amendments were moved—sometimes amendments to omit. In the case of Article 4 these amendments were discussed and put to the vote, and after the amendments had been lost the interpretation was carried unanimously. That can hardly be said to denote any real unanimity in the proceedings of the Conference. Professor Reut-Nicolussi made a very strong and very interesting objection to all the later articles of interpretation, and he made the point that these articles are not really interpretations of the Pact; they are really sanctions. Thus we get the article which permits a State to decline to observe towards a violator the duties prescribed by International Law. That appeared to the high authority of Professor Rent-Nicolussi to be essentially of the nature of a sanction and not an interpretation, and he reminded the Conference that it was of the essence of the Briand-Kellogg Pact that it was a Pact to which no sanctions were attachea.
The words of Professor Reut-Nicolussi are very interesting. He said:
"I think the reaction of the community against the violator of the Briand-Kellogg Pact is a matter for itself and cannot he confounded with the obligation of the signatory Powers which they took when they signed the Pact."
And he goes on to point out that it would be necessary to work for, a very long time before world opinion is educated up to the point at which a consideration of sanctions will be in any way possible. It is true that since the United States signed that Pact we have

1029
had the very remarkable Stimson declaration, but, after all, important though that declaration is, and though it seems to hint at some participation by the United States in measures that may have to be taken to enforce the Pact, yet it does not in any way commit the United States Government. We have learned, by bitter experience, if I may say so, to study the American Constitution and to realise that treaty-making power and power to make commitments with foreign Powers resides entirely in the President and in the Senate and cannot be alienated from those bodies. I suggest therefore that we should not give more than just weight to the Stimson declaration.
If I may come to Interpretation 4, winch is Article 6 in the first draft, it read as Follows:
"In the event of a violation of the Pact by a resort to armed force or war by one signatory State against another, any signatory State, not being a party to the original dispute, may, without thereby committing a breach of the Pact or of any rule of International Law, do all or any of the following things:—

(a) Assist with armed forces the State attacked;

(b) Supply the State attacked with financial or material assistance, includmunitions of war;

(c) Refuse to admit the exercise by the State violating the Pact of belligerent rights, such as visit and search of blockade, etc."

I am very glad that in the final form of this article the word "may" is used. From certain speeches during the proceedings of the Conference, I gather that some of the jurists present would have liked to substitute "must" for "may," in which case we should have got a very much more powerful article, but it would have involved, as might easily happen, the most distant States in local conflicts. The noble Lord, Lord Howard of Penrith, has told us we have to some extent involved ourselves in the Paraguayan situation, and he has asked the question, Are we at war with Paraguay I suppose the answer to that is that it does not very much matter whether we are at war with Paraguay or not. It is a matter of very minor importance, and even if Paraguay, being infuriated by the treatment which we are giving her, wore to declare war on Great Britain to--morrow, I do not suppose it would greatly disturb our complacency.
1030
That is not going to be the case in all disputes, and we can all imagine conflicts in which it would be exceedingly dangerous to abandon an attitude of the most correct neutrality. For example, if some strong naval power, or two great naval powers, were involved in a conflict and we were to take up the position that we did not admit the right of their officers to search our ships, would not the danger of our being involved be a most serious one? What would we do? Would we instruct the skippers of our merchant vessels to refuse to allow officers to board their vessels, to resist by force? Would we send our battle fleet to protect our merchant ships in those circumstances. And how long, in those circumstances, should we be able to keep the conflict localised? After all, these rules that govern the relations between neutrals and belligerents were drawn up with a very definite purpose. They were drawn up with the definite purpose of localising conflicts and enabling neutrals to avoid being dragged into hostilities in which their essential interests were not concerned. I feel that the greatest risk attaches even to the permission to abandon that neutral attitude. We have to remember that the great danger which confronts our civilisation is not a local war. It would be very optimistic in the present circumstances to hope that there will never be local wars again, or even considerable local wars. Our efforts should be turned unceasingly towards preventing all world-wars, and especially, of course, a war that involved Western Europe.
If I may call your Lordships' attention to one further article, I shall very shortly have done my examination of this matter. That is Article 5 which appears in the final text (Article 7 in the first draft):
"Signatory States are not entitled to recognise as acquired de jure any territorial or other advantages acquired de facto by means of a violation of the Pact."
If we adopt that interpretation it will mean, amongst other consequences, that we shall never be able to recognise the independence of Manchuria. We shall continue to have to treat that country as an integral part of the Chinese Republic, although every fact is contrary to that course of action. We are at present bound, or at least we are held to be bound by some authorities and not by

