Sitting of 30 July 1935

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Weymouth and Melcombe Regis Corporation Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered.
Motion made, "That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
King's Consent signified; Question put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS).
  Resolved, That the Amendments to Standing Orders relating to Private Business as set out in the Schedule attached hereto be approved by this House.

  SCHEDULE.
  Standing Order 5, page 94, line 23, leave out "set forth and specify," and insert "state."
  Standing Order 32, page 110, line 13, after the second "or," insert "to make, extend, or enlarge."
  Line 14, leave out "such."
  Standing Order 39, page 115, line 3, leave out "such."
  Standing Order 78, page 151, line 18, leave out "in case," and insert "if."
  Standing Order 86, page 155, line 7, leave out "In case," and insert "if."
  Standing Order 90, page 157, line 19, leave out "Two clear Days at least."
  Line 28, at end, add:
  "Provided that in the case of an opposed or recommitted Bill such copies as aforesaid shall be so laid at least Two clear Days before the Day so appointed.'
  Standing Order 156, page 181, line 14, after "examined," insert "and."
  Line 17, leave out "and," and insert "whether the same have been found to be true; he shall further report."
  Standing Order 157, page 182, line 4, at end, add "when reporting the Bill."
  Standing Order 159, page 182, leave out lines 13 to 17 inclusive, and insert:
  "In the case of any Bill for confirming a Provisional Order or a Provisional Certificate which stands referred to the Committee of Selection."
  Standing Order 255, page 240, line 10, leave out "and."
  Line 11, after "Bills," insert "and One Day's Notice in the case of Unopposed Bills."
  Line 21, leave out "every Private," and insert "the."
  Standing Order 256, page 241, line 4, leave out "every Private," and insert "the."
  Standing Order 257, leave out the whole Order, and insert:
  "Before the day appointed for the consideration of an Unopposed Bill by the Committee on Unopposed Bills a filled-up Bill signed by the Agent for the Bill shall be deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Ayr Burgh Extension, Etc., Order Confirmation Bill,
  Kilmarnock Burgh Extension, etc., Order Confirmation Bill,
  Troon Burgh Extension, Etc., Order Confirmation Bill,
  Read the Third time, and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  BRITISH ARMY.

    RECRUITMENT.
    Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHSasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the number of applications for enlistment in the Army during the past six months, and the number accepted?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Douglas Hacking): The total number of men served with notice papers during the six months which ended on 30th June last was 25,804. Out of this number, 14,043 were finally approved.
    Brigadier-General NATION: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the total shortage in the Regular Army at the present time?
    Mr. HACKING: Not without notice.

    BREN MACHINE GUN.
    Brigadier-General NATIONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what progress has been made in the matter of the new light machine gun mentioned by the Secretary of State for War in his memorandum on the Army Estimates for the current year?
    Mr. HACKING: As a result of trials extending over several years, the War Office has decided to adopt the Czechoslovakian light machine gun to be known in future as the "Bren" gun in place of the Lewis gun. Accordingly, an agreement has been made to use the patents for the manufacture of the gun in this country.
    Brigadier-General NATION: Is any change contemplated with respect to the heavy machine gun?
    Mr. HACKING: No, Sir; the Vickers heavy machine gun will be used in the future, as in the past.
    Sir PERCY HARRIS: Will a royalty have to be paid to Czechoslovakia?
    Mr. HACKING: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. CONANT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say where the gun will be manufactured in this country?
    Mr. HACKING: The new gun will be manufactured at the Royal Small Arms factory at Enfield.

  SCOTLAND.

    APPROVED SCHOOLS (SUBSEQUENT EMPLOYMENT).
    Mr. BURNETTasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has completed his examination of the records of employment of young persons released on licence from approved schools during the past 10 years; and whether he considers there is any general ground for instituting a more thorough and systematic supervision over such employments?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): I have
    2448
    received particulars relating to 15 schools, covering 1,799 cases of licensing to employment. These do not indicate any ground for anxiety as to the welfare of the boys and girls in question. Returns from the remaining eight schools are still outstanding, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend when the inquiries have been completed.

    HERRING INDUSTRY (ADVERTISEMENT).
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps have been taken by the Herring Board to carry out a scheme of advertisement in foreign countries?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I understand that the Herring Industry Board have not, so far, taken any steps to advertise in foreign countries. I understand that it is the view of the board that the diminution in our export trade is almost entirely due to currency difficulties and restrictions placed upon import by foreign governments. In these circumstances the board have not thought fit to expend their limited funds upon such advertisements.

    AGRICULTURAL WORKERS (WAGES).
    Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIRasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is in a position to inform the House of the results of recent negotiations in regard to farm servants' wages; and what steps have been taken to safeguard the interests of farm servants where branches of the Farm Servants' Union are weak or non-existent?
    Sir G. COLLINS: A scheme for promoting collective agreements with regard to wages and working conditions of agricultural workers in Scotland prepared as the result of meetings between representatives of the National Farmers' Union of Scotland and the Scottish Farm Servants' Section of the Transport and General Workers' Union was circulated in May by the National Farmers' Union to its branches with a recommendation that it should be adopted, but I am informed that replies have been received so far from only 48 out of 138 branches. The Union recently issued a further letter with a view to expediting the replies. As regards the second part of the question, no steps have yet been taken in the direction indicated but the scheme, of which I am sending the right hon. Baronet a copy, provides a means

    2449
    whereby local organisations may be recognised as bodies competent to act for the purpose of the scheme provided they are deemed to be sufficiently representative of the interests concerned.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: As there has been so little response in this matter, can the right hon. Gentleman say what further steps he proposes to take to stop the decline in the wages of farm servants in Scotland at a time when the wages of agricultural workers in England are improving?
    Sir G. COLLINS: This effort has not yet come to an end. So far 48 answers have been received and the union has recently written to the bodies which have not yet replied asking them to do so. When all the answers have been received, a new situation will have arisen which will have to be considered.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not satisfied that if proper protective duties were put on agricultural produce farmers would be able to pay better wages?
    Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: In view of the public interest in this scheme, will not the right hon. Gentleman publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the details which he is sending to the right hon. Baronet, so that we may all know?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I will consider that suggestion.
    Following are the terms of the scheme:
    Collective Bargaining in the Agricultural Industry in Scotland.
    The National Farmers' Union of Scotland and the Scottish Farm Servants' Section of the Transport and General Workers' Union agree to recommend to their respective branches that it is desirable to institute a scheme for the promotion of collective agreements regarding the wages and working conditions of agricultural workers throughout Scotland. Such agreements will have no legal force, but will be issued as recommendations to the parties concerned.
    The following is the scheme proposed.
    "1. Where in any area* the employers or the employés desire that a collective agreement
    * In the normal case it is suggested that the area should be a county; but in certain cases it may be found more convenient to fix as an area part of a county, or part of one county and part of another.
    ment regarding the wages and working conditions of any class of worker engaged in that area shall be promoted, a request may be made for the constitution of a Joint Area Committee, consisting of representatives of the employers and the employés. Such a request, if emanating from employers, shall be addressed to the secretary of the local county or area executive of the National Farmers' Union of Scotland (hereinatfer referred to as the Farmers' Executive), by whom it shall be communicated to the general secretary of the Farm Servants' Section of the Transport and General Workers' Union (hereinafter referred to as the Farm Servants' Executive). If emanating from employés, the request shall be addressed to the general secretary, by whom it shall be communicated to the Farmers' Executive.
    If, in any area, an organisation of employers or employés other than those directly associated with this scheme be established, it shall be understood that this organisation, provided it is deemed to be representative by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, shall have the right of making representations in the manner set out above to the Farmers' Executive or to the Farm Servants' Executive according as it is representative of the workers or the employers, and the Farmers' Executive or the Farm Servants' Executive shall be free in these circumstances to follow the procedure subsequently delineated in this scheme, the 'recognised organisation' taking the place, according to the character of its members, otherwise occupied by the branch of the National Farmers' Union of Scotland or of the Scottish Farm Servants' Union.
    2. On the receipt of a request under Section 1 for the constitution of a Joint Area Committee the Farmers' Executive or the Farm Servants' Executive shall consider the matter and intimate the decision upon it to the secretary of the other side, as designated by the preceding paragraph. If the proposal shall have proved acceptable, each side shall appoint representatives to the Joint Area Committee in such number as may be deemed by them to be best suited to the particular circumstances existing in the area.
    3. The Joint Area Committee shall hold office for a period of one year, any casual vacancies during that period being filled by nomination of the Farmers' Executive or of the Farm Servants' Executive, as the case may be.
    4. The Joint Area Committee shall elect one of their number as Chairman.
    5. The function of a Joint Area Committee shall be to consider any questions as to wages and working conditions in the area and any agreement reached on any matter shall be communicated to the Department of Agriculture for Scotland. Agreement shall not be deemed to be reached unless by a majority of each side of the Committee, the vote to be taken separately by each side and the result to be intimated to a reassembled joint meeting.
    6. In the event of

    (a) failure to appoint a Joint Area Committee in terms of Clause 2 or,

    (b) A joint Area Committee failing to agree upon any matter, application may be made by either the Farmers' Executive or the Farm Servants' Executive to the Department of Agriculture for Scotland for the appointment of a person to act as conciliator.

    7. The duties of a conciliator shall be

    (a) where no Joint Area Committee has been constituted to acquaint himself with the conditions in the area and with the views of farmers and farm servants and to report to the Department his views on any matters affecting the wages and working conditions in the area;

    (b) where a Joint Area Committee fails to agree upon any matter, to preside over further meetings of the Committee and endeavour to lead them to agreement. Should he fail to secure agreement, he shall report to the Department as in paragraph (a).

    8. Any report of a conciliator under this scheme shall be communicated forthwith by the Department to the Farmers' Executive and to the Farm Servants' Executive."

    MILITARY HOSPITAL AND BARRACKS, REDFORD.
    Mr. GUYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what progress has been made in the negotiations between the War Office and the Edinburgh corporation for the purchase of land at Redford for a military hospital and new artillery barracks?
    Mr. HACKING: No final decision has yet been reached, but it is hoped that the scheme will be completed within the next few weeks.

    PETERHEAD FISHING FLEET (DAMAGED NETS).
    Mr. NEIL MACLEAN(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that during the early hours of Saturday morning, 27th July, a large number of nets belonging to the Peterhead fishing fleet were cut adrift and damaged by German trawlers; whether he is aware that the damage is estimated at approximately £300; whether he is aware that the "Brenda," which is the fishery cruiser for the area, was lying off Leith harbour on Saturday forenoon and could not therefore be cruising in her area; what steps he intends to take to obtain compensation for the damage done, and to ensure that in future when any of the
    2452
    fishery cruisers are in Leith harbour, their area will not be left unprotected?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I regret to say that a considerable number of nets have been lost or damaged as stated in the question. The damage is estimated at £240. The "Brenda" arrived at Leith for coaling and other usual adjustments on Saturday forenoon, but the incident occurred about 60 miles east of Peterhead, whereas the normal patrol of the cruiser is along the three-mile limit. The fishery cruiser arrangements are at present under review, but the cruisers have no jurisdiction over foreign vessels in the open sea. With regard to compensation, so far as within my power I shall give assistance to the fishermen in submitting their claims.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Are we to understand that the German trawlers deliberately cut these nets adrift, and is there any dispute about that point?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I would not like to say, as I only got notice of the question about one o'clock. This incident took place in the open sea some 60 miles east of Peterhead. These incidents are sometimes carried out by one nationality or another nationality, and in the usual case under the Maritime Convention, 1882, claims are submitted to the proper quarters, and in many cases the men who are responsible and who do the damage pay compensation to those who have received the damage.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that the patrolling of this part of the coast by fishery cruisers leaves a great deal to be desired, that the "Brenda," this same vessel, was absent from this coast a fortnight or 10 days ago and was also in Leith Harbour, according to a reply given by the Secretary of State for Scotland, that at the present time another cruiser is now in Leith Harbour in dry dock, and will he take steps to see that the new marine superintendent to be appointed reorganises the patrolling of the area by these vessels, and see that they are on the job?
    Sir G. COLLINS: As the hon. Member knows, the patrolling arrangements are presently under review. They leave room for improvement, and the marine superintendent will address himself to

    2453
    this problem forthwith, and I might also mention to the House that a naval vessel has been sent to this spot forthwith.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    OIL EXTRACTION.
    Mr. GEORGE HALLasked the Secretary for Mines whether he can make a statement as to what progress has been made to date in the extraction of oil from coal at the Imperial Chemical Industries works at Billingham?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Captain Crookshank): I think I can best reply to this question by furnishing the hon. Member with a statement recently supplied to me by Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited. As the statement is rather long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. HALL: Is it contemplated that works of a similar character will be established in the other coalfields in South Wales?
    Following is the statement:
    Petrol production was begun on 7th February, 1935, and since that date a total quantity of 25,000 tons (7½ million gallons) has been manufactured.
    Deliveries to the Anglo-American Oil Company and Shell-Mex and B.P., Limited, who distribute the petrol through their organisations, commenced 9th April and 20,000 tons (6 million gallons) have been marketed to date, the balance of the production having gone to storage for building up working stocks, in addition to further large stocks of intermediate products.
    The petrol is taken over by the oil companies to the specification of their first grade marketed spirit and needs no further blending or treatment.
    Contracts have been arranged by Imperial Chemical Industries for the purchase of creosote oil and low temperature tar oils as raw material for hydrogenation at prices which should materially benefit the carbonising industries. The total quantity of these materials contracted for is based on the programme already announced of making 100,000 tons of petrol direct from coal and 50,000 tons from tar products, equal in all to 45 million gallons per annum.
    The coal hydrogenation plant operates in two main stages—the liquid phase or coal stage and the vapour phase or light oil stage. The operation of the former necessitates the simultaneous operation of the latter, whereas the latter stage can be operated alone on creosote and low temperature tar oils. Naturally, therefore, Imperial Chemical Industries completed first the vapour phase part of the plant and, as indicated from the information given above, production therefrom has been entirely satisfactory. The liquid phase stage is now being brought into operation and coal is, in fact, being successfully treated.
    As the mechanical sections of the plant become fully run in, the throughput of coal treated will gradually be increased over the next few months, and it is anticipated that operations on the full scale mentioned above will be attained by about October.
    The coal required when the plant is in full operation will, including that required for the treatment of creosote and low temperature tar, amount to well over half a million tons, representing the employment of about 1,950 miners. The number of persons now employed on the plant is about 1,000 and employment in secondary industries will be found for a considerable number of people.

    WAGES.
    Mr. GORDON MACDONALDasked the Secretary for Mines whether he has made any approach to the Coalowners' Association on the question of a joint meeting between them and the Mineworkers' Federation of Great Britain to deal with the application for an advance in wages; and, if so, with what result?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I have already raised the question in the course of informal discussions on other subjects with representatives of the Mining Association, but was given to understand that their attitude on this question has not changed. I am, however, addressing an invitation to them to meet the Mineworkers' Federation to discuss wages, and if such a meeting were to be arranged I should be glad, if desired, to preside over it.
    Mr. MACDONALD: While thanking the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his favourable reply, I would ask whether he is aware of the intense feeling on this

    2455
    question among the miners, and whether he will do his best to see that there is no unavoidable delay in dealing with the problem?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Yes, that aspect of the matter has been brought to my notice.
    Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider the possibility of urging on the owners in the various districts the desirability of setting up selling pools?
    Mr. TINKERasked the Secretary for Mines whether, when ascertaining the average daily wage of the mine worker, the overtime worked is included in the ordinary shift, or is it treated separately to give the indication of the amount per shift of seven and a-half hours with one winding time added?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: The figures given by my Department in respect of the average earnings per manshift worked relate to the ordinary shift only, overtime being reckoned as a fraction of a shift.

    CORONERS' INQUESTS (INSPECTORS' ATTENDANCE).
    Mr. TINKERasked the Secretary for Mines how many coroners' inquests were attended by His Majesty's inspectors of mines during 1934; and the highest number attended by one inspector?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: The number of coroners' inquests attended by His Majesty's inspectors of mines in 1934 was 854; in addition, they attended 140 fatal accident inquiries in Scotland, where there is no coroner's inquest. The highest number attended by one inspector was 44.
    Mr. T. SMITH: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman appreciate that the number of times that mine inspectors have to attend coroners' inquests shows that there are not sufficient inspectors adequately to inspect the mines?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: That does not necessarily follow.

    WELFARE WORK.
    Miss WARDasked the Secretary for Mines whether he will consider instituting an inquiry into the adequacy of the welfare work carried on throughout the mining areas?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I would remind my hon. Friend that the whole question of miners' welfare work was fully investigated by the Departmental Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Chelmsford in 1932, and there is clearly no justification for another such inquiry. I understand, however, that following upon the extension of the period of the Miners'Welfare Levy by the Mining Industry (Welfare Fund) Act of last year, the Miners' Welfare Committee is approaching the various District Committees with a view to having separate surveys made of the welfare facilities available in each district. I may add that a welfare organiser has recently been appointed for Northumberland, who will commence a survey of that district shortly.

    TRADE AGREEMENT (SPAIN).
    Mr. DICKIEasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that under the present trade agreement with Spain there is a rebate of three pesetas (gold) per ton of coal up to 750,000 tons of British imported coal, and that this rebate has not been paid in same cases although the importers have qualified for and are entitled to it; and, as this is likely to prejudice importers in favour of cheap foreign coal, will he make the necessary representations to the Spanish Government in order to obtain payment of the drawback?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I am aware that difficulties have been experienced in securing the payment of drawback on United Kingdom bituminous coal imported into Spain. As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware negotiations for a commercial agreement are at present in progress with representatives of the Spanish Government, and I can assure him that this matter will not be overlooked in those discussions.
    Mr. DICKIE: Will the Minister urge on the Spanish Government the necessity for effecting a permanent and satisfactory settlement of this grievance and seeing that a similar difficulty is avoided in future?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: The hon. Member can take it that we shall do our best to get a satisfactory agreement.

    MINES DEPARTMENT, ANNUAL REPORT.
    Mr. T. SMITHasked the Secretary for Mines when the annual report for 1934 will be published?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: It is hoped to publish this report by the middle of September.
    Mr. SMITH: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman issue this report as a Parliamentary Paper, through the Stationery Office?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I am prepared to consider that suggestion with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    OVERTIME.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is now in a position to say what steps he intends to take to prevent the excessive overtime that is being worked in the mines?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: As I stated in the course of the Debate on my Department's Estimates last week, I propose to discuss with the representatives of both sides in the industry the whole of the facts as disclosed in the reports of the special inquiries in Lancashire and Scotland. The problem is not, I am afraid, one that admits of any simple solution; but I feel sure that by mutual co-operation and good will a solution will be found.
    Mr. TINKER: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman look into the conditions in Scotland, where it is stated that 3 per cent. of overtime is being worked? Is it not a fact that a decrease of 1 per cent. in overtime would find employment for 7,000 men, and would not that be a big question in improving the unemployment situation?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I agree that this is a big question, but I could not accept the figures of the hon. Gentleman without further consideration. The House may take it that we shall do our best with both sides of the industry to find a remedy for the present situation.
    Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: Is it not a fact that 61,000 weeks' work were done by way of overtime in Scotland, according to the last report?

  UNEMPLOYMENT

    BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
    Mr. G. GRIFFITHSasked the Minister of Labour the number of claims for unemployment benefit which have been disallowed by courts of referees during the last two years and the number disallowed during the last six months?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Ernest Brown): As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:

    Number of claims disallowed by Courts of Referees in Great Britain.

    —

    Dependant's Benefit Cases.

    Other Cases.

    1933 (12 months)

    54,946

    416,761

    1934 (12 months)

    52,615

    402,510

    1935 (January to June).

    7,450*

    145,153*

    * Excluding appeals from decisions of Insurance Officers.

    In addition, during the months February to June, 1935, claims in 14,487 dependant's benefit cases and 30,041 other cases were disallowed by insurance officers, 406 and 473 of which, respectively, were allowed by courts of referees, on appeal. The figures are exclusive of claims disallowed under the trade disputes disqualification, the number of which is not known. Owing to the operation of the Unemployment Assistance scheme the figures for 1935 are not strictly comparable with those for earlier periods.

    INFORMATION BUREAU.
    Mr. H. STEWARTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the recommendation of the special area commissioner to set up a central bureau of information to which industrialists could refer for advice and technical data relating to potential industrial districts, not only in the special areas but elsewhere; and whether he proposes to set up such a department to act as a permanent service of the Board of Trade?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): This suggestion, together with other recommendations of the commissioner, is receiving consideration.
    Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: In view of the great unemployment in Lancashire, will the right hon. Gentleman consider advertising the fact that there is a special bureau for this purpose?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: We have been giving information in the Board of Trade Journal, and also through the Press. The best work in that respect could be done by the committee itself.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it proposed to establish a university, complete with supermen, in connection with this, in order to teach people how to carry on their business?

    ALLOWANCES.
    Mr. G. GRIFFITHSasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons in receipt of unemployment allowance under the Unemployment Act for the six months ended 30th June last?
    Mr. E. BROWN: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:
    The numbers of persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain, at one date in each month from January to June, 1935, with applications for Unemployment Allowances authorised for payment were as follows:

    28th January, 1935

    735,176*

    25th February, 1935

    738,267*

    25th March, 1935

    730,067

    15th April, 1935

    725,654

    20th May, 1935

    723,176

    24th June, 1935

    708,617

    * The figures for January and February include some persons, the number of whom is not known, with applications authorised for Transitional Payments, on determinations made by Public Assistance Authorities before 7th January, 1935.

    Statistics of the number of separate individuals who have received unemployment allowances during the period in question are not available.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    RETAIL TRADE (STATISTICS).
    Mr. MABANEasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) the total annual volume of retail trade for 1934 or for any other year;
    (2) the total number of shops in Great Britain?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I regret that I am not in a position to furnish the information for which my hon. Friend asks.
    Mr. MABANEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will address communications to the National Chamber of Trade and to the Federation of Multiple Shop Proprietors inviting these organisations to co-operate actively with the Board of Trade in the compilation of statistics of retail trade, by encouraging their members to submit monthly returns to the Bank of England in accordance with the scheme at present operated by the Board of Trade?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The sample of retail trade covered by the existing statistics has grown steadily under the present arrangements. I am informed that the compilers have for some time been in touch with the National Chamber of Trade and other associations, as well as with multiple shop proprietors.

    HOSIERY (IMPORTS FROM GERMANY).
    Mr. CAPORNasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that during the first six months of the present year there were imported into this country from Germany 860,000 dozens of stockings and hose, and that these imports are being subsidised directly and indirectly by the German State; and what action he proposes to take to safeguard British interests?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Imports of stockings and hose of cotton and artificial silk from Germany were smaller in the first six months of this year than in the corresponding period of either of the two preceding years. I have no reason to think that the existing procedure is not sufficient to safeguard British interests.

    BALANCE OF PAYMENTS.
    Mr. CAPORNasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the balance of payments

    2461
    between this country, Japan, and the United States of America, respectively, for the latest known period was adverse to this country; and what action does he propose to take to secure a balance more satisfactory to employment in this country?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: So far as I am aware, no estimate of the balance of payments with these countries has been made. The recorded imports of merchandise from the United States have exceeded the recorded exports for over 50 years, and in the case of Japan there has been an excess of imports in each of the past four years. I can assure my hon. Friend that the situation is under constant review with the object of increasing the export of United Kingdom goods to all overseas markets, including the United States and Japan.

    INDUSTRIAL SURVEY.
    Dr. WILLIAM McLEANasked the President of the Board of Trade when he will give to the House the results of the survey of industrial development in the United Kingdom during 1934; and whether these results will be related to the 1933 surveys, so as to indicate the trends and tendencies in development?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The report on the Survey of Industrial Development for 1934, which is now being printed, will be published as a Stationery Office paper within the next week or so, and I will send my hon. Friend a copy. The particulars given will include comparisons with the material collected in respect of 1933.
    Dr. McLEAN: In view of the importance of this report and this survey to town planning, road schemes and housing schemes, would the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that they are communicated to his colleagues who are in charge of those developments?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no doubt that they will be aware of the question and of the answer to it.

    ARMAMENTS (EXPORT LICENCES).
    Mr. PALINGasked the President of the Board of Trade the value of the armament used for aerial warfare covered by export licences issued during the period 1st June, 1934, to 31st May, 1935?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Export licences for aircraft armament, including bombs, were
    2462
    issued during the year ended 31st May, 1935, for material to the value of £131,763.
    Mr. PALINGasked the President of the Board of Trade to what countries the armaments used for aerial warfare covered by export licences issued during the period 1st June, 1934, to 31st May, 1935, were exported and, in particular, the destination of the machine-guns and bombs included in such exports?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving the desired information.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Are many of those countries Empire countries?
    Following is the statement:

    STATEMENT showing the intended destinations of aircraft armament, including bombs, covered by export licences issued during the year ended 31st May, 1935, and also separately the intended destinations of the machine guns and bombs covered by those licences.

    Aircraft armament (including machine guns and bombs).

    Argentina.

    Portugal.

    Belgium.

    Poland.

    Brazil.

    Peru.

    Chile.

    Switzerland.

    Denmark.

    Siam.

    Egypt.

    San Salvador.

    Estonia.

    Spain.

    Finland.

    Sante Domingo.

    Greece.

    Sweden.

    Holland.

    Turkey.

    Iran.

    United States of America.

    Japan.

    Latvia.

    Venezuela.

    Norway.

    Yugoslavia.

    Machine Guns.

    Argentina.

    Peru.

    Denmark.

    United States of America.

    Greece.

    Holland.

    Siam.

    Iran.

    Spain.

    Japan.

    Sante Domingo.

    Latvia.

    Switzerland.

    Norway.

    Venezuela.

    Portugal.

    Yugoslavia.

    Bombs.

    Denmark.

    Japan.

    Greece.

    Norway.

    Holland.

    Portugal.

    Iran.

    MOTOR CARS (IMPORTS FROM UNITED STATES).
    Mr. CAPORNasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of motor cars and chassis with engines imported into this country from the United States of America during the first six months of 1935; and what action he proposes to take to safeguard British interests?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): During the first six months of 1935, 3,698 motor vehicles and 1,430 chassis with engines, were imported from the United States of America. As regards the latter part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hanley (Mr. Hales) on 21st May.
    Mr. CAPORN: In view of the fact disclosed by the President of the Board of Trade a few moments ago of the vast difference between imports from America and exports to America, does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that this would be a very good opportunity for trying the effect of a tariff?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I was under the impression that there was a tariff.
    Mr. CAPORN: A ruthless one.

  AFFORESTATION.
  Mr. THORNEasked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, the reason why the Forestry Commission are not prepared to alter their rearranged programme so as to put more land under afforestation and thereby help to relieve unemployment in the distressed areas, where it is stated under paragraph 120 in the Commissioner's report for the special areas that there are 300,000 acres available adjacent to South Wales alone; and whether, seeing that within the next 20 or 30 years a world shortage of timber is anticipated, he will inform the House why the conferences between the Commissioner for the special areas and the Forestry Commissioners did not meet with any results?
  Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE (Forestry Commissioner): The Forestry Commissioners' primary duty is to promote the production of timber, which
  2464
  they do, within the limit of moneys voted to the Forestry Fund, by afforesting the most suitable land which they can acquire in Great Britain. It has to be recognised that owing to smoke, and other causes arising out of industrialisation, trees do not grow as well in the special areas as in many other parts of the country. It is therefore impracticable for the Commissioners to concentrate their programme in the immediate vicinity of these areas. Somewhat further afield, for example, in the Border country, Cumberland and Carmarthen-shire, extensive afforestation operations are in progress. With regard to the Special Commissioner's estimate that there are 300,000 acres prima facie suitable for afforestation in South Wales, I would point out that for the reasons indicated, and on account of the existence of common rights, the area suitable and available is very much smaller in extent. There are already 12 forest units in or near the South Wales special area. The Forestry Commissioners on their part do desire to acquire further areas of land reasonably suitable for afforestation and have made, and are making, inquiries to that end.
  Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Is it not the case that in special areas of Scotland there are large tracts of country that are not subject to smoke from industrial areas, and would not the proposal be quite feasible there? I refer to Lanarkshire and round about the shores of Loch Lomond.
  Sir G. COURTHOPE: That may be so, but I could not give such details without notice.
  Mr. LECKIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the recommendations of the Forestry Commissioners referred to on pages 19 and 20 of their Fifteenth Annual Report recently issued; and what steps he proposes to take to implement them, in view of the urgent importance of encouraging forestry in this country?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Discussions are proceeding on the question of the financial provision to be made for the programme of the Forestry Commission for the period subsequent to 31st March. 1937, and I hope to reach a decision very shortly.

  AVIATION.

    MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (LANDING FACILITIES).
    Mr. EVERARDasked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in order to reduce the cost to the Exchequer of Members travelling by air or railway, he will grant free landing facilities for Members of Parliament who use their own machines at Hendon aerodrome in view of its proximity to the Houses of Parliament?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): I am afraid that for several reasons my hon. Friend's suggestion presents serious difficulties.
    Mr. EVERARD: Is it not because there is a large amount of flying? Is it not also a fact that to get to Heston you have to fly right over the House of Commons, and that more flying takes place at Heston than at Hendon?
    Sir P. SASSOON: There are a good many Service squadrons.

    ACCIDENTS.
    Mr. LECKIEasked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the dissatisfaction which exists with the present machinery for inquiry into civil flying accidents, he will consider the setting up of a board of impartial experts whose duty it would be to hold public inquiries into all fatal accidents in connection with civil aviation?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I am not aware of any such dissatisfaction as the hon. Member suggests, and I think it will be generally agreed that the most complete arrangements already exist to insure a thorough investigation of all cases. Under the existing arrangements accidents can be investigated not only, as in the normal case, by the Inspector of Accidents, but also by a specially constituted court, sitting in public; or, if the cause is obscure and requires scientific investigation, by such a body as the Aeronautical Research Committee. Both these latter methods have been employed where circumstances have warranted. Accordingly, I see no reason for altering the present arrangements.
    Mr. EVERARD: When does the Minister think that the report of the inspector into the recent accident at Heston will be published?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE (NEW AUXILIARY SQUADRONS).
  Mr. EVERARDasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is now able to state where the three new auxiliary squadrons will be located?
  Sir P. SASSOON: I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

  TRANSPORT.

    SPEED LIMIT, STOKE-ON-TRENT.
    Mrs. COPELANDasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that several roads leading to the city of Stoke-on-Trent have been restricted to 30 miles per hour, even though there are no lamps or houses on either side of these roads; and, in view of the inconvenience and loss of time caused to people in the neighbourhood who have business in the city, will he take steps to get these road de-restricted?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Captain Austin Hudson): I have already received representations in respect of the application of the 30-miles-an-hour speed limit to certain roads leading to Stoke-on-Trent, and am in communication with the city council on the matter. If my hon. Friend will give me particulars of the roads she has in mind, I will cause further inquiries to be made.
    Sir W. BRASS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Act never intended that the roads mentioned in this question should be restricted, and will he inform the local authorities on that point?
    Captain HUDSON: We are in communication with the council of Stoke-on-Trent on the matter.

    OMNIBUS SERVICES (BUCKINGHAMSHIRE).
    Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOXasked the Minister of Transport whether he will send down an official from the Ministry to inquire into the alterations in the omnibus services carried out by the London Transport Board in the Slough, Langley, Stoke Poges, and Farnham (Bucks) districts which brought about a failure of the service and are causing general discontent?
    Captain HUDSON: Parliament has given my right hon. Friend no control over the frequency and timings of the services operated by the London Passenger Transport Board. I understand that they have already met a number of complaints which were made in respect of the revision of omnibus services in the Slough, Langley, Stoke Poges and Farnham districts and that other criticisms are still being investigated with a view to further adjustments being made where necessary.
    Sir A. KNOX: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that residents in these areas are not satisfied with the changes that are being made and have repeatedly applied to the London Passenger Transport Board; and that the Board, like other monopolies, have not a soul to save or a body to kick?
    Captain HUDSON: I understand that representations were made on 3rd July and as late as 17th July, which ought to improve the services further.
    Sir A. KNOX: Does the Minister realise that the latter complaint was made on 27th July and that these people who bought their houses in the district are unable to ride to their work in London and are absolutely stranded?
    Captain HUDSON: I received a deputation on this subject only last week.

  MILK MARKETING SCHEMES (POLLS).
  Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Minister of Agriculture whether the vote taken at the inception of the milk boards was taken according to the number of milk producers or according to the number of their cows?
  The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): The number of registered producers voting, and the quantity of milk they were capable of producing (which was represented by the number of milch cows in the possession of each voter on a stated date), were both taken into account in determining the results of the initial polls on the Milk Marketing Schemes. This was in pursuance of Section 3 (2) of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, which provides that a scheme lapses unless on the initial poll there have voted in favour of the scheme not less
  2468
  than two-thirds of the total number of registered producers voting, and also registered producers who are capable of producing not less than two-thirds of the quantity of the regulated product which all the registered producers voting on the poll are capable of producing. The votes in favour of the English Milk Marketing Scheme on the initial poll were 96.4 per cent. on the basis of numbers voting, and 96.6 per cent. on the basis of capacity. The corresponding figures were in the ease of the Scottish Milk Marketing Scheme 77 per cent. and 78 per cent.; the Aberdeen Scheme 79 per cent. and 87 per cent., and the North of Scotland Scheme 72 per cent. and 75.8 per cent.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it the case that, in the new poll that is to be taken, voters are to vote in accordance with the number of their cows, as has been stated in the Press?
  Mr. ELLIOT: No, Sir. As in the case of the initial poll, both the numbers voting and the quantity of the product will be taken into account in computing the poll.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: When a man has a few cows, which may represent his all, is not this question just as important for him as for the man with a number of cows? Should there not be one man one vote?
  Mr. ELLIOT: No doubt it is important to the small man, but it is also vitally important that we should know the quantity of milk which is likely to be on the market, since that is what finally determines the price of the milk, and not the number of persons producing it.

  GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS.

    MR. ELLIOT'S STATEMENT.
    Colonel Sir EDWARD RUGGLES-BRISEasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to announce the decision of the Government as to the future of the sugar-beet industry?
    Mr. ELLIOT: Yes, Sir. I hope to make a statement, by leave of the House, at the end of Questions.
    Later:
    Mr. ELLIOT: The Government have given careful consideration to the reports of the Committee presided over by Mr. Wilfrid Greene, K.C. These reports have been of the greatest assistance to them in the determination of their sugar policy. The conclusions which the Government have reached, and the financial and administrative arrangements which will be necessary to give effect to them, are as follow:
    It is desirable, on agricultural grounds, to continue to assist the beet sugar industry without any limitation of the period during which assisance may be given. It is necessary, however, to set a limit to the volume of directly assisted production. The limit will be the equivalent of 560,000 tons of white sugar, which is the estimated produce of the 1935 crop. It is proposed to appoint an independent Sugar Commission to be entrusted with such powers in relation to the sugar-beet industry as may be necessary for the carrying out of the Government's policy. It has been decided to adopt the recommendation of the Greene Committee that the beet sugar factory companies should be amalgamated in a single Corporation.
    The Beet Sugar Factories Committee, representing all the beet sugar companies, have informed the Government that they are prepared to recommend in principle to the Boards of the respective companies that an amalgamation scheme should be prepared and submitted as soon as possible to the Sugar Commission, and, if approved by them, to the Government. The Factories Committee are of opinion that if the Amalgamated Corporation is to be formed, it should become operative before 1st April, 1936. In order to facilitate procedure, the Government propose to set up an informal tribunal to advise them upon any scheme of amalgamation which the factories may submit for approval.
    The financial arrangements which the Government propose are based on the assumption that, as from 1st April, 1936, there will be a transitional period of not more than five years. During this period, assistance will be given upon a diminishing scale based upon certain standard levels for the world price of sugar, the price of beet and other factors, and liable to variation with any variation from those standards. Subsequently, the basic rate
    2470
    of assistance will be subject to review at triennial intervals. The basic rate of assistance for 1936, adjusted for the price of beet to which I shall next refer, will be reduced to 5s. 3d. per cwt. of white sugar. The price to be paid for sugar beet sown in 1936 is to be 35s. and 36s. per ton respectively, delivered to factories that are paying 36s. and 38s. per ton under current contracts. In the case of beet for the Cupar factory, the contract price will be 34s. per ton, payable free on rail as at present. These prices assume a factory output of not more than the equivalent of 560,000 tons of white sugar. The beet price in 1937 and subsequent years, and the terms and conditions of the contract, will be matters for negotiation between the Amalgamated Corporation and the growers and in the event of failure to agree will be referred to the Sugar Commission. The acreage to be contracted for in any year will be subject to a maximum limit to be approved by the Sugar Commission.
    For the purpose of their immediate sugar policy, the Government do not propose to make any change in the details of the Customs, Excise or subsidy scales. They have, however, aimed at securing the financial effects, as regards all the interests concerned, which it is reasonable to expect would have followed from the adoption of the Greene Committee's recommendations with regard to the regulation of refined sugar production as between the beet sugar factories and the refineries. The refiners have undertaken to enter into a new agreement with the factories, under which the factories shall be allowed quota rights for the production of white sugar up to a total of 720,000 tons per annum, but during the currency of the agreement the annual white sugar production of the factories will not exceed 500,000 tons. In return, the refiners have agreed to purchase all quota rights offered to them at a stated price.
    The Government have also reviewed the international sugar situation. They believe that the various producing countries can only set their sugar industries upon an economic basis by means of an international agreement for the adjustment of supplies to the requirements of the world market. State assistance being diminished as market conditions improve. The Government's domestic policy is in full accordance with this view. They

    2471
    propose to invite the Governments of the sugar exporting Dominions and Colonies to examine with them the possibility of a joint endeavour to reopen international negotiations if it should appear that there is a reasonable prospect of a successful issue thereto.
    A White Paper setting out in greater detail the Government's financial and administrative proposals, with an estimate of cost, has been prepared and will, I hope, be available for hon. Members this afternoon.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: While reserving any comments on the general scheme, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can give the House the estimated cost of the first five years, and whether when the amalgamation suggested in the scheme takes place it will be a private one, the factories remaining in private hands, or whether it will be a public service? If the former, will the amalgamated concerns have public utility society conditions imposed upon them?
    Mr. ELLIOT: It is not possible to give an estimate of the cost for the first five years, because during that period there will be a revision of the terms. As to the second question whether the amalgamated corporation will be publicly or privately owned, it will be owned by the companies, but will be subject to a fairly extensive control of the nature I have sketched in my statement, and which is given in greater detail in the White Paper.
    Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the result of the new arrangements will be any reduction in the charge to the State of this industry in respect of subsidy and rebate of taxation next year and in the following year, and, if so, to what extent?
    Mr. ELLIOT: The result of the arrangement will be a reduction, but I am afraid that I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman the exact amount of the reduction across the Floor of the House.
    Dr. ADDISON: In view of the fact that the statement bristles with points which call for examination and discussion, and which will require legislation to give effect to them, may we be assured that the House will have full opportunity of discussing and examining
    2472
    it before any further steps are taken in the matter?
    Mr. ELLIOT: Yes. In the first place, legislation will be required to carry out these proposals, and the House will have the fullest opportunity of discussing the legislation. Before that time opportunities will arise in the course of Parliamentary business in which a certain amount of discussion can take place.
    Mr. LAMBERT: May I ask whether action will be taken to prevent factories from making excessive profits?
    Mr. ELLIOT: Yes. If the right hon. Gentleman examines the terms of the White Paper he will see that the question of excessive profits is fully dealt with.
    Captain PETER MACDONALD: The Minister promised me that he would pursue the question of the cost of transport charges when he was framing his sugar beet policy. May I ask whether he has given consideration to that matter with the intention of easing the burden of the cost of transport on producers in counties a long way from the factories?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of detail.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: When the Sugar Commission ultimately decides on the scheme for amalgamation and the right hon. Gentleman is dealing with profits, which will be permanent profits for the amalgamated factories, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the colossal profits which these people have taken in the last 10 years?
    Mr. ELLIOT: The question of profits has been carefully considered in the arrangements made.
    Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: In view of the fact that legislation will not obviously be attempted until the autumn, may I ask whether the scheme will provide that there shall be no advantage to persons speculating in sugar shares as a result of the announcement?

  EDUCATION.

    SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE.
    Miss CAZALETasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is yet in a position to state when the

    2473
    examination by the Board of Education and other Departments into the question of school-leaving age is likely to be completed?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Oliver Stanley): The detailed examination into the question of school-leaving age is still continuing, and I am afraid I am not in a position to say when it will be completed.
    Miss CAZALET: In view of the fact that it is now nearly six months since the examination started, does not my right hon. Friend think that everything that can be known on this subject must be known by now?
    Mr. STANLEY: I am afraid I am not so confident that everything that can be known about anything ever is known.
    Sir P. HARRIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult his Noble Friend the Minister without Portfolio about the Bill which he himself introduced two years ago dealing with this subject; and also the Bill introduced by the Member for South-West Bethnal Green, which his Noble Friend supported when it was presented to the House for Second Reading? Would not that be a possible alternative which might help the right hon. Gentleman in making up his mind?
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Parliamentary record and see what happened to that Bill when it was introduced?
    Mrs. COPELAND: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that everything that it is possible to know about this subject may not yet be known, may I ask him if he will make inquiries as to whether it is not a fact that the children in the Potteries, should they leave school at the age of 15, cannot obtain that dexterity in freehand drawing which is necessary for them, and whether it will be possible for them to have special tuition in drawing if they remain on at school?

    ST. PAUL'S GIRLS' SCHOOL, MANCHESTER (INSPECTOR'S OBSERVATION).
    Sir GERALD HURSTasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has considered the correspondence between the Board and the rector of St. Paul's, Chorlton-on-Medlock, Manchester, wherein the rector and other
    2474
    managers of the St. Paul's Girls' School complain of the behaviour of an inspector of schools for reproving, in the presence of the staff and the children, a little girl for having stated in an essay that England is the finest country in the world, and reproving, in the hearing of the children, a teacher in the school for having, as he alleged, taught the little girl in question old-fashioned imperialism; whether he is aware that the Board has not denied these facts but has refused redress; and whether he will now take disciplinary action in this matter?
    Mr. STANLEY: The Board would consider as highly improper any attempt by one of their inspectors to discourage among school children love of and pride in their own country. I have made inquiries in this case, and am satisfied that there has been some misunderstanding. The words used by the inspector were in the nature of a casual comment to the teacher, and were not intended as a reproof either to the teacher or the child. While I deprecate casual remarks which may give rise to misunderstandings of this nature, I suggest that in all the circumstances it would be unwise to attach too great importance to the present incident; and I do not propose to take any further action in the matter.
    Sir G. HURST: Is my right hon. Friend aware that what he calls a casual comment was felt by everyone who heard it to be a rebuke? What is the objection to informing the inspector that he was definitely wrong in publicly finding fault with a girl's simple expression of love of country in what was in fact a Jubilee essay on "My Native Land"?
    Mr. STANLEY: I do not see how it is possible to point out more definitely, either to this inspector or to anybody else in the service of the Board, the line that the Board will take on any attempt to discourage love of their own country in the children.
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is it intended to take no action in this case?
    Mr. STANLEY: I have already explained that the inspector in question has made it quite clear that his remark was not intended—although, as I have said, I deprecate his making any such remark—as a reproof to the children, and I am

    2475
    satisfied that there is no likelihood of any recurrence of incidents of this kind. I deprecate, therefore, the continuance against an individual who, I think, acted without any ill intention—[Interruption.]
    Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Is it intended that the same excuse should be accepted on another occasion?
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Why harbour such an official?
    Sir G. HURST: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that, at the conclusion of Questions, I shall ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House.

