Sitting of 27 March 1935

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Great Western Railway Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.
Newcastle and Gateshead Waterworks Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  RUSSIA (BRITISH INVESTORS).
  Mr. BURNETTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government proposes to make further representations with regard to the position of British subscribers to the Russian Government 4½ per cent. Armavir Touapse Railway Loan?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): No special representations are being made regarding the claims arising out of this loan, subscribers to which are in the same position as others who have registered similar claims.
  Mr. BURNETT: Can my right hon. Friend give me any idea as to when a permanent trade agreement with Russia is likely to be arrived at?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That is another question altogether. Perhaps my hon. Friend will be good enough to put it on the Paper.

  TANGANYIKA.
  Sir ROBERT HAMILTONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the numbers of the various non-native residents in Tanganyika according to nationality?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the answer:
  The latest figures available are those provided by the non-native census taken in April, 1931. There were at that date in the Territory 8,228 Europeans, 23,422 Indians, 1,722 Goans, 7,059 Arabs, 15 Ceylonese, and 574 "others." Of the Indians, 23,280 were British subjects. The European community was as follows:

  Total.

  British (including South African Dutch)

  4,011

  American

  88

  Austrian

  34

  Belgian

  98

  Bulgarian

  1

  Czecho-Slovak

  15

  Danish

  49

  Dutch

  141

  French

  199

  German

  2,149

  Greek

  918

  Hungarian

  4

  Italian

  150

  Latvian

  9

  Lithuanian

  3

  Luxembourger

  5

  Norwegian

  22

  Polish

  13

  Portuguese

  5

  Roumanian

  10

  Russian

  18

  Spanish

  2

  Swedish

  42

  Swiss

  220

  South American

  8

  Yugo-Slav

  4

  Others

  10

  Total

  8,228

  KENYA.
  Mr. PALINGasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered the resolution from the East African National Indian Congress asking for an inquiry into the amounts expended for maintaining white settlement in Kenya and into the advantages or disadvantages arising therefrom; and whether he proposes to take any action?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have received a copy of the resolution; but I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by instituting the suggested inquiry. The hon. Member will recollect the very full inquiry conducted by the Joint Select Committee and the general acceptance of its report in all quarters of the House.
  Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: Is it not true that the wise development, social and economic, of Kenya and the other territories of East Africa depends largely upon the maintenance of white settlement?

  TRANSPORT.

    BUILT-UP AEEAS (SPEED LIMIT).
    Mr. STOURTONasked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement to the House upon the operation of the 30-mile speed-limit in built-up areas in the light of experience gained, particularly with reference to the increased traffic congestion in the London area and consequent tendency to drive passenger traffic from road to rail; and the number of prosecutions pending under the new regulations?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I am glad to be able to inform the House from the information before me that the numbers of those killed and injured on the roads, which have shown a continuous decline in recent weeks, are likely to show a further fall for the first week in which the speed limit has been in operation. There has been no increase in traffic congestion reported in the London area or elsewhere; on the contrary, there is general agreement that traffic has proceeded more smoothly. The increase in the number of vehicles on the roads has, so far as I am aware, continued unabated. As the new speed limit does not affect motor coaches which were already subject to a 30 miles per hour limit, it was not to be anticipated that long-distance passenger traffic would be adversely affected. The number of prosecutions pending is of course a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
    Mr. STOURTON: Will my hon. Friend consider raising the speed limit in
    1890
    built-up areas to 35 miles an hour, so as to give better facilities for overtaking heavy traffic?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: This was a decision of Parliament, and some of my hon. Friends appear to forget that fact.
    Mr. STOURTON: I am speaking in the light of experience.
    Mr. MACLAY: In view of the fact that the motoring public have met these new regulations so well and are observing them, will my hon. Friend do his utmost to urge the local authorities to decontrol those roads which were obviously not meant to come under the 30-miles limit and which are causing a great deal of annoyance? Will he do his best in these cases, otherwise the 30-miles limit may be disregarded?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, Sir. That is my view, and I am doing all I can to induce local authorities to de-restrict areas which I do not think should be restricted.
    Mr. HOWARDasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the altered conditions in regard to the speed limit now imposed in built-up areas, he can see his way to increase the speed limit for heavy motor vehicles from 20 miles per hour to 30 miles per hour?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Parliament in the same Act which imposed a speed limit in built-up areas, fixed the maximum speeds for all classes of road vehicles.
    Captain STRICKLANDasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the need for concentration on the road ahead, he will consider the usefulness of having distinctive painted lines placed upon the roads to indicate to motorists that they are approaching, or about to leave, restricted speed areas?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The Departmental Committee on Traffic Signs recommended (paragraph 107 of their report) that, apart from white lines, no traffic signs should be marked on the carriageway with the exception of the following:
    "Look Left" or "Look Right."
    "Turn Left" or "Turn Right."
    "Slow" (in exceptional cases).
    Captain STRICKLAND: Will not my hon. Friend consider the usefulness of this suggestion? Is he aware that the committee itself did not consider the particular speed limit or this method of approach at the time of its deliberations?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, Sir. The committee did consider a speed-limit sign, and it was composed of a widely representative body of opinion, including all the motoring interests, and it deprecated any marking of signs, with the exception of those I have mentioned, on the carriageway. I feel it is my duty to be guided by so strong and authoritative a counsel.
    Captain STRICKLAND: But will the hon. Gentleman take steps to procure public opinion on this matter; and is he aware that it would be of great advantage to motorists to have these signs on the roads?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The motorists did not think so. If my hon. and gallant Friend thinks otherwise, perhaps he will stimulate the necessary public opinion.
    Mr. GLOSSOPasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will instruct the police that doctors on their way to attend urgent cases are not to be prosecuted for exceeding the 30-miles-per-hour speed limit; and whether the same exemption will be granted to veterinary surgeons?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): The question whether there should be an exemption from the speed limit in the case of vehicles used by members of the medical profession when attending urgent cases was discussed when the Road Traffic Act, 1934, was passing through Parliament, but it was decided that it would not be practicable to allow this exemption. It would be equally impracticable to place on the police the responsibility for assessing the degree of urgency when considering the question of instituting proceedings, and in my view the only satisfactory solution is to leave the matter to the courts.
    Mr. SIMMONDSasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the intention of Parliament to give the 30-
    1892
    miles-per-hour speed limit a fair trial is being prejudiced by the present police methods; and whether he will withdraw the decoy police cars from the roads and issue instructions that plain-clothes officers are not to be used in the enforcement of this limit?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I cannot accept the suggestion that the police methods which are employed are unfair, and would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to questions on the same subject on the 18th instant, in which I dealt with a number of points which had been raised.
    Mr. SIMMONDS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in some cases these police cars proceed along the highway, well out in the road, at 20 to 25 miles an hour, and that when a motorist behind hoots in order to pass, the decoy car speeds up to 30 miles an hour, and therefore definitely incites the motorist to break the law; and does he not understand the bitter resentment that is being caused by these methods, and will he not even now alter the law?
    Mr. GLEDHILLasked the Home Secretary whether it is intended to recruit a special force of police for the purpose of enforcing the new speed-limit regulations, or if the existing police are to be relieved of clerical routine by engagement of outside assistance?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: No special force is being recruited for this purpose. The men, if not already on traffic duty, will be drawn from other duties in the way each chief officer of police may find most convenient.

    PEDESTRIAN CROSSING-PLACES.
    Mr. GLOSSOPasked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider the introduction of regulations to make it an offence for a pedestrian about to cross a road to do so other than at a recognised pedestrian crossing-place, except where such crossing-places are more than 50 yards distant from the point where the pedestrian desires to cross over?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Further experience may necessitate some revision of the pedestrian crossing places regulations, but I am not prepared at present to give any pledge to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. GLOSSOP: Does my hon. Friend contemplate making it an offence to walk to the danger of the public?
    Mr. WEST: Has the hon. Gentleman now abandoned all hope of making the motorists regard these pedestrian crossings at all?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, Sir. I should like to place on record my recognition of the increasingly courteous manner in which the motorists are observing these crossings.
    Mr. GROVESasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the overtures made by the Gas Light and Coke Company to certain local authorities for permission to experiment in the illumination of a certain number of beacons; and whether his Department gives approval to this suggestion?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I understand that the Gas Light and Coke Company offered to illuminate certain beacons in West Ham and that the Corporation decided not to accept the offer. In the circumstances I do not think it would be proper for me to intervene.
    Mr. THORNE: Might I ask the Minister whether, if an application is sent along again, he will be good enough to give it consideration, and that he will raise no objection?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It was not sent to me; it was sent to the West Ham Corporation.
    Mr. THORNE: Yes, but I understand that they have reversed their decision. If they apply again, will the Minister not give permission?
    Mr. GROVES: The council have not reversed their decision. I asked the Minister whether he would approve and not whether he knew that West Ham would approve. We now ask the right hon. Gentleman his views; we know ours.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I can only express my view on any proposal put to me in accordance with the terms of the proposal. This proposal has not been made to me.

    MOTOR VEHICLES (SPEEDOMETERS).
    Mr. GORDON MACDONALDasked the Minister of Transport whether he will take the necessary action to make the
    1894
    use of a speedometer obligatory on all vehicles subject to the speed limit?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am referring this matter to the Transport Advisory Council for an early report, and I am informing the manufacturers accordingly.

    STREET LIGHTING.
    Mr. GLEDHILLasked the Minister of Transport whether he will set up an advisory committee on street lighting to confer with local authorities in order to reduce accidents by increased efficiency in lighting?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Such a Departmental Committee has in fact been set up and is engaged in conferring with local and other bodies concerned in the matter.
    Mr. GLEDHILL: Is that body likely to make a report, an official report?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, Sir, a report.

    ROAD LICENCES AND THIRD-PARTY INSURANCE.
    Mr. GLEDHILLasked the Minister of Transport whether he has under consideration any scheme for consolidating road licences and third-party insurance; and, if not, will he examine this with a view to further protection of the general public?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The whole question of third-party insurance was examined before the introduction of the amending legislation which was passed eight months ago.

    LONDON-SOUTHEND ROAD.
    Mr. GROVESasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the dangers that arise on the arterial road Wanstead to Southend and of the advantage of that portion which has double section; and when the work will be commenced on the other sections of the road, thus making the whole road double-sectioned?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I understand that the Essex County Council have before them proposals for the construction of an additional length of second carriageway upon the London-Southend Road, but they have not yet submitted them to me.
    Mr. GROVES: Is the Minister aware that this matter has been under consideration for about five years and that this is a very essential route?
    Mr. HORE BELISHA: I shall not delay five years when I receive a request.
    Mr. GROVES: Another five years?

  ELECTRICITY UNDERTAKINGS (STATISTICS).
  Mr. DAGGARasked the Minister of Transport the profits of the companies' and local authorities' electricity undertakings for the years 1932–33, and 1933–34, and the price paid per ton for coal and coke during the same years?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The total gross surplus, before deduction of income tax, of electricity undertakings, in the year 1932–33, was, in the case of public authorities, £20,288,337, and in the case of companies £13,245,773, and the average price per ton of coal and coke used in generating stations was about 15s. 3d. Corresponding figures for the year 1933–34 are not yet available.

  COAL INDUSTRY (STATISTICS).
  Mr. WESTasked the Secretary for Mines what was the average output per miner in 1921 and in 1934; and what were the average weekly cash earnings in those years of the miners in Great Britain?
  The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): Comparison between 1921 and 1934 on a yearly basis is impracticable owing to the national stoppage in 1921, but during the quarter ended 31st December, 1921, the average output per man-shift worked by all workers employed above and below ground at coal mines in Great Britain was 17.73 cwt., and the average weekly cash earnings of all workers employed was £2 18s. 10d. The corresponding figures for the quarter ended 31st December, 1934, were 23.23 cwt., and £2 6s. 8d., respectively.
  Mr. WEST: In view of the increased output per miner per shift and the decreased wages per miner per shift, has the Minister contemplated taking any action to reduce the great gap between producing and distributing prices in this country?
  Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member has overlooked the fact that in the last quarter of 1921 the average net selling value of coal per ton in the United Kingdom was 23s., and in the last quarter of 1934 it was 13s. 6d.
  Mr. PIKE: Is it not a fact that the present rates of wages paid to miners in Great Britain are the result of negotiations and ultimate agreements as between the mineowners and the miners' representatives?
  Mr. BROWN: Not wholly.
  Mr. WEST: Has not the hon. Gentleman missed the whole point and answered about the distributive side, not the productive costs, which was what I asked about?
  Mr. BROWN: I gave the average net selling value.
  Mr. WEST: But I am talking about prices, not wages.
  Mr. BROWN: This is prices.
  Mr. T. SMITHasked the Secretary for Mines the total quantity and percentage of output of coal cut by machinery during 1934 and the comparative figures for 1913 and 1925?
  Mr. BROWN: During 1934, 103,700,000 tons of coal, representing 47 per cent. of the total output, were cut by machinery. The corresponding figures for 1913 were 24,400,000 tons and 8 per cent., and 48,100,000 tons and 20 per cent. for 1925.
  Mr. SMITH: Can the hon. Gentleman give any approximation of the number of miners displaced by machine mining, and what is the Department doing to meet the situation?
  Mr. BROWN: I cannot do that, because there are two major factors to be taken into consideration in regard to displacement; first, machinery, and, second, the regulation of output with the larger number of shifts worked per week.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    ARMAMENT EXPORTS (PARAGUAY AND BOLIVIA).
    Mr. BERNAYSasked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity and value of arms, ammunition, and imple-

    1897
    ments of war, including aeroplanes and parts thereof, exported under licence from the United Kingdom to Paraguay and Bolivia in each year from 1932 to 1934, inclusive?
    Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): In the course of a few days I will send the hon. Member particulars of the goods concerned which were exported to these countries in the years named.
    Mr. JOHN WILMOT: Can the information for which the hon. Member asks be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I will consider that suggestion.

    INDIAN KERB.
    Mr. BURNETTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that prices are being quoted for Indian kerb at 2s. 2d. per running foot as against the home price of 3s. 6d. per running foot; and whether, in view of the fact that the earnings of Indian quarry-workers amount to from 2s. to 3s. 6d. per day, he will consider measures for the restriction of Indian kerb?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): Under the Ottawa Agreement between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of India, these imports are admitted to the United Kingdom free of duty.
    Mr. BURNETT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Indian kerb is displacing our home-made kerb in the contracts of a number of local authorities, and will he take the matter into consideration to see if this agreement can be reviewed?

    INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in how many cases and what new industrial research work has been undertaken as a result of duties imposed on the recommendation of the Import Duties Advisory Committee; and in what industries increased attention is being devoted to research consequent upon the same cause?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): It is obviously impossible to make a detailed statement of the particular kind asked for
    1898
    by the hon. Member, but my right hon. Friend has no doubt that the assistance given to United Kingdom industries by protective duties has both encouraged and enabled manufacturers to engage in research on a substantially increased scale,
    Mr. MANDER: But are there no means of obtaining for the House more precise information?
    Mr. COOPER: Obviously, it would be almost impossible.

  GERMANY (ARMAMENTS).
  Lord APSLEYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he has any information as to the number of heavy guns, medium and light field guns, self-propelled guns or tanks, and anti-aircraft guns at present on the establishment of the German army or under construction; and whether any of these are automatic and of greater range, rate of fire, and muzzle velocity than guns produced hitherto?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Douglas Hacking): No, Sir; this information is not available.

  NEWFOUNDLAND (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE).
  Major COLFOXasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, in pursuance of Section 5 of the Newfoundland Act, 1933, any financial assistance has been granted to the Government of Newfoundland from the Colonial Development Fund; and, if so, how much and what for?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): Since the passage of the Newfoundland Act, 1933, approval has been given, on the recommendation of the Colonial Development Advisory Committee, to the grant to the Newfoundland Government of loans from the Colonial Development Fund of a total amount of £364,500. These loans are being devoted to the extension of the harbour at Port aux Basques, fishery development, the extension and re-conditioning of highroads, land settlement and the establish-

  1899
  ment of beaver farms and game reserves. Approval has also been given in principle to the grant of two further loans, of £40,000 and £34,000 respectively, for the development of the timber resources of Labrador and the extension of the wharfage facilities at St. John's. In addition, free grants amounting to £18,000 have been approved for the undertaking of a geodetic survey of the island and for the engagement of an expert adviser on co-operative institutions.

  ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether any communication has been received from the Union of South Africa, or whether it is proposed that any consultation shall take place with reference to possible Italian penetration of Abyssinia?
  Mr. MacDONALD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As to the second part, I would refer to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member on the 27th February, which applies equally to the present case.
  Mr. MANDER: Is it not a fact that the Union Government takes a very serious view of this matter, and will not my hon. Friend keep in close touch with them on this particular point?
  Mr. MacDONALD: The Union Government are being kept informed. If they take such a very serious view that they think consultation necessary, they will say that.
  Mr. WILMOTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to give on the dispute between Italy and Ethiopia and, in particular, on the notice given by the Ethiopian Government to the League of Nations Council of their intention to request the Council again to take up the question?
  The PRIME MINISTER: On 17th March the Ethiopian Government appealed to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations, requesting that their differences with Italy should be investigated under Article XV of the Covenant and alleging inter alia that the direct negotiations entered into by both parties
  1900
  following the Geneva agreement of 19th January last have led to no result. Having been invited by the Secretary-General of the League to submit their observations on the Ethiopian Note, the Italian Government, while denying in their reply that they consider the phase of direct negotiations as terminated, have undertaken that if these negotiations should not lead to an argument, they will take steps forthwith with a view to the constitution of the Commission of Conciliation provided for by Article 5 of the Italo-Ethiopian Treaty of Friendship of 1928. In these circumstances, with good will on both sides, effective progress may now be made by further direct negotiations between both parties in accordance with their undertakings to the Council of the League.
  Mr. MANDER: In the meantime, is the appeal to the Council of the League still in existence, or has it been withdrawn?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think it has been withdrawn.

  NAVAL AND MILITAEY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir MERVYN MANNINGHAM-BULLERasked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the distressing position of certain incapacitated war orphans as a result of the regulation which precludes allowances being paid after the age of 21, he will endeavour to secure the necessary alteration so that, in the case of totally incapacitated orphans, allowances can be continued?
  Captain STRICKLANDasked the Minister of Pensions whether he will seek Parliamentary authority to enable him to grant a continuance of allowance previously made in appropriate cases of necessity where children of ex-service men who died in the War have reached the age of 21 years, still have a mother living, but are suffering from such infirmity as prevents them from supporting themselves?
  The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): No, Sir. My hon. and gallant Friends' proposal would destroy an important principle which has been rightly maintained by successive Governments.

  1901
  In all the cases referred to the surviving parent is in receipt of a pension, and the effect of this proposal would be to create a second generation of adult war pensioners. The grant of a pension in these cases could not be justified as war compensation, since the infirmities of these men and women can in no way be connected with war service, and they are already provided for under statutory powers by the public social services of the country.
  Captain STRICKLAND: Is not my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that many of these children were babies born in the early days of the War, and that, owing to the stress and strain of the circumstances of the day, they were handicapped before they were brought to life?
  Major TRYON: I do not know any foundation for that suggestion. Some of these so-called babies were born long before the War and mentally afflicted before the War, and therefore that affliction could not be due to the War.
  Captain STRICKLAND: Has my right hon. and gallant Friend given due consideration to the phrase in my question, "appropriate cases of necessity"?
  Major TRYON: It is not possible to distinguish. The principle is one which must be maintained, and that has been the attitude of all Governments.
  Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend quite sure that in all these cases, had the parents survived, they would not have been contributing to the support of these children?
  Major TRYON: It is perfectly certain that this is a proposal to give pensions for life to the next generation. It is evident that the parents could not have continued pensions for life to their children?
  Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: Have not the Government been giving pensions for life for over a hundred years?
  Major TRYON: I was not aware that the Labour party were in favour of perpetual pensions.

  SCOTLAND.

    RIVER TWEED (POLLUTION).
    Mr. BURNETTasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take with regard to the complaints which have been made to him by the River Tweed Commissioners as to the pollution of the river by domestic sewage?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): The Department of Health for Scotland have written to the local authorities concerned urging them to give effect so far as this has not yet been done to the recommendations of the Scottish Advisory Committee on Rivers Pollution Prevention on the pollution of the River Tweed.
    Captain ARCHIBALD RAMSAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman further considered the special case put before him in the last week or two by various towns on the Tweed-side and the upper reaches of the Tweed, especially having regard to the fact that a plan for impounding a considerable portion of the headwaters of the Tweed for a reservoir for Edinburgh will make this question far more acute than it has been in recent years?
    Sir G. COLLINS: The matter is still under consideration, and I am unable to carry it any further at present.

    BIRTHS (INQUIRY).
    Mr. LEONARDasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Department's Scientific Advisory Committee, instructed in 1932 to inquire into the circumstances attending births in Scotland, has completed its report; and, if so, when will it be published?
    Sir G. COLLINS: The detailed examination of the data collected in connection with the inquiry into the circumstances attending births in Scotland has now been completed by the medical officers charged with this duty and they are on the point of submitting their report to the Scientific Advisory Committee. I hope that it will be possible to publish the report in about two months' time after the Committee have had an opportunity of considering it.
    Mr. LEONARD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this inquiry sat for six months in 1932, and is he not of opinion that the time that has elapsed

    1903
    since then is ample for this report to have been completed; and cannot he expedite the report and not delay it for a further two months as the matter is of interest and importance?
    Sir G. COLLINS: The report will be published immediately after the committee has had a little further time for consideration.
    Mr. LEONARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to make the period shorter than two months?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I will make inquiries.

    SPECIAL AREAS (COMMISSIONER'S EXPENSES).
    Mr. MILNEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what sums he has made application for to the Treasury under sub-section 4 of Section 3 of the Special Areas (Development and Improvement) Act, 1934; and what sums have been issued by the Treasury in response to applications made by him under the said sub-section?
    Sir G. COLLINS: The total amount of the expenses of the Special Commissioner for Scotland for the period ending the 31st March, 1935, is £2,760, and this amount has been issued by the Treasury from the Special Areas Fund.

    HERRING INDUSTRY BOARD.
    Mr. LEONARDasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction in the Scottish herring industry at the personnel of the Herring Board; and whether, in view of the importance of Scottish interests involved, he is prepared to recommend the board to exercise its powers to vary its composition so as to give adequate recognition to the Scottish section of the industry?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I have received representations from the Scottish Herring Producers' Association to the effect that they are dissatisfied with the Herring Industry Board as at present constituted. The machinery provided by the Act for variation of the composition of the board is an Order made by the Ministers on the representation of the board. I understand that the Association have requested the board to make such a representation and that the
    1904
    matter will shortly be considered by the board.
    Mr. LEONARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman use any influence he may have to get the representation altered, in view of the fact that Scottish drifters number over 600 and English drifters 300, and that Scottish motor boats number over 700 and the English boats only 171?
    Sir G. COLLINS: It is laid down in the Act that the Ministers can act only after they have received representations from the board. I can assure my hon. Friend that directly such representations are received we shall give the matter immediate consideration.

  PROPOSED INTERNATIONAL AERIAL POLICE FORCE.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of appointing a committee to consider the practicability of the establishment of an international aerial police force under the League of Nations, as proposed by the French Government, as a safeguard against the misuse of civil aviation for military purposes?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The question of the establishment of an international police force under the League of Nations was discussed in this House on the Motion introduced by the hon. Member on 13th December, 1933. On that occasion the Lord Privy Seal explained the reasons why the establishment of such a force is not practicable or desirable at the present time. I cannot do better than refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's remarks on that occasion, which still represent the attitude of the Government. In the circumstances, the appointment of a committee to consider this question would not serve any useful purpose.
  Mr. MANDER: Is not this a matter which will come up again for discussion in connection with the Air Pact negotiations, and will the Government be prepared to give it their serious consideration in view of the fact that the French Government have put forward a scheme?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It will not of necessity arise in any further negotiations on the Air Pact.
  Mr. MANDER: Is it not still before the air committee of the Disarmament Conference?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It may be, but I am giving the present attitude of His Majesty's Government.
  Mr. PALING: In view of the development of events in the last few weeks, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the circumstances are very different from those of 1933?

  DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR SERVICES (WOMEN).
  Miss CAZALETasked the Prime Minister when the report of the committee on the admission of women to the Consular and Diplomatic Services will be published; and when the Government proposes to come to a decision on this matter?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply returned by the Lord Privy Seal to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hexham (Colonel Brown) on the 31st January last. I regret that no further progress has been made since that date, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that a final decision on this matter has necessarily been delayed owing to the pressure of other work on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
  Miss CAZALET: In view of the great success of women diplomats appointed by other countries, may I ask why the National Government are taking so long to come to a decision on this easy question?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have given my hon. Friend some of the reasons.

  SHEFFIELD CITY POLICE.
  Mr. PIKEasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the decision of Mr. Justice Atkinson at the Leeds assizes on 22nd March, 1935, in the case of the Sheffield City Police v. Carnell and Bonnington; and whether, in view of his lordship's criticism of the methods adopted by the police to secure evidence against suspected persons, he will state what steps he proposes to take
  1906
  to prevent the police from inciting innocent persons to commit crime?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I have instituted inquiries into this case and I will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as I have had an opportunity of considering the reports for which I have called.

  LICENSED TRADE (EXTENDED HOURS).
  Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHTasked the Home Secretary whether he can give a complete list of all licensing districts in which an extension of hours to 10.30 p.m. has been granted on weekdays, either for the whole year or a lesser period?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I regret that the information asked for is not yet available.
  Mr. KNIGHT: Since this is a companion return to that granted last year, at a convenient time may this information be provided?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes.
  Mr. PIKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say the number of licensing areas in the country which he already knows would not in any circumstances grant this order?

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  Mr. G. MACDONALDasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the hardship to many injured workpeople due to the bankruptcy of employers, he will consider the advisability of taking the necessary steps to make it obligatory upon all employers to insure against accident liability?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: This proposal would involve legislation, for which I am afraid I see no prospect at present. Apart from the coalmining industry which, as the hon. Member knows, was dealt with in the Workmen's Compensation (Coal Mines) Act of last year, I have had no evidence of hardship arising in this way except in isolated cases.
  Mr. TINKER: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider a number of hard cases in which compensation has not been paid?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I am quite willing to consider any information which the hon. Member may have.

  OCEANIC STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY (LOANS).
  Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any loss has been sustained by the Treasury in respect of the guarantees of principal and interest on loans issued by the Oceanic Steam Navigation Company, Limited, under the Trade Facilities Acts?
  Mr. COOPER: The Treasury has made certain payments in respect of the service of loans, raised by this Company, and guaranteed under the Trade Facilities Acts, but the amounts so paid constitute a secured debt from the Company to the Treasury.
  Mr. WHITE: Do I understand that there is specific security for these loans?
  Mr. COOPER: Yes.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    JUVENILES, DUNDEE.
    Miss HORSBRUGHasked the Minister of Labour the number of boys and girls, respectively, under the age of 18 registered as unemployed in Dundee at the latest available date; and if he is satisfied that there is sufficient accommodation at the juvenile instructional centres for both the girls and the boys?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): At 25th February, 1935, there were 538 unemployed boys and 506 unemployed girls, under 18 years of age, on the registers of the Dundee Employment Exchange. While the number who could be required to attend a junior instruction centre is considerably less than this total the existing accommodation is admittedly inadequate and the Education Authority have arrangements in hand for increasing it, in the case of both boys and girls.
    Miss HORSBRUGH: Will the hon. Gentleman see that the accommodation for the girls is increased first, as at present there is fairly good accommodation for the boys and very inadequate accommodation for the girls?
    Mr. HUDSON: I will look into the matter.

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the Minister of Labour the number of those registered as unemployed between the ages of 18 and 65 who have been unemployed over one year at any recent convenient date; and whether he can arrange in future, when issuing the figures of unemployed, to state the length of time they have been so unemployed?
    Mr. HUDSON: The latest available figures, relating to 25th February, 1935, are shown on page 112 of the March issue of the "Ministry of Labour Gazette," of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

  GERMANY (MINISTERS' VISIT).
  Mr. SIMMONDSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the transport of the Foreign Secretary and the Lord Privy Seal to Berlin was put out to tender to more than one aircraft operating company; and whether the lowest tender was accepted?
  The PRIME MINISTER: There is no regular service of aeroplanes to Berlin on Sundays and I am satisfied that the most satisfactory arrangement was made and no unnecessary expense was involved. There was no bargaining with rival companies about transport.
  Mr. SIMMONDS: Does my right hon. Friend know that the Postmaster-General has effected very considerable economies by putting the carriage of mails out to competitive tender, and does he not think that this would be possible also for livestock?
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House of Commons is not so much worried about how the Foreign Secretary goes as about what he does when he does go?

  ROYAL NAVY (AIRCRAFT PILOTS).
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many officers in the Navy or Marines are able to pilot flying machines; and how many are learning at the present time?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): The number of officers of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines who are attached to the Royal Air Force for service with the Fleet Air Arm and who are fully qualified aircraft pilots is 139; 25 officers are still under training as pilots. There are also 53 officers on the Active List who have undergone Royal Air Force training as aircraft pilots and are now permanently employed in general service. I am unable to give the numbers of officers who have learnt to fly privately, but there is a considerable number.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is this service made attractive in any way? Is there any possibility of the numbers increasing?
  Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: We may want to increase in the future, but we have enough at the moment.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is there any additional pay attached to it?
  Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: Yes.

  CEYLON (MALARIA).
  Sir ALFRED BEITasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps it is proposed to take to fight against the present epidemic of malaria in Ceylon and to deal with the threatened food shortage?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Governor has informed me that the medical department took prompt steps to deal with the outbreak of malaria in November last, which was at its worst in January and since then has been on the decline. Such steps as are practicable are being taken against a recrudescence, and arrangements are being made for the visit in the near future of an officer specially experienced in malariological work to investigate the outbreak and advise on the situation. The State Council have appointed a special commissioner to co-ordinate relief measures. They have voted Rs. 1,500,000, apart from sums for medical and other measures, to be administered by him for the relief of distress caused by the outbreak and the food shortage. The organisation of the Ceylon medical department for the distribution of quinine and for the pro-
  1910
  vision of facilities or treatment has been commended by an expert in tropical medicine who recently visited Ceylon.
  Sir A. BEIT: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether that expert has made any report which is available to the public?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir. There is a very good account of Dr. Wigglesworth's lecture published in the British Medical Journal of 23rd March.

  AVIATION.

    PILOTS (BLIND FLYING EXPERIENCE).
    Mr. SIMMONDSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he has decided to relax the requirement for blind flying experience for pilots with B licences not normally engaged in public transport services?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir P. Sassoon): The possibility of some such arrangement as my hon. Friend suggests is still under examination.
    Mr. SIMMONDS: Will my right hon. Friend endeavour to make an announcement at an early date, because the livelihood of these pilots is at stake while this sword of Damocles is still over their heads?

    AERODROME CONSTRUCTION WORK (CONTRACTS).
    Mr. LEONARDasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the present policy of his Department to confine the issue of tender forms containing structural steel requirements to a small selected number of contractors, he will undertake to examine the list of contractors with a view to the inclusion of all firms with a proved competence to perform structural steel engineering?
    Sir P. SASSOON: It is not the policy of the Air Ministry to restrict tendering for structural steel requirements to a small selected number of firms. Where in individual cases the field of tendering for aerodrome construction work in which steel work is included has been restricted, it will be found that the list of approved sub-contractors for the steel work is ex-

    1911
    tensive and contains a clear intimation that other firms will be considered if submitted by the contractor for approval.
    Mr. LEONARD: Is it not the case that Scottish firms of 50 years' experience have been excluded from the list of tenderers while other firms have successfully tendered for a number of years, showing that they must have received tender forms?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I am not aware of that fact.
    Mr. LEONARD: I was referring to firms who are on the list and who have received tender forms.
    Sir P. SASSOON: If there is any particular case which the hon. Member has in mind, and if he will send me the list, I will look into it.

  CENTRAL ELECTRICITY BOARD.
  Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNEasked the Minister of Transport how much of the sum of £3,651,432 which is shown in the annual accounts published by the Central Electricity Board for the year ended 31st December, 1933, as receivable by them in respect of sale of energy, was receivable in respect of energy sold by the board in the Central Scotland area and the Mid-East England area, respectively?
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have no information beyond that contained in the accounts to which my hon. Friend refers.

  BRITISH ARMY (AIRCRAFT PILOTS).
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office how many officers in the Army are able to pilot flying machines; and how many are learning at the present time?
  Mr. HACKING: There are 41 officers on the active list who have completed training with the Royal Air Force as pilots, and 16 more who are seconded to the Royal Air Force at the present time. I am afraid I can give no particulars as to the Army officers who have learned to fly in their private capacity.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: What inducement is held out to officers in the Army to learn to fly, and how long will it be before they can all fly?
  Mr. HACKING: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would ask that question privately, or put down a question on the matter.
  Brigadier-General NATION: Is it now part of the duty of the Army to learn to fly aeroplanes?
  Mr. HACKING: Only a certain number, about eight, are seconded each year, a total number of not more than 32 at any one time.

  RATING ASSESSMENTS, ESSEX.
  Sir BROGRAVE BEAUCHAMPasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the dissatisfaction in parts of Essex over increases in the assessments for purposes of rating; and whether it is by his instructions that rating authorities and assessment committees have, with the object of securing uniformity between different districts, made these assessments higher than they otherwise would have been?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): My hon. Friend has been good enough to call attention to this matter. My right hon. Friend has not issued any such instructions, but it will be realised that uniformity between rating areas was one of the important objects of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, and this must inevitably lead to increased assessments in some places.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. ATTLEE(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether there will be an opportunity for this House to consider the Polish Trade Agreement and when it will be possible for the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on the Berlin discussions?
The PRIME MINISTER: In regard to the Polish Trade Agreement, I have been informed that there is very considerable likelihood that the Government business on Friday may be finished before the ordinary time for the House to adjourn,

1913
and I propose to give the House an opportunity of discussing a Motion which is on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) dealing with the subject of that agreement. Regarding the second question, perhaps the hon. Member would put it to me to-morrow. The Foreign Secretary has not yet arrived, and I have had no opportunity of consulting him.
Mr. PIKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Motion in the name of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) is of vast importance to many industries in this country and justifies a much longer period of discussion than half an hour or an hour after the main business on Friday is dispensed with? Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter?
Mr. MAXTON: With reference to the Prime Minister's expression of the hope that there will be time to discuss the Polish Trade Agreement on Friday, may I ask if there is any understanding to the effect that the Committee stage of the Array and Air Force (Annual) Bill, which usually occupies an extended period of time, will be finished in the very short time available on Friday? Should this hope as regards the Bill not be realised, will an early opportunity be given otherwise for the discussion of the Polish Trade Agreement?
The PRIME MINISTER: I will see on Friday. The hope has been held out, though there is no agreement, that Government business may be finished before four o'clock.
Mr. PIKE: May we take it that, if there is time on Friday for other business, the discussion of the Polish Trade Agreement must come on?
The PRIME MINISTER: I will consider the circumstances.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Superannuation Bill): Sir
  1914
  Ian Fraser; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Essenhigh.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (County of Holland Joint Hospital District) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Guisborough Joint Small-pox Hospital District) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Huntingdonshire Joint Hospital District) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (South Chilterns Joint Small-pox Hospital District) Bill.
Coventry Canal Navigation Bill.
Oxford Canal Bill.
Rochdale Canal Bill.
Weaver Navigation Bill, without Amendment.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP C).
Sir Henry Jackson reported from the Committee on Group C of Private Bills; That Mr. Stephen Davies, one of the Members of the said Committee, was not present during the sitting of the Committee this day.
Report to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.
  Considered in Committee [TWELFTH DAY—Progress, 22nd March.]
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
  The CHAIRMAN: I think the Committee may be looking for some indication as to how far we are likely to get to-day. Consideration of the Amendments on the Paper leads me to express the hope that to-night we may be able to complete Parts V and VI, and, if I were something of an optimist, I might further hope that we might get the first few Clauses of Part VII. There is a large number of Amendments to Parts V and VI, but for the most part they are on minor issues, and many of them are purely drafting or consequential. I do not think, therefore, that they will take very long, and we ought to make considerable progress. The Committee will remember that it is desired to make as much progress as possible day by day in this part of the Bill, in order to give more time for the new Clauses and Schedules.

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.

    CLAUSE 99.—(Extent of Federal and Provincial laws.)
    3.35 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I beg to move, in page 60, line 18, to leave out from the first "the" to the end of the Clause, and to add:
    "generality of the powers conferred by the preceding Sub-section, no Federal law shall, on the ground that it would have extra territorial operation, be deemed to be invalid in so far as it applies—

    (a) to British subjects and servants of the Crown in any part of India; or

    (b) to British subjects who are domiciled in any part of India wherever they may be; or

    (c) to, or to persons on, ships or aircraft registered in British India or any Federated State wherever they may be; or

    (d) in the case of a law with respect to a matter accepted in the Instrument of Accession of a Federated State as a matter with respect to which the Federal Legislature may make laws for that State, to subjects of that State wherever they may be; or

    (e) in the case of a law for the regulation or dicipline of any naval, military, or air force raised in British India, to members of, and persons attached to, employed with or following, that force, wherever they may be."