1031
others—I cannot say which authorities are right—by the League Resolution that forbids Members of the League to recognise Manchuria as a sovereign State. That Resolution can be rescinded, and I have felt for some time, in common with many other people, that there is a good deal to be said for asking the League to rescind that Resolution. We can hardly blame Japan if their citizens have certain privileges in Manchuria which, to some extent, interfere with the principle of the open door, and I do not know that it is a very pleasant position for our manufacturers to approach Manchuria through Tokio. Nor does it seem to me in any way helpful to the solution of the Sino-Japanese conflict.
If I may venture to direct your Lordships to an analogy in the last century, I would recall the case of Bulgaria. In the last century Russia established the independence of the Bulgarian Kingdom in defiance of the Concert of Europe just as Japan has established the independence, or nominal independence, at any rate, of Manchuria in defiance of the League of Nations. What happened in the Bulgarian case? The Powers were exceedingly annoyed with Russia. There were protests. Bulgaria was, for the first few years of its existence, practically a puppet state of Russia. But the European Powers decided that it was expedient to recognise the fait accompli. The Bulgarian Kingdom was recognised, diplomatic envoys were sent to Bulgaria and she was accepted as part of the European system. And with what result? With the result that before many years had elapsed Bulgaria had been completely detached from the Russian system, and to such an extent that Bulgaria was found among the enemies of Russia in the European War. That seems to me a considerable achievement on the part of the old diplomacy, and I cannot help wondering whether regard for world peace and for Asiatic peace would not dictate the recognition of Manchuria and all encouragement being given to the ruler of Manchuria to free himself from a state of servitude to Japan and declare that his sovereignty must be real as well as nominal, so that Manchuria might, perhaps in the course of many years, become a buffer state between Russia and Japan.
But on the general question that is raised by this interpretation, are we never to recognise a change of sovereignty
1032
compelled by force? What is to happen when two Powers are at war? We recognise at first that one Power is the aggressor, and we hope we may even take some steps to secure the victory of the second; but, nevertheless, once the first Power takes territory, and compels the defeated Power to sign a treaty of peace which contains a clause ceding territory, are we never to recognise that cession? Will not the results of that course of action be to breed a most bitter feeling of irredentism in the defeated Power? Do we want to encourage the sentiment of irredentism in defeated Powers? Cannot that line of conduct be right by the one test which ought to be applied to every policy—Is it likely to make for world peace?
I do not approach these articles with any feeling of hostility. I only beg that His Majesty's Government, as I am sure they will, will give most careful examination before committing themselves even to the most tentative approval of the articles. We do not want to win applause in this matter. We do not want to make a gesture which is not a gesture full of meaning. We should remember that our first duty is to safeguard the peace of the Empire and of Western Europe. We are deeply committed to making every effort to secure the peace of Western Europe, and I certainly congratulate His Majesty's Government upon the means which they have recently found to secure that peace. It is quite true, as the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Penrith, said, that these Pacts, this Air Pact and the Locarno Treaties, will not provide absolute confidence in Europe. Absolute confidence will not be obtained in international relations. Complete security is the attribute of the blessed in Heaven and is not likely to arrive here. But the virtue of these treaties is that they provide very greatly increased confidence—not absolute confidence, but increased and stronger confidence—in the ability of Western statesmen to maintain peace. They provide a very much larger measure of security than existed before. I beg His Majesty's Government to proceed on those lines which they have already adopted and to subordinate all other considerations, however theoretically desirable they may be, to this vital matter which we have taken in hand of preserving the peace of the most civilised part of the European Continent.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Askwith has brought this matter to the attention of your Lordships in order that it may be discussed, because I have held the view for some time that the Kellogg Pact has not received at the hands of statesmen, of international jurists, or of public opinion that sustained attention which it clearly deserves. It is true that it has been treated as having vital force in the Pact of Non-Aggression between France and Russia in 1932, in the Convention of London in 1933, in the Four-Power Pact, or Pact of Rome, between France, Germany, Great Britain and Italy in 1933, and in the German-Polish Pact of Non-Aggression in 1934. It may be, as was pointed out in the very illuminating speech of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Penrith, that the Pact wants strengthening. If so, I hope that the discussion which has arisen and these resolutions will enable some influence in that direction to be brought to bear.
The Pact itself is not an isolated event. There are three instruments in the post-War period of outstanding significance in International Law. They are the Covenant of the League of Nations, to which some fifty-seven States are parties; the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, to which some forty-nine States are parties; and the Kellogg Pact of 1928, or Treaty of Paris, to which sixty-four States are parties. In consequence of these instruments a profound change is taking place in international relations which will call for the building up of a new International Law. Article 11 of the Covenant has been tersely put as meaning that war anywhere is a matter of concern to people everywhere. This is the new principle which the Covenant has introduced into international relations. In the past we have proceeded on the theory that international war was outside the reach of International Law. Before 1919 the cynical attitude of International Law towards war was sometimes expressed in the maxim, "War is no illegality," and upon this basis we built a great superstructure of neutral rights and belligerent rights.
The aim of the Covenant, of the Permanent Court of International Justice and of the Pact of 1928, is to bring war within the ambit of law, and what is now proposed is that war under certain circumstances shall be illegal. For a State
1034
to go to war in former times was a perfectly legitimate exercise of a sovereign right. When this happened, a non-belligerent had imposed upon him by virtue of his status as a non-belligerent formidable obligations towards the belligerents, and formidable rights were enjoyed by the belligerents against him. He could not escape them. They arose as a matter of International Law at the outbreak of war. It is now sought to change this fundamentally. The violator or law breaker can no longer claim as against a non-belligerent the rights and duties of neutrality. To my mind, the significance of the Pact and the Budapest resolutions may be noted under three aspects. There is first the illegality of war as an instrument of national policy; secondly, there is the subject of sanctions; and thirdly, the question of what constitutes an aggressor.
The Pact, together with the resolutions, seeks to establish the illegality of war as an instrument of national policy. International Law did not institute war, which it found already existing, but accepted it as a brutal fact and tried to humanise it. As Westlake, in his "International Law" points out:
"The truth is that when war enters upon the scene all law that was previously concerned with the dispute retires, and a new law steps in, directed only to secure fair and not too inhuman fighting."
Germany's war on Belgium could be called illegal because it involved a violation of a treaty, but war as such was not illegal, for "War was no illegality." The Covenant made a number of wars illegal but left a number perfectly lawful. The Peace Pact of 1928 definitely made war "as an instrument of national policy"—that is, as a means of getting what you cannot get by peaceful means—illegal. It recognises a breach of treaty as an international wrong. The fact that over sixty Governments concurred in this makes it a piece of international legislation which approaches universality. This is a big step, even when all is said and done about self defence.
It was said, I think, by my noble friend Lord Askwith and by the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, that the Peace Pact contains no sanctions. That is perfectly true. There are no express sanctions. This is better, perhaps, than if it contained sanctions which did not work. But there is a very important implicit