  FASCIST MEETING, STRATFORD.
  Mr. GROVESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on whose authority the police attended the Fascist meeting held at Stratford on Wednesday, 24th July; whether their attendance was requested before or during the meeting; and how many police were inside the hall and the reason for their attendance?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): Twenty-four police officers were posted in the town hall during the meeting in question by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as a precautionary measure to deal with any breaches of the peace that might occur. The attendance of the police was not asked for either before or during the meeting.
  Mr. GROVES: May we assume that, as there was no occasion to use the police, there was therefore no disorder?
  Mr. JANNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider making inquiries with a view to dealing with the aggressive visits of these people to districts where many of the people whom they slander live, particularly in view of the good feeling that exists between the Jewish and non-Jewish communities who live there, in consequence of their knowledge of each other?
  Sir J. SIMON: I hardly think that the latter of the supplementary questions
  2476
  arises out of the original question. As regards the first, I would explain to the hon. Member that there is no doubt that, when a meeting is announced which is open to the public, the police, who, after all, are members of the public, are entitled to attend; and in this case the presence of a certain number of policemen was considered by the Commissioner to be desirable.
  Mr. GROVES: As the right hon. Gentleman has stated that the police were there to deal with any disorder, and as their services were not required, may I reasonably assume that there was no disorder?
  Sir J. SIMON: I cannot say whether there was disorder or not, but I am quite sure that, if their services had actually been required, they would have rendered those services.
  Mr. GROVES: They were not required.
  Mr. GROVESasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that at the Fascist meeting at Stratford Town Hall, on Wednesday, 24th July, an uniformed member of the St. John Ambulance Brigade was attacked by the stewards with no provocation; and why the police did not protect this man from assault?
  Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir; I am informed by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the police who were present in the hall report that no uniformed member of the St. John Ambulance Brigade was assaulted.
  Mr. GROVESasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that mounted policemen charged an orderly crowd assembled outside the Town Hall, Stratford, on the occasion of the Fascist meeting at Stratford Town Hall, Wednesday, 24th July, and on one occasion charged a crowd of women and children down Cullum Street, resulting in injuries to two women; and whether any damage to property has been reported on this occasion?
  Sir J. SIMON: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that there was no charge by mounted police either outside the hall or in Cullum Street, or anywhere else, and that the police have no knowledge of any women being injured as a result of police

  2477
  action. The only damage to property known to the police is that a beacon was broken.
  Mr. GROVES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the difficulty of getting this thing put right by question and answer? In view of the inadequacy of his information, I beg to give notice that I will raise this on Friday and produce the proofs of the charges made on innocent people leaving a cinema at 10.20.

  FIRE BRIGADES (CO-OPERATION).
  Mr. BROCKLEBANKasked the Home Secretary whether he can now state the names of members of the departmental committee on co-ordination of fire brigades in case of national emergency, and the committee's terms of reference?
  Sir J. SIMON: I have been fortunate enough to secure the services of Lord Riverdale as chairman of the committee, and I hope to be able to complete its constitution very shortly. The committee's terms of reference will be—
  "To review fire brigade services in England and Wales, and to advise whether any steps are needed to improve organisation and co-operation for the purpose of meeting danger from fire."

  TELEGRAPH OPERATORS (OVERTIME).
  Mr. THORNEasked the Postmaster-General what amount of overtime has been worked by the telegraph operators since the introduction of the sixpenny telegram; whether superannuated operators have been recalled to deal with the increased traffic; and whether consideration was given to the effect on the existing staff prior to the introduction of this new telegram rate in view of the extra work involved?
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Ernest Bennett): No exact figures are available of the amount of overtime that has been worked by telegraph operators throughout the country since the introduction of the sixpenny telegram. The amount of overtime worked is being kept as low as possible and some superannuated officers have been re-employed temporarily in the absence of other persons with the
  2478
  necessary qualifications. Before the new rate came into force, careful consideration was given to the probable effect on the existing staff, and the matter was discussed with the Union of Post Office Workers.

  NATIONAL PEACE BALLOT.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the result of the National Peace Ballot, submitted to him by a recent deputation, which shows that 11,627,765 persons recorded their votes, showing a percentage of 97 per cent. in general support of the League of Nations, and that three persons out of every four who voted were in favour of military sanctions if necessary for the preservation of world order through the machinery of the League; and whether the Government will frame their foreign policy in conformity with the public opinion of the country as thus disclosed?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The result of the Peace Ballot communicated to me by a deputation on this subject last week showed that out of approximately 11½ million ballot papers filled in, some 6¾ millions answered "Yes" to the question relating to military sanctions. As regards the last part of the question, the Government's policy has been explained in the speeches of Ministers. This policy remains founded upon the League of Nations, and, as I said to the deputation on Tuesday last, I was glad of the opportunity of emphasising that the Government intend to persist in the policy that they have hitherto pursued.
  Mr. H. WILLIAMS: How many pacifists voted in favour of other people fighting everybody everywhere?

  GOVERNMENT OFFICES.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that since the War there has been a net increase of 13 in the number of Government offices, and that upwards of 90 Members of the House of Commons are in some way dependent upon or connected with the Government, he will consider the advisability of appointing a committee representing all parties to see

  2479
  how far agreement can be reached in making a reduction in the number of Government offices in certain Departments?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.

  CHINA (LOANS).
  Mr. CLARRYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as a result of the large sales of silver by China, she has obtained sufficient funds to meet her overdue obligations in respect of sterling loans?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The sales of silver to which my hon. Friend refers have been made by private individuals or institutions and not by the Chinese Government or public authorities.
  Mrs. TATEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the date on which representations were last made to the Chinese Government in respect of the arrears of interest on certain sterling loans; and what reply was made by the Chinese Government?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Samuel Hoare): I am not quite clear to what precise sterling obligations of the Chinese Government my hon. Friend refers. The desirability of a general settlement of their obligations outstanding toward British investors is being continually represented to the Chinese Government.
  Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a settlement of the obligations of the Chinese Government in respect of sterling loans is or will be taken into account in the projected negotiations with that Government?
  Sir S. HOARE: My hon. Friend may rest assured that this question will be borne in mind in any discussions which may take place with the Chinese Government.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Can my right hon. Friend say whether Sir Leith Ross has instructions to deal with this during his present visit to China?
  Sir S. HOARE: I could not say without notice.
  Mr. PEARSON (for Mr. LYONS)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can furnish an estimate of the face value of Chinese Government bonds held in this country?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that no estimate of the face value of Chinese Government bonds held in this country can be compiled from official sources.
  Mr. H. WILLIAMS (for Mr. CLARRY)asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the amount of outstanding interest due by the Chinese Government in respect of sterling loans?
  Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir, I have no exact figures, and it is not possible to compile them from official sources.

  NORTHERN IRELAND (IMPERIAL CONTRIBUTION).
  Mr. MALLALIEUasked the Chancellor of the Exchquer what have been the amounts of the Imperial contribution of the Northern Ireland Government during the last three years; whether the Government of Northern Ireland is entitled to include among its outgoings, for purposes of calculating the amount of the Imperial contribution, the cost of the special constabulary; and, if so, what are the numbers of special constables in Northern Ireland?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The amounts of the Imperial contribution of the Northern Ireland Government for the last three years for which final figures are available, are: 1931–32, £298,000, 1932–33, £75,000, 1933–34, £76,000. The expenditure of the Northern Ireland Exchequer in connection with the Special Constabulary, as shown in Vote 3, Class III, of the Annual Estimates of the Northern Ireland Government, forms part of the annual expenditure which is taken into account in assessing the Imperial contribution. Subhead E of the Estimate for 1935–36 provides for the payment of bonus to 12,200 members of the Force. I have no other information as to the numbers at present enrolled.
  Mr. MALLALIEU: Is it not a fact that £7,000,000 was the figure of the annual Imperial contribution fixed at the time of the passing of the Act?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not carry the figure in my mind at the moment.
  Captain DIXON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that North Ireland has contributed over £20,000,000 to the Imperial Exchequer during the 15 years that it has been in existence, which is more than the whole of Ireland contributed from the time of the Union down to 1920?

  INDIA (FINANCIAL SITUATION).
  Sir A. KNOXasked the Under-Secretary of State for India the names of the members of the expert body to investigate the financial situation in India, which it has been decided to appoint immediately after the Government of India Bill becomes law; and by what date this expert body will be instructed to report?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): I regret that I am not at present in a position to make any statement upon the subject beyond saying that the matter is receiving the careful consideration of my Noble Friend.
  Sir A. KNOX: When will the hon. Gentleman be able to make a statement, in view of the fact that the inquiry has been promised immediately after the passing into law of the Act?
  Mr. BUTLER: I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree with me that it is important to come to the very best decision on the subject. Consistently with that, my Noble Friend will come to a decision as soon as he can and I will let the House know, if possible before it rises. If not, the hon. and gallant Gentleman will understand that the matter has not had time to mature.
  Sir A. KNOX: Will the report, when ready, be considered by Parliament before issuing the Order in Council?
  Mr. BUTLER: This is an inquiry which the Government will send to India in order to obtain the necessary information. Before the inquiry is made it will not be necessary to consult Parliament on the subject beyond informing Parliament that the position is being inquired into.
  Sir A. KNOX: Will not the report be published?
  Mr. BUTLER: Certainly.

  EGYPT (ITALIAN MILITARY AIRCRAFT).
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make inquiries and inform the House as to the number of Italian military aircraft in respect of which during the last six months requests for permission to fly over Egypt were communicated by the British to the Egyptian Government through the diplomatic channels; whether in any case permission was refused; and in what circumstances the British and Egyptian Governments, respectively, accept responsibility for giving this permission?
  Sir S. HOARE: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension as to the normal procedure governing these flights. The foreign Government concerned applies directly to the Egyptian Government for permission for their military aircraft to fly over Egyptian territory, and a separate application must be made for each individual flight. During the last six months the Italian Government have requested permission for 11 military aeroplanes to fly over Egyptian territory; in four instances the flight has been abandoned. Permission was granted in each case. The Italian Government also requested leave for an unspecified number of flights over Egypt, without permission being sought on each occasion and subject only to prior notification to the Egyptian Government, but the latter replied that they could not depart from the usual routine. As regards the last part of the question, the normal procedure in the case of visits by the military aircraft of one country to the territory of another in times of peace is followed, namely, that the government of the visiting aircraft seek the permission of the government of the country to be visited, and that permission is normally granted.
  Sir W. BRASS: Has application been made by the Italian Government for permission to fly over Anglo-Egyptian Sudan?

  ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.
  Mr. LEWISasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when was the last communication received from the Ethiopian Government on the subject of

  2483
  the importation of arms or ammunition into that country?
  Sir S. HOARE: On 10th July the Ethiopian Government addressed to His Majesty's Minister in Addis Ababa an official note on the arms question. This is the only official communication which has been addressed to His Majesty's Government on the subject.
  Mr. LEWIS: Can my right hon. Friend tell us what the purpose was?
  Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir, I cannot possibly in answer to a question.
  Mr. THORNEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the terms of the communication received from Signor Suvich, the Italian Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, relative to the conclusions reached by the Italo-Ethiopian conciliation committee, can be circulated to the Members of the House?
  Sir S. HOARE: I regret that the description in the hon. Member's question does not enable me to identify the specific communication to which he refers.
  Mr. LEWISasked the President of the Board of Trade how many applications have been received during the past 12 months for the export of arms or munitions to Abyssinia, and how many have been granted?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Excluding applications relating to single rifles or shot guns and one application which was withdrawn the day after receipt, three applications for licences to export arms or munitions to Abyssinia were received during the 12 months ended 29th July, 1935. One licence was issued in September, 1934.

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL (BOTTLED MILK).
  Mr. OSWALD LEWISasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes to make further inquiry into the practice of bottling milk, as described by the deputation from the dairy industry to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, before this House is asked to give a Second Reading to the Weights and Measures Bill?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am now considering the information which was supplied, and the representations which were made, by the deputation referred to by my hon. Friend.

  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY (COTTON INDUSTRY).
  Mr. SUTCLIFFE (for Mr. CHORLTON)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount actually paid by way of excess profits duty by the Lancashire cotton trade and the total amount which would have been paid by that trade as excess profits duty but for the fact that allowance was made as a set-off against subsequent losses?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that the information asked for by my hon. Friend is not available.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (PENSIONS).
  Captain SPENCER (for Mr. ROBINSON)asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will consider making such amendment to the Superannuation Acts as will enable persons who were not established because at the material date they were too old, to be eligible for pension, provided that at the date of retirement the claimant can show not less than 15 years whole-time Government service?
  Major GEORGE DAVIES (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. My hon. Friend is unable to contemplate a further amendment of the Superannuation Acts.

  LORD PRIVY SEAL'S SPEECH.
  Mr. ATTLEE(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a speech by the Lord Privy Seal at Southampton on Saturday last, 27th July, in the course of which he repudiated the view that the functions of the League of Nations involved in the last resort the employment of compulsion by force of arms against an aggressor; whether the Noble Lord was expressing the views and policy of His Majesty's Government, and, if so, how such a statement can be reconciled with the obligations of this country under

  2485
  Article 16 of the Covenant of the League of Nations wherein the Council of the League is charged with the duty of recommending what effective military, naval or air force the members the League shall severally contribute to the armed forces to be used to protect the Covenants of the League?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I notice that in the copy of the question which the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to send me, speaking of my Noble Friend's speech, he says, "in the course of which he is reported to have repudiated," which gives slightly a different shade to the question, but I think that my answer—
  Mr. ATTLEE: I understand that the word "reported" was cut out at the Table.
  The PRIME MINISTER: Thank you, I am glad there is no dispute about it. The right hon. Gentleman is not justified in interpreting my Noble Friend's words in this manner. The proposition which he stated was that the League was the embodiment and expression of the common interest of all the nations in the maintenance of peace, and that its object was to make the maintenance of peace a collective responsibility in which every nation should bear its due part. He added that the League was no super state controlling armed forces of its own. That is, of course, a totally different thing from suggesting, as the right hon. Gentleman appears to imply, that the States members of the League are not bound or prepared to fulfil their obligations under the Covenant.
  Mr. ATTLEE: In the speech made by the Lord Privy Seal, did not he specifically draw distinction between what he called the Conservative view of the League and the Socialist view of the League, and say that the Socialist view of the League implied or involved in the last resort the employment of compulsion by force of arms against an aggressor? Those words are taken from the speech, and yet the Prime Minister says there is no difference, and why did he draw that distinction?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The right hon. Gentleman must remember that the report is extremely truncated and telescoped, and if he will examine the speech
  2486
  again with my answer and will forget for the moment that the Lord Privy Seal is a colleague of mine, I think that he will see the position.
  Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: On a point of Order. May I ask for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, as to whether it is impossible under the Rules of this House for a Member of the House to question a Minister about a reported statement without making himself responsible, so to speak, for the statement having been made? The right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite says that he handed in a question referring to a "reported" statement of the Lord Privy Seal. The word "reported" was cut out at the Table, thus making the right hon. Gentleman himself responsible for the accuracy of the report. I venture to submit that it is contrary to the public interest that we should have to make ourselves responsible for a report as to which we desire to inquire whether it is accurate or not.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman knows that it is an old Rule of this House in putting questions on reports, that Members must make themselves responsible for the accuracy of the statement in the question, otherwise, as he will readily realise, questions of every conceivable description might be asked about reports in newspapers. That would be contrary to the ordinary Rules of the House.
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: That Rule has arisen within the time I have had the honour of occupying a seat in this House. It was not a Rule when I entered. Is there no limit to that Rule? Here is a case where a Minister is reported to have made a definite statement. A Member of this House desires to ascertain whether he has been accurately reported. Must that Member of the House make himself responsible for that for which he cannot vouch, or go without any explanation as to whether the report is accurate or not?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I hope the right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that Members should put down questions asking whether reports in newspapers are accurate or not. If that is what he means, there will be considerable difficulty in regard to it.
  Mr. ATTLEE: When a Member of this House sees a report in a newspaper of a statement by a Minister and he proceeds to look at as many newspapers as possible, some five or six of which reports it in identical terms, is he bound to go beyond that before putting the statement on the Order Paper in order to ask a question about it?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The point that arises is that a Member asks a question on a report of a speech by a Minister. That is the only question that arises.
  Mr. DICKIE: As one who had a similar experience only a fortnight ago, may I ask for your Ruling as to whether there is any means of ascertaining the accuracy or inaccuracy of some statement which may be greatly against the interests of this country without accepting responsibility on the Order Paper of this House for its accuracy?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I see no means of conducting questions in this House if questions are to be put as to the accuracy of statements in the newspapers. We have quite enough questions already, and their number would be increased many fold.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: The question is whether the man was correctly reported or not.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Prime Minister what business will be taken during the first week after the summer recess, and also what Orders he proposes to take to-night?
The PRIME MINISTER: We wish to get the first three Orders on the Order Paper—Government of India Bill, consideration of Lords Amendments; Housing (Scotland) Bill, consideration of Lords Amendments, and Money Payments (Justices Procedure) Bill; and the Motion with regard to the Unemployment Insurance (Seasonal Workers) Order. With regard to the other question, we propose to ask the House to meet again after the summer recess on Tuesday, 29th October. The business to be taken during the first week is as follows:
Tuesday, 29th October: Cotton Spinning Industry Bill, Second Reading, and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution; Expiring Laws Continuance
2488
Bill, Second Reading, and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution; Pensions (Governors of Dominions, etc.) Bill, Second Reading.
Wednesday, 30th October: Employment of Women and Young Persons Bill, Second Reading, and Hours of Employment (Conventions) Bill [Lords], Second Reading; Public Works Loans Bill, Second Reading, and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution; Weights and Measures Bill [Lords], Second Reading.
Thursday, 31st October: Cotton Spinning Industry Bill, Committee.
Friday, 1st November: Committee and remaining stages of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill and of the Public Works Loans Bill.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders may be taken.
Dr. ADDISON: Can we be assured that the Bill which will be required to give effect to the far-reaching proposals referred to will be circulated well in advance of any possible discussion?
The PRIME MINISTER: I think that follows as a matter of course. We never try to push anything on the House.
Mr. CHURCHILL: Will the Prime Minister consider at what period in the resumed session a day can be set down for the further discussion of the Supplementary Estimates on the Air, which I understand the Government are willing to give?
The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, that shall be done.
Mr. ATTLEE: With regard to the business for Thursday, 31st October, the Cotton Spinning Industry Bill, do I take it that the Government expect the House to manage the whole of the Committee stage of that important Bill in one day?
The PRIME MINISTER: It is difficult to say, but we shall all come back, I hope, very strong.
Mr. BUCHANAN: I understand that the Prime Minister wants to-day the first three Orders on the Paper and also the Motion dealing with Unemployment Insurance in respect of seasonal workers. In view of the fact that the Order deals with an important section of workers,

2489
and has many ramifications, I hope the House will have an opportunity of discussing it at a reasonable hour, and that if we have not finished the previous business at a reasonable time this Order will be postponed until there is time for it to be adequately discussed.
The PRIME MINISTER: I think there is a general feeling in the House that it is desirable to get this Order, and I hope the House will do its best to get it in reasonable time. The hon. Member knows that the time is not long before the Recess, and I am sure that everyone desires to get this Order.
Mr. BUCHANAN: I do not deny that the House desires to get the Order, but that does not take away the right of hon. Members to discuss it, as it affects an important section of the community. Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the House is given an opportunity to discuss it at a reasonable time?
The PRIME MINISTER: We will see how we get on to-day.
Mr. BUCHANAN: There is no mention in the business after the Recess of the regulations dealing with unemployment insurance. Can the Prime Minister give us any idea when the Government intend to deal with this problem?
The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that I cannot at the moment, We have fixed the business for the first, week after the Recess, and cannot give the hon. Member a definite answer.
Mr. BUCHANAN: In that case, may I ask whether hon. Members will have the proposed new regulations circulated before the House has to discuss them?
The PRIME MINISTER: Of course time must be given, but I cannot say anything about the time at the moment.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 245; Noes, 36.

Division No. 305.]

AYES.

[4.2 p.m.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

Christie, James Archibald

Fyfe, D. P. M.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

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

Clarke, Frank

Ganzoni, Sir John

Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

Clayton, Sir Christopher

Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

Apsley, Lord

Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

Granville, Edgar

Aske, Sir Robert William

Colman, N. C. D.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

Assheton, Ralph

Conant, R. J. E.

Graves, Marjorie

Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

Cooke, Douglas

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Atholl, Duchess of

Cooper, T. M. (Edinburgh, W.)

Grigg, Sir Edward

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Copeland, Ida

Grimston, R. V.

Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Guy, J. C. Morrison

Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

Crooke, J. Smedley

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Beit, Sir Alfred L.

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

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

Cross, R. H.

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

Bernays, Robert

Crossley, A. C.

Hanbury, Sir Cecil

Blindell, James

Curry, A. C.

Harris, Sir Percy

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hartington, Marquess of

Boyce, H. Leslie

Davison, Sir William Henry

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

Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

Brass, Captain Sir William

Dickie, John P.

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Sir Cuthbert

Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

Heligers, Captain F. F. A.

Broadbent, Colonel John

Donner, P. W.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Duckworth, George A. V.

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

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

Duggan, Hubert John

Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)

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

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

Browne, Captain A. C.

Eales, John Frederick

Hornby, Frank

Burghley, Lord

Edmondson, Major Sir James

Horsbrugh, Florence

Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

Howard, Tom Forrest

Burnett, John George

Elmley, Viscount

Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

Butler, Richard Austen

Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

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

Cadogan, Hon. Edward

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

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

Hume, Sir George Hopwood

Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

Hurd, Sir Percy

Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Everard, W. Lindsay

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

Castlereagh, Viscount

Fermoy, Lord

Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.(

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

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

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

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Fleming, Edward Lascelles

Jamieson, Rt. Hon. Douglas

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

Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

Janner, Barnett

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

Fremantle, Sir Francis

Ker, J. Campbell

Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

Morgan, Robert H.

Spencer, Captain Richard A.

Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univ.)

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

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

Kirkpatrick, William M.

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

Stevenson, James

Knox, Sir Alfred

Morrison, William Shephard

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

Strauss, Edward A.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Munro, Patrick

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Leckie, J. A.

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Leigh, Sir John

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Nunn, William

Sutcliffe, Harold

Levy, Thomas

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

Tate, Mavis Constance

Lewis, Oswald

Palmer, Francis Noel

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Liddall, Walter S.

Patrick, Colin M.

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

Llewellin, Major John J.

Pearson, William G.

Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

Lloyd, Geoffrey

Peat, Charles U.

Thorp, Linton Theodore

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

Percy, Lord Eustace

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

Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

Peters, Dr. Sidney John

Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

Petherick, M.

Touche, Gordon Cosmo

Mabane, William

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

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. Sir Charles

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

MacAndrew, Major J. O. (Ayr)

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Turton, Robert Hugh

McCorquodale, M. S.

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

Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

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

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

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

Radford, E. A.

Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

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

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

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

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian

Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

Watt, Major George Steven H.

Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

Reid, William Allan (Derby)

Wells, Sydney Richard

Maitland, Adam

Rickards, George William

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward

Wllloughby de Eresby, Lord

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

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

Runge, Norah Cecil

Wise, Alfred R.

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

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

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

Womersley, Sir Walter

Mellor, Sir J. S. P.

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

Somervell, Sir Donald

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward

Moreing, Adrian C.

Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

and Major George Davies.

NOES.

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Attlee, Rt. Hon. Clement R.

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

Paling, Wilfred

Banfield, John William

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

Parkinson, John Allen

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Smith, Tom (Normanton)

Buchanan, George

Jenkins, Sir William

Thorne, William James

Cleary, J. J.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Tinker, John Joseph

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Lawson, John James

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Daggar, George

Leonard, William

Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

Davies, Stephen Owen

Logan, David Gilbert

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

Dobbie, William

Lunn, William

Wilmot, John

Edwards, Sir Charles

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Gardner, Benjamin Walter

McEntee, Valentine L.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Gibbins, J.

McGovern, John

Mr. Groves and Mr. D. Graham.

Question put, and agreed to.

ST. PAUL'S GIRLS' SCHOOL, MANCHESTER (INSPECTOR'S OBSERVATION).
Sir G. HURST: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House to consider a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the decision of the President of the Board of Education to take no action in respect of a reproof alleged to have been given by an inspector of schools as to an expression of love of country contained in an essay of a child attending St. Paul's Girls' School, Chorlton-on-Medlock.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House to consider a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the
2492
decision of the President of the Board of Education to take no action in respect of a reproof alleged to have been given by an inspector of schools as to an expression of love of country contained in an essay of a child attending St. Paul's Girls' School, Chorlton-on-Medlock. It is quite evident that such a Motion would not fulfil the conditions laid down in the Standing Order; besides which, if the hon. and learned Member wishes to raise the question, he can do so either tomorrow, or the next day, or on Friday.
Sir G. HURST: I wish to thank you for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I give notice that if I have the opportunity I shall draw attention to this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment on Friday.

BILL PRESENTED.
  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
  "to grant money for the purpose of certain local loans out of the Local Loans Fund and for other purposes relating to local loans," presented by Mr. Duff Cooper; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 130.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Isle of Man (Customs) Bill,
London Passenger Transport Board (Finance) Bill, without Amendment.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (Scarborough) Bill, with an Amendment.
National Health Insurance and Contributory Pensions Bill, with Amendments.
Amendment to—
St. Bartholomew's Hospital Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
Amendments to—
Assurance Companies (Winding up) Bill [Lords],
Gelligaer Urban District Council Bill [Lords],
Hertfordshire County Council Bill [Lords],
Poole Road Transport Bill [Lords],
Port of London Bill [Lords],
Stoke-on-Trent Corporation Bill [Lords],
Weymouth Waterworks Bill [Lords], without amendment.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE AND CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.
  Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 129.]
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (SCARBOROUGH) BILL.
  Lords Amendment to be considered To-morrow.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.
  Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
  4.13 p.m.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to what scope and latitude you will allow in the Debate upon the Question which has now been put? We have before us a very bulky pamphlet of Amendments, representing a great mass of business which, apparently, is to be examined by the House, and I submit that it might be for the greater convenience of the House, and that it certainly would involve no loss of Parliamentary time, if a general Debate were permitted on the Question which has now been put. The discussion of the various Amendments of substance could be abridged as much as possible thereafter. I should like to take your Ruling upon that suggestion.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I am as fully aware as the right hon. Gentleman of the bulky nature of this document, but the question as to what we discuss on this Motion is rather a matter for the convenience of the House. Strictly speaking, on a Motion as to whether the Lords Amendments be now considered, the discussion should be confined to reasons for and against consideration of the Lords Amendments—but that may be rather widely interpreted. If it is for the convenience of the House, I have no objection to a much wider discussion on this Motion, on the understanding that when the Amendments are reached they will not be discussed all over again. Of course the Amendments will be put separately, and if necessary a Division will be taken on every one of them.
  Mr. ATTLEE: I see no particular purpose in having a general discussion ranging over the whole of this large number of Amendments, nor do I see how any Second Reading speech could possibly cover the whole of this body of Amendments. On the other hand, there are many points on which we on this side of the House disagree very strongly
  2504
  with the Lords Amendments which we wish to discuss.
  Viscount WOLMER: Surely there is no incompatability between having a discussion now on the radical change that has been introduced into the Bill in another place and dealing with those issues, to which the right hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) has referred, when they come up on the several Amendments. Some of the Amendments made in another place have radically transformed the Bill and they might properly be discussed on this Motion. The detailed points to which the right hon. Member for Limehouse has referred could certainly be discussed when they come up.
  4.17 p.m.
  Mr. ISAAC FOOT: On the point raised by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), I think it would be a pity if in the general discussion that he suggested such an important matter as the alteration of the method of election to the Council of State were taken. Reference has been made to radical alteration. That is a most substantial alteration made in another place. Before it can be discussed I am very anxious—and no doubt others share my view—to hear the alteration fully explained by the Minister in charge of the Bill, and if we have a general discussion now upon what has been done in another place, shall we not be shut out from that very real advantage? The change, when we come to discuss it, can only be debated by the House after its full effect has been explained by the Minister. Does the right hon. Member for Epping suggest that in the earlier and general discussion we should take that alteration within our purview?
  4.18 p.m.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: On the point of Order and procedure I would ask whether, on the Question "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," the House is not entitled to take a view of the Amendments collectively and of the general effect upon the Bill of this great series of Amendments. Each Amendment, it is true, has its separate significance, but the whole series of Amendments taken together raise the question whether in fact the Bill is substantially modified in this direction or that, and, whether the objections of this or that class are met by the whole set of Amendments together.

  2505
  I ask whether this Motion is not for the purpose of raising that general issue rather than that the House should embark upon detailed discussion of the Amend-merits without having had any chance of reviewing them as a whole?
  Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: If we now have a general discussion which limits the discussion of points as they come up later, it will mean that we shall have a few long three-decker speeches and that certain people will have an advantage, but that when we come to discuss details the hon. Member who may be interested in a particular point raised by an Amendment will find himself ruled out entirely by the previous discussion. I put that point of view of the Private Member and ask that it may be considered.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I hope I can relieve the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), by stating that as far as I am concerned I have no intention of speaking for more than 10 or 12 minutes at the outside.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: I am sure that nothing would ever induce my right hon. Friend to make a long speech.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) is quite accurate when he says that a general discussion on the Amendments is appropriate to a Motion "That the Lords Amendments be now considered." As a rule such a Motion is dealt with in a formal way and is agreed to without any discussion, and I should not like to make any alteration in that practice unless it were for the convenience of the House and by the general agreement of the House. From what I have heard on the point of Order it seems to me that there is not that general agreement in the House. Therefore, I do not think we can proceed with a general discussion. We had better take the Motion formally and proceed with the Amendments.
  Viscount WOLMER: The whole House is grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for having circulated a Memorandum on the Amendments. It is very difficult to follow the Amendments as they are put from the Chair. Will he be so kind, before each Amendment is put from the Chair, to say whether it is a drafting Amendment or one of the
  2506
  Amendments of substance referred to in the Memorandum?
  4.22 p.m.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): I shall certainly explain any Amendment which is other than a drafting or consequential Amendment. In the case of the drafting or consequential Amendments I shall merely say, "drafting," or "consequential" before the particular Amendment is put. I hope the House will find that the Memorandum is of use and value.
  Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Government of India by the Crown.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 21, after "shall," insert "in India."
    Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment raises a small point. The proviso was originally included in order to make it clear that no powers are exercisable on behalf of the King by any authority except the Governor-General in his capacity of His Majesty's representative for the exercise of the functions of the Crown in relation to States, or by authorities acting under his direction. Since that proviso was drafted it was thought in another place that it was necessary to safeguard the position of the Secretary of State who, on certain occasions, exercises the powers of paramountcy direct. It is in order to make that clear and to safeguard his position that this Amendment is included.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Accession of Indian States.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 26, after "copies," insert:
    "of the Instrument and of His Majesty's Acceptance."
    Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The object of this Amendment is to ensure that His Majesty's Acceptance is an integral part of the Instrument of Accession. The Amendment raises only a very

    2507
    small point, in that it insists that the Acceptance shall be attached to the Instrument and that it be laid before Parliament.
    Mr. SPEAKER: In cases like this and similar cases where there are consequential Amendments I shall put the Amendments together.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment, in page 5, line 28, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 16.—(Advocate-General for Federation.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 3, leave out "a High," and insert "the Federal."
    4.26 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The Clause as it left this House contained the requirement that a person who could be appointed Advocate-General for the Federation should be a person qualified to be appointed a judge of the High Court, and excluded members of the Bar at a High Court in a Federated State. It is now proposed to substitute the words "the Federal" for the words "a High" so that the person qualified to be appointed Advocate-General for the Federation shall be a person qualified to be appointed a judge of the Federal Court.
    4.27 p.m.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not fully informed by the explanation of the learned Attorney-General. I do not understand how it is that these considerations were not present in his mind and in the mind of the Government when the Bill was under discussion in the House of Commons. During that long period one would have thought that the differences between the Federal Court and a High Court would have presented themselves very directly to those Ministers who were in charge of the Bill. As far as I understood the Attorney-General he suggests that a certain class of persons whom it is desirable to make eligible for this position would be included if the Amendment were made. Can he or one of the Ministers give some indication as to the
    2508
    numbers of these people and the kind of posts that they have held? One does not wish to broaden the qualifications for so important a function if it is a matter of perhaps two or three people who would be left out, but if it comes to throwing open this post to a class of people of qualifications different from those originally thought indispensable by the Government, and consequentially and potentially diminishing the character and quality and status of the appointment, I think more careful consideration should be given to the Amendment. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will explain. I see he is charged with a great body of information upon the subject.
    Viscount WOLMER: I do not think my right hon. Friend need worry particularly about this Amendment. It is really only intended to meet a point that concerns the legal profession in the States. The only thing I should like the Under-Secretary to say is whether this point was raised by the States and whether they attach any importance to it. I do not think that the serious consequences which my right hon. Friend seems to fear need be anticipated.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I can speak again only by leave of the House. There is practically no difference between the qualifications for a judge of the Federal Courts and a judge of the High Courts, but it happens that in the case of pleaders a person in order to be eligible for a High Court judgeship must have been a pleader at the Bar of a High Court. With that one exception the Amendment will make practically no difference.

    CLAUSE 18.—(Constitution of the Federal Legislature.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 12, line 22, leave out "exceeding," and insert "more than."
    Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is a drafting Amendment.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: What is the purpose of this Amendment? I understood that we were to have an explanation from

    2509
    the Under-Secretary on these Amendments and that if an Amendment was purely drafting, he was to state so to the House.
    Mr. BUTLER: I think I actually did use the word "drafting" in reference to this Amendment, and I do not think it can be made out to be anything other than drafting.

    CLAUSE 20.—(Right of Governor-General to address, and send messages to, Chambers.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 23, after "Legislature," insert:
    "whether with respect to a Bill then pending in the Legislature or otherwise."
    4.31 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment entails a little more consideration than the last one. Clause 20 gives the Governor-General the right to address and send messages to the Chambers of the Federal Legislature and the Amendment proposes to insert in Subsection (2) the words
    "with respect to a Bill then pending in the Legislature or otherwise."
    It was considered in another place that the Government, by accepting the suggestion that these words should be inserted, made matters rather more secure for the minorities. The Amendment has been accepted with gratitude by the Indian Christian community, for example, and it is thought that by giving the Governor-General the power of sending a message to the Legislature on any Bill, whether pending or not, we would include, in the scope of the Clause possible Private Members' legislation. It is, therefore, an extra security for the minorities and, as such, will, I hope, be acceptable to the House.
    4.32 p.m.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: I am not sure that I apprehend fully the purpose of the Amendment but, if I understand it aright, I am not particularly enamoured of it. I gather that its purpose is to extend the power of the Governor-General and that, in the event of private legislation being proposed to the Legislature, it will be open to the Governor-General to intervene, if he thinks fit and
    2510
    even to interpose a sort of veto upon legislation of that type. If that should be the purpose of the Amendment I think it is going a little too far. We on these benches have already argued that the powers of the Governor-General are very sweeping in the matter of prospective or actual legislation and we must register our difference with the Government on the advisability of accepting an extension of those powers. I should mention that we also have an objection to the Lords Amendment which comes next on the Paper. I gather that it is proposed to take the two Amendments together.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I did not say that I was going to take these two Amendments together. I only said that I should take two Amendments together where both dealt with exactly the same subject.
    Mr. JONES: In that case I merely say to the Under-Secretary that I am very much opposed to any extension of the Governor-General's right to interfere with the powers of the Legislature. Even if a private Member's Bill passes through all its stages in the Legislature the Governor-General can still withhold his assent and I do not see the point of exercising this kind of paternal surveillance over the work of the Legislature at every stage of its progress. It would be fatal to the development of self-reliance on the part of the Legislature.
    4.35 p.m.
    Viscount WOLMER: I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) need worry about this Amendment. Of all the exiguous safeguards in the Bill, this appears to be one of the most exiguous. How my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has the face to present it to the House of Commons as a new safeguard for the unfortunate Indian Christians, passes my comprehension. To what does it amount? Merely a permission to the Governor-General to send a message to the Legislature, at any stage in the passage of a Measure. If a Measure is unjust to any minority—to the scheduled classes, to the Indian Christians or to anybody else—I cannot believe that a message from the Governor-General will make the slightest difference to those who intend to pass such a Measure. The Governor-General will have had many opportunities of expressing his opinion in private to

    2511
    the promoters of a Measure and the mere fact of sending a public message will have little influence on their action. I agree that the power of the Governor-General to veto a Measure remains and that is the only safeguard which the minorities have in regard to such Measures. I cannot believe that the Indian Christians attach much importance to this proposal and therefore I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will not claim it as another safeguard.
    4.37 p.m.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not disagree with my Noble Friend the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) when he describes this Amendment, paraded as an additional safeguard, as a most attenuated and exiguous affair. On the other hand, I do not take the view that it is absolutely useless. I should be sorry if the Indian Christians or other minorities rested their hands with any weight upon this flimsy balustrade but we must take the best possible view of these matters and, so far as it goes, it is something in the nature of a guard rail. I am fortified in my lenient and even favourable view of this proposal by the opposition which has come from the Socialist benches. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) who has indicated such strong objection to the Amendment is very much opposed to me upon this issue and I must be on my guard lest I should dismiss incontinently a proposal to which he takes such strong objection.
    It seems to me that I have a natural association with His Majesty's Government upon this matter. There appears to me to be an advantage in the fact of the Governor-General having the power and the right to address messages frequently and freely to legislative bodies with whom he is supposed to be working in the utmost harmony and sympathy. It is surely better that they should be in possession of his views at an early stage than that after all the long processes of Parliamentary discussion have been concluded and weeks perhaps have been occupied and consumed upon some Measure, he should then be left with no alternative but to impose the arbitrary veto which is still reserved to him. It is far better that he should be able to give guidance to the Legislature, while
    2512
    these matters are still under consideration, when, perhaps, a collision between the absolute veto of the Viceroy and the action of the Parliament would be avoidable. I think it would be much better to try to bend the branch while it is still a twig.
    Besides, what harm ever comes of frank discussion? I have never known evil to come from frank discussion and I thought indeed that that was the essence of our treatment of this great Indian question—that the Parliamentary process, that government by talking would have a beneficial and solvent effect upon many of the difficulties and perplexities of our Oriental Empire. I am in favour of this proposal as far as it goes. I am grateful to the Government for having accepted it and I am grateful to another place, which has once again shown its virtues as a revising Chamber, for having added this small contribution to the protection of minorities under the Bill. Small as the contribution is which the Government are now making, it will not be resisted at all by the Member who has now the honour of addressing the House. He will on the contrary do his utmost to secure the success of the Government's policy, at least in this respect.