    1924
    Sub-section (2) of Clause 99 deals with the question of the operation of Federal laws, and the Clause as it is at present drafted provides for this by saying that a Federal law shall extend to certain named matters. It has been thought that the law would be clearer if it were put in the opposite way, making the Clause provide, as the Amendment on the Paper suggests, that no Federal law shall, on the ground that it would have extra-territorial operation, be deemed to be invalid so far as it applies to certain named matters. The alteration, therefore, which the Amendment involves is purely drafting, subject to two matters. The Committee will observe that, in the Bill as it stands, the expression is used in Sub-section (2, b):
    "Indian subjects of His Majesty."
    That is an inconvenient expression for more than one reason, but chiefly because it is not at all clear or definite as to the persons who come within the description. It is therefore proposed in the Amendment to use the expression:
    "British subjects who are domiciled in any part of India."
    This will result in a slight extension of the expression, because British subjects domiciled in India may include persons of pure European blood, whereas the other expression would possibly include only persons who were not of pure European descent.
    The other matter of substance is that the Sub-section, in the new form in which it stands on the Order Paper, will deal with persons on ships or aircraft registered in British India or any Federated State. It has been pointed out that it is necessary to allow a Federal law to deal with these matters in order that the international obligations in respect of ships and aircraft may be applied, and I think the Committee will probably agree that that is a proper addition to make to the Sub-section. Subject to these two points, the new form on the Paper is a drafting proposal, and I ask the Committee to accept it.
    Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: It is a little difficult to realise what this Amendment means as regard the Princes—
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I can assure my hon. Friend that this Amendment has nothing at all to do with the

    1925
    Princes, and does not in any way affect any questions that may have arisen with regard to the States.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    3.39 p.m.
    Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: With regard to this Clause the Committee of States' Ministers have raised very strong objections. We find, on page 9 of the White Paper issued by the Secretary of State, that they say:
    "In regard to this Clause, the Committee feel that it is essential to secure that a State will not be bound to enforce Federal laws on matters outside the Instrument of Accession."
    These are important words. It is rather difficult for a layman to follow the complex legal matters involved, but it is clear that the Princes are extremely jealous of the power of the Federal Legislature to legislate for their States, and they lay down definitely that the Federal Legislature shall have no such power of legislation outside the subjects contained in the Instrument of Accession; and, at the end of the paragraph in the White Paper regarding Clause 99, the Committee say:
    "Clause 99 (2), as at present drafted, in so far as it is not superfluous, is unacceptable."
    Later, on page 18, they say:
    "The Indian States will retain intact their power of concurrent legislation even on matters accepted by Rulers to be federal."
    That opens up the possibility of a very confusing situation. The Federal Legislature may pass a law on a subject within the Instrument of Accession, but the States will retain their power of concurrent legislation; that is to say, the Rulers of the States may pass laws that may not carry out the intention of the Federal Legislature. I understand that each Prince may have a separate instrument of accession in which will be laid down the subjects for which the Central Legislature can make laws. That opens up a very peculiar prospect. You may have an enormous number of instruments of accession each containing a separate list of subjects which the Ruler of a State will accept, and so we may have a most complicated arrangement of legislation. One can see the possibility in
    1926
    future of very great difficulty arising. The Federal Legislature will have power to legislate for one set of subjects in one State and another set of subjects in another State, and the result will be almost chaos. The Attorney-General assured me that the Amendment which was put down is not in any way in consequence of the discussions which, I understand, are going on between the draftsmen and the advisers of the Princes. That means, as far as one can judge, that the way the Princes may be interfered with is not met by the Amendment, and one would have thought that it would have been simpler to deal with this vital subject at once. If an agreement is to be arrived at on the fundamental objection of the Princes to interference with their sovereignty or powers of legislating for their own States outside their instruments of accession, I should have thought that here was the point at which the matter could be made perfectly clear.
    3.43 p.m.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): I will try in a sentence or two to answer my hon. Friend. I think that he has rather misunderstood the scope of this Clause. The criticism of the Princes was not a general criticism such as he has just mentioned, but a criticism based rather upon the position of British subjects in an Indian State—a much smaller issue—and we are at present considering that point. As to the very wide question about the Instruments of Accession, I thought that I had explained clearly what would be the position under the Instruments of Accession in one of our earlier Debates. I made it clear that there would be a certain amount of variety as between one instrument of accession and another, but that we wished to get the greatest possible uniformity, and we assumed that there would be a general measure, of uniformity such as I described the other day.
    My hon. Friend raised a further question about the concurrent field, and there again I think that he has somewhat misunderstood the scope of this Clause. It has always been assumed that the units, namely, the Indian States and also the Provinces of British India, would have the power of legislation in the concurrent field. Indeed, there would not be a concurrent field if it were not so. The Princes are not in this respect being

    1927
    treated differently from the British Indian Provinces. Obviously, the Federal units and the Federal Centre both have a locus standi in the concurrent field, and it is always contemplated that, that being so, the Princes will have the power of legislation in this field.
    Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: Does that mean that in the concurrent field the Princes would have power in their own States to deal with concurrent subjects outside the Instrument of Accession?
    Sir A. HOARE: Certainly, the concurrent field means that both the unit and the Centre have powers of legislation, subject to the conditions set out in the various provisions of the Bill under which, in the case of the British Indian Provinces, the Federal Act has the greater authority unless the Governor-General sanctions Provincial amending legislation.
    Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: May I point out that in the White Paper the Princes laid down very strongly their objections to this Clause, and is it not a pity that the Committee cannot meet those points as far as they can be met as we go along; otherwise, we may have to have the Clause recommitted. I will read the words of the second part of their criticism, in which they say:
    "If, for instance, it is intended that a Federal law applicable to British subjects should be enforced by State courts where under the Rules of Private International. Law it should not be enforced, the committee must strongly object. Clause 99 (2), as at present drafted, in so far as it is not superfluous, is unacceptable."
    In view of that strong criticism, would it not be advisable for the Secretary of State to meet the points as we go along; otherwise, we may have to do the work over again?
    Sir S. HOARE: I think that we shall be able to meet a good many of these points as we go along, I do not think the question arises on this particular point, but, speaking generally, we shall meet the points as we go along.
    Sir H. CROFT: Cannot we postpone the Clause instead of having to do it all again?
    Sir S. HOARE: No
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 100.—(Subject matter of Federal and Provincial laws.)
    The CHAIRMAN: There are two-Amendments down to this Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Bailey) and other hon. Members—in page 61, line 6, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided that the Federal Legislature has not power to make any law which imposes on goods imported into the Federation which are consigned from and in whole or in part produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom, a higher duty of customs than is for the time being imposed on like goods imported into the Federation which are consigned from any other country."—
    and in page 61, line 22, at the end, to add:
    "(5) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, neither the Federal Legislature nor a Provincial Legislature has power to make any law which imposes any duty of customs, transit duty, or the like on any goods consigned from any part of British India into any other part of British India."
    I have come to the conclusion that they should be dealt with as a new Clause.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    3.47 p.m.
    Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: As I understand it, the purpose of the Clause is to provide a method whereby the restrictive powers of legislative competence of the Centre and of the Provinces may be determined. I suggest to the Committee that the method proposed is a wrong method, and I hope very much that, if a sufficient number of other hon. Members take that view, the Secretary of State may yet reconsider the matter and deal with it at some later stage in the Bill. I suggest that it is a wrong method for this reason. All federal systems suffer from a common weakness. It frequently happens that there is a doubt as to the validity of a law that has been passed. A doubt may arise, owing to the circumstances of the Central Assembly or the Assembly of Provinces having limited powers, as to whether those powers have been exceeded in passing a particular law. That is common to all federal systems. It is common knowledge that there are many people in India who are rather prone to litigation. Therefore, it

    1929
    is not unreasonable to suggest that, in laying down a method allocating these powers, we should try to find a way which would lead to as little litigation and dispute as possible. I suggest that the method proposed in the Bill is the one method of all others most likely to lead to doubt as to the validity of the law and to consequent litigation. I have very good authority for saying that, because the Joint Select Committee themselves pointed out quite definitely in paragraph 55 that:
    "It seems clear that the attempt … to allocate powers over the whole field of legislation by the expedient of specific enumeration must tend considerably to increase the danger of litigation by multiplying points of possible inconsistency."
    That is obviously true. There were two possible alternative methods, two precedents, which the Government had before them, what is known as the Australian principle and what is known as the Canadian principle. The Australian principle, roughly, is that powers which are not given to the Centre fall to the Provinces. That is to say, the Province has residuary legislative powers. The Canadian principle is that the residuary power rests with the Centre, and the Provinces only have specific powers. The method proposed in this Clause is that in each case those powers are specific. It is precisely when you come to specify a power that difficulty arises. It would not be too much to say that by specifying the power in both cases we are doubling the prospects of doubt and increasing the prospects of litigation.
    The Select Committe having pointed out this risk go on to support the proposal in the Bill. They set forward two reasons for doing that, neither of which seems to me to be a very strong one. The first reason they give is one which they describe as a matter of immediate political expediency, namely, that Indian opinion is divided on this matter, some thinking that the Australian method should be followed and others that the Canadian method should be followed. Therefore, the Joint Select Committee argue that neither of those methods should be followed. If that argument were to be pressed generally and we were to say that because a large body of Indians want one method and another large body wants another method, that
    1930
    we should necessarily have neither, we might have no Bill at all. I cannot feel that that is an argument to which great weight attaches. The Joint Select Committee then give a second argument, which they describe as a matter of constitutional substance, in which they say that the logical conclusion of the proposal is that residuary legislative powers should be allocated to the Provinces. That is to say that the Australian method should be followed. I cannot make out how they arrive at the opinion that that is the logical conclusion. It seems to me that a perfectly good case could be made out for the logical conclusion being that the Canadian and not the Australian method should be adopted.
    I should prefer either the Canadian or the Australian method to the method proposed in the Bill. If I were given the choice I should prefer the Canadian method of specific powers being given to the Provinces and residuary powers being given to the Centre. If the Secretary of State at this juncture cannot promise to reconsider the matter I should be grateful if he would tell the Committee what in his view is the objection to the Canadian principle. It might be argued that after a passage of time it might be found desirable for the Provinces to have extended powers. Surely, in that case some provision could be put into the Bill whereby the Centre could delegate their powers in certain respects to the Provinces. I will not detain the Committee longer, because the point is a clear one, as to which of the three methods, the Australian, the Canadian or the method proposed in the Bill should be adopted; but I should be glad if the Secretary of State would tell us why the Government propose the method in the Bill, which seems to me likely to multiply if not to double future litigation, as compared with either the Canadian or the Australian models. I should also be glad if he would tell me what objection there is to the Canadian precedent.
    3.56 p.m.
    Sir S. HOARE: Many of us have been through the same process of thought as my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis), and many of us wish, if it were possible, to restrict the lists. If it had been possible to have one list we should have been glad, but, unfortunately, as in many of these Indian problems, when we came to apply to the

    1931
    actual facts what we desired, we found it to be impossible. We found that Indian opinion was very definitely divided between, speaking generally, the Hindus who wish to keep the predominant power in the Centre, and the Moslems who wish to keep the predominant power in the Provinces. The extent of that feeling made each of these communities look with the greatest suspicion at the residuary field, the, Hindus demanding that the residuary field should remain with the Centre and the Moslems equally strongly demanding that the residuary field should remain with the Provinces.
    My hon. Friend will believe me when I say that the feeling was very deep and very bitter on this issue. We tried year after year not only in the Joint Select Committee but also in the various Round Table Conferences to bridge the difference, but the only bridge that we could find between these two diametrically opposite points of view was to have three lists, namely, the Federal List, the Provincial List and the Concurrent List, each as exhaustive as we could make it, so exhautive as to leave little or nothing for the residuary field. I believe that we have succeeded in that attempt and that all that is likely to go into the residuary field are perhaps some quite unknown spheres of activity that neither my hon. Friend nor I can contemplate at this moment. We find that we have really exhausted the ordinary activities of Government in the three other fields. I agree with my hon. Friend that it means complications. I believe that it also means the possibility of increased litigation. I very much regret that that is so, but I would say to my hon. Friend that in view of the very strong and bitter feeling there is in India on the subject this is the only way to deal with the difficulty.
    3.58 p.m.
    Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: There are three lists, the Federal, the Provincial and the Concurrent lists. If there is disagreement between the Federal Legislature and the Provincial Legislature provision is made for the intervention of the Governor-General, but if the difference is not composed by his intervention, I understand that the wish of the Federal Legislature will prevail. May I ask—
    The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member had better wait until we come to a later Clause that deals with that point.
    3.59 p.m.
    Mr. BAILEY: I do not want to take up the time of the Committee, and I do not want by an indirect method to evade your Ruling with regard to the two Amendments standing in my name and in the names of my hon. Friends. It is difficult in a Clause of this character to give such wide powers to the Federal Legislature as this Clause gives on a variety of subjects. For that reason I, for one, find it quite impossible to support the Clause. Under the Clause it seems to me that the Federal Legislature will have the power, from a fiscal point of view—
    4.1 p.m.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that the hon. Member is attempting to say something which I must rule out of order on this Clause. The Clause merely deals with the question of machinery in regard to the relation of the Federal Legislature to the Provincial Legislatures.
    Sir H. CROFT: Is it possible to raise the matters enumerated in list 1 in the Seventh Schedule?
    The CHAIRMAN: It is quite out of the question to do that here.
    Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: I wish to ask a question merely for the purpose of elucidation. Sub-section (4) says:
    "The Federal Legislature has power to make laws with respect to matters enumerated in the Provincial Legislative List except for a Province or any part thereof."
    I imagine that the intention of this Subsection is that the Federal Legislature may make laws in the matter of the Provincial list, or Chief Commissioner's Province, or tribal area, but not a Governor's Province. If I am correct in that, would it not be better to insert the word "Governor's" before the word "Province"?
    Sir S. HOARE: My hon. Friend is quite right. This Sub-section deals with the Commissioners' Provinces, but I do not believe that anywhere we call a Province a Governor's Province.
    Colonel GRETTON: Are we to understand from your ruling, Sir Dennis, that it is not competent to discuss matters which are set out in the Seventh Schedule? May I ask if that ruling would preclude the Committee from altering that Schedule if this Clause had received the previous assent of the Committee?
    The CHAIRMAN: Certainly not. The whole point is that we can discuss the Schedule when we come to it and not before. It is quite open to discuss and amend the Schedule when reached.
    Colonel GRETTON: To discuss and amend it?
    The CHAIRMAN: It is open to the Committee to amend the Schedule when we come to it.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 101.—(Extent of power to legislate for States.)
    4.4 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 61, line 26, to leave out "extending to the State or the subjects thereof," and to insert "for the State."
    It is purely a drafting Amendment to make the Clause conform to other Amendments already made.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 61, line 28, after "conditions," insert "or limitations."—[The Attorney-General.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    4.5 p.m.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I oppose this Clause, but I do not propose to divide against it. I think the Committee should understand what this Clause is. It reads:
    "Nothing in this Act shall be construed as empowering the Federal Legislature, in virtue of the accession of a State to the Federation, to make laws extending to the State."
    It is a demonstration of what this Federation means. The States are represented in the Assembly. Nothing done by that Assembly can affect the States, either the Princes or the subjects of those States, save in so far as is conceded by the ruler of a State in the Instrument of Accession. In no Federation in the world would such a Clause be found, and it is only put in here because this is not a Federation. This is the handing over of India to the rulers of the States.
    4.6 p.m.
    Sir S. HOARE: My right hon. Friend's criticism surely has gone a long way beyond the limits of fair criticism. There never has been a federation of this kind in the history of the world in which, presumably, the federal legislature has had an unlimited field of legislation. I have never heard of a federation in which there is no such limitation.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: That is not the point at all. There is represented in this Federation the Indian States. They are to make laws for British India, and the laws they make are not to apply to the States which they are supposed to represent.
    Sir S. HOARE: I have never heard of a federation in which the federal legislature has these unlimited powers. The whole essence of federation is that the units surrender definite powers, but beyond that field the Federal Legislature has no power over units at all. That is exactly the position. The Federal Legislature has power over the units to the extent of the federal field; and in the case of the Indian Princes to the extent that they have surrendered their powers in the Instruments of Accession. That is altogether in keeping with the letter and spirit of every federal legislature in the world. It would be contrary to every theory of federation if the Federal Government had more extended powers.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman is really playing with the subject. Take the case of income tax. You impose income tax on the whole of India except the Indian States. The representatives of those States can vote the income tax, and the Princes of the States can escape all liability. The Act they pass does not apply to those States. I say that that is exceptional.
    The CHAIRMAN: Now that I have followed what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has been saying, I have come to the conclusion that the question is one which we have already discussed. It certainly is not in order on this Clause.
    4.8 p.m.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: Is there not a point to be cleared up? There is the

    1935
    difference between this Federation and other federations in this respect. The whole of British India is covered by the Federal subjects, but a State comes in not necessarily in respect of all the federal subjects in the federal area. Suppose a Prince accedes in respect of 50 subjects in the Federal List, so far as those 50 subjects are concerned they are common to India, but in respect of the subjects to which the Prince does not accede, in that respect he is in a different position from the various Provinces of British India. Surely, therefore, there is a very big difference between federation with which we are acquainted and this one. May I take the other point which my right hon. and gallant Friend took? Though a Prince accedes, say, in respect of only 50 subjects on the Federal List, in spite of that his subjects have a voice in regard to the whole field.
    The CHAIRMAN: I still cannot think that that is in order on this Clause.
    4.9 p.m.
    Viscount WOLMER: Surely we are in order in discussing that on the Question, "That the Clause stand part"? It is the essence of the Clause:
    "Nothing in this Act shall be construed as empowering the Federal Legislature, in virtue of the accession of a State to the Federation, to make laws extending to the State."
    except in so far as it is covered by the Instrument of Accession. Surely it is in order to argue that it is an unjust or an unwise Clause, in view of the fact that the State representatives in the Legislature are entitled to vote on all these other matters?
    The CHAIRMAN: I still maintain, with all respect to the Noble Lord's contention, that this is merely a precautionary Clause, as I read it, put in for greater caution. The principle raised by the Noble Lord and by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) is a principle which was undoubtedly accepted in an earlier part of the Bill.
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 102.—(Power of Federal Legislature to legislation on Proclamation of Emergency.)
    4.11 p.m.
    Viscount WOLMER: I beg to move, in page 62, line 18, to leave out "six," and to insert "twelve."
    Sub-section (3) of this Clause, if my Amendment were carried, would read:
    "A Proclamation of Emergency …. shall cease to operate at the expiration of twelve months, unless before the expiration of that period it has been approved by Resolutions of both Houses of Parliament."
    The point of this Amendment is, of course, to extend the period under which a proclamation of emergency may be valid. It does not mean that the emergency would have to last and the proclamation would have to last for 12 months, but it suggests that 12 months would be a more suitable limit than six months. In a country of the vast size of India a state of emergency may be in a very undefined form. You may have a smouldering insurrection, or an organisation of civil disobedience, or acute communal tension springing up first in this Province and then in that. It may not all flare up at the moment, and the suggestion we have made in this Amendment is that the proclamation of emergency should cover a longer period than six months. I think that the point we have to remember in this connection is that, although of course this House must ultimately intervene, there may very well be occasions in which debates in this House would do a great deal of harm.
    There are in this House protagonists of the contending parties in India. I know, for instance, that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) has a deep attachment to the Hindus. Other hon. Members are equally attached to the Moslem point of view, and it might well be the case—I am not saying it always would be—that debate in this House might very much increase the tension in India. Therefore, I think it is unwise to say there must necessarily be a debate in this House at the end of six months. Of course, we know that in foreign affairs, and, in fact, on a number of occasions, a Government may make an appeal that certain matters shall not be debated in this House because the situation is inopportune. I presume that if

    1937
    the Government made an appeal in circumstances such as I am visualising, it would be acceded to, but it need not necessarily be acceded to. You may have party feeling running high in this country, as they used to do before the war, when the Opposition would be willing to risk the probable consequences of a debate on India if they thought it would discredit the Government. It seems to me to be unwise to fix so short a time limit as six months. I hope it may not be necessary to have a longer period than 12 months, but it seems to me it is a safer time limit than six months.
    4.16 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The Amendment would result in the period during which the Centre was invading the Provincial legislative field continuing possibly for 12 months without approval by Parliament. The Clause only deals with a state of emergency in which the security of India is threatened, either as a result of war or of internal disturbance. In order to deal with a very serious position like that, it is proposed that the Centre shall have the right to take over for the necessary time the legislative field allotted to the Provinces. My Noble Friend's only objection to six months is that it may be inadvisable to have a debate in this House on that state of affairs owing to the possibility of high party feelings. If a state of emergency of so serious a character as that envisaged by the Clause exists in India, I should have thought that it would be very unlikely, indeed very undesirable, that no debate should take place in this House for as long as six months. If it were a question of a week or a few days it might be necessary to avoid a debate during a particular period of that brevity, but, when you are thinking in terms of months during which there is an invasion of the Provincial legislative field by the Centre in these grave circumstances, it is almost inconceivable, indeed, I think it is quite inconceivable, not to have a debate in Parliament as to the action which has been taken.
    My Noble Friend proposes 12 months. It is notoriously difficult to draw a line when you are considering a question of time. Seven months may be as good as six months, and eight months as good as seven months, but it seems to the
    1938
    Government that a period of 12 months is definitely too long and that six months is a reasonable period, at the end of which, if not before, Parliament should have an opportunity of considering whether the proclamation made by the Governor-General was a proper one in all the circumstances. I hope my Noble Friend will realise, on this view of the matter, that a period of 12 months is too long for the proclamation to continue without any consideration by Parliament.
    4.19 p.m.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: With all due respect, it seems to me that the learned Attorney-General has ignored some rather important considerations. In the first place, he has rather forgotten that disturbed conditions in India have existed over a considerable period of months. The civil disobedience disturbance began in the beginning of 1930 and gathered momentum as it went on, because it was allowed to grow, and a serious condition of affairs existed at the end of the year. In 1931 there was also some trouble, indeed, there was a recrudescence of the civil disobedience movement in 1932, and there was the massacre at Cawnpore in 1931. We have to realise the possibility, I think the probability, that there may be long periods of disorder, very much longer than is in the mind of the Attorney-General. The Amendment does not require the proclamation to continue indefinitely. There is no reason why it should continue a day longer than the Governor-General and the Secretary of State consider necessary. Nor does the Amendment prevent Parliament considering the position in India and discussing it if it desires to do so. Parliament is left entirely free in the matter.
    All that the Amendment means is that the proclamation, which would only be issued in circumstances of great emergency and danger—it may be difficult in this country to know exactly the right moment for ending the proclamation—shall not automatically lapse except at the most suitable moment. In certain circumstances a debate in Parliament might do untold harm. How often have we been asked to postpone a discussion on this or that matter for fear of raising excited feelings. If there be a state of grave internal disorder in India it may

    1939
    be most undesirable to have a debate in this House with hon. Members in different parts associating themselves with different parties to the disorder. There is also another contingency. (Parliament may not be in session. Would hon. Members like to be recalled from their hard earned holiday in the summer, which they spend in all quarters of the globe, to discuss the question whether a proclamation was or was not to continue in India. It seems to me, in view of the actual experience we have had of the length of time disorder may continue in India, that the Government would do well to give themselves the further latitude which the Amendment suggests. If the Government will not accept the Amendment, are they prepared to extend the time from six months to nine months? I am sure it would be for the good of India.
    4.23 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: When the Noble Lady makes that proposal I can only suggest that it throws a little light upon the force of her argument. She suggested 12 months as being better than six months, because a state of disorder may last longer than six months. I think that is quite possible, indeed, it may be very likely, if a serious state of affairs ever began; but the question to which the Noble Lady has not addressed herself is whether it is desirable, in a state of emergency like that and where action has ben taken under the powers of the Bill, that such a state of affairs should continue for a substantial period without Parliament having an opportunity, or being compelled, to express an opinion. It is true that the Governor-General can end the situation by recalling the proclamation. That would be because the state of emergency had ceased to exist, in which case no reason would arise for Parliament to discuss the matter at all. But suppose the state of affairs continues and the Governor-General is not justified in recalling the proclamation, then the question arises at what time is it desirable that Parliament shall be obliged to discuss the matter, if the proclamation is to continue to have effect. The Noble Lady says 12 months. It is possible that the state of emergency will be such as to make it undesirable during the 12 months as it is during the six months. By that reasoning you may
    1940
    get to 18 months and 24 months. The Noble Lady is of that opinion, because she has suggested nine months. I am not going to be so foolish as to suggest that there is any magic or virtue in six months over nine months, but I think six months is a reasonable period. The Noble Lady asked what will happen if Parliament is not sitting. What will happen if Parliament is not sitting during the 12 months, or during the nine months?
    Duchess of ATHOLL: Parliament allows itself a summer holiday.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not appreciate how that bears on the question. Suppose Parliament has not had this Debate at the end of 10 months, and is going away for the summer holidays. What will happen to the Noble Lady then? That is one of those questions on which it is easy to debate whether it shall be six months, nine months, 12 months or 18 months, and on the whole, I think the Government's proposal is sound and that six months is long enough to go on without Parliament considering it.
    4.27 p.m.
    Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE: May I say that I like six months for the reason that matters of great emergency in India ought to be discussed within that period. I cannot follow the argument of the Noble Lord the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) that the House should not have an opportunity of discussing it. I am sure that it is within his recollection that during the period we have been together in this House we have never had a six months holiday—
    Duchess of ATHOLL: That is not what I meant. You may have three months disorder, and it may be felt that it is not desirable to have a Debate. Then come the three months holiday of Parliament, and your six months go.
    Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: The main point is that if there is a state of disorder, which is a menace to the security of India, it is essential that Parliament should discuss the matter within six months. I look at this question from a point of view different from that of my hon. Friends opposite, and it rather surprises me that they take the view they do. I should have thought that they would take the other view, that if there

    1941
    be such a serious emergency it is most desirable Parliament should discuss it. We should also remember that Parliament may not always be constituted exactly as it is to-day. Looking at it from that point of view, I think the Noble Lady, if she thinks again, will agree that it is undesirable to extend the period.
    4.29 p.m.
    Sir CHARLES OMAN: If the Committee is discussing the possible length of an emergency in India, may I point out that the great India Mutiny commenced in the summer of 1857 and lasted to 1858. The last remnants of the mutineers were captured in 1859, and their leader was executed in September, 1859, two years after the emergency began.
    4.30 p.m.
    Sir H. CROFT: Surely my right hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney-General, appreciates what the Noble Lady said. There is nothing whatever to stop a Debate taking place. Presumably if you had a state of emergency a Debate would take place almost inevitably. I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne), who seemed to think it was highly desirable that in any event there should be a Debate on what was happening, not a statement from the Secretary of State merely but a Debate which from the nature of the case must mean that there will be one party in this House trying to exert pressure on the Governor-General in order to bring the state of emergency to an end. My hon. Friend has been in this House long enough to know that almost inevitably, when you have an emergency in any Dominion, there will be one party in this House standing up and saying that the Government are very unwise not to bring that state of affairs to an end. It is human nature, and it has always happened in the past. As you are giving self-government to India it is hardly advisable to interfere in this House to any greater extent than we can avoid. I should have thought it was obvious that a longer period than six months was desirable, in view of the length of time that you have had to see emergency regulations in operation in India before. I should have thought it was unwise to force the House to come to a decision at the end of six months.
    4.32 p.m.
    Sir WILLIAM WAYLAND: The expression, "Houses of Parliament" appears in the Bill in many places. Is it sufficient to say "Houses of Parliament" when there are so many Parliaments in the Empire? Would it not be better to say "the Imperial Houses of Parliament"? Does the learned Attorney-General consider those words sufficient from a legal point of view?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Not only sufficient, but the only proper words.
    4.33 p.m.
    Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Before there is a confirmation of the emergency the condition of affairs in India must be extremely serious. When there is confirmation and the Governor-General takes over control to combat the state of affairs which has arisen, it seems to me that sufficient time should be given to those on the spot to carry out what is necessary to pacify the country. It does not seem to me to be a good thing for this House prematurely to discuss affairs in India until there has been an opportunity for those on the spot in India to institute such proceedings as are necessary to restore security. I think it inadvisable that of necessity this House should discuss a state of emergency before opportunity has been given for the methods that have been taken by those on the spot in India to bear fruit.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 103 to 105 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 106.—(Power of Federal Legislature to give effect to international agreement.)
    4.36 p.m.
    Mr. HICKS: I beg to move, in page 64, line 10, after "law," to insert:
    "(other than a law consequent upon the ratification of a convention made under the auspices of the International Labour Office of the League of Nations)."
    The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that the general Federal application of the Conventions of the League of Nations shall apply to India as a whole, that is, to the native States as well as to British India. Up to 1933 the Labour Conventions passed at

    1943
    Geneva numbered 40, and of these the British Government in India adopted and ratified 13. The Conventions in the main relate to such matters of very great importance as the regulation of the hours of work, the payment of workmen's compensation, the right of association, unemployment exchanges and the prohibition of night work for women and young persons. The position at present is that there is no compulsion on the States in India to ratify any of these Conventions. It is true that some States have copied the legislation of the Indian Legislature, but generally speaking the labour laws of the States are considerably behind those of British India. A Royal Commission that sat in 1931 made this observation on the matter:
    "There seem to be distinct dangers that persons will seek to exploit, beyond the bounds of British India, the labour of young children. Further, in the Punjab there is said to be a tendency to move cotton ginning factories to Indian States to avoid restrictions on hours of work and child labour."
    It would be a wise thing to adopt the Amendment in order that the States that come within the Federation should adopt compulsorily such Conventions as have been approved by the League of Nations. India to-day is undergoing very rapid economic change and industrialisation. It affects the railways, steam and electricity, mills, engineering factories and so on, with profound consequences on the economic and social life of the people in India. It is all tantamount to an industrial revolution. I appeal to all sections of the Committee and to the Government in particular to give sympathetic consideration to the Amendment. Conventions that are passed at the International Labour Office are very carefully tested from every possible angle and there is not much that escapes examination before the Conventions are approved. It is also true that every inquiry and every Commission in India has reported on the conditions of the working population. They are lamentably low, and anything that can be done to improve them would meet a great need.
    The Indian States have a population of about 80,000,000. It would be wrong to allow discrimination among those
    1944
    80,000,000 compared with the other 270,000,000 in British India. As a result of the Indian States not accepting the Conventions which have been passed mischief has already begun. I am informed that in Hyderabad, Baroda, Indore, Mysore, and other States, workers are now employed under conditions that do not conform with legislation passed in British India. There is hardly an Indian State of any importance where large industries are not established—industries which produce textiles, sugar and steel. They are engaging in production comparable with that in British India. But in all these States the conditions of labour have not been as favourable as those found elsewhere. It is notorious that labour in British India is prejudiced by imports of competing goods from Indian States where tariffs and customs duties are law. The geographical position of the States is another argument that might be considered and intelligently used to justify the need for bringing them into line. The common sense and reason of the Amendment should commend itself to the Secretary of State and to the Committee. I think it would be distinctly harmful to exempt the States from these regulations. The acceptance of the Amendment would give a feeling of fairness and security, and we ask that it should be embodied in the Bill.
    4.45 p.m.
    Major HILLS: At first sight there would appear to be a strong case for this Amendment. The Committee will recollect that this point was discussed on an earlier Clause and on a first consideration of the proposal, it would seem to be a useful thing that India should speak as a single unit in the matter of the ratification of Labour Conventions. It would certainly make for convenience if all the States could be brought into line on these matters. Then the hon. Member is on common ground with all of us in saying that labour conditions in India ought to be improved and also in saying that the production of goods which are made under inferior conditions and can therefore be sold cheaply in our markets, must do harm to our workers here. So far I go with the hon. Member. Where we differ is as to the character of the Federation which is being set up under the Bill. Let the Committee remember that the Amendment refers not only to the Provinces but to the native States

    1945
    and that it would enable the Federal Government to decree labour conditions in the Federated States without the consent of the Rulers of those States. I think the mere statement of those facts will show the Committee the dangers which would be involved in this proposal. It would be contrary to the terms on which the States are joining the Federation.
    That is not the only point however. The Committee must also bear in mind that whether you give powers of labour legislation under a Federal system to the Federal Government or to the States under that Government, must depend on the nature of the Federation. If you have a very closely unified Federation then you can quite well give those powers to the Central Government, but when, as in this case, you are giving very wide powers to the Provinces and still wider powers to the native States, then I think you must give those Provinces and those native States control over their own labour legislation. I do not think that the alternative would work. I think if I may say so that the hon. Member, with whose motives in regard to the Amendment I sympathise, is in some confusion as to the sort of Federation which we are setting up here. It will not make India into a close union. It will be a Federation something on the lines of the United States but unique in itself. A Federation such as this Bill sets up has never been seen in the world before—
    HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
    Viscount WOLMER: And will never be seen again.
    Major HILLS: And it is going to be an example to the world. We are so fortunate as to be able to do what no other nation has ever attempted before. In the United States, which is the most comparable case, all these powers of labour legislation are left to the States. No doubt that causes inconvenience in the international field but that is unavoidable. What is the answer to the very obvious criticisms which the hon. Member has made on labour conditions in the Provinces in India and still more in the States? Is it that they call for a system of improvement and education and better legislation in those areas which are large enough to have labour problems of their own and are large enough to be given
    1946
    powers for the direction and control of their own labour legislation. Although I see the advantages of the Amendment, although I feel that under such a proposal the ratification of Conventions might be easier I believe that the application of those Conventions would not be easier. We have often found that States accept Conventions passed by the International Labour Office and then make no attempt whatever to enforce those Conventions. That I think would be a bad thing for India and also a bad thing for the International Labour Office.
    4.50 p.m.
    Viscount WOLMER: After the speech of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major Hills), I think the Socialist party have every reason to say that when a speaker begins by telling you that he agrees with you in spirit, you can be sure that in the end he will come down on the wrong side of the fence.
    Major HILLS: I said I appreciated the spirit of the Amendment.
    Viscount WOLMER: I do not think that my right hon. and gallant Friend has met the case which has been put from the benches opposite. If I may say so, with great respect to him, it is absurd to argue that this proposed Constitution is at all comparable to the Constitution of the United States. The analogy of the United States which he cited really will not do. Even conceding his point that there is some analogy, it is universally admitted that the United States Constitution is one of the worst in the world and has been the cause of no end of trouble to the people of that country. It is therefore no argument to cite the worst part of a notoriously bad Constitution as an instance of something which we should copy in passing this Bill. But the point put by hon. Members opposite is that India is passing through an industrial revolution, and I would remind the Committee that that industrial revolution has been speeded on—I will not say entirely but to a great extent—by the policy of the Indian Nationalist movement, the policy of erecting high protective tariffs, creating an industrial system in India and manufacturing for themselves as much as possible instead of importing from this country and elsewhere. Therefore, it

    1947
    may be said that the industrial revolution in India is to a large extent the direct result of the political movement and the national consciousness which we see there.
    We are now giving India this Constitution. We are implementing find making firmer the powers already possessed by the Indian political movement to start industries in India. One of the bases of the Constitution which we are establishing is that there shall be a Zollverein throughout India. If you are to have a Government at the centre which is going to maintain this policy of high protection, and if there is to be free trade within India itself, clearly it will be to the interests of any unscrupulous capitalist to erect his factories, as far as other conditions allow, in those portions of India where the labour laws are worst. Therefore, as one of the results of the Constitution which we are building, we may be directly encouraging the setting up of Indian industries under conditions which everybody in this House and no one more than my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon would deplore. While I do not deny the reality of the difficulties which he has put forward, I do not think he has dealt with the gravamen of the case put from the benches opposite. This is only another instance of the difficulties into which we shall get by trying to treat India as a political unit when it is not really a political unit at all. By establishing a Federation with complete power over Customs, but without any real power over labour legislation in certain parts of the country, we may be bringing about very grave difficulties in the future.
    4.55 p.m.
    Mr. BANFIELD: I support this Amendment very largely as the result of my experience at the International Labour Office Conferences in Geneva, where for two years I listened to debates in which the representatives of India took part. A very prominent Indian permanent official, Sir Louis Kershaw, represented the Indian Government during the two years in which I acted as adviser on behalf of His Majesty's Government here. I am sure from those debates that Sir Louis Kershaw, as an
    1948
    impartial observer of the changing industrial system, held the opinion that India should as far as possible be encouraged to give effect in every way to the Conventions passed by the International Labour Office Conferences. We hear much from time to time about the difficulties of Lancashire in regard to textiles, and the difficulties arising generally from increased competition by all kinds of Asiatic labour. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite often declare that this kind of thing is dragging down the standards of British workpeople. We hear that said so often that I am astonished to find the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Major Hills) rising to bless this Amendment but finishing his speech by cursing it.
    In the five or six years which have elapsed since I was at Geneva a tremendous change has taken place in the industrial outlook. Formerly the effects of low wages, long hours, and absence of labour legislation in countries abroad, was, in the main, offset by the skill of the workpeople in Western Europe. Today the position has altered. To-day a coolie at a machine can equal the production of some of those who, a few years ago, were the finest skilled workmen in the world. It is this new development which has intensified competition between East and West, and that is why I believe that if the Government find it possible to meet us at all in this Amendment, they will be extremely well-advised in doing so. I am satisfied that no satisfactory solution can be arrived at unless the Federal Legislature has power to impose labour conditions throughout the whole of India—both in the States and in British India.
    It has been argued that in the United States and also in Canada and Australia the different Provinces or States as the case may be are left to carry out their own labour legislation. That is true but what has been the effect? In the United States it has been declared over and over again that differences in legislation on labour matters as between individual States have proved a tremendous bar to human progress and the improvement of social conditions in that country. One of the Chief Commissioners' Provinces is part of British India but it is surrounded for hundreds of miles on all sides by

    1949
    Indian States. The geographical position of the States themselves is an argument for the uniformity of labour legislation. I should like to draw the attention of the House to a statement made by the Employers' Federation of India to the Chamber of Commerce, pointing out distinctly that unless labour legislation applied to all parts of India the inevitable effect must be that where there was no labour legislation at all, there capital would set up its mills and its machines and under-cut industrialists in other parts of India. It is obvious; that this will take place In my opinion, we cannot have any labour legislation for India unless it does cover the whole of India.
    The right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon paid a great tribute to this Bill and said it was going to set an example to the world. It cannot set an example to the world unless the condition of the common people of India is immeasurably improved. You can only improve the position of India's teeming millions if you are prepared to recognise that labour conditions and social services must run throughout the Indian Empire for the benefit of the masses. Surely the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon would not for a moment suggest that this Bill was only to be beneficial to the wealthy capitalists, to the Princes, and to the ruling classes in India? You cannot bring happiness and prosperity to a nation by giving those things to only a small portion of that nation. I put it seriously to the Government that some ways or means should be found to give effect to this Amendment. Otherwise, what is the use of India's representatives going to the International Labour Office Conferences at all? If they go to Geneva and sign a Convention on behalf of India, surely effect should be given to that over India as a whole by putting it in a Bill to enforce the Convention signed by India's representatives.
    Everybody knows the very bad conditions of labour in India. Everybody knows of the exploitation of child labour, and women's labour. Everybody knows, or should know, something about the exploitation of those who work in the mines, in the textile mills and in the factories. If this House, by accepting this Amendment, could send some message to the teeming millions of India,
    1950
    telling them that the House of Commons had put something into the India Bill which offered some hope to those for whom the outlook at the moment seems hopeless, then I think that good work would be done Further, I do not believe that the intelligent rulers in the Indian States would offer very much objection to it. I believe that those rulers who wish to do the best they can for their people would be the first to welcome this step. It is the same there as here. There are a few reactionaries who will object, but I submit that people who will not abide by any humane conditions must be brought into line by the compulsion of the law. I believe it is by this method, and by this method alone, that we can hope to bring any real hope to the masses of the people in India.
    5.5 p.m.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): I think we are all agreed that this is a very important question, and I shall do my best to answer the points that have been raised by the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) and others who have taken part in this Debate. In the first place, I think we should all agree in praising the part that India has played at Geneva, particularly in connection with labour questions. The hon. Member for East Woolwich referred to the fact that out of 33 Conventions the Government of India had ratified 13. [Interruption.] I think 40 Conventions was the actual number up to 1933. The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) referred to the part that one individual, Sir Louis Kershaw, had played. There is another great Indian, Sir Atul Chatterjee, who has also done great work in connection with labour questions at Geneva, not only in the interests of India but in the interests of labour all over the world. We should recognise this fact when we approach the Amendment before the Committee. I think that if we look at past history we shall probably have the first answer to the question of the hon. Member for Wednesbury when he asked what was the use of India going to Geneva. We feel that if India has made such good use of her opportunities already she will certainly make good use of them in future. In that spirit, I wish to examine this Clause and the Amendment which has been moved.