1035
sanction and the main merit of the Budapest resolutions is that they bring this out. It lies in the fact that if a State to-day embarks upon a war as an instrument of national policy it thereby commits an international wrong or a breach of treaty against almost every other State. The infliction of a wrong entitles the injured States to take steps by way of reprisals or otherwise to secure redress and a cessation of the wrong. What steps will those be? Assuming that they are not participating in the illegal war in progress and remain non-belligerent, there is strong ground for contending that they would be entitled, as themselves injured parties, to modify the old law of neutrality in favour of the victim of the illegal war and against the perpetrator of it. This is the point developed in the resolutions. It is inconceivable that they would maintain impartiality as between the two combatants, having regard to the fact that the illegal war is also an international wrong against themselves.
So much for the injured States. Then what of the aggressor? The noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, has said that there no definition of an aggressor. I venture to think there is. The great merit of the Pact is that it evades the extreme difficulty of defining an aggressor, because any party which violates the Pact becomes an aggressor automatically. There have been since 1919 many futile attempts to define an aggressor positively. The Pact seems to do it negatively. I believe, my Lords, that the resolutions deserve general support. They stress the point that the Pact of 1928 has transformed the attitude of International Law towards the institution of war.
LORD ALLEN OF HURTWOOD: My Lords, I am bound to admit that as I have listened to this debate a sense of despair has come upon me as to whether we are fully alive to the valuable documents and valuable administrative machinery which are already available to the world for the purpose of carrying out the objects of the Kellogg Pact. When I hear these acute legal analyses of the various declarations of the Budapest jurists, and the noble Earl making us believe that we have no means of defining an aggressor, I look out on Europe to-day and I cannot but feel that there is a lack of harmony between the sceptical
1036
attitude adopted in this House and the urgent need of Europe at this present moment. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Askwith, brought these Budapest resolutions before this House in order that we may blame or in order that we may praise, but what I am anxious to do, if I can, is to bring this debate back to the topic which appears to me to be of immediate importance. The resolutions of the jurists of Budapest are permissive resolutions, and their wording if studied makes us realise that all that these resolutions do is to inform Governments of States what it is that they may do. They tell us nothing about what Governments shall do, and it seems to me that although it is valuable to have a clearer interpretation of the existing law, what we really require at the present moment is a far clearer indication of policy on the part of the Governments concerned and of the manner in which they propose to use the law which is already available to them.
I believe it was the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, who pointed out in The Times in those two distinguished articles of his which appeared a few days ago, that no fewer than 200 Pacts of one kind and another have been signed and sealed during the last few years. The great question at the moment is to what extent are we prepared to rely upon them for security. We shall make no headway whatever with disarmament until this question of security is dealt with and when we speak of security it seems to me imperative that we should realise that we are not merely thinking of French security, but that we are thinking of security for ourselves. Our own safety to-day is just as much at stake as France thinks hers to be. I do not suppose that any speech delivered by the Foreign Secretary of this country has brought to the attention of the British people so urgently as did his speech delivered by wireless a few days ago on the Air Pact, the fact that we need the assistance of other countries at this moment in order to promote our own security.
Let me turn for a moment, if I may, to the Kellogg Pact itself. The Kellogg Pact is a document of immense value. It has been frequently resorted to in diplomacy because it was supposed to be an instrument which made it more easy for us to establish a modus vivendi with America. So far as our Government was