    CLAUSE 21.—(Rights of ministers and counsellors as respects Chambers.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 27, leave out "and every counsellor," and insert "every counsellor and the Advocate-General."
    4.42 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment gives the Advocate-General the right to speak in the Federal Chamber on behalf of the Governor-General on occasions when it may be found necessary to do so. It was pointed out in another place that it was often wise that the Executive should express its view of a matter at an early stage and that a plain, clear statement at an early stage might in certain cases avert the possibility of danger and disaster later. It is true that at the Centre the Governor-General will have certain counsellors in the Chamber but it is also true that those counsellors will be

    2513
    primarily attached to specific departments with which their work is connected. When we come to the provincial section of the Bill I trust that the House will be willing to accept, as consequential, an Amendment that the provincial Advocate-General should also have the right to speak. In the Provinces there are no counsellors and therefore it may be said that there is a stronger case for this change in the Provinces but at the Centre and in Burma we think there is also a case for allowing the Advocate-General to speak, for the reasons I have given. We consider that the Advocate-General would be the suitable person for this purpose. If hon. Members study the terms of his appointment in Clause 55, they will see that he is appointed by the Governor or Governor-General and is a suitable person to express, where the necessity arises, the view of the Governor-General or Governor.
    4.44 p.m.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: I am afraid we shall have to carry our opposition to this Amendment to a Division. I am sorry that the Government should persist in extending the area in regard to which the Governor-General may intervene in the discussions in the Legislature. We, on these benches take a rather different view from hon. Members opposite as to the place which the Governor-General should take in relation to Indian affairs. We want to keep him, as much as possible, above the battle, so to speak. We should regard it as a very bad thing, and as the years go by I believe those who will be in charge of Indian affairs will see that it is a bad thing, that the King's representative in India should be brought into contact with the controversies of the Assembly in this way. We have just decided that the Governor-General shall intervene by way of an extra right to send an address to both Houses, but now he is to be entitled to send down to the House a spokesman on his behalf. Who is it that is to go down? If hon. Members will look at Clause 16, they will find the duties of the Advocate-General set out in Sub-section (2), but, first of all, what kind of person is the Advocate-General? Sub-section (1) states:
    "The Governor-General shall appoint a person being a person qualified to be appointed a judge of a High Court to be Advocate-General for the Federation."
    2514
    That is the quality of person, and his duties are set out in Sub-section (2), as follows:
    "It shall be the duty of the Advocate-General to give advice to the Federal Government upon such legal matters, and to perform such other duties of a legal character, as may be referred or assigned to him by the Governor-General, and in the performance of his duties he shall have right of audience in all courts in British India and in a case in which federal interests are concerned, in all courts in any Federated State."
    This person, whose primary function is a legal function, is to be entitled to go down to the Legislature from time to time to speak on behalf of the Governor-General. I have every regard for legal gentlemen, but I cannot quite see what case there can be for sending down a person of that sort, who acts in the capacity of a judge, who has the qualities of a judge, who gives advice strictly on legal matters, and who is not therefore what we might regard as a day-to-day politician at all, to the House of Commons to take part in the discussions there. I cannot imagine anything more irritating and annoying to the Indian people than to have persons sent down in this way periodically to participate in their discussions. It is a bad thing, in my judgment, to have a person who is not elected at all and who is not a member of the Legislature, but merely goes down there in his official capacity as a legal adviser to the Governor-General, to participate in the discussions or to deliver orations upon given topics from time to time. I am sure that this House would not tolerate it, and I am sure that the Indian people, who study very closely, after all, our Parliamentary forms and proceedings and are very closely acquainted with what we do here and how we do it, will very much resent the interpolation of speeches by a person of this sort in their ordinary discussions.
    Apart from that, I suppose this person will be sent down on controversial occasions, but it is not he who will have to bear the brunt of responsibility for it. The resentment felt against him will fall, not upon him, but upon the Governor-General, and I should have thought that Conservatives above all people would have been particularly careful to prevent the King's representative from being brought into these political controversies in India from time to time. I am sure

    2515
    it is a bad procedure. I deplore it very much, and I know that my hon. Friends are entirely in agreement with me upon it. Therefore, without delaying the House any longer, I merely intimate that in the absence of a much more reasonable defence than we have yet heard, we shall feel obliged to vote against this proposal in the Lobby.
    4.50 p.m.
    Viscount WOLMER: The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) seems to me to live in a land of his own imagination. He acts and speaks on the assumption that this constitution which is being given to the Indian people is a democratic constitution, but he must know perfectly well that the forms of democracy in this constitution are but a shop window and that the whole of this constitution cannot function without the mainspring of the Governor-General and the Governors. That being the case—and he knows it perfectly well—it is nothing but common sense that the Governor-General should have the widest opportunities of explaining to the Legislature the reasons that have prompted the actions that he or the Government may have taken. Under the Bill as it stands at present counsellors may address either Chamber, but, as the Under-Secretary of State has pointed out, those counsellors will generally be appointed by reason of their administrative ability or knowledge of a particular department, and we in this House—and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly will welcome the analogy of the House of Commons—certainly would find it very difficult to get on if we did not have the assistance of lawyers to explain to us from time to time what we were talking about.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: But they are elected.
    Viscount WOLMER: Does my hon. Friend think a lawyer derives any increased lucidity or knowledge from having received the election of the electors of a particular constituency?
    Mr. JONES: No, but my point is that our resentment would be all the keener against any lawyer interposing in our Debates if he came down here without being elected to this House.
    Viscount WOLMER: The interposition in this case is merely explaining the point or the policy to the Chamber in question. This officer will have no vote, I think I am right in saying in either Chamber, so that there is no question of interference in that respect.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: On what grounds does the Noble Lord say that he will simply have the right to explain a point? If he is able to take part in the discussion, will he not be able to use arguments?
    Viscount WOLMER: I said to explain the point or the policy, and they are both equally necessary. It is desirable, not merely that people should think clearly, but that they should think rightly, and lawyers are as competent, or in many respects more competent, to make people think in the direction desired than ordinary administrative Ministers. Therefore, it seems to me, from the point of view of the efficiency of the Chambers themselves, that there is nothing but gain in giving the Governor-General the opportunity of having the skilled exposition of a lawyer of high standing where he considers it necessary. But I rose to protest, if I may use the expression without offence, against the fatuity of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly, who will persist in drawing analogies between this House of Commons and the Federal Assembly of India, when he knows that there can be no proper analogy at all.
    4.54 p.m.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I thought the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) really threw an illuminating flash upon the whole of this subject in his speech just now, because we can see quite clearly what is in the mind of the party which he represents. He says the Governor-General must be above the storms of controversy, that the King's representative must not be drawn into controversial matters about which heat may be generated. Well, that is not the view which this Bill takes of the powers of the King-Emperor's representative. On the contrary, during the whole of the discussions on this Measure we have been exhorted to put our confidence in the fact of the immense powers, powers almost despotic, which are placed in the hands of the King's representative—

    2517
    power to act in every case of the most dire consequence and of the most bitter controversy, power to adjourn or dissolve the chambers, power to veto legislation, power to initiate legislation, power to disallow whole series of Bills, power to suspend the whole working of the constitution, power to carry on the whole administration of India in his own hands. This is no constitutional functionary, this is no constitutional sovereign such as we have developed in this country after centuries of Parliamentary practice. This is a sixteenth or seventeeth century Crown functionary which has been created in India, and it is well known that it is the whole purpose of a whole series of Clauses in this Bill to enable the Viceroy, if the Parliamentary machinery which we are now erecting in India should be found, as many of us think it will be found, unsuited to the situation, to assume what are unquestionably dictatorial powers.
    But what is the use of saying that a person of these formidable attributes should be most carefully kept out of controversy, and what is the use of the hon. Member at this stage in our Debates imagining that the Viceroy can confine himself to the customary well-meaning platitudes which people use when they wish to avoid controversy? This is a real functionary, this is an officer of State of the highest possible activity and practical consequence, and to suppose that he can be treated as a mere instrument of Government, as a mere instrument of the chambers, is altogether to misread the intentions of His Majesty's Government in framing the Bill. I should have thought the hon. Gentleman, who took the trouble to sit on that lengthy Committee, had in his mind very clearly that the reality, the almost overpowering reality, of the functions which reside in the Governor-General is to intervene in the fiercest controversy, and if he is to do this, why should he not be equipped with the necessary means of explaining his position as well as possible to the Legislature? Surely that is a very reasonable thing.
    Here you have a sixteenth or seventeenth century Crown and you have a modern Parliament. You are erecting that in the Constitution, and what we are now going to witness is a clash and collision of these two opposite principles,
    2518
    drawn from different centuries of our development. If that clash is not to carry consequences far and wide, it is indispensable that the Governor-General should have every means of access to the Assembly and should be able to use every process of discussion, advice and warning before he is called upon to repair to his well-stocked armoury of absolutism and draw forth the weapons with which he can, by a stroke of the pen, disband the entire structure of the so-called constitutional and democratic government which is contained in this bulky Measure. I cannot see any reason why, if he is to have the right to send messages, he should not have messengers, and what messenger, I should like to know, could be more suited than an Advocate-General?
    How should we have got on in this House if we had not had at our disposal the services of the Attorney-General? The Bill would never have reached its present stage, if he had not always been there at hand, with his vast knowledge of the law and his extraordinary ability at adapting his readings of the law to the exigencies of Government business. Such a functionary would, I believe, be welcome in any assembly. The hon. Gentleman said that the Attorney-General is elected, but, as my Noble Friend has pointed out, that precedent has already been conceded so far as the Indian Legislature is concerned. When we passed this Measure through the House there was no resistance, as far as I can remember, to the principle of the counsellors speaking.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: There was.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: If so, it was overborne by an overwhelming majority and brushed aside as mere factious opposition.
    Mr. COCKS: The right hon. Gentleman was also brushed aside.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am glad to think that others have tasted that medicine, too. This principle of the counsellors having the right to speak in the assemblies without having been elected was conceded and established by the House when the Bill was passing through. Therefore, it is not a question whether a man should enter an elected assembly when he himself has not been elected. Objection can only be taken on the ground that you are adding one additional member to those who now already

    2519
    have the right. If, when there are four or five, and perhaps more counsellors, everyone of whom may go in, I cannot conceive that any serious inconvenience would be caused or that there would be any violation of Parliamentary prestige and authority if an additional one were added, especially when the legal qualifications of that member, his great aptitude in discussion, and his knowledge of the law will probably make him the best fitted of all.
    Then there is the objection which the hon. Gentleman raised that the Advocate-General is a judge. Ought a judge to be an advocate? Here we have a very exact precedent in no less a person than the Lord Chancellor himself, who combines in his own person the highest judicial office in the country, the supreme authority in the law and the head of the highest court in the land, with being a party politician undoubtedly engaged in doing his utmost to secure the return of a particular set of gentlemen to office whenever a general election occurs. No trouble has occurred in regard to this extremely anomalous position. On the contrary, it has resided in our constitution and has grown up here, and no difficulty has been found. Although constitutional students may amuse themselves by dwelling and dilating upon this apparent inconsistency and anomaly, there is no reason why, with good sense and good feeling in the regular practice of a Parliamentary system such as we have here, and such as we hope will develop in India, such an anomaly as that should not one of these days be found to exist year after year without apparent inconvenience or even public notice. In this case, however, the judge is not a judge occupying the highest position. I presume that his functions of sitting on a bench and trying cases would be suspended during the period when he was the Advocate-General. I can, therefore, see no objection why his services should not be given to assist the Viceroy.
    I have endeavoured, as far as I can, to answer the rather disturbing and disquieting points which the hon. Member for Caerphilly raised. I do not think that there are any that I have left untouched. I may not have satisfied him, but I trust that I may have satisfied some members on this side of the House who will be glad to embrace this opportunity
    2520
    of voting with His Majesty's Government on a step which, although it appears a small one, is undoubtedly intended to emphasise the reality of the authority of the Governor-General, and consequently the reality of the safeguards of which he is the guardian.
    5.6 p.m.
    Mr. ATTLEE: The right hon. Gentleman chastised my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) for drawing analogies between the new constitution in India and Parliamentary institutions. He then proceeded to fall into a far deeper sin himself, because he went on to tell us that the Advocate-General was something like the Attorney-General. He went even further, and said he was something like the Lord Chancellor. As far as I know, the Advocate-General has no judicial functions at all—
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I said so.
    Mr. ATTLEE: The right hon. Gentleman will perhaps remember that in the Debate on the Advocate-General we on this side took exception to the fact that he was to be appointed by the Governor in his individual judgment, and we pointed out that in our view at that time—we shared the delusion of the right hon. Gentleman—he was something like the Attorney-General and we thought that he should be a responsible Member of the Ministry. The Government representatives were at pains to point out that the Advocate-General was nothing like the Attorney-General and that he did not perform similar functions, but that he was an officer merely giving advice. The objection here is that this officer, who is to be outside politics, is to be appointed by the Governor, is to be kept out of controversy, and is not to be a kind of combination of legal luminary and politician. He is, by this Amendment, to be brought in as the Governor's mouthpiece at a time when political controversy will be running very high. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's arguments are cancelled out by those of the hon. Member for Caerphilly, inasmuch as he says that it is dangerous to draw these analogies. Our original objection remains to this appointment. It is unnecessary, for we have already got counsellors at the Centre, and they have

    2521
    the power to send messages to the Viceroy. The point of sending someone to make speeches can only be to use his eloquence or to indulge in oratory. We want to see a clear line drawn between where there is some kind of Parliamentary Government and where Parlia-
    Government is suspended and the Governor-General acts.
    Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 213; Noes, 42.

    Division No. 306.]

    AYES.

    [5.9 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

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

    Granville, Edgar

    Munro, Patrick

    Apsley, Lord

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Assheton, Ralph

    Grigg, Sir Edward

    Nunn, William

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Grimston, R. V.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

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

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Beit, Sir Alfred L.

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Pearson, William G.

    Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

    Hanbury, Sir Cecil

    Peat, Charles U.

    Bernays, Robert

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Blindell, James

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Peters, Dr. Sidney John

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Petherick, M.

    Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Sir Cuthbert

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

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

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Radford, E. A.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)

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

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

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

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

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Burnett, John George

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Rickards, George William

    Butler, Richard Austen

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

    Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Hurd, Sir Percy

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

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

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

    Castlercagh, Viscount

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

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Jamieson, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

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

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Ker, J, Campbell

    Shute, Colonel Sir John

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Christie, James Archibald

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univ.)

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Clarke, Frank

    Kirkpatrick, William M.

    Spens, William Patrick

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Stevenson, James

    Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Storey, Samuel

    Cooke, Douglas

    Leckie, J. A.

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Cooper, T. M. (Edinburgh, W.)

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Copeland, Ida

    Levy, Thomas

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Lewis, Oswald

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Crooke, J. Smedley

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

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Cross, R. H.

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

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

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Thompson, Sir Luke

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Mabane, William

    Thomson, Sir Douglas

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

    MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. Sir Charles

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    MacAndrew, Major J. O. (Ayr)

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

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Dickie, John P.

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

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Donner, P. W.

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Bassetlaw)

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Doran, Edward

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

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

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

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermilne)

    Eales, John Frederick

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

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

    Eastwood, John Francis

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Maitland, Adam

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

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

    Watt, Major George Steven H.

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

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

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Fermoy, Lord

    Mellor, Sir J. S. P.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Fleming, Edward Lascelles

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

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

    Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Wise, Alfred R.

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Morgan, Robert H.

    Womersley, Sir Walter

    Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

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

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Mr. James Stuart and Lieut.-Colone

    Llewellin.

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

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

    Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Paling, Wilfred

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. Clement R.

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

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Banfield, John William

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Janner, Barnett

    Thorne, William James

    Cleary, J. J.

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Daggar, George

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Davies, Stephen Owen

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Edwards, Sir Charles

    Lunn, William

    Wilmot, John

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzle (Banff)

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Glbbins, J.

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Grenfell, David Reel (Glamorgan)

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Mr. Groves and Mr. D. Graham.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 25.—(Vacation of seats.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 15, line 22, after "Governor-General" insert "exercising his individual judgment."
    5.16 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment obliges the Governor-General, when making rules referred to in this Clause, to do it in his individual judgment. The rules relate to the vacation of seats and similar matters, and this Amendment will put them on the same level as all the other equivalent rules in the Bill. It adds a certain sense of impartiality, but does not deprive Ministers from expressing their opinion. It really is little more than a drafting Amendment, to bring this Clause into line with other Clauses under which the Governor-General makes similar rules exercising his individual judgment.

    CLAUSE 26.—(Disqualifications for membership.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 16, line 14, after "offence" insert "or corrupt or illegal practice."
    5.18 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    I would ask the House to consider this Amendment in conjunction with the subsequent Amendment; in line 17, to leave out "conviction whereof is a," and to insert "or practice entailing."
    The two are little more than drafting Amendments. It so happens that some electoral malpractices or offences are not offences under the Indian penal code, that is to say, are not criminal offences, and it was for the purpose of making it
    2524
    plain that these disqualifications extend to any corrupt practices as well as to those practices which are criminal offences that these Amendments were inserted in another place.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 26, line 26, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 45.—(Power of Governor-General to issue Proclamations.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 32, line 12, leave out "six" and insert "twelve."
    5.22 p.m.
    Lord EUSTACE PERCY (Minister without Portfolio): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment has to be considered in conjunction with the two following Amendments: In line 15, after "a," to insert "continuous"; and in line 24, at the end, to insert:
    "(5) If the Governor-General, by a Proclamation under this Section, assumes to himself any power of the Federal Legislature to make laws, any law made by him in the exercise of that power shall subject to the terms thereof, continue to have effect until two years have elapsed from the date on which the Proclamation ceases to have effect, unless sooner repealed or re-enacted by Act of the appropriate Legislature; and any reference in this Act to Federal Acts, Federal laws, or Acts or laws of the Federal Legislature shall be construed as including a reference to such a law."
    These three Amendments are designed to meet a point which was raised during the Committee stage of the Bill in this House. A breakdown proclamation has to be renewed by vote of both Houses of Parliament here every six months. That procedure was not regarded as desirable by some hon. Members, if only from the point of view of machinery considerations. It might be difficult for this House to renew a proclamation every six

    2525
    months, because the House might not be sitting. It is now proposed to extend the period of renewal to 12 months. It is also provided that a proclamation shall not continue in all over a period of more than three years, and it was the evident intention of the House that that should be a continuous period and not two separate periods of 18 months, perhaps with an interval between them, under different proclamations. The third Amendment is to provide that any Act passed under an emergency proclamation shall last for two years after the expiry of that proclamation, unless it is sooner repealed by the Legislature. That is merely to ensure that there shall not be a gap after the period of breakdown between the emergency legislation and permanent legislation, but it is understood that the Legislature has the power to repeal it at any time after the expiry of the proclamation.
    5.24 p.m.
    Mr. ATTLEE: I disagree entirely with the first two of these Amendments, but I see no particular objection to the third. The first Amendment allows a proclamation to run for 12 months without having to come up again before this House. The Noble Lord has suggested that the six months might end at an inconvenient period, when this House is not sitting, but if we are to take any exact period, either six months or 12 months, such a contingency may equally well happen. Of course, provision can be made for such circumstances. The Noble Lord has given no real reason why the House should allow the suspension of the Constitution to run on for 12 months instead of six. After all, the suspension of a Constitution is a very important matter, and when the Constitution is suspended this House is responsible for affairs in India. I think six months is quite long enough.
    As to the second Amendment, which introduces the word "continuous," Subsection (4) was designed to put a definite term of three years to the carrying on of the government of the Federation under a suspended Constitution. To insert "continuous" is really to defeat the whole purpose of Sub-section (4), because it means that an interval of a few
    days or a week or so might allow the suspension of that constitutional government to continue year after year—for nine years or 10 years, or any other period. Surely the word "continuous" needs some qualification. The whole object of the Sub-section was to allow the Federation not to be suspended beyond three years. Therefore, we must vote against those two Amendments.
    5.27 p.m.
    Viscount WOLMER: I think it is very appropriate that my Noble Friend the Minister without Office—[HON. MEMBERS "Without Office?"] Yes, I prefer that to the un-English title. I was saying that it is appropriate that he should move that we agree with these Amendments, because it is my recollection that when very similar proposals were made by hon. Members in this House both the Attorney-General and the Under-Secretary made eloquent speeches explaining why the Government could not agree to them. Certainly that was the case regarding the extension of the period from six months to 12 months. Therefore, it is perhaps appropriate that a new Minister should be called upon to commend this change to the House. I wish to say that I welcome this Amendment, believing that the period of six months was altogether too short, and I hope the Government will stick to the Amendment.
    5.28 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: In one observation which was made by the right hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) he was in error, if he will forgive me for saying so. He suggested that the 12 months would run from the beginning of the issue of this proclamation. That is not so. In the first instance it can continue only for a period of six months. It is after the end of this six months, and after there has been discussion in Parliament, that this second period, which must not exceed 12 months, must run. I think he will recognise that that is a substantial difference.
    Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 221; Noes, 42.

    Division No. 307.]

    AYES.

    [5.29 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Atholl, Duchess of

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

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Assheton, Ralph

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Graves, Marjorie

    Nunn, William

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

    Grigg, Sir Edward

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Beit, Sir Alfred L.

    Grimston, R. V.

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

    Blindell, James

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Pearson, William G.

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Peat, Charles U.

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Hanbury, Sir Cecil

    Peters, Dr. Sidney John

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Petherick, M.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

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

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. Ernest (Leith)

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Sir Cuthbert

    Radford, E. A.

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

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

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

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

    Burnett, John George

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Butier, Richard Austen

    Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Rickards, George William

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Hore-Bellsha, Rt. Hon. Leslie

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

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

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

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

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

    Hurd, Sir Percy

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

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

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

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Christie, James Archibald

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    James, Wing Com. A. W. H.

    Shute, Colonel Sir John

    Clarke, Frank

    Jamieson, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univ.)

    Spens, William Patrick

    Cooke, Douglas

    Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Cooper, T. M. (Edinburgh, W.)

    Kirkpatrick, William M.

    Stevenson, James

    Copeland, Ida

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Storey, Samuel

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.

    Leckie, J. A.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Levy, Thomas

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

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

    Lewis, Oswald

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Sutclifle, Harold

    Cross, R. H.

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Crossley, A. C.

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

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Mabane, William

    Thompson, Sir Luke

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. Sir Charles

    Thomson, Sir Douglas

    Dickie, John P.

    MacAndrew, Major J. O. (Ayr)

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Donner, P. W.

    McCorquodale, M. S.

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

    Doran, Edward

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

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

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

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Eales, John Frederick

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Eastwood, John Francis

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Edge, Sir William

    Magnay, Thomas

    Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermllne)

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

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

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

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

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

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

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

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Fermoy, Lord

    Mellor, Sir J. S. P.

    Wells, Sidney Richard

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Fleming, Edward Lascelles

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

    Morgan, Robert H.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

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

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

    Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

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

    Wise, Alfred R.

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

    Morrison, William Shephard

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Womersley, Sir Walter

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A, J.

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

    Munro, Patrick

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Granville, Edgar

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Major George Davies and

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Lieut.-Col. Llewellin.

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

    Edwards, Sir Charles

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. Clement R.

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Banfield, John William

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Bernays, Robert

    Gibbins, J.

    Lunn, William

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Cleary, J. J.

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

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Daggar, George

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

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Davies, Stephen Owen

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    2528

    2529

    Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzle (Banff)

    Paling, Wilfred

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Thorne, William James

    Wilmot, John

    Mr. D. Graham and Mr. Groves.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 32, line 24, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 47.—(Provisions as to Berar.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 33, line 38, after "Berar" insert "or the voters for the Council of State."
    5.38 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    I had better give a word or two of explanation about this Amendment, which is one of two small consequential Amendments resulting from a decision in another place to substitute direct for indirect election for the Council of State. I understand that it will be more convenient if I make my explanation on the more important Amendment which will be reached later. This Amendment is a small one which has to do with the direct constituencies for the Council of State in Berar. Paragraph (c) of Clause 47 (1) of the Bill provides at present qualifications for voters to the Provincial Legislature; these are also to apply to voters for the Council of State, in view of the decision which has been taken in another place and which we must discuss here substituting direct for indirect election to the Council of State.
    Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: On a point of Order. This Amendment is consequential on the change from indirect to direct election for the Council of State, and if we pass it we might prejudge the issue. Is it not necessary that we should consider the whole question together? If the House were to reject the change which is proposed in subsequent Amendments, this Amendment would become unnecessary, or at least be nugatory. May I ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether it would not be well either to postpone this Amendment or else to take now the discussion on the whole question of that substitution of direct for indirect election for the Council of State?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): According to the practice of
    2530
    the House, if it were intended to postpone this Amendment notice should be given of that before the Question, that the House agree with the Amendment, is put; otherwise I am bound to put it. The hon. Member may take it as quite certain that he and other hon. Members will not be regarded as having in any way prejudged the matter or prejudiced their position on the more important Amendment later; if they have made, as the hon. Member has done, a protest on the subject. As he says, if the other Amendment were disagreed with, it would no doubt render the present Amendment nugatory; probably not more than that. I would point out to him that in the event of any difficulty arising, it could be put right in another place, when the Bill goes back to them. In the circumstances I suggest that the hon. Member should make his observations on the later Amendment.

    CLAUSE 52.—(Special responsibilities of Governor.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 36, line 35, leave out "Sukkur Barrage" and insert "Lloyd Barrage and Canals."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. Butler.]
    5.40 p.m.
    Mr. ATTLEE: I should like to ask whether this change is proposed in order to commemorate the barrage put up by Lord Lloyd in another place? If so, it should be called the "Lloyd Churchill Barrage" in fairness to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill).
    Mr. COCKS: Or is it the Lloyd Barrage of the New Deal?
    Mr. BUTLER: I can give a simple answer to those questions by saying that the name proposed is the correct one for what was previously called the Sukkur Barrage. Its proper name is the Lloyd Barrage and Canals, and the Government, wishing to be correct, have decided to make this Amendment.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 41, line 17, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 68.—(Vacation of seats.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 43, line 23, at the end, insert:
    "(2) No person shall be a member both of then Federal Legislature and of a Provincial Legislature and if a person is chosen a member both of the Federal Legislature and of a Provincial Legislature, then, at the expiration of such period as may be specified in rules made by the Governor of the Province exercising his individual judgment that person's seat in the Provincial Legislature shall become vacant, unless he has previously resigned his seat in the Federal Legislature."
    5.42 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment raises a small point. It reproduces the provisions of the electoral rules made under the existing Act, by which no man can sit at the same time in a Provincial Legislature and the Central Legislature. I quite understand that there can be two points of view on this Amendment, but it has been represented to us from India that, in view of the circumstances there, no man can do the two jobs in a satisfactory manner. There are great distances, for example, which he may have to cover, and as the Budgets are considered in both legislatures at the same time he could not be present for both. In view of the representations which have been made to us and the decision taken by another place, it is, on the whole, the wiser course that no person should be a member of both the Federal Legislature and a Provincial Legislature.
    5.43 p.m.
    Mr. ATTLEE: This Amendment will make a distinction between the representative of a Province and the representative of a State. I should have thought that as there are now second chambers in the Provinces the objection would not be so strong, and that it was rather a wise thing to have a link between the Provincial Chambers and the Central Legislature.
    Viscount WOLMER: I wish to record my dissent from the Government's deci
    2532
    sion in this matter. It seems to be a great deal more important than would be gathered from what was said by the Under-Secretary of State or in another place. The reasons given by the Under-Secretary were not adequate. In these days of aerial transport, distances which a few years ago might have been prohibitive are no longer prohibitive. The whole situation has been revolutionised in that respect, and it will become increasingly possible for people to travel great distances in very short periods of time. But that is not really the point. The point is that if the circumstances which the Under-Secretary adduced obtained in any case, the electors ought to be relied on not to elect such a person. If a person is already a member of a Provincial Legislature or of the Federal Legislature, as the case may be, that ought to be taken into consideration by the electors, who are the proper judges on that point and not this House.
    Where, however, the matter seems to be serious and important, is that the Government are constantly telling us that the great danger and difficulty in working their scheme will arise from the centrifugal tendencies—the danger of the Provinces breaking away. That is the reason which they have given for the whole of their Federal structure. I submit that there is no more potent link than the presence of a large number of members who hold responsibility both in the Provinces and at the Centre, and it seems to me that the. Government here are deliberately severing what might be a very useful link. Surely we have experience of that in this House. What would the House of Commons be like if no Member of Parliament might be a member of a local authority—of a county council or a great municipality? It would introduce a fundamental change in the nature of the House of Commons, and I do not hesitate to say that it would destroy a great deal of the usefulness of the House of Commons.
    The presence in the Federal Legislature of men with provincial experience—of men not only representing the Provinces as elected representatives, but men with a personal right to speak on the problems of the Provinces because they have taken part and are taking part in the legislatures of those Provinces—is a consideration compared with which, it seems to me,

    2533
    the reasons advanced by the Under-Secretary are altogether insignificant. I cannot help feeling that there must be some reason which he has not given to the House, and, if that be so, I should very much like to know what that reason is. If the only reasons that have prompted the Government to make this change in the Bill are that distances are great in India and that the legislative bodies frequently sit at the same period, then I say that that is a matter which will be increasingly overcome by aerial transport, and one on which the electors are entitled to judge. It seems to me that grave injury might be done to the Constitution by putting this provision into the Bill, and therefore I desire to protest against it.
    5.48 p.m.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: The Under-Secretary has only spoken of one argument in favour of the Lords Amendment, namely, the difficulty of distance. If there is any other argument, anything that he submitted would weigh with us. I do not remember this matter being discussed in the Joint Select Committee. If it was, I do not think that much importance was attached to it at the time. I cannot recall that in the earlier discussions of the Committee we dwelt on the point. If I can be corrected with regard to that, I will give way at once. When the Joint Select Committee discussed the question of Indian constitutional reform over a period of nearly two years, the intention was to deal with all these matters, and I do not know what points can now arise on which we cannot have the guidance that came from that prolonged consideration. I think that the only course we ought to take is to leave this matter to the good sense of the electors, who are the people most qualified to judge. I can quite understand a man who is only a member of the central body being more disqualified from serving at the Centre by reason of heavy business interests in the Provinces, which demand a great deal more of his time than membership of the provincial Parliament. A man with heavy claims upon his time, with huge business responsibilities or other very close ties, might be more disqualified from carrying out this double responsibility than another man who is a member of a provincial chamber as well as of the Central chamber.
    If some urgent request has been put forward from some quarter, if some
    2534
    strong representation has been made on behalf of Indian opinion, I am sure the House would like to have regard to it, but if the only point is that of distance and the disability that would arise from difficulty of communication, I think that that is an issue which ought to be left to the electors, who would be very well able to decide whether a man who was seeking their support was in a position to carry out the pledges that he gave with regard to his services. That is the sort of criticism that would be expected here, and anyone who has gone through an election knows that his opponents would never hesitate to remind the electors of any inability to carry out the pledges that are so freely given at those times. In the circumstances I do not think that the Government ought to press the Amendment unless they are able to make a stronger answer than that which has just been put forward.
    5.52 p.m.
    Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: It is rather difficult to follow the Government in this ban against the possibility of a member of a Provincial Legislature becoming a member of the Federal Legislature. We know that one of the difficulties which lie ahead in India is that of finding a sufficient supply of capable men for the various legislatures, and that seems to me to be a strong argument against the imposition of this ban. My Noble Friend the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) has pointed out that air travel has shortened distances very considerably, and I would add that it is not our custom here to ban a Member of the House of Commons in Belfast from being a Member of this House. Therefore, I would suggest that it is not wise to persist in this Amendment, but that it should be left to the decision of the electors.
    5.54 p.m.
    Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: I would urge the Government to consider the views which have been expressed from various parts of the House on this matter. It is not a question on which personally I should desire to have a contest with the Government, but at the same time it would appear hardly wise to make it impossible for a distinguished statesman in India to exercise these dual functions, and I would express the hope that the Government will consider very seriously whether they could not forbear from pressing this Amendment.
    5.55 p.m.
    Mr. AMERY: I desire to join in the appeal that has been made to the Government not to insist on a hard-and-fast rule which would preclude members of Provincial Legislatures from being also eligible for the Central Legislature. After all, the value of the new form of Federal Legislature with which India is being equipped is that it is going to keep the Provinces in close touch with central problems, through the delegation by the Provinces of representatives to the Centre and by the close control which will result from the intimate connection between the representatives of the Centre and the small body of provincial members so delegated to serve in the Central Assembly. It would be quite in consonance with that principle that in certain cases, where the circumstances allowed it, the members at the Centre might also be members of provincial legislatures. I suppose that that could hardly be a general rule, but I should have thought that it would be a pity to lay down an absolute bar against such a possibility.
    5.56 p.m.
    Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE: So much has been said against agreement with this Amendment that perhaps the House will allow me to express a contrary view. I feel that the House perhaps does not quite realise the history of this matter. So far as I know, from the earliest days of the legislative assemblies and legislative councils in India it has always been a rule that a member of a provincial council should resign his seat on being elected to the Central Council at Delhi. Apart from the question of the difficulties, which are very real, there is, to my mind, a great advantage in that rule. In the first place, I think it is essential that we should not encourage the growth of, so to speak, professional politicians in India, and there is a distant danger of that if you make politics so much an engagement for people that they can do no other work. In my view there is a great advantage in confining a man's political activities either to the Provinces or to the Centre, and not allowing them to extend to both. It does not put the same demand upon his time, and, therefore, there is a larger number of people from whom to choose. There is a very real difficulty in regard to attendance
    2536
    both at the Centre and in the Provinces. As the Under-Secretary has said, the two bodies generally meet at the same time. It is not a question of meeting for a day, but very often for weeks, and although no doubt aerial transport has improved enormously, and enables people to travel much more quickly than in days gone by, that does not alter the fact that no person, particularly in the climate of India, could undertake the enormous physical strain of continually going backwards and forwards between two bodies mostly meeting at the same time.
    The other argument that has been advanced is that this matter should be left to the electors. That might be a very sound argument in this country, but I think that Members in all parts of the House will agree that India is not yet at a stage at which the electorate is capable of judging on a matter of that kind. It does not affect them personally; they do not have to make these journeys themselves; but they will elect people, as is done to some extent in other countries, in their name and reputation, and it would be impossible in present circumstances to expect an electorate in India to say that they would not elect a candidate because he had a great deal of work to do elsewhere. I think that this is a matter on which the House might decide. It is not a vital matter, but, on the whole, the arguments are in favour of preventing a member from sitting both in the Central Legislature and in a Provincial Legislature.
    5.59 p.m.
    Lord E. PERCY: I recognise that this is a point on which considerations may be very evenly balanced. I appreciate what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) and by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft). I have considered the point myself for some time, and I, too, have varied in my opinion. It was, as a matter of fact, discussed in the Joint Select Committee, and various views were expressed upon it. It is true that one or two individual statesmen in India may be invaluable members of two Legislatures, and might be able to discharge the duties, simply because their regular and invariable attendance in one of those Legislatures would not be essential; but if this became anything like a general practice the position would become impossible.

    2537
    My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) has been through the mill himself. I have only watched it for a very short period from outside. But anyone who has seen both the Central Legislature and all the Provincial Legislatures, at the same period, in February and March, in the throes of a Budget session, will realise that, in the most important business of the year, it would be quite impossible for anyone to be an effective and efficient member of the two Legislatures at once.
    The question then is whether the matter should be left open so that a Provincial Legislature could elect its own members as members of the Federal Legislature as a more or less general rule, or whether you are to have a general prohibition. You cannot have it both ways. If you leave the door open, it must be left wide open. I think there would be a great deal to be said for my Noble Friend's view that you should leave it to the electorate if both Legislatures were directly elected, but in fact—I know the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) does not like the fact—we have decided that the Federal Legislature shall be indirectly elected. Therefore the electors of the Provincial Legislatures will not know whether they have elected a candidate and he will not know himself that he is going to be a member of another Legislature. But then he may elect himself to go on to the Federal Legislature. On balance I think the argument inclines very strongly against dual membership, and if to that you add that this is and always has been the law in India—
    Viscount WOLMER: My Noble Friend has pointed out how badly the present Constitution works.
    Lord E. PERCY: I have never said that everything that is is bad. I leave that kind of Conservatism to my Noble Friend. Finally, this view that it is undesirable to have dual membership is a view taken, I think, by most of our official advisers in India. I think the balance is definitely in favour of this Amendment of another place and I would ask even such of my hon. Friends as doubt whether this is really necessary to accept the law of the land.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 54, line 2, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 89.—(Power of Governor to promulgate ordinances at any time with respect to certain subjects.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 57, line 37, leave out "until disallowed by the Governor-General."
    6.4 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, "That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment and the next Amendment were made in the other place for the purpose of correcting a mistake which had appeared in the Bill as originally prepared. It is, of course, a mistake to speak about disallowance by the Governor-General. That is a function reserved for the Crown. In the case of an Act passed by a Provincial Legislature, when it is reserved for his assent he may give or withhold his assent or he may reserve it for the signification of the King's pleasure, but it is not for him to disallow an Act and, therefore, the alteration has been made to omit the words which you, Sir, have read.
    Viscount WOLMER: How will it read if the whole of the words between brackets are left out? It is difficult to follow the exact words.
    The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: The Clause will read:
    "Provided that for the purposes of the provisions of this Act relating to the effect of an Act of a provincial Legislature which is repugnant to an Act of the Federal Legislature, an ordinance promulgated under this section shall be deemed to be an Act of the provincial Legislature which has been reserved for the consideration of the Governor-General and assented to by him."
    Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 66, line 29, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 108.—(Sanction of Governor-General or Governor required for certain legislative proposals.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 69, line 14, at the end, insert:
    "or
    (g) affects the grant of relief from any Federal tax on income in respect of income taxed or taxable in the United Kingdom."
    6.6 p.m.
    Lord E. PERCY: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    I know that this Amendment will not be very pleasing to hon. Members opposite, because it is a proposal to add to the number of subjects on which legislation cannot be introduced without the Governor-General's previous sanction. It proposes to add to those subjects any legislation which affects the grant of relief from any Federal tax on income taxed or taxable in the United Kingdom. It is, therefore, of the same nature as what is now in paragraph (f) of Clause 108—the question of differential taxation—but I think it is, even from the point of view of hon. Members opposite, less open to objection than that paragraph because, of course, this relates to double Income Tax legislation, and any Measure for the relief of citizens from double Income Tax must be the subject of reciprocal arrangement between the two countries. The intention of this Amendment is, of course, simply to ensure that without the Governor-General's sanction a proposal to break a reciprocal arrangement of that kind shall not be introduced into the Legislature.

    CLAUSE 109.—(Requirements as to sanctions and recommendations to be regarded as matters of procedure only.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 70, line 43, at the end, insert:
    "or
    (iii) except in so far as is expressly permitted by any subsequent provisions of this Act, to make any law derogating from any prerogative right of His Majesty to grant special leave to appeal from any court."
    6.9 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This new paragraph is to make it plain that no power is conferred by this Act upon the Indian Legislature which will enable them to derogate in any way from the right of appeal which His Majesty may by the exercise of his prerogative allow by way of special leave. Clause 208 of the Bill as it left this House provided, by Sub-section (2), that:
    "Nothing in this part of this Act shall be construed as derogating from any prerogative right of His Majesty to grant
    2540
    special leave to appeal in any criminal case."
    Later on we shall come to an Amendment which has been made in another place to omit that Clause. This new paragraph will, of course, cover that also. It does not deal in any way with the conditions under which leave to appeal is given in India by the courts. It deals solely with the prerogative of His Majesty to grant special leave to appeal, and the new paragraph is to make it plain that there will be no power to interfere with that prerogative right of His Majesty.
    6.11 p.m.
    Mr. ATTLEE: Does this raise the point of appeal to the Privy Council which we discussed in connection with the Irish Free State? I think the object of this is to make it plain that the Indian Legislature shall not have the right to pass any legislation which will prevent an appeal to the Privy Council.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: By way of special leave by the exercise of the prerogative. There is a distinction between an appeal for which special leave is given by His Majesty by the exercise of the prerogative and the right of appeal which depends upon certain conditions which may be laid down in India. The Indian Legislature will have full power to deal with appeals to the Privy Council which are regulated by those conditions, but it will not have power, if this paragraph is added to the Bill, to interfere with the exercise of the prerogative right of His Majesty in Privy Council to grant special leave to appeal.
    Mr. ATTLEE: I take it that, as things stand at present with regard to the Dominions, the prerogative right has been actually done away with under the Statute of Westminster?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No; it is a much bigger subject if I were to go into what happened in the case of the Dominions in regard to special leave to appeal, but it is certainly not the case that the right has been abolished. So far as the Irish Free State is concerned, I am sorry that that step has been taken but it is the only Dominion in which it has happened.

    CLAUSE 116.—(Subsidies for the encouragement of trade or industry.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 76, line 5, at the end, insert new Clause:

    2541
    (Supplemental.)
    ". The foregoing provisions of this chapter shall apply in relation to any ordinance, order, bye-law, rule or regulation passed or made after the passing of this Act and having by virtue of any existing Indian law, or of any law of the Federal or any Provincial Legislature, the force of law as they apply in relation to Federal and Provincial laws, but, save as aforesaid, nothing in those provisions shall affect the operation of any existing Indian law."
    6.13 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is really a drafting Amendment, although it entails the substance of a new Clause. It takes the place of Clause 121, on which there is an Amendment a little later. The terms of the Clauses are practically identical except that the provisions of this apply, for particular reasons, to Clauses 111 to 116. I can assure the House that this Clause and the deletion of Clause 121 are really only a question of re-arrangement.
    Viscount WOLMER: Did I understand the Under-Secretary to say that the effect of this Clause is the same as Clause 121, the deletion of which he is going to move?
    Mr. BUTLER: I am sorry if I did not make it clear. I intended to convey that this Clause is almost identical with Clause 121, but for certain technical reasons it has been found necessary to delete Clause 121 and to insert this Clause here. The Clause is inserted here in order that its provisions shall be made applicable to Clauses 111 to 116 inclusive. The provisions in question are not necessary for the later Clauses and, therefore, the more accurate need for the provision of Clause 121 is attained by the substitution of its contents at this stage in order to apply in a slightly amended form to Clauses 111 and 116, and thereby the final necessity for the original Clause 121 is removed. That is why I said that it was a case for re-arrangement and not really a case of substance.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 80, line 37, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 122.—(General duty to secure respect for Federal laws.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 81, line 15, at the end, insert:
    2542
    "(3) Without prejudice to any of the other provisions of this Part of this Act, in the exercise of the executive authority of the Federation in any Province or Federated State regard shall be had to the interests of that Province or State."
    Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This new paragraph (3) is inserted in this portion of the Bill, and its general principle is that mutual regard should be had for each other's interests on the part of the Federation on the one hand, and the units on the other. We understand that the insertion of these words has given satisfaction to the States' representatives, and it has also given satisfaction to representatives of the Provinces, and this declaration will, it is thought, help to ensure that the interests of the units will not be sacrificed to those of the Federation.
    6.17 p.m.
    Viscount WOLMER: I do not quite understand what the point is. I understood my hon. Friend to state that this is one of the provisions for which the States had asked, and I do not know whether that is so. These words have to be read in their context with Clause 122, which says:
    "The executive authority of every Province and Federated State shall be so exercised as to secure respect for the laws of the Federal Legislature which apply in that Province or State."
    It goes on to say:
    "Without prejudice to any of the other provisions of this Part of this Act, in the exercise of the executive authority of the Federation in any Province or Federated State regard shall be had to the interests of that Province or State."
    It is an extraordinary thing to put into an Act of Parliament a platitude of that sort, which can mean anything or nothing. We are always taught that there is nothing so dangerous in drafting as to draft a thing which comes within such a definition. The Under-Secretary of State has not given arty reason why these words should be put in.
    6.19 p.m.
    Lord E. PERCY: The very words which my Noble Friend has read out suggest the reason for this Amendment. In the first paragraph it states that the Province and the Federated States shall so exercise their powers as to secure respect for the

    2543
    laws of the Federal Legislature which apply in that Province or State. It might naturally be asked, "What is your obligation to us on the other side of the exercise of your executive authority? Is there to be anything to balance our obligations?" This is an attempt to balance the two obligations. It is true that it is, in a sense, a platitude, that is to say, it is the enunciation of a principle. It might almost be called the enunciation of a dogma. While I sympathise with my Noble Friend in the enunciation of general principles, I think that in a Constitution Act of this kind a rare and isolated reference to general principle need not raise our alarm too much.

    CLAUSE 126.—(Control of Federation over Province in certain cases.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 83, line 5, at the end insert:
    "(3) The executive authority of the Federation shall also extend to the giving of directions to a Province as to the construction and maintenance of means of communication declared in the direction to be of military importance:
    Provided that nothing in this subsection shall be taken as restricting the power of the Federation to construct and maintain means of communication as part of its functions with respect to naval, military and air force works."
    Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Some doubt was expressed in the House when we were considering the question whether the Governor-General, administering the reserve department of defence, would obtain the necessary powers to ensure that roads of military importance were maintained in an efficient condition by the Provinces concerned. These words have been added in another place to make it perfectly clear that this is so. We did, in fact, consider that the terms of Clause 126, to which the Sub-section has been added, gave sufficient authority for the purposes in question. For instance, the words
    "not to impede or prejudice the exercise of the executive authority of the Federation,"
    in Sub-section (1), of Clause 126, would, it is thought, cover this necessity. However, these words have been put in, and I think they give an extra assurance that in fact the Federation has this power.
    2544
    The proviso has been inserted in Subsection (3), as moved in the Amendment, in order that nothing shall be done to take away the power which is actually given in Item 2 of List I for the Federation to legislate on such matters as Naval, Military and Air Force works. It may be said, therefore, that the Amendment makes the position even clearer than it was before, although the Government considered that the position was perfectly safeguarded. However, I believe that it has given satisfaction in another place, and I understand that it is desirable that we should insert it in the Bill, and I recommend it confidently to the House.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 87, line 38, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 143.—(Power of Federation Provinces to make grants.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 93, line 18, leave out Clause 143.
    Lord E. PERCY: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is really a drafting Amendment. It is to leave out Clause 143, and it is proposed to make an Amendment later on to clear up the ambiguity on this matter. It is really a question of redrafting and rearrangement. Clause 143 stated that Federal money might be applied to a Provincial purpose and Provincial money for a Federal purpose, but there are certain purposes to which both Provincial and Federal money might be devoted which could not perhaps be called either a Provincial or a Federal purpose.

    CLAUSE 148.—(Remission of States contributions.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 96, line 35, at the end, insert:
    "(c) the annual value to the Ruler of any privilege or territory granted in respect of the abandonment or surrender of any such right as is mentioned in the last preceding paragraph;"
    Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

    2545
    This really amounts to little more than a drafting Amendment, but I appreciate that in view of its appearance on the Paper hon. Members will desire a little explanation. We have been informed that paragraphs (a) and (b) of Subsection (6) of Clause 148 do not entirely meet some special cases of "privilege or immunity" enjoyed by particular States. The particular State in question which we have in mind in moving this Amendment is that of Khairpur which has the right to purchase duty free so much British-Indian salt as is required for consumption by the State itself, this privilege having been given in return for the State having abstained from producing salt. This retains the original sense of the Clause agreed to by the House, but it includes reference to a particular case not included in the original wording.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment to page 97, line 6, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 151.—(Expenditure defrayable out of Indian revenues.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 97, line 39, leave out "the government of India," and insert "India or some part of India."
    Lord E. PERCY: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The point of this Amendment is exactly the same as that of the Amendment which I explained a moment ago. The words "the government of India" might be regarded as confined to subjects within the Federal scheme.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 102, line 31, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 171.—(Auditor of Indian Home Accounts.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 106, line 18, at the end, insert:
    "and the salaries, allowances and pensions payable to or in respect of members of his staff shall be paid out of those revenues."
    Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment raises a question of privilege as it involves charges on the Federal revenues.
    Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The purpose of the Amendment is to supply an omission in relation to the
    2546
    source from which the salaries of the staff of the Auditor of Home Accounts is to be met. It fills a gap in the Bill, and creates no new principle or idea.
    Viscount WOLMER: What does my hon. Friend mean by saying that it fills a gap in the Bill? Does he mean that this point was not provided for in the Bill before?
    Mr. BUTLER: It is always possible in a Bill of this size to have certain chinks in the armour, and I am surprised that there have not been more in this Bill. This completes the panoply of the Auditor of Home Accounts and, therefore, brings the Bill into more accurate form by making provision for the staff of the Auditor of Borne Accounts.

