Sitting of 18 April 1940

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Blackburn) Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    BENEFIT.
    Mr. Daggarasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that single men at Blaina, Monmouthshire, had been offered employment at Chepstow through the local Employment Exchange and, upon refusal to accept the offer suffered loss or reduction in their allowances, that they afterwards agreed to go to the place of employment and defrayed the cost of travel themselves, but upon arrivel at Chepstow discovered that no employment was available; that they obtained reimbursement of the money spent on travelling but received no consideration for the loss of their allowance from the day of refusing employment to the time they presented themselves at Chepstow; and whether he will take the necessary measures to prevent the recurrence of this practice?
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): My inquiries into this case are not yet complete. I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.
    Sir Richard Aclandasked the Minister of Labour whether he can make any statement about the payment of unemployment benefit to unemployed men who serve as members of lifeboat crews?
    Mr. Brown: I propose to make a regulation shortly under my war-time
    1096
    powers providing that the mere fact of receiving remuneration for attending a wreck shall not debar lifeboatmen who are otherwise unemployed from receipt of unemployment benefit.
    Sir R. Acland: I would like to assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall be very grateful for that regulation.
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the anomalous position of ex-soldiers with pre-1914 disability pensions; and whether he is prepared to treat all disabled ex-soldiers on the same basis so far as qualifications for employment benefit are concerned?
    Mr. Brown: Unemployment Insurance legislation has never made special provision for pensioners of wars earlier than that of 1914–18. If the hon. Member has any specific case in mind, I shall be glad to have particulars.
    Mr. Glenvil Hallasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, when a local authority desires to fill vacancies in its air-raid precautions staff, entrants have to undergo a week's preliminary training without pay whilst at the same time they are disqualified for unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance; and whether he will take steps to remove this disqualification in respect of the training period?
    Mr. Brown: I am making inquiries and will communicate with the hon. Member in due course.

    SHIPS' PAINTERS.
    Mr. Graham Whiteasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the present high rate of unemployment in the ship-painting industry; and what steps he proposes to take to deal with it?
    Mr. E. Brown: On 1st April the number of ships' painters in Great Britain registered as wholly unemployed was 196. This figure represents a decrease of 240 since the end of January, 1940. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. and learned Member for Greenock (Mr. R. Gibson) on 4th April.

    PART-TIME WOMEN WORKERS (MARYHILL).
    Mr. J. J. Davidsonasked the Minister of Labour the total number of part-time women employees at present signing at the Maryhill Employment Exchange; and how often they sign per week?
    Mr. E. Brown: I am having the available figures extracted and will forward them to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

    TRAINING CENTRES.
    21. Mr. A. Jenkinsasked the Minister of Labour whether opportunities are provided for men of 50 years of age and upwards to train for industrial jobs; and whether he can state the number of such men already trained, or in training at present?
    Mr. E. Brown: The normal upper limit of age of recruitment for the Government training centres is 45, but two months ago I decided to admit men over 45 provided they are sufficiently fit and handy to take full advantage of the course. Men over 50 who satisfy this condition can be accepted. No figures are available as to the number of such men already trained or in training.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Mr. Ralph Ethertonasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the varying practice of different tribunals hearing applications for exemption from service in the Armed Forces on conscientious grounds, he will instruct or circularise tribunals on the advisability of taking evidence on oath?
    Mr. E. Brown: I have no power to issue instructions to the tribunals in this matter, which by regulation is left to the discretion of the chairmen, who are all men of judicial experience.
    Mr. Radfordasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention had been drawn to the recent granting by the South Wales military service tribunal of unconditional exemption as a conscientious objector to a man who told the tribunal that his objections were political; that he had fought for 21 months in the Republican Army in Spain and that he had killed and would kill again; and whether he has appealed against this decision?
    Mr. Brown: I have seen a Press reference to this case and have called for a report. I will consider the question of an appeal when I have the facts before me.
    Mr. Radford: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that according to this man's own statement he clearly did not come within the category of conscientious objectors as laid down in the Act?
    Mr. Brown: I can make no ex parte statement on this matter. I will have all the facts before me and then give my decision.
    Mr. Thorne: Is it not a fact that a man who can fight in one war can fight in another?

    ONE-MAN BUSINESSES.
    23. Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Labour whether he will reconsider the incidence of hardship affecting men in higher age groups with a view to enabling longer periods of exemption being granted in cases where it could be proved that small businesses would be closed down if the owner were called up for military service or where exceptional hardship would be imposed on the family of the man liable to military service?
    Mr. E. Brown: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) on 11th April as regards postponement granted on the ground of business responsibilities and interests. There is no overriding maximum period in cases based on domestic circumstances.
    Mr. Sorensen: Would it not be possible for an applicant after finishing his period of postponement to make an appeal on the ground of hardship?
    Mr. Brown: That, of course, would depend upon the length of the postponement which had been allowed.

    COST-OF-LIVING INDEX.
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Minister of Labour whether he is yet in a position to announce the composition of the committee which he proposes to appoint in connection with the revised cost-of-living index?
    Mr. E. Brown: I have decided that the further action required in connection with the revised cost-of-living index can best be carried out by the existing Advisory Committee, whose previous assistance in connection with the methods to be adopted in the conduct of the inquiry was so valuable. I am accordingly taking steps to invite the committee to undertake this additional task.

  CIVIL DEFENCE.

    EVACUATION (CHILDREN).
    Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that some children, whose schools have been evacuated from a vulnerable to a nearby safe area, are living at home, travelling to and from school each day, whilst others come home for week-ends regularly; and whether he will state the number of such children?
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): I understand that the conditions to which the hon. Member refers do obtain in a small number of cases, but I am afraid that I could not give the number of children concerned.
    Mr. Davies: How can the right hon. Gentleman suggest that there is only a small number of cases when he does not know the number?
    Mr. Levyasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the small percentage of parents who have registered for the evacuation of their children in the event of intensive air raids, the Government have any other plan for the evacuation of children by voluntary or compulsory means if the necessity becomes imperative?
    Mr. Elliot: The Government's plans provide for the orderly evacuation of children in school parties. The operation of these plans is not governed by the numbers who have registered since the plans were prepared, but I am reviewing the position in the light of all the information now to hand.

    CAMOUFLAGE.
    Sir J. Graham Kerrasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give an estimate of the expenditure upon camouflage up to the present date; whether he is aware that the application of paint for purposes
    1100
    of war camouflage can be adequately carried out by ordinary workmen if provided with the necessary scientific supervision; and what steps he is taking to secure this, as the artistic representation of one type of object on another, as, for example, of trees upon the walls of a cooling tower or hangar, is of negligible camouflage value?
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir John Anderson): My Department have approved estimates for civil camouflage work amounting to over £440,000. It is the practice for camouflage painting to be done on contract with ordinary painting firms. I am advised that supervision by scientists is not necessary at that stage if—as is the case with camouflage work carried out under the control of my Department—scientific direction has been applied at an earlier stage in the preparation by experts of a detailed scheme, based where necessary on aerial observation, before the painting work is put out to contract.
    Sir J. Graham Kerrasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that, in view of the subject of camouflage having assumed urgent practical importance, the appointment of a special advisory committee on this subject was announced in the beginning of August; that the committee was summoned to meet for the first time in October; that the chairman and the two members of the committee possessing the requisite scientific and practical qualifications have now resigned or expressed their desire to resign; and whether he will make a statement?
    Sir J. Anderson: As I informed my hon. Friend on 19th October, it is the fact that the committee held its first meeting in October, but this did not occasion any delay in the progress of urgent work. The committee has had 13 meetings, and has given valuable advice to the Department. The chairman has found it necessary to resign owing to the pressure of other public work. I have been examining the question of camouflage in the light of the experience gained since the war, and I propose some reorganisation of this work. The advisory committee is about to be reconstituted with some modification of its functions. It is true that two of the members expressed a wish to resign

    1101
    before the reconstitution of the committee was decided upon, but I hope to be able to make arrangements by which the assistance they are in a position to render may still be available to the Department.

    SHELTERS (FALKIRK AND DISTRICT).
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Home Secretary whether he is now in a position to supply the Falkirk and district area of Stirlingshire with steel shelters and other protection against air-raids; and whether he will now include the district in the protected areas?
    Sir J. Anderson: The Eastern No. 1 District of Stirlingshire, to which I take it the hon. Member refers, was made a specified area, for the purposes of Part III of the Civil Defence Act, by Order dated 29th January, 1940. An initial allocation of 600 steel shelters has been made to this area.
    Mr. Woodburn: Can the Minister assure us that this is to be continued until the whole area is properly protected?
    Sir J. Anderson: I hope to be able to make a further allocation of shelters to that area. But I hope to be making a general reply on the subject of steel shelters later this afternoon.
    Mr. Levy: What does my right hon. Friend propose to do with those shelters which are not yet erected or which have been erected and used for purposes other than those for which they were intended?
    Sir J. Anderson: That is not a question that I can answer on this occasion.

    SICK PAY SCHEME.
    Mr. Parkerasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Mr. J. La Thangue, of 132, Aldborough Road, Seven Kings, a civil defence volunteer, who was injured in the course of air-raid precautions training in Dagenham on the 24th November last, cannot get compensation for the injuries because the accident occurred before the sick pay scheme announced by the air-raid precautions department, Circular No. 313/1939, had come into operation, which scheme was not retrospective; and will he make this scheme retrospective to meet such cases?
    Sir J. Anderson: Compensation for injuries sustained on duty by civil defence volunteers is governed, not by the Circu-
    1102
    lar mentioned but by the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme, 1939, and I am informed that Mr. La Thangue has received and continues at present to receive the payments to which he is entitled under that scheme.
    Mr. Parkerasked the Home Secretary what is the approximate number of persons who would receive grants if the sick pay scheme announced by the air-raid precautions department, Circular No. 313/1939, were made retrospective in operation?
    Sir J. Anderson: I regret that it is not possible to form an estimate.

    EDUCATION AUTHORITIES' EXPENDITURE.
    Mr. Tomlinsonasked the Home Secretary whether he will make provision for the local education authorities, as such, to be consulted when the revision of grants under the 1937 Act relating to air-raid precautions is taking place, in view of their peculiar position and the dispute which has arisen between these authorities and his Department?
    Sir J. Anderson: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 4th April to a Question by the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Whiteley).
    Mr. Tomlinson: As the answer was in the negative on that occasion, may I ask the Home Secretary what are the grounds upon which he refuses to give a hearing to these people?
    Sir J. Anderson: I have not refused to hear anyone, and I have no desire to exclude anyone, but I have been dealing with local bodies responsible for the control of local government finance. I think that is constitutional and right.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Is the Minister not aware that autonomous powers are given to the majority of the large local education authorities, and that the people with whom he is dealing are not familiar with the matter under discussion?
    Sir J. Anderson: As I have previously explained, the matter under discussion is the burden thrown upon the finances of local authorities by civil defence work.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of this reply, and frequent replies on other occasions, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on

    1103
    the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    MUNITION WORKERS (HEALTH).
    Sir Ernest Graham-Littleasked the Home Secretary whether he proposes to set up any committee, such as that set up in 1915, to consider the health of munition workers; and what steps are being taken at the present time to ensure that the output of munition works, and other undertakings engaged in Government contract work, does not suffer through the enforcement of long hours, reduction of holidays and worsening of conditions generally?
    Sir J. Anderson: The Health of Munition Workers' Committee was succeeded by the Industrial Health Research Board, which is still in active operation; and since the last war there have been considerable developments in the matter of industrial welfare. The Board have just issued a special report, called "Industrial Health in War," containing recommendations as to hours of work and other matters. The Government have prominently in mind the importance of avoiding the mistaken policy of attempting to increase output by excessively long hours and other arrangements which are liable to diminish the workers' speed and efficiency. The question what further steps can advantageously be taken to ensure that this aspect of the problem of production receives full attention by all concerned is one on which I am at the present time in consultation with the Supply Departments and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.
    Sir E. Graham-Little: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in the last war the special departments of the hospitals were flooded with cases of injury sustained in munitions manufacture and that it was found that medical treatment in the early phases of these disorders was very successful in shortening their duration? Will he take thought for the provision of early medical treatment in the present position?
    Sir J. Anderson: I will take note of what the hon. Member has said.
    Mr. Ede: Could the right hon. Gentleman say if investigations have proved the effect of long hours on the costings staffs in shipyards?
    Sir J. Anderson: I could not answer that question without notice.
    Mr. Mander: Has the report in question been published?
    Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir.

    AIR RAID WARDENS (REFUND OF PAY).
    Major-General Sir Alfred Knoxasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sums he has received since the beginning of the war from the air-raid precautions wardens of the Virginia Water group of the Egham Urban District Council, being refund of their pay as air-raid precautions wardens, voluntarily offered by wardens of this group for expenditure on some other national purpose?
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): Sums amounting in all to £300 have been received. I am sure the House will share the appreciation which I have already conveyed to the donors of their public-spirited action.
    Sir A. Knox: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer state whether any similar sums have been received from any other groups in the country?

    HOUSING (POST-WAR PLANNING).
    Sir Annesley Somervilleasked the Minister of Health whether he has prepared, or is preparing, large necessary schemes of building, including especially slum-clearance, which will provide considerable employment in the building industry immediately after demobilisation?
    Mr. Elliot: As it is not possible, at present, to forecast with any degree of confidence the nature or the extent of the housing problems which will arise during the war, I feel that it would be premature to take such steps as my hon. Friend suggests. I can assure him, however, that, as each such problem arises and is dealt with, I shall consider its possible effect on post-war conditions, as I am anxious that, when the war ends, local authorities shall be able to proceed at once with housing schemes. An immediate start will be possible in the case of those slum clearance and other housing schemes which were begun before the war and which may remain uncompleted when hostilities cease.

    TUBERCULOSIS (WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE).
    Mr. A. Jenkinsasked the Minister of Health the number of tubercular patients in Wales and Monmouthshire now waiting for admission to sanatoria; whether the number on the waiting list is on the increase; and whether steps are being taken to provide a sufficient number of beds fully to meet the needs?
    Mr. Elliot: On 1st April last there were 258 patients awaiting admission to sanatoria in Wales and Monmouthshire. The number was 272 at the corresponding period of last year, and 357, 369 and 183 at the three intervening quarters respectively. As the hon. Member is aware, construction of additional hospitals to accommodate nearly 1,000 patients is in hand at Denbigh and Chepstow; the former hospital is approaching completion, and the latter is expected to be completed in September next.
    Mr. Jenkins: Is the Minister satisfied that in the future there will be ample accommodation for the whole of these cases?
    Mr. Elliot: The accommodation should cover the present waiting list itself, although, of course, as the hon. Member knows, accommodation in North Wales is not always usable by patients in other parts of Wales.

    PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (INVALIDS' RENT).
    Mr. Martinasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, in the case of certain invalids, such as tuberculosis patients, on public assistance and forbidden by medical advice to work, great hardship is sometimes caused by the inadequate nature of relief in districts where the rent level is abnormally high; and whether, therefore, he will take steps to see that public assistance committees pay the rent in such cases, at any rate, when it exceeds a specified amount and where other accommodation is not available?
    Mr. Elliot: I have no evidence of any general hardship arising in this way. It is the normal practice of public assistance authorities in granting relief to have regard to the amount of rent paid by the applicant; but if the hon. Member has
    1106
    any particular case in mind and will let me have details, I will have inquiry made into it.

    WELSH BOARD OF HEALTH.
    Mr. A. Jenkinsasked the Minister of Health what additional duties are to be placed on the Welsh Board of Health, and from what date are the additional duties to be undertaken?
    Mr. Elliot: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones) on 15th February. The powers which I then mentioned will be exercised through the Welsh Board of Health on and from 1st May. Details of the new arrangements will be given in a circular shortly to be addressed to Welsh local authorities, of which I will send the hon. Member a copy.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. Tomlinsonasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware of the application for a pension made by Mrs. E. J. Mullins, of 42, Rydal Avenue, Warrington, widow of Mr. Michael Mullins, late driver, Royal Army Service Corps; that Mullins was passed A1 on 4th January, reported at Shrewsbury on 10th January, and died from heart failure, caused by bronchitis, on 19th January; and whether, in view of the probability that death was attributable to the severe weather under Army conditions, Mrs. Mullins' claim for a pension will be reconsidered?
    The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): It has not been possible in the time available to obtain the papers regarding this case. I will, however, look into it and write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Do the same conditions apply to other cases similar to this?
    Sir W. Womersley: Yes, Sir, I have other cases to consider.
    Mr. Tomlinson: May I further ask whether it can be assumed when an individual is passed A.1 by the authorities and afterwards while serving in the Army he contracts a disease from which he dies, that a case can be established for a pension?
    Sir W. Womersley: It can be assumed that a case can be put to me for consideration.
    Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is an old grievance and that it really should receive very serious attention? If a man dies within a fortnight of joining the Service, is it not a logical conclusion that either there has been something wrong with the medical inspection of that man or else a pension should automatically be granted to his family?
    Sir W. Womersley: I can assure the hon. Member that all these cases do receive careful consideration by myself personally. I do understand the feeling there is in this matter, in the House and in the country generally.
    Mr. Silverman: In view of the feeling which the right hon. Gentleman appreciates, does he not think that the time has now come when some reconsideration might be given to the question whether there should be some opportunity for a third party to assist in these disputed cases instead of leaving the Minister to be the judge, jury and witness in his own case?
    Sir W. Womersley: That is a question of policy to which I dare not venture to reply.

    INDIA (POLITICAL SITUATION).
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Under-Secretary of State for India, whether he has any further statement to make respecting the present political position in India?
    The Under-Secretary of State for India (Sir Hugh O'Neill): I would ask the hon. Member to await the statement which I shall be making this afternoon in moving the Motions which stand in my name.

    FACTORIES (CHIEF INSPECTOR'S REPORT).
    Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the many changes in factory life brought about by the emergency, he will issue the annual report of the Chief Inspector of Factories this year, before the end of June?
    Sir J. Anderson: The Chief Inspector of Factories is anxious to issue this report as early as he can, but I regret that it is not possible to promise that it will be ready before the end of June. Work on the preparation of the report cannot be given precedence over other urgent duties, including duties connected with the war.
    Mr. Davies: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that every year there is great difficulty about this report, and that this is about the only report of a Government Department that is not issued in time?
    Sir J. Anderson: I can assure the hon. Member that we are doing our best to get the report out.
    Viscountess Astor: Is it not true that if we ask unnecessary questions about factories, it takes the inspectors off their job, and really defeats the very object we have in mind?

    TRUCK ACTS (GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS).
    Sir George Broadbridgeasked the Home Secretary whether he has completed his examination of the position consequent on the recent decision of the House of Lords regarding the operation of the Truck Acts; and whether he is now in a position to make a statement?
    Sir J. Anderson: I am advised that the effect of the decision of the House of Lords in the recent case of Pratt v. Cook, is that in certain classes of case an employer may not contract to remunerate a workman, for example, with £3 a week, plus meals valued at say 10s., even where he could legally have contracted to pay £3 10s. less 10s. for meals supplied, and that where a contract has been in the form now declared to be illegal, claims can be made for the recovery of the remuneration not paid in cash over a period of 20 years past. The result is that a number of workpeople, in various employments, who have been supplied with food or other things as part of their remuneration, in some cases with specific trade union agreement, can, if the contract happens to have been cast in the form now declared to be illegal, claim to be remunerated twice over. Some claims of this kind have already been launched, and there is reason to believe that others are contemplated.

    1109
    In future, any contracts must be in a form which complies with the provisions of the Truck Acts, as now interpreted by the House of Lords, and it is not proposed to amend those provisions; but it appears to the Government to be necessary and proper to legislate for the purpose of preventing claims as regards the past which have no merits and would, if pursued, tend to disturb good relations between employers and employed. They accordingly propose to introduce at once a Bill to bar claims, under Section 4 of the Truck Act of 1831,for the payment in cash of remuneration which was, in fact, provided in the form of food or some other thing, in those cases in which it would have been legal to contract to pay a higher nominal money wage but to make deductions from that wage in respect of the food or other thing provided. The Bill will provide for the discharge of proceedings which have already been started, subject to such Order as to costs as the Court may think proper. Judgments given or settlements reached before to-day will not be interfered with.
    Sir G. Broadbridge: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, might I ask what would be the position as regards any judgments that might be obtained after to-day and before the proposed Bill becomes law?
    Sir J. Anderson: I am considering this point with my legal advisers. It is not free from technical difficulties, but I should like to make it clear at once that a litigant or prospective litigant would have no legitimate grievance if, when the proposed Bill became law, he found that Parliament had decided to nullify the effect of the present law.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: In view of the importance of this declaration, might I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has been in contact with the Trades Union Congress on the matter?
    Sir J. Anderson: Certain discussions have taken place, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the whole matter will be left to the decision of the House when the Bill is introduced, which I hope will be at an early date.
    Mr. Garro Jones: Would it not be fair, in legislating on such a delicate matter, to provide that litigants who have already commenced proceedings, with the law as
    1110
    it stands, should be allowed their full costs?
    Sir J. Anderson: The hon. Member will find that that point is covered by my answer.
    Mr. Garro Jones: The right hon. Gentleman said that it would be for the courts to decide as to costs. I am asking that it should be decided by this House.
    Sir J. Anderson: That is a matter for consideration when the Bill comes before the House.
    Mr. Leslie: Would it not be wiser to strengthen the present Act, so that all workers should be paid entirely in current coin of the realm, instead of being paid partly in kind?
    Mr. McGovern: Has there been consultation between the various parties on this question? Does not this affect national unity? [Interruption.] I understood that there was a system of consultation between the various parties, and I should like to know whether there is unity on this.
    Sir J. Anderson: I merely indicated that it was proposed to introduce a Bill. It will be discussed at the appropriate time.
    Mr. Sorensen: Will the Bill which is to be introduced have the effect, in fact, of nullifying the verdict in the successful action that was brought in the House of Lords recently?
    Sir J. Anderson: Certainly not.

    SOUTH EASTERN EUROPE (SITUATION).
    Mr. Arthur Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make on the conference of British diplomatic representatives recently held in London?
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Ambassador at Angora and His Majesty's Ministers at Athens, Belgrade, Bucharest, Budapest and Sofia have now left, or are leaving, the United Kingdom to return to their posts after their visit to this country for purposes of consultation. During the nine days or so in which they have been here they have examined, under the chairmanship of the Secretary of State for

    1111
    Foreign Affairs, the outstanding problems presented by the situation in South Eastern Europe. His Majesty's Ambassadors in Rome and Moscow, who are also in this country, have assisted at these discussions. The Heads of Missions concerned, who have all been received in audience by His Majesty the King, have had the opportunity also of meeting myself, the Minister of Economic Warfare, the Minister of Information, and members of the Cabinet, with whom they have discussed the questions in which these Ministers are specially interested. His Majesty's Representatives also had an opportunity of hearing from Lord Swinton some account of the new United Kingdom Commercial Corporation and of the work which the Corporation intends to carry out in order to develop and place permanently on a broader basis the trade exchanges between this country and South Eastern European States.
    These consultations, which have now been concluded, have afforded evidence of the close interest which His Majesty's Government take in the countries concerned. The purpose of the discussions has been, in accordance with the settled policy of His Majesty's Government, the preservation of peace and the promotion of security in the Balkans and Danubian countries. No one of these States, between whom it is the desire of the Allies to see the growth of a mutual understanding, has any cause to fear that the Allies or their forces will ever threaten their independence or integrity.
    In the economic field the discussions have been conducted on the basis that it is the policy of His Majesty's Government so to develop their relations with these countries as to ensure, so far as possible, a lasting increase in their commercial exchanges with them.
    Mr. Henderson: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his reply also means that any threat to the freedom and independence of any of the South Eastern nations will be a matter of grave concern to His Majesty's Government?
    The Prime Minister: I have already expressed the concern which His Majesty's Government feel for the situation in the Balkans and their desire to promote peace and to establish security in that region.
    Mr. Thorne: I take it that this country does not want to pinch anybody else's country?
    Mr. McGovern: No, we have enough—all that we can handle.

    GERMANS (DESIGNATION).
    Sir Nairne Stewart Sandemanasked the Prime Minister whether he will give instructions that in all Government communications the word "German" is used and never the word "Nazi"?
    The Prime Minister: The word "Nazi" is in fact seldom, if ever, used in official communications; no such instructions are therefore necessary.
    Sir N. Stewart Sandeman: Would the Prime Minister extend his influence to corporations like the B.B.C., which use nothing but the word "Nazi," and does not he think that the German people are responsible and must take the responsibility for what is coming to them?
    The Prime Minister: I have already stated in a public speech that the German people cannot escape their responsibility for their Government.
    Sir N. Stewart Sandeman: May I have an answer about the B.B.C.? Will the Prime Minister use his influence with them?
    Mr. McGovern: Is there not a better word, beginning with "B", which might be suitable?
    Mr. Davidson: Is the Prime Minister aware that the B.B.C. do not use the word "Nazi," but that they say "Nahzi"?

  AGRICULTURE.

    FOOD PRODUCTION.
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will introduce legislation to ensure the maximum food production per acre from the land of this country, as distinct from the indiscriminate ploughing-up programme?
    The Minister of Agriculture (Colonel Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith): To ensure the maximum food production per acre is not primarily a matter of legislation, but of

    1113
    the most efficient use of the available resources of land, labour, equipment and fertilisers. Should further legislation be required, my hon. Friend can rest assured that it will be introduced.
    Mr. De la Bère: Are we to understand from that answer that no further development in connection with assistance to secure the maximum output is contemplated?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: No, Sir.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is not that a farce, almost a tragedy, and a suggestion nearly akin to tears?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: No, Sir.

    GRASSLAND PLOUGHING.
    Mr. Wilfrid Robertsasked the Minister of Agriculture when he will be prepared to give the acreage of grassland ploughed out in each county, and the acreage allotted to that county?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I propose to obtain final estimates on 15th May as to the acreage of grassland ploughed out in each county and will then be prepared to publish figures for individual counties.
    Mr. Davidson: Will the figures with regard to Scotland be issued by the Scottish section?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: That is another question.
    Mr. Roberts: What objection can there be to publishing the names of the counties which have exceeded their quota before the end of April?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I would sooner give a full and an exact account of all when the campaign is finished.
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will give an assurance that it will be his policy to ensure for next season that an additional 1,000,000 acres of land in this country shall be brought in under the plough?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I am not in a position to forecast the details of the home food production campaign for 1940–41.
    Mr. De la Bère: May I know what the programme for 1941 is to be, and whether it is from Bedford Square or Westminster that we are to have direction?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: From this House.
    Mr. De la Bère: That is a very satisfactory answer, and I welcome it.

