Sitting of 20 March 1935

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

GLASGOW CORPORATION BILL (By Order).
Order for Second Reading read.
HON. MEMBERS: "Object."
Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to know what is the matter with Glasgow, when we have all these Tory Members of Parliament objecting to something with which they have nothing to do. This is a Bill in favour of Scotland.
HON. MEMBERS: "Order."
Mr. KIRKWOOD: This shows the need for Home Rule for Scotland with a vengeance. Hon. Members come here for nothing else but to object and then they walk away.
Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order.
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next, at half-past Seven of the Clock.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  TURKEY (BRITISH SUBJECTS).
  Mr. LUNNasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with regard to the law enacted by the Turkish Government which prohibits Foreign subjects from exercising their trades and professions in Turkey, whether His Majesty's Government has instituted any negotiations with the Turkish Government with a view to alleviating the position of British subjects affected or whether, in
  1180
  the event of such negotiations not having taken place or having taken place and failed, His Majesty's Government will take steps to repatriate such British subjects as have been reduced to destitution through the working of the law?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question put on this subject on the 30th January by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith). Representations on this subject were made to the Turkish Government on behalf of His Majesty's Government when the law of June, 1932, was passed; and as a result the complete application of the law was subsequently postponed until June, 1934. Most of the British subjects concerned are not recent arrivals in Turkey but derive their nationality from descent through one or more generations from an ancestor who went there from Malta or from some other British territory. The question of their repatriation is therefore a difficult one. It is, however, under close examination, and in the meantime, as I stated on the 30th January, His Majesty's Consular Officers in Turkey have been authorised to grant monetary relief in necessitous cases.
  Mr. LUNN: When the matter is under examination, will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House if there is something to communicate?
  Sir J. SIMON: If the position improves, I shall be very glad to do so.

  GERMANY AND RUSSIA (MINISTERS' VISITS).
  Mr. JOELasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in view of the coming diplomatic visits to Germany and Russia, he can give an assurance that Parliament will not be committed without its prior knowledge to any possible modification of the Versailles Treaty?
  Sir J. SIMON: The visits to these capitals are purely exploratory.
  Mr. COCKS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, before he goes, he intends to have a consultation with France and Italy?
  Sir J. SIMON: I do not think that that arises out of this question.
  Captain CAZALETasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the subject of Russian debts to this country, both national and private, will be discussed during the visit of the Lord Privy Seal to Moscow?
  The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Eden): I do not at present anticipate this. The visit to Moscow is in response to an invitation from the Soviet Government and conversations will be mainly concerned with questions arising out of the present political situation in Europe.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (ECONOMIC SANCTIONS).
  Mr. JOELasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in connection with the activities of the League of Nations, any countries, members of the League, have at any time expressed their readiness to adopt economic sanctions against any country which has incurred the criticism of the League irrespective of any action which might be taken by other nations?
  Sir J. SIMON: As far as I am aware no Member of the League of Nations has ever expressed such readiness. As my hon. Friend will be aware, the essential idea underlying the relevant Article of the Covenant of the League is co-operation between all the members of the League. The importance of this has been emphasised on various occasions when the subject has been under consideration by the League.

  PALESTINE.

    EDUCATIONAL BUILDINGS (GRANTS).
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can explain why a grant has been made out of the Palestine Government loan for Arab school buildings, while no grant has been made for Jewish schools; and whether, in view of the representations of the elected assembly of Palestine Jewry, steps will be taken to make an education grant on the basis of the present proportion of the Jews to the whole population and a grant for Jewish school buildings in the town?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The provision for educational buildings
    1182
    which is contained in the schedule of the proposed Palestine loan is in respect of new Government schools, in which Arabic is the medium of instruction and which are open to all sections of the community. The Jewish community has, from the earliest years of the British administration, elected to maintain its own school system and the Government of Palestine has never accepted responsibility for the capital cost of such schools. The Government of Palestine has, however, for many years provided grants-in-aid in respect of the recurrent cost of the Jewish schools, and in recent years the amount of the grant-in-aid has been calculated in relation to the annual expenditure on Government schools and the number of Jewish children of school age in proportion to the total school age population. The amount of the grant-in-aid approved for the current year is £28,000.
    Mr. DAVIES: May we take it that the Colonial Office will see to it that there is no discrimination against the education of Jewish children in Palestine?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: We shall carry on the policy which all our predecessors have carried on without exception since the Mandate.
    Mr. JANNER: Is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman adopted a rather different policy with regard to this matter; and is he not prepared to give a grant to those schools in which Hebrew is being taught, particularly in view of the fact that for so many years the Jewish community in Palestine have assisted the Government by paying the whole of the cost of buildings?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, Sir, this matter has been very often considered. The policy was laid down years ago, and that policy has been consistently followed by every Government.
    Mr. JANNER: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to have schools erected in those towns where the population is largely Jewish, arid not place the whole of the burden on the ratepayers of those particular towns?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That would entirely depend upon the circumstances in which the teaching was done.
    Sir PERCY HARRIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether religion is taught in the Arab schools?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should like notice of that question.

    PORT OF JAFFA (IMPROVEMENTS).
    Mr. JANNERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the news that the improvements at the Jaffa port will not be completed until next January has given rise to serious apprehension amongst citrus growers in Palestine with regard to the conditions under which next season's crop will be loaded; and whether, in view of the greatly increased exports which are probable, arrangements can be made to complete this work at least as early as the end of October next?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am quite satisfied that the High Commissioner for Palestine will, see that everything possible is done to expedite the completion of this work.
    Mr. JANNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman for once inquire into the question in order to give the benefit of his advice to the High Commissioner; and will he take into account the fact that on 27th February there was a meeting of the Directorate of Customs held in Jaffa at which the general conclusion was reached that Haifa would not be able to cope with the cases of oranges which had to be passed through for transport, and that it was essential to have further opportunities?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I gave the matter careful consideration when I was in Palestine, and the result of that was a very large expenditure upon the improvement of the Port of Jaffa. That work is going on, and I really wish that the hon. Gentleman would give the High Commissioner of Palestine and his staff credit for doing, as everybody else knows they do, everything that is possible.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Why, if they concentrate on Haifa, cannot they make a road from Jaffa to Haifa down which the oranges could come?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: We are not concentrating on Haifa. The answer which I have given shows that we are greatly improving the Port of Jaffa.

    IRAQ PETROLEUM COMPANY (DISPUTE).
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies
    1184
    whether he is aware that a dispute has arisen between the Iraq Petroleum Company in Palestine and their employés; that the company have refused to raise the minimum wage of a labourer from 2s. 4d. per day to 3s., and have insisted upon imposing a reduction upon all those earning more than 9s. per day; and whether, in view of the increase in the cost of living in Palestine and of the undertaking given by the company to observe fair wages and conditions of labour, he will take some steps in the matter?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am aware that a dispute has arisen between the Iraq Petroleum Company and certain of their employés in Palestine, but I have not received detailed information. I am sure that the High Commissioner can be relied on to intervene if he is not satisfied that the company are carrying out their assurance as to the observance of fair conditions of labour, but I will ask him to furnish me with a report on the subject.
    Mr. DAVIES: When the right hon. Gentleman receives the report and finds that the facts are as stated in the question, will he take action to see that this company give a fair deal to their employés?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think that we had better wait and see what the facts are in the report.

    BRITISH-BORN WIVES (NATIONALITY).
    Miss RATHBONEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a British woman who marries a man of Palestinian nationality loses her British nationality and acquires that of her husband or whether she retains both; and, in the latter case, whether the children of the marriage acquire dual nationality?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): Palestinian citizenship is not regarded as a nationality for the purpose of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act. The wife would not lose British nationality by reason of the Palestinian citizenship of the husband.
    Miss RATHBONE: Will the right hon. Gentleman supplement that answer by saying whether the wife would also become a Palestinian citizen or only become a British citizen?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The matter is rather complicated, and, if the hon. Member will consult with me at the Home Office, I shall be glad to see her.

  BERMUDA (WOMEN FRANCHISE).
  Miss RATHBONEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that a number of women in Bermuda have for several successive years resorted to the method of tax resistance as a protest against their exclusion from the franchise and from eligibility for the legislature; and whether steps will be taken to secure the revision in this and other respects of the constitution oil the Colony, in view of the facts that the present constitution has undergone very little alteration for three centuries and that the electorate is less than six: per cent. of the population?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have no information to the effect that women in Bermuda have resorted to tax resistance as a method of furthering their claim to the franchise. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by Dr. Drummond Shiels on the 27th of January, 1931, to which I cannot usefully add anything.
  Miss RATHBONE: Will not the right hon. Gentleman consider whether, as many years have elapsed since then, some steps cannot be taken to bring the influence of the Colonial Office upon the Government of the Colony, which has a constitution completely out of accord with the wishes of the inhabitants?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think that on the constitutional and on all other aspects of this question, the considered judgment of the Labour Government was a very wise one.
  Sir P. HARRIS: Why does the right hon. Gentleman always take cover behind the decisions of the Labour Government?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I always seek to support every continuity of policy when it is right.

  COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT.
  Mr. JOELasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, with the object of ensuring colonial development,
  1186
  he will consider setting on foot further research in the direction of ascertaining whether some of the tropical products we now import from other countries can profitably be produced in our Empire?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The production within the Colonial Empire of commodities at present imported from foreign countries is a question that is engaging continuous attention both here and in the Colonies themselves, and much help is constantly given by men with special knowledge of particular trades. This has resulted both in improvements in production and marketing of established products and the development of new ones. Any specific suggestions for further action in that direction are always welcome, but I see no necessity, as at present advised, for the introduction of further special machinery for the the purpose.

  CYPRUS (SHIPPING SERVICE).
  Sir ROBERT HAMILTONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make a statement as to the proposed service of a British shipping line for the island of Cyprus?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The position in regard to steamship communication with Cyprus is discussed in paragraphs 354–356 of the report of the Financial Commissioner, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. From inquiries which have already been made, it appears that there is no immediate likelihood of British lines being able to offer a satisfactory alternative to the existing subsidised services, which are mainly fast passenger and mail services. The position is, however, being kept under review. The Financial Commissioner advised that no new subsidy primarily for cargo would be justified, and I see no reason to dissent from his conclusion.

  HONG KONG (MUI-TSAI SYSTEM).
  Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to state the terms of reference of the commission appointed by the Governor of Hong Kong to inquire into certain aspects of the mui-tsai question?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on the 13th February to the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn).
  Mr. LUNN: Will it be possible to inquire into the system of inspection and registration that is carried on in Hong Kong, and will the commission have power to increase the number of the inspectors if it is not sufficient?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The commission have general instructions to inquire into a number of specific points that were being submitted in various memoranda, and so on, and generally into the whole question. The commission would have power to recommend an increase in the inspectorate if they thought it was right' to do so.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE (EXPERIMENTAL AEROPLANES).
  Mr. DOBBIEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the number of experimental aeroplanes which have been designed, built, and tested for the Royal Air Force in the years 1924 to 1934, inclusive, and the number which have been the pattern of the subsequent equipment of the Royal Air Force?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): The precise particulars for which the hon. Member asks are not readily available, but the number of new types of service aircraft tested at Royal Air Force Experimental Establishments during the years mentioned may be taken as about 160. Approximately one-third were adopted for service use.
  Mr. DOBBIE: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his answer, may I ask whether it is not a fact that only by nationalising the air industry land getting rid of uneconomic methods—
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

  TRANSPORT.

    MOTOR VEHICLES (GUARDS).
    Mr. WESTasked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered the advisability of compelling all motor vehicles to be equipped with guards as a means of reducing fatalities on the roads?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I intend to consult with manufacturers and representative bodies on this question.
    Mr. WEST: Is the Minister aware that many serious accidents have been avoided by the provision of side guards on the omnibuses of the London Transport Board and on the Green Line coaches, and would not similar guards on commercial vehicles be equally beneficial?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I think I have indicated that I intend to take whatever action I am enabled to take.

    EAST LANCASHIRE ROAD.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Minister of Transport whether he has been in communication with the Lancashire County Council since the meeting they had on 20th February, when they had under discussion the lighting at night of the new East Lancashire Road, Manchester to Liverpool; and whether he is in a position to say if it has been decided to have the lighting done?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am informed that the Lancashire County Council have not yet reached a decision but will consider the subject again on the 9th April.
    Mr. TINKER: Will the hon. Member urge them to consider it favourably?

    BUILT-UP AREAS (SPEED LIMIT).
    Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASSasked the Minister of Transport whether the Lancashire County Council have intimated their intention to apply the 30 miles-per-hour speed limit to all lighted roads in the county, including the new arterial East Lancashire Road; and whether, having regard to the order he has made exempting the new arterial roads in the London traffic area from the speed limit, he proposes to make an order directing that similar roads in Lancashire may be exempted?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The East Lancashire Road is not subject to the speed limit except for a stretch of three miles in the county borough of Liverpool. The other new arterial roads in Lancashire are likewise not subject to a speed limit.
    Sir W. BRASS: Is it not a fact that my hon. Friend made no survey of these big arterial roads before he brought in the speed limit?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I think my answer indicates that we have done so. None of these roads is to be subject to the speed limit.
    Sir W. BRASSasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that owing to the introduction of the 30-miles-per-hour speed limit in built-up areas before local authorities were in a position to put up the regulation signs, paper signs, stuck to tin discs, have had to be used in many parts of the country to indicate the entry into a speed-limit area; and, as these paper signs do not comply with his provisional orders dated 4th January, 1935, which stipulate that restrictive signs have either to be fitted with reflectors or reflecting material or illuminated during specified hours of darkness, will he state on what grounds he authorised these temporary signs to be erected?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would point out to my hon. and gallant Friend that in so far as the signs are illuminated by street lighting, they comply with the Regulations.
    Sir W. BRASS: May I ask whether, according to the regulation that my hon. Friend made, these signs ought to have reflex reflectors on them?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, Sir. They will be illuminated either externally from street lamps or internally.
    Captain STRICKLAND: Has my hon. Friend given consideration to those places that are not lit at all and where the motor headlights cannot catch the sign unless they are on full and not dimmed?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, Sir.
    Sir W. BRASS: Am I to understand that the de-restriction sign going into Brighton where there is no light at all is in order and that people who ignore it may be prosecuted?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, it ought to be illuminated externally.
    Sir W. BRASSasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that on Monday, 18th March, many speed limit areas in the country, although marked with restriction signs of a temporary character, had no de-restriction signs up marking the end of the speed limit area, with the result that drivers were unaware whether they were in restricted
    1190
    areas or not; and whether he will give instructions to the traffic commissioners to have a survey made in order to see that the provisions of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, are being properly carried out?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: These signs are entirely outside' the purview of the Traffic Commissioners, but my divisional road engineers are in constant touch with the local authorities with a view to seeing that any temporary deficiency is made good.
    Mr. TURTON: Is the Minister aware that even when these de-restriction signs are up they are so small and inconspicuous that the driver does not know when he is inside or outside the area?
    Sir W. BRASS: Will my hon. Friend make a survey and find out whether these de-restriction signs are up. I have heard that no signs are up except in Rutland?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I do not think that my hon. Friend is correct, but I will survey the situation from time to time, and, if the slightest difficulty is placed in the way of motorists not knowing whether they are in or out of the areas, I will go to any practicable extent in order to deal with it.
    Sir P. HARRIS: Will my hon. Friend drive along these roads himself and experience the difficulties as would be done by the man who is actually driving?
    Mr. HUTCHISONasked the Minister of Transport whether he has any means of ascertaining whether the enforcement of the 30-miles-per-hour speed limit has slowed down the traffic?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Observation indicates that traffic generally is moving at a more uniform rate and that its average speed is little if any lower than before.
    Mr. THORNE: Is the hon. Member aware that already in Green Street, Upton Park, there is a great improvement?
    Mr. HUTCHISON: May I ask if my hon. Friend is aware that many motorists since the speed limit came into force have not been going at 30 miles an hour, but at roughly 15 miles an hour, and will he, with his admirable ability at getting publicity, publish the fact that the speed limit is 30 miles and not 15 miles?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Thirty miles is the maximum and not the minimum.
    Mr. LUNN: Is it of no moment to hon. Members that more than 100 people are killed every week and that many thousands are injured every week by motor cars on our roads?
    Sir GIFFORD FOXasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that a number of local authorities, in considering the application of a 30-miles-per-hour speed limit authorised by Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, have decided hot to make orders under Sub-section (4), directing that the speed limit shall not apply to certain wide, new, or improved roads in their respective areas; and what steps he is taking to satisfy himself whether or not such a direction ought to have been given?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have in several cases indicated to local authorities that Orders de-restricting certain roads appear to me to be desirable, and invited them to consider the matter without delay.
    Sir G. FOX: Has my hon. Friend yet considered de-restricting the Fairmile?
    Sir W. BRASS: In view of the statement of the Minister about a survey, why is it necessary to do this work again?
    Sir G. FOXasked the Minister of Transport (1) whether he is aware that the 30-miles-per-hour speed limit signs are in existence at Oxford beyond the limits provided for under the new arrangement; and whether in consequence the local authorities at Oxford will be requested to remove those signs from the roads not comprised within the built-up areas as defined by the Road Traffic Act of 1934;
    (2) whether he is aware that the existing 30-miles-per-hour speed limit signs at Oxford do not conform to the standard type now laid down for the whole country; whether it is intended to order the substitution of these signs at Oxford; and, if so, whether the cost will be borne by the Ministry of Transport?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am in communication with the Oxford City Council in this matter.

    TRAFFIC SIGNS.
    Captain STRICKLANDasked the Minister of Transport in view of the fact that the departmental committee on traffic signs recommended that all traffic notices, sign posts, and signs should be displayed at the eye level of the motorist and in conspicuous type of lettering, what steps he proposes to take to carry this safeguard into effect?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Highway authorities have been instructed to have regard to the recommendations of the Committee to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, but I would remind him that the Committee did not recommend that signs should in all cases be erected at eye level, regardless of circumstances. If he would bring to my notice any case where signs have been erected otherwise than in accordance with the Committee's recommendations, I will have inquiries made.
    Captain STRICKLAND: Is it not a fact that the Committee recommended that the ideal height for the statuory traffic sign is at the normal eye level, and is the hon. Member aware from actual experience of driving on the roads that the new 30-miles speed limit signs are placed at such a height that unless the motorist has his headlights on at full they cannot be seen, because there is no reflection, and will he see that the instruction he has already given apparently to the highway authorities to follow the instructions of the Departmental Committee are enforced by him?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I think my hon. and gallant Friend is wrong in attributing that view to the Committee. It recommends that in towns and other places, where signs erected at a height of 3 feet 6 inches are liable to be obscured or to cause an obstruction, a clearance of 6 feet 9 inches should be allowed.
    Colonel ROPNERasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that paragraph 2 of the traffic-sign directions issued by him under the Road Traffic Act, 1934, to the effect that the de-restriction sign shall be erected on each lamp-post along a de-restricted road, is not being complied with on the Barnet and Croydon by-pass roads; and what steps he is taking to remedy this without delay?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: While de-restriction signs have not yet been erected on every lamp-post on the roads in question, I am advised that the remainder will be in position in the course of a few days.
    Sir W. BRASS: How does my hon. Friend reconcile that statement with the undertaking he gave when the Prayer was being discussed on a recent night?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I do Hot think that I gave any undertaking covering this point. This refers to signs on every lamp-post.
    Sir W. BRASS: Did my hon. Friend give an undertaking during the Debate on the Prayer that there would be a de-restriction sign on every lamp-post and in every area?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: So there will be.
    Sir W. BRASS: But they are not there.

    MOTOR DRIVERS' TESTS.
    Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLENasked the Minister of Transport whether, in the case of a motorist, first licensed in May, 1934, and therefore liable to test, who applies for a renewal of his licence but has been unable to arrange or obtain an appointment with the appropriate examiner, his licence will be renewed and a test subsequently arranged; or whether the renewal will be held up pending the test, to the detriment of his business or professional activities?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: When sub section (1) of Section 6 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, is brought into full operation the driver referred to by the hon. and gallant Member will not be able to renew his licence until he has passed the test. He can, however, apply now to be submitted to a test and there is therefore no reason why he should experience delay in obtaining a further licence.

    RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION (EAST LONDON).
    Mr. HUTCHISONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider as part of the schemes for relieving unemployment the grant of a loan at small interest over a long period, or the guarantee of a loan, to the London
    1194
    and North Eastern Railway Company for electrification purposes, or to the London Passenger Transport Board for a new tube to improve travelling facilities in the East of London, or both?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): I am not in a position to add anything to the answer given to my hon. Friend on the 6th March by the Minister of Transport.

  NEW PALACE YARD (PEDAL- CYCLE STANDS).
  Mr. GLOSSOPasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consider the provision of pedal-cycle stands for use of cycles belonging to Members of Parliament in New Palace Yard?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): If there is sufficient demand for this, I will arrange for a few cycle stands to be fixed in the covered recess beside the Members' private entrance.
  Mr. GLOSSOP: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask if he does not seriously contemplate an increase in the number of Members of Parliament using pedal cycles in view of the fact that only this week the pedal cycle has regained its supremacy as being one of the swiftest means of transport?

  TAX OFFICE, ROMFORD.
  Mr. WESTasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that the accommodation provided for His Majesty's inspector of taxes and staff at Station Chambers, Victoria Road, Rom-ford, is inadequate and that there is serious overcrowding; and whether it is proposed to obtain alternative accommodation?
  Mr. HUTCHISONasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that the accommodation provided for His Majesty's inspector of taxes and staff at Station Chambers, Victoria Road, Romford, is inadequate and that there is serious overcrowding; and whether it is proposed to obtain alternative accommodation?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I would refer the hon. Members to the answer which I gave to a similar question yesterday by the hon. Member for the Upton Division of West Ham (Mr. Gardner).

  SCOTLAND.

    CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS ACT.
    Mr. BURNETTasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether it is the intention of the Department of Health for Scotland, under Public Assistance Circular No. 40, that a child under order of court should be committed to the care not of a public assistance committee but of an education authority; and will he take into consideration the fact that public assistance committees have arrangements under which children can be cared for and boarded out, whereas education committees have as a rule no other course open to them than to send children so committed to their care to an approved school?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Normand): In regard to the first part of the question, the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1932, contains no provision authorising the committal of children to the care of public assistance committees. With reference to the second part, a child committed to the care of an education authority cannot be sent to an approved school without a further order by a court. Education authorities have power to board out children committed to their care under the Act. Sixteen of the authorities have intimated their willingness to undertake this duty, and six of them have already boarded out 35 children committed to their care.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Has the Lord Advocate any power to intervene in the case where a local authority is not carrying out the spirit of the circular?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I will convey the hon. Member's question to my light hon. Friend.

    GLASGOW CORPORATION (PETROL CONTRACT).
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, as a result of the special inquiries he has made, he will state how much Russian
    1196
    petrol was bought for the Glasgow Corporation in 1933 and how much petrol from other firms what were the conditions of purchase in both cases; and in which case was the price offered the cheapest?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I am informed that in 1933 the corporation placed contracts for petrol as follow:
    National Combine Companies—1,409,206 gallons at 12.61d. per gallon.
    Russian Oil Products, Limited—954,200 gallons at 12.04d. per gallon.
    Corporation's Chemical Works—98,994 gallons at 7.51d. per gallon.
    The contracts were subject to the ordinary conditions included in all contracts in accordance with the standing orders of the corporation.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the Lord Advocate aware that in 1933 when the Moderates were in power in Glasgow the reason they gave for giving an order for Russian petrol was that the monopoly of home producers was exploiting the corporation?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I have no information.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the Lord Advocate make inquiries and ascertain whether my statement is correct?
    Lieut.-Colonel C. MacANDREW: May I ask whether in the answer the Lord Advocate has given the price of British petrol as compared with the price of Russian petrol?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I gave the price of British petrol as 12.61d. and that of Russian petrol as 12.04d.
    Lieut.-Colonel MacANDREW: Is not the present position totally different and that Russian petrol is now dearer?
    Mr. RADFORD: Has the right hon. and learned Member taken into account the fact that the price of British petrol includes 8d. duty, and therefore that the statement that there was exploitation is not justified?

  POST OFFICE.

    LETTERS (PERSONAL COLLECTION).
    Mr. LOUIS SMITHasked the Postmaster-General whether, with a view to

    1197
    meeting in part the grievance of persons in various parts of the country who cannot obtain the first delivery of their letters before leaving for work in the morning, he will consider the desirability of making a reduction in the cost of boxes or bags at the principal post offices, so that such persons may be able to collect their letters there, if they are able?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Ernest Bennett): I am inquiring into the matter and will write to my hon. Friend.

    MAIL VAN DRIVERS.
    Mr. T. SMITHasked the Postmaster-General whether any Post Office servants driving Royal Mail vans, or any persons driving Royal Mail vans under contract, are under the age of 21; whether he has ever assented to or given instructions that persons under 21 shall be employed on this duty; and, if so, whether, in the interests of public safety, he will reconsider the matter?
    Sir E. BENNETT: Persons under 21 years of age are not permitted to drive official mail vans if suitable men above that age are available. The mail van contractors in London do not employ drivers under 21. Contractors outside London have the right to employ drivers over 19 years of age, but I have no information whether any such drivers under 21 are employed.

  ITALY (PROVISIONAL TRADE AGREEMENT).
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir MERVYN MANNINGHAM-BULLERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information as to the intention of Italy to prohibit the importation of British boots and shoes; and what steps, if any, he proposes to take to try and prevent this taking place?
  Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): Under the Italian Decree of 16th February, imports of boots and shoes were to be restricted, up to 31st March, to 25 per cent. of the imports from the United Kingdom in the corresponding period of last year. This percentage is now raised, however, to 80 per cent. under the provisional agreement which has already been announced.
  Mr. PETHERICKasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can make any statement as to the temporary agreement with the Italian Government with regard to trade with Italy, and especially if the figure of 80 per cent. of the 1934 imports permitted by the Italian Government refers to the total British imports into Italy or to each individual item?
  Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I would refer to the statement which my right hon. Friend made yesterday in reply to questions on this subject. The effect of the provisional agreement is that an Italian importer may import 80 per cent. of the amount of any individual commodity which he imported from the United Kingdom in the corresponding period of 1934.
  Mr. PETHERICK: Does my hon. and gallant Friend realise that a 20 per cent. restriction on pilchards is a serious matter for the pilchard industry of Cornwall?
  Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I have indicated that the agreement is a provisional one and that further negotiations are to be undertaken.
  Mr. PETHERICKasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Italy is almost the only market for British pilchards; whether he has borne this in mind in his recent negotiations with the Italian Government: and whether he will do so when a more lasting agreement comes to be discussed?
  Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The answer to each part of the question is in the affirmative.

  AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARDS (STAFF SALARIES).
  Mr. de ROTHSCHILDasked the Minister of Agriculture the numbers of the salaried staffs of the Pig, Bacon, Milk, and Potato Marketing Boards, with the total salaries paid in each case?
  The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): I regret that I have not the information desired by the hon. Member.
  Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of these boards are administering public funds and carrying out the policy of the Government?

  1199
  That being so, is it not within the purview of the Minister of Agriculture and of this House to know these facts?
  Mr. ELLIOT: No, Sir. Certainly not.
  Sir P. HARRIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the trouble to find out these figures?
  Mr. ELLIOT: No, Sir. It is quite wrong for me to communicate with these boards and ask for details of the salaries of their staffs.
  Mr. JOHN WILMOT: Is it not the case that these boards derive their funds as a result of Statutes passed by this House, and, in those circumstances, is it not proper for the right hon. Gentleman to ask for these particulars?
  Mr. ELLIOT: The hon. Member is under an entire misapprehension. These boards operate under Statutes passed by this House, but if a return is to be called for of every company operating under Statutes passed by this House, the Table of the House would not be big enough to accommodate them.
  Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: Are not these boards administering public funds, and therefore are we not entitled to ask for these particulars?
  Mr. ELLIOT: I do not know of any case in which a board is administering public funds except the Milk Board, where a grant is given, and which is operated by a committee entirely on voluntary lines.
  Mr. PALING: Are not these boards set up as the direct outcome of Government policy, and are we not entitled to know how many people are being employed?
  Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Would it not also be wise to ask how many employés there are in the trade unions which also distribute public funds?

  POLICE (PROMOTION).
  Mr. JOHN RUTHERFORDasked the Home Secretary whether he will make it plain that the number of convictions for exceeding the speed limit obtained by a police officer through the methods
  1200
  announced by the commissioner will not be taken into account when considering the promotion of that officer?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: Promotion in the police force is by selection and does not depend on the number of convictions an officer may obtain.
  Mr. RUTHERFORD: May we take it that zealous young constables will not be prosecuting motorists frivolously in the next few weeks thinking that thereby they will obtain promotion?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I have no reason at all for thinking that anything of the kind will take place.

  ARRESTS (LOITERING).
  Mr. WESTasked the Home Secretary whether he can give the average number of arrests and the average number of convictions per week in the Metropolitan area during recent months on a charge of loitering with intent to commit a felony; whether he is aware of the growing impression that these charges are indicative of police persecution of unemployed persons; and whether he will issue instructions that a charge of this description shall not be made without substantial evidence?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: The suggestion that the police are persecuting the unemployed is one that will be rightly resented by every member of the Metropolitan Force. It is the duty of the police to prevent crime and in order to carry out this duty they must arrest persons frequenting public places with intent to commit a felony. It is essential that there should be vigilance in the discharge of this duty if crimes of certain types are to be prevented. There is not the smallest reason to suppose that the police are abusing their powers in this matter and the fact that in a certain number of cases the charge is dismissed or the accused is given the benefit of the doubt, is no indication whatever that the police are acting oppressively. I see no reason for issuing any fresh instructions on the point.
  Mr. WEST: Is it not the case that the number of charges obtained by a plain clothes police officer is taken into consideration when considering awards or increases in salary?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has already had an answer on that subject.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether the figures called for in the question can be supplied, and if they are available how many of the persons apprehended for loitering were unemployed?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I do not think that any public service would be served by making these considerable researches. The figures are given in the report for the year and to ask for a special return is not in the public interest.
  Mr. WEST: Is it not the fact that when complaints are made to Scotland Yard about these cases, which are ultimately dismissed, only one side of the case, the police side, is heard, and not the complainant's side?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I am satisfied that that is not the case.
  Mr. WEST: It is the case.

  INDUSTRIAL DISEASES (ASBESTOSIS).
  Mr. THORNEasked the Home Secretary whether he has received a report from his factory inspector in connection with the death of a young man from asbestosis who was employed at Dick's Asbestos Works, Canning Town; and whether the factory inspector was satisfied that proper and adequate dust-suction machinery was installed for the removal of asbestos dust?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, Sir. It would appear from the evidence at the inquest that death was due to asbestosis but that the disease had been contracted some years ago before the present Regulations came into force. During the last 3½ years the deceased seems to have been employed at the works mentioned for about two months only. The inspector reports that the requirements as to provision of mechanical exhaust draught are well observed.

  WHITE STAR LINE, LIMITED.
  Mr. WILMOTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the White Star Line, Limited, has issued a statement to its shareholders that the company must go into liquidation and that its liabilities greatly exceed the value of its assets; and whether, as the liquidation of this company will involve
  1202
  the total loss of the shareholders' capital, he will state why no provision was made for the protection of the interests of the shareholders of this company when the Cunard-White Star merger was effected under agreement with the Treasury concerning advances for the completion of the Cunarder No. 534?
  Mr. COOPER: My right hon. Friend is aware of the facts as stated in the first part of the question. With regard to the second part of the question, the hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension. White Star Line, Limited, was not a party to the merger agreement, which was between the Treasury, the Cunard Steam Ship Company and the owners of the White Star fleet—the Oceanic Steam Navigation Company. Nothing in the agreement was inimical to the interests of the shareholders in White Star Line, Limited.
  Mr. WILMOT: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, I would ask him whether he thinks it equitable or proper that members of the public who were shareholders in the White Star Line, Limited, and who provided the money to acquire the assets which now form part of the assets of the merger, should lose the whole of their capital under an agreement entered into with the Treasury, while the benefits of those assets pass to persons who were concerned in the Royal Mail Steam Packet fiasco?
  Mr. COOPER: The shareholders in the White Star Line were not the owners of the fleet at the time when the agreement was entered into.

  ALIENS (ENTRY PERMITS).
  Mr. JOHN RUTHERFORDasked the Minister of Labour what is the average length of time taken by his department in arriving at a decision as to the advice to be given to the Home Office whether or not to extend the permit of an alien desiring to take employment in this country?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): It is not possible to state any average time. In some cases a decision can be given forthwith, while in others a number of inquiries have to be made and these may take a considerable time.
  Mr. RUTHERFORD: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the case of a firm in Edmonton the delay of the Ministry in coming to a decision was directly responsible for an alien going to another firm, with the result that a number of people could not obtain employment in a factory, though they would have done so had a decision been made more quickly?
  Mr. HUDSON: I could not accept that explanation. The facts are that the alien in question did not want to go to the firm in the hon. Member's constituency and left no address so that the firm could not trace him.
  Mr. RUTHERFORD: Is it not a fact that had the delay of his Department not taken place that alien would now be employed by the firm in question and other people would have found employment too?
  Mr. HUDSON: As a matter of fact, the alien is employed in another part of the country and, as a result of his employment, I understand that 350 British subjects have found work

  DARTFORD BOROUGH COUNCIL (SALARIES).
  Mr. PARKINSONasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the action of the Dart-ford Borough Council in withdrawing from the joint district council of the electricity supply industry, Greater London, area No. 10; if so, what action he proposes to take in bringing pressure to bear upon the council to honour the scale of salaries laid down by the joint council to the employés?
  Mr. HUDSON: I understand that the Dartford Borough Council has recently decided to withdraw from the joint district council in question, but that the matter has not yet been considered by the latter body.

  CHINA (RAILWAY DEVELOPMENT).
  Commander MARSDEN (for Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX)asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to show whether the Chinese Government contemplate extending railway communications to Sinkiang in order to counterbalance
  1204
  the economic and political effects of the-Turkestan-Siberian Railway?
  Mr. EDEN: I have no information leading me to suppose that railway extensions to Sinkiang are under contemplation.

  INDIA: DISTURBANCES, KARACHI (CASUALTIES).
  Mr. ATTLEE(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has any statement to make on the incident in Karachi where 27 persons-were killed and many others injured?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): I regret to-state that trouble arose yesterday morning at Karachi after the execution of Abdul Qaiyum, who was sentenced to death for the murder of a Hindu in the Judicial Commissioner's Court last September. The burial of the body in a selected graveyard some distance from the city was interrupted by a crowd of Mahommedans who swelled to 20,000 or more. Half the crowd attempted to rush the body by surprise into the city and overpowered the police. In these circumstances, and in view of the certainty of a grave communal disturbance if steps were not taken to disperse the crowd, British troops were brought up and ordered to fire as a last resource. A detachment of 25 men fired nearly two rounds each, causing casualties at present reported to be 29 deaths and 87 injured. The firing was strictly controlled, but, owing to the density of the crowd and the shortness of the range, casualties were high. As the result of the firing the crowd retreated and buried the body of Abdul Qaiyum outside the city. According to the latest report in my possession, the situation yesterday evening was quiet but was being carefully watched.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Would my right hon. Friend say why it is that the Government of India, in dispersing these crowds of excited people, do not use lachrymatory gas capsules, such as used in America, instead of firing bullets, which pierce three or four bodies at the same time, and why humanity and common sense cannot lead to reform in the matter of dealing with crowds of this character?
  Sir S. HOARE: The Government of India have already considered that possibility. So far as I remember, lachrymatory gas has been used in the Punjab. I will look again into the suggestion, but I will say nothing that would lead the House to suppose that I have not full confidence in the troops in dealing with the situation in the best possible manner.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Will my right hon. Friend most carefully discriminate between any suggestion that there is lack of confidence in the troops or in the judgment of the people on the spot, and a decision on a matter of high policy which is required from the Imperial Government?
  Sir S. HOARE: Certainly.

  LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Clacton-on-Sea Pier Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make better provision with respect to the rights of the Folkestone Corporation to purchase the undertakings of the Folkestone Electricity Supply Company, Limited, within the borough of Folkestone and the rural district of Elham; and for other purposes." [Folkestone and District Electricity Bill [Lords.]
And also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on and to change the name of the Sharpness New Docks and Gloucester and Birmingham Navigation Company; and for other purposes." [Sharpness Docks and Gloucester and Birmingham Navigation Bill [Lords.]

FOLKESTONE AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY BILL [Lords].
  SHARPNESS DOCKS AND GLOUCESTER AND BIRMINGHAM NAVIGATION BILL [Lords].
  Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.
  Considered in Committee [TENTH DAY—Progress, 13th March],
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
  3.30 p.m.
  The CHAIRMAN: I have to inform the Committee of what took place at the recent meeting of the small committee of Members, representative of the various groups in the House of Commons. Before doing so, perhaps I ought to mention where we stand now as to the consideration of this Bill. The question immediately before the Committee is "That Clause 52, as amended, stand part of the Bill," and I hope that that may go through possibly without any further talk.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask—
  Mr. COCKS rose—
  The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps both hon. Members will wait until I have completed my statement. I was merely mentioning that fact as a preliminary, and I did not intend to indicate that I was about to put that Question. The committee to which I have referred understands that it is the desire of certain hon. Members to move to report Progress in order to give an opportunity for the consideration of matters connected with the White Paper issued by the Government on Monday. If that Motion be made, it will be accepted by the Chair, and it is estimated that the discussion on that Motion should occupy between two and three hours but should not exceed three hours. We shall then come to Clauses 54, 55, and 56 on which there are no Amendments except formal Amendments to make those Clauses correspond with Amendments which have already been made. Those Clauses therefore ought only to take a very short time unless possibly there is some discussion on one of them on the question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." That would bring us to Clauses 56, 57 and 58 which deal with the police. The committee understood that it was the desire of a number of hon. Members to have as wide a discussion as possible on the question of how the police were to be dealt with under the Bill, and it was suggested that
  1212
  a general discussion of that kind should take place on a Motion for the postponement of those three Clauses. I am sorry to say that I should find very great difficulty in allowing sufficient scope for debating that matter on a Motion to postpone the Clauses, but there is now on the Order Paper an Amendment, or, strictly speaking, three Amendments all forming one in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and two other hon. Members—in Clause 56, page 35, line 39, to leave out "proposed," and to insert "directed by the Governor-General"; in page 36, line 2, after "military," to insert "the Governor shall carry out such direction and in doing so" and in page 36, line 3, to leave out from "respect," to the end of the Clause, and to add "thereto so far as such direction permits"—which in my opinion will give sufficient scope for a discussion generally of the proposal in the Bill regarding the police. These proposals are contained to some extent in Clauses which have already been passed and also in those Clauses to which we are now coming, and in various places in later Clauses and in the Schedules. The committee considered therefore that it would be for the general convenience that there should be a Debate of considerable scope if that could be arranged and I think this can be done on the Amendments I have mentioned, and when that Debate has taken place it is to be hoped that the Amendments to Clauses 56, 57 and 58 will not take so long as they would have taken otherwise. It is estimated that the discussion on the police might also occupy from two to three hours.
  On the assumption, therefore, that we dispose of these two rather longer discussions to-day, it is considered that we ought to get to the end of Clause 98, that is the end of Part IV of the Bill, and thus complete the second compartment of the Bill at our next Sitting. To-morrow was to have been another Committee day on the Bill, but now the Committee stage is to be continued on Friday instead of to-morrow. I think that even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping will on this occasion not think that I am too sanguine if I express the hope that on Friday we may get to the end of Clause 98. It is, of course, possible that we may get further to-night than I have indicated. That depends on the length of time occupied by those discussions to which I have

  1213
  referred, but with the exception of about three or four original Clauses on which there are a number of Amendments and on which discussion will be required, the great bulk of these Clauses right up to Clause 98 are purely repetition, and I hope that for the most part they will be disposed of with comparatively little discussion.
  3.37 p.m.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: May I say, Sir Dennis, since you have referred to me, that I think the outline of business which you have given is highly convenient and thoroughly in accord with the general arrangement under which this great Measure is being discussed. We are to have the opportunity of two debates, on large questions, with great latitude, to-day, and then on Friday we are to dispose of everything up to the end of Part IV of the Bill. It will be rapid legislation, but in my opinion not unfair legislation. The Government have given appropriate time, and the various Oppositions have all agreed that progress should be made. By Friday next if we accomplish what we are setting before ourselves, we shall be only two days over the time which was agreed upon in the original plan. Four days, it will be remembered, were held in reserve, and therefore we shall only have used up two of the spare days. I think that fact ought to be registered as an exceedingly satisfactory milestone in the working of this policy up to date.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: This Clause deals with the special responsibilities of the Governor—
  The CHAIRMAN: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman rise to ask a question on my statement?
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: No, Sir.
  The CHAIRMAN: I would point out that I have put nothing to the Committee as yet, and that when we reported Progress on the Question, "That Clause 52, as amended, stand part of the Bill," the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) was in possession of the Committee

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.

    CLAUSE 52.—(Special responsibilities of Governor.)
    Question again proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    3.39 p.m.
    Mr. COCKS: I regret that, in spite of what you have said, Sir Dennis, I must detain the Committee for a few minutes on this Clause which some of us regard as important and perhaps we may get a reply from the Secretary of State on the points which I am raising in connection with it. As I was saying when the Debate was interrupted, we think that the responsibility indicated in paragraph (a)—the prevention of any grave menace to the peace or tranquillity of a Province—should not mean the withdrawal of certain legislation which may be objected to by a certain minority in the Province. We have always held that social abuses can most effectively be dealt with by Indians themselves. As the result of dealing with abuses certain disorders may arise, and we think those disorders ought to be dealt with by the forces of law and order but that it would be putting a premium upon disorder to allow the Governor to exercise the power of ordering the withdrawal of a Bill. We think that two ill-effects will follow from that sort of procedure. The first effect will be to weaken the responsibility of Ministers, and the second will be to concentrate opposition upon the Governor. Both these things are extremely undesirable. With regard to paragraph (c), we agree that members of the public services should be secured in their legal rights, but we feel that "the safeguarding of their legitimate interests" is rather a wide phrase. In the Instruments of Instructions the Governor is instructed to safeguard not only the legal rights of the members of the civil service but to safeguard them against any action which, in his judgment, will be inequitable. We think that that is a power which should not be placed in the hands of one person, but should be referred to the Public Services Commission for discussion and decision. Paragraph (d) refers to the question of discrimination in the sphere of executive action. In the Instruments of Instructions the Governor is required,
    "to differ from his Ministers if in his individual judgment their advice would have effects of the kind which it is the purpose of the said Chapter to prevent even though the advice so tendered to him is not in conflict with any specific provision of the said Act."
    In other words, the advice may not be in conflict with any law, but, in spite of

    1215
    that, the Governor can take action. That is a wide power to be entrusted to any one person. Only an exceptional individual should be entrusted with a power such as that. It is not a power which I should like to exercise, and it is a matter that should be settled by the courts. In all these cases we feel that the real safeguard should be the personal influence of the Governor in his day-today contact with the ministers. If an exceptional crisis arises he has always the power of veto. He has also the power of dismissing his ministers, of dissolving the Legislature, and of causing measures to be put on the Statute Book even without the approval of the Legislature. We think that, in view of these powers, the other special responsibilities should only be exercised in the case of grave crisis and that they should be more precisely defined in the way I have suggested. I hope that the Government will see fit to meet us on some of these point on the Report stage.
    3.43 p.m.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: This Clause deals with the special responsibilities of the Governor, and one of the responsibilities referred to him is the safeguarding of the legitimate interests of minorities. I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman how he thinks the legitimate interests of the minority in Sind will be looked after. There we have had the case in the last few years of a Hindu belonging to the minority being prosecuted for writing partial history, as it might be by Hilaire Belloc. He is two years under that charge, and while he is being tried he is seized by Mohammedans. Two men hold him while another sticks him with a knife. Justice is proceeded to be done on the murderer, and immediately a crowd of 20,000 people denounce the execution of the sentence and a riot which might have developed into a massacre at Karachi, is stopped by the action of British troops. It is stopped quite rightly. It is the responsibility of this House that such action is stopped and that we do not get mob violence in Karachi or in Sind. It is perfectly well known to the right hon. Gentleman that passions between Hindu and Mussulman run higher in Sind than in any part of India. How is the Governor to carry out his responsibility to the legitimate interests of the Hindus
    1216
    in that Province? Why is that Province being made? At present Sind is part of Bombay and is governed by the Governor of Bombay under the existing constitution—
    The CHAIRMAN: That matter has been discussed already and does not arise on this Clause. I must remind the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that we cannot repeat the discussion.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: In view of the news from India in. the last few hours it is exceedingly germane to this Clause. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman how the new Governor of Sind is going to protect the interests of the minority there? We are handing over law and order, which at present is administered from the Centre. What sort of justice do you expect to get in that country under existing circumstances? How do you expect any Governor to manage to maintain law and order on his own? The issue in this Bill is how far we are going to hand over the administration of Provinces like Sind, and of Sind in particular, to people who are absolutely incapable of carrying out the administration of the districts on impartial lines? If the right hon. Gentleman were Governor of Sind and responsible for law and order there, what steps would he take, first, to see that a man is not murdered when he is being tried; second, to see that the murderer is executed; and, finally, to see that the results of that execution do not lead to a pogrom against the minority of Karachi?
    3.46 p.m.
    Wing-Commander JAMES: I want to thank the Secretary of State for accepting the two Amendments to this Clause on the Order Paper in my name and to express the hope that further investigation which I believe he will now undertake into the position of what used to be called the backward areas will show—
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: On a point of Order. Is that in order on this Clause?
    Wing-Commander JAMES: —that when we reach the appropriate point the Secretary of State will find that some Amendments to the Sixth Schedule are necessary.
    3.47 p.m.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): I am sure that

    1217
    the Committee was interested in the many arguments used by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) at the conclusion of our last sitting, which he resumed for the benefit of the Committee this afternoon. He wished the special responsibility under paragraph (a) of Clause 52 to be restricted in scope, as I understand him, on the lines of the proposal of the British India delegation to the Joint Select Committee. I can understand the principle of his argument, but I would remind the hon. Member that we had the privilege of discussing these points with members of the British India delegation, and the Committee will have bad the opportunity of reading their declaration which is attached to the volume of Records in the Report of the Joint Select Committee. I am afraid we have been unable to restrict this special responsibility any further. Its terms have been considered for several years, and we consider them the most suitable for giving the Governor in a particular Province the requisite powers to deal with any grave menace to the peace or tranquillity of his Province.
    We think that if we further restrict these words we shall take away from the Governor powers which might be necessary to him in certain emergencies. The restrictions suggested by the hon. Member are therefore impossible to accept. The hon. Member's view of the relationship of the minister to the Governor is one which we cannot entirely accept. We believe naturally that the Governor should work with the minister and should use that tactful persuasion to which the hon. Member referred as much as possible. We do not deny that in the Governor's private relations with the minister there will be opportunities for consultation. At the same time we find it necessary, as we have explained before, to include the words for the purposes which I have outlined. With regard to the other special responsibilities, I think the same general remarks that I have just made in reply to the hon. Member apply to them.
    We regard it as of first class importance that under paragraph (c) the the Governor should have the power to defend the interests of the services. We had a discussion on the wording of this on the Federal Clauses, and I do not think it would be proper for me to take
    1218
    the time of the Committee in repeating the arguments used on that occasion. In regard to paragraph (d), the words in the Instrument of Instructions are to give the Governor every power to see that in the executive field he has exactly the same power as is given to him administratively under Chapter III of Part V of this Bill. Therefore, we must keep the words in the Instrument of Instructions in order to be quite sure that in the realm of administration no action can be taken which would, in fact, be discriminatory, and so deprive the Governor of his power of intervention in such a case. As to the arguments of the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), I should not myself like to use any words which would further exacerbate feeling or render the position in Sind more difficult at the present time. Therefore, I do not propose to follow him in arguing from that particular instance to the general, but I would say that in any regrettable emergency of a similar kind to that the Governor would be endowed with exactly the same powers, necessarily corresponding with the powers of to-day, to deal with that emergency.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would the Hindus in Sind be classed as a minority. Would this Clause protecting minorities protect the Hindus?
    Mr. BUTLER: Certainly, this Clause would cover a minority, and if the right hon. Gentleman will turn to the Instrument of Instructions he will see that full instructions are given to the Governor to deal with troubles of minorities in a very comprehensive manner. I would refer him to the instruction given to the future Governor of Sind, in whom, together with his officers, his Ministers and his services, we shall have exactly the same confidence as we have in the present administration in Sind.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not a fact that the services in Sind will be strictly Mohammedan, that the Government will be a Mohammedan Government, and that law and order will be under Mohammedan administrators, and will the protection of the minority begin in

    1219
    the courts of justice and not begin when a riot has been started?
    Captain FULLER: I wish to put one point with regard to the powers of the Governor, who is not able to declare martial law in a Province, because that is done by the Governor-General under proclamation. Under this Clause is the position of the Governor altered, or does it stand as it is to-day?
    Mr. BUTLER: I do not think that point arises on this Clause.
    Captain FULLER: I was referring to the question of peace and tranquillity in a Province.
    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 240; Noes, 39.

