Sitting of 13 March 1935

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL,
  "to extend the boundaries of the county borough of Sunderland and for purposes incidental thereto; to authorise the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the said county borough to construct street works and to construct, maintain, and work tramways; to confer further powers upon the Corporation with regard to their electricity undertaking and with regard to the health, improvement, good government, and finance of the country borough; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    TURKEY AND BULGARIA.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make with reference to the dispute between Turkey and Bulgaria; and whether the matter has been reported to the League of Nations?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) on 11th March, to which I have nothing to add.

    PARAGUAY.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action is being taken by the Council of the League of Nations in view of the fact that on 24th February Paraguay committed an act of war against Great Britain and every other member of the League of Nations under the Covenant of the League by its refusal to cease
    364
    hostilities with Bolivia; whether the terms of Article 16 of the Covenant are to be applied; if so, in what form; when the committee of the Council set up to advise on the Chaco dispute last met; and who has been appointed president to take the place of M. Najera?
    Sir J. SIMON: The Advisory Committee of the Assembly of the League of Nations met at Geneva on 11th March, under the chairmanship of the Portuguese representative, Monsieur Vasconcellos, and is at the moment considering the matters to which the hon. Member refers. I cannot anticipate the conclusions which the committee will reach.
    Mr. MANDER: Is not a great deal of the difficulty due to certain South American States failing to play the game in regard to the embargo; and does not the question really arise of the expulsion of Paraguay from the League?
    Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that most of the country does not share the pacific bellicosity of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander)?

  DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why Mrs. Corbett Ashby, the substitute delegate for the British Government to the Disarmament Conference, resigned her position?
  Sir J. SIMON: The reasons put forward by Mrs. Corbett Ashby for her resignation were contained in a letter addressed to the Prime Minister on 6th March. The texts of this letter and of the Prime Minister's reply were given by Mrs. Corbett Ashby to the Press and appeared in the newspapers on 9th March. I have nothing to add to those letters
  Mr. MANDER: Was not the reason stated in that letter, the stinging condemnation of the whole conduct of the Disarmament Conference by His Majesty's Government?
  Sir J. SIMON: My hon. Friend will find that the best way of ascertaining the contents of a written document is to read the document.
  Mr. MANDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have read it and have come to that conclusion?

  CHINA (LOAN).
  Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the amount of the international loan which it is suggested would be given to China; whether this sum will be provided or guaranteed by the chief countries having commercial or other interests in the Far East; and, if so, whether he will state the names of these countries?
  Sir J. SIMON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Nunn) on 6th March.

  —

  U.S.A.

  Japan.

  France, (c)

  Italy (c)

  Germany.

  Dollars.

  Yen.

  Francs.

  Lire.

  RM.

  1929–30 (or 1929)

  364,693,314

  261,108,889

  2,485,349,508

  1,232,433,630

  180,175,860

  621,337,377 (a)

  1930–31

  403,242,836

  242,932,204

  2,722,741,389

  1,575,966,000

  188,624,700

  1931–32

  359,198,792

  211,887,096

  2,799,830,314

  1,573,622,800

  183,504,350

  1932–33 (or 1932)

  333,926,573

  306,766,533

  2,506,263,577 (b)

  1,574,923,277

  183,504,350

  1933–34 (or 1933)

  297,000,000 (g) (f).

  403,771,338

  2,712,254,973

  1,397,222,277

  183,004,350

  1934–35 (or 1934)

  442,527,832 (f)

  488,509,658

  3,173,283,494 (d)

  1,224,780,477

  233,005,150

  1935–36 (1935)

  593,695,947 (proposed) (f)

  530,000,000 (proposed).

  3,298,858,118 (e)

  1,304,881,000 (proposed).

  —

  (a) For period 1st January—31st March, 1930, after which fiscal year was changed to 1st April,—31st March.

  (b) For 9 months only, due to change back of fiscal year to 1st January—31st December, includes Frs. 95,000,000 special vote.

  (c) Original voted estimates—excluding subsequent amendments.

  (d) Includes Frs. 230,000,000 special vote. Also includes Naval Air Service vote, which from 1929 to 1933 inclusive was included under Air Ministry budget.

  (e) Includes Frs. 396,000,000 special vote. Also includes Naval Air Service Vote, which from 1929 to 1933 inclusive was included under Air Ministry budget.

  (f) Includes estimated expenditures under National Industrial Recovery Act, etc.

  (g) Estimated expenditure. Original voted Estimates were reduced by Economy Acts.

  In view of the fluctuations in the rates of exchange, and the different standards of values in the various countries, no reliable figures are available for converting the foregoing amounts into comparable sterling values. Furthermore, the Navy Estimates of the various countries can never be satisfactorily compared.
  Mr. G. HALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the cruiser, destroyer, and submarine tonnage which can be laid

  NAVAL ARMAMENTS.
  Mr. GEORGE HALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the amount of money approved for naval purposes for the years from 1929 to date, giving each year separately, for each of the following countries, United States of America, France, Italy, Germany and Japan; and the amounts in sterling values?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): As the answer is in tabular form, I propose with the hon. Member's permission to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the answer:
  The total Navy Estimates voted by the countries in question were as follow:
  down in accordance with Article 19 of the International Treaty for the Limitation and Reduction of Naval Armaments, 1930, in view of the ships which will become over age in 1937, 1938, and 1939; and the names of the ships which will, in existing conditions, become over age in the three years mentioned?
  Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: As the information is in tabular form, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following are the figures:

  —

  1937.

  1938.

  1939.

  Name.

  Tonnage.

  Name.

  Tonnage.

  Name.

  Tonnage.

  Cruisers

  …

  Durban

  4,850

  Despatch

  4,850

  —

  —

  Diomede

  4,850

  —

  —

  Cape Town

  4,200

  —

  —

  Adelaide (R.A.N.)

  5,100

  —

  —

  1 ship.

  4,850 tons.

  4 ships.

  19,000

  —

  —

  Destroyers

  …

  Broke

  1,480

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Keppel

  1,480

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2 ships.

  2,960

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Submarines

  …

  L. 23

  760

  L. 53

  845

  L. 26

  760

  L. 54

  845

  X. 1

  2,425

  L. 27

  760

  2 ships.

  1,605

  2 ships.

  3,270

  2 ships.

  1,520

  HIS MAJESTY'S SILVER JUBILEE (NAVAL REVIEW).
  Mr. RANKINasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is proposed to mobilise any of the units of the Reserve Fleet or officers and men on the reserve and emergency lists of His Majesty's Navy in connection with the naval review to be held at Spithead this summer?
  Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: Arrangements are at present under consideration for bringing forward certain units of the Reserve Fleet to take part in the naval review. A certain number of reserve officers and men will be afforded the opportunity of performing their periodical training at the time of the naval review

  KENYA.
  Mr. PALINGasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the pro posed legislation establishing a local Asian civil service in Kenya Colony has been submitted to him; and whether he will recommend that the Asian officers who have not completed eight years' continuous service as at 1st January, 1933, but who are confirmed in their appointments and are on pensionable status, should not be transferred, against their will, to the local Asian civil service?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I have received the proposals for the
  368
  establishment of the Asian local civil service in Kenya which, except in so far as they refer to the creation of a provident fund, do not require legislation. These proposals are still being considered, but they do not contemplate that any officer who has already acquired pensionable status should be transferred to the new service against his wishes, whether he had completed eight years' service on the 1st January, 1933, or not.
  Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet any information as to whether it has been found possible to balance the budget of Kenya Colony for the coming financial year; and whether he is in a position to make any statement with regard to the general financial position of that colony?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir, the estimates for 1935 anticipate a surplus of £15,907; and I have recently learned from the governor that, according to the latest figures, last year resulted in an excess of revenue of about £4,000, in place of the deficit of £54,000 which was previously expected. This satisfactory result appears to be due to increased trading activity towards the close of the year; and, as I stated in reply to a question on the 27th of February, there is reason to hope that, if the colony is not again afflicted by drought or other un-

  369
  predictable setbacks, its general financial position will show an improvement during the present year.
  Captain GUEST: Will the right hon. Gentleman clear up this point—whether the taxes specifically imposed for 3933–1934 have had to be re-imposed to enable him to get that benefit?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: My right hon. and gallant Friend's question is based on a complete misconception. Taxes are constantly imposed, like the income tax here, every year, in connection with that year's budget, but there has never been any suggestion that the taxes imposed a year ago to balance the budget would be withdrawn at the end of that year.

  GAMBIA (HEALTH SERVICES).
  Mr. PARKINSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the quarantine regulations in the Gambia have yet been relaxed; whether, in particular, attendance at schools and at church services is allowed; and whether any steps are under consideration for the prevention of disease through the establishment of an adequate drainage system, the promotion of housing schemes and the provision of medical and sanitary services, including, if necessary, a quarantine board, with inclusion of per sons with knowledge of local conditions?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answers to the first two parts of this question are in the affirmative. It is understood that the governor of the Gambia is at present formulating proposals to improve the health situation in Bathurst, and no doubt these will contain recommendations in respect of the drainage system and housing schemes. Steps have already been taken to increase the staff of the medical and health services and further additions are under consideration. No proposal for the establishment of a quarantine board has been brought to my notice and I am not aware of any necessity for such a board.

  ZANZIBAR (CLOVE MARKETING SCHEME).
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in view of the detrimental effect
  370
  of the Clove Growers' Association upon British trade with Zanzibar, he will re consider the legislation setting up this association?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I cannot accept the suggestion that the reconstitution of the Clove Growers' Association on its present lines has had any detrimental effect on British trade with Zanzibar. On the contrary, the information I have received goes to show that, even in the short time which has elapsed since the reconstitution, the people of Zanzibar have already begun to derive substantial benefit. In the circumstances, I see no necessity for any reconsideration of the recent enactments, though I can assure the hon. Member that the situation is carefully watched by the Zanzibar Government.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any communication on the subject from the East African section of the London Chamber of Commerce presided over by Sir Humphrey Leggett; and whether he is aware that a further consignment of 900 tons of cloves has been ordered by the Americans from Madagascar although hitherto they got their supplies from Zanzibar?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: In answer to the first part of the supplementary question, I think the chamber of commerce asked for certain information which was supplied to them. I do not think we have had any other communications from them. With regard to the second part of the question, there has always been an export of cloves from Madagascar and the volume of that export was taken very carefully into consideration by the Zanzibar Government. They carefully reviewed the matter on the spot.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would it be possible to find out from the Zanzibar Government whether there have been other purchases made in Madagascar which up to now were being made in Zanzibar; and whether the London Chamber of Commerce have made any definite representations?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have answered the first point. It would obviously be useless to inquire in Zanzibar as to whether somebody in America has made purchases in Madagascar. I think the best evidence of the reason-

  371
  able success of the scheme, which is consonant with marketing schemes all through the Empire, is that the price has improved by a certain amount and has been very steady for some time.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the trade not all in the hands of one firm now?

  MALTA (COURTS).
  Sir BROGRAVE BEAUCHAMPasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he can give any information regarding the results of the reforms in language and procedure of the Maltese courts which were carried through last autumn?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir, the results of four months' working show that arrears in the courts are being rapidly overtaken. The cases pending on the 1st of October last in the courts of first instance showed a decrease on the 1st of February of from 1,043 to 681, i.e., 362; and in the commercial court a decrease of from 360 to 183, i.e., 177. In the same period the cases pending in the court of appeal increased from 164 to 189. This slight increase of 25 is accounted for by the increased number of cases heard to a conclusion in the courts of first instance, and by illness among the members of the court of appeal. These figures attest the marked success with which the reforms have been attended. The indications are that at the end of a year's working arrears in the courts of first instance are likely to be eliminated; and it may reasonably be hoped that the arrears in the court of appeal will also be overtaken. In any case, with the clearing of the lists in the courts of first instance it will be possible, should it be necessary, to give assistance to the court of appeal.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE (FIGHTER AIRCRAFT).
  Captain CUNNINGHAM-REIDasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the construction of a fighter-monoplane capable of a speed of 275 miles an hour is in contemplation; and when such machines will be available?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): High
  372
  performance fighter aircraft have been ordered and will probably be flying this year. It would not be in the public interest to disclose exact figures relating to the performance of these aircraft.
  Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: In that case, why are references allowed in the Press to that particular machine?
  Sir P. SASSOON: I do not think that what appears in the Press is the responsibility of the Air Ministry.

  AVIATION.

    PILOTS' LICENCES.
    Captain CUNNINGHAM-REIDasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the recommendation of the Gorell Committee on Civil Aviation has been considered to the effect that the United Kingdom representative on the International Commission for Air Navigation should press for a relaxation of the medical requirements for the renewal of private pilots' A licences; and whether this representative has been instructed accordingly?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.
    Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: Can I have an assurance from the Minister that the policy of the Air Ministry will be directed towards relaxation rather than the encroachment of bureaucracy?
    Sir P. SASSOON: Yes, Sir. That is exactly what is intended.

    FOREIGN AIRCRAFT (BRITISH-DESIGNED ENGINES).
    Mrs. TATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what percentage of foreign aircraft in service on European air lines were fitted with engines of British design in June, 1934?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I have no precise information for the date mentioned, but it may be taken that rather more than 10 per cent. of the aircraft operated by foreign European regular air transport undertakings are fitted with engines of United Kingdom design.
    Mrs. TATE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that 14 per cent. of these lines are fitted with engines of American con-

    373
    struction or manufacture; and does he not think we should have a far greater opportunity of exporting to Europe than the United States?
    Viscountess ASTOR: Is it likely that we shall have that opportunity unless we have better technical people connected with the air? I know what I am talking about.

    AIRCRAFT, ENGINES AND PARTS (EXPORTS).
    Mrs. TATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the figures of British aeronautical exports for the years 1927, 1929, 1931 and 1934, respectively?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The exports of aircraft, engines and spare parts from the United Kingdom in the calendar years 1927, 1929, 1931, and 1934 amounted to £1,085,000, £2,159,000, £1,860,000, and £1,921,000, respectively.

    BRITISH AIR SERVICES (ACCIDENTS).
    Mrs. TATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the number of passenger-miles flown by British domestic and foreign transport lines in the year 1934, and the number of passenger fatalities on those lines during that year?
    Sir P. SASSOON: Over 29,000,000 passenger-miles were flown in 1934 on regular air transport services operated by United Kingdom undertakings at home and abroad. There were two fatal accidents, in which nine passengers lost their lives.
    Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: Can my right hon. Friend say what proportion of that mileage was flown on subsidised and what proportion on unsubsidised lines?
    Sir P. SASSOON: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will give me notice of that question.

    AUSTRALIA (AIR MAIL POLICY).
    Mr. SIMMONDSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he can make any statement regarding the recent conferences in Australia on the subject of the Government's air mail policy?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I am not in a position to make any statement beyond saying that a report of the conference has been received by telegram, which, while it gives no details, is generally encouraging.

    ANGLO-SWISS SERVICE.
    Mr. SIMMONDSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that on the Anglo-Swiss air service between London and Bale, the Imperial Airways aircraft, owing to their comparative slowness, are scheduled to take 60 per cent. longer than the Swiss air liners; and whether he proposes to take any action?
    Sir P. SASSOON: My Noble Friend does not propose to take any action in this matter.
    Mr. SIMMONDS: Can my right hon. Friend explain to the House why, in the case of an ocean liner which is two or three knots slower than a foreign one, the Government must carry millions of pounds, whereas in this case, where we are 60 per cent. slower than the Swiss air liners, no action appears to be necessary?
    Sir P. SASSOON: Imperial Airways services will be accelerated as time goes on.

  TRANSPORT.

    PEDAL CYCLISTS (ACCIDENTS).
    Mr. WESTasked the Minister of Transport how many cyclists are killed annually; what proportion are killed during daylight hours; and how many of those killed during the hours of darkness carried a rear light?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I regret that the number of pedal cyclists killed annually on the roads has increased considerably during recent years from 691 in 1928 to 1,354 in 1933. The report on fatal road accidents during 1933 issued by my Department gives detailed analyses of fatal accidents to 1,324 pedal cyclists, of whom 70 per cent. were killed during the hours of daylight. Of the 397 cyclists who died as a result of accidents during the hours of dusk or darkness, 11 were reported to be carrying a red rear light.
    Mr. WEST: Seeing that only a minority of the cyclists are killed in the hours of darkness and that a great many of those who are killed are killed in head-on collisions, is it not clear to the hon. Gentleman that the provision or absence of rear lights is of very minor importance in casualties to cyclists?
    Captain STRICKLAND: Is it not a fact that the roads are far less used by cyclists at night and that that would account for the larger proportion of accidents by day?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I think I answered the hon. Gentleman's question. Of the 397 cyclists who died as a result of accidents at night, 11 were reported to be carrying a rear light.
    Mr. WEST: Has not the Minister understood the second part of my question, which was that of those 397 the great majority were killed in head-on collisions, and how could rear lights be of any use in those cases?
    Lieut.-Colonel C. MacANDREW: Why should the cyclists object to carrying rear lights, when it is entirely for their own safety?

    CIRCULAR.
    Mr. JOHN WILMOTasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that an official circular issued by the Ministry refers to the Government as "the National Government" and refers to the Minister by name; and whether his Department has been authorised to use the term "National" in designating the Government?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The circular of 5th February follows the language of, and makes quotations from, my speech at Birmingham in which I announced that the National Government had decided on a five-year plan for the roads.
    Mr. WILMOT: Do the hon. Gentleman and His Majesty's Government regard it as a desirable practice to include a political appellation in a reference to the Government and repeated references to the particular Minister by name in official circulars issued to local authorities?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: With regard to the latter part of the question, of course that is quite traditional and essential. There is no other way of dealing with them. As regards the first part of the question, I will certainly take note of what my hon. Friend said.
    Mr. WILMOT: Will the hon. Gentleman refer to his Department and ascertain whether it has not in fact been the practice of all previous Governments to refer to the Government as "His Majesty's Government" and to refer to
    376
    the Minister of Transport as "the Minister"?
    Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Lord President of the Council whether he really agrees that in an official document issued in the name of the Government we should depart from precedent and call it the Tory Government, or the Liberal Government, or the Labour Government, or the Socialist Government? Does he think it right that when an official document is issued the words "the National Government" instead of "His Majesty's Government" should be inserted in these circulars?
    The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): Not having had notice of that question, all I would say is that I was not aware that the practice to which the hon. Gentleman alludes ever was followed.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I think the right hon. Gentleman does not do himself justice. He was present when we raised this question in reference to the White Paper on armaments, and the hon. Gentleman just now—
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is hardly for Question Time.
    Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order. This is a matter of constitutional usage, and are we not entitled to ask the Lord President, as representing the Government, whether this very bad practice shall be put an end to?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Yes, but the right hon. Gentleman must not do so by making a speech at Question Time.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I apologise for attempting to make a speech on the subject, but the difficulty always is to know exactly how to put it. I think my last question was a question to the right hon. Gentleman, and I ask him to answer it.
    Mr. BALDWIN: I have not the least objection. It is obvious, I think, from what passed the other day that in that particular instance an error was committed—I admit it quite frankly—and it ought to have said "His Majesty's Government." There is no doubt at all about that, but I am not aware of its being the practice with regard to the issue of circulars, beyond what I have heard in the question to-day, of which I have no knowledge.

    MOTOR DRIVING TESTS (EXAMINERS).
    Mr. TINKERasked the Minister of Transport what number of the 263 examiners chosen for motor tests came from Lancashire; and can he say if other appointments will be made?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The appointments of driving examiners have been made solely on merit and not on the basis of allotting a proportion of posts to candidates from particular localities. The information which the hon. Member desires could only be obtained by a special examination of the particulars submitted by all the persons appointed. I am not in a position to say at present whether an increase in the number of 263 will be required.
    Mr. TINKER: Is the hon. Gentleman a ware that there is a feeling of unrest about the appointments and that it would clear up the matter if he would issue a statement showing where they have been chosen from? I am not doubting that it has been done properly, but many people who have put in for this job complain that they have never had an interview, and they do not know who has been appointed.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I will certainly give my hon. Friend any information that he may desire.
    Mr. LEWIS JONES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there were 33,752 candidates in the country?
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Minister of Transport how many of the 34,000 applicants for the 263 posts as examiners were unemployed when making their applications?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The application form contained the usual question as to present or last employment, but the answers did not indicate in every case whether an applicant was in employment at the time of application. It would now be impracticable to obtain the information.
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Minister of Transport whether previous driving experience or holding of a driving licence in a British Dominion or Colony will enable future applicants for a motor driving licence to obtain such licence without passing the new official driving test?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It is proposed that an applicant for a licence shall not be required to pass a driving test if he satisfies the licensing authority that he is not resident in Great Britain and holds a valid international driving permit or a driving licence issued to him by the competent authority of the country in which he resides.
    Mr. SIMMONDS: Will this apply where there are not driving tests in the country concerned?
    Viscountess ASTOR: Will the hon. Gentleman add a temperance test in issuing licences?

    ACCIDENTS.
    Mr. R. J. RUSSELLasked the Minister of Transport whether he will circulate for the information of Members of the House a list of road casualties where death has resulted, and the verdict given by coroners in each case, during the years 1933 and 1934?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The report on fatal road accidents in 1933 issued by my Department contains an analysis of all fatal road accidents in that year, and of the causes to which they were attributed, based on returns made by the police authorities after the inquests. Returns on similar lines are being compiled for the current year.

    TRAFFIC SIGNS.
    Captain STRICKLANDasked the Minister of Transport (1) whether he will consider the issue of instructions to all responsible authorities that all traffic notices and signs shall be displayed at a height from the ground not exceeding six feet, in order to render them more readily visible to motorists and road users generally;
    (2) whether he will encourage, so far as lies in his power, the general reduction to reasonable eye level of all signposts, particularly at cross-roads, and the display on them of road names in as large a type as is convenient?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Highway authorities have been instructed to have regard to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Traffic Signs. The form and dimensions of traffic signs are governed by regulations, which also follow generally the recommendations of this committee, except that on certain

    379
    signs place-names are allowed to be of somewhat larger dimensions than those which the committee recommended.
    Mr. McKEAG: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of having signposts erected at a greater distance from cross-roads in order to obviate what is at present fatal hesitation and bewilderment at the actual cross-roads?
    Mr. WILMOT: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that this matter assumes primary importance in view of the impending introduction of the 30 miles an hour speed limit in certain areas?

    BUILT-UP AREAS (SPEED LIMIT).
    Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASSasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that many of the local authorities will be unable, on or before the 18th March, to erect the traffic signs required by Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, to indicate the beginning and the end of a length of road subject to the 30 miles an hour limit; and whether, in view of these circumstances, he, will delay the introduction of the speed limit until such time as the necessary signs are erected?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have caused inquiry to be made of local authorities and am assured that they are in a position to erect by the 18th March the signs necessary to denote the limits of operation of the speed limit. Even if there should be locally any temporary difficulties, I am sure that no one would wish to exploit them.
    Sir W. BRASS: Is my hon. Friend aware that, as a result of inquiries from the Royal Automobile Clubs all over the country, I have ascertained that practically none of these signs have been put up, and will he give an undertaking, if I can prove to him that that is the case, not to bring in the speed limit on the 18th?
    Mr. SIMMONDSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in order to maintain the present good relations between the police and the motoring public, he will give instructions that the offence of exceeding the new speed regulations should not lead to prosecution where the excess is but two or three miles per hour and is unaccompanied by specifically dangerous driving?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): No, Sir. It is the duty of the police to enforce the law as enacted by Parliament, and I have no authority to instruct the police to refrain from prosecuting in the cases mentioned. Ample warning is being given of the procedure which will be followed by the police, and I hope that the motoring public, by their general observance of the intentions of Parliament, will render unnecessary any frequent recourse to proceedings on the part of the police.
    Mr. SIMMONDS: Before proceeding with the deplorably provocative policy announced yesterday by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to secure an amicable co-operation with the motoring public, and thereby obtain greater results?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I cannot agree that the policy of the Commissioner is provocative; I have no reason to suppose that it is so. I hope that the general motoring public will arrive at a contrary decision, and that they will help by cooperating with the police.
    Mr. GROVES: Will the speed limit apply to the police as well as to the public?
    Mr. G. NICHOLSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the independent evidence of two stopwatches will be necessary before a conviction for exceeding the speed limit is made?

    STREET OBSTRUCTION (STATIONARY VEHICLES).
    Mr. BURNETTasked the Home Secretary whether he will, in order to restore Old Quebec Street and Bryanston Street as public highways for driving and foot traffic, request the police to direct vehicles calling at the hotels, flats, and stores fronting to Oxford Street to use Oxford Street daily after 10 a.m. as standing space or, alternatively, to notify the owners of the hotels, flats, and stores in Oxford Street that they must provide their own garage space for customers and tradesmen, in order to abate the nuisance caused by depriving the general public of their rights to the public highway?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me

    381
    that the police have instructions not to allow vehicles to stand in the streets referred to in such manner as to render passage impracticable. The suggestion that waiting vehicles should be directed to Oxford Street would not only involve an infringement of the regulations made by my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, which prohibit waiting in Oxford Street between 12 noon and 7 p.m., but would make conditions in the neighbourhood worse and might even result in a complete stoppage of the traffic in Oxford Street itself. As regards the alternative suggestion made by my hon. Friend, there is no power to require frontagers be provide garage accommodation, but it is most desirable that drivers should make full use of existing garages and, in this particular neighbourhood, there is garage accommodation close at hand.

  ST. JAMES'S PARK.
  Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the First Commissioner of Works the reason for the unsightly iron pipes which have for many years projected above the stone balustrade at the western end of the ornamental water in St. James's Park between Buckingham Palace and Wellington Barracks; and whether they can now be removed?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The pipes were part of a proposed lighting scheme in connection with the Queen Victoria memorial. Alternative lighting arrangements were eventually decided upon, and the pipes are not now necessary. I am obliged to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to this, and I am giving instructions for the projecting parts to be removed.

  EDUCATION.

    MILK SUPPLY SCHEME.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education how many authorities in England and Wales are not yet supplying milk in schools, and which are they?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): According to the latest information in the possession of the Board 130 local education authorities
    382
    out of 316 in England and Wales do not themselves at present make provision for the supply of milk to children in public elementary schools under Sections 82–84 of the Education Act, 1921. Twenty-one of these authorities have submitted proposals for the provision of milk which have either been approved or are under consideration. In addition to the supply of milk under those Sections, voluntary schemes for the provision of milk on payment are in operation in some of the schools in nearly all areas, but I am afraid that it is not at the moment possible to say definitely in which areas, if any, no milk is being supplied in the schools. I am having the matter examined and I am asking for returns from the schools showing the position at the end of March.
    Mr. DAVIES: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether it is the policy of the Board to see that all children in all schools are supplied with milk, and, if that be so, is it possible for the Board to take the initiative and see that that policy is implemented; is it also possible for the hon. Gentleman to find out whether the voluntary organisations are adequate for supplying milk in schools?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: In Circular 1437 issued by the Board last September local authorities were specifically asked to encourage milk schemes. As regards voluntary organisations, there has been an immense increase. A year ago about 900,000 children were getting milk under voluntary schemes, and to-day the figure is well over 2,000,000, and I hope it will approach 3,000,000.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is it not a fact that many school children are prevented from getting milk because of the Medical Officers of Health and their fads about pasteurisation?
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman pay particular attention to rural areas where children are not securing milk largely because the milk is being transferred from their areas to industrial areas?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I will look into that.
    Major COLFOX: Is not one of the chief reasons why children in rural areas are not able to get milk that the medical officers insist on pasteurised milk, which is not available in rural districts?
    Viscountess ASTOR: Will the hon. Gentleman advertise what a wonderful thing the Government have done in bringing milk to thousands of children throughout the country?

    CONTINUATION CLASSES.
    Miss CAZALETasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education how many employers have established compulsory continuation classes for their juvenile employés?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: Five firms conduct day continuation classes for their juvenile employés which are recognised and aided by the Board, and, of these, four make attendance a definite requirement. In addition, certain local education authorities provide classes for the employés of particular firms, who may be required by their employers to attend, and it is known that some firms conduct classes for their employés though the Board's recognition of these classes has not been sought.
    Miss CAZALET: Are continuation classes on the increase on the whole?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I am not sure; I had better have notice of that question.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Is there any chance of the Government making them compulsory?

  ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE.

    STAFF (PAY AND PENSIONS).
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Attorney-General when it is intended to restore the cuts imposed on the uniformed staff in the Royal Courts of Justice and upon the ushers attached to the High Court of Justice and the Courts of Appeal; whether he will consider an up ward revision of the scales of pay of these men in view of the present low rates of remuneration; and whether steps will be taken to provide an adequate pension for these servants of the State?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I am advised that the uniformed staff and ushers in the Royal Courts of Justice will be treated in the same way as other public servants in the matter of the restoration of the emergency cuts. There is no reason for considering a special upward revision of pay in their case having regard to the fact
    384
    that their scales of pay are based on the rates generally applicable to analogous grades employed in the public service. As regards the last part of the question, the attendant staff in the Royal Courts of Justice is organised in three grades, of which the two higher are pensionable in accordance with the terms of the Superannuation Acts, the members of the lower grade being eligible for promotion to the higher grades. I am informed that there are no grounds for modifying these arrangements which are in conformity with those in force in the case of messenger and attendant staffs generally in the public service.

    SHORTHAND WRITERS.
    Mr. LOFTUSasked the Attorney-General if any decision has yet been taken as to the appointment of official shorthand writers for the King's Bench Division; and, if so, whether the scheme will be limited to the King's Bench Division or extended to the Chancery Division and the Court of Appeal and the Official Referee's Court?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor informs me that he is not yet in a position to make any statement on the subject of the proposals to which my hon. Friend refers.

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL (PRINCES' CRITICISMS).
  Sir W. DAVISONasked the Secretary of State for India whether he can now inform the House as to the nature of the fundamental objections expressed by the Princes of India against certain of the provisions of the Government of India Bill; and whether he has been in formed of the protest made by the Princes against the Bill being proceeded with without waiting for the Princes' criticism thereon?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): I hope to issue in the course of the next few days a White Paper giving the text of the criticisms of the Bill communicated by the Princes and their Ministers to the Viceroy and the comments of His Majesty's Government on these criticisms.
  Sir W. DAVISON: Can my right hon. Friend state whether the reports which

  385
  have appeared in the Press of the speeches of the Princes are not substantially correct?
  Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir. I am not responsible for the proceedings of confidential meetings at which I have no locus standi.
  Mr. G. NICHOLSON: Does my right hon. Friend contemplate an early Debate on this new White Paper?
  Sir S. HOARE: No, I do not.

  SCOTLAND.

    INFECTIOUS DISEASES, BRECHIN (ACCOMMODATION).
    Mr. LEONARDasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the petition of the in habitants of Brechin protesting at the lack of suitable accommodation for cases of scarlet fever and diphtheria; and if he can state what arrangements are being made by the Angus County Council to meet the needs and convenience of this part of the country?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): Letters on the subject have been received by the Department of Health. The matter is under active consideration by the county council, and the department have already arranged to send a medical officer and an architect to consult with local officials as to the extent and location of any additional accommodation required.

    HOUSING, DUNDEE.
    Miss HORSBRUGHasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the programme of house building for slum clearance is being retarded in Dundee owing to a shortage of bricklayers; and what steps he pro poses to take to ensure the building of the necessary number of houses in a reasonable time?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I regret to say that there is a shortage of bricklayers in Dundee. The Department of Health have for some time been taking all possible steps in conjunction with the local authority officials, the Ministry of Labour and the Bricklayers' Union with
    386
    a view to securing additional men. Meanwhile the contractor for one of the building schemes has promised to arrange for the transfer to Dundee of men from other schemes which he is completing within the next few weeks.
    Mr. WEST: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this shortage could be made up by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill)?

    FISHERY CRUISERS.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any decision has yet been made as to the number of new fishery cruisers that will be built for patrolling the Scottish fishery areas; and, if so, whether he can' give any particulars as to tonnage, speed and where they are to be built?
    Sir G. COLLINS: The intention is to build three more cruisers. An order for the large cruiser will be placed next week and it will be built in a Scottish shipyard. Fifteen tenders were invited. Its length is 130 feet and its gross tonnage about 280. It is anticipated that tenders for the small cruiser will be invited this month. In the case of the cruiser of intermediate size great difficulties have been experienced in securing the necessary speed and this matter is still under review.
    Mr. MACLEAN: With regard to the cruiser of intermediate speed, where there is some difficulty in regard to the speed, will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that before deciding upon the vessel the same mistake is not made as was made in the case of the "Rona," which was sunk only the other week?
    Sir G. COLLINS: In view of former experience, we are taking infinite trouble on this occasion to secure a proper design.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: May I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Socialist party are now asking for an increase in armaments against British trawlers?
    Sir G. COLLINS: These vessels are for more peaceful purposes.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: But are they not actually armed?
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the chartered drifter which was recently lost in Burgha Skerry is going to be replaced?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I should require notice of that question.
    Captain BALFOUR: Are the tenders for the new craft to be confined to Scottish shipyards, or will they be open to English shipyards?
    Sir G. COLLINS: They will be open to competition and the lowest tender will receive the order.
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the unsatisfactory fishery cruiser "Rona" was towed to and sunk in the Minch; and whether it is intended to finish the 60-year-old "Vigilant" in the same manner and, if so, when?
    Sir G. COLLINS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The "Vigilant" will be replaced by the large cruiser which is being ordered as mentioned in my previous reply. The necessary steps will then be taken to secure the best possible price for the "Vigilant."
    Mr. MACLEAN: Considering that the Government are offering a large sum of money to other owners of ships for a scrap-and-build policy, why do the Fishery Board entertain the hope that they will get a price for a vessel which was second-hand when they bought it and is now 60 years of age?
    Sir G. COLLINS: We expect to get the best possible price for anything we have to offer for sale.

    PRISON OFFICER'S CLAIM, PERTH.
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that a claim for £16 by an officer at Perth Prison for lodging allowance and damage to furniture, during the alterations to his quarters, has been entirely refused; that the officer was refused permission to call in the local medical officer of health to see the conditions under which he was living, namely in a three-roomed house with a family of five, and structural alterations taking place in each room; is he satisfied that this officer has been fairly treated; and
    388
    could the Prisons Department provide alternative accommodation during the alterations?
    Sir G. COLLINS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part no such application was received by the Prisons Department and in any event it would appear to be unnecessary as there is a medical officer resident in the prison. There was no alternative accommodation available for the occupants of quarters undergoing structural improvements; and while I regret the unavoidable inconvenience occasioned, I am satisfied that the circumstances do not justify treating this officer exceptionally in respect of compensation.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Surely an officer who has to go outside and pay for additional lodgings while his own place, which belongs to the Government, is being repaired, ought not to be called upon to bear the expense of the alternative accommodation which he has to find?
    Sir G. COLLINS: My information is that this officer chose to leave his accommodation, which was being repaired, and went elsewhere. I agree that if he had stayed in his old accommodation he would have been inconvenienced, but I fail to see that it was necessary for him to go while these structural alterations were being undertaken.
    Mr. MACLEAN: If the alterations were of such a nature as to cause inconvenience both to the officer and his family to such an extent that they could not reside there, surely the Department ought to find the necessary alternative accommodation for him, or at least pay the amount that he had to pay to secure alternative accommodation?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I cannot agree that the accommodation was completely unsuitable. It was certainly inconvenient, but not sufficiently inconvenient as to justify the State in paying him this money.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I shall put down another question on this matter.

    GREENOCK PROVIDENT BANK.
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Greenock Provident

    389
    Bank have an accumulating number of balances which have been dormant for a number of years, in some cases over 100 years; and whether he will take legislative powers to call upon banks, local authorities, corporations, and companies with whom the public invest to make returns of unclaimed moneys standing to the credit of persons whose whereabouts have been unknown for a period of at least seven years?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): I have no information on the subject mentioned in the first part of the question. The answer to the second part is in the negative.

    PERTH PRISON (CRIMINAL LUNATIC DEPARTMENT).
    Miss HORSBRUGH (for Lord SCONE)asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when legislation will be introduced to enable accommodation to be provided for criminal lunatics in substitution for the criminal lunatic department in Perth prison?
    Sir G. COLLINS: A Bill to authorise the building of a new Criminal Lunatic Asylum will be introduced in another place to-morrow and it is hoped that it will become law this Session. When the necessary powers are obtained the asylum will be built on land near Carstairs.
    Miss HORSBRUGH: Will the State institution for defectives also be replaced?
    Sir G. COLLINS: Yes, the institution for the defectives will be erected on the same land.

  RIVER POLLUTION.
  Captain CUNNINGHAM-REIDasked the Lord President of the Council whether the Water Pollution Research Board of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has now discovered a remedy for river pollution by milk and cheese factories; and whether he will make a statement?
  Mr. BALDWIN: Laboratory experiments have been carried out for the Water Pollution Research Board during the past two years at the Rothamsted Experimental Station into problems of effluents from dairies and milk products factories. They have indicated promising
  390
  methods of preventing river pollution by these waste effluents. Arrangements have now been made, with the financial co-operation of the milk industry, to carry these laboratory experiments to the commercial scale. These large scale experiments will be put in hand as rapidly as possible. It is hoped that they will supply the remedy mentioned in the question.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    POLAND (TARIFF REDUCTIONS).
    Mr. MALLALIEUasked the President of the Board of Trade how the revised duties on 200 articles exported from the United Kingdom to Poland under the recently concluded trade agreement with that country compare with the duties on the same class of articles in operation in 1930?
    Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The trade agreement provides for the reduction of 340 rates of duty in the Polish tariff. Of these reductions, about 60 per cent. are to levels below those in force at the end of 1930.
    Mr. MALLALIEU: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman state whether this agreement is more favourable or less favourable than the other agreements made by His Majesty's Government?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: That is a comparison which I hardly think I ought to be asked to draw. Undoubtedly it is a very favourable agreement.
    Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONE: Could the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether the 60 per cent. represents 60 per cent. of the bulk or 60 per cent. of the number of articles?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The question on the Paper related to articles, and I have answered it on the basis of articles.
    Mr. JOHNSTONE: Could not a supplementary reply be given indicating value or bulk?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Such a question could not possibly be answered without notice.

    TRADE AGREEMENTS.
    Mr. MALLALIEUasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that imports into the United Kingdom from countries with which trade

    391
    agreements have been concluded have been 50 per cent. more than the exports from the United Kingdom to these countries; and, seeing that the essential feature of these agreements was the regulation of the balance of payments, whether he will say what other steps he proposes to take to attain that declared purpose?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I am aware that our imports from the countries with which we have concluded trade agreements still exceed to a considerable extent our exports to those countries. I would, however, point out that our trade with these countries is, as a result of the agreements, developing in a very satisfactory manner in many respects and that imports from them consist to a considerable extent of raw materials and articles mainly unmanufactured. My right hon. Friend does not consider that at the present time further steps on new lines are called for in connection with the agreements.

    GRANITE.
    Mr. BURNETTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state the amount and value of the imports of manufactured granite for the last available six months and for the corresponding six months of the previous year?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The total imports of manufactured granite into this country amounted to 48,132 tons, valued at £214,961, during the six months ended January, 1935, and to 40,313 tons, valued at £185,153, during the six months ended January, 1934.

    KERBSTONES.
    Mr. BURNETTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state the amount and value of the imports of kerbstones from Mysore for the last available 12 months and for the corresponding 12 months of the previous year?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Separate particulars of the imports in the United Kingdom of kerbstones from Mysore are not available, but I am having a statement prepared showing particulars of the imports of granite setts and pavement curbs consigned from British India as a whole, which I will send to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

    EMPIRE TRADE.
    Mr. LOFTUSasked the President of the Board of Trade the net favourable or unfavourable balance of trade for the latest year for which figures are readily available between the United Kingdom and Australia, Canada and New Zealand, respectively, after allowing for receipt of interest and dividends and the issue of new loans, apart from conversion loans?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: In the absence of reliable information regarding the invisible items, I regret that I am unable to furnish my hon. Friend with this information.
    Mr. LOFTUS: Are not these figures absolutely necessary as a foundation for a discussion of inter-Imperial trade, and will the hon. and gallant Gentleman therefore make efforts to obtain them.
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend says.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (SCARLET FEVER, DENHAM).
  Mr. THORNEasked the Minister of Health whether he has received a report from his inspector in connection with the scarlet fever outbreak at Den- ham, Bucks; if he can state the number of children affected; whether adjacent schools have been closed on account of the epidemic; and what action is being taken to prevent the outbreak spreading?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): My right hon. Friend has not yet received a final report on the cause and extent of the outbreak from his medical officer, but he is advised that the steps taken should check any spread. If the hon. Member will put down a further question next week, my right hon. Friend hopes to be in a position to give him full information.
  Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: Is there any danger of this outbreak of scarlet fever in South Bucks spreading to West Ham?

  SHOPS ACTS (SEATS FOR ASSISTANTS).
  Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Home Secretary why there is no apparent compliance with the requirements of the

  393
  legislation directing that seats should be provided for young women assistants employed in the large London stores; how many inspectors are employed on the enforcement of the legislation; whether he will circulate information as to the number of prosecutions under the Act, the number of convictions, and the penalties imposed; and whether inspectors are or will be instructed not to go round the shops on their inspection in the company of the manager or other representative of the shopkeeper?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: The administration of the Shops Acts rests not with me but with the local authorities. I have, however, made inquiry of the authorities responsible in London, and I am informed that there is no evidence of any general failure to provide seats for female shop assistants. I am informed also that there are 20 full time and eight part time shops inspectors in London, and that two prosecutions were taken during 1934 in that area for failure to provide seats, convictions being obtained in each case and fines of £1 and 10s. respectively imposed. As regards the last part of the question, I am bringing the hon. Member's suggestion to the notice of the local authorities concerned.
  Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it is not only a problem of providing seats for female assistants but opportunities for them to sit upon them.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman also realise that a fine is absolutely inadequate, and will he please see that the inspectors do not let the shopkeepers know that they are going round before they inspect? Otherwise, it is quite useless.

  JUVENILE OFFENDERS.
  Mr. LOVAT-FRASERasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the report of Colonel Allan, inspector of constabulary in the western division, to the effect that more liberal use of the birch-rod would be beneficial to juvenile offenders; and whether, in view of the policy of the Home Office, which is opposed to birching as useless, he will take steps to counteract the effect of this part of Colonel Allan's report?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: The inspector's advice appears to me to be intended for parents and therefore has no bearing on the work of the juvenile courts in dealing with offenders against the law.

  CRANE ACCIDENT, EMSWORTH.
  Mr. THORNEasked the Home Secretary whether he has received a report from his factory inspector in connection with the crane accident at Emsworth, Hants, when one man was killed and another had his hand amputated by the machinery operating the crane; whether the crane was carrying more than its registered load; and on what date was the machinery last examined?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I will have inquiry made and communicate with the hon. Member in due course.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    SPECIAL AREAS (SCHEMES).
    Mr. MARTINasked the Minister of Labour (1) what procedure has to be followed by the commissioner for special areas in considering schemes put forward by local authorities; and what is the extent of the control exercised by the Government over the Special Areas Fund;
    (2) how many schemes calculated to find work have been started with the assistance of the commissioner for the special areas in England and Wales;
    (3) how much money has actually been spent out of the Special Areas Fund in the special area of Durham County and Tyneside?
    Mr. R. T. EVANSasked the Minister of Labour what schemes have been approved by the commissioner for special areas in Wales and Monmouthshire; the total cost of such schemes; the aggregate of grants to be made from the Special Areas Fund; and the sources from which the remainder of the cost is to be met?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): In the Debate on 4th March, my right hon. Friend indicated briefly the action which the Commissioner for Special Areas in England and

    395
    Wales is taking, and mentioned some of the schemes which he has decided to assist. There is at present nothing that I can add to this statement.
    Mr. MARTIN: Can the hon. Gentleman say when he is likely to have any further information to give the House on this matter?
    Mr. HUDSON: The Commissioner has issued a circular to the local authorities and to the Press, and I have no doubt that he will continue that practice.
    Mr. MARTIN: Is there no method of finding out about any particular district at any particular time?
    Mr. HUDSON: If the hon. Member will put down a question in due course, I shall be able to give him further particulars.
    Mr. H. JOHNSTONE: Will the Minister consider the propriety of issuing a report from time to time from his Department on the activities of the Commissioner either to this House, to the Press, or somewhere else in order that Members and the public may know precisely what the Commissioner is doing?
    Mr. HUDSON: I will consider that matter.
    Captain HEILGERS: Has the Commissioner made any recommendation for the erection of beet-sugar factories in depressed areas?

    UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE.
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to state what will be the approximate date of the second appointed day in connection with the work of the Unemployment Assistance Board?
    Mr. HUDSON: No, Sir.