    FARM-WORKERS (RELEASE FROM THE ARMY).
    Mr. W. Robertsasked the Minister of Agriculture whether the total number of men now released from the Army on agricultural grounds has yet reached the maximum agreed upon; and whether any more men are now to be released?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: A small balance remains of the total number of releases from the Army which can be granted on agricultural grounds, but the number of applications which have already been received and are still outstanding greatly exceeds this balance. Having regard to the needs of the Army, the Government are unable to grant any further releases on agricultural grounds after the present number has been exhausted, though various other ways in which the Army can help agricultural needs are being considered.
    Mr. Roberts: Does that really mean that it is no use any farmer in any circumstances making an application to have a man released from the Army?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Yes, Sir.

    ALLOTMENTS.
    Mr. Whiteasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is satisfied with the progress made to date in the provision of additional allotments; and whether it is still his wish that 500,000 fresh allotments should be cultivated this year?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Until the returns which I have asked local authorities to make by 22nd April have been tabulated, I should prefer not to give a definite reply as regards the progress of the wartime allotment campaign, although the information which has so far reached me is distinctly encouraging. It is certainly my wish that 500,000 additional allotments should, if possible, be cultivated this year, and I have recently urged the local authorities, whose active and energetic co-operation I greatly appreciate, to make a final effort before the season is too far advanced.
    Mr. Whiteasked the Minister of Agriculture whether any estimate has been made of the amount of land which

    1115
    might be made available for allotments in gardens of unoccupied houses?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: No, Sir. I know of no means whereby such an estimate could be arrived at.

    POULTRY (PRODUCTION).
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will take steps to ensure an immediate expansion of the hatching programme for poultry-keepers, in view of the present stoppage of supplies of eggs from the Scandinavian countries which necessitates this further expansion; and whether, in this connection, he will confer with the Minister of Food to ensure that adequate supplies of imported wheat and also cut wheat are available for this purpose?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Poultry production in this country must largely depend upon the volume of supplies of feeding-stuffs that can be imported from overseas, having regard to other defence requirements, and it is not possible to give the assurances with regard to future supplies which would have to form the basis of any Government action designed to increase the hatching programme of poultry keepers. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Food has recently made arrangements, after consultation with the Agricultural Departments, to make available a supply of cut wheat for chick feeding. The proportion of home-grown wheat that may be used for feeding purposes was also increased by an Order made on 15th March.

    WASTE MATERIALS (UTILISATION).
    Rear-Admiral Beamishasked the Minister of Agriculture whether his Department is taking steps to provide newly-ploughed land with humus derived from the large supplies of town waste, or whether this method is being encouraged through the efforts of local authorities and private persons?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Yes, Sir. Local authorities which have available waste materials suitable for fertilising purposes have been approached, and I am hoping to issue at an early date an advisory leaflet about the use of such material.
    Mr. R. C. Morrison: Will the Minister bear in mind that local authorities are
    1116
    now accumulating these materials at the rate of several thousand tons per week, and that up to now neither the local authorities nor the farmers have had the slightest guidance as to whether there is any useful fertilising value in these materials? Can he not take some steps to deal with the enormous stocks of these materials?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: That is under consideration.

    ROOKS.
    Rear-Admiral Beamishasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the serious damage now being caused by rooks, he will, by order or otherwise, empower county war agricultural committees to insist upon the lessening of the rook population?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Yes, Sir. In accordance with the powers conferred on me by Defence Regulation 63, I have made the Rooks Order, 1940, which empowers county war agricultural executive committees, if they are satisfied that the rooks in any rookery are so numerous that they cause, or are likely to cause, injury to crops, to serve on the occupiers concerned an order requiring the reduction of their numbers within a specified period. Failure to comply with the requirements of an order is a punishable offence and, in the event of non-compliance, committees may, without prejudice to any legal proceedings, enter on the land and take the necessary action themselves.
    Mr. Lawson: Does the same apply to rabbits?
    Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Rabbits have already been dealt with in a satisfactory way.

    ALIENS (REGIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE).
    Sir A. Knoxasked the Home Secretary whether refugee tribunals are in the habit of calling the sponsors before the court?
    Sir J. Anderson: It is open to the regional advisory committees to invite any person to appear before them who, they consider, is in a position to give any useful information about an alien, and it is, of course, important that when the committee's decision is likely to be

    1117
    affected by information given by some person who is acquainted with the alien, the committee should take steps to satisfy themselves as to the reliability of the informant and as to the degree of his personal knowledge of the alien. This point is well appreciated by the chairmen of these committees.
    Sir A. Knox: Is it not true that very seldom the sponsors are called in front of these committees, and that these people are passed off-hand without proper inquiry?
    Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir. These committees have only recently begun their work.

    WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.
    Mr. Bateyasked the Home Secretary whether he can now say when the Workmen's Compensation Bill will be introduced?
    Sir J. Anderson: Copies of this Bill, which is being introduced to-day, will, I understand, be available this afternoon.

    GOVERNMENT FACTORIES (WORKERS' CONDITIONS).
    Mr. Manderasked the Home Secretary the average and maximum hours of work per week in Government factories, including overtime?
    Sir J. Anderson: The variation of conditions in different factories and at different times is such that I fear it is not possible to give a picture of the position within the compass of a reply to a Question, but the importance of avoiding excessive hours of work is a matter to which due attention is being given by all Departments responsible for Government factories.
    Mr. Mander: Is it not the case that in some instances hours of work are between 70 and 90, and is the Home Secretary satisfied that production is actually increasing?
    Sir J. Anderson: That point is dealt with in answer to another Question. I have established contact between the Factories Department and the various Supply Departments.
    Mr. Manderasked the Home Secretary the arrangements made generally for welfare work in Government factories; what persons or organisations are in charge of it; and whether it is being done through a Government Department or voluntary agency?
    Sir J. Anderson: Welfare arrangements in a Government factory are primarily a matter for the Department responsible for that particular factory, and the extent to which the staffs of factories are assisted by voluntary welfare organisations varies with the circumstances; but the Home Office as the Department responsible for the administration of the Factories Acts is much interested in these arrangements, and I have been in consultation with the Supply Departments on the best method of ensuring that a forward policy shall be followed by all Government Departments and that full use shall be made of the experience and knowledge which have been acquired on the subject.
    Mr. Mander: Are there no particular voluntary organisations with which the Home Office is co-operating on this matter?
    Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir, there are voluntary organisations co-operating with Supply Departments.
    Viscountess Astor: Is it not true that the Home Office knows far more about it than all the voluntary organisations put together?
    Sir J. Anderson: We are able to offer them valuable assistance.

    JUVENILE DELINQUENCY.
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Home Secretary whether he has any information, including statistical returns, respecting the number of juvenile delinquents whose cases have been considered in the courts during the past six months; the approximate number now in remand homes compared with September, 1939; and whether any special consideration is being given to the incidence of increased juvenile delinquency?
    Sir J. Anderson: As I informed the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Parker) on 9th April, figures relating to juvenile delinquency since the outbreak of war are not yet available, but they are being collected

    1119
    and tabulated as quickly as the circumstances permit. Information which has reached me from different sources suggests that, while there was a pronounced decrease in juvenile delinquency shortly after the outbreak of war, there has since been an increase. This is not perhaps surprising in view of the disturbance of school and home life caused by evacuation and other conditions arising from the war.
    Mr. Sorensen: May I ask when we are likely to get some information of a more specific character regarding the reports, heard on every side, about the disturbing increase in juvenile delinquency and whether the right hon. Gentleman will reply to the last sentence in my Question?
    Sir J. Anderson: The answer to the last part of the Question is that the Home Office is in close touch with the various authorities concerned. With regard to the first part of the Supplementary Question, I think the first detailed information on the subject will become available when the report of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police is published. That, I hope, will be in the near future.
    Sir Percy Harris: Is not the real remedy to get schools open full time, so that education can be restored to normal with as little delay as possible? Will my righthon. Friend make representations, in the light of his knowledge and experience, to the President of the Board of Education?
    Sir J. Anderson: I am in close touch with my right hon. Friend on this matter.
    Mr. Thorne: Will the Minister of Education take note of what is being said?
    Viscountess Astor: Is it not true that one of the best ways, to do away with juvenile delinquency is to have more boys' clubs, and could not Members of the House of Commons, who have not to fight, go back to their constituencies to encourage boys and open boys' clubs for them at night?
    Mr. McGovern: What about bottle parties?

  EDUCATION.

    PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
    Mr. Levyasked the President of the Board of Education whether any
    1120
    negotiations or consultations are proceeding between his Department and the public schools, concerning making these schools more accessible to the public?
    The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Ramsbotham): No, Sir.

    ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, WORTHING (AIR-RAID SHELTER).
    Mr. Edeasked the President of the Board of Education what decision has been reached about the provision of air-raid shelter for the elementary schools of Worthing?
    Mr. Ramsbotham: The Worthing local education authority have under consideration the provision of shelter accommodation at the public elementary schools, but no definite decision has yet been reached. The hon. Member, however, will be aware that the delay in reaching a decision has not affected the opening of the schools.
    Mr. Ede: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the long delay that has taken place, urge the authorities to come to a constructive decision in this matter?
    Mr. Ramsbotham: There is no educational problem involved. The matter is one for the discretion of the local education authority in consultation with the local A.R.P. authority.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Would it not help if the dispute between the education authorities and the Home Office was resolved?
    Mr. Ramsbotham: That is a hypothetical question.

    CHARITABLE TRUSTS (TAX REMISSION).
    Mr. McEnteeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is the amount of tax remission on gifts to charities that can be obtained by a person with a charity trust who himself pays Surtax on the highest scale;
    (2) whether he will state the amount of tax remission on gifts to charities that can be obtained by a person with a charity trust who does not pay Surtax?
    Sir J. Simon: I assume the hon. Member has in mind a case where a person undertakes by deed to make an annual payment to charitable trustees for

    1121
    a period exceeding six years. Under the general provisions of the Income Tax Acts, such an annual payment is admissible as a deduction in computing the payer's total income. It is upon the income as so computed that Surtax, if he is liable to Surtax, is chargeable. If the total income is of such an amount that part of the income falls within the highest scale of Surtax, the rate chargeable on that part is 9s. 6d. in the £. So far as Income Tax is concerned, the person making the payment, whether or not he is liable to Surtax, can deduct Income Tax at the time of making the payment, but in so doing he is merely passing on to the recipient of the payment the tax which he himself has already borne by deduction or direct assessment.
    Mr. McEntee: Is it not a fact that many of these people in the higher scale are being subsidised to the extent of 17s. 6d. in the £ at the present time and that to induce them to give £1 you are giving them 17s. 6d.?
    Sir J. Simon: The position of the law is as I have stated, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman follows it. If you add together the Surtax charge and the full standard rate it is a fact that persons of great wealth are burdened with a tax of 17s. in the £.
    Mr. McEntee: Am I not right in assuming that when people in this scale give donations to charities, under trust deeds, they are entitled to receive back 17s. 6d. from every £1 they give, and that the State does, in fact, subsidise them to that extent?
    Sir J. Simon: I do not think it can be called subsidising, but it is the fact that with regard to endowments entered into for over six years in the case of persons with larger incomes, they are making a contribution to public funds so much larger than that made by persons in the lower income ranges that the endowments have a correspondingly greater effect on the Revenue.

    STATE PENSIONS.
    Mr. Davidsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of civil, judicial and hereditary pensions for the years 1936 and 1939, respectively?
    Sir J. Simon: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the Official Report.
    Mr. Davidson: In view of the task undertaken by this country and the sacrifices now being made by other sections of the community, do the Government contemplate early legislation to try and effect some saving in this respect, particularly in regard to pensions over £1,000?
    Sir J. Simon: I can only read the answer which I gave to the hon. Member on a former occasion; that is, that we must have regard to what has been enacted by Acts of Parliament.
    Mr. Davidson: Surely at a time when all sections of the community are being asked to make sacrifices the Government should take steps to deal with this particular section of the community?
    Mr. Neil Maclean: Has not the House of Commons passed Acts of Parliament to reduce allowances to the unemployed?
    Following is the answer:
    I assume that by "civil pension" the hon. Member means "civil service pension." The figures for which he asks are as follow:

    1936

    £

    s.

    d.

    Civil Service Pensions

    6,971,798

    0

    0

    Judicial Pensions

    118,369

    14

    8

    Hereditary Pensions

    5,000

    0

    0

    Total

    £7,095,167

    14

    8

    1939

    £

    s.

    d.

    Civil Service Pensions (estimated)

    7,926,808

    0

    0

    Judicial Pensions

    123,833

    17

    4

    Hereditary Pensions

    5,000

    0

    0

    Total

    £8,055,641

    17

    4

    Figures as to the actual expenditure on Civil Service pensions in 1939 are not yet available, those given represent the provision made in Estimates. Only one hereditary pension was payable in each of the two years.

    CONSULAR OFFICERS (CENTRAL AMERICA).
    Mr. G. Straussasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department how many commercial attachés there are in the Central American countries
    Mr. Shakespeare (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): There are no commercial diplomatic officers in Central America, but in each of the capital cities of the six Central American Republics there are career Consular officers who are charged with the furtherance of our trade interests. My Department is fully alive to the importance of developing United Kingdom exports to these countries, and consideration is now being given to the appointment of a commercial secretary at Panama, or some other suitable centre, for the purpose of co-ordinating the commercial work of the Consular officers in Central America.

  SCOTLAND.

    DAY NURSERIES, GLASGOW.
    Mr. Leonardasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the closing of the day nurseries in Glasgow involves the working mothers of small children in the anxiety and expense of leaving their children with neighbours in tenement property, giving less air-raid protection than the day nurseries; and will he take steps calculated to reopen these premises?
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Colville): Of the three day nurseries provided by the public health authority, one will shortly be reopened. The other two cannot in present circumstances be reopened, but I propose to discuss with the corporation the possibility of finding alternative premises.
    Mr. Leonard: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to get alternative premises as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Colville: Yes, Sir.

    LAND WORKERS.
    Mr. Davidsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of full-time agricultural workers employed in Scotland for the years 1937, 1938 and 1939, respectively?
    Mr. Colville: The numbers of regular workers employed on farms and other agricultural holdings in Scotland on 4th June in each year in question were 94,913, 90,968 and 89,670, respectively.
    Mr. Davidson: Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate that the agricultural policy of the Government to plough
    1124
    up extra land will result in an increase of full-time agricultural workers?
    Mr. Colville: Yes, Sir, and the Measure which was introduced yesterday will, I hope, assist.

    PRICE REGULATION.
    Mr. Lyonsasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will indicate what steps are taken, or representations made, by price regulation committees with reference to large war-time price increases with which the committees express themselves powerless to deal?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Major Lloyd George): The recommendations made by local price-regulation committees for additions to the list of price-regulated goods have been receiving the consideration of the Board of Trade in consultation with the Central Committee, and the Board will shortly make an Order extending the list of goods to which the Act is applied.
    Mr. Lyons: Does my hon. and gallant Friend realise that time is very important in this case? If you are going to stop exploitations which are reported, and delay occurs, exploitation goes on time and time again?
    Major Lloyd George: I agree with the hon. and learned Member, but I am not aware that any delay has occurred.
    Mr. Lyons: Has any extension been made yet?
    Major Lloyd George: It is laid down that local price regulation committees should make representations in certain respects. When these representations are made they are considered, and I can assure the hon. and learned Member that no delay has occurred yet.
    Mr. Lyons: Has there been any adoption yet by the Board of Trade of any recommendation made by a local price regulation committee in any particular case of exploitation?
    Major Lloyd George: I would point out to the hon. and learned Member that the first order was made only in January and recommendations have only recently come in. We are, as I have said, very shortly extending the Act to cover a larger range of goods on the recommendation of local committees.
    Mr. Shinwell: In the light of our experience in the past few months and the steady increase in the price of many commodities, will the Parliamentary Secretary consider issuing a general order covering a whole range of commodities?
    Major Lloyd George: If I wanted to give the appearance of doing something, I might do that, but I want to get the Act working effectively, and the hon. Member must realise that a general order covering all commodities might well upset the whole machinery.
    Mr. McGovern: Is the hon. Member aware that the general impression throughout the country is that the Government do not intend to do anything and that these local committees are a complete farce?
    Mr. Lyonsasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a statement issued by the Price Regulation Committee of the North Midland Region to the effect that since the outbreak of war the price of processed peas has increased by about 100 per cent. and the price of loose peas by 178 per cent. to 320 per cent.; that these increases in price of this staple article are adversely affecting every home and that hospitals and other institutions are finding the present prices prohibitive and are being denied this commodity; and whether, in view of the present limitations of the Act, he will take immediate steps to deal with the position now disclosed?
    Major Lloyd George: I have received through the Central Price Regulation Committee a memorandum from the committee for the North Midland region regarding increases in the price of peas and certain other foodstuffs. I am considering the questions raised in consultation with my Noble Friend the Minister of Food.
    Mr. Lyons: In view of the very substantial increase in price, about which the public should have some explanation, will the Parliamentary Secretary give immediate attention to this matter and issue some explanation at a very early date, because on the face of it it seems indefensible?
    Major Lloyd George: I can give the hon. and learned Member the explanation which he asks for now. There was
    1126
    a recommendation from the North Midland Price Regulation Committee which was sent to the Central Committee on 12th April, and then the matter was discussed by the Central Committee on Tuesday, and the Board of Trade decided to-day to extend the list of goods to which the Act is to apply.
    Mr. Lyons: While appreciating the explanation, do I take it that the commodity in question is covered by the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary?
    Major Lloyd George: I do not say that, as that question involves consultations with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food. The question is whether it should come under the Prices of Goods Act or under the control of the Minister of Food. It is purely a question of what to do, but I can assure the hon. and learned Member that there has been no delay.

    ECONOMIC WARFARE (NEUTRAL COUNTRIES' STOCKS).
    Mr. G. Straussasked the Minister of Economic Warfare whether, in view of the German attack on Denmark and the seizure of the large accumulation of stocks there, he will impose a strict rationing scheme on all neutral countries contiguous to Germany and take the necessary steps to prevent the building up of stocks in those countries?
    Mr. Munro (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. His Majesty's Government have already been in communication with the Governments of several neutral countries regarding the limitation of their imports and stocks of certain commodities; and they propose to continue this policy, the necessity for which, as the hon. Member points out, has been clearly demonstrated by the recent German attack on Denmark.
    Mr. Strauss: In a previous answer it was stated that the Government were going to continue this policy. Is the Minister of Economic Warfare aware that Norway has for years accumulated supplies of petrol, and that imports of lubricating oil into Denmark have been stopped because of their excessive supplies?
    Mr. Munro: I will take note of the hon. Member's Supplementary Question.

  MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.

    PUBLICATIONS (EXPORT PERMITS).
    Mr. G. Straussasked the Minister of Information why the application of Messrs. Lawrence & Wishart, Limited, for an export permit covering their publications has been refused; and whether the application of any other publisher has been refused?
    The Minister of Information (Sir John Reith): The answer to the first part of the Question is that after a full consideration of the case last December it was decided in the national interest that a general permit should not be issued to Messrs. Lawrence &' Wishart for the export of their publications to censorable countries. Permission to export a particular publication was later sought and granted. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative.
    Mr. Strauss: Can the Minister give any explanation for this general refusal? Can he say, in view of the fact that this firm publishes almost entirely Socialist books, whether any political consideration entered into the decision?
    Sir J. Reith: I prefer not to answer more specifically, but I will tell the hon. Member that if this particular firm cares to make the particular application again, since general permission was refused, such application will have consideration.

    GERMAN LEGATION, EIRE.
    Mr. Vernon Bartlettasked the Minister of Information what steps are envisaged to prevent information of military importance from being taken across the border from Northern Ireland to Eire, and thence by the German diplomatic bag from Dublin to Berlin?
    Mr. A. Edwardsasked the Minister of Information whether he is satisfied that adequate precautions are taken to prevent information of value to the enemy passing to the German Legation in Eire via Northern Ireland; and whether he will make a considered statement upon the report recently submitted to him making allegations of neglect in this respect?
    Sir J. Reith: All practicable steps are being taken to ensure that information of value to the enemy is not transmitted to Germany from any part of the United Kingdom, and the position is constantly under review.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Are not these Questions a grave reflection on Ulster?
    Mr. Edwards: Were the statements contained in the article submitted to the Minister well founded?
    Sir J. Reith: I have seen the article to which the hon. Member refers, but I am sorry I am not able to say anything more than I have said.
    Mr. Edwards: Is the Minister in a position to deny the statements made in that article? [Interruption.] On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I have an answer to that Question?
    Mr. Speaker: The Minister need not give an answer if he considers it is not in the public interest to do so.
    Mr. Edwards: Further to my point of Order. Was that the Minister's reply? I did not hear it. I should like to know whether you answered the Question for the Minister, or whether that is the Minister's answer.
    Mr. Speaker: I was answering the hon. Member on a point of Order. I was not answering a Question for the Minister, and I hope he will not take it that I was doing so.
    Mr. Craven-Ellis: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to prevent the employment of aliens at Southampton Docks?
    Mr. Garro Jones: Is the Minister aware that 88,000 telegrams are sent from this country to foreign countries every week, and is he satisfied that the measures to prevent leakage by that channel are complete?
    Sir J. Reith: Yes, Sir. I think I may say that the measures to prevent leakage by that channel are, to all intents and purposes, complete.

  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

    TIMBER.
    Captain Pluggeasked the Minister of Supply whether he intends to advise the public of the need for extreme care and discretion in the use of timber, especially with the object of avoiding as much as possible the destruction of such British woodlands as we possess and which is now actually in progress?
    The Minister of Supply (Mr. Burgin): Considerable publicity has already been given to the necessity of economy in the consumption of timber for civil requirments. In general, the utilisation of timber is restricted to essential war requirements under a system of allocations and licences which was described in the answer given to a Question by the hon. Member for East Swansea (Mr. Mort) on 21st March. With regard to the last part of the Question, in present circumstances imports must be supplemented by increased quantities of home grown timber, but the programme of production has been prepared in agreement with the Forestry Commission, which is responsible, inter alia, for the conservation of home woodlands.

    CONTRACTS (FAIR WAGES CLAUSE).
    Mr. Tomlinsonasked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that the County Brook Mill Company, Foulridge, who are engaged on Government contracts at their Foulridge mill, are working overtime and being permitted to do so by the Home Office, whilst at the same time refusing to honour trade union agreements regarding overtime rates; and will he inform this company that such action is a breach of the Fair Wages Clause in Government orders and call for redress?
    Mr. Burgin: The County Brook Mill Company are not noted on the Ministry of Supply list of contractors, and hold no direct orders from my Department. I am not, therefore, in a position to take the action suggested by the hon. Member.
    Mr. Tomlinson: May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to how this information can be obtained? Will it be necessary for me to put a Question in similar terms to every Department with which this firm may have contracts, or could I obtain the information through the Home Office, which have granted an order for overtime?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member had better try.
    Mr. Tomlinson: It is because of trying and trying again that I am seeking your advice. I have already put a Question to the Home Office, which has been answered, but has evaded the point which I am now putting to you. Therefore,
    1130
    I ask whether, with your permission, I can put that Question to the Home Office?
    Mr. Speaker: I give the hon. Member the same advice as I gave before—try.
    Mr. McEntee: In cases of this sort, which all of us have experienced, where it seems impossible to get any information in regard to the Fair Wages Clause, if a Question were put to the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that the Fair Wages Clause ought to be in every contract, whether it is carried out by subcontractors or not, should we be entitled to a reply?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member should address questions of that kind to the Departments concerned.
    Mr. McEntee: One cannot find out which Department is concerned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. Attlee: Will the Prime Minister state the Business for next week?
The Prime Minister: The Business for next week will be:
Tuesday: The Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget.
Wednesday and Thursday: General Debate on the Budget Resolutions.
During the week it will be necessary for us to take the Motion relating to the Clearing Office (Spain) Amendment Order, which requires to be approved before 27th April.
Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Will the Prime Minister consider issuing as a White Paper the Norwegian Government's statement relating to the invasion of Norway?
The Prime Minister: I will look into that.
Resolved,
"That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Tuesday next."—[The Prime Minister.]

NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
Captain Sir William Jocelyn Ian Fraser, C.B.E., for the County of Lancaster (Lonsdale Division).
Francis Campbell Ross Douglas, Esquire, for the Borough of Battersea (North Division).

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (SUPPLEMENTARY ALLOWANCES) BILL,
"to provide for the payment of supplementary allowances in respect of wives and children to male workmen entitled to weekly payments by way of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Sir John Anderson; supported by the Attorney-General and Mr. Peake; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 34].
BILL REPORTED.

  BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments [Title amended], from the Committee on Group A of Private Bills (with Report on the Bill).
  Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
  Second Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 113.]