    Division No. 112.]

    AYES.

    [3.55 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Elfiston, Captain George Sampson

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Emmott. Charles E. G. C.

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

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

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Mabane, William

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

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

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

    Apsley, Lord

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

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

    Assheton, Ralph

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

    Bailey, Eric Alfred George

    Fermoy, Lord

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Balille, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Fleiden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Flint, Abraham John

    Magnay, Thomas

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

    Fox, Sir Gifford

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

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

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

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

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

    Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

    Martin, Thomas B.

    Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Bernays, Robert

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Blindell, James

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Boulton, W. W.

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

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Glossop, C. W. H

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Bracken, Brendan

    Goff, Sir Park

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Goldie, Noel B.

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

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

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Gower, Sir Robert

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

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Morrison, William Shephard

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

    Graves, Marjorie

    Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Grimston, R. V.

    Munro, Patrick

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

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Browne, Captain A. C.

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

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Hanbury, Cecil

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

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Hanley, Dennis A.

    Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

    Burnett, John George

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Butler, Richard Austen

    Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)

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

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

    Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

    Pearson, William G.

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Penny, Sir George

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

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

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Hornby, Frank

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Petherick, M.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

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

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

    Hudson. Robert Spear (Southport)

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston)

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Radford, E. A.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Iveagh, Countess of

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

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

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

    Cooper, A. Duff

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

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Jamleson, Douglas

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Crook, J. Smedley

    Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

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

    Kimball, Lawrence

    Rickards, George William

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Kirkpatrick, William M.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

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

    Knight, Holford

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

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

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Rothschild, James A. de

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Denville, Alfred

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Doran, Edward

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Salmon, Sir Isldore

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Levy, Thomas

    Salt, Edward W.

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

    Lewis, Oswald

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

    Dunglass, Lord

    Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

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

    Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Loder, Captain J. de Vera

    Sandys, Edwin Duncan

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

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

    White, Henry Graham

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Thompson, Sir Luke

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clamant

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Soper, Richard

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

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

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

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

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Stevenson, James

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Stones, James

    Watt, Major George Steven H.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

    Captain Sir George Bowyer and

    Sir Waiter Womersley.

    NOES.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Banfield, John William

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

    Maxton, James

    Batey, Joseph

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Parkinson, John Allen

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

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Buchanan, George

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Cape, Thomas

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Thorne, William James

    Cleary, J. J.

    Kirkwood, David

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Daggar, George

    Lawson, John James

    West, F. R.

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lunn, William

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Davies, Stephen Owen

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Dobbie, William

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Mr. John and Mr. Paling.

    CLAUSE 53.—(Provisions as to Instrument of Instructions).
    4.3 p.m.
    Marquess of HARTINGTON: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    I do so because, in my view, and in the view of my hon. Friends and allies, the position has been so fundamentally altered by what we now know of the attitude of the Indian Princes that no useful purpose whatever can be served by our further discussion of this Bill in its present form. Hon. Members have in their hands the White Paper which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State issued on Monday. It is a lengthy Paper containing many explanations to show that when people say "fundamental" they do not mean fundamental, and that when they say "vital" they do not mean vital. Never since the first cuttle-fish used his device for concealment has ink been better used for the purpose of concealment than that which blackens this White Paper. My right hon. Friend may issue one White Paper; he may issue 20 White Papers, but he cannot alter the fact that a representative body of the Indian Princes has met together and has passed unanimously a Resolution. I do not want to weary the Committee with quotations, but we are dealing with a White Paper full of quotations, and I cannot avoid using some. The Resolution says:
    1222
    "This meeting is of the definite opinion that in their present form, and without satisfactory modification of and alteration to the fundamental points, the Bill and Instrument of Accession cannot be regarded as acceptable to Indian States."
    That Resolution—I have quoted only the concluding words—was passed a few moments only after some very pregnant words had been uttered by the Chancellor of the Chamber of Princes. He said:
    "I appeal to you not merely as Chancellor of the Chamber of Princes, which high office I hold by the suffrage of my brother Princes, but also as the Ruler of Patiala, to say in the most unequivocal terms that this Bill is totally unsatisfactory, and cannot be accepted."
    That does raise a very serious position, indeed. It is true that my right hon. Friend's White Paper contains on the part of the Princes a certain number of protestations of their devotion to the principle of Federation. I think you, Sir Dennis, are very familiar with that kind of protestation. When hon. Members say to you, "Far be it from me, Sir, to question your ruling," what they really mean is that they are generally in favour of others accepting your ruling, but that in this particular case they violently disagree with it. In the same way the Princes may be generally in favour of the principle of Federation, but they mean to take good care that the practice of it in particular shall never affect their own States. That is their real

    1223
    meaning. I believe that when the Princes have really been confronted with what Federation means to them, they will be quite determined not to agree to this principle of Federation. They use in their letter to the Viceroy—and I notice that the Secretary of State refers to it—a very peculiar word—a word which, in my limited Parliamentary experience, I have never hitherto encountered. They say that they do not "resile" from the principle of Federation. I was so interested in the word that I consulted a dictionary at once, and I found it to be this:
    "(Of elastic bodies) recoil, rebound, resume shape and size after stretching or compression; have or show elasticity or buoyancy or recuperative power."
    I believe that very interesting and obscure word must have been used advisedly. The Princes do not intend to be bounced back violently from the precipice to which they have been so nearly led. They mean to retire with a united front and in good order. Using very plain English, which their Highnesses would be far too polite to do, what they really mean to say is that they do not intend to be "bounced."
    I have given one or two quotations to the Committee, and I do not want to weary them. Hon. Members have the whole of the evidence before them in this White Paper. I believe that no Member who reads pages 14 to 28 of the White Paper can possibly resist the conclusion that the objections of the Princes to Federation are vital and fundamental. I believe that if that long list of objections could be met—I do not think for a moment they can be met; it is utterly impossible that they can be met—still I believe that others would be raised until finally the attempt to draw the Princes into this scheme of Federation has been abandoned. As I have said, hon. Members have all the evidence before them, and I do not want to weary the Committee with that issue. With your permission, Sir Dennis, I would like to leave the documents now, and go into the argument of "the nature of the case," so dear to Dr. Paley. When my right hon. Friend was so optimistic about the Princes joining Federation, it never seemed to me in the nature of the case that when really confronted with the
    1224
    issue they would do anything of the kind. It seemed to me quite clear that by doing so they would surrender many advantages which they enjoy at the present time. They would give up treaties which must be regarded as absolutely inviolable. They would give up the position of very nearly absolute security. They run many risks, and avoid only one.
    The risk which they avoid is that some future Government in this country might force upon them a measure even more disadvantageous to them than that which we are considering this afternoon. I hear one voice behind me say "Hear, hear." This risk has been used to the full by the Government and by the supporters of the Measure. We have certainly heard all about it, and I venture to hazard a guess that the Princes have heard a certain amount, too. I do not believe for one moment that that argument has the slightest validity. We who think it right to oppose this Bill have been told over and over again what fools we are to jeopardise this Bill, which is probably the last chance of securing a permanent settlement of the Indian question on sound Conservative lines, when we know that a Government of a very different complexion would bring in a Measure far more radical. I do not admit the validity of that argument for a moment. The present Government, enjoying a majority such as no Government has ever had before, is finding considerable, and, I think, increasing difficulty in passing this Measure. I do not think that another Government of a different complexion cumbered up, as it would be, with pledges of every kind, could contemplate the introduction of a Bill which would prevent it very seriously from getting on with its task of nationalising the railways, banks and all the rest. They would be far too busy with the first-class financial crisis which they have promised, to contemplate the introduction of a Government of India Bill. I do not believe that any Government could carry through a Bill of the kind with which we are threatend if we do not pass this Bill.
    I have not heard many good arguments advanced in support of this Bill, but there is one which has had a powerful effect on my mind, and upon the minds of all of us, namely, the argument that many of what may be called the men on

    1225
    the spot, are in favour of the Bill. It is a fact that many weighty and authoritative men with long service in India though they may not like this Bill very much, believe that it is the best way out of the very difficult situation. I, myself, believe that their support of the Bill has been given, to a large extent, under a misapprehension. I think that if they knew as much about politics in general as they know about India in particular, they might well not have given the support they have. I believe that if they had a reasonable hope of a really Conservative Government in this country, they might take a very different view. It is something like 30 years since anything like real Conservative doctrine was tried in India or elsewhere. Liberal Governments whose motto is, "Get out before you are kicked out," have been succeeded by Conservative Governments whose motto is "Don't miss the bus. Get out before anyone thinks of kicking you out." If we could have a reasonable hope of securing something really Conservative, I believe that men in India who have given their support to the Bill would very soon revise their views. But that is neither here no there.
    The Bill can claim weighty and authoritative support from informed British Indian opinion. I do not think that it would be possible for any Government of this country to pass a Bill which did not enjoy that support. If a more radical and drastic measure be threatened, if this Bill does not go through, the whole weight of the informed opinion of those influential names which at present decorate the literature of the Union of Britain and India would be transferred en bloc to the literature of the India De-fence League. I do not think that an alternative Government would attempt to pass a Government of India Bill of a more drastic nature than this. For that reason I believe that the Princes have the best and the weightiest of reasons for refusing to enter into Federation. I believe that their reasons are permanent, and that, in the nature of the case, it is in the highest degree improbable that the Princes will ultimately enter Federation.
    What then becomes of the Bill? The entry of the Princes has been the whole foundation on which the Bill has been laid. Those of us who have been opposing the Bill from these benches have
    1226
    accepted an alternative. I do not say that it is one of which we are desperately enamoured, but it is one which we have adopted because we realise that the Government have got themselves into a difficult position and that it is rather hard not to do something to help them. We suggest that, instead of taking the irrevocable step of setting up an All-India Federation, we should try provincial autonomy and see how it works. We have been told over and over again by the Government that such a course would be disastrous and that it would leave the Central Government so weak as not to be able to survive. That road of retreat the Government have blown up for themselves. We are told that we must have Federation and that we must bring in this sane, loyal, stabilising influence of the Princes. It is pretty clear, if words have any meaning at all, that that influence is not there. That influence cannot be relied upon for future Federation. It has been made plain, absolutely from the word "go," that the whole of this Bill stood or fell by Federation and the adherence of the Princes. That adherence is not there. That being so, it is an almost overwhelming reason for the withdrawal of the Bill. What is the good of our continuing to discuss a Bill, which, on the Government's own admission, can never become operative? What is the good of our continuing to waste months of Parliamentary time? The credit of the House and of the Government can best be; served in the long run by dropping the Bill.
    If the case is serious in regard to the Indian position it is even more serious in regard to the Parliamentary position. We have been told over and over again that the whole of Federation depended upon the adherence of the Princes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India told the Committee of Supply on 27th June, 1932:
    "Every hon. Member in this House should see the whole picture of the comprehensive constitutional scheme before he is asked to give a vote or a decision upon any part of it."
    He told them again:
    "No one in any part of this House can categorically say that an All-India Federation Bill can be produced until we know in detail and for certain that the Indian States are going to be an effective part of the Federation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1932; col. 1495, Vol. 267.]

    1227
    To-day we know almost for certain that they are not. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Read the White Paper, if hon. Members ask "Why? If there be any doubt about that, it is quite certain, and in detail, that we do not know that they are. My right hon. Friend has given a categorical promise that no hon. Member shall be asked to vote upon any part of the Bill until we know. I submit that the Parliamentary position is an exceedingly serious one.
    My right hon. Friend would not willfully mislead us, but he himself has been woefully misled. His information from India has been wrong information, and he has not fully understood the attitude of the Princes. The Princes are not the only persons about whom he has been misled. We understood that he hoped to get the overwhelming mass of Liberal opinion, but every Indian Liberal has said that he loathes the Bill and cannot bear it. The opinion upon which my right hon. Friend has relied has not backed him up as he thought it would. As regards both the scheme of Federation and the information which my right hon. Friend has laid before the House, the position is so radically altered from what we had been led to believe, that no useful purpose could be served by continuing this discussion. I believe that the most candid and useful course would be for the Government to withdraw the Bill.
    4.22 p.m.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): My noble Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington) has, as he always does, made a very able and incisive speech, but it seemed to be directed against the whole Bill rather than to the immediate object of this Motion to report Progress. It was a speech showing also what a terribly ignorant person the Secretary of State for India is, and how much more almost everybody else in the House of Commons knows about these Indian affairs. I accept the reproof in the friendly spirit in which it was given. My Noble Friend made one or two quotations from the meeting of the Princes in Bombay. He quoted in particular an observation from the Maharaja of Patiala. He forgot, however, to quote the first and opening observation made
    1228
    by the Maharaja of Patiala, which was in these words:
    "I would, in conclusion, urge everyone present here to keep our deliberations absolutely confidential. Untimely publicity may cause great harm, and I earnestly request that the secrecy of our consultations should be rigorously maintained."
    I cannot congratulate my Noble Friend and those whom he called his allies in acceding to the request made by the Chancellor of the Chamber of Princes. Be that as it may—
    Mr. CHURCHILL: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by that?
    Sir S. HOARE: I think the meaning is obvious. My right hon. Friend, I dare say for very good reasons from his own point of view, has circulated an account of these speeches, and that is a direct repudiation of the request made at the beginning of the meeting by the Maharaja of Patiala.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: My right hon. Friend is surely aware that what I have circulated to the House and to my colleagues in the House of Commons has already appeared in the public Press.
    Sir S. HOARE: I imagine, although I do not want to enter into a controversy with my right hon. Friend, that the source of his information and the source of the information in the public Press are exactly the same.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: And it has never been denied.
    Sir S. HOARE: Let me come to the very general considerations urged by my Noble Friend the Member for West Derbyshire, and to the definite points that we are considering this afternoon. In accordance with my undertaking to the Committee I have published in full the information at our disposal. I claim that the information now published confirms in every respect the accounts that I have previously given to the Committee of the exact state of affairs. The White Paper confirms the fact that the Princes have not withdrawn from Federation
    "We should like to make it clear beyond doubt"—
    these are their words—
    "that there has never been any intention. on our part to resile"—
    I pause on that word in view of what my Noble Friend has said about it—
    "from the position which we have all along taken."

    1229
    Let me say, in passing, that I, like my noble Friend, was surprised when I first-saw this word "resile." I saw it when I first went to the India Office three or four years ago. It is a word which has been in frequent use in the phraseology of India, and it is the outward and visible sign of the influence which Scotsmen have had upon administration in India. My noble Friend will remember that it was always said that the two exports from Scotland were thin cattle to England and impecunious adventurers to India. That has resulted in a word which is not ordinarily used in the phraseology of the English members in that Committee.
    The fact which emerges is that the publication of this document shows that the Government have gone back on no agreement. It shows that the points connected with the Bill are substantially those which I stated in the Committee during my first speech on the subject some few weeks ago. The last conclusion which I wish to impress upon the Committee arising from these papers is that they show that these differences are adjustable, formidable as they may look at first sight. I claim that they are adjustable, and, in support of my view, I claim the opinion expressed by the Princes themselves
    "It is, in our opinion,"—
    say the three signatories of this communication—
    "still not beyond the sphere of statesmanship to adjust our differences in such a manner as would lead" to a satisfactory and desired result."
    There are about 30 points upon which the Princes feel doubt. To some extent those points overlap, but the questions may be not unfairly regarded as 30 separate questions. Apart from two substantial issues, about which I shall speak in a minute, the rest of these points are points of detail. If hon. Members will study them, I think they will agree with me when I say that about a third of them are simply misunderstandings, and, of the other two-thirds, the great majority are either points where the drafting is not quite clear or where the drafting ought to be readjusted without any sacrifice of any substantial principle in the Bill. The Committee, therefore, can take it from me that, of these 30 points of difference, all except two are points that ought to be adjustable, and adjustable comparatively easily.
    1230
    I come now to the two points of substance. The first point is the point about which I spoke the other day—the point about the method of accession of the Princes into the Federation. I have always admitted that this is a difficult and complicated issue, and I would not like it to be supposed that it is not complicated. I will, however, point the Committee to paragraph (vii) on page 34 of the White Paper. They will see there set out the exact position with reference to the method of accession, that is to say, to Clause 6 of the Bill. I think I had better read the paragraph to the Committee:
    "His Majesty's Government are of opinion that Clause 6, if analysed and correctly interpreted, does not disclose any differences which can be justly described as fundamental or vital. From their point of view it is essential that there should be a single constitution, and not a multiplicity of constitutions; they realise that the States, on the other hand, desire to secure that the method of their entry into Federation should be so expressed as not to subject them to any risk of finding their powers and jurisdiction diminished beyond the point which they contemplated when they executed their Instrument of Accession. His Majesty's Government are confident that it is not impossible to reconcile these two points of view, and they believe that the suggestions in this Memorandum with regard to other Clauses, for example, Clauses 45, 127, and 129–132, will facilitate an adjustment of view on Clause 6."
    It cannot be said here and now how far we shall be able to meet the States' views on these questions. This must depend largely upon the States' reactions to the White Paper. But I can say this, and I emphasise this point to the Committee, that my advisers have been in close consultation about them with the legal advisers of the States. The latter cannot, of course, bind the Princes in any way, but the views of both parties have been discussed in detail at these meetings, and the discussions have not revealed any differences which appear to me to be incapable of adjustment.
    The other point of substance is a point of a different kind, and a point with which, curiously enough, my Noble Friend omitted to deal in the course of his speech. It is the emphasis that the Princes lay in their communication upon the position of their treaties and upon the question generally of what is known as paramountcy. This is a question upon

    1231
    which I believe there have been misunderstandings in various quarters. Let me say a word, before I deal in greater detail with the question of paramountcy, about these misunderstandings. The Princes claim in their communication that there must be a satisfactory settlement of the claims of paramountcy precedent to their accession. Some people seem to think that this means that we cannot proceed with the Bill until those claims are settled. My Noble Friend who has just addressed the Committee seemed to take that view. This is not the case. The Princes are not being asked here and now to accede—
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Hear, hear!
    Sir S. HOARE: My right hon. Friend seems surprised at that statement. I thought it was of the nature of a platitude which was in everybody's mouth. The Princes are not being asked here and now to accede. Parliament, rather, is passing the best Bill it can, and is taking into account as fully as it can all the various interests—British Indian interests, the interests of the Indian States, the interests of Great Britain and the interests of the Empire. The Princes themselves have always said that they could give no final answer as to their accession until the Bill was on the Statute Book, and the negotiations were actually started for their Instruments of Accession. Parliament is now doing its best, and is acting on the merits of all these difficult issues. The Princes are not being asked here and now to say, "Yes" or "No" to its work. When the Bill is passed, the Princes will have to decide. If they accede, there will be Federation; if they do not accede, there will be no Federation. My Noble Friend seemed to think that that would not only not be the position to-day, but that I have changed in some way from the position which I had previously taken up. Nothing is further from being the case.
    My Noble Friend was good enough to quote a sentence or two from one of my former speeches, a speech made about three and a half years ago. If hon. Members will look at that speech, they will find that it was a speech in which, at the end of the second Round Table Conference, I was explaining the future procedure and in particular, first of all, that the Government had decided to
    1232
    proceed by a single comprehensive Bill rather than by a Bill based only on provincial autonomy. Secondly, I was proceeding to describe what were going to be the future activities of the third Round Table Conference, and subsequently of the Joint Select Committee. I was saying to the House that, the Government having then decided, and having then announced for the first time, that they were going to proceed by a single comprehensive Bill, we had to show in our Bill that we could meet the conditions of Federation, that is to say, that we could produce a Bill in which the Princes could play an effective part. It was perfectly obvious that I meant to draft a Bill in which the Princes' rights would be adequately safeguarded, and under which they would receive effective representation in the Federal Legislature, the Federal Executive and the other Federal organs. There was not the least question at the time, and nobody ever understood for a moment from my statement, that we were not going to produce a Bill till the Princes had said they were going to accept it. Nothing was further from our intentions; nothing was further from the intentions of the Joint Select Committee; nothing was further from the intentions of the representatives of the Princes themselves.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: My right hon. Friend will admit that the general impression of everyone was that the Princes were in hearty accord with the main details of the proposals?
    Sir S. HOARE: Certainly, and I claim that that is the case to-day. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] So far from its being the fact that there was any misunderstanding about what I said, quite a few weeks afterwards, at the third Round Table Conference, there was a committee of which the representatives of all the principal States were members, and in their report they accepted the procedure I had set out in the House of Commons, and said:
    "The procedure in contemplation would secure that the States should not be asked to commit themselves definitely until they had the complete Act before them, but it was suggested that opportunity might be found to enable the Princes' views on the draft constitution to be made known to Parliament while legislation was in progress."

    1233
    Hon. Members will see that that is exactly the procedure that we are adopting to-day. I hope I have said enough to clear up the first of these misunderstandings. I come now to the second misunderstanding. The Princes seemed to think in their communication, and my Noble Friend seemed to think in his speech, that, so far as paramountcy is concerned, the Princes were going to he worse off under the Bill than they would be without the Bill. If the Committee is to understand the position, I must make a short digression into this field, though I do so with a word of caution. Paramountcy does not concern the discussion of the Bill at all, but, as it has been mentioned, I will say as briefly as possible what it means and how it affects, so far as it affects at all, the constitutional matters before us. Paramountcy is the term commonly used to describe the powers of the Crown in its relation to the States. The Crown is bound by engagements of great variety, only some 30 of them, however, being treaties, with the Indian States. The nature of the undertaking has varied with the circumstances in which the relationship arose. A common feature of great significance is that the Crown accepted responsibility for the States' external relations and their internal and external defence. These contractual obligations embodied in the treaties have, with the growth of the Crown's authority throughout India, been supplemented by usage and by the course of events. The Crown's suzerainty has been established for generations. When the Crown took over direct authority in India from the East India Company, Lord Canning made the following pronouncement:
    "The Crown of England stands forth the unquestioned ruler and paramount power in all India. … There is a reality in the suzerainty of the Sovereign of England which has never existed before and which is not only felt but eagerly acknowledged by the Chiefs."
    I quote a second pronouncement which has an important bearing on the question, and which illustrates some of the applications of paramountcy. I take Lord Minto's statement in 1909:
    "Our policy is with rare exceptions one of non-interference in the internal affairs of native States. But in guaranteeing their internal independence and in undertaking their protection against external aggression, it naturally follows that the Imperial Government has assumed a certain degree of responsibility for the general soundness
    1234
    of their administration and would not consent to incur the reproach of being an indirect instrument of misrule. There are also certain matters in which it is necessary for the Government of India to safeguard the interests of the community as a whole, as well as those of the paramount power, such as railways, telegraphs and other services of an Imperial character. But the relationship of the supreme Government to the States is one of suzerainty."
    These latter matters, railways, telegraphs and so on, mentioned by Lord Minto, will now come within the Federal purview and, if a State accedes to the Federation, paramountcy will not be applicable to that extent; paramountcy will to that extent be limited. This is where paramountcy is directly affected by our deliberations. In other respects, whether a State federates or not, paramountcy must remain a fact affecting its relationship to the Crown.
    There have been frequent discussions over a long period of years with a view to clarifying, and so easing, the exercise of paramountcy. Much has been done in this direction with the help of leading Princes in the Chamber since its creation a decade or so ago. In the ultimate analysis, however, the Crown's relationship with the States is not merely one of contract, and so there must remain in the hands of the Viceroy an element of discretion in his dealing with the States. No successful attempt could be made to define exactly the right of the Crown's representative to intervene. But we are anxious to relieve any genuine apprehension of the Princes. Endeavours have already been made to remove them, but if the Princes wish to revive discussion on the matter the Viceroy will be glad to take further action in this regard. Subject to what I have already said about ultimate discretion which must rest with the Crown's representative, discussion with the States might with advantage cover the clarifying of the circumstances in which the exercise of paramountcy would be justified and they might also aim at building up a customary procedure whereby the matters sometimes described as justiciable would ordinarily be referred to arbitration.
    I have made that digression, and I am grateful to the Committee for allowing me to make it, to lead me to the final summary of the position. First of all, the question of paramountcy is one for consideration in India. It is to a great extent distinct from the consideration of

    1235
    the Federal Constitution. Secondly, we stand on the principle that the Crown's representative must retain an ultimate discretion. Thirdly, we recognise there are matters which by further discussion in India can be adjusted, while in any case through Federation the States would exchange the control of paramountcy for a due share in constitutional control over a wide field of subjects.
    The three conclusions that I draw from these considerations are: First, the Bill so far from worsening the Princes' position in regard to paramountcy will make is better. Secondly, the greater part of the Bill has nothing to do with paramountcy at all. Paramountcy is never so much as mentioned in the Bill. The greater part of the Bill has to be decided on other considerations and the introduction of paramountcy into the controversy should in no way complicate or delay our proceeding steadily and normally with the Bill in this Committee. Thirdly, paramountcy must be dealt with in the normal way in India. It affects all the Princes, whether they federate or not, whether this Bill passes on to the Statute Bill or not. I hope I have now made the position clear. The questions within the Bill can in my view be adjusted in the course of our proceedings. The adjustments that we hope to make are in no way sacrifices of principle. That is the position.
    There are two courses open to the Committee. On the one hand, it is possible for the Committee to take the advice that I have given it. On the other hand, it is possible for the Committee to take the advice that is given by my Noble Friend the Member for West Derbyshire. How tempting for any of us to take advantage of differences of this kind, to look at the criticisms that we see in one section or another of Indian opinion and to say to ourselves: "Well, we have done our best, we have worked year after year with this investigation and this great and complicated Bill, and British India and the Indian States meet our efforts chiefly with criticism—[An u" Repudiation!"]—why should we, now that we may be absolved from our responsibilities to go further, not drop the Bill and say to Indians, whether in British India or in the Indian States:
    1236
    "You have brought it on yourselves. -We have done our best. We can do no more." If we took that line, we should have abandoned a great and high endeavour. We should have abandoned, it may be for years, it may be for ever, an opportunity that certainly will not occur in the lifetime of any Member of this Committee, of building up the one kind of government that I believe is the only possible government in India in the future, an All-India Federation.
    Some of my hon. Friends seem to think that I am only anxious to persuade the Princes to enter the Federation in order to help our position here in bringing to the Central Government of India certain conservative elements. That is a very small part of what is in my mind. I have felt that an All-India Federation was essential to British India, if British India was ever to achieve its full status in the British Empire. I have felt that an All-India Federation was essential to Indian India if the Princes were for all time to come to have the influence in the government of the Indian sub-continent to which they are entitled. On these grounds, I would regard it as a calamity if, in the face of criticism, we were led to drop an essential part of the whole scheme, and we were led to drop it when I believe most sincerely that the differences at issue are not unbridgeable and that they can be honourably adjusted in full harmony with the interests of both sides.
    This is not a pet scheme of some insignificant and conceited Minister that I am trying to thrust down the throats of the House or the throats of Indians. It is much more than that. It is the work of investigation after investigation. It is the result of generations of irresistible events. I would ask the Committee to-day to set their faces against the temptation, attractive though it may be, to exploit differences that may exist with a view to absolving us from our responsibilities. I would ask them rather to help me—for after all this is the Bill of the House of Commons just as much as it is the Bill of the Government—to adjust rather than to exploit these differences. We shall need a lot of patience in the course of our discussions. We have needed a lot of patience in our consultations over the last five or six years, but I comfort myself with an observation that was once

    1237
    made to me by the late Lord Haldane. He told me that he, the late Lord Morley, and Elihu Root were once discussing with each other what was the quality most needed for a public man. One of them said "Eloquence." One of them said "Enthusiasm" and the third said "Patience."
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Big majorities.
    Sir S. HOARE: I am inclined to think that of the three patience is the greatest. I would ask the Committee to-day to reject this further Motion for delay, set their faces against the exploitation of differences, and use the utmost patience in our dealings with each other here, still more in our dealings with our friends in India. I believe that if we pursue that course we shall not regret the day when we pass the Bill, and, having passed the Bill, we shall see in due course of time an All-India Federation brought into being.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. ATTLEE: We have taken the line that we wanted to see a federated India, but we did not believe that the people of India should pay too high a price for it, and the danger is that in order to get the Indian States into Federation you are going to pay too high a price for it. I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and his allies and associates below the Gangway have been instrumental in getting the Indian States to raise their price, and I think the Secretary of State is to blame also, because he has taken the line that it was essential to this structure that the States should come in, and, when that is said in order to quieten supporters of the Government and when we have hon. and right hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway taking up the line that they do with regard to the States, it is natural, human nature being what it is and Indian human nature being the same, that the Indian States should hold out for higher and higher terms.
    As I read this document, the real danger is not to my mind in the least that the States would not come in, but that they want to come in and make the best of both worlds; they want to have all the advantages of Federation and the full advantage of doing what they please in their own States and coming in on their own terms. The Noble Lord the Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess
    1238
    of Hartington) does not see quite as far as the Rulers of the Indian States. I do not know how safe the Noble Lord feels in view of the existence of the party on this side, but I am quite sure that the rulers of the Indian States are not Very happy in their position in the modern world. They know quite well that the movements in India cannot be confined to the Provinces, but are liable to flow into their States. They are aware also that the Government in this country is not likely for very much longer to be content to be in a position in which they must support the Indian rulers without the power of seeing that the people in the Indian States are fairly treated by them, and, although the power of paramountcy is undefined at present, it has been exercised, and may be exercised. Therefore I think that the Indian States Rulers see a good deal farther than the Noble Lord, and I think that we should not take the line that there must be concession after concession made, and that every complaint should be met. There should be no attempt to put the Indian States in a still more powerful position than they are under this Bill. We think that they are far too powerful already, and I contrast the zeal and enthusiasm that are always displayed on behalf of the Indian States, and the empty benches very often when it is a question of the Indian people.
    Representatives of great bodies of Indian opinion have taken a line against this Bill, have demanded all kinds of things that are not in this Bill, but we do not get their claims pressed by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway; and we do not hear nearly so much as to the need for agreement by the Indian people, while we get stressed all the time the need for agreement by the Indian States. It is thoroughly unsatisfactory that we should be going through at this stage of the Bill without being a good deal more definite on the position of the Indian States than we are at the present time. I gather that the main outline of matters of the Indian States had been practically agreed; I do not say that it had been put down absolutely in black and white. But I certainly thought that at this stage there would be a fairly practical proposition put up by the Secretary of State, and that he would be able to tell us of a certain degree of accession.

    1239
    We have taken the line that responsibility in India should not be at the whim of the Indian States. We believe that you should form your Federation and let the Indian States adhere or not, as they please. I certainly agree with the right hon. Member for Epping in that, that we want a degree of certainty, and I think that if he was not endeavouring so constantly to mobilise the Indian States as elephants in his battle, he would have a greater degree of definiteness. The whole question is whether there is to be responsible Government or not at the Centre. It always surprises me, considering how little responsibility there is under this Bill, that the right hon. Gentleman takes such a lot of trouble about it. We think that there should be no more yielding to the States. If you want to get agreement, why not try the other side? Why not bring in all the political parties in India? It is not much good going forward with a Bill that is going to be accepted even by a percentage of States if it is not going to be accepted by the bulk of the political opinion in India.
    I would like to have more satisfaction than we have had from the Secretary of State, a vague and pious hope that some people may work this Bill. I see no sign of it at all, and for these reasons I am inclined to support the Noble Lord in his Motion. The Secretary of State says in this White Paper that a Federation can be brought into existence only one way. I do not agree. He says that they have framed a constitution and have embodied it in a Bill which they have invited Parliament to pass into law:
    "The Government of India Bill, if it becomes an Act, will be binding upon British India, because British India is subject to the authority of Parliament. The Act would not as such be binding upon the Indian States …."
    That is the difference, and we do not see any reason why a Bill should be imposed on the Indian people, whereas, on the other hand, at every possible point there is to be concession after concession to the Indian States, which are, we think, already given far too preponderating a place in the constitution.
    5.10 p.m.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: My position is not entirely the same as that of the Noble Lord the Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Harrington), nor the
    1240
    position so admirably expounded to the Committee by the Secretary of State. I applaud the devotion of the Secretary of State to the virtue of patience, and I can easily understand that during the last few years he has had to make great draughts upon his ethical resources in order to maintain his exercise of that virtue. But we have got a little beyond patience, because we are engaged in trying to decide what is to be done. Patience has all sorts of advantages, but it does not enable you to come to a decision about action. Merely adhering perpetually to turning one cheek after another to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), however edifying—
    Sir S. HOARE: I did not know that I had done that.
    Lord H. CECIL: Even to endure all the difficulties of the lack of support in India which the Bill has encountered, you cannot settle the question like that. When we have disagreement as to what the Princes really do want, I am reminded of those criticisms of ancient documents in which various readings are put forward by various eminent authorities. The meeting of the Princes might be one of St. Paul's Epistles. But since we do really want to know—the Government want to know, the Labour party want to know, and my hon. Friends below the Gangway want to know—what the Princes really do mean, surely it would be better to clear that up once and for all?
    Sir S. HOARE: That is what we are doing now.
    Lord H. CECIL: Why should not the Viceroy convoke the Chamber of Princes and propound to the Princes in their Chamber the simple question—it should not be amended, but answered yes or no—Do you wish the Government to withdraw their Bill? If they vote that the Government should withdraw their Bill, I think that the Government would be in a position of considerable advantage rather than if the Bill collapsed for any other reason.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: Would the Noble Lord propose the same procedure for British India?
    Lord H. CECIL: Yes, I would, as a matter of fact. I would not proceed with the Measure if the elected members of

    1241
    that Assembly similarly voted that the Bill ought to be withdrawn, because if you are going to apply to India the principle of self-government it is a poor way to begin by transgressing this principle altogether. You cannot forcibly feed India with federation. It is no good your saying that it is good for India if India does not think so. If particular bodies of opinion which you have set out to satisfy are not satisfied, what is the use of going on with it? It seems to me a matter of mere common sense. I know that what one is told is that you must not pay attention to the irresponsible judgments, but if the procedure which I recommend is followed, the judgment would not be irresponsible. You make it abundantly clear when you ask the Chamber of Princes and the elected members that the Bill would actually be withdrawn if they said that they wanted it to be withdrawn. That is a responsible decision.
    Other people say: "They do not understand. They are not like English people. You cannot calculate on their doing what we can do." I listen to such arguments with sympathy, because it is my own opinion that Indian people are entirely unsuited to our methods of Parliamentary government. But I listen also with surprise. It is strange to come to this House and say, "We are going to set up self-government in India on English lines," and, if the condition which you would certainly expect from England or any Western European country beforehand, that is, their own consent, were not forthcoming, you say, "After all, they are Orientals, and do not understand."
    I am persuaded that the Government have acted very honestly and very laboriously, and in a way which deserves the applause of their supporters and of the country. But I am sure that they want to do what would be best in the end both for this country and India, and there really is not the smallest hope for a system of self-government which has not got the approbation of those who are going to exercise it; nor is there the slightest hope for a scheme of federation unless the Indian Princes approve it. Therefore they should carry their Bill forward, with all the Amendments with which they can smooth its path, until they get to the Third Reading. They ought then to hold up the Bill until they
    1242
    have got the feeling—and at that time it must be perfectly clear—of both the elected members of the Assembly and the Chamber of Princes. They should ask them the one question, "Do you want the Bill, or do you want to withdraw it?" If they said they wanted to withdraw it, then you could withdraw it, and you would be in an immensely stronger position than you have ever been in past years in regard to the government of India. From the point of view of those who dislike these measures you would be in a stronger position, because the risk of not having to disappoint hopes which existed and the like would be at an end. It would not be you who were refusing the Bill, but the mass of Indian opinion. On the other hand, from the point of view of the Labour party opposite who would like to see some measure taken but who are not satisfied with this, they would be in a much better position, because future discussions would not go back to the beginning or where they were when the Round Table Conference first assembled.
    There would be this positive, very elaborate, most carefully worked out Bill ready as a basis for further amendment and discussion. The subject can never go back, therefore, to where it was before. To those who want this Bill in rather a more extended form, what could be better than to have the Bill as the basis of further discussion upon India? So that from both points of view, we should be immensely better off than we are now. I suggest to the Government that that is what they should do, and that that is what should be their answer to my Noble Friend below the Gangway; that they recognise that it must depend upon Indian consent, and that before the Bill is read the Third time they will take means to ascertain, not by putting a particular forced meaning on this word and disagreeing with Members below the Gangway about the interpretation of that word, but by a simple vote taken by the Chamber of Princes and by the elected members of the Assembly, "yes," or "no" to the question as to whether they want the Bill. When my right hon. Friend complains that what we know of the Indian Princes' judgment has been indiscreetly revealed after a confidential meeting, I think he weakens and does not strengthen his case by dwelling on the confidential character of the meeting. If

    1243
    there is a dispute about what people really think, and they say something different in public from what they say in private, the usual conclusion is that what they say in private is the more to be trusted. We are not concerned whether we ought to be told what took place at the meeting. We have been told, and what we care about is—is it the truth? If the Government say that it is not the truth, let them put it to the test, and have a meeting of the Chamber of Princes called for the purpose.
    5.18 p.m.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I am rather surprised at the suggestion which has just been made as to the reports which have reached this country and this House of the confidential meetings held in Bombay. Surely the only course we can take in this House is to consider the document properly before it. The other documents are not properly before us. I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the Paper which was circulated to Members of the House. It is of some advantage to us in our personal capacity to have these Papers by us, but the House has no right to base its discussion upon them. They have not been confirmed by those to whom the speeches have been attributed, and surely to say, "Do you deny them?" is an unfair question to put in the circumstances. The Princes and their representatives met on this occasion and said," It is important in the interests of India and in the interests of the Bill that our discussion should be confidential and that we should only publish the resolutions at which we arrive." That is confidence which this House should be anxious to honour. This House ought not to be listening at keyholes or to be availing itself of a source of supply that we cannot test. I was a little surprised that the right hon. Gentleman earlier in the afternoon attributed all this knowledge to the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I remember that one evening the right hon. Gentleman came to the House and quoted from the report before it appeared in the "Morning Post."
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It was handed to me by the representative of the "Morning Post."
    Mr. FOOT: It is very remarkable that on that occasion, when he asked the House to come to a conclusion, it should
    1244
    have been not merely upon a published article, but something which reached him apparently before it reached other Members of the House, the Secretary of State and the public of this country. I listened with great interest to what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil). I understand that his proposal is different from that of the Noble Lord who wants to get rid of the Bill altogether. The proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University is that we should go to the Third Reading and then enter into consultation with the Indian authorities
    Lord H. CECIL: Before the Third Reading.
    Mr. FOOT: The right hon. Gentleman does not suggest that we should now hold up the Bill but that we should proceed to consider its clauses, and that before the Third Reading we should use some machinery for ascertaining Indian opinion. I agree altogether with him as to the importance of Indian opinion. I was astonished to hear the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) just now speak of the danger of imposing the Bill upon Indian opinion. This House has no power or authority to impose any Bill upon India in the last resort. It cannot be imposed upon British India for the one simple reason that the Bill cannot be worked except by Indians themselves, and unless in British India there are a number of people prepared to work the Bill, then, as far as British India is concerned, it is simply paper, and nothing more.
    Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: How is the hon. Gentleman to ascertain before the Bill is put into operation whether the Indian people will work it?
    Mr. FOOT: My ascertainment would be by that simple test, as far as British India is concerned, if, as I believe, the Bill is fully understood, there are enough people of public spirit in India who see the prospects of the Bill, and who are satisfied as to our good faith, to work it in the Provinces and the Centre. That will be the measure of consent upon which the Bill depends. That is as to British India. As to the Princes, the answer is perfectly clear. Here again, as far as the States are concerned, the Bill, when it becomes an Act of Parliament, must depend upon consent in the States

    1245
    That was made quite clear by what was said by the Secretary of State this afternoon, namely, that we cannot decide now whether they will accede. It will be for them to decide if they are to accede, and if the States do not accede in sufficient numbers, as is provided in the terms of the Bill, then, again, as far as the States are concerned, this Bill is paper, and nothing more.
    Lord H. CECIL: Have we not been told that without Federation the Bill would not work? If you are not to have Federation, and the Princes do not come in, the Bill will not work.
    Mr. FOOT: That is precisely my point. Federation is impossible unless you have the accession of the requisite number of the Princes. If you have not the accession of the requisite number, the Bill does not come into operation. The test of Indian consent is quite clear—in British India, a sufficient number of public-spirited people to work it in their Provinces and in the Centre; and in the States, a sufficient number of States acceding to the Measure after it is passed. This House will say, after we have given the Bill the Third Reading, and it has received assent in another place, "This is the house that we have constructed. It is for you to say whether that house shall be occupied by you." It is unfortunate, perhaps that responsibility rests upon this House, but there it is. That responsibility has always been claimed by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), and he has insisted that he would never let that right go. He has again and again insisted that the responsibility for this Measure depends only upon the British Parliament, and that responsibility we have to discharge, and I think we are discharging it in good faith.
    Some of the speeches which have been made this afternoon have suggested that this is a Bill which was born in the mind of the Secretary of State for India. What has he done? He did not create the Bill. The Bill has seven years' history behind it. How did it come about at all? It came from the proposition of the Princes themselves, in the first instance. I do not say that they proposed the terms of the Bill, but they made the suggestion at the very beginning of the Round Table Conferences. It was from that first proposal that this structure has been built
    1246
    up, and what we have in the Bill is not something that was thought of a few months ago. It is the result of such preparation and care as has never previously been given to any Measure in our Imperial history. It was discussed in detail at the first Round Table Conference. It was discussed in fuller detail at the Second Round Table Conference, and then, in order that there should be a full exploration of all the ground, committees were set up that went out to India and entered into close consultation with the Indian people themselves. They came back with their reports, and there was then the Third Round Table Conference, and day after day, week after week, and month after month those considered proposals were put upon the anvil of opinion, and the work went on until the White Paper was produced.
    The White Paper is virtually the basis of this Bill, and that was the work, not of the Secretary of State for India, except, of course, in the special capacity in the position he occupies, but of many minds, and for the most part it is the work of Indian minds, and represents the contribution made by the Princes themselves and by their representatives who were the parties to all these prolonged and exhaustive negotiations. There is not a Clause in this Bill that raises any subject which has not been discussed at length, not merely with the representatives of British India, but with the representatives of the Princes themselves. I am very apprehensive about some of the things which have been said consequent upon the Princes' opposition. I think that the exploitation of this trouble and division is most discreditable to the Press of this country when it was alleged, as it was two days ago in the "Morning Post," that the Secretary of State for India was waiting for his opportunity to find the means to put the screw upon the Princes, and when it was alleged that the Princes are well aware of their danger and will not walk into the trap. I want to know who has set the trap? If there is a trap in this Bill, it was set, not merely by the Secretary of State but by this House when it adopted and endorsed the White Paper. If there is a trap and if the Princes are being lured into the trap—that is the only construction to be put upon those words—the trap was laid and set by the Joint Select Committee during its 17 months of hard work. It was set by this House on the Second

    1247
    Reading in support of this Bill. Surely, upon a matter upon which such grave issues hang, the biggest thing perhaps that has ever concerned our Imperial mind, these differences should not be exploited in such a way as to suggest that this House has been laying a trap for the Princes of India and is anxious to put force upon them. I hope that whatever may be the differences between us in this House, we shall dissociate ourselves in the most unequivocal terms from the suggestion made by a leading and responsible newspaper only a few days ago.
    So far as the Princes are concerned, I am astonished by some of the things that they have said. I want to make the position of my friends on these benches and myself quite clear upon that point. The Princes have done very well, we think, under this arrangement. They have got a very substantial position in the lower Chamber and a very substantial position in the upper Chamber, at the Centre. They have 33⅓ per cent. in the one and 40 per cent. in the other. Those figures would not, perhaps, be justified by their population, and certainly would not be justified by the strength of British India. Who made that representation? How did it arise? It was not made on the proposition of any British Minister. That relationship, a relationship of the utmost importance in the future government of India, was adopted mainly as the result of discussions between the Indians themselves.
    It was felt at the Round Table Conference in the first instance, when my hon. Friend had not the privilege of serving, that the question of the respective representation of the States and of British India was a matter that could best be dealt with by Indian opinion. It was left to them to make the first suggestion, and when as a result of that consultation this proposal was made that the States were to have so large a representation in the Lower House and so large a representation in the Council of State, I was apprehensive about it, and certainly some others were. But we felt that if that was the agreement that had been virtually arrived at as the result of discussions among the Indian representatives themselves, they were the best judges of their own interests. Therefore, when the criticism is made, as it has been made in the course of these
    1248
    Debates, that we are giving the Princes too great a power in the new Constitution, I would like the House to know that the power was given to them virtually as the result of agreement between the Indian representatives themselves.
    Apart from that power, other requests have been made by the Princes, and I want the Committee to know that so far as we on these benches are concerned we think that we have gone with the Princes to the utmost limit of concession. When it is suggested that the question of paramountcy is to be brought in, I think the Princes do not realise what will be the resistance to that suggestion in this country. Paramountcy means, in the end, the protection of the States against misrule. That misrule may not arise. I am happy to recognise that in many of the States of India there is a very high standard set, and we should be doing grievous injustice to those who have set a high standard if we allowed this talk of tyranny, autocracy, hardship and wrongs to be indulged in as if it applied generally to the States. In many of the States the highest possible standard has been fixed. It may be said that that is so in most of the States, but I am not qualified to speak fully on that. I have, however, read that in some of the States women have been given the right to vote on terms of equality with men, and that in some States education is on a very much higher standard. It is true that in some States there is some backwardness. This House must never surrender, whatever may be the inducement, whatever may be the trouble with which we are faced, the principle of paramountcy which, in the end, gives the right to the people in the States of India to look to this country or at least to look to the Crown for protection against misrule and wrongdoing. The suggestion that is made in this controversy that paramountcy is now to be brought into consideration will raise questions which, I think, the Princes might just as well leave alone.
    On one or two points of detail I want to express gratification. I am glad that for the first time certain States are going to allow their legal representatives in this country to be in touch with our representatives here. That is of the highest importance. In matters of close detail, if you are to have the correspondence

    1249
    that takes place between two different countries with thousands of miles intervening, there must be every inducement to misunderstanding. Now that we are told in the White Paper that all the States will have their legal representatives in this country in close touch with the advisers of the Government, let us hope that some of these difficulties will be straightened out and that some of the difficulties will be found to be not so serious as they were before. Whether the right hon. Gentleman will be able to straighten out all the difficulties I do not know, but I wish him god speed in his efforts. I would not like to see a failure of these proposals at this time.
    When the Noble Lord the Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington) moved his Motion, he made it clear that when he said these things could not be settled, he hoped that they never would be settled. He was against the Bill, and he hoped these matters would never be settled. When he said that the Princes were not likely to be satisfied, there was no doubt about his position. He hoped they would not be satisfied. That position is held to-day by other hon. Members. I would like to have it made clear whether those who oppose the Bill hope that these differences will be straightened out.
    Sir H. CROFT: We think that the whole Bill is wrong.
    Mr. FOOT: They think that the whole Bill is wrong and that the Princes have been their allies in raising objections. That is not the attitude that was taken by the right hon. Member who spoke last. There is a gulf between us. They on their side think that this is a bad Bill, bad for the country, bad for the whole Empire, and that they are entitled to oppose it by all the means in their power. We do not say that it is the best Bill, but we do say that it is a Bill that holds out a great prospect of substantial self-government in India, and that it is immeasurably better than any alternative that has been placed before the country. I thought it was a very revealing thing when the Noble Lord, in proposing that we report Progress, suggested that he was in favour of provincial autonomy. On what ground? "Not because I like it," he said," but because we realise that the Government have got themselves into a difficulty, and that this is perhaps
    1250
    the only way in which they can be extricated." I want to know whether in all our Imperial history we ever had a proposal such as giving provincial autonomy to India that was to rest upon such a slender and flimsy foundation. The Noble Lord said that he did not like provincial autonomy, but that he was prepared to run the risk of it. He said that he would give to these great centres of population these powers of self-government not because he believed in provincial autonomy, not because it carried any conviction with him, but because he recognised that the Government were in a difficulty, and that somehow they must be extricated. Whatever may be said for or against the Bill, I should hold any Government in contempt that brought in a Measure which had no better foundation than that.
    We wish to give our message to the Princes who have made their representations to the Secretary of State and to the Government. The Princes have a great deal to get out of these proposals. Here, I should like to thank the Secretary of State for the very clear words on Federation in the White Paper. I am astonished at what was said by some of the Princes about Federation. Federation carries with it great advantages and some responsibility, but it cannot mean mere association. It cannot mean coming in for a few things and staying out for most. There is to be, as the Secretary of State has insisted in his reply in the White Paper, that central organic body, which is of the highest consequence. We are told that the Princes must derogate some of their powers in coming into the Federation. They must give up something. The man who marries gives up something of his freedom, but he gives it up for the sake of a larger partnership. In the same way, if the Princes come into the Federation they may have to sacrifice something, but what they gain will make up, we think, very substantially for their sacrifice.
    I think it will be a disastrous day for the Princes if they fail to seize this opportunity. We would like them to know that if this proposal for Federation does break down, the claims of India will still have to be met. Then, I should like to know what would be the position of the States. I am not

