House of Commons
Wednesday, February 6, 1935
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
Private Business
Blackpool Improvement Bill (by Order),
Harrogate Corporation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.
London Midland and Scottish Railway Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
London Passenger Transport Board Bill (by Order),
Metropolitan Water Board Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
Reading Corporation Bill (by Order),
Rhyl Urban District Council Bill (by Order),
Southern Railway Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.
Oral Answers to Questions
Trade and Commerce
China and Manchuria
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the gradual loss to the British market of Mongolia, the British Government is taking any action to protest against the extension of Japanese activity in the occupation of the Chahar district in Eastern Mongolia; and whether he will consult the Government of the United States to see whether any joint representations can be made to avert the gradual absorption of Northern China by Japan?
For many years past, British trade with Mongolia has, for reasons in no way connected with Japanese activities, been inconsiderable. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 30th January to my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham North (Mr. Doran).
Rumania (Commercial Debts)
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is in a position to make a statement regarding commercial debts outstanding in Rumania?
Discussions are now proceeding with the Rumanian Minister of Commerce and Industry and the results will be announced as soon as possible.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether the latest advices from His Majesty's commercial representatives in the Far East indicate that the recent extension of Japanese influence in Northern China has restricted the local market for British manufacturers; and how the British imports into Manchuria for 1934 compare with those when the country was under Chinese control?
Although recent advices from His Majesty's commercial representatives in the Far East indicate the existence of Japanese competition in North China, no restriction of the local market for United Kingdom manufacturers appears to have occurred. No figures of United Kingdom imports into Manchurian ports prior to the year 1931 are available from Chinese or other sources. According to statistics published by the Manchurian authorities, the value of United Kingdom imports into Manchurian ports during the years 1931 to 1934 was as follows. The figures are given in Manchurian Yuan:
Import Duties Advisory Committee
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what length of time it is proposed that each member of the present Import Duties Advisory Committee should hold office; and whether any plan is to be introduced whereby members should after a period retire by rotation?
Section 2 of the Import Duties Act, 1932, provides that members of the Advisory Committee shall hold office for a period of three years. My right hon. Friend sees no need for legislation amending this provision.
Import Duties (Boots and Shoes)
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount received from import duties on boots and shoes for 1933, 1934 and January, 1935, respectively?
The net amount of duty collected under the Import Duties Act, 1932, on boots and shoes during 1933 and 1934 was as follows:
Do those figures include rubber footwear?
I do not think so.
Questions
Iraq (Anti-Semitism)
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the growing anti-Semitism in Iraq, thereby affecting our position in Palestine; and will he make representations with a view to checking it?
I have seen reports in recent months of a development of anti-Jewish feeling in Iraq. I am sorry to say that these are confirmed to some extent by my own information, but I have no reason to believe that the Iraqi Government have taken any action of a nature to prejudice the position of His Majesty's Government in Palestine. The last part of the question does not therefore arise.
Has the right hon. Gentleman had any reports from our Air Force there in regard to this matter? Is it possible to instruct our agents there to make representations to the Iraqi Government?
Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has any information with regard to the prohibition of the publication of certain Jewish newspapers?
I cannot answer the last supplementary question without notice. In reply to the question of the right hon. and gallant Member, I have not in mind information from the sources he suggests. As regards our own view of the matter, I think everyone will understand the feelings that are aroused by the matter to which he calls attention; but it is rather by unofficial than by official methods that information can be obtained.
Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the action of the Iraqi Government towards the Armenians and see that that is not repeated?
China (Piracy)
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received a report from His Majesty's Minister in China on the recent recurrence of Communistic activities on the Yangtse River between Hankow and Nanking; and whether he can give any information as to the present position with regard to the security of British shipping and passengers from attack by Communist bands?
Reports of such activities involving a threat to Wuhu and the neighbouring part of the river were received in December. A telegram from Nanking of the 27th December, however, stated that all immediate danger was over. The main body of Communists (understood to be a band about 4,000 strong who were recently driven out of Kiangsi) had retreated it to mountainous country in South Anhui pursued by a strong force of troops, and a small body had been disarmed. No further reports have been received and apprehension in regard to the security of British shipping or passengers on that section of the Yangtse has accordingly been removed. The situation will, however, continue to receive the watchful attention of the British consular and naval authorities.
Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the two principal carriers on the Yangtse for trade with China are British companies, and will he also bear in mind the fact that possibly the Nanking Government would welcome co-operation?
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what protection is afforded to British shipping on the Yangtse between Hankow and Nanking; whether it is safe for vessels to tie up at moorings during the night; and whether, in view of the recent recurrence of Communist activities in this region, he will increase the number of His Majesty's ships patrolling that section of the river?
A flotilla of 13 gunboats is maintained on the Yangtse for the protection of shipping. Arrangements also exist for the supply of armed guards to British ships trading in the river, these being supplied from naval or military sources. The movements of the gunboats are at the discretion of the Rear-Admiral, Yangtse, under the Commander-in-Chief, China Station, who will take any necessary steps to meet exceptional local conditions. I have received no indication that it is at present unsafe for vessels to make fast at moorings during the night.
Is 13 the normal number, or has it been decreased or increased?
I think that is about the normal number.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this protection is afforded to all shipping and not only confined to British ships?
I think the protection is given to all the shipping that requires it.
Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that he has adequate forces there?
I think the forces that we maintain there at the present moment are more or less adequate.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the recent piracy in Chinese waters on the Tungchow and the cost of providing naval assistance to deal with such emergencies, he will arrange for further consideration to be given to the adequacy of existing arrangements for preventing such piracies by having adequate guards and defences on board all vessels of any size operating in those waters?
This matter is constantly in mind, and the Admiralty and the British naval authorities in China do their utmost to impress upon British shipping companies the necessity of providing adequate guards and defences in vessels employed in Chinese waters. The circumstances in which pirates obtained control of the Tungchow are not yet known in London. When they are known, the matter will be fully investigated.
Has the British Navy to protect the whole shipping of this area? Why should not the companies themselves provide ample guards for maintaining their shipping?
That is a different case from the last question. Up the Yangtse the British naval or military authorities provide the guards, but in the case of the high sea the guards are there for the shipping companies to hire. We do not provide the guards always ourselves, but only in exceptional circumstances.
Is it not a fact that the British Navy always go to the rescue, and should not something be done to compensate the Navy for the work they do?
Yes, but that is another matter. We always go to the rescue, and I hope we always shall.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he proposes to enter into negotiations with China for concerted action to be taken in Far Eastern waters for the suppression of piracy?
Concerted action is at present being taken by His Majesty's naval forces and Chinese naval and military forces for suppression of piracy in China, much useful work having already been accomplished by such co-operation. In view of the excellent relations and practical co-operation which exist between His Majesty's Navy and the Chinese Navy I do not feel that any further action is called for.
Abyssinia and Italy
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement on the Italo-Abyssinian boundary dispute?
As the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, East (Mr. Mander) was informed on the 29th January, the Italian and Ethiopian Governments have agreed to seek a settlement of their differences by direct negotiations in the spirit of the Italo-Ethiopian Treaty of Friendship of 1928. To this statement I have nothing at present to add except that it is anticipated that the direct negotiations in question, which may take some time to conclude, will be carried on in Addis Ababa between the Italian Legation and the Ethiopian Government.
Manchuria (Oil Interests)
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present position with regard to the proposal to establish an oil monopoly in Manchukuo; and whether satisfactory arrangements have been made to safeguard the interests of British nationals adversely affected by such proposal?
It was arranged at the end of December that representatives of the oil interests affected should proceed to Tokyo to discuss the position with the Japanese authorities. These conversations which started early in January and which will, I understand, cover the field of the Manchukuo oil monopoly as well as of the Japanese Petroleum Law, are still in progress. I hope to be in a position to answer a further question as soon as they have reached a definite conclusion.
Is any representation being made on behalf of British nationals there?
I know that the interests of British nationals are not overlooked, but we are keeping in touch.
Naval Armaments (Aircraft)
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state the number of carrier-borne and catapult-ship aircraft, respectively, now on the strength of the Fleet air-arms of the British, United States, and Japanese Navies?
There are 138 carrier-borne aircraft and 27 catapult-ship aircraft on the strength of the Royal Navy. The corresponding figures for the United States Navy are 244 and 128. No figures are published for the Japanese Navy.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say at what date he hopes to obtain the facts in this matter?
No, Sir, I am afraid that I cannot say.
Crown Colonies (Loans)
asked the Secretary of State far the Colonies whether it is proposed to set up a commission to inquire into the outstanding Crown Colony loans amounting approximately to £100,000,000 and the general financial position of these Colonies; and whether he is in a position to make a statement to the House?
As I stated in a reply given on the 28th of November, the possibility of converting outstanding Colonial loans is under constant review and advantage is being taken where an option exists or is about to mature to convert or repay the loan. The best expert advice is constantly sought with regard to the practicability and conditions of any possible conversion; and I do not think that the appointment of a commission would serve any useful purpose.
Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the position of Kenya, which is paying an exceptionally heavy rate of interest on past loans?
The difficulty is that there is no option for conversion in regard to these loans. If there was power of conversion advantage would be taken of such power immediately.
Can the right hon. Gentleman not get the power to convert?
That would mean a complete breach of the contract on which the money was raised.
Other contracts have been broken and other conversions have been carried out.
Will the right hon. Gentleman not overlook the possibility of greatly increasing these loans, because much trade for this country and employment for our people would result from them?
In every case where under the contract there is a right to convert we are converting. I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that breaking contracts would have the worst possible effect on Colonial credit. As regards the other point where there is sound development to be done, there would be no hesitation in borrowing.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say why no right to convert obtains in regard to the Kenya loans, and whether there is any other way of meeting the situation?
There is no present right to convert. When the loan was raised some years ago under the terms of issue the earliest power to convert was the year 1946. I am considering whether it is possible to make any offer which would not be unduly onerous on posterity and of which advantage might be taken by the holders.
Kenya (Executions)
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the appeal of the seven Kenya natives sentenced to death for the murder of Mr. Semini has been dismissed; and, if so, whether the executions have yet taken place?
Yes, Sir. The appeal was dismissed, and I understand that the executions took place on 12th January.
Kenya and Uganda Railways (Indian Employes)
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the cancellation of the agreements of a large number of Indian employés of the Kenya and Uganda railways, whereby they lose all their preferential terms of employment and are placed on a daily wage system with no advantages whatever; how many artisan employés have been subjected to this change of employment methods; and when it is proposed to revert to the more equitable system of engagement which has hitherto existed?
As the reply is long, I propose with the hon. Member's permission to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the answer:
I am informed by the High Commissioner for Transport that 165 artisans in the lowest paid grades were given due notice of termination of their agreements and were offered and accepted re-engagement at daily rates of pay, with privilege of travel concessions and free medical attention in case of injury sustained on duty or attributable to the nature or locality of their employment. All these 165 artisans were locally engaged except seven who were originally indentured from India; return passages to India for these seven will be granted when required. All these artisans before being reengaged were granted all the benefits and privileges that had accrued to them under the terms of service previously applicable. In addition to the 165 artisans referred to, 387 artisans have been engaged for the first time on the same conditions as those mentioned above.
It is not intended to revert to the terms of service previously applicable to such servants because ( a ) such conditions cannot economically be justified, ( b ) all artisans required can now be engaged locally on the present terms, ( c ) the present conditions are in line with those extended to corresponding labour employed by the Government, ( d ) the principle of employing such labour on daily rates of pay is followed on other large colonial railways.
Hong Kong (Mui-Tsai Commission)
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it has yet been decided to appoint a commission to inquire into the present position of the mui-tsai question in the Colony of Hong Kong; and, if so, what is to be the personnel and terms of reference of this commission?
Yes, Sir. The Governor has appointed a commission to consider certain proposals sent to him from the Colonial Office on the subject of mui-tsai in Hong Kong and to report on these and kindred matters. With my hon. and gallant Friend's permission I will circulate the names of the commissioners in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following are the names:
Members of Commission.
Chairman:
F. H. Loseby (Solicitor, and officer of the Hong Kong Society for the Protection of Children).
Members:
Miss Dorothy Brazier (Salvation Army, in charge of Women's Industrial Home).
Tang Shiu Kin, M.B.E. (Justice of the Peace, and ex-Chairman of the Committee of the Po Leung Kuk).
J. M. Wong (Justice of the Peace, member of the Anglican Church, formerly Honorary Secretary of the Anti-Mui-tsai Society in Hong Kong).
Palestine
Mayor of Jerusalem
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether and, if so, why an Arab has been appointed Mayor of Jerusalem seeing that the majority of the population is Jewish?
An Arab, Dr. Hussein Fakhri Effendi al Khalidi, has been appointed Mayor of the Municipal Council of Jerusalem. The law gives the High Commissioner unfettered discretion to select any of the councillors for appointment as mayor, and I have complete confidence in his judgment.
Seeing that it is six of one and half-a-dozen of the other so far as that communication is concerned, would it not have been possible for the right hon. Gentleman to have made an appointment of someone to fulfil these formal functions? Is it not a fact that the last mayor was an Arab who has left a reputation notoriously bad for corruption? Why should that be repeated?
I do not know on what grounds the right hon. and gallant Gentleman makes charges against a particular gentleman, of which he has not given me notice, but it would certainly have been most improper for me to have interfered with the discretion of the High Commissioner. I am sure the whole House will agree that no one is better qualified to exercise that discretion than the present High Commissioner.
Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the truth of what I have stated?
Achi Meir (Citizenship)
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the proposal to deprive Achi Meir of his Palestinian citizenship and deport him has been decided upon; if so, why; and what precedent there is for such action in Great Britain or the Colonies?
No such proposal has yet been submitted for my approval. With reference to the third part of the question, I may observe that in the Colonies there is a power of revocation of certificates of British naturalisation, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, in various circumstances, e.g., when the holder of a certi- ficate of naturalisation has shown himself to be disaffected or disloyal to His Majesty, or has, within five years of the grant of the certificate, been sentenced by any Court in His Majesty's Dominions to imprisonment for a term of not less than 12 months, or to a term of penal servitude or to a fine of not less than £100.
Proposed Airports
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to make any detailed statement with regard to the proposal to construct two new airports on modern lines in Palestine; what will be the situation of these ports; and who will be called upon, to bear the cost and in what proportion?
I am not yet in a position to add anything to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on the 30th January.
Are there not some reports relating to the establishment of airports in Palestine? Will the right hon. Gentleman let me know, as soon as he gets information, what is happening?
I am aware of the reports, and an expert inquiry. I will let the hon. Member know when I can make a definite statement on the subject.
Questions
Yemen (Frontier)
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made towards the settlement of the question of the southern frontier of the Yemen, as provided for in Article 3 of the treaty of February last between His Majesty and the King of the Yemen?
Article 3 of the recent treaty with the King of the Yemen provides that the settlement of the question of the southern frontier of the Yemen is deferred pending the conclusion of negotiations which shall take place before the expiry of the period of the treaty, and that pending the conclusion of negotiations the high contracting parties agree to maintain the situation existing in regard to the frontier on the date of the signature of the treaty. I should explain that prior to the sign- ing of the treaty the Yemeni forces evacuated certain areas belonging to the Aden Protectorate which they had occupied some years previously and that the situation in regard to the frontier thus ensured by the treaty is regarded as generally satisfactory from the point of view of His Majesty's Government. In these circumstances and in view of the fact that the treaty is not due to expire for 40 years, His Majesty's Government do not propose to press for the opening of the negotiations contemplated in the treaty.
Aviation
Gliding
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the £5,000 which is to be set aside yearly for gliding is yet available; what clubs have so far benefited under it; and to whom claimants for support should apply?
I am not yet in a position to add to the reply which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Captain Balfour) on 30th January.
Aero-Dynamical Research (Air Tunnel)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will consider the construction of a full-sized air tunnel for aero-dynamical research work, as has been done by the United States at Langley Field and the French Government at Chalais-Meudon?
A large wind tunnel, capable of taking a full size fuselage, complete with engine and airscrew but without wings, has just been completed at the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough.
Civil Aviation Department
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the organisation and extension of the Civil Aviation Department under the Director-General has been completed; and can any details be supplied?
The decision to raise the status of the Director of Civil Avia- tion to that of Director-General was officially promulgated in December. This decision did not entail any consequential extension or reorganisation, but the Director-General's staff is in fact to be further strengthened to cope with the rapid growth of civil aviation activities, and in particular the urgent need for the development of the ground organisation of our Imperial air routes. The details are still under discussion.
Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the new officials taken into the Department will be the best that can be obtained?
It is certainly desirable that they should be.
Pilots' Licences (Night-Flying)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the Secretary of State has considered the recommendation of the Gorell Committee on civil aviation regarding the alteration of the night-flying requirements for a pilot's B.-licence; and whether he is proposing to take the necessary action to implement this recommendation?
The recommendation in question has been the subject of correspondence with the representatives of commercial aviation, with a view to deciding the extent to which the present requirements can suitably be modified. As soon as the oustanding replies have been received it will be possible to take a decision.
Construction Programme
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will consider adopting a policy of giving private firms which construct aircraft for the Air Ministry a three-year construction programme, in lieu of spasmodic orders as at present, in order that they may have regular full-time employment for their workmen throughout the year instead of periodical rushes of work separated by times of idleness during which highly-trained men of a specialist class have to be stood off or dismissed?
I regret that, so long as the design of aircraft continues to advance at its present rapid rate, the general adoption of a three-year pro- gramme is impracticable, though the importance of the considerations raised by my hon. and gallant Friend is fully appreciated.
Is not the fundamental difficulty in aircraft construction the fact that a short-term policy must be worked upon, but, despite this fact, is it not possible to do something more than is being done?
As much as is possible is being done, but even when you are dealing with the same type of aircraft the modifications from year to year are so extensive that a long-term policy could not be adopted.
Questions
Royal Air Force (Foreign Officers)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many officers belonging to the national air forces of foreign countries have been trained in the Royal Air Force since 1919; from what country have these officers come and how many officers from each country; how long is the term of their training; and what types of service machines they are allowed to use?
About 200 foreign officers and cadets have undergone instruction in Air Force establishments since 1919; they have come from 29 countries, those most numerously represented being Egypt (35), Iraq (16), Greece (15), and Norway (11). The periods of training have ranged from a fortnight up to two years. The instruction is given on the normal types of aircraft in use at the units in which the training is carried out.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say what good purpose is served to the British people by training foreign service pilots in British machines, and whether this practice is continued with a view to expediting the sale of British-made service planes abroad?