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935 (PROCLAMATIONS UNDER SECTION 93).
3.50 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for India (Sir Hugh O'Neill): I beg to move,
"That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under. Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, by the Governor of Madras on 30th October, 1939, a copy of which was presented to this House on 28th November."
I rise to submit the first of the series of Motions which stand on the Order Paper in my name, but I shall, of course, deal with the subject matter relating to them all. Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, provides that if at any time the Governor of a Province is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of the Province cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Act, he may, by Proclamation, assume to himself all or any of the powers exercised by any provincial body or authority. In other words, he may govern the Province himself without the advice of Ministers responsible to the Legislature and without the Legislature. Proclamations under this Section were issued at various dates between 30th October and 10th November, 1939, by the Governors of seven Provinces, namely, Madras, Bombay, the United Provinces, the Central Provinces, Bihar, Orissa and the North-West Frontier Province. Section 93 further provides that every such Proclamation shall cease to operate at the expiration of six months unless a resolution approving its continuance in force is passed by both Houses of Parliament. Unless, therefore, before the end of this month the necessary resolutions are carried in both Houses of Parliament, the Proclamations will cease to have effect within the next few weeks, and there will be no legal powers in existence for carrying on the government of the Provinces concerned.
The reason why it became necessary to issue Proclamations under the Act was because the responsible Ministries in those Provinces had resigned, and it was impossible to find any other alternative Government which could command a majority in the Legislature. In the case of one Province—Assam—a Government of another complexion has since been formed and has taken office, and so far it
1166
is carrying on successfully with the support of the Legislature. The Ministries which resigned belonged in each case to the Congress Party. I should like-specially to remind the House that the resignation of these Congress Ministries was not due to any lack of support in their Legislatures, or to any spontaneous action within those Legislatures. They were all effected as a result of orders received from an outside body known colloquially as the Congress "High Command," and I suspect that most of these Ministries, if left to their own resources, would have much preferred to carry on.
The position to-day is, therefore, that in four Provinces, namely, Bengal, the Punjab, Assam and Sind, responsible government is being maintained successfully, and the House would greatly misunderstand the position if it was thought that what has happened has meant the breakdown of responsible provincial government throughout India. It has meant nothing of the sort, and the Provinces where responsible government is still functioning, including two of the largest and most important in India, comprise between them one-third of British India, occupying over 300,000 square miles, and with a population of nearly 90,000,000 persons. I think a word of appreciation is due to the leaders and members of the Governments in these Provinces for the steadfastness with which they have preserved the ideal of responsible government, and for the success with which they have carried on when India has been passing through times of great political difficulty and trouble.
On 10th January of this year the Viceroy made a speech in Bombay. In the course of that speech he emphasised the desire of His Majesty's Government that India should attain Dominion status at the earliest possible moment and their anxiety to facilitate that object by all means in their power; he drew attention to the fact that while the Federal scheme of the Act afforded the swiftest stepping stone towards Dominion status, His Majesty's Government were only too willing when the time came to examine the whole field in consultation with all parties and interests in India; and he further explained that His Majesty's Government were prepared, in the meantime, to expand the Executive Council of the Governor-General on the lines in-

1167
dicated in November last by the inclusion of a small number of political leaders, and that they were always ready and anxious to give every help they could towards overcoming the difficulties confronting India to-day. That speech was looked upon in India as a political pronouncement of the first magnitude and evoked an immediate response from Mr. Gandhi, who used these words with regard to it:
"I have not lost faith in Britain. I like that latest pronouncement of Lord Linlithgow. I believe in his sincerity. There are undoubtedly snags in that speech; many is have to be dotted, many 'it's have to be crossed, but it seems to contain the germs of a settlement honourable to both nations."
Confronted by these pronouncements from the Viceroy and Mr. Gandhi respectively, all India was deeply stirred, and was expecting and hoping for a settlement of the constitutional difficulties which had arisen. These hopes rose to a high point when it became known that Mr. Gandhi was going to see the Viceroy on 5th February to discuss the whole situation. The meeting between them took place on that date. It resulted in a deadlock. It would be no exaggeration to say that millions of people in India were staggered and deeply disappointed at this result. Why did this Conference fail? The explanation is surely to be found in the last paragraph of the agreed communiqué issued after the meeting, which reads as follows:
"Mr. Gandhi expressed his appreciation of the spirit in which these proposals were put forward, but made it clear that in his view they did not at this stage meet the full demand of the Congress Party."
It is difficult to understand how insistence on the full demands of the Congress party was compatible with the first reaction of Mr. Gandhi to the Viceroy's speech, when he said that he saw in it the germs of a settlement honourable to both nations.
The breakdown of this Conference has inevitably produced a definite hardening of outlook among those large sections of Indian political opinion opposed to the Congress Party. Those sections consist of the great Moslem community, numbering some 90,000,000 persons, the rulers of the Indian States, with a population of some 80,000,000, and communities or castes such as the Depressed Classes, the Sikhs and others. Recent pronouncements of
1168
the principal parties concerned will be found in the White Paper issued a few days ago. These pronouncements are the resolution passed by Congress at Ramgarh on 20th March, the resolution passed by the All-India Moslem League at Lahore on 24th March, and the resolution passed by the Chamber of Princes on 12th March. I should like to read to the House a passage or two from the White Paper. The Congress resolution contains these words at the bottom of page 5 of the White Paper:
"The Congress hereby declares again that nothing short of complete independence can be accepted by the people of India. Indian freedom cannot exist within the orbit of Imperialism, and Dominion status or any other status within the Imperial structure is wholly inapplicable to India, is not in keeping with the dignity of a great nation and would bind India in many ways to British politics and economic structure. The people of India alone can properly shape their own constitution and determine their relations to the other countries of the world, through a constituent assembly elected on the basis of adult suffrage."
Again, as will be seen on the middle of page 6 of the White Paper they said:
"The Congress withdrew the Ministries from the provinces where the Congress had a majority in order to dissociate India from the war and to enforce the Congress determination to free India from foreign domination. This preliminary step must naturally be followed by civil disobedience, to which the Congress will unhesitatingly resort as soon as the Congress organisation is considered fit enough for the purpose, or in case circumstances so shape themselves as to precipitate a crisis."
If we turn now to the resolution by the All-India Moslem League on page 7 of the White Paper it will be found that this resolution emphatically repudiates the scheme of federation contained in the Act of 1935. It contains these words:
"Resolved that it is the considered view of this session of the All-India Moslem League that no constitutional plan would be workable in this country or acceptable to the Moslems unless it is designed on the following basic principle, viz., that geographically contiguous units are demarcated into regions which should be so constituted with such territorial readjustments as may be necessary that the areas in which the Moslems are numerically in a majority, as in the north-western and eastern zones of India, should be grouped to constitute 'independent States' in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign."
I would like now to make one or two comments on these resolutions, portions of which I have read to the House. With regard to the Congress resolution, His Majesty's Government cannot, of course,

1169
accept the Congress demand for complete independence, and they notice with profound regret that Congress has summarily rejected Dominion status for India or any other status within the Imperial structure. Compliance with such a demand would mean, for example, the complete severance of India from all association with the rest of the Empire; it would mean the banishment of the Crown from any place in the Indian Constitution; it would mean throwing overboard our obligations to the Moslem community and other minorities, and to the Princes, all of whom have emphatically repudiated the Congress policy. With regard to the demand for a constituent assembly based on adult suffrage, I do not think I need say more than that this proposal was exhaustively examined a short time ago by Sir Maurice Gwyer, the Chief Justice of India, who pointed out that such an assembly would have to consist of at least 1,000 persons and probably many more, and by reference to historical precedents he recalled the fact that nearly every constitution in history which had been framed by constituent assemblies of this type had failed, whereas those constitutions which were evolved by consultation and discussion among small numbers of representative leaders had, generally, been successful, and were, for the most part, in operation at the present time.
I now come to the resolution of the All-India Moslem League. His Majesty's Government view with regret the proposals which are put forward for dividing India into regions where the Moslems are in the majority. Quite apart from its obvious practical difficulties, if such a project were ever to be realised it would shatter completely the whole conception of Indian unity which has been gradually and laboriously built up by the British system of government over a long period of years, and which may be said to have attained its climax in the proposals for an All-India Federation in the Act of 1935. We should view with misgiving any tendency to upset this conception of Indian unity, and we can only regard it as a counsel of despair. I should be loth to believe that this position will not be modified as a result of further negotiation between the Moslems and the Hindus. With regard to the resolution of the Chamber of Princes contained in the White Paper all I need say is that it is obvious that the rulers of the States are
1170
seriously apprehensive as to the present trend of events.
I have now traced in outline the Indian political situation as it presents itself at the moment, and I am sorry to say that it is not a picture which gives much hope for encouragement or for optimism. Is there anything which His Majesty's Government can do to try to bring about an improvement in the situation?
Mr. Gallacher: Release the prisoners.
Sir H, O'Neill: It is not easy to see what can be done. The Viceroy has done all that any man could do in an effort to secure agreement, and with the concurrence of His Majesty's Government he has made a proposal of a far-reaching character which might have been put into immediate effect, namely, that Indian political leaders should become members of his Executive Council. Above all, he has emphasised again and again that the policy of His Majesty's Government is to grant to India full Dominion status at the earliest possible moment, and he has made it clear that we are only too willing to examine the whole constitutional field in consultation with all parties and interests in India. None of these advances has so far met with any response, and at the present moment the demands of the political parties are pitched higher and show less signs of any reasonable co-operation than has ever been the case before.
In these circumstances, it does not seem that there is anything further that His Majesty's Government can do. The situation is difficult, and not without danger. Hon. Members may have noticed that in the resolution passed by the Congress Party at Ramgarh it was stated that Congress would unhesitatingly resort to civil disobedience in order to gain their aim of independence as soon as their organisation was considered fit enough for the purpose. If such a course of action were, unfortunately, to be adopted, His Majesty's Government would be bound to take full measures to counteract it. Ordered government must be carried on, especially in time of war, and I cannot but believe that the Congress leaders themselves must recognise this to the full.
It seems to me that the only hope for the immediate future lies in a serious attempt on the part of the Indian com-

1171
munities to accommodate their differences. This may seem a pretty hopeless proposition, but it is fundamental and it lies at the root of the whole matter. The time is bound to come when Indians must manage their own affairs, but no British Government could, I feel sure, bring itself to hand over the management of India, except to an organism which they were really satisfied could govern so vast a country without allowing it to lapse into a chaos from which it was rescued in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
Mr. Gallacher: Congress can do the job.
Sir H. O'Neill: As has been stressed over and over again by the Viceroy and by the Government at home, their good offices are, and always will be, available towards agreement. I notice that in a newspaper article on 30th March Mr. Gandhi used these words with regard to the minorities:
"I can never be a party to the coercion of Moslems or any other minority. The constituent assembly, as conceived by me, is not intended to coerce anybody. Its sole sanction will be an agreed solution of communal questions. If there is no agreement the constituent assembly will be automatically dissolved."
In the recent session of the Congress Party at Ramgarh I notice that the President of that body emphasised the importance of the minority question and recognised that it must be seriously dealt with. Such utterances may be the signs and signals of possible accommodation and, if they are seriously meant, is it too much to hope that agreement may still be possible?
There is, at any rate, one aspect of the situation with regard to which Indians of all creeds and classes are united, and that is in their veneration for freedom; their approval of the objects for which this country is now waging the war; and in their detestation of the principles of the Nazi regime in Germany. India has made a magnificent response in the war. Recruits for the Army have come forward in far greater numbers than can at present be absorbed. Large sums of money have been subscribed towards war charities, including many contributions from the humblest and the poorest. Numerous offers of service have been received from all classes in the community,
1172
and the Indian Princes, as always, have been among the first to declare their support of Britain and to offer unstintingly their services and their money in the common cause. This is the bright side of the picture and should serve to counteract to a great extent the disquieting features in the political situation, of which, sooner or later, a solution must, and will, be found. How short or how long a time it will take before India can attain the goal of self-government it is impossible to predict with certainty; but what is certain is that it cannot reach full fruition until the Indian people are able to show that spirit of statesmanship, co-operation and compromise without which a lasting settlement can never be achieved.
4.17 p.m.
Mr. Wedgwood Benn: I do not know that I have much to complain of in the tone of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but one thing that he did not tell us, that he did not even mention, and certainly did not impress on us, was the immense importance for the House of the Motions that we are passing to-day. We are now assuming, possibly for 12 months unless the Orders are revoked, the responsibility for the government of Indian Provinces, not small Provinces, but Provinces consisting of 30,000,000 to 40,000,000 persons. Should any fault of administration take place, should injustice be done, should a strike occur and the police have to take action, we are the people who, by our own Act of Parliament, have made ourselves presently responsible for controlling the Administration. That is tremendous; it is tragic. We are not competent to do it, we have not the information, we are too far away, and we cannot possibly do the job. Yet, owing to what is in the Act, the task now falls to us, and it is a formidable and terrifying one.
The Under-Secretary spoke about the present situation and its unhopeful features. That is very important for us and for India. I should like, if it is possible, that this Debate might be used to inform the opinion of the world about the relations between ourselves and India. The war will be decided by the judgment of world opinion. We are before the bar of world opinion, as, indeed, are the Indians themselves. Anyone who has lectured across the United

1173
States or Europe, as I have done, both before and after the war, must be well aware that this question of India is not only one excuse for German untruthful propaganda, but is also a cause of serious heart-burnings among uninformed people. I find that in America very often people who have no trace of sympathy with Fascism have, at the same time, been disquieted. Theirs is the help and sympathy we need in the struggle in which we are engaged. Therefore, what we have to ask ourselves is, as the Under-Secretary said, What can we do to assist in the present situation? I would also say that the Hindus and Congress, too, have to ask themselves that question. They also are making an appeal to world opinion. The Moslems also must ask themselves that question. Understanding and good will are needed, and the belief in each other's sincerity. In passing, may I say that in the death of Mr. Andrews this week, India and this country have suffered a great loss?
Let us take the suggestions that are made. In the Congress resolution and in Mr. Gandhi's speech there is reference to civil disobedience. Mr. Gandhi's conception of passive resistance or civil disobedience is very difficult for a Western mind to understand, but I do not think we should put out of mind the possible effect of it, although we cannot understand it. The civil disobedience that may come out of this might not be Mr. Gandhi's passive kind at all. The last time our party's Government were in office we had to face civil disobedience, but the Moslems were in it then. It was a vast movement and very difficult to handle. Now the Moslems are not in it and are fiercely resisting it. What is likely to happen if Congress take this misguided step will be that what begins as a protest against British rule will finish as a fight between Moslems and Hindus. I had a bitter experience of that. There was in 1931 a movement to boycott British goods. It started with a small disturbance in Cawnpore between some pickets at shops and some demonstrators. That was intended as a demonstration against British goods, but it ended in a first-class Hindu-Moslem clash in which about 300 people were killed and 1,000 injured. Congress would do well to consider whether a movement in India that is intended to discredit us does not in fact draw the
1174
attention of the world to the fact that this deep gulf exists between Hindus and Moslems.
What of the Moslem scheme of Mr. Jinnah? I was glad to hear what the Under-Secretary said about it. At the moment when Europe is considering federation, when even America and the new world have been drawing together, when we find our own Commonwealth drawing together more tenaciously than ever, it is perfectly hopeless to come forward with a proposal to divide India into sovereign states by race and religion, and it is well that it should be said plainly in this House that it will not find any support in this country. Perhaps Congress and the Moslems think they can sit pretty in India watching the war in Europe going on and thinking that it will not affect them at all. Many people in the world are under that delusion, and many neutrals are under it. When we think of the humiliating days in 1938 when we crowded the churches to thank God that it was peace for us anyhow, when we think of the Poles who thought it was an opportunity to aggrandise themselves, when we think of many other small peoples who think, "The war will not come to us; it is being fought somewhere else," and when we think of American opinion, that it will never come to them, and then suddenly the hand is stretched out and a large tract in the new world is under the protection of the German Reich, it is as well to consider what the possibilities are. If it were to happen, as it might in a week or fortnight, that the Low Countries were invaded, the Dutch East Indies would then be under German control, technically. It has to be remembered that between Berlin and Tokyo there exists an understanding, and America might find themselves with twin aggressors, a partnership of aggressors, on their Eastern flank. Therefore, it is a mistake to suppose that anyone in the world to-day can indulge in the luxury of thinking that somebody else is going to fight the war for them.
What can we suggest? We have so often been critics of the Government, and we are critics of the Government. No one takes an interest in this Government except as a possible instrument for winning the war. Lord Linlithgow in his efforts deserves a word of praise from every well-wisher of India. His speech at the Orient Club at Bombay, if it had

1175
been delivered in 1929, would have destroyed the Labour Government. We should have been out of office then by the mere whisper of Dominion status. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the late Lord Birkenhead, the whole crowd of them would have been against us at the whisper of Dominion status. Now, 10 years later, we rejoice at it. We shall have plenty of time after the war is won to discuss these questions in a proper atmosphere of peace. I want to pay a sincere tribute to Lord Linlithgow for what he has done. He certainly spoke of the constitutional status that we propose, and he described it as Dominion status of the Western variety. It sounds like Mr. Middleton on the wireless explaining a botanical specimen. It is worthy of a better description. That was a declaration accepted by the whole responsible public opinion of this country.
The Viceroy made a suggestion of extending the Executive Council. I believe that there are four official and two unofficial members at present, consisting of three Indians and three Europeans. That proposal was rejected. I do not know whether it would be worth while, despite that, to give the unofficial Indians a majority on that Council so that the world should know that the persons surrounding the Viceroy, his equal colleagues in the Council, are not official or European, but members of the races over whom the Executive Council presides. I do not believe that any constituent assembly or anything else should hammer out a great scheme for India at this moment. It is impossible. I am sure opinion is too divided to go as far as that, but possibly there is one thing that might be done. Would it be inconceivable to say to Congress and the Moslem League, "We do not ask you to come together to agree on a constitutional scheme, but we ask you to come together to agree upon the form of some smaller body which can examine the question of constitutional advances. It is a very small step, but we are facing great obstacles." Is the thing too difficult to make it public that you have asked these people to come together, not to carry out the difficult task of making a constitution, but to construct a machine
1176
which might consider a constitutional advance?
Then, what can we agree to do on our side? We cannot agree to legislate during the progress of the war, but we could agree that if such a body were created in India, and if it produced a scheme which received substantial agreement, we would be prepared to take it as the basic of an Act to be passed through this House. That, I think, would be right. That arrangement would concede the Indian claim that the constitution is primarily a matter for the Indians, and I do not see any reason why we should not say that within a year of the termination of the war, or within some specified period, any such agreement would be embodied in a Measure to be brought before this House. That is a very humble, a trivial idea, but that comprises all the suggestions that I can make.
But before I sit down I want to say a word or two on what we are offering to India, because it has been my experience, when I have been questioned on the matter by foreigners, that they know very little indeed about our relations with India, and if this Debate, in so far as it is reported anywhere, will enlighten neutral opinion, I feel that it will have served a useful purpose. What is Dominion status? I feel that a great deal of harm has been done—let me say so plainly—by Conservative spokesmen who have been trying to whittle away the conception of Dominion status. According to them, one would be led to believe that Dominion status conferred only a particular form of limited freedom. We know the definition of it which was the basis of the Act of 1932, the Westminster Statute. It was a definition drawn up by Lord Balfour. They are:
"Autonomous communities within the British Empire equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs."
Who was the statesman of the Empire among those who came to this country in 1926 who particularly pressed this point? It was general Hertzog. In his programme for South Africa one of the articles was "Secession from the British Empire." That was the programme of the South African Nationalists. Let us see how this formula, which is the only authentic definition of Dominion status in

1177
general terms outside the Statute, appeared to General Hertzog and his supporters who had come here as advocates of the secession of South Africa from the Commonwealth. General Hertzog said:
"I feel that the object which I set before myself to achieve at the Conference has been attained."
Later he was even warmer in his observations:
"The struggle for full unbounded liberty for South Africa as a people was over."
Mr. Tilman Roos, who was the chairman of the Nationalist party in the Transvaal, said:
"We are absolutely satisfied. There is no longer any constitutional question for South Africa. We have got the reality."
General Hertzog further stated:
"The declaration has brought to a happy close the century old struggle for South African National freedom."
That was his own description—and he was a rebel in that Conference—of what had been achieved by this same status which the Government are offering India. Apart from the approval which was given when the definition was laid down, what has been our own experience—and their experience—of the value of this status? South Africa was also divided, though not as deeply as India is divided, by races and bitter struggles about the flag. So far as they are concerned, the problem is now settled. They had their own free debate about the war, and they decided as they did decide. A century old struggle! More than a century has gone by since General Wolfe took Quebec from the French, and to-day the French Canadians are mounting guard at Buckingham Palace. There, again, there were differences of race and religion, but they have been bridged, and Canada comes freely into the war. It is not because she feels that she is menaced, because she is under the protection of the United States, and no one will attack her in the military sense, but she is sending us her men and her money because she believes that it is a real freedom which she enjoys under Dominion status.
If we want another example of the liberty which Dominion status confers, take the case of Eire. I wonder where you will find in the pages of history such an example of a great Commonwealth at war and one of its members deciding constitutionally to remain neutral. That has been done, and so far as I know there
1178
have been no complaints about it from anyone; there has been no challenge of the constitutional propriety of the action Eire has taken. I am sure that if the position is made plain to the world, it will be understood that what we are offering to India is not some niggardly form of bondage but something that is noble in conception. I am not afraid that the world should know. I was sorry that the Under-Secretary said what he did about independence. I have never been in the least moved by this talk about the danger of Indians demanding independence. When you give people liberty the effect is not to separate them but to bring them together, and I cannot see any freely elected Indian assembly demanding severance from such a constellation of nations as is now engaged in upholding the banner of freedom and giving them the material protection which they need.
The resolution of Congress speaks about this country waging a war fundamentally for Imperialist aims, and I was very sorry to see that Mr. Nehru spoke about the war against Nazi Germany being only a side event. It is sad to hear such observation from a man of the instincts, outlook and ideals of Mr. Nehru. Dr. Goebbels has said:
"The sole instrument with which foreign policy can be conducted is alone and exclusively the sword."
That is the doctrine we are fighting. Mr. Nehru can see no distinction between our fight against that and the Nazis themselves. But let us take a catalogue, a time-table, of the period during which Hitler has been in power, and consider how the rival Imperialisms have been working. In 1933, in Germany, the trade unionists were being rounded up and concentration camps were being set up, at the moment that the Government here were issuing their White Paper showing how to extend self-government to India. In 1934 there was in Germany the round-up of Roehm and the shooting of 400 "comrades," whilst on a Joint Committee Indians were sitting here trying to settle something that would advance the cause of Indian self-government. Between 1936 and 1939 the Nazi Imperialists were entering the Rhineland, taking Memel, subjugating the Czechs. Our task during that period has been the setting-up in India of 11 Parliaments legislating for vast areas, and Parliaments armed with

1179
immense powers. Very many people abroad do not understand that the Indian people have the right to levy taxes, and when they have been told that the Indian Government can levy a tariff on British goods against the interests of our people here, they will not believe it. That is the limit to which we have gone. It is a sad thing that a body with whose ideals we have so much sympathy should have sent out to the world this message:
"Congress cannot in any way be a party to the war."
That is not a message to us only; it is a message to the Czechs, to the Poles who have been sold into slavery, to the Danes, to the Norwegians. It is not the authentic voice of India. I prefer to take the words of another resolution of the Working Committee of Congress, in which it is said:
"The working committee believes that the people of the Western world are genuinely moved by the ideals of saving democracy and freedom and the Congress is in full agreement with them."
It is to that authentic voice that we make our appeal.
4.40 p.m.
Earl Winterton: I think I am expressing the views of all in the House when I say that the right hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) has made a most eloquent contribution to the subject which we are discusing. Before I proceed to speak on the question, I should like to make an observation which I hope will not be resented. It is one with which, perhaps, some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House will not altogether agree. I think that we in the Tory party have in the past been too little inclined to recognise the force and vigour of that moderate public opinion in India which desires self-government upon terms to which, I think, we in this country could assent. I feel that many hon. Members opposite, when speaking on this subject, are too much inclined to listen only to the voices of those extremists in India who demand a form of self-government or a new constitution which is not in accord with the wishes of the great majority of the Indian people themselves. Therefore, I greatly welcome the tone and temper of the right hon. Gentleman's speech: perhaps those are not very happily-chosen phrases, and I will say the whole trend and tendency of his speech; and I think
1180
it would be as well if it were recognised in India that there is a great consensus of opinion in this country, quite irrespective of parties, which is anxious to try to find a solution of this most difficult and delicate problem in the direction of the constant devolution of power from this country to India.
I need not call attention to the immense importance of this question of India's future political status in the Empire and her relation to the other States in the Empire, because it is almost a commonplace to do so, but I think it is desirable in a Debate on India in which the whole position is under review, always to call attention to the vast importance of India in the world as a whole. India has a huge land surface, a vast diversity of religions, races, points of view, standards and, one might almost say, racial origins; but it is equally fair to say that there is running through that country a thread, a growing unity, in favour of the devolution of power from this country to India. Unfortunately, there is not at the moment a growing unity of opinion among Indians themselves as to the form the new constitution should take. We have then two things in contrast—a growing general demand for greater freedom, and, as has been conceded by the British Government, for Dominion status, and at the same time a growing difference of opinion among Indians as to the form the constitution should take.
The problem, therefore, has altered essentially. In the old days it was the problem of the resistance of parties, or at any rate some parties, and individuals, in this country to the grant of self-government to India. That day is over. With, I should imagine, the assent of every party in this House, the British Government and the Viceroy have announced that the immediate goal is Dominion status. The issue now is a different one, though I am afraid many people in this country are still very far from recognising what the real issue is. It is the difficulty of reconciling terrific conflicts of opinion among Indians. That is the motive which should run through all the speeches this afternoon. The new issue is one which, as the Under-Secretary pointed out, we in this country cannot do very much to solve.
Before saying a word on that aspect of the subject, I would like, continuing on matters where one is in agreement,

1181
to follow the line of argument used by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He spoke with great force and purpose, and I admired his happy knack. I had intended to say something of the same kind had he not spoken. He referred to the great strategic weakness from which India would suffer unless she were part of that commonwealth of nations which we call the British Empire. There is another aspect of the matter, and that is India's economic position. India has for many years been a primary producing country, exporting always a larger amount of its primary products. In recent years, and especially within the last decade, she has also become an important country in the world in regard to secondary industries. It is very probable that Anglo-French financial and economic co-operation, extending throughout all the lands over which the Union Jack and the Tricolour fly, will be continued after the war, and that India will be a very important unit in that undertaking. Extreme Indian nationalists may retort that so she would be if she were outside it, but the answer seems to be that she would be very much weakened. The reason is that, apart from India, there are vast tracts of tropical and semitropical land under the Britishand French flags which would compete with India if she were not a party to this probable post-war arrangement.
My right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman opposite agreed that it was demonstrably impossible to settle this business of determining the final form of India's constitution in the midst of the world-shaking war that is going on at present. Therefore, it is essential to carry on the government. I would make a few observations on this aspect of the case. Even if all India were united upon the form of constitution that it wants, this House and another place cannot absolve themselves of their constitutional responsibility of discussing the matter and of amending the Government of India Act accordingly. That was recognised in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and he made what he described as a small suggestion for the formation of some unofficial body in India to discuss the manner by which Dominion status should be put into operation. There was the further proposal that, if such a body were set up, and came to the conclusion that there should be a general undertaking
1182
by the Government of this country that when we came to discuss the matter we should pay particular heed to the resolution passed and should make it the basis or groundwork of any plan. That is a very sound suggestion which certainly ought to be considered. Even so, we should have to await the conclusion of the war, because it would be intensely difficult to carry a great constitutional amendment to an Act dealing with so vast a problem as the continent of India when we were in the midst of the greatest struggle in which we have ever taken part.
I want to examine, as did the Under-Secretary of State and the right hon. Gentleman opposite, some of the speeches and alternative proposals which have been put forward—or perhaps I should say the alternative standpoints which have been taken up—by Congress and by the Moslem League respectively. I must again repeat that it is really difficult to be patient with a point of view represented in some quarters in this country, and especially in newspapers like the "New Statesman" and the "News Chronicle," which advocate, sans phrase, the acceptance of Congress demands, completely ignoring the fact that Indians are fiercely, and one might say ferociously, divided on the very essence and ingredients of their future constitution. It is worth considering what a complete antithesis there is between Congress and the Moslem League on this subject.
I should be interested to hear, as no doubt we shall hear in the course of the Debate from hon. Members who, broadly speaking, accept the Congress point of view, how they would get over this difficulty. Congress admits that there is a great difference of opinion between it and the Moslem League. I would pay this tribute to Mr. Gandhi that he does not under-estimate the importance of the Moslem community in India or the extent to which it has been knit together by recent events, or the strength of public opinion, though it be minority public opinion, in such organisations as the National Liberal Federation, which, incidentally, has very considerable support in India and to which some of the most distinguished statesmen in the public life of that country belong. Many of them are personal friends of Members on both sides of this House. Then there are organisations representing the depressed