    CLAUSE 173.—(Vesting of lands and buildings.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 107, line 13, at the end, insert:
    "or unless they are lands and buildings formerly used for such purposes as aforesaid, or intended or formerly intended to be so used, and are certified by the Governor-General in Council or, as the case may be, His Majesty's Representative, to have been retained for future use for such purposes, or to have been retained temporarily for the purpose of more advantageous disposal by sale or otherwise."
    6.29 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This paragraph has to do with certain lands in Bombay which are not actually being used for central purposes within the meaning of the Sub-section as it stands, and which, therefore, without this Sub-section, would pass to the Provinces without any safeguard for the existing financial arrangement unless we made the specific provision which we propose in this Amendment.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 114, line 2, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 181.—(Contracts in connection with functions of Crown in its relations with Indian States.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 115, line 23, after "shall" insert:
    "if it is such a contract as would have been legally enforceable by or against the Secretary of State in Council."
    6.31 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment was inserted to deal with a point which most people would think was plain, but it is necessary to be perfectly certain in these matters. All treaties are in a sense contracts, and are such contracts as are described in the sub-Clause. It is, however, necessary if treaties are to be enforceable by or against the Secretary of State to make it plain that they are only such contracts as would be legally enforceable by or against the Secretary of State in Council.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment, in page 115, line 28, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 182.—(Executive authority in respect of railways to be exercised by Federal Railway Authority.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 115, line 40, at the end, insert:
    "(2) The said executive authority extends to the carrying on in connection with any Federal railways or such undertakings as, in the opinion of the Authority, it is expedient should be carried on in connection therewith and to the making and carrying into effect of arrangements with other persons for the carrying on by those persons of such undertakings:
    Provided that, as respects their powers under this subsection, the Authority shall be subject to any relevant provisions of any Federal, Provincial or existing Indian law, and to the relevant provisions of the law of any Federated State, but nothing in this subsection shall be construed as limiting the provisions of Part VI of this Act regulating the relations of the Federation with Provinces and States."
    6.33 p.m.
    Lord E. PERCY: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment is to enable the Railway Authority to carry on ancillary services, such as the running of subsidiary road services in connection with the railways.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Services subsidiary to the railways may come within a wide term. Does it mean that they may run steamers, hotels or ferries? I take it that it is not intended to give them wider powers.
    Lord E. PERCY: This is a question of constitution. It is desirable that the
    2548
    Railway authority should not be constitutionally debarred from running any subsidiary services of a kind deemed expedient. The extent to which it will be allowed to run services will depend upon Federal legislation. It would be obviously undesirable that there should be an absolute statutory bar to the running, say, of omnibus services in connection with a railway.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I take it that it is intended to help the railway in regard to such matters as an omnibus service feeding the railway, but not enabling them to go say into another Province?
    Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 116, line 7, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 194.—(Appeal by State to Railway Tribunal from certain directions of Federal Railway Authority.)
    Lords Amendment: Leave out the Clause.
    Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The object of this Amendment is to transpose the positions of Clauses 194 and 195. The next Amendment is consequential.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment: In page 122, line 16, at the end, insert new CLAUSE B: (Appeal by State to Railway Tribunal from certain directions of Federal Railway Authority), agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment, in page 122, line 39, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 197.—(Railway Tribunal.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 124, line 13, at the end, insert:
    "and any fees or other moneys taken by the Tribunal shall form part of those revenues."
    Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment relates to the Railway Tribunal, and we have a similar provision in regard to the Federal Court. The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that fees or other moneys received by the Railway Tribunal shall form part of the Federal revenues.
    Lords Amendment: In page 125, line 6, at the end, insert:

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Railways in Indian, States which have not federated.)
    "If and in so far as His Majesty's Representative for the exercise of the functions of the Crown in its relations with Indian States may entrust to the Authority the performance of any functions in relation to railways in an Indian State which is not a Federated State, the Authority shall undertake the performance of those functions."
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The purpose of the new Clause is very simple, namely, to make it plain that in the case of railways in non-federated States the Crown's representative can utilise the agency of the Railway Authority, just in the same way as the Railway Board are now used as agents for the Government of India.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 131, line 16, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 213.—(Power of Governor-General to consult Federal Court.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 131, line 3, at the end, insert:
    "(2) No report shall be made under this section save in accordance with an opinion delivered in open court with the concurrence of a majority of the judges present at the hearing of the case, but nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to prevent a judge who does not concur from delivering a dissenting opinion."
    6.38 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Clause gives the Governor-General power to consult the Federal Court. There is an analogous provision in our own law, in Section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act, which enables His Majesty to have the advice of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Clause as it left this House left two matters open, first, the question whether the advice must be reported publicly to the Governor-General, in response to his request, and, secondly, whether any dissenting opinion might be given. In the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council it is not the practice for more than one
    2550
    opinion to be given. Therefore, if there is any dissent among the members of the Board that dissent is not known. Obviously, no reason which may appeal to any dissenting member of the tribunal can be made public. It is proposed to add the provision in this Amendment to make it plain that no report shall be made under this Section save in accordance with an opinion which shall be delivered in open court. It is also provided by this new Sub-section that a judge who dissents may deliver a dissenting opinion. It is obviously desirable in these circumstances that the Governor-General shall be aware of the way in which certain arguments have appealed to members of the Federal Court and that he shall have the advantage of knowing the views which have been taken by the dissenting minority of the court as well as by the majority.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 136, line 35, agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 137, line 21, at the end, insert:

    NEW CLAUSE D.—(Transfer of certain cases to High Court for trial.)
    " .—(1) If on an application made in accordance with the provisions of this section a High Court is satisfied that a case pending in an inferior court, being a case which the High Court has power to transfer to itself for trial, involves or is likely to involve the question of the validity of any Federal or Provincial Act, it shall exercise that power.
    (2) An application for the purposes of this section shall not be made except in relation to a Federal Act, by the Advocate-General for the Federation and, in relation to a Provincial Act, by the Advocate-General for the Federation or the Advocate-General for the Province."
    6.39 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    It is well known to all who have followed this Bill that it will be possible for the validity of any Act purporting to be passed under the powers conferred by this Bill, to be open to question. That is the inevitable result of the establishment of provincial autonomy, which necessitates the delimitation of the powers of the Federal and Provincial

    2551
    Legislatures. The new Clause is to enable the High Court to obtain seising of any case raising such an issue upon the application of the Advocate-General of the Federal Government or of the Provincial Government as the case may be. It is obviously a convenient practice that when disputes may arise in other courts other than the High Court raising the question of the validity of an Act that the High Court shall be in a position to remove that debate to the place where it must be authoritatively discussed and decided.

    CLAUSE 241.—(Application of preceding section to railway services, and officials of courts.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 144, line 25, leave out:
    "the recruitment of officers generally"
    and insert:
    "recruitment to such posts and in recruitment generally for railway purposes shall have due regard to the past association of the Anglo-Indian community with railway services in India, and particularly to the specific class, character and numerical percentages of the posts hitherto held by members of that community and the remuneration attaching to such posts, and"
    6.40 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    When the question of the Anglo-Indians was originally discussed in this House it was decided to rely upon the terms of Clause 241, and this protection was considered sufficient. Since then in another place it has been very strongly pressed upon the Government that a declaratory statement of the kind indicated in this amendment and in the next Amendment would be valuable to the community, and the Government accordingly have agreed to accept this declaratory statement and to insert it in the Bill. The Government consider, however, that what they originally suggested would be the best course to pursue for those who have the interests of the Anglo-Indian community at heart, and although they have accepted the words of the Amendment that does not imply any change in favour of the community in the policy laid down in the Government of India Resolution,
    2552
    which is the accepted policy upon which the Governor-General is to be instructed to base his view of the interests of that particular minority. These words do not for instance fix any special rates of pay for particular communities. They do, however, make it perfectly clear that we wish the Anglo-Indian community to have in future as far as possible a satisfactory position in the services. It is, therefore, with pleasure that we have accepted the Amendment, and I recommend it to the House.
    6.42 p.m.
    Mr. ATTLEE: I think this Amendment is a very bad piece of policy both for the Government and for the Anglo-Indian community. We all have sympathy with that community, but it is a very dangerous thing to exercise a charity at someone else's expense. In this instance I think that is what the Government are doing. Here we have an instruction which is almost mandatory, in which it is said that in recruitment for railway purposes, due regard must be had to the Anglo-Indian community. In effect it says that this community which, for historical reasons, has had a certain percentage of posts, that those posts shall as far as possible be assured for all time in the enjoyment of those people. I think that is an extraordinarily dangerous thing. The Anglo-Indian community has done great service in the past. It was particularly qualified for posts when the railway and postal services were started, because of its superior education and status, but since that time there has been tremendous competition among all the communities in India for the higher posts. The danger is that if you try to secure the future of the Anglo-Indian community in the way proposed in this Amendment, so far from doing them a service you will do them a disservice, because you will make them hated by all the other communities as being put in a specially privileged position.
    When we discussed this matter before I said that we owed something to the Anglo-Indian community and that if anything could be done for them it should be done by the people of the United Kingdom. What you are proposing to do here is to say: "Yes, we owe a great deal to the Anglo-Indian community and we will therefore in future make the rest of the people of India keep them on a

    2553
    standard of life which is higher than that of the average Indian; we will secure for them a certain proportion of posts." You are saying: "We will disregard what we laid down originally when the Bill went to another place, that is to say, that they shall have a fair representation in the railway service, and that without regard to the numbers of the Anglo-Indian community and without regard to the state of the other communities we are going to endeavour to secure them posts in accordance with the lines laid down in the Amendment." You are doing a grave disservice to the Anglo-Indian community, and I think that they will suffer from it all the time.
    6.45 p.m.
    Viscount WOLMER: We have heard very curious and very different interpretations put upon Clauses in various parts of the Bill by hon. Members who support the Bill from different angles. When this Amendment was accepted in another place the Secretary of State for India said that it was a purely declaratory Amendment and would bind nobody. If I have misquoted him I hope the Under-Secretary will correct me.
    But I should like to know what value these words really are to the Anglo-Indian community. I sympathise with the position in which the Anglo-Indian community finds itself, as I sympathise with the position of every minority liable to suffer discrimination under the Bill. There is some force in what the right hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) has said, that these words may expose the Anglo-Indian community to a certain amount of jealousy from other inhabitants of India. If he is right, if these words are going to provoke ill-will against the Anglo-Indian community, and if the Secretary of State is right that these words do not protect them at all, it seems to me that the Anglo-Indian community are not going to be much better off by the insertion of these words. I should be grateful if the Attorney-General will tell us the effect of these words. I was surprised to read that the Secretary of State said that they were purely declaratory and not binding. Inasmuch as it is an admonition addressed to the Governor-General he is bound to take notice of it, and, therefore, they are binding and will have an effect. I hope the Attorney-General will explain the nature and effect of these words.
    6.48 p.m.
    Mr. MOLSON: I do not agree with the Noble Lord in his view of the Amendment, and I am glad that the Government have accepted it. I entirely dissent from the view expressed by the right hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) when he suggested that these words will in some way be harmful to the interests of Anglo-Indians, and that provision should have been made for them by the United Kingdom. The Anglo-Indian community is an Indian community and is recognised as such. Other Indian communities are obtaining protection and safeguards, and I am glad that this has been done in the case of the Anglo-Indian community. I have had my attention drawn to what the Secretary of State said in another place about this being purely declaratory, but it does not seem to me that that takes away from the value of these words. The Amendment is, of course, declaratory because it merely says what is to be done, that due regard is to be paid to the past services of this community. The Government have gone as far as they can in requiring that "due regard" shall be given, but that, of course, does not bind anyone to any precise number of appointments. It does not lay down any particular proportions, it merely says that "due regard" shall be had to the past services of the Anglo-Indian community. I am glad, therefore, that the Government have in this way assisted the Anglo-Indian community, and I do not share the apprehensions of the right hon. Member for Limehouse.
    6.50 p.m.
    Sir REGINALD CRADDOCK: I propose to move an Amendment to the Lords Amendment. I desire to confirm what was said in another place as to the vital necessity of protecting the Anglo-Indian community. There is a special reason why they should have protection in the matter of these appointments, and it is much easier to gove them a numerical proportion. Then you do not want to go into so much detail as the Amendment does in respect of
    "specific class character and numerical percentages of the posts hitherto held by members of that community and the remuneration attaching to such posts."
    It is generally assumed that the distribution is made according to percentages,

    2555
    but as a matter of fact, although I have not had time to check the figures, I am informed that at the beginning the application of these percentages was viewed with great alarm and despondency by the Anglo-Indian community. You may give a percentage of the appointments, but you want to give a percentage of appointments to the various grades and classes carrying the salaries which these appointments possess, and which they should not be deprived of all at once. As a matter of fact, in the early days of the railways the proportion of appointments held by the Anglo-Indians was much larger than it is now. Other classes of persons, Hindus and Mohammedans, have an enormous number of the extra posts while the percentage of the Anglo-Indians has shrunk during the last 10 years. All that is being attempted is to give them roughly the same percentage of appointments which they now have. It is suggested that by moving an Anglo-Indian from a telegraph post in a fairly large place and putting him into a village post office in rural surroundings you are adhering to what was intended.
    The Anglo-Indians are a class for which this nation has accepted responsibility and they should not be left to the mercy of other communities, who will certainly resent any position of privilege which may be assigned to them. It does not matter whether you put it in this or that form, the communities who have the gift of these appointments will always resent the fact that the Anglo-Indians have any posts at all, because it will be urged that in any position they take the bread out of the mouth of some good Hindu or Mohammedan. It is no good trying to win their good will by cutting down the nature of the security which you confer on Anglo-Indians by this Amendment. Hereditary occupations always carry weight in India. The fact that a man and his father and grandfather have done a certain kind of work is always regarded as an appropriate reason for giving the son and the grandson posts of the same kind. That is entirely in accordance with oriental useage. It is only lately that the movement to reduce salaries received by Anglo-Indians has advanced very much, but if Anglo-Indians are to have jobs on the same pay as other communities they cannot live. If this continues it will
    2556
    mean that the Anglo-Indians will be reduced to the level of a depressed class. We are talking about uplifting the depressed classes in all parts of India.
    When are we going to abstain from action which will surely turn the Anglo-Indians into a depressed class? They cannot do rural work. It will take generations before they can become agriculturists. They have not the land or the money to buy land. It is impossible to judge this community by the same standards as you would judge the distribution of posts among Hindus and Mohammedans. They have to be dealt with on a separate grade of their own, because you will destroy them as a class, bring economic ruin upon them if you throw them back on rural occupations or give them posts carrying a salary on which they cannot live. I do not say that you should give them more pay than the Indians get for the same work, but I do say that you should give them a reasonable proportion of the appointments and posts which pay salaries upon which Anglo-Indians can live. The words are declaratory in the sense that they set out the policy of the Government. The Governor-General when he is framing rules will have to pay due regard to all these matters. It is largely a question of arithmetic and a reasonably intelligent application of figures which can be obtained as to their past employment. I say that the duties of the Governor-General will extend to this, that if existing rules which have been framed do not conform to the standards laid down in the Amendment it is clearly the duty of the Governor-General to see that the rules are modified until they do conform. You cannot say that the rules have been made and cannot be altered. You must consider whether the objectives laid down in the Amendment are being observed or not. I hope the Amendment will be accepted, and that the Under-Secretary will be able to say that they are only declaratory in the sense that they lay down the policy to be followed, and that the Governor-General when framing the rules will see that they conform to that policy.
    6.58 p.m.
    Mr. KIRKPATRICK: For the first time in the Debates on the India Bill I find myself in agreement with the last two hon. Members, and I heartily support the request that the Under-Secre-

    2557
    tary will explain as fully as he can what is meant by "purely declaratory." The right hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) quoted the Secretary of State as having said in another place that they do not bind anyone to anything. The Secretary of State as regards remuneration also, said:
    "It cannot be held in any way to be a promise that special rates of pay will be provided."
    He followed this up by saying:
    "As far as the Instrument of Instructions is concerned I will inform the Government of India that the 4th of July Resolution is the accepted policy."
    Perhaps the Under-Secretary will explain what is meant by those words, and what "purely declaratory" means.
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: The memorandum says: "The Amendments are intended to draw attention to the claims of the Anglo-Indian community …" and the Amendment states that the Governor-General or person authorised by him "shall have due regard to the past association of the Anglo-Indian community" with the railway services in India. You draw the attention of the authority to their claims, and then you do not say that the claims should merely be "considered," but that they shall "have regard," which goes a stage further, and makes it, if not mandatory to employ a certain or fixed number, at any rate in a sense semi-mandatory. You do lay down that these people have a definite claim because of their past services, not to this country but to India and the Indian people, and you make this claim semi-mandatory without definitely handicapping and hindering the powers on the spot in their choice of those individuals who serve the interests of the railways. I think the Government have gone a very considerable way to meet the fears, and also the claims, of a body in India who have rendered immense service to the whole of the Indian community.
    7.3 p.m.
    Viscount WOLMER: More than one hon. Member has asked the learned Attorney-General to explain the principle of this Amendment, but he appears to have left the Chamber. The Solicitor-General, however, is here, and I hope that we shall get a legal interpretation from him.
    7.4 p.m.
    Lord E. PERCY: I have been asked whether these words are mandatory, semi-mandatory, declaratory or semi-declaratory. After all, the effect of words like these—"having due regard"—is perfectly familiar to everyone who has had experience of working legislation in this country. May I give my Noble Friend the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) an analogy from this country? The Board of Education, in judging a dispute between a local authority and the managers of a church school in respect of the starting of a new school, is bound to have regard, among other things, to the wishes of the parents. It is true that nobody can prove, whatever the President of the Board of Education may decide, that he has not paid regard to the wishes of the parents. It is not a guarantee that any particular school is going to be recognised, but my Noble Friend would be the first to admit that that duty on the Board of Education to have regard to the wishes of parents is, in every dispute of this kind, of the greatest effect in securing fair play as between voluntary schools and the local authority.
    If my Noble Friend is not satisfied no doubt the Solicitor-General will give him a second opinion. But surely the effect of these words is precisely as I have stated. You would never be able to bring any case in the court to prove that the railway authority have not had "due regard." It is not provable in any court of law, but on the other hand it is a statutory duty on the railway authority to have such regard. It is a duty on the Governor-General to give directions to that railway authority to have such regard, and to say that all that has no statutory effect and that it is purely a facade would be absurd. It is a valuable statement of the standard by which the railway authorities must act.
    7.7 p.m.
    Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Gentleman who has spoken will be grateful to the Noble Lord for the explanation he has just given. For my part I accept it as a satisfactory explanation. I think that the words introduced in another place are an effective guarantee for the fair treatment of the class of community whose case is under discussion. It is not the words themselves, but I

    2559
    think the Secretary of State in another place used some rather loose language in describing what they were and what they were not. What I have hitherto understood by a declaratory law was that when doubts had risen as to what the law was, it was positively declared to be so-and-so; that, in fact, the Legislature professes to re-state clearly the existing law and not to introduce an entirely new law. That is a very different thing from saying, in connection with such a Amendment as this, that it is purely declaratory and that it does not bind anybody to do anything. I think those words were unfortunate and gave rise to misgivings which have found expression to-day. After hearing my Noble Friend I am satisfied that the words themselves are right and will do what we want done.

    CLAUSE 241.—(Application of preceding section to railway services, and officials of courts.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 144, line 32, at the end, insert:
    "(3) In framing the rules for the regulation of recruitments to posts in the postal and telegraph services, the Governor-General or person authorised by him in that behalf shall have due regard to the past association of the Anglo-Indian community with the said services, and particularly to the specific class, character and numerical percentages of the posts previously held in the said services by members of the said community and to the remuneration attaching to such posts."
    7.9 p.m.
    Sir R. CRADDOCK: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 2, after "the," to insert "Customs."
    After all the discussion that has taken place on the former Clause, I will move this Amendment in a few words. The posts to be given to Anglo-Indians are referred to as posts in the central services, railways, posts and telegraphs. But among these services one of the most important is the Customs. In another place a question was asked on that subject, and it appeared that there was no desire to make a distinction between Customs and railways and posts and telegraphs, and the Amendment I propose to the Lords Amendment, which I hope the Government will accept, is simply to insert the word "Customs."
    7.10 p.m.
    Viscount WOLMER: I hope very much that the Government will be able to accept my hon. Friend's Amendment. He will correct me if I am wrong, but I have always understood that the Anglo-Indian community had the same tradition and record in regard to Customs as they had with regard to posts and telegraphs and railways, and that if it is right for this Parliament to enjoin on the Governor-General to have special regard to their association with the railways, posts and telegraphs, it is equally right to enjoin on him to have the same regard for their association with the Customs. If we leave out the Customs from this category, we shall be doing the Anglo-Indian community a positive disservice, because it is a very well-known maxim in drafting that if you mention one subject in a certain connection and omit to mention another subject in that same connection, what you have omitted has been deliberately omitted. That is a very familiar point to all of us who have had any experience of drafting Bills or Amendments.
    If Parliament had not touched this subject, it could have been argued in the future that the Anglo-Indians would have had exactly the same claim to consideration in regard to their position in the railways, the posts, the telegraphs, and the Customs, but after what has happened it seems to me that unless we put in Customs into this Amendment, it will be clear that Parliament drew a distinction between the claims that the Anglo-Indians have in regard to the railways, posts and telegraphs, and the claims they have in regard to the Customs. I therefore hope very much that the Government would be able to accept my hon. Friend's Amendment.
    7.12 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLER: I am very glad to accept this Amendment on behalf of the Government. Originally I think it fell out through some drafting or typing error, because we never intended that this concession should not also be made to the Customs.
    Amendment to Lords Amendment agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments page 147, line 42, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 246.—(Conditions of service pensions, etc., of persons recruited by Secretary of State.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 148, line 2, after "State" to insert:
    "or any order relating to leave of not less than three months of any such person or any order suspending any such person from office."
    7.13 p.m.
    Lord E. PERCY: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is extending the subjects in regard to which the Governor-General, or the Governor, has to act in his individual judgment. It was a subject discussed on a previous stage in this House. An Amendment was put down but was not pressed to a Division, and consideration was promised in another place.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 157, line 20, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 260.—(Secretary of State to act with approval of his advisers.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 158, line 2, leave out "chapter" and insert "and the subsequent chapters of this Part of this Act."
    7.14 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment is a little more than drafting. Its purpose is to extend the scope of the provisions requiring the Secretary of State to act with the concurrence of his advisers. We have examined this part of the Bill and seek to add the powers conferred upon the Secretary of State by various provisions in Chapters 3 to 5 inclusive of Part 10. The powers are such that they ought in the interests of the services to be exercised only with the concurrence of the Secretary of State's advisers, and the Amendment produces this result. The powers, which are set out in the Section to which I have referred, are essential service questions which ought to be exercised in our view by the Secretary of State with the concurrence of his
    2562
    advisers. It really, however, does not add a very substantial point.
    7.15 p.m.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: I venture to disagree with the hon. Gentleman's statement that there is not very much in this matter. We took objection, when we were discussing this matter in the House before, to the limitation of the powers of the Secretary of State to make certain decisions except with the concurrence of his advisers. The power of his advisers is extended by these proposals, for the Secretary of State now may not take certain decisions with regard to the Public Services Commission nor may he make appointments to the chaplaincy and there is a certain type of general provisions in respect to which, again, his power is limited. Let me ask this question. On what ground is it reserved to the advisers to the Secretary of State that they shall be able to exercise a veto on the decision of the Secretary of State as to who shall be appointed a chaplain in India? By what conceivable argument can it be maintained, when these advisers are not answerable to this House? The advisers are there to advise the Secretary of State, to aid him in the ordinary way. He can accept their advice or reject it, but in this particular case he is absolutely bound hand and foot if his advisers determine to limit him in this way, or take objection to anything he proposes to do in respect to the Public Services Commission or any of the matters in Chapters IV and V.
    I think there is a great principle in this matter. I do not want to cover ground which has been already covered before, but it raises the case of the extension of that principle. It is a big thing to give to advisers the right to circumscribe the decision of the Secretary of State. If you must have advisers well and good; I have no objection to that, but to give them the power of veto over the political chief of a Department is a rather big proposition. We are actually giving power to these advisers to exercise a veto upon recruitment in the Public Services Commission, and even to the ecclesiastical services. The Under-Secretary must not suggest that this is a small thing. It is a big thing to give to people who are not answerable to this House. If the decision is in the hands of the

    2563
    Secretary of State, we could question him and hold him responsible, but by this proposal, however much you might disagree with the advisers, it is the advisers' decision which stands. I do not think this is defensible and I do not think the Under-Secretary ought to have treated it so lightly as he appeared to do. Unless we are given to understand that there are better arguments than we have yet heard, we shall carry this to a Division.
    7.19 p.m.
    Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: As a democrat, I should like to support the Under-Secretary. It is far better that the Secretary of State should exercise his powers in conjunction with his advisers than that he should be an autocrat. The chances are that his advisers will know far more about these matters than he does himself. For these reasons I support the Amendment.
    7.20 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLER: With the permission of the House I should like to say that I think the hon. Member misunderstood me when I stated that I did not attach importance to this proprosal. I did not consider that it introduced any new subject or new question for our consideration. I realise the hon. Member's feelings on the matter but we have disagreed
    upon it before. It has been agreed that on certain Service questions, the Secretary of State shall be guided by the majority of his advisers. Having decided that point I think it is logical that all Service questions dealt with in this chapter should be susceptible to the same treatment. I think it is a logical development rather than an inference. Were it not so the Secretary of State would be continuously at loggerheads with his advisers. We consider that it is in the interests of the Service and largely at their wish that this Amendment should be accepted.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: Their wish?
    Mr. BUTLER: We naturally pay attention to the wishes of the Service. Their views were considered by Parliament and when we believe that their wishes coincide with justice and equity, we naturally include provisions in our Bill which will meet their desires. We think that this is a logical development of a principle previously conceded, and while recognising my hon. and gallant Friend's feelings on this matter I am afraid I cannot agree with him.
    Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 209; Noes, 34.

    Division No. 308.]

    AYES.

    [7.22 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

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

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Alexander, Sir William

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Cooke, Douglas

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

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Cooper, T. M. (Edinburgh, W.)

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

    Copeland, Ida

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

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    Grimston, R. V.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

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

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Beit, Sir Alfred L.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

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

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Bracken, Brendan

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Hales, Harold K.

    Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)

    Dickie, John P.

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Donner, P. W.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Doran, Edward

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

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

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

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. Ernest (Leith)

    Eales, John Frederick

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Eastwood, John Francis

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Burghley, Lord

    Edmondson, Major Sir James

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

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Elmley, Viscount

    Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. Leslie

    Burnett, John George

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Hornby, Frank

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Hurd, Sir Percy

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

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

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

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chlppenham)

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

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

    Ford, Sir Patrick J.

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

    Christie, James Archibald

    Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

    Jamieson, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Janner, Barnett

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Fyfe, D. P. M.

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univ.)

    Nunn, William

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Kirkpatrick, William M.

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Spens, William Patrick

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Stevenson, James

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

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

    Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    Storey, Samuel

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

    Pearson, William G.

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Leckie, J. A.

    Peat, Charles U.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Levy, Thomas

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Lewis, Oswald

    Peters, Dr. Sidney John

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Petherick, M.

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

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

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Radford, E. A.

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Thomson, Sir Douglas.

    Mabane, William

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

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

    MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. Sir Charles

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    MacAndrew, Major J. O. (Ayr)

    Reid, William Allan (Darby)

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Remer, John R.

    Train, John

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Rickards, George William

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian

    Robinson, John Roland

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Magnay, Thomas

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

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

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

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Mellor, Sir J. S. P.

    Russell, R. J. (Eddlsbury)

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

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

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

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Morgan, Robert H.

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Wise, Alfred R.

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

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

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

    Shute, Colonel Sir John

    Womersley, Sir Walter

    Morrison, William Shepherd

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Munro, Patrick

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Mr. Blindell and Mr. James Stuart.

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    NOES.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. Clement R.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Banfield, John William

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Paling, Wilfred

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

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

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Cleary, J. J.

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Daggar, George

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Davies, Stephen Owen

    Lawson, John James

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Dobbie, William

    Leonard, William

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Edwards, Sir Charles

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Wilmot, John

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    Lunn, William

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Gibbins, J.

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Mr. Graham and Mr. Groves.

    Question, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill" put, and agreed to.

    Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 171, line 30, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 280.—(Transfer of existing personnel.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 174, line 23, leave out "1919," and insert "1935."
    Mr. SPEAKER: This and the next three Amendments are, I believe, drafting Amendments.
    Mr. BUTLER: Yes, Sir, due to the fact that the new Superannuation Act has been passed since this Bill was introduced.
    Mr. SPEAKER: They raise the question of privilege, in that they do affect superannuation allowances. An entry to that effect will be made in the Journals of the House.
    Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Butler.]
    Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 176, line 10, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 290.—(Power of His Majesty to make provision with respect to franchises and elections.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 182, line 13, leave out "or electoral college."
    Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment raises definitely for the first time the question of elections to the Council of State. I would suggest to the House that if they wish to debate that subject, they should do so on this Amendment instead of waiting until the main proposal, which is raised on a Schedule. If that meets

    2567
    with the convenience of the House, I think that would be the best course to pursue.
    7.32 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment and the next one—in line 16, to leave out "or college"—are two small Amendments consequential upon the decision taken in another place to substitute direct for indirect election as the method of electing the members of the Council of State. I agree that it would be convenient to have the general discussion now on that subject if the House so desires, and I dare say it would meet the convenience of the House if I made as short a statement as is reasonable considering the nature of the subject, explaining the change that has been made.
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope my hon. Friend will explain not only the change, but why the change has been made.
    Mr. BUTLER: I hope to explain the change and to satisfy my right hon. Friend why it has been made. The consequential Amendments first of all deserve a word of explanation. The change that I refer to makes unnecessary any reference to electoral colleges, which were to have constituted the electorate under the indirect system in unicameral provinces where there was no provincial upper house. However, it is not necessary now to keep them, if the House is to agree to the change to the method of direct election for the Council of State. I think it is possible, in presenting the reasons for the change, to speak indefinitely upon the question of the merits of direct or indirect election. Medieval ecclesiastical lawyers would have been very much in their element in putting before their public the various arguments for and against a system of direct or indirect election, but I do not propose to enter into that field of controversy unduly.
    I would like, in the first place, to remind the House that the original decision taken here followed the decision of the Joint Select Committee that the Council of State should be elected indirectly by provincial upper houses
    2568
    where there were provincial upper houses and by electoral colleges where there were not provincial upper houses in a particular province. At the time of attempting to move the various Schedules to the Bill relating to this subject, certain weaknesses in that plan were apparent to some Members of this House, and the complications of it were certainly obvious. Since that time the matter has been very carefully reviewed by another place, and on the whole there has been general agreement in another place, with one or two notable exceptions, that the plan in its original form had certain weaknesses and that this plan on the whole is the better method of constituting the Council of State. The Chairman of the Joint Select Committee himself moved this Amendment in another place. He himself decided, after his experience of considering this matter from every angle in the Joint Select Committee, and in spite of the decision of that Committee, that on the whole this was a preferable plan. Let me say in passing that, as far as we can hear, satisfaction has been expressed in India at the change. My hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) knows that Indian opinion would have preferred a system of direct election. I do not wish to conceal these obvious matters from the House, but there is no doubt that there is satisfaction that this change has been made in the method of election to the Council of State of substituting direct for indirect election.
    When I have considered this point, it has struck me that it is in fact a simplification in the Bill, and it is as a simplification that I think it will be wise to look at it. It eliminates the electoral college of the small provincial upper house and eliminates the very small quota which would have had to be used in the upper houses of provinces. What is more important is that it eliminates the ad hoc electoral college. The more we examined the electoral college system with our advisers in the various Governments concerned in India, the more we came to the conclusion that in any constitution a body which has very little work to do is of very little value in the body politic. This body, the electoral college, in the unicameral provinces had as its only task and duty the election of representatives from that province to fill the seats allotted to that province in

    2569
    the Council of State, and we are informed, and we think it undoubtedly to be the case, that it would therefore not be a useful system and one which we fear would not have worked very well. In fact, we are told that it might have been very difficult to fill these electoral colleges, considering that their only duty was at certain intervals to fill the seats allotted to a particular province in the Council of State. Those therefore were two of the weaknesses which have been removed, and instead of election at one remove, using these upper houses and these small ad hoc and otherwise useless electoral colleges, the decision now is to elect the representatives in the Council of State by direct election for the general, the Sikh, and the Mohammedan constituencies in territorial constituencies.
    The method of electing the minorities, the Anglo-Indians, the Europeans, and the Indian Christians, remains as it originally was in the first Schedule to the Bill when it left us. The concession given by the Government in this House that there should be six seats for women continues to hold good, and there are six seats reserved for the depressed classes. In passing, I would say that there is another improvement which this alteration has entailed. When I had originally to defend the First Schedule to the Bill as it left this House, I said that there would be from four to six members of the scheduled or depressed classes elected to the Council of State, provided that the various provincial Governors freely used their power of nominating depressed class representatives to the provincial Upper Houses, and so gave a possible number from whom the depressed class representatives could be chosen. Now I consider that this definite reservation of six seats to the depressed classes elected by the depressed class members of the provincial assemblies is an improvement, because it assures six seats for the depressed classes, and to the extent that six seats are now reserved for women and six seats for the depressed classes, I think it relieves the pressure on the nominations which are reserved to the Governor-General. To that extent these six nominations will be available to nominate to the Council of State those who have not been able to get there, such as the Labour representatives, in whom hon. and right hon. Members opposite are interested, and others whom the
    2570
    Governor-General may wish to nominate. I do not go further than that, but I think that the certainty of six depressed class seats and six women's seats does relieve to some extent the pressure on the candidates for nomination by the Governor-General.
    The franchise for this Council of State with direct election in territorial constituencies is, to use that blessed word, to be prescribed. I do not doubt that there will be some attention paid to that word, but I would remind the House that when I was discussing this matter before, I warned the House that it was impossible to schedule to the Bill the franchise for provincial upper houses, and it is equally impossible at this stage to schedule to the Bill a, franchise for the Council of State. The House may rest assured that the Order in Council containing this franchise will be placed before it, and there will be full opportunity for considering that Order in Council, which must have the approval of Parliament. Therefore, the House will have an opportunity of considering this franchise. It will probably be the same franchise as we are working out for the provincial upper houses. It will be a franchise of the same general character as that of the present Council of State, with the difference that the present Council of State has an electorate of some 20,000, and this particular Council of State will have an electorate of somewhere in the neighbourhood of 100,000, and probably a little more than that. But the nature and character of the franchise will be the same as that of the present Council of State—a high franchise.
    I do not doubt that there will be opportunities for discussing on this Amendment the question of large constituencies. It may be asked how it is possible to reconcile our natural antipathy to large constituencies with the undoubtedly large constituencies that will be necessary in electing members to sit in the Council of State. I think it would be valuable if the House were to examine this difficulty from this point of view: Let them examine the size of these constituencies in comparison with the size of the constituencies for the present Council of State. The present Council of State has 30 seats; the new Council will have 128 seats, elected in this manner, territorially, apart from all those special seats which are elected in the

    2571
    different ways set out in the Amendment. I can say with confidence that the size of the constituencies for the new Council of State elected in this manner will be a quarter of the size of the constituencies for the present House. There has been no difficulty in electing members to the present Council of State in the undoubtedly large constituencies that there are for the present Council of State.
    In constituencies which will be about a quarter the size I do not see that there need be any more difficulty than there is at present. In view of the fact that the voters for the new Council of State will be increased about five times and the number of seats will be about four times the present number of seats in the Council of State territorially elected, we find on a basis of those figures that there are in the present Council of State some 650 voters per seat and that in the new Council there will be some 800 to 1,000 voters per seat, if the franchise works out at just more than 100,000 voters. In that case the difficulties of area will be one quarter as great as they are at present—and I can report no difficulty in the present elections to the Council of State—and the number of voters will be a little bit larger but in the neighbourhood of 800 to 1,000 voters to a seat.
    The difficulty of large constituencies is, therefore, largely met by a reduction in the size in comparison with those of the present Council and by the fact that the electorate is to be a very restricted one, with whom it will be comparatively easy for any candidate to get into touch. How glad we should be if we had 800 to 1,000 people, all, I hope, of an intelligent nature, to approach at our elections. I hope that that will give the House some idea of the nature of the franchise, which for reasons of the immense labour, the decision we have taken and so forth, it is not possible to produce in detail to the House at the present moment.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Is there any suggestion about a postal franchise?
    Mr. BUTLER: That will have to be decided. If it is found convenient to conduct elections on a postal franchise with only 800 to 1,000 voters to a seat I have no doubt that that will be considered. I cannot give the House any final information on that subject to-night. There is one complicated table which appears on the Order Paper, relating to the method
    2572
    of the triennial elections. The only compliment which I can pay this table is that it is a little larger than the original complicated table. But the same considerations which I put before the Committee should, I think, be attended to by the House, and I do not think that there is any alteration of the principle of the method of election. The figures have to be divideed up territorially and among communities.
    I have tried to explain the nature of the scheme, how it arose and the nature of the franchise. There is only one aspect on which I would touch, and that is the constitutional position of the new Council of State. Attempts have been made in another place to prove that this Amendment would involve large constitutional alterations in the Bill. The only alterations in the Bill were a small quasi-drafting Amendment to do with the Berar voters and the two small Amendments we are considering now. The powers of the Upper House and its relations to the Assembly are left substantially as they were in the original Bill.
    I think there is one substantial change in the system proposed. It deals with what some thought was a weakness and that was that both Houses of the Federal Legislature were elected from Provincial Chambers. This change does mean that the origin of the Upper House is different in its method of election from the origin of the Lower House, and it is probably an advantage having these two Chambers emerging from different sources. I think that the change really results in curing what might have been regarded by some as a slight constitutional weakness. In conclusion the general impression made on a humble Member of the House, myself, is that this Amendment is a simplification. It is not intended to alter the constitutional position of the two Houses vis-a-vis one another, and it does not overlook the claims of a depressed section of the community. I think it came about because it is a simplification and because it is an improvement, and it is for these reasons that I recommend to the House that they should agree with the Lords in the Amendment.
    7.51 p.m.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: On behalf of my hon. Friends on this side I think that I can say what we have to say in this matter in a few sentences. The House

    2573
    will recall that when we were discussing the Bill at an earlier stage we took the view that the method of direct election would be a much more desirable form of election than indirect election for the Lower House. As for the Upper House we were against the institution in toto. Now by a curious chance the other place has made a change and instead of granting the system of direct election for the Lower House they have proceeded to grant the principle of direct election for the Upper House. I think that I shall not be exaggerating if I say that, as far as my hon. Friends and myself are concerned, we attach little importance to this concession. As far as it goes it is a concession, but it means very little indeed, and we are very largely indifferent to what has happened in the other place in respect of this change. Our indifference is increased by this added consideration. The hon. Gentleman gave us an idea as to how the Council of State is to be made up and assured us that of the six extra seats to be nominated by the Governor-General Labour will perhaps get a share. How kind of the hon. Gentleman to give us that assurance.
    If anything could have added to our lack of gratitude to the hon. Gentleman it is that observation. Millions of working-class people are to have no representation on a Council of State which is going to have the power to revise. They are not going to have guaranteed one single representative. They may get one by leave of the Governor-General; by his kindness, generosity and condescension; but as a right, no. I do not expect the hon. Gentleman expects us to be unduly grateful, and therefore I tell him that we are not.
    7.55 p.m.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: This is a remarkable episode in the history of this Bill. I am sure that the Under-Secretary has rarely made a better speech than that which he has delivered this afternoon. It was cogent, terse, informative, well-reasoned, and he stated the difficult case he had to make in terms which would be inoffensive in almost every quarter. The House must realise what the difficulties of the Under-Secretary were, because if my recollection serves me aright he made an almost equally cogent, well-reasoned speech in exactly the opposite sense when the Bill was going through the House of Commons. The Attorney-General has
    2574
    anticipated me. I really think that if the Under-Secretary had not made such a brilliant success of his Parliamentary career this Session he might seriously consider embracing the great profession of the law, and then he would find himself in a position where those admirable gifts which he has of being able at short notice to deliver an equally powerful argument for or against any cause for which he is briefed, would not go unrequited. We must examine for a few moments the morals which may be drawn from this remarkable change. I admit that very considerable arguments have been employed for both direct and indirect election, and an overwhelming argument may be put forward by those who dislike either of these methods. But although this argument is nicely balanced the Government must have some view and conviction about it.
    I came down to the House in the days when this Bill was passing through Committee and I was very largely converted by the argument of the Government that anything in the nature of direct election was quite impossible, physically impossible. That was what had been ingrained on me. I was also very much impressed by the arguments put forward in favour of an ad hoc electoral college. The Government used all the power of these arguments and the House responded with its customary submissiveness. But now what does the Under-Secretary say about the ad hoc electoral college? He says that this Amendment gets rid of the small ad hoc and otherwise useless institution like the electoral college. But he did not hesitate only a few weeks ago to make the House of Commons swallow this small ad hoc and otherwise useless institution. He did not hesitate to turn to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, who, I see, is in his place, to drive the legions through the Lobby in order to affirm the free independent judgment of this great majority in this memorable Parliament in favour of the virtues of the small useless electoral college. And now for some reason or other we know the truth, and the Government, without hesitation, order the House of Commons to turn round and march in the opposite direction. The Duke of Wellington was described as saying to the House of Lords on a great Reform Bill, "Right about turn." Theirs not to reason why, theirs

    2575
    not to make reply. All we have to do is to vote. I am reminded of the famous quotation of the father of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir Austen Chamberlain). He said:
    "He (Mr. Gladstone) says it is white. They say it is good. He says it is black. They say it is better."
    My hon. Friend has out-Heroded Herod, although his conduct in these matters has been exemplary in every respect except where logic, consistency and conviction are concerned. The hon. Gentleman puts this forward as a simplification. Nothing could be less simple than the proposal which he now puts before us. It has one element of simplicity about it, namely, that it is so very patently absurd. Here we are to have a Constitution the like of which has never been seen in heaven or earth, or in the waters under the earth, where the Upper Chamber, the House of Lords, is to be elected on some approach to a democratic franchise, or what is called a comparatively democratic franchise, and by direct election; while the Lower House, the House of Commons, the people's chamber, reflecting the heartbeats of 350,000,000 people, is to be smuggled through on the basis of indirect election. That is the simplification. It is a very strange method of approaching it.
    What I am anxious to know is why this change has taken place. At what point did the Government suddenly see the light shining? At what point did they foreswear everything that they had previously declared, and at what moment in the discussions in another place were they led to adopt a proposal that they had argued elaborately and in cold blood was impossible? The spokesmen for the Opposition said that the Labour party had nothing to do with it; indeed, he expressed almost contemptuous indifference to the change. What has, therefore, been the motive power behind this process of conversion? I see the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) smiling with a triumph that even his native modesty cannot restrain. In another place Lord Lothian and Lord Reading are also, no doubt, congratulating themselves and shaking each other cordially by the hand. This trinity is the explanation of this change. It is a sop to another three-headed Cerberus. That is the root of this matter.
    2576
    While making these important alterations the Government have scorned every appeal from their own followers and brushed them aside. They have made this great transformation in the structure of their Constitution for India in order that the hon. Member for Bodmin may, when he goes home to-night, say with profound convictions, "Thank God for the House of Lords." I think that that is not at all a creditable episode. I do not quite know what part this question of direct and indirect election played in the decision of the Joint Select Committee. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham is going to speak on this subject, but the voice of rumour, which is no doubt a lying jade, has sometimes suggested that the extremely important decision for which he took the responsibility of throwing his weight in favour of the Government scheme was not uninfluenced by some concession which he received upon the question of direct and indirect election.
    The elections were to be indirect and now, the Government having got the right hon. Gentleman and having got the House of Commons to pass the Bill and to carry it to this final stage, there still remained the waifs and strays of the Liberal party to be conciliated. In consequence, we see this alteration of the Schedule, this very complete, complicated transformation of the whole scheme for the better government of India which was previously before us. It certainly seems to be a very astonishing thing that after this matter has been discussed for seven years, with committees and commissions and visits to India, and all the advice of the officials and Governors in India, and all the considerations given to it by the Joint Select Committee—it seems very remarkable that these cogent, powerful arguments which we have now heard for the first time from the Under-Secretary should never have occurred to His Majesty's Government before. Obviously, there has been an arrangement of a political character which, if I were in a controversial mood, I could characterise very tersely.
    The House will, of course, obey the orders of the Government. The condition of the House at this period of the Session shows that it has completely disinterested itself in the Indian question.