    1951
    The hon. Member for Wednesbury said he was certain that if the Rulers were intelligent they would be willing to have this Amendment accepted. May I remind him that there, is every opportunity for intelligent and enlightened Rulers to accept labour Conventions decided upon at Geneva by giving their consent to the Convention when the Federal Government proceeds to legislate upon these labour Conventions which have been entered into. We believe that in a federation it is by the principle of consent of the units that you are likely to have proper administration of the laws passed by the Central Government. If you go against consent, you are not only going against human nature and against the best way to achieve proper results, but you are going against what is a well-known fact in all federations that have been set up. May I remind hon. Members that if they refer to the Labour portion of the Peace Treaty, by which many of these Conventions are governed, they will see, in Section 9 of Article 405 that the case of a federal state is specially referred to. This Section says:
    "In the case of a federal state, the power to enter into Conventions on labour matters is subject to limitations, it shall be in the discretion of that Government to treat a draft convention to which such limitations apply as a recommendation only, and the provisions of this Article with respect to recommendations shall apply in such case."
    It will be seen from the very institution to which we look for encouragement in labour Conventions that the special nature and character of a federal Government and of a federation were recognised rom the very start. When we look at the question from the point of view of India, we find that Clause 106 refers especially to items in the Federal Legislative List and gives the Federation power to legislate for the implementing of treaties and agreements with other countries under Item 3 of the Federal Legislative List. This Clause then proceeds to explain that if the Federation is to legislate for the implementing of a Convention of the type mentioned it must get the consent of the units concerned. This, as I have already said, is in accordance, not only with common sense, but with the precedents and practice of all other federations; and
    1952
    was envisaged by the framers of the Peace Treaty when they dealt with this question of labour Conventions. Therefore, hon. Members will see that there is nothing untoward or extraordinary in what we are proposing, and they will see that in basing ourselves upon consent we are taking the most common sense course. May I say, in conclusion, that we think we are perhaps doing as well, in many cases, as any other Federation, because this Clause does give the Federation power to make one law on the subject. In items in either the Concurrent or Provincial Lists in relation to which it is necessary to make a law implementing international Conventions, provided that the consent of the units is contained, we do give power for the unification of the law to be passed by the Federal Legislature. We feel that is a sensible provision which will lead to the achievement of many of the objectives which the hon. Member so ardently desires. Our proposal is based on the history of the subject and on common sense, and I hope hon. Members opposite will not press their Amendment.
    5.12 p.m.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: This is the second time we have tried to insert this provision in this Bill, and it is the second occasion on which the Government have disappointed us. I had the privilege of moving a similar Amendment to another part of the Bill. We feel that this Bill of 451 Clauses safeguards the interests of almost all the officials in India—the Governors, the Army officials, railway officials, the Princes, the civil servants—but I have looked through the Bill very carefully, and I cannot find a single word in all the 451 Clauses that safeguards the interests of the people of India as workers. We have a right, therefore, to protest at the Government's refusal to accept this Amendment. I was rather astonished when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Major Hills) argued against this Amendment and I was a little surprised to hear the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) supporting us. This Bill has made some very strange bedfellows—but this Amendment has made stranger bed-fellows still. I am almost sure that if we proposed that a Convention passed at Geneva should apply to our own working people in this country we should have the position reversed.

    1953
    The right hon. Gentleman who opposes this Amendment would support us and the Noble Lord—who is a true, blue-blooded Tory on all occasions—would undoubtedly oppose the application of any Labour Convention to our own working people. I am not very sure, therefore, what the motives are that induced hon. and right hon. Gentleman to support and oppose this Amendment.
    There is one central point which ought to be made on this Amendment, and it is one which the hon. Gentleman hardly touched upon. Unless I am mistaken, the Princes will be in the Legislature of the Federation, and they will probably have a voice in determining whether a Convention adopted at Geneva shall be made applicable in the Provinces. They will probably be able to vote and speak in favour of passing a Convention covering the whole of the Provinces—
    Mr. BUTLER: The consent of the Provinces would be necessary before a Convention would apply in the Provinces.
    Mr. DAVIES: That does not destroy the argument that the Princes may speak and vote in favour of the application of a Geneva Convention to the Provinces; and then, I suppose, each Province would decide whether it should be applied to that Province. I think I am right in saying that these gentlemen from the States would be able to urge the adoption of Conventions in the Provinces while still declining to allow Conventions to be applied to their own States.
    Let me say, in conclusion, that we are not happy at all that the Government-have not done one thing at any rate in connection with these Amendments. When the Government are faced with an important Amendment about the Princes and apprehend very strong opposition in this Committee, we have usually found that they have been willing to consult the Princes. I do not think that we on this side have moved, or probably will move, from the Labour point of view a more important Amendment than we are now discussing, and it occurs to me that the Government, faced with this very important Amendment, which we have moved on two occasions, might find out what the Princes are thinking about it. Unless I am greatly mistaken, we shall do what we did on a previous occasion and press the Amendment to a Division.
    5.16 p.m.
    Mr. ATTLEE: I do not think the Under-Secretary of State really met the point at issue by his speech. When we are discussing this Indian Constitution it is useless to think you can go by precedent. He dealt with the precedent of other federations, but let us remember what kind of federation this is, namely, a federation of a whole mass of little States interwoven into the fabric of British India. Take such a matter as the cotton industry, which everyone realises needs very careful regulation. You have a cotton industry in Bombay presidency at present, and you have legislation there for protecting the workers in the industry, but you have interwoven into that presidency any number of little States. It is quite easy to transfer a business or a mill from British India to one of the States. That has happened. I had instances given to me by officials and by non-officials in India of where that had been done.
    There you would be in a position in which some quite small State would be able to escape legislation approved of by British India, and perhaps by enlightened rulers of States like Mysore, and for some financial advantage, which might be a very big temptation to some little State, they could take an industry into such a State, where it would be utterly unregulated and where it would cut at the best Indian industry, at British industry, and at world industry. The result will be that there will be a temptation, as the progress of industrialisation goes on—and India, it should be remembered, is the eighth industrial country in the world—to have little pools of sweated industries and bad conditions. Why should it not be made a condition? We have it on record that India has done well in the matter of these industrial, labour conventions, and I do not believe that there would be opposition among the bigger and better States, but I think it is very desirable that you should take control of the smaller and less responsible States in this matter, and I therefore ask the Secretary of State seriously to consider whether he cannot accept this Amendment.
    5.19 p.m.
    Sir S. HOARE: There seems to be an impression that under our proposals we are giving differential treatment in this case to the States, but, as a matter of

    1955
    fact, we are treating them in this case exactly as we are treating the British Indian Provinces. These services covered by international agreements would be services within the field of the unit; that is to say, in the British Indian Provinces they would be provincial services, and in the case of the Indian States they would be services within the internal activities of the States. That at once shows that in both cases the administration of these services is in the hands of the unit, and I suggest to the Committee that, that being so, much the wisest course, if you wish, as we all wish, to get the general standard of labour conditions better, is to proceed by consent, to carry with you the local administration, rather than to attempt to impose from on high services that the local units are not prepared to accept. That has been the experience in a good many other parts of the world. It is the experience, I understand, of Canada, where, when there is an international agreement, the federal government has to satisfy itself, probably before it ratifies the agreement, that the units are prepared to carry it out, or anyhow, after the agreement has been ratified, that the units are prepared to administer it.
    I think that is the wisest course rather than to attempt to proceed by way of coercion. If you proceed by way of coercion, one of two things will happen. Either certain of the States will be, for reasons good or bad, nervous of joining the Federation, and it may then be that the Federation will not come into being at all. That, I would suggest, would be a great disadvantage from the point of view that is in our mind in dealing with this Amendment. I believe that the effect of Federation coming into being, bringing, as it will, the Indian States and the British Indian Provinces into collaboration with each other, is much more likely to raise the general standard of labour conditions in India than a system such as exists to-day, where the Indian States are completely isolated, from the point of view of government, from the British Indian Provinces. I would suggest, therefore, first, that supposing the line of coercion prevented Federation from coming into being, we should be doing a disservice to the kind of objective that we all have in mind,
    1956
    and, secondly, I think the immediate effect would be unnecessarily to set up against the Federal Government a local opposition.
    It is very significant that the strongest opposition to accepting the kind of proposal that is urged from the benches opposite came, not from the Indian Princes, but from the provincial autonomists in the Provinces. I do not believe the Provincial Governments are not just as keen about social questions as is the Central Government—indeed, I have always taken the view that movements for social reform are more likely to come from the Provinces than from the Centre—but it shows the great anxiety in the Provinces lest they should be dictated to by a Federal Government at the Centre. I believe, for these reasons, the wise course is to proceed, not by coercion, but by consent, and to leave it to public opinion, both in the Provinces and in the Indian States, to mobilise itself behind the movements for better conditions. I think by that means we shall get the standard raised much more swiftly and effectively than by any such procedure as that proposed in the Amendment.
    5.25 p.m.
    Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: I should be more prepared to accept what the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State has said if there were any public opinion in the States, and by public opinion I mean an opportunity for people who may be working in a sweated industry to voice their grievances. If it were possible for public opinion to express itself within the confines of this Constitution, I should be satisfied, but it must be obvious to every Member of the Committee that there is no such provision at all. Most of the arguments that have been advanced against the Amendment one has heard from all quarters for very many years against most phases of labour legislation that have been placed even before this House. For very many years until quite recently most big business in this country has been talking about "Hands off politics," and trying to exclude business from politics, in the belief that politics, by interfering with business, would tend to the disadvantage rather than to the improvement of business. This kind of thing was observed for many years, until big business began to realise that it re-

    1957
    quired such things as tariffs, quotas, and subsidies in order to prop it up.
    Every time we have had a piece of legislation advanced in this House, we have always had a minority opposing it, and the same thing will inevitably arise within the States in India itself, I cannot speak authentically on Indian problems, but, like other Members, I read, and I am prepared to accept the statement that quite a number of the Princes would do their best to provide reasonable conditions for the States, by which I mean conditions comparable to those that may be found in the Provinces. There are, however, from the evidence that we have had, some that are not prepared to apply the same kind of conditions to their States as now obtain in the Provinces. How are we going to put these things right? The Government is really faced with this charge, that it is prepared to listen to the voice of the Princes, but that it is not prepared to listen to the voice of the people. We have an enormous number of Clauses—about 450—in this Bill, and there seems to be no provision among them all for improving the conditions of the many millions of people in India. How are we to put that right? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to indicate to us that it will be possible in some other way to do it?
    The last time we spoke about this matter we endeavoured to insert in the Instrument of Instructions some provision to enable the Princes to put this right, but it was rejected by an enormous majority. We are now again trying, by way of an Amendment to Clause 106, and the same kind of objection is advanced to the arguments that are used in favour of the Amendment from this side. But how are we to improve the conditions of the Indian people? One knows that you have business competition as between the Provinces and the States, and most hon. Members are desirous of seeing that no tariff barriers of any kind shall be put up that will be conditional upon sweated labour obtaining in the States
    in order to prejudice the conditions of working people in the Provinces. How are we to put these things right, unless an Amendment of this kind is inserted in the Bill? Frankly, we on this side are not satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary have endeavoured to meet the real issue before us, which is not a constitutional issue at all, but an issue that the Government must really face. We know that the Geneva Conventions are not ratified by all European States. They have their own evidence that in so doing they would increase their costs of production, and they have other difficulties of that kind. India, however, is a continent where there is something like comparable uniformity so far as government is concerned, and there ought to be no cause for any dissimilarity in wage conditions, working hours, payment of wages and things of that kind as between the States and the Provinces when any convention is recommended for acceptance.
    We trust that the right hon. Gentleman will think over this matter again. The Government may be able to think of some other way by which it would be possible to improve the conditions of the Indian people. Millions of them are working in conditions that are a disgrace to this country. Women and small children are working long hours underground, and the conditions are really abominable. There really ought to be some attempt on the part of the Government to rectify the grave state of distress that obtains, particularly in a large number of the small States that will never of their own volition exert themselves sufficiently to put these conditions right. It is only by some external influence coming through the Federated Chamber itself that it will be possible for these people to have the conditions that most hon. Members would desire them to have.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 36; Noes, 273.

    Division No. 122.]

    AYES.

    [5.33 p.m.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Jenkins. Sir William

    Banfield, John William

    Dobbie, William

    John, William

    Batey, Joseph

    Gardner, Benjamin Waite

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Buchanan, George

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Lawson, John James

    Cleary, J. J.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Leonard, William

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Daggar, George

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

    Hicks, Ernest George

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    McGovern, John

    Thorne, William Jamas

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Paling, Wilfred

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    West, F. R.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Mr. Groves and Mr. D. Graham.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

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

    Elmley, Viscount

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

    Albery, Irving James

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

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

    Emrys-Evans, P. V.

    McKie, John Hamilton

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

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

    Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

    Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

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

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Magnay, Thomas

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

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Apsley, Lord

    Fermoy, Lord

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

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Flelden, Edward Brocklehurst

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

    Assheton, Ralph

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

    Balley, Eric Alfred George

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

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

    Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

    Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Fremantie, Sir Francis

    Meller, Sir Richard James

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Fulter, Captain A. G.

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Balniel, Lord

    Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Gibson, Charles Granville

    Milne, Charles

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

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

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

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

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

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

    Glueksteln, Louis Halle

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

    Beit, Sir Alfred L.

    Gofl, Sir Park

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

    Goldie, Noel B.

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

    Boulton, W. W.

    Goodman, Colonel Albert w.

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

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Morrison, William Shepherd

    Bewer, Commander Robert Tatton

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

    Munro, Patrick

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Grigg, Sir Edward

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

    Grimston, R. V.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

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

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

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

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

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

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Hartland, George A.

    Owen, Major Goronwy

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

    Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)

    Patrick. Colin M.

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Peat, Charles U.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

    Petnerick, M

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

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

    Burton. Colonel Henry Walter

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Butler, Richard Austen

    Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)

    Pownall, Sir Asshcton

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Radford, E. A.

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

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

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Carver, Major William H.

    Holdsworth, Herbert

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

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

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

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

    Held, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Rickards, George William

    Christie, James Archibald

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

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward

    Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

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

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Colville, Lieut-Colonel J.

    Jamleson, Douglas

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)

    Cooke, Douglas

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

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Salt, Edward W.

    Copeland, Ida

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

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

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    Kirkpatrick, William M.

    Sandys, Edwin Duncan

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

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

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Crossley, A. C.

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

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

    Lees-Jones, John

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Lewis, Oswald

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield. Hallam)

    Donner, P. w.

    Llddall, Walter S.

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

    Doran, Edward

    Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)

    Smithers, Sir Waldron

    Duckworth, George A. V.

    Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunllffe.

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Duggan, Hubert John

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

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

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Dunglass, Lord

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Spencer, Captain Richard A

    Eady, George H

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Eales, John Frederick

    Mabane, William

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

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

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

    1960

    1961

    Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Stevenson, James

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour

    Stones, James

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

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Stourton, Hon. John J.

    Touche, Gordon Cosmo

    White, Henry Graham

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Tree, Ronald

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Wilson. Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

    Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)

    Womersley, Sir Walter

    Sutcliffe, Harold

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

    Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

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

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

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

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Thomas, James p. I. (Hereford)

    Warnender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Thompson, Sir Luke

    Watt, Major George Steven H.

    Sir George Penny and Major George Davies.

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

    5.42 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, in page 64, line 18, at the end, to add:
    "(3) Nothing in this Section applies in relation to any law which the Federal Legislature has power to make for a Province or, as the case may be, a Federated State, by virtue of any other entry in the Federal or the Concurrent Legislative List as well as by virtue of the said entry,"
    This Clause provides that if the Federal Legislature is legislating by reason only of the entry in the federal legislative list relating to the implementing of treaties they have to get the previous consent of the Governor of a Province or the ruler of a State. If, however, in implementing a treaty they are exercising powers which they have not by reason only of that entry, but because the subject matter is subject matter already in the federal list, it is not the intention that in that case they should get this leave. They can, of course, legislate on subjects in the federated list whether the legislation arises from the fact that there is a treaty or from any other reason. In order to make that plain, it is proposed to insert this new Sub-section. It is really writing out in detail what is implied by the word "only," which occurs in the second line of the Clause.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 107.—(Inconsistency between Federal laws and Provincial, or State, laws.)
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 64, line 21, after "enact," to insert:
    "or to any provision of an existing Indian law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent Legislative List."
    The provisions of this Clause are directed to the question of repugnancy in
    1962
    connection with laws which the Federal Legislature is competent to enact. It has been noticed that no provision is made for repugnancy in the existing law, and this is the first of four Amendments dealing with the same problem, really drafting Amendments, to effect that which, I think, everybody will agree is necessary, namely, to provide that repugnancy in connection with an existing Indian law shall be dealt with in the same way as repugnancy in connection with a Federal law which may be passed.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 64, line 23, after "law," insert "or, as the case may be, the existing Indian law."
    In line 29, after the first "law," insert: "or an existing Indian law with respect to that matter."
    In line 34, leave out "over the Federal law."—[The Attorney-General.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    5.48 p.m.
    Mr. BAILEY: As some of us stated when the discussions began, we are not only anxious to fight the controversial portions of the Bill from the political standpoint, but are anxious to co-operate, where we can, in improving the Bill in matters which are not controversial, and it does seem to me that this Clause has not received sufficient attention, because it does not come into the main line of controversy that exists between hon. Members in this House. Sub-section (1) of the Clause uses the words:
    "repugnant to any provision of a Federal law which the Federal Legislature is competent to enact."
    The object of that provision is that where a Provincial Legislature enacts a law which is repugnant to the Federal Legislature law, the Federal Legislature law

    1963
    shall carry the day. At first sight that seems to be very simple and to clear away all difficulties, but I submit that it will create a quite impossible position in practice. One has only to look at the concurrent list in the Seventh Schedule to see the variety of subjects upon which both Provincial Legislatures and the Federal Legislature can legislate. They include trust law, bankruptcy, poisons and many other subjects. I do not at the moment carry them all in my mind, and I do not want to discuss the Schedule, but I would draw attention to the very wide range of subjects in it. There are contracts, including partnerships, trusts, wills, and intestacy, marriage and divorce, actionable wrongs, newspapers, legal, medical and other professions, mechanically propelled vehicles, health insurance and European vagrancy.
    The point I am making is that we are not dealing with a list concerned with local by-laws, but with a list comprising subjects of the utmost importance to the life of the nation. If there were to be a diversity of law in the different States on trusts, bankruptcy, and contracts, it would, in practice, prevent India from becoming a great commercial country. Nothing could more hamper a new federation than a conflict of laws in the States. It may be said that by inserting a Clause to say that where a law passed by a Provincial Legislature is repugnant to the law of the Federal Legislature the latter shall prevail, we get over the difficulty, but that is not so, and I should be grateful if the Attorney-General would consider this point. If by "repugnant" we merely mean "different," why give the Provincial Legislatures power to legislate at all on those points? If they may not make a law on trusts and bankruptcy which is different from the Federal Legislature law, why give them the power to make a law at all? If they can make a law which is different, clearly "repugnant" does not mean "different," but something quite opposite, and I should like to hear more about what is meant by "repugnant." Supposing that the Federal law specifies certain grounds for divorce and that a Provincial Legislature were to pass a law with a further provision that divorce could be obtained, say, on the ground of desertion alone or for some other cause. Would that be repugnant to the law of the Federation—a mere
    1964
    addition to the grounds for divorce? Would it be possible for the Provincial Legislatures to vary the trust law of the Federal Legislature by making wide additions to it?
    Take the question of bankruptcy. In this country the same law of bankruptcy applies in Yorkshire, in Lancashire, in Middlesex or any other part of the country, but might a legislature in one Province make additions to the law of bankruptcy, so that a man would be bankrupt in Travancore who would be perfectly solvent in Mysore? I am not putting these points forward in a jesting spirit, but because I think they are tremendously important. This question is apt to be ignored because it does not cut right across party controversial issues, but, all the same, it raises what I regard as legal points of primary importance, though they may not be appreciated at the moment by those who say "Let us get on to the next controversial part of the Bill where we can have a fight." At the start we shall have the Indian law running all through India. If this Federation is successful, as we alt hope it will be, though some of us do not think so, probably at the start the Governors and the Governor-General will exercise a unifying influence, and we shall not get a wide diversion of law; but gradually, as the Federation gets on its own feet, as the child gains the substance of independence, the Governors will more and more exercise the purely constitutional functions of the Crown and not the executive functions; and when that time comes, what is to prevent a whole mass of State law growing up in each State and hampering in the extreme ordinary business deals?
    This is no question of England seeking to exercise a tyranny over India, but we may find the different States setting up their own legislative codes, and instead of having a unified system of law, we shall have a series of little systems of law all differing from one another and making it impossible for business people to understand where they are. A business man in one State may not know whether the law about advertisements and registration is the same in another State where he has a branch as in the State where his main business is situated. Still more those trading with India from outside will be at a loss to know whether

    1965
    their rights in one State are the same as in another. Nothing could be more likely to keep back India's commercial development. We have seen the difficulties which have grown up across the Atlantic, and the position in India will be far worse, because the powers under this Bill are far wider than those which exist in any American State. We may be creating a perfect confusion of law in India.
    By this method of dealing with the matter we shall, at any rate, be doing a wonderful thing for the legal profession. Every time a State passes a law which is different from the Federal law we shall have questions brought to the courts for decision, and they will be carried to the Federal Court and, perhaps, to the Privy Council. Is not that a terrible burden with which to saddle a people whom we are starting upon a Federal career? With the greatest deference and respect, because this is not a point on which I wish to hamper the Government, I would suggest that they are seeking to do something which is impossible; they are seeking to give two legislative bodies the power to legislate about the same subjects. If one legislative body has power it is superfluous to give the second body such power. What is likely to happen is that neither of these two bodies will know where it stands, and that we shall have a perpetual wrangle between the Provincial and the Federal Legislatures as to what constitutes repugnancy. Particular points will constantly be taken to the courts, and we shall do a lot of harm to Indian life and to commercial life.
    Although this may involve some trouble, although it may mean an alteration to this part of the Bill on the Report stage, the proper course would be to try not to give concurrent powers of legislation, but to divide the subjects between the Federal and the Provincial Legislatures. Certainly there might have to be a border line, because in this world nothing can be done on absolutely logical lines; but we can, at any rate, see that the indeterminate border line is as small as possible. At present the concurrent list comprises apparently more than half the subjects on which legislation may be passed, and I say it is far too wide as a field of legislation for two legislative bodies. I am afraid
    1966
    I have put my observations at greater length than I had intended, but we on these benches are anxious to make constructive, and not merely critical suggestions. We oppose the Bill fundamentally, but we recognise that the majority will put it through, and we are anxious to contribute suggestions towards making it a better Bill.
    5.59 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I quite accept what the hon. Member has said as to his desire to improve the Bill although it is one which he dislikes, but I think he is here inclined to hark back to a matter with which the Committee have already dealt, and that is the division of the legislative field into three parts—the federal field, the provincial field, and the concurrent field. We have dealt with that subject, and this Clause is merely machinery for providing for the circumstances which will arise when there is what is called repugnancy between a piece of provincial legislation and federal legislation. The ruling principle of the Clause is stated in Sub-section (1), the governing principle being that federal law will prevail over provincial law.
    When you come to Sub-section (2), the matter that is dealt with is the machinery by which provincial legislation will be given precedence in the Provinces over any Federal law that is in conflict with it. I do not think that my hon. Friend has devoted sufficient attention in his speech to the means that are provided. Once there is the possibility of conflict between legislation in the fields which have already been marked out, you must provide machinery for disposing of a conflict or repugnancy between legislation in those different fields. My hon. Friend says that this is going to be a great day for lawyers. He overlooks the fact that the position at the present time is certainly not so simple as it will be after this Clause and other Clauses have been passed. At the present time there is a possibility of conflict which certainly will not exist when the Bill is passed, or at any rate there will not he so great a possibility.
    The general idea is that in matters where it is desirable that there should be uniformity, the Federal Legislature shall deal with the matter, but it is obvious that a provincial legislature may have

    1967
    to make local adjustments or alterations to suit the circumstances of the Province. If I may take the illustration of law and order everybody will recognise the desirability of maintaining the uniformity of the great criminal code, but the Provinces will desire to legislate to suit the needs of the communities with which the provincial legislatures are concerned. My hon. Friend asks what "repugnancy" means—does it mean that on every subject upon which a provincial legislature legislates there will be repugnancy with the Federal legislation? That is not in the least possible. The provincial legislature wil be dealing with some matters for which provision is not made in Federal legislation, but if there is conflict, a means is provided, so far as the concurrent field is concerned, in Sub-section (2) of the Clause. If my hon. Friend has any better method of resolving this conflict, no doubt he will propose it on some other occasion. The only proposal I gather he made was that there should be a different distribution of the powers, but that does not arise on this Clause.
    Mr. BAILEY: That was my proposal. I did not realise that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was going to deal with it. I should be very grateful if, in order to elucidate this matter, he would answer two questions so that we might understand the relations between provincial and federal legislation. Would the provinces be able, without any repugnancy, to increase the grounds for divorce? Would they be able to make—
    The CHAIRMAN: We can hardly go into those matters on this Clause. Possibly on the Schedule, but not here.
    Mr. BAILEY: I am only trying to elucidate the meaning of repugnancy. I am not arguing as to the rights or wrongs of those subjects being in the Schedule. I want to know what is meant by repugnancy. Would it mean increasing the grounds for divorce? I will put that one question to my right hon. and learned Friend.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My hon. Friend is in this difficulty in this case: he either wants to alter, as he quite frankly says, what we have already decided in regard to the division of the
    1968
    legislative fields, or he wants to raise questions which you, Sir Dennis, are not prepared to allow him to raise, as to the subjects which are included, and as to the effect of the inclusion of some particular topic in a particular list. You would not allow me—
    Viscount WOLMER: Surely my hon. Friend is entitled to cite a subject like divorce and to invite the Attorney-General to deal with it in order to elucidate the point which he is making? It is very much easier to understand these things by the use of concrete examples.
    The CHAIRMAN: When I stopped the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Bailey), he was proceeding to go through a list of many items in the Schedule. Obviously we must not do that; incidentally we should be occupied here all night on this Clause if we did that.
    Viscount WOLMER: Cannot the Attorney-General answer with regard to that one example?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Member was prevented from putting the question which he desires should be considered. If my hon. Friend has a point which he wants to put about legislation on divorce, I will do my best to give him an answer at the moment, but I should have thought that it would be better that we should postpone these questions until we come to discuss the particular matters included in the federal list.
    Mr. BAILEY: I do not want to trouble my right hon. and learned Friend—
    The CHAIRMAN: I have already stated my reasons for objecting to what the hon. Gentleman said. If he merely proposes to give one case as an example on which he asks for an explanation of the meaning of repugnancy, I shall have no objection to his question being answered.
    Mr. BAILEY: I am very much obliged to you, Sir Dennis. I am not arguing the merits of those subjects being in the Schedule, but I want to know what repugnancy means. Does it mean that, if you want to make a new ground for divorce or for bankruptcy, that would be repugnant if it did not contradict the State law? Does it mean that a provincial legislature may have power to

    1969
    make minor local adjustments or substantive legislation? I am applying this to the issue of what repugnancy is, and not to the advisability of these things being in the Schedule.
    The ATTORNEY-GENRAL: If I may take the question asked by my hon. Friend as to whether it would amount to repugnancy if a provincial legislature were to enact new grounds for divorce, I should say that it rather depends upon the nature of the legislation, and I should not like to say definitely. It might be that the ground was covered by existing federal legislation which left it open to the provincial legislature to add new grounds to divorce. I imagine that it would be repugnancy, and in such a ease the machinery provided by Subsection (2) would operate. The action of the Governor-General which is there contemplated would follow, and the question would be resolved in accordance with the provisions of the Clause which provides that, in a case where the matter has been reserved and His Majesty's consent given, the provincial law should prevail in the Province. Nevertheless the Federal Legislature may at any time pass further legislation in regard to the same matter.
    It must not be supposed, as my hon. Friend rather suggested, that the difficulties which are always inherent in the division of legislative powers in a federal system are now for the first time, this afternoon, at 10 minutes past six, coming under the notice of this Committee and of my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend made a most interesting set of observations upon these difficulties, but he has merely been saying one or two of the things which have been considered during the last four or five years by some of the very best minds in India and in this country.
    Sir H. CROFT: But not in Parliament.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No, we have left some of the best minds in Parliament still to deal with them. They have been considering for years as to the best way in which Parliament can deal with the difficult questions that always arise when you have to consider the possible conflict between federal legislation and provincial legislation. The lists have been drawn up, as I think
    1970
    the Secretary of State said this afternoon, and are the result of most anxious consideration. There is no infallibility about the lists, but once they have been drawn up there still remains the task of providing for what is going to be done when there is some repugnancy or conflict between the legislation of the two bodies.
    Until somebody suggests a better plan, the means which are proposed in Subsection (2), subject to the general principles stated in Sub-section (1) are the best. The underlying idea is, as I have said, that in matters in which uniformity is desirable there shall be a power to prevent the provincial legislature from legislating so as to produce that uniformity, bearing in mind that in such a country as India, and in any place where a federal constitution is devised, there may be local religious and racial questions which require local adjustment of a uniform law passed by the federal legislature. For circumstances of that kind this Clause seems suitable, and the observations of my hon. Friend have not thrown any doubt on the broad lines of the Clause.
    6.13 p.m.
    Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: The Attorney-General has said that these matters have been considered for the last four or five years. We are under a great obligation to the gentlemen who have given their attention to them, and all that we ask is that Parliament should know the meaning of the results. My hon. Friend the Member for Gorton (Mr. Bailey) has spoken forcibly of the possible or probable difficulties that may arise under the legislative system which the Bill proposes to set up. If we visualise that system it seems very probable that grave difficulties will arise. There will be a central Federal Legislature and eleven provincial legislatures. Some of the provincial legislatures will have a majority of one denomination, and some of another. I am not going to enlarge upon that, or I shall be out of order. I would only refer to what has already been said by the Secretary of State in this connection this afternoon, and that is, that separating the legislative subjects into provincial subjects and federal subjects, which are dealt with in this Clause, aroused a great deal of bitter feeling and so another list, the concurrent list, was instituted.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Secretary of State said that upon an earlier Clause and in reference to an Amendment which was dealt with some time ago.
    Mr. SOMERVILLE: The observations of the Secretary of State seem to be relevant to our present discussion. The Attorney-General and my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton have been dealing with the question of repugnancy, which means, in other words, that if a measure passed by the federal legislature conflicts with a measure passed by the provincial legislature, the Federal laws, or, under Sub-section (2), the laws passed by the provincial legislature, will prevail. If, however, a law passed by the Federal Legislature is repugnant to a provincial law, it may well be that the opposition of the provincial legislature will be strong and bitter, and I would ask what is the machinery for enforcing the Federal law? It is difficult to know when to bring up these questions, but they are vital. Sometimes we find that we must raise them on the Schedule, and sometimes on a Clause.
    The CHAIRMAN: This Clause, at any rate, is not the place for raising this question.
    Mr. SOMERVILLE: I would express the hope that later on, in dealing with this most important question of the possibility of conflict between the Federal Legislature and the provincial legislatures, it may be made quite clear to the Committee what the procedure is, and whether the machinery provided for carrying the law into effect will be effective.
    6.17 p.m.
    Viscount WOLMER: The extraordinary thing about the machinery provided by the Government in this Clause is that it appears to depend entirely on whether a subject has been reserved for the consideration of the Governor whether the provincial law or the Federal law will prevail. In other words, the Governor has the power of deciding in each particular case whether a provincial law shall prevail or whether the Federal law shall prevail, by the manner in which his assent is given. The Attorney-General assures us that this is the result of consideration by all the wisest men in the country for five years, but I am bound to say that I take the gravest
    1972
    exception to legislation being conducted in any such manner. We do not propose to divide against the Clause, but I think it is an extraordinary and complicated piece of machinery.
    6.18 p.m.
    Earl WINTERTON: May I invite my Noble Friend to suggest some alternative? The great feature of the Debate has been the extraordinary length of the speeches against the Clause, and their extraordinary poverty in suggestions. I invite my Noble Friend to state what would be the plan that he would have suggested if he had been one of the elements in the consideration of the matter.
    Viscount WOLMER: I would remind my Noble Friend that you cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, and that it is impossible to make this Bill workable.
    6.19 p.m.
    Mr. CAPORN: I should like to point out that in Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of the Clause the word used is either "repugnancy" or "repugnant," whereas in the proviso the word used is "inconsistent." I am wondering whether there is any real reason for using a different word in the proviso from the word used in the Sub-sections. It seems to me that that might cause some difficulty to the higher courts when they come to construe the word "repugnant." Why should not the same word have been used? If there is a difference in meaning, I should personally be glad to be told what the difference is.
    6.20 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY GENERAL: I will certainly look into that point. The word in the marginal note—which of course is not legislation—is "inconsistency," but the proviso uses these words:
    "Bill or amendment for making any provision inconsistent with any Provincial law,"
    and I am not at all sure that that is not a proper provision in the proviso, although, when such a Bill was passed, the question would arise whether it was repugnant or not. I am obliged to my hon. Friend for calling attention to the point, and will certainly look into it and see whether the use of different words was intentional.
    Sir REGINALD CRADDOCK: I should like to know whether I should be in order in moving an Amendment to abolish the Concurrent List altogether, and, when we come to the Schedule in which the three lists are contained, whether I should then he—
    The CHAIRMAN: No doubt that would be a perfectly proper point for the hon. Gentleman to put when the time comes, but I do not think it arises on this Clause. I must wait until we get nearer to the point before I rule upon it.

    CLAUSE 108.—(Sanction of Governor-General or Governor required for certain legislative proposals.)
    The CHAIRMAN: With regard to the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Springbum (Mr. Emmott)—in page 65, line 12, to leave out paragraph (a)—I propose to call upon the hon. Member, in the hope that he will explain to me exactly what the effect of the Amendment is. I am not quite sure how far it may or may not be connected with other Amendments, and must reserve my right not to select it if I find that the hon. Member's explanation does not satisfy me.
    6.23 p.m.
    Mr. EMMOTT: Clause 108 provides that:
    "Unless the Governor-General in his discretion thinks fit to give his previous sanction, there shall not be introduced into, or moved in, either Chamber of the Federal Legislature, any Bill or amendment which—

    (a) repeals, amends or is repugnant to any provisions of any Act of Parliament extending to British India."

    The Federal Legislature, and during the transitional period the Indian Legislature, can, if the Governor-General gives his sanction, amend or repeal any Act of Parliament extending to British India. That is the effect of paragraph (a). It is true that this power is subject to certain exceptions which are stated in Clause 110. We think, however, that the principle contained in paragraph (a) is a very dangerous one, and should not be established, namely, that the Indian legislature during the transitional period, and in the future the Federal Legislature should—it is true
    1974
    with the previous sanction of the Governor-General—be able to repeal or amend, or make any provision which is repugnant to a provision of, an Act of Parliament. We think that that power should not be conferred upon the Federal Legislature. Indubitably it is an innovation, because, under Sub-section (2) of Section 65 of the Government of India Act, 1915, the Indian Legislature has no power to amend or repeal any Act of Parliament passed after 1860 which extends to British India. The Government of India Act, 1915, is, of course, repealed by this Measure, therefore the power which it is now sought to confer on the Federal Legislature is an absolutely new power.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's explanation confirms what was in my mind. The point really arises on Clause 110, perhaps more than on this Clause. He has given a clear explanation of his intention, and I think it would not be inconvenient to the Committee that they should discuss the point on this Amendment, but of course in that event it must not be discussed again on the subsequent Clause. If it is discussed now, it must be discussed as part of a series of Amendments to this Clause and to Clause 110.
    Mr. EMMOTT: I beg to move, in page 65, line 12, to leave out paragraph (a).
    I can put what I have to say very briefly, though I would respectfully urge upon the Committee that the argument I have to address to it is one of considerable importance. It is true that most of the important Acts relative to British India since 1860 have now been repealed, or, if they have not been repealed already, they will be repealed by Clause 451 and the 15th Schedule of this Bill when it becomes law. So the provision to which we take exception is perhaps more important as regards the future than as regards the past. It is true that paragraph (a) of Clause 110 preserves the power of Parliament to legislate for British India, but in practice that power will be apt to be completely nullified if the Federal Legislature has the power which it is now sought to give to it by Clause 108, that is to say, the power to repeal or amend any Act of Parliament, subject, of course, to the previous sanction of the Governor-General.

    1975
    It is not difficult to imagine circumstances in which very strong pressure might be put upon the Governor-General to induce him to give his sanction. And in this connection I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to the provisions of Clause 109 of the Bill. The effect of Clause 109 is that a Bill which required the previous sanction of the Governor-General or of a Governor, and which had not received that sanction, could still become law if assent were subsequently given. One can imagine circumstances in which exceedingly strong pressure might be put upon the Governor-General or Governor to give his assent to a Bill to which Clause 109 applies, and certainly such pressure would be much more difficult to resist in the case of a Bill on which time and money had been expended, and which had passed through all its stages, than in the case of a Bill to which these circumstances do not apply. Without going into any further detail, I press that view upon His Majesty's Government. I have put before the Committee very plainly the principle upon which we object to this paragraph. We believe that the power which, by it, is sought to be conferred upon the Federal Legislature is a dangerous one, and should not be granted to it.
    Some of my hon. Friends may see fit to put other considerations, but before I conclude, I should like to draw the attention of His Majesty's Government to a matter which, I think, is no more than one of drafting. The words in paragraph (a) are:
    "Any Act of Parliament extending to British India."
    These words will, when this Bill reaches the Statute Book, apply to the Bill itself. Clause 108 is not specifically stated to be subject to any other provisions of this Act. Therefore, if the Clause be read by itself, it would mean that, in the event of the sanction of the Governor-General having been given, the Federal Legislature could amend this Act itself. I do not believe that to be the intention of His Majesty's Government, but the matter is at least a little obscure. I am certainly not suggesting the answer which the right hon. and learned Gentleman will give, but I think that the answer to the consideration which I have
    1976
    just brought before the Committee is that Clause 108 must be read subject to Clause 110, which, in paragraph (a), lays down that:
    "Nothing in this Act shall be taken—
    (a) to affect the power of Parliament to legislate for British India, or any part thereof,"
    and goes on to lay down that nothing in the Act shall be taken:
    "To empower the Federal Legislature, or any Provincial Legislature—
    … except in so far as is expressly permitted by this Act, to make any law amending any provision of this Act."
    It is, I think, actually the case that Clause 108 must be read together with Clause 110 and subject to it, but it is at least open to argument that under paragraph (a) of Clause 108 (1) power is given to the Federal Legislature to amend this constitution Act itself. If that be not the intention of His Majesty's Government, may I ask that words be used to make the intention of the Government clear beyond dispute.
    6.34 p.m.
    Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: I should like briefly to endorse the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn (Mr. Emmott) and to ask the learned Attorney-General to consider withdrawing paragraph (a). We feel very strongly that one of the results of this paragraph is to hurry India along the road to Dominion status at a speed which this House does not realise, and which, if it did realise it, it would certainly not endorse. As my hon. Friend has said, one of the results of this Clause will be that the Federal Legislature in India can, with the Governor-General's sanction, amend or repeal any Act of the Imperial Parliament which is applicable to British India and, as he rightly pointed out, this power does not, under the existing law, exist to-day. But the existing law is to be repealed by the Bill which we are rapidly passing to the Statute Book. I would suggest to the Attorney-General, if he will be good enough to pay consideration to this argument, that we are now giving India a power which, I understand, neither Australia nor New Zealand enjoy, and a power which is not enjoyed by any Colony or Dominion subject to the provisions of the Statute of Westminster under the Colonial Laws Validity Act. It is a little unfortunate, at a time when we are anxious to deal

    1977
    with the Indian problem strictly upon its own merits and to find a solution suitable to the affairs of that great subcontinent, that we should almost casually give them powers of this kind without the Committee fully appreciating exactly what is going to happen. I do not believe that there are many people here who, if they understood fully that we were going beyond the terms of the Colonial Laws Validity Act, would endorse this paragraph.
    The argument of the necessity for obtaining the assent of the Governor-General will no doubt be advanced in support of the paragraph, but that is not an argument that carries very great weight with us, because we envisage in the coming years all sorts of pressure which the Governor General may at times be almost powerless to withstand. It is no reflection on the type of man whom we shall certainly be able to find to undertake the great responsibilities in the new Constitution in India to point out that he will be subject to pressure. There will be a whole variety of things which he wants to see carried into action, and he may be prevailed upon, in order to secure assent to some other proposal, to give way on some Bill of this kind which will interfere with the rights of this House and the Imperial Parliament. We hold very strongly to the view that it would be far better if, instead of demanding the prior assent of the Governor-General, the approval of the British Parliament had to be obtained before an Act of the Imperial Parliament could be overruled by an Act of the Indian Legislature. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will give serious consideration to these arguments, because we believe very profoundly that, if we do so, we shall rue the day that we lightly gave away these tremendous powers to India.
    6.38 p.m.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: I am in complete sympathy with the purpose of the Amendment, but I have some doubts about drafting. If we leave out paragraph (a) it may be the case that they will be able to do this sort of thing without anybody's permission. On the other hand, if my hon. Friend had moved to leave out the words at the beginning of the Clause
    1978
    "Unless the Governor-General in his discretion thinks fit to give his previous sanction"—
    and then inserted those words with the rest of the governing words in front of paragraph (b), it would make it clear that (a) they could not do anything, and (b) (c) and the rest, that they could only do something subject to those qualifying words. If we leave the paragraph out entirely, it seems to me conceivable that we shall then deliberately be conferring upon the Federal Assembly the power to—
    Viscount WOLMER: My hon. Friend will find that point met by the Amendment on Clause 110.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: My Noble Friend means that they go together. I beg the pardon of the Committee, and I am sorry. It is a little difficult to follow all these things, and I heard my hon. Friend say that it should be read in conjunction with Clause 110. I thought he meant in conjunction with Clause 110 as it stands at the moment. I am sorry that through inadvertence I misled the Committee.
    6.39 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It is certainly desirable that the Committee should appreciate what is being done in Clauses 108 and 110 with reference to legislation that comes into conflict with an Imperial Act of Parliament. My hon. Friend who has moved this Amendment, will, I think, agree with me that the real object at the back of his mind only comes out when one looks at the Amendment which he proposes to Clause 110 to insert some words in paragraph (b). I would point out to the Committee how the Amendment would operate if the words which my hon. Friend is later to propose were added to the Clause. Clause 110 would read:
    "Nothing in this Act shall be taken—
    (b) to empower the Federal Legislature, or any Provincial Legislature—

    (i) …to make any law which repeals, amends, or is repugnant to any Act of Parliament passed after the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty and extending to British India or."