1183
classes. In other words, Mr. Gandhi himself and the more moderate leaders of Congress recognise that this difference of opinion exists and has to be resolved.
I have followed Indian Debates for over 20 years, and for more than seven years I was at the India Office. It has recently been suggested that there is no such thing in India as opposition to Congress, so far as political public opinion is concerned, and that Congress alone represents political public opinion. I am glad to say that that is a complete illusion, which no longer exists in the mind of any hon. Member in this House. It is worth while examining, for the benefit of anyone who is going to take the Congress point of view in this Debate, the manner in which Congress tries to find a by-pass for this difficulty of growing opposition to Congress proposals on the part of other parties. Congress proposes a constituent assembly, at which matters of moment to the minorities are to be settled, as far as possible in accordance with the wishes of the minorities. Where agreement on that basis proves impossible, the questions at issue are to be submitted to the arbitration of some external and disinterested authority. That is the Congress proposal for getting over the minority difficulty. We have not been informed at all what is contemplated in the event of a minority declining to accept the decision of the arbitrator, but apparently the underlying assumption is that some authority as yet unspecified would, by some means equally unspecified, bring compulsion to bear.
Really, the existence of such ideas indicates a complete failure to recognise the essential features of the problem. The device of arbitration, and the system of administration of justice of which it is only one method, presuppose, and can only exist in, a society whose affairs are already regulated by, and is itself indeed an instance of, the understandings by which that society has agreed that its affairs shall be regulated. In such circumstances, failure on the part of any individual member of the society to accept the decrees of an arbitrator or a judge, is visited with sanctions as a failure to observe the rules of the game, but the task of constitution-making is that of settling what the rules of the game shall be. It seems to indicate a strange, and one may say a maximum, confusion
1184
of mind on the part of Mr. Gandhi and other leaders of Congress to talk about enforcing the rules of the game before those rules are in existence, even if the machinery for enforcement were forthcoming.
Willing agreement alone on the part of the whole people can be the basis of a self-government constitution. When I say "the whole people," I do not suggest that there will not be some minorities, but I mean willing agreement among the main parties which are represented. To secure such willing agreement, it may well be that majorities will have to make concessions to minorities, and they may regard them as excessive. Minorities should make concessions also, where a minority scheme is regarded as unacceptable. The extent to which any give-and-take is justified must be judged when it comes to the point, in the light of full consideration of the consequences of failure to agree. I would reinforce what was said by the right hon. Gentleman opposite in very emphatic language, that failure to agree in the present circumstances will mean nothing more or less than civil strife or civil war in India.
Let this fact be fully understood: Even if there were no war and no immediate risk of invasion by sea, land or air—no one can say that no such risk exists in the present state of the world, because there is no country where there is no possibility of those things—if we were to remove all responsibility for Indian affairs from this House, the Government in this House and the Government of India, if we were to say: "We will remove British forces from India, the Fleet from her shores and our Air Force," and then were simply to say to India: "You have to. come to terms and form your own constitution," it would mean, in the present state of mind of Congress and of the Moslem League, that civil strife, revolution and civil war on a scale which has not been seen in India for hundreds of years, would most indubitably break out. The more moderate members of Congress realise that that is so. I do not believe for a moment that Mr. Gandhi would contemplate such a situation with anything but the greatest horror. Equally am I sure that an old friend and colleague of mine, Mr. Jinnah, the growing violence of whose language I rather deprecate, would not contemplate with

1185
anything but horror that state of affairs; but it would indubitably happen, if Congress and the Moslem League continued in their present state of mind.
The only useful contribution to make to the Debate in these circumstances is to press the point which has already been pressed by the Under-Secretary of State and the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that we should try to find some via media between those two opposing points of view. I beg public opinion in this country, and even more so public opinion in India, not to fall into the common error of British and Indian people in relation to big issues of this kind, of supposing that wishes are realities. The perfectly legitimate wish of a vast number of politically-minded people in India, to whatever political party they belong, is to see a self-governing India, united if possible. That wish is echoed by thousands of well-wishers of India in this country, but the leaders of India are most deeply divided on this issue. Hence the present expedients for working the existing Constitution. The responsibility has now been placed upon our shoulders in a number of Provinces in India, owing to the breakdown of the form of self-government which India enjoys.
We have a great responsibility. From the point of view of the Rules of the House, we have a much greater right, if we choose to exercise it, of questioning the action of the Government of India than we have enjoyed since the Government of India Act was passed. Although I do not want to make it more difficult for the Government or to suggest that we should go back to the old days when we had 15 or 20 Questions, sometimes more, on the days when Indian Questions were down, it might perhaps be as well if, on all sides of the House, according to our different points of view, we showed an interest in the working of the machinery of Government now that we are responsible for it. Do not let it go out from the House to-day, or from anywhere in the country, that we are not deeply interested in the matter, that we are not sympathetic to the difficulties nor anxious to find a solution, nor let it be supposed in Germany, or in any Power hostile to this country, or neutral in this war, that the effect of these differences in India will make India's contribution to the war effort of the Commonwealth
1186
of British nations less than it otherwise would be. On the contrary, there is the utmost good will, and I suspect that, if the situation were examined, it would be found that many of the extremists in India privately sympathise with the Allies' efforts, and are giving support to them. Millions of people in India would be willing to join the Army. I hope on some future occasion we may be able to discuss the need for greatly extending the opportunities for service in the Army on the part of India. I remember what magnificent work was done by new Indian divisions, new in the sense that they had only recently been formed and were composed largely of young men of 19 or 20, in the general defeat of the Turks in September, 1918. Do not let our enemy, or neutrals, suppose that these differences which exist are going to affect the tremendous contribution which India can make and is making to the war and the intense and enthusiastic support which she is giving to the cause of freedom on behalf of which the Allies are fighting.
5.3 p.m.
Mr. Graham White: The Debate, as it has proceeded, has opened out ways which may lead to a more hopeful aspect of affairs, and I hope, as it proceeds, we shall concentrate on the more hopeful aspects of the problem. I could not agree more than I do with the words which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) with regard to the great responsibility which has returned to the House as the result of the approval of these Proclamations. I regret profoundly, as I am sure everyone does, the fact that the Proclamations have had to be made. If the matter had been handled somewhat differently, the necessity might have been, or ought to have been, avoided. We certainty regret that after the passage of six months Parliament should again have to deal with these matters and accept this great responsibility. I also entirely agree with what has been said with regard to the immense importance of India now in the transactions which are taking place and the march of events throughout the world. It is almost impossible to exaggerate it. The somewhat sombre story which the Under-Secretary had to tell us is a challenge not only to the House but to the whole of India itself. It would be a lamentable thing, when liberty and

1187
democracy are in the utmost peril, that India, which must obviously stand upon the threshold of full self-government, should have to confess that the elements on which alone democracy can function cannot be reconciled. The situation in regard to India is that, at a time when all sections in that country must regard with horror the Nazi system, which is a denial of everything which all sections of opinion must hold dear, they cannot reach agreement in building up a system with which India might give the answer to the Nazi system and point out that democracy can function in conditions such as those which prevail in India. I do not know whether if is sufficiently realised that the peril to our liberties is no less great to theirs.
I sometimes think that, of all the iniquities with which the National Socialist system of Germany is associated—and they are many and appalling—perhaps the worst of all is that which denies to the present generation of people in India, and wherever else their yoke may fall, the accumulated experience and wisdom of the past on which alone they can hope to build a method of life and order. If there is anything which the Hindu organisations in India to-day cherish, it is their ancient civilisation. Under the Nazi system, if it should sweep over the world, there would be no Congress in India, no Moslem League and no All-India Federation. As for the depressed and scheduled castes, the whole of India would become a depressed and scheduled caste. If any words of mine could reach India, I would appeal to all men of good will to bring the discussion of the Indian constitution down from the realm of theory to the working-out of a practical scheme which would enable democracy to function.
Much has been said about actual proposals for establishing a new constitution. I find myself unable to conceive that a procedure such as suggested by Congress to-day could possibly lead to the development of a satisfactory working method of democracy. A constituent assembly presumably, if the method of representation was something on a par with what we have in this House, would necessitate a membership of 4,000 to 5,000. Such a body might conceivably act to confirm or deny a decision which had been taken or carefully worked out by a smaller body of people, but I doubt
1188
it. I think there is much to be said for the proposal made by the All-India Liberal Federation. On those lines only is progress likely to be made. In looking at the problem at the moment, one is driven to contrast the extraordinary difference between the spoken word and the actual performance of the people engaged in the controversy. If human language has any meaning, rapid progress toward a solution ought still to be possible. Mr. Gandhi himself, a man for whom I have the most profound respect and admiration, has said that a settlement between Indian and Moslem Swaraj is quite impossible. I was very much struck with a passage in a recent speech in which he used words which I should like to recall:
"We are all brothers—even Mr. Jinnah is my brother. I have meant all that I have said about him. Never has a frivolous word escaped my lips, and I say I want to win him over A speaker said I would not fight until I had won him over, and he was right. There was a time when there was not a Moslem whose confidence I did not enjoy. To-day I have forfeited that confidence and most of the Urdu Press pours abuse on me. But I am not sorry for it. It only confirms me in my belief that there is no Swaraj without a settlement with the Mussulman."
Surely, if human language has any meaning, action should follow which makes this settlement with the Moslems a possibility. Look at the position from our own side. There was a time when it was said that Dominion status was the ultimate goal of constitutional development—something in the far distance. But contrast that with the language used by the Viceroy to-day. It is no longer the ultimate goal. The Governor-General made it clear that His Majesty's Government were only too willing to examine the whole field with representatives of all parties interested in India when the time came. I do not care for the expression "when the time came," but I am certain that neither the Governor-General nor the House of Commons would quarrel over the fixing of dates if there was the necessary rapprochement between Hindu and Moslem opinion to make it appear that there was a reasonable chance of a practical solution. The proposal of Mr. Jinnah and the Moslem League has been called a policy of despair, and I think a truer word was never spoken. The idea of organising an independent Moslem community is a direct negation of what I have always understood were the aspira-

1189
tions not only of Hindus but of Moslems as well. I am quite confident that, given that necessary approach, the establishment of sufficient common ground on which a conference could stand, the Government of India would be ready to join in such a conference, remembering that, we have no wish to remain in India now as a dominant race. We are in the position of trustees. The question which has to be decided is the construction of a workable scheme for the establishment of self-government in India. These are the lines on which we should try to conduct our relations with India in the future.
5.15 p.m.
Sir George Schuster: This is not an occasion for many words, but I believe there are many of us in the House to-day who feel nevertheless that this Motion which is before us should not go through as a matter of mere formality, because it is one of supreme importance. As we have already been reminded, it is essentially a matter for Parliament; it is a reminder to us all of our responsibility here. I would add that it is a reminder that this is a matter which lies essentially between the British people and the Indian people, and that therefore this is not merely a Debate on a Motion but an occasion for sending some message to the Indian people from the representatives of the British people. For those reasons, although I feel that almost everything that could be usefully said on this matter has been said, and said supremely well, nevertheless those of us who have passed a great portion of our lives in India feel that we are entitled to add something in order to testify our own faith on this matter and, perhaps I might add, our own hope and charity.
I propose to deal with this matter in very simple terms. If we look back to 1935, when the Government of India Act was passed and when so many hopes seemed to be opened for a straight advance on a clear and continuous path to freedom of government for India, and then if we consider the situation to-day, we must ask ourselves, Why has it been impossible to advance further? That question forces us to realise that two great difficulties have emerged. One is the point which has already been so well emphasised and explained, the difficulty of agreement between the different sections of the Indian people. Those have un-
1190
doubtedly increased. The second point is that the Nazi threat, not only to the freedom of this country and the British Commonwealth, but to the freedom of the whole world, has burst out into ruthless action and has made a profound difference to the practical realities of the situation.
As to the first point, the differences between the various communities in India, those differences have been dealt with fully and with sympathy to-day, but there is one aspect of the matter which I should like to emphasise. A good deal has been said about the impossibility of the proposal for a constituent assembly. Much has been said by way of appealing to the Indians to come together and to reach agreement. I join myself to that appeal, but in making it we must realise the peculiar difficulty of what we are asking them to do. We should realise with what a problem the various communities in India are confronted. This demand for a constituent assembly makes a natural appeal to everyone who believes in democratic institutions, but we must remember that in India there is such a difference of communities that the ordinary system of majority rule on which we base our political life cannot really function as we know it. Rule by the majority in India would in fact mean not rule by the majority of the community but rule by the majority community in the country. If India is to develop on democratic lines, India has to find some solution to that particular problem, a problem which has been very much before all our eyes in the practical problems of Europe during the last few years. I would like to emphasise to the Indian people what a contribution they could make to the advance of civilisation and peace in the world if they themselves could find some solution to this special problem of their own.
Having said that, I want to stress one point which has already been made in the course of this Debate. That is that the essential difficulty lies in the point to which I have just referred, and it does not lie in anything between the British Government and the people of India. Much has been said about independence and Dominion status, and I think we should be extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) for the way in which he has reminded us what Dominion status

1191
means. I care very little as to whether the words used by the Indians are independence or Dominion status, because if we face realities, it must be clear that if India reaches a stage in her own development when she is strong enough to stand on the foundations of her own strength in the world then nothing can keep her bound within the British Commonwealth, if the united wish of the Indian peoples is to withdraw. What meaning has Dominion status as a barrier? I am quite prepared to face that, and more than that. I am prepared to say that we should do all we possibly can to help India to acquire the strength to stand on her own foundations in the world. That is the reality as I see it, but of course, having said that, Indians cannot expect us to say that we look forward to the independence of India as the goal, because our hope must be that, though capable of independence she should remain of her own free will a member of the British Commonwealth. We believe that will be better for her, better for us, and better for the world.
The point therefore which we should all emphasise, if we are thinking of sending a message to the Indian people, is that the essential difficulty in this matter is not the difficulty of the protection of British interests, but the difficulty of finding a way of preserving British responsibilities and finding a solution which will not put upon us the charge that we have been traitors to our own responsibility for the protection of the minorities in India who rely upon us. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton pointed out, a statement clearly demonstrating our purpose has been said recently and clearly by the Viceroy himself in his speech at the Orient Club.
We come back therefore to the essential difficulty, that it is not a united India with which we have to deal. It may be said in India, "You exaggerate these difficulties; we can find our own solution. If you allow the matter to be discussed at a constituent assembly, we shall arrive at an agreement." But surely that proposal begs the whole question, because all the difficulties will arise when one comes to consider what is to be the form of the constituent assembly, what is to be the procedure, how its constitution is to be arrived at and how the
1192
minorities are to be protected. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton made a very interesting proposal. It is as well to talk honestly and frankly upon these matters, and when one tries to follow what has been happening in India in the last few weeks, one feels that there has been an immense amount of what I would call long-range discussion, a lot of vague talk, but very little evidence of that hard intellectual effort which is necessary to find a solution to the essential difficulty to which I have referred. Before it is any use thinking of a constituent assembly or any other form of general discussion, hard thought has to be devoted to what precisely are the modifications in the 1935 Act which would satisfy Congress on the one side and the Moslems on the other. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that there might be a small meeting of a few representatives of Congress and the Moslem League, sitting down quietly together and thinking out these matters, so that if anything like a constituent assembly were set up, there would be well digested proposals to set before them. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman has made an extremely useful contribution by that proposal, and if, as representatives of the British people, we are sending a message to India, we should make it clear that we think that something of that kind is what is required. I have been in correspondence with some of my Indian friends during the last few weeks and have made a similar suggestion.
I do not believe that these conversations with the Viceroy are ever likely to lead to finding a way of taking the next step. Speaking from my own practical experience in India, I feel that the method of the Viceroy engaging in conversations of this kind is not one which is likely to lead to success, because the Viceroy has laid upon him the whole time the pressing responsibility of conducting the day-today administration of India, and he can never forget that responsibility. No one who has ever lived in India and taken part in the government of India can forget that responsibility. Knowing that if the conversation breaks down one has to go back to one's job of governing and maintaining law and order in India, one cannot talk with the necessary frankness, and one must always be talking with inhibitions and reservations. This question of how to find an agreement and how

1193
to find a form of constitution which will protect minorities and preserve something like democratic structure is a matter which has to be discussed with complete frankness and should be discussed quietly behind closed doors. If Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Jinnah can get together, perhaps with a small body of people, let us say the Prime Ministers or those who have been Prime Ministers of the governments of the various Provinces, if they could get together quietly, with no advertisement of what is occurring and no great promises of what was to come of it, and if they could try to thrash out what exactly are the practical steps which should be taken and how they could be worked out in the form of precise modifications of the 1935 Act, then I believe some advance would be achieved.
If the result of a conversation of that kind were only to disclose where the difficulties were, that would be something. And I would add this. I think that at this critical stage in India, which, as my right hon. Friend so clearly pointed out, looks like a situation of almost insoluble difficulty, we—and by "we" I mean the Indians and ourselves—must not be too ambitious in our attempts. What we can hope for is not to find a solution now which will answer for all time, but to find how the next step can be taken which will save us from going over the edge of disaster. I believe that conversations on the lines suggested might be very useful. They could take place without delay. They would be essentially conversations between Indian groups, but I think their value would be enormously increased if as a sort of independent chairman the chief justice of the Federal Court, Sir Maurice Gwyer, could be brought in. He has a great knowledge of the Indian problem, and enjoys the confidence of all circles. That suggestion is only a modification of what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton himself has proposed. I believe that it is along those lines that the next step—the next modest step—which may save us from disaster can be taken.
I want now to add only a few words on what I have referred to as the second difficulty. We are now engaged in this effort, which demands all our collective energy, to save the freedom and peace of the world from Nazi domination. India should remember that, and I agree with
1194
the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton in what he said about those passages in Mr. Nehru's speeches and in the Congress resolutions which made charges that in this war we are fighting for Imperialistic aims. I would add this quotation from the Congress resolution:
"The recent pronouncements made on behalf of the British Government in regard to India demonstrate that Great Britain is carrying on the war fundamentally for Imperialistic ends, and for the preservation and strengthening of her Empire, which is based on the exploitation of the peoples of India as well as of other Asiastic and African countries."
Is it possible to find words which are a more blatant travesty of the truth? I think we are entitled to say that if the Indians ask us to understand them and their difficulties, they ought to make an effort to understand our situation. As has been so well pointed out, they stand in great danger. It is on our strength that they rely to protect them from that danger. So often one has felt, when discussing these matters with them, that they do not pause to realise themselves what are the assumptions on which they argue, and on which they look forward to attaining their objectives. Always underlying everything is the assumption that, somehow or other, we are going to save them from disaster. But now we are in a crisis in which we need all our strength to save ourselves as well as them from disaster, and it is hard indeed for us to tolerate the attitude indicated in the passage that I have quoted, or to allow ourselves to be damaged by letting such statements go about the world. Before I close I want to refer to one quotation which was made in that excellent convocation address which Sir Maurice Gwyer delivered at Benares University. It is a document which I think everybody should read. He quoted this passage from Burke:
"Refined policy ever has been the parent of confusion and ever will be so long as the world endures. Plain good intention, which is as easily discovered at the first view as fraud is detected at last, is, let me say, of no mean force in the government of mankind. Genuine simplicity of heart is a healing and cementing principle."
Those are words which, I am sure, will appeal to Mr. Gandhi. Perhaps it may seem strange for me to have quoted, for in what I have said I have specially stressed the need of detailed consideration of the problems of the new Constitution, of the problem of finding a basis for the

1195
institution of democracy in India. But we must remember that, behind it all, the one thing that really matters is that we should trust each other, and for this purpose that Indians should hear in plain and simple words what is our feeling about the Indian problem to-day. What then is the sort of message that we should send? That indeed has been well indicated in many of the speeches to-day. It is that we desire, with an intensity which cannot even be surpassed by anything that they themselves feel, that they should find a way of advancing towards their own self-government. We feel further that the one obstacle in the path of that advance is one for which they alone can find the way to surmount.
But on the other side I think we have to tell them quite clearly that we have reached a stage where we are standing on fundamentals, on principles which we cannot betray; and that no threat of force, no fear of the difficulties that civil disobedience would mean to us, even though we are engaged in the terrific task of waging this war, would push us from the foundation of those principles to which I have referred. It must remain a fundamental principle with us that we cannot agree to any scheme for India which we are compelled to believe would mean either the subjection of minorities or the disruption of India into a number of small units warring together. I think we should make that clear. But having said this there is a final word to add for ourselves. Let this Debate be not merely a prelude to putting the legal seal on a most distressing situation; let it be an occasion when the representatives of the British people show a true understanding of the Indian situation and true sympathy with India's ideals, and pass to them a message of what we mean and an expression of our hope that they will help us to find a solution.
5.41 p.m.
Mr. MacLaren: I wish to endorse the sentiments which have just been expressed by the hon. Member for Walsall (Sir G. Schuster). I, like the hon. Member, feel that much of what one might have said has been already said. I do not wish to introduce any note of contention to upset, in any way, the good disposition of the House; but I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without
1196
saying that a great measure of the suspicion which is felt towards us in India has some ground. When one throws one's mind back to the declarations of the rights of the Indians, made time after time, one remembers how often they were translated into something with an altogether different meaning. Years of such treatment as that wears off the patience and optimism of any people. India has had to go through that for a long time. Now we are faced with menacing circumstances in Europe, and it is not too much to say that in this struggle in India there is the possibility of very serious internal strife in that country. I, for one, looking at the job we have on hand at home, am not ready to take on any further military operations elsewhere if I can help it. In regard to Ireland, it used to be said that "England's difficulty is Ireland's opportunity." I can almost hear something of that sort being said in this case to-day. But apart from the problems of Europe, there are in this House Members who genuinely feel that India should be allowed to progress to fuller national status and the control of her own affairs.
How often in this House has one had to listen to speeches about the government of India being given to India. There is always a tendency on the part of people in this House to translate the outlook of people in other countries in terms of the outlook of people in this country. The complications in India are enormous. It is not our duty to-day to stress these complications, but one must point out that it took generations to mould opinions in India into a common complexion. The general sense of the House is that India should be asked to face the problem herself. I am glad that the House is expressing that opinion, because years ago—if I may say so, in all humility—I expressed that opinion myself. I used to see Government after Government trying to solve this Indian problem, drawing up constitution after constitution, always with a Western outlook, which was altogether out of harmony with the Eastern outlook. One could see that, whatever constitution was drawn up in this House, it would always meet with impact and severe opposition in India itself. I ought to mention the name of Major Graham Pole, who was a Member of this House for years. He and a few others always insisted that it would be better, when we were faced with complications in India

1197
in attempting to draft a constitution, to throw the responsibility of, as it were, designing the mosaic of an Indian Government largely on the Indian people.
We have to-day heard speeches of Nehru and Jinnah quoted, in contrast with the speech of the Viceroy. Here are all the makings of civil dissolution. I refuse to believe that there is a responsible Indian in India to-day who, if it came to the final decision, would give his support to any movement which tended to break up the political unity of that country at the moment. I think the Viceroy would be well advised, if there is any message to go from this House to-day, to call the ex-premiers into conference. I am only throwing this out as a suggestion. I would like to see Mr. Jinnah and Mr. Sapru, for instance, discussing in front of the Viceroy, the outstanding differences between them. Knowing something about both these men and their capacities—they are lawyers who know the whole complexion and all the intricacies of the Indian problem—I can well imagine that it is not beyond possibility that, in conjunction, if you like, with Gandhi and such a prominent person as the ex-Premier of the Punjab, they could find the solution for which this House is now looking. I frankly state here and now that the British Government have come to a point when they will have to cease attempting to create a constitution without having due regard to the full Indian opinion expressed through the various Indian communities.
Something has been said here to-day that we will not tolerate anything that may grow out of these violent statements, but we must not forget that for the last seven months, and even longer, India has been under a constant deluge of the most efficient German propaganda the world has ever known, and they certainly have not put any sympathetic view of the case to the Indian people as far as we are concerned. That has had a great effect. It has aroused strong feelings in people who hitherto were more or less passive as far as this problem is concerned. It behoves the House of Commons to-day, as never before in history, to make it clear to India that we are no longer making promises that we do not wish to fulfil, but that we are so translating our declarations here by asking the Viceroy of India to call
1198
within his counsels the responsible representatives of Indian life and to put upon them the solemn duty of finding a solution, and that if that is arrived at we shall give our promise and our pledge to fulfil it to the letter. That will be the test. I admit there is much talk about Dominion status and about independence. Do not let us enter too much into that test. We all know how the heated Indian, in his passion, sometimes quite a righteous and good passion, will say things in the open public forum, but when he speaks to you in the council or executive committee meetings he is quite another person. I am sure that this House will do something to remove a most dangerous menace in the East if to-day there is a united expression of opinion in this House, of which I think the speeches hitherto are evidence that we really mean to do all we can not to impress upon India our view or our particular design or plan for the constitution, but that we will faithfully do what we can to carry into practice a constitution devised by responsible Indians themselves.
I would appeal to Mr. Gandhi from the Floor of this House. We have come to regard this man as being something more than a politician. We have come to regard him as a man who has some deep philosophic view, not merely of this life, but of the life beyond. His attitude towards politics and social problems is something more than that of the political theorist. Can we not appeal to him to-day, when this conflict in Europe may possibly spread right across Europe to India, in the name of this deep philosophic and religious faith which he holds, to come not in any spirit of suspicion, but rather in aspirit of co-operation and link up with those of us in this country and in other countries who are willing to enter into common consultation to remove a problem which, though complex and deep-seated, is none the less a human problem and is possible of solution if men of good faith, sincerity and determination are willing to give a hand to the task?
5.51 p.m.
Mr. Pickthorn: I have very slight competence indeed to advise the House about the Government of India, and I will endeavour not to detain Members for more than a very few minutes. I wish to approach not so much the great main constitutional question