    BRITISH GUIANA (ELECTIONS).
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what report he has received from the acting Governor of British Guiana on corruption in recent elections in the colony; and what action he proposes to take thereon?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have received a despatch from the acting Governor of British Guiana in which he reports that the Colonial Government is considering certain recommendations made by the judges of the supreme court arising out of the trial of recent election petitions in regard to the working of the law and regulations on the subject. I am asking that the Governor's recommendations thereon should be furnished as soon as possible.
    Mr. ROBINSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the recent elections an unseated candidate was immediately re-elected, and will he press for an extension of the principles of the Corrupt Practices Act to British Guiana?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would like to see what the judges have said and what the Governor's recommendations are. I think it is certainly worth bearing in mind that one penalty of corrupt practices well worthy of consideration is that the unseated member should not have the right to stand again at once.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings in Committee on the Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) Bill and on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Herring Industry Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Baldwin.]
The House divided: Ayes, 248; Noes, 48.

Division No. 96.]

AYES.

[3.38 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

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

Bernays, Robert

Burnett, John George

Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

Blindell, James

Butler, Richard Austen

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

Bossom, A. C.

Cadogan, Hon. Edward

Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

Boulton, W. W.

Caine, G. R. Hall-

Apsley, Lord

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

Assheton, Ralph

Bower, Commander Robert Tatton

Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Brass, Captain Sir William

Gazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

Balniel, Lord

Broadbent, Colonel John

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

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh. S.)

Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

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

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Belt, Sir Alfred L.

Browne, Captain A. C.

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Colfox, Major William Philip

Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

Rathhone, Eleanor

Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

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

Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

Colman, N. C. D.

Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Reid, David D. (County Down)

Conant, R. J. E.

Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

Cook, Thomas A.

Ker, J. Campbell

Reid, William Allan (Derby)

Cooke, Douglas

Kerr, Hamilton W.

Rickards, George William

Cooper, A. Duff

Kimball, Lawrence

Robinson, John Roland

Courtauld, Major John Sewell

Kirkpatrick, William M.

Ropner, Colonel L.

Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

Knight, Holford

Ross, Ronald D.

Cranborne, Viscount

Knox, Sir Alfred

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward

Crooks, J. Smedley

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

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

Law, Sir Alfred

Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

Cross, R. H.

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

Culverwell, Cyril Tom

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

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

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Salmon, Sir Isidore

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

Lewis, Oswald

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Davison, Sir William Henry

Liddall, Walter S.

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

Denville, Alfred

Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)

Savery, Samuel Servington

Donner, P. W.

Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Duckworth, George A. V.

Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

Loder, Captain J. de Vere

Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

Duggan, Hubert John

Loftus, Pierce C.

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

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

Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)

Eady, George H.

Mabane, William

Somerset, Thomas

Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony

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

Somervell, Sir Donald

Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

MaeAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

McCorquodale, M. S.

Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

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

Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

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

McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

Spencer, Captain Richard A.

Everard, W. Lindsay

McKeag, William

Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

McKie, John Hamilton

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Fremantle, Sir Francis

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Stevenson, James

Fuller, Captain A. G.

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian

Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)

Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

Stones, James

Ganzoni, Sir John

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

Storey, Samuel

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

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

Stourton, Hon. John J.

Glossop, C. W. H.

Marsden, Commander Arthur

Strauss, Edward A.

Gluckstein, Louis Halle

Martin, Thomas B.

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Goff, Sir Park

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

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

Graves, Marjorie

Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

Sutcliffe, Harold

Greene, William P. C.

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Tate, Mavis Constance

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)

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

Grimston, R. V.

Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

Thompson, Sir Luke

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

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

Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

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

Touche, Gordon Cosmo

Hanbury, Cecil

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

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Hartland, George A.

Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)

Munro, Patrick

Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

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

Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

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

Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S

Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Watt, Major George Steven H.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

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

Wayland, Sir William A.

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Orr Ewing, I. L.

Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Patrick, Colin M.

Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

Hornby, Frank

Pearson, William G.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Horsbrugh, Florence

Peat, Charles U.

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

Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

Percy, Lord Eustace

Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

Petherick, M.

Womersley, Sir Walter

Hume, Sir George Hopwood

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

Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Worthington, Dr. John V.

Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

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

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

Ramsbotham, Herwald

Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir

Ramsden, Sir Eugene

George Penny.

NOES.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

Kirkwood, David

Attlee, Clement Richard

Gardner, Benjamin Walter

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Banfield, John William

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

Leonard, William

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

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

Logan, David Gilbert

Buchanan, George

Grundy, Thomas W.

Lunn, William

Cape, Thomas

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Cleary, J. J.

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

McEntee, Valentine L.

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Harris, Sir Percy

McGovern, John

Daggar, George

Holdsworth, Herbert

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Davits, David L. (Pontypridd)

Jenkins, Sir William

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

Maxton, James

Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

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

Parkinson, John Allen

398

399

Rea, Walter Russell

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

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

West, F. R.

Wilmot, John

Smith, Tom (Normanton)

White, Henry Graham

Thorne, William James

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Tinker, John Joseph

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Mr. Paling and Mr. Groves.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.
  Considered in Committee [NINTH DAY—Progress, 12th March],
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.

    CLAUSE 38.—(Rules of procedure.)
    The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper:
    In page 25, line 7, leave out paragraph (c).—[Colonel Wedgwood.]
    In line 19, leave out paragraph (i).—[Mr. Cocks.]
    In line 23, leave out paragraph (ii).—[Colonel Wedgwood.]
    The CHAIRMAN: Before I call upon the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) to move his first Amendment, may I suggest to the Committee that it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks), and also the other Amendment following in the name of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman? I think we might take one discussion on these three Amendments, and the Questions can be put separately if need be.
    3.48 p.m.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in page 25, line 7, to leave out paragraph (c).
    I certainly think that it would be much simpler to discuss all these questions on this Amendment. Of course, the questions raised are slightly different. We are discussing what shall be discussed in the Federal Legislature, and paragraph (c) prohibits the discussion and the asking of questions on any subject which affects the Indian States. Whether it is discussion or the asking of questions that is prohibited seems to be immaterial, though a stronger case can be made out for prohibiting discussion than for prohibiting the asking of questions. The paragraph goes on to say lower down:
    "unless the Governor-General in his discretion is satisfied that the matter affects Federal interests or affects a British subject."
    We were hoping to add there "or British Indian subject." The point in each case is exactly the same, and it crops up again in paragraph (d, i), which refers
    406
    to the discussion of any matter affecting relations between the Governor-General and a native Prince. In all these cases the question is whether the Indian Assembly, which represents in a way, however curiously, the whole of India, is to be allowed to criticise or to ask questions about anything which occurs in the Indian States? The Indian States are represented in that assembly, over-represented according to their numbers, and yet that assembly is handicapped by not being allowed to raise any question of ill-treatment of any Indian in the Indian States. The Committee realise that in these Indian States you have absolute rule by the rulers. In half a dozen cases they have some sort of representative institutions with no responsibility and no power, but in the vast majority you have the direct autocratic rule of the Princes, with complete control over the lives, property and liberty of all their subjects, control even greater than was that of the German Princes over their subjects in the eighteenth century. Hitherto, if there has been any gross abuse of their power or any gross insult to humanity, it has been possible for the Governor-General to intervene and to change the crowned head, or, by means of the Resident in that State, to humanise practice and put an end to the worst abuses. The worst trouble comes from the inhabitants of the State being unable to pay rent to their Princes for feudal lands. Troubles will be cropping up almost daily in some of these native States.
    If this paragraph goes through it will be impossible in the Indian Assembly to raise any question about what is going on. It will be impossible to discuss the rent strike, or the putting down of the rent strike, or the gaoling of any person in that State, or, as I read it, the imprisonment or deprivation of a British Indian subject who may have been in the State or may have property in it. There are many cases—I will not go into them; There is the case of the agitators Mohammed Ali and Shankat, of subjects of Indian States having their property taken away by the India rajah. That was political, but in most of these cases it is not political, but a case of "so and so is unduly rich, let us get some of his money back by various means." Is there to be no redress before the Federal Assembly for natives in the territories

    407
    who are treated unjustly, for the British Indian who may be trading with that State, and no redress in fact for even a British subject in the State unless the Governor-General sanctions the inquiry or discussion?
    It seems to me that we are sacrificing too much in order to get the Princes into this Federation. This is a concession to them. The people who object to questions being asked in the Assembly about the treatment of the native States are the Indian Princes themselves, obviously. We are washing our hands like Pilate of anything that may happen inside those native States. There will still be the control by the Governor-General as in the past, but the Assembly itself must not raise the matter. We can raise the subject here in Parliament, but in the Assembly they cannot. It is true that it was not possible in the old Assembly to raise these issues, and that in the Assembly which is now sitting no such question can be raised or answered, but in the new Assembly, where the States are represented, it would be the very negation of the idea of self-government to exclude from the purview of the Assembly representing that Federation every possibility of remedying injustice in the native States, while in British India itself not only can any British Indian raise a question and criticise the administration but every representative of the Princes in the Federation can likewise criticise the conduct of affairs in British India. Anything so one-sided was never conceived before, but it is one of the further sacrifices we have to make, and I ask the Committee before they sanction this Clause to realise what a price of liberty England and India are paying in order to bring the Princes into a Federation which no one wants, not even the Princes.
    3.56 p.m.
    Mr. COCKS: Is it desired that each point should be raised separately and that the Secretary of State for India should reply to each point, or should there be a general discussion on all these Amendments, allowing the Secretary of State to wind-up at the end?
    The CHAIRMAN: I think that the most convenient course would be to have the three Amendments discussed together. They all deal with what questions may or may not be discussed and
    408
    possibly they may have a bearing on one another, and, if the Government and the Committee agree, it would probably be convenient to have the whole discussion on them, and then I could put the questions separately, if desired.
    Mr. COCKS: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name—
    The CHAIRMAN: No, the hon. Member misunderstands me. There is now before us the Amendment moved by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman which I have put to the Committee, and on that Amendment it will be possible to discuss the subject matter of the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks), and also the subject of the other Amendment of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. I will ask the hon. Member for Broxtowe later on to move his Amendment formally.
    Mr. COCKS: I understand. I wish to raise the point which is embodied in the Amendment which I shall subsequently move. We attach considerable importance to the Amendment, and I will state the reasons. It will be remembered that we have already decided that foreign affairs should be a reserved subject and should be in charge of a counsellor, and under Clause 21 a counsellor has the right to attend the meetings of either Chamber and to take part in the discussions but not to vote. I would point out that such a legislature is not a weak and irresponsible assembly, but, as the Under-Secretary used the phrase last night, it is to be a strong central body. It is to consist of the principalities and powers of India. There will sit there the representatives of the Princes, and from British India, the great bankers, the great industrialists, the great lawyers, and the great landlords—all with a stake in the country. It will be an extremely conservative assembly. A Parliament consisting of the squires of England in the eighteenth century would, by comparison, be a Bolshevist assembly.
    Therefore, as I say, there is no danger of irresponsible discussions taking place. It seems to me that a body representing India should have the right to discuss the relations of India with other Powers of the world, and in particular Asiatic Powers. As I have put before this Committee previously, and as everybody

    409
    knows, there is the prospect of a great menace in India in another Power seeking to assume the leadership of the East against the West. Surely our idea is that India in future should present a barrier against a force of that description and that there should arise in India a strong national feeling to be able to say, in the words of the famous French Marshal, "They shall not pass." That feeling of nationality should be developed, and it is right that they should be allowed reasonable discussion as to the relations of their country with such a nation, for example, as Japan. It is absurd that these people, who will be greatly affected by any troubles in the future, should be gagged, and that that particular discussion should be barred, so that they will have no chance of educating themselves or getting information from the counsellor on such points.
    Then look at the position of the counsellor. There is to be a counsellor in charge of these external questions. He is allowed to go into and speak in the Chamber on any subject—on child marriage, temple entry, land legislation and finance. He can speak on any subject about which he knows nothing, or may know nothing, but the very subject on which he is an expert, foreign relations, he is not allowed to say a word without the consent of the Governor-General in his discretion, which means without the consent of the Secretary of State for India. He can butt in on every possible topic, but on the very subject in which he is a specialist he is not allowed to say anything. It may be said that awkward questions might be asked. They are sometimes asked in this Chamber, but Ministers are very skilful in evading awkward questions, and I have no doubt that in India there will be a counterpart of our able, efficient Foreign Secretary in evading awkward issues. It is always open to the counsellor to say, "The answer to that question is against the public interest." As I say, there are many questions which ought to be asked, and many discussions which should arise dealing with the relationship of India with other Asiatic Powers and countries and influences which, it is very desirable, they should be allowed to discuss. I would appeal to the Secretary of State in this matter. I said something about it yesterday, when I asked him to listen
    410
    sometimes to the voice of reason on this side of the Committee. I sometimes think that when he feels inclined to yield the Secretary of State suddenly pulls himself together and says to himself, "Dan-ton—no weakness." If he thinks of doing that this afternoon, I would remind him that those words of Danton were spoken on the way to the guillotine.
    4.5 p.m.
    Miss RATHBONE: I would like to ask the Secretary of State why we do not find in the Bill that method of dealing with the particular difficulty raised by the amendment which was suggested in the report of the Joint Select Committee? It is rather the other side of the problem, and I do not know whether I shall be in order in raising it, but the Joint Select Committee suggested that there should be a committee similar to that which relates to Scotland in this House, and consists of all the Members representing Scottish constituencies with 10 or 15 other Members, and that any matter referring only to British India should be referred to that committee, so that the Princes should not be allowed to take part in a discussion upon it. We find no provision of that sort in the Bill as presented to us. The result of the present arrangement is surely very curious and anomalous. I do not want to repeat the arguments used by previous speakers, but take this instance. Let us suppose that there is an insurrection in a native State, and it is necessary to send British Indian troops, paid for by British Indian taxpayers, to uphold the ruler if his subjects do not appreciate the benefits of his rule. Yet the representatives of British India in the Legislature will not be allowed so much as to ask a question relating to the origin of the disaffection in that State.
    That, surely, is a curious case of a Federal Assembly which follows at once the principle of representation without taxation and taxation without representation. The Princes can take part in questions of taxation upon British India, although they will not have to pay part of that taxation, but where taxation falls upon British India in helping the paramount power to interfere with affairs in a native State, then the representatives of British India have no power of criticising the expenditure for which they are taxed. It is surely a very curious anomaly and, so far as one side of it is

    411
    concerned—the ability of the representatives of Indian States to interfere in British Indian affairs—one would have supposed it might be met by the very proposal to which the Joint Select Committee gave its approval in their report, namely, to refer matters affecting British India solely to a special committee. I think that this whole question is as good an instance as we could have of the anomaly created by the Government dealing with a country 6,000 miles away.
    Suppose such a situation arose in this country, and it was suggested that troops should be sent from Scotland to put down an insurrection in a part of this country, and we were not allowed in the British House of Commons even to ask a question about it or discuss it. Think of the outcry that would arise from all sides of the House, and not least from the Liberal benches. All the canons of democratic government would be at once appealed to. Yet because many Members of the House are sincerely and genuinely desirous to promote this Bill, and to put nothing in its way, because they believe it is a step towards self-government for India, we have heard hardly a word about it, and the Liberal Members appear to give their hearty support to the proposal as it stands in the Bill. I suggest that it is very gravely unsatisfactory that those subjects of the Indian States who are in a sense subjects of Great Britain have no right to appeal to the paramount power although—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Lady has been so unfortunate on previous occasions that I have been very unwilling to interrupt her, but perhaps I may call her attention to the fact that the Amendment to which her remarks appear to be addressed, namely, to leave out paragraph (c) is one which prohibits
    "the discussion of, or the asking of questions on, any matter connected with any Indian State … unless the Governor-General in his discretion is satisfied that the matter affects Federal interests or affects a British subject."
    I just mention that because I must endeavour to keep the discussion a little more narrowly in order than, I am afraid, I have done.
    Miss RATHBONE: I will not deal with the subject any further. I have said all I wish to say, and I am sorry if I have transgressed the Rules of Order,
    412
    but it is very difficult to observe them in these matters where there are so many Clauses in the Bill which, so to speak, are interdependent. With regard to paragraph (c), to which you have called my attention, might it not be that the Governor-General would hardly hold that a matter affected federal interests if it merely affected subjects of Indian States, and British India—
    The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Lady not to discuss anything which has to do with the relations between an Indian Prince and his subjects. That does not come in here at all.
    Miss RATHBONE: I beg your pardon, Sir Dennis. I thought that as the Amendment was to leave out the words
    "prohibiting the discussion of, or the asking of questions on, any matter connected with any Indian State "
    questions about subjects of the Indian States might be such a matter; but, of course, I obey your Ruling, and will say no more, though I think the Committee must all feel the curious anomaly that does arise when, to use the vivid phrase of the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), the Princes are allowed to sprawl over the whole Legislature as it affects British India, and representatives of British India may not, in return, so much as ask a question about what is going on in a State although what is going on there may involve them in additional expenditure in order that they may intervene in the affairs of the State.
    4.14 p.m.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: The remarks of the hon. Lady, I think, were not very closely related, because she chose the example of federal troops—to use a convenient description—being used to restore order in Indian States, which might involve the Federation in certain additional expenditure, and clearly would affect Federal interests. It seems to me a case where the Governor-General in his discretion would be compelled to permit discussion as to why the troops were used for that purpose. It seems a most unfortunate example to select.
    Miss RATHBONE: I think it is a very important point to clear up, and I wish the Secretary of State would give us his verdict, because the other day we were told that intervention in affairs of the Indian States was purely a matter

    413
    between the paramount power and the States, and did not affect the Federal Government at all, and it came out yesterday that it did affect—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Lady is again taking the opportunity of dealing with the one thing which I most definitely ruled out of order.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I was dealing with the specific case raised by the hon. Lady where federal troops went into a State to restore order. Clearly there you get a case which affects British India, and, therefore, comes within the qualification contained in the second half of paragraph (c). It is difficult to visualise the Governor-General in those circumstances, when something might come along which might later on affect the budget, saying to them: "You must not discuss it." The point which the hon. Member has raised is satisfactorily covered by the discretion as it stands. What disturbs me is that the right hon. Gentleman opposite should move this Amendment at all. It seems to me that his occupation in writing the history of parliamentarians has led him to forget some of the principles of Parliamentary procedure. Our principle here is very clearly established. We cannot interrogate Ministers on matters with which they are not concerned. It would clearly be out of order to hand in a question to the Secretary of State for the Dominions asking why the Canadian Government has done something or another to a particular Canadian subject of His Majesty, a person not in any way domiciled in this country.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I agree that that would be impossible, but this is a question of the use of British troops in a State in order to prevent some trouble there. Surely, the person to whom a question on that subject should be addressed would be the Minister for War.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I am afraid that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was not present when I endeavoured to explain that point, arising out of the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone). If you use troops, then a British federal interest is affected, and there the Governor-General in his discretion could
    414
    give permission for that to be a subject of interrogation, and that I should think any sensible Governor-General would do. Therefore, the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, like the point raised by the hon. Lady, is not a pertinent one. You cannot address questions to a Minister in respect of something for which he is not responsible to the Assembly, and for which the Assembly is not responsible. That is fundamental. Mr. Speaker frequently calls us to order if even in a supplementary question we address a question to a Minister on something which is outside his purview. It may be true that there are councillors in the Assembly who in another capacity are dealing with these matters. For instance, I understand that the Secretary of State for India is interested in the Lawn Tennis Association, but we could not ask him questions here about that. It is conceivable, if it were permissible under our Constitution that he might hold some other offices of profit under the Crown, but we might be entirely debarred from asking questions about them, unless we altered the Constitution. He might have a great variety of outside interests, paid or unpaid, if our Constitution permitted it, but that would not allow us to ask questions about what I would call outside interests. It seems to me fundamental that we should not be allowed to ask Ministers fishing questions about things for which in the Assembly they have no responsibility and for which the Assembly itself has no responsibility. It would degrade the whole purpose of Parliament if it were allowed to concern itself with things outside its purview.
    4.20 p.m.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): Before we deal with the points raised in the two Amendments, let us disabuse ourselves of certain ideas which have nothing to do with either of them. First of all, let me say that, although I do not resent it, I object to the suggestion of the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) that we, like Pilate, are disinteresting ourselves in the affairs of anybody in India. He will forgive me for saying that that was an unworthy and unjustifiable observation. We are just as interested in the Indian States as he is. We are just as interested in the populations of those States as he

    415
    is, and it is altogether unjustifiable to say that we are behaving like Pilate, and are indifferent to interests that are just as much in our minds and hearts as they are in his.
    In the second place, let us disabuse our minds of the illusion that the Parliament we are discussing is a unitary Parliament, like this Parliament. It is not. It is a federal Parliament. There is all the difference in the world, as I have said more than once in these debates, between a unitary legislature dealing with the whole field of government and a federal legislature dealing with a definitely delimited field of duties. The answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that law and order neither so far as British India is concerned nor so far as the India of the States is concerned is a federal subject. It is a provincial subject so far as British India is concerned and it is a State subject so far as the India of the Indian States is concerned. That being so, there can be no justification whatever for questions such as he suggests being put in the Federal Assembly. It would be outside the purview of the Federal Assembly. It would, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) said, be outside the responsibility of any federal Minister. There can, therefore, be no justification for accepting an Amendment of this kind.
    There is, as the Committee is aware, a proviso that the Governor-General can allow a discussion when the discussion is within the orbit of the federal field, and when he thinks that it does not go outside that federal field, and I am certain that the Governor-General would allow a discussion of that kind. For instance, such cases as have been mentioned, cases of the treatment of a British Indian citizen in the States, that is the kind of question that undoubtedly would be discussed. Further than that there would be no justification, quite apart from the question whether the Indian States are better or worse administered than the British-India Provinces. Let me say once again that these general condemnations of the Indian States are quite unjustified. The fact that the polity of the Indian States is different from the polity of the British-Indian Provinces in no way implies that it is worse on that account.
    416
    Some of the States are admirably administered. Outside the cases I have mentioned there would be no justification upon the lines of this Bill—which is the only wise line for a federal constitution—for the kind of interference in the affairs of the Indian States that the right hon. Gentleman suggests in his Amendment.
    Let me come to the second proposition, that concerned with the discussion of foreign affairs. Foreign affairs are reserved to the Governor-General. Being reserved, it is essential if the reserved powers are not to be compromised that the Governor-General should have full powers as to their discussion and as to the kind of questions that can be discussed. In actual practice there is and always has been in the system of the Government of India a safeguard of this kind, in which a discussion of foreign affairs only takes place with the previous sanction of the Governor-General. In actual practice that has been found to be a salutary safeguard. It has been found that in the orbit of the activities of the Assembly where discussion has been safe and legitimate such discussions have been allowed. In the case of a federal constitution, in which quite definitely foreign affairs becomes a reserved department, there is a necessity for a safeguard of this kind. Here again I cannot conceive any sensible Governor-General shutting down discussion where the discussion is not going to compromise important Indian and Imperial interests, but I do think that if the Governor-General is to have real responsibility in the reserved department of foreign affairs he must have a safeguarding power of this kind.
    That is the one argument and the overwhelming argument against the acceptance of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks). Having said that, I am not in the least suggesting that there would be an unbridgeable gulf between the two sides of the Government. I am contemplating a Federal Government in which both sides, those responsible for the reserved departments and those responsible for the transferred departments, are going to work in active and constant co-operation. Therefore, the kind of case suggested by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Broxtowe is most unlikely to arise. None the less if it does arise, I think that quite definitely

    417
    the Governor-General ought to have these powers. I regret that once again I have to say "no" to the hon. Member for Broxtowe. I say it with great regret, but in a case of this kind it is essential, because it is an essential part of the scheme. Without a power of this kind the Governor-General's responsibility might be seriously compromised.
    4.28 p.m.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman is not going to show what has been described as weakness but that he is going to stand by his guns. I am sorry that he has given the answer that he has. We have taken this line consistently not only here but in the Joint Select Committee. We consider that the people of British India should have a much larger share in discussing foreign affairs, the foreign relations of India with other countries than is left to them under the operation of this Clause. As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman lays great stress upon the hope—I trust the hope will be well-founded—that no Governor-General will be unreasonable in the exercise of these powers. We can all join in that expression of hope, but we must re-member that all men are not of the same calibre. Some are more timorous than others, and it might well be that one Governor-General might be a sort of person who in order quite honestly to avoid trouble might think that the easiest way was to prevent any discussion arising. He might say: "If I allow this thing to be discussed in the Assembly there will be no end of a row, and the best way to avoid that is by preventing discussion." That might seem for the moment to be a source of strength, but in the end it might be a source of weakness. We have been hoping that some day, and we hope soon, the people of India will necessarily be given full power and be free to discuss foreign affairs with the same degree of freedom as Canada, Australia, South Africa or any of the other Dominions. Surely it is not a bad thing to allow them to have a discussion and to become familiarised with questions of foreign affairs. That would be all to the good. There is nothing like the school of experience for developing sureness of touch. The next point to which I desire
    418
    to refer is concerned with Sub-sections (2) and (3).
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot refer to sub-paragraph (3). The Amendments now before the Committee are to leave out paragraph (c), and to leave out paragraphs (d, i) and (d, ii).
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I did not hear you refer to paragraph (d, ii). The second Amendment is to insert the words "British Indian" and I thought the third Amendment was to leave out paragraph (i).
    The CHAIRMAN: The thing is quite clear, and I am sorry that the right hon. and gallant Member is under any misapprehension. The three Amendments in question are; first, Clause 38, page 25, line 7, to leave out paragraph (c); second, Clause 38, page 25, line 19, to leave out paragraph (i); and, third, Clause 38, page 25, line 23, to leave out paragraph (ii).
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: I desire to refer to paragraph (ii), the exclusion of discussion on reserved areas. It is agreed that under this proposal the Governor-General will be formally in charge of these excluded areas, but what happens in these areas must indirectly be of interest to other parts of India. The observations I have made in relation to foreign affairs apply also to excluded areas. It may be that an excluded area may become fit for absorption into a province, or may be created into a new province, and surely it is worth while that they should get to know what is happening in these areas so that when they become responsible for them they may have a clear knowledge as to the condition of affairs. I want to urge with ever increasing strength that these limitations constantly placed upon the activities of the Indian people are not only disappointing but may tend to embitter feelings in relation to the measure of self-government which is presented to them by this Bill. I am sorry that the Government are adhering to these proposals and give us no hope of any relenting in the smallest degree.
    4.34 p.m.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State is not knowingly handing over the natives in the native areas to a worse

    419
    fate than that which they enjoy at the present time. There is no doubt that the question of the treatment of native States remains as exactly as it was. Is that so?
    Sir S. HOARE: It is to a certain extent, but not altogether so from another point of view. The position is different from this angle, namely, that the Indian States will have conceded certain powers to the Federal Executive and Legislature. To that extent there will be a change.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: That is to the good.
    Sir S. HOARE: I will not express an opinion one way or the other, but to that extent there is a change. As far as paramountcy is concerned, except in so far as concession of powers to the Federation is concerned, paramountcy will remain as it is now. It will therefore be just as possible in the future for the paramount power to intervene in the case of some gross abuse as it is to-day.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I do not intend to press the Amendment, but I should like to get from the Secretary of State a further guarantee about the definition of British subjects. He has said that it will still be possible to secure justice for a British Indian subject, for a native, who has been treated unjustly, that he will still have the same rights as he has now. Any injury to a national of British India is reserved. If he refers to a previous speech, he will find that he distinctly said that injury to a British
    Indian subject in the Native States could be inquired into provided the Governor-General approved. Do the words "British subject" in this Clause mean a British Indian subject or only an Englishman?
    Sir S. HOARE: It means both.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: In that case, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    4.39 p.m.
    Mr. COCKS: I beg to move, in page 25, line 19, to leave out paragraph (i).
    I regret that the Amendment has not been accepted. I cannot see why if the sphere of action in foreign affairs is reserved a discussion on foreign affairs should also be reserved. It would be a salutory thing if discussion could take place, and I hope that the Governor-General will use his discretion in this matter fairly freely. I want to ask one question. I hope that this Clause does not cover the question of commercial treaties which are conducted through the foreign department. I hope that a discussion on commercial treaties will be allowed.
    Sir S. HOARE: It will certainly not hamper those discussions.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 256; Noes, 39.

    Division No. 97.]

    AYES.

    [4.40 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

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

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Cook, Thomas A.

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

    Bullock, Captain Malcolm

    Cooke, Douglas

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Cooper, A. Duff

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

    Burnett, John George

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Butler, Richard Austen

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

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

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Apsley, Lord

    Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

    Critchley, Brig-General A. C.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Carver, Major William H.

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

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Castlereagh, Vitcount

    Cross, R. H.

    Belt, Sir Alfred L.

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Crossley, A. C.

    Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

    Gazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

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

    Bernays, Robert

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

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

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

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

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Bossom, A. C.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Denville, Alfred

    Bower, Commander Robert Tatton

    Christle, James Archibald

    Donner, P. W.

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Duggan, Hubert John

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Colfox, Major William Philip

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

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

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

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Lewis, Oswald

    Rickards, George William

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

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

    Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Mabane, William

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

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

    Salt, Edward W.

    Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

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

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

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

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

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

    Goff, Sir Park

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Gower, Sir Robert

    McKeag, William

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Graves, Marjorie

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Greene, William P. C.

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Smith Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)

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

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

    Smithers, Sir Waldron

    Grimston, R. V.

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

    Somerset, Thomas

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Somerville. Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Hanbury, Cecil

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

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)

    Meller, Sir Richard James

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)

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

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Stevenson, James

    Heneage, Lieut. Colonel Arthur p.

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

    Stones, James

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Menmouth)

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

    Storey, Samuel

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

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

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Hornby, Frank

    Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Munro, Patrick

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

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

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

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

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

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

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Owen. Major Goronwy

    Thompson, Sir Luke

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

    Patrick. Colin M

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Pearson, William G.

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Peat, Charles U.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Penny, Sir George

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Petherick, M.

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Watt, Major George Steven H.

    Kimball, Lawrence

    Pybus, Sir John

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Kirkpatrick, William M.

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

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

    Knox, Sir Alfred

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

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon. S.)

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Womersley, Sir Walter

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

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Raid, William Allan (Derby)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Renwick, Major Gustav A.

    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward

    and Mr. Blindell.

    NOES.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Banfield, John William

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Rathbone, Eleanor

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

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Buchanan, George

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Cape, Thomas

    Kirkwood, David

    Thorne, William James

    Cleary, J. J.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Leonard, William

    West, F. R.

    Daggar, George

    Logan. David Gilbert

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    McGovern, John

    Wilmot, John

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Maxton, James

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

    Milner, Major James

    Mr. Groves and Mr. Paling.

    Amendment made: In page 25, line 20, leave out "affecting" and insert "connected with."—[Sir S. Hoare.]
    4.50 p.m.
    Sir S. HOARE: I beg to move, in page 25, line 25, after "on," to insert:

    423
    "any matter connected with the tribal areas or."
    This is to bring the tribal areas within the field of subjects in which the safeguard in connection with discussion is necessary. I do not think I need argue the case for including the tribal areas. Obviously if there is to be a safeguard of this kind covering the field of foreign affairs, owing to the risks inherent in irresponsible discussions, that argument is of greater weight on the very inflamable subject of the tribal areas.
    Amendment agreed to.
    4.51 p.m.
    Sir REGINALD CRADDOCK: I beg to move, in page 25, line 30, to leave out "Province" and to insert:
    "Governor's Province or Chief Commissioner's Province."
    This Amendment is necessary in our judgment because by virtue of Clause 46 (3) "Province" in this Clause would appear to mean only a Governor's Province. On the other hand under the provisions of Part IV of the Bill many of the functions of the Governor-General in regard to a Chief Commissioner's Province are to be exercised in his discretion. It would seem more logical, therefore, to prohibit discussion in respect to the exercise of these particular functions. Inasmuch as that is the case in the Governor's Province it should be so in respect of similar matters in the Chief Commissioner's Province.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): I am afraid that if we were to add the words "Chief Commissioner's Province" to this Subsection the object of the Sub-section would not be achieved. The object of the words in the Bill is to check the Federal Legislature from discussing questions of internal administrations, in the affairs of a Governor's Province. When the Governor-General intercedes in his discretion and takes any action in a Province it will be very dangerous to allow the Federal Legislature to pursue discussions on the internal affairs of that Province, put outside the purview of the Federal Legislature. Under Clause 84, which we shall be discussing later, it is possible for a Provincial Legislature to pursue a discussion upon questions of this sort involved by the action of the Governor acting as the agent of the
    424
    Governor-General in his discretion, within the Province itself.
    In the same way there is no wish to check completely discussion in this realm in regard to a Chief Commissioner's Province, but these Provinces come under the Federal Government. Since there is no wish completely to ban discussion in either case it would be wrong to insert the words of the Amendment here, because that would deprive the Sub-section of most of its meaning and check any sort of discussion of these matters, which is not the object of the Bill before us. It is a somewhat complicated question, but the effect of the Amendment would be to make it more confused than it is now.
    Sir R. CRADDOCK: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    4.54 p.m.
    Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: I beg to move, in page 25, line 30, at the end, to insert:
    "(iv) discussion of any matters relating to the defence of India or the administration of the Army."
    If it be necessary in paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) of Sub-section (1) to provide safeguards, those safeguards should be provided on the most vital matter of all in this Bill, the Army. A most undesirable and probably dangerous publicity might be given otherwise to the movements of troops and fortifications, and the Governor-General might be gravely embarrassed in the exercise of his duty under Clause 11. There should be no question of tampering in any way with the freedom of the Governor-General in moving the British Army as he likes. The loyalty of the British Indian Army depends entirely on the prestige of the British Army. Provided that you have a strong Viceroy and a good, loyal Army, whatever Constitution you give to India would work fairly well, but it is absolutely vital that the safeguard in this case should not only be a safeguard on paper in the Bill. It is quite apparent what will be the attitude of the Legislative Assembly to the spending of money on Army administration of any sort. It is necessary only to read to-days news in the "Times," where it is stated:
    "By 79 votes to 48 the Indian Legislative Assembly to-day carried a motion to refuse supplies for the Army Department by reducing the estimate to one rupee."

    425
    That, of course, has happened before, and it will continue to happen. It may be that even when the Indians become responsible legislators, they will still do the same thing, because they will know that the Viceroy will certify it. We must remember that the safety of the whole population, Indian and British, depends on the Army. Secret mobilisation plans, not in the hands of the Governor-General but very often in the hands of Indian heads of departments, information about posts, telegraphs, transport, railways and munitions, might all be given away. That would be a most undesirable thing. You have only to read the speech of the Commander-in-Chief last July to see for what the Army is used. Forty thousand of the Army were used to keep peace among a few gentlemen who were always fighting among themselves. The services of the Army are absolutely vital. Without it India would be back in the position that the Joint Select Committee so well described: that it was in when the strong hand of the Moghul Emperors was withdrawn, a state of chaos and anarchy.
    Therefore, it is absolutely vital that the British Army should be free and unhampered in every way, and that secret orders and communications regarding mobilisation, both internally and externally, should be able, if necessary, to be barred in discussion. In this country under these conditions a Minister says that it is not in the public interest to give the information. All I want is that the Viceroy should be able to give power to his Ministers to answer in that way. Section 108 puts defence and ecclesiastical affairs as subjects for which Bills cannot be introduced in the Assembly if the Viceroy disapproves. That is not enough. It is all very well for ecclesiastical affairs, but the Army depends on administration and cannot move unless it has all sorts of services at its disposal. Unless the plans for defence are carefully made beforehand it will be impossible for them to be effective. I only want to ensure that the Viceroy will have the power, if necessary, to bar discussion. There must be no risk of any loss of efficiency. The Viceroy should have the power to stop the discussion of any methods involving public safety.
    5.2 p.m.
    Brigadier- General Sir ALFRED KNOX: I cannot help thinking it is an oversight that the question of Army affairs has been omitted. Surely if the discussion of any foreign affairs is prohibited Army affairs are still more important. My hon. Friend who moved this Amendment pointed out that in a certain newspaper there is a telegram from Delhi that says that in the discussion yesterday of Army affairs it was carried by 78 votes to 49 that the whole Army Estimates should be reduced to 1 rupee. That was passed in an Assembly which included at present, owing to the past common sense of the House of Commons, over 40 officials and nominated members. You are opposing to set up a federal Assembly consisting of 375 members, with not a single nominated official. You can judge of the value of discussions in the present Assembly; how much less value will they have in the new Assembly. I hope that the Secretary of State will agree to this Amendment. He has not in a single case given way to any one of our Amendments, though he showed a softening of the heart to the official Opposition last night. I cannot help thinking it is a deliberate oversight to have left out the Army in drafting this Clause.
    5.4 p.m.
    Sir S. HOARE: I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown) when he says that it is essential that the administration of the Army should be free and unhampered. So long as it is a reserved department the Governor-General's responsibility should be clear and his powers complete. I agree entirely with that view, and I hold that under the provisions of the Bill we have safeguarded the position. The money for the Army is not voted. The Governor-General has full responsibility for the administration of the Army. Moreover, he has full powers to intervene in any other department if he finds that directly or indirectly his responsibility for the Army is being compromised. So far as I can see, the position is watertight. The question raised by this Amendment is not the question to which I have just made this passing allusion but the smaller issue: should there be any check upon debates on Army affairs in the Federal Legislature? Let the Committee, keeping

    427
    in mind the general position, namely, that the responsibility and powers of the Governor-General are complete, devote themselves to this issue and this issue alone: is it wise or is it not wise to check the debate of our Indian affairs in the Federal Legislature?
    In answering that question, let the Committee remember the fact I stated the other night, that all Indians both in British India and in Indian India are intensely interested in Army affairs. They provide practically the whole sum of money for Indian defence, and it has been the settled policy of the present Government and of preceding Governments to give Indians a greater and greater part in the responsibility for the defence of India. Let the Committee, then, remember that fact, first of all, in answering this question about debates. Secondly, let them remember that ever since the Government of India Act opportunities for debate on Army affairs have been freely offered to the Assembly. So far as I am aware, no check has been placed on these debates at all. The fact that the day before yesterday, in a fit of irresponsibility, the Assembly passed a vote against the Indian budget—knowing that its vote made no difference whatever to the Indian budget; knowing, also that in the past it has passed similar votes and that these votes, again, have made no difference to the Indian budget—surely shows that we have in the past allowed full opportunities for debate and that we are now allowing full opportunities for debate. Indeed, past history goes to show that no regrettable results have come about after these debates.
    The present Commander-in-Chief rather welcomes them. The Army as a whole welcomes these debates. It gives them an opportunity of putting their case to the Assembly even though the Assembly may not agree with them, and the Army have not at all taken the view of recent years that it is a mistake to let members in the Indian Assembly, knowing nothing about what is going on in the administration, talk about it. It has been the settled policy of the heads of the Army in India for several years past to bring Indians so far as they can into the field of knowledge of these affairs and to try to obtain their sympathy and support for the Army in India. I am inclined to think that this sympathy and support
    428
    is much more likely to be forthcoming, even if we may from time to time have setbacks, such as we have had, may be, in the last few days, if we do allow these opportunities for discussion and welcome the chance of interesting Indians themselves in their own defence. That has been the settled policy of every Government now since 1919.
    My own view is that it would be unwise to withdraw the powers that now exist, particularly in view of the fact that we are setting up in this Bill a Federal Legislature in which the Indian Princes, if they accede to the Federation, will be taking an effective part. As every Member of the Committee knows, if there be one question more than another that interests Indian India and the representatives of Indian India, it is defence questions. I cannot conceive a Federal Assembly in India in which discussions of this kind should not be allowed. For these reasons, my advice to the Committee is not to abrogate the facilities that have existed without any serious danger since 1919, but to accept the position as it is in the Bill, realising, as I said at the beginning of my speech, that the fact that there are discussions in no way derogates from the clear responsibility of the Governor-General for the reserved department of defence or from his powers to see that this reserved department and his responsibilities are in no way compromised.
    Lord EUSTACE PERCY: Is it not a fact that under (1, a) of this Clause the Governor-General has full power to make rules of procedure limiting the matters for discussion? I assume that is on any other subject in regard to which he has special responsibilities.
    Sir S. HOARE: That is so, so far as I may judge. The fact, however, that we mention certain cases where we contemplate this previous sanction being given does imply that we have these cases in mind and are not contemplating withdrawing from the Federal Assembly facilities that now exist.
    5.12 p.m.
    Mr. KIRKPATRICK: In amplification of what my right hon. Friend said is it not a fact that a very large proportion of the Indian army is recruited from Indian native States—for instance, Garhwal, the Phulkian States and Kashmir? I think that would be a very

    429
    great influence and the Indian Princes would welcome the opportunity of looking after their people. They will be vitally interested in the welfare of their subjects serving in the Indian army.
    Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: If such a question as has been mentioned by my hon. Friend were discussed in the Federal Legislature would it not be inconsistent with a vote we have just given? Paragraph (c) forbids discussion in the Legislature of any matter relating to the States.
    5.13 p.m.
    Mr. AMERY: I only wish to ask one question following the question of my right hon. Friend behind me. It may be very desirable in general terms to continue the present practice as regards army discussions in the Indian Legislature. I quite understand that for that reason that matter has not been included in the Sub-section under (d). At the same time I think we can all realise that there may very well be matters, not at this moment but at certain times, which ought not to be discussed in the Assembly; questions that it would be undesirable to ask. The only question I want to ask is whether there is anything in Paragraph (a) which precludes the Viceroy, if such intervention should be found necessary, from making regulations definitely excluding a matter from discussion.
    Mr. MOLSON: Is the point not covered in Sub-section (2) of Clause 40, which provides that where the Viceroy is going to exercise his responsibility for peace and tranquillity he may give directions that the Bill should not be proceeded with, and discussion not take place?
    5.15 p.m.
    Sir S. HOARE: The position, I think, is really quite safe. The Governor-General under Clause 12 can instruct Ministers not to give information. There is no doubt about that at all. If a private member started an embarrassing discussion, apart from the question of whether the Governor-General could stop it or not, the defence counsellor who, of course, is an official of the Governor-General, could refuse to give any information. He could, as my hon. and gallant Friend suggested, return the answer which is sometimes given here, to the effect that it is not
    430
    in the public interest to give information of the kind for which he is asked. Being solely responsible to the Governor-General nobody can say that he is compelled to give the information. This would not involve the Governor-General's intervention at all, and it is apart from the earlier Sub-section which, I think, could be used in the ultimate resort. I submit therefore that the position is quite safe.
    5.17 p.m.
    Sir H. CROFT: When one looks at the reports of recent debates in the Assembly in India one is bound to regard the future under the new Constitution as very bleak indeed if no words are to be inserted in this Measure to prevent irresponsible debates on the Army. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the Governor-General can instruct Ministers to give no information, but that is not going to stop an endless series of debates and it will not make for the good government of India to have continuous debates on questions of military policy and military movements. Such debates involve great danger. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman in order to protect his own machinery would be anxious to take steps to prevent such discussions on vital military subjects. He pointed out that, in the past, there had been debates on these questions, but there was a very different situation then, because the hand of the Government was still controlling the nation, the British partnership was still complete and whatever irresponsible speeches were made in the Assembly the caravan went marching on. In future there will be a Government supposed to be representative of the people and you may have endless criticism and difficulty. I am only wondering whether the right hon. Gentleman will not even yet reconsider the position and provide at least some safeguard to check perpetual bickering and agitation in regard to these questions which may lead to grave difficulties and dangers in India.
    5.19 p.m.
    Mr. COCKS: The hon. and gallant Member does not seem to realise the nature of the Assembly which is to discuss these matters. There are to be 229 representatives of their Highnesses the Princes. They are not irresponsible.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: They will not be there.
    Mr. COCKS: Then there are to be 156 multi-millionaires of whom we have been told from British India in the Council. There are to be 250 representatives of British India, many of them wealthy men, in the Assembly. Is a body of that sort likely to have irresponsible debates on questions vitally affecting the defence of India—their own defence? Does the hon. and gallant Member suggest that these men of wealth, these representatives of the fighting races in India whose whole power and prestige depends on the proper defence of India are not to be allowed to have a voice in a matter so closely affecting their own interests? They are the people who will rally to the defence of India, and will see to it that those defences shall not be weakened in any way. I am surprised at the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft). He is really insulting the representatives of the Princes. He wants to gag the Princes and to prevent them discussing the defence of India for which their subjects will be very largely responsible. In this matter, I strongly support the Government.
    Amendment negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    5.21 p.m.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: I wish to ask a question on Sub-section (1, d) (iii) which precludes, save with the consent of the Governor-General, any discussion of or question on any action taken in his discretion by the Governor-General in relation to the affairs of a Province. Might it not happen that action taken by the Governor-General in relation to a particular Province would involve a matter of principle affecting not only that Province but other Provinces as well? In such a case are we to understand that this provision would prevent a discussion on that principle being raised in the central Assembly without the consent of the Governor-General? I feel that this paragraph is a little too sweeping. We have already indicated our general attitude on the Clause. We intend to vote against it standing part of the Bill but I would
    432
    first like to have an explanation of the point I have raised.
    5.22 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): I think it is clear that the words in the paragraph about which the hon. Member asks refer to what is contemplated in Sub-section (3) of Clause 125, that is to say a case in which the Governor-General under his powers and in his discretion has issued orders to the Governor of a Province in respect of some matters which have arisen in that Province. I did not understand the hon. Member to suggest that it should be the right of the Federal Assembly to discuss any controversy or any matter concerning the action of the Governor-General in relation to a particular Province. I understood his question to be: Might not such action on some occasion raise a general question of principle? If so, obviously there is nothing in this paragraph to prevent any general question of principle, provided it is within the federal sphere, being discussed but it would have to be raised as a question of principle and not in relation to some action taken concerning the affairs of a Province. I think the hon. Member will agree that it ought not to be possible to raise the question in that form, but as I say if there is a general question of principle involved, obviously it can be raised. In such a discussion it might be in order to make a passing reference—as so often happens in our own proceedings here—to the fact that certain action had been taken, but we adhere to the view that action taken in the Provinces would not be a proper subject matter for discussion in the Federal Assembly.
    5.24 p.m.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: I am obliged to the Solicitor-General for his explanation, but there is yet one point which I would like made clear. Supposing the Governor-General interferes in the affairs of a Province and his action gives rise to a question of first-rate importance as a provincial matter. The Solicitor-General says that it could be raised as a matter of principle, but I submit that under this provision it could only be raised with the consent of the Governor-General who is one of the parties to the action in question. There ought to be opportunity to raise a matter of that sort, which is

    433
    of common interest to all the Provinces even though it directly concerns only one particular Province, without having to obtain the consent of the Governor-General.
    5.25 p.m.
    Sir S. HOARE: I cannot think of any case in which that difficulty would arise. The important point is that we should not allow in the Federal Assembly discussions about affairs which are really provincial affairs. I think we are all agreed as to that. I will look into what the hon. Member has said and see if
    there is anything in his point but I do not think there is.
    Sir H. CROFT: We do not intend to discuss the various questions which have been raised on this Clause, since the Secretary of State has not found himself able to meet us on a single one of our points.
    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 235; Noes, 78.