    The purpose of my hon. Friend is really to lead up to that Amendment. This particular Amendment, although it comes first in order of time, is really what I may call a consequential Amendment to the major proposition which he will make at

    1979
    a later stage. Let us try and see what the position is, first of all, at the present time. My hon. Friend has rightly referred to Section 65 in the existing Government of India Act. Section 65 provides that there shall be no power to make a law repealing or affecting any Act of Parliament passed after 1860. Section 84 of the Government of India Act says that if any Act is passed which does repeal or affect an Act of Parliament passed after 1860, it shall be void to the extent of the repugnancy.
    Now the question arises as to what powers the provisions of this Bill will give the Federal Legislature in relation to an Imperial Act of Parliament. The Government might take one of three courses. The first course possible is that they should maintain the existing position. That is to say, that the position as it is under Sections 65 and 84 of the Government of India Act, would remain and any Act which was repugnant to an Imperial Act of Parliament would be impossible or, if passed, would be void. The second course would be what may hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) suggested we are doing, namely, to give the Federal Legislature full and unrestricted powers to do what they like with an Imperial Act of Parliament; in other words, to give them the full freedom of legislature which is now conferred upon a Dominion like Canada to take advantage of the full use of the Statute of Westminster. That is the second course. The Government do not propose either of those courses. They neither propose to restrict the Indian Legislatures in the way in which they are at present restricted, nor do they propose to give them the full freedom to legislate irrespective of anything that the Imperial Parliament may have done or may do in the future. The Government propose, as the Bill shows, to take the middle course. It is all sketched out in the Report of the Joint Select Committee, and many hon. Members will be familiar with the proposal. The proposal is to select certain subjects and rule them out of the competence of the Indian Legislature. If hon. Members will turn to Clause 110, paragaph (b), they will find:
    "Nothing in this Act shall be taken—

    (a) to affect the power of Parliament to legislate for British India, or any part thereof; or

    1980

    (b) to empower the Federal Legislature, or any Provincial Legislature—

    (i) to make any law affecting the Sovereign or the Royal Family, or the sovereignty, dominion or suzerainty of the Crown in any part of India, or the law of British nationality, or the Army Act, the Air Force Act, or the Naval Discipline Act, or the law of Prize or Prize courts."
    In no circumstances can a Bill touching these matters come within the competence of the Indian Legislature. The proposal then is that, subject to the ruling out of these matters, the Indian Legislature shall be competent to legislate with the previous sanction of the Governor-General in his discretion. That is the provision in Sub-section (1) of Clause 108. But there is another safeguard which hon. Members have not noticed, perhaps they overlooked it, and that is that by the Instrument of Instructions the Governor-General is directed by paragraph 27 not to assent to—
    "any Bill the provisions of which would repeal or be repugnant to the provisions of any Act of Parliament extending to British India."
    Such a Bill must be reserved—
    "for the signification of Our pleasure."
    There is a similar provision in the Instrument of Instructions to the Governor-General in paragraph XVIII. Therefore, in so far as any Bill which is introduced which is repugnant to an Act of the Imperial Parliament, or which deals with any of the matters referred to in paragraph (a) of Clause 110 it is outside the competence of the Indian Legislature altogether. If, on the other hand, it is a Bill which does not deal with any of these matters it is still subject to the safeguard of securing the sanction of the Governor-General in his discretion. The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire says that that does not move him in the least; that he regards it as of no consequence. I do not agree with him. But even assuming that it is of no consequence there is a provision at the other end that the legislation shall be reserved, which will mean that the view of His Majesty's Ministers in this country will prevail. Over and above all this there is the provision in paragraph (a) of Clause 110 that—
    "nothing in this Act shall be taken to affect the power of Parliament to legislate for British India or any part thereof."
    The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire was certainly most inaccurate when he suggested that we were giving to India powers which exceed the powers given to any of the Dominions, to New Zealand or Australia.
    Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: What I meant to suggest was that the Dominions which have contracted out of the Statute of Westminster will not enjoy the powers we are giving to India by this Clause.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Member has suggested that we are giving to India more than we have given to New Zealand or Australia. He will forgive me for correcting him again, but when he uses the expression "contracted out of the Statute of Westminster," that is not the right way to put it. The two Dominions which he has mentioned have not come into the Statute of Westminster. They prefer to take advantage of a provision in the Act, and until they have adopted a particular section in the Statute of Westminster they do not come into it. They can if they desire take advantage of this section in the same way as Canada, South Africa and the Irish Free State. But, taking my hon. Friend's point that New Zealand and Australia by their own wish, do not enjoy the full powers of the Statute of Westminster at the present time, it is not accurate to say that we are giving to India more than New Zealand enjoys. And for this reason. It has long been unconstitutional and therefore illegal for this House to legislate even for New Zealand without the consent of New Zealand. No Parliament would dream of legislating for New Zealand without the full assent and at the request of the Dominion. In the case of India, under this Bill, not only will it be possible legally and constitutionally for the Imperial Parliament to legislate for India but the power is expressly preserved in the Bill by which we shall be in a position to pass such legislation. From any point of view my hon. Friend has very much overstated his case.
    The fact is that the position of the Indian Legislature will be nothing like so free as that of any of the Dominions, whether they have taken full advantage of the Statute of Westminster or not. If hon. Members will look at Clauses 108 and 110 I suggest that they will come to the conclusion that the Government in
    1982
    adopting the proposals of the Joint Select Committee have taken, if you accept the scheme of the Bill, the best course to pursue. I can understand hon. Members saying that we are not giving the Indian Legislature power to legislate in any way which comes in conflict with an Act passed by the Imperial Parliament. That is not the plan of the Bill. The safeguards, the reservations, are ample and sufficient to prevent anything being done which the Imperial Parliament would desire to prevent. And this further matter must be borne in mind, that there are, comparatively speaking, very few Acts dealing with India which have not been passed by the Indian Legislature. I could give the Committee a list if it were not for unnecessarily complicating my statement, of the Acts of the Imperial Parliament which apply to India at the present time, but, broadly speaking, the legislation which governs India to-day is the legislation of the Indian Legislature and, therefore, this conflict between Imperial Acts of Parliament and Indian legislation is not nearly so likely to occur or to be so acute as my hon. Friend has suggested.
    I do not wish to shrink from the position taken up by the Government. We are giving an increased measure of freedom to the Indian Legislature to pass legislation as compared with the existing position shown in Sections 65 and 84 of the Government of India Act. If one realises that some matters are wholly withdrawn from the competence of the Indian Legislature, how there are safeguards upon the legislation they may pass, and that in the final case the Imperial Parliament retains all its powers I think the Committee will not be as much disturbed as they might have been by the first statement made by hon. Members.
    6.55 p.m.
    Viscount WOLMER: I should like to examine the speech of the Attorney-General a little further to see if my right hon. and learned Friend has not overstated his case. I am sure that the public outside have no idea that under this Bill it is within the power of the Indian Legislature to alter this Bill.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am afraid that in my desire to be reasonably brief I did not deal with that point, but if the Noble Lord will turn to Clause 110 he will find these words:

    1983
    "Nothing in this Act shall be taken to empower the Pe3eral Legislature or any Provincial Legislature … except in so far as is expressly permitted by this Act to make any law amending any provision of this Act."
    The only place in the Bill where it is expressly permitted to alter the provisions of the Bill is in Clause 176, in the proviso which deals with the matter.
    Viscount WOLMER: Let me put this point to the Attorney-General. Sub-section (1) of Clause 108, paragraph (a), says:
    "Unless the Governor-General in his discretion thinks fit to give his previous sanction, there shall not be introduced into, or moved in, either Chamber of the Federal Legislature, any Bill or amendment which repeals, amends or is repugnant to any provisions of any Act of Parliament extending to British India."
    This is an excellent example of enacting the positive by stating the negative. If the provision which is laid down in this Sub-section is not fulfilled the implication is that the opposite power will exist. Let me put a concrete case. Suppose there is a Socialist Government in power in this country and that there is a Socialist Viceroy at Delhi. I would remind the Attorney-General that we have heard from hon. Members opposite that directly they have the opportunity the Socialist party are going to make a party appointment in India and put a Socialist Viceroy there. Therefore we have to contemplate a state of affairs where there is a Socialist Government in power with a temporary majority in this House and a Socialist Viceroy in India. Suppose that in the circumstances there is a demand in India for a repeal of some of the safeguards in the Bill? If the legislature at Delhi introduces a Bill for the repeal of some of the safeguards contained in this Bill—
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am sure that the Noble Lord would not like to give currency to an erroneous view. Let me assure him at once that what he is suggesting could not be done. He is drawing an inference which is indicated from the way Sub-section (1) of Clause 108 is drawn. He is suggesting, I gather, that if the Governor-General, a Socialist Governor-General, under a Socialist Government here gives his sanction to a Bill repealing the safeguards in this Bill that it would be law. That is not the whole of the picture. In Clause
    1984
    110 there is an absolute prohibition against any such measure.
    7.0 p.m.
    Viscount WOLMER: The point I want to put to the right hon. and learned Gentleman is whether the words in Clause 110 (b, ii) are strong enough. I should have thought that if the Governor-General gave his sanction under this power in Clause 108, then it could be held, and might be held by the courts in India, that by the Viceroy giving his sanction, these words in Clause 110,
    "except in so far as is expressly permitted by this Act"
    had been fulfilled, because this Bill expressly permits the Viceroy to give his sanction. If he had given his sanction, could not the Indian Legislature proceed to repeal some of the safeguards in this Bill?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My Noble Friend may say he prefers his own opinion to mine—
    Viscount WOLMER: No. I am merely putting the point to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Let me say once more that the provisions of Clause 110, Sub-section (b) are perfectly plain. My Noble Friend has suggested that by reason of Clause 108, Subsection (1, a) there will be, in the event of sanction being given, a legal power to repeal the Constitution Act. If he will read the opening words of Clause 110, he will find that
    "Nothing in this Act shall be taken … to empower the Federal Legislature … to make any law"
    amending any provision of this Act. Therefore, you are not able to refer to the opening words of Clause 108 in order to draw the inference that you are giving that power. I am bound to tell him, with what authority I have to express an opinion on a point of law, that that is the position under the Bill.
    Viscount WOLMER: I am not attempting to set my opinion against that of the Attorney-General, but I do think that we are entitled to ask him point blank for his opinion on the matter. A contrary opinion has been suggested from a very high constitutional authority, and it was not me or my friends who first noticed

    1985
    the importance of this point. If the Attorney-General says that the words
    "except in so far as is expressly permitted by this Act"
    do not cover the sanction which the Governor-General is empowered to give, then I can only accept his legal opinion. I do hope, however, that he will look further into this matter and consider it, because that view has been questioned by other great lawyers. This point, he will agree, is a matter of fundamental importance.
    7.4 p.m.
    Earl WINTERTON: I hope my right hon. Friend will assist the Committee by quoting the name of this legal authority.
    Viscount WOLMER: I am entitled to ask any lawyers I like about this Bill. If I bring up a legal point and the Attorney-General turns me down, I am certainly entitled to say that this point has been suggested by people more qualified to speak on legal points than I am. Unless the opinion is expressed for publication, I am under no obligation to divulge names.
    Earl WINTERTON: I am not suggesting that my Noble Friend is. It would help in the elucidation of the point which he has brought forward if he would be good enough to give us the name of the legal authority whom he said has given an opinion. I hope it is not going outside the bounds of courtesy to ask if he would be good enough to give us the name.
    Viscount WOLMER: The opinion was given to me in confidence. I am not in a position to give names.
    Earl WINTERTON: I do not see what can be confidential as between a legal authority and my Noble Friend in an opinion on this matter. It seems to be one of the mysteries which my Noble Friend and the right hon. Member beside Mm are so fond of importing into these Debates. I think the answer given him has been very satisfactory. I and others were in some doubt whether he was not right, but I think the answer which the Attorney-General has given was conclusive on the point. I rose to call attention to another aspect to which attention has not yet been given. The vast majority of the laws under which Indian administration operates are not laws of
    1986
    this House, and have not been for at least a generation past. Almost the whole of them are laws which have been passed by the Indian Legislature. Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that there will be any reason for repealing a law passed by this House, because it does not affect the Indian administration at all. The only danger would be one to which I think the Attorney-General has given a conclusive answer. In the ordinary course of administration there would be no reason for the Indian Legislature to deal with a law passed by this House, because practically the whole of Indian statute law is law that has been passed by the Indian Legislature.
    7.7 p.m.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: My Noble Friend the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) has no right to ask my Noble Friend the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) what he does. It is clear that there are many cases in which it would be very undesirable to divulge the name. It might very well be the opinion of a High Court judge, and it would be very undesirable for his name to be quoted. It might also be the opinion of a barrister engaged in advising some of the parties in this matter, the Indian Princes or otherwise. There are various reasons, and, if we are told that our opinion is of no value unless we can quote the opinion of some legal authority, then I say it is prostituting the Debates in this House. [Interruption.] Unquestionably.
    Let us get back to the merits of the case. My knowledge of the law is infinitesimal compared with that of the Attorney-General, but all the same the words have a definite meaning. Acts of Parliament are not always interpreted in the same way by different legal authorities. It seems to an ordinary mind such as my own that the Attorney-General says, you cannot amend the Constitution Act because of Clause 110. But what do these words mean:
    "except in so far as is expressly permitted under this Act"?
    Does not Clause 108 expressly permit the exception. It says that if the Governor-General gives his consent this Act may be repealed or amended. It seems to me such a court of law might very well hold that that was the point aimed at in Clause 110, Sub-section (2), as being a

    1987
    power expressly permitted by this Act. As this is a point of vital importance, it is surely desirable before this Clause leaves the control of the House of Commons that it should be made clear without a peradventure. This matter is one of very great complexity, and we should have words put into the Bill to make it clear that these expressly permissive words in paragraph (a) do not apply to the prohibition in Clause 110.
    7.12 p.m.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I must express the great astonishment with which I have heard the Attorney-General and the Noble Lord refer to the fact that a great deal of Indian administration is carried on under Acts passed by the Indian Legislature as a reason why we should have no fear about this matter.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I did not say that.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I understood that the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the fact that most of the Acts operated in India to-day were passed by the Indian Legislature, and the Noble Lord did so, and I understood that these statements were made to try to bring home what a very small matter was the Amendment we are discussing. I am sorry if I misunderstood the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but it seemed to me quite immaterial to the argument. It is entirely a question of the grant of constitutional powers and whether the Federal Legislature is to have authority to amend these powers. That is one of the biggest questions we can discuss. Not for the first time I feel that a discussion has been carried on with far too little regard to what has actually happened in connection with the matter under discussion. Let me bring back to the mind of the Committee the memorandum presented by the Indian Delegates to the Joint Select Committee just before they went home in 1933. I would also like to refer them to the number of times in the discussions before the Joint Select Committee and at the Round Table Conferences that the Indian Delegates pressed for this very power to amend the Constitution Act to which now some of us are objecting. All the time it was the expressed desire of the leading Indian delegates to have this power. May I
    1988
    also remind the Committee that Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru more than two years ago, when addressing a gathering of the Congress Party at Allahabad, said that the proposals of the Round Table Conference did not give Dominion status or independence, but that if they sent the right kind of men to the Legislature, it would be impossible for any Government to prevent them securing, in a few years, all the Congress Party desired. That is a statement we must have before us the whole time we are considering this matter. We have also to bear in mind the tremendous pressure there is likely to be on the Governor-General.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): The hon. Lady now seems to be getting right outside the Amendment. What we are dealing with is the question of whether the Indian Legislature can amend the Act, if this Bill becomes an Act.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: It seems to me that we have to take into account, in considering that matter, the expressed intention of Indians in regard to this question, and to realise the great pressure to which the Governor-General may be subject.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Whether he is subject to pressure or not, if, in point of fact, there is no legal power to amend the Act, is quite immaterial.
    Viscount WOLMER: Surely it is not only a question of this Measure alone. That is only one phase of the point raised by the Amendment. The Amendment deals with the whole question of the circumstances in which an Indian Legislature shall have power to amend any Act of Parliament. The Government contend that this Measure is exempt from the general rule, but they do not contend that the Indian Legislature has no power to amend any Act of Parliament.
    7.16 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not know whether it will shorten the discussion or not, but I hope that my two Noble Friends who have just spoken will accept it as an earnest or a proof of my sincerity in saying that this Measure may not be amended, if I tell them that the Government are prepared to put in words to qualify the phrase "expressly

    1989
    permitted" on which they lay so much stress, so as to make it plain that the phrase only refers to Part VIII dealing with the Federal Railway Authority, and to Part XIV of the Bill dealing with Burma. I do not know exactly where these words will come in, but if they are inserted in the right place they will make it perfectly plain that the words "expressly permitted" do not refer to Clause 1.
    7.17 p.m.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I am glad to have that clear statement as to the words which the Government propose to insert, but may we ask this further question? In the event of amending legislation being permitted by the Governor-General, are we to understand that it will be referred to the Secretary of State? If so, are we to understand that anything which is referred home in this connection will be brought before Parliament, or will it rest with the government of the day to sanction amendments of this or any other Act? I would remind the Committee that this power in the Federal Legislature to make amendments in the Constitution Act was one of the things which caused much anxiety to the Indian Princes. That anxiety was expressed in memoranda placed before the Joint Select Committee by their representatives two years ago, and it was again revealed in the speeches made at the meeting recently held. They ask that they should have the power to retire from the Federation in the event of any substantial change being made in it by the Federal Legislature.
    7.19 p.m.
    Mr. AMERY: I am sure the Committee will feel much reassured by the statement of the Attorney-General intimating that it will be placed beyond all doubt that Sub-section (1, a) of Clause 108 does not constitute "express permission" in the sense of paragraph (b) of Clause 110. Obviously it would be undesirable if this constitution itself were not to have the safeguards applicable to other constitutions in the Empire, but that point seems to have been laid at rest, both by the Attorney-General's original opinion as to the law as expressed in the words as they stand, and by the assurance that the Government will look further into the wording in order to make it as clear as possible.
    1990
    Leaving that major matter on one side for the moment it seems to me that in other respects this Sub-section (1, a) can serve a useful purpose. Legislation may be passed by Parliament affecting India which experience may show to be, in some minor particular, not altogether applicable. In that case it might be very inconvenient to pass a special Act of Parliament here in order to modify that legislation while it would be convenient with the assent of the Government here for the Governor-General to sanction amending legislation in India. In the same way legislation might be introduced in India which would be desirable there but might be technically repugnant to some general law here. There again after consultation between the Governor-General and the Government here it might be both practicable and useful to sanction the introduction of such legislation as was required in India. It seems to me, therefore, as long as we have the Attorney-General's assurance on the major point, that it would be a good thing to leave this Sub-section standing as it is for the kind of practical purpose to which it may be usefully applied.
    Mr. EMMOTT: But for the statement which was made a few moments ago by the Attorney-General we should certainly have taken a different course on this Amendment: but in view of the explicit assurance which he has given to the Committee I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    7.23 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 65, Line 19, to leave out from "matters" to "or," in line 22, and to insert
    "as respects which the Governor-General is, by or under this Act, required to act in his discretion."
    This is purely a drafting Amendment. As the reserved departments are now defined in Clause 11, it is obviously appropriate that we should follow that definition in the subsequent parts of the Bill, and that is the object of the Amendment.
    Wing-Commander JAMES: Am I right in assuming that the Sub-section, as redrawn, would now cover the excluded areas?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: As I have explained, this is only a drafting Amendment. The words which originally-occurred in the Bill, and which it is now proposed to omit, affect matters reserved to the discretion of the Governor-General in relation to defence, and other matters. It is now proposed to substitute the words:
    "as respects which the Governor-General is, by or under this Act, required to act in his discretion."
    There is a purely technical difference. To be completely frank with the Committee, the words at present in the Subsection are a legacy from the time when Clause 11 was drafted in slightly different terms. They follow the earlier draft of Clause 11. The only change which we are making is to bring the wording of this Sub-section into line with the way in which Clause 11 is now drafted.
    Wing-commander JAMES: May I ask, then, at what point in the Bill it is intended to deal with the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee which is to this effect:
    "It is proposed that the powers of a Provincial Legislature shall not extend to any part of the Province which is declared to be an 'Excluded Area.'"
    In what part of the Bill will that intention be implemented if not in this Clause?
    Sir S. HOARE: I am afraid I could not deal with that question off-hand, but it certainly does not come in here.
    Amendment agreed to.
    7.25 p.m.
    Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move, in page 65, line 23, to leave out paragraph (d).
    I wish to know the reason why there should not be introduced in either Chamber of the Legislature a Bill relating to any of the police forces? Paragraphs (d) and (e) of Sub-section (1) deal with matters which are quite different from those coming under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). Why should it not be possible to discuss such a matter as a change in the rules relating to the police?
    7.26 p.m.
    Sir S. HOARE: I thought we had dealt with this question when we discussed the whole problem of safeguards in connection with the police, but, whether we did or not, the answer to the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) is this. The Joint Select Committee regarded it as
    1992
    essential, as one of the safeguards for the police, that legislation dealing with the internal organisation and discipline of the police should only be introduced with the Governor-General's previous assent. Their reason was that the morale of the police depended so much upon the rules and Acts governing the organisation of the police in India that rash meddling, either with the rules or with police legislation, might in a short time destroy the morale of the police and ruin the organisation. The Joint Committee therefore came to the opinion, and the Government very strongly agree with them, that legislation of this kind should only be introduced with the previous assent of the Governor-General. That is a single reason, but a very strong one for this provision.
    Mr. ATTLEE: I do not quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's point. The police administration is to be under the Provincial Governments. That is not now a reserved subject and therefore questions can be asked in the Provincial Legislatures and discussions are bound to take place constantly about the police. Why then should there be this restriction against introducing any legislation at the Centre dealing with the police? I understand it is possible to discuss police matters on a resolution, and the question of police rules and regulations is safeguarded. I cannot understand why it should be regarded as dangerous to discuss police matters on a Bill introduced in the Legislature.
    Earl WINTERTON: The hon. Gentle man will remember that we had long discussions on this subject in the Joint Select Committee, and I think that he and the Members of his party and those who sat on the other side were not in agreement. The answer to him is this: With regard to a resolution dealing with the conduct of the police in any particular case, there is nothing under this Clause to prevent that discussion taking place. Therefore, it would be perfectly possible for the Legislature to raise the question of the conduct of the police. The reason why, in the opinion of many of us, it is undesirable to give power to the Legislature to introduce legislation affecting the police, is that some person or persons desiring to destroy the whole morale of the police may introduce a Bill for that purpose. In previous

    1993
    Clauses relating to the police there are very strict enactments to prevent the discipline of the police being interfered with. These words round off that system by preventing the Legislature from dealing with legislation.
    Amendment negatived.
    7.31 p.m.
    Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move, in page 65, line 24, to leave out from "force" to the end of line 27.
    Here a similar question to the last arises. Why should there be this restriction affecting criminal proceedings? I do not understand the point of setting up a sham Legislature that you cannot trust even to discuss a Bill. I think it is a monstrous thing that there should be this prevention of the discussion of legislation. It shows an extraordinary nervousness.
    7.32 p.m.
    Sir S. HOARE: Here again there is a good deal of past history behind this proposal. Hon. Members who have followed the history of this question will remember that in the past it has been a very fruitful source of bitter controversy. A generation ago there was no question that created greater bitterness in India than questions connected with the trial of Europeans. At one time India rang from one end to another with this controversy. For very many years it raged. But fortunately in the years immediately following the 1919 Act a successful attempt was made to reach a compromise between the European community in India and the Indians. A committee was appointed, a compromise was reached and subsequent amendments were made in the criminal code. As far as I am aware that compromise has worked very well, and it has gone far to end this very bitter and inflammable controversy. When, therefore, the Indian delegates at the Bound Table Conferences and the Joint Select Committee came to consider this question they agreed with the majority of the British representatives that there was every advantage to be gained by continuing a compromise of this kind, and by not returning to the period of bitter controversy that had preceded it. The conclusion that was reached was that the best way to safeguard the compromise was to bring matters of this kind within the field of the measures that need the Governor-
    1994
    General's previous assent before they are introduced into the Legislature. My answer to the hon. Member for Lime-house (Mr. Attlee) is, therefore, that previous assent in this case is the safeguard to maintain a compromise that is working well and was generally accepted by many representative Indians. In view of these facts I hope very much that the Committee will not attempt in any way to disturb the compromise.
    Mr. ATTLEE: In view of that explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    7.35 p.m.
    Mr. KIRKPATRICK: I beg to move, in page 65, line 27, at the end, to insert:
    "(f) repeals, amends, or affects any Act relating to major ports or makes provision with respect to suck ports, that is to say, the declaration and delimitation of such ports and the constitution and powers of port authorities therein."
    I recognise that my right hon. Friend can use the argument that major ports in India are of equal importance to both British and Indian commercial interests. On that ground my right hon. Friend would be entitled to say that it would be unreasonable to anticipate that these major ports of India will be more neglected than any other field of administration which we are entrusting to the new Legislature. But with all respect I submit another, and I suggest a much more practical, consideration. I would argue that the ports of India are, as units and collectively, of Imperial importance. I would urge, therefore, that the determining of their control, their policy and their administration by Provincial Governments, may create not only difficulties to arise with native States, but may conceivably also react against the best interests of the political and economic unity of India as a whole.
    7.37 p.m.
    Sir S. HOARE: I agree with my hon. Friend that the future of the major ports in India is of the first importance. I can well understand the interest of the business community, British and Indian, in the question of their future. I am sure we all agree that the last thing any of us wishes to see is action taken that would compromise their efficiency and reduce their usefulness. I do, however,

    1995
    suggest to my hon. Friend that there is no reason to make this further extension. I feel that it is important to keep down to the minimum the questions for which the previous assent of the Governor-General is needed before legislation can be introduced. The further we extend that field the more we undermine the responsibility of the Federal Legislature and Executive, the more we fail to achieve one of the objectives that is in the minds of many of us, namely, to make the Government responsible for as wide a field as we can. If you once make this extension and bring into this field the question of the major ports, it seems to me that there is then no good reason why you should not make a number of other additions.
    We have tried to keep this category a very definite category of issues so important that they really stand by themselves. Important as is the future of the ports, I do not believe that it is in the same category as the other subjects we have just been discussing. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment, and that he will leave the future safeguarding to these two considerations: First of all, I cannot conceive of any Federal Government taking action that is going to endanger one of the great assets of the Federation, namely, the major ports; and, secondly, if action was taken of a discriminatory character, obviously aimed at, we will say, the British community, the shipping community or the trading community in a particular port, the Governor-General could intervene under his special responsibilities. In view of those two considerations I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the Secretary of State say whether any of these major ports are in Indian States or whether all are in British India?
    Sir S. HOARE: I think the Mover of the Amendment was contemplating ports in British India.
    Mr. KIRKPATRICK: Yes.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: The major ports, then, are in British India?
    Sir S. HOARE: Yes.
    7.41 p.m.
    Sir ROBERT HORNE: I would like to support the Amendment. No doubt there are many precautions that are being taken in order to prevent discrimination being applied against us in connection with various aspects of our trade. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that it is inadvisable to extend the field of things safeguarded further than we must; but the methods by which discrimination can be used against British commerce by any person who is adverse at the time to our general interests, are many. I think it is very necessary indeed to close up every bolt-hole which can be discovered. We are dealing with people who have shown themselves to be extraordinary ingenious in devising methods by which they can defeat these particular interests, if at the time they take a view which is adverse to us. One of the means which they could adopt against our commerce would be such a use of the ports as in effect would ensure that we would not be able to use them in an advantageous way. I do not see at all why the Government should not put in this particular paragraph, which would enable precautions to be taken—precautions which might be very necessary on particular occasions. I beg the Secretary of State to consider the anxieties of British trade with regard to these matters. If he cannot give any answer now on the subject I beg him to keep the matter open in his mind for the Report stage.
    7.44 p.m.
    Sir S. HOARE: I do not think my right hon. Friend has appreciated the very limited scope of this Amendment. The Amendment deals only with the previous assent of the Governor to the introduction of legislation. I cannot conceive of legislation being introduced that would result in a port silting up or obstacles being put in the way of trade. I do not want to get into any sort of appearance of controversy with my right hon. Friend on the subject, because I am as anxious as he is to keep these major ports efficient.
    7.45 p.m.
    Mr. AMERY: My right hon. Friend has deprecated making these additions to this Clause on the general ground of not weakening the sense of responsibility on

    1997
    the part of the Indian Legislatures. There is another aspect of the matter, and that is that if we insert too many varied additions to the subjects for which special sanction is required from the Governor-General we may tend to blur his sense of responsibility, and if there are too many things for which he must give special sanction that special sanction will tend to become a matter of common form. Therefore, from that point of view, as well as from the point of view which the Secretary of State put forward, I would deprecate burdening the Clause with any provisions which are not really essential. Undoubtedly the whole of the Bill must give rise to anxieties with regard to the effect of self-government in India upon our trade, but once we have decided the main issue and once we have laid certain very special responsibilities upon the Governor-General, I do not think that we shall improve the situation either in law or in psychology by overburdening the Measure with too many of these extra minor safeguards. Therefore, in spite of the view taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Sir E. Home), I hope that this Subsection will not be added.
    7.46 p.m.
    Sir J. SANDEMAN ALLEN: I hesitate to say anything on this Amendment, particularly after what the Secretary of State has said, but I feel bound to say that shipping interests and the Chambers of Commerce take a serious view of the matter. I am afraid that the Secretary of State does not quite realise how easy it would be to disturb the use of the major ports. Therefore, I hope that he will give some further consideration to the matter. The Amendment has not been brought forward lightly, although one does appreciate the importance of not having too many restrictions of this kind. To many of us this matter is much more a major point than it seems to be in the mind of the Secretary of State.
    7.47 p.m.
    Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: I can quite understand the anxiety of my hon. Friends on this matter. It is one with which all those of us who have any know ledge of Indian trade conditions must have the greatest sympathy, but where I think my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment and those who support it are perhaps a little wrong is that they do not
    1998
    fully appreciate what the effect of provincial opinion would be. The fact is that provincial opinion, which has to be represented in the Federal Centre pretty strongly, is extremely jealous of every move in connection with these major ports or any intention to alter them or to change the conditions on which they are worked. In the Federal legislature envisaged in the Bill there is no fear whatever that the local interests will not take good care that their major ports are worked as they have been in the past for the benefit of the cities and Provinces in which they are situated. If I thought that there was a real danger that that would not be so I should be the first to support the Amendment. I do not support the Amendment, because I do not think it is necessary on the ground that I think the provincial interests will look after the interests of the major ports.
    Amendment negatived.
    7.49 p.m.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I beg to move, in page 65, line 27, at the end, to add: "or
    (f) affects any religion, or relisious rites or usage, of any class of British subjects in India."
    I must apologise to the Committee for not having given earlier notice of this Amendment. I have had it in mind ever since the Committee stage began and have been in correspondence with people who know more about the matter than I do. I have been waiting for an Amendment to be suggested to me, but it only reached me this morning and I did not think that it was quite suitable. I therefore thought I must move this particular Amendment, and I am obliged to you, Sir, for allowing me to bring it forward.
    The Amendment deals with a very difficult question, that of legislation dealing with religious rites and usages.
    Sir R. HAMILTON: Will the Noble Lady give us the terms of the Amendment
    Duchess of ATHOLL: It retains to the Governor-General the right to refuse previous sanction to any legislation which affects religions or religious rites or usages of any class of British subjects in India. The Amendment deals with the very difficult question of certain religious usages in India which we are all agreed

    1999
    in deploring and which we wish to see removed as quickly as possible. It seeks to maintain the existing position, which was partly abandoned in the White Paper and is completely abandoned in the Bill. I am aware that the Joint Select Committee's Report wished this matter to be left entirely to the Indians. They said:
    "It has become increasingly evident in recent years that the obstacles to such legislation can only be removed by Indian hands."
    I am afraid that I regard that statement as an easy way out of a very great difficulty, and I am told that opinion in India is very much divided as to whether it really is the best means of obtaining what we desire, to abolish the Governor-General's right of requiring previous sanction. The Joint Select Committee's Report, I maintain, minimises what we have been able to do. They seem to ignore what we have been able to effect in the way of making some of these religious usages or social usages illegal. It is 100 years since we made suttee illegal. There still remain some cases, but everybody in India knows that suttee is illegal and it has been almost entirely stamped out. Female infanticide has been made illegal and has almost ceased to exist, although there are still some cases of it. We have also made human sacrifice illegal, although it still exists. Cases have been reported in recent police reports in two provinces, but we have been able to make human sacrifice illegal and almost to eliminate it. Then hook-swinging is another usage of the Hindu religion which we have been able to make illegal and largely to eliminate, although not completely.
    The point that I would emphasise is that we have been able to do these things without losing the confidence of the Orthodox Hindus, who wish to see reforms come from within their community rather than be imposed upon them from outside by legislation. In addition to the usages to which I have referred we have also dealt with the question of the raising of the age of marriage. Under our rule two Acts have been passed for that purpose. One was passed long ago under the administration of Lord Lansdowne, and in the intervening years between then and the
    2000
    recent Sarda Act the age of marriage steadily rose, although it was very far from being what it ought to be. Some one who has been in charge of a great many child wards has told me that by personal influence and persuasion she had been able to get the age of marriage raised in regard to a large number of girls.
    The Sarda Marriage Act was passed in 1929, but I am informed that that Act has in some way led to a setback not only on account of the period which elapsed before the Act came into operation but because it has aroused the resentment of certain members of the Orthodox Hindu community who have felt it to be their duty—I am now referring to the priests—to make it more a point of honour than they did before the Act was passed, to inquire at what age children in Hindu families are being married. Whereas before the Act was passed many families were putting off the marriage age until later, now in a great many cases pressure is put upon them to marry off their children at an earlier age than the Act allows. I cannot speak on that matter from my own personal knowledge but from information given to me from one who is very closely in touch with these matters.
    I can, however, speak at first hand of the great anxiety that evidently is felt by leading members of the Orthodox Hindu community at the abolition of the previous sanction of the Governor-General which hitherto has always been required for legislation of that kind. They show considerable bitterness towards the Westernised Hindus from whom they expect this kind of legislation. They say that these Westernised Hindus have given up their faith and have no right to introduce reforms of this nature.
    What weighs most with me is that I find these leaders of the Orthodox Hindus referring constantly to the provision in Queen Victoria's Proclamation of 1858 that we would not disturb India's religions. It has been said to me in very emphatic terms by these leaders that it is because of that promise that India as a whole has accepted British rule. They say that if we give power to these Westernised Hindus to carry legislation through their Legislatures whenever they please, we shall be breaking the pledge that we

    2001
    gave them in 1858. They stress what we all recognise to be a fact, and that is that religion is by far the greatest motive power in India. If the Orthodox Hindu community believe that legislation to which they object is going to be rushed through the new Legislatures without the previous sanction of the Governor-General being obtained, we may have a very serious position arising. We may get Hindus as a whole more roused by these measures than by anything that has yet occurred. Protests inspired by religious motives may arouse much greater feeling than any political movement that has been organised by the Congress party. We have also to remember that whereas the Governor-General has been given power to safeguard the legitimate rights of minorities, the Orthodox Hindus are not a minority. They may be a minority in certain provinces, but there are Provinces in which they will be very much in the majority, and the Governor-General will have no power to safeguard their legitimate rights.
    There is another point which weighs very much with me and that is that during the years that this matter has been under discussion one has had occasion to realise the lamentable bitterness that exists between different sections of Indian opinion. We have to realise that there is not only this bitterness between Hindus and Moslems but between Orthodox Hindus and Westernised Hindus. That being so, I cannot but fear that the Westernised Hindus in bringing forward legislative proposals, with which we may be in entire sympathy here, may do it in such a way and in such an uncompromising manner that it will arouse a great deal of unnecessary resentaumt. They will not seek to carry the Orthodox Hindus with them. I believe therefore that the Governor-General, if he is allowed to retain this power of previous sanction and if he exercises the tact, the forbearance and the tolerance which we expect from somebody in his position, should be able to get the Orthodox Hindus to agree to more legislative reforms than would be possible if he had simply to stand aside and see the Westernised Hindus engaged in trying to get the reforms passed. It is not out of any lack of desire or lukewarmness to see the age of marriage effectively raised in India, or any of these social usages removed which so distress us, that I move
    2002
    this Amendment, but because I honestly believe that this will be the way in which we shall get the steadiest progress, and progress without upsetting a very large, very important and very loyal section of the Indian community.
    8.1 p.m.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I really cannot understand the Noble Lady bringing forward this Amendment. She knows perfectly well that if the question of the abolition of suttee, or family infanticide, or any of the beastly practices we have stopped in India, had been left to the sanhedrim of priests, they would never have abolished them. To bring forward an Amendment to make further progress on the same lines impossible, simply because it is objected to by a lot of the Conservative priesthood—
    Duchess of ATHOLL: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman misunderstands me. I am not proposing to leave the question to the Orthodox Hindus. I am proposing to leave the existing system in operation by which it largely rests with the Governor-General to reconcile people to reforms.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: The Noble Lady all along, in Africa and everywhere else, has been in favour of our putting things right and disregarding the existing habits and customs of the native people, and here she is bringing forward an Amendment which would put the obscurantists in power for ever. It would be extremely difficult to get the Assembly ever to propose any legislation which would interfere with any custom, however antiquated and bad, and to ask the Governor-General to act as a further obstacle in the way when it is his business to assist progress is something which I cannot understand. The difficulty with the Indian marriage business has been that the Government have found it necessary in various Provinces to interfere and to prevent the Bill being brought in Everyone of us who wants to see habits and customs of that sort in India improved, should desire that it should be left entirely out of the hands of the Governors and the Governor-General, and where legislation may be introduced, to give the westernised Hindus a chance, at any rate, of solving an almost impossible task of converting the Assembly. It will give them the opportunity of following on the lines and advocating the