    1251
    speaking of the bigger and more powerful States, but I ask what will be the position of States in days to come, scattered as they are and representing in some cases areas that are almost like an archipelago in India; what will be their position when, side by side with these unfederated States, there is growing up a strong self-governing community, with political ideas that no frontiers can keep back, that no State frontiers can keep back.
    I welcome the declaration made by the Secretary of State to-day that while we desire Federation we desire that the Princes should take their part in Federation, because the Princes to a large extent are India and represent the outlook and philosophy of India. If the great Dominion of India is to play her part, a foremost part in the affairs of the world in generations to come, she is the more likely to do that and to play that part if the Princes take their full share of the responsibility as well as their full share of the advantages. There are two courses clearly before us, and the Secretary of State, in what I think was a speech that will compare with any speech that he has made in his political history, made it clear that there is only one course that is consistent with the past declarations of this House and, indeed, with the honour of Parliament.
    5.44 p.m.
    Viscount WOLMER: My hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) is a most generous and fair-minded man, and yet he apparently seems to think that we on these benches are doing something wrong or unworthy in drawing attention to the attitude of the Princes. He describes it as exploiting the attitude of the Princes. He seems to think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) has done something wrong, dishonourable or, at any rate, a little bit shady in circulating to the Members of this House the reports which had already appeared in the "Morning Post." I can assure the hon. Member that the right hon. Member for Epping was not under the table taking shorthand notes at the Princes' conference. He is not responsible for any breach of confidence, but to shut our eyes to the facts that have been brought within our knowledge would be
    1252
    the height of political folly and, indeed, something worse than political folly. To shut our eyes to facts and then try to legislate is to be blind leaders of the blind. We shall lead this country and India into the ditch.
    The only exploitation in which we have indulged is to try to draw the attention of hon. Members to facts which they have persistently ignored. Our difference of opinion on this question is not that we are any less solicitous for the welfare of Indians than they are but because we feel that they have approached this problem with their minds so made up and they have ignored facts to such a degree that they have arrived at an impossible solution. The hon. Member for Bodmin says that the Bill is the result of seven years careful examination. I dispute the accuracy of that description. The real history is this. You started with a careful examination by an impartial and independent commission, who reported on the merits of the case and on the facts—which they did not ignore—which they had investigated on the spot. They gave us a unanimous opinion, but because the Prime Minister of the day and the Government of the day did not dare to stand up to the clamour of certain people in India, their Report was thrown into the waste paper basket, and the Prime Minister tried to deal with the problem as he would deal with a strike. A round table conference is an admirable method of settling a trade dispute, but it is not the right way to draft a constitution.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Does the Noble Lord suggest that the Round Table Conference was constituted by the Prime Minister? Is it not the fact that the Round Table Conference was the result of a suggestion made by the Chairman of the Statutory Commission?
    Viscount WOLMER: I am perfectly aware of the facts to which my hon. Friend alludes. My charge against the Prime Minister is that he used the machinery of a round table conference, not to implement the Simon Report, but to reverse it altogether. Sitting round a table may be a proper method for settling minor differences, but it is not the right method to lay the foundations upon which a great constitution is to be built. The history of this Federation is a most excellent example. How often have we not experienced in this House the whole

    1253
    course of a debate being changed by-some striking speech of an hon. Member? The intervention of the Princes was something of the same nature. It brought a new idea to the problem; but it did not prove that Federation was practicable. Because a few representatives of the Princes expressed the opinion that they would be willing to come into Federation it did not mean that they had really thought the problem out and were competent to give an opinion on a question of that sort. As the Noble Lord the Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington) has said, they knew India a great deal better than they knew politics. The expression of that opinion at the Round Table Conference has been used by the Prime Minister to get himself out of a political mess, and he has tried to build a constitution on it. That action of his has landed us in the difficulties we have been in ever since. The truth of the matter is that the Princes never did mean to come into a Federation such as we know is necessary if you are to have a Federation at all. Look at the White Paper in paragraph 11, on page 20. There the Princes say:
    "They have consistently asked that the sovereignty and autonomy of their States shall he fully respected and guaranteed, and there shall be no interference, direct or indirect, with the internal autonomy of their States."
    That is what they meant by Federation. How can you possibly have a federation of States which desire to remain independent, autonomous, sovereign States? That is not Federation. That is an alliance. You may have an alliance of independent autonomous States, but once you have Federation you lose your independence, and that is the point which the Princes never realised until they saw the Bill in black and white and sent it to their legal advisers, who pointed these facts out to them. We have contended all along that the Princes and the Government were talking about two totally different things, and it is for that reason we feel that these differences, are unbridgeable. If they are unbridgeable, it is much better that it should be discovered now, rather than there should be more trouble later on. If you are on a wrong basis, the sooner you discover it the better. I regard it as a great tragedy that in this matter the Government have been leading this country and the Princes up the garden path for two years. The
    1254
    Secretary of State spoke about the virtue of patience in a politician. We are all admirers of the great amount of patience which he possesses, but he also seemed to think that it would be cowardly or immoral on his part if he turned back from the path he is pursuing at this juncture. If you are exploring an avenue, as we say in this House, and you find that avenue is a cul-de-sac, the sooner you turn back the better.
    The real difficulty is that the Princes have all along believed that they can preserve their sovereignty and autonomy and have Federation. We know that they cannot; and these two fundamental questions among the 30 points—I do not think that the Secretary of State is justified in saying that the other 28 points are of no substance—these two points, the mode of accession and paramountcy are absolutely fundamental to the whole question. The Secretary of State said that paramountcy does not come into the Bill. How can the Government contend that for a minute? Paramountcy will come into the working of the Bill at every turn. You are transforming the Viceroy from an autocratic monarch into a Parliamentary leader. Instead of being a ruler he will be dependent on a Parliamentary majority, he will have to square his Ministers and carry his Parliament with him. Do you think that if these Ministers want something done in one of the States of the Princes that they will hesitate to go to the Viceroy and say, "Use your powers of paramountcy to get this or that done and we will support you in what you want in the Central Legislature "? Everyone who has thought about the matter must realise that this is the first thing which will happen; and it will happen every time.
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not want to interrupt the Noble Lord, but I must call attention to a point which, I think, must be watched very carefully. He knows quite well that in the earlier Clauses of the Bill it is provided that the powers and duties of paramountcy are to be exercised by an individual as the King's representative in a capacity or position which is not that of Governor-General, although the individual holding the two positions may be the same person. I want to impress on the Committee that the question of paramountcy

    1255
    and the relation between the States and the suzerain Power is one which is entirely outside the scope of the Bill, except in so far as it concerns the question of the States coining into Federation.
    Viscount WOLMER: Surely I am in order in discussing the point on the Motion to report Progress? I quite agree that we cannot discuss it on any Clause of the Bill.
    The CHAIRMAN: I was more moved to warn the Noble Lord than to say that he had offended so far. I want to make it quite clear that we cannot, on the Motion to report Progress, or on any discussion in connection with the Bill, discuss, for example, the way in which the suzerain Power should deal with States in certain contingencies. That is not included in the Bill, and it is entirely outside the scope of the discussion on the Motion to report Progress.
    Viscount WOLMER: I am grateful for the reminder, and I do not think there is the slightest need for me to transgress the Ruling you have given in order to make my point. We all know that the Viceroy and Governor-General are two different offices but they have always been occupied by the same person; and it is not suggested that they will be occupied by different people in the future. I need not labour the point. If you have a ruler who in one capacity is dependent on a parliamentary majority and in another capacity exercises this great undefined power of paramountcy dependent only on usage, the Princes in my opinion are perfectly right in feeling that his actions in one capacity will be influenced by his difficulties in the other. Therefore, the Secretary of State is not justified in saying that paramountcy does not come into the Bill. It comes into every Clause. It is one of the fundamental difficulties which the drafting of the Bill brings out, and which the Princes had not realised. It is one of the reasons why Federation as visualised by the hon. Member for Bodmin is not possible at the present moment. Therefore, when we were told at the Queen's Hall that the Government's attitude had been dictated by the Princes' offer, or when we were told by the Foreign Secretary that the "new fact" had altered the whole situation, the Conserva-
    1256
    tive party and the country were told something which had no substance whatsoever.
    The so-called Princes' offer was made under circumstances which deprived it of the value and importance which was put upon it. It was not an offer of a body of responsible rulers who had been able to consider a legal document and take expert advice upon it. It was the offer of one or two, and not the most experienced, of the Princes at a round table conference, and in my view the Government were very wrong in putting the weight and reliance on the offer they have done since. I was interested in the suggestion of my Noble Friend the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil). I hope that the Government will give that suggestion very careful consideration. We feel all the more flattered on these benches because on an earlier Clause of the Bill we moved an Amendment that the Bill should not come into force until it had been approved by the Indian Legislature. We listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin explaining to us in a very eloquent speech how it was contrary to all Liberal principles to consult a democracy as to whether a Constitution should be given it or not.
    I want to ask the Government what is going to happen? Are they going to put this Bill on the Statute Book knowing that the Federation part of it is never to come into force? Are they trying to arrive at provincial autonomy by a roundabout way? If that is their policy do they think that they will get either the approval or the respect of Indians for doing so? Is not my Noble Friend quite right when he says that you cannot have a Constitution unless you have some measure of the consent of the people upon whom you propose to confer the Constitution? Therefore, if the Princes are not going to come into the Federation the sooner we are told the better. If the Indian politicians are not prepared to work provincial autonomy or the present Bill, the sooner they say so the better. I do not believe that this ostrich-like policy of ignoring facts and pretending that there are no irreconcilable differences when there are, is going to bring us any good.
    I said just now that I admired the patience of my right hon. Friend the

    1257
    Secretary of State. I do. I admire his patience and his pertinacity, and there are many other things about him which I admire, but the thing I admire most is his imperturbability, when with statements like these in front of him he can stand up and say with perfect assurance that there are no insurmountable difficulties in this problem. I believe that if he crashed a motor-car into a stone wall he would explain to the policeman that only the paint was scratched.
    I am glad that my Noble Friend the Member for West Derbyshire has moved to report Progress. I endorse his opinion that there is no useful purpose to be served in going on with this Bill unless we know whether or not the Indian Princes are to come in. The Secretary of State says that they have made only 30 objections, of which only two have substance. I would remind him that that is their first impression, and the first impression of their legal advisers. This Bill has been so rushed that I am not in the least confident that there are not a great many other difficulties which will emerge only upon further examination. If my right hon. Friend is relying on the Report stage for putting all these things right, he may very likely reach a point when he will get into further difficulties. My hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin interjected just now that he thought I hoped so.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: The Noble Lord spoke of unbridgeable difficulties. Would he say whether he hopes that those difficulties will be bridged?
    Viscount WOLMER: What I hope is that the facts will be brought out. If a difficulty is unbridgeable I want to recognise that fact. Then you have to plan, perhaps, a longer road round the valley. To treat difficulties which are unbridgeable as if they were bridgeable, to throw a bridge across them which will collapse when you first put any weight upon it, will not achieve success in the end.
    6.6 p.m.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: Members of the Committee will endorse what I say when I recall the fact that whenever we have been called upon to vote in the Lobby with right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite it has been almost invariably for different reasons. We shall approach this problem from a different point of view
    1258
    from that of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. But I am bound to say, differing as I do from them, that I think the Committee is indebted to them for having given us an opportunity to discuss this matter. The more I study this matter the more unhappy do I get. I started quite honestly in the belief that some sort of Federation was possible in India, and I still entertain that hope. But I was also under the impression that one essential element in the Federation, as adumbrated by the Government, was the accession of the Princes. It is quite clear from the document that we have in our possession that there is a case which the Government must answer.
    We have had presented to us two documents, one an official document circulated by the Government, and the other a report of the speeches made in the Princes' Chamber, for which we are indebted to the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). We cannot very well ignore those speeches, which have been presented to us in verbatim form, I understand. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State tells us, "Oh, well; after all there are some 30 points of difference outstanding between us, but when you come to examine those 30 points there are only two of them of any real consequence." The two that are of consequence, I understand, are, first, the question of the method of accession; and secondly, the question of paramountcy. In the White Paper, in paragraph 11, on page 20, there is this statement regarding the Princes:
    "Among the essential conditions they had laid down from time to time, the one treating with a definition of paramountcy has been made a sine qua non to any federation."
    It is no use fobbing us off with light-hearted statements about this. We have been told since 1929 that the Princes were prepared to come into Federation, and it was fair for us to assume, therefore, that in the years from 1929 to 1934 the Princes had had discussions with the Government, on the main point at issue any way. Indeed, I understand that the Government do not deny that. Surely the question of paramountcy, whether it belongs to the Bill or not, is a matter of first-class importance, and would have been, therefore, a matter of discussion between the Government and the Princes? Yet we are told that this

    1259
    sine qua non, as the Princes call it, has not yet been settled to their satisfaction. I submit that we really are entitled to a much more precise statement of the position of the Princes in relation to this matter. Let me read another passage from the speech of the Maharaja of Patiala, not the first speech but the last speech which he delivered in winding up the discussion at Bombay. I am bound to say that it is a passage which filled me with astonishment. I am speaking now as one who has not taken the trouble to argue the case for the Princes, because my experience has shown me that I can rely on other people doing that. But I am astonished to read this passage:
    "We Princes of India have no desire to resile the position which we have consistently taken, but we must say, with all the emphasis at our command, the present Bill does not in any way embody the views we had pressed from the beginning, nor the conditions which we had always insisted upon.
    The Federation that is sought to be imposed on us and which is being rushed without even awaiting our criticism has nothing in common, except in name, to the scheme which in its general outline we accepted at the first Round Table Conference."
    "Nothing in common, except in name." That is a sweeping criticism. It is not for me to argue the case for the Government or the Princes. My case is that it is the business of the Government to give us an assurance that this criticism arises from a complete misunderstanding of the implications of the Bill itself in relation to them.
    Sir S. HOARE: That is what I tried to say.
    Mr. JONES: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman; but he must remember that this criticism has been made by his Highness the Maharaja of Patiala and his colleagues after having examined the Bill in the light of criticisms submitted to them by their lawyers. Instead of that, the Maharaja says that the Bill has nothing at all in common except in name, with what the Princes agreed to at the first Round Table Conference. I am bound to say that that criticism only emphasises the justice of the claim that we should know precisely where the Princes are in this matter.
    1260
    The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) made an interesting suggestion. It was that, supposing we passed the Committee stage and Report stage of the Bill, we should then stop the proceedings before we enter upon the Third Reading stage, and that in the meantime we should discover what are the views of the Princes and of the British-Indian representatives; and the Noble Lord said: "The views of the elected representatives of British India." We know already what their view is. Votes which have been recorded after the recent discussion in the central Assembly at Delhi show what their view is. So, so far as British India is concerned, one half of the Noble Lord's request is available. The other half is, what is the view of the Princes themselves? So far I have only made reference to the Princes, but I want to add this, and it is a point which we have made constantly from this side of the Committee. I consider that the legitimate deduction to be drawn from these two documents, both the official and the unofficial, is that the Princes have come to the conclusion that the Government are now in such a position that they can, appropriately and with success, bring pressure to bear in order to squeeze further concessions out of the Government.
    I can only say that if the Government propose to make further concessions, then, the case is all the stronger for knowing what is the view of British India in relation to any new concessions which may be made. I admit that the Princes ought to know completely and thoroughly the conditions on which they are to enter the Federation. Equally, British India ought to know on what conditions they are to be harnessed to the chariot of the Princes in the Federation. It cuts both ways. It is legitimate that both sides should know to what they are or are not committed. For my part, I am bound to say that a fairly careful perusal of this document has led me to the conclusion that there is much more in the differences between the Princes and the Government than one would gather from the speech of the Secretary of State. I say, candidly, that I tend more and more to lose any desire for the form of Federation which we are called upon to discuss just now. I feel sure that if we go on making further concessions, then, from

    1261
    the point of view of the people of British India, Federation will not be worth while. Whether that be so or not, I shall join in demanding that we should be informed precisely where the Government stand and where the Princes stand in regard to this question of Federation.
    6.18 p.m.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: This Debate has been remarkable for the unanimity of the criticism and condemnation which have been directed at this stage upon this Government of India Bill as it now presents itself to us. The speeches from every quarter of the Committee have converged and concentrated their fire upon the position now occupied by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and those who have been associated with him in the long task of promoting this Bill. We have had a notable speech from the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil)—a very rare pleasure to us in this House. He brings to us the fruits of profound reflection and of absolute disinterested sincerity. Then we have had the speech delivered by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones) representing His Majesty's Opposition, who has given proofs of his sincerity and is known to be a very strong supporter of what is called advance in India. That speech certainly requires an answer from the Treasury Bench. Certain facts which he adduced and which have been brought forward from every quarter ought to be answered if we are to continue to be a reasonable and reasoning debating assembly.
    Sometimes one wonders what is to happen if British Members of Parliament lose all contact with each other by means of reasonable processes. It is very difficult to know how we should get on in such a case, and we are in great danger of it. The Government persist in their policy. The right hon. Gentleman recites at intervals the formulae at which he has arrived. He publishes his despatches and memoranda in a highly specialised and technical jargon which only occasionally forms contact with the English language. For the rest, matters are left to the Patronage Secretary and to a large number of gentlemen who, if they were only giving to this problem the attention which they gave to it a year ago or two years ago, when they began to make up
    1262
    their minds, would rush this Bill out of the House. Unhappily, they have taken their decision. They are not with us here, but they will be in the Division Lobby. So the machine goes on. That you can roll the Bill forward I do not deny. We cannot doubt that you have the power, during the continued lifetime of this Parliament, to roll this Bill through, in defiance of every fact and every appeal, but the consequences will not be dispersed so easily.
    My Noble Friend has moved to report Progress this afternoon because of this White Paper with its unofficial companion the verbatim report of the Princes' speeches—its handmaiden and concomitant. The White Paper undoubtedly presents us, officially, formally and directly with a new situation. No one can deny that it is a new situation. I do not believe that even the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot), who has suffered in political controversy from being at bottom a fair-minded man, would deny that he feels himself in the presence of new facts in the situation produced by this White Paper and the speeches of the Princes. Whether we have a National Government or not is arguable, but evidently there is a National Opposition in the sense of all parties reaching a certain general basis of agreement on the fact that there is a new situation.
    This White Paper and its companion represent—what? They represent the Princes' offer. I had not meant to be controversial, but it seems almost a joke. This White Paper is the Princes' offer on which the Government have gone into action for the last four years. This is the Princes' offer which induced the Foreign Secretary to abandon all the conclusions which he and his commission had reached as a result of their study. This is the Princes' offer which my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council dwelt on as the ground on which he solemnly advised his party to adopt this policy. I read in the "News-Chronicle," the organ of the Liberal party—I beg pardon, I am not so sure about that, but an organ at any rate of the Liberal and Labour parties—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Do not repudiate any support. You may need it all. I read that paper's epitome of this situation—their headline—and what was it?

    1263
    "The Princes reaffirm their faith in Federation."
    Can any reasonable person who has read the White Paper and also read the actual text of the Princes' speeches imagine that we are going to make progress in our affairs by taking such nonsensical views as that? What is the moral of this White Paper? It is the final refusal of the Princes to have anything to do with this Federation scheme. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I believe we are going to have a reply from the Attorney-General. I am sure that if he were consulted in a legal capacity and if he saw this document, especially if he saw the report of the speeches, he would say that on the correspondence there was a complete breakdown. On the correspondence there appears a total and utter breach. Mind you, it is not only a question of a breach such as might arise between a willing buyer and a willing seller who were still haggling about how the thing should go and who was to get some advantage here or there. Not at all. This is a deliberate decision on the part of the Princes of India to break from this scheme of Federation. Do not delude yourselves. There is no compromise, no alternative possible.
    Let me point out that it is a question of paramountcy. Paramountcy, the Secretary of State says, is not in the Bill. "I rejoice," he says, "that our differences are narrowed by the fact that I need not discuss paramountcy." But why do the Princes raise this question of paramountcy? I must say it astonishes me that my right hon. Friend, with all his ability, does not seem to be in touch with the actual way in which the forces in India are working. Why do you suppose the Princes have raised this question of paramountcy and dragged it in by the heels? Not because they expect the Government to grant their wishes, but because they wish to put up a barrier against being involved in this scheme of Federation. It may be said that there are 30 points of difference, and the lawyers may discuss them and write them out in great detail and make proposals for compromise, for arrangements and for accommodations. But the Princes were not going to trust only to that. No, they raise the question of paramountcy, and they now say "Before we come into this Federation you have to define paramountcy and deal with us on that subject." They twice use the expression
    1264
    that this is a "condition precedent" to their joining the Federation.
    What does the right hon. Gentleman say? He says what any Secretary of State would say, the only thing which any Secretary of State could say. "I am not prepared to entertain a discussion at this time with the Princes of India upon their relations with the King Emperor." Could you possibly have a more complete and absolute breach than is disclosed by that position? On the one hand, the Princes say, "We will not enter the Federation until, as a condition precedent, our wishes about paramountcy are met." On the other hand, you have the right hon. Gentleman saying, as it was his duty to say, "We are not prepared to discuss the high relationship of these princely States with the sovereign Power." There is a complete breach. I do not think there can be any doubt about it. You may work for several months, you may spend a lot of time, trouble and money with the lawyers in trying to work out a compromise but this means that the Princes have definitely decided not to come into this Bill.
    Why they have so decided it would take a long time to tell, but there is one reason that the right hon. Gentleman ought to appreciate because I think it is the dominant, the actuating reason, the motor muscle of their position. It is because their compatriots in the political classes of India have told them not to come in. It is because from all over India they have received appeals, protests, even threats, all with the object of inducing them to stop out. It is because they are making common cause with the rest of Indian educated intelligentsia and public opinion against this Measure, and therefore the Princes have withdrawn from it. There may be many other reasons, such as their position and their sovereign rights, and many of them have never liked the idea of Federation; but the decisive fact undoubtedly is that the Princes have refused to come into Federation because those forces in British India which asked them five years ago to come in have now in the most explicit and earnest manner begged them, urged them, exhorted them to stay out. Therefore, they have erected this insuperable obstacle of paramountcy.
    That is the position. It is a very serious position. I really must ask my

    1265
    right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council—I am always having to ask him questions—to think over very carefully what he said to the National Union of Conservative Associations. I am absolutely sure that the last thing in the world my right hon. Friend would do is to obtain support, to get round a difficult corner by anything in the nature of false pretences. I am sure that when he sees that the facts on which he presented his case to the Conservative associations are not borne out and have actually fallen from beneath his feet, he will take the earliest effective opportunity of either detaching himself from the policy or of explaining that new circumstances have arisen which induce him to base his advocacy of the Measure on different grounds from those he then put forward.
    I am glad to see the Prime Minister back. It gives me great satisfaction, and I hope he will not mind my pointing out to him how different the situation is now from what it was in 1931. In those days he had the offer of the Princes; there was an offer then. In those days he had the assent and agreement of British Indian politicians. In those days he had a large amount of support among Indian Liberals—active support from that great body of central opinion of which we have heard. In those days also he had hopes of obtaining the Congress party and Mr. Gandhi—" My Dear Mahatma "we had then. In those days he had the official support of the Conservative party and Liberal support, and he was himself the head of a Socialist Government. In those days four or five years ago he had every expectation, as it seemed at the moment—although I did not share it—of being able to make a great settlement for India with an equally broad basis of public assent here. Every one of those factors has been swept away; not one vestige of that structure remains. You may say that you will continue with the Bill, but every man who has studied the matter knows that the situation has no resemblance in any way to what occurred at that time.
    What do the Government say should happen now? They say, "It is quite all right, it makes no difference." The Indian Liberals will not have it. Congress will not have it, the Princes will
    1266
    not have it, and the Labour party will not have it. It is not an agreed Measure here, it is not a Measure which can be said to be, as it were, high and dry above the ebb and flow of party conflict. All that has vanished. Still, the Government say, "It is all right, wait until the Division bell rings, and we will get them through the Lobbies, and it will be all right." Their newspapers—they still have some in their support—their devoted newspapers will read to-morrow, "The House of Commons decided by an overwhelming majority that there was no substance whatever in those ridiculous and obstructive tactics put forward against the Bill." All this, and a reference to the fine speech of the Secretary of State, in which he depicted himself in action on behalf of a cause which has got into a somewhat ramshackle condition, will be, no doubt, admirably portrayed.
    But what is the Government's policy? It is to place this Bill on the Statute Book, no matter what happens and whether they have agreement of all parties or not. They wish to place the Bill upon the Statute Book. What will happen then? I see that Lord Lothian made a speech the other day. He is a very important person and has a great influence in our relations with Germany and in our relations with India. I quote from the report of his speech in the "Times" of the 8th March:
    "Lord Lothian, discussing the Indian Bill, said they had nothing to do to-day but to put the Bill on to the Statute Book and make a fresh start from that position."
    I ask the Conservative party, I ask the Government and their faithful supporters, if that is the position they take up? I ask particularly my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). If faith holds between man and man, we are entitled to know where we stand in a matter of this kind. This Bill has been represented as the most that we can give and the furthest we can go. All its safeguards have been drawn carefully in order to salve the consciences of members of the Conservative party and to make it easy for the great mass of that party to do what without their support would never have been done in this country. Now, when it is to be put on the Statute Book, what is it to be? A settlement? No, it is to be the point from which a fresh start is to be made. The Attorney-

    1267
    General is a Conservative. He is a sincere patriot. Has he any bottom to his convictions in this matter? Is there any point where we shall reach finality? He is going to force the Bill through, but is he prepared to take it as a starting point for some great new lurch, some downward slurge? We ought to know. Of course, you can vote us down, but if there is no sort of attempt to meet propositions of this kind, you cannot blame us if we try to fight not only in this House, but elsewhere, by every method open to us, because, once all contact is lost on a basis of reason and argument, then the only thing people can do is to organise and to endeavour to express their opinions as effectively as they can. I hope that we shall have some answer upon that point—how far do you mean to go?
    This Bill is now to be placed on the sideboard like a ham from which anyone can come and cut a slice if they feel inclined before it gets mouldy and rotten. There is your Bill, there is your settlement of India, and of course it will be the starting point for any further legislation if it is passed. Every concession you have made, the most extreme point which you have reached, will be the starting point for new legislation. The Attorney-General made a speech in the country the other day. He usually indulges himself at week-ends in the country by giving us orations which are most interesting and nearly always afford food for controversial comment. He made a speech in which he said that it ought to be five or ten years before the policy of this Bill could be carried out. In five or ten years there will be a change of Government in this country. However sanguine may be the hopes that are entertained, one cannot imagine that in such a period there will not be a change. But when you have passed this Bill of 400 or 500 Clauses and put it on the Statute Book, it will not be difficult to pass a Bill of 20 Clauses. It will be quite a manageable matter. It will slip through this structure and completely transform it; it will completely prune out, excise, eliminate and excavate every one of the particular points upon which the Conservative party have been induced to carry this policy so far.
    Why press this matter further? It is not any longer a great measure of Indian constitutional reform. The right hon.
    1268
    Gentleman has no doubt to introduce a great many Amendments to meet the objections of the Princes. I suggest that at the same time he should change the title of the Bill. He should no longer call it the Government of India Bill, but the Chelsea Hospital (No. 2) Relief Bill. He should call it by the name which far more accurately delineates its purpose, namely, to enable a number of officials and powerful people to escape from a difficult situation without undue loss and countenance and face. This Bill has nothing whatever to do with India. India will have nothing whatever to do with the Bill. The whole position has now become one of will power, of clash of opinions and wills here at the centre. Why can we not relax this position? The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the temptation of abandoning this Bill in the face of the universal opposition which it has excited among those for whom it was designed. Why can he not yield to that temptation? Temptation which is a natural instinct is not necessarily wrong. You beg the question when you say that all that reason and all that convenience and all that public interest urge is temptation. You ought to yield to these things, and this is the time to yield. This is the time when the Government ought to lay aside every impediment. There is great need of simplifying our policy here and abroad. There is great need of uniting forces which are harmoniously blended and must act together. Surely this is the time to take a reasonable step.
    It is little that we ask, and how very little it is now that we have reached the point when, as far as arguments and facts are concerned, it is admitted by all parties in the House that the case has been made out. Surely it is not much to ask that the Federal Clauses should be dropped, that they should not be placed on the Statute Book until or unless the Princes have concurred in them, that they should, as my Noble Friend has suggested, be brought to the Third Beading and then be left out with any other ancillary parts as may be required. Then we could go forward. If that were done, very useful legislation would still rest in the hands of the Government, but, if they persist in the course which they have adopted, if they simply go forward using the dull brute force that they can demand. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.] The right

    1269
    hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) has taken very great responsibility in this matter, and I hope he will not be left high and dry when the subject is concluded. If the Government go forward, using their force, they must not suppose the trouble will end with the passage of the Bill. That is not possible. While this Bill remains on the Statute Book it claims from all those who disapprove of such policies and principles a consistent and persistent effort to establish forces, continuing and organised forces, which will resist the repetition of such Measures in the future, and will endeavour, as far as possible, to repair the mischances of the past.
    6.46 p.m.
    Lord EUSTACE PERCY: My right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), at the beginning of his speech, implored us not to lose contact with each other's minds. I certainly agree with him in that appeal, but surely it is a little beside the point when he ends his speech with a menace as to what he and those working with him intend to do if we who support the Bill go on as we are going on. Will my right hon. Friend allow me to say that I am amenable to arguments but not to threats.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: You are not amenable to arguments.
    Lord E. PERCY: I am extremely amenable to the arguments of my right hon. Friend or any other of my hon. Friends, and I am sure they will admit that I have always tried to meet their arguments and to see what is the real ground of their objections. It is sometimes a little difficult in the case of my right hon Friend the Member for Epping, because he is so like that eloquent gentleman in "Love's Labour's Lost" who drew out the thread of his discourse so much finer than the staple of his argument. When I am faced with these vast cocoons of spun thread, relevant or irrelevant, I do sometimes find it difficult to penetrate to the real argument. But there is no doubt about the argument to-night. My right hon. Friend the Member for Epping has summed up all the speeches that have been made by his friends, from my noble Friend the Member for West Derbyshire
    1270
    (Marquis of Hartington) onwards, and the contention which they are urging on the Government is this: that if the Princes do not come into the Federation we must drop this whole Bill, drop the whole scheme of Indian reform, and scrap the Report of the Simon Commission.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No.
    Lord E. PERCY: The whole of the Bill which you are proposing to postpone, from the Clause which we have just adopted onwards, is all completely, and practically solely, the Report of the Simon Commission.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: My Noble Friend really must not misrepresent the position. I think it would meet with general acceptance if the Federal Clauses were dropped and we proceeded within the ambit of the Simon Commission.
    Lord E. PERCY: I heard my right hon. Friend say that at the end of his speech, in postscript, but it was not an argument of any of his supporters or of the rest of his discourse. He said, "If you pass this enormous Bill, then anyone in a future Government can introduce a Measure of 20 Clauses." But that is an argument against passing this Bill. That is not an argument against opposing this Bill—except the 40 Clauses of Part II. The general argument of the Noble Lord the Member for West Derbyshire was the same. It was that this vast Bill with all these Clauses is gone, is dead, and must-be scrapped. After arguing like that, what is the good of my Noble Friend the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) complaining that the Simon Commission's Report was scrapped? He proposes to scrap it now.
    Viscount WOLMER: I never said that.
    Lord E. PERCY: But it was the whole of my Noble Friend's argument—that the Bill must be dropped. I am going to drive home that point, as he will see. The reason why I have risen is that the whole course of this Debate and the action of the supporters of this Motion to report Progress can create only one impression outside this House, that this House is at the mercy of the Princes, that if they do not enter into Federation this House can vote no Indian reform at all.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, no.
    Lord E. PERCY: My right hon. Friend really must pay some attention to the arguments of his hon. Friends. They argued in this Debate that the whole Bill must be scrapped because the supporters of the Bill had said that provincial autonomy without responsible government is impossible.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Ah!
    Lord E. PERCY: But does not my Noble Friend see that he has been arguing that? He has done his best—I do not know whether he has done his best, but certainly he has been most successful—to create the impression that, basing himself on the admission of the supporters of the Measure, he wants to scrap the Simon Commission's Report altogether and the whole of the rest of the Bill.
    Viscount WOLMER: I am grateful to my Noble Friend for giving way to me. I think he is anxious that there should be no misunderstanding on the matter. If my Noble Friend is under the impression that those of us who are opposing this Bill would also oppose the Simon Commission's Report he is entirely mistaken. We have repeatedly said that we would be willing to co-operate on the basis of the Simon Commission's Report—subject to points of detail. [Interruption.] We would take that as a basis on which we could co-operate.
    Lord E. PERCY: I am still left in some doubt as to what could have been the meaning of my right hon. Friend when he talked about passing the rest of this enormous Bill and leaving only 20 or 30 Clauses to be put in by a future Government. What does the Noble Lord say to that? Was the right hon. Member for Epping expressing the views of his followers, or was he not?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: We are all agreed.
    Lord E. PERCY: I gather that my right hon. Friend and his Friends show the beautiful superficial unanimity of the Princes assembled at Bombay. But that issue must be faced. Here I would refer to my Noble Friend the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil). He made a most interesting speech which was not open to these criticisms. It was, of course, open to the criticism which I am just making, that he proposed to leave
    1272
    the coming into force of this Bill, or even its final enactment by Parliament, to a vote both of the British Indian Legislature and the Princes.
    Lord H. CECIL: The elected members.
    Lord E. PERCY: And of the Princes. So if the Chamber of Princes refuses to vote this Measure British India could not have the British Indian part of it. I do not know whether my Noble Friend meant that. May I say further that he must remember that the Chamber of Princes is not an organic body and that we cannot ask for a vote from a diplomatic body. Finally, may I ask him if he has reconsidered his proposal to submit this to a vote of the elected members of the Central Legislature, because, if my Noble Friend will forgive me, that will take him nowhere It corresponds to no principle whatever. There is something to be said for submitting an Act or Bill of this kind to a constitutional convention in India, but to submit it to a legislature—and the first result of the Act would be that that legislature would be abolished—elected on totally different issues and for totally different purposes corresponds, as I have said, to no principle whatever. It is a Legislature, moreover, as so many of my hon. Friends have pointed out, in which there is a very large element of our declared enemies, who have said, according to what we have been told, that nothing will satisfy them except independence. To submit it to that sort of body is no substitute for submitting it to a constitutional convention.
    Lord H. CECIL: May I point out that you either believe in self-government or you do not. If you do you ask the elected representatives of the people if they want this particular plan. If you do not believe in self-government your plan is nonsense and hypocrisy.
    Lord E. PERCY: I do not take that position at all. I take the view that this House is responsible and cannot share its responsibility with any other Parliamentary body. I only wish to point out to my Noble Friend that if he seriously suggests that His Majesty's Government are setting out on that path, it is leading up to a position which could only be satisfied by the special election of a constitutional convention. Unless he is prepared to go for that I think he had

    1273
    better not put forward that particular argument. I wish to say in conclusion, because I have never stated this in the House before, that even at this moment, and even on the assumption that it is now unlikely that the Princes will immediately come into the Federation—an assumption which I do not make, because I do not believe in prognostications and have never based my policy on prognostications—I would retain Part II of the Bill and would enact it.
    I would do that on two grounds. I would do it, first, on the ground urged by the Simon Commission, that a new Constitution for British India must have in it the seeds of development. Is it agreed that there can be no question of any measure of responsible government, responsible to an Indian electorate at the Centre, except on the conditions laid down in Part II? Is it agreed that those are the minimum and unalterable conditions of the British Parliament? If so, let us lay down those conditions finally and clearly, for the very reason that my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping urged so forcefully, because there are Lord Lothians in the world who want to start all over again, and because if we leave the whole thing open bright gentlemen like the Members of the Labour party will introduce another little Bill of 20 Clauses and slide further down the slippery slope. For that very reason, if we are convinced that these are the minimum conditions and the only conditions on which we can create a central government with any measure of Indian responsibility, then lay them down finally and irrevocably, and let the people of the Provinces of India know that so, and so alone, can they advance along the road of self-government.
    The second reason is because I warmly agree with those of my hon. friends who have said that the method of the Round Table Conference and Select Committee is not suitable for planning a constitution. You get involved in vague negotiations; the people with whom you negotiate come to provisional agreements which always remain provisional. Here, again, I would ask, is it agreed that Part II of this Bill gives the most favourable terms to the Princes which this Parliament can ever give them to enter as a basis for an all-India Federation? If so, cannot we lay down clearly, definitely and finally the basis on which the
    1274
    Secretary of State is to negotiate, set it down in legal terms, and then make him responsible for carrying that out? If these are the facts, surely my hon. Friend will see that the difficulty in which we are involved is not that of any argument which may have been made on either side in this House, but that the difficulty lies in the fact that there is only one safe way of Indian advance at the Centre, and however long you wait, and however long you avoid making up your mind, these facts remain the same.
    The right hon. Member for Epping has accused the Princes of being influenced by politicians of British India, and of not expressing solely their own mind, but of having been tampered with and intimidated by the politicians of British India. That is the account he gave. Do not let us allow ourselves to be influenced by similar political manoeuvrings, debates, arguments and intrigues. Do not let us be so influenced that our eyes are blinded to the unalterable facts, for there are unalterable things in this situation. I have dealt with these facts as they affect Part II. They will not be altered however long you wait. Then at least let the representatives of the British people in this Parliament, bearing as we do that tremendous responsibility both for this country and for India, have the courage to make up our minds, to take our course and to follow it steadily to the end.
    7.4 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): This is the third occasion on which this tune has been played by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and his friends, and perhaps the Committee will allow me to make one or two observations in conclusion of the Debate of which, I rather think, the Committee is already a little weary. My right hon. Friend has more than once in the course of his speech this evening voiced the opinion, which he seems sincerely to hold, that there is something derogatory or dishonourable to the Government in that they are able to obtain a majority of their supporters to vote with them in the Lobby. I do not understand my right hon. Friend's theory about Parliamentary majorities. In his time he has been as dependent upon them as any other Minister. Nor do I understand his

    1275
    reproaches to those who may not have listened to the Debate but will record their vote in the Lobby. I think I have observed him sometimes in the Lobby when he has not sat patiently through the Debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Usually."] Well, I did not say that. I cannot help thinking that when my right hon. Friend makes such a constant moan and complaint about the majority of this House supporting the Government he is living in an unreal world, because he knows perfectly well that, although many Members have different avocations and duties to perform while the House is sitting, it is no compliment to Members of this House to say that they do attend matters of serious importance to their parties and their country, take care to inform' themselves as to the issues involved, and to give an opinion agreeable to their own consciences. My right hon. Friend has charged me with the offence of speaking at week-ends. I might say in my defence that it has generally been in my constituency, and it is my misfortune and his if any of my observations have been reported. At any rate I have been trying to get in touch with that democracy of which he seems to have so curious an opinion in regard to Parliamentary institutions.
    I have observed that the Noble Lord the Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington) and those who have followed him have been anxious to explain, what they believe to be the fact, that the Indian Princes are no longer friends of Federation, and it is said that they have disclosed their real intention and opinions in the speeches which they have made. Some reference has been made to the fact that those speeches were made in circumstances in which it was believed that their observations would be confidential, and that the confidence would be respected. I was not a little surprised to hear the right hon. Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) apparently give support to the suggestion that we are entitled to use a document in breach of confidence as long somebody else had committed the breach, and that the more confidential it was the more likely it was to represent the real opinions of those whose speeches were reported. I think that an extraordinary statement. It does not agree
    1276
    with my own experience of life. I have taken part, as anybody in my profession has to do, in many discussions as to the compromise or settlement of disputed questions, and I have always observed that in private conference, where people are free to say things that they know will not be publicly used, they always express themselves with more heat and less care than they otherwise would.
    If the speeches on the occasion in question had been intended to break off negotiations with regard to Federation, then the Princes seem to have adopted a most extraordinary course. I have never heard of anybody bringing a long series of negotiations to a summary conclusion in a long letter of seven or eight closely printed pages. In the documents contained in the White Paper the Princes have taken care to declare the points upon which adjustment is required, and I can only arrive at the conclusion that in this way they expressed their desire to reach the completion of this scheme of Federation. My right hon. Friends have not condescended to discuss any question upon which they say there is a final breach. They have referred to paramountcy and to the Instrument of Accession. So far as paramountcy is concerned, my right hon. Friend and his supporters are under a strange delusion if they really believe that the Princes expect, or could be entitled to expect, a final settlement of questions with regard to paramountcy which have been under discussion between them and His Majesty's Government in this country for many years, and most certainly will never be settled in time for this Bill or any other Bill in the present Parliament.
    What you, Captain Bourne, or Sir Dennis Herbert said earlier from the Chair is true so far as this Bill is concerned—that the Bill does not really deal with the question of paramountcy, and when the Princes raised the question of paramountcy in the long and elaborate statement of the points upon which they desire adjustment, it will be found that they raised this question, not with a view to final settlement of the very big questions involved, but in relation to two or three particular Clauses in which they think their position as sovereign States will be affected. It is this question with which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his final document, which has been tele-

    1277
    graphed to India and has been printed in the White Paper, has dealt. The question still remains for us whether these are or are not matters capable of adjustment. It is very easy for the Noble Lord to say they are incapable of adjustment. If the Princes regard them as incapable of adjustment, it is a remarkable fact that they should have instructed their legal advisers to meet the legal advisers of my right hon. Friend—and as late as yesterday afternoon were they meeting for a second time—to see whether understanding could be reached on matters which my right hon. Friend is declaring are the grounds of a final repudiation of any intention to enter Federation.
    I think the Princes have been a little hardly dealt with by my right hon. Friend to-night. They have been held up to a little public obloquy, whatever my right hon. Friend may have intended. I did not like to hear him say that the Princes' attitude was due to the fact that appeals, protests and threats had been addressed to them to which they were now yielding. He has some sources of information I know that are not open to other people, but it is paying too high a compliment to a statement of that sort to call it backstairs gossip. It is imagination on the part of my right hon. Friend, indicating an unhealthy mind.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The grounds on which I stated that the Indian political classes were appealing to the Princes not to come into Federation are fully set forth in the Indian newspapers, and particularly in that able newspaper with which I do not agree at all, "Conservative India."
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My right hon. Friend has hardly paid attention to the full force of the statement he made. He said not merely that people were making appeals, protests or threats to the Princes, but that the Princes' action was yielding—that was his word—to these threats and protests. What does that mean? That these great Princes of the sovereign States in India are adopting the unworthy attitude of departing from that in which they firmly expressed so much confidence merely because of the threats, appeals and protests reaching them from other parts of their country. I do not believe a word of it. I should be very much surprised to hear that the
    1278
    Maharaja of Patiala or of Bikaner, or the Nawab of Bhopal will agree that this is the motor muscle of the views that they have presented. I prefer to take at their face value the statements that the Princes themselves have made in the speeches which have been quoted. What did the Maharaja of Bhopal say?
    "I have been one of the staunch supporters of the idea of Federation."
    What did Sir Akbar Hydari say?
    "I must at the same time make it clear that I am a great believer in Federation."
    I should like to know what right has my right hon. Friend to tell these Princes, whom he is so anxious to fawn upon at one moment, that they have no sincerity when they say that they are still supporters, and always have been supporters, of Federation?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: What right has the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that I fawn on them?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: What right have I to say that? Exactly the same right as the right hon. Gentleman claims to have, in expressing his views in his own language.
    Sir W. DAVISON: On a point of Order. Is the Attorney-General quoting from this tainted source' which he says the Committee should not hear?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): That is not a point of Order.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The observation I was making is justified, I think, by the attitude taken up by my right hon. Friend and his allies when they say that in some way or other the Princes have been misled over this question of Federation, that the Princes are now slowly discovering what the intentions of the Government are and always have been, and that they are finding the proposition unacceptable. In the next sentence my right hon. Friend is saying that the words of the Princes which he has been at so much pains to circulate to hon. Members are not to be taken at their face value, and that what they said in confidence cannot be relied upon as an accurate statement of their opinions on this important question.
    My Noble Friend the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) has a proposal which is going to solve all these difficulties as to what the Princes mean. His proposal is that we should

    1279
    proceed with the Bill and ask the Chamber of Princes or some other body whether they accept it. Before we pass the Third Reading we are to put that question to the Chamber and to the Central Legislature, and let them answer "Yes" or "No." It is one thing to put a question to somebody, as I know, and tell him to answer "Yes" or "No," and a very different thing to get an answer. If my Noble Friend the Member for Oxford University is so sanguine as to believe that the Princes and the Central Legislature would give him his simple "Yes" or "No," I can understand the rest of my right hon. Friend's suggestion. The fact is, as everybody must appreciate, that if a question of that sort were put to the Princes they would say, "Yes, we are prepared to come in on certain conditions contained in paragraphs (a) to (z)," and then where should we be? Exctly at the beginning. Talk about making a new start: My Noble Friend would have to make a great many appearances in this House and submit a great many questions to the Princes before we should get to the end of it.
    As my Noble Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) has said, that would be tantamount to an abdication of the functions of this House. I have yet to learn that the House of Commons or Parliament in governing this great Empire, of which India is a part, is unable to make up its own mind. We have a great function to play in the government of India, and not the smallest part of it is to help to settle those questions upon which, unhappily, the people of India are not able to arrive at a common agreement among themselves. How easy would be our task if we could compose the communal differences or the political differences of the people of India. We have, I think, not been unready to consider Indian opinion as expressed in many conferences and in many a private discussion, but in the end this Parliament has to make up its mind as to what measures it will propose to India. It will then be for us to see whether the forebodings of my right
    hon. Friend the Member for Epping are right, or whether the high hopes which some other people have formed are justified. If it be the right hon. Gentleman's purpose—or, not his purpose, but the effect of his speech—to-night and on other occasions, to disparage the Bill as, for instance, when he described it to-night as "one more slurge "—I know as little about the word "slurge" as my Noble Friend the Member for West Derbyshire did about "resile," but I gather that it is something unworthy and disgraceful—it is our part to try to build while he tries to prevent us. We must, perhaps, work with the trowel in one hand and with the sword in the other, while the enemy tries to prevent us from building the walls of this new constitution.
    I read with great interest, indeed, I may sincerely say with not a little emotion, the statement which is made in one of the documents as to the motives which brought the Princes originally into a scheme of Federation. They say in paragraph 27:
    "In conclusion, it will be well to remember that the Princes originally accepted the invitation to federate out of their anxious desire to be of service to the Empire."
    Could there be a more worthy note upon which to end our discussion? The question I would ask the Committee to answer is, Do they think that we are likely to make an end of our difficulties, perplexities or problems by adopting the course which the right hon. Gentleman proposes of abandoning the Bill and beginning afresh with some scheme not more congenial than the present Bill to my right hon. Friend or to the Indian people, or shall we not be best following the Princes of India in their desire to be of service to the Empire if we build as firmly as we can on the sound and solid foundation of conference and examination? The task may truly be a difficult one, but the prize at the end of it is glorious if we are faithful to our responsibilities.
    Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 94; Noes, 270.

    Division No. 113.]

    AYES.

    [7.25 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Alexander, Sir William

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Banfield, John William

    Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

    Bailey, Eric Alfred George

    Batey, Joseph

    Bracken, Brendan

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Milner, Major James

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

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

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

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

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

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

    Paling, Wilfred

    Burnett, John George

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Cape, Thomas

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Carver, Major William H.

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Reid, David D. (County Down)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Remer, John R.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    John, William

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

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

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

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

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor)

    Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.

    Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

    Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)

    Crott, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Kimball, Lawrence

    Templeton, William P.

    Daggar, George

    Kirkwood, David

    Thorne, William James

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lawson, John James

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

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Lees-Jones, John

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Dawson, Sir Phillp

    Leonard, William

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Dobble, William

    Levy, Thomas

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Donner, P. W.