This is a diplomatic courtesy which has been practised for many years, and I think has worked well.
Is it not a fact that we send British officers abroad for instruction in foreign countries.
Yes.
Transport
Parking Regulations
asked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made during the past two months to reduce in the London traffic area the obstructions caused by motor car drivers using public thoroughfares as storage places for their cars instead of placing them in garages; and will he ascertain and state the views of the police authorities on the subject?
I have repeately expressed my opinion that our highways ought not to be encumbered with standing vehicles, and, as the House has been informed, the police take action when danger or actual obstruction is caused by vehicles standing in the highway. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has informed me that he shares any view that the provision of a much larger amount of garage or parking accommodation off the highway, if made available at strictly moderate charges, would be of very great assistance in reducing the congestion due to standing vehicles.
Will the Minister of Transport consider the possibility of adopting a system which has obtained in foreign countries of alternative parking on different days in the week?
Will my hon. Friend consider the advisability of allowing motor cars to stay outside shops in order that people may go into the shops to make purchases? That would be a great advantage to business.
Will my hon. Friend make inquiries as to the sites in the neighbourhood of Leicester Square, which are continually blocked up, on both sides of the road, by cars which are a source of danger?
Will my hon. Friend do his best to deter residents in the suburbs from taking their cars to town, letting them remain all day and then riding home in them? That would relieve traffic congestion enormously.
Dartford-Purfleet Tunnel Scheme
asked the Minister of Transport whether the Kent and Essex County Councils and the London County Council are now willing to support the construction of the lower Thames tunnel between Dartford and Purfleet; and what is preventing the continuance of work on this tunnel scheme, as approved by Parliament, which will be helpful to the development of Kent and help the unemployed locally and in the steel and electrical trades, etc.?
I Was recently given to understand that the Kent and Essex County Councils are willing to support the construction of the lower Thames tunnel, which was suspended in view of the financial crisis, and the whole subject is now before me.
Malden Road
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the B-class road between the Kingston by-pass and Worcester Park station has been waiting for many months for the work of improvement by widening and resurfacing; that at present it is in a very dangerous condition owing to lack of kerbing in most places, and that in fog and wet weather it is even worse; that the Maidens and Coombe Urban District Council has accepted tenders for the work, but are unable to proceed owing to his Department withholding the grant until the next financial year; that the Surrey County Council are likewise unable to help; and whether he can give any indication that steps will be taken to enable the work to be entered upon without further delay?
I have received an application for a grant towards a scheme for widening and reconstructing this road, and also an application for my confirmation of an order for the compulsory purchase of certain land required for the scheme. Before I can make any promise of a grant, the question of confirmation of the order must be settled and there will be no avoidable delay on my part.
Road Traffic Safety Advisory Council
asked the Minister of Transport the number of meetings held to date by the Road Traffic Safety Advisory Council; whether he has received any specific recommendations from this body; and whether these recommendations are being followed?
This committee is composed of gentlemen whom I asked to consult with me in a confidential capacity on matters connected with public safety. The responsibility for any action taken rests with me alone and I do not consider that it would be desirable, or fair to the committee, to publish any account of their proceedings.
Would the Minister give the House an assurance that before proceeding with these recommendations he will bring them before the House?
No, Sir. Where the House has empowered me or instructed me to take certain action I shall proceed in accordance with the Statute.
How many meetings has this committee held?
The committee has been extremely active, and I am very indebted to it. I do not know precisely how many meetings it has held. There is a number of sub-committees. I think that my main answer will receive the support of the House.
Built-Up Areas (Speed Limit)
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has received any objections to the design of the traffic signs proposed under his provisional regulations with respect to the 30-miles-per-hour limit in built-up areas; and to what extent, if at all, the original proposals which were made last autumn have been modified to meet these objections?
The proposed signs were placed in the tea room of the House some time ago, and no objections were received from hon. Members. The original proposals for the design of the signs have met with a large measure of approval, and I have decided not to modify them in the light of the criticisms received, which are not in my opinion justified.
Is the Minister aware that, although he may not have received any representations from Members of the House, great objection has been taken to the design of these signs, which are to be seen in the Tea Room of the House?
Those signs were placed in the Tea Room soon after 7th November and I understand they are still there. I have received no representations whatever in the sense that my hon. and gallant Friend suggests, and I can assure him that if he had given me any considered observations on the matter I should have attached due weight to them.
Will the Minister consider any observations in the future?
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can give the House an approximate estimate of the total number of signs which will have to be displayed on the roads of the United Kingdom at the entrances, exits, and in the course of restricted and de-restricted areas under the 30 miles per hour speed-limit provisions of the Road Traffic Act of 1934, and the approximate cost of their installation?
The number of signs which will be necessary in connection with the provisions of Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, will depend partly on the extent to which local authorities avail themselves of their powers to make orders under sub-section (4) of the section. My hon. and gallant Friend may wish to renew his question later on.
Do I understand that up to the present, although my hon. Friend proposes to bring in the speed limit on 18th March, he has no idea of the number of signs that will have to be put up in the country, and no idea of the cost of them?
I do not think that that would be a fair deduction from my answer. I was anxious to give my hon. and gallant Friend an accurate answer, and I therefore asked him to put the question on the Paper when I was in a position to reply.
When will my hon. Friend be in a position to give a reply?
I will tell my hon. Friend.
In considering the number of signs for this purpose, will the hon. Gentleman have regard to the dangers that are created on the road by the undue number of signs beside the road? They deflect the driver's vision from the course of his progress on to the kerb.
I am aware that that criticism is very frequently made and there is much substance in it, but I ask the House to remember that in all these matters I am putting into operation the considered view of the House in an Act of Parliament, and I must carry out the intentions of Parliament.
Does the hon. Gentleman not remember that since the Act was passed he has covered the provinces with beacons, and that there is very little room left for these signs?
Is the Minister correct in saying that the form of the signs was laid down in the Act?
Road Improvements (Five-Year Plan)
asked the Minister of Transport what steps he is taking to inform local authorities of the new arrangements for the five-year programme of road improvements?
I have invited highway authorities to submit at once the schemes with which they are prepared to proceed immediately and also to submit as soon as they are in a position to do so further instalments of their proposals for a programme of improvements which they propose to undertake over the next five years. For the convenience of hon. Members I am arranging for a copy of a letter which I have addressed to all highway authorities to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the letter:
5th February, 1935.
WORKS OF MAJOR IMPROVEMENT OF ROADS AND BRIDGES AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW ROADS AND BRIDGES: REGULATION OF TRAFFIC, &c.
Sir,
I am directed by the Minister of Transport to acquaint you, for the information of your Council, that he has had under consideration representations made by the County Councils' Association and other bodies to the effect that the existing arrangements under which grants are made from the Road Fund are inconvenient to them, rendering difficult the estimation of local expenditure and impeding or preventing the planning of road works in advance. At present, applications for improvement grants received from highway authorities can only be considered in relation to an allocation from the Road Fund for this pur- pose determined from year to year. The Minister has been asked to adopt a system which would enable him to provide highway authorities with knowledge of grant indications covering a longer period than is possible under present arrangements.
2. With the object of meeting these representations, the National Government has decided to make provision over the next five years for grants towards works of improvement and new construction. I am accordingly to invite highway authorities to submit at once the schemes with which they are prepared to proceed immediately and also to submit, so soon as they are in a position to do so, further instalments of their proposals for a programme of improvements which they propose to undertake over the next five years. Mr. Hore-Belisha trusts that these arrangements will be regarded as meeting the representations made to him that the present system of annual allocations from the Road Fund, announced after the highway authorities' own budgets have been prepared, has been unsatisfactory and has led to uncertainty and delay.
3. Proposals should be submitted through the Divisional Road Engineers of the Ministry of Transport, and it will no doubt be possible for each highway authority to put forward at a very early date the list of works of improvement on classified roads which they would be prepared to put in hand during the year 1935–36, with assistance from the Road Fund at the rates and on the conditions set out in the accompanying memorandum. It will facilitate consideration if county councils can arrange with claiming authorities for the inclusion in the county programme of any schemes relating to claimed county roads.
4. Similar but separate lists should be submitted in respect of improvements on unclassified roads.
5. In each case the works included in the programme should be arranged in order of priority, the general character of each work should be stated and the closest possible estimate of its cost should be given.
6. Highway authorities will be informed, as soon as possible after the receipt of their proposals, of the schemes to which grants will be made.
7. Mr. Hore-Belisha attaches particular importance to works directed to reducing the dangers of the road and to the reconstruction of weak bridges. He has already issued instructions to the Divisional Road Engineers that all approved schemes of reconstruction of weak or otherwise in adequate bridges, whether privately or publicly owned, on classified roads or on important unclassified roads and approved schemes for the elimination of level crossings on such roads will be accepted for grant at the appropriate rate if it can be shown that the schemes will be commenced during the financial year 1935–36. He hopes that those authorities whose priority lists of bridges requiring reconstruction have not yet been formulated will take immediate steps in consultation with the bridge owners to complete the lists. Where priority lists have already been agreed, the Divisional Road Engineers should be furnished as soon as possible with particulars of bridges to be reconstructed in the coming financial year.
8. Mr. Hore-Belisha thinks that highway authorities may be assisted in framing their programmes if he calls attention to the following remarks which he recently made in a speech at Birmingham as to the kind of work which he desired to facilitate:—
"The National Government has decided on a Five Year Plan for the roads ….
Henceforth highway authorities will be able to lay their plans in the knowledge that a comprehensive view will be taken of their requirements and that their projects are not likely to suffer from the disabilities inseparable from a hand to mouth policy, with all the uncertainty which that entails. Nor will they suffer from the disadvantage of being kept in suspense for decisions until too late in their own financial year.
Our Five Year Programme will make provision for the improvements which highway authorities, thinking ahead and arranging ahead, can reasonably be expected to carry out in the period.
Within five years the Government aims at eliminating all those weak bridges in the possession of railway and other statutory owners which most seriously limit the free flow of traffic, and wherever the traffic conditions require, at providing dual carriageways, footpaths and cycling tracks; at removing blind corners, circumventing the dangers of cross roads, reducing camber and effecting super-elevation ….
Grants will be made contingent on such approved works being undertaken on an adequate and modern scale.
We also intend to increase the allocations for unclassified rural roads for the benefit of the agricultural community.
There is, of course, a number of long term schemes such as the Mersey Tunnel, which, by reason of their high cost and of the complexities surrounding their execution, must necessarily be spread over some years. The Government feel that for such projects special provision is necessary on their merits as and when they arise ….
We do not propose to embark upon an undefined and unlimited expenditure without any clear idea as to the needs to be provided for, but to direct the resources of the Road Fund to the support of those schemes and classes of work the execution of which is demanded by considerations of safety and of traffic necessity whether it be to meet the requirements of industry or to facilitate convenient movement of the population."
9. Before determining the financial limits of the programme which he has announced, the Minister proposes to await some clearer indication than is at present available of the amount of work with which, subject to the principles he has laid down and the conditions of the memorandum, highway authorities are definitely in a position to proceed at an early date, or within the period of five years.
I am, Sir,
Your Obedient Servant,
CYRIL HURCOMB,
Secretary.
The Clerk of the Council.
The Town Clerk.
Penhill Road, Bexley
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has approved a grant towards the cost of improving Penhill Road, Bexley?
I am glad to inform my hon. Friend that I have issued a grant towards the cost of widening and reconstructing Penhill Road between Blackfen Road and Harcourt Avenue.
Questions
Earl Haig Memorial Statue
asked the First Commissioner of Works the present position in regard to the Earl Haig memorial statue?
The full size clay model is now practically complete and it will, I hope, soon be possible for the sculptor to proceed with the plaster cast.
Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the progress that is being made; and can he say whether the ultimate result will be in accordance with his desires?
I do not think I can answer that question. It will be some time before the ultimate result can be seen. A good deal of work has to be done on the plaster cast before there can be any question of casting in bronze, and I would not like to give an opinion upon it now.
Regent's Park (St. John's Lodge)
asked the First Commissioner of Works the present position in regard to the disposal of St. John's Lodge, Regent's Park?
Negotiations with the University of London respecting the future use of this building are still proceeding, but I hope that a final decision will be arrived at before long.
Will the right hon. Gentleman in the meantime consider having this building painted in accordance with normal requirements, so as to take away the somewhat squalid appearance which it is beginning to present?
I fully agree that the time for doing so is rather overdue, but as it is hoped that the building will have to be adapted to the purposes of the university, it would be a waste of money to paint it now and then to have to make great changes. It is much better that the whole thing should be done at once.
Royal Parks (Silver Jubilee Gifts)
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he has received any gifts for the decoration of the Royal parks in commemoration of the Silver Jubilee and from whom; and will he state the purpose to which he proposes allocating such gifts?
Yes, Sir. Mr. Sigismund Goetze, the donor of the existing new gates on the east side of the gardens, allows me to make public the fact that he is contributing a sum of £3,600 towards the cost of a new main south entrance, with fine ornamental ironwork gates, to the Inner Circle Gardens. Mr. Goetze wishes the work to be considered as a commemoration of Their Majesties' Silver Jubilee. I am sure that hon. Members will share my gratitude to this well known artist for this further proof of his generosity.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would be possible to convey to Mr. Goetze the thanks not only of the people of London but of this House for his generosity.
indicated assent.
Houses of Parliament (Presentation Busts)
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he proposes to accept the offer which has been made to present busts of Sir Robert Peel and Lord Palmerston for the adornment of this House?
Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend the Member for the Moseley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Hannon) has generously offered to present two fine marble busts of these statesmen, executed by Matthew Noble. As no memorial of either exists in the Palace of Westminster, I have, with the consent of Mr. Speaker, and after obtaining the views of this House through the usual channels, and of the Royal Fine Art Commission, gladly accepted the offer. It is proposed to place the busts at the foot of the public stairs on either side of the statue of Sir Charles Barry. May I take this opportunity of publicly thanking my hon. Friend for his most welcome gift.
Will this leave room for the busts of subsequent statesmen whose memory it may be desired to perpetuate?
There are still various vacant plinths. I am bound to say that it would be rather more difficult to accommodate full-sized statues, but this particular place is very suitable for these busts.
Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider it a very great tribute to the City of Birmingham that a Birmingham Member should have presented these most important memorials?
British Ships (Foreign Bunkering)
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many British ships are now bunkering abroad, either with coal or with oil, which used to bunker in this country before the War?
I regret that this information is not available.
Queen Mary's Hospital, Roehampton
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that disabled ex-service men at Queen Mary's (Roehampton) Hospital for limbless men, are not allowed to visit their wives and families because Sunday leave has been curtailed; the reason why this alteration has been made; and whether he intends taking any action in the matter?
Leave of absence from Roehampton, as from all other Ministry hospitals, has been limited by regulation for many years past to a maximum period of four hours in the day, except for special emergency, and the attention of every patient is called to the regulation on his admission. In the interests of patients themselves, as well as of the discipline of the hospital, it is necessary to enforce compliance with the rule in any hospital where breaches of it are found to have occurred.
May I ask whether there has been any alteration made in the regulation recently?
No, Sir; the orders stand exactly as they always have been but a great many exceptions have been made. The first consideration is of course the medical side of the question in each case and I would remind the hon. Member that in most civil hospitals no leave at all is given.
Naval and Military Pensions and Grants
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Mary O'Dwyer, whose father (late private, No. 6725, in the Royal Irish Regiment) died of wounds in October, 1914, is suffering from a bone disease of the right arm, and has been for many years unable to contribute in any way to her self-support; and whether he will have investigations made in this case with a view to authorising the re-issue of war orphan's allowance, which ceased on her attaining the age of 21?
I should have no authority to grant a further extension of the allowance in the circumstances of this case for the reasons which I gave in my answer yesterday to the hon. Members for Deritend (Mr. Smedley Cooke) and Rhondda East (Mr. Mainwaring) of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.
May I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman if he has not discretion to continue the allowance after the age of 21 with the approval of the Treasury?
No, Sir, I have no such discretion.
Agriculture
Sugar-Beet Industry (State Assistance)
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is yet in a position to make an announcement regarding the arrangements to be made in regard to the marketing of the sugar-beet crop for the forthcoming season?
The Government understand that the report of the Committee of Inquiry into the United Kingdom sugar industry, which was appointed in April last under the chairmanship of Mr. Wilfrid Greene, K.C., is not likely to be presented before the end of February. The immediate weeks of early spring are, however, vital from the point of view of cultivation. Unless the beet sugar factories are able within that period to offer firm contracts, farmers will not be in a position to decide what crops to put in for the coming spring, and the whole position will be prejudiced before the Government or Parliament have had time to consider the committee's report and to determine on the future of the industry.
In order to prevent this, the Government propose to invite Parliament to make provision for a further interim measure of assistance to enable the existing factories to proceed with arrangements to secure contracts for the growing of a crop this year. The assistance will be limited to the produce of 375,000 acres of sugar beet. It will be based on the assumption that the growers will provide approximately this acreage at a price, in respect of each factory, of 1s. per ton below that offered in fixed-price contracts in 1934.
The rate of assistance which Parliament will be asked to provide will be 5s. per cwt. of white sugar related to a raw sugar price of 4s. 6d. per cwt., with appropriate adjustments either upwards or downwards if the average price of raw sugar should vary from that figure. This rate of assistance is based on the ascertained average costs of operation. The position will be further considered on receipt of the Greene Committee's Report, and appropriate allowances will be made for capital services in so far as these may then be found to be necessary. But the Government reserve the right to make the grant of any such allowances conditional upon the acceptance by the industry of any measures of reform which may be proposed by the Government after consideration of the Committee's report.
Legislation will in due course be submitted to Parliament to give effect to these proposals, which, except in so far as they involve the continuance of State assistance to the industry for another year, will leave both the Government and Parliament free to decide without prejudice upon future policy. This legislation will not be brought forward until the report of the committee is available and Parliament has had a full opportunity of examining it.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the statement which he has just made will be received with satisfaction and relief by the agricultural community and that as a result of it, the farmers will now be able to proceed with their plans; and is he also aware that it will be received with relief by a very large number of agricultural and industrial workers in view of the effect upon employment?