1199
which has rightly been the subject of our discussion to-day as some comparatively subsidiary questions. I hope that on this the House will indulge with me for a very few minutes, if I remind hon. Members that I am almost unique in this respect, that I have among my constituents very many who are informed on these matters as none but two or three of us here can be directly, and a very high proportion of whom very frequently write to me and instruct me, or come to see me, about India. I would like to begin, if I may without patronising, by saying how much I admired the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn), and especially I agree with what was said by him, and by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winter-ton) about the impossibility of India or anybody else in this world now sitting still and watching the war from a distance, confident that it will have no effect upon them, and how much I agree also with what was said about the issue now being not the question of what is to be done from here about India, but really the issue of endeavouring to reconcile Indians to each other. I suggest that, if we can do from here very little directly to persuade Indians to agree with each other about the next constitutional step, we may perhaps be able to do something to persuade Indians to agree with each other about something else. On the whole, if you can get people to agree with one another on any topic, and especially upon any great topic, you have taken a very long step towards getting them to agree with one another on some other topic.
I was very glad indeed that we had to-day an official and clear turning down of what may be called the Pakistan proposal. One of the leading Liberals in India wrote to me a short time ago that he thought that things had got to such a stage of exacerbation, almost conflagration, between Moslems and Hindus in India that all we could do in that matter was that, when either side produced something which obviously would not do, we should firmly say, "You cannot expect any help for this from here." He instanced this Pakistan proposal particularly, and I am very glad indeed that that has now been done. I will suggest that something more positive might be
1200
done if we could do more to persuade Indians to agree with each other and to agree with us about the war, and I want to draw attention to some suggestions with that end. I fully understand that any Government, and perhaps particularly a Government like the Government of India, must always have very great difficulties in conducting propaganda. It is very much easier, obviously, for opposition or for people from outside to conduct propaganda than it is for Government itself. It has been suggested to me that, in spite of the difficulties, more might be done than is done in respect of what a correspondent of mine calls the village know-all. In almost every village there is someone who sits under a banyan tree, who knows everything about everything, and who is apt to have a very considerable influence. My correspondent's view was that almost everybody in India who was at all politically minded, however much to the right or the left, except actual Communists, was very anxious about Russian intentions in the East, and that Russian influence is succeeding in reaching the man under the banyan tree a great deal more than is at all commonly realised in this country. I can quite see that that is a very difficult problem for the Central or Provincial Government to deal with, but I suggest that it might be considered whether something could be done to counteract that position.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) referred to the German radio. My information is that there is a great deal of listening to German broadcasts in India but that on the whole the German radio does not have very much influence, although it is a good deal listened to. I get complaints about its technical superiority to ours, and I would like to ask the right hon. Baronet whether he could not use his influence with the B.B.C. and whoever else may be concerned in that respect. It may be that the thing is impossible with the wavelengths available and so on: I do not understand the technique of these things, but I am told that it is much easier to hear German broadcasts in India than it is to hear the British broadcasts, and I hope that the India Office may think it worth while to inquire into that with the officials concerned.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): We are discussing rather widely

1201
the Motion before the House, but I cannot see what broadcasts have to do with it.
Mr. Pickthorn: I bow to your Ruling. The point I was trying to suggest was this. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton reminded us, the House is now, by approving these Proclamations, taking into its hands the responsibility not merely for the constitution of India, but for the provincial Government of India. We are becoming the Parliament which stands behind the Government of India in a sense in which we were for long in the past and have not been in recent years and months. Therefore, it seemed to me that it was relevant, with all respect, to suggest that in endorsing these Proclamations we should consider that kind of point as deserving the attention of our Ministers now being given these powers, but I do not wish to delay the House, and I will not pursue the matter further.
5.59 p.m.
Mr. Edmund Harvey: I think it will be felt that every speaker in this Debate has made a valuable and positive contribution, and that there has been a spirit of real unity underlying all differences of outlook, which, I hope, may be helpful in India, as it is here. We do need in a dark hour to look at the hopeful aspect of this immense national and international problem, and the hopeful signs are there. I see them in some of the words that have fallen from the Under-Secretary of State for India. He necessarily, with his big cares of office upon him, has to dwell on the graver aspects of the great problem he is facing, but he left it not without hope. I think it is significant that he dealt with quotations from Mr. Gandhi which showed the remarkable character of a man whose personality may give hope for a solution which might otherwise not be possible to obtain. I think there was hope, too, in the way that he obviously wishes to safeguard the rights of the religious and cultural minorities. He made it quite clear that the present demand made by Mr. Jinnah, in the name of the Moslem League, for autonomous sovereign States formed on a religious and cultural basis could be no solution. There is, too, ground for hope because it clears away from the horizon something which would lead us astray in
1202
our search for a solution. There is also great room for hopefulness in the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn), in his remarkable speech, and which was taken up on all sides of the House. Surely it is a landmark that the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) gave his general endorsement to that suggestion and that it was further developed by the hon. Member for Walsall (Sir G. Schuster), who also made a noteworthy speech.
As a result of this Debate it has been made clear, I think, that there would be a welcome on the part of Parliament for the coming together of a small group of representative Indians, representing not only Congress but the Moslem League and any other important minority, with Mr. Gandhi as the leading figure. If they could work out the next steps by general agreement, the British Government would welcome, I believe, the adoption of any necessary legislative Measures to carry out that agreement. I think it is an important thing that there should be so much unity on that suggestion. If we can once get that step taken, and a spirit of trust established, a great thing will have been done. But it cannot be established by a mere paper constitution. I believe that here, tonight, we have had a spirit of good will shown clearly on all sides of the House, and I believe it is there in India in spite of some of the wild words that have been passed in various-resolutions by Congress. Some of the differences are really due to the misunderstanding of words. The Under-Secretary quoted one significant phrase from a Congress resolution which repudiated "the orbit of Imperialism." Imperialism is to Indians a hideous word, and we can understand that. It is hideous to many of us here; we want people to understand that the British Empire to-day is not an Empire in the old Roman sense at all. It is a great co-operative Commonwealth, bound together by ties of mutual service and common loyalty. It is not the possession of any one State; it is a commonwealth and it is that commonwealth which we want India to share.
It has been pointed out that there are many grave reasons why Indians would not wish to leave such an association, but there is also another. Indians are scattered all over the Empire—in Fiji,

1203
the West Indies, Kenya, South Africa, Zanzibar, the Straits Settlements and Burma. Surely this great fellowship must be kept together. I do not believe for one moment that the Indians in India would wish to separate themselves from their fellow-countrymen in those other parts of the Empire, but we must be kept together by bonds of trust and good will and not by any sense of superiority or domination, still less of exploitation.
We have great services to render to one another—England to India and India to other parts of the great Commonwealth. I am not thinking merely of material assistance which we can give to one another, but of the cultural help that each can bring to the other. India, with its glorious memories of the great teachings of the Buddha, the noble achievements of Asoka, and the great days of Akbar, through its teachers and mystics, like Tukaram, the Mahratta poet saint, and, in our day, through Rabindranath Tagore and Mr. Gandhi himself, has contributions to make to us. We, too, have our contribution to make to India. I am not thinking of the material help that has come through railroads and irrigation, or of the great structure of justice and ordered life that has been given to generations, but of the spiritual heritage of Western civilisation and the birth of freedom and political ideas in the sense that we understand them to-day. Much has already come about as the result of contacts of Indian with English thought and with democratic institutions worked in close collaboration. Indian ideas of political liberty have been nurtured on the writings of Edmund Burke and John Stuart Mill. Something, too, that Indians may remember some day with gratitude is that all over their country there are graves of Englishmen who have given their lives in the service of the people. Over those graves there might in many cases have been written with equal truth the epitaph that Lawrence chose for himself:
"Here lies John Lawrence, who tried to do his duty."
That has been the great thing that has been given to India, but greater than all have been the teachings of one whose life has influenced Mr. Gandhi himself, devout Hindu though he is, and whose work has been represented in India through the
1204
lives of thousands of quiet, humble missionaries, who have striven for the uplift of the oppressed in following the teachings and spirit of their Master. It is these things that bind us together in one great Commonwealth.
6.12 p.m.
Sir Stanley Reed: I shall not intrude on the patience of the House for more than a few minutes; but I would like to try and bring back this discussion from the extraordinary generalities to which we have just listened to the particular problem we have to face in the Motion before us. I think we are all intensely glad that in this discussion no word has been said which will add to the enormous difficulties of the Viceroy, or of the political leaders whose path to-day is not an easy one to tread. But, frankly, for the first time in nearly 40 years' connection with India in facing the problem before the House I find myself baffled. I have rarely encountered an occasion when I could not see clearly the path before us; but on this particular issue it has become so overwhelmed with racial and communal issues that it is difficult to see precisely how we can move with advantage. Nobody is satisfied with the position where we have to pass orders which lead to a suspension, we hope temporary, of responsible government in India. We listened with appreciation to what the right hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) said when he reminded us of the special responsibility these conditions impose on this House. As we look round this House at the moment, we can appreciate the sense of responsibility with which it regards this new burden. My right hon. Friend will not mind my reminding him that this same responsibility was borne by this House up to 1919, and it is only since that date that it has devolved any part of it on Indian shoulders.
The House should mark, too, that since the resignation of the Congress Ministries there has been no relaxation or resiling from the general policies pursued when the responsible Ministries were actually in office, although some of those policies aroused strong opposition. The policy of prohibition was being maintained: even the errors in the law had been corrected. True, the Salis Tax in Bombay had been dropped, with general approval and the Act was unworkable; and Hindi

1205
had been made optional instead of compulsory. But, broadly, the policies of the responsible Ministries were being followed by the new administrations established.
It is to me, and I think to those who follow Indian affairs, a real tragedy that a great step forward—the greatest step—in the direction of further self-government in India has brought us to a condition where we have inevitably to sanction these special measures. The Act of 1935 was a great Act worthy of a great Parliament. It was the most striking devolution of authority from the Mother country to a Dominion ever made in our history. Yet the fact remains that so far from inducing that higher unity in India which was the hope and intention of Parliament, that Act has left the major communities more widely asunder. While this House must withhold any support to what has come to be called the Pakistak movement, having for its object the creation of a chain of independent Moslem States, stretching from the North West to the East, surely it is wise to analyse the causes which lie behind it. It is not a movement of to-day or yesterday; it goes back at least 20 years and has continued right up to this date. It springs from a real sense of uneasiness in the Mohammedan mind at the situation created by what they call Hindu Raj.
As many hon. Members know, the Moslem League demanded a Royal Commission of inquiry into the injustices they had experienced in the working of the Act of 1935. I am confident that if that Royal Commission had been appointed, it would have found no substantial grievances. But a distinguished Governor of the United Provinces had placed on record that while there was no major grievance, and while it was not true to say that Governors had neglected their responsibility for the protection of minorities, it was true that there had grown up among the Mohammedan community a feeling that they were under alien rule; that they had no part in the administration; and that in the small places others with the ear of Ministers were able to obtain advantages which were denied to them. This had made Moslems more united and resolute than ever before. That, I think, is one of the things we must recognise if we are going to work for a greater sense of unity in India as time goes on. Surely there is one ques-
1206
tion above all others before us now! Congress Ministers resigned their office—and I hope the House will mark that these Ministers did not resign from any sense of dissatisfaction with their position under the constitution; they were functioning well and efficiently and had every scope for the development of their activities, their policies and their ideas. They were drawn away from office not from any want of confidence by Governors or the Legislative Councils but at the orders of the All-India Congress Committee. I do not say that all interventions of the All-India Congress Committee in Provincial affairs is always a bad thing. Once or twice it has been of advantage; but no doubt it took a form contrary to our own ideas of what a true democracy is.
But our main point is that which has been put so clearly by the right hon. Member for Gorton and endorsed by the hon. Member for Walsall (Sir G. Schuster); it is—Is there a way out of this impasse? For a period since the responsible Ministers withdrew there has been comparative calm. I hope that period will not lead us into a dangerous acquiescence in the embers which lie beneath the impasse and which may be fanned into flames. We have heard a great deal of the two parties, Congress and the Moslem League, which must be brought together. Surely there are four parties which must co-operate if we are to have a real unified constitution for India. There are the Hindus and the Moslem League. There are the scheduled classes and there are the Indian States. How can you ignore Indian States which comprise one-third of India and one-quarter of the population? That is a chimera. Then again there is the Imperial Parliament. It seems to me that however far we may go in giving responsibilities to a body in India for the framing of their own constitution, Parliament cannot entirely devolve its responsibilities; it cannot entirely slough off its share in the work, because it will have to implement by an Act whatever principles may be adopted or whatever recommendations may be agreed upon. I want to urge with all the emphasis I can that we should not be lulled into a sense of false optimism by the comparative quiescence of political feeling in the last six months, but rather seize this opportunity to press

1207
on with any conceivable scheme which will bring the parties together and lay down the principles of a constitution which can be worked.
It is essential that this House should make up its mind that this work must be done in India by an elected body, carrying the confidence of all classes and all major interests. Whether you can draw such a body from the Provincial Councils under the franchise provided for the Federal Assembly in the Act of 1935; or whether you set up a more limited body; or whether you can call the Premiers of the responsible Ministries together, are questions on which I will not dogmatise. I would urge that no stone should be left unturned to get together some body in India, representing as wide interests as possible, to sit down and grapple with this matter, not as mere hot air and throwing out ideas of independence, but to come down to concrete proposals which will compel all of us to clarify our minds and bring this issue to a head. I think this Parliament might send out a message in most definite terms that it accepts to the full the implications of the declaration of the Viceroy at Bombay, that we aim at Dominion status with the full implications of the Statute of Westminster. I think we should say that we are not in the least frightened by the bogy of independence, although we ask Indian politicians to look East and West and North and say what that "independence" would be worth without association with the Commonwealth, and to give the definite assurance that if there is a substantial measure of agreement in India on the basic changes in the constitution, this Parliament will not hesitate, even amid the preoccupations of the war, or with a time limit of not more than 12 months after the termination of the war, to implement these conclusions in an Act in full confidence and with the earnest hope that it will lead, as we believe it will, to the greater prosperity and contentment of that land.
6.25 p.m.
Mr. Sorensen: I think hon. Members on this side of the House will be thoroughly gratified with the reasonable approach to this problem expressed by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed). But the hon. Member is not alone, and I listened also
1208
with great appreciation to the speech of the hon. Member for Walsall (Sir G. Schuster). If these two speeches represent the position of those who support the Government, then there is far more hope for an ultimate solution of this problem than was the case 10 or 15 years ago. But I am afraid that the statement made by the Under-Secretary of State rather cuts across what has been said or implied by the two speeches to which I have referred. The Under-Secretary of State said quite categorically that India could never expect independence. That must be put in striking contrast to the implied considerations of the two hon. Members. I am sorry indeed that the Under-Secretary of State made that statement. It will go out to India, and I am sure will not help matters at the present time. From the standpoint of those who declare that the ultimate goal of India is Dominion status, precisely what is meant by it? If the interpretation of Dominion status is the interpretation which Ireland makes at the present time, it will go very far towards an interpretation of complete independence which some Indians hope to get.
I am not a lawyer, but I rather understand that from the days when the Statute of Westminster was passed it has been possible for some of our Dominions to claim such sovereign rights that they can entirely secede from organic connection with the rest of the Empire. If there is that possibility under the Statute of Westminster will the Under-Secretary of State say so? If he does, it will converge very much on the position taken up by the two hon. Members to whom I have referred. I quite agree that words can be used to mean anything or nothing. That applies, of course, to India and to this country. Some people use the word "independence" in a far less rigid sense than others, and "Dominion status" is so ambiguous that it may mean something in this House and something else to people outside. I think it should be frankly recognised that Indians will insist on securing independence according to their own interpretation, and surely we wish for nothing else. If we wish for anything else we are acting wholly inconsistent with our professions in this war.
Reference has been made by one or two hon. Members to the splendid help

1209
we are getting from India, but some reflection has been cast on what are called the extremists in India. It seems to me to be strange that there should be a predilection for the despotic section of India and a slur cast on extremists, while only recently eight out of the 11 Provinces in India were acknowledged in this House as being in fact administered by the most powerful body expressing the political conscience of India, that is, the Indian National Congress. The 2,000 delegates of the Indian Congress represent the vast mass of politically conscious Indians, and one cannot get over that fact simply by saying that they are extremists. It must be recognised that there are some people who area little over-eager to seize on the admitted communal difficulties in India as an excuse either for refusing any further development towards Indian self-government, or for justifying their claim that independence can never be granted to India because of internal disruption and other dangers.
As far as the Moslem League is concerned, let us recognise that, although it represents a very considerable portion of Moslem India, it is not to be identified with the whole of Moslem India. I regret there has been no statement this afternoon drawing attention to the fact that the present president of the Indian Congress is a Moslem. We have heard less to-day than on the occasion of the last Debate on India regarding the assertion that 80,000,000 or 90,000,000 Moslemsin India are to be found inside the Moslem League. That is not the case. As I have said, this year's president of the Indian Congress is a Moslem of high standing and great scholarship, and he is recognised as having behind him a very considerable following. There are many organisations of Moslems standing apart from the Moslem League, and, if you like, from the Congress as well. I mention these and other facts—such as the fact that the North-West Frontier, although overwhelmingly Moslem, had a Congress majority—in order that it may be appreciated that Moslem India is not necessarily identified with the Moslem League.
What I want to emphasise is that, although we in the British Parliament may conscientiously and legitimately think a continuance of these Proclamations is necessary, we should also not only recognise, but openly admit they are
1210
necessary only relative to a subject people. If it were not so, we should not be discussing them here this evening. We are discussing a continuation of these Proclamations in the light of the fact that the teeming millions of India are subject to British rule. I mention this so that we may fully appreciate yet another fact, that whatever may be our British approach to this problem, however sincere and genuine it may be, it is not necessarily the approach of the people of India. We frequently speak in this House as though what we think is also what the Indians think, or what they should think. The truth is that the majority of politically conscious Indians, those in the eight Provinces that have Congress majorities and large sections in the remaining three Provinces, bitterly resent the continuation of these Proclamations. While they unequivocally denounce Nazi aggression, they also repudiate, with strength and determination, the right of the British Government to involve India in war without her consent and free co-operation.
I emphasise this because I can understand how hon. Members may feel, within their hearts, a deep sense of regret that at the present time India is following a course which they think may embarrass this country. Being British, we have that feeling. But our task is not only to think of our own reactions to the situation, but to realise that the Indian people do not think of themselves as British, but as a distinct nation. They have their own approach to the situation, and however embarrassing and difficult it may be, we must face the fact that many of them think otherwise and demand mutual respect and not patronage and superiority. I should like to read to the House a passage from the speech of this year's president of the Indian Congress, because it may help hon. Members to appreciate a little more what I have tried feebly to express. He said:
"As far as the war is concerned, India has clearly condemned Nazi Germany."
I hope that if any malicious and mendacious person in Germany takes up some of the statements made in this House to-day, he will at least include that one. The president of the Congress went on to say:
"Our sympathies are with the democratic nations. In such circumstances it was natural to expect that if the British Government had

1211
changed its old Imperialistic mentality, it would change its old methods at this juncture and afford an opportunity to India to feel that she was breathing in a changed atmosphere. But we all know how the British Government behaved in this matter. It decided its course of action and without India being afforded, in any manner, and the slightest degree, an opportunity to declare freely her opinion, her participation in the war was announced."
As an illustration of the sense of burning indignity which Indians feel at not being consulted on so grave a matter, I will quote also his point of view and the point of view of 2,000 delegates:
"The whole world knows, and so do we, how all Empire countries were given freedom of decision. The representative assemblies of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Ireland all arrived at an independent decision in regard to their participation in the war without the least outside interference."
That is true. It is a thousand pities that there was not at least nominal consultation with the people of India at the beginning of the war. Even if there was no democratic Central Government, there could have been a recognition that in the Provinces of India there was some attempt to establish democratic representation. But those Provinces were not consulted. That is one factor in the present situation which explains in a large measure the bitter determination which Indians feel, as a result of that humiliation, not to accept co-operation in this struggle. I should like to quote from the resolution of the Congress, which was passed by 2,000 delegates to 10, including Moslems, Sikhs, Indian Christians, Hindus and others:
"This Congress, having considered the grave and critical situation resulting from the war in Europe and British policy in regard to it, approve of and endorse the resolutions passed and the action taken on the war situation by the All-Indian Congress Committee and the Working Committee. The Congress consider the declaration, by the British Government, of India as a belligerent country, without any reference to the people of India, and the exploitation of India's resources in this war, as an affront to them which no self-respecting and freedom-loving people can accept or tolerate."
That is the decision of the most representative body in India. Whatever may be our views, and even though we may have profound regret that India is not acting in the way we would like her to do, that is not the point. The point is that India is a free people in her own mind, if not legally. Rightly or wrongly, she has come to the conclusion that she was not
1212
consulted at the beginning of the war and yet was involved in it, and that whatever may be the lip service we pay to freedom in India, we do not intend to treat India as a sovereign nation able by her own volition to decide, as other Dominions do, her own course of action in the future. It may be said that India ought not to resent these Proclamations in view of the war and the embarrassment which that resentment may cause us but the fact remains that that is India's standpoint. We have to go a long way yet in order to appreciate what that standpoint means. It is natural for us, because we are British and not Indian, to feel that India should not have taken this course, but if we brush Indian opinion on one side merely because it is not our opinion, virtually we do the same thing as has been done to Denmark, Norway, Finland, Poland and Czecho-Slovakia. Those countries have been dominated by an alien will and have been told that they must accept the position for their own good, or because it is a natural necessity of the situation. Those countries resent that.
The Indians are in the same position. They say that whatever the English may feel about the matter and whatever plausible or genuine explanations the English may advance, the fact remains that the Indians are under an alien will, and the British are determined that they shall remain under it. Judging from certain statements made by the Under-Secretary this afternoon, it would seem as if we are going to say to the Indian people, "You shall be free provided you agree with us, and as long as you do not claim the right to secede from the British Empire; when you do, or intend to do, that you shall not be free." We would not tolerate such action by Germany towards Denmark. I have a natural interest in Denmark, as my name indicates. Denmark will never tolerate, and we will never tolerate, Germany saying ultimately, "You shall be free provided you do not wish to break away from our domination over you." That is precisely the position in India, and the more we appreciate it the better.
In recent weeks little reference has been made to these matters in the Press. I do not know whether it is assumed there should be no reference to them in the Press because it would be embarrassing.

1213
I think it is a pity there have not been more references in the Press, for a very grave situation has developed behind the scenes in India. Few people realise the arrests, imprisonments, strikes and agitation that have been going on, and have involved the imprisonment of numbers of eminent Indian leaders. The leader of the Congress Socialist party and formerly the acting secretary of the Congress, Mr. Jacprakash Narain, is in prison at the present time. The ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Agriculture in the United Provinces, Mr. Ajit Prasad Jain, is in prison, as are two other equally prominent men, who were arrested while picketing. The general secretary of the Central Indian States People's Congress, Mr. K. K. Vaidya, was served with a deportation order. I could give many names of conscientious, intelligent, patriots in India who are in prison at the present time, have been served with deportation orders, or are under arrest. There have been strikes in the countryside. There has been a vast strike in Bombay involving 160,000 textile workers. The three leaders have been arrested. There has been discontent on the part of the peasant sugar-cane growers.
I do not state these facts with any glee or satisfaction. It may be said I ought not to say these things because they will be used by the enemy. But surely we have not come to the stage where, through fear of our voice being misinterpreted or maliciously used by the Germans, we should not let it be heard in the rest of the world. We have to-day to raise our voice on behalf of democracy more vigorously than ever before. The Germans will misrepresent us and laugh at us; that is their evil job. We have to ignore that, and say to the world what we know and what we believe, even though it may sometimes mean the exposure of our weakness. In the long run, honesty is the best political policy. It must be recognised that in the eight Congress Provinces, if I may so call them, there has been, until recently excellent administration. I was glad to hear the testimony of the Under-Secretary to the fact that there had been no persecution of minorities, and that this Congress administration had acted efficiently and well. No one can deny that. They are now, for good or ill, out of office, and the result is that this Government, miles
1214
away from that vast land, has to give the lamentable picture to the world of a form of autocratic government. That, I am sure, most of us deplore, because it undermines our stand for freedom and democracy.
The Congress has declared that it is preparing for civil disobedience and non-co-operation. I hope with all my soul that it will not come to that, and that methods of conciliation and co-operation will be used to a large degree. But it remains a fact that these people are Indians, and so strong is their national conviction that they are willing to carry it to civil disobedience and non-co-operation. It is useless for the Under-Secretary to say that we shall not be deterred by threats of that description, for India can also say they too will not be deterred by threats. People with high principles are prepared to go through unlimited suffering for what they believe to be true. As I have said before, we have overstressed the great difficulty of communal diversity, and one reply to that has been already mentioned in the fact that to-day we have a Moslem as the first President of Congress. One factor in the Moslem League's resistance to the demands and proposals of Congress, is that it is or might be a political tactic on the part of the League. Whether that is so or not, are we or are we not going to say definitely at this stage that when we are struggling for freedom in the West, India shall have her freedom and independence in the East, interpreting it in the way she thinks fit? I hope this will be interpreted as voluntary co-operation with this country, even as Canada, New Zealand and Australia interpret their own powers in the form of free co-operation with this country. Equally, as these other Dominions make it quite clear that if they wish to do so they will interpret their powers otherwise, so India wishes to know whether we shall treat her in the same way. Admittedly, communal difficulties do exist, and it may be for the Indians, no less than for ourselves, a long and difficult problem. But if at this time when democracy is challenged we are prepared to implement our promise and establish freedom and independence in India, we shall be doing more than anything within imagination to win India and awaken the peoples of the world to the realities of democracy and freedom.