    Division No. 98.]

    AYES.

    [5.26 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

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

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. p. G.

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Albery, Irving James

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

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

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Mabane, William

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

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

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

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Apsley, Lord

    Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

    McKeag, William

    Belt, Sir Alfred L.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    McKie, John Hamilton

    Bernays, Robert

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

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

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Blindell, James

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Bossom, A. C.

    Goff, Sir Park

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

    Boulton, W. W.

    Gower, Sir Robert

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

    Bower, Commander Robert Tatton

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

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

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Graves, Marjorie

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Brass, Captain Sir William

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

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Grimston, R. V.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Brocklesank, C. E. R.

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

    Milne, Charles

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

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)

    Buchan, John

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Maison, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

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

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Bullock, Captain Malcolm

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

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

    Burnett, John George

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

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

    Butler, Richard Austen

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

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

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)

    Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

    Campbell. Vice-admiral G. (Burnley)

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Munro, Patrick

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

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

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Hornby, Frank

    Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Owen, Major Goronwy

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

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Chamberlain. Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Pearson, William G.

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Peat, Charles U.

    Christle, James Archibald

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Petherick, M.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

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

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

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

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

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Pybus, Sir John

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

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

    Cooke, Douglas

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Ramsay, T B. W. (Western Isles)

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Kirkpatrick, William M.

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

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

    Knight, Holford

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Crossley, A. C.

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

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

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Renwick, Major Gustav A.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Rickards, George William

    Denville, Alfred

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Lewis, Oswald

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Duggan, Hubert John

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward

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

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Eales, John Frederick

    Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

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

    Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)

    Salt, Edward W.

    Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

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

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

    Stevenson, James

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

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

    Stones, James

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Storey, Samuel

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Selley, Harry R.

    Stourton, Hon. John J.

    Watt, Major George Steven H.

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

    Smithers, Sir Waldron

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Womersley, Sir Walter

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Thompson, Sir Luke

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Train, John

    Sir George Penny and Major

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    George Davies.

    Spens, William Patrick

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    NOES.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Alexander, Sir William

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Maxton, James

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    Milner, Major James

    Banfield, John William

    Greene, William P. C.

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

    Bracken, Brendan

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Grentell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Rathbone, Eleanor

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

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Remer, John R.

    Buchanan, George

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

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Cape, Thomas

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Carver, Major William H.

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Somerset, Thomas

    Cleary, J. J.

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

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

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Thorne, William James

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Jones. Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    Kimball, Lawrence

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Kirkwood, David

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    West, F. R.

    Daggar, George

    Lawson, John James

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Leonard, William

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Wilmot, John

    Donner, P. W.

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Mr. Groves and Mr. Paling.

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

    CLAUSE 39.—(English to be used in the Federal Legislature.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    5.35 p.m.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: This Clause only deserves momentary notice, because it is the Clause which prescribes the use of the English language in the Federal Assembly. Indeed, it is not necessary to prescribe it, because it is the only language in which the many different races of India can transact common business, and I think that it is worth public notice that this vehicle of the English language and everything else that is being done through the influence and authority of the British Raj has promoted and built up such unity of India as exists. When we hear the talk which goes on about all India a nation, and India is represented as an identity, it is worth while realising
    436
    how very superficial, artificial, and recent is this veneer of British civilisation and organisation which has been spread over this vast and heterogeneous area. Certainly it would be a pity for us to pass this Clause, with which I am entirely in accord, without noticing the fact that when even the most hostile conspiracies are levelled against this country by different Indian races, the preparations for them have to be conducted in the English language, and surely as our influence and authority diminish, so surely will the hope of any form of Indian unity die.
    5.37 p.m.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to state approximately how many Indians can speak the English language, and whether all these proceedings in the Federal Legislature and the Provincial Assemblies will be translated into the English language?

    437
    If not, will they be translated into the local languages suitable for particular areas, or, what other channels has the hon. Gentleman in mind through which to inform those who will be called upon to elect the lower assemblies and the Federal Assembly?
    5.38 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLER: I am afraid I have not the exact statistics of the number of Indians who speak English, but I dare to say that a very large number transact their daily business in English, and I should like to pay a tribute to the genius of the British race in giving India this opportunity for a unifying language, as was claimed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), as to how the proceedings in the legislatures which are conducted in English shall reach the ears or eyes of the masses, there is the vernacular Press, on which I think we can rely to inform the masses as to what is proceeding in these assemblies.
    I notice that the Noble Lord the Member for Perth (Lord Scone), a colleague and friend of the right hon. Member for Epping, who has always expressed such hopes and wishes on behalf of the masses, had an Amendment down to this Clause which would have omitted the proviso that those who did not understand the English language should be allowed to address the Legislature if necessary in the vernacular. That, I think, would have cut out some of the poorer and more modest representatives of those very masses, and the depressed classes perhaps, or representatives of labour or others who might not have satisfactorily mastered the English language through lack of opportunity. It is strange that such an Amendment should have been placed upon the Paper by the Noble Lord. I do not wish to enter into controversy on this Clause; I only thought fit to draw attention to that point.
    Apart from that, I should like to support what the right hon. Member for Epping has said and to say that it is due to the English language that so much unification has been achieved. It has been a rule in the Legislature that English should be the language. This proviso which is included has been a proviso in
    438
    the present rules of business of the Indian Legislature during the last 12 years of the reforms, and we are merely preserving the situation as it exists at present in India.
    5.40 p.m.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am sorry the Under-Secretary of State went out of his way to criticise my Noble Friend the Member for Perth (Lord Scone). As a matter of fact, there is a great deal to be said for querying the proviso, because the proviso seems to a very large extent to take away the sense of the Clause, and, if worked in a certain manner, it would destroy the sense of the Clause; but it is sufficient, as the question is raised, to state that the matter has worked well on this basis. But why, when my Noble Friend did not move his Amendment in order to expedite business, the Under-Secretary of State should go out of his way, in the hope of making a score at his expense, to occupy several minutes of our time, I am unable to say.
    5.41 p.m.
    Mr. DONNER: As my name is down to the Amendment which has not been moved, I should like to point out that there is some justification for the Amendment, inasmuch as we are dealing with the Central Assembly. I should like to point out to the Under-Secretary of State that there is no similar Amendment with regard to the Provincial Legislatures. It was merely a matter, therefore, of dealing with the Central Assembly, considering the fact that the members of it are elected on an indirect vote.
    5.42 p.m.
    Sir WILLIAM WAYLAND: If we are ever to achieve unity in India, we shall only do it through the universal use of the English language. Therefore, as the Government are professing to try to achieve federal unity, I am very much surprised that they do not accept the Amendment.
    The CHAIRMAN: No Amendment is before the Committee.
    Sir W. WAYLAND: I agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) said with regard to the English language. If the English language only is used in India, what follows? All those who desire to represent their fellow countrymen will learn English. It will compel the majority

    439
    to learn the only language which is in any degree the universal language in India. Therefore, I certainly think it would be a step absolutely in the right direction, towards unity, if the English language only was used in the Federal Assembly.

    CLAUSE 40.—(Restrictions on discussion.)
    5.43 p.m.
    Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: I beg to move, in page 26, line 21, after the second "Court," to insert "or of any district judge."
    This is an Amendment which I most earnestly commend to the Government. The Clause gives protection, probably from pressure through discussion in the Legislature, to the federal judges and the judges of the High Court, and it would seem even more necessary to protect the district judges from such pressure. The Report of the Joint Select Committee recommended that protection should be given to the district judges in the matter of promotion, and it is even more vital that such protection should be given to them as is given to the higher judges. This Bill is admirable in its draftmanship, but it does not go down quite deep enough. It does not go down to the small men or the masses, and this is an example of that defect. We want to protect the smaller people. Imagine the district judge at work in a district possibly tainted by terrorism, performing his dangerous and difficult duties, with the difficulties added to them by political pressure through discussion in the Legislature. Surely it is only humane to deliver him from such pressure. I would ask the Secretary of State to consider this Amendment and to afford to the district judge, whose work is attended with great difficulties and dangers, the same protection that the Clause gives to the federal judges and the judges of the High Court who occupy much safer positions.
    5.46 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: My right hon. Friend is grateful to those who put down this Amendment for drawing his attention to the matter. The Joint Select Committee recommended the continuance of the rule that the judiciary should be safeguarded from
    440
    criticisms in the Federal Legislature. It may be that they had in mind the judges of the Federal Court and the High Court, but there are grounds which the hon. Member has put forward for considering whether that protection should not be extended to the district judges. I ask my hon. Friend not to press the Amendment at this stage as my right hon. Friend desires to discuss the matter with the authorities in India. He thinks that it would be right to make this extension if there are no objections, which he does not for the moment foresee.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: In discussing this matter with the Indian authorities, will the Secretary of State point out that this is the practice in the House of Commons. We cannot discuss the findings of a metropolitan police magistrate, for example, and this Amendment will not make any change in the practice which obtains in this House.
    The SOLICITOR GENERAL: That point has been raised, but on the other hand, unless it is by a substantive Motion, a judge of the High Court cannot be called in question.
    Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE: When the Secretary of State is reconsidering this matter—and there are good grounds for an extension of the protection—will he bear in mind that the words "district judge" do not altogether cover the case?
    5.48 p.m.
    Sir R. CRADDOCK: I think from what my hon. Friend said just now that the necessity of protecting a district judge also applies to a sessions judge, and it is important that the Sub-section should include him as well. The comments on civil cases are less likely to be of such an obnoxious kind as those on criminal cases, especially cases connected with terrorists. Another reason for including these judges in this Clause is that the courts of India have very little protection from what is known in this country as contempt of court. Only the High Courts can take any action, and the other courts are left without much protection. It is, therefore, all the more desirable that, so far as discussions in the Federal Legislature go, they should receive full protection. That would

    441
    indirectly have effect on the kind of comments that are made on them in the Press.
    Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: I thank the Solicitor-General for his assurance, in view of which we can have good hope that this omission will be rectified. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    5.50 p.m.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I beg to move, in page 26, line 23, to leave out Subsection (2).
    We are moving this Amendment in no carping spirit. We are giving a constitution to India on the lines of our own Constitution and, as was remarked by more than one Member in the discussion on the last Amendment, this is what we do at home. We do not criticise the judges in this House except under special conditions. We on these benches take no exception to that, and that is why I say that we are not moving this Amendment in any carping spirit, but in order to do what we can to try and improve the Bill. Under this Sub-section the Governor-General is given the power to stop a Bill if it would affect the discharge of his special responsibility in regard to peace or tranquillity. The kind of case I have in mind is a Bill which might be introduced to allow the untouchables the right to enter a Hindu temple. There is a possibility of a Bill of that description being introduced, and, from what has happened in India before, our reason leads us to believe that certain individuals, orthodox Hindus, would go out and cause a riot as they have done before, in order to give the impression that there is trouble abroad in the land and so make it appear to the Governor-General that he should step in and stop the Bill going before the Assembly.
    We think that is wrong, and we want to prevent that and to allow the Indians to have the same liberty as we enjoy in this House. We claim the right, here, irrespective of how revolutionary we may be, and how antagonistic we may be to orthodox opinion, to bring Bills before this House. It is true that right down the pages of history those Bills have been thrown out. Indeed, men and women who have dared to enunciate the ideas embodied in these Bills have been
    442
    arrested and thrown into prison, but we have seen those individuals liberated and honoured, and the ideas for which they were imprisoned and for which our forefathers were deported to Botany Bay become part and parcel of our Constitution, about which every hon. Member, irrespective of how diehard he may be, is proud to boast. Liberties for which our forefathers had to fight have been put on the Statute Book of this country.
    Another Bill that might be introduced in India and that might cause disaffection is one to prevent child marriage. Hon. Members who take any interest in the affairs of India believe a Bill of that description would be beneficial to the Indian people, but again, because of religious prejudice, there are individuals who would be prepared to go to any length in order to prevent such a Measure coming before the Assembly. As they have done in the past, they would bribe certain individuals to go out and cause a riot or two, and then they would bring pressure to bear on the Governor-General. If Sub-section (2) became law, the Governor-General would be able to step in and prevent such a Bill coming before the Assembly. All our ideas of freedom are wrapped up in this provision, and it foregoes all that our forefathers fought and died for. It is our privilege in this House to be in the position to give these rights to the Indians, and to give to them what our forefathers died for in order that we might enjoy them. The liberties that we enjoy are not ours to surrender, but ours to defend, and we are now privileged to give those same liberties to a people which up to now have been a subject race to us.
    Unless this Sub-section is deleted it will be impossible for any social reform legislation to come before the Legislatures in India. Our forefathers had the same fight as I forecast is possible in India. At the inception of the great and powerful trade union movement in this country those who inaugurated it had to stand all manner of abuse. Employers refused to employ trade unionists, victimised them. Our experience of what was done in this country—with all our boasted tolerance—leads us to foresee that the same thing will be done in India by those who are more powerful than the ordinary peasants. They can cause a strike, they can make it appear that

    443
    the people are in revolt because a certain measure is before the Legislature. We do not want to hand the power contained in this Sub-section to any Governor-General, no matter how good and tolerant he is. It will place him in the position of a dictator. I am sure that not even the Secretary of State himself would desire to put into any man's hands the power which would be given under this Sub-section. We believe that the more generously we treat our Indian brothers at this juncture the better it will be, not only for the Indian people themselves but for us, for the British Empire. Here is an opportunity presenting itself to us to consolidate our position in the East, to make friends with our friends in India. Time and again we have been threatened with war in the East through misunderstanding.
    What could be a better bulwark for the British Empire than to have an India that was "thirled" to us; an India which believed that we were treating them as equals, that we were approaching them through this Bill as men with all our capabilities, as men with a human understanding, as men whom we were going to trust, putting great power in their hands in the belief that with power comes responsibility? We are not going to place the responsibility on a Governor-General. We have always objected to a dictatorship in this country. We do not believe that any one man has a right to have executive authority. It is a long time since we in this country did away with the divine right of Kings, but by this Sub-section we shall place a divine right in the hands of the Governor-General. It has not come from the Almighty, but it has come from almighty Britain. It is we who have now put ourselves in this unique position, in a godlike position, by setting out to place a man called the Governor-General in such a position as he would occupy if he were the Speaker in this House. He will determine whether a Bill is to come before the Legislature, and whether te people may hear the ideas set forth in that Bill propagated or not. I hope the Secretary of State will reconsider this matter and give me as much of a concession to-night as he gave me last night, and then not only the Indians but generations yet unborn in Britain will bless him; because there is more at stake in
    444
    this Sub-section than appears. Those who oppose us most in our efforts to give the Indians what we claim for our selves here—I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and his supporters are not here—
    Sir W. WAYLAND: You have frightened him away.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: No, the right hon. Member for Epping is not frightened of anything in this House, or anywhere else. He and his supporters not only claim, but at this very juncture exercise in no uncertain fashion, the right that we are claiming here for the Indians. They go into by-elections, not caring whether they wreck their party or anything else, or cause disaffection in the country. They have a point of view to put and will put it irrespective of the consequences. I ask them to be big enough—I do not say they are small-minded men, because I know they are not, and I cannot attack their courage, because I know they are courageous—I ask them to be big enough and courageous enough to treat the Indians as they like to be treated themselves. That is all we are asking for in this Amendment, and if the Secretary of State aproaches it from that point of view I am satisfied that he will accede to my request.
    6.12 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: My hon. Friend has moved his Amendment with the eloquence and brevity with which he always delights the House. In the course of his remarks he raised two very wide and general issues. He has very great knowledge, much greater than I have, of the Rules of Order, and I am sure he will agree that it would not be in order on this Amendment to discuss the fact that in an earlier Clause the Committee have imposed on the Governor-General a special responsibility in respect of anything which would be liable to disturb peace and tranquillity. This Amendment raises a very much narrower question, whether, if the Governor-General is satisfied that the discussion of a particular Bill might itself be a menace to peace and tranquillity, he shall have the power, in his discretion, to prevent such a discussion taking place. It would be quite wrong to place on the Governor-General this responsibility and not give him effective

    445
    and proper means for carrying it out. That would put a man in an intolerable position.
    Therefore, it seems to me that the Debate on this Amendment narrows itself very much to this issue: Is the discussion of a Bill in the Assembly a matter which might constitute or cause a menace to peace and tranquillity, because if it is it must be right to give the Governor-General power to prohibit that discussion? There are questions in India affecting religious and social customs which, if raised in a provocative form, might give rise at a particular moment to dangerous explosions of violence, and it is for that reason that the Government advise the Committee to resist this Amendment and to retain the Subsection, which is restricted, as will be seen, to the discussion of a Bill introduced or proposed to be introduced. It does not prevent them from asking questions, or the tabling of a Motion by a private Member.
    This provision has been on the Statute Book for 16 years. It is certainly not our intention that discussion of proper and legitimate proposals for social reform should be impeded in any way. If my hon. Friend looks at paragraph 29 of the Instrument of Instructions he will see underlined there that the intention of the Sub-section is that it is only to be used if the Governor-General is satisfied that the discussion in itself, in obviously very exceptional circumstances, may constitute a menace to peace and tranquillity. My hon. Friend rather suggested that those who oppose some particular social reform may go outside, create a little disturbance in the streets and then go to the Governor-General and say, "Here is a menace to peace and tranquillity." We do not believe that any Governor-General will be hoodwinked by methods such as that. Measures of social reform such as we all have in mind can only be undertaken if public opinion is largely behind them. It is quite unwarranted to suggest that a social reform with public opinion behind it will be impeded in any way by this Sub-section which is intended to deal with very special circumstances and very special cases. We are satisfied that it is only in very special cases that it will be used. No section of the community is more interested in the preservation of peace and tranquillity than those classes
    446
    to which the hon. Member referred in his speech. In the circumstances, we think it would be unwise to accept the Amendment, and we shall resist it.
    6.17 p.m.
    Mr. ATTLEE: The Solicitor-General has not met the point. It is a very common complaint against our rule in India that ever since the Mutiny we have shown timidity in dealing with social evils for fear of raising opposition and disturbance from various kinds of religious or vested interests. It is generally admitted that prior to that event we were far more vigorous in dealing with social evils. A new start is now being made, and we are putting the Governor-General in a position in which he will have to exercise his judgment whether or not to prevent a certain Bill even being introduced. There will be tremendous pressure in the mind of anyone in the Government of India to let sleeping dogs lie and not to interfere, and that pressure will be upon the Governor-General therefore to prevent the introduction of Bills which deal with thorny subjects.
    The Solicitor-General brushed aside too lightly the possibility under this Sub-section of deliberate incitement to violence. He knows that there are a great many disturbances in India, and that they very frequently arise from religious causes. The country is in a period of transition, and there have been difficulties such as those which we had in connection with the Gurdwara dispute among the Sikhs in the Punjab, which led to violence. There are questions concerning the rights of the Untouchables, and there may be disputes between the Maths and the reforming bodies in regard to rights in Hindu temples. Trouble may arise in connection with the depressed classes, and there is the general question of reform, particularly in regard to women. In any case of that kind a Bill may be introduced into the Legislature and there will be opposition. I do not know if hon. Members receive, as I do, the various publications of the orthodox Hindus. They send them round, and we know the conditions that exist. We know the ease with which agitations can be got up in India. This Sub-section is an invitation to all the vested interests in religion to make a noise against any social reform.

    447
    It is not a question of making a noise in the streets and then running to the Governor-General. It is quite possible in a great country like India with an intense religious life to raise this kind of trouble in a pretty serious way, of which the Governor-General would have to take notice. The effect of this Subsection is that the right way to stop a Bill is not by argument or persuasion but by giving trouble in the country, so that the Governor-General will have to interfere. Suppose we had a similar provision in our constitution. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and his friends, instead of coming down to the House and taking part in our discussions, would be raising Cain all over the country. The Subsection is an invitation to disorder. It is quite unnecessary and rather absurd.
    There has been a good deal of agitation on the question of the Sarda Act which deals with child marriage. It is proposed seriously in the Sub-section that such reformers should not be allowed to legislate on the question of child marriage. Are not reformers to be allowed to raise these questions by public meeting, by discussion or by writing? If they are, it follows that you may carry on an agitation for the removal of abuses and cause a good deal of opposition, but the one thing you may not do is to introduce the subject in the concrete form of a Bill in the Legislature. Our whole history of reform has been that ideas are put forward by Bills. Very likely they do not get very far, but the proposals are ventilated. What are the Government going to say to the social reformers—"When you have a certain amount of public opinion behind you you will not be able to test the Legislature, because when the Bill is introduced the Governor-General will say, 'In the exercise of my special responsibilities, and having in view the reports which I have had from various Provinces of agitation, I think it better that this should not be proceeded with'"? You will not stop agitation in that way; you will foment agitation, and you will stop the course of social reform.
    6.23 p.m.
    Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) does
    448
    not appear to have put his case so clearly before the Committee as he usually does on other matters. The very example which he gave is against him, and not for him. He has forgotten that the Sarda Act and similar matters have been opposed and discussed in the legislative assemblies in the past few years, although the very same provision as is now proposed existed in the Constitution. If his argument were correct, it would have been impossible for a measure such as that to have been dealt with. The fact is that Bills have been introduced without any interference from the Governor-General. If I felt that the effect of the Sub-section would be what he has suggested and was put before the Committee by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), I should be strongly in favour of its removal, but I am positive that their view is entirely mistaken. The Sub-section will not prevent the introduction and discussion of such Bills unless and until it is perfectly clear that to do so would raise difficulties in India which would require the interference of the Governor-General for the preservation of peace and tranquillity.
    The hon. Member for Limehouse is mistaken in thinking that the mere introduction and discussion of social legislation is likely immediately to cause such trouble throughout the country as to make interference necessary. Considerable time is required for information about them to penetrate, and the Governor-General will be more anxious than anybody that such things should be introduced and discussed, because they have not been sufficiently dealt with in the past. There is no possible reason why the Governor-General should make use of this Sub-section to stop discussion, unless a situation arose which was likely to become a menace to peace and tranquillity, and in such a situation there is no other action which the Governor-General could take. It would be quite unfair to put the responsibility of doing so upon him and, as the Solicitor-General pointed out, not to give him power to carry it out. The hon. Member is mistaken in thinking that the inclusion of this Sub-section will jeopardise the discussion of social matters, which we are all anxious to see promoted in India.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 272; Noes, 47.

    Division No. 99.]

    AYES.

    [6.29 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    McKie, John Hamilton

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

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. p. G.

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Albery, Irving James

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

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

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

    Easenhigh, Reginald Clare

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

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

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

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Apsley, Lord

    Everard, W. Lindsay

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

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Blalfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Milne, Charles

    Belt, Sir Alfred L.

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)

    Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

    Glliett, Sir George Masterman

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Bernays, Robert

    Glossop, C. W. H.

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

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Goff, Sir Park

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

    Blindell, James

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Munro, Patrick

    Boulton, W. W.

    Greene, William P. C.

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Bower, Commander Robert Tatton

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

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

    Grimston, R. V.

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

    Bracken, Brendan

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

    Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

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

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    Broadbent, Colonel John

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

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Peake, Osbert

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

    Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)

    Pearson, William G.

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Peat, Charles U.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Penny, Sir George

    Bullock, Captain Malcolm

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Burnett, John George

    Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Butler, Richard Austen

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Petherick, M.

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

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

    Potter, John

    Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

    Holdsworth, Herbert

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

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

    Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

    Pybus, Sir John

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Hornby, Frank

    Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Carver, Major William H.

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

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

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

    Remer, John R.

    Christle, James Archibald

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Rickards, George William

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

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

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Clarry, Reginald George

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

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Cooke, Douglas

    Kirkpatrick, William M.

    Salt, Edward W.

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Knight, Holford

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

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Knox, Sir Alfred

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

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

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

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Lees-Jones, John

    Seiley, Harry R.

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

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

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Crossley, A. C.

    Lewis, Oswald

    Shute, Colonel Sir John

    Culverwell, Cyril Tom

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

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

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

    Litter, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

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

    Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)

    Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Loder, Captain J. da Vera

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Denville, Alfred

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Donner, P. W.

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Doran, Edward

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

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Duggan, Hubert John

    McConnell, Sir Joseph

    Spent, William Patrick

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

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Eales, John Frederick

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

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

    Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony

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

    Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Stevenson, James

    Thompson, Sir Luke

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Stones, James

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Storey, Samuel

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

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Stourton, Hon. John J.

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Train, John

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Womersley, Sir Walter

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

    Tate, Mavis Constance

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

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

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Templeton, William P.

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

    Captain Sir George Bowyer and

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Dr. Morris-Jones.

    NOES.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Banfield, John William

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

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

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Buchanan, George-

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)

    Cape, Thomas

    Kirkwood, David

    Thorne, William James

    Cleary, J. J.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Lawson, John James

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Leonard, William

    West, F. R.

    Daggar, George

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Lunn, William

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Wilmot, John

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    McGovern, John

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Maxton, James

    Mr. Paling and Mr. Groves.

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

    Milner, Major James

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

    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    6.37 p.m.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I understand, Captain Bourne, that you are not calling the Amendment which stands in my name and that of the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville)—in page 26, line 28, after the second "the," to insert "treatment of minorities or the,"—and I should like to raise the matter on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." In this Clause we are giving to the Governor-General the power to prevent discussion on certain matters, and I should like to include in those matters—and I desire to point out to the Committee that it is not so included—any matter which is un-English in the sense that it differentiates in any way between the different castes or creeds in the country. Legislation of that kind produces exactly the same result as legislation dealing with child marriage would produce; it produces a more or less fictitious agitation; but it has a far more damaging effect upon the reputation, not only of the Government there, but of British administration generally. Once you get discriminatory legislation introduced into the Indian Assembly, you destroy for all time the idea that all British subjects are equal before the law. The
    452
    one Measure so far that has brought this issue to the front is the question of the differentiation between the various in habitants of the Punjab under the Land Alienation Act. Under that Act land can only be alienated to what are called the agricultural tribes. The agricultural tribes are not agriculturists, but people who belong to certain castes. The Mohammedan landowners—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): I must remind the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that we have already had a pretty long discussion on that point, and it must not be repeated now.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am not aware that we have discussed this question at all yet, though there will be plenty of occasions further on when it will have to be raised. All that I would point out is that it is desirable that, if the Governor-General has the right to prevent the discussion of questions which raise religious and caste prejudice, it is equally desirable that he should prohibit discussions on Bills which will discriminate between one set of British subjects and another on the ground that some belong to one caste and others to another. Discrimination is as vicious as any legislation which can be held to be anti-religious. It is worse in that sense than

    453
    discussion on child marriage—a question which affects every Hindu or Mohammedan very closely—because, while the Conservative forces in the country are against legislation on child marriage and social customs, the Conservative forces in the country are in favour of this discrimination between castes. If the Government have a right to prohibit discussion which might offend the Conservative elements in India, surely they have an equal right to prohibit discussion upon subjects which are equally vicious in principle, but which have the support of the Conservative elements and are opposed by the more enlightened elements in the country. I cannot see why there should not be in this Bill, not merely the prohibition of discussion provided for in Sub-section (2), but the prohibition of the initiation of legislation which will be, in my opinion, far more detrimental to our good name and to the peace and tranquillity and unity of India.
    6.43 p.m.
    Sir S. HOARE: I am sure the Committee will not expect me to cover the very wide field which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has just opened, particularly in view of the fact that the question of discrimination is dealt with at the beginning of Clause 111. Further, the question of the Punjab Land Alienation Act, to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is always referring, also has a Clause to itself—I think Clause 279. Moreover, most of his speech was directed to the special responsibility of the Governor-General to prevent discrimination—a responsibility to which the Committee has already agreed. This Clause has a much more limited ambit. It deals with the judges, and it deals with a contingency which, I suggest to the Committee, stands apart from any other contingency, namely, a grave menace to the stability of India. There is, it seems to me, a justification for preventing the discussion even of a private Member's Bill in face of the unique gravity of a situation of that kind, but I do not think there would be the same justification for preventing the discussion of even a private Member's Bill which was concerned with the very wide field just suggested by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. That being so, I hope we shall not be drawn into a longer and wider discussion. As I have said, the Clause is one of limited ambit,
    454
    and I think it would be a great mistake to extend it.
    Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 42.—(Power of Governor-General to promulgate ordinances during recess of Legislature.)
    6.44 p.m.
    Sir R. CRADDOCK: I beg to move, in page 27, line 39, to leave out Sub-section (3).
    The object of this Amendment is to obtain an elucidation of the effect of Subsection (3), that is to say, to ascertain how far it limits the validity of an ordinance, and whether it is certain that it covers all the ground that may have to be covered. It would be extremely unfortunate if the courts were asked to interpret an ordinance on the ground that it travelled outside the field of the competency of the Legislature. If I may give one example, it might be necessary to declare martial law in the case of a big communal disturbance. In that case, would this cover a declaration of martial law, or would that be said to be outside the competency of the Legislature, or is there any matter which requires the application of Sub-section (3) to limit the power of making an ordinance within the strict application of the powers of the Legislature? There are other Clauses in the Bill where a Governor's Act or ordinance is subject to this condition, namely, that it can be valid only when the ordinance would have been within the competency of the Legislature. It is only with the object of obtaining a reassurance on the point that I have moved the Amendment.
    6.46 p.m.
    Sir S. HOARE: I am not quite sure whether my hon. Friend has appreciated the scope of this Clause, which deals with the ordinances dealt with by the Governor-General upon the advice of his ministers. Clause 43 deals with the ordinances made by the Governor-General in his own discretion. The first kind made by the Governor-General on the advice of his ministers are very much like the emergency orders made by the Government here in time of emergency under what is called the Emergency Powers Act, and which have to receive Parliamentary

    455
    sanction within a given time. The Governor-General's ordinances either within his own competence or his special responsibilities are made in Clause 43. The further question asked by my hon. Friend was in connection with the scope of the ordinances. The ordinances could not be made outside the scope of the Federal powers. I do not know whether I have made that point clear. The Governor-General could not make an ordinance over and above the powers given him within the Federation. There is, however, a Clause—Clause 102—that enables action to be taken in an emergency in the nature of D.O.R.A. legislation here. That gives him a wide field to extend his ordinance even outside the Federal field. The ordinances under Clauses 42 and 43 have to be within the powers given the Federal Legislature and the Federal Executive under this Bill. I do not know whether I have made the point clear to the hon. Member.
    Sir R. CRADDOCK: What about Subsection (3) of Clause 44?
    Sir S. HOARE: That is different.
    Sir R. CRADDOCK: The same kind of condition applies to all these apparently, that they are not valid unless they could have been made by the Legislature.
    Sir S. HOARE: Yes, that is so.
    6.50 p.m.
    Mr. SPENS: This Sub-section and the two following Clauses which contain similar Sub-sections have caused me a very great deal of trouble for two reasons. First of all, with regard to the area in which they are to operate. As regards Clause 42 the scheme seems to be that when the Legislation is not sitting the Governor-General is to have certain powers of legislation within his discretion, and it appears to be quite right and proper that those powers should be confined to what the Federal Legislature itself should be able to do. Under similar Sub-sections which appear in the next two Clauses different considerations arise altogether. In the next two Clauses the Governor-General has to take certain action on his own responsibility or within his own individual judgment. If he exceeds something that the Legislature might do it may result in causing considerable trouble and raising constitutional questions, for the solution of which
    456
    at present there does not seem to be any remedy, as far as I can follow the Bill. If, in fact, the Governor-General's ordinance or Act under these Clauses is void, some sort of civil rights of the individual subject must have arisen, or must arise under them.
    There are no means of bringing any suit against the Governor-General in respect of any void ordinances as the Bill stands at present. It is true that there are powers of sueing the Federal Legislature, but I am very doubtful whether, in respect of something being done under a Governor-General's void ordinance or Act, that right would arise at all. I only raise this question for consideration because difficult questions may arise under similar Sub-sections. Although so far as I can see there is no objection to the Sub-section in this Clause as it appears to be merely a question of the Governor-General's power of temporary legislation when the Federal Legislature is not sitting, similar Sub-sections give rise to questions which will require some further consideration before we pass them.
    6.53 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I am inclined to think that my hon. and learned Friend's apprehensions are unfounded. I can understand the criticism being addressed to the plan embodied in Clauses 42 and 43, but I do not quite understand my hon. and learned Friend's criticisms of the provisions which prevent the Governor-General from exceeding the powers which, if his powers were not brought into play, would be the powers of the Federal Legislature. I gather that my hon. and learned Friend does not object to the provision which is contained in Subsection (3) of Clause 42, but he does object to, or regards with some apprehension, a similar provision in Sub-section (4) of Clause 43. In both cases the ordinary provision exists that the Federal Courts will determine the extent of the powers of the Federal Legislature which will be the measure or the yard-stick of the powers of the Governor-General, his power of making an act or an ordinance, but my hon. and gallant Friend will, of course, be aware of the fact that this sort of question is very familiar to the Dominions. In Canada, as everybody knows, the development of the Dominion

    457
    has been accompanied by a growth of powers arising out of decisions by the Privy Council of precisely the same character in general as the question which would arise to be determined by a Federal Court in relation to the powers of the Federal Legislature and the corresponding competence of the Governor-General.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 43 and 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 45.—(Power of Governor-General to issue Proclamations.)
    6.56 p.m.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 30, line 23, at the end, to insert:
    "(c) shall cease to operate unless within each successive period of six months after it has been approved by resolutions of both Houses of Parliament its continuance is approved by resolutions of both Houses of Parliament."
    I emphasise the word "continuance" in the Amendment, because it is really the pivot upon which the whole of my very short argument is based. Hon. Members will have noticed that we are dealing in this Clause with the powers of the Governor-General to issue Proclamations, and, of course, our own Government are apprehending that there might be a failure in implementing the constitutional machinery which they are now trying to pass into law. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) may take advantage of this Clause because it rather points to the view that the Government are not quite satisfied that the Constitution they are now making will be workable under all conditions in India. There is in the Amendment which I have moved, as I have said, the word "continuance," and unless I am really mistaken, the position, very briefly, is that a Proclamation issued under this Clause must receive the sanction of Resolutions of both Houses of Parliament in this country. The point that we are making is that such a proclamation might almost become permanent without being reviewed afterwards in the Houses of Parliament in this country at any time.
    Whether the words we have put in the Amendment are good or not, we
    458
    are seeking that in the event of a Proclamation being issued, and it has the sanction by Resolution of our Parliament here, it shall not go on indefinitely without the Parliament in Great Britain being able to review the situation. It would be a very grave state of affairs indeed if a Proclamation remained in force simply by a Resolution of Parliament here for a period, say, of three or five years. Whatever our views may be about the new Constitution we are setting up, I suppose that it is fair to say that once it is passed by this Parliament it will be expected to work, but the Government are apprehending that it may not work. Consequently, this fact accounts for what we are attempting to do in the Amendment which I am now propounding. The power of the Governor, by the way, to issue a Proclamation differs from his power to revoke a Proclamation.
    Dealing with this Amendment as it would appear to a plain man, I can foresee a situation arising when it would seem strange that a Proclamation to revoke a Proclamation could be made by the Governor without discussion in the Parliament of this country, although in the first instance we must sanction that Proclamation by Resolution of both Houses of Parliament in this country. The continuance of the Proclamation, however, once we have sanctioned it in this country, might set aside the whole of the machinery of this Bill, giving to the Governor-General power similar to that of Lenin, Hitler or Mussolini. This Parliament should have some power of reviewing, say, at least every six months the situation in India, instead of allowing the Proclamation to go on indefinitely without Parliament ever having the opportunity to review it at all.
    7.3 p.m.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I must say I think there is a great deal of force in the point made by the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State will be able to meet it in some way or other. It is certainly not at all objectionable to those who think with my hon. Friends that the conduct and control of Parliament should be lively and continuous. The object of this proposal is to provide, as it were, for a refresher of the

    459
    authority given by Parliament in an emergency measure. It is not desirable that measures brought in as emergent should gradually become permanent. Parliament should keep permanent supervision. I hope the Secretary of State will find it possible in some way or other to meet this point.
    7.4 p.m.
    Earl WINTERTON: No one could object to the way the Mover and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) have put this point. The Amendment is very narrow, though it deals with a very important subject. This is what is called a breakdown Clause. What the Mover seeks to do is to give Parliament a greater measure of review than is accorded by the Clause. I think both hon. Members have overlooked one important fact. The Clause cannot be brought into operation except by affirmative resolution, whatever Government is in power, whatever is the form or composition of this House, and after a Clause of this nature has been put into operation—though it is true that this House has not taken much interest in the affairs of India—action of that kind would produce a first-class debate. This can only be approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Then there would have to be a second debate; otherwise, the proclamation would cease to operate. I am sorry, I find I am wrong, and I apologise. There is only one debate: I misread the Sub-section. In the course of that debate, however, it is open to any Member of the House to move an Amendment to limit the period of its operation to such time as might be thought desirable. As far as my right hon. Friend is concerned—this may not apply to the Mover—surely a full discussion as to the time the Clause should operate should be sufficient. In particular, it could be sought to limit the period of the operation of the Clause at that time of discussion.
    7.6 p.m.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: One would wish that the Government, which, in the first instance, regularises this exceptional legislation would assume the burden itself of bringing before Parliament after six months a further debate. It is quite different when a private Member is told he can move an Amendment to confine
    460
    its operation to six months. In order to keep this exceptional procedure in being, Parliament ought to have to make a new and spontaneous effort every six months.
    7.7 p.m.
    Mr. AMERY: My right hon. Friend is right in saying that in all probability Parliament in giving these very wide powers ought to set some time limit upon them. At the same time I am rather impressed by the argument of the Mover, that it would be undesirable to leave this Clause in a form which might convey the impression in India at any rate that we may contemplate putting into effect the suspension of the Federal Constitution. I suggest that the Secretary of State might consider whether some wording could not be inserted, indicating that some resolution should set a period upon its operation, or add some other words to this Clause to make it quite clear that the suspension of the Federal Constitution, if put into effect, is not likely to be maintained but would be reviewed from time to time by Parliament.
    7.9 p.m.
    Sir S. HOARE: I have been impressed for some time with the need of amending this Clause. I have taken, generally, the view that has been expressed from all sides of the Committee, that it would be highly objectionable to turn a state of emergency into a permanent system. I dislike as intensely as any other hon. Member any suggestion of turning the Federation into a more or less permanent dictatorship. Further, it is very necessary that Parliament should keep a very close control of the situation. The original proposal of the Government was that there should be this Resolution of both Houses after six months, and that after that, as it has been pointed out, once Parliament has approved by Resolution of the emergency measures, Parliament would cease to have any locus standi in the matter. I think that is wrong. I think I must go into this again and see whether Parliament should not continue to review the situation at fixed periods.
    The position does not end there. I think I have also got to look into the bigger question as to whether a time limit should not be put upon the whole position of the Constitution. I will tell the Committee what I mean. From the

    461
    point of view of British India it would be objectionable to see, even with the periodical approval of Imperial Parliament, this Constitution turned into a permanent dictatorship. From the point of view of the Indian States, it would be highly objectionable, where they have made concessions in the federal field upon the assumption that the Federation was a permanent Constitution, to see the Federation abrogated in a time of emergency and the powers delegated by them for federal purposes used outside the Federal Government by the Governor-General. I think, therefore, from the point of view of the Indian States I have to look into this question again.
    First of all, I have to look into it with a view to Parliament keeping a check on any renewal, and also from the point of view of whether it is wisest to say that after a period of years, say three years—I suggest that as possible—the Constitution should lapse—the whole Constitution, for I cannot conceive myself either British India or the Indian States resting content with what really would be a permanent system in place of Federation; nor can I conceive that the Imperial Parliament here would possibly allow a situation of that kind to continue. I think it may be well to put some such term into the Bill. I will look into this question again from those two points of view. I think I can find means of satisfying both of them. This has been the happiest day in Committee discussions, for I have had agreeing with me at one and the same time the right hon. Gentleman opposite and my right hon. Friend below the Gangway.
    7.14 p.m.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman has thrown out a much larger proposition than that which we were discussing, one to which I do not hold him to be committed. Obviously, it is reasonable that fresh legislation would be required if the entire Act should lapse after a certain period of years. This is a much larger question, one which my right hon. Friend should not be led into without examining all the consequences that would follow. Suppose in these circumstances the existing Constitution is demolished. Hardly a vestige will remain when the new one is suddenly pulled away, because
    462
    it is necessary to supersede it by emergency measures. It seems quite evident that what you would require is not a provision in this Statute but new legislation by Parliament. Therefore, while assenting to the proposal to give some further safeguards against emergency measures becoming permanent through lapse of time, we would not like to be committed to such larger measures contemplated by him.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: So far as we are concerned we shall not press our Amendment, but we ask leave to withdraw it, reserving our right to consider the larger issue raised by the right hon. Gentleman.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD rose—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman insists upon speaking, the Amendment cannot be withdrawn.
    7.15 p.m.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: The announcement made by the right hon. Gentleman is of enormous importance, and I do not think that it ought to go unnoticed. That announcement will be welcomed greatly in India and will make all the difference to the Indian attitude. If we can carry through an Amendment to that effect and say that when a breakdown occurs and after a period of years that breakdown continues, the Act lapses, obviously that will make a whole world of difference to the Indian attitude towards the Bill. What we ought to find out as soon as possible is whether the right hon. Gentleman means that the Federation will lapse and that the Provincial Constitution will remain while the Federal Constitution lapses. Would that mean the recasting of the whole of the Act or could it not be arranged that it is merely a cancellation of the federal scheme as it stands during the three years while the Government are making up their mind?
    What will happen at the end of those three years? Obviously, legislation will have to be introduced and considered. If it is to deal with the federal side, well and good, that is a simple problem, but if it is to deal with the whole provincial side as well it is an almost insoluble problem. I do hope that the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman will' bear fruit and that there will be introduced