Arising out of the original reply, can the Minister inform the House what has been responsible for the delay in the presentation of the report; and is it not the case that if the report had been received it might have been possible to obviate the need for this House to pass legislation?
No, Sir; I understand that the reason for the delay is the very close consideration which the committee is giving to this subject and the great necessity of making, if possible, a final report which will settle the matter one way or the other for all time.
Was it not a condition of the appointment—
I do not think we can discuss the matter now.
Foot-And-Mouth Disease (Scotland)
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has any information regarding the origin of the recent outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in Scotland?
Since the 17th January last there have been four outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in Scotland. The first of these outbreaks occurred among pigs at Provanmill, near Glasgow. These pigs were fed on kitchen refuse obtained from institutions in Glasgow, but inquiries have not revealed any purchase by these institutions of produce which would be a likely source of the disease. The second outbreak occurred at the Glasgow abattoirs, and started among pigs which had been consigned to the abattoirs from the farm on which the first outbreak occurred. The third outbreak was at Coatbridge among pigs which had come from the Glasgow abattoirs. The fourth outbreak was on a farm at Rutherglen, the owner of which had recently visited the Glasgow abattoirs. An Order has now been issued reducing the area of the present restrictions as from the 8th February.
Milk and Milk Products (Marketing)
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether any steps have been taken by the Milk Marketing Board to find an increased market for milk, cream, and other milk products by entering into arrangements with the hotel and catering industry for supply to such industry under special conditions; and, if not, whether he will suggest that the possibility of such an arrangement should be investigated?
I understand that the Milk Marketing Board have informed the representatives of the hotel and restaurant trade that they are prepared to discuss the matter to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers.
Is there any reason why these trades should have special prices quoted to them, lower than those quoted to other people?
It is an ordinary matter of business. They are customers and the other people are sellers, and the two sides are trying to make an arrangement which will be mutually advantageous.
Questions
Seals (Scotland)
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will arrange to have a record taken of the number of grey and common brown seals, respectively, known to be killed in response to the rewards offered by the different salmon fisheries district boards in Scotland for the destruction of seals, in order to obtain data as to the proportion of grey and brown seals which frequent the estuaries of salmon rivers?
I am doubtful whether reliable evidence as to the proportion of grey and brown seals in the estuaries can be obtained in the manner suggested, but district fishery boards will be consulted on the subject.
If the hon. Gentleman does not approve of the method suggested in the question, will he consider in his Department some more reliable method of getting information on this important topic?
Yes, Sir.
British Army (Tank Brigade Training)
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether it is proposed to schedule any area on Dartmoor as a ground for the exercise of tanks; and, if so, the reason for the decision?
It is hoped to include the Tank Brigade in the programme of training for this year, but no decision has yet been taken as to the area in which it will train.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great concern which has been expressed in the West of England because of the announcement which appeared; and can he make any reassuring statement to the House?
I do not know of any announcement which has been made. If the hon. Gentleman will tell me to what announcement he is referring, I may be able to answer him.
India (Terrorism)
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will give the number of terrorist conspiracies and outrages attempted or committed in each province or territory of British India subsequent to those mentioned in his memoranda on terrorism published in Volume 2 (Records) of the Joint Select Committee on India Constitutional Reform?
I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers given to the Noble Lady the Member for Kinross and West Perth (Duchess of Atholl) on the 9th July and 10th December last. I am circulating statements giving the latest available totals for 1934.
Following are the statements:
TERRORIST OFFENCES in Bengal from January to November, 1934. Murders 1 Attempted murders 2 Assaults on private persons—murderous 2 Dacoities 6 Dacoities with murder 1 Attempted dacoities 2 Robberies 1 Bomb throwing 1 Recovery of explosives 1 Thefts 2 19
TERRORIST OFFENCES in Provinces other than Bengal during 1934. Province. Number of offences. Madras Nil. Bombay 9 * United Provinces 3 Punjab Nil. Burma Nil. Bihar and Orissa 1 Central Provinces 1 Assam 5 North-West Frontier Province Nil. * To 30th September, 1934, only. To 30th September, 1934, only.
asked the Secretary of State for India how many members of the Indian Civil Service, officers of the Indian police, and judges and magistrates have instructions to carry revolvers when on duty; how many of these have armed personal guards and how many have armed guards on their homes; and in which provinces, excluding the North-West Frontier Province, have any of these precautions been found necessary?
I regret that I have not the information for which my hon. Friend asks.
Is it possible to acquire this information?
My hon. Friend will realise that detailed inquiries will be necessary to obtain it, but if he so desires, I will do my best to obtain information on the subject.
Education (Non-Provided Schools)
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether any decision has yet been arrived at regarding making grants to owners of non-provided schools in order to facilitate the bringing into operation of the Hadow scheme and the extension of the school age?
I have been asked to reply. My Noble Friend regrets that he is not in a position to make any statement on this subject.
Will my hon. and gallant Friend inform his Noble Friend that I have been asking this question for over two years and that I have had the same reply, and will he also inform his Noble Friend that it is this matter that is holding up the two improvements in education that are so desirable and necessary?
I will see that my hon. Friend's comments are conveyed to my Noble Friend.
Land Registry Office
asked the Attorney-General whether, in view of the proved usefulness of the Land Registry Office, he will consider extending its operations over an increased number of English counties?
It is proposed by my noble and learned Friend, the Lord Chancellor, to prepare an Order under Section 122 of the Act extending to the county of Middlesex. Only one such Order to come into effect before January, 1937, can be prepared by my noble and learned Friend except at the instance of a county council.
Canada (Municipal Bonds)
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has now inquired of the Canadian Dominion authorities about the statements of the Premier of British Columbia and the mayor of Vancouver City as to the proposal by the Vancouver City Council to reduce by 50 per cent. the interest on Vancouver bonded debt, in view of such action affecting holders of Vancouver city securities floated in London; and will he say what is the decision of the Canadian Dominion authorities?
As my hon. Friend is, no doubt, aware, the control of municipal finance in Canada falls within provincial rather than federal jurisdiction. I have been informed that the Premier of British Columbia made a statement to the Press on the 11th January to the effect that if the city of Vancouver made arrangements with its bondholders for a reduction of interest rate, as had been done by the town of Prince Rupert, the provincial Government would be willing to legislate to validate such an arrangement, but that the Government would not legislate to cut interest rates in half without the approval of the bondholders.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the intense anxiety that exists among the numerous investors in these bonds in this country, and is he aware of the fact that this decision adversely affects very many people who are vitally interested?
I have already indicated that I am aware of the natural anxiety that is felt. The answer I have given is the answer in which the Canadian Government informed me of their position, and that ought to do more than anything else to alleviate this anxiety.
With regard to an ultimate decision, can my right hon. Friend hold out any hope that those who have invested their money in these bonds will not be sacrificed?
My hon. Friend will be aware that I have no power to interfere with Dominion status in this matter, but I have been informed of the anxiety in many parts of this country, and I can only say that the answer I have given is that of the Canadian Government.
Is it not a fact that arrangements have been made for a conference of bondholders on the 11th February?
I can only assume that my hon. Friend who asks that question and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne, North (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle), who is equally anxious, will not pursue the matter but get on with the conference.
Housing (Flats)
asked the Minister of Health when the report of the departmental committee on the design and construction of flats is to be published?
My right hon. Friend has not yet received a report from this committee, but he understands that they hope to submit an interim report before the end of the financial year.
Is there any place where a Member of this House could inspect models of flats and other similar buildings?
Yes, there is an exhibition of working-class flats now open in the board room of the Ministry of Health, and it has been so popular that it is being extended until the 12th of this month inclusive, and, if my hon. Friend or any of his colleagues would like to come along, I would try to make myself available to show them round.
Is this exhibition open only to Members of this House, or could the hon. Gentleman see his way to extend it to the chairmen of housing committees of local authorities?
Yes, it is open to the general public.
Lift Accidents
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received a report from his factory inspector in connection with a youth who was trapped and killed in a lift at the premises of Messrs. Maple and Company, of Tottenham Court Road, London; and, in view of the increase of accidents to youths without experience of working lifts, whether it is his intention to issue an order that proper training under an experienced lift attendant should be given before they are allowed to work lifts alone?
I have obtained reports on this unfortunate accident. The boy's inexperience may have been a contributory cause, but I am advised that the real remedy for accidents such as this is the provision of up-to-date protective arrangements and efficient maintenance. A great deal has been done to render modern lifts safe, but old lifts present a difficult and costly problem. I will explore the situation further.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, that the young boy in question was only 14 years of age, and does he think it advisable that a youth like that should be operating a lift in a hotel or anywhere else?
Gambling Machines
asked the Home Secretary why, as gambling machines are illegal, action is not taken in all cases instead of only in isolated cases?
The responsibility for enforcing the law relating to gambling machines rests with chief officers of police. I have no reason to believe that action is not taken in appropriate cases.
Does my right hon. Friend consider that a law which is flagrantly neglected is a satisfactory law and one that should remain on the Statute Book?
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that there is no uniformity of punishment in dealing with the proprietors of gambling machines under the Gaming Houses Act, 1854; and whether he will take steps to ensure that the fines inflicted are in proportion to the offence?
It is for the court to decide what is the appropriate penalty having regard to the circumstances of each individual case which comes before them, and I could not interfere with their discretion in the matter.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that in a recent case the owner of a machine available to children was fined £2, while owners of machines in ex-service clubs were fined £147?
Does not my right hon. Friend think it is about time this Act was repealed?
Licensing Law
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the public dissatisfaction arising from the many variations in the permitted hours for the sale of liquor throughout the country; and will he consider the desirability of making the permitted hours uniform in all respect in regard to licensed premises and clubs in each police area and also taking steps for the prevention of supplies to club members for consumption off the premises?
Both these questions will no doubt be considered when the time comes to review the Acts. I can hold out no immediate prospect of any amending legislation.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider licensing clubs which register with no other aim than the supply and consumption of intoxicating liquor, often at hours when it is impossible to secure it on licensed premises, such licensing to be on the same footing as that of licensed premises or, alternatively, will he give consideration to the desirability of substituting the licence duty now paid by licensed victuallers by a registration fee of 5s. per annum, the amount now paid by such clubs, and thus enable the licensed trade to more effectually meet the competition of those clubs which are in fact unlicensed public-houses?
My hon. Friend's suggestions will certainly be borne in mind in connection with a general revision of the licensing law. The Government has, however, frequently stated that it does not propose to deal piecemeal with this matter, and it is impossible to say when the opportunity for a general revision will arise.
Coroners' Inquests (Committee of Inquiry)
asked the Home Secretary whether he will include in the terms of reference to the committee he proposes to set up to consider the question of coroners' duties the desirability of limiting their powers to determining the cause of death, as is already the case in the inquiries in Scotland, and not to attempt to allocate responsibility?
The committee's terms of reference have not yet been finally determined, but I have no doubt that they will be sufficiently wide to admit of consideration being given to the scope of coroners' inquiries.
National Expenditure
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, following the recent publication of the Supplementary Estimates for increased expenditure, he will, without in any way anticipating his Budget statement, indicate the directions in which he has reduced expenditure so as to justify reliefs of taxation for the purpose of assisting trade recovery?
I fear that I could not oblige my hon. Friend without anticipating my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.
National and Tate Galleries
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many pictures there are in the National Gallery and Tate Gallery which owing to lack of hanging space are not generally exhibited in these two galleries; and, if so, can he arrange for them to be placed on permanent exhibition in other public galleries or official buildings in London until they are required for the temporary lending to provincial public buildings or to the Dominions and Colonies?
At the National Gallery there are approximately 600 pictures which, owing to lack of wall space, are not generally shown on the exhibition floor. About 150 pictures are regularly on loan to provincial galleries and official buildings in London. The remainder are hung on walls or screens in the ground floor rooms and can be seen by the public on application. At the Tate Gallery, of about 850 pictures which are not normally on exhibition, 350 are in store, including 250 water colour drawings. The balance of approximately 500 pictures is distributed on loan for exhibition in public buildings in London or the provinces. It will thus be seen that no substantial increase in the number of pictures temporarily loaned in this country is practicable: nor is there any reason to believe that the requests of bodies to whom loan is permissible under the National Gallery (Loan) Act, 1883, are not met under the existing arrangements.
Could not my hon. Friend, at no great expense, arrange for all these pictures to be easily accessible to the public?
If my hon. Friend will read my answer, he will see that they are quite accessible now.
But not in good condition?
I do not think the question referred to the condition, but they are all in perfect condition.
Is it not a fact that in the Tate and National Galleries and other places, there are some hundreds of Turner's works alone that might be made accessible to the general public in some other building?
Unemployment
Assistance (Adjustment of Allowances)
asked the Minister of Labour the total number of cases in which benefits have been increased and decreased, respectively, by the Unemployment Assistance Board in Northampton; and whether in- structions have been given to area officers of the Unemployment Assistance Board to refuse to give such or similar information to Members of Parliament for the constituency which they represent?
As my right hon. Friend announced in the House last night, the board have undertaken to conduct an investigation into the effect so far of the regulations. This will inevitably result in a very heavy strain on the board's staff, who in addition have to carry on the day to day administration. In these circumstances I would venture to make an earnest appeal to Members, including those who have similar questions on the paper for subsequent days this week not to press, for the moment at all events, for this detailed information.
May I have an answer to the latter part of my question?
I will make inquiries and let my hon. and gallant Friend know if such instructions are issued by the board.
( by Private Notice ) asked the Minister of Labour on what date the system of revised payments of unemployment assistance announced last night will be brought into operation?
I am informed by the Unemployment Assistance Board that immediate arrangements are being made for the adjustment of allowances in accordance with the decision of the board announced yesterday in the House by my right hon. Friend. The arrangements for the payments this week had already been completed and it will not be possible to make the necessary adjustments in time to affect those payments. All necessary adjustments, however, will be made as quickly as possible during the next few weeks and as stated by my right hon. Friend will be retrospective to the date of the reduction.
May I take it from that reply that arrangements for payments on the new scale, as stated by the Minister, are being urgently pressed forward, and that all these people will be paid when the arrangements are, completed?
Yes, I will certainly give that assurance.
Will these arrangements include supplementary allowances to cover the amounts which the applicants received from public assistance committees?
I dealt with that point in the Debate last night, and the hon. Gentleman will find a full explanation of it in my speech.
May I ask whether, in the meantime, there will be some relaxation on the part of the Poor Law authorities in assisting these poor people? As the Minister has set aside one part of the law, will he give the Poor Law authorities discretion in this matter of assistance?
That is a rather different point on which I should not like to express an opinion without notice.
I will raise the point on the Adjournment to-night.
Domestic Servants
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will refer the question of the insurance of domestic servants against unemployment to the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee under Section 19 (6) of the Unemployment Act, 1934?
In accordance with the undertaking given during the Debates on the Unemployment Bill last year, the Statutory Committee will be asked to consider this matter as soon as they are in a position to do so.
Questions
Central Electricity Board
asked the Minister of Transport the total sum guaranteed by the Government and expended by the Central Electricity Board?
No sum at all has been so guaranteed.
— Total Imports. Imports from United Kingdom. Import from Japan. £ £ Per cent. £ Per cent. Kenya and Uganda … … 15,874 9,422 59·4 4,732 29·0 Northern Rhodesia … … 11,084 6,852 61·8 490 4·4 Nyasaland … … … … 1,312 881 67·1 149 11·3 Tanganyika Territory … … 6,493 2,817 43·4 2,341 36·1 Zanzibar … … … … 1,685 182 10·8 1,314 77·9
Army Estimates (Supplementary Estimate, 1934)
Estimate presented—of the further Amount which will be required during the year ending 31st March, 1935, to meet Expenditure not provided for in the Army Estimates of the year [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.
Orders of the Day
Government of India Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
3.47 p.m.
I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Sir Philip Francis tells in his memoirs how once he was supping with Warren Hastings and the conversation turned upon Robinson Crusoe. the present Viceroy and all the Governors—as miserable Lilliputian pygmies, and he alone is the only Gulliver in the land. Be that as it may, being Secretary of State for India I once again follow the very wise injunction which was made by the directors of the Court of the East India Company to their clerical staff: "Humdrum is our style." I have seen so many fine phrases in Indian Debates come back, like boomerangs, on their makers, I have seen so many purple patches fade away under the glare of Indian suns or in the cold light of Parliamentary Debates, that even if I had the wings I should not attempt any rhetorical flights. Rather would I attempt to achieve three purposes this afternoon: first of all, to give the House a broad survey of the Bill itself; secondly, to suggest to the House the main issues of controversy between one section of us and another; and, thirdly, to describe to the House the object that the Government have in mind in asking the House to pass this Bill.
I will begin with the first chapter of the Bill, the chapter dealing with All-India Federation. Any Federal Government is bound to be more complicated than a unitary Government, and in the case of an All-India Federation there is the additional complication due to the fact that the units are as different as the Indian States are from the British India Provinces. Those complications react upon almost every clause in the Federal chapter. They react, for instance, upon the provisions as to how the federation is to be formed, for it is obvious that the Princes, being voluntary agents, can only enter of their own volition. They react, again, upon the kind of executive and the kind of legislature that is proposed, each side of the federation obviously demanding adequate representation both in the Government and in the Federal Legislature. They react, again, upon the relations between the two Federal Chambers, the Princes, from the first, attaching the greatest possible importance to the Chambers having equal powers. They react, further, upon the list of federal subjects, the Princes, again, rightly insisting that, apart from the functions of Government which they surrender to the Federation, there should be no interference in their internal sovereignty. These complications make a formidable list of difficulties, but I would ask the House to observe, first of all, that nine out of 10 Members in this House, indeed I believe 99 out of 100 Members, regard All-India Federation as our objective, whether immediate or ultimate; and, secondly, that all these difficulties which I have just enumerated are inherent in an All-India Federation, whether it come about under this Bill or whether it come about this year, or next year, or under another Bill in 20 years time.