    Lunn, William

    West, F. R.

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

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

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

    Wragg, Herbert

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Maltland, Adam

    Greene, William P. C.

    Maxton, James

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Mr. Raikes and Mr. Lennox-Boyd.

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

    Cooper, A. Duff

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

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

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Albery, Irving James

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

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

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

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Cross, R. H.

    Harbord, Arthur

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

    Crossley, A. C.

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Apsley, Lord

    Culverwell, Cyril Tom

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)

    Assheton, Ralph

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

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Ballile, Sir Adrian W. M.

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

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Balniel, Lord

    Danville, Alfred

    Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

    Barciay-Harvey, C. M.

    Dickle, Jonn P.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

    Doran, Edward

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Duckworth, George A. V.

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

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Hopkinson, Austin

    Belt, Sir Alfred L.

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

    Hornby, Frank

    Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

    Dunglass, Lord

    Horobin, Ian M.

    Bernays, Robert

    Eales, John Frederick

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Blrchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Eastwood, John Francis

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Borodale, Viscount.

    Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Bower, Commander Robert Tatton

    Edmondson, Major Sir James

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Boyce, H. Leslle

    Elils, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Bralthwalte, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Entwistle. Cyril Fullard

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

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Eesenhigh, Reginald Clare

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

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Iveagh, Countess of

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

    Fleiden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

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

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Jamieson, Douglas

    Burghley, Lord

    Fox, Sir Glfford

    Janner, Barnett

    Butler, Richard Austen

    Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

    Jennings, Roland

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Josson, Major Thomas E.

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Cassels, James Dale

    Gibson, Charles Granville

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

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

    Kirkpatrick, William M.

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

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Knight, Holford

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

    Gluckstein, Louis Haile

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Goldie, Noel B.

    Law Sir Alfred

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

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

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Graves, Marjorle

    Leech, Dr. J. W

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Conant, R. J. E.

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

    Lewis, Oswald

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Grigg, Sir Edward

    Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

    Cooke, Douglas

    Grlmston, R. V.

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    1282

    1283

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Ormiston, Thomas

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    Spens, William Patrick

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Loder, Captain J. de Vera

    Pearson, William G.

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

    Lottus, Pierce C.

    Peat, Charles u.

    Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Stevenson, James

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Stones, James

    Mabane, William

    Petherick, M.

    Storey, Samuel

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

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

    Strauss, Edward A.

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

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Mac Donald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Radford, E. A.

    Summersby, Charles H.

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

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

    Sutcllffe, Harold

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

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

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Magnay, Thomas

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Makins, Brlgadisr-General Ernest

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Thompson, Sir Luke

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

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

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

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswintord)

    Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Tree, Ronald

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

    Rickards, George William

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Mayhew, Lieut-Colonel John

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Meller, Sir Richard James

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

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

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward

    Wardlaw-Mline, Sir John S.

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Watt, Major George Steven H.

    Milne, Charles

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Salt, Edward W.

    White, Henry Graham

    Mitcheson, G. G.

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

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Sandys, Edwin Duncan

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

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

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

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

    Selley, Harry R.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

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

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Morrison, William Shephard

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Womersley, Sir Walter

    Muirhead, Lieut-Colonel A. J.

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

    Munro, Patrick

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Smithers, Sir Waldron

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Normand, Rt. Hon. Willtrld

    Somerville, D. G. (Willesdon, East)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    O'Connor, Terence James

    Soper, Richard

    Sir George Penny and Sir Victor

    Warrender.

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

    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 54.—(Superintendence of Governor-General.)
    7.35 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, in page 35, line 16, to leave out from "shall" to "be" in line 18.
    This Amendment, which stands on the Order Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend, and the next Amendment in his name, are drafting Amendments.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 35, line 24, at the end, to add:
    "(2) Before giving any directions under this Section the Governor-General shall satisfy himself that nothing in the directions requires the Governor to act in any manner inconsistent with any Instrument of Instructions issued to the Governor by His Majesty."—[The Solicitor-General.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 55.—(Advocate-General.)
    7.36 p.m.
    Sir REGINALD CRADDOCK: I beg to move, in page 35, line 31, at the end, to insert "by the Governor."
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: We accept this Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,"
    7.37 p.m.
    Sir GERALD HURST: I should like, if I may, to refer to an Amendment which I put down to this Clause—in page 35, line 38, to leave out "exercise his individual judgment," and insert "consult the Chief Justice." This Amendment has not been called, but I venture to suggest that it is pertinent to raise the matter now. In the paragraphs of the report of the Joint Select Committee which deal with the appointment of Advocates-General in the Provinces, stress is laid upon the very important functions which they have to fulfil. The Advocate-General will be a law officer. He advises the provincial Government on any legal problem which may be referred to him, and represents the Crown in civil and criminal matters.
    Paragraph 401 of the report states that it was no part of the intention of the Joint Select Committee to suggest that the office of Advocate-General should have

    1285
    a political side to it. The position of Advocate-General to a provincial Government is not, therefore, analogous to that of a law officer in this country, and the Committee recommend that he should be entirely free from the trammels of political or party associations, and should be selected by the Governor at his discretion. As I understand it, this recommendation of the Committee would mean that the Governor should make such an appointment entirely at his own independent discretion, without taking any counsel at all. Sub-section (4) of Clause 55 says that the Governor "shall exercise his individual judgment," and, having regard to an earlier provision, in Clause 50, the Governor, in exercising his individual judgment in selecting an Advocate-General, would in normal cases consult his ministers. In other words, he would consult persons who might very well have political, communal or family loyalties, and might regard the appointment as one of political value. If that be the true construction of the Sub-section, it is clearly a departure from the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee that the Advocate-General should be selected-at the discretion of the Governor.
    It would seem better to keep the matter entirely out of the political field. If the Governor had to consult his Ministers, it might very well lead to friction, as Ministers might, consciously or sub-consciously, be influenced by their associations, political, communal or otherwise, with a particular nominee. At any rate, that is how it appears to me and to a number of lawyers in India who have communicated their views to me, as well as to other Members of the House who practise the law, and it was with a view to eliciting the views of the Secretary of State or the Solicitor-General on this matter that I put down the Amendment. If my argument is well founded, I suggest that this Sub-section ought not to represent the last word of the Government on the matter.
    7.42 p.m.
    Earl WINTERTON: I hope that, when the Solicitor-General replies to my hon. and learned Friend, he will be good enough to tell us what is the effect of the Amendment which he has just accepted. As an old Member of the House, I rather deprecate the acceptance
    1286
    of any Amendment on a Bill of this kind, however important, without a word of explanation by the Mover or by the Solicitor-General. The Amendment in question is probably an unimportant one, but perhaps the Solicitor-General will be good enough to say what effect it will have on the Clause.
    7.43 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I apologise to the Committee if I was a little over-hasty in indicating our acceptance of the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock). The reason for its being accepted is that an exactly similar Amendment to the corresponding Clause dealing with the Advocate-General in the Federal Legislature was agreed to. The Amendment adds nothing to the substance of the Clause; it is a matter of drafting, to make the position more clear.
    With regard to the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Moss Side (Sir G. Hurst), the position, as the Committee will be aware, is that the words "in his individual judgment" do not in any sense imply that the Governor has not in the last resort complete discretion as to how he shall act. The words "in his individual judgment" are used when the matter is primarily within the ministerial field, while the words "in his discretion" are used when the matter is outside that field. In our view, as the function of the Advocate-General is to advise the Provincial Government, it would be quite wrong to take the question of who should be appointed completely out of the ministerial field, and I think there might be resentment if that were done. It is because we are alive to the importance of the Joint Select Committee's recommendation that this office should not have a political complexion, and therefore should be held by a man with the confidence of successive governments, that we have provided that the Governor shall have the final word. I assure my hon. and learned Friend that the final discretion of the Governor is completely unfettered, and that we are carrying out to the full the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee, but, as the primary function of the Advocate-General is to advise the Provincial Government, it would be wrong if Ministers had no locus standi in suggesting to the Governor a name for his consideration.

    CLAUSE 56.—(Provisions as to police rules.)
    7.45 p.m.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I beg to move, in page 35, line 39, to leave out "proposed," and to insert "directed by the Governor-General. "
    I understand, Captain Bourne, that under this Amendment you will allow the Committee to discuss broadly the question of the transfer of law and order to a Minister responsible not to the Governor but to a wholly elected Provincial Legislature. I wish first to remind hon. Members that the term "law and order" not only applies to the police, but includes also the powers of a district magistrate in regard to the police, who act in an emergency under his orders. It also includes the charge of prisons and kindred institutions and the powers of a Provincial Government in relation to the appointment, posting, and promotion of magistrates and of judges below those of the High Court.
    Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: On a point of Order. Which Amendments are included in this general discussion?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Amendment which the Noble Lady is moving will cover the other two Amendments to this Clause standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill)—in page 36, line 2, after "military," to insert:
    "the Governor shall carry out such direction and in doing so,"
    and, in line 3, to leave out from "respect" to the end of the Clause, and to add, "thereto so far as such direction permits." It will depend on the width of the discussion whether other Amendments on the Paper may or may not be covered.
    Mr. ATTLEE: Can the Noble Lady give us the substance of the Amendment she is now moving?
    Duchess of ATHOLL: The substance of the Amendment is that the Governor of a Province in relation to the power given him under Clause 56 to give or withhold his approval to the amendment of rules or regulations relating to the police should be acting at the instance
    1288
    of the Governor-General, but I understand, Captain Bourne, that you are ready to allow the general question of the transfer of law and order to be discussed on this Amendment, and I would, therefore, return to the point that this question includes the powers of provincial governments to make appointments of magistrates and of judges below those of the High Court. The High Court may make recommendations regarding appointments but they may be fettered by rules made by the Provincial Government, and in the majority of cases I understand that the power of appointment rests with that Government. It may be said that the question of law and order includes all the duties of the Home Secretary in this country and more, because the Minister in charge of law and order would have the whole of the police of a Province under his orders and not merely a section of the police, as in this country. Then we remember that this proposal to transfer law and order originated with the Statutory Commission and that they gave two reasons. The first was that they wished dyarchy to come to an end, and the second was that they considered that to reserve the police would concentrate hostility on them.
    The first argument, that dyarchy must go, has now been put out of court since it has been proposed that dyarchy should be introduced into the central government. There remains, therefore, only the argument that hostility would be concentrated on the police, but it seems to me that that argument has also been destroyed by the Prime Minister's communal award. In every Province in India, with one exception, that award will give one community or the other unfettered rule, and place it in an absolute majority in the Provincial Legislature. The police must therefore be the instrument of the majority community, and seeing what the feeling is to-day (between Hindu and Moslem, does it not stand to reason that there is likely to be far greater hostility felt towards the police, say, by a Hindu minority when the police is the instrument of a Moslem Government, and, vice versa, infinitely greater hostility than is felt to-day when the police are the instruments of a Government which, even though it may be blamed, is recognised as a Government that is neither Moslem nor Hindu, but impartial? That con-

    1289
    sideration has been far too long lost sight of, and absolutely answers the second reason given by the Statutory Commission for proposing this change. The Committee may further remember that the police witnesses before the Joint Select Committee bore witness to the popularity of the police with the masses of the people, as shown by the fact that when it was proposed to close a police station, there was an outcry. We have therefore to recognise at the outset of the discussion of this question that the only two reasons given by the Statutory Commission for recommending this tremendous step have fallen to the ground.
    It should also be remembered that the Commission were very candid in setting forth the reasons against the change. They stressed the fears expressed by the police and the general public of loss of impartiality once the man in charge of the police—the Minister, that is to say—would be a Hindu or a Moslem responsible to a Legislature in which Hindu or Moslems must predominate. It was recognised that there was bound to be pressure on the Minister from members of his community to make appointments and promotions in the police and that it might be very difficult on account of communal feeling for him to stand up against that pressure. This was said to the Statutory Commission by seven Inspectors-General of police whom they heard, and I understand that the same fears were expressed in memorials signed by British and Indian police officers which were sent to the Statutory Commission. A police witness before the Joint Select Committee indeed said that he had found Indian police officers even more opposed to the transfer than British officers, and the Statutory Commission with a candour for which I wish to give them my humble meed of praise, said they had found members of rival communities which had said they would rather have a European or Indian Christian in charge of law and order than one of the communities in question. When we remember that the Commission themselves recorded how the work of local authorities and of education had deteriorated mainly because of this communal pressure on a Minister of education or members of local authorities, to make appointments on grounds of community, caste, or family, it seems to me
    1290
    that they might well have recognised that it would be infinitely more serious to the community that appointments should be made for those reasons in the police force than in the education service or by the local authorities.
    Now when the Commission recommended this change they could say that the police were entirely free from this communal bias and pressure, and they recorded their appreciation of the fact, but those who have read the evidence of the police witnesses before the Joint Select Committee will have found that events have moved on since the Statutory Commission reported. An ex-inspector general of police, Sir Charles Stead, frankly told the Committee that the one reason why he had been glad to leave India at the end of his service was because of the daily relentless persecution to which he was subjected by members of the Provincial Legislature who came to him and urged him to make appointments in the police for communal or other reasons. He said that it was the "mere talk of transfer" which had brought this about, and he went on to say that such pressure would be infinitely more severe on the Minister and that it would be much more difficult for him to stand up against it. That has been confirmed to me by another ex-inspector general of police, who has said that a Minister would have to be a superman to be able to stand up against such pressure.
    Then the Commission themselves recognised the difficulty the Governor would have in knowing whether this communal feeling had begun to creep into the force. They spoke of the
    "impossibility of checking from headquarters the injustices which communal bias inside the police force might inflict on the countryside and how impossible it was to minimise the importance "
    of that matter. That again was just the fear expressed by police witnesses to the Joint Select Committee. They said that they did not so much fear a sudden crash of the police as the gradual, insidious sapping of their morale and discipline by this influence creeping in unseen through communal appointments. They feared that the individual policeman who to-day does his duty impartially against Moslem or Hindu or Sikh would gradually become community conscious, and might hesitate to act against his

    1291
    own community or against the majority community in case the Minister under pressure might let him down.
    Another reason given by the Statutory Commission for this recommendation was the need for quick and prompt co-operation between the police and the Ministry in case of trouble—the absolute necessity in a country where feelings are easily aroused and are so inflammable of nipping in the bud any sign of trouble. That was confirmed by an ex-inspector general of police and others to the Joint Committee. They were told how to-day there is this close co-operation between district magistrates and the military authorities, and that very often in an emergency troops are asked for by the district magistrate without reference to the headquarters of a Province. The witnesses, however, expressed doubt, which I feel sure many Members of this Committee will echo, whether you can expect such close co-operation in future, when the district magistrate will be responsible, not to the Governor, but to a Minister, and the military forces will be under the control of the Governor-General. When we remember how very quickly serious trouble may flame up, it seems to me that this lack of co-operation may mean the loss of scores of lives. Take the case of the Cawnpore riot of 1931. In two or three hours, without any warning at all, a riot flared up which lasted for about 12 days, in the course of which considerable military forces had to pour into the city day after day, as well as hundreds of extra police. It meant the burning of a large part of the native city of Cawnpore and the loss of hundreds of lives.
    It seems to me therefore that the only two arguments used by the Statutory Commission in favour of their recommendations have been completely answered, and that experience, on the other hand, has confirmed the correctness of the reasons given against the change. Let us also remember that the Commission only recommended this change subject to the Governor having the power to' nominate one or more Ministers to be responsible to himself alone, and that was a way out of the difficulty recommended by four of the Provincial Governors; so that we have to-day a proposal which is not that of the Statutory Commission, but one which
    1292
    lacks the one considerable safeguard which they proposed. I think the Committee should also know that so strong were the fears among the police officers in India after the Commission reported in favour of the transfer, that the Bengal Police Association and the Indian Police Association both sent very strongly worded memorials to the Secretary of State against the recommendation of the Commission. I imagine that it was probably an unprecedented course for a loyal body such as the police to take, when their views had not been accepted, actually to memorialise the Secretary of State after the Commission had reported. It shows how very strongly they felt on the matter.
    I now come to another point. Some of the Committee may have observed that the Statutory Commission in talking of the transfer of law and order only refer to the police. They say nothing whatever about the transfer of the district magistrate in his relation to the police, though in Volume I of their report they showed full appreciation of the importance of his position. Stranger still, there is no mention whatever that the transfer of law and order would mean the transfer of the powers of a provincial government in relation to the appointment of magistrates and the subordinate judiciary. I find the explanation of this strange omission in a fact which seems stranger still to me, namely, that the Commission only heard one judicial witness and that no member of the Commission put to that judicial witness the question: What would you think of a transfer of law and order?
    It was a discovery that staggered me when I made it about 18 months ago, and I thought it a matter of such importance that I endeavoured to make it public in a letter to an important newspaper, but the letter was not published. It is just one of many instances in which those of us who have been trying to bring out the facts with regard to India have found it extraordinarily difficult to do so. The omission from the Statutory Commission's Report is all the stranger, because they must have realised what a land of litigation India is and how it plays a far larger part in the life of the community generally there than it does in this country.
    Surely, also, it must be evident that if you have reason to fear communal or

    1293
    caste influence in regard to appointments or promotions, dangerous as they must be in regard to the police, may they not be even more dangerous in appointments to the judiciary, because it may be easier to see the result of any insidious influences that have acted in regard to the police and to take some steps to counteract them? At least the mischief may be more visible in the case of the police than it is likely to be in the case of the law courts. Imagine how insidious these influences may be that are likely to press on a judge—how insidious the influence on his decisions, due to the fact that he owes his appointment to a particular community or caste. To-day there are rules fettering the discretion of the judges of the High Court in the Punjab with regard to the appointment of subordinate judges, which illustrate how communal feeling has already crept into the appointments there. These rules lay down that out of every eleven candidates who pass an examination conducted by the High Court four have to be Moslems, four Hindus, two Sikhs, and one Christian. I have been informed by ex-judges of that High Court that in consequence they have very often to go far down the list to find a candidate who is of the right community. That shows that communal influence is already at work in judicial appointments in that Province, and surely when you have a Minister in charge who is likely to be a Hindu, Moslem or Sikh, this communal influence will be much more strongly exercised on him.
    An ex-district judge, giving evidence before the Joint Select Committee, spoke of another kind of pressure, of pressure that might be exercised on the minister by friends of litigants, endeavouring to secure favourable verdicts for their friends. He said that the minister might also be pestered by relations of any one who was under trial for any criminal offence, and he went on to tell the committee of experiences he had himself had of intrigue that had been set on foot to get the minister to reverse a judgment he had given, or to issue some order amending a judgment he had given He went on to say that the penalty the judge might have to meet for not falling in with the minister's wishes in a matter of this kind might be removal to an unhealthy station, to which he could not take his
    1294
    wife and family. Stations in India must vary infinitely more in regard to climate and amenities generally than stations in this country to which judges or other high officials may be posted, and that fact of the variety of unhealthiness of climate and amenities obviously puts a tremendous power in the hands of a minister who may be annoyed with a judge because of some decision he has given. Imagine how the independence of a judge must be sapped by any feeling that pressure can be brought to bear on a minister to upset or influence his judgment. And of course the police are-helpless unless they are backed up by the magistracy and the courts generally. They must all work together. If any of them become demoralised or weakened or biassed in any way, the whole structure of law and order must threaten to crash. So do not let us forget that in regard to this great question of law and order the Statutory Commission only discussed the question of the transfer of the police.
    I would now go on to remind the Committee how much more dangerous this transfer would be than it might appear in 1930 when the Commission reported. At that time civil disobedience was in its infancy. Terrorism had only just revived in Bengal. Since then we have had in Bengal what Sir Charles Tegart, the ex-Commissioner of Police in Calcutta, has described as the most serious of all the terrorist campaigns. We have the Memorandum of the Secretary of State to the Joint Select Committee, which says that since 1930 there have been terrorist outrages in every Province in India. Also in these years since the Comimission reported, we have had the admitted growth of Communism in India; and, finally, in the Memorandum I have referred to, the Secretary of State tells us of the recrudescence of the Ghadr movement among the Sikhs, which attempted to upset the loyalty of our Sikh regiments in the War and caused a great deal of trouble in the Punjab. The Secretary of State said a movement was actually on foot to link up Terrorism, Communism and the Ghadr movement, and he spoke of it as extremely dangerous.
    Again, we know from the recent elections in India that Congress is the strongest political party there. It may

    1295
    shortly be in power in five or six Provinces when the nominated element is withdrawn from the Provincial Legislature. We know, also, from the Secretary of State's Memorandum that there is a close connection between Terrorism and Congress, anyhow in Bengal. Imagine the danger to life and safety if you have a Congress minister in charge of law and order who may have affiliations with the Terrorist party. Imagine the danger of the victimisation of those loyal police officers and men who, in the discharge of their duty, have had to arrest members of the Terrorist movement. We have, of course, to recognise that Clause 57 is an admission, and a welcome admission, of how serious the Terrorist movement can be, because we know it gives power to the Governor, in the event of there being a revolutionary movement in his Province to upset his Government by violent crime, to take control of whatever department of Government he may consider necessary to combat these crimes. The Joint Select Committee recommended that unless the position had very greatly improved at the time the new Constitution was inaugurated, these powers should not be transferred in Bengal, or at least that the Governor should retain whatever power he considered necessary; but the Secretary of State's Memorandum shows that you may have a very serious situation in every Province in which terrorism has shown its head, and therefore we who oppose the transfer of law and order cannot rest content with the mere suggestion that this course be limited to Bengal.
    I also regret extremely that the powers given to the Governor in Clause 57 are only to refer to cases in which a Government is threatened to be overthrown by crime. There is much loss of life, much disorder—one might almost say anarchy—at different times and places in India which cannot be described as coming under that Clause. There was an agrarian uprising in 1921—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I notice the Noble Lady has an Amendment on these lines down on Clause 57. If she discusses it now, it must be on the clear understanding that that Amendment is only moved formally.
    Viscount WOLMER: Is there not a general understanding that the whole
    1296
    question of law and order is to be discussed on this particular Amendment, and we are not to have further discussions on later Amendments?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I was trying to make the position of the Chair perfectly clear on that point.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I understood that was so, that if I discussed that Amendment now I could merely move it formally later on. I should just like to indicate the reasons for this later Amendment, because it serves to show how many different forms of crime you may have in India which may cause very serious loss of life and possessions without the situation arising which is dealt with under Clause 57. In 1921 there was an outbreak of agrarian trouble in the United Provinces, because of the attempts of some landlords to extort heavy fines on the renewal of leases, which the law at that time only enabled to be quite short. The trouble was so serious that troops were called out, and the Act had to be hurriedly amended. That is the sort of situation you cannot imagine arising in this country. There is in India a completely different state of things which has to be judged on an entirely different standard. Again, a judicial witness before the Joint Select Committee expressed the fear that if taxation became oppressive, as it very well might because of all the additional expenditure this new Constitution will place on India, you might have a great deal of agrarian uprising. This witness reminded the Committee how the people rose in Alwar and Kashmir because they thought taxation exorbitant and unjust, though he said that often in Indian States the people are apt to be more patient and tolerant than they are sometimes in British India. He stressed most strongly the fear of much agrarian discontent from further taxation.
    But however much you may have troubles of that kind in a Province the Governor cannot resume control. He may give orders over his minister's head. He may dismiss the Minister—dismiss them all, if he feels strong enough—but all he can do is to keep on appointing new ministers one after another. He cannot resume control himself. Again, his hands are tied if there is communal trouble, and this has caused much greater loss of life than even these terrorist outrages. Terrorist outrages are specifically aimed

    1297
    at Government officials. Valuable men, British and Indian, have lost their lives in consequence, but Terrorism is not the same menace to the public in general in India that communal riots are. Take, for instance, the case of the Moplah rising in 1921. That went on for months, and meant the slaughter of thousands of Hindus. I have heard of a collector's area in which all the wells were filled up with the bodies of Hindus. That is a situation in which, if it arises, the Governor cannot resume control. All he can do is to get a change of Minister, however difficult it may be to find the right man. The same applies to the incident reported in to-day's newspapers in which we read with very great regret of the Army firing on a Moslem crowd. Imagine how difficult it might be for a Hindu or even for a Moslem minister to deal with a situation of that kind. Yet that is a situation in which the Governor could only act through his ministers.
    Take, again, a serious outbreak of organised crime. There are whole tribes whose hereditary occupation is crime, and is it realised how much crime there is in the North-West Frontier Province, which are to have law and order transferred just as much as any of the older provinces? The conditions on the North-West Frontier were described by a retired officer of long experience to the Joint Select Committee. He described the Frontier as
    "a country of immense thieving propensities and dacoities"—
    A dacoity is robbery by an armed band—
    "robbery under arms and the robbery of the trader and the carrying off of his wives, these are the ordinary rules of the Frontier."
    Again, if you have a condition of that kind on the Frontier, or if you have it worse than usual, the Governor is powerless to take over control. It will give an example of how serious crime can be in that part of India, if I tell the Committee that in 1932, whereas there were three murders for every million of the population in England and Wales, in the North-West Frontier that year there were 138 per million. That will give an idea of the very serious amount of crime there is to be dealt with. Another witness from Bihar and Orissa told the Joint Select Committee of districts in which he had had complaints of 300 dacoities before a charge could be lodged at all, and that
    1298
    he had only learned of this immense number of dacoities because he happened to be on tour. If he had stayed at his headquarters he would not have heard of them. And a distressing fact is that in Bengal there has been a great increase of dacoities since before the War. According to an answer given by the Secretary of State a few months ago, dacoities inceased from some 250 in 1913, to 1,900 in 1931 and 1,800 in 1932. I have actually heard of a village not far from Calcutta in which sometimes villagers have had to stay up at night in turn to give warning against attacks by dacoities because they could not get protection. You have then this very serious form of organised crime, evidence that it may increase and that there may be a great deal of it of which a good district commissioner does not know, and yet, however bad it may be, the Governor may not resume control of law and order.
    Again, you may have serious disturbance arising out of interference with or obstruction of rights of sale and purchase. An instance of that was the Congress boycott of British cloth in 1930–31. We know what paralysis that caused in the streets of Bombay, that men and women threw themselves down before the trams. It was a very serious situation indeed. A dealer was murdered at Benares for stocking British cloth and a communal riot ensued in which 70 people were killed. Then there was the riot at Cawnpore, originating actually from the "hartal ", imposed on the Moslems by the Hindus, to which the Moslems refused to submit. They were ordered to close their shops because of the execution of Bhagat Singh and they refused, with the result that there was the trouble to which I have already referred. But again, in situations such as these the Governor could not resume control. I have therefore put down an Amendment covering these cases because I feel that Clause 57 is quite inadequate to deal with the variety of serious situations which may arise in India and which may mean more loss of life and property to the ordinary rank and file than the terrorist crimes mentioned in the Clause.
    I should like finally to remind the Committee of the very grave fears expressed by police witnesses to the Joint Select Committee not merely on account of the

    1299
    communal question, but on many other grounds, and of the many safeguards for which they asked. In particular they asked that their powers should not be interfered with, and that is why I have put down an Amendment to this effect. It was not enough, they said, to leave them with the rules they had at present as regards organisation and discipline, as proposed in Clause 56. The thing they stressed was that their powers should not be frittered away as they feared they would be in certain circumstances. They also asked for Federal supervision and for a Federal inspector of police in order to keep the police force in each Province up to a uniform minimum standard. But that too, has been ignored by the Government. Very few of the safeguards for which the police asked have in fact been embodied in the Bill. Yet they made a very grave statement to the Committee to the effect that
    "unless the Government are prepared to carry them out "—
    the safeguards for which they asked—
    "we doubt whether it will he worth their while to retain an Imperial Police service in India, and it might be the best course to wind up the Indian Police, as a service immediately—a course already favoured, in any case, by a considerable minority among ourselves."
    I do not think that you could have a graver statement from loyal, experienced and responsible men. We feel that it is a tremendous responsibility to hand over law and order under the conditions prevailing in India to-day, because it means, not endangering our own lives or the lives of those near and dear to us or our own property, but the lives and property of millions of other and much more helpless people. We feel that it is a responsibility we are not prepared to shoulder, and therefore I beg to move the Amendment on the Paper.
    8.24 p.m.
    Sir CHARLES OMAN: I must confess that I was rather surprised by the wording of this Clause. It begins:
    "Where it is proposed that the Governor of a Province should."
    Proposed by whom? Proposed by himself? Proposed by one of his Ministers? Proposed by any body of Ministers? Proposed by the vote of the Provincial Assembly, or how? Surely, there never was a more ridiculous piece of absolutely
    1300
    bad drafting than the phrase which begins "Where it is proposed." I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman in charge of the legal side of this Bill what is the actual meaning of "Where it is proposed "? It really sounds like something anonymous—merely a suggestion. The Clause itself is absurdly drafted. I am now coming to the contents of the Clause. This proposes that the Governor should have a very large control of making or amending rules and regulations, relating to civil or military and police forces under him. There are Governors and Governors. There is the Governor, conceived no doubt by the framers of the Bill, who is a sort of superman. He is "beautiful, bounteous and bold," and fears no man. There are also the real governors, of whom I have known several, who sometimes are very ordinary human beings, not unsusceptible to influences of physical fatigue or to considerations of health or to local troubles in the Assembly district. We have to look at an ordinary governor on whom pressure is brought, I suppose by some Minister or by some body of Ministers. If weak or ailing he may be bullied into making shifts and changes with his police force.
    It seems to me that this is a most dangerous chance. You may have a governor of perfect rectitude, yet attempts may be made to induce him to tamper in an unhappy way with the police force. Let us remember that we are not dealing with a super-governor but with an ordinary governor. He may be English and rather weak or out of sorts. On the other hand he may be, under the new system, an Indian, no doubt a very estimable person, since he has reached that position, but still he may be not altogether unliable to be influenced by pressure being continually brought to bear upon him by his co-religionists. I can imagine a governor, either a weak English governor or an intensely pliable Indian governor, doing certain things in order to please those who are continually pestering him. Probably the pressure of Ministers will lead him into making lavish and not very wise changes in the police administration of the district. It may be that he will be influenced to cut down the number of armed police in a certain district, or to leave them with inferior arms, or to shift the properly armed force from one district to another. Those sort of things come under his administra-

    1301
    tion and they are left to be settled by his individual judgment. I am very glad that I do not always have to rely upon my own individual judgment in all circumstances or to rely solely on official advisers, but that I am allowed to take counsel. In this case it seems to me that there is very considerable danger of a weakening of control in one part or other of a district by a governor who is under sinister influences.
    I do not think that I shall be wandering from the subject if I pay a high tribute of respect and gratitude to the Indian police. Perhaps more than anybody else in the House I am entitled to pay this tribute, because I probably should not have been in existence had it not been for the Indian police. At the time of the mutiny, when the 12th Irregular Cavalry mutinied, massacred their officers and overspread their country, the police in the district where I was born stood firm. There was temptation for them to become disloyal, because there was a small provincial treasury in their charge and the deputy-commissioner had fled, leaving the whole white population of the district at the mercy of the police. Fortunately, the police, under their English officers, stood firm and actually fired on the Irregular Cavalry, who went off and joined the Lucknow rebels. A considerable number of Europeans were saved by the loyalty of this body of police, and I am proud to pay my testimonial to them. My father and probably a hundred more would have been massacred had it not been for the splendid loyalty of the Indian police in the province of Bihar. I might mention that my own first cousin was in charge of 8,000 Indian -police for 10 or 12 years, and I have that in my memory too; in many trying circumstances his police carried out their duties with extraordinary courage and justice and in face of many dangers, riots and dacoities which were very prevalent in the district.
    I must confess that I look with dismay and horror at the proposal that the Indian police, no longer under their English officers but under the control of the provincial ministers, is to be handed over to the management of the politicians of a Provincial Parliament. One cannot but be impressed with the seriousness and the importance of the declaration which has been signed by an enormous body of police officers, who look forward with
    1302
    dismay to their being left entirely at the mercy of ever-changing Ministers with possibly a very weak Governor, whether he be English or Indian. It seems to me to be absurd and it makes my blood boil with rage to think that this vital service of the police, on which depends the lives not only of our relatives in India but the whole of the population in those parts where there is a communal minority who are at the mercy of a communal majority, is to be handed over to the charge of politicians. For all these years the lives of the Indian people have been safe under the European administration of the police, and now they are to be handed over to the Indian politicians.
    In the old days before the police force was properly organised, in the earlier part of the East India Company's time, there was, no doubt, any amount of maladministration, but fortunately that came to an end. Speaking as one who remembers three generations in India, I recollect that in the 1820's my grandfather had to raise the local lattials and to come out himself to deal with the dacoits, because the police under their Indian durogahs were then perfectly ineffective. That sort of thing is long past. Since European administration of the police has come in that sort of thing has long ceased to be remembered and there has been safety, but I do not see how that safety is to be ensured in future, if the control of the police is to be handed over to a Governor who is under constant pressure from political Ministers.
    8.33 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLER: The Committee will realise that this is a matter of very great importance, and I think they will agree that the Noble Lady who introduced the discussion, in a long and very important speech, is actuated by sincere conviction. No one has taken more trouble to study the evidence given before the Joint Select Committee or to acquaint herself with many of the serious matters involved in this decision. It is always a pleasure when one is able to follow the Noble Lady into every single point in the many researches that she has made, because one then feels that one's own researches are worth while if one can keep pace with her. The decision to transfer law and order was come to after very serious consideration by the Joint Select Com-

    1303
    mittee and the decision has been incorporated in the Bill. The Committee felt and the Government most warmly agree that in this matter the responsibility of the Ministers in the Provinces of India must be a reality. Basing themselves on that conviction there are no proposals in the Bill to reserve the department known as law and order from the general field of responsibilities of Ministers.
    I will confine my reply to answering the points raised by the noble Lady and the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman). The decision not to reserve law and order from the field of responsibilities follows the advice of the Joint Select Committee and that of the Statutory Commission. The Noble Lady picked out two arguments upon which the Statutory Commission based their decision that responsibility in this matter should be real. She referred to the decision of the Statutory Commission that there should be no dyarchy in the provincial field, and the decision with reference to the appointment of certain official members in provincial ministries. The Joint Select Committee considered the question of dyarchy extremely carefully. The problem of dyarchy might occur at various different points. It can occur, for instance, within the relationship of the centre to the province, and no greater friction could occur than the friction which would occur between the sort of centre which the Noble Lady suggests, that is a static centre, and an autonomous province. That is one form of dyarchy.
    The Noble Lady also proposed another form of dyarchy, that is the preservation of the department of law and order within the Province itself. She is therefore proposing in her general plan two forms of friction resulting from the operation of dyarchy. Those who have studied the report of the Joint Select Committee will realise that the operation of dyarchy in these two directions would be disastrous to the successful operation and working of the new Constitution. The Noble Lady then proceeded to develop the views of the Statutory Commission on the subject of official members. She said that the Statutory Commission recommended that the Governor might nominate one or two Ministers to be responsible to him alone, and she implied that it was very
    1304
    probable that one of these official ministers might take over the department of law and order. I do not think that this is actually and literally what was suggested by the Statutory Commission. It would be much fairer to summarise it in this way, that the Statutory Commission suggested that the Governor might find it desirable to include in his Ministry one or more persons who are not elected members of the Legislature. Ordinarily such persons would be experienced officials. They contemplated that at any rate in some Provinces this special minister might be placed in charge of law and order, though they did not say that this in fact must be so. The only member of the Statutory Commission who took exception to that view was the late Lord Burnham, who considered that in every Province one or two places in the Cabinet should be reserved for official members. The actual finding of the Statutory Commission differs materially from the suggestion made by the Noble Lady that they suggested that one or two ministers should be responsible to the Governor alone.
    The Noble Lady fell into another error when she said that the ministers should be responsible to the Governor alone. Those who have studied the report of the Statutory Commission will realise that when they gave this discretionary power to the Governor they did not suggest that there should be any breach in the general responsibilities of the provincial Ministry as a whole, and they indicated that if there was an official minister of this sort he need not necessarily be attached to the department of law and order. From the reading I have made of the Commission's report they intended this device to give administrative advice to the minister, and did not intend such minister to be necessarily attached to the department of law and order. I do not consider that this decision of the Statutory Commission alters very much their general conclusion or their general argument that law and order should be transferred. They use arguments which to me seem quite unanswerable, and which were reiterated by the Joint Select Committee. In their second volume, on page 47, the Statutory Commission say:
    "If essential Votes for the police force cannot be got through, the Governor's power of restoration has to be employed, and all the time the unhealthy atmosphere remains in which elected representatives of

    1305
    the Province, and even Ministers who are responsible to them, treat police administration and expenditure as a subject in which it is for others than themselves to bear unpopularity."
    And they continue:
    "In such a situation the right course seems to us to be to try to change the atmosphere by fixing responsibility upon the shoulders of the critics."
    That shows the common sense nature of the decision of the Statutory Commission not to reserve from the sphere of responsibilities the general administration of the department of law and order. I have done my best to deal with some of the arguments advanced by the Noble Lady, and I now want to put forward some general reasons why I consider it will be extremely unwise not to make the responsibility of Ministers in the Provinces real. We genuinely believe in provincial autonomy. Hon. Members who disagree with us desire to mitigate in this vital matter the, real authority and responsibilities of Provincial Governments. We believe that if you reserve law and order it is not real autonomy. Indeed, provincial autonomy would be completely destroyed. If provincial administration was started in an atmosphere of suspicion and regret, if the proposals of our opponents were accepted, administration within a Province would be almost impossible.
    I want to develop the extent to which the administration of law and order is bound up with all departments within provincial government. Take, first, the department of local self-government. Within the department of local self-government it will fall to the lot of the responsible minister to issue by-laws with regard, for instance, to questions relating to religion. It will be within the province of the minister to make regulations and rules affecting such questions, vital to Indians, as religious endowments. Take the department of education. It is within the power of the minister for education to influence the whole attitude of teachers towards the schools, and we know from the report on the Cawnpore riots of 1931 how a certain amount of trouble was traced to an unhealthy atmosphere and unhealthy administration of the department of education. Those are departments in which there is always a chance for the forces of law and order to be needed at any minute.
    1306
    The result of reserving law and order would be to place on the Governor the burden of dealing with disorder, the cause of which he was quite unable to control. If I pursue that argument a little further and take two other important departments, for example, the Department of Land Revenue, or the Irrigation Department, and if I refer to the possibility that the Noble Lady mentioned, of difficulties over rent or over water rates, for example, the Noble Lady will see the truth of what I have said, that the reserving of law and order would place upon the Governor the burden of dealing with disorder the cause of which he cannot control, and I consider that the friction which would result from the operation of the proposal would land the province in very serious difficulties indeed.
    When we come to the person of the district magistrate himself, we find that he in an Indian Province is the agency through which much of the operation of the necessary orders in the department of law and order occurs. He is the agent who puts the orders into force. If the department of law and order is transferred, the district magistrate would be, in one part of his work, responsible to the Governor, and in the other part of his work, concerned with the general administration of the district, he would be responsible to the minister. So the friction would not only take place in the general framework of the administration of the province, destroying the confidence of both sides, but would take place in the person of the district magistrate himself, than whom there is no more important officer in the whole organisation of our Indian Empire. For these reasons I think the proposal to reserve law and order breaks down, not only because of the lack of confidence and the destruction of genuine provincial autonomy, but also because of the friction it would create and the impossibility almost of running the administration of a particular province.
    Let me now touch upon some of the points raised by the Noble Lady with regard to her own Amendment. The Noble Lady desired that the Government should enlarge the scope of Clause 57, which gives the Governor special powers to take over the departments of gov-

    1307
    ernment necessary to him to combat in particular the menace of terrorism. The Noble Lady referred to the problem of agrarian discontent. We maintain that we have in the Bill powers, in the special responsibility of the Governor, to deal with an emergency of that sort. In explaining our proposals for the operation of the special responsibility of the provincial Governor we have always said that we believe the most valuable moment at which the operation of this special responsibility will occur is in the personal relations between the Governor and his ministers and in the daily operations of the business between the Governor and his responsible ministers.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: Would the Under-Secretary explain whether the special responsibility of the Governor in regard to the prevention of any grave menace to peace and tranquillity would enable him to use the powers of Clause 57 with regard to agrarian discontent and communal riots?
    Mr. BUTLER: The operation of Clause 57 is intended to deal with crimes of violence intended to overthrow the Government, and if the Noble Lady will refer to the relevant paragraph in the Joint Select Committee's report she will see that it is primarily intended to deal with persons preparing to commit crimes. If the Noble Lady will turn to Clause 52, paragraph (a) of Sub-section (1), she will see that it refers to the special responsibility of the Governor for the prevention of any grave menace to the peace or tranquillity of the province, or any part thereof, and that the Governor will have powers, if he considers that there is a, no-rent campaign on foot, to take action sufficiently early by issuing executive orders, if possible with the approval of his minister, and, if that is not possible, without his approval, so that these executive orders are acted upon in time to avert such a calamity as might have occurred in the United Provinces.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: But he will not have power to assume control himself in the case of revolutionary crime.
    Mr. BUTLER: I have attempted to differentiate between the two sorts of emergency. We consider that the responsibility of the Ministers must be genuine
    1308
    and real. We believe that the operation of the special responsibility will give the Governor sufficient powers to intervene sufficiently early and to take sufficient action to meet an emergency to which the Noble Lady referred when she spoke of agrarian discontent. The difference between some of us and some right hon. and hon. Members who oppose us is that we believe that responsibility in the provinces must be genuine and real, and that they wish to hedge about this responsibility and take more and more powers for the executive. It is a genuine difference of opinion. I am certain that responsible government in the provinces cannot develop except in an atmosphere of confidence.
    In conclusion, I wish to say a few words in support of what the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman) said about the excellence of the Indian police. The Indian police require no words of mine to thank them for the arduous work they have done, and the work which I am certain they will continue to do in the new circumstances. I am certain also that if we reserve law and order and continue the sort of attacks which must be made on the police and on the department of law and order if it be reserved to what is regarded as an alien bureaucracy, the position of the Governor in relation to his Ministers will be undermined, and the position of his officers, high or low, in the Province, will be very much disturbed, and confidence will be shaken owing to continued attacks on the executive and on the police. It is because we wish to preserve the moral and efficiency of the police that we have felt it is impossible to reserve the department of law and order from the general operation of the responsibility of Indian Ministers.
    8.54 p.m.
    Mr. MOLSON: I understand we are having a general discussion, and I would like, therefore, to refer to an Amendment which appears on the Paper in my name—in page 36, line 10, to leave out the words "of violence." As the Clause is drafted, it confines the protection which is given to records, and to the witnesses who may bring information to the police, to cases where the Governor apprehends that an attempt to overthrow the Government as by law established is to be made by crimes of violence. I ask the

    1309
    Under-Secretary to consider whether some of the most dangerous attempts to overthrow the Government have not been made by what was alleged at the time to be, not violent methods, but methods of non-violence. That danger has been referred to in the case of agrarian agitation or civil disobedience. We hope that after the passage of the Bill that danger will not be as pressing in the future as it has been in the past, but it is obviously a danger which we have to consider.
    I suggest that there is no reason why this power of the Governor should be strictly limited to crimes of violence. I entirely agree with the Under-Secretary that under the special powers of the Governor he will be able to take such steps as he thinks necessary to maintain the peace and tranquillity of the Province. But in India particularly it is of the utmost importance that information which is given to the police should be secured against any danger of being divulged. I recognise that the greatest danger of harm arising from information being divulged exists in connection with the terrorist movement in Bengal, and I am glad that the Clause covers that point; but I hope that the Government will be prepared to consider extending this protection so as to ensure the secrecy of records relating to any attempt to overthrow the government as by law established, even if such attempt does not adopt the method of crimes of violence. Perhaps between this general discussion and the time when I shall have to move my Amendment the Government will find it possible to give the matter sympathetic consideration.
    8.57 p.m.
    Sir R. CRADDOCK: I have on the Order Paper a new Clause which deals comprehensively with the question of law and order in the Provinces but I do not know whether after this discussion it will be possible for me to submit that new Clause to the Committee or not. I do not know, Sir Dennis, whether it would be possible for you to tell me now.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid it is rather too far ahead for me to be able to tell the hon. Member definitely at the moment but I should say, broadly speaking, that if the new Clause which he has put down raises the whole question of the police it is probably one which would not be selected after this discussion.
    Sir R. CRADDOCK: In those circumstances I should like to speak for a short time on the real difficulties which surround this subject of law and order. I would lay special emphasis on one preliminary point and it is that when the Statutory Commission went round India, large numbers of people definitely opposed the transfer of this subject to Ministers responsible to the legislatures. They were opposed to the idea and they said so with great emphasis. For example the Government of the United Provinces not only did not want the transfer of law and order but did not want the transfer of land revenue and the Government of Bihar followed the same line. Of the committees selected by the provincial legislative councils to co-operate with the Simon Commission that of Bombay was against the transfer of law and order and every committee—except that of Madras which had apparently forgotten the Moplah Rebellion and said that there was no communal question—every committee of a provincial legislature in India had some reservation to make about law and order. Bengal wanted to have a council or board attached to the Minister consisting of a European, a Hindu and a Mohammedan and minorities everywhere were terrified at the prospect of such a transfer to Ministers as is proposed.
    Why do these objections exist? Simply because these people know much better than anybody in this Committee can know how the power involved in holding the keys of law and order can be used and will be used if once control is allowed to pass from impartial hands. That is the fact. Anyone who does not know India, indeed anyone who has not performed administrative work in India would find it difficult to realise the possibilities which exist of intrigues, of false charges, of hushing up cases and other methods of defeating the law and of using the law to favour friends or to wrong enemies. It is difficult for hon. Members here to understand the degree to which communal, racial and religious hatred can be carried and I am sure this Committee would hardly believe instances that can be given of the length to which people in India will go to gratify those hatreds. I have come across the case of a man who killed his own son—which is a terrible thing for a Hindu to do—simply in order

    1311
    to get his enemy punished for the murder. That is an illustration of the degree to which hatred can go and such hatreds pass from one generation to another.
    Imagine then the enormous temptation which faces the police at all times. Then the Committee must realise that the police are not the only factor in the situation. In many places the system followed is that of the old village official—the village head man and the village watchman. These are the people who bring the first report of a crime and it is the sub-inspector, probably a man with 50 or 60 rupees a month who has the responsibility of dealing with it. It is the experience of every administrator that if there is slack control in a district or in a corner of a district then the whole system of maintaining order in that district or corner of the district begins to deteriorate. The police become inefficient, the criminals become bolder and there is a general slackness. These Ministers have had no experience in this class of administration and it is extremely unlikely that they will be able to control the police properly. They will be subject possibly to enormous pressure of all kinds. People will endeavour to get them to use their influence to the disadvantage of enemies or the benefit of friends.
    When that pressure is going on you never know where trouble may break out. There is every chance in a district where slackness exists of crime being hushed up by village officers and by policemen. At present the constant supervision of British officers and of the best Indian officers is required to keep the police up to the mark. They are scattered all over the country in small stations each perhaps holding 10 to 12 and sometimes grave danger arises as when the non-co-operation and civil disobedience movement began in the United Provinces in 1921. It was then that the famous case occurred in which the ryots were inflamed and attacked a police station and of 24 people there only two escaped to tell the tale. That shows the danger. In that case had there been co-operation among the agitators in the civil disobedience movement the rural police of the whole countryside would have been wiped out.
    1312
    Therefore, it is most imperative that, whatever else you transfer, you should keep in reserve law and order. I do not propose that it should be kept for good, but what I do propose and advocate most strongly is that it should be kept at most for a few years until the results of these other reforms have shown themselves. The Simon Commission stated quite boldly, frankly and properly the arguments against transfer, but the Foreign Secretary said the other day that when he had shown this to an officer of the police, he said to him, "After you have said that I do not see how you are ever going to transfer law and order." The right hon. Gentleman said, "You wait and see." Of course, he could say that, because he knew the arguments he was going to use to shatter the arguments against transfer. But those arguments are by no means shattered. One argument is that it is a constitutional anomaly to call it provincial autonomy and responsible government and to have law and order transferred for the time being. Who cares about political anomalies over the whole case of India? Do you suppose that criminals care twopence about anomalies of that kind? That is a wasted argument. They do not care about these things in India except to use them to confute us. But they are not arguments that they care about as if they knew all the fine shades of meaning in constitutional methods. We are dealing with practical considerations and the safety of the whole population, and are we to be deflected because people in the West think that this and that is a constitutional anomaly? That argument has no bearing on the situation at all. We have to face realities, and not answer solid arguments by pure theories.
    Then comes the most unworthy argument ever put up in connection with this question. It is said, "If you keep the police reserved in this fashion, you will get terrible pressure." Have we come as nation to the position that we cannot do our duty because we shall get pressure? Of course we may have pressure, but we have been having pressure for years. Is it supposed that we did not have pressure even before the reforms? Pressure of various kinds was imposed on us. Who supposes that there will be no pressure in future? Of course, there will be pressure. If ever the Governor exercises his powers, does anybody suppose that there will not be