1037
concerned, it was felt that there were difficulties in relation to America, and the Kellogg Pact was meant to be a bridge which brought the signatory States of the Covenant into contact with America. For myself, I believe that since the statements made first by Mr. Samson, then by Mr. Norman Davis and more recently by Mr. Cordell Hull, that difficulty no longer exists. Let us take the statement made by Mr. Hull only a few clays ago, and reported in The Times. From that statement we may assume that at present the difficulty with America is no longer a substantial one at all. Mr. Hull said that the
"four pillars of a sound peace structure are, first, renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy; second, the promise of 11 on-aggression; third, consultation in the even of a, threat to peace; and, fourth, nonintervention on our part—"
that is, on America's part—
"with such measures of restraint as may be brought against a deliberate violation of peace."
America has therefore on three different occasions made perfectly clear the direction in which her policy is tending, and with that in mind it seems that we are now able to return to the Covenant of the League of Nations itself, and that if we rely upon the existing Articles of the Covenant, as we can do, we shall not find ourselves involved in those difficulties with America which have hitherto made us feel that the Briand-Kellogg Pact was of such paramount importance.
What we need to do is to implement the Articles of the Covenant. May I venture to refer the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, to the existing Articles? First you have Article 12, which lays it down perfectly clearly that nations are no longer at liberty to go to war until they have in the first instance submitted their disputes either to arbitration or to judicial settlement or to inquiry. That is perfectly clearly laid down. Article 15 makes it perfectly clear that you could if you wished enforce a report made after an inquiry by the Cornell if it is
"unanimously agreed to by the members thereof other than the representatives of one or more of the parties to the dispute."
By this is meant that
"the Members of the League agree that they will not go to war with any party to the dispute which complies with the recommendations of the report."
1038
With these two Articles available, with the method of either arbitration, judicial settlement or inquiry provided for by the Covenant, it is obvious that a nation which proceeds to break either of those articles is ipso facto the aggressor. Moreover, we have had quite recently a number of workmanlike, attempts to translate that into practice, particularly by the Soviet Government, and these have become the substance of some of the pacts of non-aggression which have been signed in Eastern Europe. If we are to seek for a precise definition of an aggressor let us make quite clear that the aggressor is he who resorts to armed force and declines to make use of the methods of settlement which are laid down by the Covenant. Why therefore we should create so many difficulties for ourselves over this matter I cannot understand. The question is not whether we can design pacts preventing war, but what we will do with an aggressor when we find he is the aggressor.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: May I ask a question? Why, then, did it take the League so long to reach a decision in the Chaco War?
LORD ALLEN OF HURTWOOD: It need not have done so. The difficulty about the machinery of the League of Nations is that at the present moment we do not always take advantage, for political reasons or other reasons, of the machinery which is available. It is not the nature of the machinery which makes it difficult. What I think is required at the present moment is not legal knowledge but political will Power, in older that we may use the machinery already available.
Now coming to the point which is dealt with by the jurists at Budapest, these resolutions are permissive. What we require is a statement by our Government of its intentions. I would refer to Article 16 of the Covenant of the League, which lays down specifically certain methods for dealing with a law-breaker. Some people will say that force was never envisaged in the Covenant of the League, but that appears to me to be a confusion of thought. Article 16 is perfectly clear on this point, and it is there laid down that after a recommendation of the League the nations are entitled to use force. This was later