That being so, I claim that the differences that will arise in our discussions on the federal chapter will be differences of method rather than differences of principle. For instance, should the Bill include a federal chapter as well as a Provincial chapter, that is to say, should the Federation come under the same Bill as Provincial Autonomy? That is a question of method and not a question of principle. Secondly, is the kind of federal machinery the best kind of federal machinery in the circumstances? Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite made alternative proposals. They were turned down by the Committee, and I think on very good grounds, but I imagine they will raise their alternatives again in our discussions. Thirdly, should the method of election for the Federal Legislature be direct or indirect election? That is a question which, I know, interests intensely a certain section in this House. The Committee weighed the arguments on both sides and found that there were very serious objections in either course. None the less they came to the view that in the circumstances indirect election was the wiser plan, and that indirect election, or any method of election, is bound to be in the nature of an experiment.
I have quoted those instances to show that the character of the Federation reacts upon all the Federal organs. I have said a word about the Federal Legislature and the Federal Executive. Let me now say a word about one or two other Federal organs. I do not not think I need pause on the chapter dealing with the Federal Court. I think everybody admits that in a Federation there must be a Federal Court for the purpose of interpreting the Constitution, and I believe myself that when we come to that chapter we shall find little or no difference among any hon. Members on that point. There are, however, two other Federal organs upon which I might say a word by way of illustration, the Reserve Bank and the Railway Board. The proposals for a reserve bank and a railway board are in each case the result of a long and expert investigation, and on the whole I think they are workable proposals. I believe myself that when we come to discuss them we shall find that the one issue between us is not whether there should be a reserve bank or a railway board but, rather, whether these institutions should be politically controlled or run upon independent business lines. That was the issue which was raised in Committee by right hon. and hon. Members opposite, and here again, no doubt, they will bring it to the attention of the House. My own view is very strongly on the side of the committee, and very strongly behind the proposals in the Bill, namely, that the Reserve Bank and the Railway Board, if they are to fulfil the purpose which we desire them to fulfil, must be kept as independent as possible from political management and political interference. I have quoted these instances from the Federal Chapter, not to suggest that the provisions of the Federation are either simple or uncontroversial—they are neither—but rather to suggest to hon. Members that the issues of major controversy are limited in number.
I pass to the next chapter—the Provincial Chapter. It is a long one comprising many Clauses, but if hon. Members will read it they will see that the greater part is little more than a repetition of the federal Chapter. I think that three Clauses out of four are almost identical with the Clauses in the Federal Chapter. We might have dealt with this chapter by means of cross references to the Federal Chapter. On the whole, I think we were wise in taking the other course. We felt it was much fairer to the Provinces to receive their constitutions in this part of the Bill, so that they should see their constitutions set out in self-contained provisions and at length. Similarly, I felt, from a good deal of experience in this House, that, though the large number of Clauses might look very formidable, hon. Members would greatly prefer to see the whole story set out simply and in detail, rather than have to search about by cross references to other parts of the Bill.
So far as the substance of this Chapter is concerned, I do not believe that we shall find many issues to divide us. So far as I am aware, every Member in this House, wherever he sits, has admitted the need for provincial autonomy. The question that will divide some of us will be this: Is it possible to have provincial autonomy without the transfer of law and order? My friends and I—and we are supported by the overwhelming majority of the Joint Select Committee—take the very definite view that it is quite impossible to give further and real responsibility to the Provinces without making the transfer of law and order, and that being so, the question arises for the House to consider, assuming that law and order are transferred, is the plan set out in the Bill the best plan to safeguard the moral, the organisation and secret intelligence of the police?
There is another question which, no doubt, will be raised on this Chapter. It is a question which very much interests right hon. and hon. Members opposite—should there or should there not be second chambers in the Provinces? The House will observe that, in accordance with the Committee's recommendation, we are proposing an addition of second chambers, over and above what were proposed in the White Paper, in the Provinces of Madras and Bombay. I think we shall find, when we come to discuss the questions of second chambers in the Provinces, that there is good ground for that recommendation, and that the view of the Joint Select Committee is a wise view, namely, that wherever second chambers can be effectively set up in the Provinces, they should, generally speaking, be set up. Apart from those two question—I am coming later on to the question of special responsibilities—I myself do not see other major issues of controversy in the Provincial Chapter.
I pass now to a number of provisions which concern both the Federation and the Provinces, and I begin with the provision concerned with the reserved Departments and the special responsibilities of the Viceroy, and the Provincial Governors. Here, at least, it might be thought that there would be wide difference in principle between one section of the House and another. Yet it is a significant fact that during all these last four or five years of discussion, first of all with Indians at the Bound Table Conference, and, secondly, in the Joint Select Committee, there has been a surprising measure not of disagreement but of agreement. There has been, for instance, general agreement from the very beginning of our discussions that, in the circumstances of India, defence must be a reserved department. Upon the reservation of defence, it almost inevitably follows also that the Department of External Affairs, being so closely connected with defence, must also be reserved. The point of difference, therefore, has not been the reservation of the Department of Defence, but whether it is or is not possible to put a time limit to that reservation. Is it possible in a Bill to set out a time-table under which, in progressive stages, the Indian Army is Indianised? We have discussed that question over and over again. While we have every desire to help India along the road of responsibility, we see no means of including in any Bill conditions over which this House, and no other House, has really any control. But, no doubt, we shall hear more of that question when we come to discuss the Chapter on Defence.
Passing to the special responsibilities, there, again, we have behind our proposals a really remarkable measure of agreement. From the very start of our discussions there has been a general admission that over a certain field of government certain special powers of intervention are inevitable in the present condition of India. Indeed, there has been very little difference of opinion even over the extent of this special field of administration, this special field of government, perhaps, I should rather say. The difference which has arisen has not been so much as to whether there should be this field of special responsibilities or not, whether there should be a certain scope or not, but rather over the definition of the special responsibilities. Should they be defined more precisely in certain respects as we define them in the Bill? On the other hand, in certain circumstances should the special powers of intervention be dealt with by powers of a more general character?
I will take one of these special responsibilities as an instance of what I am trying to explain to the House. I will take the special responsibility connected with the question which I know is in the minds of many hon. Members here, and in the minds of many of our friends in India, that is Commercial Discrimination. It has been admitted, I think, by everyone that some safeguard is necessary in the circumstances. The representatives of the Labour party on the Committee took the view that a general power in the Governor-General to refuse his sanction to the introduction of a Bill involving unfair discrimination was sufficient. The majority of the Committee held, however, that it was necessary to be more precise if the Governor-General and Indian Ministers were not to be left in a state of dangerous obscurity.
Accordingly, the Bill, following the recommendations of the Committee, defines the safeguards under two main headings, first of all, reciprocity of treatment for British and Indian traders and companies, and, secondly, the power of intervention if Indian tariffs were to be used, not in the economic interests of India, but with the object of injuring the interests of the United Kingdom. The spirit in which those provisions are to be applied will be fully explained in the Instrument of Instructions. All that I need say at present is that so far as tariffs are concerned, our intention is substantially to continue the same fiscal autonomy that has existed in India for the last 14 years. British imports into India will, I am convinced, receive the same consideration as under the present Convention. The powers taken in the Bill, if they ever have to be used, will, I am satisfied, be adequate. When we come to the detailed discussion of this very important question, we shall see whether there is any responsible Member in any part of the House who will propose the abrogation of fiscal autonomy. I can only say that every Government since the Montagu - Chelmsford Reforms has accepted the Fiscal Autonomy Convention, and that no Member of any of those Governments, so far as I know, has hitherto proposed its abrogation. I am not surprised. The surest way to destroy British trade in India is to attempt to impose upon India a tariff from Great Britain. It was this policy which lost us the American Colonies. Was not Chatham right in resisting North's attempts to impose a fiscal policy from Great Britain?
There are three more Chapters in the Bill connected both with the Federation and the Provinces, about which I want to make a few observations. There is the Chapter upon the Services, a very long Chapter of about 40 Clauses. This might seem a very formidable undertaking, but when hon. Members come to study it they will find that substantially it does no more than set out in statutory form the long series of rules connected with the Services which now only appear as administrative orders. There is scarcely a proposal in this long Chapter that is new; there is scarcely a proposal that is not already in those administrative orders. There will be two issues that the House will no doubt wish to discuss, and the first is whether the majority of the Committee and the Government in the provisions of the Bill are taking the wisest course as to recruitment. The Bill proposes very briefly to continue recruitment on its present lines. The Committee studied the question in very great detail and came to the conclusion, which I think was a very wise conclusion, that it was all-important in view of the very difficult task with these great reforms coming into being, to do nothing to disturb the Services or to increase the anxiety of men, Indian as well as British—because this is not simply a British issue—upon whose shoulders will depend so much the success of the Bill.
Secondly, there is the further question connected with the Services that I know has interested, and rightly interested, many hon. Members; that is the question of pensions. Here again the Bill accepts the Committee's very careful conclusions. In their and our view, no pensioner need feel anxious as to the security in future of his pension. Moreover, so far as the family pension funds are concerned the Bill, following the Committee's recommendation, offers the beneficiaries the choice between letting the money stay in India or having it transferred to trustees in London in the near future. Apart from those two questions I do not believe that we shall find this long Chapter on the Services a controversial Chapter.
Then there is the very important Chapter upon the Judicature—the Chapter on the High Courts, the subordinate courts, and the subordinate judiciary. It is an all-important Chapter which I believe we shall find to be almost uncontroversial. It was the aim of the Committee, and it has been the aim of the Government in making the proposals dealing with this all-important question to achieve the objective of keeping the judicature, superior and subordinate, free and independent of political influence. I believe it will be found that we have been not unsuccessful in achieving that objective.
Lastly I come to a Chapter of the very greatest importance in its reactions both on the Federal Government and on the Provincial Governments, and that is the Chapter on Finance. It is a Chapter that is fundamental to the whole scheme. It is bound to be a very complicated Chapter. The financial relations between the Federal Government and the Provinces are bound to be complicated. Apart from the financial obligation which has grown up betwen India and Great Britain it will be seen that, however one may attempt to deal with finance, the attempt must give rise to a good many complex feelings. I imagine, however, that, apart from the technical issues, the main question will be this: Can India afford the proposed Reforms? Can it pay both for Federation and for Autonomy in the Provinces at the same time? These questions we must fully discuss, and I hope that we shall discuss them dispassionately and without exaggeration.
Let me at this stage make three preliminary observations. First of all, the actual cost or the new federal machinery is estimated at only £500,000 a year and the actual cost of the new Provincial machinery at a similar amount. Secondly, the rest of the burden will be thrown on the Central Budget, of about £4,000,000 a year; namely, about 4 per cent. of the Government of India revenue, does not represent new expenditure and is in no sense expenditure attributable to the constitutional proposals, but represents the transfer to the Centre of a burden which would otherwise have rested on the shoulders of Burma and certain of the Provinces. Thirdly, Indian finances react very quickly to more favourable conditions. No better instance can be found than our experience during the last three or four years in which we have seen Indian budgets and Indian credit rapidly improving in the most remarkable manner. With this experience behind us, and the fact that this sum amounts to only a small percentage of Indian revenues, we need not, I think, take a pessimistic view about the financial basis of the scheme.
Is that 4 per cent. of the total revenues or of the central?
The total. I hope that I have made that absolutely clear. I must now say a word about Burma. It is not from any want of interest in Burma that I have left my allusions to the Burmese proposals to the end, but it is rather because almost the whole of the 150 Clauses dealing with Burma are a repetition of Clauses from either the Federal or Provincial Chapters in the Indian part of the Bill. I believe that when we come to discuss the Burma Clauses there will be a great majority in the House in favour of separation of Burma from India and that the main problem—I admit a very difficult problem—will be that of the economic relations between Burma and India and the reactions upon this country.
Lastly, there are certain proposals which concern equally all parts of the Bill, the Federal Chapter, the Provincial Chapter, and the Burma Chapter alike. They are connected with the Instruments of Instruction that will be issued to the Viceroy and the Governors as to the spirit in which they are to carry out their duties under the Act. Constitutional experts will remember the part the Instruments of Instruction have played in other parts of the Empire. In the case of India they are of peculiar importance. Where the situation is as complicated as this situation is, it is essential that the Viceroy and the Governors should be given clear instructions as to the spirit in which they are to carry out their duties. It is equally important from the point of view of Indians, because in the nature of things this Constitution is a rigid Constitution, and it can only be amendd by future Acts of Parliament. It is rigid because of the peculiar conditions prevalent in India and because Parliament here would not be prepared to abandon its oversight of future changes. Into this Constitution it is, however, possible to introduce an element of growth and flexibility by means of the Instructions. The Instructions therefore will obviously play a very important part in the development of the Constitution. That being so, we are proposing to adopt the procedure recommended by the Committee that, for the first time in our history, the Draft Instructions should receive the Parliamentary sanction of both Houses. We feel that they will be of such importance, both from the British and from the Indian point of view, that there ought to be Parliamentary sanction behind them. We therefore propose, at about the time that the Committee stage begins, to circulate the Draft Instructions in the form of a White Paper. At the proper time we shall have to ask both Houses to discuss them, and we shall have to obtain the Parliamentary sanction of both Houses before they are issued to the Viceroy and to the Provincial Governors.
Will the White Paper be published before the Committee stage?
I think I can undertake to tell my hon. and gallant Friend that it will be published in time for the Committee discussions. I agree with him that it is essential that the House should have before it, in discussing the letter of the Bill, a description of the spirit in which it is intended that the Bill should be carried out.
Can the Draft Instructions be altered by the House, or will they be in the form of a treaty, and have to be taken as a whole? If they can be altered by the House, should they not be inserted in a Schedule to the Bill?
No, Sir; they will not be inserted in a Schedule to the Bill, for the obvious reason that, if they were, they would be interpretable by the Federal Court.
Would any future Government be able to issue amended Instructions without the sanction of the House?
No; it would be necessary to have the sanction of both Houses.
Not for every Amendment?
Yes, for every future change. I have attempted, I hope not at undue length, to give a general survey of the Chapters of the Bill, and to suggest to hon. Members the major issues that are likely to arise between us. Let me sum up this part of my observations. I would venture to claim, first of all, that, big as the Bill appears—it has 450 Clauses in all—it is nothing like so big in substance as it appears. Secondly, practically every proposal in it is the result of four years', indeed, I might say of seven years', discussion, ending with the meticulous investigation of the Joint Select Committee, a Committee composed of Members of both Houses, who investigated every detail of it. Thirdly, the Bill follows substantially all the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee. Lastly, if my survey is a correct one, and I believe it to be correct, I think I may claim that the issues of major importance are strictly limited. This being so, I hope I am not over sanguine and optimistic when I express the hope that the House will be able to deal with it with reasonable expedition.
I come now to the third objective which, when I began my speech, I stated was in the mind of the Government. What is it that we hope to achieve when this Bill passes? When last I addressed the House I said I believed that the majority of Indians would work the Bill, and that British-Indian relations would improve when the Bill was worked. Nothing that has happened since I spoke in December has altered my view. I am aware of the volume of criticism that has met the Bill in India. I am fully aware of the recent debates in the Indian Assembly. I noted in particular, and I noted with great regret, the debate upon the Supplementary Trade Agreement. I am genuinely sorry that so many Indians should seem to misunderstand our motives—[ Laughter ]—I do not think that that is any cause for laughter—and should look upon these proposals as if they were sudden tyrannical dictates from the Government in Great Britain, rather than the result of constant discussion with India, and, indeed, a result of the very large body of agreement between ourselves and Indians.
Attaching full importance to all this criticism, I ask the House to keep it in its proper perspective. I ask the House, first of all, to note the fact, that the main critics in India are the members of the Congress Party, the largest party in the Indian Assembly. The Congress Party has always made its position clear, namely, that it will accept no proposals from this House, whether these proposals or any other proposals, whether this Bill or a Bill on the lines of the Labour Amendment. They have made it quite clear that the only proposals they will accept are the proposals that might emerge from an Indian Constituent Assembly. It goes, therefore, without saying that Congress will be opposed to any proposals that this House is likely to make.
Secondly, outside the Assembly I note the fact that most of the Provincial Councils have now held discussions upon the proposals of the Committee, and I have been told that they have been very reasonable discussions on the whole. They have made one thing quite clear, namely, that Provincial politicians are prepared to work the Bill. Let us remember how great will be the part of the Provinces and the Provincial politicians in an All-India Federation. It is a very hopeful feature of the situation that the very men upon whom will depend so much the working of the future Federation are the men who seem to make it clear that the proposals are workable.
Thirdly, there is the significant fact that the Princes, in spite of the pressure upon them—not from me, not from the Government, but from other directions—have in no way recoiled from the position that they took up four years ago. Quite rightly, they claimed that they must see the final proposals before giving their final assent or dissent. The House may, however, rest assured that there is no evidence to show that the Princes, great and small and of medium position, have altered their general attitude towards the question of an All-India Federation.
These are significant facts. They confirm me further in the conviction, first of all, that the Bill will be worked; and, secondly, that neither now nor at any future time is it possible to hope for general agreement in India about any scheme. If Parliament waits for general agreement, it will wait for ever. Indeed, I go so far as to say that I do not believe that within our lifetime we shall ever get more agreement in India upon any scheme that Parliament is likely to pass than we have obtained for this scheme. The time has come for Parliament to act, and, the longer Parliament takes in acting, the greater will be the opposition in India, and the less will be the agreement that we shall have behind our proposals.
Let us face realities. The real danger in India is not Congress, or Communism, or misgovernment; it is irresponsibility. As long as Indian Assemblies have no responsibility to govern, so we must expect negative criticism, and even mischievous obstruction. Has it not been the history of the British Empire that irresponsibility is the real danger to good relations between the Mother Country and its Overseas dependencies? It was this sense of irresponsibility, carrying with it the sense of inequality of status, that was at the bottom of the trouble with the American colonies in the 18th century. The American colonists, from George Washington downwards, were, speaking generally, Tory die-hard squires. They were men of a very Conservative type, with every inclination to remain friendly with the country of their birth, yet it was this divorce between legislative councils and the Government which embedded in their mind a feeling of inequality of status, and it was that, I am convinced, that led to the loss of our first Empire.