    2577
    It has thrown it up as hopeless or as wearisome, and there is no serious attempt to grapple with this issue. If there were, and if this Measure had been resisted by the forces of a great party, a change of this character would have been marked as it should be, and would have been held up to the reprehension, or, at any rate, to the observation of the entire country. But this Parliament has not been a Parliament in the ordinary sense of the word. It has been such a one-sided, unnaturally distorted Parliament that it has confined itself to obeying the directions which is has received from the Government Whips. In order to conciliate the handful of Liberal supporters, the only enthusiastic people in the country about this Measure, the whole arrangement for the Second Chamber and the franchise are ripped up and an entirely new proposition is put forward in circumstances which really rob all future ministerial arguments on this subject of any vestige of credit.
    After all this lengthy period, the Government come to this conclusion, and even now we are not to know what their plan is. Here is a delightful phrase which the Under-Secretary ingenuously underlined—"the franchise is to be prescribed." Vague indications only may be given at the time when it is to be prescribed. The Government are setting up Parliamentary and constitutional responsible governing institutions throughout India, and they cannot even make up their minds about the franchise on which they are to rest. After all this study of the question, they are not able to come to a conclusion. I remember reading at the time of the South Sea Bubble that many absurd companies were started, and the most absurd was one which invited people to subscribe for shares in a project "the purpose of which will be presently disclosed." I think we could hardly have a more disquieting episode than this, because I have no doubt that, if the Government had felt under the necessity of consulting any other body of their supporters, they would have given us equally convincing arguments which would have undermined other parts of this great structure.
    I would like to address myself to Members of the House who are new in this Parliament, and for whom in some cases, perhaps, it may be their only experience
    2578
    of the House of Commons. These Members naturally look with the greatest reverence and almost overweening faith at the utterances of Ministers. They expect those utterances to be based on profound study and definitely resolved conclusions and decisions. Now it appears that Ministers can disport themselves with equal ability and facility in either case for or against these propositions. In fact, all they have been endeavouring to do in this India Bill is to get something through the House of Commons which will enable them to say that they have dealt and truly dealt with the problems of the Indian Constitution in a final and satisfactory manner.
    I thought it right to emphasise these droll aspects, ridiculous aspects—even laughable aspects, were it not that the subject is serious and tragic. I have no doubt that the vast structure of this Bill is holed and honeycombed with devices and with arrangements which are just as unsound as this ad hoc electoral college which we were made to swallow and which the House is now made to vomit up again at the dictation of the Minister. I congratulate the Under-Secretary. I do not blame him, because naturally he has to march to the right or to the left according as he is ordered, and he has the Attorney-General there to encourage him in that flexible docility. But I say that we have a right at the end of this long Bill to hold up this particular tergiversation. It is one of the most revealing incidents that will bring home to everyone the jerry-built and unsubstantial nature of the structure by which we are invited to believe the masses of India will march forward into a brighter and better age.
    8.13 p.m.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I did not quite understand the right hon. Gentleman when he said that we had been persuaded and influenced by arguments that had been put forward by the Government in favour of indirect election. He led the House to think that those arguments were so strong that he had acted upon them, but I think I am right in reminding him that he supported us—
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I said that I was persuaded, not over-persuaded.
    Mr. FOOT: Whatever the arguments were, the right hon. Gentleman resisted them, and we appreciated the support

    2579
    which he gave us in the Lobby on that particular Vote. It is my duty to repudiate the suggestion that we are responsible for the present Amendment. Neither my friends here nor my friends in another place are responsible for it. If we had had any such power as the right hon. Gentleman attributes to us, we should have used it for a more effective purpose. Although I do not go so far as the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones) in dismissing this Amendment as almost wholly unimportant, yet it falls far short of the request which he and the rest of us put before the House a short time ago. The line he took is very familiar to the House, and the Amendment which has been made in another place does, to a certain extent, meet the objections we placed before this House. We said the Government were adopting a system, with the indirect vote for the lower chamber, which was depriving electors in India of the vote they had already enjoyed.
    That objection still remains. It is true that we are restoring to a certain number of people the vote they have enjoyed during the last few years, but it is given back only to a few thousands. We said on the former occasion that the Bill, having regard to the electoral college in the uni-cameral Provinces, set up fantastic constituencies, and I do not recall that the hon. Member did speak in such terms of eulogy of the ad hoc chamber as were attributed to him by the right hon. Gentleman just now. As the Bill left this House the constituencies were fantastic. I think it was impossible to have both the Council of State and the lower chamber in India depending upon a handful of voters in the several Provinces, and to the extent that that has been changed we ought to be thankful. We complained before that we were having a Measure under which neither chamber would be representative of the people at large. The whole experience of every Federal system has shown that one should have the upper chamber representative of the federating units and the lower chamber representative of the community at large. We are changing that system by keeping indirect election for the lower house and seeking to make the upper house in some sense representative of the community. I do not know whether this is a precedent to the world,
    2580
    but certainly I know of no other federation in which the lower house is upon the restrictive indirect basis and the upper house is based upon direct election.
    We then alleged against the indirect election of the lower chamber that it was contrary to Indian opinion. The hon. Member said just now that as far as he could ascertain the change made in another place had been welcomed. I have not his advantages, I have to rely on what has been said generally in the Press, and I do not think it has been welcomed with any great enthusiasm; but in so far as it acknowledges the principle of direct election it has been accepted, though it falls far short of the demand of Indian opinion that the lower house, the people's chamber—to the extent that you can have a people's chamber in this huge constitution—should be founded upon the direct vote. Our complaint of the Bill as it left this House was that it would put the Governor-General in an invidious, difficult and almost impossible position, inasmuch as it would deprive him of the effective power of dissolution and did not give to him any power to turn to the people of India as against the Provinces of India. I do not know whether this change will affect much improvement in that direction. So far as it goes, although my friends had nothing to do with the Amendment introduced in another place by the Chairman of the Joint Select Committee, we on these benches welcome it as being the recognition of what we believe to be the right principle.
    I notice that when the matter was discussed in another place reference was made to the opinion of the Government of India, but the reference was not very clear. If anyone is to speak again from the Treasury Bench I wonder if we could have put before us just what is the opinion of the Government of India. There was no ambiguity about their opinion as to the lower chamber being based upon the direct vote. That attitude has been taken by the Government of India ever since they reported upon the Statutory Commission, in 1930. What is the view of the Government of India on the change now being carried out? We on these benches—and I will include, if I may, the right hon. Gentleman, who gave to us at that time his very much valued support on the direct vote—are entitled, I think, to congratulate ourselves that the principles we then sought

    2581
    to proclaim have been so far accepted. I remember that on the Third Reading we were derided by the papers supporting the National Government for the views we had expressed. I was in the North of England the following day, and I saw what so eminent a paper as the "Scotsman" had to say about our views. The "Scotsman" congratulated the Government upon its strength and determination in resisting Liberal clamour for the direct vote.
    Liberal clamour was really the expression in this House of the opinion of the Committee of which the Under-Secretary was a member, which recommended the direct vote for the lower house. It was the expression of the opinion of a substantial number upon the Joint Select Committee, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, who repeated his opinion in another place only a few nights ago. It was the opinion of the Government of India. It was the opinion, as far as it was expressed, of the politically-minded classes in India. It was the opinion of the Government itself as expressed in the White Paper. It was the opinion of those who were best qualified to speak upon Indian conditions. But such is the degree of subservience which many of the papers in this country have now reached that the "Scotsman" has to condemn that expression of opinion, not merely ours but the opinion of at least two parties in this House, and of all who could speak for Indian opinion, as being "clamour." At any rate what has happened now has shown that what we submitted to the House was not wholly unreasonable.
    I think the blot upon the Measure is the denial to the Indian people of a right which we should never surrender in this House, the right of the direct election of our own representatives. I expressed the hope when the Bill was dealt with on Third Reading that the position might be remedied in another place. I make no comment upon "Thanking God for the House of Lords." I said that although the change ought to have been made in this Chamber yet in the circumstances I should be content if it could be made elsewhere.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is a very restrained thanksgiving.
    Mr. FOOT: The change ought to have been made in this House. With that
    2582
    expression of regret that the larger Measure has not been granted, that the Government have not gone back to the position they took when they produced the White Paper, we welcome this introduction of the principle of the direct vote. We think the arguments submitted in its favour by the Chairman of the Joint Select Committee were very valid arguments, and I hope that the examples set of the direct vote for the upper chamber will lead very soon to the adoption of the direct vote for the lower chamber. For that reason we thank the Government for the change made in another place.
    8.25 p.m.
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I wish there had been a larger attendance of Members to hear the speech with which my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) delighted us a little earlier in the evening, and all the more because it was so instructive to Members who have observed the workings of the mind of my right hon. Friend in relation to the Bill. Who would have dreamt that, after his not undeserved criticisms, he was blamed for doing what he had himself objected to?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I was addressing myself to the great change and the inconsistency in the advice we had received from the Treasury bench, and was drawing from that a moral of the unsatisfactory position in which the structure of this Bill stands. In fact, I myself voted for the India Bill—
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: For direct election.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I beg pardon. I meant for direct election—the Minister must not laugh on that very limited pretext—for the Lower Chamber. I still think there are reasons in favour of that. I am not attacking this particular change on its merits, but am merely pointing out the sins of which the Government have been guilty and the obvious difficulties which attend their new plan.
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: It was when studying my right hon. Friend in that aspect of his political life that I regretted that there were not more of our common and mutual friends present this evening. I am one of those who, since the White Paper was presented to us, have felt very grave doubts about this part of the Government's scheme as they put it before

    2583
    us. I followed the subject with very great attention in the Joint Select Committee, and I spoke so often there that I think it unnecessary for me to say more than a few words to-night. I am not sure whether the Government feel that they have done wisely in accepting this Amendment in another place; at any rate, they do not get much credit. They have thrown over an arrangement, or have agreed to change an arrangement, come to in the Joint Select Committee, an arrangement which was at any rate a consistent whole, and they have introduced this. It was not a scheme which many of us would have wished, and was not as good as the scheme which some of us could have supported but it was accepted by the majority of the Committee and was a workable scheme, and, in all the conditions of Indian life, was the best that we could devise.
    The Government have upset that scheme and introduced another which is not less full of anomalies than that for which they have substituted it. Did anyone ever hear of a constitution in which the lower house is to be elected indirectly because of the vastness of the constituencies, and the upper house to be elected directly but on the condition that the number of the electors was strictly limited to fit that system of election; in which the Chamber which is direct should be indissoluble while the Chamber which is indirect should be dissoluble? That is about as anomalous a proposition as could be put before any Parliament for assent. What have the Government gained? They have placated hon. Gentlemen on the Liberal benches. They have placated the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot). They have given him a certain satisfaction, a certain revenge for the long hours he has had to spend arguing this question in this House, upstairs, in the Joint Select Committee, here on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report and again on the Third Reading, with no effect. The hon. Member can now say: "After all, I did get something. It is not what I asked for and I do not much care about it, but they have given away a principle."
    Is that the Government's attitude? Do they think that they are on sound ground in introducing a direct elected vote for the Upper House while feeling it necessary and essential in the present circum
    2584
    stances to maintain the indirect system for the Lower House? Do they think that the conditions justify an electorate for the Upper House being a very much narrower one than the primary electorate of the Lower House? Will not the solution they have adopted tend almost inevitably to democratisation of the Upper House while leaving it quite impossible to maintain the Lower House exactly what it is? I am not going to divide the House against this proposal because it is quite useless to do so. I do not want to use it to criticise the Bill in general, of which I remain a supporter, but I think that, in view of the opinions which I have expressed, it would not be right if I did not say that I think the Government have made a great mistake in accepting the Amendment.
    8.33 p.m.
    Viscount WOLMER: I will try not to repeat what has already been said by other speakers. I have been searching for the reason why the Government have made this change. If I may do so without impertinence, I should like very respectfully to commiserate with my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) for the position in which he has been placed. No private Member bears a heavier responsibility or has played a more notable part than my right hon. Friend has played in the Joint Select Committee and in these Debates in this Chamber. His very great influence and prestige were given to the Bill partly in return for certain Amendments—I am not attempting to suggest anything offensive. I think it is generally considered that my right hon. Friend would not have lent his great prestige and authority to the Bill unless certain Amendments had been carried to it in the Joint Select Committee. We all know that one of the Amendments to which he attached the greatest importance was the substitution of this system of indirect election for direct election, and my right hon. Friend finds at the very last moment one of his plums filched from him. He is in the position of a small boy who having gone to a shop and bought a box of chocolates when he gets home finds that several of the biggest chocolates have gone, having been abstracted by the shopman when he wrapped up the parcel. That is a very unhappy position in which to find oneself.

    2585
    I should like to remind the House that my right hon. Friend is not the only distinguished statesman who attached great importance to the substitution of indirect election for direct election. No less a person than the Prime Minister himself told the Conservative party gathering at the Queen's Hall that the substitution of indirect election for direct election had removed his remaining doubts; and, on that statement from the Leader of the Conservative party, the Conservative party at its conference gave overwhelming support to the Bill. What the Prime Minister now thinks about this matter—his remaining doubts having been, I suppose, restored—he is not here to tell us, but I think we are entitled to make a protest against the levity with which the whole of this subject has been treated, not only by the Government, but also by the House of Commons and by another place. There have not been 30 private Members listening to this Debate—a Debate which really deals with a fundamental issue in connection with the Bill, and which contains as much material as some of the issues raised in the great Reform Bills which Parliament has discussed for weeks in animated debate in former generations. If our fathers had been dealing with this question, they would not have dismissed a great matter of this sort so lightly.
    I cannot but feel that the real reason why the Government agreed to this change at the last minute was not, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), with his characteristic generosity, suggested, out of gratitude to the Liberal party, but merely to get the support of certain Liberal peers in the House of Lords at a critical juncture. The situation in the House of Lords was very much the same as it is in this House; that is to say, the Conservative party were not prepared to rebel against the Government and turn it out, but they hated the whole thing so much that they would not attend and listen to the debates. In this Chamber they have a refuge to which they resort in great numbers, only turning out for Divisions, but there are not corresponding amenities in the House of Lords, and, therefore, after the Second Reading there had been carried, the attendance of Members of the Conservative party dwindled very considerably.
    2586
    But of course the call of duty invariably found a solid phalanx of Liberal peers present, and the time came when the Government found it convenient to make this concession, so they threw my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham overboard, and pulled up Lord Lothian and Lord Reading in his place. I venture to suggest that, just as they had to make a concession in the Joint Select Committee in order to get the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham, so, in exactly the same spirit, they made a concession in the House of Lords to get the support of that very important small body of Liberal peers.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I would remind the Noble Lord that on the Second Reading Lord Lothian and Lord Reading strongly supported the Bill, and said that they did so in spite of their objection to the indirect vote for the lower Chamber.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): It seems to me that we are getting perilously near to discussing debates which have taken place in another place.
    Viscount WOLMER: I will not pursue the red herring which my hon. Friend has attempted to draw across my path. I would only say that the Government's treatment of this aspect of the question has been on all fours with their treatment of the whole of the Indian problem. They have sought how to conciliate the different forces which they have had at the moment to encounter. They have, in my humble submission, very insufficiently considered how the Constitution which they are building will work in generations to come, and, as my right hon. Friend has just said, we are now landed with a Constitution which almost passes human comprehension. It has a lower Chamber which is indirectly elected, and which, therefore, cannot be dissolved in the sense in which this Chamber can be dissolved. Its dissolution will be independent of the rise and fall of government—an essential condition of all Parliamentary Government as we have known it. Then there will be a second Chamber which cannot be dissolved at all, but a fraction of the members of which will periodically retire. Really, it is a constitution which would have excited the envy

    2587
    of the Abbé Sieyès. It is a Constitution which it is very difficult for anyone to believe can possibly work—a Constitution with two practically indissoluble Chambers, and two Chambers which, it must always be remembered, have not financial responsibility, but from whose control about 60 per cent. of the Budget is withheld. How can those Chambers provide anything at all comparable with what we mean by Parliamentary government? And so the House of Commons and the other House have just shrugged their shoulders at the whole question. They have left the Government to get their Bill through, and have hoped that the deluge would come at a distant date.
    It was quite unnecessary for the Government to have done this. I think it is an outrage on Parliamentary procedure that they should attempt to put in a franchise of this sort by Order-in-Council. There could be no objection or difficulty in the Government introducing a special Bill next year to deal with this aspect of the question. They themselves admit that Federation cannot come into force for several years to come, and, therefore, to deal with the matter by a separate Bill would in no way delay their treatment of the Indian problem. If this generation of Parliamentarians had the same pride in Parliament that their fathers had, they would insist on a matter of this sort coming before Parliament in the form of a Bill instead of in the form of an Order-in-Council. This is a whole franchise question, a question which, if dealt with in a Bill, would require a large number of Clauses and several Schedules, a matter which Parliament ought to consider in detail on Second Reading, in Committee, on Report, and on Third Reading. Instead of that, the Government, not having been able, after their seven years' deliberations, to make up their minds as to what this franchise is going to be, are going to frame an Order-in-Council which we shall have, in one day, to consider and vote on, Aye or No, without any effective power of amendment. That, I venture to suggest, is an outrage on our Parliamentary institutions.
    Even now there is no reason at all why the Government should not withdraw this part of the Bill and introduce next year an amending Bill dealing with this part of the question. It would not hold up
    2588
    the proceedings in the least. But I know that they have refused to do that; the suggestion was made in another place, but they refused; and next year the House will be confronted with an Order-in-Council conferring this franchise, by a mode of election which is not yet decided, in constituencies some of which will be bigger than Great Britain—England and Wales and Scotland—among a class of people who are to be three, four or five times as numerous as the present electors of the Council of State. It has not yet been decided. The House of Commons is going to be asked, in one Debate, by one vote, without power of amendment, to give its assent to a Measure which Parliament, if this were a Parliamentary age and if Parliament really believed in itself, would insist on treating as a Statute of the first importance.
    8.45 p.m.
    Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE: I so rarely find myself in any form of disagreement with my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) that I should like to say that I find myself in disagreement with him to-night principally because I do not think he has done himself justice. I do not think he has given due weight to the strength of the arguments which he and others associated with him put before the Joint Select Committee. A great deal has been said in this Debate as to the Government changing their mind. In reality this question, as I have seen it in the last two years, has been an extremely difficult one for anyone to make up his mind about. My own view has always been in favour of direct election, and I expressed it in the debates in Committee and in the Joint Select Committee. Direct election is the system existing in India and they are accustomed to it and, in spite of the very large increase in the electorate which will come about as a result of this Bill, it is in every way a most desirable system. But my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham and others, aided by the opinions of the Indian Government officials, put before us the immense practical difficulties which would result from the introduction of a new and large electorate. They told us with tremendous weight that it was not practicable at all.
    Until I went into the matter as it was then put before me and was convinced by

    2589
    the practical argument of the impossibility, at the present time at any rate, of carrying on the system of direct election I was strongly in favour of continuing it. I changed my opinion merely because I did not see how it could work and, added to that, there was the very strong argument, which I still believe in, that the system which the Government then adopted of indirect election had the advantage that, when the conditions changed, it would be very much simpler to change from an indirect to a direct system than it would be if we had put the direct system into force and then found it unworkable and wanted to change to an indirect system. It was for these reasons that I and a great many others supported my right hon. Friend in the proposition that he put before the Joint Select Committee. It is clear that this has been from the beginning a matter of practical politics—what was the best solution of one of the most difficult problems that the Joint Select Committee and the House of Commons have had to deal with. Throughout the discussions in the Joint Select Committee although of course the question of the franchise for the Upper Chamber of the Central Legislature was continually discussed, our interests were mainly centred on the question of election for the Lower Chamber. That was the big issue, and it was the settlement of that issue which immediately brought up the point that some new form of electorate had to be found for the Upper Chamber. I admit at once that I have always considered the abstract problem of direct or indirect election as a matter principally in connection with the Lower Chamber.
    I do not quarrel with any criticism of the present proposal or any statement that it produces a most extraordinary form of electorate. I think it does. A system in which the Upper Chamber is elected directly and the Lower Chamber indirectly is certainly very novel to me but, as a matter of practical politics, it is possible with a limited franchise to have direct election to the Upper Chamber, and the right hon. Gentleman himself certainly convinced me that it is not possible for the Lower Chamber. That is the situation with which we are faced. If that is the position, it really comes back to this: Because it is novel, because it has never been known elsewhere, is it possible to stick to an indirect system
    2590
    for both chambers, or is it desirable to maintain the direct system where it is possible and change to indirect where the direct system cannot be carried out? I have no particular brief for the form that the Government have chosen to accept for the Upper Chamber, but I cannot see that there is anything particular to be said against it by those in favour of direct election and, if my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham desires the House to understand that he has been supporting this system of indirect election because he believes in indirect election, it is a new view to me, because I have always understood that his view was strongly that he supported the indirect system because it was the only practical one in the special circumstances of the day. My own hope is that before very long it will be possible to have the direct system for the Lower House. I have always wanted the direct system. I only changed my view because I found it to be impossible in the present circumstances. Holding that view, I do not resent in the least the change to a direct system for the Upper House if that proves practicable, and I am perfectly willing to support the change that has been made in another place.
    8.53 p.m.
    Lord E. PERCY: I know I shall not persuade my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) or my Noble Friend the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) that occasionally those who oppose them come to their decisions on the merits of the case and, if hon. Members will examine the report of the Statutory Commission on this subject, I think they will find it an interesting study. I do not know whether any of them are prepared to say what the recommendation of the Commission was in regard to the constitution of the Council of State, but I confess that after a very careful reading of their report I am not quite certain on which side they came down. We are dealing with a problem for which no solution has been proposed which is not an anomalous solution. The solution which the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) proposed is an anomalous one. It is the direct election of representatives for the Federal Lower Chamber on a higher franchise than the franchise for the election of members to the Lower Chamber of the Federated States. There is no precedent for that

    2591
    in the history of the world, and it must inevitably sap the democratic authority of the Central Assembly.
    Therefore, all through the proposals on this problem there are inevitable anomalies, and the anomaly of the present proposal, that you have a directly elected Upper House and an indirectly elected Lower House, at any rate, is not greater than those other anomalies. My Noble Friend the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) made great play with the atrocious way the Government had treated the House, because we proposed to institute the system of direct election without putting the electoral qualifications into the Bill. Are they aware that the electoral qualifications for the Provincial Upper Houses, which were the electoral qualifications of the previous Council of State, were not in the Bill? My right hon. Friend is aware of that. [Interruption.] Then I do not know of what he has to complain.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is becoming increasingly hard and difficult to follow their intentions.
    Viscount WOLMER: There is a limit to the patience even of loyal supporters of the Government.
    Lord E. PERCY: I confess that I have always been troubled about the original proposal in the Bill, and the original proposal in the Joint Select Committee. As my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) knows, I was partly associated with him in reaching a solution.
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps a little reluctantly.
    Lord E. PERCY: What has always troubled me about this matter is that in order to conform to the indirect election of the Lower House, for which there was an unanswerable case on its merits, you elaborately provide for indirect election to the Upper House, on an electorate which was perfectly capable of electing its representatives directly. Broadly speaking, the franchise that we had in mind for the Council of State is substantially the same as that of the electorate of the Upper House. We have not altered substantially
    2592
    our original conception, but it is a constituency which can elect directly, but which, under our original proposal, in order that there shall be no superficial anomaly between the Upper and the Lower House, we elaborately provided should perform its election in two stages. That was always my doubt about the original proposal, and I think that on balance the present proposal is the better one.
    When we have these floods of oratory poured out on the problem of the constitution of the Upper House and my Noble Friend the Member for Aldershot talking in this way, I cannot but remember the instruction I received in Tory principles in my earliest days. It was that, apart from the hereditary chamber, if you were fortunate to inherit it, there was no remotely satisfactory method of constituting the Upper House. The Upper House being essential for the proper working of the constitution, it did not matter how it was constituted; it would work fairly well anyhow. I do not go as far as that, but I believe that your Upper House should be constituted with the greatest application of science and skill. I believe that, for the reasons I have stated, the present proposal as applied to India which, though it may have anomalies not greater than those of any alternative proposal, is on the whole the best policy.
    9.3 p.m.
    Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: I listened very carefully to the speech which the right hon. Gentleman has just delivered, and he has not convinced me. I cannot find any definite reason why we should depart from the usual procedure in forming a constitution. We have come to the final stage of this Measure and have reached the acme of absurdity. My right hon. Friend did not deal with the main point which is that, by the change that the Government are proposing, you make the Upper House the democratic House with the support of the people behind it, whereas the Lower House will be the home of wealth and vested interests, of mill owners, and so on, indirectly elected. The Upper House will be elected by the people, and will be the voice of the people.
    Lord E. PERCY: What people?
    Mr. SOMERVILLE: That we do not know. The Government have yet to tell

    2593
    us what is involved in the word "prescribed." We are asked to sanction a change which depends very largely on the word "prescribed." What is going to be the effect of an unpopular tax levied in India? The Upper House will have much more weight in dealing with the matter than the Lower House. As has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) and the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer), when it comes to a question of dissolution the Governor-General may get a real dissolution of the Upper House, but he may get a very nominal dissolution of the Lower House and the same personnel may return. As I have said, in this arrangement we seem to have reached the acme of absurdity. The Government with immense labour have been building a constitutional pyramid and now they are endeavouring to balance that pyramid on its apex, and it seems to be a fitting climax for the final stages of a Measure which bristles with so many risks.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment, in page 182, line 16, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 293.—(Foreign Jurisdiction.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 183, line 16, leave out Sub-sections (1) and (2) and insert:
    "(1) Neither the executive authority of the Federation nor the legislative power of the Federal Legislature shall extend to any area in a Federated State which His Majesty in signifying his acceptance of the Instrument of Accession of that State may declare to be an area theretofore administered by or on behalf of His Majesty to which it is expedient that the provisions of this subsection should apply, and references in this Act to a Federated State shall not be construed as including references to any such area:
    Provided that—

    (a) a declaration shall not be made under this subsection with respect to any area unless, before the execution by the Ruler of the Instrument of Accession notice has been given to him of His Majesty's intention to make that declaration;

    (b) if His Majesty with the assent of the Ruler of the State relinquishes his powers and jurisdiction in relation to any such area or any part of any such area, the foregoing provisions of this subsection shall cease to apply to that area or part, and the executive authority of the Federation and the legislative power of the Federal Legislature shall
    2594
    extend thereto in respect of such matters and subject to such limitations as may be specified in a supplementary Instrument of Accession for the State.

    Nothing in this subsection applies to any area if it appears to His Majesty that jurisdiction to administer the area was granted to him solely in connection with a railway.
    (2) Subject as aforesaid and to the following provisions of this section, if, after the accession of a State becomes effective, power or jurisdiction therein with respect to any matter is, by virtue of the Instrument of Accession of the State, exercisable, either generally or subject to limits, by the Federation, the Federal Legislature, the Federal Court, the Federal Railway Authority, or a Court or an authority exercising the power or jurisdiction by virtue of an Act of the Federal Legislature, or is, by virtue of an agreement made under Part VI of this Act in relation to the administration of a law of the Federal Legislature, exercisable, either generally or subject to limits, by the Ruler or his officers, then any power or jurisdiction formerly exercisable on His Majesty's behalf in that State, whether by virtue of the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890, or otherwise, shall not be exercisable in that State with respect to that matter or, as the case may be, with respect to that matter within those limits.
    (3) So much of any law as by virtue of any power exercised by or on behalf of His Majesty to make laws in a State is in force in a Federated State immediately before the accession of the State becomes effective and might by virtue of the Instrument of Accession of the State be re-enacted for that State by the Federal Legislature, shall continue in force and be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be a Federal law so re-enacted:
    Provided that any such law may be repealed or amended by Act of the Federal Legislature and unless continued in force by such an Act shall cease to have effect on the expiration of five years from the date when the accession of the State becomes effective.
    (4) Subject as aforesaid, the power and jurisdiction exercisable by or on behalf of His Majesty before the commencement of Part III of this Act in Indian States shall continue to be exercisable, and any Order in Council with respect to the said powers or jurisdiction made under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890, or otherwise, and all delegations, rules and orders made under any such Order, shall continue to be of full force and effect until the Order is amended or revoked by a subsequent Order:
    Provided that nothing in this subsection shall be construed as prohibiting His Majesty from relinquishing any power or jurisdiction in any Indian State."
    Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in

    2595
    line 1, of the proposed new Sub-section (4), to leave out "power," and insert "powers."
    Amendment to the Lords Amendment, agreed to.
    9.7 p.m.
    Lord E. PERCY: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, as amended."
    This Amendment is to make more certain than in the original draft the power of His Majesty to retain his special powers under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act in States where His Majesty has those powers at the present time. The main point of the Amendment is to provide that where His Majesty does exercise such powers in a Federating State, His Majesty may accept the accession of that State, excluding the territory in which he exercises those powers. There are consequential provisions providing that where there is no exception from the State's accession, that then the Federal Government and the Federal Government's powers shall take the place of His Majesty's powers in so far as His Majesty may require.
    9.8 p.m.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I understand that the purpose of this rather long and tortuous Amendment is to enable His Majesty to retain his powers if he so desires in regard to certain territories, but, as I understand the Amendment, in regard only to the powers that will be exercised by the Federal Government if those territories were retroceded to the State of which they form part. Am I to understand that this Amendment refers to the whole of the powers that His Majesty exercises not merely to the powers of the Federal Government but to the powers which will be exercised by Provinces or States?
    Lord E. PERCY: The Sub-section refers to the whole extent of His Majesty's powers. Sub-section (2) applies to the case where it is not desired to except territory from the accession of a State, where it provides that in so far as the Federal Government's powers are co-extensive with the Foreign Jurisdiction powers, then the Federal Government's powers shall take the place of His Majesty's powers.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: In a statement made by the Secretary of State when he introduced—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Noble Lady must not refer to a statement made in another place.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I understand that among the territories which will come under this Amendment are Quetta, Secunderabad, Mhow and the Civil Station of Bangalore. I should like an assurance in regard to the question of retrocession of these areas. What is the position about Bangalore? Does the House realise with what great anxiety this question of retrocession is viewed? Associations of ratepayers, traders and Anglo-Indians have made repeated protests against the proposed retrocession of Bangalore to Mysore. It is a remarkable fact that the Berars remain part of British India under this Bill and yet the retrocession of Bangalore is being considered.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not see what relevance that has to the Amendment.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: Do not let us forget that Bangalore has been built up under British administration, and in that respect it is quite different from the Berars.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Noble Lady cannot go into the question of Bangalore on this Amendment.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I am very relieved to know that it is decided under this Clause that His Majesty's powers may be retained in full, and I earnestly hope that the protests of the residents of Bangalore will be very fully considered by His Majesty's Government before any decision is arrived at.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 184, line 6, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 294.—(Provisions as to death sentences.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 184, line 21, at the end, insert:
    "Provided that nothing in this Sub-section affects any power of any officer of His Majesty's forces to suspend, remit or commute a sentence passed by a court martial."
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The intention of Sub-section (1) of Clause 294 was plainly not to touch the powers of the Commander-in-Chief to remit a sentence passed by a court martial, but the last four lines are capable of an interpretation that even the powers of the Commander-in-Chief in that case are not in future to be exercised. Therefore, the proviso in the Amendment is necessary.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 184, line 30, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 296.—(Prohibition of certain restrictions on internal trade.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 185, line 13, leave out:
    "on goods of any class or description."
    Lord E. PERCY: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is a provision to make more certain the protection against discrimination in regard to internal trade by a Provincial Government. It is a technical point, but the effect is to make for freedom of trade.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 185, line 15, agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 185, line 17, at the end, insert:
    "or which, in the case of goods manufactured or produced outside the Province, discriminates between goods manufactured or produced in one locality and similar goods manufactured or produced in another locality."
    Lord E. PERCY: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This, again, is a provision to ensure that there shall be no internal trade discrimination in India.

    CLAUSE 297.—(Persons not to be subjected to disability by reason of race, religion, etc.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 185, line 39, at the end, insert:
    "(13) Nothing in this section shall be construed as derogating from the special responsibility of the Governor-General or of a Governor for the safeguarding of the legitimate interests of minorities."
    9.14 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The object of the Amendment is to ensure that the Clause as drafted cannot be construed as absolving the Governor-General or the Governor from his duty in regard to safeguarding minorities in respect of anything done in virtue of the proviso to Sub-section (2) under the Punjab Land Alienation Act or similar legislation, if the effect of such legislation would in his opinion result to the detriment of a minority. It is to prevent the interests of minorities being hurt by the operation of a law of that sort that the Amendment is made.
    9.15 p.m.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: While we are all anxious to see minorities protected in their rights we must remember that in this instance the minority which objects to the Land Alienation Acts is a minority of very powerful people. The minority which objects to the Land Alienation Acts are those to whom a majority, that is, the great mass of the cultivators are in debt. The "Statesman" recently reported that a meeting was held in the Punjab to protest against the policy of preventing land alienation. It was attended by a large number of persons, including leading members of an important minority in that Province, and strong feeling was shown. The meeting went so far as to say that if this policy, which had been carried out largely under British influence, was continued, if goods had to be purchased outside India they would prefer that they should be purchased in any country rather than in Great Britain. That does not show a very suitable spirit of citizenship and I hope that the Amendment does not mean that there is going to be any weakening on the part of the authorities in India in protecting the peasant from men who can make things extremely difficult for him and who are likely to have more power in the future than they have had in the past.

    CLAUSE 299.—(Protection of rights of Jagirdars, Inamdars, etc.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 187, line 5, at the end, insert:

    NEW CLAUSE E.
    "Section eighteen of the East India Company Act, 1780, and section twelve of the East India Act, 1797 (being obsolete enactments containing savings for native law and custom) are hereby repealed."
    9.18 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The Amendment really explains itself. The two sections which it is proposed to repeal are two enactments which may accurately be described as obsolete. In Committee in this House the hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) had an Amendment to this effect, but for some reason it was not moved, although it was the intention of the Government to accept it. The Amendment has been made in another place. The two sections to which it refers have never been invoked as far as I know and are obsolete, but it is possible that they might be invoked and in that case they would militate against some of the best social legislation which it may be desirable to pass in the future.
    Lords Amendment: In page 187, line 23, at the end, insert:

    NEW CLAUSE F.—(Provisions as to Sheriff of Calcutta.)
    "—(1) The Sheriff of Calcutta shall be appointed annually by the Governor of Bengal from a panel of three persons to be nominated on the occasion of each vacancy by the High Court in Calcutta.
    (2) The Sheriff shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor and shall be entitled to such remuneration as the Governor may determine and no other remuneration.
    (3) In exercising his powers with respect to the appointment and dismissal of the Sheriff and with respect to the determination of his remuneration the Governor shall exercise his individual judgment."
    The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have to call the attention of the House to the fact that this Amendment raises a question of Privilege.
    9.19 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    For many years there have been sheriffs in the three Presidency towns. The sheriffs in Bombay and Madras have
    2600
    in the course of time become purely honorary and honorific, but the sheriff of Calcutta, who is in charge of the issue of writs and the execution of writs and judicial processes, is an important person in the administration of justice. Therefore it has been thought desirable that provision should be made in the Bill for his appointment by the Governor, exercising his individual judgment, from a panel and should hold office during the pleasure of the Governor, his remuneration to be determined by the Governor. The sheriff is not a judge but for historical reasons he is an important officer in Calcutta in the administration of justice.
    Mr. ATTLEE: Is there any reason why this official should be appointed by the Governor acting in his own individual judgment? I am not clear what the sheriff does. I gather that he issues writs and does other things. Is he a judicial officer? What is he exactly, and why should he be appointed by the Governor acting in his individual judgment?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The sheriff in Calcutta is responsible for the issue of writs, the execution of writs and the service of process. He has his own staff and he is, therefore, an important person in the administration of justice. As I have said, he has not the same position as a judge, but he is an important officer concerned with the administration of justice, and it has been thought right that he should be taken out of politics and his appointment made, after consultation with the Minister, by the Governor.

    CLAUSE 301.—(Persons acting as Governor-General or Governor.)
    Subsequent Lords Amendment, in page 187, line 29, agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 187, line 30, after "powers" insert "privileges and immunities."
    Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, to leave out "privileges."
    The reason for the Amendment to the Lords Amendment is that "privileges" are covered by the Third Schedule and therefore the word is redundant here. The purpose of the Amendment was to extend to acting Governors the immunities which are provided by Clause 303.
    Amendment to Lords Amendment agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 188, line 14, agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 188, line 14, at the end, insert:

    NEW CLAUSE G.—(Removal of certain disqualifications on the occasion of the first elections to Legislature.)
    "For the purposes of the first elections of persons to serve as members of the Federal Legislature and of Provincial Legislatures no person shall be subject to any disqualification by reason only of the fact that he holds—

    (a) an office of profit as a non-official member of the Executive Council of the Governor-General or a Governor, or as a minister in a Province;

    (b) an office which is not a whole time office remunerated either by salary or by fees."

    9.24 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    It was thought that the purpose of the Clause could be achieved by Order in Council under an appropriate Clause in the Bill, but on reflection it has been thought that this was not the right view and therefore it is desirable to make this explicit provision providing for the eligibility of certain persons who may hold certain positions which would render them ineligible for offering themselves as candidates in the first election. It is a provision which I think the House will approve.

    CLAUSE 304.—(Procedure as respect proposals for amendment of certain provisions of Act and Orders in council.)
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understand that the Lords Amendments to line 16 in page 190 are drafting, and I will put them en bloc.
    Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments."
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I think they are rather more than drafting. They deal with a very important matter, and I am much relieved to see this Clause come
    2602
    back in a substantially different form to that in which it left this House. When the Bill left us two months ago I felt extremely anxious in regard to this Clause, and I am considerably relieved to see the Amendments which have been inserted. As the Bill left us it would have been possible for the Government by Order-in-Council at any time after the Bill became law to propose the abolition of the special electorates and to be obliged only to ascertain the views of Governments and Legislatures, a very different matter from obtaining the assent of the communities concerned which was the pledge given in the Communal Award. It is a great satisfaction to me to see how both Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (4) of this Clause have been amended in another place. Now, although it is possible by Sub-section (4) that action in the direction I have indicated can be taken by the Government at any time after the Bill becomes law, the Government will be obliged to ascertain the views of any minorities concerned and, in particular, to ascertain whether a majority of the representatives of that community in the Legislature concerned are in agreement with the change proposed, and these views will have to be reported to Parliament. That does go a considerable way towards what was promised in the Communal Award as to the necessity of securing the assent of the minority. Parliament will be seized of the views of the minorities concerned as a whole, so far as that can be ascertained, and in particular will be seized as to whether a majority of the communities' representatives approve of the proposed change.
    Again, if an Indian Legislature after 10 years, under Sub-section (1), asks for any change in the method of election or the proportion of representatives of the different communities, the Governor-General has to inform His Majesty's Government of the views of the communities concerned, and whether a majority of those communities' representatives in the particular Legislature approve of the change. These Amendments, therefore, do require something very like the assent of the communities, and what is very important, these requirements are not limited merely to the provincial Legislature but also extend to the Federal Legislature; and as the communal award contained no pledge that

    2603
    there should be no change in the method of election to the Federal Legislature except after 10 years, or with the assent of the communities—the pledge of the communal award only extended to provincial Legislatures—it does seem to me to be a substantial concession to minorities that any change in the Federal Legislature that may be approved either by the Legislature itself or by His Majesty's Government will be subject to the same requirements in regard to the ascertainment of the views of the minorities concerned as in the case of the provincial Legislatures.
    I therefore sum up the Amendments by saying that it seems to me that while on the one hand it may be said that the Clause now does not give in regard to the provincial legislatures quite all that was originally promised, it does give substantially more than was promised in regard to the Federal Legislature, and that is a matter of great importance because, after all, the Federal Legislature is necessarily the most important of the Legislatures which are to be set up, and it is a Legislature in which Mohammedans have a definite knowledge that they must be in a minority. Therefore, it is very important that they should be given the same safeguard against a change in the method of election in regard to the Federal Legislature as was given in regard to Provincial Legislatures. And, though the time limit is absent in regard to action by His Majesty's Government, 10 years pass very rapidly, and after that period the minorities would have no safeguard at all in regard to the Federal Legislature. It seems, therefore, much more important that they should have safeguards in regard to both Federal and Provincial Legislatures that will operate beyond the period of 10 years, than to have had something a little more definite in regard to the Provincial Legislatures and nothing in regard to the Federal Legislature. I hope that minorities who have been very disturbed in India over the Clause as it left us will feel that their apprehensions have been largely met by the changes that have been made.
    9.32 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLER: I am glad to hear from the Noble Lady that she is satisfied with the Amendments made to this Clause. I
    2604
    do not wish to follow her into all the arguments, or to pursue the various points that she has put to the House, but it is satisfactory at any rate, that if there were any doubts in regard to the Government's intention in regard to the communal award they should have been cleared up. This will give Parliament the opportunity of having before it the views of the minorities, and I think that on that point it is very satisfactory. I must say that there was never any intention on the part of the Government to go behind the Communal Award. In Parliament it is natural that those who press their claims should press them in a determined way, but I should have liked some recognition that we did not intend to go behind the Communal Award. It is a question that we regard with great seriousness, and therefore I am glad at this stage to hear that at any rate one of our opponents is satisfied with the changes that have been made.

    CLAUSE 305.—(Orders in Council.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 190, line 21, at the beginning, insert:
    "Any power conferred by this Act on His Majesty in Council shall be exercisable only by Order in Council."
    9.33 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is an Amendment to make it plain that His Majesty in Council means His Majesty acting by Order in Council. The second of these two Amendments will make it plain that a formal Order in Council which is made in connection with a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council shall not be included, and that an Order in Council which is necessary to institute proceedings against a former Governor-General shall not be included.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 194, line 7, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 309.—(Executive Government.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 187, line 5, at the end, insert:
    "Provided that—

    (a) any reference to the revenues of the Federation shall be construed as a reference to the revenues of the Governor-General in Council;

    2605

    (b) the revenues of the Governor-General in Council shall, subject to the provisions of chapter 1 of Part VII of this Act with respect to the assignment of the whole or part of the net proceeds of certain taxes and duties to Provinces and to the provisions of this Act with respect to the Federal Railway Authority (so far as any such provisions are for the time being in force), include all revenues and public moneys raised or received either by the Governor-General in Council or by the Governor-General;

    (c) the expenses of the Governor-General in discharging his functions as respects matters with respect to which he is required by the provisions of this Act for the time being in force to act in his discretion shall be defrayed out of the revenues of the Governor-General in Council."

    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this Amendment raises a question of privilege.
    9.34 p.m.
    Lord E. PERCY: This enormous and formidable Amendment has really only one purpose, and that is to provide that in the transitional period the Governor-General shall be able to carry out, as regards British Baluchistan, the powers possessed after the transitional period is over and when the full Federal scheme is in operation.
    Question put, and agreed to. (Special entry.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 198, line 2, at the end, insert:
    "(4) Any requirement in this Act that the Governor-General shall exercise his individual judgment with respect to any matter shall not come into force until the establishment of the Federation, but, notwithstanding that Part II of this Act has not come into operation, the following provisions of this Act, that is to say—

    (a) the provisions requiring the prior sanction of the Governor-General for certain legislative proposals;

    (b) the provisions relating to broadcasting;

    (c) the provisions relating to directions to, and principles to be observed by, the Federal Railway Authority; and

    (d) the provisions relating to civil services to be recruited by the Secretary of State,

    shall have effect in relation to defence, ecclesiastical affairs, external affairs and the tribal areas as they have effect in relation to matters or functions with respect to, or in the exercise of, which the Governor-General is by the provisions of this Act for the time being in force required to act in his discretion, and any
    2606
    reference in any of the provisions of this Act for the time being in force to the special responsibilities of the Governor-General shall be construed as a reference to the special responsibilities which he will have when Part II of this Act comes into operation."
    9.35 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This rather formidable looking Amendment is really in the nature of a drafting Amendment intended to remove possible doubts. In the transitional period Part II of the Bill will not come into operation but there will be found in parts of the Bill which will come into operation then, references, for example, to matters with which the Governor-General deals in his discretion. Paragraphs (a) to (d) of the Amendment refer to parts of the Bill in which there is a general reference to the matters which are placed in the Governor-General's discretion by Part II of the Bill and the main purpose of the Amendment is to make it clear that the court in construing the words "in his discretion" before Part II comes into force, can have regard to those matters which are placed in his discretion by Part II. The first four lines of the Amendment deal with a rather different matter, namely, the words "his individual judgment," which, of course, will not have any application until Part II comes into force but the latter part of the Amendment refers to the special responsibilities under Part II. But for this Amendment it might be thought that these could not be referred to until Part II came into operation. That is the purposes of the Amendment. It deals with the extent to which Part II may be looked to, before it comes into operation, in relation to the words "in the Governor-General's discretion" as referred to in other parts of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 310.—(Control of the Secretary of State.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 198, line 25, at the end, insert:
    "and, notwithstanding anything in Part XI of this Act with respect to their term of office, on the establishment of the Federation such of the advisers as the Secretary of State may direct shall cease to hold office."
    9.37 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This addition is regarded as necessary in order that the Secretary of State may terminate the appointment of such of his advisers as are in excess of the maximum number of six which he is to have when the Federal part of the Bill comes into operation. It may be asked whether this is not unfair to the members of his Council. The answer is that it is assumed that any appointment made in the transitional period would envisage the probability that the term of service would be terminated by the commencement of Federation and that those so appointed would be warned on their appointment that this was likely to be the case. During the transitional period it is possible under the terms of the Bill for the Secretary of State to have a maximum of 12 and a minimum of eight. It is when the Federation comes into force that the numbers are reduced by the Bill to six and three respectively.