1039
defined in definite schemes as to how it was to be carried into effect. Since Locarno we have passed on to the new Air Pact, where we definitely intend to use force for the purpose of mutual security. It seems to me that in these League Articles provision is made for bringing pressure to bear, in some cases by conciliation and in others by force. In the case of the dispute between Yugoslavia and Hungary the former method was used, and in the case of the Saar, force is envisaged in another form.
The matter has been brought to a head by the statement of the British Prime Minister himself, when speaking with reference to the new Air Pact. I hope that the noble Lord who will speak for the Government on this occasion will make it clear to us that this speech of the Prime Minister is an accurate and definite interpretation of the intention of the Government with regard to the use of collective force, so far as dealing with an aggressor is concerned. This is what the Prime Minister said:
"So far from quick action now being precipitate action, if there is an aggressor State anywhere in the world, plotting and planning a war, that aggressor State knows that the moment it has sent its aeroplanes to attack its enemy then it will be met with a combination that makes victory absolutely impossible for it."
I notice that the Prime Minister used the word "world," although he was dealing with the Western area.
The Prime Minister continued:
"Therefore what we do is this, we set up by this agreement the most effective deterrent to an aggressor that ever has been set up by the diplomacy of nations. It is a great step to peace. It is a great step in making war unthinkable and impossible. Not only that, if the wars should come—and I do not believe they will, very largely on account of this—but if the wars do come, we do not stand alone."
That was a statement made only a few days ago, and it is a most complete justification of the attitude taken up by many noble Lords in this House, and many experts outside, that we can now deal with an aggressor. I should like to have a statement from the Government, not only as to whether they accept the interpretations of the Budapest Conference, but rather whether this precise and definite policy, which is represented first by what the Prime Minister has said and secondly by the Air Pact, proves that we do in future intend to use the autho-
1040
rity of this country, by collective action, to carry out the law as provided by the Covenant of the League of Nations.
So far as armaments are concerned we must either do what Lord Ponsonby has suggested with such sincerity, namely, come forward with a form of realistic moral pressure by unilateral disarmament—Lord Ponsonby was not even speaking on behalf of the Party to which he belongs, and he knows that no Government is likely to put that policy into practice—or use armaments collectively, and show that we are no longer going to stand aside, leaving the rest of the world uncertain as to whether we will, by means of Article 16, deal with an aggressor by a combination of force. The third alternative is no alternative. It is a policy of drift, where we do not define our position, do not take advantage of the moral gesture which Lord Ponsonby wishes to employ, but simply drift, which means an armaments race, ententes and alliances, and ultimately the disintegration of the League of Nations itself. I urge the Government to act now before it is too late. Repeatedly this country has acted too late on these questions, such as German equality, and even now we are expressing our approach to Germany with a lack of sympathetic certainty which we do not use when dealing with France. Surely if it is permissible for us to discuss policy with France in a bilateral conference, it is equally permissible to do so with Germany? Are we also going to act too late in regard to this question of the use of collective force, just as we were too late in regard to Reparations? I hope the noble Lord who will reply on behalf of the Government will take this matter much further than is suggested in the Budapest resolutions and give us a clear indication of the intentions of the Government, making it clear to the world that we are prepared, in combination with other countries, to use force collectively behind law to restrain an aggressor.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I could not listen to what has been said by the noble Lord who has just sat down without feeling the strongest sense of the peril there is in discussions of envisagement of war without a due sense of the responsibility involved. Really when one looks back to the Great War and the horrors which it entailed, and the