It almost lost us the Dominion of Canada. Let the House remember what was the state of Canada. A hundred years ago Upper and Lower Canada were in a state of suppressed rebellion. The Nationalists in the two provinces—they were called the Reform Party—had the almost complete control of the two Canadian Legislatures. Having no responsibility for government, they used their power in obstructing the administration and concentrating upon it negative criticism whatever it might do. Eventually this state of affairs culminated in a rebellion in both provinces. It was in those conditions that Lord Durham was sent to Canada, first of all as Governor-General and then as High Commissioner. He had every temptation to adopt a policy of coercion and repression. There was no one of note in either province of Canada who was prepared to co-operate with him. Yet, in spite of the almost unanimous opinion of both the Canadian Legislatures mobilised against the Government, he put his finger on the real point of danger. He said the only solution to that state of affairs was to make the Legislatures responsible for their own actions. It was a very wise course of action. If we need an outward and visible illustration of Lord Durham's wisdom it is found in the fact that one of the greatest Canadian leaders of to-day, Mr. Mackenzie King, is the grandson of the Mackenzie who led the rebellion in Upper Canada a century ago.
So also, I believe, in India. I do not take the view that, while irresponsibility is bad for men and women of British stock, it is good for men and women of Asiatic stock. I believe that, unless we introduce this element of real responsibility, both into the Central Government and into the provincial Governments, we shall see the state of affairs going from bad to worse, we shall see these assemblies not becoming easier to deal with in the future than they have been in the past, but immensely more hostile, with a growing body of hostility from one end of the country to the other.
The fact is that irresponsibility is to most people the outward sign of inequality of status. We in Great Britain pay very little attention to questions of status. Our position has been so fully assured in the world for many genera- tions that we have no need to bother at all about questions of status. Not so the other countries of the world. Not so Germany in Europe to-day, not so Japan in Asia, not so our Indian fellow subjects who, looking back over centuries of civilisation, feel as sensitive as any of the great peoples of the world to any charge of inequality of status. A move forward, therefore, on the road to responsible government is something much more to them than a mere political reform. It is the outward and visible sign of the recognition of their status.
Why, then, do we not make this clearer in the Bill? Why in particular do we not state it in a Preamble to the Bill? I will tell the House why, and tell them in words which have behind them the considered judgment and the full weight of a Government statement.
The House will observe that the Bill, like most modern Bills, contains no Preamble. There have, it is true, been important Acts in the past, among them the Government of India Act, 1919, to which a statement of policy and intentions was prefixed. There is, however, no need for a Preamble in this case as no new pronouncement of policy or intentions is required. The Preamble to the Act of 1919 was described by the joint committee in their report as having attaches not to its reiteration but to the concrete measures taken in pursuance of it. The position of the Government, therefore, is this: They stand firmly by the pledge contained in the 1919 Preamble, which it is not part of their plan to repeal, and by the interpretation put by the Viceroy in 1929, on the authority of the Government of the day, on that Preamble that:
Rightly understood, the Preamble of 1919, which I repeat will stand un-repealed, is a clear statement of the purpose of the British people, and this Bill is a definite step, indeed a great stride, forward towards the achievement of that purpose. It is by acts and not by words that we claim to be judged. It is clear that we can only reach the end we have plainly set before ourselves when India has succeeded in establishing the conditions upon which self-government rests, nor will its attainment be delayed by any reluctance on our part to recognise these conditions when they actually exist.
There are difficulties which she has to surmount, but they are difficulties inherent in the Indian problem and not of our creation. If I indicate by way of example two of them, it is not, therefore, through any desire to magnify them but because it is useless in matters of this kind to refuse to face facts or to assume that, if facts are avoided, they will dissolve. The first and most conspicuous problem which India has to solve is her cleavages of race, caste and religion. Again, until India can safely assume in much larger degree the responsibility for her own effective defence an Indian Government cannot be in the full sense of the word autonomous. These are examples of conditions which cannot be removed or altered by any provisions in any Act of Parliament or by any action on our part alone. Our policy, as will be seen from this Bill and the Instructions as to the manner in which these provisions which will accompany it are to be applied, is to do all that we can by sympathetic help and co-operation to enable India to overcome these difficulties and ultimately to take her place among the fully self-governing members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. It was in this spirit that we took upon ourselves the formidable burden and responsibility of removing one of the chief obstacles to further advance by providing a modus vivendi in regard to the removal of communal differences. Our desire is to lend our help in the spirit of partnership in a great enterprise which may enlist the best services which this country and India may have it in their power to give.
In Burke's well-known words:
5.1 p.m.
I beg to move, to leave out from "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof: do not take things for granted. I should have thought that it was not much use to have had long conferences with our Indian fellows if we had not grasped something of the way in which they look at things. Surely, it was a great mistake to introduce a Bill like this without any Preamble. The Bill starts off with just the words, right. We on this side hold that you must recognise, as we recognise, the right of the Indian people to self-government, and that no constitution can possibly be worked which is not accepted by Indians and which does not admit that claim. The whole object of the Round Table Conference was to bring Indians together so that we could get a settlement by Indians.
The right hon. Gentleman was extraordinarily optimistic with regard to the reception which this Measure had in India. I could not see that there had been any enthusiasm whatever for this Bill in India. There was, as a matter of fact, rejection by all the live movements in India, not only by Congress and the Liberals, but by Labour and by many people classed as Moderates. It is really useless to claim that this Bill is going to have some kind of support from silent opinion, or that there are a certain number of people who will probably acquiesce. You cannot make a constitution a success by mere acquiescence or by placid acceptance. Therefore, we say that a Bill which does not secure the good will, acceptance and co-operation of the Indian people is not a Bill that will make for the satisfactory government of India and does not deserve the support of this House. The right hon. Gentleman made the point that the constitution to be set up will be rigid. That is quite true, and that is a complaint against it. When I had to undertake some inquiry into a constitution for India with my colleagues on the Statutory Commission, we came to the conclusion that it was a mistake to have a rigid constitution, and that what was required was flexibility and growth. That does not exist in this Bill. There is no recognition of right, and there is no clear laying down of a goal and no provision of the means of attaining a goal. There is no laying down of rights because if you read the Bill, what strikes you mainly is the large number of reservations. The keynote of the Bill is mistrust. There is no trust at all. India is not to have control of her foreign affairs and of her finances. Indians in the Provinces are not fit to deal with terrorism. The whole note struck by the Bill throughout is not that here we start a constitution which is going to be worked by Indians, but some kind of a constitution with restrictions of every kind all the time. In fact, the one thing which seems to be left out of the Bill is the Indian people.
There is a most remarkable omission in the Bill, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will correct it soon. It is the total omission of anything to say who are to be the electors. It is suggested that this will be done by an order in Council. It is a most extraordinary thing to produce a Bill to make further provision for the government of India with no provision whatever showing who are the people who are to govern in India except the Upper House. To us this is vital. The right hon. Gentleman never mentioned the franchise, and that is most vital from our point of view. Our speakers have put that question of franchise over and over again. He said nothing with regard to the representation of capital in excess and of the under-representation of labour. All those provisions are left out. We want to have the franchise provisions fully before us because we wish to put down drastic Amendments, if the franchise proposals are anything like those which have been laid down by the Joint Select Committee. It is an extraordinary thing. It seems as if the political side of the whole business was something quite subordinate to the machinery. I get the idea that it must have been drafted by the Indian Government. The one thing which struck me when I was in India was the rulers of the country did not really think political matters important. Take a simple case. In the Provinces we asked whether they had anything like our Parliamentary companion that would show the returns of the last election. We did not get it. There was nothing published which in any way gave the information. The election took place a considerable time ago, but the Government of India are unable to give us the figures, or the candidates in that very important election.
The whole business on the political side is left out, and we have really a mass of machinery. In every Clause throughout the Bill we find a mistrust of the Indian people. The legislature is to be overloaded with Conservative interests, landlords, commerce and the like. Second chambers are to be set up. The conclusion to which one comes on looking at the Bill is that the definite decision has been that India is to be ruled by the wealthy and the privileged. The curious thing is, that even those people are not trusted. The second chambers are to represent Conservative interests, landlords, wealthy people and the like, but even they cannot be trusted with finance. Right through the Bill there is mistrust and inequality. We have heard of the idea that there is to be some kind of partnership in India. It is a one-sided partnership.
Let us take the first example of inequality. The constitution at the Centre depends entirely upon the adherence of the Princes. The Princes have the right to refuse to accept the Federal system, but the Indian representatives have no option. The Princes can say: "We are not coming in," but the Indian representatives may say that they dislike the constitution and may vote against it, but nothing will happen. They have no power at all. The Indians have put forward numerous proposals, but they have been turned down. Right through the Bill, with certain exceptions, there is no mutuality. I admit that there are certain provisions with regard to the protection of persons and so forth. There is mutuality in the protection of Englishmen in India and of Indians over here, but on the whole the general direction is against the Indians. The Governor-General is to prevent discrimination in India, but no one is given power in this country to step in over the heads of Parliament or anybody else and prevent discrimination against Indians. We control India's foreign policy, and it is said that that must be so because we contribute to her defence by the Navy. If that be true, seeing that India contributes to the defence of the country, she ought to have a word in regard to our foreign policy. It is, however, all one-sided. We ought to allow her a word of control in our foreign policy, because she actually provides for the defence of the most vulnerable land frontier in the whole Empire.
Take the question of constituent rights. Such as they are in the Bill, Indians may ask for alterations in 10 years. They may come to this House and ask for changes, and this House may or may not give them, but either before or after the 10 years the Government of this country, without having to ask for authority and after mere consultation, may change these constituent rights. Can one wonder, on reading the provisions of the Bill, that the Indians feel an inequality of status? It is Robinson Crusoe's ship. The hull is designed by Robinson Crusoe and at every point the Indians are very little better than Man Friday. There is inequality of status running right through the Bill. Without equality of status, I do not think that we are likely to get any real acceptance or real working of the Bill by the Indians.
I do not want to go through the Bill Clause by Clause. We shall do that for many weary weeks. I have spoken very often on this subject, and I would only point out certain of our major objections. We say that the Bill contains no power of advance. It does not deal with the difficulty of advance. We have suggested that there should be a time limit, and within that time India's advance should pass into India's hands. You will not get a time-table worked for if there is not a time-table in existence. I am quite certain that we shall have to lay down a time-table if we want to get a move made with regard to Indianisation. That is a very difficult obstacle to get over, and it is not really faced in the Bill. It is simply left, and that means that the Bill contains no seed of advance. It is recognised as only a temporary instalment given by this Government to India. I held the view when I was a member of the Simon Commission, and I still hold the view, that there are very great dangers in a merely temporary constitution. It has all the disadvantages and none of the advantages of a permanent Constitution.
As I held then, and as my colleagues held then, you must have the seeds of advance in the Bill. That is not provided for, and I do not see that it is possible to be provided for in the Instrument of Instructions, except in a very minor degree. I cannot discuss the question of representation, because the Bill does not give the basis of representation. It does not give us the franchise, but we know that the franchise is not as wide as we would wish it. We say that in the Bill undue representation is given to vested interests, to land and capital, and only in a very minor degree to labour. We say that land, capital, money will get its representation anyway. What we need is that the weakest members of the community, the workers, the women, the depressed classes should be given political power. The whole basis of the representation in the Bill is wrong. The whole basis of the Bill is to make things safe for the present existing order of society.
The difference between the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and the regular supporters of the Government is only one of degree. The assumption on which all those hon. Members act is that things are fairly satisfactory in India, but that we are to take the very greatest care that they do not go wrong. I say that things are most unsatisfactory in India, and that we want very big changes. I have been refreshing my mind with the report of the commission which was presided over by our late colleague, Mr. Whitley, who did a very fine service for India and for the workers in his wonderful report on Indian labour conditions. It is a most striking commentary on our rule in India. Take industry in India. Industrial conditions there are worse than in this country. Hon. Members and Noble Ladies are always talking about the deterioration that will come about under Indian administration. Let us see what is happening in India. Industrialisation came fairly late into the field there. We knew, or should have known, what happened in regard to slums and factory conditions in this country, but all those rank growths of industrialism were allowed to grow up in India even worse than in this country. We have only to glance at the report of Mr. Whitley to see that.
Take the conditions of the slums. What do we find in regard to houses in the industrial areas? Narrow, winding lanes, pools of sewage and rotting garbage. People packed in wretched little rooms, with no windows, no ventilation. All the very worst features of industrialism have been reproduced in India. They have been reproduced under our rule. We are responsible for them. Take, again, the question of wages. There are deplorable wage conditions and deplorable conditions right through. Take the question of debt. The Royal Commission pointed out that the workers in India are generally steeped in debt, and that the interest charged by the usurer is generally 75 per cent. and sometimes 150 per cent. We know that that weighs not only upon the urban workers but upon the village workers. That has happened under our rule. Then there are the appalling conditions in the factories. We have had some factory legislation, but the Whitley Report shows that the major labour legislation was only passed in 1922, after the reforms.
We must not be complacent over our rule in India when we allow things like that to continue. What we have done in India was to go in and introduce an entire alien system. Mr. Whitley's Report deals with the question of money-lending. Money-lending is one of the major evils in India. The report says.
Another terrible thing in India is the permanent settlement in Bengal. This is another of the things which we gave to India, and it is difficult under this Constitution to overthrow it. We are setting up in India a House of Lords more powerful than our own, and I think even more reactionary in its composition. We are leaving the power of the purse. We are setting up a bank much the same as the Bank of England, and this at a time when persons of all kinds of views say that capitalism is practically done, and that we must have a new system. We are introducing a rigid Constitution based on capitalist principles, which is intended to preserve the features of capitalism and landlordism. That is our second great objection to the Bill. You are handing over whatever power you are giving to certain interests, there is no provision for advance, and you are failing to meet the desires of the Indians themselves.
We shall be told that we on this side want to go too fast, that if you hand more to the Indians they will make a mess of it. India is in a terrible mess in any case, so is the rest of the world, and we think that it is quite impossible to get the real changes which are demanded in India by setting up a Constitution which is merely acquiesced in by a certain number of people, which may be worked by a privileged class but which will not be supported by any of the advanced parties in India or any of the people who really want a change. I can understand the attitude of hon. Members opposite. If they really believe that things are satisfactory in India they might want to fill in the Bill with every kind of provision. We do not believe they are satisfactory. We have done some good things for India, but we have done many bad things. The serious thing we have done is that we have maintained the Indian people in a position of irresponsibility. If they were irresponsible we were responsible; and they will never learn responsibility without being given responsibility. Indians must take the responsibility for the future government of their country. The Bill does not do that, and cannot do it, and, therefore, we oppose it.
5.35 p.m.
In these days many great events are happening in various countries of the world. Since the War we have seen remarkable developments in Russia, in Germany, in Italy and in the United States, and yet in this Bill the House of Commons in these days is undertaking a development on a scale as vast and of a character as remarkable as any which are now proceeding in any quarter of the world. We are framing a new Constitution for one-fifth of the whole of the human race, and we must approach the task with a very profound sense of our responsibility. The Bill has had a long period of preparation. To-day it reaches its decisive stage. At this moment someone who was not a member of the Joint Select Committee should, I think, express on behalf of the House of Commons our gratitude to those of our Members who served on that committee. They were members of a Parliamentary body which had to hold no fewer than 150 meetings. The burden imposed on them was exceedingly heavy, the Secretary of State's the heaviest of all, and we should be remiss in our duty and false to our own inclinations if we did not say how grateful we are to them for the burden they undertook on our behalf. The inquiry was most careful and thorough, and although in some quarters there may be dissatisfaction on particular recommendations, there is a universal feeling that the report is an exceedingly fine piece of work, taken as a whole. Indeed, the work of that committee and the Bill as it is presented is, to my mind, a vindication of our Parliamentary institutions. There are many who say that in a democratic chamber very little constructive work is done, that interminable debates take place and that it is a mere talking assembly; but the report of the committee and this monumental Bill are a sufficient refutation of accusations of that kind.
Viewing this Measure as a whole, those in this House and in the country who designate their politics by the word "Liberal" will unanimously give it a cordial reception. It is, in our view, based upon the best principles of the British political system. In the main, we regard it as the one sure means of maintaining the connection between Britain and India on conditions which may be made acceptable to both. Indeed, there was no passage in the interesting speech of the Secretary of State which appealed to me more strongly that that in which he referred to the past history and experience of the British Empire and dwelt upon events relating to the American Colonies, to Canada, and other portions of the British realm, and drew the conclusion that it is only through the grant of political liberty that you can maintain union. Those were expressions of opinion which were all most agreeable to our ears. The Secretary of State might have added the instance of South Africa. When I recall the long controversies which have taken place on these matters between Conservative and Liberal forces in this country for 150 years it was of great interest to hear a Conservative statesman standing in the House of Commons on an occasion of great historical importance preaching the pure milk of the word Liberalism in matters of Imperial government. If any of those from Chatham onwards who here and in America, or elsewhere, have striven for the cause of political and constitutional liberty from the days when the American colonists, when, in those famous words—
As regards the fundamental principles of the Bill, a very cogent sentence was uttered in a previous Debate on the Resolution by my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot), who has rendered constant and effective service in this matter through all the conferences and committees, when he said that the choice before us was between three courses—abdication, domination and co-operation. Clearly, the last is the course which wisdom indicates. We believe that the Bill will, in fact, lead to co-operation for the reasons which have been stated by the Secretary of State. It is, I believe, to be anticipated that Indians in general will not refuse to work this Constitution. Often when some project is brought under consideration, when it is being moulded and shaped, you hear many protests, couched in vehement language and strong pressure is brought to bear in order that the Bill may receive the impress which they desire to give it, but when all these considerations have been weighed and the Bill becomes law and on the Statute Book you find that these very persons will not, or at any rate the great majority will not, refuse to work it in the shape in which it has been enacted, though no doubt pressing for further amendments, and eager for additional developments in the future. But still the Constitution may be expected to work.
We hold that the general scheme of the Bill is right, and by the general scheme I mean the establishment of Federation in India and dealing with the problems of the Constitution, the Provinces, the Centre and the States, at one and the same time. We fully concur with the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) that the great questions before the Indian people in the future will be social and economic questions. They must be handled in the main by the people of the country themselves. Social reforms, particularly if they touch religious observances in any way, cannot be treated at the hands of some alien government. We anticipate that the passage of the Bill, placing as it does a large measure of responsibility for dealing with these questions upon Indians and giving them great opportunities for such legislative and administrative measures as they think right, will lead before long to a great improvement in the lamentable social conditions which now afflict the lives of so many millions of the population of India. There are certain defects and omissions in the Bill and we shall in Committee propose or endorse certain Amendments. On the Second Reading, in the Division which will take place and on the main issues throughout the long discussions which will necessarily take place during the forthcoming weeks, the Government can rely upon the Liberal benches to offer them steady and consistent support.