    CLAUSE 314.—(Provisions as to Federal Court and certain other Federal authorities.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 200, line 23, at the end, insert:
    "(2) Nothing in this section affects any power of His Majesty in Council to fix a date later than the commencement of Part III of this Act for the coming into operation, either generally or for particular purposes, of any of the provisions of this Act relating to the Federal Court, the Federal Public Service Commission or the Federal Railway Authority."
    9.39 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    It is necessary to insert this Sub-section so that if one of these bodies, such, for instance, as the Federal Railway Authority is not in readiness for appointment on the actual inception of provincial autonomy, it will be possible to appoint it at a later date. During this period, since the units will have been created in the Provinces, it will be necessary, as the House has previously been
    2608
    warned, that these Federal bodies should start their work. This is inserted to remove any misapprehension that there was no power to appoint such a body unless it was appointed on the inception of provincial autonomy.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 289, line 4, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 472.—(Charge of expenses on revenues raised in India or Burma.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 290, line 17, leave out Clause 472.
    Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This Clause was a purely formal insertion in the Bill originally, in accordance with our procedure in the House of Commons. The object of its inclusion no longer exists, and I, therefore, move to agree with the Lords.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 308, lines 29 and 30 agreed to.

    SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Provisions of this Act which may be amended without affecting the Accession of a State.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 313, line 36, at the end, insert:
    "and the protection of judges of the Federal Court and State High Courts from discussion in the Legislature of their conduct."
    9.42 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The provisions dealt with in the Second Schedule are those which we have called the unprotected provisions. The protected provisions are those which may not be altered without affecting the accession of a State. It is obvious that if a State has acceded to the Federation upon certain provisions contained in the Bill, it is not right that those provisions should be altered, but there are provisions in the Bill to which that consideration does not apply, and these have been made the subject-matter of the Second Schedule. A number of additions to the protected provisions, in other words, the exceptions to the unprotected provisions, are proposed by a series of Amendments of which this is the first. With one exception these

    2609
    Amendments are not of great importance, but some of them are necessary in consequence of Amendments which were made in the Bill during the Report stage in this House when there was not time to make the necessary consequential Amendments in the Schedule. These Amendments have now been made in another place. Some have been made in order to meet requests put forward by the States that certain provisions which had not been included in the protected provisions should be added to those provisions. The particular Amendment with which I now move to agree deals with the protection of judges of the Federal Court and the State High Courts in respect of discussions in the Legislature on their conduct. The Amendment will have the effect of protecting those provisions. I do not know whether the House will allow these general observations to cover the other Amendments, with the exception of one, which is a little more important than the rest.
    Lords Amendment: In page 313, line 43, leave out from "special" to the end of line 48, and insert:
    "responsibilities of the Governor relating to the rights of Indian States and the rights and dignity of the Rulers thereof and to the execution of orders or directions of the Governor-General and the superintendence of the Governor-General in relation to those responsibilities."
    9.46 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is part of the Amendment which I regard as of some importance. It goes with a later Amendment to line 32 on the next page, and the particular importance of it is that it deals with a very important power of the Govtrnor-General to direct what should be done by a Province for the purpose of
    "preventing any grave menace to the peace or tranquillity of India or any part thereof."
    That is obviously a matter of very great importance to the States, and it is desired to include those matters within the protected provisions. This is part of the same subject matter.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 315, line 20, agreed to.

    SIXTH SCHEDULE.—(Provisions as to Franchise.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 326, line 11, after the second "time," insert "in whole or in part."
    9.47 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment and those which follow are all Amendments to the Sixth or Franchise Schedule, which was added to the Bill in the Committee. They are all of the same type and character and fall under three heads. Apart from two matters of local detail in Oudh and Berar, the following are the only points touched on in these Amendments: The first is the removal of the necessity for application in those areas and parts of Provinces in India where a woman had to apply for inclusion in an electoral roll by virtue of her husband's qualification, after the first election. During the passage of the Bill through this House, my right hon. Friend said that he would do his best to see that Amendments were moved to another place to achieve this result, which appeared to be very much desired by the women in India and those interested in getting as large a number of women on the electoral roll as possible. The effect of these Amendments is that after three years the Governments concerned shall include these women on the rolls themselves. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. I. Foot) and other hon. Members will probably agree that that is a very satisfactory change. The two next Amendments—in page 328, line 13, at the end, to insert:
    "and a reference to an officer, non-commissioned officer or soldier of the Auxiliary Force (India) or the Indian Territorial Force, not being an officer, none-commissioned officer or soldier who has been dismissed or discharged from the force for discipilnary reasons, or has served in the force for less than four years."
    and in page 330, line 30, after "Act," to insert "1908"—deal with omissions which must be made in connection with the franchise qualifications of the police. These are not in order to remove the franchise from the police, but because we have decided to make the Amendments on page 328 which will govern the inclusion of the police and their wives in the franchise without having to make an

    2611
    insertion under each individual Province. These Amendments are really drafting. A drafting change is also made in several cases in connection with the electoral rolls in order to explain what the words "preparation of the electoral rolls" mean and to enable rolls to be corrected in part and not necessarily as a whole.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 330, line 30, agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In page 332, line 1, leave out from "forces" to the end of line 3.
    Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    I shall be obliged to ask the House to accept a consequential Amendment to the Bill if it agrees to this Amendment.
    Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, in page 341, to leave out lines 3 and 4.
    This is a printing mistake in the Bill, and this is therefore a drafting Amendment only.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 376, line 24, agreed to.

    SEVENTH SCHEDULE.—(Legislative Lists.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 377, line 9, after "Governments," insert:
    "any armed forces which are not forces of His Majesty but are attached to or operating with any of His Majesty's naval, military or air forces borne on the Indian establishment."
    9.53 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    I think it will be for the convenience of the House that I should follow the precedent that has been set and say a few words about all the Amendments to the Seventh Schedule, none of which raises any point of great substance. They are little more than drafting Amendments to make clear the meaning of the Items as they originally were in the Bill. I might refer to the Amendment on page 379, in line 22, to leave out "in mines" and insert "and," which deals with a matter in which hon. Members opposite are interested. The Amendment brings this
    2612
    Item into a form in which hon. Members opposite asked that it should be when we were having our discussions in Committee. At that time it was not certain that there might not be an objection to it, but it has been reconsidered, and it has been found that the Amendment can be made. The Amendment on page 380, line 3—at the end, to insert:
    "41. The salaries of the Federal Ministers, of the President and Vice-President of the Council of State and of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Federal Assembly; the salaries, allowances and privileges of the members of the Federal Legislature; and, to such extent as is expressly authorised by Part II of this Act, the punishment of persons who refuse to give evidence or produce documents before Committees of the Legislature."
    —is consequential on Amendments made in the Bill and is put in to make it quite clear that the powers to which we refer in Clauses are expressly dealt with in Items in the Legislative Lists. The last Amendment on this Schedule—in page 385, line 22, after "labour," to insert "conditions of labour"—substitutes the word "conditions" for the word "welfare," which is more satisfactory. It is only a drafting Amendment.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 394, line 29, agreed to.

    TENTH SCHEDULE.—(Provisions as to Governor of Burma.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 402, line 20, after "powers," insert "privileges and immunities."
    9.56 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, to leave out "privileges."
    This is consequential on a similar Amendment which I moved previously.
    Amendment to Lords Amendment agreed to.

    ELEVENTH SCHEDULE.—(Areas in Burma to which special provisions apply.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 403, line 23, at the end, insert:
    "(3) The Kyain township, the Myawaddy Circle of the Kawkareik township, and so

    2613
    much of the Karen Hill tracts situate in the eastern half of the Toungoo District and in the Thaton District as may be prescribed by His Majesty in Council."
    Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment adds certain areas in Burma to the partially excluded areas. The names of the areas are set out in the Amendment. This is a matter which was pressed upon us by the hon. Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock).
    Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

  HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put and agreed to.—[Sir G. Collins.]
  Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

  HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Duty of local authority to inspect and to make reports and proposals as to overcrowding.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 28, after "overcrowding," insert:
    "or otherwise living under unsatisfactory housing conditions."
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment carries out a promise given on the Report stage in the House of Commons that in dealing with rehousing we should take into consideration not only overcrowding but other unsatisfactory housing conditions as well.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment, in page 3, line 27, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Inforination with respect to the permitted number and certification of number and floor areas of rooms.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 21, after "and" insert:
    "the regulations may provide for the exclusion from computation, or for the bringing into computation at a reduced figure, of
    2614
    floor space in any part of a room which is of less than a specified height."
    Sir G. COLLINS: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This carries out a pledge given by myself during the Report stage in this House. It has always been the intention that the rules of measurement prescribed by the Department should take into consideration the facts stated in the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 11.—(Duty of medical officers to furnish, particulars of overcrowding.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 10, at the end, insert:
    "(2) Before furnishing particulars under the foregoing Sub-section, the medical officer of health shall consult with, or obtain a report from, the sanitary inspector of the authority."
    Sir G. COLLINS: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment also deals with a question which was raised during the Report stage. I was unable at that time to meet the case made for consultation with sanitary inspectors, but I think this Amendment will satisfy what was then asked for on their behalf.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 12, line 43, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 16.—(Application of certain provisions of the Acts of 1925 and 1930 for purposes of redevelopment provisions.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 1, at the beginning, insert:
    "(1) The provisions of section thirty-two of the Act of 1925 (which relates to expenses incurred in connection with certain orders) shall have effect in relation to a re-development plan and to a new plan and to the Department's approval of any such plan and in relation to a compulsory purchase order made under the last foregoing section, as they have effect in relation to the orders mentioned in the said section."
    Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment raises a question of Privilege.
    9.33 p.m.
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Jamieson): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

    2615
    This Amendment is to enable the Department to award costs to objectors. A similar provision was taken in Section 32 of the 1925 Act in regard to inquiries under that Act, and it was thought desirable that the Department should have power to award expenses to objectors in inquiries under the present Bill.
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: I suppose that this will relate to the payment of expenses only to those whose objections have been sustained, and not to us.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: No, Sir. Section 32 of the 1925 Act is not so limited, but in practice expenses are only awarded where objections have been successful, but there might be a case where a reasonable objection had been put forward, perhaps an objection raising a question of principle, and it is felt right in these cases that there should be discretionary power to award expenses.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 13, line 27, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 22.—(Scottish Housing Advisory Committee.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 17, line 11, at the end, insert:
    "(d) considering the operation of the enactments relating to housing and making to the Department such representations as the Committee think desirable concerning the execution of those enactments in relation to the general housing needs of the working classes."
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is really a drafting Amendment which gives the Committee certain powers to make representations to the Department about the execution of the Acts in relation to general questions affecting the housing needs of the working classes. It adds in a small measure to the powers which were given to the Advisory Committee in the Bill as originally presented.

    CLAUSE 25.—(Definition of housing association.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 20, line 21, leave out from the beginning to "any" in line 23, and insert:
    2616
    "For references in the Act of 1925 and in the Act of 1930 to a public utility society there shall be substituted references to a 'housing association', that is to say".
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The purpose of the Amendment is to substitute throughout the Bill and the previous Acts "housing association" for "public utility society" "Housing association" is defined in an Amendment to the Definition Clause which will subsequently be moved.

    CLAUSE 26.—(Power of local authority to make arrangements with housing associations.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 21, line 43, at the end, insert:
    "(5) If a housing association represent to the Department that they have submitted to the local authority proposals for arrangements under this section and that the local authority have unreasonably refused to make arrangements in accordance with the proposals, the Department may require the authority to furnish them with a report as to the matter stating the reasons for their refusal."
    10.7 p.m.
    Sir G. COLLINS: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment is intended to make explicit what has been in the Bill all along, namely, that a housing association has the right to approach the Minister if a local authority unreasonably refuses to exercise its powers of making arrangements. The Amendment does not give any new right of appeal, but it lays down the steps that may be taken by the Department and the duty of the local authority where such a situation arises.
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: Under the 1930 Act it has been possible for a number of ratepayers in an area, if the local authority does not carry out the provisions of the Act, to make representations to the Minister and have an inquiry held. Does this Amendment limit that power, or does it give to the housing association the same power which now resides in the ratepayers, so that if they find a recalcitrant local authority which is not carrying out the Act it can approach the Minister.
    Sir G. COLLINS: The powers in the 1930 Act are in no way weakened. The

    2617
    provisions of that Act are of real help and have been utilised in Scotland, and we hope that they will be utilised frequently in future. The Amendment deals with the housing association and not with the powers contained in the Act of 1930.
    Mr. MACLEAN: But does it give to the housing association a similar power to that which at present resides in the ratepayers to approach the Minister?
    Sir G. COLLINS: It does no more than empower the local authorities to state their reasons if they go against the housing association.
    Lords Amendment: In page 21, line 43, at the end, insert:

    NEW CLAUSE A.—(Unification of conditions affecting housing associations' houses.)
    "27. Where the Department have undertaken to make in respect of any houses under the management of a housing association contributions under more than one enactment and the association are required to observe in the management of the houses varying special conditions or terms imposed by those enactments, the Department may, on the application of the association and after consultation with any local authority who are under obligation to make grants or contributions in respect of any of the houses, make a scheme specifying, as conditions to be observed in the management of all the houses in substitution for the conditions or terms imposed as aforesaid, such conditions as they think fit, and in specifying the conditions to be so observed the Department shall have regard to the provisions of Part IV of this Act with respect to the conditions which a local authority are required to observe in relation to their houses."
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The purposes of this Clause is to unify the conditions connected with housing associations in the same way as we unified them with regard to the local authorities.

    CLAUSE 27.—(Amendments of the Act of 1925 as to public utility societies, etc.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 22, line 23, leave out from "persons" to the end of line 26, and insert:
    "The following Sub-section shall be inserted after Sub-section (2):
    (2A) An advance for any of the purposes specified in Sub-section (1) of this Section shall be secured with interest thereon by a heritable security over the land and dwelling-houses in respect of which that purpose is to be carried out and of such other land and dwelling-houses (being houses which have been constructed or made suitable for the working classes by the company, society, association or person receiving the advance) if any as may be offered as security for the advance.
    (4) In the said Section seventy-three the following Sub-section shall be substituted for Sub-section (5)—"
    Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment and the next Amendment raise questions of Privilege.
    10.10 p.m.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The purpose of the Amendment is to clear up a difficulty which has been raised by the interpretation of Sub-section 4 of Section 73 of the 1925 Act, which makes provision with regard to the extent to which advances may be made, namely, two-thirds of the value of the property, but it has been construed as referring only to the houses under the loan. The Amendment would enable the Public Works Loans Board to take into account when considering the amount of an advance to a housing association, not only the houses which are to be built, but any working-class houses already erected by the association which can be offered as a security for the loan.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 29, line 27, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 39.—(Credits and debits in Housing Revenue Account.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 32, line 10, after "charges," insert, "which the local authority are liable to pay."
    Sir G. COLLINS: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The object of the Amendment is to cover the case where there has been a transfer of houses from one local

    2619
    authority to another consequent upon a revision of boundaries. The local authority who owned the houses may not be the authority which originally borrowed the money, and it is to rectify that position that the Amendment is moved.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 35, line 30, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 46.—(Conditions to be observed by local authorities.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 39, line 31, at the end, insert:
    "(7) For the purposes of any enactment relating to valuation or rating, the gross annual value of any dwelling-house or dwelling to which this Section applies shall not exceed the rent (exclusive of occupier's rates) fixed in pursuance of this Section, and no account shall be taken of any rebate from the rent so fixed."
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This will make clear what has all along been the intention, that the rent which the local authority fixes as the market rent has to be taken for the valuation, and not that rent reduced by any rebate which it may give.
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: I take it that this is for the purposes of assessment?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: That is so.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Does it mean that the tenant will be rated, not on the market rent that he is paying, but on the assessment value that appears on the assessment roll?
    10.14 p.m.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: If the market value appears in the valuation roll rates will be paid upon that valuation. It is necessary that it should be so, because a rebate will vary according to the ability of the tenant to pay and according to who is occupier at the time. Obviously the figure in the valuation roll should be the proper annual value of the house, and not one which is representative of what may be a temporary rebate.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 41, line 26, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 54.—(Application of certain, provisions of Acts of 1925 and 1930 to resolutions for demolition under this Part.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 44, line 3, leave out "in the Acts of 1925 and 1930."
    10.16 p.m.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment ought to be read in conjunction with the two following Amendments: In page 44, line 12, to leave out "that is to say" and to insert:
    "and the references therein to Part I of the Act of 1925 or to Part II of the Act of 1930 included references to the foregoing provisions of this Part of the Act, that is to say—

    (a) section twenty-three of the Act of 1925 (which relates to notices and to applications to the sheriff in relation to demolitions);

    (b) section twenty-five of the Act of 1925 (which relates to remedies of owners for breach of contract);"

    and in line 21, at the end, to insert:
    ("and (f) section twenty-nine of the Act of 1930 (which relates to the power of the sheriff to determine leases in certain cases).")
    The Act of 1925 contained provisions with regard to obstructive buildings. Those were repealed in 1930, and are now being re-enacted in a modified form in Clause 51, and their re-enactment necessitates the re-enactment of Sections 23 and 25 of the Act of 1925 which dealt with the question of notices, appeals and such like.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 44, line 21, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 55.—(Amendment as to premises in clearance area on ground of bad arrangement, etc., and repeal of provision for reduction of compensation.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 44, line 28, after the first "arrangement," insert "in relation to other buildings."
    Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment raises a question of privilege.
    10.18 p.m.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

    2621
    The purpose of this Amendment is to clarify the Clause. It was the intention of the Government that a house should not be excluded from a clearance order if it was so badly arranged internally as to be unfit for human habitation. On the other hand, if the objection to it was simply a matter of its grouping with regard to other buildings, then it should be excluded, and an Amendment was accepted in another place to relate "bad arrangement" in Clause 55 to a bad arrangement of the whole house in relation to other buildings on the site.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Does this mean that a house which is situated in a demolition area and is bad internally is going to receive the market value, which will be in excess of what the real value of that particular property would be if it were regarded as house no longer fit for occupation and had to be demolished?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: No, a house which through bad internal arrangement is no longer fit for human habitation will not be excluded, and the owner, when he gets his compensation, will get compensation only on the site value, but where it is a house which is badly arranged only in relation to other buildings the owner will get not only the site value but the value of the house.
    Lords Amendment: In page 45, line 10, at the end, insert:

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Obligation, of the Department to state reasons for deciding that a building is unfit for human habitation.)
    "Any person who objects to a clearance ance order on the ground that a building included therein, being a building in which he is interested, is not unfit for human habitation, or who objects on the like ground to a compulsory purchase order made under Part I of the Act of 1930, or under Part I of this Act, and who appears at the public local inquiry in support of his objection, shall, if the building is included in the order as confirmed as being unfit for human habitation, be entitled on making a request in writing to be furnished by the Department with a statement in writing of their reasons for deciding that the building is so unfit."
    10.19 p.m.
    Sir G. COLLINS: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    2622
    During the Committee stage a new Clause was moved asking that copies of the reports by the Commissioners holding public local inquiries should be furnished to the owners of property concerned. The Government were unable to accept that Clause but this new Clause gives to any owner whose property is to be compulsorily demolished or is to be compulsorily purchased at site value, the right to know the reasons for the condemnation of his property, provided the individual concerned has appeared at the public inquiry.
    Mr. LEONARD: Does he get it prior to appearing?
    Sir G. COLLINS: No, only after the decision is taken, and if he has appeared at the public inquiry as to whether his house is to be demolished or not. Then he is to be furnished with the report.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 56.—(Payments in respect of well-maintained houses.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 45, line 33, after "if" insert "at that date."
    10.22 p.m.
    Sir G. COLLINS: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Paragraph (b) of Clause 56 (2) of the Bill deals with the payment to be made to an owner occupier in respect of the rateable value of his house. It is necessary to fix a date by reference to which the payment to be made to the owner occupier may be determined. This Amendment has the effect of determining the matter in relation to the date on which the order affecting the house is made, so that he may receive the appropriate payment.
    Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 57.—(Arrangements where acquisition of land in clearance area found to be unnecessary.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 47, line 5, leave out Sub-section (2).
    10.23 p.m.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment is introductory to the insertion of a new Clause on page 50, line 29. The new Clause is, in effect, a re-enactment of Section 91 of the Act of 1925. For drafting purposes it was thought better to repeal that Clause and to insert a new one.
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: Might it not be advisable that the explanation of other Clauses might be made upon this Amendment, so that the House will be quite clear as to the full effect of the subsequent new Clause, to which this is merely a preface?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I will put it very briefly. Section 91 of the Act of 1925 gave power to a local authority which had entered into an agreement with a third party to enforce the agreement against a person acquiring the property from such a third party. The new Clause on page 50 re-enacts that, with certain not very important and rather technical modifications. The chief modification is that any such agreement entered into must be recorded in the appropriate register of sasines in respect of the property in question. The reason why we have dealt with the matter in this way instead of simply by reference to Section 91 is that there are two other Clauses in the Bill, 50 and 52, for which similar provision is required. We put it all in the new Clause, and made it applicable to all Clauses which require that provision.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Has it been decided that if any question arose upon these Clauses there might be too much cross reference in the Bill?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: That is so.

    CLAUSE 58.—(Power to exchange clearance area land in lieu of sale under s. 4 of Act of 1930.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 47, line 19, leave out "exchange," and insert "excamb."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[The Lord Advocate.]
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: Had not the hon. and learned Gentleman better explain in the English language what is the exact meaning of "excamb"?
    Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 50, line 29, agreed to.

    CLAUSE 67.—(By-laws.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 51, line 3, at the end, insert:
    "(f) the height of ceilings."
    Sir G. COLLINS: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment enables a local authority to make by-laws respecting the height of ceilings in new houses. Burghs already possess that power, but counties do not, and the object of the Amendment is to correct that anomaly.

    CLAUSE 72.—(Duty of local authority to have regard to amenity, etc.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 54, line 18, at the end, insert:
    "and the local authority shall furnish to the Department a copy of any representation, recommendation or report made to them by the committee."
    10.27 p.m.
    Sir G. COLLINS: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment raises a point which has not yet been raised either on Report or in Committee. The Government lay great stress on the improvement of amenities in housing schemes in Scotland, and the Clause provides for the appointment by local authorities of advisory committees. In addition, it is hoped that these committees will keep a watchful eye on buildings of architectural, historical and artistic interest, with a view to their preservation should they happen to be included in clearance or re-development schemes. The object of the Amendment is to ensure that, where such buildings are subjects for clearance or re-development, the Department shall be advised.
    Mr. N. MACLEAN: Apparently no power is given either in this Clause or in any other part of the Bill, and I think power should be given, to take steps to

    2625
    preserve buildings of historic or architectural interest. The Clause does not give the local authority power so to repair, alter or strengthen such a building as to preserve it.
    Sir G. COLLINS: There is no financial provision for that purpose, but no doubt local authorities that are anxious to preserve such amenities in their own interests will themselves find such small sums of money as may be necessary.

    SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Provision as to the compulsory purchase of land in connection with re-development in accordance with a re-development plan.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 67, line 42, leave out "the re-development," and insert:
    "re-development, or for securing the use of the land, in accordance with the re-development plan."
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment, and the remaining Amendments to the Schedules, are all either drafting or consequential.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 75, line 6, agreed to.

    FIFTH SCHEDULE.—(Consequential, drafting and minor amendments.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 76, line 31, column 2, at the end, insert:
    "In Section seventy-three, in Sub-section (3) for the word 'same' there shall be substituted the word 'advance'; and in Subsection (4), in paragraph (b), the word 'solely' shall be omitted, and in paragraph (c), the words 'upon the security of any land or houses solely' shall be omitted, after the words 'proposed to be burdened' there shall be inserted the words 'in pursuance of Sub-section (2, a) of this Section,' and for the words 'the houses on the land burdened' there shall be sub-stituted the words 'houses or other work on land so burdened.'"
    Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment is consequential on an Amendment in page 22. I have already told the House that
    2626
    both of these Amendments raise questions of privilege.
    Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

  MONEY PAYMENTS (JUSTICES PROCEDURE) BILL [Lords].
  Considered in Committee.
  [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

  MONEY PAYMENTS (JUSTICES PROCEDURE) BILL [Lords].

    CLAUSE 1.—(Fines, inquiry as to means of defaulter.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    10.31 p.m.
    Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move, "That the Chairman report Progress and ask leave to sit again."
    I move this in order to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury whether it is intended to take the Order under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Captain Margesson): It is not the Government's intention to take the Order standing in the name of the Minister of Labour to-night provided that agreement can be reached in all quarters of the House that the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill is concluded not later than nine o'clock tomorrow night. Subject to that, the Order on Unemployment Insurance will be taken after that hour.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clauses 2 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 10.—(Rates, inquiry as to conduct, and remission.)
    Amendments made: In page 7, line 1, insert:
    "[(2) Where on such an application as aforesaid no warrant is issued, the justices may remit the payment of any sum or sums to which the application relates, or of any part of that sum or of any of these sums.]"
    In line 7, after "renewed," insert:
    "[except so far as regards any sum or sums remitted under the last foregoing sub-section.]"—[Sir J. Simon.]
    Clause, as amended, order to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 11 to 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Schedule agreed to.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

    ADJOURNMENT.
    Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
    Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five Minutes before Eleven o'Clock.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE (ITALIAN IMPORTS).
  TRADE AND COMMERCE (ITALIAN IMPORTS).
  CHINA.
  CHINA.
PUBLIC HEALTH.
  SMALL-POX.
  SMALL-POX.
  TUBERCULOSIS, NORTH WALES.
  TUBERCULOSIS, NORTH WALES.
  UNEMPLOYMENT (HOLIDAY CAMPS).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (HOLIDAY CAMPS).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
NATIONAL FINANCE.
  SPIRITS.
  SPIRITS.
  BEER.
  BEER.
  CLUBS (DUTY).
  CLUBS (DUTY).
  CODEX SINAITICUS.
  CODEX SINAITICUS.
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (TELEPHONE BOXES).
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (TELEPHONE BOXES).
  AUCTIONEERS (LICENCES).
  AUCTIONEERS (LICENCES).
SCOTLAND.
  PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.
  PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.
  HOUSING (STATISTICS).
  HOUSING (STATISTICS).
  MILK.
  MILK.
  AGRICULTURE (FAMILY FARMS).
  AGRICULTURE (FAMILY FARMS).
  MOTORISTS (POLICE PATROLS).
  MOTORISTS (POLICE PATROLS).
AGRICULTURE.
  POTATOES.
  POTATOES.
  AGRICULTURAL MORTGAGE CORPORATION.
  AGRICULTURAL MORTGAGE CORPORATION.
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The EARL OF ONSLOW on the Woolsack.
LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD (FINANCE) BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (SCARBOROUGH) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
AYR BURGH EXTENSION, &c., ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2' and reported from the Committee.
KILMARNOCK BURGH EXTENSION, &c., ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
TROON BURGH EXTENSION, &c., ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
AYR COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
LEITH HARBOUR AND DOCKS CON SOLIDATION ORDER CONFIRMA TION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
RESTRICTION OF RIBBON DEVELOPMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORA TION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

BRITISH SUGAR (SUBSIDY) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OFAGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, in moving that this Bill be now read a second time it might be useful if I recall to your Lordships as briefly as possible the history of this subject. It will be remembered that the Act which expired last year was put through Parliament in 1925. That Act, when it was in Bill form, had originally been prepared by the Labour Government in 1924. They had not time to pass it into law, and the succeeding Conservative Government, profiting from the efforts of the Government of which I had then the honour to be a member, put the Bill on the Statute Book. It may be recalled that the original subsidy was at the rate of approximately 21s. 6d. per cwt. of white sugar, and that lasted until the season of 1927–28. Then it dropped to 14s. 6d.—I am taking in the molasses subsidy with the beet sugar subsidy—and continued at
892
that rate until the season 1931–32. It was then to drop to 7s. 3d., but at that time there had been a very heavy fall in the price of sugar and Dr. Addison, who was then Minister, was faced with the situation that the industry would not be able to continue unless further assistance was given to it. Accordingly, he added 1s. 3d., which was conditional on the addition being returnable if the price of sugar rose, and also conditional on certain beet prices. In the succeeding year the subsidy dropped to 7s. 3d., and that continued until that particular Act came to an end.
Your Lordships will also remember that the Act was due to terminate in September, 1934. His Majesty's Government appointed a Committee in April of that year, and were very fortunate in obtaining the services of Mr. Wilfrid Greene, K.C., as Chairman. Whether noble Lords are agreed with what was said in that Report or not, I think all will agree that we are extraordinarily indebted to Mr. Wilfrid Greene for the amazing ability and clarity with which he has examined the position and stated the case. Your Lordships will remember, too, that very shortly after that Committee was appointed it became quite apparent that the subject was so vast and the range of investigations and the consideration of policy so enormous that it was going to be quite impossible for the Committee to report in time for action to be taken on the termination of the original Sugar (Subsidy) Act. Accordingly, a small Act was passed through Parliament last year continuing the original Act with very minor variations until August of this year. Now we come to your Lordships once more, because, while we have received the Report of the Greene Committee, it is again quite apparent that such large issues and such important questions of policy are raised that we should have a certain time, not for the consideration of policy—I shall hope in a few minutes to be able to satisfy your Lordships that we have given very deep consideration to the policy—but for the actual working out and putting into operation of that policy.
Therefore we ask your Lordships to pass the Bill, which is before you to-day, to continue the subsidy to the industry for vet another year. This Bill is not by any means a pure continuation of the

893
old Act. To begin with it introduces the principle of the limitation of acreage. When I say the Bill introduces the principle your Lordships, if you look at the Bill, will find no actual mention of it. That is for the very simple reason that the factories and the growers between them gave us assurances which satisfied us that they were prepared to put this part of the policy through. Indeed, since giving these assurances they are now in a position to show that they have carried them out. The subsidy is also based on a lower beet price, a reduction of per ton. Moreover, it makes no allowances for the capital services of the factories, neither for profits nor for depreciation. We have, in fact, during the interim period reduced the amount of assistance to the industry to the very minimum necessary for carrying it on. The actual subsidy will be at the rate of 5s. per cwt., assuming the price of sugar to be 4s. 6d. In so far as there are modifications up or down in that price of sugar, so there will be minor modifications in the subsidy. This assistance compares with 7s. 3d. which in the past has been given to the industry.
It means a total subsidy liability to the Exchequer of £2,750,000. It compares for the season just ended with a subsidy of £4,500,000; that is, a saving to the Exchequer of £1,750,000. I think your Lordships will realise therefore that endeavour has been made, whilst enabling the industry to carry on, to cut the cost to the Exchequer to the lowest possible limit, indeed, I shall be surprised if some of my noble friends behind roe have not some comments to make on these provisions. This continuance of the subsidy for another year certainly looks as if the Government were making up their minds to disregard the recommendations of the Greene Committee and to continue the assistance to the industry. On that point I shall 'have an announcement to make to your Lordships in a few minutes. I should, however, like for a moment to discuss the sort of consideration that has been in our minds, and must indeed have been in the minds of any Government that had to face this very difficult and thorny question. Let me make it quite clear first of all that whatever line we take, assuming for the moment that we are to continue the assistance, that should not be taken in
894
any way as a rebuff to the excellent gentlemen who made the Report. After all, the considerations which a Government must have in mind are very much wider than the considerations before a Committee appointed by and finally responsible to the Treasury.
Speaking purely for myself, I would say that there are many points put forward by Mr. Wilfrid Greene in his Report with which, if I were acting on a committee responsible purely for reporting to the Treasury, I might find myself in agreement. But taking the broad field of national policy, realising exactly what must hang on our policy, both nationally and agriculturally, I believe everyone of us would feel that, the Government having by deliberate Government action tempted farmers into a production of a particular crop, having by deliberate action encouraged capitalists to invest their money and their resources in these factories—eighteen of them, every one of them representing a high capital value, every one of them employing a large number of men—it would be a very grave responsibility to undertake suddenly to say, or even after the space of three years as is suggested in the Report to say, that that industry must finish, and to say it at a time such as to-day when, looking back over the last two or three years, we can see such a very profound change in the whole fiscal policy of the country. At one time it would have been quite possible to contend that the beet sugar industry was in an isolated position. It has been argued that it is an uneconomic industry, living in a free trade country where other industries have to fend for themselves. That is not so to-day. There is hardly an industry in the country that is not in process of receiving some form of assistance, fiscal or otherwise, from the Government, and if the beet sugar industry were to be abolished to-clay there would certainly have to be, if we were going to act logically, a great number of other industries abolished along with it.
But, if we look at it for the moment from the rather more limited aspect of agriculture, we shall see that there are approximately 375,000 acres of arable land dependent on the cultivation of beet sugar. Now, again, a few years ago it might have been possible to say: "This is an uneconomic crop; why should not the farmers be persuaded to go in for the cultivation of crops, or the production of

895
live stock, which are more economic to us? "I challenge anyone, whether he is in this House or outside, to tell me of a single commodity in the agricultural world to-day to the production of which you could divert 375,000 acres. A little while ago we might have said: "Why should they not produce milk?" Does anybody seriously suggest increasing the number of cows in this country? I remember that years ago I used to say: "Why do not farmers go in more for horticultural production, poultry production, and so on?" Does anybody suggest that those fields of production are so colossally profitable that they can bear a very large increase? I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Rhayader, would not suggest that these farmers should go into meat production. If the noble Lord is going to speak, I shall be very interested to hear from him the exact field into which he would hope to see their efforts diverted.
It is a great personal pleasure to myself, if I may say so, that I understand that my late colleagues are not going to oppose the principle of keeping this industry going. It is in strict accordance with their policy. They have never believed that cheapness was the only basis on which an industry could be judged. I remember co-operating with them in the Government on the Coal Mines Act, an Act which distinctly laid down that the producer—the workman—is worthy of his hire, and that neither the consumer nor the State is entitled to that cheapness which comes from the sweated wage of the producer. Nor would they contend—I think the figures are of very doubtful validity, but I know it is possible to argue—that it might be cheaper to put all these men on the "dole." I do not think that is a philosophy which noble Lords either on this side or that side of the House would for a moment support. We all of us think, quite apart from the social aspects, that it is better that men should be in employment, earning their own living, rather than standing at the street- corner on the "dole." Apart from that, we all of us feel to-day that our countryside is something worth preserving. We hear a great deal of talk about rural amenities. We have just been dealing in your Lordships' House with a Bill that is intended to make a contribution to that problem, the Restriction of Ribbon Development Bill. But there is one way
896
and one way only in which we are going to assist on a very large scale the problem of rural amenities, and that is by keeping the agricultural land of this country in a state of prosperous cultivation.
Now we come to the consideration of the long-term policy. I know that, strictly speaking, it does not come within the province of this Bill, which is only an interim measure, but I think your Lordships would feel that you were entitled to know exactly what is likely to be the result of your passing this interim measure. I said at the beginning that this interim measure was not simply in order to give us time for considering a Report which has now been in our possession for some time. It is rather designed to give us time in order to put through a policy which we have definitely adopted. That policy will, we hope, be in operation within the year's time which we are giving to ourselves. It might be necessary to have a little longer, but we are very anxious that we should not take longer, and it is also the desire of the industry itself that the provisions of that policy should go through as quickly as possible. Therefore, if I might, I should like to read to your Lordships the definite statement of the policy which will follow on the passage of this interim measure.
The Government have given careful consideration to the Reports of the Committee presided over by Mr. Wilfrid Greene, K.C. These Reports have been of the greatest assistance to them in the determination of their sugar policy. The conclusions which the Government have reached, and the financial and administrative arrangements which will be necessary to give effect to them, are as follows:—It is desirable, on agricultural grounds, to continue to assist the beet sugar industry without any limitation of the period during which assistance may be given. It is necessary, however, to set a limit to the volume of directly assisted production. The limit will be the equivalent of 560,000 tons of white sugar, which is the estimated produce of the 1935 crop. It is proposed to appoint an independent Sugar Commission to be entrusted with such powers in relation to the sugar beet industry as may be necessary for the carrying out of the Government's policy. It has been decided to adopt the recommendation of the Greene

897
Committee that the beet sugar factory companies should be amalgamated in a single corporation.
The Beet Sugar Factories Committee, representing all the beet sugar companies, have informed the Government that they are prepared to recommend in principle to the boards of the respective companies that an amalgamation scheme should be prepared and submitted as soon as possible to the Sugar Commission, and, if approved by them, to the Government. The Factories Committee are of opinion that if the amalgamated corporation is to be formed, it should become operative before the 1st April, 1936. In order to facilitate procedure, the Government propose to set up an informal tribunal to advise them upon any scheme of amalgamation which the factories may submit for approval. The financial arrangements which the Government propose are based on the assumption that, as from 1st April, 1936, there will be a transitional period of not more than five years. During this period, assistance will be given upon a diminishing scale based upon certain standard levels for the world price of sugar, the price of beet and other factors, and liable to variation with any variation from those standards. Subsequently, the basic rate of assistance will be subject to review at triennial intervals.
The basic rate of assistance for 1936, adjusted for the price of beet to which I shall next refer, will be reduced to 5s. 3d. per cwt. of white sugar. The price to be paid for sugar beet sown in 1936 is to be 35s. and 36s. per ton respectively, delivered to factories that are paying 36s. and 38s. per ton under current contracts. In the case of beet for the Cupar factory, the contract price will be 34s. per ton, payable free on rail as at present. These prices assume a factory output of not more than the equivalent of 560,000 tons of white sugar, which I might mention I think about represents the 375,000 acres mentioned in the earlier part of my speech. The beet price in 1937 and subsequent years, and the terms and conditions of the contract, will be matters for negotiation between the amalgamated corporation and the growers and in the event of failure to agree will be referred to the Sugar Commission. The acreage to be contracted for in any year will be subject to a maximum limit to be approved by the Sugar Commission.
898
For the purpose of their immediate sugar policy, the Government do not propose to make any change in the details of the Customs, Excise or subsidy scales. They have, however, aimed at securing the financial effects, as regards all the interests concerned, which it is reasonable to expect would have followed from the adoption of the Greene Committee's recommendations with regard to the regulation of refined sugar production as between the beet sugar factories and the refineries. The refiners have undertaken to enter into a new agreement with the factories, under which the factories shall be allowed quota rights for the production of white sugar up to a total of 720,000 tons per annum, but during the currency of the agreement the annual white sugar production of the factories will not exceed 500,000 tons. In return, the refiners have agreed to purchase all quota rights offered to them at a stated price.
The Government have also reviewed the international sugar situation. They believe that the various producing countries can only set their sugar industries upon an economic basis by means of an international agreement for the adjustment of supplies to the requirements of the world market, State assistance being diminished as market conditions improve. The Government's domestic policy is in full accordance with this view. They propose to invite the Governments of the sugar exporting Dominions and Colonies to examine with them the possibility of a joint endeavour to reopen international negotiations if it should appear that there is a reasonable prospect of a successful issue thereto. A White Paper setting out in greater detail the Government's financial and administrative proposals, with an estimate of cost, has been prepared and will, I hope, be available for your Lordships this afternoon.
That is the statement of the long-term policy of His Majesty's Government in relation to the sugar beet industry. Your Lordships will realise, therefore, that the Government have definitely taken this decision to continue assistance to that industry. I might also say that at the end of the White Paper you will find a reference to a matter which is, I think, of the very greatest importance. I know it will be said that we are protecting an uneconomic and inefficient industry. I

899
have already tried to answer that suggestion on a general basis, but I would like to conclude by laying one set of facts before your Lordships—namely, that when this industry started the subsidy was at the rate of 21s. a cwt. and the price of sugar was 20s. a cwt. To-day it is to receive assistance in the region of 5s. and the price of sugar is 4s. 6d. I think, therefore, your Lordships will realise the tremendous effort that has been made by this industry to adjust itself to new conditions, and your Lordships will see, in paragraph 24 on page 7 of the White Paper, which is not yet in your Lordships' hands but will be available shortly, that provision is made for assistance from the corporation to research and education, and the continuance of effort at all times to reduce the cost of production, and therefore the expense to the Exchequer, to the minimum necessary. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, the noble Earl has made a statement of very great importance. He has outlined the future policy of the Government with regard to the beet sugar industry, and I welcome at once the statement that he has made and the fact that the Government are wasting no time in laying before the country a White Paper, explaining in greater detail that policy and amplifying certain aspects which he has laid before us. On behalf of the Opposition I, broadly speaking, take my stand on the lines of an Amendment to the Bill in another place—namely, that we welcome the continuance of the subsidy, but we feel that when the nation's money is spent it should go to the property of the nation, to improving the general wealth of the nation, and not to individuals. Therefore I welcome the proposed amalgamation of the factories because I believe that it is keeping, so to speak, the industry warm for future Socialism, for full national ownership as soon as we obtain a Socialist Government in this country.
The Bill, of course, is merely the continuance of the subsidy. I personally, and my Party, look upon subsidies as another name for the decision by the country to support those aspects of national production which are of national value, and I look upon home production of sugar as of very great national importance. I think it is wrong in regard
900
to any essential commodity that we should leave ourselves entirely dependent upon imports. In saying this I am not supporting economic nationalism, but I am supporting sound common sense. As I understand it, the present production of sugar in this country is about one-third of our total consumption, and I feel that that is a reasonable proportion of the total consumption that we should support out of subsidies. I do not think that the total consumption of sugar in this country is yet as high as it might be with national advantage.
Here let me take up something the noble Earl said which showed that he has forgotten those lines along which we collaborated in a previous Government. He said that he asked the noble Lord, Lord Rhayader, to tell him into what direction he suggested that agricultural production should be directed if not beet sugar, and he asked him what other agricultural production in this country could hope to show a profit with circumstances as they are. Well, I would remind the House that we are not concerned with production for profit; we are concerned with production for need. And if, in fact, we are consuming in this country a third of a pint of milk per head, whereas in the United States they are consuming a pint or a pint and a half, or whatever it is, of milk, and if milk is, in fact, beneficial to the community, then it is the need of the community which ought to limit and indicate the amount of milk we produce, and not the profits to be made out of milk production.
Therefore, if the noble Earl claims that we must not produce milk merely because there is no profit in it, I say to him he is entirely wrong. What we ought to do is to produce the amount of milk that people need, whether there is a profit or not; and if we cannot produce it at a profit while the industry remains in private hands, then the industry ought to be under public ownership and control, with milk produced because the people need it, and the question of profit not coming in at all. If the people need the milk, then the profits resulting from a healthier population, who would work more and produce more, will create the wealth out of which the production of milk can be paid for. And the same with sugar. If sugar is valuable as a food—and I think it is—then I grudge no subsidies to the production of sugar,

901
whether they are direct subsidies or whether they are fiscal subsidies, to which the noble Earl referred, and our Party agree that these are a method by which Socialist production will, in the future, be organised.
Of course, I welcome strongly the fact that the assistance to the industry is going to continue, because I want those factories to continue as going concerns. I want them to be efficient. I want them to produce the sugar we need. I welcome also the fact that, as I understood it—it was a little bit difficult to follow—the factories are not only going to be allowed to refine all British raw sugar produced but are going to be given a proportion of the imports of raw sugar, so that the refining carried through by the British factories will keep them in work throughout the year. At the present moment, as noble Lords are aware, owing to the tremendous grip of the sugar industry in the hands of Messrs. Tate and Lyle and the refining interest generally, the British factories are actually not allowed themselves to refine all the sugar they produce, but they have to send it by train to the refineries to be refined in Greenock or Liverpool, or Glasgow, or wherever it may be. The result is that the refining machinery in our factories—I say our factories, because they are going to be ours as soon as we have a Socialist Government in this country—are only working for three or four months a year. The men are standing idle the other eight or nine months, while the sugar which they ought to be refining is actually going to refineries in other parts of the country by agreement with the owners of those factories.
Now, it is a fact that subsidies are an inefficient way to help an industry. Under private enterprise they are one of the few ways in which help can be given. You can either subsidise by fiscal subsidies, by duties and so on, or by direct subsidies; but, broadly speaking, it is an inefficient way, because it has always been found that the giving of public money in this direction leads to corruption. Corruption is nothing like so bad in this country as in others. In the United States corruption is really remarkable. We had a very interesting case the other day when they subsidised air lines. Extremely efficient air lines were found to be honeycombed with the most colossal corruption. Well, in this country I understand that there is said
902
to be corruption and there is certainly a great deal of waste in the beet sugar industry. Certainly we see very largely differing profits in the various factories, which will no doubt be enquired into when the amalgamation scheme foreshadowed by the noble Earl comes to be put into operation. That will be examined no doubt by the independent Sugar Corn-mission or by the informal tribunal, as the case may be. But it is a fact, broadly speaking, that with subsidies there is the liability to corruption, and without subsidies there is very often a liability to inefficiency. It is only by national ownership, which is foreshadowed by the future proposals of the Government, that you can combine efficiency and no corruption. For that reason, therefore, we welcome these proposals.
Another point I want to mention is this question of economic production. I consider that the fact that we are producing sugar in Great Britain has been partially at least responsible for the fact that we have the cheapest sugar in the world. I am not absolutely certain that that is the case, but I believe it to be the case. I have got figures from other countries which are paying infinitely larger subsidies for their sugar, showing that, for instance, the price in Germany is 4½d. a lb. as compared with 2d. in this country; in France 3d. a lb.; in Italy 7½d.; in Spain 4½d.; in Sweden 2½d.; in the Netherlands 4d. and so on; whereas in this country, with our enormous market far imported sugar, by producing a certain amount at home we are able to secure that the balance is brought in at a cheap rate. And I think we owe a debt of gratitude to the institution of this beet sugar industry in this country, fostered as it has been by the subsidy, for the fact that we are getting that cheap sugar.
Then there is this question. Are we getting it because of slave labour in other countries? Here we have the outline of the Government's proposal for the consideration of the international position. I noticed that the noble Earl mentioned that there was to be international agreement to adjust supplies, but he did not mention any possibility of international agreement to consider the conditions of labour, hours of labour, and wages paid. Men and women working in the sugar Plantations in other countries are receiving very often as little as is.1s 6d., 2s., 2s. 6d., and 3s. a day.
LORD CRANWORTH: Fivepence.
LORD MARLEY: Yes, in Java, but I am thinking of the United States and the West Indies. When you come to Java you find people receiving only a few pence a day. Java produces the cheapest sugar in the world. It is quite clear that as long as we have uneconomic production of sugar through slave labour and long hours abroad, it can be claimed that sugar production in this country is uneconomic, but I do not consider that it is uneconomic when production is based on these bitterly unjust conditions in other countries. I hope that the international regulations outlined by the noble Earl will include hours of labour and wages paid in other countries, no doubt by the operation of international legislation through the International Labour Organisation at Geneva—if it still exists in the next few years.
I would remind the House that in any case this subsidy is a very small portion of the total subsidy which is being received by sugar. The subsidy amounts to 3s. 6d. per cwt.—I think my figures are correct—whereas the preferential subsidy amounts to 7s. 9d. per cwt., more than twice as much. We are only concerned in this Bill with the continuation of this 3s. 6d. per cwt., a comparatively small amount. The noble Earl did point out that the subsidy had been coming down and down with the rise in the world price of sugar. We have this factor that we are on a sliding scale. As the world price of sugar rises—and I hope it will rise as wages get better—we have automatically a reduction of £500,000 payable in the subsidy for every 1s. per cwt. rise in price in other countries. We on these Benches welcome the continuation of the subsidy. We want the industry to be kept efficient. We consider it is of national advantage. We hope that the amalgamation of factories and the alteration in the amounts of sugar refined in the factories will ensure that the whole industry, as amalgamated, will be worked on the most efficient and least wasteful lines so as to be in readiness for us to take over when we have a Socialist Government.
LORD RHAYADER: My Lords, in rising to say a few words on the Bill which has been brought forward by the noble Earl, I want first of all to express my thanks to him for the very clear and simple
904
statement which he made as to Government policy and intentions and, finally, for the announcement, which I was not expecting, of the policy on which the Government have decided. I always delight in the speeches of the noble Earl on agriculture. He reminds me a good deal of a keeper at the Zoo whose duty it is to feed the beasts. He goes round laden with good things which he distributes to the various parts of agriculture under his charge. One day it is hops, another day milk, yet another wheat; then there is bacon, yesterday we had beef, and to-day the turn of sugar has come. The noble Earl has a way with him, and I do not wonder that he is popular in those circles which benefit so largely by the raid which he makes upon the public purse. It is just twelve months since sugar had its last innings. I do not want to repeat to-day the old arguments, but I think it is desirable, especially in the light of the announcement which has just been made as to the future policy of the Government, that we should recall briefly the history of the sugar subsidy from its inception to the present time.
It was, as the noble Earl told us, the idea of Lord Snowden, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Labour Government of 1924. He was fascinated, as I gather, by a visit to a sugar factory, and what has followed is the result of that happy visit. The Government that succeeded took over the scheme from the Labour Government. It is important that those who are not Socialists should remember that they took over the scheme practically as it had presented itself to the Labour Government, and passed it through the Parliament of 1925. The argument put forward was one which they thought would appeal even to hardened Free Traders—namely, the argument of an infant industry. Even Mr. Mill, the apostle of Free Trade, had allowed that a Government, might properly give some assistance to an infant industry to enable it to get on its legs. There was no niggardly dealing with the industry. The subsidy given at the beginning was very large, and it was to be given for a long period of infancy—a large subsidy for ten years. The subsidy was to diminish gradually as the infant grew stronger and, finally, at the end of ten years, it was to cease.