    2003
    principles that the Noble Lady has always adopted in this country.
    8.4 p.m.
    Mr. ATTLEE: The Noble Lady has an extraordinary habit of wanting to connect our rule with every possible abuse in India. It is true there are all kinds of abuses. She wants to put it on our Governor-General and our representatives to tell the people who want reforms that they must not have them. Why cannot we leave the reactionaries to do their own dirty work? It is all very well for the Noble Lady to say that we have done away with suttee and various things like that, but if someone like the, Noble Lady had been ruling India, we should never have done it. We should have said "Oh, no, it is not right to interfere with these good old customs. Let us take no further notice of them, and in time we shall manage to persuade the people without-active interference to abandon these bad customs."
    Duchess of ATHOLL: The hon. Gentleman is grossly misrepresenting me. I said that under this system we have been able to do these things, and it is because I want to see the Orthodox Hindu carried along with these movements, and do not want to see a great deal of opposition stirred up against these reforms, that I advocate this proposal.
    Mr. ATTLEE: Any Indian administrator will say that unfortunately for many years we have taken the Noble Lady's line. We have been afraid to touch these things, because we might tread on the tender corns of fanatics, and the alternative for not having these people brought into politics is that nothing should be done and we should take the responsibility of opposing all reforms. I think this is a monstrous suggestion. The Noble Lady has tried in every possible way to ensure that a reactionery Legislation shall be enabled to oppose those who want to do anything, and she now proposes that any old reactionary shall be able to influence the Governor-General to refuse his consent. I have never understood the position taken up by the Noble Lady and others. We have been in India for years, and one idea is that we should cease to do anything actively and hand over certain things. They do not object to handing over education and so on, but we are to
    2004
    continue to be the people who will prevent reform and act as policemen and tax collectors. I cannot understand the idea of a system in which the representative of the British Raj has to take responsibility for all the unpleasant work of Government, and other people are left to take the credit.
    8.7 p.m.
    Miss RATH BONE: I do not misunderstand the Noble Lady's motives. I think she is as anxious as anybody in this House to forward social reform in India, but I think she is entirely mistaken in seeking this way of doing it. What would be the actual effect? The Governor-General, whose responsibilities are going to be heavy enough as it is, is to have the added responsibility of having brought to bear upon him every reactionary force in the Assembly to prevent any attempt to introduce legislation dealing with such matters as child marriage, temple entry, the untouchables, and so forth. If the Governor-General yields, there will be a continuation of the risks with which those who are fighting against the evils in India are faced to-day—the excuse, "We should get along very well and settle our religious differences in half an hour if it were not for the reactionary influence of the British Government." Is that the effect the Noble Lady wants? When the Suttee Act to which she alluded was passing through the Assembly, I recollect Mr. Jinnah himself assuring the House that, "When we have swaraj we shall not need a Joint Select Committee"—I am quoting from memory—"It will not need half a sitting to pass a measure like this."
    Again and again the whole blame for the slow progress of social reform in India is thrown on the timidity of the British in India, and especially on the assent that they have made to Queen Victoria's pledge. The Noble Lady has quoted Queen Victoria's pledge. I would remind her that long before Queen Victoria's pledge was given the Government dealt with the evil of suttee and of female infanticide, and I very much doubt whether these terrible evils would ever have been swept away, even to the extent they have been, if we had had Queen Victoria's pledge in the days of Lord William Bentinck. If there is one thing for which I feel we must throw the

    2005
    responsibility on Indians themselves, it is the question of these social reforms. They can deal with their own reactionaries a great deal better than we can, and I feel that the Noble Lady is doing the worst possible service to the cause which she herself has most at heart, the cause of the British in India if she wants to put on the overburdened shoulders of the Governor-General this most unwelcome responsibility. My own great objection to the proposed form of federal legislature is that it is already going to be too reactionary. It needs no safeguards in these matters of reform. I hope the Government will give no countenance to this Amendment.
    8.11 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLER: The hon. Lady has referred to Lord William Bentinck. I think all of us would agree with what she said about his work in India, and what she said about British efforts in past days to achieve social reform cannot be dwelt upon too often by the Committee. The hon. Lady will remember Macaulay's famous words about Lord William Bentinck:
    "He suppressed cruel rites and effaced humiliating distinctions."
    That is an enviable epitaph to have put on the tomb of any one of us. In dealing with the Amendment, the best advice we can take is that given by the Joint Select Committee, who told us that they considered these matters were essentially questions for the responsible Indian minister to deal with. The whole sense of the report of the Joint Select Committee, particularly its Introduction, was that the question of social reform should be left to the Indians themselves under the new Constitution, because social habits and customs were so deeply engrained in the life and in the religion of the people that it would be advisable to leave these matters to be dealt with by the Indian legislators themselves. We are introducing into the Provinces responsible government and we are introducing into the Centre a certain extent of responsible government. Let the Committee remember that in 1919, when responsible government was partly introduced into the Indian Provinces, it was decided to take away from the Governor the necessity he had then of giving his previous sanction to measures of social reform. We are, in fact, following the
    2006
    advice of the Joint Select Committee and taking away from the Governor-General the need to give his previous sanction to the introduction of measures dealing with such a reform.
    The Noble Lady dealt with the apprehensions held in particular by the orthodox Hindus. All I have said hitherto will apply to any social legislation introduced, but I want to turn to some of the apprehensions expressed by the Noble Lady and to tell her how, if the situation which she fears arose, that is to say, the introduction of social reform resulted in some serious disturbance in the Provinces, or the introduction of social reform jeopardised the progress of the Reforms, steps would be taken to put matters right. In the first place, I would draw the Noble Lady's attention to the power which the Governor has to withhold his assent from a Bill—what is known as the power of veto, and which is, I think, in Clause 75. That would operate in the case of a measure which had been introduced in the Legislature, and which the Governor-General though the could not let by, owing to the serious state of affairs he found around him. That is an important power, which I hope will meet some of the Noble Lady's fears. Besides that, the Governor would be entitled to forestall his refusal of assent and to send a message to the Legislature telling them that he would be likely to withhold his assent to a particular Bill if it were proceeded with, so that there is the opportunity of warning the Legislature. Further, if there was likely to be some disturbance which would result in a serious menace to the peace and tranquillity of the Province, the Governor, under Clause 86, Sub-section (2), would be able to act as follows:
    "If the Governor in his discretion certifies that the discussion of a Bill introduced or proposed to be introduced in the Provincial Legislature, or of any specified Clause of a Bill, or of any Amendment moved or proposed to be moved to a Bill, would affect the discharge of his special responsibility for the prevention of any grave menace to the peace or tranquillity of the Province, or any part thereof, he may in his discretion direct that no proceedings, or no further proceedings, shall be taken in relation to the Bill, Clause or Amendment, and effect shall be given to the direction."
    I am reading from the Provincial part of the Bill, but there is a corresponding provision in the Federal part. The Noble

    2007
    Lady will therefore see that if there is a grave threat to the peace and tranquillity of the Province, arising out of a proposal for social reform, which is likely to divide the Province from top to bottom, and it is necessary for the Executive to interfere in the interests of peace, there is power to do so, while if the Measure is unfair or the Governor thinks it undesirable, he can withhold his assent from it. There is an equivalent power in the case of the Governor-General.
    The Noble Lady raised the problem of the numbers of orthodox Hindus, and she said they could not be covered by the Governor-General's special responsibility for minorities, because in many Provinces they were in fact majorities. In so far as they were in a minority as outlined in the Instrument of Instruction in any particular Province, this power would apply but surely in the case of a Province where they were in a majority, it would be up to them to take their part in the responsible government of that Province, and to organise themselves into political parties and take their part in the political life of the Province.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: Has the hon. Gentleman realised how, in spite of their numbers and their strong feelings, they are not very experienced in political matters, and so were not at all successful in the recent elections?
    Mr. BUTLER: We are giving responsible government to India, and it is important that all sections of the community, particularly if they are so powerful, intelligent, and numerous as the orthodox Hindus, to take steps at once to see that their political organisation is of an equivalent value to that of the Congress party or any other body, and I feel sure, from what I know of orthodox Hindus and their late leader, that they will quickly realise the opportunities for political life which will shortly be given them; and I sincerely hope they will. It was said in the Debate that certain measures had tended to bring the orthodox Hindus into politics, and I sincerely hope that is the case, because we feel, in resisting this Amendment, that it would be much better to follow the advice of the Joint Select Committee and make responsible government a reality, to adhere to the views which I have expressed that these matters should be
    2008
    dealt with by responsible Indian Ministers, and we should leave the discretion to them.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: In view of my hon. Friend's explanation of the reserved powers of the Governor-General and Governor, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    8.19 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 66, line I, to leave out from "matters" to "or," in line 4, and to insert:
    "as respects which the Governor-General is, by or under this Act, required to act in his discretion."
    This is exactly the same Amendment as one which I moved earlier in the Clause, It merely introduces the appropriate form of words having regard to the form in which Clause 11 is now drafted.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 109 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 110.—(Savings.)
    8.20 p.m.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I beg to move, in page 67, line 7, after "Family," to insert "or the Succession to the Crown."
    I do not know how far this question may be held to have been covered by the discussion on Clause 108, but in any case I do not think I need say very much in moving this Amendment. Clause 110 as printed would prevent the Federal Legislature or any Provincial Legislature making any law affecting the Sovereign or the Royal Family, and my Amendment is to include also the succession to the Crown. It is only to make what must obviously be the intention of the Government perfectly clear.
    8.21 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My Noble Friend is right in saying that it is the Government's intention that there should be no power to affect the succession to the Throne, and I am not at all sure that her words are not preferable to the form of the Clause as it stands. I trust she will allow us to consider further the proper form of drafting the Clause, so as to cover the point that we both have in view.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    8.22 p.m.
    Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: I beg to move, in page 67, line 12, to leave out from "courts" to the end of the Clause.
    The Indian Legislature, we think, ought to have the power to amend themselves in the direction they themselves desire. As the Clause stands, paragraph (ii) does not give them the power we think they should have, and our sole purpose is to enable them, if and when they think necessary, to amend their own constitution.
    8.23 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLER: We have had a discussion on this subject before this evening, but I think I ought to give some short reply to the hon. Member. He would give the Indian Legislature the power of amending this particular Constitution Act. I am afraid the Government cannot accept this Amendment. As a result of discussions in the Joint Select Committee, certain power was given for representations to be made from the Indian Legislature, and we were very glad to insert that provision, because it gave the Indian Legislature the opportunity of voicing their opinions on this particular Measure. The whole of the machinery in connection with these representations is set out in Clause 285, and if the hon. Member will turn to that rather long Clause, he will see that there is there an opportunity for representations to be made by the Indian Legislature. But apart from that, I am afraid it is not the intention, as appears clearly from the Clause, that there should be an opportunity of amending this Constitution Act in the way that the hon. Member desires. I therefore regret that we are unable to accept the Amendment.
    8.25 p.m.
    Mr. ATTLEE: This Amendment is designed to raise the question of constituent powers. I do not suppose that the Amendment would effect exactly what we want, but it is difficult to get anything in the four corners of the Bill that would do anything that we want when we have got as far as this. We have always taken the line that there should be a power of development in this Bill, that there should be a progressive increase of responsibility. At the present moment the whole tendency is to tie it down more and more closely. The discussion we have had to-day was mainly in the line of trying to restrict anything in the way of development. I am aware of the suggestion of Mr. Jayakar to the Joint Select Committee, but it is only a suggestion that in certain circumstances, after a certain period, an Indian Legislature could make representations to this House. It is a rather far off and extremely thin suggestion. We consider that there should be in this Bill some constituent powers because, once we pass this Clause, we have practically got rid of the whole question of constituent powers, and we may be ruled out if we want to raise it in other forms later on. I am aware of all the difficulties. There are parts of this Bill which I would not like to see left entirely to the power of Indians. We would not be prepared to say that the people in India should be disfranchised by power given under this Bill, but we do not want to see the whole question of constituent powers set on one side. For that reason, we move the Amendment.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 177; Noes, 26.

    Division No. 123.]

    AYES.

    [8.30 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel

    Boulton, W. W.

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Albery, Irving James

    Bower, Commander Robert Tatton

    Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

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

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Christie, James Archibald

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

    Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Apsley, Lord

    Bracken, Brendan

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Baldwin-Webb. Colonel J.

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Cooke, Douglas

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

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

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Browne, Captain A. C.

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Belt, Sir Alfred L.

    Butler, Richard Austen

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

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

    Bernays, Robert

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Davison, Sir William Henry

    Bird, Sir Robert B.(Wolverh'pton W.)

    Carver, Major William H.

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Duggan, Hubert John

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

    Loder, Captin J. de Vers

    Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Rickards, George William

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Lumtey, Captain Lawrence R.

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Entwistle, Cyril Fuilard

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

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

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

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

    Salt, Edward W.

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

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

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Savery, Samuel Servington

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

    Shaw, Helen a. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Magnay, Thomas

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Glossop, C. W. H

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Somervell, Sir Donald

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

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

    Somcrville. D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Quest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.

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

    Sotheron Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Melier, Sir Richard James

    Spens, William Patrick

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

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

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Molson, A. Hugh Elidale

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

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Steel-Maltland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Stevenson, James

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

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

    Stones, James

    Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

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

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Morrison, William Shepherd

    Thomas, James P. L. (Herelord)

    Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

    Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

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

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    Hornby, Frank

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Horsbrugh, Florence

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

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

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

    Peat, Charles U.

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

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

    Penny, Sir George

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Jamieson, Douglas

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Powell, Lieut. Col. Evelyn G. H.

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Wells, Sydney Richard

    Kirkpatrick, William M.

    Radford, E. A.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

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

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Wamersley, Sir Walter

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

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

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Lees-Jones, John

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Lewis, Oswald

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Reld, William Allan (Derby)

    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward

    and Major George Davies.

    NOES.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

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

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Thorne, William James

    Buchanan, George

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    John, William

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Daggar, George

    Leonard, William

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lunn, William

    Wilmot, John

    Dobbie, William

    Macdonald. Gordon (Ince)

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Paling, Wilfred

    Mr. D. Graham and Mr. Groves.

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Parkinson. John Allen

    Bill read the Third time, and passed.

    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 111.—(Provisions as to British subjects domiciled in the United Kingdom.)
    8.37 p.m.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in page 67, line 24, leave out "domiciled in the United Kingdom."
    This is a most interesting Clause, and mine is a most interesting Amendment. I think the Clause is almost unique. It is to prevent discrimination in India against British subjects domiciled in the United Kingdom. They may not be specially selected for taxation or put out of office because they talk English; they
    2012
    may not be prevented from entering the country or residing in it simply because they are British citizens. That, of course, is quite a proper Clause, which we should all support, but the really interesting thing about it is the proviso. The proviso states that they shall not be discriminated against in any way so long as Indian subjects of His Majesty are, by and under the law of the United Kingdom, not subject to a similar restriction. It is a double-sided right; as long as we treat Indians on fair lines here they will not treat Englishmen on unfair lines in India. In the first place this sort of Clause pleases the Indian people. It is equality of status, and there is everything to be said for it from

    2013
    that point of view; but the Amendment carries this excellent new principle a stage further. I want to secure this right for all British subjects in India, even though they are not domiciled in this country but come from South Africa or Australia, provided the same reciprocity Clause is present in their legislation.
    As the Clause stands the Indian law can, as I understand it, discriminate against a South African or against an Australian. As we know, Indians in South Africa are discriminated against at the present time. It would tend to put an end to the discrimination against Indians in South Africa if we altered the Clause as I suggest and extended to British subjects in the Dominions the same rights, under the same proviso, as are extended to British subjects domiciled in this country. Hon. Members ought to realise the extraordinary strength of feeling on this subject in India. The whole basis of equality of status, the whole question of race, caste and of what Gandhi calls, "The change of heart" is brought to a focus where we get, as in South Africa, this penalising discrimination against British-Indian subjects as differentiated from ordinary British subjects. On this subject they feel deeply, and even our champion reactionary Assembly, given the power, as they are under this Measure, will almost certainly be compelled to discriminate against South African produce, and possibly against South African nationals, by the pressure of public opinion in India demanding equal treatment for British Indians in all parts of the British Empire.
    The Clause is almost an invitation to such discrimination. We do not want that discrimination to start by the act of the Indian Government. It would be much better if it started by the act of the South African Government in doing away with these discriminations, so as to avoid the necessary penalty of having discriminations imposed. Do I make myself clear to the Committee? The Clause as it stands is admirable. We have no discriminations here against Indians. They have every right under the law that we have. In some of the Dominions they have not. Let that state of affairs be swept away by giving to the Indian subjects in the Dominions the same right as, under this law, we shall possess in their country. I hope that the Government will
    2014
    find it possible to accept some form of words to meet this point, even if not these particular words. The important thing is that Indians themselves should realise that under this Clause they at last have an acceptance by this country of the fact that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and that as they treat us we will treat them, and that as they treat South Africans, so South Africans may treat them.
    8.43 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Nobody can object to the proposal of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman so far as its substance is concerned. He recognises that the Clause is a good one and would like, from his point of view, to make it a better one still, but on this occasion, I am afraid, his admirable instincts would be defeated by the adoption of his proposal. The effect of including his Amendment would be that we in this Parliament would be undertaking the task of legislating in a matter which affects the Dominions. That does not seem to me to be quite right, and I should think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman himself would demur to any suggestion that at this time of day the Imperial Parliament is to undertake the task of legislating even for the good of His Majesty's subjects domiciled in any of the Dominions. That is to look at the matter from the point of view of the Dominions. We may look at the matter with the same result from the point of view of India. So far as the relations of the United Kingdom and India are concerned, they are of so special a, character as to permit this Parliament, of course, to embody in the Bill for the future government of India a proposal which will ensure reciprocity in respect of discrimination or freedom from discrimination. When it comes to a proposal to impose upon India such reciprocity as is desirable, not only between the United Kingdom and India, but between India and the Dominions, one would not be surprised to find India taking objection, not because they do not desire freedom from discrimination by their fellow subjects in the Dominions, but because they would prefer to be free to negotiate and to arrange for themselves rather than to have an arrangement imposed upon them by the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

    2015
    It is not because we do not share the desire of the right hon. Gentleman that there shall be no discrimination in India, or elsewhere if possible, between any of His Majesty's subjects, but because we feel that the more proper and regular way to deal with the matter is to leave India to make arrangements, that we hope and trust that so far as relations between India and the Dominions are concerned, they will be regulated by the action of the two parties in the Empire more immediately concerned. Therefore, we feel unable to accept the right hon. Gentleman's proposal.
    8.47 p.m.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: The question of discrimination on the part of India against other parts of the Dominions was discussed on an earlier Amendment which proposed to take away from the Indians under the new Constitution the power of discrimination against other parts of the British Empire. It was then thought that this House ought not to impose a restriction of that kind. I thought that that issue was settled in the Debate that took place at that time.
    Major HILLS: That was in regard to tariff restrictions.
    Mr. FOOT: Yes, I know, and that is where discrimination is apt to be generally exercised. The right hon. Gentleman who has moved this Amendment has touched upon a subject which is of capital importance in India. The treatment of the Indian abroad is one of the main causes of the demand for status in India. I believe that that is not merely a sentimental demand on the part of the Indian people. They believe that that status can secure better conditions for their nationals abroad. When, some time ago, a distinguished Indian went to America, he was received with the distinction which was due to his position as a leading teacher, and then he passed into some part of Canada and had to undergo restriction and control which were not applied in America itself. The resentment that was felt in India was very strong.
    The best way in which we can secure the Wiping out of unfair treatment of Indians in other parts of the Dominions will be to give power to the Indian Government to make their own negotiations.
    2016
    I believe that probably their tariff policy and their policy in relation to other parts of the British Dominions will very largely be determined by the manner in which their nationals are dealt with in other parts of the Dominions. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has called attention to it, but I believe that the settlement can better be brought about by the Indians themselves and not by any attempt on our part to ensure it. I am in full sympathy with the spirit which prompted this Amendment, but I hope that we shall not keep it in our hands to remedy this evil, but shall see that as far as possible the remedy is secured by giving the Indians power to make their own negotiations, which will be based upon their desire, not merely to extend their trade, but to secure for those who leave their shores treatment that is consistent with people like the Indians, who have a high history and a great tradition.
    8.51 p.m.
    Mr. McENTEE: I would like to ask whether the Indians in fact have the power to negotiate with South Africa or any other Dominion. The effect of the Amendment would be that there would be no discrimination between Britishers domiciled in this country and the Indians. I take it that that is what the Amendment means.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Perhaps I might say that the Clause itself establishes reciprocity. The Amendment is intended to extend that to the Dominions as well, under similar conditions.
    Mr. McENTEE: To extend it particularly to South Africa, which has been mentioned. The Attorney-General said that he thought it would be much better if the negotiations for the extension which is asked for were left to the Indians themselves and the South Africans or any other Government. Is it possible, if the Bill be carried out in its present form, for such negotiation to take place with any hope of success? I am satisfied that the Clause is a good one, but I am wondering whether, if the Clause remains as it is and negotiations were carried on some time in the future between India and South Africa, when the negotiations have been concluded and the parties desire to give effect to this Clause, it will be possible to do so without amending the Bill, if the Bill becomes an Act in its present form.
    8.53 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think I understand what the hon. Gentleman's doubt is, but may I put it in this way: If the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment were accepted, it would still be necessary for the Dominions and India to arrange for the reciprocity for which the Clause, if amended, would provide. The acceptance of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's Amendment would not create the state of reciprocity but would merely provide that there should not be discrimination against Dominion subjects, always provided that the Dominions made reciprocity to Indian subjects. It would still be necessary to arrange that the state of reciprocity should come into existence. By accepting the Amendment we do not take the effective step of bringing about that state of reciprocity. We think, therefore, that it would be better, inasmuch as India has to negotiate or to make proper arrangements with the Dominion concerned, that we should not try, so to speak, to do half the work for them, as it does not concern us but concerns India and the Dominions. That is the reason for which the Government think that it is better not to accept the Amendment; it is not because we have no desire that reciprocity should not exist, but because we think that it would be more conducive to a suitable arrangement if India had the whole of the responsibility for negotiating this much desired reciprocity.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is clear that, if the Bill goes through unamended in this respect, India will be able to bargain with the Dominions. I, therefore, beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    8.55 p.m.
    Mr. MOLSON: I beg to move, in page 67, line 31, after "residence," to insert:
    "or any other matter calculated to afford a ground for discrimination against British subjects domiciled in the United Kingdom."
    This is little more than a drafting Amendment. The purpose of Clause 111 is to give effect to what was generally agreed at the first Round Table Conference, namely, that there should be no discrimination as between Indian and European British subjects. Since the Clause is drafted in order to enumerate more or less exhaustively the grounds
    2018
    upon which there is to be no discrimination as between Europeans and Indians, there is, of course, a great danger that, if some other ground of discrimination which was not expressly forbidden in this Clause were discovered, and if discrimination of that kind were attempted, it would then be held that that kind of discrimination was not forbidden.
    I would like to draw the attention of the Attorney-General to an example of that kind of thing which occurred in connection with the reservation of coastal traffic to Indian vessels, as showing how extremely important it is in this Clause and in the next three Clauses to make certain that there are no omissions. In Section 736 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, it was provided that the Act or Ordinance of a Colony should treat all British ships, and ships of any other British possession, in exactly the same manner as the ships of the British possession in which it was made. In spite, however, of the very clearly expressed intention of the Imperial Parliament that no Colonial Legislature should have power to give preference to ships of that particular British possession, it was possible to introduce into the Indian Legislature a Measure reserving the coastal traffic of India to Indian vessels, and, in the opinion of the then Law Officers of the Crown, that did not come within the Section I have quoted.
    Therefore, I hope that, in order that this Clause may be quite exhaustive and comprehensive, the Government will be willing to accept these additional words, so as to include some other ground of discrimination which perhaps it is not now possible to foresee. I would only add that to-day I handed in a Clause to enable the application of all the Clauses in this Chapter to be suspended by Order in Council, with the approval of both Houses of Parliament, if some unforeseen difficulty arises, and, in view of that, I hope the Government will be prepared to accept this Amendment.
    8.59 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If he Committee will look at Sub-section (1, b) of the Clause, in which it is proposed to insert these words, they will see that the sort of discrimination from which a British subject is to be exempt is that which is imposed by reference to certain definite

    2019
    matters which are likely to be grounds of discrimination against a British subject—birth, race, descent, language, religion, domicile, residence, or duration of residence. That is a fairly wide category of grounds of discrimination, which would appear to exhaust the grounds upon which a British subject might be made the subject of discrimination. My hon. Friend wants to add some words which, I am bound to say, I find some difficulty in fully understanding. He wants to add to these specific matters a general phrase:
    "or any other matter calculated to afford a ground for discrimination against British subjects domiciled in the United Kingdom."
    When it is realised that the Clause is to provide for the exemption of a British subject from discrimination of a particular character, I think everybody will see at once what a great advantage there is in defining the character of the discrimination from which the particular person or class of persons is to be exempted. It is not a question of making discriminatory legislation void, or anything of that sort; it is a question whether a British subject, or a class of British subjects, shall be exempt from discrimination legally imposed upon other people, possibly, but a discrimination, as the Clause says, imposed by reference to birth and so on. If my hon. Friend's Amendment were accepted, there would be very great difficulty in knowing whether the discrimination in question was a discrimination from which a British subject was exempt. One would have to try to consider whether a discrimination was imposed by reference to a
    "matter calculated to afford a ground for discrimination against British subjects domiciled in the United Kingdom."
    I would like to ask my hon. Friend what is a matter calculated to afford a ground for discrimination? I have turned these words over and over in my mind to try and see what comes within them which is not a discrimination imposed by reference to birth, race, descent, language, residence, domicile, or religion, and I am bound to say I cannot think of any ground which comes within these general words of my hon. Friend and which does not come within the special words contained in the Clause as it stands. For the reason that, first of all, it is very desirable, having regard to the nature of
    2020
    the proposal, to be quite specific, so that everyone may know whether a man is subject to or exempt from the discrimination and also because the words in themselves are, in my humble submission to the Committee, very difficult to interpret, I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment. I do not believe that it would really add any protection to a British subject; I think he will get all the protection he can possibly need by the very wide enumeration of special grounds upon which discrimination may be said to be imposed. For that reason I do not think the Amendment is quite so important as it might be thought to be, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be satisfied with the words which are to be found in the Clause.
    Mr. HANNON: Would the Attorney-General make clear to the Committee how the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson) stands as regards discrimination in the case of shipping? Could an Indian Government, under the new Constitution, discriminate against British shipping in favour of the shipping of another nation? Is there any provision in this Bill to prevent discrimination of that kind? That I think, is the point which my hon. Friend desired to make.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My hon. Friend's point would more properly be raised on a later Clause, which deals with the reciprocal treatment of ships. This Clause deals with the freedom from discrimination of individuals, and not of ships or companies.
    9.5 p.m.
    Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: I was not surprised, and in fact I expected that my right hon. and learned Friend would take the line in reply to this Amendment, that the words in the Bill are so comprehensive that there is really nothing more that you could add, and that they embrace every discrimination of which one could think. I can understand that argument, and I sympathise with it to some extent, but my right hon. and learned Friend put forward two contradictory reasons. Having said that with which I had great sympathy, he said that it was desirable to differentiate clearly between the restrictions to which a British subject shall be liable and to which he should not be liable. The whole point of the Amendment of

    2021
    my hon. Friend, and certainly the point which I have always understood, perhaps wrongly, as underlying the whole principle of the Bill, is that a British subject should not be liable to any discrimination whatsoever. There is no reason why a British Subject should be liable to discrimination, and if that be so, I cannot see any particular objection to the proposed words, although I can understand the argument that one cannot think of any other reason for discrimination not covered by the words of the Bill. That I can understand. But if I am right, and I hope that the Committee hold the same view as I do, that there should be no discrimination against a British subject, then I cannot see any objection to the words, because there might be some circumstances in future years which might provide a ground for discrimination which no one can think of to-day. I cannot see any objection to the Amendment from that point of view.
    9.7 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Perhaps I may deal with the point which my hon. Friend has mentioned. I think that there is a little confusion. It may have been partly due to the way I expressed myself, but it is quite true that the intention is that a British subject, by virtue of his being a British subject, shall not be exposed to any discrimination. You get that freedom from discrimination in respect of his being a British subject by referring to all these matters which are characteristics of, or connected with, his status as a British subject. Place of birth, race, descent, language, religion, and other circumstances enumerated, are, I suggest to my hon. Friend, everything which touches his status as a British subject upon which it may be sought to impose discrimination against him.
    Sir J. WARD LAW-MILNE: Everything that we can think of.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Yes, everything that we can think of, and if I were satisfied that the Amendment of my hon. Friend really added anything to those conditions which we have thought of I should be very glad indeed to accept it, but I am very much afraid of adding words which are so cloudy as, at any rate, to convey very little meaning, if any, to my mind, in the absence
    2022
    of a precise explanation of what they do mean. When you add general words of this character, they are very apt to confuse the point that may arise. I do not want it to be supposed for a moment that we are intending that a British subject is to be made the subject of discrimination in relation to his status as a British subject, except, of course, in the sense that persons may be discriminated against as, shall I say, the surtax payers in this country are discriminated against with regard to legislation, but it is not to be by reference to their birth, or descent, or anything connected with their position arising from being a British subject.
    9.10 p.m.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: The Clause deals with the subject of discrimination which has aroused a great deal of interest in India as well as here. When the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) supported the Amendment he himself could hardly suggest any other words than those specifically mentioned in the Bill as it stands.
    Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: I cannot suggest any at all.
    Mr. FOOT: It occurs to me that inasmuch as we know how sensitive Indian opinion is on this matter they would, if these words were added to the Bill, impute to these words a meaning which probably they would not bear. I think that they would be inclined, after all the expressions of feeling there has been in India upon the discrimination Clauses, to say that we were endeavouring to widen the Clauses upon which they have directed so much criticism. I am anxious, at any rate, that we shall have regard to Indian feeling and sentiment on this matter, and that we shall not enlarge the field of discrimination as the proposed words would suggest If there were something tangible in what has been proposed in the Amendment and some grievance against which we ought to make a real safeguard, we might pass these additional words. I hope that we shall be extremely careful in adopting any Amendment that would add to the criticism and the resentment that has already been expressed in India about the discrimination Clauses. For that reason, I hope that the Government will

    2023
    not be able to accept the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member, although we are all, I think, agreed in this Committee that we want to avoid discrimination, but I hope that while we are entering upon this territory we shall have regard to what has been said in India in recent months.
    Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: I really do not think that the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) made himself sufficiently clear. I do not think that the actual words used will have any effect on Indian feeling whatever. The whole question would not have arisen if we had used very much simpler language and had said that there should be no restriction of any sort or kind whatever. It is merely because the Government have used words which cover everything one might think of at the present time as a reason for discrimination, but which, after all, may not cover something which may arise in the future, that we propose to add these words. It is not very important one way or the other, and I really do not think that it is a matter which affects India one way or the other.
    Amendment negatived.
    9.13 p.m.
    Mr. MOLSON: I beg to move, in page 67, line 31, after "any," insert "disability."
    This is merely a drafting Amendment. After what the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) has said, perhaps I might mention that I understand that the purpose of the Clause is to be wholly comprehensive, and the only purpose of this, as of the last Amendment, is to make it certain that there are no loopholes in the Clause.
    Mr. BUTLER: We are prepared to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, in page 67, line 32, after "residence," insert: "the acquisition holding, or disposal of property."
    This and the following Amendment are drafting Amendments. The words "holding of property" contained in paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of this Clause might probably prove insufficiently wide to cover discrimination which might be taken in relation to property.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 67, line 33, leave out "property or."—[Mr. Butler.]
    In line 37, leave out "claim."
    In line 38, leave out "or."
    In line 38, after "liability," insert "or disability."—[Mr. Molson.]
    In line 39, leave out "Indian subjects of His Majesty," and insert "British subjects."—[Sir S. Hoare.]
    In page 68, line 2, leave out "or."
    In line 2, after "liability," insert "or disability."—[Mr. Molson.]
    Mr. McENTEE: I beg to move, in page 68, line 12, to leave out Sub-section (3).
    I am moving this formally.
    Mr. BUTLER: As we have had no indication from the hon. Member why he desires to omit this Sub-section it is rather difficult to attempt to interpret the reasons why the Amendment has been moved.
    9.18 p.m.
    Mr. ATTLEE: The Sub-section deals with the entry into India of individuals and the restrictions which may be placed upon them. In this Sub-section the Governor-General or the Governor of any Province if there is any grave menace to the peace of India may prevent persons, British subjects domiciled in the United Kingdom, from entering India. That is a very dangerous power to give; and we have had instances in which it has been abused. I am suspicious of this kind of proposal, which on the continent is called "a suspension of the constitutional guarantee." It is too big a power to put into the hands of the Governor-General, and we should like to hear from the Under-Secretary the kind of persons aimed at by this proposal.
    9.19 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLER: The Sub-section enables the Governor-General or the Governor of any Province to disregard the anti-discriminatory proposals which we have just been discussing. It may be desirable in the case of Europeans themselves that this power should be vested in the Governor-General and the Governors, because it may be necessary for the Governor-General actually to discriminate against Europeans in their own interests. We wish the Governor-General to have

    2025
    these exceptional powers in order to act as the friend of those people whom we are trying to protect in certain cases of emergency. If the Sub-section is left out it might be impossible to take the steps necessary in their own interests. In view of the importance of preserving some such power as this in cases of emergency I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    9.21 p.m.
    Mr. BAILEY: There is one matter I should like to raise on this Clause which has not yet been covered by any of the Amendments. Sub-section (2) says:
    "For the purposes of the preceding Sub-section, a provision, whether of the law of British India or of the law of the United Kingdom, empowering any public authority to impose quarantine regulations, or to exclude or deport individuals, wherever domiciled, who appear to that authority to be undesirable persons, shall not be deemed to be a restriction on the right of entry."
    I suggest to the Attorney-General that the Sub-section needs some recasting. I am loth to criticise it because, as I was reminded some time ago, it is the work of four or five years of some of our finest minds, and one does not like, therefore, in any way to criticise it unnecessarily. We shall all agree, however, that it is quite proper to deal with the type of person whom it is desired to deal with by this provision, but the Sub-section in the hands of an unscrupulous authority could be used to defeat the whole purpose of the Clause. There must be hundreds of authorities in India who will have this power, any one of whom might use it to get their own back on their political opponents. We cannot supervise all the authorities in India. They may desire to deport an individual as undesirable because he does not share their political views or because he has opposed this Bill. I do not say that they will go as far as that, but when we are taking all the trouble we are to prevent discrimination to leave a Clause which may be used, and could very easily be used, for the purpose of discrimination is a mistake. We have also to remember that there may be authorities who would not desire to
    2026
    work the Bill in a spirit of co-operation but to use any provisions they can to hurt their political opponents. What is the use of putting in safeguards if we are to leave a loophole like this which can be used for purposes which we never intended. I should be very grateful therefore if the Attorney-General can give us an assurance that the Government will consider recasting this particular Sub-section in a more detailed and precise form.
    9.23 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The observations of the hon. Member compelled me to say a word. He suggests that the Sub-section requires recasting. All I can say is that the hon. Member might perhaps have taken the opportunity of suggesting a new form of recasting.
    Mr. BAILEY: I thought it better to leave that to the wisdom of those who have been considering it for three or four years, but since the Attorney-General addresses that invitation to me I would suggest a form of recasting which would provide that the Governor-General could at any time revise any single one of the decisions by these authorities; and that there should always be a right of appeal to the court on the part of the individual.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: That is not a recasting of this Sub-section; it is a new proposal. If the hon. Member would study the Bill a little closer he would find that there are Clauses in the Bill which impose on the Governor-General exactly the duty which he suggests. He has to take care, under his special responsibilities, of seeing that in the sphere of executive action the purposes of Chapter III, Part V, are secured. That is a special responsibility of the Governor-General. It is in effect precisely the proposal which my hon. Friend now makes, in answer to my challenge, as his idea of how things could be improved. He has twice twitted me with having told the Committee that a particular proposal was the work of men who have been examining the matter for four or five years. I cannot have put upon me a suggestion of that sort, that I take objection to any criticism because I say other people have considered it. I made that observation

    2027
    solely in relation to a particular demand by my hon. Friend, that he was raising a particular criticism of one Clause for the first time. I took leave to remind him that he was not raising it for the first time, but that it had been considered for four or five years by other people. He must not suggest that I put it forward as a reason for not listening to fair criticism of the language of the Clause.