    463
    into the Bill a proviso which I have not the slightest doubt would make the Bill infinitely more palatable to the Indian people. One of the chief objections to it has been that it is irremovable, that it is the last word and not the beginning of a series of steps. If it can be known that if a breakdown can be brought about—a breakdown may be brought about quite amicably and not by hostile action—then we shall have a chance of undoing the ill that we have done in establishing a Constitution on an un-English basis, it will make all the difference.
    7.18 p.m.
    Sir S. HOARE: I was not contemplating a prearranged breakdown of that kind. I was contemplating the last emergency, when the whole machinery of government has broken down. I cannot ask the Committee again to discuss a proposition of this kind without having an Amendment upon the Order Paper, but I did feel that on this Clause it was necessary to tell the Committee at this stage that we shall have to cover that particular contingency, in addition to the contingency which has been discussed. I wish to make it clear that nobody is prejudiced one way or the other by the proposal that I have made to look further into the matter and in due course to put a proposition on the Order Paper.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Since we are in such a very happy mood to-day could the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the breakdown to take place now, and stave off this elaborate procedure in the future?
    7.19 p.m.
    Earl WINTERTON: The (Secretary of State has referred to the unprecedented position in which he finds himself as being in agreement with hon. Members opposite and with my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). I, too, am in the unprecedented position of being in agreement with my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping in the second of his two speeches. Seriously, I agree that this is a matter of very great importance, and we certainly cannot discuss it now. I would go further and say that it cannot be dealt with by an Amendment of any Clause. I think that a new Clause will have to be brought
    464
    forward to deal with the matter. Although it is not for me to give advice, I hope that we shall not pursue the matter any further until we discuss it when we see the new Clause.
    Amendment negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    7.20 p.m.
    Mr. DONNER: Before we pass from this Clause, which is one of the most important in the Bill, because it deals with the provisions in the event of a breakdown of constitutional machinery. I should like to express an anxiety which is shared by several members of the Committee, namely, that the Clause contains no mention of specific authority to be given to the Governor-General for the special preservation of the frontier of India. I know that it can be argued that such power and authority is tacitly understood, in view of the fact that defence is a reserved subject, but at the same time it is not possible for the Governor-General to take all the necessary executive powers immediately into his hands, because he has to consult his ministers, and the local Governor is in the same position. This might lead to very tedious negotiations and delay at a time when quick action might be essential.
    The necessity for such a provision seems to me to be exemplified by the difficulties which were experienced in the Cape by the Imperial Government just before the war in South Africa in 1899, which difficulties have been fully put forward in the Milner Papers. The situation that I have in mind in regard to the North West frontier of India might be of a kind parallel to the position which was experienced in the summer of 1899 in South Africa when in a single month before the outbreak of war 500 rifles and 1,000,000 rounds of ammunition were sent up from the Cape to the Orange Free State and the Transvaal, and every difficulty was raised by the Cape Government against the Imperial Government. I will not pursue the point, because I am putting it forward merely as a parallel, but it shows the kind of situation with which we may well be faced on the North West frontier of India. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will reconsider the Clause between now and the Report stage. I hope to be able to persuade him to agree with me on this

    465
    point, namely, that a stone thrown into the frontier pond throws ripples to the furthest parts of India. In the event of any trouble on the North West frontier the forces employed will depend entirely upon the perfect functioning of the entire administrative machinery throughout India. Keeping in mind that the General Headquarters of the Army is the centre of the spider's web, we must surely admit that the Governor-General in a crisis, possibly internal commotion as well as trouble on the frontier, would have to take over the telegraphic and postal services in order to ensure communications and the sending up of material and supplies. There is a considerable reserve of small arms and ammunition at the advanced bases of Quetta and Rawalpindi, but surely a situation should not be allowed to develop in which the frontier army and constabulary would have to depend entirely even if only for a time on these.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have been listening to the hon. Member's speech and have been looking at the Clause very carefully, and it does not appear to me that it raises a question as to how the Government of India could be carried on. If the hon. Member is referring to the general defence of the frontier of India, this is not the place to raise the matter.
    Mr. DONNER: I am sorry if I went beyond the bounds of order. I was trying to show that no specific authority, except tacit authority, is given to the Governor-General in the event of trouble on the North-West Frontier. If I am out of order I will not pursue the point, but I should he grateful if I could have an answer or if the Government would reconsider this matter between now and the Report stage. In view of the kind of situation to which I have drawn attention, and from the point of view that as the Bill now stands it will be necessary both for the local Governor and the Governor-General to consult his Ministers before taking action, and that may lead to undue delay, when quick action may be necessary, I do hope that I may have a satisfactory reply.
    7.25 p.m.
    Sir S. HOARE: I have no wish to revert to the discussion that has just ended, but I should like in a sentence to make the position a little clearer than I left
    466
    it. It occurred to me after I sat down that I had not made it clear. Suppose the emergency was brought to an end, namely, that you could not have an emergency lasting longer than, let us say, three years, we should not be left with no government in India at all. We should then revert to the provisions of this Act, and Parliament then would have to choose between reverting to the provisions of this Act or passing an amending Act. I make that point clear, not in any way to impose my views upon hon. and right hon. Members, but in order that they may keep it in mind when they consider further the proposition that in due course I shall make on the subject.
    With regard to the question put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Donner), I think that after the explanation that I shall be able to give to him he will find that the Amendment which he suggests is not needed. In any case, if it were needed, it would be out of place in Clause 45. This Clause deals with a situation when Ministerial responsibility has come to an end, when the whole machinery of government has broken down, and, as an emergency, the Governor-General takes over the whole system of government. On the other hand, defence, and the defence of the frontier, does not presuppose a breakdown of that kind in which the Governor-General takes over the whole of the Departments. It presupposes that the Governor-General is free to take any action that he thinks necessary to safeguard the reserved Department of defence, and to direct the Ministers and their Departments to take what action he thinks necessary to that end, even if those Departments may be only indirectly connected with the Defence Department.
    What would happen in an emergency on the frontier would be that the Governor-General would be free at his discretion to deal with the Defence Department and to give directions, say, to the Railway Department in connection with the convoy of troops, or to the Post and Telegraph Department in regard to communications, and he would act with his Ministers. I think that in a case of that kind in nine cases out of 10 he would find the Ministers acting with him. So long as they act with him so much the better. If, on the other hand, the

    467
    Ministers failed to take the action that he told them to take he could force them to do so. His order to the Railway Department or to the Post and Telegraph Department would be the only valid order, and the Departments would have to carry it out. If the Ministers obstruct, then he is free to dismiss them. I think, therefore, the position is quite safe. If it were not, the question could not arise on this Clause, which deals with the total breakdown of the Constitution, in which the Ministers do not come in at all. My main answer is that with the reserved Departments and with the powers that the Governor-General has got outside the reserved Departments, the position, as far as I can judge, is quite safe.
    7.30 p.m.
    Mr. MOLSON: There is one point which I should like the right hon. Gentleman to make quite clear. Do I understand that under his proposal that a suspension of the Constitution of this Bill, because of a crisis or emergency, is to endure only for a maximum period of time, however many Addresses are voted by Parliament, and that after the lapse of that time either the Federal Constitution under the Bill comes into operation again or there will have to be new legislation dealing with the whole question?
    Sir S. HOARE Sir S. HOARE indicated assent.
    7.31 p.m.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: This is about the quickest change of mind I have ever come across even in this House. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State has completely altered his story. Five minutes ago he told us that a lapse of the Constitution would not last for more than three years. Now at the end of these three years all that will happen will be that the breakdown legislation will lapse, not the Constitution. We shall simply get back to the position we were in when the breakdown legislation was instituted. Thank you for nothing.
    7.32 p.m.
    Sir H. CROFT: May I add my word to that of the right hon. and gallant Member. The cup has been dashed from the thirsty lips of many in this House and in India. We had hoped from what the Secretary of State said that if there was a breakdown of this character there was
    468
    a speedy way out of the mess. The Secretary of State has varied his phrases, and has certainly very much upset the right hon. and gallant Member and others of us. I want to enter one caveat. I hope that I shall be pardoned for uttering something in the nature of a realism, and that is that when the Secretary of State sincerely tells us that under certain conditions of breakdown the Governor-General will resume control of the country all I desire to say here and now is that such a thing will be absolutely impossible when you have Indianised the whole machinery upon which the Governor-General will have to rely.

    CLAUSE 46.—(Governors' Provinces.)
    7.33 p.m.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in page 30, line 35, to leave out "The North West Frontier Province."
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think it would be convenient if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman dealt with his Amendments to leave out the Province of Orissa and the Province of Sind as well.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: They are entirely different. Some people are in favour of leaving the North West Frontier Province in, while others would be in favour of leaving out the Province of Orissa and the Province of Sind. In each case the considerations are completely different. I should not get much support for leaving out the North West Frontier Province except from Members of the Labour party, but probably I should get a great deal of support for leaving out the Province of Sind.
    Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Is this the only place in which we can have a general discussion on the question of the separation of the North West Frontier Province and Orissa and Sind, or can we have a discussion on the matter on Clause 271?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: That Clause deals with the boundaries of Provinces and the method of dividing them. Let me deal with the North West Frontier Province. The question divides itself into two parts. In the first place, a good deal of the trouble in India to-day

    469
    comes from the frontier, and behind a great deal of the Moslem backing is the idea of getting a federation of the four frontier Provinces, the North West Frontier Province, Baluchistan, the Punjab and Sind. You are handing over to the overwhelmingly strong Moslem inhabitants of the North West Frontier Province control over their own affairs and over the gate of India from the north west. I have seen agitation after agitation coming over from Afghanistan, the Khalifate agitation in particular. It was extraordinarily strong in Peshawar at the time of that agitation. The Hindus hate the Moslems, yet you are giving them an opportunity of forming a Moslem Federation amongst the most warlike tribes of India are dominated by the most fanatical Moslems in India. From our own point of view it is most unwise to establish the same form of home rule in the North West Frontier Province that you are giving to a province 200 years further on in civilisation, like Madras or Bombay. It seems to me to be madness. There is an iron similarity about the treatment of all these Provinces as though there was no distinction whatever between them. The North West Frontier Province is the most backward politically and the most dangerous politically. It is aso the most intolerant, politically.
    The question of setting up a frontier Province in the North-West Frontier has been one of the questions which has torn India for the last 15 years. It has always been a question whether it was in the direction of democracy that the North-West Frontier should have an independent government or whether it would mean the tyrannising of the Mohammedan majority over the Hindu minority. If the Punjab could be polled on the matter you would have a clear-cut division between the Sikhs and the Hindus on one side and the Moslems on the other. If the North-West Frontier could be polled you would have an overwhelming majority in favour of His Majesty's Government. We have to consider whether the majority will deal fairly with the minority. That is a question which we ought to put to ourselves whenever we give self-government to any unity in the Empire.
    Earl WINTERTON: Would the right hon. and gallant Member apply the same
    470
    considerations to Provinces where the Hindus are in a majority?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Yes, I think I would. I am arguing now that Parliament has no right to hand over to a hostile majority a helpless minority who are afraid of the transfer. If it was a fact that the Mohammedan minority in Madras objected to being handed over to a self-governing Madras I think it would be a question we should have to consider closer, especially as to whether there was any evidence of the probability of ill-treatment. That is as far as I would go. Take the case of Cyprus as an example. There is a small minority of Mohammedans, about one-sixth of the population, the rest are Christians. We have all along resisted the idea of handing Cyprus over to home rule because we could not desert that 18 per cent. Mohammedan population, who were bitterly terrified that we should go out and leave them to the mercy of the Christians. The same principle is applied in Palestine. We do not set up representative institutions in Palestine because we are afraid, and the Jews are afraid, that they would not get a fair deal at the hands of the Arab majority. I could go through the whole Empire and give examples as to how we try to bear in mind, whenever we are extending self-government, the risks to which a minority may be involved if self-government is granted. The right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) will not deny that this should be a cardinal principle of the British Empire, that we should not remove our rule and substitute a rule which would be likely to be tyrannous and unfair towards the minorities.
    Consider the case of the North West Frontier. About a year ago a horrible massacre of Hindus by the Moslems took place in that area, a massacre so similar to the pogroms against the Jews in other parts of the world that it is almost exactly the same problem. In Constantine we had the butchery of the Jews by Moslems. It represents exactly the same feeling. It is not a difference in race, caste, or religion. It is a depressed agricultural population suffering from severe economic depression revolting against the mercantile and town population who sell them goods and lend them money. The feeling between the Hindus and the Mohammedans is almost

    471
    exactly the same as the feeling between the Arabs and Jews in Constantine and Algiers. In both cases you have a civilised government looking on. The French Government is constantly alive to the fact that the Moslem finds his national and spiritual animosity revived when he sees his natural prey in the hereditary and historical enemy, the Jewish population. Let us realise that the more firmly we establish self-government in the North West Frontier Provinces the greater the risk; greater there than it is in Algiers or in Palestine. The massacres of 15 years ago may fall into significance by what may happen in Peshawar and other towns on the frontier across the Indus. So long as Pax Britannica runs they are safe. So long as they have British troops and police, controlled by the kind of commissioners we have had in Peshawar, peace is maintained and the safety of the minority is ensured.
    How long is that going to continue? Is it the essence of this Bill that you should take a step as dangerous as that which you are taking in the case of the North West Frontier? I say to the Secretary of State that if the Bill goes through as it is he will be responsible for what may happen in that Province. The desire for self-government there is practically nonexistent. They are not a people clamouring for democracy, on the North West Frontier. They are clamouring for a great many other things which have nothing whatever to do with democracy. The situation of the Hindus is not an imaginary danger voiced by me; it is a danger ever present to the mind of every Hindu in the Punjab and throughout India. They know the treatment that they are likely to get when once law and order are in the hands of this new Administration, when all the machinery of civilisation is in the hands of people who regard them almost exactly as the Jews are regarded in the East of Europe, in Iraq or Algeria. There Jews are regarded as hereditary enemies, as they have been regarded for centuries. I think that if we knowingly take that step we shall be risking great dangers and flying in the teeth of the wishes of 270,000,000 Hindus. The case of the North West Frontier is perhaps worse. A remedy is most difficult because the area has already been set up as a Province.
    Mr. G. NICHOLSON: May I now have an answer to the point of Order I raised.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Since the hon. Member directed my attention to it, I have been looking at Clause 271. It appears to me that it might be more convenient to deal on that Clause with the question which the hon. Member wishes to raise.
    Sir S. HOARE: Now.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman would rather take it now?
    Sir S. HOARE: Yes.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Surely if we leave in Orissa and Sind now we cannot discuss the question later. It would be quite impossible, if we agreed now to include these Provinces in the Federal scheme, to discuss Clause 271 as if we had not included them. I think the only possible course is to take them now.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am in the hands of the Committee.
    Mr. NICHOLSON: It is a big question. I thought we were rather hurried just now.
    7.49 p.m.
    Sir S. HOARE: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) wishes, I know, to be fair to all, but I cannot help saying that, no doubt quite unintentionally, in his speech he was very unfair to the Moslems. He seemed to suggest that the communal troubles in India were exclusively the result of Moslem intolerance. I do not wish to assign the blame more to one community than to another.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean the communal troubles or the communal question?
    Sir S. HOARE: The communal troubles. We all regret the communal excesses. Not one single community is responsible for them. There is a black history behind Hindus as well as Moslems, and it does not help better feeling in India if a right hon. Gentleman in this House takes the side of one community and implies that the fault is with one community and not with the other.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I do not want to be unfair. In every case it is the

    473
    majority who hammer the minority. In the North West Frontier the Mohammedans happen to be in the majority and there is trouble there on one side. In Lucknow or in the case of the Moplahs you have a Hindu majority, and they do the same thing.
    Sir S. HOARE: I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has made that addendum to his speech. In his speech he talked about the Moslems, and the general impression that he left on my mind, and I think on the mind of many others, was that these excesses invariably started with Moslems and not with anyone else. Let me turn to the Amendment. It is intended to abrogate the present position of the North West Frontier Province as a Province, and not to make it a federal unit under the Bill. I cannot imagine a more unwise or more dangerous action for the Committee to take than to go back upon a decision that we came to about three years ago after a great deal of consideration.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Who were "we"?
    Sir S. HOARE: The Government here.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Not Parliament.
    Sir S. HOARE: The Government here, after the fullest possible consideration and after a lot of consultation with Indians of various schools of thought. One of the great troubles upon the Frontier in India was the inferior status of the North West Frontier Province. I went into the question with an unbiassed mind, and the more I did so the more I was convinced that a great deal of the trouble in the North West Frontier Province was due to that cause. If hon. Members will look back three years they will find that the trouble then was very serious. The whole Province was rife with agitation under the Red Shirts. A great many hon. Members thought that that was a Communist movement. It was nothing of the kind. It was a movement the force of which arose from this feeling of inferiority amongst the Pathans.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: The Pathans never feel inferiority and never will.
    Sir S. HOARE: The right hon. Gentleman knows that he is quite infallible about all these things. I can only tell
    474
    him, from such information as I have been able to gather, with much less access to the facts than he possesses, that I gathered the view, and it was the view of all my responsible advisers in India, that the Pathan, thinking himself superior to many other people in India, resented intensely the fact that other Provinces had constitutions of their own, and that he had a very inferior imitation of a constitution. Very wisely I think we took the view that the time was overdue when the Province should be constituted a full Governor's Province. We did that, and the result has been almost the total elimination of the very dangerous Red Shirt movement. That is sufficient justification for the action we took.
    If we now went back on that action and put back the Province into a position of inferiority compared with any other Province, we should be making the gravest possible mistake. I do not believe that the Pathans will not be able to manage their Constitution extremely well. They are a very vigorous race. Although the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme may deny it, they have a good deal of aptitude for democratic government—more aptitude than some of the other communities. I do not at all look forward with anxiety to the future of the Constitution in the North West Frontier Province. In that Province no less than in the others there will be safeguards for the minority. The Governor will have the special responsibility to safeguard their position. Further than that, the Governor of the North West Frontier Province will act as Agent-General to the Viceroy, and will have a special position in the tribal districts. In those districts he will act at his own discretion. I hope I have said enough to impress upon the Commitee the gravity of the mistake they would make if they differentiated between the North West Frontier Provine and other Provinces, and the grave unrest that would be created from one end of India to the other if we went back on the decision taken three years ago.
    7.56 p.m.
    Wing-Commander JAMES: I would like to refer to one point in the argument of the right hon. and gallant

    475
    Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). I think he was under a misapprehension in assuming that the Hindu-Moslem trouble of the North West Frontier would be more acute because of the smallness of the Hindu minority. I do not in the least wish to underrate the problem. It happens that I passed through the bazaar at Kohat in 1924, on the night of the massacre to which he referred just now. The mere fact that the Hindu minority is small does not increase the danger to it. I suggest that the mere fact that it is a very small minority tends the reverse way. It may well be that the Hindu minority are in a position of greater danger now when they are, so to speak, under the protection of outside authority than they will be when they have to mind their p's and q's, for under more responsible Government they will not dare to do some of the things they do now under the shelter of the British Raj and thereby incur the hatred of the Pathans.
    There is in point of fact a very high degree of toleration among the Pathans for minorities of all kinds. For example: Pathans vis-a-vis sweepers, etc. show a high measure of tolerance, and their intense antipathy to the Banias at the moment is largely due, as I have just said, to the fact that these latter get uppish relying upon special Protection, the Hindu minority are an essential economic factor, and the Mohammedans know it. It is in areas like the United Provinces where we get a fairly even balance between Mohammedans and Hindus that the, communal problem is the most troublesome.
    7.58 p.m.
    Mr. G. NICHOLSON: The Secretary of State made a statement of the first importance before he sat down. He said that the Governor of the North West Frontier Province would fulfil the functions of Agent-General of the Governor- General for tribal areas. I wish to ask whether he means that the agent of the Governor-General must inevitably be Governor of the North West Frontier Province? On page 834 of the Order Paper the right hon. Gentleman has an Amendment which I interpret as meaning—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We had better deal with that Amendment when we reach it.
    Mr. NICHOLSON: I wish to ask the Secretary of State whether it is inevitable that the Governor of the North West Frontier should be the agent of the Governor-General for the tribal areas, or whether it would be in the power of the Governor-General to make other arrangements.
    Sir S. HOARE: We contemplate that the same official would hold both posts when it is possible.
    8.0 p.m.
    Sir A. KNOX: I would like to ask if it is impossible to go back on the arrangement we made three years ago and constitute the North West Frontier Province a Chief Commissioner's Province. I cannot believe that the ordinary Pathan as I know him is really thinking about his status at all. As a good fighting man he knows he is better than the non-fighting races and he knows he is far better off under the jurisdiction of the English. He has not worried about getting representative government and when the right hon. Gentleman says that the Red Shirt movement was because the Pathan wanted to be represented, he is wrong. The Red Shirt movement prospered because the Government of India at the time was the weakest Government the country had ever seen. There was such concern that the "Times" newspaper, as usual not very well informed in Indian matters, said that if anyone touched Abdul Ghafur it would raise a blaze all along the frontier. That agitator was arrested one morning and nothing happened. All that was wanted was the firm government to which the Pathans were accustomed. The right hon. Gentleman said that the last election, when the Franchise Committee were in India, was a great success. We know from other sources that it was an absolute farce. People could not get to the polling booths. They went in terror of their lives and had to creep there at night. I cannot think that if the people of England knew the conditions of the North West Frontier they would believe that it is fit for representative government.
    8.2 p.m.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman is always very scornful of

    477
    every contribution I make to the Debate. I am certain he is not always right and I always wrong.
    Sir S. HOARE: I would not say that for a moment.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: We are all trying to bring to this problem the best knowledge we have of India. I do not pretend to have any great knowledge of India. I only pretend to a knowledge of English history and the principles on which we govern ourselves. The real thing is the speech of the hon. and gallant Member opposite. He knows these people, he has lived there. His view is that the Bunya Hindu is more likely to get knocked on the head because he is under English protection and that when English protection is withdrawn he will not be knocked on the head. That may be so or not, but I do not think we ought to take that as a good reason why we should remove our protection. If the prospective knockee is afraid of what will happen when we go, I think that we should be guided by that in the course we pursue. The right hon. Gentleman said that I feared the Moslems and not the Hindus. The Moslems have an enormous superiority complex; it is the Hindus who have an inferiority complex. A Mohameddan knows he is capable of taking on six Hindus. That is the danger from people who are so superior; that is the real risk in India. Both sides have contributed to the murders, but I should say that the greatest risk always comes from the man who thinks he is able to do it. The real issue is this absurd system of communal representation.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We are not really dealing with that subject to-night.
    Amendment negatived.
    8.4 p.m.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in page 30, line 36, to leave out "Orissa."
    The next Province I would save from the Constitution is Orissa. The case for Orissa is completely different from the case for the North West Frontier Province. We can safely say that there will be no communial riots in the new Province. There are few Mohammedans
    478
    there, and the issues involved are completely different. I have heard it said that the Government are setting up a Province in Orissa to balance the North West Frontier Province. However that may be, the argument for Orissa is different. The population is perhaps 16,000,000. Of these nearly half are aboriginal tribes in the North and the West, some of the most prehistoric tribes in India, the sort of people about whom Kipling wrote. These people are in reserved tribal areas, and the great part of the Province of Orissa is of that backward description which requires direct administration. The rest of Orissa on the South has been cut off from the Province of Madras on the ground that they speak a different language. In Madras they speak two completely different languages, Tamil in the South and Telego in the North, and English everywhere. Half the Province is tangled jungle, and on the coast you have a Hindu Orissa population which has hitherto been attached to Madras or Bihar. Why has the Government set up this new Province. If you establish a Governor's Province you establish inevitably an extraordinary expensive system. The Governor and all the Ministers have to be paid at the same rate as if they were Cabinet Ministers here. The entire establishment is an expensive establishment, and the whole population of Orissa cannot be more than 10,000,000 excluding the savage tribes. That is an extremely small unit to have inflicted upon it the most expensive form of Indian administration.
    Why is it being done? They have cut off the Southern part of Bihar and the Northern part of Madras to create this new Province. What has been the object? I think it is true that in times past the Congress party have been working on the idea that the Provinces of India should be remodelled on units that speak the same language, and there have been resolutions in favour of an independent Orissa for some time before the Congress. Latterly the Indian desire to have a separate Province of Orissa has died out, and there have been protests from the inhabitants of the seaport whose name I cannot pronounce in the South. The Hindus are objecting to it. The Orissa population are not anxious for it, and the inhabitants of the jungles do not know about it. Why is it being done? There really must be some idea for establishing

    479
    this Province. We have to set up there a new governor, new salaries and new jobs, in order to carry out promises that may have been made by the Joint Select Committee to some representations they may have had.
    I am told that the desire for self-government in Orissa is very much like the desire for self-government in Scotland—that they have a desire to preserve their culture, and a desire to be united. If the desire for union in Orissa is about as weak as the desire for Home Rule in Scotland and comes from the same source—the intelligentsia—I think it may be discounted a little. How can you expect a population as small as that to meet the expenses of Government similar to those in Bihar or Bengal. What is the object of inflicting upon a new constitution so big a charge as this? There is no pressure of public opinion in favour of it except from the intellectuals. There are protests from everybody in the country who will have to pay the taxes and the greater part of the country has a population which would be better governed by Englishmen in the interest of a number of uncivilised tribes.
    8.13 p.m.
    Mr. ATTLEE: I have a little difficulty in recognising the geography, the population, the fianance or the opinions of the inhabitants of Orissa in the account given by the right hon. and gallant Member. I have taken a certain interest in this question for some little time, ever since I served on the Simon Commission. We came to the conclusion that there was a case for a Province of Orissa. Orissa is not a very large part judged by Indian standards. I think its population is something between 7,000,000 and 10,000,000. I do not know why the right hon. and gallant Member should be so scornful of it. He is a great supporter of Palestine. Why should he not hand back Palestine which is very small, and with a small population? There has been a continuous agitation in Orissa for many years. The Oriya speaking peoples were divided. A small number come under Bengal. The majority of Oriyas were at the time of the repartition of Bengal united with Bihar and Chota Nagpur areas quite dissimilar, and without' common interests with them.
    480
    When on the Statutory Commission I saw their representatives, they told me that if they wanted to get to their capital they had to travel 650 miles. Another portion of them were in the Central Provinces. Another large portion of them formed part of Madras. Madras is an enormous Province straggling right away round to Malabar and the Oriyas are included in it as a small minority. I do not believe that in these very large Provinces, these 45,000,000 and 50,000,000-Provinces in India you do get adequate self-expression and self-government, particularly when you have a people, as disconnected as those in the Presidency of Madras, speaking not two but five languages. What the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has said as to the large number of aborigines is true. There is a large number of aborigines collected together more or less loosely and extending up towards the north, but at present those people are cut up into sections and in different Provinces. Surely for their future development it is better that they should come together. Also, in so far as they speak any language apart from their own, they speak Oriya. These backward areas will be kept apart from the direct administration area. Whether they are in Madras or Orissa they will have special administration which I think is very necessary to prevent their exploitation. It is very necessary that they should be looked after properly. If you have an aboriginal population cut off in a Province of, say, 40,000,000 population, their voices are not likely to be heard nearly as much as if they formed part of a Province where there is a very strong feeling of racial and almost national sentiment. That is the case in Orissa, where the people have an outlook and a language of their own.
    Then the right hon. and gallant Gentleman says that they cannot afford the expense of setting up the new Province. That is an extremely fallacious argument. It is true that Orissa is a deficit area at the present time but there are many such areas, and why should the deficit of Orissa be borne by Bihar? By a mere administrative act Orissa and Bihar were tied together and Bihar had to pay taxes in order to keep Orissa. I do not see any reason why that charge should be put on Bihar. If necessary,

    481
    it should be put on the whole of India. But if you take the line of having au administration which depends upon each separate entity being financially self-contained then you get right away from any idea of popular self-government. You have what you had in the days of bureaucratic rule, parts of the country joined to others for purely financial considerations so that the richer may contribute to the poorer parts. That may be all right under a bureaucratic system, but under a system of self-government it is quite unfair that a certain deficit area should be placed on the finances of another wholly distinct area just because they happen to be contiguous.
    I admit that there will be some increased cost under the new arrangement. There is bound to be, but the increase will not be as much as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has made out. I have gone into the figures many times and the increase is pretty small, taking into account the charges which will be necessary when Orissa becomes a separate Province. Even suppose it to be necessary to impose more taxation on Orissa you will get it from them far more willingly if they are running their own show than if they are merely part of a heterogeneous province such as are Bihar and Orissa. The only point that remains is that in regard to protests by minorities. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to difficulties in connection with some seaport which he did not name and which I did not recognise. No one knows the minorities question better than he does and while I admit that there are objections from some of the peoples on the borderline of these territories, it is the case that in trying to demarcate territories you are always bound to have a little slopping over of the border here and there. You cannot divide people absolutely according to language, race or religion.
    The Simon Commission went into this question in great detail and on the Joint Select Committee we examined it very closely and came to certain conclusions with regard to this border line. There is bound to be a certain amount of objection wherever you draw the line and you have to try to draw it, as best you can, so as to have the minimum of objection and inconvenience. I think on the whole the objections to the new Province in this
    482
    respect are very small and I think that such objections as exist are offset by the great advantages of the change. In most of the Provinces of India you will have these different problems, linguistic and otherwise, but I think that in Orissa you will have a more homogeneous people probably than anywhere else in India. You will have the backward areas under a special administration, you will have a body of people overwhelmingly Hindu and overwhelmingly Oriya-speaking. I think there will be a chance there of starting off the Province free from a great many of the troubles which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman indicated. The claim of the people of Orissa has been put forward for many years—right back to the time of Lord Curzon and even before—and has often been acknowledged to be founded on justice, and I hope that this Committee will not disappoint them now.
    8.20 p.m.
    Mr. G. NICHOLSON: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) is to be congratulated on what is for him a really auspicious occasion. I hardly like to refer to the hon. Gentleman as the father of the Oriyas but he can certainly be called the godfather of the new Province of Orissa for I understand that he was chairman of the subcommittee which originally recommended the setting up of this Province. I agree with him that there has been a real popular demand in Orissa for some machinery to preserve the national culture and the language of the Oriya. They have suffered very much from cultural invasions by other races. It is claimed that in the Midnapore district of Bengal, 40 or 50 years ago, there were over half-a-million Oriya speakers and Oriyas by race, while, in 1931, there were only 45,000 Oriya speakers. It is true, I believe, that unless something is done to preserve Oriya culture it will be swamped.
    I am not so sure, however, that you will get perfect homogeneity, even under the new system. I was at a High School prize-giving in Orissa recently and I heard recitations given by the children in six languages including, I must admit, English and Sanscrit. The others were Urdu, Bengali, Oriya and Khond. My quarrel with the provisions of this Clause is that I do not think it was necessary to set up all the expensive machinery of

    483
    a Governor's Province. I do not believe that the creation of a separate Province is the only way of preserving national culture, and I fear that the consequences of this Clause may be disastrous all over India. I do not think that the name of the hon. Member for Limehouse will ever be forgotten in Orissa when they have to pay for all the cost of setting up a Governor's establishment with separate headquarters for winter and summer and all the rest of it, and the whole set of services attaching to a Province.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: It will give employment.
    Mr. NICHOLSON: The aspect of the question to which I was referring has only been touched upon very lightly so far, and I hope that whoever replies for the Government will tell the Committee what the extra cost will be. Though the question of the boundaries of the Province hardly arises on this Clause I should like in case we are not allowed to discuss it later on to say that some people think they are very unsatisfactory. But my real point is this. In acceding to the undoubted demand of the Oriyas and in agreeing to provide the machinery for the creation of a new Province we are striking at the whole structure of India as it exists to-day and at Federal India as we envisage it in the future. If you accede to the demand of the Oriyas for a separate Province I cannot see what on earth there is to prevent you from acceding to the demand of the Telegus, or the Kanarese or the Mahrattas or any other of the many races of India who may think that they would do better if they had separate Provinces of their own with the consequent increase in the loaves and fishes. I think it would have been possible in the past to have created some sort of sub-province, complicated no doubt, that would have retained the Oriyas' self-respect and would not have separated them from Bihar. Bihar has been paying for a lot of Oriyas ever since the creation of the Province, and I do not see any point in disturbing what has worked satisfactorily simply for the sake of the pleasure of creating a new Province. I hope the Committee will not pass this Clause without realising that it contains the germs of many Home Rule movements and of many Irelands all over
    484
    India, and I hope the Committee will insist on the Government stating clearly what the extra cost of Orissa will be, how it is going to be met, why it is necessary to have a separate summer station at Puri for the new Government, and so on. While congratulating the hon. Member for Limehouse on the success of his scheme, I hope the Committee will not pass it with its eyes shut.
    8.27 p.m.
    Sir R. CRADDOCK: This is a scheme which, from any knowledge that I possess of India and the system under which it has been governed, is almost ridiculous. You take an area which has been run by one Commissioner, and you turn it into a Governor's Province, with a full-fledged legislature, with a governor, so many ministers, advocates-general, financial advisers, and what not of various kinds. It is a most extravagant step to take. As far as I can recollect, though no doubt the Under-Secretary of State could give me more figures, there will be a perpetual deficit of 30 lakhs a year. You may ask any Bengal or Bihar officer you please, but it is well known the contribution of Orissa to the Bihar Legislative Council is small and not equal to holding their own in the rest of the Province, and that means that they are very backward. The Oriyas in the Sambalpur petitioned to join with the rest of Orissa, which was then part of Bengal and had been ever since the British rule began there until 1912, and directly the district was transferred there because it was the only district in the Central Provinces which was an Oriya district, they have done nothing but regret it, because other Oriyas came up there from Cuttack and more or less ousted the local Brahmins.
    These movements are mostly agitated by a few people, and if you can make new capital and many of that kind see themselves and their relatives provided with a great many more jobs than before, or see the value of land rising, that is good enough for them, but the vast majority of the people of Orissa will be backward wherever they are and large numbers of the ordinary aborigines do not understand these things and do not care twopence what form of government their Province is under. There is, of course, an exception in the case of a small intelligentsia, who are naturally

    485
    anxious to get the loaves and fishes. I am not blaming them. It means that the new Province is largely fomented by the particular class who can see they will benefit by it, and as for looking after the aborigines any better than they were looked after before, I cannot see them doing it. They are bilingual on the borders, and everyone claims to be an Oriya. If you want to go over to that side of the border, a man will claim that he is a Telugu, and if you want to go over the other side, he will claim he is an Oriya. Whenever you come, as the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) said, to a place where there is no actual natural boundary, you will find all over the place different kinds of people, and if you please one lot here, you displease 50 per cent. of the population there. It is not worth while; and the Government should have taken some areas over without offending the Telugus, which would have made a Chief Commissioner's Province, and they would have been very lucky to get that form of government for which they can afford to pay.
    For administrative reasons this scheme is sheer folly, for financial reasons it is extravagant, and for political reason's it is mostly make-belief. When you begin to take these half-and-half people, you cause far more discontent than satisfaction, and there is no particular gain in that. It is all interlaced with the Oriya States, which were hitherto managed by a commissioner and a political agent, who also belonged to the Province. Now I understand that all these States, instead of being managed by those who have managed them all these years and who thoroughly understood the Oriya people, are going to be put under a political agent at Ranchi, which is far away. As for the Government of India, they will not know where these people are or anything about them. All their political side was managed in the past by a commissioner and a political agent. They are doing the same thing elsewhere.
    Mr. G. NICHOLSON: They are in indirect relation with the Government of India.
    Sir R. CRADDOCK: They have their political agents there. Then, of course, besides these objections there are the finances. I do not fancy for a moment that the estimates put up cover all the expenses that arise through making a new
    486
    Province. You may just cover the claims of the new Governor and of a certain amount of buildings, but when you create a new Province it soon demands its own university and a high court, and it wants to have its own experts. If it is going to be a separate Province, they ask what is the use of being a separate Province, having to go to Calcutta for a university and having to share experts with another Province.
    Mr. ATTLEE: As a matter of fact, where you have a smaller Province like Assam, they use Calcutta universities.
    Sir R. CRADDOCK: Orissa will surely demand more than Assam does. The last point I have to make is that you are letting yourself in for every kind of similar claim. How are you going to make a Gwalior Province in Orissa for 6,000,000 Oriya speaking in that Province, and what answer will you give to Telegus if they say they want a new Province? That makes 18,000,000. How can you deny that? Then, for anything I know, Malabar will say they want to be transferred, leaving the Tamil areas. A still stronger claim will probably arise from the Hindi-speaking districts of the Central Province to be separated from the Marathi-speaking districts that I know very intimately.
    Here we are talking about India as one nation; that is the argument; and yet you are going to separate it off into Provinces so that you cannot have even two races in one Province without their wanting to have separate Provinces. If two races cannot get along well enough in a Province as they have done under British rule for years, how are all the races of India to make one solid Indian nation? It is a contradiction in terms, and entirely illogical. If you had given them a chief commissioner, all would have been well, provided that you had said so from the first. For these reasons, I support the omission of Orissa.
    8.38 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLER: I shall do my best to answer the right hon. Gentleman and those who have intervened in this important discussion about the future of the province of Orissa, and I shall endeavour to answer some of the points that have been raised as to the extra cost involved and give any details that come to mind in answer to the points that have been raised. I was not able

    487
    to follow the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle- under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) who moved the Amendment in all his geographical descriptions. He described Orissa as having been the scene of the "Jungle Book" by Kipling and described by him, and he alluded to the various tribes—
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Surely the Waingunga lies on the western edge of the United Provinces adjoining the new Province?
    Mr. BUTLER: I do not want to enter into a literary discussion, but I believe that Kipling's famous visit when he described so many of these things took place at Jhodapur on the other side of the province, and the Waingunga river, I understand, is in a different portion of India from that which we are considering to-day. I am a great lover and student of Kipling, and we all appreciate the "Jungle Book," and I hope that we shall in considering this question have regard to literary accuracy, as well as to the importance of the subject before us. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded to say there had been a great many protests from Orissa. With regard to the protests of the population, that is not the intelligence that has reached us. We found that the suggestion that there should be a separate province for Orissa met with satisfaction from the Oriyas, to whom it gave great relief that their age-long desire to be regarded as a separate province and a separate unit of India would at last be achieved if Parliament agrees to the proposals of this Clause.
    Orissa has had a long history. It is one of the most ancient centres of Hindu culture and religion. In Orissa, as the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. G. Nicholson) will know, are some of the finest, oldest and most venerated temples in India, which were the centres of the early pilgrimages from all parts of India. The great feature of Oriya civilisation is that, in spite of the fact that they have very often not formed one unit, so strong has been the nationalism of the Oriyas that they have always clung together and looked forward to the great day when they would be united in one province. On the strength of this historical perspective, I think it is probably
    488
    realised by the Committee that there is a long history behind this matter.
    Coming to more recent events, nobody can speak on this subject with more authority than the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee), who took such a prominent part in investigating this matter for the Statutory Commission. I do not think that the hon. Member for Morpeth exaggerated in any way the responsibility of the hon. Gentleman in regard to this Province, and I do not doubt that there is a proper sense of gratitude among the Oriyas towards him. In his contribution to-day the hon. Gentleman touched on many of the arguments in favour of this new Province. He reminded us that the Statutory Commission felt that the present link between Orissa and Bihar is a glaring example of the artificial connection of areas which are not naturally related, and he could have told us from his own personal knowledge, and indeed he suggested it, that when the Oriya delegation visited the Statutory Commission, they actually travelled by sea via Calcutta in order to reach Patna, which was the head of their Province.
    These facts have a large bearing on the question of how Orissa is to be administered in future. Besides these reasons—the awkwardness of the link with Bihar and the strong Oriya feeling—there is the fact that in Orissa there will be a greater homogeneity of population than in any other single unit in India. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment always dislikes anything to do with the communal question, and I should have thought he would be the first person to welcome this opportunity to have a Province in which the communal question will be as small and as little to the front as in any other part of India. That is a cause for satisfaction and it is another reason, together with his other reasons, for proceeding to set up a new Province of Orissa. With regard to the question of future expense, the expense of the new Province of Orissa can be clearly stated as follows: The new overhead charges resulting from running Orissa as a Governor's Province will amount to approximately 15 lakhs of rupees. Besides this, an extra amount of 15 lakhs will be necessary for running the Province. A total subvention of 30 lakhs will be neces-

    489
    sary from central revenues for the purpose of running the new Province.
    I think it would be wise to remind the Committee that we shall be discussing on Clause 139 the problem of subsidies to deficit Provinces, and therefore I shall go no further into the matter now. Besides this there will be an extra sum for establishing the requisite buildings for the new Province at Cuttack, which was referred to on page 51 of Volume 3 of the Records of the Joint Select Committee, which have already been presented to the House. There will be a small extra sum over this involved in the probable readjustment of boundaries at certain points in the new Province of Orissa. But the Committee may take it that the round figure of 30 lakhs of rupees which I have given as the necessary subvention from central revenues approximately covers the new cost of the Province of Orissa, apart from the actual establishment of new buildings. Of this sum 15 lakhs of rupees is what the new Province requires in the way of overhead charges when run as a Province, and 15 lakhs is the sum required for running the Province. That extra sum of 15 lakhs would have had to be found by Bihar in any case, and so it is merely a case of the transference of a burden of 15 lakhs from Bihar to the Centre, a point which the Committee will consider when we come to the specific Clause dealing with these transactions. That gives the Committee a clear indication that the extra cost falling on the revenues as a result of making the new Province is only somewhere in the neighbourhood of 15 lakhs.
    When the Committee appreciate that Bihar has recently suffered a great drain on its resources owing to the earthquake, they will see—without wishing to exaggerate this argument at all—that it will materially assist Bihar that she should, at this moment, be relieved of the sum which is necessary to finance the new Province of Orissa. I have endeavoured to answer as shortly and as concisely as I can the various points raised, but I sincerely hope that the Committee will realise that intense disappointment would be aroused in the Oriyas if the Committee were to accept the Amendment. Anticipations have been aroused. The future Orissa Province has been discussed since the statement of the Statutory Commission and the report of the committee over which my hon. Friend
    490
    opposite presided. The matter has been reviewed by several committees and the general consensus of opinion is that it would be wise in this case to establish the new Province of Orissa, and in view of the great advantage which we think will be taken by the inhabitants of this new Province and the new opportunities afforded, I sincerely hope the Committee may come to a favourable decision.
    8.50 p.m.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) was scornful about my geography and politics generally, but as far as I could see he was merely re-stating all the facts and figures I had given, with the exception of the site of Rudyard Kipling's adventures, and on that point he was joined by the hon. Gentleman opposite. I am prepared to stand an examination against any hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have been there. All I venture to suggest is that that place and Chota Nagpur are not very far apart when one comes to look at the map. But whether Chota Nagpur is there or somewhere else is not very material to the issue, although I admit the importance of literal accuracy. I understand now that we are to have a separate Province of Orissa because it is 600 miles to get to Patna from Orissa, but I suggest that for less than 30 lakhs of rupees aeroplanes could be hired to carry people backwards and forwards. The sum of 30 lakhs of rupees for a population of 10,000,000 seems to me to be excessive. The real objection is to be found in the Southern boundary. When the godfather of the Oriyas was drawing up the boundaries I will bet that he put that boundary as far south as he could. There are many who are suffering from the godfather of the Oriyas, and why the Telugu should be torn off from Madras in order to provide a tax-paying population for the Oriyas I cannot understand. But they are people who might be considered when we come to Clause 271 and the boundaries for the Provinces.
    Mr. ATTLEE: I would like to reply to my hon. and gallant Friend on one point. He accuses me of having pushed the boundary as far as possible south. On the contrary, I was severely criticised by the Oriyas, who, like all oppressed nationalities, wanted to take in all the