1041
universal misfortunes there were, and still are, arising from it, it seems to me a shocking thing that a noble Lord, with the humane and generous sentiments I know him to possess, should envisage war here, and almost advocate it, as a means of the application of force for the attainment of particular purposes of policy.
The noble Lord, Lord Howard of Penrith, said, as I think quite properly, that one characteristic of the Briand-Kellogg Pact was that it lacked teeth. Well, I cannot help thinking at the moment that perhaps it is just as well that the responsibility for war does not depend. upon international associations, but does depend upon the individual statesmen of countries who direct the policy of those countries. Here it depends upon the views and decisions of His Majesty's Government, animated by the views of Parliament and by the feeling of the people of this country; and it really is a great relief, when I hear of this possibility of the waging of war under the direction of the League of Nations, to know that we cannot be involved in war without a decision of His Majesty's Government to that effect, and that we enjoy the security we have heretofore enjoyed in that matter.
I really rose only to say that I do hope the Minister who speaks on behalf of His Majesty's Government will recognise how cautiously we ought to proceed in matters of this kind, and how we ought to hold aloof from anything like threats of war to other nations, either collective nations or individual nations. After all, our first business is the wellbeing of Britain and the British Empire, and everybody knows that during many years new sacrifices for pence have been made, and there has been the almost universal desire of the people of this country that, irrespective of what may be thought by others, we should maintain peace by every means in our power. I do hope that His Majesty's Government are not going to be led into the delusive course of committing themselves to take warlike action, where at present they are free to decide what they ought to do.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): My Lords, I think this House is indebted, and many people outside this House are indebted, to the noble Lord, Lord Askwith, for his very instructive account of the history of the Briand-
1042
Kellogg Pact and for his careful analysis of its central Articles, as well as for some of the opinions which he has expressed about it. May I be permitted also to express the hope that the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Penrith, will in the future give us frequent assistance in this difficult and delicate matter? No one is better qualified than he is by knowledge and experience to do so. I should like also to express the thanks of the Government to the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, for his very interesting speech and for his thoughtful criticism and suggestions. I have listened with sympathy, and I am sure that all your Lordships have, to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Hurtwood, but I would venture to remind him that his observations have gone rather beyond what is involved in this Question or what is set down for this debate. Of that I have no complaint to make, except to say that I am here, not to take part in a general discussion of the League of Nations, or the Covenant, or the Protocol, but to answer shortly, and as concisely as I can, the Question which was addressed to the Government.
The Question divides itself into two parts. Let me read it:
"To ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention had been called to the Budapest Conference of the International Law Association held in September, 1934, and the articles of interpretation of the Briand-Kellogg Pact of Paris unanimously adopted by the conference."
That is the first Question, and I will answer it first. The shortest way of answering it is in one word—Yes. The work of the International Law Association is well known and much appreciated by His Majesty's Government, and I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my recognition of the services which they have rendered in bringing into more orderly cultivation important parts of the field of International Law. His Majesty's Government welcome in particular the phase of their work which is under discussion in this House to-day, and they have noted with great interest that at the Budapest Conference the Association were able, under the chairmanship of the distinguished American jurist, Professor O. Manley Hudson, to agree unanimously on articles of interpretation of the Pact the name of which perpetuates the services to peace of two