There are three questions to which I desire to refer, but before coming to them may I draw attention to a new point which arises out of the speech of the Secretary of State? He has informed us that the instructions to the Viceroy in the future are to be laid before Parliament, and are to be endorsed by Resolutions of both Houses of Parliament. I do not know whether there is any precedent for that in our constitutional arrangements. If I am wrong in thinking that there is no precedent, perhaps my right hon. Friend will correct me. But I think that it is quite new to make the instructions to a Viceroy a statutory document. I hope that the Government have considered very carefully what its effect will be upon the relations in future between His Majesty's Government here and the Government of India, particularly when it is a question of amending the Instructions which have been given by a previous Government. It really means that each House, and therefore the House of Lords equally with the House of Commons, will have effective control over any Amendments of previous Instructions which the Executive of the day desires to issue to the Viceroy, who represents His Majesty in India.
The first of the three questions to which I would refer is that of status, which undoubtedly at this moment is, in public opinion in India, the most important of all. A few days ago there was published in the "Times" a telegram from its Indian correspondent at Delhi, in which the following passage appeared:
I regret that it has not been found possible to include in the Bill any reference to this question of Status. There is no doubt as to what Indian opinion is on the matter. The politicians of moderate opinion, such as Sir Tej Sapru, have expressed, unanimously I think, grave disappointment. But here we should be guided also very greatly by the opinions of Europeans in India and of the British who have spent their lives in India. I shall venture to give two quotations from recent declarations of representative men. One is Sir Alfred Watson, who was for many years editor of the Indian "Statesman." He said in a recent article: 1919 and the declaration of the Viceroy in 1929. The question arises whether the phrase ought to appear somewhere in the Statute. Of course it is rather a different thing putting a term in a Statute which may have to be construed legally by some court on some occasion, and using it in a Ministerial or Viceregal declaration.
Dominion Status raises the question of the position of a country internationally, its position inter-Imperially and the question of internal Government—all three. It is certain that the Constitution of India, neither in the near future nor at any later time, can be absolutely identical with the Constitution of any one of the Dominions and all the Dominions differ in their Constitution between themselves—partly because of the question of communities, partly perhaps because of the effect that such constitutional arrangements might have with respect to our treaties with the Princes. I did not quite follow one sentence in the declaration of the Secretary of State to-day. He said that the Preamble to the Act of 1919 stands unrepealed. In what sense is he using the word "unrepealed"? Of course he is not meaning that it will be legislatively unrepealed, because the whole of the Act of 1919 is to be repealed by this Bill, and that will include the Preamble.
Constitutional experts have never been quite clear as to whether the repeal of an Act means the repeal of the Preamble. There seems to be some doubt. In order to put all doubts at rest, I shall move at the proper time, when we come to the Schedule under which the Government of India Act, 1919, is repealed, an Amendment to say "except the Preamble." It will be quite clear that the Preamble, whether it is susceptible to repeal or not, is not repealed.
That is an addition to the statement made this afternoon, because the Bill as presented to-day and as we have knowledge of it up to this moment, does specifically repeal the whole Act; and it is rather strange that on our Statute Book there should still remain the ghosts of all the Preambles of all the Statutes that have been passed by Parliament in all historic times.
It is just that kind of uncertainty that I wish to remove. When the Bill was drafted we were under the impression that there could be no doubt about it at all, that Preambles could not be repealed. Doubts were expressed, and to make assurance doubly sure we shall propose to exclude the Preamble from the repeal of that Measure.
What the effect of that will be upon the statement of the Viceroy in 1929, which includes the words "Dominion Status," will require a good deal of consideration, for the Secretary of State to-day has treated the term embodied in the Preamble of the Act of 1919, namely, "responsible Government as an integral part of the Empire," as being substantially the same as the declaration of the Viceroy using the words "Dominion Status." Now he gives assent to that doctrine, I understand. That action will be heard of in India with very great interest. But still I think that many will find it difficult to understand why it is that if the Preamble means the same as the declaration and the Preamble is to be continued by this Bill, Parliament should not specifically make any reference to the declaration in the Bill, and why a phrase which is suitable for employment in a Viceregal declaration and in a Ministerial statement made by the Secretary of State in Parliament, is not suitable for inclusion in any form in any Statute. There may be a reason. It may be because of the difficulty of legal interpretation. But when we come to the matter in Committee it will necessarily have to be considered further.
The second point is the method of election to the Lower House of the Central Legislature. At the present time the method of election is by a popular vote on a specified franchise. The Report of the Joint Select Committee and the Bill propose that that should be abolished and that for the future the members of the Lower House of the Central Legislature should be chosen by groups of members of the Lower Houses of the Provincial Legislatures—groups of members representing particular communities or interests. There have been most extraordinary differences of opinion among the various bodies that have examined this question throughout the history of these developments. In 1919 there was a com- mittee upon franchise presided over by Lord Southborough and that committee declared in favour of indirect election. However, when the matter came before a Joint Select Committee of the two Houses here in that year, they declared in favour of direct election and that advice was taken by Parliament and it was included in the Bill and in the Act which is now upon the Statute Book. The Simon Commission, on the other hand, declared unanimously in favour of indirect election, but when the matter was again considered by the committee specially appointed to advise the Joint Select Committee—the Franchise Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Lothian—they, equally unanimously, decided in favour of direct election.
The present Government accepted that advice and the White Paper included a provision for direct election, but the Joint Select Committee reversed that judgment and declared in favour of indirect election. The Government have accepted that and have so provided in the Bill. The Under-Secretary of State for India was a member of Lord Lothian's committee and then declared in favour of direct election. He was also a Member of the Joint Select Committee and then was converted to indirect election. My hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse was a member of the Simon Commission and declared in favour of indirect election. He adhered to that opinion on the Joint Select Committee, but all three of his colleagues representing the Labour party dissociated themselves from him on that question and declared in favour of direct election. So that there is, obviously, a most remarkable conflict of expert advice offered to this House.
The main objection to direct election, of course, is the size of the constituencies and of the electorates involved and that is, undoubtedly, a very real difficulty; but, so far as the franchise proposed in the Bill is concerned, the number of voters in each constituency would not be much bigger than the numbers to which we are accustomed in this country. Of course if the number were greatly enlarged by some future changes in the franchise, the position would, so far, be altered. In respect of area, for a long time past constituencies of immense geographical area have been a feature of the constitutions of the United States, Canada and Australia and have not given rise to any insuperable difficulties. But, admitting that there are objections on the ground of the unwieldy nature of the constituencies, mark the objections on the other hand to the scheme now proposed, which goes absolutely to the other extreme. Under the scheme proposed by the Joint Select Committee individual members of the Lower House of the Central Legislature will each be elected by groups, of from five to eight persons—by four in some cases up to 10 in others but usually by five to eight persons.
Elected persons.
Of course they will be persons who will have been elected by constituencies and who are members of the Lower Houses of the Provincial Assemblies, but these five to eight gentlemen or ladies will meet in a room and that group will choose a person who is to be a member of the Central Legislature of India. It will be instantly apparent how grave is the danger of personal influences being brought to bear, of favouritism, of hostilities which may influence people's judgment, of friendships which may influence them, when so small a handful of people have this immensely responsible duty imposed upon them of helping to constitute the Parliament of an Empire such as India. For my own part, I would rather face the difficulties of electorates of from 50,000 to 80,000 than the difficulties involved in conferring this power on constituencies of from five to eight persons.
The other objection to it is that this method of choosing members of the Central Legislature by members of the Provincial Assembly will immensely strengthen the provincialism, the provincial tendencies of the new Indian Constitution. It is of enormous importance to strengthen the Centre and to bind India together as one unity. If the whole or the greater part of the central body is made up of persons who represent, not the people of India but who directly represent the lower Houses of the Provincial Parliaments, you will have a certain fissiparous tendency which may be extremely detrimental. Furthermore, the Indian people have ben accustomed to a system of direct election. They have had it for the last 14 years and the Joint Select Committee in their report said that it had worked, "on the whole, reasonably well enough." They pointed out it is true that this had been with a smaller electorate than that which is now contemplated and much smaller than the electorate may perhaps be in future years. They also said, however, that the present system had produced legislators of high quality. For all those reasons, it seems to us very doubtful whether the committee have issued the right recommendation in this respect.
If we are in a state of doubt, surely our final judgment should be swayed by Indian opinion. After all, it is their legislature that is to be constituted. They are the people who have to work it, and what Indian opinion is on this matter is not in doubt. The Joint Select Committee, while recommending a system of indirect election, declare in their report that direct election has the support of Indian opinion and that it is strongly advocated by the British India delegation in their joint memorandum. That is a factor which ought greatly to weigh with the Members of this House—that our own Joint Select Committee, although coming to the opposite opinion, tell us that Indian opinion is in favour of direct election and that British Indian opinion strongly advocates it. Furthermore, the Viceroy and the Government of India are known to be of the same opinion, and His Majesty's Government themselves were of that opinion when they drafted and presented the White Paper. It appears to me that the Joint Select Committee made a great mistake in their recommendation and I sincerely trust that, when the matter comes up in Committee, that decision will be changed.
The third question to which I would refer is the question of trade restrictions. I represent in this House a Lancashire constituency which is, and has been for some years, in a state of extreme depression mainly because the cotton trade, in which a large part of the population are engaged, was devoted to export to India, and that trade has been mainly lost. There are other causes of the distress from which my constituents suffer, but that is undoubtedly by far the most important. It is generally expected that some part of that trade cannot be recovered, though, so far as the trade is in the finer qualities of goods, it is hoped that it may be recovered, and indeed the process of recovery is now proceeding. One mill, I heard only the other day has changed from coarse counts to fine counts for the Indian market, and is now very busy and has recovered a great part of the market which it had lost. But I have made it clear in Lancashire, as I shall make it clear here, that, for my own part, I am profoundly convinced that it is useless to attempt to rely upon holding or acquiring trade by Act of Parliament. Nothing will be achieved along that line, and the only hope of securing any expansion or restoration of British trade with India must lie in the policy which is summed up in the words "good will." Coercion or attempted coercion, either legislative or military, is useless.
I know that in these Debates those who are opposed to the Bill will point to the refusal of the Indian Legislative Assembly to endorse the trade agreement which has recently been entered into, and to all of us that refusal is a great disappointment. But on reading the reports of the debates one sees that the action of the Assembly was prompted very largely by resentment against what they regarded as the failure of the Indian Government to consult the commercial interests of India before entering into that agreement. The agreement was not rejected by them—so far as they can reject it—on its merits, but out of a feeling of umbrage that the matter had been decided over their heads by the Indian Government without full consultation with the commercial opinion of the country.
Just as the Simon Commission was handicapped from the very beginning by the lamentable blunder of not simultaneously appointing a commission of Indians to co-operate with them and by allowing it to appear to India that their future fate was being settled over their heads by a purely British body, so a grave blunder seems to have been made in this case of the trade agreement through the absence of such consultation. However, that is the opinion apparently of Indians, but if you had an authoritative, responsible, legislative body which would have to intervene and play an effective part in measures of this character in the future, I believe their tendency would be to regard such proposals strictly upon their merits, and while no doubt putting Indian interests first, they would be ready, I believe, to accord full and reasonable rights to British commercial interests also.
The only alternative to proposals such as are embodied in the Bill is coercion, and I firmly believe that the general policy advocated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping and those associated with him, must inevitably lead to a regime of coercion in India. If this Bill is rejected, there must be a revival in India of the movement of civil disobedience. So far from assisting British trade, it would almost inevitably lead to a renewed commercial boycott. It would produce hostility, and the antagonism on the part of large sections of the Indian people towards this country would be immensely increased and embittered by the feeling that we had now definitely broken the pledges that we had given. All coercion is bad, but coercion to cover betrayal is the very worst of all. After all, you have in India 340,000,000 people, and concerned in the higher ranks of the Government of India only 800 British people with another 500 in the police forces. It is utterly impossible in such circumstances to maintain a stable, permanent, successful Government without a full measure of co-operation on the part of the Indians. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping and his friends plead for a strong Government at the Centre in India. But can any Government in any country be strong which has to work in the face of a hostile population? This Bill seems to me to be dictated by plain common sense. In fact, the mighty conflict which has been waged between my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping and the Secretary of State is really a conflict between rhetoric and common sense, and in this country and in this House, whatever may happen elsewhere, in the long run common sense can always be relied upon to beat rhetoric.
A very dispassionate method of stating the controversy.
Why should not one be dispassionate? Is passion always a virtue? One other virtue is accessibility to reason and to argument, but in all these matters the right hon. Gentleman has heard nothing except what he has said himself. I think that this Bill is more open to criticism on the other side, and that there is in the Labour Amendment a very great deal with which we on these benches should be inclined to agree. At the same time, it is essential now to secure the greatest common measure of agreement that we can in order to get the Bill through Parliament, and this Bill appears to us to be calculated to achieve that end. The long experience of the British Empire shows that these constitutional developments must proceed step by step and that each step must be tested by its results.
Hear, hear.
Well, we have delayed a good time since the last step, and it is fully time that we should take another. This Parliament has, in the course of its history, enacted many Constitutions for countries in different parts of the world, and no doubt each of those Constitutions has had some defect or other, but they have had the one great virtue that they have worked. Our task is not to create Constitutions on lines of theory which may have every virtue of symmetry and every beauty of facade, but to create Constitutions which will not in fact collapse. Our conclusion is that the Bill in its main outlines should be enacted. But I will make a very earnest plea to the House not to yield in the later stages of the Bill to the temptation, which will be continually before it, to weaken its provisions and to insert more and more safeguards. No doubt, day after day and week after week, proposals will be made in that direction. We consider that the safeguards are, if anything, already excessive and that it is unnecessary to strengthen them further, and in our deliberations upon any proposals that may be made in that direction let us remember that we are sitting in judgment here in a case, and one of the parties to the case is not represented.
There are no Indians in this House today. I remember times, in previous Parliaments in which I have sat, when there were distinguished Indian gentlemen who had obtained places in the House of Commons. There were Mr. Dadabhai Naoroji and Sir M. Bhownagree. [HON. MEMBERS: "And Mr. Saklatvala."] I was not there in the House during the time that Mr. Saklatvala sat here, but he was never regarded as a representative of Indian opinion, as the other gentlemen had been. But there is no one in this present Parliament who has that qualification. In earlier times, in the eighteenth century, the Colonies had their accredited agents in this House, who could speak on their behalf by instructions from the people of those Colonies, but now there is no one here who can state, on behalf of the Indians themselves, the case which they would desire to be submitted. The judges are here, the jury is here, and the counsel on one side is here, but the counsel on the other side is thousands of miles away, and I hope that that will be remembered always, on every occasion when Members of this House come to consider specific proposals.
This House in these matters is under a severe test. The Indian problem now, in our present generation, raises the question definitely, inescapably, which is one of the supreme issues in our politics: Can a democracy maintain an Empire? That and nothing less is the issue which is before us in these discussions, and I think the answer must be that, if the Empire is to be maintained merely by military force, democracy cannot do it. A great popular electorate will not carry through such a policy. The ideas which maintain a a democracy at home will not maintain any form of tyranny abroad. Sooner or later, if such were attempted, it would lead either to a surrender of liberties here or else to an abandonment of the attempt to suppress liberties elsewhere. A free Britain and a coerced India cannot go together. But, if it is an Empire which treats with equal justice all its citizens, no matter of what race or country, and if it strives to establish among them equal liberties, such an Empire, and only such, is compatible with our democracy, and such an Empire, and only such, can and will endure.
6.21 p.m.
I think the Secretary of State ought to be well satisfied with the speeches of the two hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have followed him this evening. It is certain, at any rate, that this Bill, in its passage through the House, will get every possible support from the official Opposi- tion, with only modified criticism, and whole-hearted support from hon. Members below the Gangway here. I think the opposition, which I hope will be strong, will come from the Conservative party itself. The right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) has congratulated the Secretary of State for India on his conversion to Liberalism, and he was full of enthusiasm for that part of the right hon. Gentlemen's speech in which he quoted the parallel of the Durham Agreement with Canada. He forgot to mention such differences as caste and there being 2,300 different castes in India. He forgot to mention such a trifle as the Depressed Classes. He did not mention the fact that there are many races and religions in India and that in Canada there are only two, and that there are 224 languages in India while in Canada there are possibly only two.
The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State made light of the reception among the politicians in India of the Government's proposals, and he insinuated that the reception of the report of the Joint Select Committee was more or less bluff. I should like to quote some of the things that have been said by "that small fraction of the vast population of India"—I quote from the Report of the Joint Select Committee—"that is politically minded." First of all, there are the broad-minded Liberals about whom we have heard so much in these Indian Debates, and from whom the Secretary of State hopes to get some support for his measures. He knows that Congress is past praying for, and I am glad to hear it said to-day that we cannot hope to satisfy Congress. We all knew that long ago, but what do these broad-minded Liberals, say? A conference was held, I think, in Poona, at the end of December, and they said there: the interests of the people are, they will obtain the right to speak on behalf of the people. Then we have Mr. Sastri, who proposes and carries a resolution at this Liberal conference to this effect:
With regard to safety and order in India, we contend that they will be imperilled if the police are handed over to the elected ministers. I have heard the Secretary of State say in this House that the Joint Select Committee have followed the recommendations of the Simon Commission in this matter, and the Noble Lord who proposed the Motion in the other House said the same thing, but that is not true. The Simon Commission, in deciding on the whole to hand over the police to a minister, made very important reservations. It laid down that there should be one or more members of the Ministry nominated, either official or non-official, but not members of the elected Assembly, and that made a very great difference. Apart from that, the Simon Commission envisaged a strong central Government, not the Government that we shall have under this Bill. Then there is another point. The Indian Police Association published and distributed yesterday a pamphlet, in which they show that they are far from satisfied with the position of the police even under the improvements which are proposed to be introduced by the Joint Select Committee in their report.