    491
    surrounding areas, and we cut down the extent of the area.
    Amendment negatived.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in page 30, line 36, leave out "Sind."
    Sind is the third Province we wish to save from the Constitution. I dare not give the exact population, or I shall be corrected, but we can say with some degree of accuracy that 15 per cent. of the population are Hindu and 85 per cent. are Moslems. Anybody who has been there may correct me, but not if he has not been there. The minority is small and there is no Province in which the communal question comes up more prominently. The minority of 15 or 20 per cent. have no votes for the people who will rule that Province. They have communal representation, but they are not allowed to vote for a Moslem. That is the prime fact which the Committee must realise before they can understand the agitation there is among the Hindus all over India to save Sind from being created an independent Province. Sind is not like the North-West Frontier Province, it is a Province which is developing rapidly. The Lloyd barrage and all the irrigation works down the Indus are opening up an enormous new area for settlers from the overcrowded parts of India. The land there is Government land and the Government sell it to the people to settle upon. An enormous immigrant population is pouring into the country. The immigrants are Hindus very largely, whereas the indigenous population are largely Mohammedan. It is a small minority at present, but it will grow with the development of irrigation.
    To that population, all of it dependent entirely upon agriculture, the question of the legislation that is likely to be enforced in that Province is of enormous, even transcendent, importance. They know perfectly what their danger is. It is not that they will not get justice, not that they will not get education, but that they will be excluded from cultivating the land. The sort of legislation that prevails in the Punjab is what they are afraid of. For the Committee to understand why Sind does not want to be a Governor's Province it is absolutely essential that I should make clear the meaning of the land alienation Clause, which looks harmless and desirable because it merely
    492
    enacts that no one who does not belong to an agricultural caste or clan shall be allowed to buy land. The agricultural caste can sell to other members of the caste but they cannot sell to a person who is not a member.
    There are agricultural castes which are Hindu as well as others who are Moslems, but the resident agricultural caste consists of Mohammedan peasants and, unfortunately, Mohammedan landlords. The landlords are gradually acquiring more and more land, so that the peasant is being driven to work and the landlord is becoming the owner and the latifundia of Sind. That is all assisted by the fact that in the Punjab the agriculturists can only sell to the agricultural caste. They only touch a certain amount, because the Mohammedan landlord is a member of the agricultural caste, although he does not use a spade. These are the only persons available. The alternative, which is always held out with such horror, is that of a Hindu bunnia, the friend of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Kirkpatrick) and the enemy of the Mohammedan, himself buying the land. He would not cultivate it, but he would let it to somebody else. That is another form of landlordism, but not a worse form than the ownership of the land by Mohammedan landowners.
    This legislation has been passed in the Punjab largely because of the universal prejudice against the Hindu landlord, and that legislation is what the Hindus fear in Sind. It does not matter in the Punjab, because there are more of the Hindu agricultural caste, but if you extend that legislation to Sind, where the agricultural Hindu population is nil, and where you get the vast Sukkur and Lloyd barrages, irrigating millions of acres which were never irrigated before, the question, "Are we to be allowed to cultivate the land?" becomes of far greater importance than in the Punjab. If legislation is to be brought into Sind which shuts out not an existing population but all the immigrant population which was poured into that Province, a grave injustice will be committed also against the Hindus of the over-populated and overcrowded places all over the rest of India, such as the population in Cutch, where, according to the latest census, they are packed 400 people to the square mile, all engaged in agriculture, an area probably more densely populated and

    493
    cultivated than in any other part of the world. That population is being driven out of those overcrowded areas and is spreading away to the only possibility, a newly irrigated land.
    That land will, of course, be Government land, and the Government will let it on hire purchase systems to both Hindus and Mohammedans. Both will start, but directly they acquire their rights, if legislation such as has been enforced in the Punjab is introduced into Sind, they will be limited, and they can only sell that land to people of the agricultural caste of that Province. Nobody else will be able to come in, the market will be tied down and the Mohammedan landlords will then begin to buy, and to create large estates and establish the curse of landlordism in that Province. That fear would be completely obviated if it were possible to allow the growing Hindu population the right to vote for the Legislative Council at Karachi. If they had the right to vote for their masters they would get an elementary form of justice. Can the Committee understand what it means to them to be in such a position that no Mohammedan will ever ask them for a vote because he will not demean himself by doing so? The system of communal recommendation is not the protection of a minority but the protection of the majority against ever having to consider the minority.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is going too far. I cannot pass that.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I admit I was travelling rather wide, but it is absolutely necessary if Members of the Committee are to understand the opposition which exists in India to the setting up of a separate province of Sind, that they should understand the reason of it. The reason is partly fear of that legislation and partly the knowledge that they are not likely to have a fair deal in the representative institutions of that Province. We could put it all right if we could have a province where the majority desires to have communal representation and no separate electorate. We should have in that province no opposition to the establishment of Sind, and a great many other things in this Bill would go.
    The Government have given no indication that they are prepared to carry out the desire of the Joint Select Committee,
    494
    or to take into account the desire of the minority to be protected from this pseudo-protection of separate representation. Sind should not be a separate province. Until now it has been part of Bombay, and under Bombay it has had an increasingly prosperous time. As long as it is part of Bombay, the province is balanced fairly and evenly between Mohammedan and Hindu. Take it away and establish an overwhelmingly large Mohammedan government in Sind, and you injure the rest of Bombay by making it proportionately more Hindu. You leave all the seeds of dissension in your communal representation, and you injure the population both in the North part and in the South part of the Bombay Presidency. I hope this matter will be reconsidered. The pressure for a separate province of Sind comes from Mohammedans, from that Moslem agitation and Nationalism which is spreading throughout the East at the present time. It is a desire to have one more Mohammedan Province, one more State, so that a Mohammedan federation of States should spread all over the North-East of India. I hope the Government will consider whether it is not possible, even at this hour, to save India from trouble and Sind from disaster.
    9.5 p.m.
    Mr. DONNER: I must confess that I had not expected that this question would be debated to-day, and, unfortunately, like many other Members of the Committee, I have come without the notes which I had carefully collected and without the evidence submitted to the Joint Select Committee, and therefore I am unable to quote from that evidence, as I had hoped and intended to do when the subject of Sind was to be discussed on Clause 271. I must, therefore, in speaking to the Committee, depend entirely upon my memory, and I hope the Under-Secretary will correct me if I am wrong in any of the facts which I put forward.
    I would ask the Committee seriously to consider this question of Sind. Here you have in miniature the whole picture of the Bill as it stands at present. The proposal of the Government is really quite simple; it is a proposal to remove Sind from the Presidency of Bombay and create a separate Province. The position is that in the Presidency of Bombay

    495
    there is a big Hindu majority, and in Sind there is a big Moslem majority. Therefore, naturally the Hindus of Sind are very much opposed to being transferred from the Presidency of Bombay to a separate Province, and equally the Mohammedans in Sind are, naturally, delighted. I would like the Committee to remember the evidence, which I am sure all hon. Members have read with care, which was submitted to the Joint Select Committee on this subject. Of all the evidence submitted to the Committee, none presents a more tragic or pitiable spectacle than that submitted on this proposal. The fear and terror which inspire this minority in Sind is, to me at any rate, a dreadful thing to read about. The minority are terrified, and in their terror they tell the truth as they see it. May I draw attention, first of all, to the financial difficulties? Here again I have not my notes with me, and do not remember the figures, so perhaps the Under-Secretary will be good enough to deal with that side of the question, as he is naturally more fully aware of the financial difficulties than I can be. All I can say is that they are very great.
    In the evidence submitted to the Joint Select Committee it was made perfectly clear that the minority, the Hindus, were terrified as to what would happen to them, and I remember that in that evidence particular mention was made of the preservation of law and order. What would be their position, they asked, if, in some other part of India, there were a massacre of Mohammedans by Hindus? It was pointed out that of course, if there were a breakdown of law and order, the Governor would intervene, but they were not satisfied with that, and asked that the police should be a reserved subject in that Province should it be created, and, of course, they were told that that could not be done. The question which was emphasised in the evidence was at what point could the Governor interfere to save the lives and property—
    The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to be very careful that he does not travel beyond this particular Clause, which deals merely with the inclusion of Sind as a Province. He has referred already to certain matters that
    496
    occur in later Clauses of the Bill, but he must not go into those in detail.
    Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: On a point of Order. I believe it has been ruled that this point cannot be raised on Clause 271—that the implication of my hon. Friend would be an impossible one to put forward on that Clause.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is quite right. As I understand it, the point cannot be raised again as to whether Sind shall be a Governor's Province. But I want to warn the hon. Member that there are certain matters to which he is quite justified in referring—as for instance the problem of minorities—but that he must not go in detail into the question of how communal minorities are treated under this Bill. I do not want the hon. Member to think that I am making a serious complaint against him, but I wanted to warn him that he was developing some of his points, to which he is quite justified in referring, just a little too much.
    Mr. DONNER: I am sorry if I transgressed the Rules of Order. I assure you, Sir Dennis, that I had no intention of doing so. I was only trying to give reasons why a special Province should not be created, and I will endeavour, with my limited knowledge of the procedure of the House, to keep within the bounds of order. I hope I am not out of order if I point out, as the reason why this Province of Sind should not be created a separate Province and cut away administratively from the Presidency of Bombay, the fear of these people as to what is going to happen to them. In the evidence before the Joint Select Committee particular mention was made of the kidnapping of women and children, and a question was asked as to how many women and children are to be kidnapped, how many houses burned and destroyed before the Governor can intervene? I only mention that to show the fear which exists in the minds of the people who gave evidence against this proposal. If only a few were kidnapped the Governor would not feel entitled to intervene. What, therefore, they asked, was the formula? On this question of the fear of minorities I think the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton)—I am sorry he is not in his place at the moment—made an

    497
    interruption earlier in the day with regard to Sind. He said that, after all, an objection of that sort applied to all the other Provinces as well as to Sind. But surely that does not rob the argument of any of its strength; it is only an added argument against the whole Bill, and not an argument in favour of making Sind a separate province. Again, it was pointed out in the evidence before the Joint Select Committee that there was a scarcity of men sufficiently capable to sit in the proposed new Legislature, and I believe that even Mohammedan witnesses agreed that that was so.
    The point that I wish to make before sitting down is that the real reason for this proposal seems to me to be that, unless this Province is created, unless this minority of Hindus is placed under the control of a Government of Moslems, there will be no safeguard against the misbehaviour of Hindus in other parts of India. But I would remind the Committee that the minority in Sind is a most aristocratic, civilised, and highly educated minority, and they are going to be exposed as hostages for the good behaviour of Hindus in other parts of India, when the Hindus are in a majority. In the evidence it is distinctly stated, both by Hindus and by Mohammedans, that this Hindu minority in Sind are regarded as so many hostages for the good behaviour of Hindus in other provinces. That seems to me to be a terrible thing; it seems to me to be a most cynical proposal to emanate from any civilised government, let alone a British Government, that we should be prepared to consider placing the minority of Sind in the position of hostages. That minority realises that that is the position; in their evidence they declare that the majority population regard them as so many hostages. If the Hindus who are in a majority in other Provinces in India were to turn round and massacre Mohammedans, then in Sind you would have this highly civilised and aristocratic minority at the mercy of Mohammedans who have been provoked and may work vengeance upon them. That seems to me to be a dreadful position.
    I should like to make it plain at least that this is not the imagining or vapouring of a mere private Member of this House. It is the language used by the
    498
    Mohammedans in their evidence, and it is the language used by the Hindus in their evidence. It is hard to believe that this Government with its great Conservative majority and its traditions of caring for the minorities and their welfare throughout the British Empire will insist on a proposal whereby it is willing to hand over as hostages these small minorities. Surely, here we come to the root of the matter, because this is the real safeguard. I suppose that it would be ironical to congratulate His Majesty's Government on the invention of one safeguard which cannot fail, because that is the real kernel of the matter. This safeguard cannot fail. If you create this Province you make it possible for Mohammedans all over India, where Hindus have great majorities, to say, "You can massacre us in many Provinces in India, but by Jove if you do, we know what to do in Sind."
    I cannot believe that the Government will carry on with this proposal and that this Committee will endorse it. Although it is perfectly true that, if you are going to carry through the Bill, the only way you can safeguard Mohammedan minorities in other Provinces is to bring in this safeguard of hostages in Sind, I cannot believe that I am alone in taking a view that if you do this thing you are returning to Biblical days and to the principle of an eye for an eye, and a life for a life, and those were days we thought would never come back in this world. I must apologise if I have spoken with too much feeling on this subject, but it seems to me to be a dreadful thing to see not only a civilised Government but of all Governments a British Government and a National Government come with a proposal such as this, which is surely unrivalled in its cynicism.
    9.18 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLER: I shall endeavour to address the Committee on lines similar to those I followed on the last Amendment with reference to Orissa. The difficulties of the separation of Sind have been raised by the right hon. Gentleman and by the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Donner), and I would like to try to answer one or two of them and show that we consider there is a very strong case for the establishment of a separate Province of Sind. In the first place, there are those geographical

    499
    difficulties which were included in discussing the previous Amendment in the case of Orissa and Bihar. The geographical difficulties in the case of Sind and Bombay are really more striking. The only satisfactory approach from Bombay to Karachi is by sea, and this takes, as hon. Members who have experienced it know, a very long time and is not at all easy. The method of conducting the administration of Sind at the present time is by a very marked, definite line from the Bombay Government, and we consider that the difficulties of conducting the administration of Sind, when there is a responsible government established in the Bombay Presidency, will be very more marked, and will make the difficulties very much greater.
    The communal question has been raised by the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member in their speeches. The fact is that we consider that the communal difficulties will actually be enhanced by any delay in separating Sind. If a really responsible autonomous government in Bombay attempts to administer Sind—and we know that the communal difficulties are there, and it is no good trying to avoid them completely—we think that very much greater friction will result than by the proposal we suggest that Sind should, in fact, be a separate Province. We think that there would be worse struggles not only between the new government who would be established at Bombay and the Moslems in Sind, who would take up a very strong communal attitude, but also there would be communal reactions throughout India, which would render the whole communal outlook in India very much less satisfactory than if we were to proceed upon the lines we suggest. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member will realise that we fully appreciate their anxiety about the communal system, but we think that the difficulties would be worse if the Amendment to leave out Sind from this Clause were accepted.
    The hon. Member for West Islington said that he had unfortunately come without some of his documents, and therefore I must not take undue advantage of him by quoting too extensively from the documents I have with me. I do not want to fight him with a particular
    500
    weapon when he has not his weapons entirely with him, but I would refer him to one answer given by the Moslem representative before the Joint Select Committee when the question of Sind was being discussed. The reference is Answer A496 on page 2164. The Moslem representative there declared that he realised that Sind Hindus must take an appreciable share in the Government of the Provinces. We believe that the undoubted influence of the Sind Hindus, to which the hon. Member very rightly referred, will make itself felt. We believe that they have a contribution to make, and do not believe that there will be dire results from separation or that any complete or perpetual extermination of the Hindus in Sind will actually take place. The Sind Hindus have a great tradition, and we believe that they will exercise their influence in the future government of Sind. The Governor's special responsibility for the minorities must not be forgotten, and that special responsibility which is included in this Bill will operate to advantage in the cases of necessity which may arise in the future Province of Sind.
    And now with regard to finances. The finances of Sind were considered by the Statutory Commission when they considered the question of future separation, and they suggested that this matter should be reviewed by an expert committee. The expert committee did review the question of the future finances of the Province of Sind, and came to the conclusion, which I can give very generally to the Committee, namely, that the future cost of the deficit of the Province of Sind would be approximately three quarters of a crore, of which some 10.26 lakhs would be the extra overhead charge directly attributable to the fact that the machinery for a Governor's Province was to be set up in Sind. There is also on page 50 of the records in volume 3 of the Joint Select Committee's submissions to this House, the actual sum necessary for new buildings in Sind, which amount to some seven lakhs. That, therefore, is the total financial deficit anticipated for the future financing of Sind, but it must be remembered—and the financial committee referred specially to this—that the financial future of Sind is bound up with that immense and future project of the Sukkur Barrage.

    501
    The Committee estimated that over the course of approximately 15 years the deficit would be wiped out by the increased takings resulting from the successful operation of the Sukkur Barrage. We believe that the effects of the operation of the Barrage will begin to be felt even in the next five years, and, through that, the deficit will be reduced gradually but surely. This deficit will be met by a subvention from the central revenue, and to that extent the Bombay Presidency will be relieved of the amount I have mentioned. The central revenues will be relieved as the takings from the Barrage come in. In order to be assured that the Barrage is administered in a true and proper manner, the Governor of Sind will have a special responsibility for its proper administration. The Committee, therefore, will see that the question of the finance of the future Province of Sind has been carefully and adequately examined, and actually will relieve the Bombay revenue. For these reasons, geographically, communally, and financially, we consider it sound to proceed with the proposal for a future Province of Sind.
    9.27 p.m.
    Sir H. CROFT: I do not want to delay the Committee, but there are many who have had communications from the minority in Sind, and who do realise the very grave fears of the minority. I did not realise that this discussion was coming on now, but I believe the population is 27 per cent. Hindu and 73 Moslem. That, of course, is a very serious situation, for the Hindus were previously under the protection of a Government where their religious persuasions were involved. No doubt they view with great dread this transfer to a permanent minority position under Moslems in the new Province. I only wish to intervene for just one moment, because I think this may be a great mistake and one of the errors of the Bill. This reminds me of the errors of which politicians were guilty at the end of the Great War in creating lots of new communities. I cannot believe it is really wise to risk the possibility of considerably increased expenditure in this new Province. You say that you are only going to spend so many lakhs, but, before you know where you are, you will have all sorts of demands for all sorts of new projects. I wonder whether the poor population can really afford to bear that
    502
    burden which is bound to come, for the moment a new Government is established hundreds of optimistic men who desire to take part in the job of Government will have all sorts of demands for various institutions. I for one, therefore, regret that the Secretary of State persists in this, for he must be aware of the intense dread of the minority in Sind.
    9.29 p.m.
    Earl WINTERTON: My hon. and gallant Friend holding the views he does has every right to object to self-government per se. No one quarrels with him if he does that. What he and the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway is not entitled to do is to attribute to the Moslem community what they do. There is no more reason to suppose that where Moslems are in the majority they will be less fair in their treatment than where the Hindus are in the majority.
    Sir H. CROFT: Memories are very fresh in India, and, for example, in Moplah and Cawnpore certain things happened with lamentable results.
    Earl WINTERTON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must not slip my point. I am not arguing on the subject of communal differences, or whether or not communal differences are likely to be exasperated. I am speaking as one with considerable sympathy with the Moslem community. My statement is quite simple though I may be wrong. I ask him to apply the argument he has just used in a more friendly spirit, to apply it also to a Hindu majority elsewhere. He has no right to suggest that where Moslems are in the majority things will happen to Hindus, unless he thinks the same will happen where Hindus are in the majority. Holding the general views that he does about India, and also the Empire—which he and I share—he should be the last person to bring charges against the Moslems, for no community has been more loyal to the British connection. The hon. Member below the Gangway, whose knowledge is not very extensive, made several references to this. I think he used rather unfortunate language about two great communities in India, rather wounding language. In regard to the other matter that the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite raised—I should like to endeavour to answer it—was it really desirable on pure grounds of administration

    503
    to make this separation. Dealing purely with the question of administration, anyone with experience of that would know that administratively it would be a good thing to separate Sind from Bombay. There is everything to be said for this proposal, though it may be possible to object to it on other grounds. I hope we shall hear the last of the suggestion about the Moslems and the Hindus, that either is going to punish or bully the other. Nothing is more calculated to make them do that than such irresponsible speeches.
    9.34 p.m.
    Sir H. CROFT: Many Members present heard my speech and will support me when I say that I really must take exception to the lecture of the Noble Lord on what he imagined I just said. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir S. Hoare) will agree that I uttered not one word in the form of a charge against the Moslems. Where you have great communal differences the Hindus, hitherto always protected by the Government of Bombay, will have dread now they are going to be placed in a permanent minority. The Noble Lord is well aware that that is a great problem in India, and I am simply stating a truth. I am making no charge. I had the same privilege of admiring the qualities of the Moslems when I fought side by side with them as the Noble Lord, and I will not have anyone suggest that I have ever said a word against the Mohammedan subjects of the King-Emperor. When the Noble Lord turned upon my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, West (Mr. Donner) and said that he had no right to talk of hostages, let me say that my hon. Friend, whose memory was so admirable in his extempore speech, was merely quoting words from the Joint Select Committee's report, which everyone must remember. Those were the views of the Hindu witnesses before the Joint Select Committee. I know that my Noble Friend was very assiduous in his attendance at the Joint Select Committee, but perhaps it was on one of the days when he happened not to be present that this evidence was given.
    Earl WINTERTON: I accept most heartily my hon. and gallant Friend's admission that he did not intend to
    504
    attack the Moslems, and I am sorry that I read into his speech what appeared to be the plain meaning of it.
    Amendment negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    9.37 p.m.
    Major MILNER: It is a rather curious feature of the Debate on this Clause that not one word has been said about the position of Burma. The Committee will appreciate that this is the Clause which says that Burma shall cease to be part of India. I rise in order to obtain a statement from the Government of the reasons which guided them in deciding that in future Burma shall be separated from India and shall not be a member of the Indian Federation. I should like to know the circumstances surrounding the whole of this matter. At the end of the Burma Round Table Conference in 1932 the Prime Minister indicated to Burma that a general election would be held at which the people of Burma would decide whether they would remain as part of the Indian Federation or be separated, with a distinct government of their own.
    9.38 p.m.
    Sir S. HOARE: On a point of Order. I want to ask whether we are to have a general Debate upon the separation of Burma now or whether it would not be better to have the Debate when we come, to the Clauses dealing with Burma. I am not saying this in any way with the object of interrupting the hon. and gallant Member, but I suggest that it might be more convenient to have the general Debate when we come to Burma.
    Major MILNER: So long as we shall have that opportunity I am perfectly happy to accept that point of view.
    9.39 p.m.
    The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps it might be well if I reply to a point of Order and put a further point in this connection. It may appear to Members of the Committee to be illogical that, having dealt with the certain Provinces by Amendments on this Clause, we should suggest that the Debate on the separation of Burma from India should be deferred. May I point out to the hon. and gallant Member that the separation of Burma is a very much bigger community

    505
    than Sind or Orissa and that this is one of the occasions when one has to decide where is the most convenient place to raise the discussion. Although I cannot prevent references being made to the separation of Burma on this Clause, I think it would be for the general convenience of the Committee that the question should be raised on the earlier Clauses of Part XIV, which deal definitely with Burma. I may say in regard to that matter that, if it meets with the general approbation of the Committee, I shall confirm on the note which I have already made that the passing of this Clause is not to be regarded as a bar to the raising of the question of the separation of Burma on Part XIV.
    Mr. LANSBURY: We want to be quite sure that when my hon. and gallant Friend and others desire to raise to the fullest extent the question of Burma we shall not be prejudiced by allowing this Clause to go through now. I understand that to be your Puling. Therefore, I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will postpone his remarks on the Burma question until we get to the point that you have just mentioned.
    The CHAIRMAN: I thought that I had said that. I had hoped to save the right hon. Gentleman the trouble af rising.
    Mr. LANSBURY: We must not be in too much of a hurry. We want to be sure that if my hon. and gallant Friend desires to move Burma into the Indian Federation he may do so. If that right is safeguarded, then it will be all right.
    The CHAIRMAN: If I can remember them correctly, I will repeat the exact words that I used. I shall confirm the note I have already made that the passing of this Clause is not to be taken as any bar to a Debate on the question of the separation of Burma. Other questions relating to Burma will be distinctly out of order on this Clause, but they will be distinctly in order when we come to Part XIV.
    Mr. LANSBURY: It will then be in order to move Burma in in the same way that hon. Members have moved to leave out Sind and Orissa. We only want to be put in the position that we can make a Motion to that effect and that the right to do it will be safeguarded, in spite of
    506
    the fact that this Clause which we are now passing leaves Burma out.
    The CHAIRMAN: It will be in order when we come to Part XIV of the Bill to move an Amendment which would result in negativing the proposed separation of Burma from India.
    Major MILNER: In those circumstances I am content to allow the matter to lapse now.
    Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: I should like to ask a question in regard to Madras. Hitherto, the City of Bangalore has been within the jurisdiction of Madras, and I should like to know whether in the new reorganisation Bangalore will remain within the jurisdiction of Madras. There has been a question of the cession of Bangalore to Mysore. Bangalore is a city of 137,000 inhabitants, and a large number of them are Moslems who very greatly object to being ceded to Mysore, and so do the traders of the city.
    The CHAIRMANI think that question would come definitely on Clause 272.

    CLAUSE 47.—(Provisions as to Berar.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    9.45 p.m.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I desire to get a statement from the Secretary of State as to the position of Berar. The Clause says:
    "And whereas it is in contemplation that an agreement shall be concluded between His Majesty and His Exalted Highness whereby, notwithstanding the continuance of the sovereignty of His Exalted Highness over Berar, the Central Provinces and Berar may be governed together as one Governor's Province under this Act by the name of the Central Provinces and Berar: while any such agreement is in force (a) Berar and the Central Provinces shall, notwithstanding the continuance of the sovereignty of His Exalted Highness, be deemed to be one Governor's Province by the name of the Central Provinces and Berar."
    Can we have a statement from the Secretary of State as to what this agreement is. An agitation has gone on for a great many years, and I think we should have a clear statement as to what the Government now actually propose to do. I understand that the sovereignty of the Nizam over Berar is established but that the inhabitants of Berar have not lost

    507
    their rights to have representative government and to continue their connection with the Central Provinces. The people of Berar are anxious to know whether they are to retain their rights as subjects of British India as hitherto, or whether the proposed agreement changes their status and they are to become the subjects of the Nizam. I should like to know what change it is proposed to make in the status of the ordinary inhabitants of Berar and what effect this agreement will have, so far as they are concerned.
    9.48 p.m.
    Major MILNER: I have always understood that the position with regard to Berar was that the Nizam had definitely agreed to the administration of Berar as part of British India. That position has been in existence since 1853, and has been perfectly clear. The Viceroy has said so on one occasion and the Nizam has also said so. The Joint Select Committee refers to the agreement as if it was concluded, but in Clause 47 it will be observed that Sub-section (2) says:
    "If no such agreement is concluded, or if suet an agreement is concluded but subsequently ceases to have effect, references in this Act to the Central Provinces and Berar shall be construed as references to the Central Provinces, and His Majesty in Council may make such consequential modifications in the provisions of this Act relating to the Central Provinces as he thinks proper."
    The position, therefore, seems to me that there is not at the moment a concluded agreement, and if not then the position of the inhabitants of Berar is that they are left in the air. For many years they have to all intents and purposes been part of British India. They have been joined up to the Central Provinces and have had representatives in the Legislature of the Central Provinces. A great many consequences have ensued from that position, and, therefore, serious questions arise if there is no agreement for that position to continue. There is likely to be more apprehension as to their position on the part of the people of Berar. There is this further point. Paragraph (b) says:
    "Any reference in this Act or in any other Act to British India shall be construed as a reference to British India and Berar, and any reference in this Act to subjects of His Majesty shall, except for the purposes of any oath of allegiance, be deemed to include a reference to Berari subjects of His Exalted Highness."
    508
    According to my information, since 1853, certainly for a great many years, the practice has been to take the oath of allegiance to His Majesty only. Apparently the Clause anticipates that notwithstanding an agreement between His Exalted Highness the Nizam and the British Government the oath of allegiance shall be taken both to His Majesty and the Nizam. The consequence is that representatives of Berar in the Central Provinces Legislature are concerned as to whether their future position is not going to be very different from that in the past, and that they are going to be subjects of the Nizam and not of the British Government. They ask for a reassurance in this matter. I had intended to move an Amendment to make the position clear, but I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to assure us that an agreement has been concluded, or is likely to be concluded, and that in any event the position of the people of Berar will be safeguarded, and that in the future as in the past they will be responsible to the British Government.
    9.52 p.m.
    Sir S. HOARE: I can assure hon. Members opposite on this point. The present position of Berar is that it is Hyderabad territory, not British territory. The inhabitants of Berar are not British subjects, and never have been. They are subjects of the Nizam of Hyderabad. For many years past, under treaty with the Nizam, Berar has been administered with the Central Provinces. The administration has been virtually a single administration, but none the less the inhabitants have remained the subjects of the Nizam. In one or two respects the position is somewhat anomalous. In the past the Berar members of the Central Provinces Legislature have taken the oath to His Majesty, although they were really the subjects of the Nizam. It was felt that in view of the changes which are taking place as to Federation and the setting up of autonomous provinces that an anomaly of that kind could not continue, and it was clearly felt that it was essential to go on with the arrangements practically as they are now. I can assure hon. Members that there is no question of retroceding the administration of Berar to the Nizam.

    509
    The Nizam and the Government have been in discussion about the future, and there is a general agreement to go on with the arrangements as they are at present. It is, however, necessary, particularly in view of the fact that federation is being set up, to recognise that they are subjects of the Nizam, but none the less the administration is going on in the future as it has during past years. The agreement made between His Exalted Highness the Nizam and the Crown will come into operation when provincial autonomy comes in. It will not come into operation before; and it will come in on the lines I have indicated. If provincial autonomy does not come into operation the inhabitants of Berar need have no anxiety on that account. The present Treaty would then remain in force, under which the Berars are administered by the Central Provinces. The position, therefore, is quite safe from the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: If I understood that statement correctly the inhabitants of the Berars have never been British subjects?
    Sir S. HOARE: That is so.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Even those born there have always been the subjects of the Nizam, and therefore they have lost nothing by this change? Is it also clear that they do not pay any additional taxes to Hyderabad by reason of this Treaty, that their liability as part of the Central Province remains as it is and there is no additional burden put upon them?
    Sir S. HOARE: There is no additional obligation upon them at all. The Governor of the new Central Provinces under provincial autonomy has a special responsibility in regard to the taxes paid by the inhabitants of the Berars.
    9.57 p.m.
    Sir CHARLES OMAN: It seems to me that in this matter there is no serious danger of injustice being done to anyone. Berar was not conquered from the Mahrattas by the Nizam's sword but by our sword. If the inhabitants do not desire to be put under this Mohammedan Prince I cannot for the life of me see why they should be.
    Clauses 48 and 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 50.—(Council of Ministers.)
    10.0 p.m.
    Mr. GEORGE HALL: I beg to move, in page 32, line 33, after "ministers," to insert "one of whom shall be prime minister."
    There is no need to go into the history of the Provinces of India or to raise any complicated matter, because the Amendment is quite clear. We cannot conceive a council of ministers such as is being set up in this part of the Bill unless the prime minister became a member of that council of ministers. We think that the Secretary of State must inadvertently have left out of this Clause any mention of the prime minister. There may be differences between the Governor and the prime minister, but if differences arise it will be very much better that they should be dealt with in the council of ministers instead of being dealt with outside.
    Sir S. HOARE: This is almost identical with an Amendment that was moved in the federal chapter of the Bill. This Clause is in the usual form in which it is found in all the British Empire constitutions. No mention is made of a prime minister in any of them. In fact the prime minister does not exist on paper in this country—that is in fact, but not in theory. Secondly, I am sure it would be a mistake to make this reference, by name, in the Bill. As I said in the debates on the federal chapter, the position of prime minister and collective responsibility are features of the Constitution that are going to grow up. Our intention is to encourage collective responsibility, and certainly not to discourage the appointment of a prime minister. But they are essentially features of a constitution that grow up rather than are created by Statute. We make our position clear in paragraph 8 of the Instrument of Instructions. We make it quite clear that the objective we have in mind is collective responsibility. But we do not think it would be appropriate to make the appointment in a Bill, as it is never mentioned in any other constitution, and particularly because in India the development may be somewhat different from the development in Great Britain and other parts of the Empire.
    10.3 p.m.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: Of course we are acquainted with the fact that technically there is no such person as a Prime Minister in this country. The same thing applies elsewhere. But the Dominions have had a certain amount of experience, and experience has justified some individual person being selected as Prime Minister. This Amendment moved at this point is really related to another Amendment at the top of page 833. In that case the Governor in his discretion may preside at the council of ministers. We wish to put the point that the leading person should be formally regarded as the Prime Minister, and ipso facto, therefore, he might become the Chairman of the Council of Ministers and preside at the Council without the necessity for the Governor interfering in the day-today work of what we might then regard as the formally constituted Cabinet. I am sorry if the right hon. Gentleman does not find it possible to accept the Amendment. We attach a little importance to it, because he has already said that the Indian people are inclined to think literally in terms of our institutions here, and they would attach some importance to the formal institution of a Cabinet much on the lines that we have in this country. And to give expression to that desire we feel desirous of carrying this to a division.
    10.6 p.m.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: There is no such person constitutionally in this country as a Prime Minister, and the hon. Gentleman who tabled this Amendment knew that there was not, because he spelt it with a small "p" and a small "m." The nominal office would not have had any existence at all, but that George I, I understand, was not able to speak English very well, and he asked the Lord of the Treasury to preside at meetings of the Cabinet, over which previously the Sovereign used to preside. It is true that the Prime Minister here takes precedence after the Archbishop of York, but I am not sure after whom the Prime Minister of India would take precedence.
    10.7. p.m.
    Mr. COCKS: We want by this Amendment to give the Indian Government a clear start. We would like them to have a prime minister with a party Government.
    512
    We do not want to see someone picking a Socialist here, a Conservative there, a Liberal somewhere else, and combining them altogether, and calling them a National Government. That is the kind of thing that would embarrass the Indians from the start. We want to feel that the great precedents of the past in this House—not the one that started in 1931—are being followed. Therefore we think that it would be a very good thing if they had a prime minister with a majority behind him, all agreeing on a particular basis, and an opposition opposing them; and not a system, such as we have had in the last four years, where you have a number of people picked out of a bag, holding all sorts of views, shaken together, and made into a national Cabinet. We think that that would be a bad start for India, and therefore we propose that a prime minister should be provided.
    10.9 p.m.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The Conservative party have been cajoled into making enormous surrenders of the control of Parliament over India on the basis that all this power is to be placed potentially and under reserve in the hands of the Viceroy, so that if a serious situation arises he can, as it were, resume the power indirectly which Parliament now exercises. This proposal seeks to reduce' the Viceroy, into whose hands these great powers have been placed. It is going beyond what is desirable.
    The CHAIRMAN: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that this is not a question of the Viceroy? We have got on to the Provinces.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: But the principle is exactly the same. Having entrusted the whole of these powers to the Governors of the Provinces, you are now to reduce the Governor to the position of a constitutional sovereign who only acts on the receipt of minutes from his Ministers and remains isolated and remote until some very rare constitutional crisis arises. That is a position which is even more destructive of any attempt to give guidance to the Indian Provinces than anything we have heard of in this Bill.
    10.11 p.m.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that I cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman to

    513
    develop that. This Clause is an exact repetition of the one regarding the Federal Legislature, and I was only moved to select this one particular Amendment at the special request of the Members of the Opposition who explained to me the particular reason for which they wanted to move it. But nothing connected with this Amendment has any effect on what is provided by the rest of the Clause, which has already been decided. It is merely a question, as I see it, whether one of these ministers shall be described as prime minister or not, which is a very narrow point.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: With very great respect, Sir, the formal appointment of a provincial prime minister is really not a technical point, and the avowed intention of those who moved this Amendment—and I suppose I am in order in discussing the Amendment—was to create a prime minister and to push the Governor out of the discussions of the Provincial Cabinet, a very grave proposal. It is the kind of proposal which shows how we shall develop in this matter. No doubt the same process will be applied at the centre.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that if that is the meaning of the Amendment I must rule it definitely out of order.
    Mr. ATTLEE: On a point of Order. I hope that you will take the meaning of the Amendment from its Movers and not from the right hon. Gentleman.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I must ask the rest of the Committee to discuss it as it was interpreted by the Mover. It was accepted by the Chair on that basis.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am a little puzzled how you can discuss the question of the appointment of a prime minister without in any way trespassing on the significance of such an event. It seems to me that we are invited to discuss this question in vacuo. What is the point of calling him prime minister if it is not to convey any constitutional change? Hon. Gentlemen, terrorised by your mild authority, for fear their Amendment should be declared out of order, now profess that all that they mean is to call some particular member by the title of "prime minister," but that it is not going to make the slightest difference.
    514
    Are we going to take up our limited time in Committee in endeavouring to bestow mere honorific titles. If it be merely a question of calling some minister "prime minister" and it is clearly understood that it will have no effect on the functions, status and significance of the body, I agree that we need not waste our time in speaking to the Amendment. But if there be any question of embarking upon the idea that there is to be erected from these ministers a personage, a potentate who will replace the Governer in council then obviously that is a point upon which we must take a Division.
    10.15 p.m.
    Mr. ATTLEE: The point here is that already in India you have a minister who is called the first minister. In the Province of Madras, where, I think most people will agree, the political system under the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms has been worked probably rather better than elsewhere and in a manner approximating more closely to our usage, they have this first minister. As I understand, it is not contemplated in the Bill that the Governor will necessarily always preside at the council of ministers. Therefore, we think it is well to provide for a prime minister. We could not discuss this point on the Clause concerning the Central Legislature because at the Centre we are to have a system of dyarchy and a legislature composed partly of elected persons and partly of representatives of the States. We could not discuss this question therefore until we came to the Provinces.
    My point is that we are trying to develop, at all events in some of the Provinces, a Parliamentary system something like our own. Whether it is possible or not is arguable but the attempt is being made and for that purpose one does not want to have small collections of ministers presided over by a Governor and dependent in many Provinces upon conflicting groups who will only support their own minister. What we want to do, in order to approximate to our own system is to develop a body of ministers with joint responsibility and a regular body of supporters and for that purpose someone is required in the position of prime minister. I dare say I shall be told as we have been told by one learned historian this

    515
    evening, the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), that the term "prime minister" is unconstitutional. I do not think anyone will suggest that we would get very far with this Bill if we followed constitutional precedent. The Measure is full of all kinds of novel suggestions and therefore I am not precluded from supporting the Amendment by the fact that this provision has not been included in some other Constitution—I am not even precluded by the fact that we have not a George I in India at the moment. I do not think that really affects the matter. The point is how best to get the Constitution to work. Everybody knows that if there is one thing on which practically all Indian politicians are united, it is the desire to follow as closely as possible the model of Westminster and it is for that reason that we move the Amendment.
    10.19 p.m.
    Sir C. OMAN: I want to point out that this term with a small "p" and a small "m" has no meaning at all, for prime minster in England is a vague and meaningless term which was applied, for example, to the Duke of Buckingham under Charles I. when the pamphleteers were abusing him. It was applied also to Lord Shaftesbury under Charles II. But it had no technical meaning. It was sometimes applied as an abusive term. I take it that in any group of Ministers there is generally one who has more influence than others and it is extremely likely that in the course of time in these provincial governments, sometimes one person will be prime minister, that is to say the most influential member of the Cabinet and sometimes another. The position of prime minister will be very largely a psychological matter depending on the relative amount of power which individuals in the cabinet exercise. It therefore seems to me that with a small "p" and a small "m" it has no meaning whatever. If you had a big "P" and a big "M," then the whole question raised by the right hon. Gentleman would have come into consideration. In our English literature a prime minister must be taken to be the most important person among the King's advisers—at one moment one person, and at another moment another person, it may be.
    10.21 p.m.
    Mr. AMERY: I think the object of the hon. Members opposite is entirely met by paragraph VIII in the Instructions to the Governor, which says that in selecting his ministers he shall do it
    "in consultation with the person who, in his judgment, is most likely to command a stable majority in the Legislature."
    Obviously he selects a particular person as the most important and authoritative minister, and he will naturally to that extent be prime minister.
    10.22 p.m.
    Earl WINTERTON: I do not think we ought to treat this matter in too frivolous a way, because it is true, as the hon. Member opposite said, that Indians attach a great deal of importance to terms. I am not going to get out of order by attempting to pursue the line pursued by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), though I was strongly tempted to follow him in what he said. He said that if this official is to be a person who really functions, he will object to the Amendment. I believe that in our rough island history there have been instances of Prime Ministers here who did not properly function. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] I am talking historically of those cases where some member of the Government has been more powerful than the Prime Minister. I am not talking of the present day or the present generation, but there have been such cases in the past.
    It is true to say that under this proposal, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), not only under this Clause but under a subsequent Clause, it is clear that that Indian statesman who has the most influence over his particular party and over his particular province would be chosen by the Governor as spokesman for the rest. There is nothing in the Clause to prevent a development such as the hon. Members opposite wish to see, nor is there anything in the Clause which would have the calamitous results which my right hon. Friend foresaw but which he was not able fully to expound to the Committee owing to the ruling of the Chair. Therefore, I think it is unnecessary to put in these words. If we do, let us spell them with a capital "P" and a capital "M," but let us not

    517
    use a phrase which in this country is hardly constitutional. In the old days we talked of "the First Lord of the Treasury," though I am sorry to say that in recent years there has grown up the habit of referring to him as "the Prime Minister." If we are going to use a phrase of this kind, let us use a term which is more common in the country in which it will be used, such as Vizier or
    Diwan, not an English phrase which in this country is only a cognomen and is not really an official term.
    Amendment negatived.
    Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 256; Noes, 39.

    Division No. 100.]

    AYES.

    [10.28 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

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

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

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

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

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    McConnell, Sir Joseph

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Albery, Irving James

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

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

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    McKeag, William

    Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    McKie, John Hamilton

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

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Apsley, Lord

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

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

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Glossop, C. W. H.

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

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Balniel, Lord

    Goff, Sir Park

    Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

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

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

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

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

    Graves, Marjorie

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

    Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

    Milne, Charles

    Bernays, Robert

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

    Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)

    Blindell, James

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

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Bossom, A. C.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

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

    Boulton, W. W.

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

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

    Bower, Commander Robert Tatton

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

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

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Boyce, H. Leslie

    Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)

    Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Munro, Patrick

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

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

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Browne, Captain A. C.

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

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

    Buchan, John

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Bullock, Captain Malcolm

    Hornby, Frank

    Peake, Osbert

    Burgin. Dr. Edward Leslie

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Pearson, William G.

    Burnett, John George

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Peat, Charles U.

    Butler, Richard Austen

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Penny, Sir George

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Petherick, M.

    Carver, Major William H.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

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

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Potter, John

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

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

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

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Janner, Barnett

    Pybus, Sir John

    Christle, James Archibald

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

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

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Rankin, Robert

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Cooke, Douglas

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Kimball, Lawrence

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

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

    Kirkpatrick, William M.

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Remer, John R.

    Curry, A. C.

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

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

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Rickards, George William

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Lewis, Oswald

    Robinson, John Roland

    Denman, Hon. R D.

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Denville, Alfred

    Lindsay, Noel Ker

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Donner, P. W.

    Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Liewellin, Major John J.

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

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

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Russell. R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Mabane, William

    Salmon, Sir Isldore

    Salt, Edward W.

    Stones, James

    Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)

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

    Storey, Samuel

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

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

    Stourton, Hon. John J.

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Selley, Harry R.

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Watt, Major George Steven H.

    Shute, Colonel Sir John

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.

    Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)

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

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Smithers, Sir Waldron

    Templeton, William P.

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Somerset, Thomas

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Thompson, Sir Luke

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    Spens, William Patrick

    Tree, Ronald

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward and

    Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Major George Davies.

    Stevenson, James

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    NOES.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Nathan, Major H. L.

    Banfield, John William

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Batey, Joseph

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)

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

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Thorne, William James

    Buchanan, George

    Lawson, John James

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cape, Thomas

    Leonard, William

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Lunn, William

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Daggar, George

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    McGovern, John

    Wilmot, John

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Maxton, James

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

    Milner, Major James

    Mr. Paling and Mr. Groves.