905
As The Times remarked the other day, it was morally the intention of the original Act that the production of homegrown sugar should become self-supporting. To a certain extent the industry has flourished. A section of the farming community has undoubtedly benefited considerably from the sugar subsidy. How should it be otherwise '? You give this large sum to certain individuals in the country, and naturally they profit by it. The beet area to-day is an area where formerly other root crops were grown. I believe the whole area in which beets are grown to-day is land on which previously other root crops were grown. It has not increased the arable area of the country. That fact should not be forgotten. When you have artificially driven out the other root crops, it is not quite a fair challenge for noble Lords who represent agriculture to say: "Now that we have created this state of things, what are you going to do about it? "Some of the labourers in the country have gained some advantage from it, though not so much compared with other parties. The people, of course, who have gained large profit are those who have the factories. So far as they are concerned, it is equivalent to a gold discovery in the British Empire, in California or Australia, with the British Government paying out large sums for the growth of "an uneconomic crop"; I quote the words of the noble Earl. The word went round, capital was freely forthcoming, investments were made, factories were set up, and very large profits, with which I shall not trouble your Lordships, have been made by those factories. If they were weeded out to-morrow, I doubt very much whether those factories, with the exception of those in Scotland, would really lose over the whole period that has passed.
The drain on the Exchequer has always been, heavy. The industry showed no signs of becoming self-supporting. The year 1931 came—and here again I would point out to the Government that they were elected on a cry of national economy, of balancing the Budget, and stopping the drain from the Exchequer. They set about that task with vigour, and they did it with success. They cut down the salaries of all the Government employees in the country, they limited the Social Services, but they did nothing to stop this drain caused by beet sugar. Something clearly they ought to have
906
done. After all, was not Mr. Walter Runciman President of the Board of Trade? He described the sugar subsidy and the whole of the transactions connected with it as the most amazing transaction in the history of British finance. He described it as an absolute downright waste. The Government were put in office to stop waste. He called it "crazy finance." The Government were in power for the sake of sound finance instead of what they called the "crazy finance" of the Labour Government. Naturally, they had to do something, and in 1932 Mr. Chamberlain, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced that they were going to have a full inquiry into the matter. It drifted on and nothing happened in 1933, but at last, in April, 1934, the Greene Committee was appointed, and in March, 1934, the Minister of Agriculture in another place admitted that in no country in the world can the beet sugar industry be maintained on a profitable basis unless supported by substantial artificial aid.
Naturally it cannot compete with other sugar. I agree with a good deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Marley, said as to the conditions under which cheap sugar is sometimes produced in the West Indies, and especially in Java; but, when all that is taken into account, the natural advantages of the cane sugar growing countries are so great that it is quite hopeless to suppose that in this country, or indeed in any European country, can sugar be grown in competition with those countries. That is, I think, a reason why last year the Government should have admitted the failure of the attempt to set up this uneconomic crop in this country, and stopped the expenditure which had been promised, and which had been given, for ten years. I think that would have been the wise course for this country to take. I agree that it would have had to be done gradually, but the end aimed at should have been the cessation of the payment of public money to enable this uneconomic crop to be grown in this country. May I, in passing, ask: this? The noble Earl said there were other crops. He is quite right. But is there any other crop which you would call an uneconomic crop to which the Government are contributing? I wonder if the noble Earl would give me an answer to that question presently, if not now.
EARL DE LA WARR: I should say that any crop or any industry in the country that required either a tariff or a quota or a subsidy would, under certain definitions, have to be considered as being uneconomic in the sense that it was not able to stand completely on its own legs.
LORD RHAYADER: I think there is a good deal of money being made by various crops in this country. Do farmers pay no Income Tax to-day? Are they being made to pay Income Tax on profits that they do not make?
EARL DE LA WARR: The noble Lord must not misrepresent me. When I used the word "uneconomic" what I meant was that when a crop or an industry needed some outside assistance in order to carry on it was uneconomic in that sense. The iron and steel industry and tramp shipping and so on are, to that extent, in the sense in which I used the word, "uneconomic" industries.
LORD RHAYADER: I am old and the noble Earl is young, but I should have been ashamed to stand up in the Victorian age and say there was no part of the agricultural industry in this country which could not flourish without Government help. It was not so in our day and—the noble Earl will forgive me—I do not think it is so to-day. Another year went by. The Government last year persisted in their way. They objected on various grounds. One was that under the reduced payments they were going to save money. The noble Earl has repeated that to-day. He actually said, unless I misheard him, that the subsidy he is asking for now is only £22,750,000 whereas last year it was £4,500,000. Therefore, he said, there is a saving of £1,750,000. Who has saved? Have the Government? They were not obliged to give any subsidy this year and, therefore, they cannot to be said to have saved. They are spending £2,750,000. Where does the saving come in'? Does not this show the curious state of mind into which people get once they fall into the habit of dipping into the public purse?
I will not go into figures, because there is a great argument about them. Sometimes the figure is given as one of £40,000,000 and sometimes as £20,000,000. Take Mr. Amery's figure if you like. He reduced it to nothing. The argument is that because they have had the money for
908
ten years, therefore you save money if you do not give it for the eleventh year. They have no title to it for the eleventh year. There is no title anywhere to this money which the noble Earl is asking for to-day. It really is a misuse of terms to talk as if you are saving money merely because you are going to spend a little less than you did last year. That, I think, is a very strange argument. We are told it would displace labour and upset farmers. Undoubtedly that is true. We have created a situation and to get rid of it is a difficult thing indeed. I think the Greene Committee makes recommendations on which the Government might have based their policy. The Greene Committee, the noble Earl told us, was appointed to advise the Government on future general policy. The year has gone by, the Greene Committee has reported, and I now know, what I did not know when I came into the House, that the Government do not intend to take the advice of the majority of the Committee which they appointed.
I was very glad to hear the noble Earl pay a tribute to the Chairman of the Greene Committee. I observed that in another place Mr. Amery was pleased to describe the members of that Committee as "thick heads." Those who know the two gentlemen, Mr. Amery and Mr. Greene, can determine for themselves which of the two gentlemen has the thicker head. For my part I know of no one who has a much clearer brain or a greater capacity for giving expression to what is in his brain than Mr. Greene, and I think the Government, who have not adopted the whole of the Report, certainly have done well to recognise the service which Mr. Greene has rendered by an admirable discussion of the whole question. Whether you agree with him or not, I do not think anybody who has studied the sugar question can be other than grateful for the very full discussion and statements set out in that remarkable Report. Mr. Greene's advice was perfectly clear. Putting on one side political considerations, he said: "Stop paying the subsidy." Perhaps I had better put on record the recommendation he makes. It was in these words:
"Since, however, on a review of all the facts put before us, we are unable to find positive justification for the expenditure of a sum of several millions per annum on an industry which has no reasonable

909
prospects of ever becoming self-supporting, and on the production of a crop which, without that assistance, would at present sugar prices be practically valueless, we cannot recommend the continuance of assistance."
The Government have put that on one side. They recommend, if you are to maintain the crop, a number of steps which should be taken to safeguard the public purse. I do not know how far the Government in their scheme are meeting the points raised in the Greene Report, which are, I think, of immense importance as the subsidy is to be continued.
I heard with profound interest the announcement made by the noble Earl. I do not wonder at the enthusiastic welcome which the noble Lord, Lord Marley, has given to the scheme. It is the carrying out of his Party's policy. As far as I can gather—I speak under some disadvantage for I have not seen the White Paper—this scheme had its inception in the mind of that Socialist the noble Viscount, Lord Snowden. It was taken up by a Conservative Government in 1925, and now in the hands of the present National Government has ripened into practically the socialising of the sugar industry, in effect the nationalising of the sugar industry. It is a remarkably important announcement, and there will be a great deal more to be said about it. I am not able really to comment upon it at this moment, but I certainly can well understand the welcome given to it by the noble Lord, Lord Marley, and other Socialists.
Before concluding I want to say two things in regard to the whole of this transaction, which I think is full of instruction to anyone who cares for the economic or political life of this country. In the first place beet sugar has wholly changed its character. When I read the resolutions of the National Farmers' Union, articles in the papers, circulars sent to us to influence our decisions, I find that beet has become the keystone of British farming. The keystone of British farming! Beet! It was never grown in this country to any extent until ten years ago. It was just an occasional root crop, and now it has become the keystone of British farming. And we are told that if this subsidy is not continued the whole balance of agriculture in this country is going to be destroyed. I protest that that is grotesque nonsense. In
910
such circumstances there would be a period undoubtedly of great disturbance as a result of what has been done. You cannot do what you have done, you cannot create artificially an industry and engage farmers and labourers, factories and capital in it, you cannot spend £40,000,000 or £50,000,000 on it, without setting up an edifice which when demolished will cause great wreckage.
But what has come of it? You would have been much better without it. If you had spent that money on other branches of agriculture you would have had far more results to show to-day than you have for this expenditure. I see that the Minister of Agriculture says that we should not otherwise get our sugar. Really I find it difficult to take that argument seriously. With the conditions of glut which characterise the sugar market to-day I doubt if there would be any rise in the price of sugar if you let the equivalent of home-produced sugar come in from other countries. I do not believe the British public would lose anything by it. I. see two noble Lords present whose services to agriculture I thankfully recognise, the noble Lords, Lord Hastings and Lord Cranworth. I know how much they have done for agriculture and I know how much they care for it. I also know something about agriculture, and I plead with them. I say they are not doing any good to agriculture when they link it up with this uneconomic crop. The towns will find it out and when the towns find prices rising, as they very likely will in the changing conditions of the world, then the towns will refuse to go on paying these sums to maintain an uneconomic crop. It has happened before. You guaranteed the price of wheat and you withdrew the guarantee within six months. I would entreat noble Lords who are friends of agriculture not to link up with this uneconomic crop.
There is one more thing I want to say. Parliamentary institutions are on their trial. In many parts of the world they are disappearing. Nothing is so destructive of Parliament as the introduction of sectional interests in the constituencies and in the House of Commons. With beet sugar you have an extraordinary instance of the influence of local circumstances on the votes of Members of Parliament. Almost every speech made in defence of the beet sugar subsidy has

911
been made by members sitting for beet growing constituencies. You may say it is very natural and I agree that it is natural. I was rather interested to read some remarks made by the noble Lady, Viscountess Astor, who is a distinguished member of the House of Commons. She pointed out that all the members for constituencies where sugar beet is grown had to defend it, and, with the candour which endears the noble Lady to all of us, she added: "I dare say I would do the same if it were grown in my constituency." She represents a port constituency. Well, it is a dangerous thing to let these local interests grow in the constituencies and in Parliament, when Members of Parliament are forced to choose between the requirements of their constituency and the interests of the nation.
I do urge the Government to do what they can to save the country at any rate from the ignoble spectacle which we have seen in some other countries in which corruption works in Parliament when tariffs are set going. One of the earliest things in my career was a visit to America when the McKinley Tariff Bill was being passed. It was, I think, the first of the great Tariff Bills. I was behind the scenes, owing to introductions, and I saw there the corruption which followed the introduction of tariffs. We have seen it working in America and it would be a ghastly thing for this country if similar things were to prevail here. I hope that will be borne in mind by those who are pressing forward these methods. I cannot support the Bill, but I am not going to divide against it. I think the Government are quite entitled to say that they want more time to put the scheme into operation, but I am sorry that they have seen fit to reject the very sane Report, as I think, which Mr. Wilfrid Greene and his Committee brought in and to commit themselves to the permanent maintenance out of subsidies of this uneconomic crop.
LORD CRANWORTH: My Lords, I rise for a minute or two to say that I, on the other hand, feel very pleased with the main result of the speech of the noble Earl, taking that to be that the Government have decided as a long-term policy that the sugar beet industry shall be continued. It is a decision that will bring a measure of relief into tens of thousands of homes in the part where I live. With
912
regard to some of the items, as I understood them, I should wish for more time to study them, but I shall have one word to say with regard to one point later.
In the towns and also in the West Country, and in a large part of England, there is very great misconception as to the importance of the sugar beet industry. Only a few weeks ago I was going up to the Royal Show. I motored in one day 140 miles—though I might have gone farther with the same result—and, except when I passed through the towns, I am sure that I was never for one minute out of the sight of a field of sugar beet. Who is it that is growing this? It is not large corporations, large and rich landowners. There are 375,000 acres of beet being grown, there are 45,000 people growing it; and those of your Lordships who are mathematically-minded will find that, that is an average acreage of a little over eight acres per man. This is a smallholders' crop. I most freely confess that I was somewhat disgusted when in another place Sir Herbert Samuel, that archenemy of the sugar beet industry and, indeed, of arable cultivation altogether, said: "It is true that there may be here and there a smallholder growing a patch." That seems to me somewhat in the nature of an exaggeration, when there are 45,000 persons growing an average of eight acres each.
It is only now about a fortnight ago that I went to the small market town of Bury St. Edmunds. I would have your Lordships know that we in the Eastern Counties do not very much like going to meetings. It takes a lot to get the agricultural labourer to come to a meeting on a hot evening, still more so when it is a Saturday evening; but even so, in this small town, there were over 7,000 of them assembled, because they felt that the livelihood of themselves and of their families was threatened. The noble Lord, Lord Rhayader, for some reason which I cannot understand, has asked the noble Earl to tell him of some economic crop to take the place of beet sugar. I suggest that it is up to the noble Lord, Lord Rhayader, to say what the economic crop is that shall take its place. There has been a lot of talk from certain Benches about a crop to take the place of beet sugar, but there has been very little talk as regards the suitable

913
crop to take its place and provide employment for the vast number of men engaged in that industry.
There are two main reasons, one real and one ostensible, which seem to be brought forward against the beet sugar industry. The real one is that it is contrary to the great doctrine of Free Trade, and the second one, the ostensible one, is that it costs much too much and that we cannot afford it. Loyalty is not so common a virtue now that one can afford to decry it, even when it is loyalty to an outworn dogma, but I do not think that that loyalty ought to cause people to juggle with and exaggerate figures. I was rather disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Rhayader, did not go into the "countless millions," because I hoped to see a new one. I have watched them rise and rise, and the maximum one at the present moment will be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT of another place—stated, naturally, by Sir Herbert Samuel—as £60,000,000. That is what it has got to now. Flow is that made up? By far the largest portion of the £60,000,000, as was pointed out by the noble Lord opposite, is made up by the sum of money to which you might tax the growers of that sugar if they had been foreigners producing it on foreign soil and paying wages at 5d. a day, or possibly 1s. a day in extreme cases. That is how you make up the total sum.
I may frankly say that I was very sorry to hear some of my noble friend's views about the subsidy. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Rhayader, whether he considers himself subsidised because he is not taxed £2,000 a year for being a Liberal Free Trader. I do not think he would consider himself subsidised at all; he would say that he had a perfect right to do it. So he has; so has the British farmer a right to grow a crop on British soil to feed the British public. I very much object to joining these two figures together. The truth of the matter is this: that a subsidy has been paid at the rate of 7s. 3d., I think, for one cwt. of sugar, an Excise duty has been paid back, and the difference between the two is in
fact the subsidy. During this year I understand that it will amount to £520,000, and I ask anyone to bring forward—no one has—any other means whereby £520,000 will give employment to 40,000 men.
914
As your Lordships know, it has been mentioned to-day that practically every foreign country is producing beet sugar. Most of them are protecting it more heavily than we do; all of them are producing a greater proportion of the sugar they eat than we do. I ask myself why they do it. Of course the noble Lord would say: "Oh, they are all making a great mistake; it is their stupidity; why should we follow them?" But I venture to suggest that it is also a mistake to say that we are the only people keeping step in the company. It is quite possible that they are right, and I suggest that the three reasons that have induced them to do it are these: to give employment, and more especially employment on the land; to provide a weapon of defence in time of war; and as an essential part of good farming. Are not those three objects also desirable in this country? Do we not want to employ more people on the land? Our Government have said so often enough, and that great man, Mr. Lloyd George—whom I believe to be a Liberal; I am not quite sure, though I understand that he is—said that he wanted to put 1,250,000 more men on the land and 500,000 immediately. It would surely be a poor step to start by taking 40,000 men off—or so it seems to me. As an essential to good farming, that I believe is a recognised thing on the Continent, and I believe that no country that grows beet sugar will ever take it out of its crop rotation again.
Finally, 'as a weapon of defence in time of war; we have said in this country that as far as war is concerned we do not intend ever to have a war of aggression again, but that we do intend to provide defence when we are attacked. I believe that all Parties will agree to that, and what better weapon of defence can you have than to provide the greatest proportion of food that you can in this country? It is riot a weapon of offence, but it is a mighty big one of defence., when you come to think of the lives that were lost in bringing sugar and other food into this country during the last War. I was glad to hear the statement of the noble Earl, because it did indicate to me that this branch of agriculture was to have extended to it the only thing which had been asked for. It is always suggested that they ask for something strange and something new—for preferential treatment—but all they ask for is exactly the

915
same treatment as other big industries in this country ask for and in fact get.
There is one criticism which I would make, and I hope Lord Hastings will amplify it. I did understand the noble Earl to say that there was going to be a limitation with regard to sugar, and I understand him, too, to say that it was to be a limitation not, as now, in acres, but a limitation in tons—for the first year at all events. I must say that I regret that. If there is to be such a limitation it seems to me to be contrary to the policy which the Government again and again have indicated. It should be a limitation of acreage and not of tons. otherwise you take way from everybody the ambition to increase his crop and grow more and more. If the limitation is to be merely on tonnage there will not be any necessity in that respect any longer. With regard to the factories, we who grow beet are not necessarily interested in the factories. We are well aware, as has been stated, that the factories have made more money out of the industry than we have, but I would ask your Lordships to remember, in fairness to them, that they have not all made money. Those who have made big profits are the people who taught us how to grow the crop and produce it in sugar, and they would not have got the money for their enterprise unless there had been a reasonable opportunity of getting a big profit. I thank the noble Earl for his statement that the industry at all events is to go on. In East Anglian and other counties of England that will relieve a fear which has much troubled them for many long months.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, with the permission of the House I will devote myself first to the consideration of the Bill which the noble Earl introduced. The very much larger and more important subject which came on at a later stage must also call for a few remarks. When the noble Earl was introducing his Bill he allowed one figure to slip from him which Lord Cranworth has already criticised. He stated that in the years 1935–36 the cost to the Exchequer would be £2,750,000. It is very regrettable that the Ministry of Agriculture should allow it to go out on their authority that that is the actual cost to the country. It is not true. It would surely have been fairer to describe it as the gross cost. Noble Lords know perfectly well that every ton
916
and every cwt. of beet sugar pays Excise duty, and the cost to the country is the net cost after the amount of Excise duty has been deducted. The net cost to the country is not £2,750,000 but in the neighbourhood of £520,000.
LORD RHAYADER: In my speech I was giving a statement which appeared in The Times a few weeks ago, which put it in this way. If the sugar had been imported the Exchequer would have received considerably more in duty, and would not have had to pay any subsidy at all. That, therefore, represents the real contribution of the country to the beet sugar industry.
LORD HASTINGS: The noble Lord is no doubt perfectly right in calling my attention to that, but there is, of course, no telling at what price that sugar would have come into this country if there had been no beet sugar industry in our own country. It is possible that the Exchequer might have benefited to that extent, but what about the British public? What telling is there that the price of sugar to them would not have been at least double what it has been. You have got to take the facts as they are. The facts as they are are that a subsidy of £2,750,000 has to be paid in 1935–36, and Excise duty will be collected which will leave a balance of £520,000. That is the real cost to the country, and, as Lord Cranworth said, would £520,000 invested in any other way find employment for such a large number of persons I trust that when figures are bandied about they will be the actual figures and not fanciful figures.
There was one other matter arising out of the Bill before the House which caused me regret. The only happy part about it is that it is not in the Bill itself. The noble Earl reminded us that a limitation of acreage had been agreed to in negotiation between the Government and the factories, and therefore it was not necessary to put the limitation in the Bill. I am very glad indeed that Parliament is not called upon to commit itself to that principle, but the very fact that the Government are committed to making arrangements with the factories limiting acreage is to my mind a most unfortunate matter. It is not only right but the obvious duty of Parliament to limit the amount of public

917
money made available for any industry, but when Parliament goes further and says that a citizen shall not grow more than a certain amount of any commodity, it goes very much too far. Let us bear in mind that we are importing from other countries a very large quantity of this commodity, and I never could bring myself to agree that while we can and might grow ourselves a single cwt. of a commodity which is imported the production of it should be restricted in our own country. This particular method of restriction of production in the case of commodities which are being imported into this country from foreign countries is a source of the gravest alarm to the agricultural industry as a whole. The restriction of production is a necessity in the case of certain commodities and I find no fault with that, but to do it in the case of sugar production is not right. Limit by all means the amount of public money which is found for assisting the industry, but to limit production is not right, and I shall always oppose it whenever opportunity offers.
The Bill as introduced is to endure for only one year and although I have criticised one feature which is not in it, but is inherent in it, I would like to modify that criticism by an expression of gratitude to the Government for having introduced this interim measure, which will tide over the industry until the long-term policy comes into force. I turn for a moment to the question of that long-term policy itself. In common with my noble friend I have not seen the White Paper, and therefore I speak at some disadvantage, but I made a note or two as the noble Earl spoke, and I observed first of all that the limitation was to be placed in future upon sugar, and not upon acreage. My noble friend Lord Cranworth thought that possibly an acreage limitation, if limitation there had to be, would be better than a limitation on the tonnage of sugar produced. That is as may be because of course I agree with him that, whereas it has been an ambition of the grower in the past not only to produce the largest possible tonnage of beet from the land, but beet containing the largest percentage of sugar, the mere fact that the limitation is to be placed in the future upon the tonnage of sugar may act as a deterrent upon the grower to continue
918
his efforts in the direction of the production of high percentages. But I do not think that is a very strong point and I confess myself that if there is to be a limitation then it should be a limitation of money found and it should be detached from the actual acreage basis.
Although as, in common with the Wheat Act (which, of course, this is in a sense following) there must be some quantity factor to which to attach that limitation—I am not at the moment so much disposed to dispute the wisdom of the 560,000 tons—I can but repeat what my noble friend beside me has said, that any attempt to limit the amount of beet sugar grown will, in a sense, defeat itself. Not only does the beet sugar acreage employ a very large number of persons, but there is no crop grown which better enables other crops to be grown following it. It is, in fact, the most efficacious manner of keeping the land in good heart and in proper condition for rotation crops. It is the best crop that can be found for that particular purpose. The noble Lord, Lord Rhayader, in the course of his very interesting speech asked whether it was not a fact that these 375,000 acres of sugar beet had not been taken off the previous root crop. Not entirely, but in large part that is so. But do not let the noble Lord imagine that if it had not been for the beet sugar crop those 375,000 acres would now be growing the old-fashioned root crop. They would be doing nothing of the kind.
Why was it that that very conservative individual, the arable farmer, changed over from the normal root crops to beet sugar It was merely because the beef trade fell to pieces to such an alarming extent that he could not grow his old root crops in a manner that avoided colossal losses to himself. And if it had not been for the beet sugar crop, those acres would not be growing roots as heretofore, but they would be derelict; and, once derelict, the labour employed upon them would perforce have to emigrate, and agricultural labour, once emigrated, seldom returns. The great justification for the beet sugar industry on the light lands of East Anglia has been that it has provided the means of retaining upon the land the population of the land, a population which would have been decimated—more than depleted—and which I feel fairly certain would never have returned. That I think, is

919
the strongest justification that can be put forward for the beet industry at all.
On matters of detail I was not quite able to follow the noble Earl, but I take it that when the subsidy per cwt. is paid to the factories there will be some kind of condition attaching as to the price which is to be paid to the growers. I think the noble Earl did mention it, but I was not entirely sure of the figure that he gave. But assuming that it would naturally be so, I would like to pass to a point which has some relation to it. It is this, that whereas the State—and quite properly—will reduce the amount of its subsidy if and when the world price of sugar rises there is apparently in such circumstances no consideration to be paid to the grower. It is a little bit hard upon the grower who has for many years been producing a commodity for a market which was paying him a price considerably below the cost of production, that if and when that commodity fetches a more reasonable price in the open market those factories should perhaps benefit, the State of which he is a member should certainly benefit, but that he himself should get no benefit at all. I think a little reciprocity in that matter should apply, particularly as it must be in the interest of the grower to watch and observe the trend of world prices in the commodity which he grows, and not to remove it entirely from his ken or from his interest.
I wonder if I might make a suggestion to the noble Earl for consideration when this big scheme is in the mould? It is as to whether it would not be wise to consider some form of differentiation in price based upon the quality of the land upon which it is grown. The House will be aware, of course, that it is clearly on the lighter lands of Great Britain where this crop is most essential. It is on those lighter lands that it is more difficult to find alternative crops. It is those lighter lands which are the most difficult to keep in good heart. It is the lighter lands which find it most difficult to retain labour at the present rate of wages. There are better lands which are not faced with the same difficulty and in the same degree, and which of course are bound in the nature of things to benefit more largely from any subsidy that may be going, whether it is on wheat or on sugar beet.
920
Although I do not suggest that it is really possible, yet on going very deeply into the matter I believe it should be found possible, and it would be very helpful, if some form of differentiation could be made based upon the quality of the land upon which the crop is grown. We wish to keep under cultivation the largest possible number of acres in this country, and the difficulty lies naturally in keeping in cultivation the less good lands. It is the less good lands which are the real anxiety to all who have agricultural production at heart, and it is those lands for which it is most needful to do something. And they do not, let me remind your Lordships, all exist in East Anglia where, as the House knows quite well, I live. There are parts of Great Britain which, I am happy to say, have very much thinner land than has the county of my birth.
A word on the question of amalgamtaion. We shall want to see that White Paper, and I hope we may be given an opportunity of observing and discussing the terms of this amalgamation, because it is just as well that the House should realise a few of the facts of this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Rhayader, spoke as if beet sugar had sprung into being ten years ago. May I tell him that the noble Earl, Lord Denbigh, who sits behind me, aided by others, was a pioneer in this industry a great deal more than ten years ago. I, personally, grew beet sugar on a considerable scale for the first factory erected in England as long ago as 1912, and that factory in the years previous to the War was working at full pressure, from beet sugar grown in the county of Norfolk for its own particular purpose.
What I had in mind in mentioning that fact is this. Quite clearly those factories that were early established and were able to take advantage of the high subsidy paid in earlier years were able to amortise their overhead charges, and to establish themselves on a sound financial basis long before those factories which were erected later. The evidence of their annual reports is all that need be brought to the notice of noble Lords. It also follows from that that, had it not been for the fact that those factories existed, it would have been possible in later years for the East Anglian factories to pay more for the growing of their beet

921
than they have in fact done. They have acted more or less under a national agreement, and of course it has been to their profit so to do. If we are going to have an amalgamation, which may entail the support of the weak at the expense of the strong, it should be borne in mind that the grower of sugar beet who for years has received less for his beet than his factory might very well have paid him, is not going to receive any more for that beet, because those factories have to be supported which have not been in existence for very long. I make no complaint—there is no occasion for complaint; on the other hand my heart is full of gratitude—but I see certain difficulties which may arise, certain subjects of criticism which are likely to arise, and I have no doubt the noble Earl will allow them to weigh with him and his Ministry when considering this very difficult, very abstruse, and most complicated subject.
I have nothing more to add except to emphasise and endorse what my noble friend Lord Cranworth has said, and to express the intense gratitude which agriculturists generally—and I use the word "generally" because, if one section of agriculture is let down, it is quite certain to react on agriculture generally before very long—feel at the removal from over their heads, not of a menace, but of an overwhelming fear. The difficulty, the impossibility, of finding other sources of cultivation for 375,000 acres of land, finding employment for 40,000 men, of re-taming upon the land persons who are now there—the fear of not being able to do that has been of an overwhelming kind, and it would be ungracious at such a moment to look a gift horse too closely in the mouth. I would close what I have to say with the reiteration of my thanks, expressed not on behalf of myself at all, but on behalf of the great agricultural labouring community, for, without the assistance that is now to be given, that community would perhaps find itself, not in starvation, but in a position in which in self-defence it would have to remove itself from its home and compete with labour in the towns, where the conditions of life are not congenial to it and where, in the end, it world probably have received less than it is now receiving. I feel certain that this action of the Government, however distasteful it may be to economic purists, is in the social sense
922
of the greatest importance. There could have been no more truly social act done than the setting aside of the economic arguments advanced with so much force by the Majority of the Beet Sugar Committee in favour of the wise social policy which is fraught with so much greater good for the agricultural community as a whole.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, I must ask your Lordships' forbearance for a few moments. It is twenty-nine years exactly, I think, since I had the impudence, I suppose it was, to raise in your Lordships' House the first debate on beet sugar which, I think, ever took place here. I do not think there had ever been any mention of beet sugar until we brought it up on that occasion. It was a very interesting debate and one to which considerable prominence was given. The result was that a group of important men interested in the land came forward, strongly recommended that a powerful propaganda should be started in the country, and offered me considerable sums for the purpose of carrying it out. That campaign was started, and propaganda of one sort or another went ahead for a good many years. The best propaganda of all came when the sugar famine fell upon the country at the time of the War, and people realised what it was to be without sugar.
I listened with the greatest astonishment to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rhayader. He seems to deny that the beet sugar industry has brought any advantage whatever to the agriculutral community or to the country at large. He seems to be oblivious of the improvement in the quality of the soil, the improvement of cultivation, the increase of the subsequent crops, and the undoubted impetus which has been given to the establishment of rural population, which is one the things we have been anxious about. Only the other day I heard a speech made by the President of the National Farmers' Union in which he gave the most alarming figures to show the falling-off in the number of agricultural labourers in this country during the last ten or twenty years. There is nothing like the sugar beet industry for the purpose of giving an impetus to rural labour. There is nothing like it for the purpose of causing the circulation of money in rural districts, and bringing life into rural districts. There is nothing like

923
it for the purpose of bringing in other trades, not merely confining the advantages to particular individuals, but giving employment all round, which is the one thing we are crying out for at the present time.
When I heard the noble Lord speak in the way he did, I could only marvel at the extraordinary mentality, the narrow mindedness, which is caused apparently by the extreme study of Free Trade principles. I do not wish to be discourteous to the noble Lord, but I have got no other way of describing my own feelings as I listened to him. For my part I congratulate the Government on having taken up this matter in the way they have done. I cordially support what has fallen from my noble friends Lord Cranworth and Lord Hastings. I listened with interest to what Lord Cranworth said about that remarkable meeting at Bury St. Edmunds. I can quite understand that meeting. I am connected with the factory at Bury St. Edmunds, and I think it is the most remarkable one in the country, treating about 4,000 tons of beet sugar a day during the season. That takes a bit of doing, and it gives an enormous amount of labour. It circulates a large amount of money in the district, it benefits the tradespeople, and it benefits the labourers. Well might they gather together in their thousands for the purpose of hearing what was said in support of the movement in opposition to the Greene Report.
I shall not keep the House longer because what I should say would be merely a repetition o£ what has already fallen from noble Lords; but I should like to emphasise one thing mentioned by Lord Hastings and that is the strong objection I feel to any limitation of a paying crop. Why should there be any limitation? A crop may be a paying one in the future, independent altogether of any help from the Government. If we can grow a larger amount of sugar per acre it will become a more paying crop. The crop has been improving steadily all the time. At the present time I think we are getting something like two pounds' worth of sugar per acre, and there is no reason why that should not be increased. Our farmers have learned a remarkable amount in the few years in which they have been at it. They are doing quite as well as the farmers in most of the Continental countries where
924
they have been at it for more than 100 years. I shall not detain the House longer, but in conclusion would again thank the noble Earl and the Government for what they have done and wish them every possible success.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I think we can all feel that we have had a most useful discussion. If there have not been a very great number of us here, I think we have made up in quality what we have lost in quantity. I am sure it has given the House particular pleasure that the noble Earl, Lord Denbigh, who is one of the fathers of the industry, should have been able to come here to-day and take part in the discussion. Several important points have been raised by noble Lords who have spoken. The noble Lord, Lord Rhayader, in particular, raised a number of points many of which, as I think he will recognise, have been dealt with before; but I would like to thank him for the fairness with which he put them. It did seem to me that while he was prepared to pull the Government's legs on committing that great crime of which the Liberal Party believe the Government are grievously guilty—namely, helping agriculture in a number of directions—he did recognise that we have not done it in a manner entirely without benefit to the country as a whole, or without asking agriculture to accept responsibilities towards the country which have not been accepted in the past.
I do not think, however, that he really gave credit for the debt which we owe to this particular crop as regards employment Thus, from the Greene Report itself, you get the amazing figures, that while the number of agricultural workers in England and Wales has declined by 14.7 over the last few years, it has increased in the beet sugar areas by very nearly 5 per cent. Again, you get the fact that in these beet areas you have an Average rise in wages of about 1s. 6d. per head per week. I think the noble Lord will recognise that that is a desirable result to have attained, and also that it is not entirely a coincidence that it has occurred particularly in the beet-producing counties. There is one very major point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rhayader, with which I would like to deal. I think he used the words that we had "rejected the Greene Report." The noble Lord will remember that the

925
Greene Report had two very definite sections to its recommendations and I think, when the noble Lord reads the White Paper, he will realise that there are very few of what I might call the Greene recommendations with regard to the reorganisation of the industry that have not in fact been accepted.
LORD RHAYADER: I am very much obliged to the noble Earl for telling me that, and I am glad to hear it.
EARL DE LA WARR: I can reassure the noble Lord on that point. The question in regard to limitation was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, and the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth. I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said what he did on the question of limitation by tonnage not really being very different from limitation by acreage. What it means is that the growers will not in fact lose the benefit of increasing their efficiency in growing, but that it will be possible for them to grow the same tonnage on a smaller acreage with, what we know to be possible, a lower cost per ton. I can, however, reassure both noble Lords on this principle of limitation of acreage. It is not the intention of His Majesty's Government to prohibit the growing of more than a certain quantity of beet.
LORD HASTINGS: Yes, for the one year.
EARL DE LA WARR: I thought we were on the long-term question. There is, of course, an interim policy which is rather different, but, as regards our long-term policy, we are definitely only limiting the amount of tonnage which is to be assisted. I think from what the noble Lord said afterwards, that it is clear he would be in agreement with that policy. Coming to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Marley, I am glad he was in agreement with the main principle of our policy. I am a little sorry that he had to try to bring what we are doing under the old political labels. It seems to me that if there is one merit in the agricultural policy being followed at the moment, and particularly the policy we are discussing to-day, it is that it is extraordinarily hard for the political dogmatists to label it. I do not think anyone would for a moment contend that this is strict individualism nor would anybody contend that it is
926
Socialism. Whether in future the industry is going to be nationalised or not, I do not think that is a matter for discussion now. I should say that if this scheme works it will remain as it is. If it does not work then there are bound to be alterations one way or another. I suggest to the noble Lord that if only we could get into the state of mind of looking at the subject from the point of view of dealing with each commodity on its merits we should be very much more likely to accomplish what we desire—namely, to get something done for the good of the country—than if we try to attach particular labels to our various actions.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (DISQUALI FICATION) (DECLARATION OF LAW) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
CATTLE INDUSTRY (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) (No. 2) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE AND CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

MALTA.
LORD STRICKLAND LORD STRICKLAND had the following Notice on the Paper:—To move, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying for the appointment of a Royal Commission to take evidence and report on the manner in which Malta has been governed since the suspension of Parliamentary elections, and on the most suitable method for implementing the

927
treaties and solemn promises to the Maltese as to the enjoyment of representative institutions first set up by the Norman Kings of Sicily, and also to enquire and report on the administration of justice and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, since this Motion was placed on the Notice Paper of your Lordships' House three very weighty reasons have been added for the appointment of a Royal Commission to take evidence and report on the administration of the Government of Malta. The first reason is that your Lordships' House has passed the Government of India Bill, which sets out in detail the mentality of His Majesty's Government as to the possibility of setting up a form of Parliamentary Government with Ministers of a sort, which is far removed in its democratic scope from Dominion status. When the Constitution of Malta was transmitted by Secretary Lord Milner as a draft for acceptance by the leaders of thought in that country, it was intimated that the Constitution was more democratic than the Constitution of the State of New South Wales. In view of the international horizon and of other reasons, I am unable any longer to advocate that for the present in Malta there should be re-established a Constitution more democratic in its character than that of the State of New South Wales. At the same time no one with any sense of pride in the land of his birth, or with any knowledge of any form of Colonial government, can be a party to acquiescing in "one-man government." Therefore it results that much has been done towards a solution of this problem by the most admirable industry and care with which an effort has been made to find some sort of Parliamentary Government between these two extremes. I am not a- believer in the prospects of working a system of Government between these two extremes with any great measure of success in any highly educated and wealthy community; but, however that may be, at the moment in Malta it is the duty of the Government and of all lovers of English principles of government to find some way out of the present difficulty. For that purpose I ask your Lordships to adopt the view that the appointment of a Royal Commission is very necessary and urgent.
The second new reason is that the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, in another place,
928
was asked by a predecessor of the noble Earl who now represents the Colonial Office in your Lordships' House, to express his opinion as to the condition of declared emergency in Malta. With great ability and foresight the Secretary of State for the Colonies found a reason for agreeing up to a certain point with the view that emergencies could not continue indefinitely, but at the same time he indicated that so long as there was an appeal pending to the Judicial Committee of His Majesty's Privy Council on fundamental points of law affecting the Constitution of Malta it was inadvisable for His Majesty's Government to make a move. Therefore, my Lords, it is still possible for His Majesty's Government during the interval, between the obtaining of leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council and the possible pronouncement of judgment, to solve this question by the adoption of some form of Parliamentary and Ministerial representative government which is not responsible. That solution is imperatively necessary, but it can only be achieved by Act of Parliament and the alternatives would be chaotic in either direction.
The alternatives are one-man government and quasi Dominion status. There are rumours of war in the North and in the South and other complications due to the temporarily suspended interference of a certain section of ultra-clericals in politics, which may be quiescent at present, but may be revived at any moment by forces beyond the influence of either His Majesty's Government or those who have at heart modern progress in Malta. It is very regrettable that that wise and cautious pronouncement of Mr. Malcolm MacDonald was impaired by what he said in another part of his speech where he was made to say—no one knows by whom—that Malta had emerged from the list of Colonies with a deficit and entered on the list of Colonies with a surplus. It is really heart-breaking that the Secretary of State for the Colonies could be so advised. There was no deficit in the revenue of Malta last year nor the year before nor the year before that.
When Parliamentary Government was suspended in Malta some reason had to be found for that suspension. It was said that there were two reasons. One was that Ministers did not co-operate or failed to co-operate to an adequate extent