I would like to say a word, and I do it nervously, about the welfare of the masses. This is an issue which the Secretary of State, in his broadcast address, said he has constantly in his mind, yet I read in the Press to-day extracts from correspondence that he had with a gentleman at Banbury, I think, in which he said that the question of the welfare of the masses is not a valid argument against this Bill. I consider—and in this I agree, strong Tory though I am, with the Socialists—that it is most important that we should look after the welfare of the masses when we are bringing in a new Constitution for the Government of India. The Secretary of State said he stood by the Preamble of the Government of India Act of 1919. He said that, of course, about Dominion status. It would be interesting for us to know whether the Dominion status is the kind of Dominion status we knew of before the Statute of Westminster was passed, or whether it is post-Statute of Westminster. I am not a lawyer, but one of the many lawyers on the other side of the House will perhaps enlighten us on that point. I am glad to see that in that Preamble, which is not to be repealed, it is laid down that Parliament is responsible for the welfare and advancement of the peoples of India. If that is not going to be repealed it is very important.
Again, I would like to draw the attention of the Secretary of State to the fact that in Section I of the Government of India Act, 1919, it is possible to revoke all the transfers of certain subjects to the Legislature, that is, to Indian control. That will not exist in the present Bill. It is cut out. In other words, if we hand over complete control of education, irrigation, forests and agriculture, we shall have no power of interference in any way. Under the Government of India Act we had the power of revoking the transfer if we wished, but it was never exercised. The Simon Commission made very grave statements about the way in which education has been carried on in India and also about local government. Further, the Joint Select Committee heard some serious statements from gentlemen of the medical profession about the question of health.
Hon. Members below me think that the safety of the people and all their rights will be protected if only we give them the vote. They say, "If you have the vote, all things will be added unto you." The vote in India, when you have an utterly uneducated electorate, does not count for anything. The more the people are given the vote the more it means that the candidates will necessarily have to be very rich men. It will simply prevent poor men, no matter what their ability, from getting elected if you increase the vote. The question of the franchise is rather interesting as affording an example of how we have gone sliding on in this matter. When the Simon Commission went to India in 1927, as it consisted of gentlemen who had no previous knowledge of the country, it was proper that the Provincial Governments should furnish them with reports on certain subjects in order to afford them an idea of what they were going to look at. One report was about the franchise. The Simon Commission stated that eight Governments reported on that matter and that all of them reported against any increase of the franchise, which was then 7,000,000 for the Provincial Assemblies. The Simon Commission in its wisdom decided, as it was intended to give a great advance in self-government, that it ought to be broad based upon the people's will and that there must necessarily be an exten- sion of the franchise, and they decided, as a means of education in political science, that the electorate should be increased from 7,000,000 to 25,000,000.
Then we had the Round Table Conferences, which swept away the two years' work carried out by the Statutory Commission. The first Round Table Conference appointed a committee consisting of seven Englishmen, one or two of whom had been to India before, and 19 Indians to consider the question of the franchise. After four days' discussion they recommended that the franchise should be settled by an expert committee to be sent out to India, and that the electorate should be increased from 25,000,000 to 63,000,000. Lord Lothian's Committee went to India and decided that it should be 36,000,000. I should like to give some quotations to show how the franchise was used in its limited form as granted in 1919. An Englishman said in a letter to the Press the other day that he had acted on several occasions as unpaid returning officer at several elections in the Indian Provinces, and that not 5 per cent. of the voters who went to the poll were capable of putting their cross against the name of the candidate for whom they wanted to vote. They had to go to the returning officer and ask him to do it for them. They were hustled into the polling booth by the agents of the candidates, and it was pathetic to see the poor cultivators forgetting, as they crossed the few yards of the entrance to the polling booth, the name of the candidate for whom they were told to vote. Only 5 per cent. were capable of putting their crosses on the voting paper. Mr. Acharya, lately a representative of Madras in the Legislative Assembly, described the same thing. Yet the commission recommended this enormous increase. One of the arguments is: "After all, the people who have the vote do not know much about it, and the people who have not the vote know about the same; so what does it matter? Let them all have it."
I want to explain to my hon. Friends below me that you will not get any protection for the poor by giving them the vote until they are sufficiently educated to have some civic sense, and that will not occur for many generations. There is an organisation called the Union of Britain and India, of which hon. Members have heard. It is an organisation which has an obscure connection with the Conservative Central Office, something like the connection that the Commintern has with the Communist Government of Russia. We do not know from where the Union of Britain and India get their funds. I have asked in letters to the "Times," but I cannot get any reply. They are very liberally supplied, and they go round the country saying that they are the only people who know anything about India. If you have left India only ten minutes ago you have forgotten about it, because it changes so rapidly. One of the Union of Britain and India speakers said the other day that people who left India five years ago knew nothing about it. He pointed out that there are Indian ladies who go out to dinner and play tennis, and the strangest thing of all was to find peasants waiting by the roadside for an omnibus to take them to the market town. Does that give them the power of voting? We shall have to go a great deal further than that before India has changed sufficiently to have the vote as is proposed now.
I would like to say a few words about the poverty of the people. There is no doubt that the peak of prosperity in India was in 1920, because we had a Government that had cut down taxation as much as possible and the improvements in communications in the country had enabled goods to be exchanged better than they were before. Then we introduced the so-called Montagu Reforms. There is one thing about democracy, whether you agree with it or not, it does increase expenditure. Expenditure has gone up in India a good deal since the reforms were introduced, and the burden falls on the poor. I calculate that the total revenue, Central and Provincial, in India is £117,000,000, and that of that £80,000,000 is paid by the poor ryot in salt tax, land revenue, excise and customs. The income taxpayer is a comparatively small class, numbering only 187,000 people, who pay tax on incomes of £225. The whole yield of the Income Tax is only £13,000,000.
If we increase taxation, therefore, we shall hit the poor man every time. The Secretary of State spoke of the expenditure, and thought that the extra taxation which this new Constitution involved was not really serious. I work it out at something like £5,600,000. Provincial Autonomy will account for £560,000, and the Federal Government £560,000; the loss of Burma means £2,200,000, which we shall have to make good out of Indian revenue. Then there are the subsidies to Sind £560,000, to Orissa £220,000, while the North West Province gets £750,000. We have what is euphemistically called adjustments with native States, which come to £750,000. I do not know what those adjustments are, but they will come out of the pockets of the ryots. The Committee think that:
I would like to say a word about Safeguards. I notice that the Prime Minister does not believe in these. The Secretary of State and other Government speakers continually tell us that they hope that they will never be used. The candidate for the National Government in the Wavertree by-election goes further. He considers that no reasonable man in England will expect them ever to be used. Then what is the use of them? Are they so many bogies to frighten people? I wonder, because Safeguards have been legalised in other places and have not been used. People who have watched the course of affairs know that Southern Ireland have full right to worry about the validity of Safeguards. The treaty with the Irish Free State consisted of 18 Clauses, of which 11 were Safeguards either to protect the loyalists who remained in the Free State or the connection with the Imperial Government. Where have they gone now? I agree that no legislation has been passed against loyalists, but administratively they have not had a very good time. What about the oath of allegiance to His Majesty the King? What about the appeal to the Privy Council? What about the representative of the Crown in Ireland, who has been degraded to the position of a rubber stamp? All that has been done where the population is 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 at our back door, as it were. Here we propose to give these Safeguards hundreds of miles away to a population of 350,000,000.
It has been more than once said that we have put no alternative forward. I should like to point out that two witnesses who spoke before the Joint Select Committee put forward an alternative scheme. The Secretary of State said it was not workable, but whether it be workable is a matter of opinion. At any rate, a scheme was put forward based very largely on the despatch to the Government of India of the 20th September, 1930, which spoke of partnership and reserved the most important services to the decision of Parliament. What the proposer of the scheme laid down was that the Provinces should become self-governing communities before they were invited to enter the Federation of their own free will, and that meanwhile there should be a Council of State, with representatives of the Princes, at the Centre. Meanwhile, the Government at the Centre should remain responsible to the Crown and Parliament for the most important services. He proposed adequate British representation in the Council and in the Provincial Legislatures and Executives, that a British element should be retained in all the important services, and that non-legislative control should be kept over the courts and police until they could be safely handed over to the Provinces. That is briefly what Sir Michael O'Dwyer put forward. I think the proposals of the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) were more or less on the same lines, but he proposed a system of inspectorates, and I think such a control from the Centre, to watch the operation of Provincial Autonomy, and to see that no injustices are inflicted upon the poorer classes, is absolutely essential.
To sum up: We believe that the present Bill sacrifices the interests of the people of this country, of India, and of the Empire; and as the Bill has not been received with what can be regarded as any degree of acclamation or pleasure by the political classes in India for whom it is primarily designed, would it not be better to drop it at once? Certainly it is not designed to please the inarticulate peasantry, who have no idea of politics and never think of them—though that is a question over which there are arguments. The Union of Britain and India say that every village is becoming full of politicians. One can only put up against that the opinions of Indians. A gentleman who writes for the well-known Calcutta paper the "Stateman" spent his holidays the summer before last or last summer in his native village in Bengal, and heard the politicians. Here is what he wrote:
In conclusion, I have to say this: In the broadcast speech which the Lord President of the Council made on this subject last night, he asked his many hearers not to be line we believe in in our bones. We believe that the Government, in pushing through this Measure, are making a fatal mistake. They have the example of Ireland before them. They thought that by giving everything away they could make things all right. They have not succeeded in Ireland, and they will not succeed in India. The Government of India will gradually go to the Congress party, who are implacably opposed to us. Mr. Patel, when over here, said after a visit to Dublin:
6.52 p.m.
I speak as a Member for one of the most important Lancashire constituencies, important because of the long period during which Preston, like other industrial centres of Lancashire, has been identified with the piece goods trade with India. Quite apart from any demerits or merits which it will be our purpose to adjust, amend and discuss during the Committee stage of this Bill, I do strongly deprecate the insistence of some hon. Members of this House, and some people outside, that we have implacable enemies in India. I deny that there are enemies—to any appreciable extent. There need not be any who count. If there are any why should we say anything to make more? Why gratuitously hurt the feelings of, it may be, sensitive but courteous inherently friendly and inherently loyal people? Various Members, it may be a very few, have during the Debates on India which I have heard in this House, and also in this Debate, talked disparagingly and slightingly of Indians. There have been thoughtless—which will be interpreted in India as bitter—references to disloyal vocal minorities, to unscrupulous politicians, to rack-renting landlords, to rapacious moneylenders, a Brahmin oligarchy, Vakils, Bengalis and Baboos. I remember, during the last Debate on India in this House, hearing a contemptuous remark about Banias, but with all humility I ask, do all Members of the House realise exactly who and what the Bania is?
How many realise the very great importance of and the honourable position that the community colloquially known as Banias hold, have always held and must continue to hold in the body commercial, social and politic in India? I affirm with respect that this community is indispensable to the internal and external trade, and the financing of trade, industry and agriculture in India. As every Member of the House knows, Hinduism, or Hindu polity, is divided into four vocational groups: Kshatrya, the princely, the Brahmin or priestly, the Vaishya or mercantile, and the Sudra or artisan. Bania is the colloquial generic term applied to the Vaishya class who, incidentally, I would suggest, are the most rigidly orthodox Hindus in the four classes of Hindus I have mentioned. Vaishyas engaged and occupied in finance and trade have until the last few years been generally more backward in English education than the Kshatrya and Brahmins. As a consequence, it may be they have been to some extent over looked, even misunderstood, by officialdom in India, and thus relegated to an inferior political position, to a lower status than their practical intelligence, their wealth, their influence, usefulness and their importance deserves. The Bania classes—
May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman regards as indispensable and useful people who frequently charge interest of 40 or 50 per cent.?
I am very glad the Noble Lady made that interruption. I will come to that in a moment. The Bania classes, known variously as Sirafs or Shroffs, Mahajans, Sowkars, Seths, Agarwals, Modis, Sowdagars, Lalas and Marwaris, and analogous to the Chetties of Southern India, are almost to the extent of a monopoly, wholesale and retail dealers and traders in and financers of indigenous products, foodstuffs and all staples and raw materials practically, with one or two exceptions—such as hides and skins—throughout India. There is hardly an item of trade in India, whether for local distribution or for export or import, which is not almost exclusively and at the most important stages handled by this Hindu mercantile or commercial community. No British exporter or other importer or exporter of Lancashire goods or any other British-made textile goods ever sold a bale of such in India except to or through members of that community. No British or other industrialist or exporter of Indian produce ever bought or buys a bag of cotton or seeds—and nowadays even jute—except through this community. They are the merchant bankers of India, whose ramifications spread throughout the whole country.
The village modi, the factory, bazaar-Bania, may and does earn exorbitant rates of interest from the indigent ryot or coolie. But the Marwari banker or Siraf will make legitimate banking advances and discount and deal in trade and finance acceptances and bills in competition with, and, in the remarkable Hundi business, in close co-operation with, British joint stock banks in India and the Imperial Bank of India. Every joint stock bank in India, at every branch, and every Government Treasury, employs a Siraf or Shroff as cashier-treasurer. And the Banian employed by most British piece-goods importing firms is the same Bania whose equivalent in China is the comprador. Every tea garden maintains a kya or bania, so does every Indian regiment to whom he is indispensable, as the bania landlord in most cantonments—and as the Sowkar is to the lesser and often also to the greater zamindar. I suggest, as I hope it may be realised from what I have said, that a great part of the commercial and economic structure of India, and I would emphasise, Lancashire trade, would suffer inconveniences to say the least of it without the active co-operation and guidance and enterprise and good will of the Vaishya bania classes. May I just say this? The lending of money at high usurious rates of interest is not practised by all banias, though it is by the smaller, humbler members of the caste, that is, those who are the equivalent in standing and social status of the usurers or Shylocks in any other parts of the world. There are as many petty moneylenders, extortioners, usurers, in other classes and castes in India.
Is it not the case that because of the exorbitant interest charged by many of these usurers, as the hon. Member admits, Acts have had to be passed to protect the people against this particular caste?
The Government have always had to pass Acts to protect the people. In its most pernicious form, usury is carried on by Pathans from the North-West border, whose methods are accompanied by physical coercion—with a big stick. They are predatory nomads who wander all over Northern India and even into Bengal and Assam.
I suggest that neither here nor in India have we ever fully appreciated the great economic value and political potential value of this great Indian commercial community. As a digression, may I say that the greater number of the leading members of the Vaishya and allied Jain community who work with, as well as independently of, British business men in Calcutta, are Indian native States subjects, Bikaner, Marwar, hence Marwari. Sir David Yule, the great Bengal merchant, had a Marwari gentleman as his partner and other Indians as colleagues on the boards of his industrial companies. Incidentally, though not a Vaishya, the present head and senior partner for 20 years of the leading British firm in Calcutta is Sir Rajendra Nath Mukherji, a Bengali Brahmin. I have been talking only about the Hindu section of the people of India. I have heard it said several times in this House that because of Hinduism you cannot implant democracy on existing social systems in India. Members forget the 90,000,000 of Mussulmans in India, and Mohammedanism inculcates democracy. It is indeed the only true democratic religion in the world. While some of my best friends in India were Mussulmans, I do not claim or desire to claim to be either pro-Hindu or pro-Mussulman. If I have any predilections, they lean towards the Jat or Jut, Sikh, Jut Hindu and Jut Moslem and other casteless tribes. But that is an easy line to follow. Even if there are any in India who hate us—as there may be some, I suppose, who cannot feel full of affection for some of us—why let them or anyone else in India think that we on all sides of the House bear anything other than good will, or the will to understand, towards Indians of all classes, callings, castes and creeds.
May I remind the House of certain truisms which greatly impressed me as they disturbed those one would expect them to perturb. I refer to what may right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council said in this House on 12th December, 1934:
Everyone in this House must know that the India Act of 1919, which incorporated the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms was brought in entirely relying upon the tried and splendid loyalty of British and Indian officials. The 1919 Montagu-Chelmsford reforms were imposed in the face of far less, though in my view easily far more justifiable, opposition than the reforms we are now debating are meeting with to-day. In my own case, if the House will permit a personal note, I violently opposed the Montagu scheme from its earliest inception, when the intentions and aspirations of the then Secretary of State for India were first audible in India. I was never reconciled to the proposals as a prudent policy which need have been propounded, in the manner and for the reasons then submitted—or least of all, the time chosen for their presentation.
I was, in 1918 and 1919, as strongly opposed, especially to the arguments then urged for their then need, as some Members on both sides of the House are to-day, who, for widely different reasons, would have rejected the Joint Select Committee's Report, and would have the House reject the broad principles of this Bill we are debating to-day. Convinced that Parliament had been misled and was wrong in propounding at that time what was then contemplated, faced with a surprising, almost revolutionary, issue, but without any anti-Indian bias myself, I was deeply concerned that many of the British non-official community in India colleagues in Calcutta were being converted. Early in 1922 I had an interview with the then Secretary of State for India, and I sat in the gallery of this House to hear the India Debate on 14th February, 1922. I was heartened by two remarks which I heard made by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), then Prime Minister, in his famous steel-framework speech. He said first: jobbing back. The alternative I felt was to set about to clarify past prejudices, and to seek to discover what good could be found in the new circumstances which Parliament in all its wisdom had irrevocably decided was to be the new outlook which was to govern our future relations with and governance of India. I frankly confess that in my new approach to the problem I was handicapped by considerable diehard bias, induced and imbibed from traditional elders of that particular caste of Zabberdasti Khans who have roved, raved and ranted around, and about India since the days of Annesley. I felt that the preferable alternative to going out into the wilderness of inhospitable atmospheres with Colonel—and nowadays perhaps an occasional Admiral—Chillipods, was to concentrate on the cultivation of personal friendships and the exchanging of candid opinions with and at the same time listening to criticisms, from all classes of Indians, more especially the non-English speaking people, both Hindu and Mussulman.
I confess, again, I found in more than one conventional, hidebound, angular issue, that my previous allegiances were not infallible. On probing many of the traditional, superiority complex, rigid Totem poles, I found that many more of them than I at one time dared to suspect were white ant-eaten. The white ant, as the House may know, is a termite or insidious disintegrator of alternatively Socialistic or hard-dying habits. I am convinced, in the light of all we have or have not achieved, that there is one thing we cannot do—we cannot job back. For the past 10 years I have sought to disentangle the mesh of impressions woven into my mind during some part of the previous 20 years.