    Clause 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 52.—(Special responsibilities of Governor.)
    The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper:
    In page 33, line 38, at the end, to insert:
    "arising from subversive movements or the activities of any person or persons tending to crimes of violence."—[Mr. Mainwaring.]
    The CHAIRMAN: Sir Samuel Hoare.
    10.38 p.m.
    Mr. COCKS: On a point of Order. Do I understand, Sir Dennis, that you are are not calling the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Rhondda (Mr. Mainwaring).
    The CHAIRMAN: That is so.
    Mr. COCKS: Further to that point of Order. We were informed, when we put down an Amendment on the federation side, that it was not called so that the subject might be discussed on the provincial side.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is mistaken. The Amendment is not selected.
    Mr. COCKS: Further to that point of Order. Is it not possible—
    The CHAIRMAN: No.
    10.39 p.m.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: I gather in consultation with my friends, that a very definite pledge was given by the Chairman of the Committee at an earlier stage that this Amendment would be called at this stage. I should be very glad indeed if we could have a chance of discussing the matter and if you could reconsider your decision.
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not know of and cannot admit any question of a pledge from the Chair that this Amendment will be called. As a matter of fact the hon. Member and others drew my special attention to their wish to move this Amendment and I looked at it with great care to see if I could meet their wishes. Without going to the extent of giving reasons I can assure the hon. Member that there were reasons which in my opinion make it quite impossible for me to select the Amendment.
    Mr. JONES: Thank you, Sir.
    10.40 p.m.
    Sir S. HOARE: I beg to move, in page 34, line 1, after "to," to insert:

    521
    "and to the dependants of, persons who are or have been."
    This is the same Amendment that I moved in the Federal Chapter to safeguard the dependants of members of the public services.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 34, line 2, after "provided," insert "or preserved."—[Sir S. Hoare.]
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 34, line 18, at the end, to insert:
    "(h) the safeguarding of the financial stability and credit of the Provincial Government."
    These words, as the Committee will remember, appear in paragraph (b) of Clause 12, where one of the special responsibilties of the Governor-General is the financial stability and credit of the Federal Government. I was rather amazed, when reading the special responsibilities of provincial Governors, to discover that they did not include the question of the financial stability and credit of any of the provincial governments. I realise that the provincial governments are not in quite the same financial situation as the Federal Government when we are considering the relationships of India as a whole to the world as a whole. As regards questions like those of exchange rates, the balance of trade, or borrowing outside India, India as a whole, and its financial stability and credit, are in a peculiar position, but strictly speaking that is not the case to the same extent with the Provinces. To take the analogy of this country, if what we may call the Federal Government of this country—the government which ultimately derives, its authority from the country—makes mistakes, the effect on the credit of this country as a whole, from the point of view of the world at large, may be disastrous. If, on the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman opposite inspires the Metropolitan Borough Council of Poplar to indulge in grave errors, as a result of which Poplar is reduced to a deplorable state, that would not necessarily wreck the credit of the British Government.[HON. MEMBERS: "Why single out Poplar?"] I was only taking Poplar as an example of what might happen. In this country we have, not a federal government, but a unitary government. We have, however, a great
    522
    many self-governing areas which get into a certain amount of financial trouble, and, remembering that the right hon. Gentleman once went to gaol because he did not quite like all these financial responsibilities, he seemed to be a useful example to quote. I did not go beyond that. I understand that Brixton was more comfortable than, he anticipated, but that is by the way.
    On the other hand, a provincial government in India is very much larger than any local government authority in this country. Some of the Indian provinces have populations of 50,000,000 or more. If the anticipations of some hon. Members are realised, and these provincial governments, with the real responsibilities that this Bill will give them, pursued an active policy of social reform of a kind that all of us would wish to pursue so far as we were financially able to do so—if they pursued such a policy to a point at which ultimately they involved the province in a grave financial responsibility, a condition might arise in which, for the sake of the reputation of India as a whole, the Federal Government might find itself called upon to come to the aid of a province, irrespective of any provisions that may be contained in this Bill. It is obvious that an important unit in the Government of the country cannot be permitted to crash, and yet conceivably a provincial government might pursue a financial policy which ultimately would bring the province into complete financial discredit. Nevertheless, under the Bill as it stands, the Governor has no special responsibility in the matter. I think that he ought to have a special responsibility, and it is for that reason that I have moved this Amendment.
    10.45 p.m.
    Sir S. HOARE: I am afraid that I must resist this Amendment. I am taking my stand on the solid and unshakeable rock of the Simon Commission. Hon. Members will remember that in the report of the Statutory Commission there is a long paragraph upon this subject in which it is clear that the question is very fully considered as to whether the safeguard was necessary for the Provincial Governments. Hon. Members of the Committee will find that there is an overwhelming case set out in the paragraph against the proposition

    523
    urged by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams). The position is that in the case of the Federal Legislature at the Centre there are several reasons for responsibility of this kind. There is the reason of the credit of India and of the large charge upon the Indian revenues for services like the service of debt, the maintenance of the Army and other services, like the maintenance of the provision for pensions. Those special conditions do not exist in the ease of the Provinces. As they do not exist, there seems every reason against entrenching so widely upon the field of provincial autonomy as would be the result of imposing upon the Provincial Governments a safeguard of this kind. I was under the impression that almost all of us wished to make provincial autonomy a real autonomy and put as much responsibility as possible upon the shoulders of the ministers. If an Amendment of this kind is carried it will, for no good reason, as far as I can judge, very seriously entrench on that responsibility, and on that account I recommend very strongly to the Committee that they should abide by the carefully considered recommendations of the Simon Commission and of the Joint Select Committee and by the view that I strongly express to the Committee to-night, that an Amendment of this kind would strike at the very root of provincial autonomy.
    10.49 p.m.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that six or seven years ago he and I voted for a Bill which enabled special commissioners to be put into West Ham and one or two other places, and I would ask him if he can give any reason why the Federal Government of India should not have the same power which this Parliament definitely conferred upon the Minister of Health to interfere with certain authorities who were running a financial rake's progress.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now getting back to the Federal question, which cannot be discussed on this Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I notice that the Amendment standing in the name of my
    524
    hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman) is not taken. May I ask for a Ruling as to when this most important and substantial point can be raised?
    The CHAIRMAN: I have already told the right hon. Gentleman that I would prefer not to do so. I do not fancy the idea of having to advise Members on how to conduct their business.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: May I assume that responsibility and assume that a new Clause would be the proper way?
    The CHAIRMAN: I would not venture to say that in public, at any rate.
    Further Amendments made:
    In page 34, line 23, leave out "Bengal and the Governor of Assam," and insert:
    "any Province which includes an excluded area."
    In line 25, leave out "their," and insert "his."
    In line 27, leave out "the Governor of the North-West Frontier Province," and insert:
    "any Governor who is discharging any functions as agent for the Governor-General."
    In line 29, leave out from the second "of," to "is," in line 31, and insert, "those functions."—[Sir S. Hoare.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    10.53 p.m.
    Mr. COCKS: Although on this side of the Committee we have many objections to this Clause, chiefly because we think that the Governor's special responsibilities are too widely defined, I want to concentrate my remarks on one point only in the hope that the Secretary of State may at a later stage meet us on this matter. The point I want to address my remarks to is of great importance, one which was supported by every delegate from British India to the Joint Select Committee. In paragraph (a) the Governor has a special responsibility for the prevention of any grave menace to the peace or tranquillity of a Province or any part thereof. It is the opinion of the Indian delegates, of myself and those on this side of the Committee, that that power was too widely drafted. A great many do not object to the Governor

    525
    having special responsibility for anything causing a grave menace, such as a terrorist movement, a movement of violence, a movement against the law and order of the Constitution, but we feel these words cover a much wider sphere than that—that they cover a sphere described earlier in the evening by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee). The point that was urged upon the Joint Select Committee was this: Suppose the Indian Government bring forward a Measure, desired by the majority of the members, that impinges to some extent upon the rights, liberties or feelings of another section of the population. It may be a case of temple entry, of child marriage or of land legislation. The fact that the Bill had been produced and that arguments were put forward strongly in support of it, might cause a very active opposition, which might not confine itself to the ordinary arguments of the chamber, but might cause communal and social disturbance. We feel that in a case of that sort the Governor might be approached by the representatives of the minority, who might say: "This is a Bill which the Government are forcing forward which is causing certain disturbance in a part of the Province. We feel that it is causing great menace to the peace and tranquillity of the Province, and therefore we urge you to use your powerful hand to see that the Bill is withdrawn." In our opinion, that is a wrong thing.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse said, in the earlier years of the last century the object of the British Government was to remove any grievances which arose from deep-rooted customs in India. Under Lord William Bentinck and the Marquess of Dalhousie a forward policy was pursued to put an end to certain Indian customs which were thought not to be fitting in civilised society, but after the mutiny we were afraid to go on in that way, and it was considered that the English people ought to confine themselves to administration and not to interfere with these Indian customs. One of the arguments for putting more power into the hands of the Indians was that they would be able to deal with these problems which we ourselves felt that we could not do; that we must not interfere with these things but leave the Indians to deal with them when they had control. Now we are giving
    526
    India control in this Bill. This particular Clause would enable the Governor-General to say: "You must not go on with that particular Bill, because it is causing wide disturbance, which may be a menace to the peace and tranquillity of the realm.
    The second point is this, and we think it is very important—I know that the Secretary of State shares my view in regard to it—that the ministers should learn responsibility by the old method of trial and error. If they bring in a measure which is unpopular they should face the consequences of the unpopularity of that measure. If the Governor is given this particular power in this Clause what will happen will be that those who are opposed to this particular thing will throw the blame not upon the ministers but upon the Governor. Therefore, instead of building up a responsible ministry such as we have in this country, understanding what the difficulties are and tackling them, we shall have ministers throwing responsibility upon the Governor, and the Governor will have to take the blame and the responsibility.
    It being Eleven of the Clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  CATTLE INDUSTRY (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

  CLAUSE 1.—(Amendments of ss. 2 and 3 of 24 & 25 Geo. 5. c. 54.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  11.2 p.m.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: This Measure has been before the House on three occasions already and we feel that our reasons for our opposition have been presented. The Measure is so drawn as to make effective Amendments well nigh impossible and, therefore, we are obliged to persist in our opposition by expressing it in the Lobby. We do not intend to waste the time of the Committee but to take a Division on this Clause and on Clause 2.
  The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): The Committee, I am sure, is obliged to the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) for his businesslike procedure, and I can assure him that the Government appreciate it. We fully recognise the necessity for the
  Opposition to register their opposition to this Bill.
  Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 227; Noes, 49.

  Division No. 101.]

  AYES.

  [11.4 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

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

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

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Orr Ewing, I. L.

  Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

  Graves, Marjorie

  Palmer, Francis Noel

  Albery, Irving James

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Patrick, Colin M.

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

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

  Peake, Osbert

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

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Pearson, William G.

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

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Peat, Charles U.

  Apsley, Lord

  Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)

  Penny, Sir George

  Aske, Sir Robert William

  Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

  Percy, Lord Eustace

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

  Perkins, Walter R. D.

  Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

  Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Petherick, M.

  Bainlel, Lord

  Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

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

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Walter

  Potter, John

  Bateman, A. L.

  Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

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

  Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

  Hornby, Frank

  Pybus, Sir John

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

  Horsbrugh, Florence

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

  Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

  Howard, Tom Forrest

  Ramsden, Sir Eugene

  Bernaye, Robert

  Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

  Rankin, Robert

  Bllndell, James

  Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

  Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

  Bossom, A. C.

  Hume, Sir George Hopwood

  Reid, David D. (County Down)

  Boulton, W. W.

  Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

  Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

  Bower, Commander Robert Tatton

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Reid, William Allan (Derby)

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

  Remer, John R.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

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

  Renwick, Major Gustav A.

  Brass, Captain Sir William

  Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

  Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

  Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

  Ker, J. Campbell

  Rickards, George William

  Broadbent, Colonel John

  Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

  Robinson, John Roland

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

  Ropner, Colonel L.

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

  Kimball, Lawrence

  Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward

  Bullock, Captain Malcolm

  Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

  Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

  Burghley, Lord

  Leech, Dr. J. W.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Burnett, John George

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)

  Butler, Richard Austen

  Liddall, Walter S.

  Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

  Cadogan, Hon. Edward

  Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)

  Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

  Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

  Lindsay, Noel Ker

  Salmon, Sir Isldore

  Caporn, Arthur Cecil

  Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

  Salt, Edward W.

  Carver, Major William H.

  Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

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

  Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

  Llewellin, Major John J.

  Selley, Harry R.

  Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

  Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)

  Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

  Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

  Loder, Captain J. de Vere

  Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Christle, James Archibald

  Loftus, Pierce C.

  Shute, Colonel Sir John

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

  Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)

  Colfox, Major William Philip

  Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

  Smithers, Sir Waldron

  Conant, R. J. E.

  Mabane, William

  Somerset, Thomas

  Cook, Thomas A.

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

  Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

  Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

  Crocke, J. Smedley

  McConnell, Sir Joseph

  Spencer, Captain Richard A.

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

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Spens, William Patrick

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

  MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

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

  McKie, John Hamilton

  Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Davison, Sir William Henry

  McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

  Stevenson, James

  Donner, P. W.

  Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

  Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Duckworth, George A. V.

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

  Stones, James

  Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

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

  Storey, Samuel

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

  Marsden, Commander Arthur

  Stourton, Hon. John J.

  Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony

  Martin. Thomas B.

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

  Sutcliffe, Harold

  Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

  Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

  Tate, Mavis Constance

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

  Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

  Milne, Charles

  Thompson, Sir Luke

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

  Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

  Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

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

  Touche, Gordon Cosmo

  Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

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

  Tree, Ronald

  Fremantle, Sir Francis

  Moss, Captain H. J.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

  Fuller, Captain A. G.

  Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

  Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

  Glliett, Sir George Masterman

  Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

  Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)

  Glossop, C. W. H.

  O'Donovan, Dr. William James

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

  Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

  Goff, Sir Park

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

  Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

  Wells, Sydney Richard

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

  Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

  Watt, Major George Steven H.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

  Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain

  Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Sir George Bowyer.

  NOES.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

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

  Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

  Banfield, John William

  Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Maxton, James

  Batey, Joseph

  Holdsworth, Herbert

  Milner, Major James

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Janner, Barnett

  Nathan, Major H. L.

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

  Jenkins, Sir William

  Parkinson, John Allen

  Buchanan, George

  Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Cape, Thomas

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Cleary, J. J.

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

  Smith, Tom (Normanton)

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Lawson, John James

  Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)

  Curry, A. C.

  Leonard, William

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Daggar, George

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lunn, William

  Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

  Gardner, Benjamin Walter

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

  McEntee, Valentine L.

  Wilmot, John

  Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

  McGovern, John

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

  McKeag, William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Mr. Groves and Mr. Paling.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Advances to Cattle Fund from Consolidated Fund.)
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 216; Noes, 48.

  Division No. 102.]

  AYES.

  [11.12 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

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

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

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

  Donner, P. W.

  Liddall, Walter S.

  Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

  Duckworth, George A. V.

  Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)

  Albery, Irving James

  Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

  Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

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

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

  Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

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

  Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony

  Llewellin, Major John J.

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

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Lockwood. Capt. J. H. (Shipley)

  Apsley, Lord

  Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

  Loder, Captain J. de Vere

  Aske, Sir Robert William

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Loftus, Pierce C.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

  Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

  Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

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

  Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

  Bainlel, Lord

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Mabane, William

  Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

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

  Bateman, A. L.

  Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

  MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

  Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

  Fremantle, Sir Francis

  McConnell, Sir Joseph

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

  Fuller, Captain A. G.

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

  Bernays, Robert

  Gillett, Sir George Masterman

  McKie, John Hamilton

  Blindell, James

  Glossop, C. W. H.

  McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

  Bossom, A. C.

  Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.

  Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

  Boulton, W. W.

  Goff, Sir Park

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

  Bower, Commander Robert Tatton

  Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

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

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Marsden, Commander Arthur

  Brass, Captain Sir William

  Graves, Marjorie

  Martin, Thomas B.

  Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

  Broadbent, Colonel John

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)

  Mille, Major J. D. (New Forest)

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

  Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

  Milne, Charles

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

  Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

  Bullock, Captain Malcolm

  Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

  Burghley, Lord

  Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

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

  Burnett, John George

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

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

  Butler, Richard Austen

  Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

  Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

  Cadogan, Hon. Edward

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

  Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

  Howard, Tom Forrest

  Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

  Caporn, Arthur Cecil

  Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

  O'Donovan, Dr. William James

  Carver, Major William H.

  Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

  Hume, Sir George Hopwood

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

  Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

  Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

  Orr Ewing, I. L.

  Christle, James Archibald

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Palmer, Francis Noel

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

  Peake, Osbert

  Colfox, Major William Philip

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

  Pearson, William G.

  Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

  Peat, Charles U.

  Conant, R. J. E.

  Ker, J. Campbell

  Percy, Lord Eustace

  Cook, Thomas A.

  Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

  Perkins, Walter R. D.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

  Petherick, M.

  Crooks, J. Smedley

  Kimball, Lawrence

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

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

  Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

  Potter, John

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

  Leech, Dr. J. W.

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

  Pybus, Sir John

  Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Touche, Gordon Cosmo

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

  Shute, Colonel Sir John

  Tree, Ronald

  Ramsden, Sir Eugene

  Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

  Rankin, Robert

  Smithers, Sir Waldron

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

  Somerset, Thomas

  Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

  Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

  Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

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

  Reid, William Allan (Derby)

  Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

  Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

  Renwick, Major Gustav A.

  Spencer, Captain Richard A.

  Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

  Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

  Spens, William Patrick

  Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

  Rickards, George William

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

  Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

  Robinson, John Roland

  Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Watt, Major George Steven H.

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Stevenson, James

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

  Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward

  Stones, James

  Wells, Sydney Richard

  Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

  Storey, Samuel

  Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Stourton, Hon. John J.

  Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

  Russell, Harrier Field (Shef'ld, B'tslde)

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

  Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

  Sutcliffe, Harold

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Salmon, Sir Isldore

  Tate, Mavis Constance

  Wise, Alfred R.

  Salt, Edward W.

  Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

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

  Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Selley, Harry R.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Captain Sir George Bowyer and

  Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

  Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

  Sir George Penny.

  NOES.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

  Banfield, John William

  Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Maxton, James

  Batey, Joseph

  Holdsworth, Herbert

  Milner, Major James

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Janner, Barnett

  Nathan, Major H. L.

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

  Jenkins, Sir William

  Parkinson, John Allen

  Buchanan, George

  Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Cape, Thomas

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Cleary, J. J.

  Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

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

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Lawson, John James

  Smith, Tom (Normanton)

  Curry, A. C.

  Leonard, William

  Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)

  Daggar, George

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lunn, William

  Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

  Gardner, Benjamin Walter

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

  McEntee, Valentine L.

  Wilmot, John

  Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

  McGovern, John

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

  McKeag, William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Mr. Groves and Mr. Paling.

  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

  Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time upon Friday.

  HERRING INDUSTRY BILL.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

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

  EGYPT (ITALIAN AIRCRAFT).
  EGYPT (ITALIAN AIRCRAFT).
TRANSPORT.
  CHARING CROSS BRIDGE.
  CHARING CROSS BRIDGE.
  CYCLISTS' TRACKS.
  CYCLISTS' TRACKS.
  PROPOSED FORTH ROAD-BRIDGE.
  PROPOSED FORTH ROAD-BRIDGE.
  NORTH AND NORTH-EAST LONDON.
  NORTH AND NORTH-EAST LONDON.
  MOTOR LICENCE DUTIES, WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE.
  MOTOR LICENCE DUTIES, WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE.
  ROAD USERS (ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION).
  ROAD USERS (ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION).
  MOTOR VEHICLE DRIVERS (ACCIDENT PRONENESS).
  MOTOR VEHICLE DRIVERS (ACCIDENT PRONENESS).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (WALES).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (WALES).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  MINISTRY OF LABOUR (MESSENGERS).
  MINISTRY OF LABOUR (MESSENGERS).
  ADMIBALTY (PROMOTION).
  ADMIBALTY (PROMOTION).
  KENYA (SISAL BAGS, MANUFACTORY).
  KENYA (SISAL BAGS, MANUFACTORY).
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LORD HESKETH.
Sir Thomas Fermor-Hesketh, Baronet, having been created Baron Hesketh of Hesketh in the County Palatine of Lancaster—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
WEYMOUTH WATERWORKS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
CLACTON-ON-SEA PIER BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.

INDIAN ROMAN CATHOLICS IN TRAVANCORE.
VISCOUNT FITZALAN OF DERWENT VISCOUNT FITZALAN OF DERWENT had the following Question on the Paper:—To ask His Majesty's Government whether it is a fact that recently an order of the Government of the State of Travancore was promulgated by which the Indian Roman Catholics in that State were classified under the heading of "Depressed Classes"; whether this was done with the knowledge and approval of the British Resident, of the Governor of Madras and of the Viceroy representing the Paramount Power; and what action the Secretary of State has taken or intends to take in the matter.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, when I first put this Question on the Paper I was under the impression that the term "Depressed Classes" was limited to members of the Roman Catholic faith in Travancore, to the Latin Christians, but I have since been informed that the epithet applies to a considerable number of other Christians living in that State as well. The total population of Travancore is, according to the last census of 1931, about 5,000,000. The Christians among that 5,000,000 number about 1,500,000, and they include a great many different categories. There are the Syrian Catholics, about 449,000; the Latin or Roman Catholics, about
46
360,000; and there are the Jacobites and the Mar Thomists—I do not quite know what they are. Then there are the Protestants, put down as 139,000; the Anglicans, as 85,000; and the Salvation Army, as 59,000. For some reason I am quite unable to explain—perhaps my noble friend Viscount Halifax may have some information on the point—the Assyrian Catholics appear to be exempted from the necessity of coming under the description.
We can all understand the reluctance of the Indian Government to interfere in the internal affairs of the Native States, and it is only right and proper that they should refrain from doing so, so far as it is possible, but we all know that there are times when the Government not only do interfere, but must interfere. In the time of the late Lord Curzon, these interferences were more frequent, and the result of their being more frequent was, I understand, that the administration of the internal affairs of Native States was greatly improved, and things worked much better than they had been working. On the other hand, not unnaturally I suppose, that increase of interference produced a certain amount of friction, and in Lord Minto's time the interference considerably diminished, but at no time has it ever been questioned that the Government of India not only had the right to intervene in the internal affairs of a Native State, but that it was their duty to do so. They were, and are, responsible for the happiness and welfare of the people living in those States, and therefore, on occasions, they have to intervene.
I would like for a moment to be allowed to quote to your Lordships an extract from the Treaty that was made in the year 1805 with the East India Company and the then Maharajah of Travancore. Article 9 contains the following:
"His Highness hereby promises to pay at all times the utmost attention to such advice as the English Government shall occasionally judge it necessary to offer to him, with a view to the economy of his finances"—
then follow various other things, and the article continues—
"administration of justice, encouragement of trade, agriculture and industry or any other object connected with the advancement of His Highness's interests, the happiness of his people, and the mutual welfare of both States."

47
I suggest that, at any rate, the concluding words of that Treaty bind the Government of India to take action in the particular question I am bringing before your Lordships. I must remind the House that the term "Depressed Classes" is only a more refined way of calling them "Untouchables," for that is what they are. If your Lordships wish to refresh your memories as to what an Untouchable is you will discover it by reading Volume I, pages 37 and 38, of the Simon Commission. Your Lordships will there see what the Untouchables are. Before this more or less recent Order came out in Travancore, the former classification of Christians was under the separate heading of the various denominations to which they belonged, but the new classification puts them into two classes, one called Non-depressed and the other Depressed Classes.
The Depressed Classes comprise the great number of the Christian communities who are all grouped into one community with the Hindu Untouchables—that is to say, the Christians of the different denominations I have enumerated, with the exception of the Assyrian Catholics and perhaps one or two other denominations, are all grouped together in one community and mixed up with the Hindu Untouchables. It is almost comic to think that my noble friend below me and myself and the noble Lord sitting on that Bench, belonging to various Christian communities in this country, would all be—I was going to say contaminated, but I will say, at any rate, mixed up with the Hindu Untouchables under this one heading. I can only inform your Lordships that this action on behalf of the modern Travancore Government has created a great deal of protest in Travancore itself. I understand that even the leading non-Christian papers in that State have objected strongly to this action. There have been, I am told, no less than forty mass meetings in Travancore against it, and I can only describe it as a gross piece of impertinence, an insult, not only to the various Christian communities in Travancore itself, but to Christian communities in this country, and I feel not only that I am justified, but that it is my duty to call the Government's attention to what is going on in that country.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): My Lords, the noble Lord has asked me various questions, and has, in the course of asking them, given expression to the very serious anxiety that he feels; but I hope, in the short reply that it is my duty to make, I may be able to reassure him, to present the matter in a somewhat different perspective, and to satisfy him that he has not been fully informed of the facts in this case. I think the noble Lord was substantially accurate in the numbers that he gave of the various denominations in Travancore, and of the proportion that these numbers bore to the whole population of Travancore. I do not repeat his figures, except to underline, if I may, one figure which is important, and which I wish your Lordships to bear in mind. That is, that out of a total population of something like 5,000,000 in Travancore no fewer than 1,600,000—the noble Viscount said, I think, 1,500,000 but it is rather more—are Christians. That is something like one-third.
The noble Viscount referred to the Treaty that was made with the East India Company by the then Government of Travancore, and on a clause of the Treaty which he quoted founded an argument that it was not only within the competence but that it was the plain duty of His Majesty's Government to interfere in a matter of this kind. On that the first observation that I am constrained to make is that this Treaty dates, as he said, from the year 1805. I am quite sure that anyone who has been concerned in any degree with the administration of Indian States—I see my noble friend Lord Lloyd in his place—would agree with me in saying that it is quite impossible to accept a literal interpretation of a Treaty made 130 years ago when the whole of Indian political practice has been steadily moving and changing ever since. Although I do not wish to be drawn into the general question of the occasions or the circumstances that would be to-day regarded as necessary by the Paramount Power to justify intervention, I would most certainly ask the noble Viscount to take it from me that the literal terms of a Treaty 130 years old as interpreted by him, would not necessarily be held by the representatives of the Paramount Power to justify the kind of intervention

49
he has in mind. Indeed, I would go rather further than that, and I would say on behalf of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that it is unusual to ask for, or for His Majesty's Government's representative to give, information concerning matters affecting the internal administration of an Indian State.
As, however, the noble Viscount was good enough to postpone his Question from the earlier date to which he had alloted it in order to give time for obtaining information from India, my right honourable friend has thought it desirable in this case to enquire in India as to what exactly the occasion was which had brought about a protest on the part of certain persons resident in the neighbouring Province of Madras. I think the reply I am in a position to read to the noble Viscount will—at least, I hope it will—largely reassure him as to the implication of that of which in his Question he complains. This is the reply just received from the Travancore Government:
"There is no truth in the allegation that the classification in question has been recently ordered, but according to classification now in force, Travancore Christians as a whole"—
the noble Viscount, I think, excepted the Syrian Christians, but I understand they are included—
"are divided into five main groups of which Depressed Classes ' is the fifth, representing members of that class converted to Christianity. This classification was made on representation made by and on behalf of such converts in consultation with heads of several important Christian religious denominations in the State who still claim, as a concession, right to be considered as Depressed Classes for purpose of certain educational and other concessions."
The noble Viscount will notice from that reply that it is not a question, to use the old-fashioned term, of the designation Depressed Classes being attached to all Christians—himself, and myself and the most reverend Primate indiscriminately—but that it is attached to -those Christians who were of the Depressed Classes and who were then converted to Christianity. With regard to the second observation made in the telegram, that this classification was made on representations made by and on behalf of such converts, I am able to produce a parallel instance of similar representations being made and. being recently
50
brought to the notice of my right honourable friend. In Northern India converts to Christianity from the Depressed Classes somewhat in the same way preferred the saint, request with a view to retaining the advantages, educational and other, which appertain to the representatives of the so-called Depressed Classes. So far as I am able to understand, I believe that the designation to which my noble friend referred was largely due to the misunderstanding of a recent official circular dealing with quite another matter. For these reasons, my Lords, I would desire to point out that in the judgment of my right honourable friend the matter is one that primarily concerns the State of Travancore.
I would again point out to my noble friend, as I mentioned at the beginning, that the strength of the Christian community in that State is roughly one-third of the entire population, and having regard to that, and having regard to what is generally acknowledged to be the advanced character of administration in the State of Travancore, I do not really believe that there is any serious reason for my noble friend to be gravely perturbed that any legitimate grievance expressed on behalf of those for whom he has asked this Question this afternoon will not be adequately dealt with. I am bound to deplore—if he will allow me to do so—that he should have thought it necessary to stigmatise by such hard words as those which fell from his lips the administration of a State in India upon which those who have had the closest contact with it have always had nothing but praise and approval to bestow.
VISCOUNT FITZALAN OF DERWENT: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for the trouble he has taken in making his reply, but I cannot for a moment admit that I consider it satisfactory. I can assure him that the information I received comes from various bodies in Travancore itself, and they put an entirely different interpretation upon the position from the one he has given to your Lordships as coming from the Government of Travancore. Purposely I have not alluded to the administration in Travancore and other matters, but the time may come when attention will be called to the present administration of Travancore, which is very far from being

51
satisfactory in the minds of a great many people, not only people in that part of India but people of considerable experience and knowledge in this country. I warn my noble friend that I think it is very likely that I shall have to call attention again to this matter, because it is quite impossible for me to accept entirely the smooth words which have been put into his mouth from the Government of Travancore.

GOVERNMENT'S STATEMENT ON DEFENCE.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE rose to move to resolve, That this House deplores the issue of the recent "Statement relating to Defence" as calculated to add to international difficulties, lead to increased competition in armaments, increase the difficulties which confront the Disarmament Conference, and weaken seriously the system of collective security inherent in the Covenant of the League of Nations which is the basis of existing treaty obligations.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I put this Motion down for discussion, to-day, although a debate on the same subject took place only two days ago in another place. I felt that the question was of such great national importance that an opportunity should be allowed for an expression of opinion in your Lordships' House, where, I feel sure, there are many who will be listened to when they speak on the subject. I understand that the Government will reply through the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope. May I say that we are very glad to see him returned from his travels, and I feel sure that the noble Earl, wherever he goes, would only increase friendly international relations. That I say personally. Officially, of course, he is hound by certain policies which do not appear to me to be helping international harmony, and I think he must have been rather taken aback on his return to be confronted with this surprising document, although he will not admit that. I feel sure that he, personally, has had no part in the drafting of it, and it certainly does present something which is very unusual, both in its form, its language, and its substance. It has raised a great deal of consternation, I would say, throughout the country, and the expression of that alarm is not likely to subside for some time, because we
52
realise, and I think most people realise, that this is not the end of anything, but is the beginning of something. This is a first step, and if His Majesty's Government remain in office, as they seem inclined to do, to the very limit of their term, we may expect another instalment of this policy of rearmament, and that, I think, is why the country as a whole is regarding this with great seriousness.
Generally speaking, what one finds in this Paper, apart from the more technical sections, the last three sections, is an expression of mistrust—mistrust of the nations of Europe. It is said that:
"Nations are still prepared to use or threaten force under the impulse of what they conceive to be a national necessity."
That is to say, nations are all prepared to scrap the agreements that they have made, and the Briand-Kellogg Pact which they signed, declaring that they would not use force as an expression of national policy. The Foreign Office probably knows how far that is true, but to express that publicly to the world in a document appears to me to be a most unfortunate method of ensuring peace and good will and harmony among the nations. If His Majesty's Government are suffering from a certain nervous hysteria, at least they should restrain themselves when it comes to issuing these important public documents. It is, indeed, a serious matter that this mistrust is to form the basis of a policy. We believe no nation, we trust no nation—of course we know that we ourselves are to be trusted, but nobody else—and therefore we must rearm! We may feel that necessity, but to put down that as the cause appears to me to be the most unfortunate bit of diplomacy we have heard of lately.
Then it is asserted, and this is what I object to very much, that our rearmament is greeted with applause and approval by all the other nations. If any other nation rearms it is alarming, and we must take steps ourselves, but when we rearm then everybody is said to be delighted. That is a form of self-righteous hypocrisy which I think we ought to abandon. I do not believe it is true. I believe that the only effect of our rearmament is to stimulate the competitive system, and to make other nations feel thoroughly justified in adding to their armaments too. France is proceeding

53
with measures of rearmament, and are no doubt very glad to fall back upon the explanation that we too are taking the same line. This abandonment of cooperation, this absence of confidence, this foundation of mistrust, and this return to national armaments is, of course, a fiat denial of the collective system, and a repudiation of the fundamental principle for which the League of Nations stands.
The reference to the League of Nations is very casual. It is referred to as just a clearing house for the various international negotiations. But I thought that the collective system, for which the League of Nations stands, was the foundation of our policy, and indeed the noble Earl himself, not long ago, in a debate in this House, declared the adherance of His Majesty's Government to the collective system. Now we are going to fall back on the old method of looking after ourselves, for ourselves, and of trusting in our own strong right arm. The Government realise that they are running a great risk. In fact, they say so. They say they have not taken these measures sooner because they did not want to run any risk of jeopardising some promising movement in the direction of ensuring permanent peace. They have given that up, and they are now going to jeopardise some promising movement in the direction of ensuring peace. I thought that the negotiations which were undertaken recently with the French Ministers who came over here were understood by the Government to be a promising movement in the direction of peace, and we understood that so promising was it that the conversations were to be extended. Other Powers were to be drawn into the agreement, and we regarded the situation as rather brighter, although there may have been, in the view of some of us, a certain hesitation in accepting all that the understanding with France implied. At any rate, the Government assured us that it was a hopeful movement, and when we heard that the conversations were to be extended, we felt—and I think that everybody in the country felt—that that certainly was a move in the right direction. Then, on the very eve of the conversation being undertaken in Berlin, this document is issued—issued as a preliminary; cannot believe it was issued to make the path smoother for the Foreign
54
Secretary. It was at any rate clear that the consternation which it excited in this country was also felt abroad.
There is an expression used in more than one section of this Paper which lays emphasis on the fact that the Government have shown an example in unilateral disarmament. The Government have done nothing of the kind. Unilateral disarmament, if I may say so, is my policy. I am not going to discuss it to-day, because I have brought it forward before in your Lordships' House, and I shall no doubt have occasion to bring it forward again as the world goes gradually towards that only solution of the problem. What His Majesty's Government have gone in for is unilateral reduction of armaments. That is a policy that is open to very grave criticism; that is a policy that is open to very serious attack, if you believe—as the. Government do—in the efficacy of force. My Lords, if you believe in the efficacy of force, if you believe that you are going to gain your object by devastating great territories and by killing by the hundred thousand men, women and children in their own homes, then a unilateral reduction of armaments is obviously the wrong policy. I do not think the abandonment of it is really justified, but I hope to hear from the Government that they think that the measures which they are taking are adequate. Of course, it is all for defence.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I ask what unilateral disarmament means; whether it is total disarmament?
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I would rather go on with my speech. This statement is relating to defence, and the measures are all for defensive purposes. All measures of armaments in all nations have always been for defensive purposes. The Italians are just now defending themselves against the Abyssinians: the Japanese defended themselves against the Chinese bandits in Manchuria, and no single nation has ever acknowledged that its armaments were ever for any other purpose than defence. The people of this country are, however, sufficiently intelligent to understand that that has always been the excuse, and they are therefore not going to swallow the assertion that the new great development of the armament race is for the defence of all the nations all round.

55
A point in this document that appears to me very serious is the driving of the last nail into the Disarmament Conference. After all, when the Disarmament Conference was still alive, my right honourable friend Mr. Arthur Henderson, through thick and thin, generally in foul and very little in fair weather, has stuck to his post and done what he could to help on the work of that Conference. The record of His Majesty's Government with regard to that Conference is not one of which they need be proud. At times they have endeavoured to bring the nations together, but when one goes through the whole record—as I have recently—of every stage in every month of these three and a half years, one finds that His Majesty's Government have on more occasions either been critical, or have rejected proposals, or have made difficulties, or have introduced qualifications and reservations which have nullified the proposals of other nations. If they wanted to kill the Disarmament Conference they had better have said so earlier on, but to make the failure of the Disarmament Conference an excuse for this rearmament does not strike one as being perfectly frank or honest. After the Disarmament Conference we had this suggestion of what was called an "Air Locarno," and His Majesty's Government have twisted that into an excuse for further rearmament.
Then, my Lords, I come to that part of the Paper which has been very severely criticised even by supporters of the Government, and that is the singling out of Germany and German rearmament as being the excuse and the pretext for rearmament on our part. It certainly was an unfortunate move, and I am only glad that this clumsiness has not led to a break-off of the negotiations with Berlin. But however that may be, German rearmament was a foregone conclusion for any intelligent person who was following international affairs, ever since the Treaty of Versailles. Either we were going to abide by our word—the Allied and Associated Powers—and were going to disarm down to the level of Germany, or else it was inevitable that a Power of Germany's status would demand rearmament up to our level. That question was constantly postponed, constantly shelved. The various reasonable demands of former German Governments were ignored, and we find ourselves confronted with a very
56
serious situation. Nevertheless, it is no use now pretending that German rearmament was an unexpected event. It was an inevitable event, and it is an entirely insufficient excuse for the rearmament of other Powers. Deliberately to put this into a public document just as conversations were going to be initiated in Berlin was so clumsy and maladroit that one could hardly believe that anything of the sort could possibly have been done by any Government.
I am glad that the conversations are to take place; but what I complain of in Sir John Simon's diplomacy is that he is always trying to score off his opponents; he is always scoring points and catching them out. That seems to me a fatal form of diplomacy. The only form of diplomacy which is likely to succeed is that of getting alongside of your opponent, getting alongside of the person or the nation with whom you are disputing, understanding their point of view, and not treating them in a controversial mariner and pointing out where they are wrong. I cannot help wishing that these conversations which are going to take place in Warsaw, Leningrad and Berlin were all going to be conducted by the Lord Privy Seal. I think it would be much more likely that we should get good results.
With regard to the actual rearmament, of course I shall be told that it is not rearmament at all but is merely a precaution—replacing old stuff which is getting decayed, just seeing to our defences, and increasing the air arm as we were told some months ago it was going to be increased—that there is nothing in it at all, and that £10,500,000 will be spent simply in just these little precautions. So far as the Navy and the Army are concerned that may to a large extent be true, but with regard to the air arm it is a very different story. The Lord President of the Council has informed us that there is no adequate and complete defence against air attacks, and therefore the increase in the Air Force is simply a threat at large to foreign countries that their centres, their capitals and their populations are in danger of destruction from us. In fact it is only by the threat of even severer attack that you can pretend to have any defence in the air. Therefore the increase in our Air Force is a deliberate threat to the nations of the world, coupled with what

57
I have said already: "We do not believe your signatures to treaties; we do not trust your word."
I think that is a most unfortunate path to have chosen in international diplomacy. The Government quite undoubtedly will by this move stimulate competition. I do not for a moment accuse them of wanting to stimulate competition, and I am perfectly sure that, like all the rest of us, they want to avoid the conflagration of a war. Of course we take that for granted. What I am disputing is the methods that they adopt. We are always expecting something that will give us hope, and they are always producing something which gives us only despair. H they do really believe—there are certain people who do believe, and His Majesty's Government believe—that force can bring you the object you want, and that by force you can secure your aim, are these preparations adequate? Are the experts satisfied? Why only £10,500,000? Is that enough for the defence of the British Empire from New Zealand to Canada and from the Irish Free State down to the Cape of Good Hope? Is the Air Force sufficient? Why is our Air Force only the fifth? Why do we not make it the first? Why not, spend, not £10,000,000 but £30,000,000 or £40,000,000 or £50,000,000, in adding to our forces, if arms really mean security? To me the position seems to be simply this: that however mach people may believe in armaments they are not convinced that they do mean security. But it does seem astonishing to me, after the experience of 1914–1918, that anybody can believe that armaments can bring anything but devastation, destruction, dislocation, misery and suffering both to the victors and to the vanquished.
My Lords, I want to say a word about the end of this White Paper. I will not emphasise the point which was emphasised in another place about the Government calling themselves in this Paper "the National Government"—a most surprising proceeding, but very characteristic, sheltering themselves behind a, title to which they have no claim whatever and never had any claim, in order to impress the world by their importance. I do not want to dwell upon that. I do not know whether there is any significance in the passages where they call themselves "the National
58
Government" and in the passages where they call themselves "His Majesty's Government." I have not analysed the document sufficiently carefully for that. And the Paper is curious in another way: it is initialled. I have the other statements of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, and they are all brought out and signed in the ordinary way. One is signed "Hailsham," one is signed "Londonderry," and the other is signed "Eyres Monsell." But here we have initials. I do not know whether there is any precedent for it.
Let me at once say that I am very glad to hear that the Prime Minister has recovered from his indisposition. This White Paper seems to have had a disastrous effect upon people's health. I myself had a very bad cold last week, but I am better again to-day. I refuse to believe that the Prime Minister, with whom I had the privilege and honour of working not only in office but in Opposition for many years, has initialled this document with anything but deep misgiving and reluctance. Not very long ago he said in a speech:
"People seeking safety by arms are like people seeking shelter under trees during a thunderstorm. They are at the very point which is first struck when the thunderstorm breaks, instead of being secure during grievous danger."
That is more or less recent. I could quote many inspiring sayings of his on the subject of the fallacy of supposing that security rests in armaments, and the danger of doing anything which will encourage competition in armaments.
It is a source of dismay and disappointment to many of us that the Prime Minister should have been forced to acquiesce in the dictates of a Government which he himself created simply and solely to tide over a particular crisis, a Government which has driven him year by year during the last four years to turn his back on principles which he held with such deep earnestness, to scrap the convictions upon which his rise in political life was based, and to abandon the pursuit of policies which were accepted by thousands and even by millions, and which led to the rise of the great Party to which I have the honour to belong. I cannot believe that he put his initials to this document with any enthusiasm, and I feel that the little sentences put in here and there expressing

59
a belief in peace only act as a foil and show up in relief the other parts of this document to which I have called your Lordships' attention.
Before I sit down I want to reply to what may be put on the noble Earl's notes, which is the old gibe that I am a friend of every country but my own. My attack is made not on my country but on this Government that misrepresents the country. This Government does not understand the depth of feeling in the country against any move at all in this direction. I believe that my country is first and foremost in the world in its desire for peace, and in its strenuous pursuit of every method which will get peace between the nations and abolish this infernal, destructive business of war. I believe it is the first, and the Government does not represent this feeling in any way. I do not believe that it represents majority opinion in this country. I believe the peoples of the world are all of them misrepresented by the bungling, clumsy efforts of their Governments. And I should like to see my country take the lead. Instead of that, we find the Government pursuing a policy which must lead to further trouble, which must lead to an increase of armaments, which year by year is going to pile up this terrible burden on the people, this explosive matter which at any moment may burst into flame; because we know that if every country is fully armed it requires a very little spark to set fire to the powder magazine. A loss of temper here, a badly drafted Despatch there, or this sort of Paper might soon spread into a conflagration.
I have thought it right to bring this matter before your Lordships' House because, as I say, there are others here who will want to express an opinion to-day, but on behalf of the Opposition I want to emphasise our strong disapproval of the policy, our deep disappointment at the turn in events, and our feeling that the way it has been done is likely to lead to the worst interpretations being put upon it, not only in this country but abroad. His Majesty's Government, as I said just now, are probably going to remain in office for their full term, but we on this side of the House are glad to say that that full term cannot be for very long, and the only hope for this country and for the world will be that they will be changed for a Govern
60
ment which has this matter very much more closely at heart.
Moved to resolve, That this House deplores the issue of the recent "Statement relating to Defence" as calculated to add to international difficulties, lead to increased competition in armaments, increase the difficulties which confront the Disarmament Conference, and weaken seriously the system of collective security inherent in the Covenant of the League of Nations which is the basis of existing treaty obligations.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord opposite for the kind things he said about me personally. I am afraid that that part of his speech is not likely to make much appearance in the newspapers that support his Party because, from such information as I have, I rather understood that my action at Geneva did not at any rate earn the approval of his Press, nor, as I understood it, was it likely to receive favour at the hands of the noble Viscount who sits on the Cross Benches, but I am glad to observe that at any rate for the time being I am relieved from the anxiety of his attacks.
The Leader of the Opposition, as your Lordships will have observed, has put down the terms of this Vote of Censure in a somewhat different form from that in which it appeared in another place. The noble Lord of course knows his Party very well. He knew that when that Vote of Censure in another place came to be discussed, those who sat on the Opposition Front Bench in that place would undoubtedly take very different points of view, and he therefore wished to be in a perfectly clear position to follow any one of them or, as in fact has been the case, to follow none. If your Lordships have looked at the debate that took place you will have seen that, although Mr. George Lansbury did not take part, his views at any rate are quite clearly known. I think they coincide very nearly with those that are held by the noble Lord opposite. I think he said that he would disband the Army, dismantle the Navy, and dismiss the Air Force; in other words, he would have no defence forces of any sort. Is that the view of the Labour Party?