1043
great statesmen, Mr. Kellogg and the late M. Aristide Briand.
So far for the first Question. What is the second Question?
"Whether they consider that these articles of interpretation correctly represent the effect of the Briand-Kellogg Pact on International Law and the obligations of this country."
I will endeavour to answer that. It is necessary to emphasise at the outset of my remarks that the Conference, whatever the weight of its authority, and whatever consideration is due to its conclusions, was a purely private and unofficial conference. Its members were expressing, quite rightly from their point of view, their own views: they did not necessarily represent the opinion of lawyers in all their own countries, still less the opinions of their Governments. The Briand-Kellogg Pact was deliberately drafted in broad terms, and its authors wisely declined to be drawn into attempts at precise definitions. While it is possible, as the Budapest Conference has shown, to obtain agreement on its interpretation among a group of international lawyers, it does not follow that all the Governments concerned would be ready to accept all the articles of interpretation which were adopted by the Conference.
I am sure noble Lords will agree that it is not desirable, in view of the far-reaching importance in international relations of the Pact which we are discussing, for His Majesty's Government to attempt to give their imprimatur to any particular article of interpretation adopted by the Budapest Conference, or to embark at the present moment in answer to this Question on any public discussion of the weighty issues which these articles raise. Let me remind the House of two occasions on which His Majesty's Government have made declarations or proposals with regard to the effect of the Kellogg Pact. In October, 1929, the President of the United States and Mr. Ramsay MacDonald issued a joint statement on the occasion of Mr. MacDonald's visit to the United States, in which they declared that both their Governments resolved
"to accept the Peace Pact, not only as a declaration of good intentions but as a positive obligation to direct national policy in accordance with its pledge."
The first paragraph of the preamble adopted by the International Law Asso-
1044
ciation at Budapest is in accordance with this declaration when it states that the Pact is a multilateral law-making treaty whereby each of the high contracting parties makes binding agreements with each other and all of the other high contracting parties.
I would also refer to the text put forward by the United Kingdom Delegation at Geneva, in the first part of their Draft Disarmament Convention suggesting the steps to be taken in the event of a breach or threat of a breach of this Pact of Paris. His Majesty's Government proposed that either the Council or the Assembly of the League of Nations, or one of the parties to the Convention who were not members of the League of Nations, might propose, in the event of a breach or threat of a breach of the Kellogg Pact, immediate consultation between the Council or Assembly and any of the parties to the Convention. It should be the object of such consultation in the event of a threat of a breach of the Pact to exchange views for the purpose of preserving peace, and averting a conflict; in the event of a breach of the Pact to use their good offices for the restoration of peace; and in the event that it prove impossible thus to restore peace, then to determine which party or parties to the dispute were to be held responsible. These provisions were not in any way to prejudice the rights and obligations of the Members of the League, nor conflict with nor limit the powers and duties of the Assembly or Council under the Covenant. His Majesty's Government have not attempted in the discussions at Geneva, nor at any other time, to give a precise definition of the effect of a breach of the Pact or of the measures which in that event the signatories could or should take. His Majesty's Government would not think it wise to do so now. It would therefore evidently be premature to express an opinion as to the correctness or otherwise of the articles of interpretation adopted at Budapest as to the effect of the Kellogg Pact on International Law or on the obligations of His Majesty's Government.
An interpretation of the Pact must find a measure of general agreement to have any validity or force; in the circumstances a detailed commentary on the articles would be rather out of place,