    1313
    pressure? The pressure will be intensified against the Governor, and there will be no buffers between him and the Legislature. These arguments leave me absolutely cold. I am practical in these matters; I am not speaking about what I do not understand, for I have had responsibilities in these matters, and I have inspected more police stations than most people. The Under-Secretary laid stress on how education and local government and so forth might come into contact with law and order, and said that it would make it still more difficult to carry out law and order if it is reserved, but I pass by all that from my own experience.
    The Joint Select Committee were very much impressed by the arguments which wore used by the European Association and by the Police Association and by other people who advised them. They were very much impressed about the dangers of transferring the police particularly—although the dangers of transferring the magistrates were very much greater—and they provided for certain checks in the police regulations, certain provisions for an inspector-general of police, and provisions to keep the secret dossiers really secret, and to keep information from leaking out. The Clauses in the Bill which deal with this matter leave a great deal to be imagined and do not follow in the least the lucidity and definiteness of the Joint Select Committee's proposals. But the Committee thought, when they had dealt with that matter that it was finished, and that law and order could be safely transferred. They did not realise, however, that the inspector-general of police, who is no doubt an important person, is not the person responsible for law and order in the whole Province. He is a departmental chief who looks after discipline, equipment, supply, promotion, and so forth of the rank and file of the police. He is responsible for that section of the work. He has a superintendent of police under him and deputy inspectors-general in between.
    In a Province like Bengal, where there are 50,000,000 people to deal with, the inspector-general of police cannot be everywhere, and he cannot be responsible for all the details of law and order. What is entirely overlooked is that, so far as the magistrates are concerned, the police have nothing to say, and it is proper
    1314
    that they should have nothing to say. They put up their cases and naturally, if the inspector-general of police tackled the magistrate as to how he should try a case, the magistrate would probably resent it, and any police officer who did that would be seriously dropped on. The magistrates are responsible, and over them is an officer who is seldom mentioned and who is not mentioned in the Bill. He is the commissioner who has charge of five or six divisions, each with a district magistrate. The whole of law and order is under these officers—the district magistrates and over them the commissioner. He is a kind of sub-governor in the Province. These people will have their future in the hands of a minister, and the inspector-general of police, who will be engaged in his departmental work, is no real solution of the question at all. He can co-operate and advise, and the commissioner and magistrates can ask him to advise, but he cannot control all the prosecutions in the districts or what should be done in certain cases. The district magistrate has executive functions by which he can take stronger measures.
    All that will be under the control of a Minister. We hear that certain Indians who are members of executive councils have managed law and order quite well. They have done so, and I admit it, and I have never said that an Indian qua Indian could not manage law and order. What I have said is that once you make this plan you make him responsible not only to the Governor, but to the Legislature. He may be turned out by the kind of legislature we are to get under these reforms. A man who manages that department as an executive counsellor appointed by the Crown for five years, and who issues his orders in the name of the Governor-in-Council, can always tell his friends "I would like to have done so-and-so, but I could not do it because the majority of the council were against it." I know from my experience that he oftens does give that explanation. But the Minister will always find himself faced by somebody who wants to get him out, and the pressure which can be brought to bear out there is not understood in this country.
    A case came to my notice only a few years ago in which an attempt was made to interfere with the discretion of a

    1315
    district magistrate in a murder case. It emanated from the executive counsellor, who was a non-European, and had the magistrate not been a really strong and honest man it is very likely that he would have had to give way. What was the object of tampering with him? Because it was thought that the two persons, against whom the charge had been laid in this murder case could be won over to the Government's side if the proceedings could be stopped. I give that as an illustration of the way in which law, and the powers of the law, can be misused to the advantage of one's friends and to the ruin of one's enemies. The Minister himself can set in motion forces which will not appear on the surface. No doubt the ordinary village burglar or thief will be dealt with just as he is now, but a lot of the crime in a district is in the hands of powerful, rich men, and those are the men who get the pull, a pull on the Minister and his friends and relations. It is through hindrances of that kind that criminals get off. In this matter we must look to realities and to the safety of the people of India. Most of the police are thoroughly opposed to this transfer, because they know what will happen if we get that kind of deterioration in the police. If the police were to deteriorate the whole of the reforms and the Constitution and our very safety in India would be imperilled. For these reasons I have tried my best to give the real facts to the Committee, and to make it plain how dangerous it will be if in chasing consistency—which has no meaning whatever when carried into effect among the people at large—we imperil the safety of the country.
    9.19 p.m.
    Mr. AMERY: My hon. Friend has stated very fairly and temperately, and with all the wealth of his experience behind him, the objections to the transfer of law and order in the Provinces, and has reminded us that when the Statutory Commission visited India the great majority of the provincial governments were either opposed to that transfer or qualified it in one way or another. That is perfectly true, and no doubt the case which my hon. Friend has presented was made out in far greater detail to the Statutory Commission; but for all that
    1316
    the Commission quite definitely and unanimously decided that law and order should be transferred. I do not think it is altogether fair to the Statutory Commission to suggest that this was done merely for the sake of symmetry or following up the logic of the creation of responsible Government. I do not myself think that body was built that way. Their whole attitude towards the Indian problem was one of facing realities, and the two pages and a half in which they sum up their conclusions in favour of the transfer are not two pages and a half of theory but two pages and a half which deal with the actual political situation as it stands and as it will arise in the Provinces. I do not propose to weary the Committee by reading those arguments, but I would remind hon. Members that it was on strictly practical grounds that this was advocated by the Commission, in spite of the advice put before them with the authority of the majority of the provincial Governments.
    Since then further facts have emerged. When the Select Committee came to investigate the same question, they endeavoured to do so with open minds and again had before them a great body of evidence, and unless my memory entirely deceives me the great majority of evidence given on behalf of the various provincial Governments last year and the year before was definitely in favour of this change. That being so, it does seem to me a little difficult for us at this stage to take the responsibility of going against all that weight of evidence. No one can read the case put forward there without realising that law and order and every other function of government are undoubtedly bound up together, and that if we cannot transfer law and order then the case against the transfer of any Department becomes very strong indeed. The argument to which the House has just been listening reminded us of the extraordinary complexity of and the curious features in Indian life, but such criticisms can be brought forward in connection with almost any Department.
    We are undoubtedly taking a certain measure of risk in the whole administration of Government by introducing any form of responsibility, but I think we shall make the position worse if we maintain a system of dyarchy under which

    1317
    the responsibility for the consequences of ministers' actions would not be their own and the blame for everything that was wrong would be thrown upon a British Governor and his advisers. I have had no experience of the Indian situation, but I have had not altogether dissimilar experiences in connection with earlier days in Iraq. There was a tendency on the part of the Government of Iraq to call in the British Air Force at any and every moment to deal with troubles resulting from their own local administration, and it did become very essential to make it clear to the Iraq Government that they and they alone would have to be responsible for the consequences of their administrative actions. Such little experience as I have had in that connection does encourage me to believe that it is by throwing responsibility for law and order upon Indian ministers, and making it impossible for public opinion or the Press to represent necessary measures taken by the police as tyrannical action by an alien Government, that you have the best chance of a general improvement in the situation.
    The little experience we have had in the past 10 years shows that Indian ministers have made a good many mistakes, but there is also a large body of evidence to show that in many cases, I think in the majority, they have endeavoured successfully to rise to their responsibilities. In more than one Province, as the Simon Commission testified, Indians responsible for the control of the police have been successful, and in Madras a succession of Indian Members of Council, Hindus and Moslems have been responsible for law and order and have managed to carry out their duties with success. If we are to embark on this experiment at all, and not go back on what we have already done, we have to rely on the responsibility of ministers over the whole provincial field. But it will be a responsibility strengthened and stiffened by the position in which the Governor is to be placed in his special responsibility vis-a-vis his ministers. The most vital part of the recommendations of the Select Committee is the emphasis they lay on the fact that the responsibility of ministers is not merely to the Legislature, but is first and foremost to the Crown, and to the Governor as representative of
    1318
    the Crown, for governing for the general benefit of the community and not from a sectional point of view. With the powers of the Governor in the background, always there and giving him a very special authority in his day by day relations with ministers, it should give the new Constitution a very good chance of succeeding, a better chance, I think, than you would get in any system of local dyarchy with the friction and difficulties that would be bound to result. I cannot help feeling that the Government are taking the wisest course, and that we should be wise to try it.
    9.28 p.m.
    Sir WILLIAM WAYLAND: I could agree with the remarks of the Under-Secretary of State if India were one nation, peopled by one people, and with the different sections having the same friendly feelings towards one another as is general in this country and among Western nations. But you are dealing with a country of many nations, speaking many languages, divided very sharply into two great sections, Mohammedan and Hindu, which not only have unfriendly feelings towards each other, but, owing to their religious differences, a deep hatred. In the Provinces we have these two peoples living side by side, in many cases in friendly relationship. But immediately you get the sort of occurrence that we have heard of during the last few days, then religious feeling breaks out, and in that case you can well see what would happen if the police were in charge of an officer who did not belong to the nationality of the crowd creating the revolt. I agree that it is a very dangerous experiment to make, and I believe the Government think that too. Why not then defer handing over law and order to the local bodies until you have given them a chance of proving whether they can govern or not? If at the end of 12 months or two years they prove their fitness far more than we believe at present they will be able to do, by all means give them further power, but do not entrust them with a weapon which you admit is a very dangerous one.
    With regard to the reserved powers of the Governor, if he has no force at his command to enforce his orders or his reserved powers, if, for example, he is faced with a hostile Ministry or Assembly, what will be the position? If he cannot

    1319
    call to his aid either police or military, his position will be a very anomalous one. The arguments used by the Under-Secretary of State that it would be impossible to give provincial autonomy without at the same time passing over law and order, I consider very weak and absurd. Even in this great City of London the ruling authority have not the command of a single policeman. Why should provincial bodies in India be considered not to be an effective working force unless they have the command of law and order? The passing over of law and order to these Indian officials without any previous experience in government, the differences which you see acutely expressed throughout the whole of India where Mohammedans and Hindus come into collision, must lead to a state of things in which bloodshed will ensue. For that reason, I hope the Government will reconsider this question before the Bill reaches its final stage.
    9.33 p.m.
    Mr. RAIKES: Both the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) and the Under-Secretary of State have made a good deal of play on the question of dyarchy. It has been urged that law and order should be transferred, because otherwise there would be considerable difficulty and friction between the Provinces and the Centre. But the whole of this Bill is dyarchy from beginning to end. If the supporters of the Bill are confident that under a system in which four-fifths of the central budget is not votable, which is dyarchy at its worst, it is difficult to imagine why, because law and order are to be transferred, a thing like that should cause friction which will not be caused by the far greater dyarchy which already exists at the Centre under this Bill. There is one thing that has arisen in the last few months which makes the matter somewhat more serious, and that is the communal award. As a result of the communal award, for ever in every Province in India you will have a communal majority, either Hindu or Moslem. In every Province in India the police, if they are transferred, will work as a weapon in the hands of the ruling class, nothing more and nothing less. We are told that if the police are left without local control they will be ostracised, but surely the police would be more unpopular with the minority if they were
    1320
    to work as a weapon of either a Hindu permanent majority or a Moslem permanent majority. They would be hated by the minority and their appointment as police would be regarded as political appointments, and nothing more.
    I should like to carry this matter a stage further. We are told that if the police are left as they are to-day, they will be shot at on every side. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spark-brook went out of his way to point out that there had been cases where Indians had taken over the home departments in the Provinces, and had done it well. Nobody denies that, but it is an entirely different situation. In one case you have a sheltered Minister who has no responsibility to the electorate holding his position under the Crown and subject to dismissal by the Crown, and in the other case an elected Minister who can be attacked in the Press every day. Indian ministers who have held the home departments in the various States in India have known perfectly well that, however much they were criticised, they could not be turned out unless they lost the support of the Crown. The new ministers will have to face criticism such as they have never had to face in the past while they will be given a responsibility greater than they had ever had before. The position will not be the same as it is with a nominated minister.
    We are told that the police will be unable to stand up alone to criticisms from outside. What did the police do in 1930? They faced, as a result of the civil disobedience movement, the most serious boycott which any body of men has ever had to face. Not only were they attacked equally by all parties, but in many villages if a man was known to belong to the Indian police, he could not even get a wife if he wished to marry. In 1930 the loyalty of the police saved the situation, because they stood firm. They believed that they had the Government behind them, and they were loyal to their salt, as Indians have been in the past. What are we proposing to do now? Hand them over to Indian Ministers, and in many instances the police know that if Congress gets control—Congress will, of course, get control—the police will be under the direction of ministers whom they have had to lock up one or two years ago. Beyond that there is the question of the communal trouble. I do

    1321
    not want to trespass on what I said a short time ago, but if we have Hindu and Moslem ministers running the police, we shall, for the first time, bring the communal question into the police force, and there will be a clash of race, instead of the police force standing together without distinction of caste or race. The morale of the Indian police will, in that case, deteriorate rapidly.
    That is not all. Suppose there is one of those communal outbursts such as we were reading about in the newspapers only yesterday and suppose the Minister in charge of the police is a Moslem and a Hindu police official officer has to investigate the cause of the riot? Suppose then that a little party of Moslems of the ruling party come over to the minister and complain that the Hindu member of the Indian police has been investigating the riot and aiming accusations at them. What chance will that police officer have of keeping his position or of holding the balance between the two religions? Very little. Many of us think that the ordinary Hindu police will in such circumstances have no chance of a fair deal. There are other questions relating to the amount of nepotism in the departments. Nepotism must exist as long as the caste system is general. We feel that effort will be made the whole time to promote men who are to some extent akin to the minister. I know that the Governor has this and that responsibility under the Bill, but I doubt whether any member of the Indian police feels that that will protect his interests.
    The controversy over the transfer of law and order and of the police boils down to a very narrow compass. It was admitted before the Joint Select Committee and by the Simon Commission that the majority of the Indian police are terrified of the transfer. On the other hand, it was shown in 1930 that, in spite of social boycott and other difficulties, the police are still in our favour. We have a system, therefore, under which the police will remain loyal in face of a strain against which few men could stand, and yet we propose to scrap that system and hand the police over to the control of those who have been disloyal to the Empire. We are told that if the new system breaks down the Governor can assume responsibility. What is the good of taking over responsibility when the weapons with which you should fight are broken and the morale of the men
    1322
    who work under you has been destroyed? I suggest that it is advisable to take no step whatever at the present moment which might have the effect of straining the loyalty of men who have stood by us through thick and thin.
    9.44 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir WALTER SMILES: The hon. Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Raikes) has drawn a lurid picture of what will happen to the police. I am particularly glad to speak while the hon. Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock) is still in the House. He has been upon the red carpet while I was one of the people who were privileged to lift my topee to him, while the band played "God Save the King." He was the butterfly upon the wing, while I was a toad beneath the harrow. I wonder if he has drawn a fair picture of what will happen if the police are transferred. If you do not transfer the police, what are you giving to the Provinces? The Public Works, the Education and the Public Health and Medical Departments in the Provinces are transferred now, and practically nothing is left to be transferred except the police. If you do not transfer the police, you might just as well do without the Bill.
    I wonder are all these terrible things going to happen? After all, the police do work in a reasonably efficient sort of way in the Indian States. As my hon. Friend the Member for South East Essex pointed out quite fairly, the Minister who controls the police in an Indian State has the whole power of the Prince behind him, and in those oases in the Provinces where an Indian has had control of the police he has had the whole weight of the Governor's authority behind him. Of course, if the police are transferred, things will be entirely different. An Indian Minister will be in command. He will still have the Inspector-General of Police under, him, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities said, it does not depend upon the Inspector-General of Police, but upon the people below him—the police officer who draws 50, 60 or 70 rupees a month who will make or mar the transfer.
    Taking ordinary crime, there is a tremendous number of dacoities all over India—robbery with violence which ordinarily we do not get in this country.

    1323
    But taking first—though it is perhaps a selfish thing to do—the protection of the European community, after all, if these dacoits break into a European's bungalow, they do not as a rule get very much money; all that they get is probably a few unpaid club bills, because it is not the custom of Europeans in India to keep a lot of money in their bungalows. But many Indians have a great habit of hoarding money and burying it or putting it away in strong boxes, and there is no doubt that, as Kipling says, everyone in India says Gurib admi—" I am a poor man "—but often if you took up the floor of his house you would find thousands of rupees. It is perfectly true that there is plenty of hidden bullion in India. Dacoits have a practice of breaking into somebody's house in the middle of the night and stringing the owner up by the thumbs over a fire until he confesses where his money is. They have only to string up a few of the Minister's friends over a fire in that way for him to take very good care to be taken that the police are efficient. In this country also, at times, we have had people interfering with the police and asking questions. I can actually recollect a Member here being told to turn his lively attention to something else, and I read in the OFFICIAL REPORT when I was in India in 1930, a debate which Members who were here at that time will remember, when we were thinking of transferring the police in India in 1929.
    I have pointed out that in the Indian States the police do work in a reasonably efficient manner, and I believe they will work in a sort of way in the Provinces. I will give to those who oppose this proposal the fact that they will not work as well, but things in India are quite different from what they are here. In this country, if a policeman were sent out to investigate a crime—say the finding of a body in a canal near somebody's house—you would not find two or three policemen putting up for the night in that very village and paying nothing for their lodging; but that is the custom all over India at the present time, and my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities, when he was the Governor of a Province, probably was not able to stop that custom himself when the police were under British control. It is the custom
    1324
    of the country, and is partly due to the fact that the police have to travel such long distances and have nowhere else to go. They are put up and entertained, not only by members of their own caste, but whenever they are conducting these inquiries. Kipling, whom I quote again, says that the red pagri is the sign of oppression all over India, but there is a great deal of respect for the red pagri, just as we respect a policeman in this country.
    The police have been made the subject of attack in many legislative councils in India. I can remember myself a debate which came up year after year, like a hardy annual, about what happened in 1921, when the police went to inspect a man's house and inadvertently knocked over a bundle of books, in which was the Holy Koran, of which some pages were destroyed. This was brought up against the police officer concerned for two, three and four years afterwards, and attempts were made to forfeit him his promotion and reduce him in rank until we all became heartily sick of it. It cannot be said that under the present régime the police have always been free from attack. In my experience every possible opportunity has been taken to single out the police for attack, because it was thought that they were a reserved subject, under the protection, if you like, of the Governor, and were not the police belonging to the people themselves. It is my hope and belief that, if you transfer them you will get the people to feel that the police, instead of being their oppressors, are their protectors, and there will be a more friendly feeling for the police. Honestly, I visualise that happening. I do not say that in every case the police will work quite as efficiently as in the past, but I believe they will work well enough, and a good deal better than if things are left as they are at present.
    9.53 p.m.
    Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) talked about the experience of the last 10 years, but personally I do not think the experience of the last 10 years is anything to write home about. In India there has not been much peace, and certainly the police have been busier than ever before. Nor do I think that the home record is very

    1325
    much better, because the unemployment in Lancashire is greater than it has been before. We have heard much talk about these various Services being handed over to the Departments in India. Are they as good as they were before? All the information that I can get indicates that they are all going back.
    We have the police force to-day in a first-rate condition, and I would ask any hon. Member here whether, if he were a member of the police force in India, he would want to be transferred? I am certain that he would not. He would be very much more content working under orders that he knew came straight from the correct source, than if he were wondering what might be meant by the performance of his duty under these proposed conditions. I feel certain that the police—and many of them who have talked to us here on the subject have said this—simply hate the idea of being handed over to anyone other than the powers that be at present. I am certain, also, that the people who are being protected by the police in India would very much rather they were left as they are, doing very well, getting orders that they understand and knowing that there is no ulterior motive. The people whom they are protecting are in a very much safer position than they will be if this Bill goes through. We are now having thrown at us the fact that the Simon Commission wanted law and order to be handed over. I never agreed with the Simon Commission, and personally I think that the logical thing to do is to go back to the Act of 1919 and consider what was in that Act. If these Departments have not improved, it is evident that they should be given nothing more, and I am certain in my own mind that nothing that has been handed over to entirely Indian rule has improved in any way.
    I think my position is perfectly logical. I do not think that the question was ever closely enough examined, and a great many of my friends who vote for the Government do so because they say we are not being logical. It always happens, when you are a little bit soft, that people say that you are being soft, and they make that an excuse for not voting with you. Many of them have said to me, "If you go back to the Preamble of the 1919 Act and examine whether these changes have gone on, we will vote for you," but
    1326
    they all turn up in the Government Lobby. That is a pretty state of things. A great many of these people will own that they have not read up anything about the police at all, and that they are ignorant.
    We have heard a lot about Kipling. I was brought up on Kipling, but Kipling did not teach any of this sort of stuff. If you read Kim's story about the police, you will find a very different story from that which is to be found in these Clauses. How do you think that wonderful story would have worked out if the police had been under an Indian instead of under a Britisher whom they could trust? Kipling's view about the whole of this is not in agreement with that of the Government, and although Kipling may have known India a few years ago, he was very much more knowledgeable about Indians, who have not changed nearly as much as we have been led to believe. I am quite certain that if people would take trouble to read the. Bill and not take it all on the advice of friends who are supposed to have read it all, but most of whom have never been in India, we would not be in the trouble about getting this Bill thrown out that we are in now.
    9.58 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: We have listened to many hon. Members who are not in favour of the proposal to transfer what is called law and order to responsible Ministers, and my impression is that no new arguments have been advanced beyond those which were summarised with great completeness and candour in the report of the Statutory Commission. I am very conscious of the fact that it would not be sufficient justification for the Government's proposals to say that it was necessary to transfer law and order in order to give effect to the transfer to a responsible Ministry which the Government propose in this Bill, but at the same time it is a circumstance not to be overlooked. I do not at all base the defence of the Government's attitude on this question on the logic of the position, but, as I have said, it is something to be remembered. What is called law and order is a very pervasive responsibility. It stretches through all the departments of government, and it has its reactions in the administration of every single Minister. If I may take as an illustration what would be the position if it became necessary to combat terrorism in Bengal, that

    1327
    would necessitate action in the political department, in the judiciary department and in the prison department, but it would also necessitate action in regard to finance, revenue, education; and the local self-government department. The fact is that if law and order were not transferred, you would practically take the heart out of the proposed transfer of everything else to the responsible ministers.
    We have got into the habit of using the expression "law and order," but it is not, of course, what lawyers call a term of art, to describe something that can be cut and dried and regarded as a self-contained department of the State. It really is a compendious name for a large number of acts of administration which concern practically every department, and if we were to withhold the transfer of law and order, we should have a very illusory measure of responsibility on the part of Ministers. However, as I say, I do not think the Government is right to defend the proposal merely upon that ground, but I think that the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) as to the examination which this question has had at the hands of various bodies is well worth any Member's consideration. My hon. Friend who has just spoken referred to some of his friends who would be prepared to support him in a proposal to go back to the 1919 Preamble and to work out its consequences in accordance with that Act, and he now complains that they go into the Government Lobby in support of the present Bill. I do not know who the hon. Members are. He did not specify them by name, perhaps for very obvious reasons.
    I think I am entitled to call attention to the fact that the hon. Gentlemen who are in agreement with the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) are never tired of telling us that they want the Statutory Commission's Report, but when it comes to close quarters, it appears that they want to take the heart even out of the Statutory Commission's Report. This decision to transfer law and order was most anxiously and thoroughly examined by the Statutory Commission, and upon a balance of all the arguments, they decided in favour of the proposal. They were not the only body to support it. I do not want to
    1328
    repeat what has already been said tonight, or at any rate on other occasions, that every body of inquiry, every commission, and every round table conference that has addressed its mind to this question has come to the same conclusion. My hon. Friend who has just spoken suggested that nobody was really competent to express an opinion upon this question unless he had been in India.
    Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: No.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: He rather criticised many hon. Members who formed views on the question without having been in India.
    Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: Without having read the report.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not know who the hon. Members are who are in that position. Whether they have read the report or not, the fact remains that the Statutory Commission and all these other bodies have given very careful examination to the matter, and let nobody suppose that they have not set out the arguments. The Statutory Commission have set out in their report the whole of the arguments. The necessity for maintaining the impartiality of the police as between the different communal parties, the necessity for maintaining public confidence in the police, the necessity for maintaining the prestige of the police—all these arguments have been examined and carefully considered, and the net result of the deliberations has been to advise the transfer. It would be a very serious act on the part of the Government if it were to fly in the face of all this weighty opinion, and it does not lie in the mouth of my hon. Friends who, for instance, earlier to-day were attaching such great weight to the Statutory Commission to tell us that on this occasion the Statutory Commission's Report is not worthy of attention. The fact is that the unanimity of the decision which has been arrived at is very remarkable.
    If I may for a moment, I will examine the proposal on its merits. The fact is undoubted that the administration of the police at the present time, successful though it is and admirable though the conduct of the police is, as we all know, is very often made the subject of attack in the Legislative Assembly. If law and order was reserved to the Government, it

    1329
    is inevitable, I should think, that the police would still more be the focus of criticism. There would be a sort of general attack on the part of Ministers responsible in other matters upon the administration which had not been entrusted to them. That would surely be most unfortunate, and the Governor who had to administer this branch of Government would start off with a lack of sympathy on the part of his Ministers not entrusted with this power. He would not have the great advantage of having the support of the electorate who had elected the Ministers; and you would handicap the Governor at the very outset in the discharge of his difficult duties if you set him alone in the discharge of this department of State. If you look at the matter from the other point of view, it would seem that the police may be very much stronger if they have behind them one who, as a Minister, has a certain amount of popular backing.
    After all, as has been pointed out more than once in these Debates, the maintenance of peace, order and good government is the first interest of the people. You may be quite sure that any Minister who neglects the primary duty of maintaining peace and order among the people to whom he is responsible will very soon have to answer for his default. I do not believe a bit in the theory that public opinion in India, any more than in any other country, would tolerate the sort of outrages to which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles) has referred. If they had a Minister popularly elected in charge of this department, you would, I should think on a prima facie view of the matter, very soon have them making the Minister feel that the very best way in which he could court public opinion would be to make a very efficient job of his administration of law and order.
    There are one or two other points which have arisen. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson) proposed to leave out the words "of violence" in Clause 57. The effect of leaving out the words "of violence" would be to give the Governor the power to take into his hand governmental powers not merely for the limited purpose of dealing with crimes of violence, but for dealing with all crimes with the purpose of overthrowing the Government.
    1330
    In the first place, I would call my hon. Friends attention to the fact that the Clause is very widely framed. It is not only in the case of an attempt to commit a crime of violence for the purpose of over-throwing the Government that the Governor may take these powers into his hand, but it is also in the case of preparation to commit such crimes. That is to say, you have not to wait until you can prove an attempt, but the Governor can step in when he can see preparations for an attempt to commit a crime of violence.
    If you give the wider power to the Governors which would result from the omission of the words "of violence" you really remove from the Ministers responsibilities which they ought to be able to discharge if they are going to be effective at all. Crimes of violence and terrorism stand on their own footing. For one reason, as the next Clause shows, it is necessary to provide certain safeguards to prevent the disclosure of information. In connection with terrorism, it must be remembered that very often the name of the informant never appears at all. The informant is not called as a witness and the persons who are guilty of the crimes of violence are detained under other powers. They are not put on trial, with witnesses who can prove the offence in the ordinary way, and for a very obvious reason. In connection with crimes of violence, if the informant were to have his name published or to be called as a witness in all probability he would be murdered. If it is terrorism or preparation to commit a crime of violence, then the course is followed which I have described. If it is not a crime of that sort, there is no difficulty; there is no objection to calling a witness in open court, and letting his name be declared, and proceeding by the ordinary forms of justice.
    At any rate, this proposal has been very carefully considered. I think I am right in saying that my hon. Friend is not putting it forward on his own authority alone. It is a question which has been raised probably by the European community in India. But on the whole it has been thought that you must let the Ministers deal with the other crimes which may be committed in order to overthrow the Government, and deal with crimes of violence as being in a

    1331
    very special category of their own, "ad for the reasons I have mentioned—that it is quite impossible to proceed in the ordinary way to punish the offenders, the Government have decided to give the Governor these powers only for a limited purpose. The other point mentioned by the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman) is a question of drafting. When the Section begins with the words: "Where it is proposed" it does use a rather cumbrous expression for what really means: where a proposal is made to the Governor. A suitable Amendment will be made, if need be, to make the words clearer and a little more explicit. I hope that, after this explanation of the proposed transfer of law and order, the Committee will feel that the Government have taken the only course they could possibly take, of following the advice given to them by every body that has studied this very difficult and anxious question.
    10.13 p.m.
    Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT:I am aware of the general understanding with regard to time, and I do not intend to offer more than a few remarks to the Committee. But when my right hon. Friend talks about an exhaustive analysis of this matter, I must point out that on this vital subject—
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I referred to exhaustive examinations before the Statutory Commission and all the other bodies mentioned.
    Sir H. CROFT: What I desire to point out is that when the right hon. Gentleman speaks about these examinations of this question we must remind him that these ideas which have been put forward here, in this Committee, are very novel. When some of us are spoken of as reactionaries, I would remind him and his colleagues that only three or four years ago they held precisely the same views. Every Member on that bench knows perfectly well that if this Bill had been introduced by the late Socialist Government, everyone of them would have been on his feet night after night attacking every clause of the Bill as being contrary to the principle of the policy of our party. When I am rebuked for holding Conservative views I desire to remind my right hon. Friend, who, as everybody
    1332
    appreciates, is conducting this Debate with great courtesy, that even the late Edwin Montagu declared that if we were to hand over the forces of law in India we should create bloodshed and anarchy, and that the late Lord Morley, who was not really a diehard but who was a very great student of Indian affairs, also-used precisely the same words—chaos, anarchy and bloodshed if we were to part with the forces of law and order in India before the people of India at some distant date had assimilated Western ideas of government. It has been said that if you are to carry out your ideas and democratic institutions it is necessary to give the whole thing, and that you must place these powers in the hands of a responsible minister. Is there anyone in this House who knows anything about the difficulties in countries where you have not established self-government who will deny the fact that there is a grave danger in placing questions of law and order and the control of the police in the hands of ministers, as in the case of India, who will be of one race and one religion and who will have to control great forces of other races and other religions?
    If your scheme is to be a success, surely it is better to risk the anomalies, to which reference has been made, and at least see that there should be peace and the preservation of the law when you are pushing forward your reforms in other particulars. Even though it were only for a period of years, it would be wise to endeavour to do that, when one realises the terribly inflammable matter which there is in India at the present moment, and can see on every occasion the great difficulties which arise. Yesterday's story is surely sufficient evidence of the inflammable matter which exists in India. It is such a simple thing to us. If I write a book about the Socialists they are rather pleased that they have their cause referred to, even though it is criticised. But you have this great tragedy. A Hindu wrote a book apparently casting reflections upon the great prophet whom the Moslems venerate, and immediately there was a terrible situation. This was regarded as a most ghastly and awful insult and murder took place, and execution naturally followed. Is there any power at the present time in India which really can influence a situation like that other than the power of a white man on the

    1333
    scene? I am not sure what the number of persons was on that occasion, but I understand from the Press that it may have been a crowd of 20,000. How difficult it would be for a policeman responsible to a Moslem minister to check such a movement before it became some terrible and awful holocaust. Have we not seen it and heard of it again and again? One could give scores of cases. Anyone who has had any experience of affairs in the East must realise the grave dangers that we are running in this Bill.
    It has been my privilege or my sorrow to be connected with business affairs in India of one kind or another. Although I have never been to India I have to read reports week after week, and I have realised the enormous influence of what is considered quite correct in the East. In countries in the East where I have been one has seen that it is considered a clever thing to try and persuade somebody to take a bribe. One sees it again and again. Last week I had a most pathetic letter from a warrant officer in the Army—I mention this to show what may happen in connection with the Indian police—informing me that for the first time in history an Indianised recruiting officer had accepted money before any recruits could be enrolled in the Army. When that kind of thing is occurring the dangers are very great. If the Government want this self-government in India to succeed I should have thought that it was imperative to maintain control of law and order in the hands of our people, gradually allowing the Indian Ministers and the Indian policemen to be promoted and allowing them to come forward only by degrees. I shall vote against the Clause with a very clear conscience. Even if I believed in the rest of the Bill I am convinced of the utter folly of allowing our great and wonderful Indian police force to pass into the hands of a communal minister who in turn is bound to be controlled by communal influences.
    10.22 p.m.
    Mr. BAILEY: I make no apology for rising, seeing that I have only intervened two or three times during these Debates. I would not have prefaced my observations- by these remarks but that I feel the Committee want to go to a Division. Some of the arguments that have been advanced by the Attorney-
    1334
    General and the Under-Secretary ought to receive some consideration from those of us who dissent. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), the learned Attorney-General and the Under-Secretary laid the greatest emphasis on the argument that the whole of these matters have been examined. They appealed, as it were, to authority. If we are to accept that argument, why discuss the Measure at all? If we are to accept the authority of the Joint Select Committee as final, surely that argument applies not only to this question but to every other question on the matters that are in controversy. What is the use of debating if we are not to use our own reason?
    We have grounds for being a little doubtful as to the infallibility of those upon whose authority we are asked to make our decision to-night. We had an excellent illustration of it this afternoon. We have the fact before us that for four years the Government have believed firmly that this particular Measure was the darling Measure of the Princes, and now they are having to scrape up all their resources to persuade the Princes to accept it. How can we accept the infallibility of those who by the test of experience always seem to be wrong Indeed, I say with all deference that if I were asked whose advice I would rather follow I should say that it is not the advice of those who say, "We cannot argue this question out, we have authority on our side, and it is too late now to give a real and impartial survey to the matter." It is absolutely essential that the House of Commons should exercise its own independent judgment and submit these matters to the crucible of the most searching criticism. I make no apology for doing so.
    The Attorney-General taunted us with being untrue to the report of the Simon Commission. I am not in love with the report of the Simon Commission. At the time when it sat the Conservative party was undoubtedly disposed to regard it as extreme as many of us now regard the White Paper. It is only because we have been driven from our principles, from one surrender to another, that we attempt to cling to such vestige of respectability as is left in the Statutory Commission's report. The Government must not blame us for their own sins.

    1335
    We only accept the report of the Commission because we are driven to do so. I would sooner make a small error than a big one, and if you examine the Statutory Commission's report you will find that it is only with great reluctance that they recommend the transfer of law and order. It was not an enthusiastic performance on their part, it was a concession wrung from their reluctant hearts. They had to be unanimous in their report, and as there were members of the party opposite on the Commission it represents the maximum of what those who examined the question on the spot considered to be advisable.
    We have progressed very far since those days. The Government have been affected by the party opposite to some extent on these matters especially by those whom they have borrowed or permanently taken), and we must not forget, when we are taunted with being reactionary, that this was a most advanced radical document only a few years ago. We are justified in looking with suspicion on a proposal in that document which was only made by them with reluctance. There is no inconsistency on our part. We never bound ourselves to every proposal of the Statutory Commission. We have said that we are committed up to a certain point, we recognise as practical people that we have to go a certain direction along a road which we do not wish to travel. But that is a basis of negotiation, it is not our ideal, and it is a little unfair on the part of the Attorney-General to say that we are untrue to the Simon Commission's report. The Attorney-General, of course, would never be deliberately unfair, not even to the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). He could not be unfair, it is not his nature, but at the same time I think he is a little unfair when he throws the Simon Commission's report at us.
    He used another argument which was profoundly interesting and rather surprising coming from a Minister with the experience he possesses. He said that law and order runs through the whole administration, that in every department law and order has its ramifications. I quite agree with that. He showed how impossible it would be to work law and order unless there was some degree of co-operation between the Minister for law
    1336
    and order and the other Ministers. I agree with him. But why should not an Indian Minister be prepared to cooperate with an English Minister with powers of law and order? Would he not be willing to co-operate? It is my own view that he would not, and by implication the learned Attorney-General shares that view. Why should it be objected to, if we are handing over all the other powers, defence, land revenue, irrigation and forestly, let alone all the federal proposals—why should they object to our retaining the one vital matter of law and order?
    I was very interested indeed in another observation of my right hon. and learned Friend. He said that the police would be targets for all the criticism, that they would represent the unpopular British, and would be a target for all the slings and arrows that would be cast by the critics. I ask this question: Suppose that the Governor has to exercise responsibility and to take over the police, will the police be less the target for slings and arrows? Will their position not then be completely impossible? if in the ordinary state of affairs the Governor having control is to be resented, how much more will it be resented if he takes over control in the teeth of his Indian ministers? My right hon. and learned Friend said that there would be a lack of sympathy if we kept these powers in our hands. Is he not, or are the whole Government or such members of the Government as are interested, not deceiving themselves completely as to there being any symapthy at all? Are they not trying to make a compromise with the absolutely irreconcilable? What evidence have they of sympathy at all, from any form or quarter of Indian political opinion?
    I could appreciate very much the argument of the learned Attorney-General if he was able to say: "All the Indian politicians who are likely to be members of the Government in India are devotedly loyal to this Bill, and are anxious to work it, provided we give them control of law and order, but they say that if we do not give them control of law and order they will not work the Bill at all." If that was the position there might be something in the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but can he

    1337
    produce a single first-class Indian politician who has anything but opprobrium for the proposals of the Bill? Where then will he get his sympathy?
    I was very interested in another observation that fell from the learned Attorney-General—an observation which struck me as illuminating and as showing his mental processes. I am always delighted to get an inside view of the mental processes of any Minister of the Government—I say that in no disparaging sense—if sometimes their faults may need a little chastening from some of us, though not from me. The learned Attorney-General said that if a minister is not efficient no body of electors would tolerate him; public opinion would not stand him. The whole mistake about this Bill from beginning to end is that the Government are thinking about the East in Western terms. There is no such thing as public opinion in the East, no such thing as the voice of the electors. Is it supposed, with the fierce communal internecine strifes that run through India, that the public opinion of the Hindus will be fiercely declamatory against a minister who exercises his powers improperly against the Moslems?
    To talk about public opinion when you have an electorate which cannot, for the most part, read or write, is to imagine something which does not exist and probably will not exist for centuries. The reason why some of us feel so strongly about this matter is this. We were taunted this afternoon on the ground that we were so much concerned about the Princes and so little concerned about the Indian people. That is not true. It is because we believe that the Indian people are going to suffer all along the line as a result of this transfer of law and order; it is because experience has shown, as we see in the reports of the Governors of the Provinces that efficiency has deteriorated where services have already been transferred; it is because we feel for the ryot who will gain no political opportunity and no fresh privileges from this change, that we are opposing this transfer. It is all very well for the hon. and gallant Member for Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles) to say "I daresay it will be a bit less efficient." To us that is merely a phrase, an incident in the process of history. But what is it to the Indian people who
    1338
    will have to experience it? Ask the magistrates, the rank and file of that great body of the British administration in India—not Radical Viceroys who found the organisation there when they arrived—ask those men, whether the ordinary people of India would prefer the police to be under native politicians or under English administration. Ask the inarticulate masses of the Indian people, where you can come into contact with them, a question of that kind and you will get only one answer. [Laughter."] Yes, but ask the politicians who are always prepared to laugh at irrelevances, ask the politicians in India who believe more in gibes and cheap diatribes than getting at the truth, and you will find that they, of course, want this transfer, because it is an additional advantage to them to twist the British lion's tail and fish in troubled waters. Of course, they want the transfer. The politicians in India are setting themselves to break the British connection and we are helping them to do so by transferring law and order. But the ordinary Indian people do not want it and it is because we feel that conviction strongly that we are going into the Lobby, despite the arguments of the Attorney-General, to vote against the Government on this matter.
    10.39 p.m.
    Earl WINTERTON: I do not think that a Division ought to be taken on this matter without some authoritative reply to the hon. Member who has just spoken.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Authoritative?
    Earl WINTERTON: Yes, authoritative and as I have been in a sense responsible as a member of the Joint Select Committee for the recommendations which the Government adopted, I think I am entitled, if no Member of the Government wishes to intervene, to give the answer which I think ought to be given to what the hon. Member has said. Any Member of this Committee, not familiar with the question—and having every excuse for not being familiar with this particular matter since we have so many great issues before the House—would suppose from the hon. Member's speech that the sole authority behind this proposal was the Government's own authority. That is not so. The authorities behind it are, first, the recommendation of the Simon Commission; second the

    1339
    recommendation of three of the Round Table Conferences; and thirdly the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee.
    I do not object to the phrases used by the hon. Member except one which I do not think is a good phrase to use in this House. That was his reference to "Radical Viceroys." When anyone is sent to India to represent His Majesty he ceases to have any party politics and becomes the King's representative. However that may be, if the hon. Member thinks as he seems to think that the weight of authority behind this proposal does not amount to more than the opinion of a few senior officials, I would like to assure him of this. So far as the bodies to which I have referred and other bodies were able to judge from the most widespread taking of evidence, there was a consensus of opinion among men who had held office in great and small positions in India in favour of the transfer. They were almost unanimous on the ground that it would be almost impossible to conceive any system of provincial autonomy unless you had the transfer of law and order.
    The only other thing I want to say is in reference to what has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft). On the previous Amendment he rather objected to my criticising something which he said. I am not going to criticise him by suggesting that he has said anything mischievous, but I do not think he has given—I do not think it was intentionally—an altogether fair representation of the situation. He has led the Committee to believe that for the first time we are experimenting with a system by which we shall have either a Moslem or a Hindu chief of police or a Moslem or a Hindu superior to that officer. That is not so. There have been many cases under the present system in which there have been both Moslem and Hindu serving policemen in very important positions.
    Sir H. CROFT: But always under a British head.
    Earl WINTERTON: No, that is where the hon. and gallant Gentleman is wrong. There have been several cases since the reforms of a home member of a provincial government who is an Indian.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: Has there been any instance of an inspector-general of police for a province being an Indian?
    Earl WINTERTON: I do not know whether there has or has not, but I can assure my hon. Friend that this is not such a vital factor as she may think, because in these days, with the telephone and telegraph, the officer in charge of a district has wide powers of authority. It ought not to go out from the Committee that there is any evidence to show from the results of the working of the reforms that where a police officer, whether he be a Hindu or a Moslem, has been in charge of a district he has allowed his communal or religious sympathies to affect him in the carrying out of his duty. Does anyone deny it? I ask any hon. Member who can bring forward an instance where there has been a police officer who has shown communal sympathies and has not done his duty and who is an Indian to rise and say so.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I understood my Noble Friend to say that all the evidence was generally in favour of this transfer. Does he remember that all the police evidence was against it?
    Mr. BAILEY: My Noble Friend referred to the use I made of the phrase "Radical Viceroys." I am grateful to him for drawing my attention to it, for the last thing I wanted to do was to cast any reflection on anyone. I realise that it was wrong of me to use that phrase, and I gladly withdraw it.
    Earl WINTERTON: The Committee will agree that that is the most generous observation on the part of my hon. Friend. I was not wishing to accuse him; I was only pointing out that it was an unfortunate remark. The point I was making was that I know of no instance in the working of the present system in India in which any police officer, whether he be Hindu or Moslem, in a difficult position has shown what might be described as communal sympathies to prevent him discharging his duties; and the same applies to a home member who has been an Indian. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not mind my saying that I think he ought to approach this matter with rather more sympathy than he has done hitherto. While he and I would be in agreement as to the strength of religious feeling in India, he should not

    1341
    think that when an Indian is in a responsible position he does not discharge his responsibility in many cases in the same way as any Member of this House, no matter what his political or religious sympathies, would discharge his duties.
    Question put, "That the word 'proposed' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 273; Noes, 44.

    Division No. 114.]

    AYES.

    [10.45 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

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

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Leonard, William

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Albery, Irving James

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    Llewellin, Major John J.

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

    Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

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

    Flelden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Apsley, Lord

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Fox, Sir Glfford

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Assheton, Ralph

    Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    Lunn, William

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

    Mabane, William

    Banfield, John William

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

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

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

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

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Gluckstein, Louis Halls

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Batey, Joseph

    Goff, Sir Park

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Belt, Sir Alfred L.

    Goldie, Noel B.

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    McGovern, John

    Bernays, Robert

    Graves, Marlorie

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

    Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Borodale, Viscount.

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

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradetson)

    Bossom, A. C.

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

    Magnay, Thomas

    Bower, Commander Robert Tatton

    Grigg, Sir Edward

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Boyce. H. Leslie

    Groves, Thomas E.

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

    Bralthwaite, J. G. (Hllisborough)

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

    Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Maxton, James

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

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

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

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

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Milne, Charles

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

    Harbord, Arthur

    Milner, Major James

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Mitcheson, G. G.

    Buchan, John

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kennlngt'n)

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Buchanan, George

    Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Burghley, Lord

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

    Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

    Butler, Richard Austen

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

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

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

    Morrison, William Shepherd

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Heneage, Lieut-Colonel Arthur P.

    Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

    Campbell, vice-Admlras G. (Burnley)

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Munro, Patrick

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

    Hornby, Frank

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Horobin, lan M.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Cazalet. Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Horebrugh, Florence

    Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

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

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    North, Edward T.

    Cleary, J. J.

    Howltt, Dr. Alfred B.

    O'Connor, Terence James

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    O' Donovan, Dr. William James

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Ormiston, Thomas

    Collox, Major William Phllip

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

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

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

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

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Pearson, William G.

    Cooke, Douglas

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

    Peat, Charles u.

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Jamleson, Douglas

    Penny, Sir George

    Copeland, Ida

    Janner, Barnett

    Percy, Lord Eustace

    Craven-Ellis, William

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Petherick, M.

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Jennings, Roland

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

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

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

    John, William

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

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Pownall. Sir Assheton

    Crossley, A. C.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Daggar, George

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Radford, E. A.

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

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

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

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

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

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

    Kirkpatrick, William M.

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Kirkwood, David

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Davies, Stephen Owen

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Dickie, John P.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Dobble, William

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Duckworth, George A. V.

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

    Rhys. Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Dugdaie, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Lawson, John James

    Rickards, George William

    Duggan, Hubert John

    Leckie, J. A.

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

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

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Wardlaw-Mllne, Sir John S.

    Rothschild, James A. D

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

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward

    Stevenson, James

    White, Henry Graham

    Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

    Stones, James

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Storey, Samuel

    Williams. Edward John (Ogmore)

    Salt, Edward W.

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Wills, Willrld D.

    Sandys, Edwin Duncan

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Wilmot, John

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

    Summersby, Charles H.

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

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Sutcliffe, Harold

    Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Windsor-dive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Womersley, Sir Walter

    Smithers, Sir Waldron

    Tinker, John. Joseph

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Band)

    Somervell. Sir Donald

    Titchfleld, Major the Marquess of

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Soper, Richard

    Tree, Ronald

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Spens, William Patrick

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward and Dr. Morris-Jones.

    and Dr. Morris-Jones.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Alexander, Sir William

    Donner, P. W.

    Peto, Sir Basil E.(Devon, Barnstaple)

    Atholl, Duchss of

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Remer, John R.

    Bailey, Eric Alfred George

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

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Balfour, George (Hempstead)

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

    Bracken, Brendan

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

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

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

    Greene, William P. C.

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

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Burnett, John George

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Carver, Major William H.

    Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Kimball, Lawrence

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

    Courtauld, Major John Sewell

    Macqulsten, Frederick Alexander

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Mr. Lennox-Boyd and Mr. Raikes.