61
We have another version. We have the version that was put forward by Colonel Wedgwood. He approves of most of the White Paper, but one of his criticisms was that we spend a certain amount of money on the Army and Navy—which the noble Lord opposite apparently does not very much mind—and he objected because we do not spend a great deal snore on the Air Force, which the noble Lord opposite does mind. He went on to say that the true Solution was an International Police Force in the air. Is that the policy of the Labour Party?
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: Colonel Wedgwood is an Independent; he is not in the Labour Party.
EARL STANHOPE: We never quite know whether people are independent or members of that body, because they seem to drift in and out. But at any rate perhaps the noble Lord opposite will agree with me that Major Attlee and Sir Stafford Cripps are still, at the moment, members of the Party—until perhaps it has its next annual conference. Those two state that we should join with everyone else in any war, wherever it takes pace, but that we should do so without supplying any effective force of our own, or without keeping them adequately equipped. It is rather the position of the man who, stands at the door with his hat out to take a collection, but is careful never to put a coin into it himself. Is that the policy of the Labour Party? None of them is the policy of His Majesty's Government.
May I dispose of two points at once? I am glad to find that the noble Lord opposite did not accuse this Government of desiring to go to war. That has been said on a good many occasions, and of course it is perfectly absurd. He said, and he said quite truly, that the people of this country are first and foremost in their desire far peace and in their abhorrence of war. Nobody denies it. Is it likely that the present members of His Majesty's Government are unaware of that fact? Is it likely that, when we know that the country as a whole is bitterly opposed to war, we should be thinking of waging a war of any sort? There is not a single one of us who does not know that, whatever the Government may be, it would not dare to go to
62
war unless there was overwhelming cause, and a convincing cause which we could lay before the people of this country before any such action was proposed. I have heard a good many charges made against this Government, but I have never yet heard the charge that we were so anxious to leave this Bench that we should take the earliest and easiest opportunity of committing suicide. This is not one of the charges to be made, and therefore when people suggest that this Government is inclined to go to war, or wishes to go to war, nothing obviously could be more absurd or more untrue. I hope we shall not hear or see it repeated from any public patform, or on any poster, or anything of that kind.
Sir Stafford Cripps was challenged on Monday last as to what he would have done if he had been in office at the time of the Sino-Japanese dispute. His reply was quite definite. He said—and the noble Lord will find the reference in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the House of Commons—that he would have withdrawn our Ambassador, and if that hail been ineffective, then he would have exerted economic pressure, and if that had failed, then in co-operation with other nations he would have resorted to armaments—in other words, he would have gone to war. It seems to me indeed fortunate that the Labour Party fell from office before the Manchurian dispute arose. They, at any rate, seem to be the warlike Party, and not those who sit on this side of the House.
May I raise another point in order to get rid of it? It is suggested that we are preparing a vast increase in armaments, and the noble Lord opposite kept on referring to rearmament. On the other hand, he said that in past years we have not been practising disarmament but that the proper description of our action was reduction of armaments. Very well; but he cannot have it both ways. What we are doing is to make good the expenditure that should have been incurred in recent years, and instead of making a reduction of armaments, we are making a slight increase. But it is not a question of rearmament, nor is it a question of rearmament on a large scale. May I point out to your Lordships that the increased expenditure which is made public in the White Paper comes to less than nine per cent. of the total amount expended on the Defence

63
Services last year? We are constantly being told by noble Lords opposite, and particularly by Lord Marley, that we ought to take our example from Russia. I wonder if he says so in regard to armaments. I am told that it is impossible to make any comparison in regard to the expenditure in Russia, because the rouble is so variable that it is almost impossible to do so, but on the figures given in another place by the Lord President of the Council, I think he will not deny the vast increase in the Army which is now under the control of the U.S.S.R., nor will be deny that they claim they have the most highly mechanised Army in the world. If it is such an evil thing for this country to increase the cost of its armaments by nine per cent., what is to be said of the U.S.S.R. and other nations of the world who increase theirs by a vast amount?
The noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition, said that this small increase in expenditure is going to lead to further competition in armaments, to further expenditure and further danger. I hope I shall be able to claim to have shown your Lordships that this expenditure, far from doing that, will have exactly the contrary effect. Why must we spend this additional sum? The first reason for it is that in the past we have had Chancellors of the Exchequer who have taken a narrower and more short-sighted view of our requirements in the Defence Services than the present holder of that office, and when I say previous Chancellors of the Exchequer I am not referring only to Chancellors of the Exchequer in Labour Governments. If you are to have defence forces at all, it is not only necessary that the individuals in those forces should be efficient, but that they should be adequately equipped. It happened to be my lot to spend the winter of 1914–1915 in the trenches. We were covered by the artillery
of the Division in which I was serving. That artillery was told that it was to limit its expenditure to four rounds of ammunition per gun per week, and it was further told it was to save on that expenditure of ammunition. It is hardly surprising that I, in company with, I imagine, nearly everyone who was then serving abroad, felt the utmost indignation against the Government of that day for having sent us out without proper equipment and without the support that
64
was necessary in order that we should carry out the orders given to us. I well remember standing in this House in May twenty years ago and telling your Lordships that the French held their trenches by the fire of their 75 millimetre guns, and that we held our trenches by rifle fire; that the one was expensive in ammunition and the other in human lives. That is one of the reasons why, although we hope we shall never have to use either shells or rifle ammunition again, if we are to have any defence forces at all we feel they should receive adequate and modern equipment.
A further reason why we have reduced our armaments in past years—and it was referred to by the noble Lord opposite—was that we hoped other nations would follow our example. As the House knows, but as the nation did not know until the White Paper was produced, so far from that being the case, nations have increased their expenditure on armaments and are increasing them to-day. We hope to secure a Disarmament Convention. As the House knows, but as the nation did not know until this White Paper was produced, the conclusion of a Disarmament Convention until Germany returns to the League of Nations and takes full part in these deliberations, is quite impossible. Does that mean that we have given up the idea of collective action? So far from that being true, we believe in it more strongly than ever. The League of Nations has great moral force. It has no physical force. When persuasion is possible the League of Nations can obtain a settlement, as it often has done in the past, and as I believe it will do more and more as the years go by. When, however, a nation takes the bit in its teeth, then physical force becomes necessary. But what do I mean by physical force? I do not mean the force that shall be applied by one nation against another. I mean force exercised by collective action. If this Government, or any other in this country, were thinking of anything of the former kind, of course our expenditure would not have gone up 9 per cent., but more likely 90 per cent., or 900 per cent. Who can pretend for one moment that, with an Expeditionary Force of five Divisions and fourteen Territorial Divisions—which, incidentally, cannot take the field under six months—and an Air Force that is only fifth in the world,

65
we could possibly think of taking action alone against any other nation?
What do we mean when we talk of force as exercised by collective action—that is action taken by nations in combination against an aggressor? Everybody knows that no nation would dream of declaring war if it knew that once it declared war it was certain to be defeated; and therefore collective action, in order to be effective, must be so strong as to be a complete deterrent against any nation that wishes to go to war, because the forces of those other nations will be obviously sufficient to overwhelm it. That is why we in this country feel it necessary to increase our quota, so that if the nations joining together to exercise collective action are ever called upon to do so our quota will be adequate, will be efficient, and will be supplied with adequate equipment. Collective action, in order to be a real deterrent in war, must not only be adequate, but it must be relied on as a complete guarantee.
I was accused in Geneva when I was there last week of being an optimist in this matter for saying that nations could be relied on to fulfil their obligations. And so they can where the temptation is not too great. Now let me remind the House of what the noble Lord himself raid in regard to this matter almost exactly a year ago, on the 15th March, 1934. This is what he said:
"Collective opinion—that you can get. Collective guarantees—those you can get, but you have to be certain that they will be followed by collective action. A guarantee which has not got a certainty of action behind it is no real guarantee."
He went on to say that collective action was very difficult, as each nation regarded it from the point of view of its own self-interest. That, of course, is perfectly true, and that is why His Majesty's Government are following the policy of regional guarantees. We are endeavouring to get agreements made on the Locarno model—that is to say, not alliances of several nations against another nation, but agreements made between nations by which they guarantee to come to the assistance of each other if attacked by one within their own group. The policy is only to include in that group those nations whose interests are definitely endangered so that there shall be no question whatever that they shall fulfil their guarantee and come to
66
the support of any one of them which is attacked.
It is the principle behind the Air Pact; it is the principle behind our proposals for an Eastern Locarno; and of the other proposals which my two right honourable friends the Secretary of State and the Lord Privy Seal hope to lay before Germany during the course of this month. We believe that these arrangements are as much in Germany's interest as in the interest of any one of her neighbours, and we profoundly hope we may persuade her to agree to them and to sign her name to them. We believe that if wet can attain those guarantees, given by those groups of nations, in which we ourselves, incident ally, shall not come because our interests are not severely touched other than by our loss of trade—we believe that if we can get those arrangements made, a feeling of security amongst nations will once again appear. We hope that we may succeed in making the League of Nations universal amongst the nations of Europe, and that we shall then once more be able to undertake the work which had been so well begun by the Disarmament Conference.
This great White Paper has cleared the air. It has made people think. It has brought them up against realities. It has said no more than, not so much as many people have said, including the noble Lord himself, if I wished to quote him—which, under the circumstances, I naturally am not going to do—but it says it publicly in a way that cannot be passed by. We believe in being frank with other countries—and many countries are mentioned in this White Paper. We believe still more in being frank with our own. The Socialist Government were afraid to trust the people in 1931. They were afraid to tell them of the economic crisis. They put their heads in the sand like ostriches, and as they were not ostriches, of course they fell. The National Government told the nation the truth and, as always happens with the British people when you tell them the truth and the whole truth, they rally to you and support you in any measures which they consider necessary. Once more we are telling the nation the truth. Once more we know that the nation, when it understands what the situation is, will rally to us and will back our proposals. We ask this House to support the Government in the proposals which it makes in this White Paper by

67
their vote in the Division to-night; but we ask them still more to make this White Paper understood throughout the country, and then we have no fear as to the result.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I should like to be allowed to congratulate the noble Earl who has just spoken upon the speech which he has delivered, and I think we have every reason to congratulate ourselves upon having him to represent the Foreign Office in your Lordships' House. His speeches are invariably informative, and if he will permit me to say so, very interesting. Not only does he produce arguments in a way which is persuasive, but he invariably couches them in the most courteous terms. I wondered as I listened to the argument that was put forward in support of the Motion whether I am quite correct in the view I am taking of the language of the Motion as presented by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby. I understand it to mean, as I think its terms imply, a refusal to support the proposals of the Government—that is, the recommendation in the White Paper that there should be an expenditure of some £10,500,000 in respect of the Defence Services. As I understand it, it means that, supposing you were voting merely on the question of whether there should be this expenditure or not the noble Lord would vote against it. Every word that I have heard from him, and everything I think that is in the Motion, really deplores the recommendation made by the Government, besides, of course, criticising both the language and the time of issue and the consequences, as the noble Lord foresees them.
The terms of the Motion, as the noble Earl has said, differ in this House from those in another place. For myself and those associated with me we have put to ourselves, as I think we must, the question whether it is in the interests of the country that there should be this adequate expenditure now, or whether it is right that we should go on as we have been doing—not only this Government but successive Governments for quite a long time—with reduction of armaments notwithstanding all we have seen in foreign countries. The question is whether we are right in insisting upon continuing the example we have set and in which we have undoubtedly run risks, and
68
whether, in point of fact, the Government are not forced by circumstances to make the recommendation which is contained in this State Paper. I confess that there is some danger of confusion in regard to the terms of the Motion, and I would like to attempt to clear it for the benefit not only of my own supporters but of any who choose to listen. There is some confusion between criticism of the policy of the Government in the past and criticism of the White Paper and of some of the arguments in support of the purpose for which it was issued—namely, to show that it is necessary that we should raise our expenditure to the extent of the £10,500,000. With some of the criticism made by the noble Lord in regard to the time of issue and in regard to some of the language used, I am inclined to agree, but I doubt very much—I am not going to pursue this point—whether it was a deliberate action on the part of His Majesty's Government to issue this White Paper on the particular date on which it was presented to the public. Nothing has been said in explanation of that, and for myself I think perhaps it is as well that it should remain where it is.
I will not pursue the topic except to make the observation that I cannot believe, and do not believe, that it was deliberately intended in any way to—I will not say give Affront, no one could think that, but to make it difficult for the Foreign Secretary in his visit to Germany. Obviously that could not be, because the Government have determined upon taking a particular line and a definite line upon which I think they are entitled to approval. The issue at the particular moment was unfortunate. One might perhaps say something more, but I will leave it at that. The Foreign Secretary's visit to Germany is to take place it may be two or three weeks hence. Whatever misunderstandings may have been caused have disappeared at any rate for the time being, and all one can hope is that when the visit does take place it will really result in some benefit to the peace of the world.
There is more, I think, in the argument used by the noble Lord, and also in another place, in regard to the policy of language of the White Paper, because it the Government as indicated in the

69
is legitimate to say that in regard to policy the words must have been carefully considered. The Government are stating to the country, in what is really a great State Paper, what their views are with regard to the present and what precautions must be taken for the future. I must say, however, that I find myself in complete disagreement with the noble Lord and with others not only in his Party but in other quarters, with regard to the attitude of the Government towards the League of Nations. I was surprised when I heard the noble Lord say, in effect, that they seemed to be indifferent to the League of Nations. I believe that the Government have done everything that they thought possible to ensure the success of the League of Nations and to prove their adherence to it. I have often heard statements made that the Government are lukewarm in support of the League of Nations. I do not believe it. I believe it is just as untrue to say that as to state, as is done sometimes outside this House, that the Government are not so much in favour of peace as are other sections of the political world.
I was glad to hear the noble Lord say—and I am sure he meant it—that he was convinced that the Government were absolutely determined to do everything they could to ensure peace. I think that ought not to be forgotten. On platforms outside this House and in writings it is suggested that the Government are not actuated by a desire for peace as warmly as the rest of the country. I think I am entitled to say that the one thing that stands out in recent years is that this country has been a leader in the direction of the promotion of the pacification of the world, that it has not hesitated to take risks which other countries have not taken, that it has never faltered when it has seen the way to taking a step in advance in the direction of peace. I am convinced that the Government, according to the best of their judgment, have done everything, and are doing everything they can to maintain peace. We cannot shut either our ears or our eyes to some of the observations made outside, and I think it is wrong that statements should be made to induce any part of the population of this country to think that His Majesty's Government are not working for peace. I care not to what political Party they belong. I would say the
70
same, and I am sure I should be right, if the Government were formed from the Party of which the noble Lord is so distinguished a member. They would be working with the same object.
I would like to put one question. When it is said that we in this country are increasing armaments, that we are encouraging a race in armaments, that we are taking steps which will create international difficulties, that we are, putting obstacles in the way of the Disarmament Conference, that we are weakening seriously the system of collective security inherent in the Covenant of the League of Nations—I ask myself, when all that is said, whether there is any country in the world that really believes that if we give effect to this policy that the Government have put forward of increasing expenditure for the purpose of defence, we are marching on towards war, or taking any step that is intended to imperil peace. I say without hesitation that no country believes that. I doubt very much whether any comment of that character is to be found in any newspapers published throughout the world. The reason is that this country, whatever criticisms may be made of it, has persistently done everything it possibly could to promote the peace of the world, and not to endanger it. After all, of course, many other countries have made the same protestations, but we are the nation that has set the example. When I look round and study what is happening in other parts of the world, I think it is remarkable that we have been able to carry on for so long with our reduced armaments and expenditure. During this time the policy of the British Government—and I am not referring especially to the present Government but to successive Governments, ever since the Peace Treaties—has been always in favour of trying to reduce the armaments of the world. The British policy has been: Let us set the example; whatever else happens we will not increase our armaments, in order that other countries may take the same view, and gradually, in that way, we may come to disarmament.
I do not very much care to go through the list of what has taken place. The noble Earl referred to Russia. So far as I know, from the figures that I have seen, there has been an increase of at

71
least fifty per cent. in the size of the Russian Army within a short period—from some 600,000 to 940,000. Some of your Lordships may have seen the figures published in other countries, but it strikes me that nothing could be more significant than to take the figures of a country like the United States. No one will suggest that the United States is a country making for war or against peace. On the contrary, although it has not always been able to be in agreement with us, and although it is not a member of the League, it has taken part in the Kellogg Pact and other treaties. This is what has happened in America. Her naval estimates amounted in 1933 to 350,000,000 dollars. In 1935 the estimate was 490,000,000 dollars, and for 1936 the estimate is 580,000,000 dollars. America is building her fleet now up to the full limit permitted under existing treaty, which has now been denounced. If ever there was a country entitled to spend money on her fleet, in order that she may be able to protect her communications within the Empire, to secure the food of her people, to provide the raw material necessary for her manufactures, and to maintain her security, so that we can live without being attacked, I should have thought it was this country. Yet, during this period we have done nothing.
So far as I can judge, trying to consider the circumstances fairly and impartially, other countries have been rearming during the last few years, notwithstanding the example that we have set. Yet our Government have gone on from month to month and year to year, hoping that what was being done for the purpose of reducing armaments would have the effect, either by means of a Disarmament Conference, or regional pacts, of bringing about a general disarmament, and we should then have had the satisfaction of having stood still while other countries had gone on. Now at last we have arrived at the conclusions set forth in the White Paper. The Government, who perhaps know of dangers to which they cannot give utterance, and who are in the best position for knowing how far it is necessary to recondition our forces and advance our military equipment, who know best, far better than I can claim to know, what is necessary—the Government have said quite definitely, solemnly taking the responsibility, that all this must be done. In those circumstances,
72
I think it would be a rash man, bearing in mind the responsibility there is on every member of Parliament when faced with a problem of this character, who would say that he would vote against the expenditure recommended by the Government.
After all, because I do not want to detain your Lordships, I cannot but think that when we get to the real point, which is whether or not the Government are right in recommending this expenditure, there can be no effective answer, and the noble Lord will permit me to add that nothing he has said has tended to show that the Government are wrong, although he advanced criticism of the Government for what had been done in the past. I shall hear with interest from other speakers whether or not they take the view that this expenditure should be refused. All I can say is that when we look at it seriously, as we must do, and try to resolve to ourselves and the country whether it is right, pursuing peace as the Government do, and as we all insist they should do, if it were necessary to insist, to my mind there can be only one answer to the question whether this increase of expenditure should be made. The consequence seems to me to be that I must, having regard to the view I take of the circumstances, vote against the Motion and support the Government. I believe, in saying that, that those who are associated with me take the same view, not for a moment because we are anxious to rearm, but because we say, as the Government say, that it is a necessary consequence of the present situation, and that it is essential that we should do now what we have postponed doing for some time.
I conclude with the observation that I cannot but think that this rearmament throughout Europe is really a danger to us, and a danger in this sense—not that I mean that any country is thinking of attacking us at this moment, but that it does threaten our security, and we have to take care to do what we can in order to have adequate defences. It is essential for us that we should take up that serious position in view of what is now happening. For that reason I hope that there will be little doubt—as I think there must be—of the view of your Lordships' House on the Motion which is now put forward.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, in the vehement defence of the Government to which we have just listened there was one statement with which I find myself in agreement. The noble Marquess says, and says quite truly, that there was no question that the Government was in favour of peace. I have never doubted that. I have attended a very large number of meetings and, at any rate in my hearing, nobody else has ever doubted it. There may have been cases in which it has been doubted, but, as far as I am concerned and as far as those with whom I am working are concerned, there has never been any question about it. Indeed, I doubt very much whether there is anybody in this country who is not in favour of peace. You may find a few eccentric intelligentsia who take the view that war is a natural process of evolution, or some 7ionsense of that kind, but, broadly speaking, everybody is in favour of peace. The difference—the vital difference and the important difference, with which the noble Marquess, if he will forgive me for saying so, did not deal at all—is, what is the best method of securing peace? That is the vital difference, and the only difference that is of any importance in this debate. The noble Marquess said, and re Aerated over and over again, that the only question involved here was whether it was desirable to spend money on the defences of the country. I entirely disagree with him, is he will forgive me for saying so.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: If the noble Lord will forgive me, I did not say it was the only question; I said it was really the main issue which arose out of the Motion.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I do riot draw so fine a distinction between the only question and the main issue. That is what he said, and he dealt practically with nothing else. I entirely disagree. There are two quite distinct issues, and in my judgment the issue to which the noble Marquess addressed himself is not the more important issue. There is the first question: whether expenditure is justified and this expenditure is justified; and the second question: whether the reasons given for that expenditure are good reasons or bad reasons. In my judgment it is the second question which in the long run is far
74
the more important of the two. As to the question whether some expenditure on the armaments of this country is desirable, I agree that it is extremely difficult for anyone without official information to, say whether in some particular case expenditure is or is not justified. At any rate, as far as the Army and the Navy are concerned, I can well understand that—taking, of course, as we are bound to take, the Government's statement of what they are proposing to do to be right, namely, that they are not increasing the Army or the Navy bat that they are really bringing certain Services up-to-date that had fallen into decay—this may or may not be desirable. At any rate it does not seem to me that this is a matter which we can very usefully debate at this stage, or until we have before us the full account of what exactly is proposed.
I heard from my noble friend Lord Stanhope a good deal of discussion as to whether the policy of the Government amounted to rearmament. I do not think that very much matters. The proposal, undoubtedly is to increase the extent of the araments, and, certainly as far as the air is concerned, to increase the strength of the Air Force. Whether that is or ought to be described as rearmament does not seem to me to be very important. The noble Lord made one statement which I thought was very interesting and important he said that it was quite untrue to say that this expenditure would lead to larger expenditure in the future. I believe that other members of the Government are going to take part in the debate, and I hope that they will be able to expand that observation of my noble friend. I understand, certainly, from the debate in the House of Commons that this is in many respects only the first step in a very considerable further expenditure.
Particularly are we told—and I think it is very important that we should know whether it is right or wrong—that in the near future it will be necessary to replace all the battleships of this country. That means a very large expenditure, something very much greater than anything that is proposed on this occasion. I think that each battleship now costs something between £7,000,000 and £9,000,000. If you are going to have

75
fifteen battleships, that of course means a very large expenditure, and therefore I did not quite follow what my noble friend meant when he said that this must be treated as leading not to larger but to smaller expenditure. My anxiety was a little increased, if my noble friend will allow me to say so, by his reference to the necessity—which we all regret deeply—in the late War for suddenly increasing our ammunition from what it was to the requirements of an Army many times greater than anything we had had in time of peace. I do not know whether the noble Earl meant that in his view the Government ought now, and in the present condition of affairs, to prepare sufficient reserves of armament and reserves of ammunition to satisfy the kind of demand that was made upon our forces in the Great War. That also would be a very important fact if that is what is intended, but I do not know whether that is what he was intending.
I prefer at present to take the account given in the other House, that, as far as the Army and the Navy are concerned, the proposal commits the country to nothing more than re-equipping those forces where the equipment has fallen out of date. Whether that is desirable or undesirable seems to me a matter of great detail which is very difficult to debate on the present occasion. As to the air, that of course is a different proposition. There is no question that the Government believe that it is essential to increase the Air Forces of the country. That was discussed last autumn, and I have no desire to renew the discussion. I then felt, and I still feel, that the present time is not the best time to take that course. I feel that it is a horrible thing that we should apparently be accepting the necessity of having air warfare in the future. It may become absolutely inevitable. The Government, though they have used some very unfortunate language about the Disarmament Conference, still profess—and I am sure they honestly profess—a desire for disarmament. But to accept this horrible doctrine that air warfare is to be a normal part of future warfare seems to me the most shocking thing in the world.
I observe that even in this Paper, in paragraph 25, the Government say in so many words:
"Up to now, however, the only deterrent to an armed aggressor"—
76
that is, an armed aggressor in the air—
"has seemed to be the possession of adequate means of counter-attack."
In other words the only way of dealing with air attack is reprisal. I feel that that is a most horrible state of things—really horrible. I will not accept that, and I will never accept it until I am absolutely driven to it by the overwhelming force of events; and then I shall only hope that my life will have come to an end before any future war can take place.
The second question, and in my judgment much the more important question, is what really is the policy underlying this expenditure. That seems to me to be the really vital question, and far more important—though perhaps not so much attention was paid to it in the debate on Monday—than the question of the actual expenditure contemplated. As I read the Motion, that is really the question which is raised by this Motion—not the actual question of expenditure but the policy underlying that expenditure. I have tried to understand that policy as set forward in the White Paper. To my mind—and indeed it is common ground—the White Paper is a document of immense importance. It sets forth on the authority of the Prime Minister, being signed by him, the policy of the Government. The noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, desires that that policy shall be explained everywhere and that everyone shall know it. It is therefore, it seems to me, right for your Lordships to examine, and to examine rather carefully, what is the policy put forward in that White Paper.
The first ground that I shall mention which is put forward as justifying this expenditure is the conduct of other countries. That was relied upon by the noble Marquess; it was relied upon by the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope; it was relied upon by most of the speakers in the other House; and it is relied upon in the White Paper. I do not desire to add anything to the criticisms which have been expressed about German rearmament. I confess that it seems to me an odd way of prefacing a friendly talk with the Germans, but it may be that that is the right way of dealing with Germans. I do not know. It would not be the right way of dealing with any other people in the world, and I doubt very much whether it can have been a judicious

77
way of dealing with the German Government. But at any rate, as far as that Statement is concerned it may have been put roughly and uncouthly, but it is true that the German policy is a policy of rearmament, quite definitely, and there is at any rate some ground for thinking that that is not only for defence but may be used, and it may be part of the policy of the German Government ultimately to use it, for purposes of aggression.
Well, that is a fact; but when I come to the rest of that paragraph I admit that I am a good deal startled. It goes on to say that there are other countries which have rearmed and (I suppose) to whom the same kind of observations may be applied. There is Russia, it is said, and Japan. I do not know whether it is right to treat them as aggressive nations or not. I should have thought that at any rate with regard to Russia it was very doubtful whether it was right. And the United States of America! Does anyone really seriously believe that the armaments in America, whatever they may be, are a threat, or any kind of threat, to this country? I am astonished at the way in which the United States of America has been quoted frequently in this discussion. Why, before 1914, it was common ground among all parties that the armaments of the United States of America could always be left out of account when we were considering the necessity of armaments in this country. I think it a most unfortunate thing that they should have been mentioned in the White Paper as part of the reason which necessitated the increase of armaments in this country.
I observe that at the end of paragraph I there is a striking phrase. The Government say, and I think it is a thing which is well worth bearing in mind:
"We could not afford to overlook all these increases, and so have had to begin to meet our deficiencies, but have been anxious not to make the provisions for necessary defence merge into a race in armaments strength."
I wonder how you can avoid a race in armaments if you defend an increase of your armaments on the ground that other countries have already increased theirs? I do not myself see how you are to draw the line. Every increase in armaments by every country is justified in every case as necessary for defence—strictly for de
78
fence. I dare say they think it is right and that they are perfectly honest; but we know by experience that the immediate result is that some other country says: "Well, it may have been done for defence, but the net effect is that their armaments have become stronger, and if we are to defend ourselves, our armaments must be made stronger"—and so on.
I do riot believe that you can have any policy of increase of armaments without running the very gravest risk of establishing—indeed it is nonsense to say that it has not already established—the beginnings of a race in armaments. That is really, it seems to me, where one of the great fundamental differences in policy conies in Do you really believe that by increasing your armaments you are going to solve these tremendous difficulties? I am quite sure you are not going to. I am quite sure that if that is the only thing you are going to do, the policy is bound to fail. I know that many of the Ministerial speakers have said that they agree, and that they propose to have also a reliance on the collective system. I wonder whether that is the effect that their action has produced on other observers? And that, after all, is the real test of the White Paper.
I do not deny that there are good things in the White Paper. I could not help being reminded of the traditional curate's egg. Parts of it may be excellent; but that is not a sufficient justification for a White Paper—or for an egg! I took up The Times this morning. The Times I think would print any information which it received and which it thought relevant, but it certainly would not alter that information so as to be hostile to the present Government. This is the heading of the column on the British defence debate: "Impressions in Germany. End of a Chapter." And this is the way in which it summarises the general German opinion:
"… the British Government in the debate have not only admitted the failure of the Disarmament Conference but have even shown that they no longer find the peace machinery of the League of Nations, in which they so long expressed confidence, to be adequate."
In support of that there is a quotation from the Frankfurter Zeitung, which, though I suppose it is now under the orders of the Government, used to be a

79
very independent paper, and which says this:
"… the British Government are decided, as their White Paper testifies, on a policy which completely excludes in advance a disarmament,' or a serious limitation of armaments, or even any conversations on the kindred basis of last year."
And then it has this very ominous sentence:
"The practical content of equality of rights has been fundamentally altered."
I hope that the Ministers when they go to Berlin will be able to correct that impression, but that is the impression which the White Paper has conveyed to the German Government and the German newspapers, and it is a formidable impression. Nor am I very much cheered to find that the opinion of all the Parties except the Parties of the Left in France is very favourable to the Government's proposals, or even that Italian opinion is also favourable to them. The political Parties of the Right in France and a good deal of the Italian Government believe, and have constantly expressed their belief, that the only safety lies in having a very strong national army. The fact that they approve of the Government's policy does not seem to me to be a very strong argument in its favour.
The question really is: What, in fact, is the general thesis of the White Paper? I quite admit that you can find passages in it strongly supporting the League of Nations and the collective system. I personally have very little doubt indeed that the Government as a whole—I do not know whether I should feel quite so sure about every member of the Government—do believe that they are in support of the League of Nations and the collective system, and in some shape or form—the shape described by Lord Stanhope just now—of collective action. But when you come to look at the White Paper there are phrases in it, which have often been quoted, which certainly seem very difficult to make it consistent with at any rate what I understand to be a policy of reliance upon the collective system. Here is the celebrated paragraph 4, the paragraph which I think anyone reading this document would regard as laying down the foundations of the policy which the Government recommend:
"Hitherto, in spite of many setbacks, public opinion in this country has tended to assume that nothing is required for the maintenance of peace except the existing
80
international political machinery, and that the older methods of defence—navies, armies and air forces—on which we have hitherto depended for our security in the last resort "—
observe those words—
"are no longer required."
I think that is a very exaggerated way of putting the case on the other side.
It goes on:
"The force of world events, however, has shown that the assumption is premature, and that we have far to go before we can find complete security without having in the background"—
not some kind of regional pact, but
"the means of defending ourselves against attacks."
Then it goes on to a discussion about the way differences arise, and these words follow:
"and it has been found that once action has been taken the existing international machinery for the maintenance of peace cannot be relied upon as a protection against an aggressor."
If the Government had gone on to say: "Though that is our belief, we do still believe in collective defence, and we propose to go in for a totally different policy of collective defence, a policy of regional pacts," then I should have understood it. But they say in this paragraph that the political machinery has failed, and therefore—what? That they must find
"the means of defending ourselves against attack."
Well, I am not surprised that those phrases, which have gone the whole round of Europe now, have been understood by many observers to mean that the Government have abandoned—as the Germans think—belief in the possibility of the League of Nations being of any real service in case of an attack. It was my great privilege on more than one occasion to visit M. Clemenceau after he had retired, and he always received me with the same observation. He always said: "I like your League of Nations." Then he repeated it—" I like your League of Nations, but I do not believe in it." That seems to me the attitude which anyone would believe the Government had adopted, in this paragraph at any rate of the White Paper.
I come to the proposal for regional pacts. Though I do not agree with everything in the interesting speech which Sir Austen Chamberlain made the

81
other night, I think he has been a little unfairly attacked by those who disagree with him, because I think it is quite plain that his speech was a speech—like the speech which the noble Lord has addressed to us—in favour of regional pacts and of collective action. I quite understand that, in spite of some rather strong language used in his peroration, Sir Austen did not intend to reject that as the main thesis in which he believes. But I confess I am in great doubts about this question of regional pacts. The noble Earl who has addressed us said that there were to be group agreements, and the groups were to be formed by those who were directly interested. I think that is a most dangerous doctrine. I doubt very much whether you can split up peace and war nowadays into groups of this kind. Any breach of the peace, wherever it takes place, is a danger to the whole peace of the world, and that is the foundation for the system on which that part of the League of Nations was founded.
I am very much alarmed at the idea that you will be able to say "Well, here is the question of the Rhine: that affects us." I do not think it affects us a bit more than lots of other questions. The actual ownership of land on each side of the Rhine is not a matter of vital importance: what is a matter of vital importance is the disturbance of the system which will produce war, which may extend in any direction, as we found in 1914. I am afraid of that doctrine of groups for that reason. I certainly would not rule it out where that was the only thing that could be done, but I would certainly make it a very rigid condition that it was to be part of the larger system, and only an explanatory part for dealing with disturbances in particular parts of the world by those countries. I would not say "those countries which were mainly interested," but "those countries which could most easily co-operate in order to suppress a breach of the peace."
There is another great objection that I have to pressing this doctrine of regional pacts too far. I do not regard military measures as the best weapon for the collective system. I regard it as the very last resort, the final thing when everything else has failed. Then, it may be, you are driven to it, and that is what the Covenant says. But I regard as far
82
the most generally effective means the political and economic steps taken by a great mass of the nations. There is always being brought up this question of what we ought to have done with regard to Japan. I know of nobody who was in favour of going to war with Japan. What we did say, many of us, what I should have said and many of us would have said, was: "We have great; possibilities of economic pressure upon Japan, on one condition "—and that condition was always made—"that the United States will co-operate with us in the matter." If you had had action by the League of Nations, coincided in by the United States, the pressure would have been so tremendous on Japan that I am perfectly convinced that a very different policy would have been pursued by that Power. The only conceivable possibility—a possibility which always seemed to me so remote as scarcely to be worth taking into consideration—was that in that case Japan would go to war with the whole world and, possibly selecting us as the nearest and most vulnerable person, would have attacked our territories. I do not believe a word of it; I believe it is fantastic nonsense. If there were a danger of that kind it might well have been desirable, before entering on your policy, to have had a special agreement among those engaged in it that they would co-operate to protect one another if such an attack were made.
I do not want to go back to all that, but I do want to say that in my judgment it is a great mistake and a grave danger always to talk about collective action as if collective action means collective military action. If the system works properly and works as it ought to work, and works easily, as it would work, that would only occur in a very remote contingency, and the ordinary operation of the system would be by political and economic action. For that purpose you cannot proceed by groups, you must proceed by something like general action. So long as these two points are safeguarded—namely, that you are going to have this system of group action underneath the League and as part of the League, and that you are going to have nothing done which will interfere with effective economic action—I quite agree it is a very useful step towards collective pressure.

83
I really have finished what I desired to say. My anxiety about this White Paper is that it does seem to me that in substance it will be read, and has been read in spite of the asseverations of Ministers, as a wonderful new State Paper setting forward a new step, sweeping away all the make-believe of past years and establishing a new policy. When you try to fix that new policy in definite words it does seem to me to mean that we are for the future going to rely very largely, so far as the White Paper is concerned, on the actual strength of this country, and we are not going to rely in the future on the collective strength of the whole world or even on a group. That is the grave danger which it seems to me arises from this White Paper. It is perfectly true, as I have said, that you can find passages in the White Paper which seem to point in a different direction, but that gives me very little comfort. In a matter of this kind, indeed in every matter of foreign affairs, the most essential thing is clearness and definiteness. If you can show that there is ambiguity in this White Paper so that you can read it in one way or another, you only show that, though it is not faulty as definitely proposing a bad policy, it is faulty because it does not definitely propose a good one.
It is for these reasons that I feel that the issue of the White Paper was a very grave mistake. I am not so much concerned with the question of the actual increase in expenditure. I have told your Lordships my thoughts on that subject. That is not to my mind the vital thing. The vital thing, the thing that really matters to this country and to the world, is what is going to be your real policy. What is the policy you are going to pursue with all your strength and all your power? Is it to be a collective policy? Is it to be a policy of relying upon co-operation with other States, not in order to get this or that advantage for this country or that country, but to get a supreme advantage for all countries by the maintenance of peace? Or are we going back to the pre-1914 system of "international anarchy," as it has been well called, where each nation acts for itself, if possible in co-operation with some other nation but essentially not as part of a general world-community, but as part of
84
some group which is trying to establish a particular policy which it believes favourable to its interests? Unless that is made pre-eminently clear all policies of increase of armaments are in the greatest degree dangerous, and if you tell me that this Paper does not necessarily mean that, though if may mean it, then I can only say that in my judgment it points to a real weakness and evil in the present Government—namely, that they do not speak with one voice or that they do not act with one purpose. That is the vice of all Coalitions.
I am afraid I cannot agree with those who regard this as a National Government. I understand a National Government to be a Government formed for some single national purpose of such an overmastering character that all those who are members of it will put aside altogether their own political views and concentrate on that issue, and on that issue alone. Such Governments existed during the War. Questions of Party politics were put into cold storage completely, whether they were Home Rule or Disestablishment or whatever they might be. They were ignored altogether, and the whole force of the Government, and practically the whole force of the country, was concentrated on one issue. It is mere playing with words to suggest that any similar state of things exists with regard to the present Government; and for my part I have come to the conclusion that it would be very greatly in the interests of this country if we abandoned this pretence of a National Government and returned to some system of homogeneous government where all the people thought the same on these great questions. Then, whether I was fortunate enough to agree with them or not, there would be a definite, clear, positive policy carried out, and that, after all, is the great merit in any administration of public affairs.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I have no wish to take any considerable part in this discussion or to speak at any length, but as I have played a part in these matters, if not in this House yet in the country, I feel my silence might be misinterpreted, and therefore I feel justified in asking your Lordships' attention for a few minutes. I have a great sense of diffidence in following my noble friend

85
who has just spoken with his usual force, conviction, and eloquence. He is a master of these subjects and, as he knows, I have very often received guidance from him which I never regretted. If, therefore, I differ in some respects not so much from the substance as from the tone of his speech, he will know that I do so both with regret and with diffidence.
I freely admit that when I first read this White Paper it filled me with a sense of disappointment. I do not think that I or anyone else could have contemplated this expenditure of an additional £10,000,000 with equanimity. On the contrary, one's great desire is to lift not only from this nation, but from every nation, the burden of armaments. To know, then, that £10,000,000 was being added to the overstrained finances of this country did indeed seem deplorable. Further, I must confess that it was disappointing that there should be even an appearance of this country abandoning what I still consider the admirable lead which so far it has given to other nations in disarmament, even the appearance that is was entering, however modestly, into the race of armaments; and I must admit that there were phrases in the, White Paper which seemed to me, not so much necessary for that frankness that leads to a better understanding, as capable of giving rise to needless misunderstanding at this present juncture. But when I have said all that I feel bound at once to say that I cannot but regard many of the fears and apprehensions which have been expressed elsewhere in the country, and even, if I may say so, by the noble Viscount himself, as based upon some misapprehension of the real nature and purpose of this document.
In the first place, I cannot but note that except as regards the Air Force, it does not propose—indeed that is common ground except in regard to the Air Force—any increase in armaments but only an increase in equipment and efficiency. It is possible to contend that the existence of any armed force in a country is wrong, because the use of ft would be wrong. That is a logical theory. How far the noble Lord opposite really holds it or not do not quite know, but it is a logical theory, though I think that the conclusions to which it would lead would show that there was some flaw in the
86
premise. But unless one holds that particular theory, I do nut see how it can be contended that if any force is justifiable at all for defence, or for the fulfilment of international obligations, it can be justifiable to keep that force obsolete and inefficient. I should like to stress that point. It seems to me that to leave what armaments there are, if they are capable of any sort of justification, in a state of inefficiency is to practise a peculiarly undesirable and underhand form of unilateral disarmament.
As to the Air Force, no doubt that causes greater disquiet, but after all it is only what was foreshadowed many months ago. I do not think there is anything novel in it, and therefore I find it difficult to realise with my noble friend who has just spoken the immensity and apparently, indeed, the horribleness of the prospect which this particular increase opens out.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: May I say to the most reverend Primate that I did not mean that this particular increase was the prospect that terrified me. It was the existence of air warfare altogether, and the only reason why I deplored this particular increase was that it seemed to me an acceptance of the perpetuation of air warfare which I thought we had still some hope of getting rid of altogether.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I am much obliged to my noble friend. Possibly I may deal with what he has said a little later in my few observations. All I am anxious to point out now is that the actual provisions of the White Paper do not seem to me in themselves, apart from implications which may be read into the language, to justify the very hard things that have been said about it. But if this White Paper was the only thing that represented the policy of the Government, if it was to be construed as in any sense abandoning their intentions to proceed as soon as possible with a renewal of the proposals for the limitation and restriction of armaments generally, then I should feel even more troubled by it than the noble Viscount who has just spoken; but, as I understand the situation, that is not so.
There are two features of what I understand to be the policy of the Government—two concurrent features to which I think critics of the White Paper ought to pay

87
attention. The first is the encouragement of those regional agreements to which so much allusion has been made this afternoon, agreements by which nations interested together, situated together geographically, possibly confronted by common dangers, agree to protect each other against a possible aggressor within that group. I should feel grave doubts about this policy of regional pacts and agreements if they could be interpreted as alliances of groups of nations intended to protect themselves against some other nation that was assumed to be likely to be aggressive. But that is not their purpose. They are pacts of mutual assurance, and, if that be so, I cannot but think that the extension of them, the extension, if we may so call it, of the policy of Locarno, cannot but make in the direction of that collective security which we all desire. Here perhaps it might be worth while to remark that the success of these regional pacts must very largely depend upon the degree in. which each nation within them can rely upon the others fulfilling the obligations, possibly the obligation of the use of force, which they have undertaken, and that, therefore, is another reason why it would not be promoting the success of these regional pacts if any country, such as ourselves, which is responsible for one of them, were to allow its armaments, if any justification of armaments is possible, largely to become obsolete. We should not be playing the game with those with whom we have entered into common obligations if we did that.
There is another feature of the policy of the Government which, I think, it is only fair to remember and appreciate, and that is their obviously earnest desire to bring Germany back into the League of Nations. A great deal was said, and said very truly and in a way which had my whole-hearted agreement, by the noble Viscount about the importance of stressing more and more, and not less and less, the importance of the League of Nations and the system of collective action which it represents. But surely it is common ground that if Germany is not included in that League, it cannot function in the way which we all desire. Accordingly, I regard it as a matter of great importance—and I am sure the Government do the same—that every effort should be made to persuade Ger
88
many to take that place without which neither can the collective system of the League work, nor can any general system of disarmament throughout the world take place. I must confess that I agree with what has been said as to the way in which, in this country, we have hitherto regarded the claims of Germany. I think it is unfortunate to imply that in the present situation Germany alone is to blame. I think the Allies have a very large share of blame in having been so slow in attempting to implement the solemn declarations of Versailles. As soon as it was plain that the Allies were making no serious attempt to level their armaments down to the German level, it was certain that Germany would insist upon levelling her armaments up to the level of the Allies. We ought to have recognised that long ago, and to have taken steps accordingly. Therefore, I do not agree with any implication, if it be contained in the White Paper, that the whole blame should be laid on Germany.
At the same time it is clear that now we are ready to receive Germany in the comity of nations in a position of perfect equality of status. I am sure it is in that spirit and with that intention that the Foreign Secretary is proceeding to Berlin, and there is no one of us who does not wish him the fullest success in his great undertaking. I cannot but believe that there must be some appeasement of the tension at present existing if the system of regional agreements is extended and fulfills the functions assigned to it by Sir Austen Chamberlain elsewhere—namely, that it is not a substitute for the League of Nations but the underpinning of the structure of which the League of Nations is the basis. If that be so, and Germany can be persuaded to enter into the League of Nations, then there will be a position created which will make it more hopeful to resume conferences on disarmament than has hitherto existed for many years past. It is not because I wish the question of disarmament to be in any way postponed or belittled, but, on the contrary, because I believe it to be vital, that I am anxious in these ways to bring about a state of things in which the Disarmament Conference can be resumed with greater hopefulness than before. If that be so, then I think the noble Viscount will agree that it is only through some general disarmament con

89
ference which is surrounded by an atmosphere of security which does not at present exist, that Europe generally and the world can proceed to deal, and deal adequately I hope, with that horrible portent which the noble Viscount brought before us of the continuance and development of war in the air. So, my Lords, I do not abate for one moment my conviction that armaments are no security, that in the long run, if a nation thinks that by increasing its own armament it is increasing its security, it will find it is labouring under a delusion, because it is only thereby increasing the sense of insecurity in other nations.
If I thought that the policy of His Majesty's Government was represented simply by this White Paper, and was not to be implemented in the ways which I have indicated, and from those beginnings to follow up a more definite approach to the adoption of the whole system on which the League of Nations is based, I should speak very differently from what I have done this afternoon. I cannot but think that a great deal of language has been used about the existing situation which is exaggerated. I hold no brief for His Majesty's Government, but also I have no such bias against it as I think, if he will allow me to say so, gave pith and perhaps vehemence to the criticisms of the noble Lord opposite. I am only trying to look candidly on the facts as they are. I do not think that those who are so passionately devoted to the cause of the League of Nations and the system of disarmament advance their cause when they use such exaggerated language as to say that the White Paper means that the Government have abandoned their adherence to the League of Nations. While I think our ideals must be held strongly, it is not enough to assert them in phrases. We have to keep them in relation to the actual facts which confront us from time to time. For these reasons, although I am not without sympathy with much that has been said by the noble Viscount, I find it impossible to endorse the language of the Resolution moved by the noble Lord opposite.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, the most reverend Primate found it difficult to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil. I can assure the most reverend Primate that it is much more difficult for me, as
90
is becoming almost customary now, to follow him. May I most respectfully thank him for having, at any rate, Addressed himself to the Motion on the Paper and to the speech of my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition? I am a very young member of your Lordships' House, and perhaps I ought not to say this, but I was rather astonished to hear the noble Earl who spoke for the Government address himself, not to the speech of my noble friend who moved the Resolution, but to speeches made in another place. I have always been taught to believe that that was not regarded as the me and wont of your Lordships' House. I hope that another time the Government spokesman—perhaps here I should address myself to the noble Viscount who leads the House—will deal with the Motion moved and the speeches made here, and not with what happened in another place.
The most reverend Primate let fall a remark which as so noteworthy that I wrote it down. It was a remark which, if it goes without some qualification, might give rise to very serious misunderstanding. The most reverend Primate said that without Germany the League of Nations could not function. With what the most reverend Primate said about bringing Germany into the League every one, of course, will whole-heartedly agree, but to say that the League cannot function without Germany is, I submit, a most dangerous statement to make unless there is some explanation. Without some explanation it, would mean that Germany could place her demands on a very high level indeed. She could almost blackmail us before coming back to the League. Does the most reverend Primate mean that we cannot hope for success in reducing armaments without Germany, or does he mean that the collective system cannot function without Germany?
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: If the noble Lord will introduce the word "fully" before "function" I think that would express my meaning.
LORD STRABOLGI: I thank the most reverend Primate. That does explain it. I am, with regard to the League of Nations, a diehard. I say that if the League of Nations as a result of this and other actions perished to-morrow, we