    CLAUSE 112.—(Provisions as to taxation.)
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 68, line 30, to leave out "against Burman subjects of His Majesty domiciled in," and to insert:
    "Burma or companies incorporated, whether before or after the passing of this Act, by or under the laws of the United Kingdom or."
    There is also on the Order Paper another Amendment in page 68, line 33, at the end to add:
    "(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, a law shall be deemed to be such as to discriminate against such persons or companies as aforesaid if it would result in any of them being liable to greater taxation than that to which they would be liable if domiciled in British India or incorporated by or under the laws of British India, as the case may be.
    (3) For the purpose of this section a company incorporated before the commencement of Part III of this Act under any existing Indian law and registered thereunder in Burma shall be deemed to be a company incorporated by or under the laws of Burma."
    If I may I will deal with these Amendments at the same time. They are intended to bring within the range of this legislation against discrimination not merely individual subjects domiciled in the United Kingdom or Burma, but also companies incorporated in the United Kingdom or Burma. I should think that once any Member of the Committee is of opinion that there should be legislation against discrimination, he will agree with the Government in thinking that the provisions against discrimination should apply not merely to individuals but to companies. If that is so, it is not necessary for me to say anything further about these provisions. If there is any question about the form in which they
    2028
    are drafted, I will deal with the drafting points.
    9.28 p.m.
    Mr. ATTLEE: I should like to ask whether, in these Amendments, any alteration is made in the present position, or whether it will continue to be the case that the term British subjects domiciled in the United Kingdom will include, as I understand it now does, Burman subjects of His Majesty? I should like to ask also whether this phrase includes either the rulers or the subjects of the Federated Shan States? I have had recently in another connection a case which I have brought to the notice of the Secretary of State of what I consider to be a very bad piece of discrimination against the Shan States by certain interests in India. I want to be certain that the protection here extends to the Shan States. The difficulty has arisen that in India certain interests have declared for one purpose to the Shan States, "You are not included at all because you are in British India." But when the Shan States have replied to that, they have been told that they are in British India. There seems to be some doubt what is the exact position, and I should like to be assured that the position of the Shan States, and of subjects whom we should be careful to see are not damnified in any way, is covered.
    9.31 p.m.
    Mr. MOLSON: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that this very important Amendment was put on the Order Paper only last Friday, and that there has been extremely little time for my friends and myself to examine, in consultation with others, exactly what the effects of this Amendment would be. At first sight it seems clear that there are some minor omissions in drafting, and also that it does not cover everything for which we feel bound to ask. It is apparently the purpose of this Clause to safeguard Europeans who are trading, or have been trading, in India against any kind of discriminatory taxation, just as in a previous Clause it was intended to protect them against other kinds of discrimination. Of the Europeans that this Clause contemplates, there are those who are ordinarily resident in India, and those who are not. So far as those residents in India are concerned, there is only one ground of discrimination, which

    2029
    is ruled out by the second paragraph of this Clause, that is, discrimination based on the ground of domicile. As my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out in the case of Clause 111, the draftsman of the Bill enumerated as exhaustively as he could all the possible grounds of discrimination. There will be nothing in this Clause, even as amended, to prevent discriminatory taxation being levied in India, provided it is based on some other ground than domicile.
    I would suggest to my right hon. and learned Friend that if a special and discriminatory tax were levied on those born in the United Kingdom, that would not be prohibited by this Clause because, although 99 out of 100 of those born in the United Kingdom would be domiciled there, it would not be taking domicile as the ground of discrimination. That is perhaps, a matter of draftsmanship, and I hope that before the Report stage I shall be able to have some Amendments drafted, and I feel confident it would be the intention of the Government to accept any Amendment which would prevent discrimination by taxation. But coming now to my second point, I cannot think it is entirely a drafting error that there is no provision in this Clause to prevent the penal taxation of non-residents. I am fully aware that in one or two of the Dominions there have been what have been called absentee taxes.
    The CHAIRMAN: That may arise on the Question that the Clause stand part of the Bill, but not on this Amendment.
    Mr. MOLSON: Very well. That is an important point, and it is something which has been omitted from the Amendment. However, having dealt with what I think is an unintentional omission I will, if I may, deal further with the matter of the intentional omission on the Question: "That the Clause stand part."
    9.36 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The answer to the hon. Member opposite about the Shan States is that they are included. With regard to the other question as to the substitution of the expression set forth in the Amendment for the expression "Burman subjects," I am not sure whether he was here earlier in the evening when I explained that the term "Burman subjects" is not a very satisfactory one from the point of view of
    2030
    draftsmanship, because it is very difficult to know what degree of racial descent will make a person a Burman subject or an Indian subject. Therefore, the course that we propose to adopt is to use the expression "a British subject domiciled in India" or "a British subject domiciled in Burma" as the case may be. The phrase "Burman subjects" disappears.
    9.37 p.m.
    Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: May I ask how the Attorney-General proposes to deal with the matter as it stands? Is he going to answer the questions that have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson) on the Question "That the Clause stand part"?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I understood that the hon. Member was going to make some observations on the Question "That the Clause stand part." I will hear what he has to say and then say something in reply.
    Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: I do not wish to interfere with that arrangement, except to say that we are going to pass the Amendment as it stands, and if the Amendment, as he suggests is not complete then we ought to know the Attorney-General's views at this stage before we pass the Amendment. Surely it is better to deal with it now whilst we have the Amendment before us than to deal with it on the Question: "That the Clause stand part."
    9.38 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The Committee are in this difficulty, and so are we, that I understand my hon. Friend accepts the Amendment as far as it goes. He says that an Amendment of this sort or of some sort ought to deal with the specific question as to the right to discriminate, for instance, by taxation against non-resident British subjects, and that he would like to see the Clause amended to that effect. I understood him to say that he would take the opportunity between now and the Report stage to draft words in order to improve the Amendment that I have moved. If that be so, I think it would be better to reserve my observations until those specific Amendments to the present Amendment are proposed.
    Mr. MOLSON: It is very important that we should know on the Committee

    2031
    stage what is the intention of the Government. It is very important that we should know as a matter of policy whether it is or is not their intention to make it impossible for an Indian legislature to impose penal and discriminatory taxation upon non-residents. Obviously, the line upon which our drafting will go will depend upon the intentions of the Government.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I can only say at this stage that I see very great difficulties in framing a Clause which is going to secure my hon. Friends object. As he pointed out, some of our Dominions at the present time, for instance, Australia, enjoy the right, and use the right, to pass what may be called discriminatory legislation against nonresidents. It is a form of taxation for which there is something to be said from the point of view of the Dominion or the Government imposing such taxation. If it is to be said that in relation to India this matter is to be viewed in a different light, then I am bound to say that I should like to see precisely the nature of the Amendment that is proposed. Certain attention has been given to this question, but I see a difficulty in framing words which would effect the object desired and yet at the same time would not go beyond what is desired and would not interfere with what I suppose every one will agree ought to be the rights of the Indian Legislatures.
    That is why I am in a little difficulty in making any final or full observations upon the matter. I do not want to close my mind or to shut the door to any proposal, but on the other hand I do not want to say anything that would imply a promise to accept the Amendment that my hon. Friend may put down. All that I can say is that the matter has engaged the attention of the Government and that I very much doubt whether it is possible to frame satisfactory words. It may be that my hon. Friend, with the assistance that he has, will be able to frame satisfactory words which will not create mischief which the Government would like to avoid. If the position arises on the Report stage, perhaps we shall be able to deal with it on behalf of the Government.
    9.42 p.m.
    Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: I am very grateful to the Attorney-General for what he has said. Probably he is sympathetic to the idea which underlies the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Don-caster (Mr. Molson) and it may be possible with his assistance to get some words which will effect what is wanted. The mere fact that the Government are sympathetic to the object that my hon. Friend has in view is all that we can hope to get to-night. It is extremely difficult to get at the exact words required. I am satisfied to leave the matter as it is provided that we get Government assistance in drafting the necessary Amendments.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 68, line 33, at the end, add:
    "(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, a law shall be deemed to be such as to discriminate against such persons or companies as aforesaid if it would result in any of them being liable to greater taxation than that to which they would be liable if domiciled in British India or incorporated by or under the laws of British India, as the case may be.
    (3) For the purposes of this section a company incorporated before the commencement of Part III of this Act under any existing Indian law and registered there-under in Burma shall be deemed to be a company incorporated by or under the laws of Burma."—[Sir S. Hoare.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 113.—(Companies incorporated in the United Kingdom.)
    Mr. MOLSON: I beg to move, in page 68, line 38, after "shareholders," to insert:
    "holders of debentures, debenture stocks, or bonds."
    This Amendment is, in effect, only a drafting Amendment. The purpose of the Clause is to give protection to companies incorporated in the United Kingdom and to their shareholders, officers and so on. There seems to be no clear reason why the same protection should not be given to bond holders, debenture holders and debenture stock holders. As the Amendment is merely for the purpose of completing the protection, I hope the Government will be able to accept it.
    Mr. BUTLER: In view of the explanation of my hon. Friend, we shall be glad to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    9.45 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 68, line 41, to leave out "trading," and to insert "carrying on business."
    This is only a drafting Amendment, A doubt was felt as to whether the words "trading in British India" would cover shipping companies concerned solely in running their ships from the United Kingdom to India. The words "carrying on business" will be fairer as applying to that class of traffic.
    Amendment agreed to.
    9.46 p.m.
    Sir CHRISTOPHER CLAYTON: I beg to move, in page 68, line 41, after "India," to insert "restrictions."
    While the provisions of the Clause would save United Kingdom companies in respect of "requirements or conditions" prescribed, it would not seem that they would be safeguarded against a restriction of their right to trade in common with Indian companies and to enter India for that purpose. There have been a good many Amendments accepted dealing with the position of companies trading in India. It is rather difficult to be certain how the companies now stand in respect of trading facilities, but I feel that it is necessary that we should have this protection against restrictions. The question of restrictions has been introduced into previous Clauses and I hope that the Government will accept this Amendment.
    9.47 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: In spite of what my hon. Friend has said I suggest that this is not a good Amendment, and I will tell him why. Where you use wide words it is very undesirable to put in a word which has a narrower scope. "Requirements or conditions" are very wide words. It is very difficult to think of a wider word than "conditions," but when you add "requirements" to it, it is very difficult to see what would not probably be described as requirements or conditions. Restriction is only a particular example of requirement or condition, and as you have the widest words in the Clause it would be a great pity, from the drafting point of view, to put in words which are merely one illustration of the wide words which have already been used.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. MOLSON: I beg to move, in page 68, line 44, after "company," to insert:
    "or the situation of its registered office, or the amount of its share or loan capital, or the currency in which such capital is expressed."
    Again, I claim that this is only a drafting Amendment. The purpose of the Clause is to prevent any discrimination against companies incorporated in this country, and it is very important that every possible contingency should be foreseen. The Clause as drafted deals only with the place of incorporation of a company. If a company is incorporated in the United Kingdom, to satisfy the requirements of the Companies Act, it would have to have its capital expressed in sterling. It might be that Indian legislation would lay down certain disabilities upon any company which did not have its currency expressed in rupees. In that way there would be discrimination against companies incorporated in the United Kingdom, but in such a form as would in fact prevent any such company from taking advantage of this Clause.
    9.51 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: My hon. Friend has restricted his argument to the last provision in his Amendment, which deals with currency. The Amendment as a whole proposes to exempt British companies from any legislation as to the amount of share or loan capital. There might be perfectly proper legislation with regard to insurance companies or banking companies, laying down certain requirements in that matter, and it would not be within the desire of the Committee that there should be any exemption so far as that is concerned. What the Clause does is to exempt British companies from any legislation dealing with either the place of incorporation of the company or, subject to paragraph (b), a requirement that their directors or a proportion of them shall be Indians. These are matters which it is intended to cover. We certainly take the view that to deal with the amount of a company's shareholding or loan capital and also the situation of its registered office would be going too far. The situation of its registered office might be a very important matter for the purpose of serving process for legal proceedings. The narrow point which my hon. Friend raised with regard to currency I will undertake to look into,

    2035
    because I think it would not be within our intentions that a mere question as to the currency in which the loan capital was expressed should be available as a means of discrimination. I cannot give any undertaking that that part of the Amendment will be accepted, but I will undertake that it will be looked into. With regard to the other matters raised in the Amendment, we think that they would be going too far and beyond the intention of the Clause.
    9.53 p.m.
    Mr. MOLSON: I am much obliged to the learned Solicitor-General for, in effect, accepting what I regard as a very important part of the Amendment relating to currency. I can quite understand that there might be cases in which certain restrictions with regard to the amount of capital and the registered office would be fair and reasonable. I can equally imagine that it might be possible to use the power of laying down restrictions of that kind in a way which would be very definitely discriminatory. I can imagine, for example, that in order to assist smaller Indian companies restrictions might be imposed upon companies with larger capital, or benefits given to companies with smaller capital. While recognising what my hon. and learned Friend has said as to the wording of the Amendment not being satisfactory, I hope he will bear in mind, while avoiding the danger that my Amendment has run into, that there is substance in each one of the points raised.
    Sir J. SANDEMAN ALLEN: I would express the hope that the Secretary of State, when he considers this Amendment, will consider not merely currency, but the other point relating to capital, which is very important. In certain instances that we know advantage might be taken of it.
    9.55 p.m.
    Sir J. WARD LAW-MILNE: I rather dislike the suggestion that there is something wrong in the wording of the Amendment and I would point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman the example which he himself has given of what might arise in relation to the words "amount of share or loan capital." He gave us as an illustration the case of insurance companies and banks. In the case of companies such as insurance companies
    2036
    and banks in this country certain conditions are laid down and there would be no objection to the same conditions in India but there is a point in regard to the amount of share or loan capital quite apart from the consideration of currency.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment made: In page 69, line 4, after "shareholders," insert:
    "or the holders of its debentures, debenture stock or bonds, or its"—[Mr. Molon.]
    9.56 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 69, line 12, at the end, to add:
    "(2) If and in so far as any total or partial exemption from taxation imposed on companies by or under any Federal or Provincial law depends on compliance with conditions as to any of the matters mentioned in paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of this Section, any company incorporated by or under the laws of the United Kingdom carrying on business in British India shall be deemed to satisfy those conditions and be entitled to the exemption accordingly, so long as the taxation imposed by or under the laws of the United Kingdom on companies incorporated by or under the laws of British India and carrying on business in the United Kingdom does not depend on compliance with conditions as to any of the matters so mentioned."
    Clauses 112, 113 and 111 all deal with the question of discrimination against companies and Clause 112 has been amended so as to exempt the company itself from differential taxation. Clause 113 is intended to protect from discrimination the shareholders or directors or the personnel connected with the company. This Amendment proposes to add a new Sub-section which will carry that intention into full effect. The new Sub-section deals with discrimination by taxation. It is solely for that purpose and not to effect any new purpose that the Secretary of State has put down this Amendment. The new Sub-section fills up a gap which was observed when the Bill as originally drafted was reconsidered.
    9.57 p.m.
    Mr. MOLSON: I wish to express my gratitude to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for having moved this Amendment and especially for having made plain the intention that there should be no discrimination in the matter of taxation. I confine myself for the present to saying that I am advised that the wording here is not entirely satisfactory and that the

    2037
    words "exemption from taxation" are particularly open to objection. If there were two different kinds of tax one of which would not fall upon certain people while another which was higher did fall upon those people, it would be difficult to argue that in fact there was an "exemption" from taxation. However as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made it plain that it is only a matter of drafting and that there is the intention to protect against any discrimination of that kind—and I hope it will also apply to the case of nonresidents—I wish to express my gratitude.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 114.—(Companies incorporated in India.)
    9.59 p.m.
    Mr. MOLSON: I beg to move, in page 69, line 18, after "Act," to insert:
    "or proposed to be incorporated after the passing of this Act."
    The Clause as drafted provides that a British subject domiciled in the United Kingdom shall be deemed to comply with so much of any Federal and Provincial law as imposes in regard to companies incorporated, whether before or after the passing of the Act, by or under the laws of British India, certain requirements or conditions. It would still be possible for Indian legislatures to prohibit the incorporation of a company unless it satisfied certain requirements such as that a majority of its shareholders or of its directors should be Indians. I think it is the intention of the Clause that no discrimination of that kind should be possible and I hope the Government will be prepared to accept the Amendment.
    10.0 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I understand that my hon. Friend is apprehensive lest there might be legislation relating to steps which have to be taken prior to incorporation by which the intention of the Clause might be defeated. He fears that legislation might discriminate in matters connected with steps which have to be taken before incorporation as a result of which you could not get incorporated and therefore the provisions of the Clause would be rendered inoperative. We are grateful to him for putting down the Amendment
    2038
    but I ask him not to press it in this form at this stage. We think he has raised a point which requires consideration and if there is any ground for his apprehension we shall certainly see that it is remedied at a later stage.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made: In page 69, line 23, after "shareholders" insert:
    "holders of debentures, debenture stock or of bonds."—[Mr. Molson.]
    In page 69, line 31, leave out "Indian subjects of His Majesty" and insert "British subjects."—[Mr. Butler.]
    10.2 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 69, line 32, at the end, to insert:
    "(2) If and in so far as, in the case of any such companies as aforesaid, any total or partial exemption from taxation imposed by or under any Federal or Provincial law depends on compliance with conditions as to any of the matters afore said then, so far as regards such members of its governing body and such of its shareholders, officers, agents, and servants as are British subjects domiciled in the United Kingdom, any such company shall be deemed to satisfy those conditions and he entitled to the exemption accordingly, so long as the taxation imposed by or under the laws of the United Kingdom on companies incorporated by or under those laws does not, as regards such of the members of a company's governing body or such of its shareholders, officers, agents, or servants, as are British subjects domiciled in British India, depend on compliance with conditions as to any of the matters aforesaid."
    This Amendment and the Amendment which follows it on the Paper are designed to do for companies incorporated in India but with British capital and British directors, precisely the same as is done by Clause 113 for companies registered in the United Kingdom but carrying on business in India. The effect is to put these two classes of companies on the same basis.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 69, line 34, leave out from "company," to "shall," in line 36, and insert:
    "incorporated before the commencement of Part III of this Act under any existing Indian law and registered thereunder in Burma."—[The Attorney-General.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 115,—(Reciprocal treatment of ships.)
    10.5 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 69, line 39, to leave out "directly or indirectly."
    This is really a drafting Amendment. These words only occur in this Clause in the Bill. It is not thought that they are necessary and, if they were left, an argument might be based on them that there was an express reference here to indirect effects, and that indirect effects were not to be taken into account in the other provisions of the Bill where these words are not actually inserted. We are satisfied that they do not add anything and that they are unnecessary; and, as there are other parts of the Bill where they do not occur, it is undesirable to leave them in one of the principal provisions.
    10.7 p.m.
    Viscount WOLMER: It is a rather strong measure to pass an Amendment of this sort without any debate at all. If Members will look at Clause 115, they will see that it reads as follows:
    "No ship registered in the United Kingdom shall be subjected directly or indirectly by or under any Federal or Provincial law to any treatment affecting either the ship herself, or her master, officers, crew, passengers or cargo, which is discriminatory in favour of ships registered in British India."
    The Government come along and ask us to leave out the words "directly or indirectly." If I understand my hon. Friend aright, the only reason he gave for doing this was that these words do not occur in any other Clause of the Bill. That, surely, is not the end of the question. The essence of this discrimination is that so much of it may be carried out indirectly; and those of us who are apprehensive as to the future of British trade in India after the passage of this Bill have attached importance to words of this sort which would enable a company or individual in the courts to contend that he was subject to discrimination that was at any rate indirect.
    We have not had an opportunity of discussing the big question of trade discrimination—I understand that opportunity will not come until we reach a new Clause—but I should like to hear from the Solicitor-General what harm will result if these words are left in. He says that they do not occur in any other
    2040
    part of the Bill. Could he indicate any Clause of any importance where they would be equally appropriate, and where their omission might lead to an unfortunate construction by the courts? Unless he can point to a Clause of this sort, I suggest that there are very good reasons for leaving these words "directly or indirectly" in the Bill. I should like to ask the Government another question: At whose suggestion is this Amendment being moved? Has my hon. Friend received any suggestion from any quarter that it was undesirable to have these words in? If so, I should very much like to know what that quarter is. I think the Committee really ought to consider the point, and not to pass this as being purely a drafting Amendment. It does not seem to me to be a drafting Amendment at all.
    10.11 p.m.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: A question of very grave concern to me is as to how these words got here. Clearly these words were put in for a definite purpose by the excellent draftsmen, and because it was intended to show that you were not going to have this kind of thing, either in a direct or indirect way. That is the meaning of the words as I understand them. Now the Government come along and say the words do not occur anywhere else in the Bill. Presuming that these words are of value and that the people who put them in were sensible people not accustomed to using words to no purpose, then what has happened? There has been an admission that they ought to be put in in other places. It is not treating the Committee with very great respect to tell us that these words do not mean very much and that we may as well cut them out lest it might lead to a difficult legal interpretation in another place. If that be the case, let us put the words in in another place, and let the Government tell us where they might be put in.
    I do think that when we are putting in these safeguards the indirect form of discrimination, which many of us fear more than anything else, should be guarded against. It is the indirect forms of pressure that we are most concerned with. This is a Clause which refers to shipping. I am not going to deal with

    2041
    an Amendment which comes later, but I would say that there is a very much more importrant matter even than shipping; and if the Government happen to have their way on this Clause you are dealing with the other point as well, where you have a very much more vital question in the future than shipping. There you have a developing and growing thing. Therefore, we want to be very careful so far as this Amendment is concerned. I would urge the Government to get us out of this difficulty by leaving the words in now and by amending the Bill, if necessary, in another place rather than taking these words out now when every one of us knows that in all probability there will never be any other occasion when we can raise this question in the House again. It is much better to leave the words in and let the Government reconsider their position. If it is absolutely essential to take the words out, we can take them out, but, if not, we should put them in in the places where they should be inserted.
    10.14 p.m.
    Sir J. SANDEMAN ALLEN: I do not remember having had the privilege of agreeing with my Noble Friend on this Bill before, but I do most strongly sup-port the point which he has just put before the Committee. This question of shipping is a very delicate and difficult one. I very much hope, therefore, the Government will reconsider the Amendment and not press it at the present moment. It does not seem to be reasonable to knock out words which, to some of us without the knowledge that others have, seem to be very important words, just because they do not occur in similar Clauses elsewhere in the Bill. This is a shipping matter, and I do not at all agree with the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) that it is unimportant compared with other things.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: It is a most important matter, I agree. What I said was that the air is growing in use and will be of very great importance in the future.
    Sir J. SANDEMAN ALLEN: Well, I do not wish to detain the Committee, but I would urge the Government not to press this Amendment to-day.
    10.16 p.m.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: I cannot quite see the point which my Noble Friend the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) has made. It seems to me that the words "directly or indirectly" are absolute verbiage in this connection and do not mean anything at all. It is difficult to see how they have got into the Clause and, as we are told, into no other corresponding Clause in the Bill, but I think my hon. and learned Friend is right in saying that the words do not help the contention they have been making and have no particular force of any kind.
    10.17 p.m.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I can assure the Noble Lord that there is no sinister black hand behind this Amendment. It is entirely a question of drafting, and our object in moving it is to prevent an argument from other parts of the Bill being used to defeat the obvious intention of my hon. Friends who have spoken and indeed of the Committee. I was asked why these words occur in the Clause and not in other similar places in the Bill. It must, of course, be obvious to the Committee that in a Bill of this size and complexity more than one hand must be engaged in making the draft and in dealing with different parts of the Bill. It is, on the other hand, most important that when the Bill reaches the Statute Book there should be uniformity of terminology in these matters. If one looks, to take one example, but there are others, at Clause 111, one sees:
    "Subject to the provisions of this chapter, a British subject domiciled in the United Kingdom shall be exempt from the operation of so much of any Federal or Provincial law as—

    (a) imposes any restriction"—

    There is a case where you might add "directly or indirectly," but, as my hon. and learned Friend who has just spoken said, those words would add nothing, and it is undesirable and bad drafting to insert unnecessary words. However carefully you may go through a Bill of this kind, if you do insert unnecessary words you are always liable to lay yourself open to the argument that because those words are found in a number of places, the obvious and proper meaning should not be given to

    2043
    words in places where they do not occur. I sympathise, of course, with the point of view which has been put forward by speakers, because their point of view is ours. They want to make these Clauses as watertight as possible and to preclude possible arguments which might be raised that some particular Clause is not to be construed as having an indirect effect. It is entirely a matter of drafting. We are satisfied that the intention of the Committee in this Clause and in the other similar Clauses is best served by omitting the words and bringing this Clause into conformity with the various other Clauses rather than taking the opposite course.
    10.21 p.m.
    Viscount WOLMER: I am not satisfied with the learned Solicitor-General's explanation. It is not merely the lawyers who read an Act of Parliament. An Act of Parliament is read by those who have to work it, and it would be very valuable to put here and in every other part of the Bill where it is necessary as an advertisement, as a sign post, that no discriminatory action should be taken against) British interests, directly or indirectly. I want that to be written up quite plainly as a warning, like "trespassers will be prosecuted," for the direct or indirect information of all concerned. I am sure that the educative effect of an Act of Parliament in that sort of matter is very real. I would like to put this point to the learned Solicitor-General. It is all very well to say, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Central Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor) said, that these words are pure verbiage. I deprecate that attack on the most excellent draftsman who drafted the Bill. If you are going to scrutinise the words of this or any other Clause with a microscope, you will find a lot more verbiage. Let me ask the Committee to look at some later words. The Clause says:
    "No ship registered in the United Kingdom shall be subjected directly or indirectly by or under any Federal or Provincial law to any treatment affecting either the ship herself, or her master, officers, crew …"
    Is not the master an officer? Are not the officers part of the crew? How can it be said that of the three words two are not
    2044
    verbiage? The words "passengers or cargo" also appear, and I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Central Nottingham would be capable of arguing that passengers were cargo if it suited him. The point of putting all these details into this Clause is to make it abundantly clear to those who are framing legislation in the Indian Legislatures that there must not be any unfair discrimination against British interests or anyone concerned with them, either directly or indirectly. If my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General can only give as a reason why these words should be left out that they do not occur in other Clauses, then I say with my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) that the obvious answer is that they should be inserted in other Clauses where they are appropriate.
    I can assure the Government that there is no matter on which commercial circles in this country are more apprehensive than indirect discrimination against British trade under these tremendous powers. If the Government persist with this Amendment, I propose to divide the Committee, but I do not desire to do so if we are given a promise that the Government will reconsider the matter between now and the Report stage. It would make a very bad impression if the Government, in order to strike out these words, should force us to divide. I believe their deletion would concede a principle which is of very great importance to British trade. We should be saying that in this Constitution Act we are not going to refer to the danger of indirect discrimination, and to that extent we should weaken those safeguards which have been put into the Bill in favour of fair play for British trade.
    10.26 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am sorry to hear my Noble Friend say that he intends to divide the Committee upon this Amendment if the Government persist in it.
    Sir H. CROFT: Why not?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I suppose I may say that I am sorry. I am sorry because my Noble Friend and the Government are indeed at one. The only thing we differ about is a question of drafting. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Central Nottingham

    2045
    (Mr. O'Connor) quite truly said, "If you subject a man to taxation indirectly, or to discrimination indirectly, you subject him to that taxation or that discrimination, and you do not really save him from it by using the word 'indirectly'." In answer to those who say that these words ought to be left out it has been said that they ought to be put in everywhere else in the Bill, as a signpost or a finger-post to show that there must be no indirect discrimination. Anyone who looks at the number of places in the Bill in which it would be necessary to insert the words "directly or indirectly" if that view prevailed, will feel that they might as well be sprinkled in with a pepper pot. We should have to scatter the words "directly or indirectly" all over the Bill, and even then it would probably be found that we had omitted them at several points where they ought to be inserted, and the argument would then be that as they had not been inserted in those particular places there was no intention to legislate against indirect discrimination at those points.
    It is always very attractive to say that lawyers constantly differ, and that while lawyers will say that an Act will mean one thing the Courts will say it means another. Lawyers are always fair game for that sort of criticism. But, after all, my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General and myself have some responsibility in this matter, and having formed definitely the opinion that it would be positively against the desire which my Noble Friend, together with the Government, entertains, if these words were left in we cannot take the responsibility of allowing them to remain; and it would clearly be misleading the Committee and my Noble Friend to suggest that we are going to reconsider the matter with a view to leaving them in permanently. My Noble Friend offers not to press the matter at this stage if we promise to reconsider it, but in view of the conclusions we have formed it would be absurd to hold out that sort of hope, because we really cannot entertain the suggestion.
    10.29 p.m.
    Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: I should really like to see these words retained, because then indirect discrimination would not be covered in any of the other
    2046
    Clauses, and I think that would be a really excellent result, as far as we on these benches are concerned.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: Are we to understand from the hon. and learned Gentleman that he really is in favour of discrimination against British trade?
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I am in favour of leaving it to the Indian Legislature to decide themselves what they want to do, just as every sovereign Power decides what it wishes to do, subject to arrangements with other countries, in the matter of putting on tariffs or not. But it is undoubtedly the fact that the words where they are in this Clause mean nothing at all. This is not a question of direct or indirect discrimination that is not what the Clause says—but a question of subjecting directly or indirectly to treatment, and the question of discrimination does not follow until a good deal later. It will have to mean, as the Noble Lord wishes, directly or indirectly discriminatory in favour of British ships. If he wishes, directly or indirectly, complete discrimination, the Clause would not read as it now reads. The question of discrimination must always be direct or indirect because the very meaning of discrimination is any difference in treatment between the two of whatever sort it may me. My submission, therefore, is that if the object aimed at is the object of the Noble Lord, these words ought to come out of the Clause.
    10.31 p.m.
    Colonel GRETTON: One listens to these feeble arguments with a great deal of interest. My Noble Friend said that the action of the people was going to be determined by the way in which they read the Statute. The lawyers will come in only when breaches of the Statute have been committed. May I, as an amateur, lay lawyer, suggest that the objection of the Attorney-General could be met by a new Clause? He need not search the whole Bill through. The Government have only to put in a new Clause with a definition of discrimination and all those other matters, including indirect discrimination. The Government could meet the, point if they really wanted to, by the methods which I suggest. I am very disappointed that we have got into legal entanglements, and I hope the matter will be reconsidered.
    10.33 p.m.
    Sir H. CROFT: I think I can help the Government as to how these words came to be inserted by their draftsmen. If the Committee will carry their minds back they will remember that the Joint Select Committee made one real improvement with regard to the discriminatory trade clauses which I think have had a direct bearing upon this, in that it differs from the White Paper by those three words. May I read three lines on page 270 of the Joint Select Committee's report?
    "It should further be made clear that the 'discriminatory or penal treatment' covered by this special responsibility includes both direct discrimination (whether by means of differential tariff rates or by means of differential restrictions on imports) and indirect discrimination by means of differential treatment of various types of products."
    That was the one strengthening part of the whole of that particular subject. Is it not possible that His Majesty's Government really desire to strengthen this Clause in that way? May I urge the Attorney-General to consider the way out which my right hon. and gallant Friend has just suggested?
    10.35 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If my hon. and gallant Friend will turn to paragraph XIV of the Instruments of Instructions, he will see that it is there stated specifically that the provision which we have placed in the Bill carries out the suggestions of the Joint Select Committee. I am not going to repeat what I have already said, but let me point out to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) where his proposal would lead. He suggests that, instead of putting in these words all over the Bill, we should introduce a special Clause to say that discrimination means direct or indirect discrimination. What would be the result of that? It would be that, in relation to matters other than discrimination, the argument would be that, if it is necessary to say that discrimination means direct as well as indirect discrimination, then in the case of other matters to which these words are not applied the meaning is that it is only the direct and not the indirect at which the Bill aims. My right hon. and gallant Friend would then have
    2048
    got this Committee into a position from which it would be too late to escape.
    I appeal once more to my Noble Friend not to divide the Committee on this point, but to accept the view which is offered with all humility, but with a sense of responsibility, to the Committee. If the Committee divide, it will give the impression that the Government are not opposed to indirect discrimination, and that is wholly contrary to the fact. The intention and desire of the Government is that indirect as well as direct discrimination should be precluded. Although the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) speaks with an authority on legal questions even greater than my own, and, although my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Burton says that he is an amateur lawyer, the responsibility rests upon me, and I cannot take the responsibility of telling the Committee that it would be wise to leave these words in and to put them in in other places. That would be really absurd. It would have to be applied to all sorts of provisions with regard to discrimination and otherwise. Again I beg my Noble Friend not to divide the Committee, because that would give a completely wrong impression.
    Amendment agreed to.
    10.40 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, in page 70, line 4, at the end, to insert:
    "(2) This Section shall apply in relation to aircraft as it applies in relation to ships."
    The object of this Amendment is to apply to aircraft the same reciprocal treatment that is suggested in the case of ships. It is not possible to draw any logical distinction between aircraft and ships, and we believe it will be in the interests of aircraft in the future if we submit them to the same reciprocal treatment as is suggested in the case of ships. I hope, therefore, the Committee will agree that it is a suitable addition to the Clause.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to explain to the Committee the definition of aircraft, and what are the limitations?
    10.41 p.m.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I should like to congratulate the Government on this

    2049
    Amendment. It shows that they are entering into this question with a really genuine and whole-hearted desire to protect British interests. Shipping is of immense importance to-day, and aircraft is a great factor. It shows that the Government are looking ahead, and from that point of view I think that many of us will view the Amendment as one of the more satisfactory parts of the Bill. I thank the Government for putting it in. It shows, at any rate, that the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill himself remembers the time when he was a most successful Air Minister.
    10.42 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLER: I think that the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) may take the definition to be on these lines, that if an aircraft concerned had a value in transporting cargo or in transporting a master, crew and so forth, as you find in the case of ships, it would certainly be covered by the definition of aircraft, but any sort of balloon which went into the air without any direction or motive power would not, I think, be defined as aircraft. I am afraid that I am not able to compete with learned lawyers who have addressed the Committee, but I believe that this is a commonsense definition which they have already informed me is correct.
    10.43 p.m.
    Mr. EMMOTT: I suggest to the Government that this matter is deserving of something more important and dignified than the mere line which is sought to be inserted here. It has far too much the air of an afterthought, and an afterthought at a pretty long interval of time. Not all the Clause as it at present stands applies with accuracy to aircraft. Consider line 41, for instance:
    "the ship herself, or her master, officers, crew, passengers or cargo."
    I do not know about the master of aircraft. I do not think that all that language applies to aircraft. I suggest that the intention of the Government would be more adequately and worthily realised if the subject matter of the Amendment were included in a new Clause which dealt specifically and solely with the subject of aircraft, and were not, in this unsatisfactory way, merely tacked on to a Clause dealing with ships.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 116.—(Subsidies for the encouragement of trade or industry.)
    10.44 p.m.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 70, line 14, to leave out "public moneys in India," and to insert "the revenues of the Federation or of a Province."
    This is a Clause, as hon. Members will see, which deals with subsidies for the encouragement of trade or industry, and the proposal contained in the Clause is:
    "Notwithstanding anything in any Act of the Federal Legislature or of a Provincial Legislature, companies incorporated, whether before or after the passing of this Act, by or under the laws of the United Kingdom and carrying on business in India shall be eligible for any grant, bounty, or subsidy payable out of public moneys in India for the encouragement of any trade or industry, to the same extent as companies incorporated by or under the laws of British India are eligible therefor."
    It was never intended that the words "payable out of public moneys in India" should apply to any of the States. The words that we now propose to insert in place of the words "public moneys in India" will make it perfectly clear that the clause is not intended to include moneys that are payable in or by the States. It is really a drafting Amendment from the point of view that it was never intended that the words "public moneys in India" should have the wide scope that it has been suggested to the Government they might have.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The CHAIRMAN: Does the Noble Lady desire to move her Amendment, to leave out Sub-section (2)? If so, I must reserve my right, after she has explained it, to rule it out of order if I find that it involves repetition of a discussion which has already taken place.
    10.47 p.m.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I beg to move, in page 70, line 30, to leave out Subsection (2).
    The Sub-section says:
    "Notwithstanding anything in this chapter, an Act of the Federal Legislature or of a Provincial Legislature may require, in the case of a company which

    2051
    at the date of the passing of that Act was not engaged in British India in that branch of trade or industry which it is the purpose of the grant, bounty or subsidy to encourage, that the company shall not be eligible for any grant, bounty or subsidy under the Act unless—

    (a) the company is incorporated by or under the laws of British India; and

    (b) such proportion, not exceeding one half, of the members of its governing body as the Act may prescribe, are Indian subjects of His Majesty; and

    (c) the company gives such reasonable facilities for the training of Indian subjects of His Majesty as may be so prescribed."

    The Committee will see that the Subsection imposes very serious restrictions on companies which propose at some future date, at a date to be selected by the Indian Legislature, to trade in India and so to become eligible for some bounty or subsidy that is proposed to be given. I cannot help feeling that conditions (a), (b) and (c) with regard to the giving of the bounty are reminiscent of conditions which were imposed on British companies in India during the time of the boycott in 1930–31 as a condition of being allowed to carry on their business. Those were not the only terms that were then imposed. The conditions as a whole which were imposed on British companies constitute one of the most humiliating documents I have ever had in my hands. I cannot describe my feelings when I realised that British firms all over India had been subjected to the humiliations therein imposed, and it seems to me very terrible to find that in this Bill, which is going to give a new Constitution to India, there should be conditions very similar to the conditions in that terrible document. It seems to me lamentable that the Government should embody in the Bill conditions clearly allowing such discrimination.
    The Sub-section is absolutely unjustified. It allows discrimination to be made in the future unless certain anomalous and unparalleled conditions are complied with. In this country no such conditions are required. I understand that in the case of foreigners who wish to have a company incorporated here the fact has to be entered that so many directors are of foreign origin, but nobody suggests that we will not have more than a certain number of foreign directors, and it is not the case that we
    2052
    are foreigners in India. It is a case here of Indians refusing to treat us as British subjects who have a right to trade in India. This seems to me to be flying in the face of what we always understood was to be one of the conditions under which powers would be transferred, namely, that no discrimination would be imposed on British trade in India.
    10.52 p.m.
    Viscount WOLMER: This Sub-section appears to me a very good example of "directly and indirectly." I cannot help wondering whether my hon. and learned Friend did not have it on his official note in support of the Amendment he was moving just now that the words direct and indirect were inconsistent with Clause 116, Sub-section (2). It appears to me that they were. I strongly support the Amendment of my Noble Friend. When one remembers what Britain has given to India in the shape of security, peace, prosperity and trade, it is intolerable that the Indian Legislature should be in a position to discriminate directly or indirectly against British companies in this matter. That action, I think, is not taken against companies of this country in any other part of the British Empire, except Southern Ireland. If the Government are content with a framework, a shop-window camouflage of accession to the British Empire, I am not, and I would much rather see those parts which are working against British trade outside the protection of the British Flag. It appears to me wrong in principle that it should be admitted in an Act of Parliament that any part of the Empire should be entitled to discriminate against British companies in the fashion contemplated in this Sub-section. I am aware that in India there is a very acute feeling against certain Dominions, particularly South Africa, and I think also Canada, where it is felt there has been discrimination against Indians in those Dominions. I think I am right in saying that the Bill, while in some parts it gives India the power of retaliatory action against those Dominions which have discriminated against India, in every other part it puts the inhabitants of these Islands in a different position.
    Great Britain has never discriminated against India. What public man has ever ventured to say that an Indian company with a majority of Indian shareholders, and a board composed en-

    2053
    tirely of Indians should not be able to claim in Great Britain every right which is enjoyed by a British company? No one in public life has ever dared to advance such a proposition. I prefer to think of Indians and Englishmen as equally British subjects. Here you are allowing the legislature of India to effect a discrimination in their bounties and subsidies against firms which are British. That is deplorable. It is opening the door to further diminution of British trade in India; it is admitting a principle which is fundamentally wrong and which cannot be justified by any moral consideration as long as India remains a part of the British Empire and enjoys the privilege of the defence of the Empire.
    10.57 p.m.
    Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: I feel rather sorry that I cannot follow my two Noble Friends in their denunciation and indignation of the Clause. I suggest that they are reading something into it which does not exist at all. The principle embodied in this Sub-section is nothing new. It was accepted long before any new constitution for India was thought of. From my own personal knowledge I know that this matter was discussed 20 years ago and accepted by Governments in India, which had no tendency towards a new constitution. The question really has nothing to do with prejudice or discrimination. It is simply this, that if and when the Government of India decide to give Indian taxpayers' money to support or promotae a new enterprise by means of a subsidy, it is suggested that it is only right that the subsidy should be given to a company which has a certain number of Indian shareholders and Indian directors, and which gives certain facilities for the trade of Indians in that particular industry. It is a question when Indian taxpayers' money is being spent. You may say that it is wrong that India should lay down these conditions. The Noble Lord asked most emphatically whether such a thing could be suggested in England. I say that it is very natural to suggest when we are going to give British taxpayers' money as a subsidy to industries in this country, that the companies must be British, with British capital and British shareholders. India does not ask that all should be Indians, but that there should be a cer-
    2054
    tain proportion of Indians. That is not an unreasonable proposal.
    Viscount WOLMER: Does the hon. Member suggest that the Dutch—
    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.

  ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1933, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of a small part of the borough of Wimbledon and for the amendment of the Wimbledon Electric Lighting Orders, 1897 and 1911, which was presented on the 29th day of January, 1935, be approved."—[Mr. Hore-Belisha.]
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1933, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of part of the urban district of Bude-Stratton and parts of the rural districts of Launceston and Stratton, in the county of Cornwall, and the rural districts of Broadwoodwidger and Holsworthy and parts of the rural districts of Bideford and Torrington, in the county of Devon, which was presented on the 12th day of February, 1935, be approved."—[Mr. Hore-Belisha.]

  SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.
  SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Amendment of s. 37 of 13 and 14 Geo. 5, c. 16.)
    11.2 p.m.
    Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, at the beginning, to insert:
    "The power of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries under."
    I move this Amendment in the unavoidable absence of my hon. Friend the Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons). This and subsequent Amendments are purely drafting Amendments which do not affect the Bill in any way.
    Mr. PIKE: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 1, line 7, leave out from "1923," to the end of the Clause, and insert:
    "to make orders for the regulation of fisheries shall extend to eel fisheries and elver fisheries, and accordingly the said Section shall have effect as if for the words 'or freshwater fisheries' there were therein substituted the words freshwater fisheries, eel fisheries, or elver fisheries.'"—[Mr. Smedley Crooke.]

    CLAUSE 2.—(Amendment of s. 38 of 13 and 14 Geo. 5, c. 16.)
    Amendments made: In page 1, line 11, after "Act," insert "(which specifies the
    2056
    matters which may be provided for by an order made under the said section thirty-seven)."
    In line 15, after "specified," insert "in the order."—[Mr. Smedley Crooke.]
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

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

  NORTH BRITISH RUBBER COMPANY, LIMITED.
  NORTH BRITISH RUBBER COMPANY, LIMITED.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  EGGS (IMPORT QUOTA).
  EGGS (IMPORT QUOTA).
  SCHOOLS' REORGANISATION, TEWKESBURY.
  SCHOOLS' REORGANISATION, TEWKESBURY.
  DEAD POULTRY (IMPORTS FROM GERMANY).
  DEAD POULTRY (IMPORTS FROM GERMANY).
  KENYA (LATE MR. T. L. POWYS).
  KENYA (LATE MR. T. L. POWYS).
TRANSPORT.
  MOTORING OFFENCES (FINES).
  MOTORING OFFENCES (FINES).
  TRAFFIC SIGNS.
  TRAFFIC SIGNS.
  BUILT-UP AREAS (SPEED LIMIT).
  BUILT-UP AREAS (SPEED LIMIT).
  NEWCASTLE-HEXHAM-CARLISLE ROAD.
  NEWCASTLE-HEXHAM-CARLISLE ROAD.
  PROPOSED BY-PASS, MICKLEHAM.
  PROPOSED BY-PASS, MICKLEHAM.
  OMNIBUSES (SPEED).
  OMNIBUSES (SPEED).
  MATERNITY AND CHILD WELFARE.
  MATERNITY AND CHILD WELFARE.
  UNEMPLOYMENT (SCOTLAND).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (SCOTLAND).
  PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (WEST HAM).
  PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (WEST HAM).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
THE LORD BISHOP OF PORTSMOUTH.
Ernest Neville, Lord Bishop of Portsmouth—was (in the usual manner) introduced.
COVENTRY CANAL NAVIGATION BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
OXFORD CANAL BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
ROCHDALE CANAL BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
WEAVER NAVIGATION BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament. Act, 1911; read 1a; and to be printed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (COUNTY OF HOLLAND JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (GUISBOROUGH JOINT SMALLPOX HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (HUNTINGDONSHIRE JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (SOUTH CHILTERNS JOINT SMALLPOX HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

ARMS INQUIRY.
LORD MARLEY LORD MARLEY rose to call attention to the terms of reference of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the private manufacture of and traffic in arms, and to ask His Majesty's Government whether it will have the power to compel the production of Government documents, in particular those of the Contracts Departments of the War Office, Air Ministry, and Admiralty; documents relating to the trade in arms and munitions in the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office; the trade reports of His Majesty's Ministers and Consuls abroad; agreements made between Vickers Ltd. and the Electric Boat Company, between Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. and E. L. Du Pont de Nemours and Co., and all other such agreements, and documents of the arms firms relevant to these agreements; and to the association of the armament firms with Government Departments, with individual members of such Departments, and with British representatives abroad; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion which I have ventured to put down for discussion to-day may, I regret to say, take some little time, but I feel that the subject is of such vital importance that perhaps your Lordships will excuse the spending of some time on its consideration. I do not propose on this Motion to discuss in any way the advantages or disadvantages of the State manufacture of arms. I am only going to call attention to certain disadvantages and objections in the private manufacture of arms, and while in the course of my remarks I may mention the names of one or two individuals, I want to make it perfectly clear that I only refer to them in so far as I feel that when individuals having an official position deal with private armament firms, that fact may place them in the eyes of the public in a very invidious position, in which it is desirable they should not be placed,

365
and to avoid which is one of the ideas connection with the abolition of the private manufacture of arms.
The public in this country have been very much concerned at the lack of success of the Disarmament Conference and, generally speaking, there has been a search for the explanation of that failure. We know that the League of Nations, in Article 8 of the Covenant, expressed the feeling that there were "grave objections" to the private manufacture of arms, and since the Covenant of the League was drawn up there have been in various parts of the world a number of serious scandals in connection with the private manufacture of arms. I need only remind your Lordships of the well-known case of Mr. Shearer, who was employed by -a number of United States firms to be at Geneva, in order by his activities to wreck the Naval Conference of 1929. He succeeded very well in that and was promised, and paid, a large sum of money by the armament firms of the United States for this purpose. in point of fact, he was paid some $51,000 and then he sued these firms in the Courts for the balance of the money due to him—namely, $255,000. He actually took action against them. The Attorney-General of the United States made an inquiry, and the president of the armament firms communicated with the President and explained to him that they had in fact promised, and paid, to Mr. Shearer a very large sum of money for the purpose of bringing the Naval Conference to nought. Mr. Shearer has been at Geneva during a considerable part of the Sessions of the Disarmament Conference, and therefore it is not unreasonable to assume that he is still in that profession which he has adorned and in which he has been so successful.
A similar case will be remembered with the great armament firm of Skoda, in which case officers in the Rumanian Army were convicted of taking large bribes in order to secure that armament orders should be given by their Government to the Skoda armament firm. As a result of these and other scandals the United States of America caused a Senatorial investigation to be made in April of last year, just about a year ago. The terms of reference of that inquiry included the following words. These are extracts. The inquiry Resolution said:
366
"Whereas the influence of the commercial motive is one of the inevitable factors often believed to stimulate and sustain wars."
It then mentioned that there had been a widespread demand in the United States for legislation "to take the profit out of war," and accordingly the Committee of Inquiry was appointed with terms of reference from which I make one or two quotations.
The members of the Committee were authorised and directed:
"To investigate the activities of individuals, firms, associations, and of corporations and of all other agencies in the United States engaged in the manufacture, sale, distribution; import, or export of arms, munitions or other implements of war and"—
this is important—
"the nature of the industrial and commercial organisations engaged in the manufacture; the methods used in promoting or effecting the sale of arms, munitions or other implements of war imported into the United States, and the countries of origin thereof"—
and this affects Great Britain—
"and the quantities exported from the United States and the countries of destination thereof."
They were also directed:
"To investigate and report upon the adequacy or inadequacy of existing legislation, and of the treaties to which the United States is a party … to enquire into the desirability of creating a Government monopoly in respect to the manufacture of armaments and munitions, and other implements of war.…"
And, finally, they were to have power by subpœna or otherwise to compel the attendance of witnesses, to compel the production of papers and documents, and to administer oaths and take such testimony as seemed advisable.
Now the wide scope of the terms of reference of the American Senatorial inquiry was one of the reasons for its great success. But I would call attention also to the fact that the American inquiry proceeded to appoint between forty and fifty investigators, who travelled round at once under the direction of a very energetic secretary, Mr. Raushenbush, and were able to seize documents and files belonging to the firms engaged in this traffic before these files could be examined and incriminating or undesirable documents extracted and destroyed. In Great Britain there has also been widespread public anxiety—I do not think I

367
am exaggerating when I say that. The Government at first resisted any such inquiries. In the House of Commons, both in April and June, in reply to questions, the Prime Minister said that he considered that no useful purpose could be served by such an inquiry, but after the beginning of the report of the American inquiry there was a change of view, and Sir John Simon, in November, in the course of debate, used these words:
"If we desire, to examine this serious problem, not by a fishing inquiry dealing with every rumour and detail that can be found about the conduct of a trade which is not confined to this country, but by an inquiry which really studied the proposal of State monopoly from the point of view of national security and the like, the Government have no reason to have any difficulties about it."
On November 22, evidently a little pressed by some of the interests involved, he said that:
"it would be very unjust to armament firms and to those responsible people who may be connected with them, to imply that there is something in their business which essentially makes undesirable methods their practice …."
At once it occurred to many thoughtful people that those two statements taken together amounted to a risk that there was going to be a hushing-up, or whitewashing, inquiry and that armament firms were to be protected. As a result there were many questions in the House of Commons, and finally on February 18 the terms of reference of the British inquiry were announced, together with the personnel of the Royal Commission. It consisted of a number of distinguished men and one woman, also distinguished. I have nothing but admiration for the splendid and lifelong work done by the Chairman of the Royal Commission, but I think it is as well to realise that he is 81 years of age, and in an inquiry demanding, if it is to be effectively carried out, immense energy, courage and hard work, it is asking a very great deal that Sir John Eldon Bankes should be expected at the age of 81 to do this very heavy work really effectively.
I do not need to quote the terms of reference. They are nothing like as wide as those of the American inquiry. The Royal Commission has at present no power to take evidence on oath, and, from the inquiries made in the House of
368
Commons, it is not clear whether they have the power to demand documents from Government Departments and documents from private firms. One of the objects of my Question, therefore, is to find out what is the real meaning and scope of the terms of reference of this inquiry, and whether in fact the Commissioners will have power to call for and to secure these documents. The American inquiry, as I said, safeguarded itself against the previous examination and destruction of what I might call incriminating documents, or at any rate documents not favourable to the armament firms, by appointing this body of investigators. No such investigators have been appointed in this country, as far as I am aware. In the United States power was taken to subpœna witnesses. I should like to know whether our Royal Commission have any such power. In the United States they had power to enter the premises of the armament firms, and they did so and examined documents and seized files. I want to know, for example, if we can enter the premises of Vickers Ltd. and seize and examine files of that firm. I should like to know, further, whether we have the power to call for documents relating to the issue of licences for the export of arms from this country. I understand that these licences are issued by the Commercial Relations section of the Board of Trade in consultation with the Department of Overseas Trade and the Foreign Office, and this is very important, because Great Britain is far and away the largest exporter of arms in the world. We export about one-third of all the armaments and munitions of war exported by the whole of the world. According to the Statistical Year Book of the League of Nations, in 1930 we exported 30.5 per cent., in 1931, 37.8 per cent., and in 1932 29.9 per cent.
I also want to know whether the Royal Commission have the right and the power to call for documents showing the contracts placed by the Service Departments, and in this connection it is extremely important that we should bring out the relations between the private firms and the Service Departments. A great many facts have been brought out by the American inquiry which would never have seen the light of day had it not

369
been for that inquiry, and I want to examine, for a few moments, some of those documents in order that your Lordships may be aware of the relations between Vickers Ltd. and armament firms in the United States. I have here a letter published in the United States inquiry, Exhibit No. 18, marked "Absolutely Personal and Confidential." This is from Sir Charles Craven, of Vickers Ltd., to the Electric Boat Company of the United States, and of course it is available for any of your Lordships who choose to read the report of the American Senatorial inquiry. It is dated October 7, 1927, and he says:
"We have just received an inquiry for one, two or three [boats] from Armstrongs, who have agreed to put in whatever price I tell them …."
Armstrongs, I may say, is a so-called competitive firm with Vickers, competing with them in their tender. Vickers, then, tell Armstrongs what price they are to put in! The letter goes on:
"and that we should also quote for one, two or three boats from Barrow. I would keep the Armstrong price very slightly above ours, the idea being that whatever boats were ordered from either party would be built at Barrow, so effecting considerable economies. I also think that perhaps it would be worth while putting forward a tender for six boats, the total number to be built. I have had a word with the Director of Contracts at the Admiralty, who is a friend of mine and who would like this. He, I know, tried to get us the order for all five submarines last year."
This letter proceeds:
"At the moment the two firms are not combining in any way and, therefore, if negotiations break down, Armstrong Whit-worth's will, of course, be free from us, but the tenders have not to be in until the middle of November, so we certainly should know one way or the other before then. Needless to say we do not want anything to come out about the proposed fusion until it is all clear, and I am just sending you this letter so that you can think over the situation.
"I have not yet procured a definite list of the firms who have been asked to tender this time."
From whom does he get this definite list—from his friend at the Admiralty? I hope that the Royal Commission will find that out and let us know.
This matter was raised in the House of Commons, and we were told that there was no trace of partiality for a particular firm either on the part of the Board of Admiralty or of any official in dealing
370
with the question. But how does that square with this statement that the Director of Contracts at the Admiralty "tried to get us the order for all five submarines last year"? The statements do not square. This is a matter in which real inquiry' is very necessary for the confidence of the people of this country. The First Lord of the Admiralty went on to say:
"The fact remains, however, that he [Sir Charles Craven] did use language which could be read as casting a reflection on the impartiality of the Director of Contracts …"
He then stated that he accepted Sir Charles Craven's assurance that that was not his intention. However, Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell sees the feeling there must be in the minds of people in this country and he states in the House of Commons:
"I have satisfied myself by a complete inquiry. I now offer to the House an independent inquiry into the placing of these contracts."
I hope that this Royal Commission will be the independent inquiry referred to by the First Lord and that we shall get out of it all Vickers' private files dealing with this subject in order that the private inquiry may become a public inquiry and so satisfy the public. If Sir Charles Craven is right in claiming that everything that he has done has been above board, then it is up to him to place at the disposal of the Royal Commission the replies to the letters he wrote to the Electric Boat Company in America, in order to prove his good faith.
Another letter, Exhibit No. 19 of November 30, 1927, says:
"I have been able to obtain the enclosed information from an absolutely reliable but very secret source."
What does he mean by that? What is the "very secret source" from which he has got this "absolutely reliable information"? This is the information:
"The only three tenders receiving serious consideration are Vickers, Beardmore's and Cammell Laird's, and we were the only firm who tendered for more than three boats."
Where does he get this information from? Where is this "very secret source" which is so reliable? I hope that the Royal Commission will find that out and that we shall learn, when the Report comes to be published, what are these very secret sources from which Sir Charles Craven is able to get such convenient information

371
in the interests of the firm he represents. He then goes on to say:
"The attached statement shows the state of affairs in the order of cheapness from the Government's point of view. The hitch in the enclosed is that Beardmore's are most unpopular owing to their bad progress and financial condition, and I do not for one moment think they will receive three boats. I do know that one of the important Admiralty Departments is recommending that Vickers should have four and Cammell Laird's two."
This leakage of information is very peculiar, and I do not think that the country will be satisfied unless the Royal Commission really gets hold of these files of Vickers' and enquires into them.
Sir Charles Craven goes on to say to his friend, "My dear Spear," who is the representative of the Electric Boat Company in New York:
"When you are next over here I will show you my estimate, but you can take it from me that I knew there was going to be keen competition, and I out my price to under five per cent. profit because I felt that with your support it is up to me to get the work and starve out competitors for another year or two. For your private information, I was able to look after Armstrong's and keep them out of the picture on this occasion."
That is, of course, collusion between firms alleged to be tendering for boats through an arrangement among themselves so that they will make the tenders exactly what they want. He then goes on:
"I am trying to arrange things with the Admiralty so that we can count as two shipyards and can, therefore, put forward two tenders, but this, of course, will be rather difficult."
I hope it will be "rather difficult,'' but it appears to be easy enough to this combination of alleged competitive firms to put forward two tenders at prices they themselves arrange under which the British public are milched in order that money may be handed over to the American company subsidiary to Vickers.
Then there is the letter of September 10, 1930, Exhibit No. 20, also from Sir Charles Craven to Mr. Spear. It says:
"Just a line to let you know that we have received the order for the special vessel, after most difficult negotiations."
With whom were those "difficult negotiations"?
"I still hope your company will meet me regarding the amount due to you … I cannot possibly say any more in writing,
372
but when the long promised visit takes place we will have a talk."
Why cannot he say it in writing? There must be something really serious if he cannot say it in writing, considering all he has said in writing.
On July 30, 1932, Exhibit No. 21, Sir Charles Craven writes to Mr. Carse of the Electric Boat Company:
"Referring to your telegram of the 25th, and to your letter of the 18th ultimo, the directors will accept £10,000 settlement of 'Thames,' 'Porpoise,' 'S.' Engines, also agree to £7,500 "names,' £3,000 'S' Boat, your tenders. We cannot now decide about possible business next March.
"First, may I suggest that even in code it is better not to mention any names of ships, as I am rather afraid that such telegrams might get into the hands of our clients, and it would be awkward if they asked me about our agreement with you."
"Our clients"! That term presumably means the Admiralty. The clients of Vickers! It would be interesting to get from the Royal Commission an exact definition of "our clients" and why they must hide the names of ships. Later he goes on to say:
"I may think it prudent to make an offer to our clients for the second one of each class which I know they intend ordering in March."
So he knows in July that they intend ordering nine months later second vessels! I suppose that comes from his friend at the Admiralty.
This series of letters indicates a state of affairs which is, to say the least of it, extremely undesirable. I cannot help thinking that the Royal Commission will fail unless it searches into the real meaning—I do not mean by that House of Commons questions and answers, I mean the real meaning of the sentences included in these letters. He goes on:
"Obviously I could offer them a certain 'bait' in price. I do not want you to think that I have made up my mind at this moment to do this, but things are extremely 'tricky' just now, and it is just possible I might think such an idea desirable."
Then Sir Charles Craven went to Madrid, where Vickers have a shipbuilding yard supplying small craft to European countries. He writes on October 30 to the Electric Boat Company:
"I arrived back from Madrid yesterday and at once called at the Admiralty."
He is very careful: he calls at the Admiralty pretty regularly.

373
"While I have been away, a good deal of technical information has been made available for my people, so I hope in a week or so to be able to requote."
In other words he is going to put in a new tender based on the technical information made available.
"As a matter of fact I should probably have quoted sooner, but the Director of Contracts is away and I want to hand my figures to him personally."
Where does he get this advance information, and why to the Director of Contracts personally?
The letter then goes on:
"I think the position will turn as follows:—
"We shall receive a firm contract for one submarine about the third week in November.
"At the same time we shall receive a letter telling us that the Admiralty accept our price for the second submarine on the distinct understanding that if any circumstances arise between now and say March, 1933, they can have the right to cancel the second one without any payment.
"All that you and I gain by the transaction in that we shall know that if the ship is built Vickers will get the order. If, on the other hand, Geneva or some other fancy convention decide that large submarines have to be abolished, no definite contract will be placed."
The "fancy convention" is of course the League of Nations, of which we are Members, and it is interesting, therefore, to see the armament firms working against the League of Nations, which they call a fancy convention. The final paragraph in this letter illustrates Sir Charles Craven's interesting activities in Madrid, from which place he had just returned. He says:
"I had a very interesting visit to Spain. It was chiefly in connection with a large sum of money owing to my company by the Sociedad. The political situation in Spain seems very confused, but there seems to be a considerable prospect of our friends receiving orders for small craft on the pretext that they are purely defensive.
"With all good wishes,
"Yours very sincerely,
(Signed) C. W. CRAVEN."
We then get nearer to to-day—1933. On the 6th January, 1933, again we have Sir Charles Craven in the possession of interesting advance information. He says:
"…the Admiralty also promise us the order for H.M.S. 'Clyde' (another repeat of the 'Thames'), but in this latter ease they will not give us a contract until after the end of March. In other words,
374
they will have the right to withdraw their promised order for the second ship if Geneva or any other troublesome organisation upsets the large submarines. In view of this I am not saying anything publicly about the 'Clyde,' and I would suggest that it would be wise that Spear should not let the information get into the hands of your Navy Department until after I can tell you that we really have a proper contract."
We now get private information of the building programme of this country being made available for the United States Government!
This matter was raised in the House of Commons on the 14th November last. I may remind your Lordships that this letter from which I quoted was written on the 6th January, 1933. The answer in the House of Commons was:
"…Messrs. Vickers-Armstrong were asked to quote a price for this vessel, and on the 20th December, 1932, they received the order for her."
That is curious, because on the 6th January Sir Charles Craven writes that the Admiralty would not yet give the order and had not given it on the 6th January. The discrepancy between the answer of Lord Stanley in the House of Commons and Sir Charles Craven's letter might be worth a little deeper examination by the Royal Commission. The question was raised again in the House of Commons on December 17 last. A question was put as to whether the Law Officers of the Crown had had an opportunity of examining that letter and Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell replied to the effect that he was quite capable of interpreting the terms of the letter as long as he had seen it. Nevertheless, I hope that in the reply to-day we shall have an assurance that the Law Officers of the Crown will have an opportunity of examining that letter and the documents connected with it.
The question was raised again in the House of Commons on February 20, 1935, and Sir Thomas Inskip, the Attorney-General, said:
"Neither I nor my honourable and learned friend have any power to cause such an investigation to be made, but I am informed by my right honourable friend, the First Lord, that, as he informed the House on the 17th December…the Electric Boat Company, of which Mr. Spear is an official, are licensors for the construction of submarines by Messrs. Vickers-Armstrong, of which Sir Charles Craven is managing director."

375
If the Attorney-General has no power to cause such an investigation to be made, I ask, have the Royal Commission power to cause such an investigation to be made, and will they be encouraged to use that power in making such an investigation One other point in this connection is a letter from a well known and respected foreigner, Sir Basil Zaharoff, who, writing in 1925, said, in connection with some orders in Spain:
"The English Governent will be difficult to move in the same direction"—
he means, as the United States Government, in connection with these orders—
"but when you inform me that your Government have given the necessary instruction to their Ambassador in Madrid"—
that means the American Ambassador—
"I will have no difficulty in persuading the British to do ditto, ditto, ditto."
Very interesting! Sir Basil Zaharoff claims to have the power either to force the British Government to follow what the United States Government do, or to be able to influence the British Ambassador in Madrid in the direction he desires. I hope that letter, Exhibit No. 32 in the United States inquiry, will be examined by the Royal Commission so that we shall know whether or not we are governed by the National Government or by Sir Basil Zaharoff in connection with these matters.
Exhibit No. 125 is also a letter from Sir Charles Craven. Again he points cut that he will
"be able to guide them [Vickers-Armstrong] when the final tender goes in, but only at the very last moment."
He goes on to say:
"During the last few days by skilful manœuvring we have managed to get some of our competitors' prices in the Chilean competition put up, and so may have prevented a real price-cutting war which would have resulted in our taking the boats at a loss."
In other words, these firms are now organising amongst themselves the raising of their tenders for warships in order that shareholders may benefit, in order that dividends may go up, and in order that they may have to take no boats at a loss.
On March 31, 1928, Sir Charles Craven writes in connection with a certain order:
"The whole thing has been most secret, and as Dawson negotiated the final con
376
tract with the chief of the commission in London, I had to accept this ruling, that I was not even to mention the matter to you in writing, hence the message by Roberts. Even to-day we are bound to secrecy, so will you please promise me not to let your little friends from the other South American country know what is going on at present."
More defrauding of other countries in connection with these tenders! The letter goes on:
"With regard to paragraph 4, I wish you the best of luck, and hope you may be able to knock out some of your Government dockyards. They seem to be more of a nuisance with you than they are here."
That refers to the fact that there is so-called competition between Government dockyards and private firms for certain British orders.
Here is a very serious paragraph in the letter:
"I wonder whether you have heard that cur old friend Percy Addison is now the Director of Dockyards. I helped him all I could to get the job, and I think he will be an ideal fellow for it. It means his retirement, but it also means his having a permanent job for about ten years if he behaves himself "—
If he behaves himself! Who is to decide whether he behaves himself?—
"and as he has no private means worth talking about, you will appreciate what this means to him. I have suggested to him that you and I, and he and Johns …should have a party and thoroughly wet the appointment the next time you are over here."
That, my Lords, is very serious, because Sir Charles Craven is claiming that lie has power to get over an officer without private means, which will secure that Vickers Ltd. will have an advantage in connection with orders which they hope to receive, and that he will bring pressure to bear on this officer in order to secure advantage for Vickers Ltd. and their shareholders. That needs very serious inquiry, and I do press upon the noble Viscount that we should have an assurance that that matter will be cleared up and the honour of that officer vindicated.
In Exhibit No. 127 we have a letter to Sir Charles Craven. It is a confidential letter, again from an American armament firm, and the writer says:
"It is too bad that the pernicious activities of our State Department"—

377
that is, of the United States of America—
"have put the brake on armament orders from Peru by forcing the resumption of formal diplomatic relations with Chile. My friends advise me that this gesture means that all contemplated orders must go over until next year. This hitch also means that we must, not delay too long in getting Aubry back on the job in Lima."
We want Sir Charles Craven's files of negotiations with the Electric Boat Company of New York and we want them as proof of his good faith. If he has nothing to hide, it is up to him to put those files at the disposal of the Royal Commission, or alternatively, it is for the Royal Commission to see that they get and examine those files. We also want details of the agreement between the Electric Boat Company and Vickers Ltd. I am not going into this agreement. I only want to say that Vickers Ltd. are not paying royalties to the Electric Boat Company for the boats they build for the British Admiralty. What they are paying is a percentage on all Admiralty orders, a very different thing. I hope that the Royal Commission will examine the agreement between the Electric Boat Company and Vickers Ltd., and that they will also examine one between Imperial Chemical Industries and Du Pont de Nemours. That is an agreement which secures the pooling of all patents, and the sending of individuals to examine all patents. That ensures that other countries have available for their use machinery, munitions and other materials used by the British Admiralty.
Now I want to say a word about the Air Ministry, and I want to call attention to the reports repeatedly made by the Select Committee on Public Accounts. The Select Committee on Public Accounts have examined the orders placed by the Air Ministry during the past eight or nine years, and year after year they have called attention to the fact that the orders placed by the Air Ministry are non-competitive orders. That means that firms are not asked to submit competitive tenders. The Select Committee called attention to this fact in 1925, 1926, 1928 and 1934. In 1934 the Select Committee pointed out that in 1932 94 per cent. of the materials ordered by the Air Ministry was ordered without any competition and they pointed out how very objectionable is that action. I want to suggest that even when tenders are called
378
for, there is strong reason to suppose that there is collusion between the firms who are dealing with the Air Ministry, because it is a generally understood position that orders given by the Air Ministry are spread over all the firms supplying materials to the Air Ministry, so that it is immaterial whether orders go to "A" or "B." The firms divide amongst themselves those orders and secure the immense advantage in profits which noncompetitive tenders always give.
Here let me ask the noble Viscount if he will do his best to bring to the notice of the Royal Commission the fact that the only body capable of ensuring accurate judgment on whether the prices charged by these firms were fair and reasonable, was the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough. I want to know why all work on design and construction was stopped at the Royal Aircraft Establishment. The claim of the private firms was, of course, that the Royal Aircraft Establishment was guilty of unfair competition. I believe I am right in saying that to this day the Royal Aircraft Establishment is doing no design or construction, and that there is therefore no means of checking the prices charged by these firms supplying material to the Air Ministry. There is no evidence of any real competition.
Now let me come for a moment to the War Office. Here I want to mention the War Office's dealings with the firm known as the Soley Armament Company, Limited. This is a firm with a capital of £500; 490 shares are held by one man: Mr. John Ball, who is the managing director of the company. Mr. John Ball, writing to the American Armament Corporation on February, 3, 1934—this is Exhibit No. 256 in the American armament inquiry—said this:
"As we are really the sole selling channel for small arms, etc., which belong to the British War Office, and as we are to a very great extent controlled by the varying policy of the Government, it is rather difficult for us to enter into firm and fast agreements with other armament firms.
"The stocks we control are of such magnitude that the sale of a big block of them could alter the political balance of power of the smaller States, involving corresponding complications from the point of view of finance and industry."
This little firm, with a capital of £500, claims to control stocks so large that it

379
could alter the balance of power in smaller States.
Mr. Ball then goes on to say:
"We would prepare to appoint you our sole selling agents for the U.S.A. and you would have the handling of all the sales to the States of Latin America only, which would be left entirely to yourselves.
"Arms for other destinations, such as China, or European States, could not be offered by you without our previous consent, and you would be expected to observe this rule in the very strictest manner…"
"For your information, in confidence, the value of the stocks here under our control is approximately £6,000,000."
And this Mr. Ball, who publicly announced that he could carry on his business in one room with a telephone, and is the managing director and sole shareholder in the Soley Armament Company, offers the full exclusive selling rights of £6,000,000 worth of War Office stocks to the United States for their uncontrolled sale to South America. He gives the details of the stocks. He says:
"The value of the stocks here under our control is approximately £6,000,000, so there is no great risk that they will all be disposed of in a short time, but you must remember that in the event of a serious war breaking out anywhere affecting British interests the stocks might be withdrawn from sale."
That is something to know of. The stocks are as follows: eight hundred thousand 303 rifles, with enough spares for another 200,000—that is a million rifles; 34,000 Hotchkiss machine guns; 20,000 Lewis machine guns; 8,000 aeroplane machine guns—and so on. There are 120,000,000 rounds of small arms ammunition.
"There are, of course, considerable other stocks, but above are the principal items."
A NOBLE LORD: What date was this?
LORD MARLEY: The date of this letter was the 3rd February, 1934, just a year ago. The Prime Minister, in answer to a question on this subject in another place, said:
"It is contrary to custom to publish the terms of contracts."
I hope that the terms of contracts in this particular company will be examined by the Royal Commission. Here is a straw company given the sole selling rights—or claiming the sole selling rights—of £6,000,000 worth of War Office stores, and offering exclusive rights of sale to an American company.
380
Again, writing another letter to the same company on February 6, Mr. Ball says:
"Owing to the financial constipation all over the world it often happens that the United States require arms badly, but have no cash to pay for them. As it is far too risky to sell arms in credit in these times, some alternative has to be found, and sometimes goods or produce can be accepted in lieu of cash and the barter converted into cash over a period of time.
"For instance, provided that the deal was a fairly big one, we could accept coffee, rubber, timber, etc., in payment."
He goes on to say:
"We fully understand that arms deals ore not usually done without some officials getting greased.' "
I think that means bribed—
"but if any palm oil is required, it has to be added to the price, and as our prices are at least 50 per cent, less than factory prices for the same arms, they will stand a lot of 'grease' and still be cheaper than the manufacturers' prices."
He is a clever fellow, I should think. I do not know what he added for "grease," but somebody presumably got a good deal of "palm oil."
Then, as indicating the development of this straw company controlling £6,000,000 worth of War Office stocks, he goes on:
"Our factory in Liege, Belgium, is limited to an output of about 3,000 rifles per week, and if an order should come in while another is going through the factory, we usually try to put through a percentage of the second one in order to meet part of the second buyer's requirements, but we cannot do more than this."
The Americans took this up, of course, and replied to Mr. John Ball—who lives at 8, Park Village East, London, N.W.1—on February 22:
"Your remarks about greasing the wheels that make the deals go around are very true, and we fully appreciate that very often oil must be added to your quotations. In this connection will you make it a point to always quote us your prices not to us c.i.f. New York unless we specifically make a different request?"
Then Mr. Miranda in New York receives this letter from the Company's agent in Havana:
"For your information, to your quotations we shall add 15 per cent., which will cover the 'graft' that is supposed to be distributed clown there among the various interested parties, and I request that this information you keep confidential and if you write to S.D. do not mention in your letters, as there is a censorship in the mail; all letters going there are opened and read and it will not do us any good if this information will be known down there."

381
I hope this information is known "down there" now; but the point is that if the information of 15 per cent. were known down there, then somebody else would offer 20 per cent., and Mr. Miranda would have to increase his "grease" to 25 per cent. and so lower his profits.
Then, of course, we find their relationship with these Governments and here is a letter dated June 9, 1934, Exhibit 259, to Messrs. Webster and Ashton, Bolivia:
"Dear Sirs,
On June 2 we received your cable of that date reading as follows 'Minister Defence has been informed your bombs shipment to-day embargoed. Please advise rush.' We do not know how the Minister of Defence obtained the information above mentioned, as we have enquired both from the Consul and from the Legation, and they had not notified their Government inasmuch as they were in doubt as to what was going to happen. We mention this because we are anxious that such information as reaches the Government about the movements of our material should be accurate.…
'The State Department would issue no permits, recognised no exceptions, would not attempt to interpret what is war material and what is not war material, nor would it give an opinion as to the time of action covered by the President's proclamation, that is, whether the (proclamation embodied or not sales made previous to May 28, the day of the Presidential Decree. The State Department's attitude was: Try to ship our stuff, and if the Government's agencies (presumably the Customs) block your way, hire the best lawyer available and get an injunction against the Government."
There is something going to the lawyers there, but I submit that these activities of firms acting as agents to the Soley Armament Company are worth examination by the Royal Commission, to find out the exact meaning of the claims of the Soley Company to be able to export arms and war material to the South American States.
One final sentence in this connection is the affair of China, and in a letter to the American Arms Corporation Mr. John Ball says:
"As you are no doubt aware, China consumes a vast quantity of small arms per year, and they have bought large quantities of rifles from us,…over 100,000 in 1931–32, but have slacked off lately owing to the loss of Manchuria and the shortage of ready money in the south, i.e., Canton and Nanking. In spite of all the dreams of the idealists, who imagine that hamo sapiens is filled with honour, justice, love and self sacrifice ''—
An educated man, Mr. Ball, who appears to have learned Latin at school—
382
"Japan is going to take a still larger slice of China, and comparatively shortly, while the getting is good. To place herself in a favourable position, Japan must either buy over the Soviet or fight them—and Japan will do one or the other, before attending to some more of China.
"Such a move on Japan's part would seriously affect the United States' interests in China, and we think that the United States would under the above circumstances support the Chinese, supply them with arms etc.
"In such an eventuality, something might be done with the big stocks of rifles here, also machine guns, and we think it might be very advisable for you to approach the United States Department for Foreign Affairs and the War Department and hand them a list of what stocks there are over here, informing the Departments at the same time that you are the sole representative for the United States of America."
The Japanese Naval Department, he says, have lately bought large quantities of Lewis guns, and the incendiary or "tracer" type of bullets also have been purchased. He adds:
"As you know, incendiary bullets are prohibited so they have become 'tracers.' What is in a name?"
Well, my Lords, what is in a name? It would be interesting to see whether under their licence for "tracer" bullets they are not sending incendiary bullets under another name.
I venture to think we would be well advised to have the files of the Soley Armament Company as well, and I would like to know if the Royal Commission are going to take into account in their examination whether there is a real control over the export of arms, or whether the regulations require alteration or modification. On the face of it, it looks peculiar. A question was asked in the House of Commons on February 25 of this year as to whether the Government was satisfied. The question was in these terms:
"Has any information reached any Government Department that satisfied it that any British firm manufacturing armaments had sought, improperly to influence the policy of His Majesty's Government or any foreign Government in the matter of armaments?"
The Prime Minister replied as follows:—
"I have caused inquiries to be made, and, as a result, I am able to say that the reply is in the negative."
I hope that the Prime Minister is accurate, but I cannot help thinking that the exposures of the American inquiry do not tend to support that point of

383
view; and I want to mention a case or two—I do not want to keep the House too long—tending to throw doubt on the accuracy of the Prime Minister's answer.
Let me take the case of Mr. A. V. Lander. He was the agent for Vickers in Turkey, and at a moment's notice he was expelled from Turkey by order of the Turkish Government on August 3, 1933. He at once created a great, deal of outcry, naturally, against his expulsion, and I think he had some reason, because he was not even permitted to pack up all his goods. After a considerable fuss the British Ambassador was instructed to go into the matter with the Turkish Government. He did so, and he sent a full report to the Foreign Office. Meanwhile, Mr. Lander had been publicly accused in various newspapers of stealing plans in Turkey and bribing Turkish officials, in order that Vickers might get more orders from the Turkish Government. It is curious that since that full report of Mr. Lander's case, obtained by the British Ambassador from the Turkish Government, was received by the Foreign Office, no single word has even been heard about the case. Mr. Lander has judiciously kept quiet. There has been no publication, and the whole matter would appear to have been completely hushed up.
The only little light we get upon it is in exhibit No. 219 in the United States inquiry, in a letter from the agent of another armament company in Turkey, this time the Driggs Ordnance and Engineering Company, of New York, who, writing to his firm in New York from Angora, says:
"I suspect Lander with the other members of Vickers have tried to offset the favourable attitude of the Polish Government to us. The Vickers crowd are the dirtiest opponents here. They have almost an entire embassy in number working for them, and use women of doubtful character freely."
That is the only bit of light that we have of the activities of Mr. Lander and Vickers in Turkey. The letter is dated January 22, 1929, and since August, 1933, when he was expelled from the country, no further information has been available. I feel that the Royal Commission should obtain from the Foreign Office the report. on Mr. Lander's activities in Turkey, so as to see whether in fact armament firms are not attempting to influence the policy
384
of foreign Governments through their agents. If that is so, then the Prime Minister's answer in another place was wrong.
We have a case in this country. A Lieutenant-Commander who left the British Submarine Service and was employed by Vickers Ltd. was arrested a few months later and accused of being in possession of confidential submarine plans, which he was accused of using against the advantage of this country. I refer to the case of Lieutenant-Commander Mayers. He was tried at the Old Bailey, and, taking into account various factors, he was only bound over. In connection with this case Sir Charles Craven wrote to his friend in America and said with regard to Mayers:
"He appears at the Old Bailey next week, and all I can tell you is that the case will be tried in, camera and that the charge is a serious one.
"I have very definite assurances from Lord Beatty, from the Director of Naval Intelligence at the Admiralty, and from the Chief of the Staff of the Submarine Service (who was largely responsible for my taking Mayers on) that Vickers can in no way be implicated. Even when the trial is over I do not think I shall be able to let you know the whole story until we meet."
Three weeks later he writes again to America as follows:
"For your private information, Mayers has called me for the defence. I told the Admiralty I was afraid he would do so if they did not call me for the prosecution…I have so far received definite confirmation from Lord Beatty that in taking Mayers Vickers acted in the interests of the Admiralty, and they apologise for the trouble they have landed us into."
This close relationship between Vickers and the Admiralty surely needs inquiry, and I hope very much that the Royal Commission will not hesitate to enquire into the details of this rather unfortunate occurrence.
The last word about Mayers is, I think, the meanest sentence in the whole of this rather unpleasant correspondence. This is a letter from Mr. Spear in New York to Sir Charles Craven, dated a year later. He said:
"I have recently received a note from the late unlamented Mayers advising me of his arrival in New York en route to Washington. The note was, of course, duly filed in the waste basket."