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 57.—(Provisions as to crimes of violence intended to overthrow Government.)
    10.57 p.m.
    Mr. PARKINSON: I beg to move, in page 36, line 20, to leave out Sub-section (2).
    The Clause provides that if a provincial governor considers that there is a threat to peace and tranquillity he can declare a state of emergency. In the case of a violent attempt to overthrow the Government he can take upon himself the whole responsibility of dealing with the situation. In Sub-section (2), after he has declared the state of emergency he can delegate to some person of an official character who is not a member of the Legislature, power to speak in the proceedings of the Legislature. That is a principle which ought not to be established by this Bill. It is rather an innovation. I do not know whether it is in operation in any of the Dominions, but if it is, it ought not to be perpetuated by the Bill. If the Governor has the right to declare a state of emergency he should stand on his own responsibility and not delegate it to an official who is not a member of the Legislature. I do not
    1344
    know whether it would be a good analogy to say that if the Lord President of the Council or the Prime Minister were to declare a state of emergency in this country they would, by such a Sub-section as this, have the right to send an official out of Whitehall to take their places in this House. That official would have no power to vote but he could put up a case to defend the Government. Sub-section (4) says:
    "Nothing in this section affects the special responsibility of the Governor for the prevention of any grave menace to the peace or tranquillity of the Province or any part thereof."
    One would naturally think that that would cover the whole difficulty. We do not like this delegation of power to somebody who is not a member of the Legislature. If it is necessary to delegate power, it should be to somebody who is a member of the Chamber to which he has been elected. Our objection to Subsection (2), is to the establishment of a principle which we think—
    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.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  GLASGOW CORPORATION (PETROL CONTRACT).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
  11.1 p.m.
  Sir ADRIAN BAILLIE: I apologise for detaining the House for a little while longer; I should not have ventured to do so did I not believe that the matter to which I desire to draw attention is one of very great importance. On the 7th March I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention had been drawn to the contract for the supply of 3,000,000 gallons of petrol which was placed with Russian Oil Products, Limited, by the Glasgow Corporation on the 1st instant; and, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Secretary of State's reply, I gave notice that I would bring the matter up on the Adjournment at the first possible opportunity. I welcome the opportunity which has been afforded me to-night. If it is too late to invalidate this contract, if it is impossible for the Secretary of State to intervene, then I believe that, if attention is drawn to the facts of the case as they have been reported to me, public indignation will be such that not even a Socialist council would have the hardihood in the future to enter upon negotiations involving the expenditure of public money, negotiations which, in my submission, have been profoundly unethical from the very beginning, which have resulted in bad business for the ratepayers of Glasgow, and, finally, have certainly precluded the Glasgow Corporation from affording work to 4,000 shale miners whose interests I represent in this House, and from affording work to hundreds—nay, thousands—of others in ancillary industries in their area. I desire to ventilate this matter in the House of Commons, because I feel that if, as I say again, the facts are as I know them, this is not merely a matter of local concern, but a matter of national importance.
  What are the facts? I will try briefly to state them as far as I know them. The Glasgow Corporation issued contract inquiries for their total requirements of fuel during the year—3,000,000 gallons.
  1346
  They specified in particular Benzol Mixture, Premier, Commercial, and Naphtha, but the overwhelming proportion of the requirements was for Commercial and Naphtha. Nine companies in all submitted sealed tenders, eight of which belonged to what is known as the National Combine, and one out of the nine was Russian Oil Products, Limited—R.O.P. When these tenders were opened they were three in. number, and I will refer to them as (a), (b), and (c). (a) and (b) were alternative tenders from the National Combine, and (c) was the tender from Russian Oil Products, Limited. The first tender, a sealed tender, was an offer from the National Combine to provide 1,250,000 gallons of naphtha and 1,750,000 gallons of spirit at an average price of 11/1.12d. per gallon. Tender (b) from the National Combine was for 3,000,000 gallons of spirit at 11/7.16ths of a penny or an average price of 11.44 d. The offer from Russian Oil Products was for only 1,000,000 gallons of spirit at 11½d.
  Obviously, had the sanctity of sealed tenders been observed, the Glasgow Corporation should have taken one of the alternative offers of the National Combine, because both were considerably lower than the offer of Russian Oil Products. The first point, therefore, that I would like to make to the Secretary of State for Scotland is that the sanctity of sealed tenders was not observed on this occasion. It is submitted that the second tender from the National Combine was for 3,000,000 gallons of spirit at 11/7.16ths of a penny, which was cheaper than the original tender of 11½d. from Russian Oil Products. That tender was either wilfully or inadvertently suppressed by the negotiators for the Glasgow Corporation. At least the Glasgow Corporation had not the knowledge of that tender (b) at their disposal when they took their decision to give the whole order to Russian Oil Products.
  When the Corporation found that Russian Oil Products had only tendered for 1,000,000 gallons, they went back to Russian Oil Products and said, "Give us a tender for 250,000 gallons," and at the time it was not quite understood why they should have returned at all to Russian Oil Products with this inquiry, but subsequently the reason came to light. I have a cutting from the Glasgow "Forward," containing an article by

  1347
  Councillor William Reid entitled "A reply to the Combine Dictators." It says:
  "It was essential that the Corporation should not be left entirely at the mercy of a combine who could rig the market at any time they thought fit, and to preserve an open market Russian Oil Products was included."
  So now we know that, while Councillor Reid and his colleagues, with their professed aversion to the capitalist system and private enterprise, did not wish the Corporation to be entirely under the thumb of the National Combine, at the end of the day he had no particular qualms about putting himself and the entire Glasgow Corporation entirely under the thumb of Russian Oil Products, who are only able to compete with private enterprise because their sources of supply were confiscated from the British companies which had invested in the neighbourhood of £70,000,000 in the exploitation of those sources. What was the next step? The negotiators for the Corporation went to the National Combine and said: "Quote us another price. Make us another tender. We want you to supply only 92½ per cent. or eleven-twelfths of our requirements." The Combine came back with a tender, which was naturally slightly higher in price on account of the smaller gallonage required. If this is what Councillor Reid calls rigging the market, all I can say is that Councillor Reid entirely ignores usual commercial practice, that as quantity goes down price goes up.
  I have read a few specious arguments—and I am not entirely sure that the Secretary of State has not been swayed by them—to the effect that after all the National Combine should have been satisfied with eleven-twelfths, that they should not have been greedy. The National Combine were satisfied with eleven-twelfths, but at a slightly higher price. It was the negotiators of the Glasgow Corporation who were not satisfied. It is unreasonable that the National Combine should have to sit down under the dictation of the Glasgow Corporation as to what price they should charge for eleven-twelfths of the supply. Again, it has been suggested by Councillor Reid that the National Combine were out for a monopoly. In the same article he says that the eleventh hour
  1348
  attempt at a satisfactory settlement failed because of the anxiety of the Combine to have a complete monopoly for the supply of motor spirit. That is not the case, because I am informed that in a letter which was addressed 60 the negotiators on 14th February it was definitely stated by the Combine: "We will try substantially to meet the point which you raise and instead of 92½ per cent. will offer you 95 per cent. of your requirements at our original price." What could be fairer than that? That, incidentally, would have effected a considerable saving to the ratepayers of Glasgow. Once more—and then I will leave Councillor Reid alone—he goes on to say:
  "It will be observed that at our interview with the Combine we made it quite clear that, although there might be a deadlock regarding the price, we were prepared to pay for petrol; we were prepared to take our whole supply of Scottish naphtha spirit from Scottish Oils and Shell-Mex, Limited. We were politely informed—no petrol, no naphtha."
  These are the correct facts. Readers of the "Forward" will now be able to draw their own conclusions. The facts are that in the same letter of 14th February, which was, incidentally, suppressed or at least never reported to the Corporation, the National Combine made an offer for the supply of 1,250,000 gallons of naphtha without any relation to spirit. I do hope, without much confidence, that the Editor of the "Forward" will give some space also to the facts of the case as I have put them. These facts may be open to correction, but if they are correct, as I believe them to be, I submit that no amount of explanation, no ingenuity of argument, can possibly justify the negotiators of the Glasgow Corporation in this pandering to their political bias. The negotiations have been unethical at every turn. In the result they have let their countrymen down. They have let down the ratepayers of Glasgow and the 4,000 shale miners whose interests I am here to represent in this House. Those are the people who profess to have an exclusive right of interest in the workers of this country.
  11.15 p.m.
  Marquess of CLYDESDALE: It is very unpleasant to have to censure a local authority and particularly so when one has to censure a local authority which happens to be the Glasgow Corporation,

  1349
  but I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Sir A. Baillie) in what he has said. The Glasgow Corporation called for sealed tenders and I submit that they have violated the sanctity of them. If the tenders had not been sealed one would have expected the local authority, who presumably had the welfare of the unemployed at heart, had the price been the same, to choose the national companies, who employ a large number of workers in Scotland. Actually the price was not the same, the national companies' price was cheaper, and yet the first thing they did was to carry out negotiations, and I believe that they approached first the Russian firm. My hon. Friend has gone into these negotiations and I will merely say that the methods by which these negotiations have been carried out are highly unsatisfactory. There is one point upon which I disagree with my hon. Friend, and that is in regard to the reply of the Secretary of State for Scotland on the 7th. I do not think it was altogether unsatisfactory, for he said that he was making further inquiries into the question. In view of the grave concern which has been caused in Scotland as regards the way in which these negotiations have been carried out, will the Secretary of State institute an inquiry into this case?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Sir A. Baillie) asked me if it is possible to intervene in this matter. It is quite impossible for the Secretary of State to intervene, but I think it is only right that I should state the facts to the House. Although they are in great detail, I hope that the House will bear with me. The corporation were in the market for 3,000,000 gallons of motor spirit for their municipal transport service. Tenders were received from the following firms: Scottish Oils and Shell-Mex, Limited, Gow and McCulloch, Anglo-American Oil Company, Limited, Redline-Glico, Limited, Clarkson and Co. (Glasgow), Limited, Russian Oil Products, Limited. The first five firms, who are all in the same combine, quoted for 1,250,000 gallons Scottish naphtha at 10 11/16d. per gallon and 1,750,000 gallons motor spirit at 11 7/16d. per gallon. It is estimated that probably two-thirds of the whole suppply would have been
  1350
  Scottish. Russian Oil Products, Limited, quoted for 1,000,000 gallons motor spirit at 11½d. The tenders were received by the Town Clerk and in accordance with the usual practice were opened and initialled by the convener of the Municipal Transport Committee and thereafter sent to the manager for examination and report to the committee. On 16th January the offers received were submitted to a meeting of the Transport Committee with a recommendation by the manager that the whole contracts be placed with the national companies. The Transport Committee, however, decided by a majority of six to five to recommend that the combine offer be accepted, less 290,000 gallons of motor spirit which was to be placed at a price of 11 7/16d. with the Russian Oil Products. On 24th January the Transport Committee's proposals were approved on a division at a meeting of the corporation. An amendment that the whole contracts be placed with the national companies was defeated by 42 votes to 28. No objection was made to the Transport Committee's proposal to give the whole supply of naphtha spirit to Scottish Oils and Shell-Mex, Limited. If effect had been given to the corporation's desire the contracts would have been placed as follows: Scottish Oils and Combine Firms, 1,250,000 gallons Scottish naphtha at 10 11/16d. and 1,460,000 gallons motor spirit at 11 7/16d.; and Russian Oil Products, Limited, 290,000 gallons motor spirit at 11 7/16d.
  Following on this decision by the Corporation to place a share of the contract with Russian Oil Products Limited the National Companies intimated, as the hon. Member stated, that their original offers were based on obtaining the contracts for the whole supply, and by letter dated 4th February submitted amended offers, namely, 1,250,000 gallons naphtha spirit at 10¾d. per gallon and 1,500,000 gallons motor spirit at 11½d. per gallon. The Russian Oil Products Limited, by telephone, on 6th February, quoted for the whole supplies as follows: 1,000,000 gallons motor spirit at 11 7/16d. per gallon and 2,000,000 gallons motor spirit at 11½d. per gallon.
  This position was considered by the Transport Committee at a meeting on 6th February, and it was agreed by the committee on a division to remit the whole question to the Convener, the Sub-

  1351
  convener and the Manager for consideration and report. On 8th February, the Russian Oil Products Limited wrote to the General Manager offering to supply the whole or any part of the Corporation's requirements at 11 7/16d. per gallon.
  On 14th February an offer by the National Companies to supply approximately 1,250,000 gallons naphtha spirit at 10 11/16d. and approximately 1,600,000 gallons motor spirit at 11 7/16d., leaving approximately 150,000 gallons to be placed out-with the National Companies, was received by the General Manager and communicated by him to the Convener and Sub-convener of the committee. This offer was not submitted to the Corporation at its meeting on 21st February, but reference was made to it in a question addressed to the Convener at that meeting. The recommendation by the committee that the whole matter be remitted to the Convener and Sub-convener along with the Manager came before the Corporation at a meeting on the 21st February. The Corporation by 54 votes to 32 decided to re-affirm the decision reached at their previous meeting that the contracts for 1,750,000 gallons motor spirit be divided—that is eleven-twelfths to the National Combine and one-twelfth to Russian Oil Products—between the five National Companies and the Russian Oil Products Limited at the original price of 11 7/16d. per gallon, and that the contract for 1,250,000 gallons naphtha spirit be placed with Scottish Oils and Shell-Mex Limited at the price of 10 11/16d. previously quoted by them. They also resolved that in the event of the Scottish Oils and Shell-Mex Limited and the other Combine firms refusing to abide by the original prices quoted by them and to accept the contracts accordingly, to place the contract for the whole supply of approximately 3,000,000 gallons of motor spirit with Russian Oil Products Limited at the price of 11 7/16d. per gallon. The National Companies did not see their way to accept the first alternative and the contract for the whole supply of motor spirit was placed, in accordance with the other alternative, with Russian Oil Products Limited.
  1352
  Such are the facts so far as I have been able to ascertain them from the minutes of the Glasgow Corporation. I think that the House will agree, however, that it is to be regretted that before the whole contract was placed by the corporation with the foreign firm further efforts were not made by both parties to reach an agreement which would have enabled over nine-tenths of the contract to be supplied by the national companies.
  While it has been the policy of the Government to encourage the placing of contracts in this country wherever practicable, the arrangements made by local authorities and private firms for the letting of contracts are not subject to Government control. Whether the corporation should have placed the whole of the contract when the lowest tender was first received is a matter which does not fall within my control. The negotiations, as far as I can gather, between the combine and the corporation broke down on a small matter of 140,000 gallons. On the general question, Parliament has delegated certain powers to local authorities and it is a principle inherent in popularly elected representative bodies that they should be responsible to those who elected them. The circumstances of the present case would not, I think, justify any diminution of the powers possessed by local authorities in these matters and I trust that the public interest which has been taken in the case will be useful in helping to prevent a similar occurrence in future. The hon. Member who spoke last asked me a specific question. I have made inquiries into this case, and I think that any further inquiry is unnecessary. I have given the House very rapidly the whole story of this contract. I think the facts speak for themselves, and I have endeavoured to state the case as fairly as I can.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes after Eleven o'clock.

TRANSPORT.
  SPEED LIMIT.
  SPEED LIMIT.
  DRIVING TEST (EXAMINEES).
  DRIVING TEST (EXAMINEES).
  RAILWAY ACCIDENT, KING'S LANGLEY.
  RAILWAY ACCIDENT, KING'S LANGLEY.
  ONE-WAY TRAFFIC (FORE STREET, HEXHAM).
  ONE-WAY TRAFFIC (FORE STREET, HEXHAM).
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY.
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY.
  AEROPLANE ACCIDENT, HESTON.
  AEROPLANE ACCIDENT, HESTON.
MERCANTILE MARINE.
  SHIP CONSTRUCTION (SEA-WORTHINESS).
  SHIP CONSTRUCTION (SEA-WORTHINESS).
  LOAD LINES.
  LOAD LINES.
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REFRESH- MENT DEPARTMENT).
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REFRESH- MENT DEPARTMENT).
  MEXICO (RELIGION).
  MEXICO (RELIGION).
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
FOLKESTONE AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
SHARPNESS DOCKS AND GLOUCESTER AND BIRMINGHAM NAVIGATION BILL. [H.L.]
Bead 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
CLACTON-ON-SEA PIER BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

PARLIAMENT ACT, 1911 (AMEND- MENT) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Parliament Act, 1911, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Rankeillour.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

CAPITALISM AND SOCIALISM.
LORD SANDERSON LORD SANDERSON rose to move to resolve, That in view of the failure of the capitalist system adequately to utilise and organise natural resources and productive power, or to provide the necessary standard of life for vast numbers of the population, and believing that the cause of this failure lies in the private ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, this House declares that legislative effort should be directed to the gradual supersession of the capitalist system by an industrial and social order based on the public ownership and democratic control of the instruments of production and distribution.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as far as I know there has never been a dis-
178
cussion on Socialism pure and simple in your Lordships' House. On one occasion, on June 13, 1923, the late Lord Birkenhead did move a Motion on Socialism, but it was combined with another subject—namely, the question of the trade union political levy, and a great deal of the debate was on that second subject. I and my noble friends behind me thought that a discussion on Socialism would be useful both in your Lordships' House and in the country, because we think that our views are often very much misrepresented and often very much misunderstood. So we propose this afternoon to set before you as frankly and as clearly as we can the reasons why we object to the economic system under which we now live, and to put forward some of the steps we propose to take towards building up a new economic system and a new and better social order.
Twelve years ago to-day Viscount Snowden, who was then Mr. Philip Snowden, moved a Motion in another place on Socialism, and the Motion I have put down to-day is exactly the same Motion as that which Mr. Snowden moved minus a split infinitive. We consider that the Motion and the date, this being the twelfth anniversary, are both appropriate. The late Lord Melchett, then Sir Alfred Mond, in 1923 put down an Amendment to Mr. Snowden's Motion, and he argued very vigorously and very ably against Socialism; but he recognised that the present system was not perfect. In his Amendment he talked about the evil arising from waste and monopoly and talked of the necessity for social redress; I think these were the words that came into the Amendment. He thought the capitalist system could be improved and patched up. We believe that the capitalist system cannot be patched up, that it has broken down really beyond repair.
The noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, has put down to my Motion a more optimistic Amendment than that proposed by Sir Alfred Mond. The noble Lord apparently thinks that the capitalist system has done very well in the past, and he thinks that it will serve us well in the future. We admit that during the 150 years since what is known as the industrial revolution or the age of machinery began, great advances have

179
been made in human welfare, but that does not persuade us that the system is a good system. We think that people might have been much happier and greater advances might have been made under a different system. We do not think there is any future for Capitalism. We believe there is no hope of further advance under that system. Let us for a moment consider the twelve years that have passed since Mr. Snowdon moved his Motion. I do not think these twelve years are very hopeful with regard to the future of Capitalism. Unemployment has increased fifty per cent, since then. Our principal industries—mining, cotton, engineering, iron and steel—are all in a much worse condition than they were in 1923. Our foreign trade has fallen off enormously; and in that debate in another place in 1923 speaker after speaker maintained that the present system was essential for the maintenance of our foreign trade. There has been no improvement in our education, practically no improvement in the health services, the housing problem remains very far from solution, and the world under this system has gone through one of the worst slumps ever known. I may remind your Lordships that the supporters of the capitalist system have been in power most of the twelve years, so we do not think that the last twelve years hold out much promise for the future of the world under Capitalism.
Our first objection to the present system of Capitalism is that it brings about a very unequal distribution of wealth. All the means of production—the land, the raw material, and machinery—are owned by a small section of the population of the world, while the great mass of the people all over the world are poor people. The good things of life are preserved for the few and denied to the many. Take our own country. It is well known that the national income and the national wealth are very unequally distributed. A large part of it is in the hands of a very few people and the large majority of the working people have only a comparatively small amount. Very few members of the working class die leaving anything at all behind them. Some 75 to 80 per cent, of the population are weekly wage-earners. If a man can manage to earn £3 a week regularly all his life, working eight hours a day for it, with very few holidays and with an old age pension to
180
look forward to when he is sixty-five or seventy, he is a very fortunate man among the working classes to-day. The great majority of that 75 per cent. are very much worse off than that. A few are no doubt better off, but they are very few. Why is it that these people have to live in that way? We believe that it is because they cannot get access to the means of production. They cannot get access to the land and capital, which is all owned and held by a comparatively few people. If the land and industrial capital were owned and controlled by the community it would be possible for the people to get access to them, and we could then solve the unemployment problem. The unemployment problem will never be solved under this system. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, has put down an Amendment in which he says that, even if our doctrines were partially adopted, unemployment would be greatly increased. I do not believe that. I believe it is only under Socialism that you can solve the unemployment problem.
Our second objection to the capitalist system is that we object to the motive under which industry is carried on—the motive of profit or profit-seeking. I do not say that profit-seeking is the only motive of industry, because I realise that unless you produce things the people will buy there would be no profits and no industry. But profit is the main motive of industry. Industry is carried on not to produce the services and goods which the people most need, but in order to produce the largest amount of profit. The object of industry is dividends rather than the goods and services which the community most need. Profit-seeking, first of all, does not give us many of the things we most need. If an industry is found unprofitable it is abandoned, no matter how much its products are needed. If a new industry is unlikely to be profitable it will not be started, no matter how much its products may be needed by the community. Profits do not give us the houses we want. It is not profitable to build houses, and the National Government are now engaged in subsidising industry after industry because the industries subsidised are not profitable enough to carry on without help. Again, the search for profit gives us a lot of things that we do not need, and would be much better without. It gives us bad whisky, and it gives us shoddy of all kinds. It gives us

181
all sorts of things we could do quite well without, things I might describe as futilities or superfluities which we ought not to have as long as there are people in need of the necessaries of life.
Moreover, profit is dependent on scarcity. Abundance means less profit; so you must have scarcity. You have wheat being left to rot, rubber and cotton and coffee crops destroyed and fish thrown back into the sea or left to rot on the shore, simply because there is not enough profit from their sale, quite regardless of the fact that millions of people all over the world would be glad to have those things. Lastly, we object to profit because it creates a class of people who take a great deal more out of industry than they have ever put in—shareholders. I am not blaming any-body; I am one of them myself. We cannot help it, we are all caught up in the machine, but the machine has got to be scrapped all the same. These people take far more out of the common pot than they have ever put in, and the services they render are not anything like the equivalent of the reward they obtain. I shall be told that shareholders render important service to industry by lending their capital to industry without which it could not be carried on. That, of course, is perfectly true. But we claim that the reward they obtain is altogether out of proportion to the services they render, and altogether out of proportion to the services rendered by labour and the reward obtained by labour. A man may invest £1,000 in a mine and get£100 a year. All he has to do is to decide whether he shall spend his £1,000 or invest it—not a very great sacrifice. A miner may get £100 a year, but he has to hew coal eight hours a day to get his £100 a year, and there is no comparison between the two sacrifices.
I have stated as shortly as I can our principal objections to the present system. We object to the unequal distribution that it brings about. We object to the motive of profit, because it does not give us the things we need. It gives us the things we do not require, it is dependent on scarcity, and it creates a class whose rewards from industry far outweigh the value of their services. I have tried to put our objections to Capitalism very shortly, and I think your Lordships must agree that it is far from
182
being a perfect system. There are at any rate imperfections in the system.
Now I am going to say something about the steps we wish to take towards building up a better system, but I want first to refer to the Amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Hurtwood. The noble Lord, I think, agrees with our criticism of Capitalism and he seems to agree with our suggested remedy. But lie wants no appeal to class hatred, he wants no threat of a financial and constitutional crisis. He does want an appeal to good will and intelligence. Well, I think I can reassure him on all those points. We make no appeal whatever to class hatred. We want no financial or constitutional crisis. If there is a financial and constitutional crisis it will not be of our making. It will not be the Labour Party which will bring about a financial and constitutional crisis. Of course, we appeal to men of good will and intelligence all the time, although I am never quite clear myself as to what is meant by a man of good will. I sometimes think when people talk about a man of good will that very often they mean a man who agrees with them. I am not suggesting that that is the noble Lord's interpretation of the phrase, but it is the interpretation of many people.
Next I come to the steps that we want to take. As income is so unequally distributed we naturally want to have income more equally distributed, and in order that that may be done we must nationalise what are usually called the means of production and distribution—that is, we must nationalise the banks and the principal industries. We should gradually go on to nationalise all industrial capital. I say gradually, but I must remind your Lordships that the author of the phrase "the inevitability of gradualness" himself pointed out that "gradualness" does not necessarily mean "slowness." We should nationalise what I call industrial capital, but that does not mean that we propose to nationalise all private property.
There are two kinds of property. There is property which enables a man to obtain an income from the labour of other people, and there is property which helps him in his own labour. To the second kind of property we have no objection. There is no reason why a man should not own his house and his garden and the

183
tools he requires, so long as he does not exploit other people. But we do object to the kind of capital which enables a man to sit down and smoke his pipe all day while he watches another man dig in order to support him. I do not say that all property owners sit and smoke their pipes all day. I know many of them do very good voluntary work, and very good paid work too. What we do say is that as property owners they are overpaid for that work.
Another thing that nationalisation does not mean is this. It does not mean that industry would all be run from Whitehall like the Post Office. Not at all. There are all sorts of different methods of administration which could be adopted, all sorts of methods of decentralisation, and in the case of each industry we should adopt the form of decentralisation best suited to that industry, which would be carried on largely by the people who understand it—probably by the people who work it now—and carried on by people who know the locality in which it is carried on now. Private enterprises at the present time are not all carried on by the same methods of administration, and there are some semi-public enterprises which are being carried on by different administrative methods, such as the London Passenger Transport Board, the Central Electricity Board, the British Broadcasting Corporation and so on.
Then, too, a large number of municipalities carry on a great many industries with no connection with Whitehall. I think the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack brought in a scheme—I do not know whether he actually produced it himself or whether he adopted one produced by Sir Arthur Duckham—for the nationalisation of the mines which had no connection with Whitehall at all. It was conceived on quite different lines from the administration of the Post Office. It is perfectly possible to carry on industries in all sorts of different ways. No one need be afraid of Socialism for fear that it would become a stereotyped bureaucracy. There is no real danger of that. But we must get rid of the motive of profit, and you cannot do that until industry is nationalised. When industry is nationalised, industry must be carried on as a profession by salaried people. We hear talk about
184
the fear of officialdom, but after all industry in the main is carried on now by officials—by managers and other people who really are officials paid by their directors and shareholders. There is nothing new in that. We want industry carried on as a profession and the only difference would be that the people carrying it on would be paid by the State instead of by capitalists.
I have no doubt I shall be told—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, is going to tell me, and I think from reading his Amendment that the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, also is going to tell me—that if we make industry a profession and do away with the economic or profit motive, we shall destroy all initiative and enterprise in industry. On that point I would ask your Lordships to consider the amount of good work that is being done at the present time quite apart from the profit motive. Think of the magnificent work clone by our civil servants, by the teaching profession, by men of science, by the Army and Navy, by ministers of religion, by the great nursing profession. They are all doing excellent work where there are really no great financial rewards at all. Why cannot that principle be extended to other callings? We believe it can. I will ask you again, my Lords, to consider this point: Do the people who show the initiative in industry get the rewards? I doubt it. It is a matter of common knowledge that inventors, to whom we owe so much of our industrial progress and progress of all kinds, almost invariably die poor. Probably a great deal of enterprise is due to the managers of industry, but they get no great financial rewards for their enterprise. The rewards of enterprise go in the main to the shareholders, who show no enterprise whatever; they know nothing about industry and take no part in its administration.
I now come to the question of compensation. When we take over the industrial capital we shall compensate the owners, but we shall not give them—at least according to my own view I do not know whether my noble friends will all quite follow me here—large capital sums from which they can draw the capital value of their shares or large incomes in perpetuity, indefinitely or for some long period, and hand them

185
on to their descendants. We shall give them -what will be a reasonable expectation of income for life in the form of life annuities. As we cannot transfer industry to the State all at once, it would be unfair to give a certain number of people life annuities while leaving other people to hand on their money to their sons. We should therefore accompany the change-over with a drastic reform of the law of inheritance. The right of bequest would have to be very strictly limited.
I come now to the question of the distribution of income. Of course, with industry in the hands of the State and carried on as a profession the State could distribute income pretty much as it liked. I know the view of the orthodox economists is that industry is carried on now in such a way that each person who takes part in it obtains roughly the value of his product in money. I do not believe that; I am quite sure that this view is wrong. It is quite impossible for people to get the value of their products in money or in anything else, because nobody knows what the value of their products is. Where you have so many factors engaged in industry, it is impossible to discover how much value is contributed to the product by any one factor. How can you decide how much value is contributed to a packet of cigarettes by a girl who works a machine which puts the labels on; how much by the machine; how much by the manager of the factory, and so on? You cannot do it; you cannot justly distribute income on that method. You may say you can distribute it according to merit, but who is to be the judge of merit? You might distribute according to ability, but in that case the stupid man might starve, and why should the stupid man need less than the clever man?
The only just and proper way of distributing income is according to needs. I have never been able to see why one family needs more of the necessaries of life—that is food, clothing, shelter and warmth—than another family, apart from the size of the family. I do not know why one set of people needs more luxuries than another. I am sure, then, that the only proper method is according to needs. Tinder Socialism we, should gradually work towards distribution according to needs. As people's needs for the necessaries of life and the ordinary luxuries
186
of life are quite equal, and as I cannot see why one family should require more than another, distribution according to needs would therefore mean equal distribution of income. What does a main need more than sufficient to enable him to do his work well?—given the necessary leisure, of course. There you get the difference: people require different apparatus for their work, so you would have to give everyone the apparatus, the tools, the implements and the surroundings necessary to enable him to do his work well. The apparatus of a doctor would be different from that required by a miner or a railway porter. What we should have to do would therefore be to give every family its equal share of the national income, and every worker should in addition have the use or ownership of his apparatus of work.
Under Socialism we should, of course, aim at other forms of equality. There would be equal opportunities for education, equal rights to the use of the health services, and equal rights to the good things of life generally. It is only with equality of income that you would get rid of class distinctions, which are really a glaring blot on the social system and which exist mainly owing to inequality of income. I believe that under Socialism, with industry properly organised on a definite reasonable plan, we could produce all we want in a very short working day. There would be employment for everybody; there must be plenty of employment for people until everybody's demand for everything is satiated, which seems to be a very long way off. You would have a great deal more leisure amongst the people, which would be a very good thing. Perhaps we might at last learn that work is not the only thing worth living for, and become a nation which is able to play.
I have tried to give your Lordships just an outline of the kind of steps we want to take and the kind of society we want to see. It is a very meagre outline, I know; I have stated it very inadequately and left many gaps. Those gaps, however, my noble friends behind me will, I am sure, be able to fill in the course of the debate. When everybody is working for the common good, everybody is contributing his share, and everybody has a right to the good things of life, I believe we shall have a much happier community than we have now. The comfort

187
able classes might not be quite so comfortable as they are now; I do not think that would very much matter, because, although they might not be quite so comfortable, they would be very much happier. I am sure your Lordships will agree with me that our pleasure in and our enjoyment of the comfortable lives we live now are often marred by the thought that those lives are only made possible by the hard toil of men and women very much poorer than ourselves—men and women who can never enjoy the good things that we have in such abundance. We want the change to come peacefully. The present system will not be tolerated much longer. The change is bound to come, but we want it to come peacefully, and we believe that with a little forethought, a little give and take, and common sense on all sides, it can come peacefully and be to the benefit of mankind. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved to resolve, That in view of the failure of the capitalist system adequately to utilise and organise natural resources and productive power, or to provide the necessary standard of life for vast numbers of the population, and believing that the cause of this failure lies in the private ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, this House declares that legislative effort should be directed to the gradual supersession of the capitalist system by an industrial and social order based on the public ownership and democratic control of the instruments of production and distribution.—(Lord Sanderson.)
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE LORD MOUNT TEMPLE had given Notice of an Amendment to leave out all the words after "That," and insert "this House, believing that the abolition of private enterprise in the means of production and distribution would impoverish the people and aggravate existing evils, is unalterably opposed to any scheme of legislation which would deprive the State of the benefits of individual initiative; and being convinced that Capitalism, which has proved itself capable of being adapted to the needs of the people, has immeasurably raised the standard of living of all classes, reduced hours of labour, increased wages, added to the amenities of life, raised the standard of education, declines to substitute for this well-tried system one which is purely speculative
188
and would be found impracticable and oppressive in operation."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sure I shall be voicing the feelings of everybody present when I congratulate the noble Lord on the clear statement which he has just delivered, especially as, unfortunately, he has to address your Lordships' House without the use of any notes, and therefore we are all the more impressed with his arguments. The speech of Lord Sanderson shows the difficulty there is in dealing with the advocates of Socialism. He comes here and coos gently as a turtle-dove. He says, in effect: "You have got your house, your land and your garden, and under a milk-and-water Socialism we will nationalise your land, your shipping and other things." But does he ever go on to Tower Hill, or into Hyde Park, on Sunday or Monday mornings, and listen to the Socialist orators there? Their programme is very different from that which he has presented this afternoon, and I would rather take what they say as representing the Labour Socialist policy, than what he may say, or what his friends who sit on the Benches in this House may say after him. If you go into another place the Socialism which is expounded there is a very different thing to that which he has expounded to us, and therefore I ask your Lordships, in this debate, not to be led away by the plausible statement which the noble Lord has made, but to keep firmly fixed in your minds what are the principles of Socialism, and what are the proposals of the Socialist Party.
To my mind the Socialist Party have never strayed away from the thesis of Karl Marx, which is that "under Capitalism the poor would grow poorer and the rich grow richer." That is a cardinal article of faith with the Socialist Party, and anything more ridiculously untrue I cannot imagine, as I will show to your Lordships later on in my remarks. At any rate, actuated by that thesis, they have adopted times out of number the comprehensive and all-embracing formula that as soon as possible nationalisation must be applied to production, distribution and exchange. I am not misrepresenting the Party when I say that, because that has been inscribed on their banners for some considerable time, and they have taken the trouble to underline that proposal, which is the fundamental

189
principle of Socialism, at the Labour Party Conference at Hastings in 1933, and the Southport Conference in 1934. Therefore it is no good coming here and giving this milk-and-water exposition of Socialism. We have it that as soon as possible, without delay, you have to nationalise the means of production, distribution and exchange.
Lord Marley and others applaud those sentiments, and therefore that noble Lord does not agree with the noble Lord who moved this Motion. Tot homines, quot sententive. They have as many voices as there are members in their Party, and we must come to bed-rock facts, and not be led away by the speech of the mover of the Resolution.
LORD MARLEY: You will see that the words "means of production and distribution" are in the Motion.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: That means that as soon as possible, if you have a Labour majority in another place, you will nationalise the land, the mines, transport, the banks, shipping and railways.
LORD MARLEY: Hear, hear.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I am not sure about the railways. The Labour Party were very hot about the nationalisation of the railways a short time ago, when the railways were prosperous, but as soon as the railways ceased to pay I noticed that they were not so anxious to push it, and it was put into the background. No doubt when the railways become more prosperous they will move it further forward in their programme. That means that all the great industries of this country, and the minor ones too, in time, will be taken from the people who own them and who work them, and will be handed over to the State to work, and of course own, too. And it must be by a Government Department and nobody else. I disagree with the mover of the Motion that you can work all the great industries by a board such as the London Transport Board, for instance; because where does their democratic control come in, which we hear so much about from the Labour Party? If you are going to hand over these great industries to some board or other, more or less independent, where is your democratic control? You have got to hand them over to a Government Department created specially for the purpose.
190
The next point which I would put to your Lordships is this: Is our property going to be stolen, or are we going to have full compensation paid to us, or partial compensation? Lord Sanderson comes down on partial compensation. Personally, I would much rather, if my property is going to be stolen, that it should be stolen out and out, than that I should be insulted by being offered 10 or 20 per cent. of the value of my property. If the State takes it over the State must pay full compensation, or if it is thought that we are robbers, or enjoy something which we or our ancestors have stolen, then, to be logical, the State should take it away, and pay us a dole, if any dole exists in those days. If you are going to take away without compensation, that is stealing. It is calculated that if all private property were taken over by the State a family of four, after the transfer was made, would have a net addition of 5s. a week to their income. That is a calculation which, of course, may be questioned, but several independent investigators have arrived at that conclusion. Thus the net increase of income to each individual in that family of four would be is. ad. a week. Is it worth while to break the Eighth Commandment for is. 3d. a week? If on the other hand you give full compensation, as many of the more enlightened members of the Socialist Party suggest, then where are you? You have not got a Socialist State. The money given to the people dispossessed of their land or mines, or whatever it is, would be there, and they would have to invest it in some enterprise or other. If it is lent to the State you have a new rentier class, and you are just where you were before. In short, you either have to have a rentier class or you simply have to steal.
The best example of Socialism in practice is, of course, Russia. I do not wish to turn this into a Russian debate, of which your Lordships no doubt have had enough for the time being, hut at any rate there you have the pure milk of Socialism being imbibed, willingly or unwillingly, by all classes. You have want and misery, and you have State bankruptcy existing in the only completely Socialist country in the world. And if noble Lords opposite think that Socialism there is such a success I suggest that they should cease attending this House, lay

191
their titles aside, and go and live in Moscow or Leningrad. They would then see how they like Socialism in full practice. What better proof can there be of the failure of Socialism than Russia?—Russia with its enormous mineral and other resources, which spends its time now coming to this effete old country, this country ruled by individualism, and imploring us to grant it a loan. If Socialism is such a success there, why do they come here and offer to pay 7½ per cent. for loans?—although they might just as well say 10 per cent. or 20 per cent., because we know that they would not carry out their promise to pay 7½ per cent., as we know very well from our experience of the debts already owed?
The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, mentioned the Post Office, and said we must not imagine that Socialism would mean having a large number of industries managed as the Post Office is managed. I disagree. It seems to me that you must have State Departments to run these things in order to secure democratic control by Parliament in the interests of the electors. Many people would say: "Well, I do not mind so much; the Post Office is not badly run." It depends, of course, upon the angle from which you approach the question. If you approach it from the departmental point of view I admit that the Post Office, especially as regards the sending of letters, carries on its work fairly efficiently. But can you look at this matter only from the departmental point of view? The person who is really concerned is the consumer, and from the consumer's point of view our Post Office is not at all a success. We all know that the consumer pays three halfpence to send a letter, whereas the cost to the Post Office is less than one penny. But what I object to in the Post Office—and this would be characteristic of these Government Departments—is the autocratic way in which the public is treated. If any noble Lord queries his telephone bill, what happens? You are told: "There is the bill, there are the items: you have got to pay up." They will not allow any question as to the accuracy or inaccuracy of the number of calls set down. "And what is more, if you do not pay up," they say, "we will cut you off and deny you any further service." There is a small foretaste of what Socialism would be. And, mind you, when people say
192
that the Post Office pays, I would undertake to run any Government trading department at a profit if two conditions were present—namely, that one had a monopoly, as the Post Office has, and that it dealt in a necessity of life, as the Post Office does. If you have a monopoly of a necessity of life, obviously you can make it a success—but at the expense of the consumer.
May I put this to your Lordships, and I do not think I am overdrawing the picture: under Socialism we shall be compelled to eat, to drink, to read and to wear only what is supplied to us by the State. There would be no competition—the essence of Socialism is not to allow any private competition—and no attempt to meet individual tastes. Come down to realities and take the Post Office as an example of what Socialism would be if applied to all industries. Take a town of 6,000 or 7,000 inhabitants. At present such a town has one post office. Naturally, the Post Office is not going to have more than the absolute minimum necessary to carry on the business, so they would not have three or four post offices in the town. But if you were dealing with the boot trade, would you have under Socialism three or four boot shops in the town as there are at the present time, where people can go and have a choice of footgear, and, if they do not like the price, go from one shop to another? The Boot Department of the Socialist Government would have one shop in that town, as we have one post office now, and people would have to walk a mile or two miles to that shop, and they would not be able to choose exactly what they like. They would not be able to order the boots they wanted, they would have to take the boots supplied by the Government and at the price settled by the Government.
Take another point of view—and I would like noble Lords opposite (say the noble Lord, Lord Marley) to deal with it. What about the working man, what about the man employed by the Post Office? At present if an employee of the Post Office, for a good or bad reason, loses his job, he cannot go anywhere else in this country and get employment in the Post Office. His name is on the black list, and he has to go and seek employment from some private firm. Well, what would happen when you have nationalised all the industries? Suppose this wretched

193
man, from no fault whatever of his own, got dismissed from the Government service, where could he go? There is no private service, because it is not allowed. Everything is the monopoly of the Government. He would not be taken on again by the Government in another branch because be proved himself, in their opinion, unfit to have a position of trust in the country. What are you going to do with him? Are you going to give him an old age pension or the "dole," as you give the unfortunate men who cannot find work? Surely you cannot do that for him. You have got to treat him worse. Are you going to send him to some concentration camp, to be employed on forced labour? He could not be allowed to starve. I would ask noble Lords to deal specifically with that point when they come to speak. What is going to happen under Socialism to a State employee who loses his job? I think that is a very important point.
Now, my Lords, if you will allow me, I would like to deal for a few minutes with another form of State Socialism. This form is not nearly so complete as the one outlined by the noble Lord who moved the Motion, but still it is of great importance as a finger-post to point to what would be the result of full Socialism in this country. I refer, of course, to the semi-Socialism which has spread all over the world, where a State Department is set up, with taxes and the Exchequer behind it, in order to compete with private enterprise. The great outstanding examples of this are the railways and shipping. Let me deal with shipping. After the War, when the States had done very good business with their State shipping, they continued it in peace time and under peace conditions; and France, Australia, Canada, and the United States of America set up State fleets to compete with private enterprise. Where are they all now? So far as know, they are practically all gone, and they have cost hundreds of millions to the taxpayers in the stupid countries where shipping was a State trade.
Let me deal with the railways. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, France, and. many other countries have operated State railways. Many State railways still exist, but very
194
few of them have ever shown a profit to the State. They have nearly always been run at a loss. When you see what happened to the shipping and to the railways, when you see what happened in Queensland, where banking, mines, hotels and refreshment rooms were run by the State in opposition to private enterprise, when you see the bankruptcy that came to Queensland because of these vagaries, surely noble Lords opposite ought to hesitate a thousand times before they suggest that we should change our well-tried system for these will-o'-the-wisps which only bring losses to the taxpayers of the respective countries.
Now it may be said: "Well, that may be so, but why should State enterprise, in your opinion, be unsuccessful in this country and in other countries?" State enterprise would mean that the various industries would be run by the British Civil Service. I have had a little experience, although not as much as many of your Lordships, of the British Civil Service, and I say unhesitatingly that, go the world over, in private enterprise or in public enterprise, you will not find a. higher level of intelligence and devotion to duty than you find in the British Civil Service. In anything I may say I do hope that any members of the Civil Service who are friends of mine will not think I am saying anything personal to them or running down their abilities. It is the system under which they work that makes it impossible for them to compete with private enterprise, where there is more responsibility assumed by heads of departments and even by low officials than is possible in a Government Department.
I will tell you why I think that the Civil Service could not compete successfully with private enterprise if it were put on equal terms. I say unhesitatingly that it is because nationalisation is unprogressive, and must be unprogressive. It is unenterprising and uninventive. It tends to level down and not to level up. I think that is absolutely true. You will find in a State Department that the pace of the slowest and the most stupid tends to become the pace of the quickest and the most able. Nationalisation deprives the individual of the hope of reward, and when individual profits are eliminated you can put up the shutter on efficiency. It induces a spirit of routine and red

195
tape. It is slow—and this is very true—to introduce improved methods. A Government Department does not like to run any risks or to take any chances; it likes to go on the broad, straight, uninteresting and thirty-mile-limit path which is safest for the reputation of those who have to run the enterprise. There is no personal incentive to check waste and extravagance—an important point, my Lords. A Government Department is exposed to political influence, and under the noble Lord's suggestion of democratic control it would be very much exposed to political interference. A Government Department takes months to come to decisions which a private firm or individual would take in a few days. In private enterprise the test of the profit and loss account is always conclusive, whereas in a State enterprise the prevailing influences conspire to obscure it.
Those are some of the disadvantages of Socialism. Now, who are the people who advocate Socialism? It is largely advocated by people who are frankly jealous of those who are better off, by those who are jealous of the success of the captains of industry and jealous of the position of a man who has done good county work. It is also advocated by people who have never run, and will never be able to run, a business themselves. As a Party, it is advocated by noble Lords opposite. As a Party they have shown themselves pathetically incompetent to run the Government. When they were in office from 1929 to 1931 they squandered £192,000,000 of public money in wasteful public works. What was the result? Was employment increased or unemployment decreased? Not at all. While they were in office the number of unemployed rose, in two and a half years, from 1,100,000 to 2,700,000; that is to say, it more than doubled. When the noble Lords opposite came into office there were two unemployed, as compared with five unemployed when they ran away from office in the summer of 1931. On the other hand, the present Government, who adhere to worn-out decrepit political theories, who, according to noble Lords opposite, are troglodites who cannot see further than the end of their noses, have during their term of office reduced unemployment by 600,000. If the two are compared, can you wonder that many
196
people are very loth to accept the panacea offered by the noble Lord? No, my Lords, I refuse to see any virtue in a State system which would deprive us of liberty and would convert us into a number of dull, mechanical units performing our allotted task without ambition or hope.
I will not keep your Lordships very much longer, but I should like now to leave the fallacies of Karl Marx and his disciples and put before your Lordships a picture of what Individualism and Capitalism—I am not afraid of the word "Capitalism" but am proud of it for the great things Capitalism has done—have done not only for the worker and the rich man, but for the country as a whole during the last 100 years. Our present economic system is of course not perfect. Nothing that is human is perfect. As soon as we get up to one rise, and do away with one injustice, another appears in the hills in front of us and we must always go on trying to improve within the ambit of the present economic system. But what has happened during the last 100 years under Capitalism? I should like some noble Lord to deal with these figures, because they are very remarkable, very stupendous, almost un-believable. In the last 100 years under Capitalism wages have trebled, working hours per week have fallen from sixty to forty-six; the expenditure on Poor Law relief has doubled; expenditure on education has risen from a few hundred pounds in 1835 to over £100 millions in 1935. The population has increased from 16,000,000 to 45,000,000; the death-rate has been halved.
The small investor, a class non-existent a hundred years ago, has now in the Post Office Savings Bank, in insurance societies, in trustees savings banks, in savings certificates and in other thrift agencies £3,000,000,000 sterling—enough money to carry on the government of this country for three years if it were necessary to turn to that source of income. What is the position of the wage-earner? He is now insured against ill-health and loss of work; in his old age he receives a pension; millions own their houses. There has been a great improvement in health, housing, education, food, clothing, and amusements. Under Capitalism the motor car, the wireless, the popular Press—if that is really a blessing, I do not know—the cinema, the gramophone, unknown a hundred years ago, are at the

197
service of the people; and the crowning achievement of Capitalism, which has made us one of the richest nations on earth, is that Capitalism has made us the financial centre of the world.
To sum up. The real issue in my opinion between Capitalism and Socialism—and I give it with great deference for your consideration—is this: which system will work for the greatest good of the greatest number? In view of the facts I have given about Capitalism, can there possibly be any doubt? I have endeavoured to show that wherever Socialism or State trading enterprise has been tried it has been a complete and utter failure, as in Russia, Australia, and other countries, to which of course may be added, though it is some time ago, France after the great Revolution of 1792. Wherever these experiments have been tried they have done varying degrees of harm, but here the results would be too fearful to contemplate, with our world-wide financial commitments, our dependence on export trade, our huge urban population, and, above all, our dependence on imports from overseas for our food supplies. We are going to have a. General Election next year. It is up to every man who wishes for the prosperity of this old country of ours to work between now and then as hard as he can. It is often said that this or that Election is the most important in the history of the old country. I say unhesitatingly that the next Election will be far the roost important Election we have ever had in this country, because these two great ideals of Individualism and Socialism must clash, and in my opinion, if they clash to the detriment of Individualism, God help the country. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out all the words after ("That"), and insert ("this House believing that the abolition of private enterprise in the means of production and distribution would impoverish the people and aggravate existing evils, is unalterably opposed to any scheme of legislation which would deprive the State of the benefits of individual initiative; and being convinced that Capitalism, which has proved itself capable of being adapted to the needs of the people, has immeasurably raised the standard of living of all classes, reduced hours of labour, increased wages, added to the amenities of lice, raised the standard of education, declines to substitute for this well-tried system one which is purely speculative and would be found impracticable and oppressive in operation.")—(Lord Mount Temple.)
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, the noble Lord who introduced this Motion spoke with great force and, as one would expect, with great knowledge of his subject. He rightly pointed out to your Lordships that this Motion is in exactly the same terms, with the exception of the split infinitive on which I congratulate him and the Party opposite, as the Motion which was moved exactly twelve years ago to-day by the noble Viscount who usually sits on the Cross Benches when he attends this House. Referring to the noble Viscount, Lord Snowden, I must say that I observe with great disappointment that he is not in his place to-day. I should very much have liked to have seen him here, agreeing or otherwise with his former colleagues.
At the outset of my speech, I should like to say that this, of course, is an academic Motion. It is not at the moment practical politics, and there may be, and no doubt are, differences of opinion in the ranks of a Government formed like this one, a National Government; but speaking as I do to-day on my own behalf, I desire to give an unhesitating negative to the Resolution which has been proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson. I do not stand here in any way in a white sheet bewailing the failure of Capitalism. I believe in Capitalism. I believe it has done wonderful things for this country and, properly controlled and brought up to modern standards, it will do still more. I think it would be the height of folly for us to depart into the nebulous realms of Socialism, which has always been, as I propose to show, a failure wherever it has been tried, and whose adoption in this country would leave the state of this country, and indeed of the world, a great deal worse than it is at the present moment.
I must join issue, to start with, with two remarks which the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, made. He said he did not like shareholders; the Party opposite did not like shareholders because they did not give value for services rendered in the particular businesses in which they held shares. Of course they do not. What are shareholders? They are not only people of what is called the rentier class who sit down with pensions and do not do very much else except draw their dividends. Shareholders are, in addition, professional men, soldiers and sailors, doctors, lawyers, and members