1045
and I only propose to make a few general observations upon them. The first paragraph of the preamble adopted by the Conference makes it plain that the Treaty is not merely a declaration of policy but embodies legal obligations, and as such it is in conformity with the statement, to which I have already referred your Lordships, made by the President of the United States and Mr. Ramsay MacDonald in 1929. As regards some of the articles of interpretation, the comment may be made that their effect is dependent upon the precise meaning which it is intended to attach to some of the terms employed.
In Article I, for instance, the statement that a signatory cannot release itself from its obligation to the Pact by non-observance of it is in one sense an obvious truism, but I am not clear whether any other meaning is intended to be put upon it. Similarly, the effect of Article 2 which, as it seems to me, is intended to be an interpretation of Article 2 of the Pact, depends upon the precise meaning to he attached to the phrase "a signatory State which threatens to resort to armed force," and a similar observation may be made about the word "aids" in Article 3. Article 4 raises questions in regard to the effect of the Pact, the position of belligerent and other States, which are of the greatest interest and importance, but into which at the present moment I do not feel it incumbent upon me to enter. Article 5 is apparently based upon the Resolution passed by the Assembly of the League of Nations on March 11, 1932. Article 6, while possibly a logical consequence of the Pact, is not necessarily a legitimate interpretation of it; while Article 7 represents the general consensus of opinion as to the relation of the Pact to such humanitarian obligations as are contained in general treaties.
This review of the articles, though admittedly a cursory one, is perhaps sufficient to show that, while in some respects they are conceived on generally accepted lines, in other respects they may possibly require further consideration. I do not propose, at present, to make other or more detailed comments, but I would make one general observation. The Pact has become, from its universal character
1046
as well as from the general nature of the obligations which it imposes, the background against which all the efforts to ensure peace are made. It contains over-riding obligations which cover any deficiencies or gaps which may occur in more limited agreements or treaties. As such, it has a unique value which in present circumstances can perhaps only be impaired by unilateral attempts to render its legal effects more definite and precise. This is not to say that the attitude of the signatories towards the implications of the Pact is not of the first importance, both as regards the machinery of consultation for preventing or terminating violations of the Pact, and as regards their position in relation to countries which may be involved in war in consequence of such a violation. These are questions that may ultimately be discussed and decided, but until the time for such a discussion is ripe, any rigid interpretation of the Pact put forward by one signatory might retard rather than hasten an agreed solution which would have such a vital importance for the maintenance of world peace. I should again like to thank the noble Lord who inaugurated this debate. I do not know of any Papers which I can lay before the House, but I hope I have given a satisfactory answer to the noble Lord's Question.
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack for the answer that he has given and I shall ask leave to withdraw the Motion in view of his reply that no Papers are available for publication. It was hinted to me that the answer would be rather indefinite owing to the fact that it would be inadvisable for one side to bring forward a proposal without agreement with the others; but I trust that the discussion here and the action of the Conference at Budapest may be indications of a desire that Governments and nations should proceed to follow out M. Briand's advice and organise further in the direction of peace.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past six o'clock.

CHICHESTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The Order made on the 6th instant discharged, and Bill committed.
NORWICH ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
  BURY AND DISTRICT JOINT WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]

    SEVERN NAVIGATION BILL. [H.L.]
    SEVERN NAVIGATION (CHARGING POWERS) BILL. [H.R.]
    STOKE-ON-TRENT CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    URMSTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
    NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION (QUAY EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
    Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; namely:—

    E. Effingham,

    E. Iddesleigh,

    E. Liverpool (Chairman),

    L. Abinger,

    L. Annaly.

    Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Thursday, the 28th instant, at eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.