385
In other words, they employ this young officer; when he gets into trouble they chuck him out, and then turn down a man whom they had employed, and for whom one cannot help feeling—and I hope the Royal Commission will discover this—that Vickers were in some sense responsible for his fall from grace.
One other very difficult personal case has recently received a good deal of publicity. That is the case of General Sir George Clive, who was Military Secretary at the War Office for four years up to June 1, 1954. While he was at the War Office, he was running a private employment bureau for officers. He is a brother-in-law of the Chairman of Armstrong Whitworth's, General Dawnay, who is also a Director of Vickers-Armstrong and managing partner in a private bank, Dawnay-Day, which controls an armament firm called the Andrews Toledo Company, which is on the War Office List. In this private firm controlling the Andrews Toledo Company the largest shareholder is Sir George Clive. When Sir George Clive was running this private employment bureau for finding places for officers applications for the employment of officers had to come to him as Military Secretary. When he left the War Office in June of last year, he continued this employment bureau for officers and ex-officers, a bureau set up by the Government, and the members of the bureau were all officers, with one exception, Mr. Piggott, whose brother was the Assistant Military Secretary of the War Office, and who recently went to Manchuria with the Barnby Inquiry Commission, Lord Barnby being also a director of the same company, Dawnay-Day.
The officers' employment bureau of which Sir George Clive was Chairman was stated by The Times, writing on this subject on December 3, 1934, to be a secret bureau. They used these words:
"It was realised that the experiment would soon be crushed if all retired and retiring officers of the Army were told about the bureau, and in consequence the existence of the bureau was not made public."
This arises because there have been cases recently of applications by armament firms for officers on the Active List to join them as controllers of the sales of arms. Au example was the Jardine Engineering Corporation of China, who are the agents of Vickers in China, who
386
wrote asking for an officer serving on the Active List to be recommended to them as arms salesman. The Government announced that the letters dealing with this application had been sent to the War Office, and when they were asked about those letters, they replied that the letters could not be traced. I want to ask the noble Viscount whether he will see that those letters are made available for the Royal Commission, because I do not think it is fair to expect the Royal Commission to have to fish about for these things. I think that if the attention of the Government is drawn to certain facts, it is the duty of the Government to place these files at the disposal of the Royal Commission, without application by the Royal Commission. These files are presumably in the Department of the Military Secretary at the War Office. It has been laid down as a result of a recent case, the Franks case, that a civil servant should not subordinate his duty to his private interests, nor was he to put himself in a position where his duty and his private interests were in conflict. I cannot help thinking that in the minds of the public there may be a feeling that Sir George Clive was in a difficult position in this matter, and I cannot help feeling, too, that in the public interest the Royal Commission should examine this private employment bureau and see whether there is not seine method of avoiding this sort of suspicion in the minds of the public in future.
There are a great many officers who go from important positions in the Services to the private employment of these armament firms. I have a long list here, which I do not propose to read out, of officers holding most important and responsible positions in the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Air Ministry who have left these important positions, dealing with the Ordnance Department and with the purchase of arms and and have stepped straight into lucrative position in private armament firms. It is bound to lead to a feeling of doubt in the minds of the public whether it would not be best to avoid even a suspicion of good faith on the part of these ex-officers. I am sorry to have kept the House so long. I believe I am right in saying that there has been a, widespread public demand for a real and 'searching inquiry into this matter. I believe I am right in saying that there has been wide

387
spread misgiving in the minds of the public as to the activities of private armament firms, and I must say that in my own knowledge there has been considerable misgiving at the narrowness of the terms of reference of the Royal Commission. The only object of my Question is to throw light on a number of disquieting aspects of the industry and its far-reaching and, I think I may say, dangerous ramifications, so that the Royal Commission may realise that there is a real and legitimate anxiety on the part of the general public. I beg to move for Papers.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): My Lords, I had rather thought that some other of your Lordships might perhaps be taking part at this stage in the debate and I should have welcomed the opportunity of hearing what they might have to say. I must in the first place thank the noble Lord who has introduced this matter to your Lordships' House for his courtesy in having given me notice of the general lines on which he proposed to develop his case, and for the manner he has dealt with matters arising out of the subject he has chosen. I shall not be, I hope, misunderstood if I say that I cannot but think, for reasons that I shall give and reasons that are not directly connected with the speech that the noble Lord has made, it is perhaps unfortunate he should have chosen this occasion to bring the matter before your Lordships' House. It certainly was not necessary for him to initiate this debate to convince me or His Majesty's Government that this is one of the questions that arouse a very sincere and very profund feeling, as he quite truly said, in the minds of our people.
Rightly or wrongly, they, or many of them—the great majority of them, I myself would believe—conceive this question of the private manufacture of and trade in armaments to be directly connected with the great issues of peace and war on which they feel more deeply and more vehemently than upon anything else; and therefore, regarding war as they do as the greatest evil to which the nation could be exposed, and regarding it indeed as only justifiable in cases of ultimate and extreme national necessity, they are, if I interpret their feeling at all aright, disposed to regard
388
the preparation of the implements of war as too high and too grave a thing to be entrusted to any hands less responsible than those of the State itself, fearing any intrusion into so dangerous a field of any interests less imperative than those of national security and national necessity.
I think that is perhaps not an unfair statement of what is the feeling in the minds of a great many people in this country on this whole question of the private trade and manufacture of armaments. But the noble Lord will believe me when I say that really his Question and his speech were not necessary to convince me or any member of His Majesty's Government of the reality of that feeling, and it was just the fact that they did realise the force of that feeling that led His Majesty's Government to appoint the Commission round which much of what the noble Lord has bad to say revolved. The Government were led to appoint that Commission for two reasons—first of all because, as I said, they realised the strength of public feeling, but also because they realised. what I think the general public does not always realise, the immense complexity of the problem and the issues that are bound up with it. Realising these two things, it seemed to them vitally important that public opinion should be given the opportunity to reach a. reasoned and informed judgment on these matters, and it was by means of this Commission and the inquiry of this Commission that they anticipated, and they hoped, that that opportunity would be afforded.
Before I go into more detail upon what the noble Lord said, may I make this further general observation? Were I to attempt to follow him in detail, which I do not intend to do, if he will excuse me, for the reasons which I shall give in a moment, I would, I think, probably find myself at issue with him upon part of our general approach to the question. He will forgive me if I say that there seems to me a general undercurrent, a general atmosphere pervading all his speech, suggesting that anything done, or any letter written, by any one connected with an armament firm almost certainly was open to, and ought properly to bear, a sinister interpretation. That, I think, without direct evidence or proof, is not

389
worthy of the noble Lord and would not be an attitude worthy of this House.
I do not profess to any professional knowledge, but having perhaps some little knowledge of human nature I do not suppose myself that people who trade in armaments are very much better or very much worse than any other ordinary business men, and I do not suppose that business men are very much better or very much worse than many politicians. The truth is, I think, that human nature is not so variable a quantity as many of us are disposed to think, according to our status and position, and that we are all very much made of one mould, some more successful in resisting temptation than others, some more ready to yield than others, but all very much of the same mould, and, therefore, called upon, as I think, to judge the actions and the motives of one another with a measure of generosity that was not always evident in what fell from the noble Lord. I think that a debate initiated with the kind of speech that the noble Lord made does merit the adjective of "unfortunate" that I ventured to attribute to it at the beginning, for this reason, that I think the whole speech of the noble Lord has gone to show how really impossible it is to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion on the merits of a business so complex and complicated as this by references to quotations from A's letter drawn out, whether fairly or unfairly I cannot judge, of their context, by references to what Sir Basil Zaharoff may have written to somebody some years ago, and all that long list of isolated quotations, with their accompanying inferences—that really seems to me to be the worst of all possible methods in which to attempt to deal with a matter of this difficulty, besides being, as I think, unfair to many individuals.
That being said, I do not think the noble Lord will so far take any serious exception to my differences with him. I want, if I may, to turn to the several parts of the Question that he has placed upon the Paper and that he has developed in his speech. The first point is that in which he calls attention to the terms of reference of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the private manufacture of and traffic in arms. He was concerned to suggest to your Lordships that those terms of reference were unduly restricted, or, if he did not go quite as
390
far as that, I think he said that there had been considerable misgiving in the public mind that the terms were too restricted, and he was concerned to satisfy himself, if possible, that the Commission would not so interpret them. He did not quote the terms, but I am bound, in view of what he said, to remind your Lordships of what exactly those terms of reference are.
The members of the Commission are invited:
"To consider and report upon the practicability and desirability (both from the national and international point of view) of the adoption

"(a) by the United Kingdom alone;

"(b)by the United Kingdom in conjunction with the other countries of the world

of a prohibition of private manufacture "
and so on. In the second place, they were asked:
"To consider and report whether there are any steps which can usefully be taken to remove or minimise the kinds of objections to which private manufacture is stated in Article 8 (5) of the Covenant of the League of Nations to be open."
And in the third place, to examine the present arrangements in force in the Limited Kingdom for the control of the export in arms and so on. I do not dwell so much upon that, because the noble Lord directed the bulk of his observations to the first two.
It is quite true that those terms of reference do differ from the terms of reference to the Commission set up by the United States Government. I am bound to say, I rather hope that our inquiry will differ from the inquiry of the United States, and that not because I wish to see a hush-hush inquiry; I am as anxious as the noble Lord to see this matter probed to the bottom in order to discover anything that is useful; but I cannot believe that it is useful, or that it is necessary to the purpose in view, to have the kind of vague, roving, suggestive, fishing inquiry as it is called, to which those terms of reference in the United States have inevitably given rise. I am bound to say, looking at it with the best intelligence I can apply to it, I cannot conceive any terms wider than these terms that would still be useful, or any useful inquiry from which these terms of reference can rightly be thought to debar the Commission from making. Therefore, although I am not sanguine, I should like to think that I had

391
satisfied the noble Lord to some extent with regard to his first cause of anxiety—namely, the terms of reference.
He then asks a variety of questions concerning the powers of the Commission to compel the production of documents, the trade reports, the contracts placed by Service Departments, and their power to make investigations and so on. I think that it may be convenient to your Lordships if I say what I have to say on all these matters—they fall, I think, pretty well into one group—at the same time. I do not flatter myself that in this respect I shall be saying anything new to the noble Lord, who knows all that there is to know about this question; but I think that what I have to say is not irrelevant, and is, indeed, the only answer that I can make, and that is to refer him, and to refer others of your Lordships who are interested, to the very precise and careful language used by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons in answering these questions in the other place. He there said:
"The Royal Commission will be appointed under the usual form of Warrant giving powers to call persons before them to give evidence, to call for information in writing and to call for and examine documents."
On that I make this comment, that I think he also made in similar form, that there is in fact no instance in recent times of any Royal Commission failing to secure the attendance of witnesses that it had thought fit to summon, and that no doubt for a reason that will not be at all surprising to your Lordships—namely, that if the Royal Commission sends for persons or papers and those persons refuse to come before it or papers are withheld, one can imagine no greater source of damage to their, cause than the knowledge that they had been unwilling or afraid to appear, and public opinion would not be slow to draw a conclusion if any person failed to appear and argue the case before the Commission. The Royal Commission, in the Prime Minister's words, has power to ask for papers, but it is left to the discretion of the Commission how that power should be applied and operated.
The Prime Minister went on to say that the Government meant to give the Commissioners full support in the discharge of their duties, and if the Chairman required to make any representations he
392
would get the assistance of His Majesty's Government in the matter. I do not think that that position can be described by anyone as an unsatisfactory position. It has been made quite clear that whatever be the legal powers of the Royal Commission, they have the assurance of the Prime Minister that if they be found not sufficient, His Majesty's Government will make good the deficiency. The noble Lord thinks the Government should go further, and, if I follow his thought aright, should tell the Royal Commission what papers they ought to ask for and investigate. He referred to one or two more particular papers that he assumed to be on the shelves of Government Departments. I cannot admit that it is the duty of the Government to teach a Commission like this how to do its work, and I think it would be open to manifest objections if the Government were to attempt to do so.
The noble Lord, in his Question and also in his speech, has gone further and has mentioned by name certain cases of which he claims to have knowledge, and in the last part of his Question he has drawn attention to the association that he conceives to exist between armament firms, Government Departments, individual members of such Departments, and the representatives of the British Government abroad. Speaking with the knowledge that the Royal Commission is already doing its work in another part of this City, I am bound to say that I do not know whether those cases which the noble Lord quotes are relevant or not. I have, as a matter of fact, for my own edification been at some pains to satisfy myself that all the cases he has mentioned, if my memory serves me aright, have received the fullest investigation from the Departments of Government concerned with them. Some, as he knows, have been raised in another place, and that, I think, before the Royal Commission was set up. I am bound to say that I think that in matters which are, at this moment, sub judice, it would be quite improper for me—as I respectfully think it is unfortunate for the noble Lord—to be drawn into the discussion of the relevance of certain specific cases to the Commission's inquiry on a general question. If the noble Lord has information, as he evidently has a great deal, which he thinks would assist the Commission in their task, it is quite clearly the proper

393
course for him to draw the attention, of the Commission to it. Therefore, my Lords, there may be some fear that the debate which your Lordships are having this afternoon, so far from assisting the work of the Royal Commission, may be in some risk of making it not less difficult than it is to-day, by the suggestions of suspicion, of doubt and of interference and so on, of which indeed there are plenty already, and which are the implications, I would suppose, of the subject into which the Commission have to enquire.
Let me remind your Lordships in a sentence or two of the position. After very long review, and, as the noble Lord pointed out, having changed their mind on the subject, the Government decided to appoint a strong Commission to enquire into this matter. They appointed a Commission under tried chairmanship, chairmanship of great experience, of which the age the noble Lord quoted is merely a paper figure in no way related to the actual capacities of the Chairman. The Government have been fortunate enough to secure the services of persons who, as I am sure the noble Lord would admit, have made good their position of quite independent citizenship, and therefore can be relied upon to pursue a perfectly independent line in this inquiry. That Commission has just started its work, and has been promised by the Prime Minister whatever powers it needs which it is entitled to ask of the Government, and which the Government can rightly be asked to give it. It is at that moment that the noble Lord comes here and invites this House, as I see it, to express an opinion on an extremely complicated subject that is, and will be no doubt for some time to come, the subject of careful and prolonged inquiry. That, I think, is unfortunate.
If the noble Lord wishes to complain that I have not answered all the points that he has brought before us, I would ask him to excuse me on the ground that if I had done so, many of his friends in another place would say that I was endeavouring to lead the Commission towards the conclusions I wished to see them reach. He will admit that it is contrary to all accepted practice that when a Royal Commission, a quasi-judicial body, is established, the subject of its remit should continue to be discussed
394
outside. It is indeed one of the most fundamental and essential principles, I think, of our government that we should exercise a degree of respect for proceedings that are in progress and, so far as we may, restrain ourselves from commenting while they are still under discussion. I do not know whether your Lordships will agree, but on my own reading of history it certainly is true that one of the greatest dangers to which all democracies are exposed is the danger that they are constantly liable to the temptation of being satisfied with opinions based on inadequate and insecure information. The only way in which public opinion can be informed upon matters that are intricate and complex is impartial inquiry and report. That demands a degree of restraint and a degree of patience and willingness to trust your investigators that it is not always easy for democracy to give and to maintain. Yet it is just those qualities that, as I see it, are indispensable to the wise and balanced judgment on which democracy and all government must ultimately rest.
It is no doubt for those reasons, or such reasons as those, that we have always in this country attached such importance to the respect to be paid to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, in order that that great end—one of the great securities of government—may be respected and preserved. I hope, therefore, that it is not too much to ask noble Lords opposite to agree with us in this respect, as I feel they will: that, having had such a discussion as we have had this afternoon, and I having done my best and, as I hope I may have, in part succeeded in reassuring noble Lords opposite as to the intention and purpose of the Government, we should now allow the Commissioners to get on with their job in the full conviction that they will bring the best of their capacities and abilities to it, and that we should reserve to ourselves the right, should we so desire, to criticise them when they have completed it.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: My Lords, I only want to bring before your Lordships one point in connection with the evidence given before past inquiries which may be made available to the Royal Commission. In 1918, not long before the end of the War, a Committee

395
of Inquiry was set up into the Ordnance Factory at Woolwich, its prospects and the needs in connection with it. The Chairman was the late Mr. McKinnon Wood, formerly Under-Secretary to the Foreign Office. The Committee was appointed in August, 1918, and reported in the following March. It contained representatives of all the Service Departments—the Admiralty, the War Office and the Air Ministry—and also of the Treasury and the Board of Trade, together with two representatives of private armament firms. The evidence, as would naturally appear, is extremely relevant to the subject into which the Royal Commission is to inquire. Voluminous evidence was taken—I have seen it stated—from all the important men connected with the production of arms both as public servants and on behalf of private factories.
The Report contained conclusions on more or less the same subject as that which is referred to the present Royal Commission. It came to the conclusion that the main task was to help the Government arsenals, and did not make any proposal as to the preservation of private armament factories. It reported in these words:
"It is also probable that the country will insist on the production 'of all armaments being confined to Government factories; nor would the disappearance of the larger armament firms materially handicap production in the event of a serious war, since during the present War a very large number of engineering firms have been educated i n armament manufacture, and the basis for armament supply is now so broad that specialising in the future on the part of a limited number of firms will probably not be necessary for the safety of the country."
But my point is a different one. The evidence given before the Committee is clearly, I should imagine, of great value to Sir John Eldon Bankes and his colleagues.
The Government have been approached with a view to the publication of this evidence, which, it appears, was not published along with the Report. On March 7, in another place, the Lord President of the Council replied in these words:
"It has not been possible to trace the evidence in the public records, and past members of the Committee whom I have been able to consult have the impression that evidence was given orally only, and that no record was taken."
396
The statement the Lord President made was not a definite statement, and in view of the doubt indicated it is interesting to note that the fact of the evidence having been recorded appears to be confirmed by publications which were issued at a date very shortly after the issue of the Report. For instance, in a pamphlet called War or Peace reference is made by the writer, Mr. Gilbert Slater, to the evidence taken by the Committee. This was three years later. Some of the evidence is given verbatim in this pamphlet.
For instance, Colonel Dennis, who was Superintendent of the Gun Carriage Department, gave evidence on October 30, 1918. In his voluminous evidence he said:
"Woolwich was the only armament-making concern which was dependent on others for supply of steel. The supply of steel being almost entirely in the hands of the Steel Ring, competition was practically absent, and Woolwich prices were affected by being saddled with an extra profit to the firm supplying the steel, over which they had no control"—
and so on. On August 22, 1918, General Martel gave evidence; he was Chief Superintendent of Ordnance Factories. It is noteworthy that in the pamphlet to which I referred I find it stated: "General Martel gave evidence reported by the Committee as follows"—and then his evidence is given verbatim. Another important witness was Mr. Roberts, who was chief mechanical engineer; he gave evidence on October 22. More than that, it is a fact that interviews by non-officials with the Committee were reported in the local Press of Woolwich, and it would be very strange if the evidence had not been formally recorded.
It seems to me that these facts justify the hesitation of the Lord President of the Council in denying the existence of the evidence, and his expression of a doubt about it. Clearly the evidence would be of great value now. Surely each of the five Departments concerned must have had the evidence. I would venture to urge on His Majesty's Government that further efforts should be made to bring the evidence to light. Surely, whether or not we think that the abolition of private manufacture is desirable, no one denies the importance of the subject. The noble Viscount who has just spoken referred to the profound feeling that the subject arouses in the country. Some aspects of the private arms trade have

397
shocked a large section of public feeling. It seems to me that if the evidence given to the McKinnon Wood Committee were absent, it would arouse grave public concern.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, in the absence of the noble Viscount, I should like my thanks to be conveyed to him for his very full reply to my speech and the Motion which I have put down. He did all that was possible, and all that I expected that he could do in the difficult circumstances. I want to make it clear that I am not attaching blame to any individuals who are employed by armament firms. know that they are no better or worse than business men, members of the Government, members of the Opposition or politicians generally. What I am complaining about is that the results of their activities have much more dangerous effects. The activity of any man doing what he conceives to be in the best interests of the firm which employs him may, in the case of an armament firm, have tremendously serious effects for the country. That is why we have the case of individuals employed in armament firms deploring the outbreak of peace, and praying for the outbreak of war, because that would bring profits to the firms they represent in the private manufacture of arms. The matter is constantly being brought forward, publicly and privately.
I did not suggest that the Government should tell the Royal Commission what documents it ought to have. What I did suggest was that the Government Departments should offer to place at the disposal of the Royal Commission what documents they knew to be relevant. In this connection I see that in another place the Prime Minister said—I am speaking only from memory—that only (hose documents would be produced before the Royal Commission which the Government desired to produce, and if there were any documents which the Government did not desire to produce they would not be produced. That is hardly in keeping with the suggestion that the Government are only too anxious that every document should be made available.
With regard to the personnel of the Royal Commission, I have nothing to say, except that I think it would have added to the confidence of those who represent the workers in this country had
398
there been a representative on the Commission who was what I might call, broadly, a, worker. At the same time that is a minor point, and naturally I have no objection whatever to the members of the Commission. I entirely subscribe to the tribute paid to them by the noble Viscount. It is quite clear there can be no Papers, and the noble Viscount could not have given more information that he did. It was entirely adequate, and I thank him for it, and beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

INCIDENCE OF INCOME TAX.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK VISCOUNT ELIBANK rose to ask His Majesty's Government to consider the desirability of—
(1) altering the existing practice under which Income Tax is deducted from the leave pay of Colonial and Indian officials before any assessment has been made or Any opportunity for appeal has been provided;
(2) extending the six months income Tax exemption period to nine months in the case of Colonial and Indian officials and British business and professional men engaged in earning their living overseas who are not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, and who do not visit the United Kingdom more than once in three years;
(3) altering the existing practice under which Colonial and Indian officials and British business and professional men engaged in earning their living overseas, who maintain residences in Great Britain for their families, are regarded as residents for any Income Tax year during which they visit this country, however short the visit may be:
And to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the points contained in the Question which I bring before the House to-day are by no means new. In 1931 I raised these matters in a speech in your Lordships' House. About 1933 my noble friend Lord Iddesleigh raised similar issues. I am sorry to say that he is not in his place to-day. He sent me word just before the debate, saying that he

399
was very sorry he was unable to be here, otherwise he would have been glad to speak in support of my Motion. present these points once more, to-day, in the hope that I shall receive a more favourable answer from the Government than I did on the former occasion. I am advised that since the year 1931, when I raised these questions first, there has been no alteration in the practice of the levy of Income Tax in relation to the particular classes of individuals who are mentioned in my Motion. The same disabilities exist to-day, in 1935, as existed in 1931, and the same reasons exist for those disabilities being remedied. But, since 1931, there has been a considerable economic improvement in the condition of the country, and that is why I have ventured once more to bring this matter before your Lordships' House, and to the notice. of the Government, in the hope that something may be achieved at last.
I think your Lordships will agree that more than ever to-day it is desirable to take such steps, or any steps, that will maintain contact and connection with our British people overseas, and that every facility should be granted to them, in fact every inducement should be granted to them, to come to the home country in their holidays and their leisure times. At least that is one way in which we can claim to keep contact with our people abroad, and maintain, as I have said, their British connections and outlook. This is so highly important that it cannot be over-rated, and I venture to submit that in spite of the comparatively small loss of revenue which I am told might result, the effect of the proposals indicated in my Motion will be, if I may put it in that way, good business and an act of true vision on the part of His Majesty's Government. With these few prefatory remarks I would like to deal with the points in my Motion categorically.
In the first place, the practice to-day is for Income Tax to be deducted from the leave pay of Indian and Colonial officials before any assessment has been made, or any opportunity for appeal has been provided. That seems not only unfair to me but also, I submit, an illegal action, because until the assessment has been made, obviously the amount payable in Income Tax cannot be decided.
400
I am advised that, in the course of the last two years, in five cases Colonial officials have appealed against the decision of their Department, the Colonial Office, that they were resident in this country for the purpose of the payment of Income Tax, and in four of those five cases the appeal, either to the Board of Inland Revenue or to the Income Tax Commissioners, has gone in favour of the official. The result has been that those officials have had to meet the cost of the appeal to the Income Tax Commissioners, and, naturally, the amounts that had been deducted from their salaries have had to be refunded to them. I should like to know from the noble Earl, who I understand will be replying to my Motion, by what legal right the Colonial or India Office deduct these amounts for Income Tax before the officials leave their Colonies—whether they do so under any Statute which has been passed here, or there, or by what right they do it. I hope that the Government will take this point into consideration and see how it can be remedied.
Let me take the second point—namely, the extension of the six months Income Tax exemption period to nine months. When arguing this point in 1931 the Colonial Secretary of that time, the noble Lord, Lord Passfield, suggested that there was quite an easy way of getting round that difficulty, that the official or the business or professional man could come here for five months before April 5 in an Income Tax year and remain in this country for another five months in the next Income Tax year, and therefore have ten months in a year without coming within the provisions of the six months period. But in actual practice it, does not work out like that, because most of these officials and business men live in climates which render it necessary, or at any rate preferable, to visit this country from April to November—a matter of eight months, we will say, in the Income Tax year. As these people come from these places only once in three or four years for their long leave, they find themselves under the necessity of having to spend at least two months of their leave in foreign watering places in order to escape this unfair Income Tax provision. I submit that a compromise is possible, if the Government will accept it, by which the

401
clause should be amended so that officials and British people from overseas who wish to visit this country shall be enabled. to do so at least once in three years for a period of nine months without the Income Tax provision affecting them.
Now I come to my third point, that is, with regard to altering the existing practice under which those who maintain residences in Great Britain for their families are regarded as residents for any Income Tax year during which they visit this country, however short the visit may be. I cannot do better in support of the contention contained in that part of my Question that read an extract from Lord Passfield's speech in 1931, in which he was replying to the same points put by me to him on that occasion. He said:
"There is a more serious class of case than that, to my mind, and that is the Colonial official, or the person engaged in commercial pursuits, who comes to this country under the head of those who come for a period of six months in the year and will become liable to income Tax, though only to the extent of the income that they receive here or is remitted to this country. If such a person has an abode here—for instance, if his wife is living here or he keeps a house in which his children are living—then if he conies to this country at all during an Income Tax year, he will become liable to Income Tax; upon the amount of the income which is received here or which is remitted to him here.
"That I think is a somewhat hard case. I am not Chancellor of the Exchequer. but I shall certainly take an opportunity of representing that case to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because I have been brought into contact with it in the Colonial Office, and I think it is a little hard on the British official who has gone out to the tropics and comes home, that he should be charged in that way. He is not, as I have said, charged if he has not an abode here, but if his wife is here, or if he has a house for his children, he becomes liable, even if he only comes for one day. That seems a, little hard, and I should like to make a representation on the point. You will notice, however, that he is liable only for the income received or remitted."
Those are the words of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Lord Passfield, spoken in 1931, and in spite of the great sympathy expressed by the noble Lord in that passage of the speech absolutely nothing has been done to remedy even that situation. I suggest to the noble Earl that the time has come when, economically at least, this country could afford to deal with a case which the then
402
Secretary of State for the Colonies admitted was a very hard case indeed. Those are the three points in my Motion. I only ask the noble Earl to give as sympathetic an answer as he can, and in any case, to press upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the real hardship under which these officials and business men suffer from the way in which they are treated by the Inland Revenue when they come here for temporary residence. I beg to move.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL STAN-HOPE): My Lords, as my noble friend says, this is by no means a new question to your Lordships' House. The matter was raised some four years ago, and I am afraid that I have nothing very much to add to the answers that were given to him on that occasion. But perhaps I might briefly go over the points again, so that I may make them clear to the House. They all really bring in the question of residence, which is one somewhat difficult to define. As your Lordships will remember, a visitor is chargeable as a resident, firstly, if in an isolated year he is here for six months or upwards. As my noble friend pointed out, that six months has to be within a financial year, and if it spreads into two financial years, then he escapes, unless it is a total of six months in any one of those two years.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: You say "visitors": Are you talking about foreign visitors, or visitors from overseas?
EARL STANHOPE: All types of individuals who come, whether they are in Government service in the Dominions or in business, or are foreigners, because it applies equally to all types of residents. Secondly, anyone who comes here is chargeable in any year in which a place of abode is available for his use and is maintained here for his wife or family, and he comes even for a day. Thirdly, a visitor is chargeable if, as part of his habit of life, he is regularly here for a substantial period, which in practice amounts to an average annual stay of three months in probably a succession of years four in number or upwards.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I have not put forward any case with regard to foreigners coming to this country. We had all the

403
information we wanted about that point four years ago. I am dealing with British officials and British people who come from the various places where they are working for holiday residence in this country—not foreigners.
EARL STANHOPE: I am perfectly aware of the point, but if I am to make my case properly, I hope the noble Viscount will not interrupt. I am pointing out to the House what residence entails, and I am going on to say that residence applies equally whether a man comes from the Dominions or from other parts of the world. In regard to the noble Viscount's first Question, under Section 17 of the Finance Act, 1923, those who come to this country are chargeable to Income Tax under Schedule E upon their leave pay. The particular paragraph provides that
"the provisions of the Income Tax Acts relating to the deduction, assessment and collection of tax in respect of official pay payable at a public office shall apply accordingly with any necessary modification."
Anybody who sits on this Bench and all Government officials have their tax deducted as their salary is paid. That has been the law of the land since 1842, and therefore there is no very new point about it. It applies under this section to those who are paid their salary by the Colonial Office or by any other public office in this country.
In the case referred to, Income Tax is only deducted or levied where there is a prima facie case in regard to the official being "resident" for the period which I have mentioned. Forms are issued after arrival to each officer, if he is in the Colonial Service or in the Army, explaining the provisions of the Income Tax Acts, and he is given an opportunity of providing the Inland Revenue with information in order to show that he is not liable to tax. He is also informed how to go about exercising his right of appeal to the Special Commissioners if he desires. I am not quite clear how the noble Viscount thinks a man is put to great expense in that respect, because I understand he has only to apply by letter and therefore, obviously, the expense is very small indeed. If deduction of tax were deferred until after an assessment had been made, contrary to the practice in the case of all ordinary officials of the Government
404
of this country, in many cases the officer would have left the United Kingdom and in some cases it would be difficult to recover the tax. I think the noble Viscount will see that there is no very great hardship about this, because the officer has ample time during his residence here to apply to the Income Tax Commissioners, and ask that the deduction shall not be made and give proof that he is not going to make himself liable.
As regards the second Question, I would point out that the tax is only levied on leave pay and any remittances sent to this country and not on an individual's total income. I am bound to admit that when I first looked at the noble Viscount's Question I had a considerable feeling of sympathy with the cases he had brought forward. I felt there was perhaps some hardship imposed on those who live in unhealthy parts of the world doing the King's service and who then come back to this country. But when we come to look into the matter I think we shall find that perhaps we are inclined to exaggerate the claims which the Inland Revenue make. Your Lordships will remember that, after all, this country has to be maintained and therefore those who come here and have the benefit—and there are many benefits—to be found here, obviously have got to pay for them. When these individuals come back they are charged Income Tax only on their leave pay and on any remittances they may send home. As regards Income Tax on income from United Kingdom sources, they are in any event liable to that tax unless their money happens to be in three Government securities—namely, 3½ per cent. War Loan, 4 per cent. Funding Loan, and 4 per cent. Victory Bonds, when only those "ordinarily resident" in this country are liable to tax. In all other cases Income Tax is deducted at source.
I may point out that in regard to the six months falling in the financial year, these cases were all considered by the Royal Commission which reported in 1920, before we got into the financial difficulty of 1931, and that Royal Commission, having the whole facts before it. instead of suggesting that the period should be extended to nine months, as the noble Viscount proposes, recommended that the six months should count

405
as the period after which the individual should become liable to tax, whether those six months fell in one financial year or over the junction of two financial years—that is to say, partly in one and partly in another. Successive Chancellors of the Exchequer have refused to accept that recommendation, and to that extent the policy of successive Governments since 1920 has been more favourable than the Royal Commission on Income Tax recommended at that time. In all cases full statutory allowances and deductions—that is to say, personal allowance for a man and his wife and the allowance for children—are made, although the tax is only chargeable actually on remittances received in this country and not on his total income.
As regards the third Question, the existing practice is based upon various judicial decisions as to what constitutes residence. If an individual maintains a residence for his wife and children, but does not visit this country, his wife is taxed as his agent on all remittances he makes to her which are made out of unearned income. If he visits this country he is taxed on remittances both from earned and unearned income, but only on remittances, not on his total income. Again the Royal Commission when they considered this question recommended that all remittances to this country which a man might make to his wife and family should be liable to tax whether they were made from earned or unearned income, but nevertheless Chancellors of the Exchequer have again refused to accept that recommendation, and remittances made to a wife during the husband's absence are only taxed when made out of unearned income and not from earned income. Further, of course, in regard to Questions 2 and 3, I would point out that if an individual is liable to Dominion. Income Tax in any part of the Empire he is entitled to claim Dominion Income Tax refund so that he does not pay Income Tax twice.
I understand that it is impossible to differentiate between the many different types of visitors who come to this country, and Income Tax must be made as simple as we can make it, particularly in these days when we are doing our best to make it such that the ordinary individual can understand it and to clarify it in a way that has not been the case for many years past. As the noble Viscount knows, that
406
matter is being enquired into at this moment. If you were to extend the proposal contained in his third Question it would be obvious that the American millionaire who comes here for a period would be able to escape paying any taxes in this country and so, too, would the South African magnate. He would be able to say he was coming here on business, and therefore he would escape no less than the individual in the Colonial Service or in the Army in India.
Of course in all these cases the Inland Revenue has to make up its mind how far it is going to lose money by making conditions severe. We wish to encourage visitors to come here, and we wish them to spend money here to the utmost possible extent and so increase the trade and industry which would supply them with their needs while they are here. But if you extend that too far, so that those who visit this country do not pay any taxation at all, they are not contributing their fair share of the revenue derived from those who live here, and we should become not only their hosts in fact but also their hosts in regard to taxation. Therefore Governments have had to draw the line somewhere, and they have come to the conclusion that six months residence for those who come only periodically is a fair line to take, and they feel that to extend it further would not be fair to those who are resident here throughout the year. I shall be glad to represent what has been said to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but in view of the recommendations which were made by the Royal Commission on Income Tax in 1920 and the practice which has grown up over such a long period of years, I am afraid I cannot hold out much hope of success in the representations I shall be glad to make. I must add that I am afraid I have no Papers that I can lay before the House.
THE EARL OF BREADALBANE AND HOLLAND: My Lords, I should like to support what my noble friend Viscount Elibank has said. I understand from the reply which has just been made, that British officials are regarded for purposes of Income Tax as being on the same footing as rich magnates who may come over here for sport or pleasure. I think that those whose case has been so admirably put by my noble friend deserve sympathetic treatment from the Government.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for the courteous reply that he has given to my representations, but I must confess that to me it is a very unsatisfactory reply indeed. The noble Earl ended his speech by telling your Lordships that the Income Tax Commissioners came to a certain decision in the year 1920.
EARL STANHOPE: The Royal Commission, not the Income Tax Commissioners.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. The Royal Commission came to a certain decision in 1920, and successive Governments have supported the conclusions of the Royal Commission.
EARL STANHOPE: I said exactly the opposite. I said they had not gone so far.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I do not quite follow.
EARL STANHOPE: I said the Royal Commission recommended more stringent regulations, and the Governments since that date have not accepted those regulations, but have been less stringent.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I am coming to that point. At the end of his speech the noble Earl said that the Government had supported the Royal Commission in certain of their recommendations. Earlier in his speech he said they had not sup ported the Royal Commission and had gone further than the Royal Commission. I submit to your Lordships, having already departed from what the Royal Commission recommended, that is not a reason for not accepting now these very reasonable proposals which have been put forward three times in the last five years. Again the noble Earl stated that it was difficult to differentiate between the different classes of individuals. I submit that differentiation has already been made. The noble Earl kept referring to visitors and mixing up, if I may say so with all respect, the British Colonial officials and other British business men with the foreign visitors who come here. They, I know, are on an entirely different basis. They can only come for three months in the year, for, I think, three years, and then at the end of three years they have to pay Income Tax on the whole of the three years, because they have been in this country for longer than three months. With regard to the officials, I will ask the noble Earl if he
408
will be good enough to do me the honour of reading my speech in 1931 in which I stated on good authority—
EARL STANHOPE: I am sorry to interrupt, but I cannot continue to be misquoted by the noble Viscount made it quite clear that the position is exactly the same whether the visitor is a Colonial official or a foreigner. If they come for four succeeding years, then three months is an adequate period for taxation.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: If the noble Earl says that is so, then there has been some change in the position, apparently, since 1931.
EARL STANHOPE: It is exactly the same.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: It seems to be no good pursuing that particular point. I wish to say that so far as Colonial and Indian officials and business men are concerned, they ought nut to be treated on the same basis as foreign visitors. There ought to be a differentiation. I believe that the Government are wrong in treating them in the same way as other visitors to this country. Look at the conditions under which they live. They go out to these Colonies and some of them live under the most ghastly conditions. They are doing work for this country and for the Empire and they are entitled to receive better consideration than the ordinary foreign visitors who come to this country. It is on that basis that I raise this matter, and I am exceedingly sorry that the Government are not able to consider even the last point in my Motion which the Secretary for the Colonies in 1931 agreed was a most reasonable one. I am sorry that the Government are not able to accept it. This is not the last time I shall raise the question in this House. I shall raise it again next year on the Estimates, and I hope that on that occasion I shall have the support of other members of this House in trying to induce the Government to see that this is a wrong and absolutely unfair treatment of the Colonial Indian and British residents doing business overseas. I beg to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before seven o'clock.

BOURNEMOUTH GAS AND WATER.
Petition of the Bournemouth Gas and Water Company under their Common Seal, praying for leave to introduce a Bill to provide for the transfer to the Bournemouth Gas and Water Company of the undertaking of the Wimborne Minster Gas Company Limited; to extend the limits for the supply of gas by the Bournemouth Gas and Water Company; and for other purposes; together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto Read, and referred to the Examiners.
BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from His Majesty's Attorney-General received and ordered to lie on the Table.

SUNDERLAND CORPORATION.
BOURNEMOUTH CORPORATION.PETITION FOR BILL.
BOSTON CORPORATION.
PETITION FOR BILL.
SOUTHERN RAILWAY.
PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL PROVISION.
Examiners' Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee.

BAILDON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Fairfax of Cameron and the Lord Rhayader be proposed to the House as members of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Lord Shute (V. Barrington) and the Lord Rowallan: Read, and agreed to.
WEYMOUTH WATERWORKS BILL. [H.L.]
The Order made yesterday appointing certain Lords the Select Committee to consider the Bill, discharged.