1215
Involved as we are in this struggle for democracy and freedom to nations and peoples, we must of necessity demonstrate our consistency. Our enemy makes a great deal of our inconsistency, but surely the best answer is not to evade what he says or to abuse him, but to remove the inconsistency and at least make it quite clear that as soon as this tragic episode in the life of man has come to an end, we shall be prepared to implement to the full the demand India makes, and that she shall be recognised, as we recognise other powers in the Western world, as a free sovereign State, willing and able to work out her own salvation. We should see to it that India at the very earliest possible opportunity shall no longer be treated as subordinate to this country, but as a free nation, freely co-operating with us. Then, however lamentable as it may now be to continue these Proclamations and impose this autocratic Government on India, I am sure the people in India will realise that we have turned away from the old conception of Imperialist domination, and that we are sincere in our claim for free co-operation between nations, one with the other, on the basis of human respect.
6.53 p.m.
Miss Wilkinson: As the previous speaker has said, what is important is not so much the number of Members attending these Debates on India, but the fact that everyone who speaks, as all of us who have been to India know, is in fact speaking to India. We know with what close attention the Indians follow the Debates in this House, and how every little vernacular carries a long verbatim report of what has been said in regard to it. We congratulate ourselves on belonging to this British Empire, but it might not seem such a co-operative commonwealth if we were Trinidad oil workers instead of white men in London. Therefore, it is rather important that we should try to see what we look like to the Indians. The Proclamations we are passing to-day mean that the India Act is dead. Whatever else happens, that Act will not work now in India. That milestone has been passed, and something new will come out of it. It means that we are going to assume enormous powers. The Hindu might smile a little cynically when he reads the
1216
lecture the present Under-Secretary gave of the necessity of minorities coming together on an agreed solution. The Indians do have a sense of humour, and they know quite a lot about our history. That coming from an Ulsterman, after the history of the last hundred years or so, seems quite typical of our present system. It is an instance of the insensitiveness of this Government for the people governed.
The hon. Member for Walsall (Sir G. Schuster) quoted the Ram garb, resolution, which speaks of this as an Imperialist war, and said it was a blatant travesty of the truth. Mr. Nehru is one of my personal friends, and I saw a good deal of him when he was in England. He was in Prague at the time of Munich, and he went to Czecho-Slovakia aflame with anger against what the Nazis stood for. Then he came back and listened to the Prime Minister's speech, that Britain's forces could only be used in Britain's interests, so could you expect him to believe the right hon. Gentleman when he now talks about this being a war for democracy. For one who went through the Spanish campaign, sympathising ardently for the cause of democracy in Spain, and came back and saw how often we condoned Nazi and Fascist intervention, it is clear that you cannot expect the Indians to accept all we say about this war for democracy on its face value. It is really a blatant travesty to an Indian who has been in this country and seen our reactions to the struggle in Europe until our interests were—
Sir G. Schuster: But is it not a blatant travesty to the hon. Lady herself?
Miss Wilkinson: It means forgiving this Government a lot; but we know, in spite of the British Government, that we have to win this war for the sake of decent relations between nations, and for the sake of the things in which we believe. I would remind the hon. Member that we on these benches, as Labour Members of Parliament, have our work cut out to convince our own people in this country that a Government like this can fight for democracy, and that a Government like this means what it says about democracy. At meetings of my own trade union members I am often asked whether I believe that these men are fighting for democracy when they say they are, when the Government has

1217
done so much to back up the leaders of Fascism and Nazism. We have had to tell the great industrial areas to forget the Government and to think about the country and realise we are fighting for our very lives and the lives of a great many others too. I assure the hon. Member for Walsall that we have to do that, and if he does not know it, then he is only meeting Walsall society when it has meetings for the Red Cross or the National Savings Association. He will not have to convince them of that fact, but if he goes to the Walsall workers he will meet the same questions which are put to us. If we find it difficult to explain to our own people these facts, imagine how difficult it is to get it across to the Indians. We are not doing anything like enough to explain our cause to the Indian people, or indeed to Europe or America, and such queer people we send to do it.
The important thing for the Indian just now is deeds not words. If I were an Indian, I would not believe one word of what the Prime Minister or the Government said about India. I would ask them, "What are you going to do about it? If you do something about it we will at least examine it." What are the deeds? Some of the names that were quoted by previous speakers are the names of personal friends of mine. Let me take the case of Mr. Jaiprakash Narain. It is a long name and it means extraordinarily little to people of this country. He is a superb man; he is a graduate of an American university and he has a trained scientific mind. He is really the sort of person wanted in any country to help run any kind of administrative machine. He is not one of those hot-air merchants of which every country has plenty, but he is of the good scientific type. When I went on a journey with him in India he had just come out of prison, and he was taken from the train and arrested for another offence. What he had done was no different from what I am doing in politics every day in this country. I have here one of his speeches which I want to quote. It shows that he has some sense of humour. He said:
"As for the charge of endangering the defence of British India, I think the irony of it cannot be lost upon us. A slave has no obligation to defend his slavery. His only obligation is to destroy his bondage. I hope we shall know how to defend ourselves when we have achieved our freedom."
1218
Men who talk like that in this country are quoted 100 or 150 years afterwards in our history books as heroes. He goes on to say what I think is important:
"I should like to add that, lest as an Englishman you should misunderstand me, I should like to make it clear that in impeding the prosecution of the war, I have no desire to help Germany or to see Germany victorious. I desire the victory neither of Imperialism nor of Naziism. Yet, as a Congressman and a Socialist, I have nothing but good will for the British and German people. If India's opposition to Britain's Imperialist war ensures a Nazi victory, it is for the British people to decide whether they would have a Nazi hegemony or victory with real democracy at home and in India."
The interesting thing about that speech is that it shows the influence of Russian propaganda. "Britain's Imperialist war" has run through India like wildfire wherever the Communist contacts are. I know enough about the situation to recognise the language when I see it. It would not have had that effect if Nehru had gone back from Europe believing that the Government which is putting these Proclamations before us to-day was really fighting for democracy in Europe and not for British interests alone. I believe that this country is fighting for decent things in Europe, but I understand what it means when a man like Narain says thinks like that. I have a cable here from the Under-Secretary for Agriculture in the United Provinces:
"Myself in gaol peaceful labour strike authoritative version being communicated from outside no legislatures here raise question Parliament and Press."
When Mr. Jain was last in England he was my guest. He is a moderate, very gentle Indian Labour leader, very concerned about his job in the agricultural department. He spent a lot of time here, not in collecting propaganda, but in seeing how we were doing certain agricultural work. He is again the sort of man whom we want to run the show in India. As it is, he is in gaol.
I want to warn the House, and I think the Under-Secretary needs warning also, that these powers in all probability—I will not say certainty—mean civil disobedience in India. It depends to some extent on how they are used. Our record has not been very good in India since the war started. I would like the Under-Secretary to make some inquiries on how the administration is carried on in India. It is no use coming here and talking

1219
generalities about the British Commonwealth of Nations. We have the Army administration in India and we sweep men and materials into the war just as we wish. It might have been a great nuisance and it might have wasted some time to get the Provinical Ministers and responsible Indians together in order to discuss the matter with them, but in the long run it would have saved an enormity of time and trouble. I do not know whether it is in the Under-Secretary's power, or whether he counts for much in the India Office, but he might see that some ordinary politenesses are used by the military administration in India. Probably, however, the time has gone by now. It is one of those things which the right hon. Gentleman's class does badly; they do not take the people into consideration.
It is no use political spokesmen of that kind getting up and talking about constitutionalism. It does not sound real. It is what you do in India that counts. If we get civil disobedience we must remember what will be the effect in America of every lathi charge against the civil disobedience people. I have seen those charges and they are the beastliest things. You see men and women, mostly men, unarmed by order and utterly defenceless, offering no resistance of any kind, and then the policemen come with their huge bamboo lathis with heavy ends and beat the people on their heads and shoulders. I have seen the results in hospital afterwards. I hope that whatever happens we shall not have that sort of thing repeated, because every blow that goes on a defenceless Indian's head is echoed in America and it will not lose anything by telling. I lectured in America after the civil disobedience movement of 1929–32, and I know what the Indian propagandists will make of everything we do. I appeal to the Under-Secretary for his own British interests to realise that that sort of thing simply cannot happen again. It is not necessary.
I am coming to a part of my speech which will not be appreciated in India, but in honesty it has to be said. We here tend to think of the civil disobedience movement of the 1929–32 period as a purely political movement. I saw India pretty well from end to end; I was the guest of Congress and was living with Congress people nearly the whole time.
1220
I was fortunate enough through introductions given by Lord Lothian to see a good deal of the English administration. I came to the conclusion, which was not the conclusion which my Congress hosts wanted me to draw, that it was much more an economic than a political movement, that the real strength behind it was derived from the fact that the world depression had reached India even before it reached this country and had hit India hard. The hon. Member for Walsall knows far more about this than I do, but when I went into the Indian villages and saw the conditions there, talked to people who were being "sold up" and saw the appalling poverty and unemployment in the towns, I did feel that it was the economic conditions which were giving the dynamic drive and unity to that civil disobedence movement.
The position now is that certain parts of India are doing very well out of the war, in particular the Punjab. They are getting enormous Army contracts. If I may be for a moment a little cynical about India, as I have been cynical about my own people, I would say that it might be wise for the Indian administration to see that not all the Army contracts necessarily go to the Moslems on the ground that they are regarded as being loyal. It would be very unwise to have an economic struggle going on as well as a political struggle. Also, I doubt very much whether, in a time of rising prices, there would be the same bitterness against the Government of the day among a community which is largely agricultural as one gets in a time of falling prices. So it may be—and, there, I think, is the hope in the situation for both sides—that there will not be the same general response to a Congress demand for civil disobedience that there was in 1929. Still, it would be tragic if the Indian administration, which is, of course, well aware of these facts, were to assume that it need not take the threat of Congress too seriously. If it does it will make a frightful miscalculation.
What I think would be a really constructive way of dealing with the matter would be to get into touch with some of the Congress leaders, men like Mr. Nehru and Mr. Narain and with that very shrewd man of the world Mr. Rajagopalachariar, the Premier of Madras, to see whether this was not the

1221
moment when we could really get a solution, even though we might feel the Indians would think that we only take that line because we are in a tight corner. We are not as lacking in friends in India as the younger Congress leaders may seem to think. I was the recipient of much Congress hospitality and among the oddest experiences I recall the number of occasions on which the older men in the movement, men who had been to gaol, some of them just out of gaol, took me on one side and explained that really the English were being too awful for words but that even this treatment was better than anything they would be likely to get from any other quarter. That was why I was very glad to hear the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton),whom I always regard as being the last drip of water from the Tory tap, say that the time had come for that moderate opinion in India to be recognised. Men like Nehru and Gandhi and others whom we have imprisoned are really great human beings, and they do not want to have an Asiatic haggle about things as dear to them as the future of India. They know as well as we do what are the issues which are at stake.
If only we had people in this country who were more flexible to deal with this situation, if only we had men whose actions in the past would make the Indians believe that they meant what they said when they said they were working for freedom and democracy, there might be some hope. When I look at the present holders of office in the present Administration, then I realise that the trouble is that Lord Linlithgow and Mr. Nehru, though they both speak Oxford English, do not speak the same language. That is the tragedy of this situation. What is to be done about it? I know that in this House one is always supposed to turn up with a constructive proposal. We get round that by saying that we have a constructive proposal and then indulge in generalities about the British Empire. I do not wish to indulge in generalities, but I would rather have men like Edward Thompson or the hon. Member for Walsall, whose reputation in India I heard so much about, or some-both with some sensitiveness—anybody except the present Under-Secretary and the present Viceroy and the present Secretary of State—to deal with Mr.
1222
Nehru at the present time. That is the only constructive solution for the present difficulties which I can offer at the moment.
7.18 p.m.
Mr. Gallacher: There are many subjects on which this Government could be condemned and for which it should be removed, and its treatment of this question of India is one of the foremost. I cannot understand how anyone who claims to be a political leader, who claims to be a representative of the people and who has made a study of historical processes, can avoid facing the fact that India is going to be free. It may take some time or it may come about very soon, but the die is definitely cast and all that the leaders of Imperialism in this country can do will never change the trend that history has taken or stop the forces that are making for the freedom of India from the British Empire.
I want to see India independent and free, but I also want to see the Indian people closely associated in the bonds of friendship with the people of this country. The policy which is being pursued by this Government, however, has every chance of destroying the possibility of future friendly relations between the two peoples. The Under-Secretary said to-day that there had been talk in Congress of civil disobedience when their forces were sufficiently organised and I am certain that when the forces are ready, civil disobedience will take place. The Indian people are entitled to take whatever measures are necessary in order to advance the campaign for their own freedom. When the Under-Secretary mentioned that civil disobedience would take place when the forces were strong enough, he followed it with a threat that, if such a situation developed, the necessary action would be taken to carry on the Government. We all know what that means, but it expresses the complete political bankruptcy of the Government.
This political bankruptcy was further expressed in the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). Instead of dealing with the issue which stands before us in connection with India he tried to represent independence as not so important at the moment, and to get us to believe that the communal issue was the important one

1223
which had to be solved, that it could be solved only with the greatest difficulty and that until the communal problem was solved, there could be no question of independence for India. He forgot to mention what earlier speakers mentioned, that this matter was dealt with by the President of Congress in his presidential address in a way which answered in advance the arguments of the Noble Lord. This Moslem President of Congress, Maulana Kalam Azad, said:
"This untrue picture of a divided India has been deliberately fostered by British officialism to create the idea of two communities so that no demand could be made in the name of a United India."
It is the same argument that produced a terrible situation in Ireland 20 years ago and which has since led to partition in Ireland. If the real issue in Ireland had been faced long ago there would be now a free and independent Ireland. We had the tale of two communities, now divided by a partition which does not solve any of the problems but has accentuated all the problems associated with Ireland. In the same way, the attempt is made to leave aside the question of independence in India on the ground that there is a community problem, but once the Indian people had independence and their own Legislative Assembly they would very soon sort out the communal problem. As a matter of fact, communal problems could easily be developed in this country, and in different parts of the country at different times, the communal issue has been worked up by interested parties in order to set sections of the working class fighting against each other. The same is true in Palestine; if Palestine had independence and a Legislative Assembly the communal problem between Jews and Arabs would soon be settled.
The Minister dealt with Congress and the Moslems, but he said nothing whatever about the economic condition of India and how the masses of the people were reacting and would be affected by the proposed Proclamation. Yet it is a fact that according to the broadcast of Mr. Gregory, economic adviser to the Bombay Government, the cost of living has gone up 40 per cent. since the war. I invite hon. Members to visualise the poverty-stricken workers of India and the masses of impoverished peasants, who live under the most hard and difficult condi-
1224
tions, having their cost of living increased by 40 per cent. Does it need anybody to tell them that the war is not in their interests? These masses of working men and peasants, with their hungry children, without a vote or any liberties or rights, have to work and slave all the time for the merest pittance. Does it need anybody to tell them that this is an Imperialist war and not a war in their interests? Maybe the Communists are busy; I hope they are, but it does not need a Communist to tell the masses of the peasants that this is not a war in their interests. On the top of the increased cost of living and the poverty that is imposed on these people, has come the refusal of the employers and the ruling classes to make any advance to them. They have had to fight, and strike after strike has taken place. The Bombay strike was typical.
What followed? While there was a concession of a small percentage of increase for the Bombay strikers, there have been wholesale arrests and imprisonment. There has been talk about German propaganda in India, but the most active German propaganda ever poured into India, this country or any other country, does not affect the workers and the peasants. They do not absorb that propaganda, because they understand that Fascism means the centralised power of the monopoly capitalists and Imperialists for crushing the working class. You do not find the workers affected by German propaganda. In India, that propaganda may attract the Princes and the big bourgeoisie. I ask any Minister or any. Member in this House whether, if it is not the case that in every country where there has been propaganda for a German invasion that the preparations were made by the bourgeoisie. That applied in Norway, Denmark, Poland and Czecho-Slovakia. It is always the bourgeoisie, and it is clearly the bourgeoisie in this country who are shouting most about Nazi propaganda at the present time, who assisted Nazi propaganda and who now want to put other people in prison. In India the wrong' people have been put in prison—representatives of trade unions, Socialists and Communist, representatives of the toiling masses and impoverished peasants. Why did not the Under-Secretary of State say something about them?
How is it possible to suggest that the Indian people should look at the ruling

1225
classes of Britain as anything other than Imperialists who are carrying on the present administrative policy in India? The hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) spoke of Communists going about the country talking about an Imperialist war. The President of the Congress is a Moslem. I do not think it can be suggested that he is under the influence of the Communists, but, in his presidential speech he said:
"So far as the question of war is concerned, our position is clear. We see the face of British Imperialism as clearly now as we did in the last war and we are not prepared to assist in its triumph by participating in the war. We do not wish to see British Imperialism triumphant and stronger and thus lengthen the period of our own subjection to it."
If that is the attitude of the President of Congress, how must these masses of workers and peasants feel? The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) said that one of the factors operating in India was the amount of propaganda that was going through the villages from Russian sources. No matter how manylies may be told in the Press of this country about the situation in Russia, the people of India who are close to the Eastern provinces of Russia understand that those provinces have had a new freedom and are developing a new life and expanding a great culture of their own. So, the masses of the peasants and workers of India are all the time desirous of expressing this feeling for an independent India which will give them an opportunity to live as they should live and to expand a great Indian culture of their own. Support for Congress comes from the masses of the workers and peasants. Make no mistake about that.
It would be easy for the Viceroy to come to some kind of compromise with the Princes or the leading bourgeoisie forces of India, but the masses of peasants and workers are determined to get liberty, and they are entitled to get it. They will go on fighting until they do get it. Instead of the Government suggesting threats against civil disobedience, if we had a Government which was concerned for the welfare of the people of India and the people of this country, if they wanted to save us from going from one disaster to another, they would frankly meet the representatives of the masses of the people and present them with the opportunity they desire of getting a free and
1226
independent India with a Legislative Assembly based upon the widest limits of Indian freedom. I should like to refer to a case that I should have mentioned when dealing with imprisonment to show what can happen, and to ask the Minister what effect such a case as this is going to have on the masses of the people. This is a report of what one of the judges had to say:
" 'I must venture to protest against having to pass what appears to me a perfectly absurd sentence in the circumstances of this particular case' observed Mr. D. C. Hunter, District and Sessions Judge of Cawnpore, when convicting Mr. Jan Mahomed, a 50-year-old Communist leader of Cawnpore, under Sections 121 and 124A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to transportation for life for the former charge and six months rigorous imprisonment for the latter, the two sentences to run concurrently."
Transportation for life for making a speech! There is arrest after arrest for making speeches, and even for having literature which is considered to contain "undesirable reports." With that sort of thing going on, it is impossible to have anything other than a bitter feeling of hostility on the part of the masses of the Indian people towards the Government of the country. I say to the Members of this House and to the people of this country, unless we want to drift into irretrievable disaster in connection with the problem of India, the Government has to be removed and we have to get a Government which will approach the question of India with a willing desire to solve it on the terms of independence for the Indian people.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
"That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935. by the Governor of Madras on 30th October, 1939, a copy of which was presented to this House on 28th November."
Resolved,
"That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, by the Governor of Bombay on 4th November, 1939, a copy of which was presented to this House on 28th November."
Resolved,
"That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, by the Governor of the United Provinces on 3rd November, 1939, and of his Proclamation varying the same issued on 1st December, 1939, copies of which were pre-

1227
sented to this House on 28th November, 1939, and 16th January, 1940, respectively."
Resolved,
"That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, by the Governor of the Central Provinces and Berar on 10th November, 1939, and of his Proclamation varying the same issued on 2nd December, 1939, copies of which were presented to this House on 28th November, 1939, and 16th January, 1940, respectively."
Resolved,
"That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, by the Governor of Bihar on 3rd November, 1939, and of his Proclamation varying the same issued on 3rd December, 1939, copies of which were presented to this House on 28th November, 1939, and 16th January, 1940, respectively."
Resolved,
"That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, by the Governor of the North West Frontier Province on 10th November, 1939, and of his Proclamation varying the same issued on 2nd December, 1939, copies of which
1228
were presented to this House on 28th November, 1939, and 16th January, 1940, respectively."
Resolved,
"That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, by the Governor of Orissa on 6th November, 1939, and of his Proclamation varying the same issued on 2nd December, 1939, copies of which were presented to this House on 28th November, 1939, and 16th January, 1940, respectively."—[Sir H. O'Neill.]
The Orders of the day were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.
Resolved,
"That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Boulton.]
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-two Minutes before Eight o'Clock till Tuesday next, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.

  BRAZIL (BRITISH-OWNED SECURITIES).
  BRAZIL (BRITISH-OWNED SECURITIES).
  ESTATE DUTY (BEQUESTS FOR RESEARCH).
  ESTATE DUTY (BEQUESTS FOR RESEARCH).
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  EVACUATION.
  EVACUATION.
  ECONOMY (PRINTING AND STATIONERY).
  ECONOMY (PRINTING AND STATIONERY).
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH (MESENGER'S PAY')
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH (MESENGER'S PAY')
  MINISTRY OF FOOD.
  MINISTRY OF FOOD.
  MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE.
  MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE.
  EMPLOYMENT (POST-WAR SITUATION).
  EMPLOYMENT (POST-WAR SITUATION).
  DOCUMENTS ON OATH (ARMED FORCES).
  DOCUMENTS ON OATH (ARMED FORCES).
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  FOODSTUFFS (IMPORTATION).
  FOODSTUFFS (IMPORTATION).
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
HOUSING.
  LOANS (RESTRICTIONS).
  LOANS (RESTRICTIONS).
  SOUTHWARK.
  SOUTHWARK.
  RENTS, GLOUCESTER.
  RENTS, GLOUCESTER.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  MORTALITY STATISTICS.
  MORTALITY STATISTICS.
BRITISH ARMY.
  MECHANISED TRANSPORT CORPS FOR WOMEN.
  MECHANISED TRANSPORT CORPS FOR WOMEN.
  COMMISSIONS (CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS).
  COMMISSIONS (CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS).
  LEAVE (TRAVELLING FACILITIES).
  LEAVE (TRAVELLING FACILITIES).
  OFFICERS (SUBSTANTIVE RANK).
  OFFICERS (SUBSTANTIVE RANK).
  PROHIBITED AREA (SCOTLAND).
  PROHIBITED AREA (SCOTLAND).
  MEDICAL OFFICERS (DUTIES).
  MEDICAL OFFICERS (DUTIES).
  OFFICERS' ALLOWANCES (SOUTHERN COMMAND).
  OFFICERS' ALLOWANCES (SOUTHERN COMMAND).
  LEAVE (SPECIAL REASONS).
  LEAVE (SPECIAL REASONS).
  WAR OFFICE CONTRACTS.
  WAR OFFICE CONTRACTS.
CIVIL DEFENCE.
  VOLUNTARY WORKERS (COMPENSATION).
  VOLUNTARY WORKERS (COMPENSATION).
  AIR-RAID SHELTERS.
  AIR-RAID SHELTERS.
  BLACK-OUT.
  BLACK-OUT.
  CLINICS (TEMPORARY OCCUPATION).
  CLINICS (TEMPORARY OCCUPATION).
  EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE.
  EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE.
  EVACUATION (CHILDREN).
  EVACUATION (CHILDREN).
  EMERGENCY COMMITTEES (FUNDS).
  EMERGENCY COMMITTEES (FUNDS).
  MEDICAL SERVICE (CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEES).
  MEDICAL SERVICE (CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEES).
  TRUCK ACTS.
  TRUCK ACTS.
  WOOD PIGEONS (PROTECTION).
  WOOD PIGEONS (PROTECTION).
  CRIME (STATISTICS).
  CRIME (STATISTICS).
  TAXI-CABS, LONDON (PETROL).
  TAXI-CABS, LONDON (PETROL).
  COAL (EXPORTS TO ITALY).
  COAL (EXPORTS TO ITALY).
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.
  SLATES.
  SLATES.
  CHEMICAL WORKS (SITE).
  CHEMICAL WORKS (SITE).
ROYAL NAVY.
  Dockyard Workers (Pay).
  Dockyard Workers (Pay).
  HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "HARDY."
  HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "HARDY."
  GOVERNMENT PUBLICITY (COST).
  GOVERNMENT PUBLICITY (COST).
  AGRICULTURAL TRACTORS (DRIVING LICENCES)
  AGRICULTURAL TRACTORS (DRIVING LICENCES)
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  BENEFIT (WAITING PERIOD).
  BENEFIT (WAITING PERIOD).
  SOUTH SHIELDS.
  SOUTH SHIELDS.
  NURSES.
  NURSES.
  CENTRAL REGISTER.
  CENTRAL REGISTER.
  ARCHITECTS AND SURVEYORS (EMPLOYMENT).
  ARCHITECTS AND SURVEYORS (EMPLOYMENT).
  CHEMICAL FACTORY (STOPPAGE).
  CHEMICAL FACTORY (STOPPAGE).
MILITARY SERVICE.
  FARM WORKERS AND TIMBER FELLERS.
  FARM WORKERS AND TIMBER FELLERS.
  EXEMPTION APPLICATIONS (LEGAL REPRESENTATION).
  EXEMPTION APPLICATIONS (LEGAL REPRESENTATION).
  LAND WORKERS (NOTICE).
  LAND WORKERS (NOTICE).
  INDUSTRIAL HEALTH (HOLIDAYS).
  INDUSTRIAL HEALTH (HOLIDAYS).
EDUCATION.
  GRANTS.
  GRANTS.
  SCHOOLS, ROCHESTER (REOPENING).
  SCHOOLS, ROCHESTER (REOPENING).
  TRAINING COLLEGE STUDENTS (MILITARY SERVICE).
  TRAINING COLLEGE STUDENTS (MILITARY SERVICE).
  AFRICAN POPULATIONS (WAR INFORMATION).
  AFRICAN POPULATIONS (WAR INFORMATION).
  JAPAN (BRITISH SHIPPING).
  JAPAN (BRITISH SHIPPING).
  COMMITTEE FOR ECONOMIC PEACE.
  COMMITTEE FOR ECONOMIC PEACE.
  NETHERLANDS EAST INDIES.
  NETHERLANDS EAST INDIES.
  CHINA (BRITISH TRADE).
  CHINA (BRITISH TRADE).
  DENMARK (BRITISH SUBJECTS).
  DENMARK (BRITISH SUBJECTS).
  FAR EAST (UNITED STATES POLICY).
  FAR EAST (UNITED STATES POLICY).
  ARMED FORCES (UNITED STATES CITIZENS).
  ARMED FORCES (UNITED STATES CITIZENS).
AGRICULTURE.
  STRAW (FEEDING VALUE).
  STRAW (FEEDING VALUE).
  MILK (STATISTICS).
  MILK (STATISTICS).
  LIME AND BASIC SLAG.
  LIME AND BASIC SLAG.
  TRACTORS (RAWRETH, ESSEX).
  TRACTORS (RAWRETH, ESSEX).
  SCOTCH WHISKY (SUPPLIES).
  SCOTCH WHISKY (SUPPLIES).
Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

SHEFFIELD AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1940.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order standing in my name be agreed to.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT COBHAM): My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, it is not necessary for me to explain to your Lordships the nature and object of the Bill, nor why it must become law by the end of this month. It contains, moreover, no changes of any great importance or of a controversial nature. Accordingly I shall not trouble the House with a lengthy statement unless your Lordships require a full explanation of the intricate points involved. The Preamble makes no reference to the numbers of the Forces which may be raised, but merely states "such number as His Majesty may deem necessary." Normally Amendments to the Army Act and Air Force Act contained in any Army and Air Force (Annual) Act come into force at home as from April 30 and abroad as from July 31. Clause 2 (2) provides that the Amendments contained in this Bill will operate everywhere as from April 30. This is particularly necessary in the case of Clause 3, which is to come into force on the same day as the legislation passed by Australia and New Zealand. The Amendments provided by Clauses 4 and 5 are also required to be effective in France as soon as possible.