929
in the policy of His Majesty's Government so that it was impossible to carry on with them. That was a euphemistic way of saying that Ministers were under disloyal influences. Perfectly true. But when these Ministers were removed that emergency finished. There were no longer Ministers who were disloyal to embarrass the Government. 'The other allegation was that the finances of Malta had been brought to a parlous condition, so parlous, in fact, as to endanger the general interests of the Colony where quasi Dominion status entitled Ministers to have a deficit.
What is a deficit in any self-governing Colony of 10 per cent. of the full amount of the year's revenue? Nothing of that sort existed in Malta. By some slip this, which was the condition of the revenue of Newfoundland, was represented as existing in Malta when it did not exist, and to cover up that mistake a great deal was said about the necessity of creating a reserve fund. They are putting down a big reserve fund on one side of the account against the revenue, and by making cross-entries anybody accustomed to deal with financial statements could change the balance from one side to the other. They tried it on in Malta since the suspension of Parliamentary government, but it has so happened that the revenue in Malta has improved so rapidly by the adoption of the policy of the Ottawa Agreements and by the ad valorem tariff which was adopted by the previous pro-British Administration that even the expedient of creating a quite unnecessary reserve fund has failed to produce that deficit which Mr. Secretary MacDonald informed the other House of Parliament on a Colonial Office Vote had recently existed in Malta.
In connection with the declaration of the continuation of an emergency, there are two points of importance. Either the Constitution of Malta is to be worked, as indicated by Lord Milner, in consonance with a method more democratic than the Constitution of the State of New South Wales, or it has to be administered in accordance with a method, not contemplated in the Constitution but logically possible, and perhaps to be supported by a Bill of Indemnity, more similar to what we find in the Government of India Bill. Under the Government of India Bill, when a state of emergency compels the Governor to rely on. Clause 43; when, as
930
a matter of fact, Martial Law takes the place of civil law in all except the administration of justice; the Governor has to act at his discretion. The result of that exercise of discretion has only to last six months, after which the Parliament of the United Kingdom has a say as to prolongation, and that prolongation has not to last more than three years, when automatically the Government of India Bill will be restored unless an Act of Parliament is passed here in England. Mr. Secretary MacDonald must have had that in view when, in reply to a. former Under-Secretary for the Colonial Office, he said in another place that emergencies cannot continue indefinitely.
But there is a further feature as to the exercise of the personal responsibility of any Minister of the Crown towards the Crown, the Parliament of Great Britain and the people of Malta in declaring an emergency, and in the declaration that the emergency continues. According to the Constitution sanctioned by Act of Parliament, an emergency must arise in Malta and must continue in Malta. Wars and rumours of wars are out of the picture; that declaration must come from the discretion of the individual judgment of the person making it, whether that declaration is made by copying the Government of India Bill, or, on very different principles, if it is made in accordance with the relations between the Crown and Ministers in England, or the relations between the Governor and his Ministers in the Federation of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, or the several States of Australia itself. What has been lost sight of entirely by those responsible for setting aside the Constitution of Malta, be they the legal advisers to the Colonial Office or to Malta, is that the enactment providing that the relations in Malta between the Governor and his Ministers are to be regulated as nearly as possible upon the practice in England is one of the clauses of the Constitution which cannot be altered otherwise than by Act of Parliament; it is not one of the clauses that can be altered by Letters Patent.
In the Constitution for India and in the Maltese Constitution a Whole series of safeguards are provided. What would be said of a future Governor in India if, when trouble arose, he immediately jumped at the possibility of putting into force Clause 45 and ignored all the other

931
safeguards? That point has been discussed in the Parliament of England during the passage of the Government of India Bill, and it has been clearly laid down that before there is any attempt to set up what, from Malta's point of view, is nothing better than Martial Law, the Governor in India is bound to try to find other Ministers in place of those whom he has dismissed. If that is to take place in India, why was it omitted under a Constitution which, in the clearest terms, is more democratic than that of the State of New South Wales, where the Governor is instructed by the Royal Instructions and by the Letters Patent constituting his office to take an oath of office to administer the Government, not in accordance with one clause in the Letters Patent or the interpretation of one paragraph of the Letters Patent, but in accordance with every one of their provisions? That is a matter calling for the attention of His Majesty's Government during the breathing-time provided, in accordance with the words of Mr. Secretary Malcolm MacDonald, by the fact that there is pending an appeal to His Majesty in Council on certain questions of law—as to which I will follow his example by not going into them at the present moment.
There is a third reason, my Lords, which adds importance to the appointment of the Royal Commission. It arises from incidents which took place in Malta last Sunday and which have been reported by telegrams, some of which have appeared in the Press. Last Sunday loyal subjects of His Majesty in Malta were arrested for taking part in a meeting and there crying out: "Long live England: Long live England." Some were carrying Union Jacks which were taken from them by the Police. In Malta all public meetings have been suppressed for about two years, both inside and outside the Fortress, and political meetings are not allowed by the Police even inside private premises. Whether that be legal or not I am not going to discuss. There is no doubt whatever that under the reserved powers the Governor was quite entitled to pass an Ordinance forbidding meetings within the Fortress, and the action of the Police, if with the least possible irritation, in putting an end to this meeting can be in no way questioned. In fact the loyalist Press in Malta has been
932
very careful in always appealing to loyal subjects of His Majesty in Malta to obey the law in every circumstance, although your Lordships' House is the only place left in which to demand a redress of grievances under the method by which Malta is now being administered.
May I remind your Lordships that this would happen as to India when Clause 45 is going to be put in motion? What is more, instead of having one or two members who have been born in India demanding the redress of grievances in your Lordships' House, we shall have a repetition of what happened in the past in the case of the East India Company, when there was so much injustice in India that great merchants had to buy half a dozen pocket boroughs and get their own men into the House of Commons in order to voice their grievances. In India there is a magnificently thought-out series of steps by which the redress of grievances can be asked for. A Governor who does not redress a grievance is subject to some control by the Governor-General, and then there is the Secretary of State, who is responsible to the Cabinet and to Parliament here. But when a former Secretary of State, not Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, made it perfectly clear that every mistake and blunder perpetrated in Malta would be supported right or wrong, a form of administration was put in force for which no parallel can be found either under the provisions of the Bill for the Government of India, or in the incidents which occurred in New South Wales.
There is, however, something of much deeper interest emerging from the telegrams and incidents to which I have made reference. That meeting of loyal Maltese and of proved pro-British subjects of His Majesty had been provoked by the broadcasting from Rome of aggressive speeches reviving the claim that Malta should belong to Italy. Night after night aggressive speeches and propaganda against the prestige of the Empire in Malta are heard in Malta. Money ought to have been spent to stop that broadcasting, by the method known and used to stop similar broadcasting from Soviet stations. It has not been done. That is one of the indications of inefficiency as to which a Royal Commission ought to enquire and report. Apart from the moral effect, detrimental to recruiting and so on for which Malta should be prepared in case

933
of war, this method by which loyal subjects in Malta can hear it said that Malta belongs to Italy means provocation, and serious provocation. I would certainly praise the Police of Malta for discovering who were the organisers of a meeting in the Fortress, against the law, but surely-your Lordships will sympathise with those who were arrested, even for a few hours, and those especially who had their Union Jacks torn from their hands.
Let me submit to your Lordships a very serious feature of this propaganda, and the very widespread moral effect thereof. Not only among a certain section of the Maltese population, but throughout Italy and some of the Chancelleries of Europe, the claim that Malta belongs to Italy is based on a pact and the Charter of the Emperor Charles V, which gave Malta to the Sovereign Order of the Knights of St. John. The pact provided that if the Knights left Malta the Island would revert to the successor of the Emperor Charles V, as King of Sicily, hereditary King of Aragon. That pact is invoked in the name of the head of the House of Savoy, who is not the hereditary representative of the Emperor Charles V as King of Sicily and Aragon. The House of Savoy acquired Sicily by force of arms. The French, under Napoleon Bonaparte, acquired Malta by force of arms from the Sovereign Order of the Knights of St. John, and therefore any pact by that Charter was extinguished under International Law.
The present title of the English to Malta was also acquired by force of arms from those who had acquired the sovereignty from those who claimed it under the Charter of Charles V. The French were besieged in Valetta by the Maltese after the massacre of the French garrisons in the country. The French were starved out, and the French surrendered to the English and Maltese as co-belligerents. Thereby, at International Law, the sovereignty was transferred entirely independently of any Charter of Charles V. I am told often that the English sovereignty of Malta depends on the Treaty of Paris. So it does, with a qualification. The Treaty of Amiens contemplated the return of Malta to the Knights of St. John. That was a short time after the end of the first stage of the Napoleonic Wars. The refusal of Napoleon to part with Malta at any cost resulted in Wentworth
934
being given his passports, and the status quo deriving from conquest by the Maltese and by the English continued till the Treaty of Paris. When the Treaty of Paris was negotiated all the Allies who had finally conquered Napoleon found themselves round a table making a partition of the acquisitions which they had made by the sword, and dividing those acquisitions among themselves. The fact that in the record of that partition it was said that the Maltese had come themselves in all good faith under the protection of Great Britain—that was accepted, not only by Great Britain but by the Congress of Vienna—alters in no way the fact that the sovereignty of Malta had been acquired by the sword by the English and Maltese as allies, and all the allies have, under International Law, equality of rights as co-partners.
Doubts will be raised as to my version of the legal position. These facts occurred nearly one hundred and forty years ago, but in a debate in your Lordships' House at a time when men who were then living were witnesses of these occurrences Lord Glenelg used these words:
"Look at the peculiar tenure under which Malta was now held by the British Crown."
I am reading from the OFFICIAL REPORT.
"Malta was not a possession the result of a conquest."
That brings in the leading case of Campbell versus Hall.
"Malta, when it belonged to the French, resisted French usurpation and appealed to this country for aid. Great Britain furnished auxiliaries and with the Maltese' had blockaded Valetta and to those united forces the French surrendered, and then the Maltese people by their own act and authority, voluntarily assented to the protection of Great Britain. In that light the rights and privileges of the Maltese had ever since been regarded."
And they were so regarded by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain in a speech in the House of Commons and in another speech delivered when he was Secretary of State in the Palace of Malta.
And besides these views as to the international position expressed by witnesses of what had happened, we have an authoritative pronouncement and a Despatch of Lord Grey in the following words:
"Her Majesty was deeply sensible of the noble confidence reposed in the honour and good faith of Great Britain at the period

935
when, having nearly achieved their independence by their own gallant effort, they placed their dearest rights almost unconditionally at the disposal of Her Majesty's Royal predecessor."
The words "almost unconditionally" call for legal interpretation. When the Maltese as co-belligerents had rebelled against the French, and when that rebellion had become a successful revolution, they had representative institutions, acknowledged by their co-belligerents; and when a pact was made it was not unconditional. It contained a promise to maintain the laws, religion and privileges of the Maltese, and that has always been interpreted as a reference to the representative institutions established by a Norman King of Sicily—a measure of government very similar to what exists to-day in the Channel Islands. After studying the public and family records of what went on in old days in Malta, I went personally to the Channel Islands to see what was going on there. I found the same designations of public officers, the same system of representative government.
Responsible government was granted to Malta by an Act of this Imperial Parliament. I say that if that Act is taken away for Imperial reasons, I for one would not impute any breach of faith to His Majesty's Ministers for so doing. But to take representation away from a nation which was competent not only for representative government but also for responsible government is a breach of treaty which is not consistent with the honour and interests of England, nor consistent with logic and common sense in view of the manner in which the Constitution has grown up in England. The giving of certain interpretations to the preamble of a Bill for India may be a promise for consideration or may not. It may be a promise made by one Government without the sanction of the Crown, and one which only retained its legal value until the next Session of Parliament. But the promises made to Malta were made for a consideration—the consideration of blood and treasure and land. And they should be kept. They can only be kept, if the international atmosphere excuses the assertion of emergency, by an Act of Indemnity for what has been wrongly done under the provisions of a Constitution more similar to that of India than that of New South Wales.
Here I am not raising a point of law; I am raising a point of administration. Mr. Secretary Cunliffe-Lister declared an emergency. Three months ago he declared that it continues. But that was on his own personal responsibility and his personal opinion. We are entitled to know what is the opinion of Mr. Secretary Malcolm MacDonald. Is he prepared to say that an emergency still exists in Malta now, under any reasonable interpretation of the enigmatic provisions of an amendment of the Letters Patent, when the Ministers who were not loyal have been got rid of, when there is no deficit, when he himself says the deficit has ceased and has been transformed into a surplus? Surely the collective loyalty of the Colonial Office which supports each other's views or mistakes cannot extend to such a case, and compel Mr. Secretary Malcolm MacDonald to adopt the judgment arrived at, rightly or wrongly, by his predecessor on data which he himself says to the House of Commons have now disappeared?
That is the present position. Bad as it is, I am not asking that it should be immediately discontinued or that a General Election should be proclaimed in Malta. I am asking that those responsible should bring in a Bill of Indemnity and that some Constitution should be established at Malta which, as regards emergency, will be left open and not merely restricted to what is a local difficulty. The pledge given at the time of the annexation of Malta for the respecting and maintenance of laws, religion, and privileges has been interpreted as constituting a claim on the part of extreme ecclesiastics to the rights and privileges of their predecessors at the close of the Middle Ages, during the days of the Knights and before Napoleon Bonaparte established modern ideals in the Government of Malta. The grandfather of the noble Lord who leads the Opposition in the House, General Sir Frederick Ponsonby, issued Proclamations in 1821 abolishing benefit of clergy and abolishing certain immunities which were irreconcilable with the Administration of Malta under modern conditions. It has been a struggle ever since on the part of extreme ecclesiastics to have those privileges re-established as part of the bargain under which Malta became part of the British Empire. I am sorry I o say that there have been persons in authority

937
in Malta who have been unduly impressed by those specious arguments.
When the present Constitution was established religious toleration formed a conspicuous part of that Constitution. All the clauses of that Constitution were accepted by the whole Maltese people, even by the ecclesiastics, by those who were extreme and those who were not extreme, those who were patriotic to Malta and those whose patriotism was in another direction. Any attempt to persuade any officer in His Majesty's Service to facilitate in any way departure from religious toleration is deeply to be regretted. It was regretted at the time when Mr. Secretary Henderson took steps to counteract what is known as the Maltese Pastoral, under which it was proclaimed that anyone disobeying it incurred supernatural penalties. The matter did not end there. When the present Governor came to Malta with the best of good intentions, having declared here in England that he would make it his business to re-establish responsible government in Malta, the proletarian Ministers who afterwards were dismissed, and the leaders of extreme ecclesiasticism, absented themselves from the swearing-in ceremony which the Governor was ordered by law to perform as the first of his duties on assuming office. No greater insult could have been offered to any Representative of the King than abstention from that ceremony. Nevertheless immediately co-operation was established with political irreconcilables, and that brought to an end the possibility of a fair Election just as much as the Pastoral which had produced negotiations with outside authorities.
An examination of the ambit of a Governor's duty in a Constitution similar to that of New South Wales or similar to that of the States in India, of a Governor's Province in India, or even of the duty of the Governor-General in India, brings us to the conclusion that no form of constitutional government can be worked under a Military Governor. That is not simply my own opinion. I have heard it said that I oppose every Governor. I only discuss these matters as one who has been connected all his life with the making and unmaking of Constitutions and has had the honour of serving under several forms of them. My opinion is that recorded so admirably by
938
the noble Marquess, the Secretary of State for India, who piloted with so much ability the Government of India Bill through this House. In his "Life" of that great Viceroy, Lord Curzon, we are told that, in the opinion of Lord Curzon, by their education and mentality military officers were quite unsuited to be Governors. I am certain that the noble Earl representing the Colonial Office will have something to say to me because of the opinion I hold on this subject, but I hope he will remember that in so doing he is criticising that great Viceroy, Lord Curzon, whose experience and patriotism it is very hard for anybody to question.
A Military Governor has to be obeyed without argument. Many members of your Lordships' House have been in the Army and Navy and have been controlled on the barrack square. We have been made to do what we were told, whatever we thought of the suitability of commanding officers' mandates. And, after all, commanding officers and Governors are human. If they are trained to listen to no argument they cannot drop their training when they have to administer a constitutional law which Lord Milner said was more democratic than that of New South Wales. But under the present system of selecting a Governor there are many more regrettable circumstances which ought to be changed and which a Royal Commission ought to enquire into and change. The selection is made by the Army Council, and I consider the Army Council an unconstitutional body created to diminish the responsibility of the Secretary of State for War—to change the Secretary of State for War from being a Secretary of State for War into not being a Secretary of State for War for all that pertains to war—namely, the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force. The security system, the counter-spy system, the relations with the civil population, all those things should be under the Secretary of State for War, who has direct responsibility to the Cabinet and, through the Cabinet, to this House and to the House that makes and unmakes Ministries.
All that has been set aside by the Army Council, created to shift a Commander-in-Chief who happened to have been created by patent. It is unconstitutional, quite as unconstitutional as the body set up by the Government of

939
India Bill to give advice to the Secretary of State which he must, in certain circumstances, accept whether he likes it or not. That, in my view, is an undermining of constitutional responsibility. The Army Council finds it extremely difficult to find anybody with the prescribed seniority to accept the Governorship of Malta. There is a very limited range of choice, and that limited range is only susceptible of producing something after a great deal of negotiation. The first man approached says: "I cannot do it." The second man says, perhaps, that his wife will not go there. A third man says that the Governorship of Malta is nothing but a sweated industry. Another says that if he goes to Malta he wants to see after the defences and to find out how Malta can be governed and defended against air attack. Another may have come to the end of his career, and says he wants an easy time.
We have heard in this House time after time, in the discussions on the India Bill, that for India supermen are necessary as Governors and as Governors-General. No superman can find the time. When Malta is the key of the holding of our eastern trade and our position in the Mediterranean no Civil Governor has the time adequately to perform the necessary revision in view of modern instruments of war and the defence possibilities of the three great Forces, the Army, Navy and Air Force, or, let me say, the Air Force, Navy and Army, for the Air Force is becoming every day the most important consideration. We have heard it said that Malta cannot be defended from the air. I think it is horrible that such a statement should be allowed to spread. The slogan should be: "Malta must be defended and will be defended," because of our treaty rights to defend the Maltese, and because we are not going to sacrifice the most important link in the chain of communications with Singapore, Colombo, Hong-Kong, Australia and so forth. Malta must be defended at all cost. Anybody who is entrusted with the task must find a way to defend it and must persuade the Imperial Government to find the necessary money. The hesitation should be enquired into by a Royal Commission.
Your Lordships will remember how unsympathetically I was met when asked for a trifling sum of £200 to advertise the possibilities of Malta as a flying-
940
boat base. That advertisement would have cost less than half a page in the Daily Mail or some other newspaper here. That advertisement would have had its effect on civil aviation, and would have shown the possibilities and the dangers to be faced. It would have had its effect, I believe, in inducing companies to start flying in those waters. No principle was involved except the principle of saying "No" to somebody who went begging and wanted more. There was no principle involved in respect of the Air Force until the suspension of responsible government, representative government, every form of government and the possibility of demanding redress of grievances. At least we might have been told that Malta would be defended against air attack at all cost. Instead of that we had not a single crumb of consolation, not even £200.
Then, when a candidate for the Governorship of Malta is selected by the Army Council, and, perhaps very reluctantly, got to go there, if he goes there reluctantly he cannot be expected to want to work day and night. He is not a young man working for promotion; he is at the end of his career. The temptation to be dragged along the line of least resistance and to put the Government into the hands of Secretaries and A.D.C.s is much greater than it would be in the case of Governors in India when use is made of the provisions in the Government of India Bill. In Malta the position is very different. There you have a wealthy and educated community, and members of the Civil Service with acute brains, the descendants of the Phoenicians with magnificent psychological experience as to how to manage the situation. What is the unfortunate Secretary of State for the Colonies to do? Can he override a blunder of a Governor? He is told, in the first place, that he did not appoint him. He was appointed by the Army Council, nominally by the Secretary of State for War perhaps, or, perhaps, by the Cabinet, but certainly not by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Not having appointed him he cannot even tell him what to do. I have known a Governor in Malta, perhaps one of the best we have had, getting a Despatch from the Secretary of State for the Colonies, carefully considering it, making up his mind that it was a great blunder, and ordering it to

941
be put in the waste paper basket. And nothing came of it.
But we have worse than that in the history of to-day. This Parliament, this House, considered the Malta Constitution Act of 1932. The noble Lord, Lord Darcy (de Knayth) introduced an Amendment into that measure having for its object the removal of certain disabilities in regard to appointment to the judicial office of certain members of the Bar in Malta who had obtained their warrant after a degree granted by an outside University. There was a monopoly for these degrees derived from the Malta University and not from a University in England or on the Continent. The noble Lord was complimented by the then Lord Chancellor, Viscount Sankey, upon the ability with which he had inserted that Amendment into the Malta Constitution Act. But what happened? An Ordinance was passed by the Government of Malta cancelling what was done by this House, cancelling that Amendment. It took years of correspondence to convince the Colonial Office that it had been cancelled. It was decided that the mistake should be rectified, but it was not rectified. Meanwhile there had been a vacancy on the Judicial Bench and among the candidates was a member of the Party of those Ministers who have been dismissed for disloyalty. Those candidates who were well-known for years for their loyalty to the British connection had amongst them one who was debarred even from being considered, notwithstanding that Amendment deliberately passed by this House. That is certainly irreconcilable with the Colonial Laws Validity Act of 1865.
Notwithstanding that, a Governor of Malta has all the Ministries concentrated in him and every decision is given by him, or may be given by him. But something may occur, as has occurred in the instance of this cancellation of an Amendment passed by the Imperial Parliament. I could give many other instances to show that those who govern are those who administer, and that nobody can co-ordinate and administer defence needs and at the same time be a match for the ultra-clericals, the ultra-pro-Italians and all the other influences around him unless he has been in Malta in former years, has had political training and is a young man
942
who may hope to become some day, perhaps, Governor-General of India. The range of selection should be extended to members of both Houses of Parliament of suitable age with Parliamentary experience, and there should be an end to the present state of affairs if the least weight is given to the dictum of the noble Marquess, Lord Curzon, recorded in the monumental and illuminating work published by the noble Marquess, Lord Zetland. I cannot close without making an appeal to your Lordships to reconsider a matter which has arisen under this system of supporting the blunders of a Military Governor.
I wish again to ask for reconsideration of the case of Joseph Orlando Smith. In no debate in this House has the least shred of argument been brought forward to justify what has been done in that case. Here is a man, who at the risk of everything, rendered a signal service to the Security officers at the time of the Invergordon troubles, when similar troubles were being organised in Malta. I have taken steps to have the original letter from Security officers thanking Joseph Orlando Smith brought into the custody of the High Court in England, and I hope that there will be no contradiction of anything I have said based on that evidence. In the House of Commons whatever a, member says has to be believed. Here I do not ask for more credence to be given as to the rights and wrongs of this case than may be justified on the sworn evidence now in England.
Then we have the fact that under the present system, with a desire of course to be on the best of terms with the ultra-clericals, a man who was dismissed as disloyal and who is also quite unacquainted with agriculture, or with scientific agriculture, has been appointed to a post connected with agriculture. That was in the report of the Colonial Office expert, and the word "scientific" might have been inserted in order to argue about it. To prop up this appointment instead of buying out the mistake by a few thousand pounds or perhaps a few hundred pounds, more than £20,000 of English money has gone to Malta to bolster up agriculture, including a loan which Malta does not want because she has plenty of money and a surplus of £250,000. What is more, this particular nominee of the anti-British element in Malta is not only made from a disloyal

943
Minister into the head of a Department, but his salary has been increased and he has got the Jubilee Medal. The Governor has refused to publish a list of those who got the Jubilee Medal. When I submitted to your Lordships' House previously that this particular official was not qualified by his standard of loyalty for appointment in the Public Service, I was told that the Government had different reports. Well, these contradictions have to be faced. There has been a case in Court before a tribunal chosen by the person himself, and we have sworn evidence on record that he did refuse to take off his hat when "God Save the King" was being played in public. If the gentleman had been head of a public Department in the Service for twenty years, he would have had to be suspended, but this man gets the Jubilee Medal and increased pay because it is necessary to uphold the present system of government!
I must now pass to that part of the Motion which deals with the administration of justice. When the last Royal Commission reported, it was one of their recommendations that the Judges in Malta should be English. It was quite an impracticable recommendation, and I did my best in the then Ministry to make the carrying out of that recommendation impossible. Now we are having cases, in which non-Maltese born are concerned, tried more frequently in camera. This method of trying cases in camera is a negation of the principles of the administration of justice which are held in this country and throughout the Empire. Here again, there is great need of the Report of a Royal Commission. Something has been said in this House about my local patriotism, but I would never allow local patriotism to interfere with my duty to the Empire or the rights of British subjects not resident in Malta. If we are to take the Government of India Bill as instructive and illuminating, let us have a proportion of the Judges in Malta English—be it only one. That is a sufficient reason by itself for having a Royal Commission in Malta. There are 30,000 or 40,000 non-Maltese in Malta, and intermarriages between Maltese and English are increasing every day. The future of Malta is not so much, as it has been heretofore, with the progeny of Italians as it is with the progeny of Maltese and British.
Another reason why there should be an inquiry into the administration of justice is the defiance—I can use no other word—of a Court in Malta of a pronouncement of the Judicial Committee of His Majesty's Privy Council. The Privy Council was asked to consider the question of whether a Judge who was financially interested in a newspaper was justified in writing reports for his newspaper in reference to a case judicially before him, to save it from employing other reporters. The condemnation of that incident by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was in the very strongest terms. That was communicated to the Court before the judgment was delivered, and it was pointed out to the Court that, where the law might not be sufficient, there was always the executive authority of the King's Representative to deal with such mistakes. But nothing was done, and his judgment was delivered notwithstanding the filing on the records of this pronouncement of the Judicial Committee. I ask you, my Lords, is that not more than a sufficient reason for having a Royal Commission on the administration of justice?
When that question was before the Court, when it was suggested that there were financial interests involved and that the Government, without having 'any restraint by debate in Parliament or representative institutions, had granted financial favours to a newspaper which had strongly opposed the Government and was now always praising it; when that was filed in Court and a witness was asked to be summoned in examination, nothing was done. The very Judge who admitted in open Court that he had sent in this report, asked in open Court that the bank manager should be called at once; nothing would have pleased the parties in the case better, but it has not been done. That is a most cogent reason why a Royal Commission should be appointed in Malta to deal with the administration of justice.
The importance of the situation is my justification for taking up so much of your Lordships' time. I beg leave in a few words to conclude by summarising what is necessary. What is necessary is an Act of Indemnity for what has been done, and an attempt should be made to have either a Report of a Royal Commission on what kind of Constitution would be suitable to

945
Malta, or a Round-Table Conference. Let us not run the risk, in view of the rumours of war in the Mediterranean and the neighbourhood, of having a situation which, when a judgment is brought from the Privy Council, may involve an immediate General Election in Malta and the immediate re-establishment of a method of government more democratic than that of the State of New South Wales; or, as an alternative, if the case goes the other way, the constitutional procedure that in one House or the other of this Parliament an Address to the King would be proposed for the removal of the Governor. These alternatives can only be avoided by the promise of an Act of Indemnity and of a Royal Commission.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying for the appointment of a Royal Commission to take evidence and report on the manner in which Malta has been governed since the suspension of Parliamentary elections, and on the most suitable method for implementing the treaties and solemn promises to the Maltese as to the enjoyment of representative institutions first set up by the Norman Kings of Sicily, and also to enquire and report on the administration of justice.—(Lord Strickland.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, the noble Lord, in introducing his Motion, has traversed a very wide field, and I feel that it would not be possible for me to follow him into the very many questions that he has raised. The actual effect of the Resolution which he has moved is to ask that a Royal Commission should be appointed to enquire into a number of different matters in Malta, and he stated at the commencement of his speech that, since he had placed the Motion on the Paper, three additional reasons I ad arisen to fortify him in his intention of bringing this matter before your Lordships' House. He referred first to the Government of India Bill having been passed; secondly, to a certain statement made by the Secretary of State for the Colonies in another place, about which I shall have just a word to say later on; and thirdly, to an incident which, he stated, occurred during the week-end in Malta in the course of which a number of loyal people in Malta were reported to have been—or he was informed that they had been—arrested.
946
As far as the passage of the Government of India Bill is concerned, I cannot feel that that has any very material bearing upon the situation. The noble Lord is always fond of drawing an analogy between India and Malta, but I am always tempted to explain that, in our view, at any rate, it is an analogy which cannot fairly be drawn, and that, as a matter of fact, the conditions obtaining in those two countries are so entirely different that you cannot possibly draw any kind of conclusions from it. In regard to the incident to which he refers as having taken place at the week-end, I can only say that we have no official information with regard to the arrest of anybody; but, whether anybody has been arrested or not, I cannot for a moment admit that that incident in itself would constitute a reason for appointing a Royal Commission to enquire into the situation in Malta.
The position is really this. A Royal Commission was appointed on Malta in 1911, and another one was appointed in 1931. There is, in the view of the Government, no case whatsoever for the appointment so soon after the last one of a further Royal Commission to go into the affairs of the Island. On the contrary, the Government consider that a further Commission is the very last thing that the Island needs at the present moment. The appointment of such a body, taking evidence on a large number of subjects, would inevitably raise a great number of controversial issues. This procedure would, as far as I see, serve no profitable purpose, nor would it in any way advance the welfare of the Maltese in any degree. In the view of His Majesty's Government the great need of the Island at the present time is a rest from agitation and political strife. A period of calm is required in which the Government can plan and carry through a concrete and constructive scheme for the welfare of the population as a whole. I feel strongly that attention ought to be directed more towards the practical work of administrative improvement than to political issues which have in the past engendered so much bitter feeling. The present Government have already carried through many schemes for the improvement and development of the Island, and further schemes are in contemplation. I would merely repeat that in my view it would be a great mistake to deflect attention from solid work of this character and

947
to throw the Island back into the controversies which would be aroused by the arrival of a Royal Commission to take evidence as suggested by the noble Lord.
The noble Lord in what he has said, and indeed as is implicit in the wording of his Motion, has suggested that there is some definite obligation upon the Government of this country to maintain representative institutions in Malta. Before I actually deal with that particular point that he raised, there is perhaps one other matter that I ought previously to mention. The noble Lord in the course of his speech made a reference to the legality of the position as it existed out there, and actually asked whether it can be maintained that a state of emergency could still be considered to exist in the Island which justified the suspension of the Constitution. As the noble Lord knows perfectly well, this is a matter which has a very definite legal aspect, and it has been, I think, on the initiative of the noble Lord himself that the legality of the position has been brought before the Courts of Malta, and is at the very moment being considered in that country with a view to an appeal to the Privy Council. I think I am right in that.
LORD STRICKLAND: There is a new fact in the appointment of Mr. MacDonald.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I am not prepared to discuss that, but I have stated what is the position as the noble Lord admitted it to be. He quite rightly refrained from arguing that particular point from the legal aspect, and I, therefore, am not prepared to argue it from the legal aspect either, but the noble Lord did make reference to a statement which was made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place a few days ago, when the Estimates of the Colonial Office were being discussed. It is perfectly true that my right honourable friend, alluding to Malta in another place on July 25, said that a state of emergency cannot go on indefinitely, but the noble Lord would be well advised not to read into this obiter dictum more significance than it will bear. It was a perfectly general remark, and I have my right honourable friend's authority to say that he did not intend to state more than what was a self-evident proposition.
948
To pass on to the other point which the noble Lord raised—namely, that the Government of this country was under a definite obligation to maintain representative institutions in Malta—I would only say this. As your Lordships know, Great Britain took over Malta in 1800, and, as explained by the noble Lord, in certain circumstances. I must say that I listened with a very great deal of interest to the noble Lord's recitation of the history of Malta during those days, and of the various circumstances which surrounded the taking over of Malta by the British Government. I am not prepared, nor do I wish, to controvert many of the statements which he made, but I must say this, that in spite of everything he said I do not think anybody can take the view that there was any formal treaty between the two countries, which involved an obligation on the part of the Government of Great Britain definitely to maintain representative institutions in that country. As the noble Lord himself was quite prepared to admit, the legal position does rest upon the Treaty of Paris in 1814.
LORD STRICKLAND: I did not say that.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: With certain qualifications I think he said it. But that, as I understand it, is the position with regard to that particular matter. At any rate I cannot feel that at the moment it is very germane to the question of the suspension of the Constitution at a particular time and for a particular reason. Then the noble Lord made some reference to the Governor of Malta, and took his stand on the general ground that he did not feel that Military Governors were qualified to govern an Island such as Malta; and he made reference to a statement of the late Lord Curzon, in which he is stated to have put forward the general proposition that soldiers and sailors were not properly qualified to act as Governors of Dominions or Colonies. I do not know what the exact wording was.
LORD STRABOLGI: That only applied to Military Governors. Naval Governors are well known for their success.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I do not know the actual text of the statement, nor do I know what kind of territories or dependencies the late

949
noble Marquess had in mind when he made the statement—no doubt at the time when he was Viceroy of India, and I dare say he had a territory very different from Malta itself in mind when he made this general proposition. Whatever the case may be, I would say that from my own personal experience I have known a number of Military Governors who have governed their territories most efficiently and. with a great deal of success, and I certainly am not prepared, without qualification, to accept the general proposition which the noble Lord has put forward. As far as the Governor of Malta is concerned I want, however, to be very definite indeed, and I wish to say that Sir David Campbell enjoys the fullest confidence of His Majesty's Government. They consider that he has governed the Island with very great courage, wisdom and justice during a particularly anxious and difficult period. I go further than that and say that it is evident from the tokens of respect and affection which are continually forthcoming from the local population that the people as a whole greatly appreciate the services which Sir David Campbell has rendered to the Island. I should also like to say that I know we have all been very sorry that Sir David has himself been ill lately, and we are glad to know that he is now well on the road to recovery.
Then the noble Lord raised a number of matters which he has already raised in your Lordships' House upon a number of occasions. Tie raised shortly the case of Mr. Joseph Orlando Smith. I have dealt with that case very fully on two or three occasions in your Lordships' House, and I really have nothing to add to what I said then. Nothing that the noble Lord said to-day has altered the position, and I can only repeat that what I said upon the last occasion in this House still represents the attitude of the Government on this particular question. The noble Lord also raised the question of the appointment of Mr. Micallef as Director of Agriculture. That matter we have also discussed at considerable length in this House on more than one occasion. I have repeatedly said that this appointment was made on merits purely and simply, and that the Secretary of State's adviser who went out to Malta reported that he felt sure that Mr. Micallef would be able
950
to do much good work for agriculture in Malta.
Lastly the noble Lord has suggested that it is necessary to send a Royal Commission out to Malta to enquire into the administration of justice. Once again I am afraid the Government cannot admit for a moment that there is any need for such a Commission. The question of the administration a justice has been under frequent review during the last few years. The Royal Commission of 1931 devoted a certain part of its Report to the matter, and made various recommendations. The matter again came under review when the Secretary of State sent to the Island as Legal Adviser, Sir Alison Russell, a distinguished lawyer who had served as Chief Justice in Tanganyika. The Governor entrusted Sir Alison Russell with the general duty of examining into the work of the Courts. As a result of that examination, two important reforms were introduced.
First, an Ordinance was passed containing many detailed revisions for reforming the procedure of the Courts with the object of removing one of the main causes of complaint, which was the frequent delays in the disposal of cases. In the second place, legislation was enacted by Letters Patent making an important change in the language of the Courts, with which your Lordships will already be familiar. The object of this reform was to lay down that in future the native language, Maltese, should be used in the Courts wherever possible. The reform was based on the simple and elementary principle of justice that legal proceedings should be conducted in a language with which the people themselves are familiar. These reforms have worked very satisfactorily. The new methods of procedure, according to the information I have available, has resulted in a very gratifying elimination of arrears in the Courts of First Instance, and their success seems unquestioned. With regard to the language reforms, these, I am glad to say, have also worked well and there appears to be every evidence that they have been definitely welcomed by the vast majority of people in Malta. In this connection I should like to say that I think a tribute might well be paid to the manner in which His Majesty's Judges in Malta have worked in order to make these reforms a success.

951
In dealing with the question of the administration of justice, the noble Lord made references to a certain Judge and certain actions which he had taken, and suggested that this, too, was a sufficient reason for asking for the appointment of a Royal Commission. I am well acquainted with the actual case that he had in mind. I would merely say that after what was said by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the Government naturally gave their attention to what their Lordships had said, and felt it proper to make certain inquiries of the Judge in question on the subject. I am able to say that we have received information to the effect that the Judge has now given assurances which the Acting Governor regards as satisfactory. But in any case I cannot admit for a moment that a matter of this kind is sufficient reason for the appointment of a Royal Commission. I have dealt with a number of matters which the noble Lord has raised. It has naturally been impossible for me, owing to the very comprehensive way in which he dealt with the whole position in Malta, to follow him in detail, but I have attempted to answer a number of points which he has raised.
LORD STRICKLAND: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Earl for the great courtesy and the detail with which he has addressed himself to your Lordships' House in reference to my speech, but I am not able to express satisfaction with the conclusions or logic of many of the replies, and in particular with the suggestion that I have asked for a Royal Commission with power to enquire into two or three arrests. I have fully explained how this demonstration of loyal Maltese last Sunday had been provoked by the broadcasting from Rome of repeated claims that Malta belonged by right to Italy, and I have explained how that was a claim which was being most carefully and systematically propagated in the Press in Malta and Italy. The provocation arising amongst a loyal population from this systematic propaganda and the failure to counteract it is, I submit, a good reason for the appointment of a Royal Commission.
We are told that no inquiry is needed into the administration of justice because Sir Alison Russell has enquired into it. But Sir Alison Russell 'has not enquired into the defiance of a pronouncement by
952
His Majesty's Privy Council, nor has he enquired into the allegations lodged in Court as to financial favour to newspaper proprietors and the connection of the Government therewith. I can assure your Lordships that the Bar in Malta is indignant at these occurrences and that the general opinion is that respect for the administration of justice has been fundamentally shaken. Nor has the noble Lord suggested any reply as to the suitability of reconsidering the question which was reported upon by the Royal Commission as to the way in which claims of nonresident British subjects in Malta should be dealt with in the Courts of Law by the appointment of one English Judge rather than by extension of the trial of cases in camera. Nor has there been inquiry as to the alterations in the order of precedence of the Judges, a matter of principle in England, which has been the subject of protest in this House in a case on all fours with what has happened in Malta. These are two sufficient examples of the want of conclusiveness in the replies that have been received.
May I ask, can any British subject born in Malta be satisfied with that present position? Can anyone here in this House be wanting in sympathy with the fact that by the suspension of Parliamentary institutions all British subjects born in Malta have been degraded from the position of citizens of a co-equal sister nation in the British Commonwealth of Nations to that of citizens of a Crown Colony of the most severe type? I may add that the judgment that has been delivered by His Majesty's Court of Appeal in Malta on the constitutional position is most emphatic in laying down that representative Government has been legally promised and assured to Malta time after time and that it has been promised by treaties that are legally binding. The noble Earl does not concur in the view on that point expressed by Lord Glenelg. There were treaties made between two co-belligerents when Maltese and English side by side were victorious co-belligerents and shared in the sovereignty of Malta acquired by the sword; and these treaties were not merely verbal, they were embodied in Proclamations then issued in the name of the King of England setting forth that the rights, laws and privileges of Malta would be maintained. Malta had representative

953
institutions when the nation was organised against the French.
Moreover, there have been the declarations of Lord Grey and Mr. Chamberlain. Then we have the recent fact that your Lordships' House itself sanctioned an Act of Parliament granting responsible government and recognising the sanctity of these treaties as the reason for the passing of that Act. Why was an Act of Parliament giving constitutional status to Malta passed if it was not called for by virtue and force of the treaties referred to by Lord Glenelg? Now we are expected to be thankful to those who have deprived us, as loyal subjects, of these representative institutions, and to those who have degraded English and Maltese domiciled in Malta to the inferior status now subsisting in Malta. It is an intolerable position, and it is most regrettable that any special pleading should be attempted and devised to excuse that diminution of status. It is not possible to sweep away the weight and meaning and import of those treaties and promises and the interpretation thereof that has been held from generation to generation here and in Malta.
There is no answer or excuse for the present non-existence of the Executive Council. How can war, may I ask, be carried on without contact with the civil population by an Executive Council? It is a contradiction of what is written in the law. Yet we are expected to be grateful. If public meetings had not been suppressed there would be resolutions passed at meetings all over the Island against the present state of affairs and demanding the appointment of a civil Governor. The Press, too, has been muzzled by favours. Favouritism has gone to the extent that after condemnation in a criminal libel suit remission was given to a writer in a newspaper from the Palace without any report from the Judge who tried the case of criminal libel or advice from the Law Officers, and now that newspaper has become a humble servant full of praise for the Administration. Other newspapers have also received favours at the expense of others. Therefore the time has come for the Colonial Department not to place reliance on what is printed under undue influence.
On Question, Motion negatived

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, before the House adjourns, could the noble Earl give us any information as to the business for the rest of this week and after the Recess?
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord that to-morrow, besides what he sees on the Paper—namely, consideration of the Commons Amendments to the. Housing Bill—the Lord Bishop of Winchester is raising a debate regarding the Reports of the Commissioners for the Special Areas. The Question by the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury regarding Assyrians in Iraq has been postponed. On Thursday there will be consideration of the Commons Amendments to the Restriction of Ribbon Development Bill, the Government of India Bill and the Housing (Scotland) Bill. As the noble Lord is aware, these Bills are being discussed in another place now. They will come to us to-morrow, and be considered on Thursday. In addition to that, Lord Cranworth has a Question down regarding Attested Herds. It is proposed that the House should meet on Friday morning, when, probably, the Consolidated Fund Bill will be put through all its stages, and a Royal Commission will be held to give the Royal Assent to a number of Bills and Measures.
LORD MARLEY: It will be purely formal on Friday?
THE EARL OF LUCAN: Purely formal. As regards the Adjournment, it is proposed that the House should adjourn on Friday next until Tuesday, October 29, subject to the usual Motion empowering the Lord Chancellor to call the House together should circumstances arise which render it necessary for the House to meet before that date.
LORD MARLEY: I am much obliged to the noble Earl for the information.

  LIBERIA.
  LIBERIA.

SMETHWICK GAS ORDER, 1935.
BIRKENHEAD ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1935.
BIRKENHEAD ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) (No. 2) ORDER, 1935.
PORTSMOUTH ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1935.
DUNDEE ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1935.
BURNLEY ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1935.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Orders, and that there is nothing in these Orders to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

DRAFT UNEMPLOYMENT INSUR ANCE (ANOMALIES) (SEASONAL WORKERS) ORDER, 1935.
Report by the Special Orders Committee, That they have examined the Special Order as required by the Standing
958
Orders of the House; that they have considered a statement by the Minister of Labour made in accordance with the provisions of Section 55 (8) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935; that in their opinion the provisions of the Order raise important questions of policy and principle; that they comply with the terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, under which the Order is submitted for approval; that the Order is founded on precedent in that it re-enacts, with certain additional benefits to the employed person, the Regulations made under the Unemployment Insurance (No. 3) Act, 1931; that in the opinion of the Committee the Order cannot be passed by the House without special attention, but that no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision on the Resolution to approve the said Order:
Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
BRIDGWATER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L]
NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Common's, agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.