199
of your Lordships' House, and I do not think anyone could accuse members of your Lordships' House of being idle men. Of course shareholders do not work in the businesses in which they hold their shares, but their capital goes to support those industries, and I really cannot see much objection in that. Then the noble Lord said that he thought owners of property were overpaid. A good many of your Lordships are landowners—I am one myself in a small way—but I never really heard it laid down even by Socialists that the landowner was overpaid.
The noble Lord mentioned a great many evils from which he said the people suffered owing to our social system, but he omitted to state the very large benefits which have accrued to the working classes during the period, say, of the last ten years. I have obtained a few figures with which I shall keep your Lordships for a few moments, though I do not propose to put before you many figures. Let us take the cost of living. It stood in 1924 at the index figure of 175; in 1934 it had fallen to 141. The number of insured workers in employment in Great Britain in 1924 was 9.53 millions and in 1934 10.14 millions. The average daily amount of postal receipts—a pretty good gauge of the country's prosperity—was in 1924 £114,618 and in 1934 it had risen to £137,582. Again, take the amount received from depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank. In 1924 the amount of deposits received was £81,056,000, and in 1934 it was £94,758,000.
The noble Lord, I think, said that there had been no improvement in the health services. I think he used those words, or words very like them. I can only say that in a statement made on the 20th of June last year, during the debate on the Vote for the Ministry of Health in the House of Commons, the Minister of Health stated that
"during the last ten years, owing to the improvement in the infant death-rate, we have saved 40,000 more infants under one every year than we were saving at the beginning of the century and the figures for the ten years at the beginning of the century were a great improvement on those of any preceding such period."
He also stated that in the last fifteen years we have cut down the death-rate of children under five years of age from the three diseases most fatal to children
200
—namely, bronchitis, diarrhœa and measles—by more than half, and also that where one person died of whooping-cough in 1932, nearly four died at the beginning of the century; where four died of diphtheria at the beginning of the century only one died in 1932; while of scarlet fever where one died in 1932 over seven were dying at the beginning of the century. The most remarkable scientific result of all was shown by the fact that where twenty-two people died of typhoid fever at the beginning of the century only one died in 1932. I think those figures are a very good example of the improvement which has been made in the health services of this country under the despised capitalist system.
My noble friend Lord Mount Temple, whom I should like, if he will allow me, to congratulate on his very excellent speech, went into a few figures regarding certain Socialist enterprises which had been started in different countries, and, with your Lordships' permission, I propose to go into them in a little more detail. Shipping appears for some reason or other to have been a very favourite subject on which to try the tenets of Socialism. State shipping has been tried by the United States, by France, by Canada and by Australia. The United States started State shipping in 1916. and from 1916 to 1930 the taxpayer of the United States is reckoned to have lost no less than £670,000,000 in State-controlled shipping. Take France, which in 1919 formed a merchant fleet called the French State Merchant Fleet. I see that from 1919 to 1924, when this unfortunate fleet was given up, the French taxpayer lost no less than £43,000,000 in capital losses over and above annual losses on the fleet. Australia affords a very striking, example as regards national shipping. From 1916 to 1928, when the vessels were sold, the losses to the Australian taxpayers amounted to £14,500,000.
Let us take railways. It is well known that the main reason why the Australian States cannot balance their Budgets is to be found in the heavy losses on the railways. The total loss from 1915 to 1932 on the Australian State Railways is reckoned to have been £81,000,000. The loss on the French State Railways which have now been under Government control for twenty-one years amounted up to two years ago, which is the latest date at

201
which figures are available, to £32,000,000, and the loss was supposed to be increasing by £80,000 per day. I think a good many of your Lordships will have travelled in France on the well-known Western Railway, which was always under State control, and I think you will agree that it is the very worst managed concern you could possibly imagine. So much for the railways. Then take State trading. Outside Russia, no country has experimented more, for some reason or other, in schemes of nationalisation and State trading than Australia, and such experiments have been tried as the public ownership of mines, cattle stations, timber yards, electricity, banking, hotels and other enterprises, and in the majority of cases the result has been a hopeless loss to the taxpayers. In very nearly every case these concerns, when they are "broke,'' are handed back to private enterprise.
I cannot believe that you can graft a system of State Socialism such as is proposed on to a nation when it is entirely at variance with its nature and customs. This country is a very individualist country. We dislike instinctively—I am afraid we have to put up with it a good deal more than we did—having our lives ordered for us by officials. I am glad to have the concurrence of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, on that. That would have to be the case in a very much larger degree under any system of Socialism. Who are the really rich men in this country to-day? If you look round you will see that very nearly all of them are men who started in the world with very little and who, by their hard work, by their immense energy and by their foresight, have created the big businesses that you see in the country to-day. As an example of such a business as I have in mind I would quote the great concern which is now presided over by the noble Marquess who leads the Liberal Party (the Marquess of Reading). It was started sixty years ago by Mr. Brunner and the grandfather of my noble friend Lord Melchett, who I regret not to see in his place. That would not have been possible under a Socialistic State, because you could not have got anybody to take the risks that these young men took in those days, or, if the State took the risk and the concern failed, the loss would fall on the nation—that is, on the taxpayer. It is quite a fallacy, I think, to say, as Socialists do say, that men would
202
work better for the State than they do for private individuals. The advantage of the capitalist system, as I see it, is that if a concern fails it goes to the wall, it goes into bankruptcy, and, therefore, you root out automatically inefficiency from your trade system. It may be a harsh system, but it is a system that has served this country very well for very many hundreds of years, and I think it would be a great pity to change it.
Then take the matter from the political point of view. Under the capitalist system, people sometimes say that unless you start with advantages of family connections or immense wealth or something of that kind you cannot get on in politics. Whenever they say that to me, I point to the Labour Governments who held office in 1924 and in 1929–31. Most of them were men who started with no natural advantages at all, and rose to the highest positions in the State. I have a particular example in my mind, the noble Lord, Lord Snell, who has left his place for a moment. The noble Lord, Lord Snell, started with no advantages whatever. He has been a member of Parliament, he is now a respected member of your Lordships' House, he has been an Under-Secretary of State in one of the principal Departments of Government, and he is now Chairman of the London County Council, the greatest municipality in the world.
I would ask noble Lords opposite a question, and I hope we shall get an answer to it, for I believe a certain number of them are going to speak in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, said in his opening remarks that they were going to take over various industries. The question to which I should like an answer is: how are they going to do it? I see that the Motion refers to "gradual supersession." As I understand the word "gradual"—though as my noble friend below the gangway said Socialist orators are not always agreed about this—it means that you are going to start with certain industries, say banks and coal mines, to take two at a venture. You are going to take them over and put in Socialist officials to run them. Of course it is going to take a. little time to do that. Meanwhile the other industries of this country are apparently to carry on working for profit under the capitalist system. This House,

203
if it proves at all obstructive, is to be abolished, and I understand from Sir Stafford Cripps and some of the more extreme members of the Party opposite, that even the House of Commons is not going to be allowed to function too much, because I gather that it is only going to be allowed to meet in order to register the decrees of the Government, and the country is going to be run by Orders-in Council.
I should very much like to know from noble Lords opposite what they think would be the state of those various other industries, which would be very much like ducks running about the farmyard waiting for the farmer's wife to wring their necks. I venture to think that the state of those industries would not be very enviable, either for the shareholders or for the taxpayers of the country. About two or three weeks ago we had a sort of semi-crisis, semi-panic in the City of London. We are used to these things in these days. A few years ago—certainly before the War—it would have been a very much worse crisis. But we are used to these things now, and Consols merely dropped 1½ to 2 points, which is considered nothing in these times. What was the reason for that panic? People talked about pepper and there were rumours about a new Stavisky scandal. There was an unfortunate by-election at Wavertree, and people said that was the reason. I do not believe it for a moment. What I think was the real reason was that certain newspapers who are not over-friendly to this Government spread a rumour on a Sunday that there was a crisis and disagreement in the Cabinet and that a General Election might be imminent.
The mere suggestion that this might be so and that the Party represented by noble Lords opposite might come into power was sufficient to cause this small crisis. That was not caused by the wicked Tory Party. It was caused by small investors and foreigners who took their money away. If the Party represented by noble Lords opposite came into office with their policy of spoliation—for it is nothing else—I venture to suggest that the consequences to this country might be very serious indeed. I have purposely not mentioned Russia in my speech because we are all rather inclined perhaps to get heated when we talk about
204
Russia, and I did not wish my remarks to be acrimonious.
LORD STRABOLGI: Your colleague is on the way there.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I would only say about Russia that the new system which the rulers of Russia are imposing on the country, the effects of which we have yet to see, is designed—to put it very mildly—to cause an immense amount of inconvenience and suffering to the people of Russia. I warn noble Lords opposite that if they and their Party imposed even one-hundredth of these inconveniences and ills upon the people of this country they would be driven from office in a very short time by an infuriated people. To borrow language from across the Atlantic, they would be told that that was where they would get off. I must not detain your Lordships much longer. I have done my best to show that in my opinion Socialism where it has been tried has been a complete failure, and I have done my best to show that in my opinion Capitalism, brought up to date and controlled in accordance with modern ideas, is still, and will continue to be, the best policy for this country.
Many hard things have been said about this House and about your Lordships. You have been called obstructionists, defenders of privilege, thwarters of the people's will, and described by other epithets which go down so well on Socialist platforms. My Lords, you need not mind that. This House has many enemies, but it has a great many friends—many more, I think, than some of us occasionally realise. People expect this House on occasions like this to speak its mind and give its vote in no uncertain terms. What I think has never been denied is that beneath the various qualities which your Lordships individually may possess, there lies a very sound substratum of strong common sense. That common sense will, I hope, be shown in full measure to-morrow when your Lordships go into the Lobby to defeat by a large majority this specious and most dangerous Resolution.
LORD ALLEN OF HURTWOOD LORD ALLEN OF HURTWOOD had placed on the Paper an Amendment to leave out all the words after "That" and insert "in view of the failure of society adequately to utilise and organize

205
natural resources and productive power, or to provide the necessary standard of life for vast numbers of the population, this House declares that legislative effect should be urgently directed to transforming the present industrial and social order by a rapid extension of the policy of collective organisation which has been increasingly adopted by every Government in modern times, and which now needs to be expressed in many varieties of public ownership and democratic control rather than in any one rigid formula, and which should be submitted to the attention of the nation by a constructive appeal to good will and intelligence and not as an appeal to class-hatred or as seeming to involve a financial or constitutional crisis."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to begin my speech by a word of gratitude to the noble Lord who has just sat down for making it so clear to the House that the speech which he has delivered was not on behalf of His Majesty's Government. That explanation has made my task as a supporter of the Government a great deal easier, and I am grateful to him for that opening statement. I am sure that the noble Lord fully realises that, however fantastic it may be to him, there are amongst the supporters of this Government those who rank themselves as sincere and lifelong Socialists and who intend to remain so notwithstanding their support of this Government. But when the noble Lord goes on to say that this Motion is an academic Motion, I am bound to disagree. While I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, I could not help but feel that the speech which he delivered was a very different kind of speech from many of the speeches which are delivered on behalf of the Labour Party, both officially and unofficially. I am going to take my life in my hands and deal with this question of Socialism in no academic sense at all, but in terms of the situation which will confront this nation probably within a year from now.
The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, has interested us by telling us how, in some remote future, industry may be organised under the Socialist State. What I am concerned with in my speech is whether Socialists are going to have a chance of using their programme, and whether a
206
Socialist Party is ever going to become the Government of this country in order to apply its programme at all. At the next General Election we are going to. be called to battle on the issue of Socialism both by His Majesty's Opposition and by His Majesty's Government. Whether that is a wise thing for the political democracy of this land I shall proceed to argue, but in order to prove my point I ask permission to read a quotation from the Leader of the Conservative Party, the Lord President of the Council, Mr. Stanley Baldwin. In a New Year message which Mr. Baldwin sent to the Primrose League, he used these words:
"Whether the General Election conies this year or a little later, 1935 is going to be politically a very important and critical year. I therefore urge all members of the League to let no opportunity pass of exposing the dangerous policy of Socialism. It is more necessary than ever to bring home to the electors the fact that the principles on which the League is based are a real bulwark against the devastating creed of Socialism."
Now, My Lords, I am sure I shall have the sympathy at least of some noble Lords on this side of the House when I say that this reference to the "devastating creed of Socialism" as the issue upon which the next Election is to be fought came a little hardly to certain supporters of the Government from the Leader of the Conservative Party. I very much hope that when we are called to battle we shall have less of those remarks from the Deputy Prime Minister of the National Government. It is, however, clear that at the next Election we are going to be called upon, apparently from both sides of the House, to deal with this question of Socialism as though it were either a menace from the Government point of view, or going to be made into a menace by the Labour Opposition. I cannot think of anything more disastrous to the future of political democracy in this country, anything more likely to impede the rapid social development that is now available, anything more likely to prevent the alleviation of the sufferings of the working class, than that we should be called to battle in the year 1933 on an unreal issue in which we are to fight either Capitalism on the one hand or Socialism on the other.
May I examine the actual wording of the Motion which has been tabled by the

207
noble Lord, Lord Sanderson? I should like to make it perfectly clear that if the procedure of this House requires me, when a Division is to be taken, to choose between the Motion which the noble Lord has put down and the Amendment which my noble friend Lord Mount Temple has put down—even though I desire to improve, as I think, on the wording of the noble Lord's Motion—I intend to vote for the Motion which has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson. I think, however, that that Motion is out of date. I fully remember the circumstances in which it was tabled, for I happened to be Chairman of the Independent Labour Party at the time when Mr. Philip Snowden put that Motion down in the House of Commons; I was therefore present at its birth. But, my Lords, twelve years have passed since then, and surely, though it may be strategically amusing to put down, in order to tease the noble Viscount, Lord Snowden, a Motion which was moved by him twelve years ago, it is not helpful to the cause of Socialism to submit here today a Motion the terms of which are not in accord with the times in which we live.
I submit to the noble Lords that, if they want to assist the cause of Socialism, they ought to present here a form of wording which does not suggest that we are going to change our social system by any one rigid formula or which points to any one particular cause as that which creates our present discontent. I am bound to point oat to the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, that, despite all the gentleness of the manner in which he has approached his subject, unhappily one of the things which has happened during the last twelve years is that the manner in which Socialists are presenting their case to the public has been obscured by anger, by envy and by the stirring up of misapprehension which is creating a barrier between their creed and the public. It is for that reason that I have had the hardihood to attempt to re-word the noble Lord's Motion, not because I seek to defeat Socialism but because I want to commend it to the minds, the intelligence and the good will of the people of this country.
In that Motion the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, refers to what he calls the failure of the capitalist system. The noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, refers to that same system as being a well-tried
208
system. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, does not want even partially to alter that system, and the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, who spoke from the Front Bench, says that it is impossible to graft on to the system of this country, with its individualistic outlook, any kind of Socialist system. The noble Lords seem to have been living in an Alice-in-Wonderland world during the last fifty years. There is no such thing as a capitalist system at the present moment, any more than there is a Socialist system. We are living in a period of transition which is neither capitalist nor Socialist, and if I may claim your Lordships' patience for a sufficient time I propose to bring forward a series of illustrations to prove how we have long since passed out of any organisation of society which can be described by the word "system" in any shape or form.
Every Government in succession during the last fifty years, right up to the time of the present Government, has been steadily engaged in increasing the area of collective organisation in this country: bringing under the State, under municipalities or under public utility corporations first this function and then that. We have the extraordinarily good fortune in this country, as compared with the situation which we see in countries abroad, to be living in a nation which seems to have the capacity for doing that very grafting which Lord Templemore said we could not do. That is exactly the quality which we possess. Whereas other countries pass through the storms of revolutions and catastrophes, we are able stage by stage to adapt ourselves to new circumstances and to graft new methods of organisation on to an old system. What is the result? To-day we are the least unfortunate country in a most unfortunate world. If we can avoid this unreal struggle taking place at the next Election, I believe that during the next two or three years we can advance rapidly towards that state of society for which the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, has pleaded in this House.
The tragedy of the present position, if I may speak for one moment on the electoral prospects of the country, is that the vast bulk of the people—probably something between 50 and 60 per cent. of the electors—are altogether out of touch with the various political machines which

209
seek their suffrage. If you happen to be a Socialist, as I am, and if you therefore wish to cast your vote for Socialism, you find the Socialist Party building this foolish barrier between its programme and its public. If you happen to be, as I am, a supporter of the idea of a National Government, you see this Government becoming less and less national in actuality, whatever it may be in name. I only wish that the noble Lord, Lord Stonehaven, were here in order that I might, remind him of some of the difficulties he is finding in the constituencies to-day of getting local Conservative organisations even to re-adopt their National Labour candidates who have served them in Parliament in support of the Government. Therefore, from the point of view of the country as a whole, what do you see if you watch the electoral graph at by-elections? We are faced with a position in which the country is out of tune with the political organisations which are appealing for its support.
What does the Leader of the Conservative Party say? He says we are to gird up our loins to fight Socialism. May I be permitted for a few moments to try to describe what I think Socialism is? First, it is a great social ideal which seeks to cultivate amongst citizens of a nation a spirit of service to each other, to bring nearer an. equality which gives them a greater opportunity of serving both their nation and themselves. Secondly, Socialism is a device by which the State collectively, year by year, seeks to redistribute the national wealth, and I would ask permission to give just a few figures as to what has already taken place in that respect. If you take the Inland Revenue report which has recently been put into your Lordships' hands you will find that the total number of large incomes has been substantially reduced during the last seven or eight years, and not because of the general increase of poverty which the world is experiencing. If you take the condition of the wage earners since 1914, the real wages, not money wages, have increased by nearly 20 per cent. If you take the survey of poverty in London which was organised by Charles Booth in 1880, you find that 30 per cent. of the population of London were below the poverty level. In 1928, when a similar survey was taken in comparable circumstances, those below the poverty level were only 8.7 per cent.
210
That is the first result of Socialism, in so jar as its seeks to redistribute the national wealth between the different classes.
Then, thirdly, Socialism is an attempt by which the nation carries the burdens of the less fortunate members of society. Those burdens were previously carried, in so far as they were not borne by the persons themselves, through private initiative on the part of charitable organisations, but since the turn of the century the State and municipalities have intervened, and so to-day you have built up in this country a great body of social services, whether concerned with health, housing or other purposes—a body of social activity which makes this country the envy of the whole world, so far as social services are concerned. In 1910 £63,000,000 were spent for the purpose of social services. In 1931 that sum had increased to £490,000,000, and that shows that even if you allow for the changing value of money the nation to-day is spending for the purpose of social services three times per head the amount which it was spending twenty-one years ago. The survey of the League of Nations of the world on its economic side, contains this definite statement:
"The general drift of the public utility and social services is almost inevitably in the direction of re-distributing income in favour of the poorer classes. When the indirect provision of real income noted above is considered, it becomes clear that the standard of living has risen substantially."
That is the third aspect of Socialism, which has been grafted on to our social system.
Fourthly, Socialism is an attempt to bring a sense of design into an economic system always disorganised. It seeks to use the functions of the State in order that industry may perform its duties more efficiently with less waste of capital and less suffering to those engaged therein. It used to be said in the old days that Socialism was production for use rather than profit. I think it should now be said that Socialism is production for public profit rather than private profit. That should be the new definition which we should give it. I wonder if I may hold your Lordships' attention for a moment just to mention the enormous variety of the interventions by the State in the world of industrial organisation. You begin with the

211
nationalised Post Office and when there was an inquiry only about two or three years ago the report was unanimous after all this experience in favour of continuing the Post Office as it was. Then you have your public utility corporations, and many varieties of State intervention to assist and co-ordinate industrial functions. Under the present Government you have had a rapid extension of Socialism grafted on to our individualistic society. You have had many kinds of marketing schemes which seek to regularise production and to meet the needs of the consumer through supplying commodities to your social services as now organised. You have, for instance, the milk scheme—
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Surely the fallacy in the noble Lord's latter argument in claiming these new ideas as Socialism is the fact that the State does not produce. In the electric schemes, for instance, the production is continuous by the private man or private corporation and not by the State.
LORD ALLEN OF HURTWOOD: The noble Lord appears to have read his modern Socialist books just as badly as he read Karl Marx. He gave us some description of what he believed to be the views of Karl Marx which I think there would be the utmost difficulty in recognising as Karl Marx's sentiment. Now he is seeking—
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: I am sorry, but I must interrupt my noble friend. Does he deny that in the cases he has mentioned the private individual, the private company continues to produce, and that it is not done by the State?
LORD ALLEN OF HURTWOOD: I most certainly do. In the case of public utility corporations such as in the matter of broadcasting, exactly the opposite is true. There is here no case at all of any private shareholder having any share in the profits or control. What we have discovered by process of time is that there are various methods by which you can introduce the principles of Socialism whereby the interest of the State and the interest of the body politic shall be put above the interest of any of the private individuals who compose that body. Through a public utility corporation you can get all the
212
advantage of collective organisation and promote efficiency without the disadvantage which conies from political manipulation which may easily arise if you proceed to nationalise all industries and run them from Whitehall. The noble Lord has held me up in the development of my argument. I want now to go further. Not only have we developed all this new social activity but we have even in this House Lord Melchett coming forward with his scheme of an enabling Bill under which staple industries could put their houses in order so that they may become more efficient and better organised for the delivery of their goods and services. So far as the future of Socialism is concerned, I earnestly beg my noble friends opposite to realise that this is not patching the capitalist system at all, it is preparing a more orderly form of economic organisation, which they will be able to take over more effectively if at some future date they should consider it to be desirable.
What is the result of this development on the economic side? It is this. It was calculated a few years ago that practically two-thirds of the large-scale economic organisation of this country had already passed out of the sphere of unregulated private profit-making control. Then we are told that we cannot graft a new system on to an old one. I have ventured to put this argument forward because I think it would be such a tragedy that the history of that kind of development—and with that history being maintained by this Government, which has placed more Socialism on the Statute Book than was ever placed there by noble Lords opposite between 1929 and 1931—should be interrupted at the next Election. May I just say to my noble friends opposite that the public wants these methods, and the needs of the time require this system of organisation.
The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, in his opening speech said that they did not preach class war. Let me read, if I may, a quotation, not from one of their unofficial speakers, but from one of their own official publications, and dealing with education of all subjects in the world. This is what their official publication says:
"The truth is that powerful sections of opinion hate the improvement of public education Tartly because it involves in

213
creased expenditure.…But they hate it still more for another reason. Every measure which decreases, even to a small extent, educational inequalities seems to them a menace to social privilege, and arouses, therefore, their bitter opposition. English educational policy has been drawn on lines of social class. They desire to preserve those lines, and, if possible, to deepen them."
That is a tragic way of presenting Socialism on a subject like education, and if it is not class war I do not know the significance of that phrase.
But to go further. Let me draw your Lordships' attention to a book that has been publicly blessed by the Leader of the Labour Party and other members of the late Cabinet. I have here the wrapper which appears round this book—"A book that tells Socialists precisely what to vote for and anti-Socialists precisely what to fear." Fancy presenting the Socialist case to unconverted people in terms of what is written here. It seems to me a tragic way of presenting the Socialist case. And you go further and you stir up the idea that, even if you receive a democratic mandate, your return to office will only have the effect of producing something in the nature of a crisis. I am studiously avoiding in this case any quotation from any unofficial speakers. I quote from the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party in the House of Commons. This is what he said:
"I am envisaging the period of the first Socialist Government in power "—
that is, after a democratic mandate has been given—
"as one of crisis. The atmosphere will be comparable to that existing in this country at the beginning of the Great War. The important thing is not to do things with the most scrupulous regard to the theories of democracy or exact constitutional propriety, but to get on with the job."
There is a declaration, not made in a speech which may have been misreported in the Press, but made in a calculated way in a book which tells the country that if they listen to the writer they will find themselves involved in a crisis, and that they must not have regard to the theories of democracy or exact constitutional propriety.
You are inviting other people to play with democracy who may not have that social concern for it that you claim for yourself. I cannot but feel that with all this stirring up in the nation of a belief that if His Majesty's Opposition should ever
214
have the chance of becoming His Majesty's Government there would be this constitutional and financial crisis, you are doing what you know you have denounced in the case of the militarists, who say: "If you want peace, prepare for war." In your own domestic policy you yourselves are repeating the fallacy which you expose in the case of the militarists. In these circumstances, in whichever direction one looks, one feels that this immense chance which our nation has of continuing to develop without upheaval by the process of constitutional building and economic readjustment may easily he destroyed at the next Election if this is to be the mood which is applied to it by the Opposition. And therefore I urge that what we must do is to use politics to keep this process of democracy alive in Great Britain.
It was this issue that was at stake in 1931. It was this that caused many of us to support the Government. It will be infinitely more at stake at the next Election. It is the function of politics to keep open the door of progress so that all the new forces that are gathering way through science and education and in other directions may combine to create a new society. If once we allow that door to be slammed in our faces through a bitter class struggle over out-of-date doctrines, we may repeat in this country some of the disasters that have been seen abroad. That is the reason why I put down the Amendment that stands in my name on the Paper.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, this debate exhibits one of the advantages which your Lordships' House possesses over another place. The noble Lord to whose speech we have just listened used the word "academic" in relation to this debate. The noble Lords representing the Opposition would not, I suppose, admit that this discussion is in any sense academic. They would say that they are looking forward at no very distant date to being able to fulfil the hopes explained in Lord Sanderson's Resolution, and therefore that they are doing a service to your Lordships in stating exactly what is going to occur when they come into office. However that may be, I must begin by echoing the protest that has already been made against the suggestion that the existing system, known as the capitalistic system,

215
can be regarded as a failure or as having broken down. Of course, as we know, the world is in a disturbed state and there is a great deal we should like to see changed; but it is not fair or reasonable to relate that state of things to the existence of the particular economic conditions under which we live. It would be almost as reasonable to say that Christianity has broken down, that being the religious system under which a great part of the world lives. Or if you like, you may say, as some people do, that the whole system of representative government has broken down. But I repeat, it is unreasonable to relate the various misfortunes under which the world labours to our present system.
After all, there is nothing novel in the suggestions which are contained in the original Resolution. If those arguments are good, then they have been good for two hundred years or more, and there is no reason to suppose that they are better now than they have been at any other time. We know the kind of arguments that have always been used. There is a story of the French Revolution of 1848, that when one of the principal leaders came out from an enthusistic meeting and was about to get into his carriage, he perceived perhaps that there was some discrepancy between his position and that of his supporters. He looked round and said: "We are hoping for the time when everybody will have a carriage." One of the bystanders, with the logic of his nation, said "In that case who will drive me in mine?" That was a very crude appeal to the simple desire of a man to have something which he had not got. At other times there has been the appeal to the even less worthy sentiment, not that everybody should have a carriage, but that nobody should have one.
I am quite prepared, however, to admit for my part that the communistic ideal has an attraction and fascination of its own. The efforts of Robert Owen and of those unsophisticated people who attempted to start communistic colonies, especially in America, evoke a certain degree of sympathy. The ideal of a community where everybody has the necessaries of life and nobody has any need of luxuries, because they do not exist, and where there is no need for money because there is nothing to buy—all that
216
may be regarded as an attractive ideal. If one may compare smaller things with greater, it is not altogether different from the ideal of a future state in heaven which used to be held out to children in school-rooms some generations ago. I think the children all admitted that the prospect was most peaceful and beautiful, but the sharper ones among them could not help reflecting that, as a method of passing eternity, it would be rather wanting in variety and incident.
I think we all agree—and it has been brought out in the most interesting speech made by the noble Lord who has just sat down—that there has been a very marked advance, not merely of late years but for many years past, in the public ownership and control of many departments. As we all know, in the Middle Ages there were a number of small private armies some of which were from time to time used for national purposes. In later days, we all enjoyed in our boyhood stories of privateers, that is to say, ships which fought in the national wars under what would now be called a licence. The noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, spoke of the Post Office, perhaps with a certain note of disparagement. I have no doubt that some of your Lordships know that for more than four hundred years the whole postal service of Central Europe was in the hands of a great Bavarian family, and it is only within living memory that a very large sum was paid to that family as final compensation for the postal service in the different countries concerned becoming a public business. I am quite sure that, whatever may be said of the Post Office, we would all rather see it conducted by Sir Kingsley Wood, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, paid a most handsome compliment yesterday, than by one of my noble friends on the Front Bench opposite as a private enterprise.
As Lord Allen has pointed out, there are many instances in which the public control has increased. Where I think a definite black line must be drawn between the two sets of opinions, where there is a great gulf fixed, is that, while among noble Lords generally there may be a great diversity of opinion as to the extent to which public control and ownership should be exercised—there being some who would like to see it reduced as far as possible and others who would like to see it considerably enlarged—everybody,

217
judging by the terms of this Motion, who feels entitled to call himself a Socialist pure and simple, looks forward to applying it to everything. That, I take it, is a natural line of demarcation which has to be drawn and it is one which would make it impossible for anybody who does not desire to be ticketed as a Socialist pure and simple to vote for the Motion of the noble Lord, Lard Sanderson.
Now I think it is relevant, rather pursuing the line taken by the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, to ask what would actually happen in the event of noble Lords on these Benches being able to carry out their desires. I pass by very briefly the question of the extinction of small traders of all kinds—the little shopkeeper in the by-streets of towns, the village blacksmith, and the village wheelwright—because, I am sorry to say, there i3 a tendency, whether we are Socialists or not, towards the extinction of these people. I sometimes wonder whether the great brewery firms who are now extinguishing small licence holders, and the promoters of multiple shops and chain stores, always realise how much they are accustoming the public mind to a sort of ownership which is not in essence very different from the kind of ownership advocated by noble Lords on the Opposition Benches. There is not much difference whether you use the letter "N" or the letter "R," whether you talk of nationalising or rationalising. There may not be in all cases much difference—I wish there were more difference—between the two.
When one comes to some of the larger enterprises now conducted privately and which might be conducted publicly, I take in the first instance one of the textile industries, cotton, on which I speak with all the more confidence because I do not pretend to know much about it. But what one does realise is that it has been through a very bad time and that the present system may, without great exaggeration, be said to have broken down to a considerable degree, and therefore it would seem to offer a favourable playground for noble Lords on the Opposition Benches. We all know that the cotton industry is very complicated. All the raw material has to come from other countries and will continue to do so, because one feels that even noble Lords who are fascinated by the creation of an artificial sugar growing system in this country would scarcely
218
propose to start an industry for growing cotton under glass, although it might give a great deal of employment. We all know that the whole business of importing is decidedly complicated and also that it offers, as it would still offer under public management, a great field for speculation, for gambling in futures, next year's crop, and double futures, the crop of the year after next; but in addition to that there is the immense complication of the spinning industry, weaving, and dyeing and finishing. Assuming that all the mill hands became, as they would become, Government servants, and that all those who now hope to make a little profit out of buying and selling would be working on a fixed salary, what conceivable reason is there for supposing that that immensely complicated export trade would be any better worked under public management than it is at present?
The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, indicated—I am afraid it was rather a shock to some of your Lordships—the manner in which industries would be bought up. They would be bought up, apparently, not at what would be called market value, but by giving something of the nature of a life annuity to those interested in them. That is a form of expropriation, and I think we are also bound to use the word confiscation, of private property which in ordinary circumstances would be compensated for at what is known as market rate; and I take it that that system is to apply not merely to cotton mills and things which now could be bought cheaply, but to other property of all kinds which even now has considerable market value. I pass rapidly over the coal trade; that has already been mentioned. Of course the buying out of mineral rights is a totally different question. That is not a Socialist proposition at all. It is simply a question of public convenience. Personally I do not think anything very much would happen if it were done. I do not think it would be found that the coal trade would benefit to any material extent by the purchase of mineral rights because one serious difficulty which formerly existed no longer exists—namely, the system by which a landowner in a particular line of advance of a coal enterprise could obstruct it unless he were paid something beyond a fair rent. Therefore I do not think it would make very much difference. What I have said about the complication, of the

219
cotton trade applies certainly in an equal degree to the many ramifications of the coal trade, both domestic and export.
Then there is the question of the land. Nationalisation of the land again, so far as the actual taking over by the State of the surface, would not be in the main a matter of great complication. It is quite true that if expensive farm buildings were taken over at an all-round low valuation, which I understand is the proposition, for a few years it would be a decidedly paying thing for the State, whatever might be the moral propriety of the act, and I presume that the result would be that all tenant farmers would be sooner or later, sooner rather than later, turned into bailiffs working at a fixed wage. I suppose the smallholders, who I am glad to say have been placed in large numbers in the county about which I know most, would be told that they would not have to work their holdings on their own account but would have to work them at a fixed payment, and if they made a profit, it would go, I presume, to the county or possibly to the Exchequer. I doubt if propositions of that kind will please very greatly a large number of small people. It is by no means a question of expropriating members of your Lordships' House and others outside. There are hundreds of thousands of people of very moderate means who would find that their means of living and their prospect of leaving anything to their families were entirely destroyed. No noble Lord has so far mentioned the abolition of freedom of bequest. I take it that is one of the items, an important one, in the creed which is held by noble Lords on those Benches.
One point of discussion which arose between the noble Lord, Lord Allen, and a noble Lord on this Front Bench is the manner in which these changes are to be brought into operation. Nothing could have been more pleasant than the tone in which the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, foretold the methods by which these vast changes, amounting undoubtedly to a complete social revolution, are to be brought about. The noble Lord opposite, Lord Allen, was not, I think, quite so confident that it could be done with so much rose water. Nor am I. I recall a long and friendly conversation which I held some years ago
220
with a distinguished exponent of Bolshevist principles. After telling me a great deal of what Russians were doing, how much they were encouraging art, and how on the whole things were working well, he expressed the opinion that if their principles were to be imposed on Western Europe it would be altogether impossible that it should be done without going through what they had had in Russia—namely, a violent revolution accompanied by a great deal of bloodshed. I replied that I was very glad to hear that, because it was precisely the view which a great many of us entertained here. We believe that if what is practically the Communistic system is to be forced on this country it could only be done by a violent revolution. I know that is not the opinion of noble Lords on those Benches, but it is an opinion which, I think, a great many of us must be allowed to hold.
I think I can speak for my noble friends on these Benches when I say it is altogether impossible for us to support for a moment the ideas presented by the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson. Nor, I am afraid, am I altogether prepared to adopt the views stated by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, from a somewhat different point of view. I suppose that in this debate we are justified in mentioning even Amendments which have not yet been moved and, therefore, I would ask your Lordships to consider whether the Amendment which my noble friend Lord Lothian has on the Paper does not on the whole represent the central point of view more than any other of the Amendments on the Paper. It is quite true that he mentions the obstacles placed in the way of progress by the barriers to international trade, and though that is not the subject which is specifically before us, I should think that your Lordships would be glad to see those barriers reduced all over the world. Apart from that, I think that my noble friend's Motion puts the common sense of the whole question as well as it need be put. I merely come back to asking noble Lords to reflect: Cui bono? Who are the people who are really going to get advantage out of the line of action indicated in the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson? I can only say for myself that I shall have the utmost pleasure in voting against it.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I have always considered that your Lordships' House is seen at its best when a question of fundamental importance such as the one we are discussing is before it, and inasmuch as this is not a Party matter we can, without any question of Party loyalty, try to get very near to what each one of us believes. Not that non-Party opinions always mean calmness and gentleness. Not long ago I was talking to a distinguished and revered philosophical teacher, and he complained that we politicians always imputed personal motives into our discussions whereas philosophers were calm and deliberate. I said to him: "Is that really so? So far as I have observed you idealists are not even on speaking terms with the pragmatists." He said: "No, indeed; they are not worth speaking to." We are somewhat in that position this afternoon. Issues have been raised which compel us to examine exactly where we stand in relation to the great problem of the social organisation of the future. Let me say at once that the Amendments that have been put down to my noble friend's Motion stand up in a quite unusual and refreshing way to the problem that has to be discussed.
The noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, has put down an Amendment which is a full-throated shout of praise of the capitalist system. He warned your Lordships against the gentle guile of my noble friend Lord Sanderson, and said: "If you really want to know what Socialists are and what Socialism means you must not listen to this debate, but you must go to Hyde Park." I should be very sorry to force your Lordships to take that journey, and happily there is no need because I can bring Hyde Park to you. So far as public speaking is concerned, Hyde Park was my University, and I do not know that there is any better place. You see in me Hyde Park at its worst. The noble Lord also told us that this Motion was Karl Marx. Really, my Lords, if there is anything characteristic about British Socialism it is that it is not Marxian. The noble Lord, Lord Allen, complained that the Motion of my noble friend was twelve years old. He was aware, of course, of the classical reason for repeating it, but there was another reason to be found in the speeches of the noble Lards, Lord Mount
222
Temple and Lord Templemore. The tone and temper of their replies belonged to thirty years ago. What would have been their intellectual condition if we had produced for debate a Resolution that was right up to date? It was a matter of great kindness to them, at least, to allow a time lag of twelve years.
It seemed to me as I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, that no parent was ever so blind to the faults of his child, so certain about its perfection as he was in regard to the capitalist system. So long as we adhered to that it would heal all ills. The Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Allen was a reasoned and constructive Amendment with which I have no sort of difference. He appealed to us to approach this discussion in a spirit of intelligence and good will. I hope that he meant that to apply to both sides, and that we are not to be compelled to use the honeyed words of peace whilst his present political associates are to tread the Primrose League path of dalliance with anti-Socialist invective. So far as I am concerned, let me say on the question of the class war to which he referred, that I have never, in a public life much longer than his, said a word in its favour and that I have made hundreds of speeches against it. It is not quite fair to the Socialist movement, to the Labour movement, to pick out some isolated phrase of a man who perhaps spoke out of the misery he felt rather than from his knowledge of the situation and to present that as being the temper of the Socialist movement.
LORD ALLEN OF HURTWOOD: If I may be allowed to interrupt for a moment, I would like to point out to the noble Lord that the quotation I made so far as the class war was concerned was from one of the official books of the Labour Party itself.
LORD SNELL: The noble Lord himself has written official books which have been subject to a very searching criticism and denunciation. Let him have the charity towards others that he expects for himself. Let me remind the noble Lord of this, when he appeals for charity and good will, that in spite of all its faults England has the most constitutional, the most orderly, the most co-operative Socialist and Labour Party in the world. Its men and

223
women are of the fibre that would do credit to any nation. I have known them and worked with them, and I want to say that I have never known, and do not wish to know, better men. But I have never heard, and he has never heard, one generous, one really fair word about their work or about what they stand for. Moderation has been answered by slander and their ideals have been derided. If poisoned words could have killed the Socialist movement it would have been dead long ago. The Amendment put on the Order Paper by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, assumes an attitude of shocked belligerency. The capitalist system is sacrosanct, Socialism is wicked.
EARL PEEL: That is not in the Amendment, however true it may be.
LORD SNELL: Socialism aims to remedy maladjustments in society and to produce a wise economic and financial plan. It means to secure gradually and painlessly the transition of a state which is disorganised and full of disharmony into one that will have some relationship to the moral law. I really do not see what there is in that which should make the noble Earl, Lord Peel, fear to touch the evil thing. The case for Socialism this afternoon has been well put both by my noble friend behind me and by my noble friend Lord Allen, and I think I can best serve the House if I try to show in answer to the speeches that have been made just where I at least think the capitalist system has failed. As I listened to the speeches I was not quite sure that even its defenders knew what the capitalist system was. Let me try to describe it.
First of all, let me do so in the words of a very distinguished philosopher, Sir Henry Maine, in his book on popular government. He says:
"It is the beneficent private war which makes one man try to climb up on the shoulders of another and to remain there."
In charity to the intellectually distressed I propose to say what I think Capitalism really stands for—I hope with fairness and clearness. Those who support the capitalist system believe that human welfare demands the minimum of interference by Government in economic and social affairs; that harmony can be established only through the free play of economic forces; or, if not harmony, then at least progress. In
224
this free play of economic forces the weak and inefficient will suffer, but in the end the State, the whole community, will benefit. That, I take it, is a fair presentation of what Capitalism really stands for. From my standpoint I have never ceased to be amazed that generous minded and fine-grained men could support so hideous a doctrine. Our fathers believed that inequality and poverty were in accordance with the natural law, were inevitable, and they therefore put up with them. We know that slums are riot inevitable; we know that poverty is a social disease that can be cured. If it was a natural law, it was a bad law; the point is that it was not the moral law, and that is the really decisive thing. We do not deny the strength of the acquisitive impulse to get and to hold; we do not deny that it has done certain things for humanity; but while we may be compelled to bow before it we will never call it good, or praise it, or say that nothing can be better.
I detect a confusion in the minds of critics of Lord Sanderson's Motion as to what Socialism really means and what Capitalism does. They think Capitalism is the holding of private property, and that if Socialism came a man would lose his watch, and this, that and the other possession. That is the poorest mechanical view of a great principle. I am quoting now from Mr. and Mrs. Sidney Webb:
"It is not the sanction and security of personal possessions that forms the foundations of our capitalist system but the institution of private ownership of the means by which the community lives."
That is really the capitalist system. Socialism is not that a person may not own things, but it is that he ought not to own the means by which the community has its life. Again, the criticism this afternoon has assumed that the capitalist system is perfect, that it is permanent, and that to question it is presumptuous. In reality it is a modern thing, and it will be a transient thing. Other systems before it made the same claims for permanency and said that they were based upon natural and even divine laws. So it was with serfdom; so it was with slavery in America. No one was surer than the owners of slaves in the Southern States that slavery was a divine law which they ought to defend even to the point of civil war, and they defended

225
it until they were swept away by the sacred rage of a noble people. Capitalism is of that same breed, and in my judgment it will go the same way.
I do not know whether your Lordships would think it indelicate of me if I were to illustrate what I want to say by my own personal experience. It is not unrelated to this problem. I began to experience the dignity of labour early in life, and at ten years of age I worked for twelve hours every day for fourpence per day, and seventy-two hours per week for two shillings. And, you know, I was not grateful. I did not know that Capitalism was thoughtfully and generously adapting itself to my needs according to this Amendment, or I might have understood that it could have paid me one shilling instead of two. Then again, when I began to study economic theory Walker was put into my hands as being a classical economist, safe, and not likely to lead me astray. This is what I found: that so late as 1870—
"children were employed in the brickyards of England under strange taskmasters at three and a half years of age. Account is given of a boy weighing fifty-two pounds whose daily task covered fourteen miles, half of this with a load of clay weighing forty pounds upon his head."
The same case, or perhaps another case, is dealt with in the same author's book The Wages Question:
"At the meeting of the Social Science Association in 1870, Mr. George Smith presented a lump of clay weighing forty-three pounds which, in a. wet state, he had taken a few days before off the head of a child nine years of age who had daily to walk twelve and a half miles in a brickyard, half the distance with such a burden. The clay,' said Mr. Smith, 'was taken from the child and the calculation made by me in the presence of both master and men.'"
In the words to be found in the New Testament:
"Whoso shall offend one of these little ones… it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."
I should like to say something else. When I was a child, I saw old people whom I knew, neighbours of my parents, whose example and character are a part of my own spiritual heritage, worn out and sent by Capitalism heartbroken to the workhouse, which to them was but a prison with another name, with the same callousness with which it now sends old, used horses to the knackers' yards
226
of France and Belgium. My Lords, do you not wonder that the sons of some of these men and women decided to do the best that in them lay to destroy a system which permitted that, and to try to build something better in its place? I am thankful to say that for more than fifty years there has not been a day on which I have not tried my best to supplant this beautiful capitalist order by a system based on ordered co-operation and intelligent planning. I do not wish to say that poverty is peculiar to Capitalism; it is not. Primitive communities, communities subjected to drought, and arid areas generally, have had poverty and will have it again. Capitalism, however, is condemned because it perpetuates poverty in the midst of plenty. That is the real point.
England, at the time of which I was speaking, was rich beyond record; her commercial prosperity had no parallel in the history of the world. The people shouted with joy about it. The Spectator in 1882 said:
"Britain as a whole was never more tranquil and happy. No class is at war with society or the Government; there is no dissatisfaction anywhere. The Treasury is fairly full, the capital accumulations are vast."
How did Capitalism, before the Labour Party came into being to disturb the situation and produce these terrors, use that wealth? The people were docile, there was "no disaffection anywhere," Professor Rowley tells us that 320,000 adult males in regular employment were earning less than 15s. per week; that 640,000 were earning between 15s. and 20s. a week, and 1,600,000 between 20s. and 25s. and so on. Thus you have, on this authority, this responsible calculation, that 2,500,000 adult males in regular employment were receiving less than 25s. a week, and 4,240,000 were receiving less than 30s. a week.
The noble Lord spoke about Capitalism increasing wages. There was a period in the middle of the nineteenth century when, as a result of the industrial revolution and the application of science to industry, things were considerably better, but if the noble Lord means that Capitalism ever voluntarily increased wages he is presuming upon the ignorance of your Lordships of commercial processes. There never has been a demand on the part of the workers for better conditions

227
that has not been resisted. There never was a strike of workmen to get better wages when Capitalism did not fight the hunger of the men's wives and children with bank balances drawn out of the profits of labour. It seems to me that Capitalism is at best a dying creed.
A NOBLE LORD: Then why worry?
LORD SNELL: I saw it in America on March 4, 1933. All the banks were closed (there was no Labour Party in America) and the capitalist hosanna suddenly changed into a squeal of terror, and nobody was so anxious to get off the shoulders of his neighbours and to take refuge under the sheltering wing of the State as the capitalists at that time. Things have altered since then in America. The Times, on the 5th of this month, said:
"Great improvements have been effected since the President took control. Production figures are now not far short of normal. Trade has improved in all directions. Agricultural prices have been raised.…"
and that has been done, not through unrestricted private initiative, but through control and planning, which with all its faults has helped to restore America to something like happiness. Capitalism is now engaged in adapting itself to Socialism, and everywhere—Mr. Bennett in Canada, and again in Italy, Germany and elsewhere—the private war is giving way to public control.
My Lords, my general criticism of the capitalist system is this, that it makes no effort to direct to social ends the economic and financial changes which occur. We spend our time patching up rents in the social fabric, and spend no time at all in trying to weave a new one. Capitalism ignores every problem until it has become inconvenient. It accepts with fatalistic lethargy the drift of population from north to south. It sees industries in the north decline, although the towns in which they were are admirably equipped for new industries which could be sent there. And, finally, Capitalism, if left alone without this dreadful State or communal control, would destroy the loveliest village and the inherited beauty of a thousand years. The one thing that arrests the internecine capitalist warfare is not individual private initiative but the fear that changes may come.
228
Before I close I want to say a word or two about my own conception of the Socialist advance. We are asking that the capitalist system should be gradually superseded, based on public ownership, if you will, or democratic control; that is to say, that all future legislation should be of a Socialistic tendency. We cannot say what it is wise to do. Noble Lords may detail the difficulties, such as was done by the noble Marquess on my right and other speakers, but the thing which will really determine the change will be the question of utility and expediency; changes will come so that we shall not know that changes are taking place, and they will be no quicker than we are fitted to ensue them and live under the changes made.
As far as I analyse the present society it is this, that present tendencies show a distinct quality, and that quality is a larger and larger aggregation of capital. Combinations and undertakings lead to the supersession of small ones. Will it be a comfort to the poor private person if he is superseded by a joint stock company rather than by a community? because by one or the other he is bound to be superseded. We do not claim any divine sanction or any sort of perfection for the views that we hold. We believe that they are ethically justifiable, and that a way to achieve them will be discovered. We do not claim that our views are always right or our methods—our ideals are always better than our choice of methods to realise them—but I believe for what it is worth that Socialism, as we know it, is even at its worst better than Capitalism at its best. I apologise if I have appeared vehement and even impolite. These things touch our feelings, and one's emotions cannot be put in a refrigerator. I have confessed my faith, and having done so I do not much mind if I do not speak in your Lordships' House again.
But in conclusion I would like to say that in my judgment Socialism is the hope of millions throughout the world, and I am not one of those who believe that a thing so evil as has been stated can appeal so wonderfully to the men and women I have had the privilege of knowing and working with. I doubt whether any movement since the Reformation has called to itself the devotion and the service and the social idealism that this