157
The Amendment to Section 1870 of the Army Act and Air Force Act contained in Clause 3 is necessitated by the fact that the Commonwealth of Australia and the Dominion of New Zealand have recently enacted legislation (already enacted by Canada and South Africa) corresponding to the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act, 1933, which will come into force on April 30. The object of the Amendment is to put the Commonwealth of Australia and the Dominion of New Zealand, which have not adopted certain sections of the Statute of Westminster, in the same position as respects military and air force law as other Dominions to which those sections apply. Hitherto, by virtue of the present Section 187c, the Army Act and the Air Force Act have applied to these Dominions as they apply to a Colony. This means, first, that the military and air force law of the Dominion apply to the Dominion Forces outside the Dominion, which it would not otherwise do without the adoption of Section 3 of the Statute of Westminster. In the second place, it enables the Army Act and the Air Force Act to be enforced in the Dominion in relation to United Kingdom and Colonial Forces visiting the Dominion.
Subsection (1) of Clause 4, which amends Section 43 of the Army Act, will permit air officers—that is, R.A.F. officers of rank corresponding to that of brigadier or above—to deal with the complaints of soldiers serving under their command. This is necessary, for instance, in the case of the soldiers serving under the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief, British Air Forces in France, and those serving in Aden. At present, when a soldier is serving in a command in which the Commander is an Air Force officer, his complaint cannot be dealt with by such commander, and this may mean in some cases that the complaint is finally disposed of by a comparatively junior officer. Subsection (2) amends Section 68 of the Army Act so as to permit an R.A.F. officer to be prescribed as a "competent military authority" for the purposes of the provisions of the Act relating to the execution of sentences of penal servitude, imprisonment and detention. For instance, under Section 58 of the Act, when a soldier is sentenced to penal servitude on active service the "competent military authority" may order that part of the sentence up to two
158
years may be served in a military prison instead of a penal servitude prison. Subsection (3) amends subsection (2) of Section 183 of the Army Act so as to permit air officers—that is, R.A.F. officers of rank corresponding to that of brigadier or above—to reduce military N.C.Os. to the ranks or to any lower grade. It is necessary to make this provision for the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief, British Air Forces in France, and the Air Officer Commanding at Aden.
Clause 5 provides for corresponding Amendments to Sections 43 and 68 of the Air Force Act such as are contained in Clause 4, but provision is made for naval officers as well as Army officers to function. The purpose of Clause 6 can be briefly explained. There are various provisions in the Defence Regulations and other emergency enactments which amend the provisions of the Army Act and Air Force Act, but not by specific verbal Amendments which could be incorporated in these Acts. For instance, there is a Defence Regulation which provides, contrary to Section 95 of the Acts, that there shall be no limit to the number of aliens who may serve together at any one time in any corps or unit. It is necessary, in view of the provisions of Section 15 of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, 1932, to ensure that the Army Act and Air Force Act shall be construed as though such Amendments were specifically incorporated in the reprints of the Acts. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Cobham.)
4.8 p.m.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I am sure that everyone who has listened to the noble Viscount the Under-Secretary of State will be very much obliged for his clear exposition of the various clauses in this Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill. I am sure that noble Lords will have read the well-known Preamble and noticed that it has hardly been changed but is the same as it has been for generations. I was, however, going to raise a question on Clause 3. I dare say it is due to the complexity of the subject, but as it stands this is an extremely obscure clause. There are so often complaints about the drafting of these Acts, and I do not know whether it would have been possible to

159
make the thing clearer; but after the very lucid explanation of the Under-Secretary of State for War, I do not propose to pester him or trouble the House with any further observations. On the other hand, I should like to say that Clause 6 is extremely clear and makes quite apparent to everyone, even to anyone who is not conversant with the reading of Acts of Parliament, what the subject-matter is.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SOCIETIES (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
4.10 p.m.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, the position in war-time of registered friendly societies, industrial and provident societies, building societies and loan societies, and trade unions, has engaged the attention of the Government for some little while. The present Bill, which your Lordships will, I believe, find to be entirely non-controversial, contains provisions which His Majesty's Government consider necessary to enable the administration of these bodies to be more easily carried on in the changed conditions of the present emergency, together with miscellaneous matters relating to these and other bodies. The principal provisions of the Bill fall under three heads. There are firstly the emergency provisions dealing with the suspension of meetings, the appointment of officers, amendments of rules and, in the case of registered friendly societies, the suspension of valuations; secondly, there are the permanent provisions designed to facilitate amalgamations and transfers of engagements of building societies and trade unions; and thirdly, there are emergency provisions dealing with the rights of members in regard to their benefits during the period of hostilities. I propose, with your Lordships' permission, to explain briefly, one by one, the clauses in these three groups.
Clause 1 of the Bill gives power to modify certain of the rules regarding meetings, the appointment of officers, and the arrangements for amending rules. This was considered
160
necessary by the Government owing to various causes, the principal ones being evacuation, the black-out and the undesirability and great difficulty in many cases of conveying and assembling large bodies of persons to delegate meetings and the difficulty of finding accommodation for them when they got there. These difficulties exist to a certain extent at the present time, and none of us know how the war will go or how these difficulties may be accentuated in future. In some cases it would be impossible to hold meetings at the places at which they would have to be held in the absence of statutory provisions to the contrary. Your Lordships will appreciate that, if provision is made for suspension of meetings, provision must also be made for the business normally transacted at such meetings to be carried on in a proper manner. Clause 1 of the Bill therefore provides that the committee of management of any society registered under the Friendly Societies Acts, trade union, industrial and provident society, building society or loan society certified under the Loan Societies Act, 1840, may apply to the Chief Registrar for a direction; and, if he is satisfied as to the grounds of the application, he may direct that any rule of a society or any statutory provision requiring meetings to be held may be dispensed with or varied, and he may authorise the appointment and continuance in office of trustees or officers, the making of rules passed by a resolution of the committee of management and the exercise by the committee of management or a sub-committee of other functions exercisable by a meeting of the society.
In order to meet the case when a society has, before the passing of the Act, by reason of circumstances attributable to the war, failed to comply with rules and statutory provisions in regard to these matters, provision has been made in subsection (3) whereby a committee of management can apply to the Chief Registrar to have the act of omission condoned. But it seemed to the Government that there was a chance that a case might arise in which members objected to appointments of particular officers or to amendments of rules made by a committee of management, although acting under a direction of the Chief Registrar. Safeguard has, therefore, been provided in subsection (4) of Clause 1 to the

161
effect that at any time within a year after the appointment or amendment made in accordance with a direction of the Chief Registrar he may further direct that the appointment or amendment shall cease to have effect at a given date, unless it is confirmed in the manner in which it would have been made but for the direction which he had given under the Bill.
Clause 2, which applies to registered friendly societies only, is much the same in effect, in that it enables the central body of a society to take the place of the Chief Registrar and to give a direction so as to secure uniformity and obtain the same safeguards in respect of the rules of their branches. I understand that there are at present some eighty such societies having between them a total of about 17,000 branches, and in order to facilitate administration and control of branches by the central body during the war, those concerned have strongly urged some procedure of this kind. It is at their request that His Majesty's Government are proposing these alterations. The provision may well save many thousands of applications to the Chief Registrar for directions and applications to register amendments of rules, all of which would have to be dealt with in the head offices of the societies concerned. It is moreover, desirable that during the war the policy of a society should be consistent as a whole.
Clause 3 also affects only registered friendly societies, and has been inserted to enable the statutory quinquennial valuations to be postponed. These valuations are based upon past mortality experience, investment rates and values, which in present conditions cannot form the foundation of a reliable estimate, and they would now have little value. Provision has therefore been made whereby a friendly society or branch need not, during the war, comply with the statutory provision referred to above, unless it is required to do so by the Chief Registrar. I should inform your Lordships that these arrangements have the approval of the principal representative bodies. Clause 4 deals with a very small but rather important point which requires a little explanation. It is concerned with the position of societies which were covered by the provision in Section 10 of the Prevention of Fraud Act, 1939, whereby a society which was registered under the Industrial
162
Provident Societies Act, 1893, before July 20, 1938, and certified by the Registrar to be a society which did not now become so registered, could either convert itself into a company registered under the Companies Act, 1909, or could amalgamate or transfer its engagements to such a company without payment of Stamp Duties, provided that it did so before April 28, 1940.
The second group of provisions to which I referred covers Clauses 5 and 6, which deal with the amalgamation and transfer of engagements of building societies and trade unions and which are the only contribution to permanent legislation envisaged in this Bill. They are drafted in a straightforward manner and are designed to simplify the existing machinery, and permanently to amend the building society and trade union law. The need for this amendment in the law is greater at the present time because there may be special reasons for amalgamations and transfers of engagements which were not so obvious before the war. The existing procedure in the case of building societies is too cumbersome and, being designed to meet the circumstances of small local societies, it is quite unsuitable for the immense corporations of the present day. There have recently been cases attracting public attention where small but wealthy building societies have, under the pretence of dissolving, effected a transfer of engagements to larger societies, and large sums out of all proportion to compensate for loss of office, offered by the larger society, have been accepted by the officials of the smaller society. Subsection (3) of Clause 5, therefore, to which I wish to direct your Lordships' particular attention, contains a provision to prevent these undesirable transactions, and it has been inserted with the approval of the Building Societies Association. Representations have also been made to His Majesty's Government that the transfers of engagements of trade unions should likewise be facilitated owing to the difficulties occasioned by war-time conditions, and Clause 6 contains provisions for the transfer of engagements of trade unions, similar to those relating to building societies which I have described, with a special provision that if general meetings of a trade union are meetings of delegates, the resolution for the transfer must be passed by not less than two-thirds of the delegates present at the meeting.

163
Clause 7 deals with the third group of provisions which I mentioned, dealing with the rights of members of friendly societies engaged in war service. Rules of some registered friendly societies provide that a member shall lose his membership or lose his benefit if he joins His Majesty's Forces. It has been put to the Government that no rule or amendment of rule should deprive a member serving in His Majesty's Forces of his membership, and further that such a member, even though he fails to maintain his contributions, should not cease to be a member, but his rights to any benefits provided by the society should be suspended so long as he fails to pay contributions. Clause 7 aims at giving effect to this. Further, in order to remove any possible inconsistency with the provisions of the industrial Assurance and Friendly Societies (Emergency Protection from Forfeiture) Act, 1940, dealing with the protection from forfeiture of certain life assurance policies for which there are separate premiums effected, inter alia, with registered friendly societies, it has been provided in subsection (3) that such policies are not affected by the Bill, and in subsection (4) that nothing in the provisions of the clause shall be taken to prevent a friendly society providing for the continuance of the membership of persons serving upon terms more favourable than those provided by the Bill.
Finally, there are the miscellaneous provisions of the Bill. Your Lordships will be glad to know that Clause 8 gives expression to the desire of the societies to obtain powers to establish and administer rules for the purchase of defence bonds or national savings certificates, and my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government warmly approve their wish to participate in the financial effort which the prosecution of the war demands, and to help the Government to bear their heavy financial burden. Clause 9 I think requires no explanation. Clause 10 is the definition clause. The most important of the definitions is on page 10—the definition which defines the meaning of the word "Society." Clauses 11 and 12 require no comment.
This Bill is, I think I may say, an agreed measure to facilitate the business of a large number of societies. It is the
164
result of consultations with a large number of interests and with the various movements concerned. It has had a great deal of consideration before it came to Parliament and during the discussions in another place. No doubt it may be said, as was in fact frequently said in another place, that the Government in this Bill are concerning themselves with details which should rightly be the province of the various societies which are dealt with in the Bill. I agree that that is so to a great extent, and I must say this Bill is one which I personally should be very reluctant to commend to your Lordships in normal times. But we know that times are not normal. We are at war, we are fighting for our lives, and we do not know when or to what extent the war may become intensified, or how nearly it may touch all of us, or how long it will take before the words of the Prime Minister are realised when he said that "this evil thing must be overcome, as it will be." In these circumstances, I have no hesitation in recommending this measure to the consideration of your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Templemore.)
4.24 P.M.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I wish to support this Bill. I think it is a good Bill and necessary. But I want, if I may, to ask two or three questions, so that I may assure myself that the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies has to the full all the powers which appear in the particular clause to which I shall address my remarks to your Lordships. The clause which I have in mind is Clause 5, which deals with the amalgamations of building societies, and building societies, as is well known, to-day play a very important part in our national life. They have to be regarded and administered on the most strictly honourable, upright and straightforward lines. When we discussed the Building Societies Bill at the end of July last year, I took the opportunity of pointing out that I thought that the methods of amalgamation under the Acts of 1874 and 1894 were too restricted, and that better and more easy power should be given by which amalgamations between healthy building societies could take place. I am glad to see that subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 5 are designed to make these amalgamations under the two earlier Acts more easy.

165
There is one little point with which it is not worth while bothering your Lordships' House, but which I will just mention to my noble friend who moved the Second Reading. I notice that in Clause 5 the word "Registrar" is used, not "Chief Registrar." It may be a printer's error or a draftsman's oversight, but in all the other clauses of this Bill the words "Chief Registrar" are used. It may be that there is some distinction which I have not grasped, but I notice on page 9 of this Bill that power is given to the "Chief Registrar" to delegate functions; it does not say the "Registrar." Who is the Registrar as differentiated from the Chief Registrar? If, however, this is a printer's error, I hope I shall have been helpful in pointing it out.
I now want to refer particularly to subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 5. Since I spoke in July last, a Report has been issued—an excellent and careful Report—by the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies, of which I have for greater accuracy obtained a copy—the "Report of The Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies," published in 1939, "Part 5, Building Societies." I venture to quote one or two passages out of that Report, and I can scarcely read them with patience, because they disclose a condition of affairs which is not tolerable. I will read an extract from page 6 of the Report, in reference to a Welsh building society which was taken over by a Sussex building society. I will begin by quoting from this Report an extract from an advertisement which appeared in the Building Societies' Gazette, and I want to know whether the relevant subsections of Clause 5 are strong enough to prevent a thing of this kind recurring. This is the advertisement:
"The Directors of the Brighton and Sussex Building Society believe in strength through amalgamation.… The Secretary of any Society of which the Board would care to consider proposals on these lines whereby officials and directors are amply safeguarded should communicate in strict confidence with…Managing Director."
The Report then goes on:
"It is to be hoped that any officials and directors who may be considering ample safeguards for themselves"—
officials and directors, mark you—
"will be concerned to take into their confidence the members at whose expense they are to be safeguarded."
The Report continues:
"In this case the directors received payments representing about 61 years' salary and
166
the Secretary the equivalent of his salary in perpetuity."
And it goes on to say—and these are not my words, they are the dispassionate words of the Chief Registrar:
"The Brighton Society, whose reserves and unappropriated profit represent less than 2 per cent. of the balance outstanding on mortgage, as compared with 11 per cent. shown by the five societies taken over, absorbed into its funds 42 per cent. of their reserves and unappropriated profit, whilst 29 per cent. went in compensation to directors and officials, and 11 per cent. was used in expenses, leaving only 18 per cent. to be distributed to shareholders. The principal items of expenses appear to have been travelling, hotel expenses, surveying, investigation and salaries."
The Report also says:
"The proportion of the surplus distributed to members depends to a great extent upon the compensation paid to officials and the expenses involved in the transfer, but these are factors which the Registrar has no power to control."
That lack of power is the point I want to get to. It goes on to say:
"In 17 cases which have come to notice at least £25,000 has been allocated for this purpose"—
that is to say, compensation to officials and expenses involved in the transfer.
LORD STRABOLGI: Palm grease.
LORD MANCROFT: I do not like to use that phrase. I want to know whether the powers which are in the hands of the Registrar will enable him before he gives permission to compel any society that is taking part in an amalgamation to publish the facts about what benefits officials or directors are getting. At the present moment, unless the societies by their own rules impose the necessity on the directors, the Registrar has no power to get to know what the items are that make up the disclosed lump sum directors and officials receive If the Registrar were to come here and ask for general power to enable him to get that information in detail it would strengthen his power under this clause. In any case, am I to understand that the Registrar can now compel directors and officials to publish, on amalgamation, the information about these benefits to themselves so that members may object or approve in writing, as provided under subsection (1) of Clause 5 of the Bill? Apparently the directors and officials think they have a freehold. Unless compelled to disclose by their own rules, they can conceal what they get normally

167
or are going to get on a special occasion and the Registrar has little or no power to extract the information and disclose it to the members. Perhaps my noble friend will be able to say something about that in his reply.
The other point—quite a different point—is this. In subsection (1) of Clause 5, which deals with amalgamation and transfer of engagements of building societies, there has been imposed by the Act of 1939 the necessity for the societies, under Sections 7,8, and 9 of that Act, to inform an intending borrower what the amount of the value of the property to be advanced upon is when the amount is larger than the usual two-thirds valuation and has been augmented by, let us say, some sort of collateral security put up by the vendor. This point was gone into at some length when the 1939 Act was before the other House and before this House too, and these three clauses provided safeguards for the intending purchaser and borrower. When a society takes over the engagements of another society with which it is being amalgamated, it takes over also the securities as assets of the other society. If the mortgages or engagements have not been fortified by the notice required to be given under Sections 7,8, and 9 of the Act of 1939, it is possible that these mortgages may be invalid as assets of an amalgamation unless by order of the Court they are put right. When the Registrar gives his permission for amalgamation, how does he satisfy himself that these notices have been given in conformity with Sections 7,8, and 9 of the Act of 1939? Does he receive any certification as part of the audited accounts of a society? I do not think it is the duty of the auditor of a building society, as the law now stands, to certify to the Registrar that these requirements have been complied with. Here is apparently an unbridged gap; something perhaps which has been overlooked and must now be covered. Otherwise the engagements transferred which are referred to in subsection (1) of Clause 5 may not be valid in law, owing to an undetected non-compliance with the Act of 1939; or at least absence of the notice or proof of its existence.
I do not know whether the matter can be got over by auditors when looking into the accounts of every building
168
society certifying that these notices in writing have been given, and that the intending borrower has signed a duplicate to show he has received the notice. But apart from the case under discussion who is it that does see to it that an intending borrower gets his right of protective notice under the three sections of the 1939 Act? The Registrar should receive some assurance in cases of amalgamation that this protecting provision has been complied with. If my noble friend cannot give me an assurance that this matter has not been overlooked, I propose to put down an Amendment to the following effect:
"Clause 5, Page 5, line 4, after 'Registrar' to insert 'and the Chief Registrar has been satisfied that the requirements of Sections 7,8, and 9 of the Building Societies Act, 1939, have been complied with.'"
I am sorry to have troubled your Lordships with these technical matters; probably my noble friend may be able to give me satisfying information regarding them.
4.35 P.m.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend, his first question concerned the word "Registrar" being used instead of "Chief Registrar." He wanted to know if that meant one and the same person. I understand the reason the word "Registrar" is used is that in the Building Societies Act the word "Registrar" means the office of the Registrar and includes the Chief Registrar.
LORD MANCROFT: Should not that be put in the definition clause, Clause 10?
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I am quite willing to consult with my advisers and see if that is necessary. In the second place, my noble friend asked how Clause 5 will enable the Registrar to prevent directors and officials of building societies receiving excessive compensation on amalgamation or transfer of engagements. The answer to that is that if the noble Lord will look at subsection (2) of Clause 1 he will see that when the Registrar has seen the terms of the amalgamation and transfer, which must contain the details of any compensation to he paid, he may under that subsection dispense with obtaining the written consent of members, which he would do in the ordinary course; but if he found it was

169
proposed to pay compensation which, in his opinion, was excessive, he would refuse to dispense with the consents and so ensure that the conditions of the amalgamation or transfer were brought personally to the notice of the holders of not less than two-thirds of the whole number of shares of both societies. It is, of course, a matter far the members themselves to decide what compensation they wish to pay out of their funds. Your Lordships would agree that it would not be proper to put the Registrar in the position of deciding what amount is suitable.
The third question my noble friend asked amounted to this, whether the Registrar would have power, on amalgamation or transfer taking place under Clause 5, to see that the rights of members under Sections 7,8, and 9 of the Building Societies Act of 1939 are preserved. The answer to that is that it is unnecessary to give the Registrar any such power became the rights of members pass to the amalgamated society or transferee society, as the case may be. Your Lordships will be aware that under Section 33 of the Building Societies Act, 1874, societies have always had power to amalgamate or transfer their engagements, and if it had been necessary to give the Registrar any powers where these circumstances arose, which, in fact, it is not, it would have been appropriate to do it in the Act of 1939. I hope I have answered my noble friend's questions to his satisfaction, and I trust the Bill will now be granted a Second Reading.
LORD MANCROFT: I am much obliged to my noble friend.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

INDIA: PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT.
4.40 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND)THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND) rose to Move, That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, by the Governor of Madras on October 30, 1939, a copy of which was presented to this House on November 29.
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, no one regrets more than I do the necessity under which I find myself of moving the various Motions which stand upon the Paper in my name. They relate to the present position in seven out of the eleven Provinces of British India, but before I turn to them, let me at least say this, that it must be a matter for satisfaction to all those who are anxious to see the people of India progressing smoothly towards their goal that in Bengal, the Punjab, Sind and Assam, embracing as they do not less than a third of the population of British India and covering an area of some 300,000 miles, Parliamentary Government is functioning satisfactorily. I have no doubt that your Lordships wish to be associated with me in offering to the Governments of those Provinces congratulations upon the success which they have so far achieved and our warmest good wishes for even greater success in the future.
But when we come to contemplate the state of affairs in the remaining Provinces, we find cause not for satisfaction but for very real regret. It is now very nearly six months since the Ministers in those Provinces, acting on the instructions of the Working Committee of the Congress Party, withdrew from the responsibilities which they had assumed towards both the Legislatures and their constituents, thereby compelling the Governors of the Provinces to take upon themselves the powers of Government in their place. And since it is provided by Section 93 of the Constitution Act that a Proclamation conferring such powers upon the Governor shall cease to operate at the expiration of six months, I have no option but to ask Parliament to approve, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution Act, the continuance in force of the various Proclamations for such further period, not exceeding twelve months, as developments may show to be necessary.
Let me call to mind briefly the course of events in India since I last had occasion to address this House on the matter. On January 10 the Viceroy made a speech in Bombay which was intended to be, and which was very widely accepted as being, a gesture of conciliation and good will towards those who were pressing for more rapid development in the constitutional sphere. The speech was followed in due course by a meeting between the

171
Viceroy and Mr. Gandhi. There is no doubt that the announcement of this forthcoming meeting created a widespread feeling of optimism in India and it was, I think, contrary to expectation, and certainly contrary to the hopes which were entertained in many quarters, that the meeting proved barren of results and was adjourned sine die after an exchange of views over a period of some two and a half hours. Your Lordships will find in the White Paper which I have circulated the text of the official communiqué which was agreed between the Viceroy and Mr. Gandhi and issued after the termination of the meeting. It will be seen from it that the Viceroy emphasized the desire of His Majesty's Government that India should obtain Dominion status at the earliest possible time and their anxiety to facilitate that object by all the means in their power; that he drew attention to the fact that while the Federal scheme of the Act afforded the swiftest steppingstone towards Dominion status, His Majesty's Government were nevertheless only too willing when the time came to examine the whole field in consultation with all Parties and interests in India; and that he further explained that His Majesty's Government were prepared to give immediate effect to the offer which had already been made with a view to associating the leaders of the political Parties in India with the Central Government on the conditions which had been laid down in November last. It will further be seen that Mr. Gandhi's response to this approach was a mere statement to the effect that it did not meet the full demand of the Congress Party.
That seems to me to be a very unfortunate outcome of a meeting which had been undertaken with such high hopes, and I ventured to say, when commenting on it, that I feared that if the Congress Party maintained their attitude the obstacles in the way of an honourable settlement of the dispute would be greatly increased. I said that because from reports which were reaching me from all parts of the country, it was made abundantly clear to me that the Moslemsߞand indeed not the Moslems onlyߞwere increasing the strength of their determination to resist the two main items in the Congress Party's programmeߞnamely, the demand that His Majesty's Govern-
172
ment should declare India to be a completely independent country, and that they should agree to the future Constitution of the country being drafted by a Constituent Assembly elected upon a basis of adult franchise. It seemed to me therefore that a further effort must be made to try to persuade the leaders of the different communities to meet and discuss their difficulties if the gulf which had been opening between them was to be prevented from widening still more disastrously. Mr. Gandhi thereupon accused me of closing the door upon the Congress position. I have never desired to close any doors. On the contrary, it was my desire to keep open a door which it was only too painfully apparent to me was being closed by others.
May I repeat to your Lordships the words which I actually used? This is what I said:
"I believe that only by means of discussion between those who can speak with authority for their followers, informal and in confidence in the first instance, is a helpful appreciation of their respective standpoints and the difficulties inherent in them to be hoped for. If such discussion is to be fruitful there must be on all sides a genuine will to succeed and a real spirit of compromise."
And I added these words:
"The British Government cannot compel these things. They can only plead for them, as I most earnestly do."
I used those last words because the Viceroy had already made an attempt to bring the leaders of the Congress Party and of the All-India Moslem League together, and unhappily, for the time being at any rate, had failed in his object. Unhappily, as I think, the suggestion which I made received little encouragement from those primarily concerned in India, for Mr. Nehru is reported to have said in reply that he thought it was futile to try to solve the problem by what he described as "sweet talks" between individuals. Yet a similar course has been urged by men so differently placed as the Chief Justice of the Federal Court in India and the Prime Minister of the Punjab, and I adhere to my view that that would be the most hopeful first step towards the solution of the present deadlock.
I said a moment ago that it was not only the Moslems who were viewing with growing concern the rigidity of the attitude assumed by the Congress Party. Men like Dr. Ambedkar and Rao