91
would have to set to work to start a new one. So long as three or four nations remain, I would maintain the League. Just as when the barbarians overran the country and destroyed the See of Canterbury, a, few priests kept alight the torch of learning and religion in Ireland, so I would keep only two or three nations as a nucleus of the League.
There is one other remark of the most reverend Primate to which I would like to refer. He said it seemed to him that as long as we had weapons it was wrong to leave them inefficient and obsolete. The most reverend Primate, I am afraid, has been misled by deliberate false propaganda that our weapons have been allowed to deteriorate and decline and that we are weak relatively to other nations. I cannot speak with any knowledge of the Army. I should be surprised, however, if the noble Viscount would admit that the Army, with regard to equipment, was not at a very high level of efficiency. It is well mechanised and the other weapons are well looked after. But that is not the important thing. We still rely, primarily, and the noble Earl who spoke for the Government will agree, on the Royal Navy. If I might I would like to draw the attention of your Lordships and especially of the noble Marquess who leads the Liberal Party to certain figures—because he rather took the rôle that Sir John Simon did at Geneva. When Japan was arraigned before the League of Nations Sir John Simon, in the words of the chief Japanese delegate, defended her with greater ability than he, the Japanese delegate, could have done himself; and in this House the noble Marquess defends the Government with far more eloquence and efficiency than they are themselves capable of. He used the same argument, that what was proposed was only the replacing and replenishing of stores which have become obsolete.
Is the noble Marquess and the most reverend Primate aware that since the Armistice we have spent on the Army, Navy and Air Force £2,520,000,000? Is he aware that since 1926 the net Naval Estimates, including the ones just issued for 1935 which are to be discussed to-morrow in another place, come to a total of £551,000,000? I think the most reverend Primate and the noble
92
Marquess would have the right to wonder, when told that everything is rotten and obsolete, whether we have got value for our money. But we have got value for our money. We, to-day, dispose of the most powerful Navy in the world, far the most powerful, and if you take into account our naval bases and our naval reserves, still existing in our mercantile marine, we have an overwhelmingly powerful naval force. I hold in my hand the Official Admiralty publication, a Return of the Fleets, formerly known as the Gibson Bowles Return, Command Paper 4817. This gives the fleets of the seven principal naval Powers. With regard to battleships and battle cruisers, capital ships of the line, we are by treaty hound to an equality with the United States of America. With regard to cruisers there was only a limit on size of individual ships until recently. The figures give an answer to the ridiculous statement in the White Paper that we have unilaterally disarmed. We have not made any movement to disarm unilaterally. In cruisers we have, built, fifty in number, and the next highest are the United States, twenty-six, and Japan, thirty-one.
EARL HOWE: Can the noble Lord say when those ships were built?
LORD STRABOLGI: Yes, certainly. The noble Earl has taken a great interest in these matters. He has often said that our cruisers are out of date. We have on the stocks building thirteen new ones, to-day, as against ten American, four Japanese and six French.
LORD LLOYD: Is the noble Lord aware that next year we shall only have thirty-six, and one obsolete cruiser, and that we cannot compare with America and Italy because they are of an entirely different character?
LORD STRABOLGI: I was coming to the noble Lord, but he has moved from his usual seat to another place, and I had not seen him. I had intended to refer to him. That argument used by the noble Lord I have heard many times used by Lord Howe in another place with great ability—that our cruiser fleet is rotten and obsolete, and that their bottoms are falling out. That is utterly false. The Admiralty take an arbitrary age-limit of twenty years for battleships and sixteen years for cruisers. Now a

93
ship is not obsolete in twenty or sixteen years unless you fail to refit and renovate and repair her, and we have throughout, and the spokesman of the Admiralty will, I know, not deny this, had adequate money in the Royal Navy for repairing and refitting vessels as they become old.
EARL HOWE: Will the noble Lord answer one question? Does he include the "Hawkins" class?
LORD STRABOLGI: I will tell the noble Earl in a moment. It is to-day announced that the "Cumberland," which has just returned from the China station, is to have spent on her for repairs £400,000. She is a ship of the new 10,000 ton type, and cost about £2,600,000. About one-sixth of her original cost is to be spent on refitting her; and so it has gone on right through the Navy. It depends upon whether sufficient money is spent on repairs and maintenance, and I submit, looking through the Navy List, that no one can declare that we have not had adequate money voted for repairs and maintenance. The noble Earl has referred to the "Hawkins" class, which was started during the War and finished some years later. I have certainly included them and they are included in the List as efficient. The only one not classed as efficient is the "Vindictive."
EARL HOWE: They will have to be scrapped next year under the terms of the Washington Treaty.
LORD STRABOLGI: Yes, certainly, but I am dealing with the position as it is now. Then with regard to cruisers built. There are to-day fifty British cruisers and five mine-layers, and twenty-six American cruisers. It is absurd to pretend that we have made one step towards unilateral disarmament. We have done nothing of the kind. Then there are eight British aircraft carriers as against four American and six Japanese. It is true that we are weak in destroyers—namely, 161 as against 227 American; but the Japanese only have 101. I agree that we should not be weak in destroyers. They are the most useful war vessel—I give the noble Lord that one admission—but apart from destroyers and submarines—which latter are not really our weapon at all; we have always said the submarine is the weapon of the weaker Power—we are overwhelmingly
94
strong at sea. I am sorry if I speak with vehemence; I know that the noble Lord opposite, Lord Allen of Hurtwood, does not like my vehemence when I let myself go, but this is a matter on which I cannot speak without some indignation. I object very much that the word should go out that the British Navy has been allowed to rot, and I resent very much that the most reverend Primate should be misled by Government spokesmen on a matter upon which he cannot be expected to have expert knowledge.
LORD LLOYD: I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but he has definitely challenged the point of view which I put forward to-day in a letter to The Times. I want to ask him if we shall only have, in the Admiralty computation, after the needs of the fleet in wartime are satisfied—that is to say, twenty of the Battle Fleet and ten always in harbour—six non-obsolete cruisers to look after 85,000 miles of sea routes and about 2,000 ships at sea. That is, of course, a rough computation. I do not know if the noble Lord would call that powerful and completely satisfactory.
LORD STRABOLGI: I will give the noble Lord, if he will allow me to do so, complete satisfaction. If we are going to rely on our existing Navy List of cruisers, we are woefully weak for antisubmarine work, for convoy work and for the defence of trade generally. But that, my Lords, is the exact point of my noble friend who moved this Motion. He used almost those same words. If we are going to rely upon our own strong right arms we are poorly equipped for doing it, and if we are going to rely on our own strong right arms it will mean an immense addition to the Navy and also to the Air Force. The Admiralty in 1930, under the influence of the Labour Government, agreed that fifty cruisers should be our establishment, and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, in the same letter—and I know he can speak with authority in these matters—states that the Government have now apparently given way to the Admiralty and given us the seventy-cruiser establishment. That will mean the building of twenty new cruisers, and as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, agrees that the existing cruisers are now reaching the obsolescent stage, this will mean an immense shipbuilding programme even if we are to

95
have the modest establishment the Admiralty demands.
I say "modest," because if we are going to rely upon our own Navy to protect our own commerce in the seven seas against the air menace, the submarine menace and the possibility of sending out disguised cruisers on the trade routes, the present establishment of seventy is inadequate. That is why we say that the collective system is the only safeguard for the food, raw material and commerce that the noble Marquess who leads the Liberal Party said we had to guard. I have mentioned the number of cruisers building. I could go through the list, but anyone looking at this Admiralty publication must admit that the talk of unilateral disarmament as regards the Navy is utter nonsense. I use strong language in your Lordships' House; I do not apologise for it. It is too bad that a busy man like the noble Marquess, with the great knowledge of affairs that he has to keep up, should have to accept Government statements and then find they are wrong.
The noble Earl sought comfort with regard to Russia. He said that we ought to note how the Russians are increasing their Army. I was afraid that he was going to say something that might give offence in Moscow and injure the prospects of the Lord Privy Seal during his forthcoming visits. In fact, I very much hope that the Government have not any more White Papers on the stocks! I also note with satisfaction that in the present White Paper Poland is not mentioned. That must have been before the Government knew that Mr. Eden was going to Warsaw. I know that the noble Earl would not willingly say anything that would annoy Mr. Stalin; I have not heard that he has a cold yet. My noble friend Lord Marley has for some reason been picked out from amongst the galaxy of politicians in the other House who claim the chief attention of the noble Earl, because I suppose he has often spoken of Russia in other connections, such as that of education and holiday homes for the workers. The noble Earl said, "Look how the Russians are arming." Of course the Russians are arming. They are now threatened by two Powers; on the east by the Japanese and on the west by the Germans. When I say they are threatened by the Germans, I mean that
96
they have not forgotten the statements of the present very powerful leader of all Germany with regard to his ideas of a German aggression into the Ukraine, and they regard a German-Japanese alliance against them as at any rate a possibility.
EARL STANHOPE: Has not the noble Lord forgotten Poland? I suggest that lie look at the map.
LORD STRABOLGI: With great respect to the noble Earl, I have so little forgotten Poland that I travelled through Poland a little time ago. The Poles are supposed to be one of the allies in "Mein Kampf," the book of the present leader of Germany, who are going to help to colonise the Ukraine with good Germans and Poles. Now the two Powers who are supposed to threaten Russia, Japan and Germany, are the only two important nations in the world who refuse to sign pacts of non-aggression. I have also ventured to make this observation in your Lordships' House, that if and when we establish a Socialist State in this country we may have to defend it, because it is a Socialist State, against Capitalist States. I admit that, and I make a present of that suggestion to the noble Earl and to the noble Viscount who leads your Lordships' House. The Russians are preparing to defend themselves against possible attacks because they are a Socialist State. They have not forgotten the intervention, which was only a few years ago.
The noble Earl asks if I have forgotten Poland. I can assure him that the Russians have not forgotten Poland, and they have not forgotten the fact that a large piece of what is ethnographically Russian territory is now under Polish rule. That is the answer to the noble Earl when he points to the increase of the Russian armaments. In any case, however, Russia is at last a member of the League. We used to be told a few years ago that we could not enter into any Treaty for reducing armaments because Russia was not a member of the League. Now we are told that Germany is not a member of the League and that Japan is to withdraw; earlier, the United States did not adhere. Now Russia is a member of the League, and according to the arguments of the most reverend Primate we have certain obligations to fulfil and must therefore have some weapons, in the present disordered state of the world. The Russians have built up a powerful

97
mechanised Army and a powerful Air Force, and as long as they are members of the League they should be an added comfort and defence, as long as we and they adhere to the system of collective security. That is the very system of collective security which is derided—may I say?—by important members of the Conservative Party like Sir Austen Chamberlain. It is good enough, we are told, for little accidental disputes, but for great conflicts by major Powers and for wars embarked on as a deliberate policy the League, we are told, can no longer be relied upon. We say that that is a suicidal policy, and because the Government in apologising for that new policy are injuring the nation—are injuring our nation, for a considerable section of which we claim to speak—we have put forward this Motion and adhere to it.
I am sure that nobody in your Lordships' House suggests it, but certain people were taken to task by the noble Marquess who leads the Liberal Party for suggesting that the Government deliberately mean war. I was speaking last week in Cambridge at the Union, and I repeat here what I said then. Of course the Government are not deliberately preparing for war or following a course that they suspect may lead to war. What they are doing is committing an offence for which some naval officers were tried the other day; they are hazarding the nation. They are adopting policies which all history shows are dangerous. That this course will eventually bring them into conflict with other nations has been proved over and over again.
I sometimes wonder what has happened to what we used to call the old Tory Party. The noble Viscount on the Cross Benches awakened a most responsive echo in my heart, I assure him, when he pleaded for a return to straightforward politics where at any rate we knew where we were. I would, with great respect, ask the present leaders of the Conservative Party to regard what their predecessors did after the Napoleonic wars, when the Tory Party was in power for two or three decades. They knew the nation was exhausted, they knew that Europe was exhausted, they knew that the people were tired and sick of the bloodshed, the misery and the slaughter of war, so they deliberately pursued policies of peace. They cut down and economised in every direction, including
98
armaments, and they allowed the nation to recover, and the great industrial development of this country to begin. That is what the Tory Party did after a great war a hundred years ago. Now the Tory Party has allowed itself to be inveigled into the present Coalition, and I am afraid we get a policy which is neither one thing nor the other. We do not get a policy which gives us armaments which enable us to defend ourselves with our own strong right arm, and we do not sufficiently support the collective system, which is the only alternative.
I am afraid I have detained your Lordships' House longer than I had intended to, but I have two suggestions to make which I hope are constructive. The most reverend Primate spoke of the necessity of bringing Germany back into the League, awl if I may, I would add to that: into the community of European nations. Whatever we may think of the form of government in Germany or of its actions, it is necessary for the peace of Europe for Germany to be within the European family. The reason for that—and I make no apology for mentioning it, because this is an age of extreme frankness—is that the real danger to the world peace, as everybody knows—and it has been expressed by the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, much better than I can express it—lies in the Pacific, for racial reasons and economic reasons which exist, and it is no good our blinking the facts. I do not think that the. Japanese Government is deliberately aiming for war, any more than I believe that the British Government is deliberately aiming for war but the Japanese Government is being driven along certain courses which may lead to a serious breach of the peace. I believe that there is at any rate a chance of preserving the peace of the Pacific if Japan cannot rely on European Allies. The danger is, of course, of war between Russia and Japan, and I believe that if Japan can be deprived of the hope that if she falls foul of Russia. Germany will help her, there is a chance of keeping the peace. That is the great reason, I think, why we have got to make a supreme effort, despite what has perhaps outraged our sensibilities in the internal policy of Germany, to bring Germany into the

99
European community, and to treat her as an equal member of the European family.
My other point, which has reference to the same danger, is: What are we doing about the United States of America? There was to have been a Naval Conference in 1935, this year. The noble Earl, Lord Luean, gave me an answer to a written Question which I recently put, saying that confidential conversations were going on. Has the time arrived when the veil can be withdrawn from those confidential conversations'? The noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, has returned from Geneva with all the latest news of the world. Can he give us any enlightenment? Is the 1935 Naval Conference, in accordance with the Treaty of Washington and the Treaty of London, to be held? And what preparations are being made for it? And if it is held, are we going into that Conference to engage once more in a miserable haggle about the tonnage of cruisers, the calibre of guns, the size of torpedoes, and all those miserable technical details which play into the hands of the professional warriors every time? Or are we going to approach it on a much wider front, which is the great problem of world peace, beginning with the security of the world's commerce at sea—far easier to secure by agreement with the United States than land security and land disarmament.
I would plead that in approaching the Naval Conference of 1935—and I think it ought to be held, and we ought to work for it to be held, and held successfully—the approach to it should be through the system of collective security with the United States on the high seas. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, deplored our weakness in cruisers: they are sensible of our vulnerability to attack on our commerce at sea. Of course they are, and they are perfectly and completely justified. But the Americans are faced with the same problem. America has important overseas possessions, and American overseas commerce is growing. There is an insistent demand in Congress at Washington in almost the same words as those used by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in this country, for more cruisers for the protection of American interests. There is a community of interests for the de
100
fence of the Atlantic and Pacific trade routes; and instead of looking upon the American Navy as a rival to ours, if we could look upon the two great Navies as guardians of the world's commerce at sea, that I suggest would be the right approach to the 1935 conference, and would avoid a fresh vast expenditure on armaments.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, spoke of the present increase foreshadowed in the White Paper as being an instalment. Of course it is only an instalment. He spoke of the increase of the Air Force. If we are going to have an Air Force in this country equal to the nearest Air Force within striking distance on the Continent—I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Trenchard, is here—and if at the same time we are to have the necessary Air Force for the defence of Malta, Singapore and the North-West Frontier of India, the expenditure on the Air Force to bring it up to that standard must be immense. If, in addition to that, we have to begin replacing our ageing battleships, our great super-dreadnoughts, we can look for a doubled expenditure on armaments in about 1937, when the Washington Treaty expires. The situation from the point of view of the taxpayer is serious enough. From the point of view of the ordinary citizen who wants to do trade and business with some certainty that we are not soon going to be plagued by another war, it is most serious. It is most serious of all, as my noble friend Lord Ponsonby has said, for the young people who will have to fight in the next war. It will not be this Government. This Government will move its seat of power to Belfast when the fighting begins. It will be the unfortunate young men who did not know the last war, who were babies when it broke out, and who are now being hazarded and endangered by the policy pursued by the present Government, who will suffer. I repeat that I do not believe that the present Government are deliberately working for war, but by their wobbling, their uncertainty, and their too little faith, they are hazarding the interests of this nation.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, hardly gave a proportionate section of his speech to the question of the reference to Germany in the White Paper. It seems to me that

101
too much importance cannot be attached to that matter. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs also gave very small space to it, and I should like to say a further word upon it to your Lordships. The reference to Germany alone, it seems to me, would justify my noble friend's action in bringing forward a Motion today. The singling out of Germany for special reprobation endangered the whole plan of the Anglo-French declaration. The inclusion of Germany in some form of agreement aimed at collective security is obviously essential to durable peace. I was glad to hear the most reverend Primate dwell upon that. It had taken England and France all too long to reach a proposal which furnished a possible basis for acceptance by the German Government. The German response was awaited with intense anxiety. To the relief of the whole country that response was favourable. The visit of the Foreign Secretary was duly planned. A situation reached with so much difficulty and delay was obviously one for the most delicate handling. Yet that was the moment chosen to issue a statement markedly galling to German feeling, obviously endangering the responsive attitude which had been arrived at.
Germany was pilloried as the cause of trouble. Her ease was sharply differentiated from that of the other Powers mentioned. Inevitably the result was indignation in Germany and suspicsion of our sincerity. How are we to account for this astonishing move? I find it impossible to believe that it was inadvertent. Its probable effect must have been obvious to the merest tyro. It was clearly a deliberate act. What caused it? There are naturally several schools of thought in the Cabinet in regard to the League. A belief in the possibility of peace by international agreement is a novelty for the old-fashioned Conservative mind. One might classify the two views at each end of the scale in the Cabinet as pre-War and post-War, primitive and modern. It looks as if this sudden volte face in our approach to Germany represented a victory of the primitives in the tug-of-war which must prevail in the Cabinet. It is good news, however, that the visit to Germany is still to take place. But will it be as friendly as it might have been? The atmosphere has been embittered. The German attitude of revived confidence has
102
been spoilt. But I need not labour the German point of view, because we have seen it admirably expressed in the last few days by my noble friend Lord Lothian in his valuable letters.
How can this jeopardising of talks with Germany of the most fundamental importance be justified? The most charitable interpretation regards it as a blunder. If it was not sabotage, it was criminal recklessness. It is another case of the variable and uncertain nature of the Foreign Secretary's action. That uncertainty is commonly attributed to his peculiar personal temperament. It may be the result of opposition from what I have called the primitives in the Cabinet over-ruling his judgment. In any case, the Cabinet is responsible, and in any case the effect is disastrous.
From the German point of view—it is difficult to understand unless one visits Germany—English policy since the Disarmament Conference has been, of course, exasperating. At one moment we declare for the German right to equality. At another the Foreign Secretary issued a legalistic argument to show that the German right to equality under the Versailles Treaty was strictly conditional. At one moment we welcomed the American proposals relating to reduction of forces by one-third. At another the Foreign Secretary damned it with faint praise in his roost patronising manner. Later on we had the British plan, arousing hopes of a firm policy. But again we had the Germans provided with a grievance through our non-response to proposals of theirs. Finally, we have the Anglo-French declaration, but then comes the lecture to Germany in the White Paper. The impression is even worse than that of mere half-heartedness. One cannot imagine that Mr. Henderson, had he remained at the Foreign Office, would have been so unsuccessful, because he would not have shifted his ground from time to time.
I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, that the question to-day is not so much a question of expenditure as a question of the policy underlying the White Paper. The White Paper as a whole is intended to facilitate the adoption of the Estimates. But it was surely unnecessary to use the occasion to damage the League. It is not the Estimates themselves but the nature of the utterance that is mainly in question.

103
Mr. Baldwin says he is hurt when the Government eulogy of the League is called "lip service," but that is a fair description of the White Paper if it does a disservice to the League. Nobody could possibly describe the White Paper as intended to further the cause of the League. It is an utterance of depreciation. The success of any League,
as of any treaty, multilateral or even bilateral, postulates mutual aid and reliance. The White Paper proclaims that you cannot rely on the League. It is an encouragement to fear and anxiety. It provides Governments with an argument against proposals for League progress. It stultifies our own proposals for new agreements. It pictures the League as a fixed machine which will either work or fail. It distracts attention from the truism that the League is what its members make it. Illustrations can easily be given of that. The League was effective in preventing a Balkan War in 1925 because M. Briand was energetic. Lord Cecil made it effective when Italy was induced to withdraw from Corfu in 1923. That was the result of personal activity.
You can, of course, kill the League by saying that it is dead. Are we the people to give a lead in distrust? The Government's expressions of love for the League are rightly described as empty if they are followed by exhortations to distrust it. Sincere praise would at all events have combined such expressions with reminders of the League's value. It would have prompted the inclusion of facts giving ground for trust in the League. It might have shown that the Government appreciate that side also. There are cases where the League has prevented war—wars which had even been embarked upon, as in 1921, the Albanian-Yugoslav controversy, and in 1925, the Greco-Bulgarian trouble, which had actually already taken the form of a war and which was stayed by the energy of M. Briand.
We all wish we could regard the Government as whole-hearted when they tell us the League is their main hope. But if they belie those words, one is tempted sometimes to wonder if an open enemy would not be better than a half-hearted friend. To make the League a success requires 100 per cent. of energy. It may well be that no success at all can be secured without that 100 per cent. of energy. The White Paper is another
104
proof that the Government are halfhearted. Their language is not the language of a keen desire for success. It gives the impression that the sceptics in the Cabinet are in a majority. The modernist members perhaps have less energy. Perhaps progressive and modernist views find their high-water mark in the Lord President of the Council. The effect of half-heartedness has been only too evident in regard to the Disarmament Conference. The White Paper gives the impression of throwing up the sponge, and it is so taken abroad. And it does so at the roost critical moment in the history of the Disarmament Conference. Even at this late hour, when the proposal for inspection of armed forces is being discussed at Geneva, it is England that raises difficulties. We have obstructed on many occasions. Our reservation about bombing is only one illustration. If the Government are really sincere in their professions of faith in the League and in disarmament, why should they not prove their sincerity by showing some energy in a progressive direction? Let them begin by frankly accepting the system of inspection of arms which the noble Earl opposite was not instructed keenly to support. Why should the Government not indicate their real whole-hearted support of the League by supporting that proposal, a proposal obviously necessary for agreed disarmament?
EARL PEEL: My Lords, I should like to make one or two very brief observations on this matter. It is usually the salutary custom in this House—I think it is salutary—that the only people who address your Lordships are those who criticise the Government, and if anybody ever approves of any action that the Government have done, he usually does it in silence. I do not even except, if I may say so, the speech of the most reverend Primate, because his assent was so very guarded, and he only agreed to the proposals of the White Paper, I think, if a great many other things might be done which would have a peculiarly qualifying effect upon it.
I really do not think it is necessary to say anything about either the Government or the country being in favour of peace. We know they are strongly in favour of peace, and it is precisely because there can be no doubt that the

105
Government and the country are in favour of peace that a document like this White Paper becomes possible and can be issued without any fear of misrepresentation. I have listened in the course of this debate to the amazing amount of innuendo, suggestion, and criticism that has been built up on this White Paper. It astonishes me because, when I read it, it seemed to me a very straightforward and frank statement of facts. The reason I approve of the White Paper is that, reading it, as I think without bias, it does riot, to my mind, lay down a fresh policy at all. What it does is this: It sums up in a few telling phrases the experience we have gained of the working of the League of Nations, of agreements with other countries, and the state of the world; and on those phrases, which I believe to be true, you must of course build up your policy.
I am not going to say a word about the actual timing of the document. Sometimes this matter of issue is rather difficult. The White Paper has been criticised, too, because it is plain, frank, and rather blunt in its expressions. I welcome that. I think that sometimes these documents are drawn up, I will not say with too accurate a regard for style—the style is generally not very classical—but with a certain polish of phrase which leaves them sometimes not quite clear to the ordinary man, and this document is intended for the ordinary man. This is a document of great importance. Even if it suggests no fresh declaration of policy, it does sum up certain facts and issues which have been rather plain to the ordinary man for some time but which now get the considered judgment of a responsible Government upon them.
There are four propositions of the highest importance in this document. The first one is that it has been found, once action has been taken, that the existing international machinery for the maintenance of peace cannot be relied upon as protection against an aggressor. I have not heard in the course of this discussion one single word of criticism upon that proposition. The only thing that was said was by my noble friend Lord Cecil, that force was the last resort and that collective action might take many forms before it got to the use of force, with which I quite agree. But even he did not suggest that the machinery of peace can
106
be relied upon as protection against an aggressor. Then we have the second proposition, which says that disarming ourselves in advance by way of example has not increased our negotiating power in the disarmament discussions at Geneva. Does anybody challenge that proposition? I have heard much criticism of this White Paper during this debate, but I have not heard one single noble Lord get up and deny that disarmament on our part has not assisted our negotiating power in the disarmament discussions at Geneva.
The noble Lord whom I am following, Lord Strabolgi, will pardon me if I do not follow him in his elaborate discussions as to whether or not we have been disarming, because until he spoke and revealed the mystery unknown to me, I was under the impression that for the last ten years, looking at the facts and figures, we had been disarming steadily. His persuasive eloquence has rather shaken my belief in that as regards the Navy, but that is a matter we can deal with on another occasion. We have to accept the fact of disarmament, whether you call it one-sided, unilateral, partial, or whatever else, as we have been practising it during the last ten years.
The other proposition is that the Disarmament Conference has virtually come to a standstill. That is an important statement, because in connection with so many of these international conferences the public are never told they have come to a standstill; all we are told is they have adjourned until the next meeting. But that is a definite statement which has again to be carefully weighed, and I think it has not been denied by any noble Lord who has spoken.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Except the Government.
EARL PEEL: The Government have denied it?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Yes.
EARL PEEL: That is for the Government to say, but I should have thought the fact that the Government had denied it would not carry any great conviction in the mind of my noble friend. The fourth proposal m is as regards the Locarno Treaties. It is said that these

107
are being seriously weakened by the knowledge, shared by all the signatories, that our contribution, in case our obligation is clear to us, could have little decisive effect. Is not that a statement of the plainest common sense? I know it has been used as an argument by one ingenious member in another place that the Government are using their obligations under these Locarno Treaties in order to gain support for definite proposals for increasing their defensive forces, but I think it is just as well to put the plainest and simplest interpretation on any document. Surely it is unarguable that we cannot perform our obligations unless we have some force with which to support them. These four propositions, none of which, as I say, has really been controverted by anybody—
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I really do not think the noble Earl ought to say that over and over again.
EARL PEEL: Then I will say it once. I quite agree that reiteration of argument sometimes is not strengthening. Perhaps my noble friend will assume I have made the statement only once. Starting then with this summary of facts with which we are supplied in this White Paper, I want to ask this question. The noble Viscount himself has talked a great deal about collective security. I listened with great attention to his argument, and I think I appreciated it, but the fact remains that one has to ask in the case of one's own security: If this country is attacked can we rely upon the assistance and help of the League and, what is more, can we rely upon that support being given at the right time? I think the answer generally given to that question by most people is that we cannot do so, that, so to speak, what is everybody's business is nobody's business; and it is for that reason that these regional pacts were entered into, because it was thought, and naturally thought, that where there were fewer parties concerned, they would have a greater interest in their own security, and there would be greater likelihood of the pacts being carried into effect. So far from weakening, they really strengthen the general security of collective action.
After all, you can never get countries to fight with the same enthusiasm for
108
other people as they do for themselves. When war is being considered you always have parties who are against that war, and will not the cause of a Party be enormously strengthened if they are able to say to their fellow-countrymen: "You are not fighting for your own interest, but for the interests of some other country at the behest of and at the suggestion of the League"? I am bound to say, and I am sorry to have to say it, but I think it is true, that part of the anxiety now being felt as to the carrying out of these agreements is due not only to the fact that it has been necessary to pile up so many of them and say the same thing several times, but that there has been some weakening of the carrying out of international agreements and obligations since the War, which has bred in many peoples' mind a distrust of agreements themselves. If you only look at the way in which the more easy financial agreements and arrangements have been broken by so many countries, you will not wonder that people distrust these arrangements. As an Irishman said the other day, any country that boasted that it maintained all its agreements would be charged with a very undesirable form of arrogance.
That being the case, I can do nothing myself but commend the Government for making plain these statements in order that the country may know precisely where we stand as regards the League of Nations and as regards the agreements based upon it. I cannot see myself that the White Paper shows any weakness in the determination of the Government and the country, and indeed, of all Governments, not only to support the League of Nations, but to maintain to the utmost of their power the collective arrangements. All that it seems to me to do is this: it gives a new setting to the adjustment of the relations of the League of Nations and to those agreements of the countries that have entered into them. I believe myself that this plain and honest statement of the situation, though it may be disagreeable to persons who like to nurse illusions, is of great value to those who love reality and believe that on reality and sincere statements and action any real Government foreign policy must be based.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I do not propose to detain the

109
House for more than a few moments but there are one or two observations I would like to make on this debate. I have come to the conclusion that I must absolve the Government of any malignant intention of repudiating the League of Nations in the White Paper. At the same time, I must confess that its genesis and the moment of its birth and many of its phrases were most unfortunate. I venture to think that the trouble arises from combining a. rather doubtful advocacy of the League of Nations with the powerful argument for an increase in armaments. That is what has really created the confusion in people's mind. If the Government had merely suggested, as the Lord President of the Council did in another place, that "We have to bring before the country the very formidable evidence of what is going on in other countries, and that these increases are the justification for not a very great increase in our own expenditure," without attaching to it some very dubious remarks about the League of Nations, most of this trouble would not have occurred.
I think the White Paper in itself is rather an unfortunate document, and I will let it go at that. On the other hand I feel that a good deal of the discussion this afternoon has a certain element of unreality about it. We have been asked over and over again whether we think that an increase of armaments contributes to the peace of the world or will prevent the outbreak of war. I think every intelligent person must admit that an increase of armaments leading to a competition in armaments, cannot ensure peace and must, in the long run, lead to war. On the other hand, I cannot persuade myself that weakness in armaments will have any ether effect. Neither of those two positions goes to the root of the trouble which confronts us. Neither by armaments nor by unilateral disarmament will you ensure peace. The essence of the case is that peace, until that distant day when you get the world federation with a Government which has the allegiance of every citizen, depends upon policy rather than on armaments. The great weakness of the Disarmament Conference, as I have said often, has been that it began with armaments and not with policy. The reason that you had a successful disarmament agreement in the Pacific in 1922 was that the
110
Governments first settled policy and then were able to agree about armaments—the instruments of policy. The reason we cannot get agreement about armaments in the Pacific to-day is that we are not yet agreed about policy.
There are two main causes of unrest in the world to-day. One is the problem of finding the right place in Europe and the world for Germany. That is one vast problem. For fifteen years we have lived in an unreal world in which one of the greatest Powers in the world has been disarmed and defenceless, and is now, because we have been unable to disarm or persuade our neighbours to disarm, rearming in order to gain the equality she has been promised. This naturally has caused unrest, and there are admittedly difficult adjustments necessary to secure Germany her rightful place in the world. My own view is that the last thing Germany wants to do is to solve these problems by war. But they have to be solved. The problem is to find a reasonable and just place for Germany in Europe, and beyond that, reassure Europe that there will be no attempt to go beyond what is reasonable by force. Then you will have a real European community, peace and a true League of Nations. The other problem of the world is that some solution has to be found for the problem of Japan in the Far East, a very difficult, even, as somebody said, a dangerous question. That question is going to be raised by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, in a few weeks' time and I need say no more to-day.
We have got to solve these political problems if we can, and make Germany a member of the European community, on the one hand by respecting her rights and giving her her right position, and, on the other hand, by making effective a collective system against aggression in the League of Nations. If that can be done there would be no serious difficulty about keeping the peace of Europe for another twenty years and making the League of Nations effective. And there is no other way. Similarly, if we can solve the problem in the Ear East, which is a political question, we shall get a renewal of the Washington Treaties. Then, if Europe is settled and the Far East is settled, I think there is a very good chance of the United States itself coming into the League. The

111
problems which confront us are political problems. Whether we have armaments up or down does not really go to the root of the problem. That is why I look with much expectation to the visit of the Foreign Secretary and the Lord Privy Seal to Berlin and then afterwards to Warsaw and Moscow in order that, for the first time since 1920, there may be really frank discussions with Germany and Russia as to how the peace of Europe is to be stabilised for the next twenty years and as to the changes that have to be made in order to bring that stability about.
May I ask just one question on the Air Force? I should like to say in this House, that I was assured by the leader of Germany that Germany was prepared to abolish all bombers altogether if everybody else did so. That is a very formidable fact, and I should like to bring that fact to the attention of the Government.
LORD STRABOLGI: May I ask the noble Marquess if he said anything about police bombing in the Berlin district?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: He did not mention that. He did not go into details. The problem I want to raise is this. I think a distinction must be drawn between the defensive aspects of an Air Pact and the more serious and formidable aspect which will arise if bombers are not abolished, and we come to the stage of mutual retaliatory bombing of women and children. If we get to the position that nations feel that they may at any time be collectively bombed then your last state is going to be worse than the first. I think there must be two stages and a distinction drawn between the use of defensive fighters and collective retaliatory bombing in the event of bombers not being abolished. I bring this matter to the attention of the Government only because I think that in framing their policy for Berlin it is a formidable fact—if it is a fact, as I believe—that Germany is willing by international convention to abolish bombers altogether.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I do not propose at this late hour to trouble your Lordships with more than a few observations, but I think the debate which has taken place demands an answer
112
on behalf of the Government. I am very glad indeed that the debate was initiated, if for no other reason than that it enables your Lordships to express your opinion as to whether this White Paper is right or wrong, and whether you approve or disapprove the policy contained in it. I hope that your Lordships' House will very shortly register the opinion in even more decisive terms than were recently recorded in another place.
I think we all start on common ground. It is now conceded that every section of political opinion in this country, and every politician or statesman to whatever Party he belongs, is earnestly pursuing what he thinks the best method of achieving peace in the world. Everybody now admits that whether the method followed be right or wrong, whether the policy be mistaken or not, the end which we all desire to attain is world peace. No one, I think, who has any knowledge of the people of this country can doubt that one great determination is burnt Into the very heart of our people, that if it can by any means be avoided war shall never break out again. But there is only one Party which seeks to use that very real desire for peace as a Party weapon. That is the Party which is represented by the Noble Lord who moved this Motion. The Noble Lord was good enough to say that this White Paper had aroused alarm and consternation. I venture to think that alarm and consternation were raised in the minds of people most of whom had never read the White Paper but who believed that it contained what noble Lords and their allies outside this House were saying that it contained.
The noble Lord went on to assure us that "of course"—to use his own words—this White Paper meant that the Government had abandoned the collective system and had repudiated the League of Nations. A more grave misstatement I suppose has seldom been uttered by any responsible statesman or even by any politician in either House of Parliament. The fact is that there is a fundamental misconception in the minds of those who attack the White Paper. They assume that there are two alternative and inconsistent policies—the one the policy of relying on the League of Nations and on what has been shortly described as the collective system, and the other the policy of relying on force,

113
that if you have anything to do with armaments or force you are repudiating the League of Nations, and that if you have anything to de with the League of Nations you are repudiating the idea of force. It was in the same sense I think that the noble Viscount on the Cross Benches said that this White Paper would be understood as involving a new step and a new policy.
I wonder whose fault it is if that impression is created. I do not think it arises from anything in the White Paper. It comes from what people have chosen to say about the White Paper. The fact is that there is no such inconsistency and there is no such alternative policy. The Government base their policy, and say they base their policy, upon support of the League of Nations and upon what is described as the collective system. But that does not involve that we abandon the idea of defending ourselves if we are attacked. It does not mean that we render ourselves incapable of defence and thereby invite attack, which is of course the policy of the noble Lord opposite. The noble Lord opposite said that when anybody made their arms effective or increased their expenditure on armaments, that was equivalent to expressing their disbelief in the good faith of the rest of the world, and was in effect an accusation of distrust and of falsehood against the rest of the signatories of the Kellogg Pact and of the Covenant of the League. That is a very grave attack to make, not so much on this Government but on almost every nation which is a signatory of the Kellogg Pact or of the Covenant of the League of Nations, because they 'have been all increasing armaments in far greater degree than we have.
Take Germany. The noble Lord knows—it is common ground—that Germany hardly troubles now to disguise the fact that she is disregarding her Treaty obligations under Part V of the Treaty of Versailles, and the noble Lord has, I have no doubt, encouraged her to do so by what he has been saying this evening. Take the Soviet Government. Its expenditure, as we know, has gone up enormously—to something like six and a-half billion roubles in the current year. Its man force, it boasts, has gone up by more than 50 per cent., its tank force by some hundreds per cent. Take the United States of America. Nobody, I think,—except, of course, the noble Lord
114
opposite—suspects the United States of America of contemplating a war of aggression, but the United States of America has increased its arms in a far greater proportion than anything of which we have even dreamed in this country.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: If the noble Viscount will allow me to interrupt him I should like to say that I never mentioned the United States of America.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: know the noble Lord did not, but what he said was that it was ridiculous for people to talk about having increased their arms for defensive purposes, that nobody believed that, that nobody increased arms for defence and that it was really always for aggression. I am pointing out that nobody except the friends of the noble Lord would ever suspect the United States of America of contemplating a war of aggression. Yet they have made a larger increase than anything we dream of. If it be true that to increase armaments means that you desire to make war and not to defend yourselves, then the United States of America must be a very guilty party.
Let us take two little nations, because. I do not suppose that even the noble Lord can seriously suggest that they contemplate aggressive action against the rest of the world. Take Switzerland. She is engaged in re-equipping her Army and increasing war material, and is proposing to increase the period of conscript service and to construct frontier defences. Is Switzerland an aggressive Power? Take Belgium. Belgium in the current year has increased her army by three battalions, has added five battalions of frontier defence troops and is spending four or five millions on defence. She has done a good deal snore than we have. Does anybody suppose that Belgium wants to declare war on her neighbours? Of course not. Everyone knows in the modern world that it is necessary to have certain military force—I use the word "military" in the widest sense—to defend yourself against unprovoked attack. That does not mean that you abandon the hope that you will not be attacked. The noble Lord says that if you are prepared to have force it means that you are relying on force alone. It means

115
nothing of the kind. It would be just as sensible to say, if there were an outbreak of crime in the country, that you were not merely to try to educate your population to a degree of good sense which would enable them to live honest lives, but that you were to abandon the use of policemen because that might be introducing the element of force. The thing is manifestly absurd.
Then we are told that there is a great race in armaments. Figures which your Lordships have probably read, some of which have been quoted, show, I think, quite plainly that for years past, partly under economic stress, partly also in an earnest desire to encourage other people by disarmament to follow our example, we have allowed our Army. Navy and Air Force to reach at any rate the very verge of risk, to use a phrase cited in the other House. That cannot go on indefinitely. We have to spend these sums which are proposed, not in order to increase our armaments and to have a big Army and Navy, but to bring them and the Air Force respectively up to the very minimum which we think possible, having regard to the obligations which those forces may have to discharge.
The noble Viscount said it was not so much the expenditure he complained of as the facts which were stated, the reasons given in the White Paper for the expenditure, and he stated first the fact that we referred to what other countries are doing. Is it irrelevant in considering armaments to consider what other people are doing, and if it is not irrelevant ought you not to give the real reasons? Ought you to suppress them? That may be all very well in an autocratic or despotic country, but in a democratic country like ours, if you are going to make your policy intelligible to the people, in my judgment it is essential that you should be frank with the people and tell them the truth, and if you tell them the truth I believe that they will respond to it. Then my noble friend on the Cross Benches said that he found paragraph 4 of the White Paper objectionable because it referred to the means of defence against attack. It refers to the means of defence against attack as the last resort if, unfortunately, it should turn out that those primary defences against the outbreak of war should
116
prove ineffective. My noble friend believes that economic pressure works smoothly and effectively, and will not lead to war. I hope he is right, but I do not think there is much experience which leads us to place very much confidence in either of those conclusions. My noble friend has not much faith in regional pacts.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I did not say that. I said that I thought there were certain conditions to them which ought to be observed in order to avoid dangers which I tried to explain.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: What, like myself, he desires to see is a system of collective security, but we cannot ignore the fact that great parts of the world are outside the League of Nations, and I think it is important that we should not abandon the endeavour to reach regional pacts because we prefer a wider scheme of collective security. If, in spite of what we try to do, collective security should break down, and the system of regional pacts should be inefficient, then it is important that we should have some means of defending ourselves against attack, and the Army and the Navy, I think it is conceded, are not being brought up to anything like the level of pre-War days. As to the Air Force, it is only asking for the sum of money approved as long ago as last July, and it is intended not for the bombing of undefended towns but for the bombing of aerodromes and hostile planes, thereby rendering them incapable of attack.
I noted with interest what the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, said about the policy of Germany with regard to the abolition of bombers. That is a matter which will, of course, be taken into consideration, but it does not quite solve the problem, because we have the great difficulty of the existence of civil aircraft, which can be turned at short notice into effective bombers. Therefore the problem is not quite so simple as would at first appear. Whether it can be overcome is a matter for consideration by expert statesmen and their advisers when they come to close grip with the subject.
So far as the Government are concerned, we have what we believe to be the very minimum force which is necessary to protect this country and the Empire, and to discharge the obligations

117
which are cast upon it. If we have a minimum force we can only keep it at that extremely low level by doing our best to ensure that it is an effective force. We shall continue to work in the future, as in the past, wholeheartedly in the cause of peace. We shall continue to base our policy on the League of Nations, as indeed we declare in the White Paper, but we ask the support of your Lordships' House in carrying out this policy of rendering our forces efficient. Further, we ask your Lordships' individual assistance in explaining to the country what the proposals in the White Paper really are, and in dissipating those misstatements which have been made, those very wild misstatements, which have been made for purely electoral purposes—outside statements which I am afraid nothing which has been said by noble Lords opposite, or by the noble Viscount on the Cross Benches, will have done very much to remove.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I feel that this debate has been very well worth while. We have had a most interesting discussion, and I wish to thank the Government for giving me not one reply but two. I should have liked to press them to be a little more explicit as to whether this was a first step; that is to say, what are the expectations for the future, what inevitably must this lead to; but of course the circumstances of the future
118
are hidden horn us, and I cannot expect them to answer that. At the same time it is clear that it is the initiation of a new and different policy, and if there has been a misunderstanding, as the noble Viscount has complained, and misinterpretation, I do not think that any other Government ever laid themselves so open to being misunderstood and misinterpreted as have the present Government by this White Paper. They are themselves to blame for any accusation made against them, by reason of the tenour and composition and spirit in which the White Paper was issued.
I do not want to say anything more. The Leader of the House turned his batteries on to me at the end of his speech. I should have liked to have a little time to deal with the absolute travesty of my arguments which he presented to your Lordships, but it seemed to me to be a reflection of some speech which he has been making in some Tory village hall, and I did not want to interrupt him. He hoped that your Lordships would give a very decisive vote—more decisive than was given in another place. I am sorry to disappoint him, but I do not want such a serious day of discussion to be marred by such a farce as a vote in your Lordships' House. I therefore beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Leave withheld, and, on Question, Motion negatived.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past seven o'clock.

Preamble
GLOUCESTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
EXETER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
CITY OF LONDON (ST. PAUL'S CATHEDRAL PRESERVATION) BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; namely:

M. Lansdowne,

M. Bath (Chairman),

E. Leven and Melville,

L. Annaly,

L. Elton:

Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Wednesday next, at eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.
FOLKESTONE AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
SHARPNESS DOCKS AND GLOUCESTER AND BIRMINGHAM NAVIGATION BILL. [H.L.]
GOLDERS GREEN (JEWISH) BURIAL GROUND BILL. [H.L.]
MARLOW WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION (QUAY EXTENSION) BILL. [H.L.]
The King's consent signified; and Bill reported, with Amendments.