229
movement has, and although it may be defamed, and its advocates libelled, and its ideals derided, Socialism will stay and Capitalism will go. So far as I know my friends on this side, they have responded to an urge which makes men strive to reach that which is just beyond their grasp, and that gives to them the kind of reward that Capitalism can neither give nor take away. I believe myself that in some way, perhaps in a way that none of us can conceive, an ordered, equitable, co-operative society will emerge from the present capitalist system, and my faith in that is as keen as it was fifty years ago when I began my work. Capitalists may hinder it, but they cannot prevent it, and I believe that if we apply our minds to the great purpose before us we shall find the way to go from a capitalist society which leaves men, within the shadow of this building, With their families six in a bed, to a society based upon order and upon human sympathy.
EARL PEEL: My Lords, I put down on the Order Paper an Amendment to this effect:
" Since the country is slowly but surely recovering from the financial and economic crisis, this House considers it inexpedient to give any countenance to doctrines which even if partially carried into effect must destroy confidence and increase unemployment."
The noble Lord who has just sat down has criticised my Amendment rather severely. He denounced it as belligerent in style. Well, I can only tell him that if he thinks this is an example of my belligerent style he a good deal underestimates my capacity in that direction, I thought it was the mildest language I could use to express my meaning. I certainly do not think that the noble Lord need apologise to your Lordships' House for vigorous and forcible expression. I for one always like to hear people speaking forcibly, especially of their early life and when it has coloured their subsequent opinions. But if the noble Lord will allow me to say so, I think early experiences do sometimes colour our opinions, and perhaps for that reason the deductions which we draw from them are not quite so world-wide as we sometimes think them to be.
I will refer briefly to what he said about the evils of the capitalist system. He certainly denounced it in good round terms, and I must say that after reading
230
the history of the past it is extremely difficult to imagine, not that capitalists, but that anybody could have tolerated the conditions affecting child labour in 1800 and 1810 and thereabouts. I am glad to say that my family record is rather a good one, because my great-grandfather was the first man who introduced into the House of Commons a Factory Bill. I am told it was a very bad Bill and was not properly carried out, and perhaps I shall have the opportunity of introducing a better one at a later stage. But I do not want to go into the details of the past, I would rather deal with the present.
In spite of the evils that the noble Lord attributes to Capitalism—and apparently according to him there is nothing to redeem it, nothing to be said in its favour, and it must be destroyed—it must be rather puzzling for him and for others, when they study the social history of this country for the last eighty years, to see the enormous improvements that have progressively taken place in all directions in the life of the working classes during that time. If, instead of relieving their feelings by denouncing Capitalism, they ever feel in the mind to study truthfully and honestly what has taken place I do not think they will talk so whole-heartedly about the evils of Capitalism, but will perhaps do justice to innumerable people who have worked for the assistance and improvement of the working classes during that period.
I should like to say a word about the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, because until I heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Snell, we were jogging along very comfortably in a sort of Utopian academic discussion. I think it was Lord Snell who took noble Lords very much to task for suggesting that the Socialists had derived their Socialist views from Karl Marx. Well, having very carefully studied all these economists, I am bound to say I see a very considerable connection between them, although no doubt the idiosyncrasies and character of Britons have to seine extent modified their views. But in the case of Lord Sanderson I was very much struck by the fact that he laid down definitely and straightforwardly those old propositions about Socialism with which I have been

231
familiar for a good many years. If you are considering Socialism as a means of raising the position of the masses of the people, and if those words about ideals mean anything, as I am sure they do in the minds of noble Lords opposite, I really think they must consider a little more carefully whether their particular methods are going to introduce the great improvements of which they talk so much, because there is, to my mind, an amazing lack of logic in their statements.
It is very nice to attack Capitalism—and attacking anything, I am sorry to say, in this unregenerate world is rather pleasant. Sometimes even attacking the Government affords sport to certain minds. It is quite a different thing to say that all these evils are going to be swept away by a system which has got to defend itself and to answer a good many pertinent questions as to how it is going to work in practice. The propositions laid down by the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, cut across some of the most deeply rooted instincts in the British character. I was very interested in the noble Lord's description of distribution. Like most Socialists, he said very little about production, a good deal about distribution, and not a word, so far as I heard him, about exchange. With regard to distribution, however, I found a difficulty in grasping exactly what he meant, because he referred to distribution or payment of reward by merit, and he said "Who can judge merit?" And poor merit got kicked and dismissed from the scene as a method of distributing goods. Then by work done—is that test to be taken? That was equally swept away by the noble Lord; and he said that distribution was to go by need.
That left me in rather a puzzled state of mind. I do not know whose need he meant. Was it the need of the individual, or the need of the family, or somebody else's need? How, indeed, is the noble Lord, who is so contemptuous of merit as a test, going to apply need as the measure by which reward is to be given? But then, after having given us these delicate tests, he says he thinks equal distribution will be the simplest method. Does he really? I mean we are talking of human beings and not of idealists who speak in Hyde Park.
LORD SNELL: Are they not human?
EARL PEEL: I do not know whether to include the noble Lord in that gallant band or not. I have had my experience there as well. I doubt whether my speeches gave such pleasure to those who listened as his did; but, after all, we are speaking in a practical world. Is there anybody who supposes that, shall I say the mass of the people in this country, are going to be content to get a perfectly equal distribution, whatever their contribution?—for that is his proposition. Whatever their contribution in work, ingenuity, invention or new patents, they are going to get exactly the same distribution. It certainly does argue a very high state of intelligence, culture and morals to suppose that the same efforts will be put forward by everybody, although they get exactly the same reward. I heard the noble Lord pay a magnificent tribute to the Socialists with whom he was associated. He said that they were a very fine body of people. I dare say they are, but I rather suspect that even they, if put to the test, would shrink a little from this method of assessing their merits and contributions.
The other point to which I should like to refer is the question of competition. That, of course, was denounced by the noble Lord as being the case of one man trying to get on the shoulders of another man. I have heard kindlier definitions of competition. Considering that competition cuts so deep into the national character that nine men out of ten are much more interested in competitions than in anything else, it seems to me incredible that you are going, with one swoop, to cut away all that principle of competition and to come down to formal co-operation without any rivalry or any attempt to beat the other fellow. I find it rather a strain on my knowledge of human nature to suppose that that is going to take place. One noble Lord—I am not quite sure which—was speaking of the entire change that has come over industry. He said that competition had gone out of industry. I do not think he could have been very deeply concerned in industry to give vent to such a proposition. It is quite true that competition in industry has very much altered from what it was forty or fifty years ago, but competition in industry is to-day of the sharpest and severest kind, for now it is generally exercised by great organised bodies which are fighting each other with

233
a tenacity, vigour and resource which could not have been shown forty or fifty years ago. Indeed, that competition is not merely with other bodies and other countries, for the movement of science, advance, suggestions and patents are constantly altering businesses and making them fight, if not with competitors, at least with science and with time.
The other point the noble Lord dealt with was that profit-seeking is obnoxious. That proposition I entirely deny. It may be that in certain cases too much greed for profit is an unfortunate thing, but the advantage of profit in any business is that it is a test that the needs of the public are really being met. It is a test that a business as a whole is managed with efficiency, and it is probably one of the only tests. If you do away with the incentive of profit, I think you will have a very great loss of efficiency in your businesses. Like the noble Marquess opposite, I simply am unable to understand—and I have some knowledge both of Public Departments and of business—how the infinitely difficult and intricate matter of foreign exchange can be carried on by the sort of Socialist State which is suggested by the noble Lord opposite. Indeed, I think the Departments already have plenty to do in trying to assist our trade to get into foreign markets, and if they were to devote themselves wholeheartedly to that, they would render a great service to our trade. They should do this rather than speculate on what is to be done under a Socialist system, when a quarrel about a contract or the price of goods would at once become a diplomatic incident, and our knowledge of diplomatic incidents and methods does not lead us to suppose that they are quite as swift as is necessary in the commercial world.
I should like, if I may, to put one or two questions to which the noble Lord opposite, Lord Strabolgi, will reply perhaps when he follows me. They concern the working of this system. Everybody knows, of course, that in order to maintain and develop business you constantly have requirements for fresh capital, which comes from savings and from profits. I find it difficult to visualise exactly what will happen when the Sate is the only owner of capital. States and Governments do not usually shine by their economies. Generally they are futile, irresolute and
234
easily drawn; but at the present moment there is some incentive on account of the fact that the people in the country itself, who are engaged in saving, know the virtues of thrift. If there is no incentive to save, if all capital is taken from the possession of individuals, where is the incentive left, and where is the support of those virtues of frugality and thrift on which the State must save? Indeed, I am afraid there will be very little saving on the part of the State, and that if this Whole monopoly is maintained by the State, there will be a falling in the industrial efficiency of the country, for the reason that the State will not have the energy to save, but will rather tend to distribute in immediate wages or salaries any profits that it might possibly obtain.
The other difficulty, which has not been emphasised to-night, is the extraordinary difficulty, as a practical matter, of introducing your solution—that is to say, the abolition of private capital. Let noble Lords consider the enormous increase in numbers during the last forty or fifty years of the small capitalist. If you examine the lists of large companies or banks and so on, you will be amazed, if you have not already realised it, at the vast number of small holders in these great concerns. It is, of course, the invention of the limited company and its connection with the banks, that has enabled the smallest people who can save to have some share in, and some feeling that they control, some of these gigantic concerns. Their influence possibly may not be very great, but it is far greater than it would be if they were simply shareholders in the great general concern of the State. Now that system, combined with the banks, has really set up one of the most wonderful machines that the world has ever seen for gathering capital from all sources, however small they may be, uniting that capital in great companies, bringing it back to the banks, and then, through the action of the banks, distributing it in the best manner for the purpose of assisting industry.
I was going to raise the question of compensation, but as it has already been dealt with, I need not do so. I am, however, a little puzzled to know what happens to those who have got to invest capital in a Socialist State, if they are paid off by the Socialists, and if the few

235
last remaining businesses are paid off. What are people going to invest in? Are they going to invest in State stock, or are they going to be allowed to invest money in foreign securities? All these are detailed questions, but they are of intense importance to individuals and owners. I never hear any sort of attempt on the part of the Socialists to deal with these matters when they give one the general statement that everything will be well under a Socialist system. Indeed I should have liked to have asked them what they are going to do about the banks. We have heard a good deal about the banks lately. There has been rather a significant silence about the nationalisation of the banks to-day. Has that great principle of policy, so strongly advocated in another place, been diminished or thrown over? Take one bank alone, Barclays Bank. The chairman in his speech the other day stated there were no fewer than 60,000 shareholders in that bank, not just the few, limited number of "Money Barons" who are sometimes spoken of in speeches outside.
What is to be done if these banks are nationalised? I hardly conceive that you will dismiss the present organisation; you could not replace them by people who know nothing of the theory or practice of banking. But you will exercise a general control. How is that general control to be exercised and to what end? Are you going, as the banks do now, to make loans to the credit-worthy industries and so on, or are you going to favour certain industries, or what is your policy going to be as a practical banker? We get no answer on that point at all. We have never heard a syllable to show how this control of banking is going to benefit industries or in what way it is going to be exercised for the benefit of the public.
I see an enormous disadvantage to the Government, to any Government, under a complete system of Socialism. At present the Government is a large employer of labour but it still is able in many cases to exercise a mediating and modifying influence in labour disputes; but once you have the whole business of the country concentrated in the hands of the State, with the Government as the only employer, you will have the Government set against the great mass of employed, and you are likely to have un
236
due pressure or perhaps unfairness when the Government has to deal with the enormous amount of labour that it has got to distribute somehow or other, either by persuasion or force in all the different industries in the country.
I am, I am bound to say, very sceptical as to this alleged decay or complete failure of the capitalist system. It is due to the capitalist system that, pushed into a War that we never desired and wished to escape, we were able to finance that War by raising almost incredible sums on our credit which Capitalism had built up in this country and to raise money to an extent that outranged the dreams even of the greatest financiers in this country. Is it nothing that the expenditure of this country has risen from £100,000,000 at the beginning of this century to £700,000,000 or £800,000,000 now, and that this much despised capitalist system has borne that weight? Is it nothing that we are spending £500,000,000 a year on social services, on pensions, grants to health and to education? We do not hear one word about the services rendered by this despised and attacked capitalist system in that direction. I never heard one word from the noble Lord, Lord Snell, as to whether he thinks this was a benefit or was not. One point I should like to put to him is this: Before the noble Lord transfers this tremendous burden to a new Socialist State is he quite certain that it will bear that burden, and is he quite certain that he will be able to get by his system of "business-without-profit" all that wonderful financial power which has enabled all these things to be done and which have been admitted to have been in so many cases of great value to the masses of the people of this country?
I do not want to detain your Lordships longer, but I think I could have put forward a very much stronger case for this system so much condemned by the noble Lord than he has imagined or conceived; but to-night I am rather on the more humble and pedestrian subject of my so-called belligerent Amendment. We all know that for causes which are too complicated to deal with here we have been suffering from this great financial and economic depression. Tremendous have been the efforts to bring us out of it, and slowly but not, I am sorry to say, in a continuous line—sometimes going back, sometimes advancing, but still, I believe,

237
moving upward—we are pulling this country out of the financial difficulties and economic morass into which it has fallen. But all this depends on confidence, on the feeling of the business men of this country and those who are co-operating with them that they will have a few years at least in which to build up their fortunes and their businesses again.
I am perfectly certain that if there were the slightest fear in this country that this Socialist system was to be introduced in one, two, or three years from now it would be the gravest blow that could be struck at the rising industries of this country. These shocks to public confidence are sometimes spoken of with levity by leading members of the Socialist Party, but not, I am glad to say, in this House, for I am quite sure they have a patriotic desire to see their country happier and more prosperous. The best thing they could do would be to take a self-denying ordinance saying that "For the next five years we shall not preach Socialism, we shall let the business of this country improve, strengthen and stabilise." After all, it would be good policy to do that because when that time had passed, and if the Socialists came into power, they would meet with more prosperous industries, better to take over, better to work, and industries which would not, from shocks to confidence, suffer so severely as they would to-day if, when they are slowly rising and recovering, they had hurled upon them this new, ill-considered, unconstructive, and destroying doctrine.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, apart from the pleasure your Lordships must have had in listening to the preceding speakers I think this debate was worth while, if I may say so, because it has drawn from the noble Earl the speech to which we have just listened. I seriously say that the noble Earl's final sentences were most valuable. He suggested a five years' respite to private industries to allow them to be built up so that they will be more valuable assets when they are taken over. We make no concealment of the fact, in arguing our case, that you cannot do these things in a hurry. I think that if a Labour Government comes in with a good majority in the other place and we have the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, leading the Conservative majority in this
238
House, and seeing half eye-to-eye with us, as I believe will be exposed when he comes to reply to this debate, we shall be very fortunate in the first five years if we can take over the industries that are not only ripe, but rotten-ripe, for public control at the present time, and the prospering industries of which the noble Earl spoke will certainly have to wait.
I suppose he means chemicals among others. That industry has been mentioned by two or three speakers in this debate. This is a matter for very careful consideration, and I am going to approach it, if I may, in a very calm way. I am going to begin by asking the noble Earl who has just spoken if he will be good enough to allow me to send him a little pamphlet that I hold in my hand called For Socialism and Peace; the Labour Party's Programme of Action. It is rather startling on the outside, with a yellow, red and black cover, but it is one of the most concise and clear pieces of writing that I am aware of on this subject. I did not write it myself; I had no part in the style. But it is really a most excellent piece of writing, and it condenses into the smallest space a tremendous amount of matter. It answers every one of the questions the noble Earl has put to my noble friends on this side of the House, but I will, if only out of courtesy and in gratitude for the pleasure he gave me by his speech, send a copy to him. I will in the meantime answer one or two of his salient questions.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: What is the date of it?
LORD STRABOLGI: October, 1934, and reprinted December, 1934. It has gone into several editions, the last being published in February, 1935. It cannot be more recent because it is based on our last annual conference at Southport to which the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, referred in his speech. We are having another conference this year. We are a very democratic Party. We cannot alter this programme in the meantime, and I do assure the noble Viscount who has just asked me a question, that everything is here in this pamphlet. I will be very glad to send him a copy also. The price is two pence, and there is a reduction for a quantity; in fact I think my noble friends on this side of the

239
House might club together with me and send all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate or are about to speak in it a copy. I am sorry the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, is not in his place because it answers the two main questions he asked. I will quote a very few words from this pamphlet. I hope the noble Marquess, the Secretary of State for Air (the Marquess of Londonderry) has read it, or, if he has not, I hope he will do so before he winds up this debate for the Government. I am quite certain of this, that the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, had not read it, and I think it is very unfair for him to have taken the line he did, because this is the programme on which we propose to fight the vitally important coming Election in this country. This is one of our official documents.
LORD RHAYADER: There may be a new edition.
LORD STRABOLGI: It depends on the date of the Election. Our next conference will be at Brighton, and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Rhayader, will be very welcome to attend it if he cares to come and take a seat in the distinguished strangers' gallery. If we want to alter the official programme at the Brighton conference in the light of experience we will do so. We are always doing that. If there is to be any alteration it will be made as a result of the next conference at Brighton. We are having the conference earlier than usual as there is a prospect of an Election this year.
The noble Earl, Lord Peel, asked me two questions which I will endeavour to answer. The first question had relation to competition in a Socialist State. The noble Earl was a soldier and I was a sailor. I will tell him what we did in that highly socialistic service, the Royal Navy. We did not know we were Socialists, but we were very good Socialists all the same. One of our most disagreeable duties was coaling ship, a horrible business in the large cruisers. After a long voyage it sometimes took us two or three days to do it, and we got the men to work hard at coaling ship by introducing competition between ships in a squadron. All the colliers used to come alongside the ships of the fleet at the same time. We started at seven or eight o'clock in the morning to get our coal in and the men threw the same enthusiasm into it as they did into their
240
football matches. We got the coal in in very quick time. As a young officer I used to enjoy coaling ship because we had not only competition between ship and ship but between hold and hold. I was the divisional officer of the fo'castle men and we used to sweat blood literally in order to beat the quarter-deck men. That was the way we organised our competition, and there is much more competition in that sort of thing than there is in the chemical industry to-day.
The noble Lord, Lord Templemore, referred to the great Imperial Chemical Industry over which the noble Marquess who leads the Liberal Party presides. There is very little competition left in industrial chemicals now. In my own business I have had to buy chemicals. The monopoly is not quite complete in industrial chemicals, but it is nearly complete in this country, and in certain chemical products required by private manufacturing industries there is a complete monopoly. I only have to mention in order to prove that there is a monopoly, the territorial and geographical arrangements between the I.C.I. here, over which the noble Marquess who leads the Liberal Party presides—I am not saying they should not do this; it is quite legal and business is business—and the I.G., the great German chemical firm. As a result of these arrangements, they sell their products by agreement in certain parts of the world. The I.G. sells the same products in parts of the world in which they are not sold by the I.C.I., and vice versa. Try how you will, you cannot for love or money get any products in certain territories from the I.C.I. if, as a consequence of the arrangements I have referred to, those territories have been reserved for the I.G. These two great concerns have crushed out all competitors in certain lines. Where is your competition there?
I discussed this matter with the managing director of the I.C.I., a very able business man, and I complained as a buyer of industrial chemicals in one of my own businesses. The noble Marquess opposite knows this, too, because he has to buy chemicals in his business, or his agents do it for him. I discussed this particular matter with the managing director of I.C.I. and he said: "As a matter of fact we look upon ourselves as a great public service here; we do not charge the price we might as monopolists;

241
we have got a monopoly but we want to do good service, to sell quality goods at a cheap price." That was his defence. There was no pretence at competition. All this talk about unrestricted private enterprise may have been perfectly right fifty or sixty years ago, but it simply does not exist over a great range of industry to-day, and every business man knows it, and everyone of your Lordships knows it. That is the kind of argument we have heard this afternoon. Very interesting and amusing the arguments have been, and perhaps quite suitable for remote country villages, but I should not advise noble Lords to put them forward in the North of England, in the County of Yorkshire, for instance, where I come from, on public platforms, because the people are quite aware of the fallacies underlying these arguments.
The noble Earl asked where was capital to come from if the State had a monopoly? After all, what is capital? Capital is goods, machinery, usable things. If you want more machines you make them, you manufacture them. You do not need the private capitalist in this matter at all. That is the answer to the noble Earl. I thought it only courteous to him to give those answers. We have heard from the noble Lord who spoke for the Government and from the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, and others, a lot about Karl Marx.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: May I interrupt the noble Lord? He said "the noble Lord who spoke for the Government." As a matter of fact I did not speak for the Government, and I certainly did not mention anything about Karl Marx.
LORD STRABOLGI: I apologise to the noble Lord. His speech was so interesting I might have known he was speaking for himself and not for the Government, and I presume the noble Marquess who will wind up the debate will also not be speaking for the, Government but will be speaking in his private capacity. I accept that. But Karl Marx has been mentioned, and quite rightly, in this debate. I would point out that he produced his ponderous and remarkable works in the early seventies of last century, and it is wonderful how many of his prophecies have come true, but the conditions in which Karl Marx studied and wrote were entirely different in certain respects from those with which we are faced today. Karl Marx studied a world in which
242
there was a constant fear of famine and scarcity, and my noble friend Lord Sanderson and my noble friend Lord Snell have pointed out that the trouble to-day with the capitalist system is that it is glutted with the success of its own production, and that it cannot dispose of its surpluses.
The efforts of the present Government, the semi-Socialism of Mr. Elliot and of the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, the bastard Socialism which they are forcing on the country, is bringing about an artificial scarcity by restricting production. Karl Marx never dreamed of that. He saw a world in which there was bound to be poverty and need for great economy and therefore there must be a sharing-out of what goods there were. He did not foresee the present situation in which the efforts of mine owners and the owners of oil wells are directed towards restricting production. In America, which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Snell, the Government are forcing farmers to restrict the production of cotton, wheat, hogs, fruit and other commodities. Karl Marx never foresaw that, but we have to face that situation and so our problem is much easier than that of Karl Marx, very much easier. But there is another thing which Karl Marx did not foresee which makes the situation more difficult for us. There are always compensations in this world. He did not foresee the distribution of property amongst small owners which we admit exists and which has had many advantages. There is to-day in every industrial country an immense class of small owners above the working classes. They are of course for us a very real difficulty. Fortunately the middle class is being converted to Socialism without its own knowledge, which makes it a little more easy.
The noble Marquess, Lord Crewe, I am sorry to hear, is not going to vote for us. I had hoped after hearing his speech that he would do so. I was brought up a Liberal, just as were my noble friends Lord Snell, Lord Ponsonby, Mr. Lansbury, Mr. Henderson and many others. Many of the older generation of the Labour Party were brought up as Liberals because in the days of their youth there was no Labour Party. I always maintain that the Liberal Party in the past did great service for humanity in fighting for religious and political freedom

243
and for equal rights for man. But when the great fight for economic freedom came, the fight in which we are now engaged, the Liberal Party did not march forward. That is why we are Socialists, because we think that the next step must be economic liberty, which is only another phrase for Socialism.
If I may return for a moment to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Temple-more, he spoke of landowners and said that landowners were not overpaid. I entirely agree with him. I think the lot of the old landed gentry in this country is very pitiable. Under Capitalism they have been ruined. They have been wiped out by one of those silent revolutions at which we English excel. The landed aristocracy, except those who have outside means, who have businesses, or who have married American heiresses, or are in some other fortunate circumstances, cannot afford to live on their estates to-day. That is a rather unfortunate result because their younger sons used to provide the officer class for the Army and the Navy; they went into the diplomatic service; they manned the county benches of magistrates, and they did a great deal of unpaid work. Really I am surprised that in your Lordships' House there are not more opponents of modern Capitalism, which has not been kind to the idea of a landed aristocracy.
That brings me to the question of compensation, which has been referred to by several noble Lords. If the Labour Party's programme be referred to, the matter will be found set out perfectly clearly on page 15 in two sentences. I should like to read those two sentences because they describe the whole of our policy. The programme says:
"The public acquisition of industry and services will involve the payment of fair compensation to existing owners."
Then it goes on to describe what is fair compensation, and it says:
"The suggested basis of compensation, broadly, is the net reasonable maintainable revenue of the industry concerned."
I do not think anything could be much clearer than that.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: May I ask the noble Lord what "reasonable maintainable revenue" means?
LORD STRABOLGI: It means the income that the industry will continue to
244
earn, the visible profits from it that can be maintained.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Would you tell us how that is to be ascertained, on what basis? That is the vital question.
LORD STRABOLGI: If I were doing it myself I think I should take the basis adopted in the case of the Irish Land Act—so many years' purchase. What we want to avoid is the creation of a new rentier class which would become hereditary; but, also, we do not want to do manifest injustice.
This matter which we are discussing this evening I suggest to your Lordships is really chose jugée. In every capitalist country in the world the Government is bringing in various forms of planning and in some cases really Socialistic measures. The one exception is Palestine. There you have a great influx of refugees, a very energetic type of people too, refugee Jews with capital, and also immigrants who have gone as idealists to build up the country as a new national home. They have no unemployment problem and many small industries are growing up. In every other country including our own, America, Germany, Italy, the Governments have had to step in with all kinds of restrictions, with forced planning or with Socialistic measures.
We are no longer living in a world where the free play of economic forces can have its effect. The greatest Socialistic measure in this country was not brought in by a Labour Government—I am almost ashamed to say this—but by a purely Conservative Government. It was the last Conservative Government under Mr. Baldwin that brought in the great scheme of electricity supply in this country. I have heard the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, abuse this measure as Socialistic. The noble Viscount is perfectly right. But the trouble is, as with so many Socialistic measures brought in by this Government and by the last Conservative Government, that they have allowed many people to remain entrenched in industry drawing profits and preventing the full advantage of large-scale planning from accruing to the public. In the case of electricity the generation and transmission of electricity were brought under national control, but the retailing of electricity, its sale to con

245
consumers whether private or industrial, the real source of profit, was left in private hands. That is the trouble to-day.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, in the part of his speech which I heard, said the preset it Government had brought in Socialistic measures. Yes, but the benefits from the planning and from the semi-Socialistic measures brought in do not go to the public in all cases. A great part of them is intercepted by entrepreneurs as in the case of electricity. Now, I have heard technicians of the highest standing, without knowing it, talk pure Socialism about this matter. I have heard electrical engineers of the highest standing say that the time will soon arrive when the whole of the electrical industry will have to be brought under Government control. Not only that, but the same applies to the gas industry; and, through the generation of gas, the coal industry, including the bye-products of coal, must also for the same reason be brought under Government control. That programme would be supported by the majority of the most skilled technicians of this country, the most successful electrical and gas engineers, and technicians of the coal-mining industry. If a secret ballot could be taken of them, they would support it by a large majority.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I do not know what justification the noble Lord has for making such a statement, but I may say, on thin side, that I do not believe that what he says is accurate. I have considerable knowledge of the electrical industry and personal acquaintance with a great many of its heads, and I have never heard one of them express that view.
LORD STRABOLGI: I have heard them say exactly what I said, and they did not say it before their boards of directors: they said it in their professional organisations and at their professional meetings. They were probably careful not to say it before their boards of directors.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Is the noble Lord speaking about the wholesale or the retail distribution of electricity?
LORD STRABOLGI: About both.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: That makes it all the worse.
LORD STRABOLGI: I particularly mention this, because I know that the noble Viscount is greatly interested in electrical companies and is a great ornament of the electrical industry. We are coming to a point—and this is the considered view of the majority of technicians in the industry—when the whole of it will have to be controlled if we are to get the benefits of the present grid system. That is a part of our programme, and has been for the past fifteen years. The Conservative Government under Mr. Baldwin "lifted" a part of it and brought it into a great Act of Parliament, but they left the most vital part of all, the distribution of electricity to the consumer, in private hands, so that the nation does not get the full benefit. That is what is happening to-day, and that is what will continue to happen if this present Government is, unfortunately, successful at the polls at the General Election.
I said at the beginning of my few remarks that I was very glad to hear the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Peel. He spoke of the crisis which would occur if the Labour Government were formed. I wonder if I may address myself to the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, and ask him, in my turn, if he will be so good as to enlighten us, when he comes to wind up the debate to-morrow, and also to tell the country—for I am sure that this is a debate which will be watched with great attention outside—something about this crisis. This is a very suitable atmosphere and occasion on which to debate this matter. We are being continually told that if we attempt to put our programme into force, particularly in regard to the banks, there will be a financial crisis. Now, it is obvious that a Labour Government with a majority behind it will wish to act constitutionally. That is the whole basis of our programme. The noble Lord, Lord Rhayader, I see has the latest edition of our programme, and it is laid down there that we wish to act through Parliament in an orderly and constitutional manner. Our programme will have been before the public, and have obtained a majority of the electors in support. Who is going to create the crisis, and how?
This crisis is not talked about by irresponsible people. Mr. Runciman, the President of the Board of Trade, has said that he himself will lead a run on the

247
banks; that he is going to take all his money out of the bank as soon as he hears the result of the last constituencies and knows that there is a Labour majority. I do not know what he is going to do with it when he takes it out, but that is another matter. Now, if what is meant by a crisis is a run on the banks, that is no new thing, and it can be dealt with. There would have been a run on the banks at the beginning of the Great War, and there might have been a run on the banks at other times. That, however, can be dealt with under existing powers of the Executive. But I think something else is meant. Mr. Baldwin, the Lord President, speaking in his not quite so exalted office as Grand Master of the Primrose League, in his New Year Message to that great body, said this:
"Labour's legislative proposals will produce not only a first-class financial crisis, but a very grave constitutional and Imperial crisis also."
Who is going to create the constitutional crisis, and how? I am certain not Mr. Baldwin himself; he is a Privy Councillor, and has taken an oath. Who is going to do it? Perhaps some other speaker, if the noble Marquess is not informed, could tell us in between, but I think we are entitled to some answer.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): There are no rules of order in this House, but I suggest that the noble Lord confine himself to the two Amendments which are being moved. This appears to have nothing to do with them.
LORD STRABOLGI: Only one Amendment has been moved, with great respect to the noble Marquess, and he intends, I hope, to speak to-morrow. Questions were put to us, but I am putting the question to the noble Marquess, and I put it to your Lordships, if the noble Marquess does not like the question addressed to him. This is a matter of great importance to the public. We are putting a programme to the public in a constitutional way; we are trying to get a majority as a constitutional Party, and we are trying to put that programme, which has been before the public, into operation by Parliamentary machinery. We are told that that will precipitate financial, constitutional and Imperial crises. I think we are entitled to know who will do that, and how. That is the
248
whole basis of this talk of crisis. It has not been from Sir Stafford Cripps or from anyone else in our Party that the talk of crisis has come, but entirely from our political opponents. All that Sir Stafford Cripps has said—and I think that your Lordships' House will support him—is that whatever the Party, if unconstitutional action is taken against the King's Government, those responsible for that Government will keep order.
I have another reason why my noble friend should be supported in his Motion and why the Amendment should be rejected. I believe very profoundly that political democracy cannot continue to survive side by side with an economic and financial autocracy. You see the truth of that in the growth in certain countries of Fascism and Nazism. We believe that economic and financial autocracy, which is another word for the capitalist system, is in decay. I admit that the capitalist system has solved the problem of production and raised the general standard of living in industrial countries, but it is now in decay and has to be replaced by something else. We believe that it will have to be replaced by economic and financial democracy—in other words by Socialism.
Now there are certain people who believe, or pretend to believe, that this cannot be done except after a period of Communist dictatorship. That we deny. We believe it can be done through political democracy, and we intend to try. We may be wrong, but something has got to be put in the place of the present system. That is undoubted, and the truth of it is that the present Government are trying, in a very inefficient and indeed in many respects a very unjust manner, to put something in its place. The very fact that they are so trying shows the real necessity for it. That, my Lords, is our case, and our case against the Amendment. I hope that those who support us in the Lobby will be not only those who usually act with my noble friends on this side of the House.
LORD RHAYADER: My Lords, we have had a very long debate, and I hesitate to inflict another speech upon your Lordships, but the subject-matter of the debate touches so nearly the Liberal faith in which I was reared, and which, unlike my noble friends on my left, I still hold, that I cannot refrain

249
wholly from speech. I will detain your Lordships as short a time as I can. Let me first pay a sincere tribute to the sincerity, earnestness and conviction with which the Socialist Party has worked in this country since its inception. I knew it from the beginning, under Mr. Keir Hardie, whom I knew well. I have worked with the Leaders of the Socialist Party, like Mr. Snowden and Mr. MacDonald, and its later recruits were in my own Party. I recognise fully not only their earnestness and sincerity but their belief that in what they are advocating they are pursuing a course to the best advantage of the poor people of this country, and of the whole nation. Unfortunately their faith is no guarantee that the doctrines they hold are true. History is full of examples of whole peoples and sections of people who have held mistaken beliefs, which they afterwards had to abandon, and therefore the zeal and conviction of the Socialist Party are no evidence at all that there is truth behind their doctrines.
It is rather remarkable that Lord Sanderson, in a speech very moderately phrased, gave us no definition of Capitalism. I suspect that as generally used the capitalist system means the age-long system by which individuals have been able to hold property, to buy and sell or save or invest. That is really the basis of the capitalist system, and although the methods in which it expresses itself have changed with the growth of machinery, they are essentially the same as they were thousands of years ago, and Capitalism in that sense is the system on which the world has worked down to the present time, almost universally. Lord Snell, who is of course the mildest mannered of pirates, defined the system as one in which individuals controlled the means by which the community lives. What are the means by which the community lives. The community lives by air, and nobody owns that. The community lives by water. There is some control of water, and it is owned in certain circumstances. The community lives by bread, but man cannot live by bread alone. The community lives by all sorts of things, and therefore you have given us no definition at all. All that we have been told is that the Socialist system is going to control the means by which the community lives.
250
The Socialists fix their eyes solely upon the failures of this Capitalism, but nothing has been said in this debate, or very little, of the successes of the capitalist, or the triumphs of Capitalism, and I must take two minutes in describing some of the real triumphs which Capitalism has achieved. The civilisation of this country is not a thing to be dismissed in a contemptuous phrase. Such as it is, it is a triumph for Capitalism. The Budget of this year is £800,000,000, raised from the people of this country out of the earnings of the people of this country—some of them nefarious earnings, according to the Socialists, but still the earnings of the people of this country. Is it not a wonderful thing that we are able to raise so large a sum for national needs? I think it is not all well spent, but it certainly is a triumph for Capitalism that so large a sum should be raised, with such comparatively little trouble to the Government of the country. Take our trade the world over, is not that a miraculous triumph for Capitalism? Do the Socialist members of this House ever think of the British ships in all parts of the world, collecting the produce of the world and bringing it over for consumption by the people of this country? You may say I am describing what happened before the War. Perhaps I am, for statesmen have not been always wise, but surely British trade the world over was one of the most marvellous triumphs that any system could show in any part of the world's history.
Let us say a word about our despised retail trade. Do you not think it is a wondrous thing that in London you can go into a shop and buy almost anything you want to buy, if you have the money to pay for it; that that wondrous organisation has arisen by which almost everything can be obtained by going into a shop and asking for it? I think that when noble Lords are denouncing the evils of the capitalist system they should not forget what the capitalist system has achieved. Let me also say this, that the faults they find with it are not necessarily the faults of Capitalism at all, but the faults of our society. I notice that Lord Allen of Hurtwood wisely modified the Motion of Lord Sanderson, because he substituted the words "in view of the failure of society" for "in view of the failure of the capitalist system." I agree with him. I think it is society that is to

251
blame for the evils against which the Socialists and Liberals have been fighting throughout their political lives. We have been fighting together against the evils that exist in our civilisation, evils not necessarily due to Capitalism but rather to the failure of our social system and some of that at least is due to the people.
It is a significant thing that no one in this debate has touched upon the fact that there is in this country much suffering due to the failings of individuals and not to the failure of any system. Are there no evils caused by drinking and gambling? Are there no unfortunate people who have inherited disease for which there is no responsibility in the capitalist system? There has been no careful examination of these evils, one by one, to see where they come from, but a general condemnation of a system, and therefore Lord Sanderson says it is not enough to stop these evils one by one and deal with them as they arise. He says you must make an end of them at once—the machine is not to be regulated but smashed. The noble Lord, I think, used the words "the machine must go." "The machine has got to be scrapped"—those are the exact words. Private capital is to be extinguished and private enterprise abolished. But no evidence has been offered to us to-day that Socialism will do any better than Capitalism.
It is a very odd thing that throughout this debate there has been no word from the Benches which are defending the Motion of the Socialistic experiments that have been tried in the world in the past, and there have been very many. There have been experiments by individuals like Robert Owen, there was a reference, I think by my noble friend Lord Crewe to the Socialistic experiments in America, limited in extent, carried on by people who perhaps had not the necessary ability to sustain the burden, but still they failed. No reference has been made to the experiments which Australia has made in Socialism—not much to encourage those who think that a remedy is there to be found for the weaknesses of the capitalist system. Strangely enough also, very little reference has been made to Russia, where the Socialistic experiment is to-day being worked out to its logical conclusion. I
252
have read Russia's Iron Age by Mr. Chamberlin—a very remarkable book which has just been published by an American journalist who has lived the last twelve or fourteen years in Russia. It is a terrible record of the sufferings of the people by which this logical system of Communism has been imposed upon Russia. The sufferings of individuals are indescribable, and the theory that is put forward in defence of them by the Communists of Russia, who are convinced believers in the truth of their doctrines, is that the end justifies the means, and that no amount of suffering on the part of individuals is any justification for resisting the dictates of the State.
No reference was made to this, and yet some justification should be put up. The noble Lords, Lord Sanderson, Lord Snell and Lord Strabolgi, say that it is going to be done gradually. Does that matter? Must we not look to the end? Where do you wish to get to? Is not the logical outcome of these doctrines the disappearance of individual enterprise and individual capital? The end is to substitute State workers for free men. The workers of this country are to become parts of the Government machine—"bricks in a wall" as a leading Socialist once said to me when describing the position which I and others would in future occupy in a Socialist State. What is this State in which the Socialists believe so profoundly? I believe that the State exists for the individuals, not individuals for the State. It is individuality that matters in every man.
It is a curious paradox of our life that from the time we are born into the world there is a kind of conspiracy on the part of society to force us to become all the same. The little children are dressed alike. Do not schoolboys resent more than anything else not being allowed to dress exactly like their fellows? All society endeavours to make men conform exactly to the same mode in daily life—in everything. And yet the one thing that matters to society is those points in which you are not constrained to be as other people are. Where you are the same as everybody else, what good are you? But where you have some originality which resists the pressure, there you make some contribution to society. It is only individuals who feel responsibility. It is only individuals

253
who can think and add value to society. And let me add, the English are the last people in the world to whom such a system should be applied, and the last people who would submit to it
Our people have been, and are, an adventurous people. They have liked to go forth into the world civilising the world, spreading their ideas through the world. What has made the British Empire? How have Canada, India, Australia come to be part of the heritage of our people? It was not done by a Socialist system; it was done by individuals going throughout the world and impressing their personalities upon the world:
"We must be free or die who speak the tongue
Which Shakespeare spake: the faith and morals hold
Which Milton held."
I will venture to read to the House one sentence from Milton addressing the Lords and Commons of England. These are his words:
"Lords and Commons of England, consider what nation it is whereof ye are, and whereof ye are the governors, a nation not slow or dull, but of a quick, ingenious, and piercing spirit, acute to invent, subtle and sinewy to discourse, not beneath the reach of any point the highest that human capacity can soar to."
It is because the Socialists in their desire to cure the social disorders of the time care little or nothing for individual liberty that their doctrines must always fail to commend themselves to the common sense of a nation whose history is a glorification of freedom and who still believe themselves to be free.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: My Lords, before the House adjourns, I feel that some reply should be offered to a charge which has been made from the opposite side that the claim of Labour policy to improve production has not been made good. We have heard a great deal of the dangers of Labour policy, but not very much answer to the claim from this side that national resources are inadequately utilised. That is a matter of fact to which I wish to address myself, and I do not feel that we have had much answer to my noble friends' claim that common justice demands that we should seek drastic remedies for the intolerable inequalities of comfort with which we are faced in this country. Are we not compelled to propose remedies which set the
254
pace much faster than the remedies alluded to as something to boast of by my noble friend who has just spoken? I cannot see how anyone basing his views on Christian ethics can be satisfied with the rate of improvement—and we freely grant there has been improvement—that we see to be probable unless an attempt is made to make great and rapid changes.
I want to support my noble friend in one particular part of his argument, that we are not using adequately our resources in regard to land. The noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, adduced the arguments that he hears in Hyde Park. I am not concerned to answer speeches of wild Communists, but to base myself on the programme of the Labour Party. The effective utilisation of land is one of the troubles with which the Government itself is faced to-day. It will have great difficulty in passing an Act to deal with ribbon-building. Here we have the most beautiful agricultural country in the world rapidly being ruined—daily being ruined—by ribbon-building; but regional planning is extraordinarily difficult so long as you have a number of adjacent properties. You have the scandal of the by-passes which were built at such enormous cost and which are now being rapidly built up, reproducing dangers and squandering national resources on the owners of adjacent properties who are seizing building values. Is there anything more insane in political history than the presentation of these millions of value to landowners who have sat still while by-passes were being built? Yet we shrink from the obvious remedy of greater powers for public acquisition of land because of Conservative prejudice.
In housing, again, the Government is hampered, and the housing progress of the last thirty years has been hampered, by questions of compensation, as to what are good grounds for compensation. You may say that even with State land there would be building leases which would involve difficulties of compensation, but they would be nothing in comparison with the difficulties which there are to-day because the question of freehold is involved. Opposition to public ownership of urban land is, I suppose, an instinct of ordinary conservatism, but when you come to the question of agricultural land, you also have opposition arising from sentiment. The association of land with families has a very strong

255
appeal; in some cases it is very historic and has a great deal of romance attaching to it; and it gives to land acquisition the air of something revolutionary. But reform from the point of view of production alone is so urgent, as I hope to show in a moment, that we ought to decide how the sentimental question could be dealt with and put aside, in order that we might be able to keep an open mind on the question of public interest in regard to agricultural land.
I would like to remind noble Lords that the Labour policy provides for those very natural sentimental considerations by giving a statutory right to the retention of a certain amount of land with a house. It provides compensation on a scale which seems to me extremely fair, and this scale is set out in the documents of the Party. I do hope that noble Lords will keep an open mind in regard to the purely economic question of the handicap to the utilisation of agricultural land which, I maintain, is the result of divided ownerships. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, would attack us for advocating State farming because of our general expressions about the national conduct of industry. The Labour Party's policy does not advocate State farming. It advocates the owning of the greater part of agricultural land, but it does not advocate State farming. It advocates the control of the disposal of farms. May we therefore consider with an open mind the question whether our land is being adequately utilised to-day?
I submit that it is notorious that our land is suffering from inadequate equipment. The process has been hastened by the breaking up of large properties. Some very big estates of the past were models of management. As a rule they did justice to the buildings and the drainage and exercised the right degree of guidance and pressure upon the tenants. Since the War, as we all know, there has been a revolution, and between 1919 and five years later, for instance, the number of occupying owners increased from 48,000 to 94,000 and the acreage from 3,000,000 acres to well over 6,000,000. Formerly big estates were a model of production. English farming was a model of production a hundred years ago, but we have lost the lead and have fallen far behind in comparison with other countries. The evil of under-production of
256
agricultural land has been obscured by the greater defect in regard to marketing, which has been the preoccupation of every Minister for the last twelve years. Since 1923, the time of the Linlithgow Report, marketing has filled the stage and the present Minister has made a great advance mainly with the aid of the Labour Government's Marketing Act. I am only afraid that he will endanger the stability of his policy by tying it up with Protection to such a degree that there must come a public revolt against it. For the moment, however, the stage is occupied by marketing.
We ought not to forget that production is vital and it is there that land ownership comes in. I suppose the handicap in regard to capital is not denied, but I would like to quote an authority we shall all recognise. Mr. Edward Wood, now Lord Halifax, when he was Minister in 1924, used words which have been widely quoted and which are really of great value. "We are," he said, "unless I mistake, witnessing in England the gradual disappearance of the old landowning class." He then referred to the problem of finding the maintenance capital of the land, as distinct from the current working capital, and he described how one sees a deterioration in the capital equipment of the land and the soil, whether in building or in drainage. He showed how the old landowner supplied the essential capital equipment of the land at a cheap rate of interest and asked what is going to happen if that class of owner is gradually disappearing. He then alluded to the new occupying-owners, who have left themselves inadequate capital with which to run their businesses, and said:
"That means either that the soil is going to be starved or the nation is going to say, 'We cannot watch this process going on,' and the State will come in to fill the function of the old landlord by lending capital. When it does that, you may depend upon it that it will claim some measure of control, and so you may find yourselves in the course of the next thirty or forty years within measurable distance of something like nationalisation by a side wind."
Ought we not to draw another conclusion—that action in regard to the starving of the soil is an urgent thing, and must not wait for thirty or forty years? It is undeniable that large areas of land are

257
being starved, as Lord Halifax described, but action has not been taken. Lord Halifax alluded to the effect on occupying-owners, but want of capital affects not only occupying-owners. We all know how extraordinarily difficult it is to maintain buildings out of revenue on farms which are part of a property and which are let. I submit that on this ground alone—on inadequate equipment of farms—we are suffering a grave loss of production owing to the present system which inadequately utilises our resources in land.
There are other causes of loss connected with the same cause. For instance, there is the handicap in regard to agency. Most properties are too small to afford really efficient agents, and others are too scattered to be economically managed. There is a great deal of unnecessary expense in supervising estate workmen on scattered properties, and there could be an immense economy if the land could be organised in convenient areas and placed, as some of the Crown land has been placed, under agents in very large sections. To my mind our experience of the Crown land and of the enormous area in the hands of colleges is an example of the great economy that could be made if State land were on a large scale. There are many other unnecessary expenses arising from the present ownership. There are needless complications in connection with conveyancing, with the collection of Income Tax under Schedule A, and with the assessment of Land Tax, and there are the complications of copyhold and tithe. They all mean a great handicap to the best utilisation of our resources.
When you come to farming itself, the Act of four years ago attempted to deal with negligent farming, but it is still very prevalent. Your Lordships know how difficult it is to get a county committee to give an order with regard to weeds, and largely owing to differences of ownership we have one farm injuring a neighbouring farm through the seeds of weeds being blown on to it, by ditches which are not clean and which cause land to be waterlogged lower down. And even when you come to the question of State
258
grants for drainage the Ministry is constantly held up by the complications of ownership. Boundaries of farms, we all know, ought to be adjusted. Water supply is more difficult because of differences of property boundaries.
Afforestation is hampered. Estates cannot afford skilled foresters. The Forestry Commission itself is no answer to that because it is considerably hampered in choosing just the land on which, in its opinion, planting would be most profitable. Under the present system when you get a break-up of property, you get the ruin of the woods. They are not bought with the farms. They are not bought by the farmer but by timber merchants, and cut down and not replanted. I might support myself by quoting authorities whom everyone will recognise—Sir Daniel Hall, and Mr. Orwin, who wrote Tenure of Agricultural Land, and who is not a doctrinaire but a man who has been an agent of a number of properties. I do not think the point need be laboured because, if you are really looking with an open mind at the utilisation of land, the authorities are all in favour of such a system as we have with regard to Crown land already.
There is one final proof of the waste we are still guilty of and that is the action which was taken by a Conservative Minister as a result of the experience of the War. Lord Lee, in 1920, might have been expected to revert under Conservative land-owning influence to pre-War conditions, but such was the advantage shown by War-time control that he saw the need to perpetuate the enforcement of a standard, and he passed the Agriculture Act which gave powers in regard to negligent farming, maintenance, mismanagement, and the removal of tenants, and which gave county committees power to serve notices in regard even to such details as sale of straw, neglected ditches, and neglect to roll grass. Every imaginable power was given as the result of experience, and it was a disaster when that Agriculture Act was repealed—repealed as a sop to balance the loss of subsidies which was the hard lot of the farmers in 1921. The fact that a Conservative Minister passed that Act was an invincible proof that the land system

259
stood condemned by Conservative and land-owning opinion. It seems to me unanswerable that, whether we look at the question of national income or at the numbers of those employed on the land, any view that we take of national welfare must include the better utilisation of the land.
LORD RHAYADER: My Lords, on behalf of the noble Marquess, Lord
260
Lothian, I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Lord Rhayader.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly till to-morrow.
House adjourned at a quarter before eight o'clock.

WEYMOUTH WATERWORKS BILL. [H.L.]
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

EXETER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
The Order made on Wednesday last appointing certain Lords the Select Committee to consider the Bill, discharged.
EXETER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
BAILDON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
SOUTH SUBURBAN GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills, namely:

E. St. Aldwyn,

L. Shute (V. Barrington),

L. Rowallan,

L. Remnant,

L. Marks (Chairman):

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