173
Bahadur M.C. Rajah, who speak for the Scheduled Castes, have given expression to their fears, and in order that I may give your Lordships a balanced picture of opinion in India generally I think I should draw your attention to the views expressed by the Council of the National Liberal Federation of India in their most recent pronouncement upon the problem, all the more since the Council contains within its ranks many men of great distinction who have rendered much service to India and whose patriotism is altogether unquestioned. They have stated categorically in a public resolution of February 18 that in their view it is in present circumstances altogether impracticable to talk of complete independence and that they equally reject the idea of a Constituent Assembly based on adult suffrage being a suitable body to devise a Constitution for the country. They suggest as a much more practical proposition, as it seems to me, the calling of a small conference representative of the several Parties, Communities and interests in the country to determine the principles of the future Constitution.
I now come to the events which followed upon the abortive meeting between the Viceroy and Mr. Gandhi, events which have unhappily proved that my fears have been only too well founded. At their annual meeting at Ramgarh in the middle of March the Congress Party reiterated their original demand. This meeting was followed by a meeting of the All-India Moslem League at Lahore, towards the end of the month, at which a resolution was unanimously adopted putting forward a scheme for the future government of India involving the partition of India into separate Moslem and Hindu States. I am bound to say that while I appreciate fully the grounds on which this proposal is based, I cannot but regard it as constituting something not far short of a counsel of despair, for its acceptance would be equivalent to admitting the failure of the devoted efforts of Englishmen and Indians alike over a long period of concentrated effort; for those labours have been based upon the assumption that even in the admitted diversity of India a measure of political unity could be achieved sufficient to enable India as a whole to take its place as an integral unit in the British Commonwealth of Nations.
This, then, is the position in which we find ourselves and when I say "we" I do not mean His Majesty's Government and Parliament only, because we are only one of the parties concerned. I mean also the Congress Party, the All-India Moslem League and the Princes, who, be it remembered, constitute a factor in the problem which cannot possibly be ignored or brushed aside. It seems to me that it is all the more tragic because the interests and the sympathies of the contending parties in that greater struggle in which we are involved with Nazi Germany are identical. I ask myself therefore once more, is it not, even now, possible to find a golden pathway to re-conciliation? Are the differences between the various Parties indeed so great as unhappily they appear to be? I can speak, of course, neither for the Congress nor for the All-India Moslem League nor for the Princes. I can speak only for His Majesty's Government, and I cannot but think that in the dust which has been raised by controversy the real significance of what we have offered to do as our contribution towards the solution of the problem has been largely misunderstood.
Let me therefore repeat what it is that His Majesty's Government have proposed. Though I certainly attach real importance to it, I do not now dwell upon the offer which we have made with a view to bringing the leaders of the political Parties into association with us in the Government of India, since this offer may be regarded, quite apart from its intrinsic merits, as an earnest of our intentions for the future. Let me explain. We realise fully that for very different reasons the three main parties to the controversyߞthe Congress, the All-India Moslem League and the Princesߞhave serious objections to the Federal provisions of the Act. We have therefore said that we are desirous of consulting those interested with a view to ascertaining the lines upon which they would wish to see those provisions altered. We have made that offer because we accept the reasonableness of the claim that Indians themselves should play a vital part in devising a form of Constitution which they regard as best suited to the circumstances of their country. But we have also said that we cannot wholly dissociate ourselves from the shaping of the future Constitution, and I should have thought that our reasons for saying that

175
would have been both understood and accepted as valid. But since that, apparently, is not so, let me state them once more. They are rooted in the history of the past two hundred years, and however much one might like to do so, it is really not possible to wipe out history and to treat the events recorded in the pages of history as if they had never occurred.
Let me, merely by way of example, take the case of the Princes to illustrate what I mean. Mr. Gandhi has described the Princes of India as being things of our creation. I feel sure that on reflection so fair-minded a critic as Mr. Gandhi will be willing to agree that the circumstances of the time, the force of events, their interactions and their consequences, which are the things of which the content of history is made up, are far more responsible for the existence of the Princes than are His Majesty's Government. We made treaties with them, certainly; but we could not have made treaties with them if they had not been there. Then again, we have ourselves a stake in the country which is equally the outcome of historical forces; and there is the question of the defence of the country, which for the time at any rate, and possibly for many years to come, an independent India wholly dissociated from this country would admittedly be quite unable to secure. Then finally, there are the minorities, to whom we are under obligations which, once more, are embedded in the very texture of the tapestry of history, in that they have enjoyed their peaceful evolution as a result, in part, of the restoration of order by the British after the confusion and the civil war which attended the dissolution of the Mogul Empire, and in part of the administrative unity which was established by Great Britain throughout the land.
These, then, are the chief reasons why we cannot dissociate ourselves from the shaping of the future Constitution of India. But that does not mean that the future Constitution of the country is to be a Constitution dictated by the Government and Parliament of this country against the wishes of the Indian people.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Why, then, did you pass the Act?
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: The undertaking given by His Majesty's Government to examine the constitutional
176
field in consultation with the representatives of all Parties and interests in India surely connotes not dictation but negotiation. Admittedly a substantial measure of agreement among the communities in India is essential if the vision of a united India, which has inspired the labours of so many Indians and Englishmen, is to become a reality; for I cannot believe that any Government or Parliament in this country would impose by force upon, let us say, the 80,000,000 Moslem subjects of His Majesty in India a form of Constitution under which they would not live in peace and contentment. So far as it lies within my power to do so, I shall labour for reconciliation between these two great communities, the Hindus and the Moslems, who, after all, whatever their differences of religion, of culture and of outlook upon life, have lived side by side in India for nigh upon a thousand years. But I realise how restricted is my own power for influence, for the plain fact of the matter is that the Congress Party have aroused in the minds of many Moslems apprehension which only they can allay. The question of vital importance so far as the future of India is concerned is this: Will the Congress Party refrain from closing the door upon that unity of India which they themselves so passionately desire? It is not too much to say that upon the answer which the Congress Party give to that question hangs the fate of India.
Moved, That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, by the Governor of Madras on October 30, 1939, a copy of which was presented to this House on November 29.ߞ(The Marquess of Zetland.)
5.10 p.m.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, my noble friends and myself do not propose to offer any opposition to the various Motions which the noble Marquess is moving. We are concerned this afternoon with the general question of India. The Secretary of State has made a statement of immediate and, as we believe, of quite unusual importance. The situation in India, always difficult and always anxious, seems to be becoming increasingly grave; and this from every stand-point, both British and Indian, is very greatly to be deplored. We cannot refrain from asking ourselves this afternoon

177
how it has happened that this deterioration in the Indian situation has taken place. The work of the various Provincial Governments started with hope and with fair promise, and during the time that they were being operated they won the respect not only of a great portion of the Indian people but also of a watching world. With every month that passed the grip of these Provincial Governments on administrative affairs increased in efficiency and in practical value. Then there was this sudden decision to resign from their responsibilities and to refuse any longer to co-operate; and at the present time there are growing an irritation and a temper which, unless they can be composed, may lead not only to increased friction between Britain arid India but to increased friction within India itself.
In these circumstances what is it possible for us to do? I believe that our first responsibility is to try to see the case as the Indians themselves, or rather as the Congress Party themselves, see it. Let us remember that Congress have behind them the majority of the electorate of India. They have some three million paying members spread over the whole country. That is something to which responsible statesmen must give attention, whatever their views of the position of the Congress may be. Rightly or wronglyߞI am not necessarily agreeing with what Congress sayߞthey claim that. Britain's promises to India, made over and over again, have not been fulfilled. They say that their self-respect has been injured by their association with an Imperial policy which was decided upon without any consultation with them. When you come to look at the various statements that have been made in the way of promises, you are able in some measure to check those various assertions.
There was first of all the comment by Lord Irwin in 1929, dealing with the Preamble of the Act of 1919, when he said that the natural issue of India's progress as there contemplated was the attainment of Dominion status. That was accepted at the time, I think, as being something of a promise. Then the Governor-General, in a statement issued last October, said that in the Instrument of Instructions which was issued to him in 1937 there was laid upon him a direction
178
"so to exercise the trust which His Majesty has reposed in me 'that the partnership between India and the United Kingdom within our Empire may be furthered to the end that India may attain its due place among our Dominions.'"
Then, speaking on his own behalf, he said:
"I am authorised now by His Majesty's Government to say that at the end of the war they will be very willing to enter into consultation with representatives of the several communities, parties and interests in India and with the Indian Princes, with a view to securing their aid and co-operation in the framing of such modifications as may seem desirable."
The Congress Party and a great portion of the people of India consider those qualifications as not standing up to the earlier promises.
That is the situation with which we have to deal to-day. They say that over and over again since 1917 promises of self-government have been made, and they are increasingly associated with conditions which His Majesty's Government know cannot be fulfilled either by Congress or by other people in India. They believe that these general phrases do not constitute firm offers, and that Dominion status has been continuously postponed because of the impossible conditions which are attached to it. I repeat that I am not necessarily supporting those statements, but if we are to understand India we must try to look at the situation as they see it. What are those conditions? First of all, agreementߞsubstantial agreement, the noble Marquess has said this afternoonߞis essential within India itself so that a conference after the war may arrange the way in which the future Constitution shall be examined in consultation with the Indian people. My own comment, for what it is worth, is simply this, that there cannot under existing circumstances exist agreement in India of a kind which will solve these deep-seated difficulties. Those differences are not merely political, they are racial and religious, and history has proved to us over and over again that such differences are persistent and generally unappeasable. They certainly cannot be settled by cumbrous resolutions on the one hand, or by resolutions of the Moslem League on the other, but only by the growth of tolerance and understanding, whereby each community will try to believe the best rather than the worst about the other.

179
The second comment is the difficulty I feel about majority rule. The Congress Party are in a majority, and under a democracy decision by majorities is inevitable. It may not always be convenient: when the day comes when His Majesty's Government are superseded by a better Government His Majesty's Government will not like it; but that is one of the penalties and privileges of our democracy. Then in regard to a conference after the war: the Congress people say that they are tired of conferences. They have had them over and over again, both in India and in England, and whenever they take place the British Government magnify the differences and re-assert the old divisions; and under such conditions they have grown disheartened and disillusioned, and the only thing left for them is to resist through non-co-operation, and possibly—though I hope not—through civil disobedience. Non-co-operation may be very serious at the present time. Let me remind your Lordships that in the last war India raised a volunteer force of some 1,200,000 men, that she taxed herself in order to make a free gift of £100,000,000 and an annual sum of between £20,000,000 and £30,000,000. Therefore, if there is any way of avoiding non-co-operation which will at the same time enable us to keep our obligations and to meet the aspirations of the Indian people, we should with all our hearts try to find it. The sympathies of the Indian people as a whole are undoubtedly with the Allies in the present struggle, and there is no doubt whatever that the step they have taken has been taken because they feel under a sense of grievance.
Now what do His Majesty's Government propose to do to meet these difficulties? How do they propose to restore the faith of India in British pledges? I venture on my part to ask the Indian people to remember that the position of the British Government at the present time is one of very great difficulty. Suppose that the British Government ignored the protests of the Moslem League and of the Scheduled Castes and the rest. You might have as a consequence a minority revolt leading to civil war in India. No Government could light-heartedly do anything
180
that would bring about that grievous result. A minority of some 80,000,000 people is a very real thing, especially when religious passions are engaged. Then the British Government have, rightly or wrongly, made pledges to various minorities in India, and also to the Princes. Whether it was right to make them or not is not the question: there they are to-day, and that fact constitutes one of the difficulties.
The Moslem League has made certain demands for autonomous Moslem States, for the partition of India. I do not myself feel that that is a satisfactory way out of the difficulty. It would perpetuate divisions, and might lead to continued internal strife. The way out, if we could wait for it, would be to institute in the minds of the Indian people the idea of another religion, a common faith and loyalty to the Motherland as a whole: to regard India as the thing that unites them, rather than their special interpretations of religion as something which divides them. It is not for me to advise what should be done, but at an earlier period in history a Secretary of State once went to India—Mr. Montagu. I will not dare to suggest that it is an experiment which might be repeated, but we are bound to look at the situation as we see it. Could His Majesty's Government be more explicit than they have hitherto been, and declare as a solemn act of policy that Dominion status shall become effective at a certain time, and issue an appeal to the whole of the Indian people to unite in making it possible? I have said something in my lifetime against the policy of appeasement, but in some way or another we have to find a way to appease these differences of the two sets of people, both of whom love their country and who want the best for it. Englishmen are always desirous to help in that, and some have devoted their lives to trying to help the Indian people in that way. I cannot close without saying in that connection how greatly the death of Mr. C. F. Andrews is to be deplored at this particular time. He gave his whole life in a way few Englishmen have ever done to try and interpret the best in our own thought to the people of India and to bring back home a reflection of the better mind of India for our own benefit.

181
I should like to say, in conclusion, a word about our attitude as a Labour Party in the way of appeal to the Indian people of all classes, whether they are in a minority or not. Do the Indian people think that we rejoice, for instance, in the Labour black-out in your Lordships' House, where we are cowed by numbers and smothered by tradition? We could refuse to co-operate. But that is not quite our way of looking at things. We have done our best for India. We tried to extend the Act of 1935 and to make it more definite than it was, and we are not responsible, as a Party, for administration in India. We have grievances of our own which we cannot get remedied, and when we ask for them to be remedied we are met with a frigid resolve that would break a heart of stone. But we are good democrats, and our theory is that we roust try to work a machine until we can control it. I do not, personally, believe there is any other way of getting such results as we desire. At the present time, in our judgment, first things have to come first. The very liberties of mankind are at stake, including those of the Indian people themselves.
I dare not close without saying that I most earnestly believe, personally, in the right of the Indian people to self-determination, and without expressing the belief that one day they will obtain their desires. I should like to assure them, as far as I have any right to do so, that Labour is not without influence in the British Parliament and in the country, and that we engage ourselves, as far as we can, to see that promises which have been made to India will be honoured. Under such conditions I believe that the Indian people would serve both India itself and the world at large, without compromising any principle, without withdrawing any demand that they have made, if they trusted to the British people to see that India has an equal and honoured place in the British Commonwealth of Nations.
5.35 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, after listening to the very full statement of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State—a statement which ought to have attracted more members of your Lordships' House—I have no hesitation in saying that His Majesty's Government
182
have no other course open to them but to renew the Proclamations in the terms contained in the Motion of the noble Marquess. I am also convinced that this is not quite the moment to attempt to go into the history of the government of India during a number of past years, even going back thirty years, during which period successive Governments have attempted an advance by giving the people of India a greater share in the management of their own affairs, or even going back to examine carefully what has happened since the Act of 1935 was passed, including the various colloquies which have taken place between the Viceroy and members of Congress and particularly that picturesque and enigmatic figure, Mr. Gandhi.
I wish at once to say a word about the episode—because I cannot call it more than an episode—of the refusal of the seven Provinces to carry on the form of self-government which was conferred on them by the Act, and which, as we all agree, and as the noble Lord, Lord Snell, has clearly stated, has proved in the main to be a most remarkable success. I can conceive two reasons which might make the Government of one of these Provinces resign. Take the case of a single Province. It is conceivable that Ministers might complain that the Governor had overstepped the powers regarding reserved subjects which were granted to him, or that he had unduly entrenched upon the powers granted to Ministers. But there is no need to pursue that because no such case has occurred. So far as I know, the relations between Governors and their Ministers have been of a thoroughly satisfactory character, and therefore there is no need to follow that up. On the other hand, it is conceivable that a Provincial Government, or a number of Provincial Governments, as in this case, might think it their duty to resign, either because some action had been taken by the Government of India which meant going back on the privileges and powers which have so far been conferred on Indians, or because the Government were taking some arbitrary action, involving an important principle, to which the people of India objected. Is it in any way possible to say in this case that justification can be proved?
The noble Lord, Lord Snell, has very carefully argued the position and put the

183
case as it is stated by Congress, without, however, adopting it as a whole or expressing complete agreement. He just mentioned one point which is considered to be a real grievance—that is to say, that the people of India were not consulted before India participated in the war. That is less important in a sense than it may seem because we all agree that the great majority of the people of India, as a noble Lord said, are unquestionably on the side of the Allies, not merely because it is a British cause but because they believe it to be the cause of right and justice. Apart from that it is very doubtful whether it really would be within the capacity of His Majesty's Government to treat India as being precisely on the same level as one of the self-governing Dominions, and to attempt to create an entirely new machinery in order to ascertain Indian wishes.
The principle apparently on which the Congress Party based their refusal to cooperate with the Government of India is that they desire the independence of the country. There is no need to go at any length into that question, mainly because, in my opinion, real India in no way demands independence. Independence means that this country would take the same interest and no more in India than in one of the South American Republics, for instance, in which it has, as it has in India, a great financial interest. I cannot believe that this would be welcomed by any but a small minority of the people of India. Then the Congress say almost in so many words that Dominion status is not good enough. I gather that the noble Lord, Lord Snell, rather sympathises with them on the plea that Parliament here and the Government of India have been very slow in implementing the pledge that the ultimate goal of our policy is the attainment of Dominion status by India. A great many years have passed between Lord Durham's Mission to Canada and the passing of the Statute of Westminster; a great many more years, I should hope, than will pass before India is granted Dominion status. Therefore I urge that it is unfortunate to encourage the more extreme types of Indian opinion in the belief that the delay in granting what after all is a very difficult thing to grant owing to its extreme complications,
184
has been such as to amount almost to a breach of faith.
An unfortunate feature in this controversy is that the resignations seem to have been carried out under an order from the Congress Party. One does not know what actually passed. An order seems to have been issued somewhat more in the spirit of Berlin than in the spirit of Washington. I think it is difficult to avoid the conclusion—a most regrettable conclusion to reach—that these more extreme members of the Congress Party are more looking forward to the establishment of something like an oligarchy than of anything we should call really popular government. To bring about really popular government in the sense we of the European countries understand it is obviously an exceedingly difficult thing to do in a country containing all these millions. It has never been done anywhere. Certainly it has not been done in Russia, and the real question is how it can be done with a powerful Central Government. It may not be impossible. I have often said, and have always believed, that the independent powers of the Provinces in India ought to be very wide and that the Central Government should concern itself only with a few vast subjects such as defence, currency, and the maintenance of free trade.
I merely express the hope that the situation is not really as dark as it looks. I do not believe, for instance, that the extreme views expressed by some of these Congress spokesmen by any means represent the real views of Congress taken as a whole. I do not believe that these spokesmen, who undoubtedly can only be regarded as hostile to this country and who dislike all our institutions and form of government, represent anything like the real public opinion of India. Consequently I look forward without any sort of despair to the possibility of an arrangement—when it is possible to make an arrangement at all—something on the lines proposed by the Government of India with such modifications as time may prove to be necessary.
5.52 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not propose to trouble your Lordships by more than a very few words. I am quite sure my noble friend the Secretary of State will not expect me to agree with every word he said, although

185
I have the greatest respect for the moderation and lucidity of his statement. He knows the views which I am unfortunate enough to possess, and it would be only wasting your Lordships' time if I were to repeat them. But I must say that I was struck by the speech of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. He seemed to me very puzzled at what had occurred in India. He seemed to have been altogether taken by surprise. He said that the situation had deteriorated. The situation is bad in India because of the essential elements of the problem. There are profound differences—differences of race and differences of religion of which the noble Lord himself spoke—and there are also in my judgment the provisions of the Act of Parliament, which I never believed would work and which I am afraid will not work. Of course, the noble Marquess the Secretary of State is perfectly right, if I may say so, to do his utmost to make it work, and the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is entitled to every kind of approval in that he himself wishes to see peace restored in the politics of India. But the thing cannot be done. None of the suggestions which the noble Lord made are likely to produce the result. I hope I did not mishear what the noble Lord said, but I understood that his two proposals were, firstly, that the Secretary of State should make a personal visit to India. I do not wish to misinterpret the noble Lord.
LORD SNELL: If I may be allowed to interrupt the noble Marquess for a moment, I said, in thinking aloud on this subject, that a previous Secretary of State had made such a visit, but I did not dare recommend it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: So the noble Lord did not even recommend that. I think he was wise. I am sure the noble Marquess the Secretary of State would be very much interested but I cannot conceive that it would produce any useful result. The other proposal was a great assembly—was that not so?
LORD SNELLindicated dissent.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I will not pursue that, because I am evidently wrong. The reason why the recent crisis has taken place in India is quite evident. Those who manage the Congress Party thought that in the international situation they could wring something more out of
186
the British Government, and they have tried. Why should we conceal from ourselves that that is the real reason? Of course it is the real reason. The Indian agitators and the Congress Party have formed themselves step by step upon the Irish precedent. They know that when the Irish wanted to get something more they waited until England was in difficulties. Precisely the same thing has happened in India. There is no reason to be surprised at it. What is a matter of surprise to me is that noble Lords in certain parts of the House do not see what opportunities the Act gave the agitators in India to carry out this very proceeding which has evidently occurred
I did not rise to pass again over the old pathways of this controversy, but I must deal with one part of the noble Lord's case—that is, this plea that is always put forward that there is a pledge which the British Government are bound to fulfil. I noticed a welcome modification in the noble Lord's phraseology. He spoke of "something of a promise." It was not so emphatic and drastic as "there is a pledge." I have never admitted that there was any pledge. There was undoubtedly a solemn declaration, and a solemn declaration is a very important thing not to be lightly set aside, but there was no pledge, certainly no absolute pledge. It was a conditional pledge. The people of India were to be granted Dominion status as soon as they were fit for it. I do not think it ever went further than that. And I should certainly have said that experience of the present crisis, in which Congress have pressed upon their Party to call out the Governments of every Province where they have control, does not show at all the constitutional spirit which would encourage us to think that they had arrived at the stature which fits them for a further advance in self-government.
I agree that there are obligations of honour, obligations of honour which the noble Lord fully admits. We are hound to the minorities—the Moslems, the Princes, the Scheduled Classes and the primitive tribes. We are hound to see that they have justice, bound to see that their interests are protected. That is an obligation. And may I say there is one other party to whom Parliament is bound—that is, the people of England? If there was one thing more emphatic than anything else in what the noble Lord calls

187
pledges, it was that the advance of self-government in India was to be gradual. That was emphatically said over and over again. But before the present position has been fully matured noble Lords opposite want to go a step further. That is not my idea of "gradual." Why should it be thought that Parliament is bound to fulfil obligations to the Indian people and not to fulfil obligations to the British people? The British people authorised their Parliament to pass an Act on certain conditions: then both the Government and, if I may say so respectfully, the noble Lords are bound to honour that pledge—if it be a pledge. The British people have a right to see that the conditions upon which they agreed, through their representatives, to the passage of the Government of India Act are fulfilled, and without that fulfilment there is just as much a breach of pledge as there may be in any of those things to which the noble Lord called attention.
As regards the future, as I have said, I do not want to rake up again all the old controversies. The Act was passed; let it work. Let not the noble Lord tear the plant up by the roots to see how it is growing. Let him leave it to grow. If it can be made to succeed, let the Government make it succeed; but do not hold out hopes to the extremists in India that something more is going to be done. The noble Lord, if I may say so, has a great responsibility when he speaks as he does speak—I admit to rather empty Benches—for the Labour Party; that is, probably, for the next Government that will rule in this country. When he speaks for them, he is speaking under a great responsibility, and if he holds out hopes for the people of India that there is going to be a further change when he and his friends come into power, then I say that I think he is taking a very grave responsibility. Suppose you could conceive a political catastrophe under which the present Government were turned out of office and the noble Lord and his friends were placed on these Benches instead of on those of the Opposition; does the noble Lord really believe that he would be able to find a policy to solve all the difficulties in India? Does he think it for a moment? He is much too intelligent to dream of such a thing. He knows quite well that it could not be done.
188
Therefore, to hold out hopes to the extremists in India that the next Government will do it is really very hard on them. They keep the agitation alive, they call upon their followers to resign office and place every kind of constitutional difficulty in the way of Government, in the hope that one day the noble Lord and his friends will be in office and the demand for independence—for that is what it is—will be granted. The noble Lord, of course, and his friends, when they once shifted from that side of the Table to this, would not do anything of the kind; they would find out at once that the thing was impossible. Very well, then, I would venture to ask them, when these debates take place in your Lordships' House, not to hold out hopes to the people of India which they will not be able to fulfil. I will not use the word "pledge," for I do not like that word; but I really think it is entering into an obligation which, unless it is really meant and well considered, involves a responsibility which I think the noble Lord himself, upon reflection, would be the first to be unwilling to undertake. As far as the actual Motion is concerned, I need not say that, though some of us did not agree with the Government and the noble Lord when the Bill passed into an Act, yet, now it is an Act of Parliament, by all means make it work if you can.
6.5 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, I have listened, I need hardly say with attention, to the speeches which have been delivered, but I feel sure that your Lordships will not expect me to make any comment upon the various views which have been placed before the House. I would therefore move the first Motion standing in my name.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, by the Governor of Bombay on November 4, 1939, a copy of which was presented to this House on November 29.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, by the Governor of the United Provinces on November 3, 1939, and of his Proclamation varying the same issued on December 1 1939, copies of which were presented to this House on November 29, 1939, and January 16, 1940, respectively.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, by the Governor of the United Provinces on November 10, 1939, and of his Proclamation varying the same issued on December 2, 1939, copies of which were presented to this House on November 29, 1939, and January 16, 1940, respectively.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, by the Governor of the Bihar on November 3, 1939, and of his Proclamation varying the same issued on December 3, 1939, copies of which were presented to this House on November 29, 1939, and January 16, 1940, respectively.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, motion agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, by the Governor of the North 10, 1939, and of his Proclamation varying the same issued on December 2, 1939, copies of which were presented to this House on November 29, 1939, and January 16, 1940, respectively.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND:My Lords I beg to move.
Moved, That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, by the Governor of Orissa on November 6, 1939, and of his Proclamation varying the same issued on December 2, 1939, copies of which were presented to this House on November 29, 1939, and January 16, 1940, respectively.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CLEARING OFFICE (SPAIN) AMENDMENT ORDER, 1940.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order standing in my name be agreed to.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MID-WESSEX WATER.
Petition of the Mid-Wessex Water Company under their Common Seal, praying for leave to introduce a Bill to authorise the company to execute works, and acquire lands and easements; to confer upon the company further capital and borrowing powers; and for other purposes, together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Examiners.
  PRICE OF WOOL.
  PRICE OF WOOL.