On the one hand by tradition, friendship and relationships with British soldiers and civilians in the real old up-the-country of India—in and around Oudh and Agra, Delhi and the Punjaub, the old Indigo districts, among the aboriginals of Orissa, the Mundas and Oraons. The nomadic Kanjar-log Shikari people. In the cis-Sutleg feudal hill States and mediaeval kingdoms of Rajputana, and on the North-east Frontiers, where, Miris and Mishmis, Abors and Nagas are administered, cared for, by some of the finest repre- sentatives this country has ever sent out to work for, and care for, the people of India.
Seeing, and by contact with all this, I understood and appreciated not less than—in my enthusiasm I like to feel that it is more than—any other Member of this House the good work our people, both official and non-official, have done and are continuing to do in India. On the other hand, as one of the commercial community, whom, until Lord Curzon's time, the official hierarchy were not a little inclined to tolerate as box wallahs, I had, further, unique opportunities of real friendship with Indian business men, employés and Indian colleagues, and also friendships of a nature with individuals such as are not frequently, if at all, vouchsafed to officials. Those friendships I cultivated in a spirit of optimism. I sought for similarities, not for difficulties, in thought, sentiment and aspirations.
I can remember no instance of any Indian having wittingly or wilfully let me down in social or business relations. Throughout my close on 30 years' working life in India and the East, I suffered no discourtesy, was offered none, by any Indian, nor did I encounter any instance of purely racial hatred directed against me or against any other Englishman or towards this country. Isolated individual cases, perhaps, of religious fanaticism, but not racial. I did not look for trouble, and I found none. I found, indeed, Indians of all religions and races, in all walks of life, as capable, as trustworthy, and as loyal in friendship and service, as any Englishman in similar capacities and relationships. As to inevitable differences in outlook, prejudices, and so forth, I am under no illusions. Even among our own people, where and when any intolerances were evident, I could, for the most part, discover only impersonal prejudices borne of ignorance. Prejudices after all only engendered by pseudo-assumed superiority, and not inherent, but which, nevertheless, tended to create atmospheres and incidents which have done so much to exaggerate and exacerbate questions of superiority and inferiority and claims and complexes which have prevented closer understanding between Indians and those who represented the suzerain power.
I have followed the Indian question for the past 20 or 30 years. I dare to say without political or racial bias or ever any anti-Indian intolerance; I claim no more than that. Circumstances have perforce associated my career and life's work with India and her people of all classes and many stations in life. Especially have I followed—and I claim no monopoly for this—with some assiduity the developments of the past seven years, culminating in the chapter which we are discussing to-day. At long last we are within range of solving what I have often thought, and others so often appear to be at pains to believe, was an insoluble problem. The passing of this Bill will show India and the world, to the lasting honour of this Parliament, that we are taking right and resolute steps to implement repeated and unequivocal pledges given to our Indian fellow subjects for the 100 years past, and which, for their faith in us, we must and will carry out.
With no small and added pride as a Member of this Parliament, in whose hands lies the determination of the future and the welfare of the people of India, do I unhesitatingly welcome and support the general terms of the Bill which, after full discussion, constructive as it will be for the most part, will be passed by this House, and will give India an appropriate measure of autonomous government, finally incorporating and recognising that possession for all time, as an integral part—and I, for one, believe one of the most loyal—of our overseas Dominions.
7.22 p.m.
I will not follow the hon. Gentleman for Preston (Mr. Kirkpatrick) in much of what he has said. We shall all be impressed, I am sure, with his knowledge of India, and we shall remember for a long time many of the words he inflicted upon this House. Hon. Members who are taking up a hostile attitude to the Bill have a duty to state their views fearlessly and frankly. They must, if they are to discharge their proper functions as Members of this honourable House, do that, and speak as they think from the bottom of their hearts and from the depths of their minds, and they must take whatever consequences accrue from that. I hope that hon. Members will give me a patient hearing. No one could complain that on this vast subject we have any lack of authority, and volumes exist to assist any honest and sincere investigator.
I think it was the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord Percy) who said in one of the earlier Debates on India that we had got into ruts in regard to the discussion of this great question. I agree with him. Great experts before the Joint Select Committee have disagreed as to the real problem in India. One says that the problem of India is not constitutional but administrative; another says that it was administrative but is now political, and yet another that it is none of these, but is an economic one. Those who take this point are divided into three. Hon. Members may well ask: If experts disagree, what guidance can they get to help them in regard to this matter?
The enormity of our task and the profound consequences of our decision appal me. We are told that only those who have lived in India can speak on this great question. It is further qualified by the hon. Member who just said that they must have lived in India during the last five years. I possess neither credential, but I have had 25 years' trading experience in a rather unique way with the East; not only with India but with China, the Dutch Indies, and Japan, and not only in connection with my own industry in England. I have still a unique position from which to judge this matter, especially as to how Continental manufacturers and industrialists judge the great question of our Eastern trade. As many hon. Members know, I am connected with important German concerns. I was reading only the other day a report of one of our travellers who has just visited the East and particularly India, and, if I could inflict upon the House verbatim the whole of that report, I think hon. Members would be astounded at how we are viewed by independent people who go out to India knowing that it is part of the British Empire, and how say a German who has his own ideas of what is right and what is wrong would view the question of trade there, if India were part of the German Empire.
It is very interesting. We are told by many people, including the Lord President of the Council, that great changes have come over the East. Let me give briefly a few facts. There are the rise of Japan as an industrial nation, and its consequences, and India's development of secondary industries. Can Western Powers, and especially ourselves, stand up to a second Japan superimposing on our external trade, and that within the Empire and not outside? I think not. I have said in this House before that what we need more than anything else in the world is to resurrect the great purchasing power of the East. Can Western civilisation survive an entire annihilation of its trade in the East? I believe it can, but at great cost to the people in the East, and, may be, catastrophic failure. Do the portents indicate the likelihood that the East can produce the products of secondary industry which we have supplied from the West, and of sufficient quality and in sufficient volume to make her independent? I believe so. Further, can they be produced at a price less than we can produce them, say in Britain? Certainly they can.
Do these answers decide the matter? No. That is only one side of the question. International business is not a one-way traffic, and no country can take out of the international pool of trade anything more than she puts into it. To say otherwise is to admit a pirate on the highways and seas of the commerce of the world. How do these things affect us? Facts prove to me that the problem of India is an economic one and that India's politicians and industrialists are not able, from sheer lack of experience, and lacking our inherited guidance, to play the role of great international traders. They are lacking all guidance of a wise and proper kind as to where they fit in the body economic of this great British Empire. Let me quote the words of Sir George Schuster, speaking in the Legislature. He said, when dealing with the problem of how to increase the internal demand for India's products: That shows that not only I but an authority of the calibre of Sir George Schuster recognises the difficulty of the present phase of thought among politicians and industrialists in India. His words are words of sound wisdom. Can the standard of living in India be raised by shutting out imports from Great Britain? I claim that the greatest asset that any nation with a low standard of life, such as India, can have, is a link of sentiment and interest with a nation such as our own, whose standard of life is equal, if not superior, to that of any other nation in the world. It is a great asset to India to have this Empire connection. It is obvious, for example, that if the secondary industries of India secured the whole market, and imports were entirely eliminated, the standard of life in primary and secondary industries would require adjustment. It is exactly the same in America. President Roosevelt is dealing with the same problem. His problem is to equalise the reward for services as between primary and secondary industries. Is not that a first-class classic lesson for India, that, if she pursues her present policy, some day she will come up against the same trouble by which America is beset to-day? Supposing that self-sufficiency were achieved, what about the power to produce the £37,500,000 or so that is required for external services? Surely a time will come when the people will not allow a disproportionate reward for services as between primary production and secondary production. The Lord President of the Council, speaking last night, said: and when there is evidence of it at every street corner and in every idle mill? Is there any vagueness about that matter? No. Will the right hon. Gentleman also go to the iron and steel districts of this country, to the North-East coast, to South Wales, to the Midlands or the Clyde, and explain the fact that last year 83 per cent. of the pig iron imported into this country came from India? According to the latest figures published in the Ministry of Labour Gazette, 20 per cent. of our iron and steel workers are out of work, and yet we allow 83 per cent. of our imported pig iron to come into this country from India free of duty.
Are we to understand that my hon. Friend is in favour of putting on tariffs against imports from our own possessions?
I answer that question willingly and proudly. Viewing the matter from a textile point of view, if we, who have been sending vast quantities of textiles to India, now send our goods there, we find that there is a 25 per cent. tariff against them. I would ask the present Government, upon what grounds do they consider that there is equity as between India and ourselves? It is that very point that I am trying to bring to the notice of the House.
Does my hon. Friend suggest that the cost of steel should be increased as a result of increasing the price of pig iron by putting a duty upon it?
I assure my hon. Friend that none of the pig iron that comes from India is used in steel-making; it is foundry pig iron. There has been a great growth of the steel industry in India. In 1927, only 30 per cent. of the Indian requirements was provided by their own people; to-day, 72 per cent. of the total requirements of Indian consumption of iron and steel can be provided by that one country. As a Lancashire man, the question of the Lancashire textile industry is very near to my heart, and I consider that, whatever hon. Members in this House may think, Lancashire has had a "raw deal" for a great many years over this Indian question. I have already mentioned that our goods have to face a duty of 25 per cent.
Let me put another point, which will be much more vivid, much more real, much more impressive to any honest unbiased mind. In India to-day, there are, roughly speaking, 400,000 workers in the Indian mill industry; at the end of the recent Bombay strike there were 375,000. I have taken great pains to go through the report issued by the Labour Office of the Bombay Government with regard to that district, and I find that there were 375,000 people earning only 1 rupee per day—1s. 6d. per day. Let hon. Members get that figure well into their minds. What does it mean in the aggregate? It means that the whole of the wages paid in the mill industry in India come to roughly £169,000 weekly, taking them at 9s. per week. Let me give another figure which I think will impress hon. Members. Out of the 467,000 workers who constitute the insured population attributed to the textile trades of Lancashire, there are to-day 95,000 registered at the Employment Exchanges as out of work. What is that costing the Government? Supposing that we take it that these 95,000 people are each drawing 35s.—it may be more or it may be less—for unemployment benefit, transitional payments, or public assistance, it means that unemployment in Lancashire is costing almost as much as the whole of the wages paid in the Indian mill industry, and further, we are paying from four and a-half to five and a-half times the wages that are paid in Indian mills. We see those mills equipped with Lancashire machinery, and guided by Lancashire managers and experts. We know, of course, that a few of these people have their difficulties, where, in the capital structure of a cotton mill, costing something like £2 10s. a spindle, that is boosted up to £20. If they want advances from the banks, they have to sign bonds to pay in gold.
I am sure hon. Members must be impressed by the fact that Lancashire is up against a serious handicap within the body economic of the Empire. There is no guidance in this matter; there is no one really to raise the true picture, no one to point out what the odds are against Lancashire, and what a few mill-owners in India are getting out of this trade. We need not look very far for the reason for the decline of Lancashire exports to India. The facts are as clear as crystal. They can be distinctly asso- ciated with the date when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) started and put on his modest tariff 4 per cent. From that moment we have seen a new thought coming over the whole of the East. From that time onwards, and especially during the last six or seven years, we have seen Japan rising as an industrial nation. That has made a mighty impression upon Indian industrialists. They have seen for the first time that the day of the white man's industrial and commercial domination is past. They have seen that they can do just as well as he can. I am not for a moment arguing that the development of their industry is something that ought not to be done. I am all in favour of reasonable development. What I do not want to see is that in a few years' time our interest in India as regards trade has worn thinner and thinner.
The ryot in India has three items of expense apart from food, namely salt, kerosene and cotton piece goods. During the depression, his consumption of salt and kerosene has gone back, but he has kept up his consumption of cotton piece goods. The market is an expanding one. If we are truly partners in this great question of India, surely it is not a question of India entirely to the Indians; surely Lancashire must have a reasonable chance; surely we should be able to compete on equal terms. If Lancashire has to pay 25 per cent. to enter India, if in addition she has to pay four and a-half times the wages that are paid in India, if she has to bring her cotton from India and send it back as piece goods, surely there is a case for reconsideration of the matter. To-day the Secretary of State could strike a blow at this great question of unemployment in Lancashire; he could put 50,000 or 100,000 people back into work in no time if he would bring down these tariffs. Why should he not do so? I will tell him a very good reason why he should. Clause 5 of the recent Mody-Clare Lees agreement is one of the most astonishing things that have ever been put before the House of Commons. Clause 5 says: quid pro quo for the preference on British goods which they say we are getting owing to Ottawa. I say the preference is prohibitive and we cannot get in. It is very little use to us. What this Mody-Clare Lees agreement says is that the Indian textile industralists are prepared to meet Lancashire in the whole Empire on an equal footing. It means that they are utterly and completely robbed of any argument for protection against the United Kingdom in India. It means that they can go to East Africa, as they are doing, and taking a tremendous amount of trade which hitherto the Lancashire mills have had at prices less than we can afford to take it. Where, therefore, does it come in that they require this protection? Where does it come in that we should grant them this protection? It only means that we are allowing these people to exploit the masses of India unmercifully. I have heard someone say, What about revenue? We know what that means. It has been a diminishing quantity, though this year we may see an upturn. I am strong for an Imperial Economic Committee to deal with these great questions, but we must retain the Centre in India. If the Centre goes away, we shall never get them back into the right state of mind to deal with these mighty questions. May I read what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said about the Ottawa Agreements referring to the whole members of the Empire: versus the millowner in India is put before any impartial board, I am prepared to stand by their decision, but I am prepared to say to-day that on the basis of what I have quoted the Indian mills need no protection. We must get together on this point. It is mighty important, however, that we should keep the centre. There is no doubt that, in their present attitude, Indian industrialists and politicians think they can deal with these questions under the heading of discriminating protection. They are trying to do exactly what Canada and Australia have done. They fix a tariff against foreign countries and then tell us, We will give you a preference under that figure. But, if that preference leaves us utterly devoid of a chance of securing the trade, what use is it to us?
If we want to raise the standard of life, as Sir George Schuster said, of these great masses of people in India there are two ways of doing it. Looking round the world in which they have to sell their primary products at about half what they have been getting in the past, we see no chance of raising the reward of service but, if we cannot increase their income, at least we can reduce their expenses in getting cheaper cotton goods to them which they are not able to get to-day. We must have regard to the truculence of Japan. She cancels her signature to the Nine Power Pact, she wipes out her signature to the Kellogg Agreement, she enters Manchukuo and I think before long, if we leave this point where it is to-day, Japan will enter another great Continent. We cannot ignore facts which stand out clearly and indelibly. We must face up now to this great question, Shall we or shall we not advance? I am convinced by facts and figures and by reading about this question almost to exhaustion that the attitude of those in charge of the Government of India is not for co-operation with this country. I am convinced, above all things, that we need to act circumspective. I have nothing against the development of industries in India but I feel that under the recent textile agreement, for instance, there is room for an increased outlet for Lancashire goods, and we want to see to it that that position is maintained. If half-a-dozen people from this country and half-a-dozen from India sat round a table, I am sure they could come to an understanding that Lancashire could have a better chance of securing her trade in India.
7.54 p.m.
Unlike most Members who have taken part in the Debate, I have not had the pleasure of visiting India. I am not quite sure whether that is not an advantage. It seems to me that many who have been there have made a rather short stay—not long enough to enable them to form any clear and definite opinion of what the Indian masses desire. When one remembers that India has a territory of nearly 2,000,000 square miles, one wonders what a few weeks there can teach anyone. When one remembers the conditions that prevail, one has some doubt whether a visit of a few months will enable a person to form any enlightened opinion as to what constitution would suit India best. I have not served on a commission or committee dealing with Indian problems. Such an experience would be very helpful, but it is very necessary that those who have not been to India and have not sat on committees should voice their feelings on the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) suggested that social and economic questions would fill the mind of the Indian masses in the future, and it is because of that that we have moved our Amendment.
There are one or two simple and direct questions that we put. To what extent is the Bill going to enable the peasants and workers of India to improve their conditions? To what extent is it going to provide facilities to carry on propaganda in any direction that they desire and to bring about a change in the Government of India? After all, we are a Socialist party. I am not at all surprised that a Tory Government tries to safeguard Tory interests, but surely we cannot be blamed because we object to safeguarding the interests of capitalists in India. It is very necessary that we should fully appreciate the present position of the workers and peasants who realise the need for a substantial change in an upward direction. I find that conditions there are most deplorable. There are less than 20,000,000 men and women engaged in industry and something like 120,000,000 engaged in agriculture. It is they who bear the burden of the cost of government, as they are the producers of the wealth and also the bulk of the consumers of necessity goods which are subject to indirect taxation. It is well worth realising the type of house, if it can be called a house, in which the Indian worker and peasant, especially the miner, lives. The average number of persons per room is over four which, judged even by Indian standards of city life, must be called bad. Thirty-three per cent. of the population live in rooms occupied by more than five people and 1 per cent. live in rooms occupied by over 20. The number of persons living in rooms containing from six to nine each is over 250,000, and the number of persons living in rooms occupied by from 10 to 19 in each room is over 80,000. Those are the housing conditions prevailing as given in the Whitley Report. We ask, Is this Constitution going to enable the Indian worker and peasant to improve that housing? Take again the 1931 census: and show us on this side of the House how this Constitution will improve the position of the worker. We have to ask ourselves what the Constitution must do in order to enable the worker to improve his position? It must do three things. It must invest him with more political power, satisfy him that he is being given all the power to which he is entitled, and must remove any suspicion that may exist that it is merely a slight alteration of the present legislation in order to safeguard the interests of the wealthy and owning classes. Does this Bill do that?
The Secretary of State spent much time in dealing with the Federal Legislature. Can the right hon. Gentleman get up at that Box and say that the constitution of the Federal Legislature puts more power into the hands of the peasant and the worker and enables them to bring any influence to bear on that assembly. Can he suggest that the functions of the Governor-General are not large functions? In fact, I sometimes feel when reading the Bill that the Governor-General will be as big a dictator as either Hitler or Mussolini. He can question the right of both Assemblies. Is that going to enable the peasant and the worker to bring their influence to bear on the Legislature? Take the franchise. Does anyone suggest that the franchise which is suggested and outlined will enable the worker to exercise his influence? In whatever way we look at the Bill, we find that the millions of the masses in India will have no influence on the Legislature or on economic or social conditions, and, naturally, in that case we object to it.
I know that a price has to be paid in order to get the Princes inside the Federation. I do not expect them to come in without a price being paid, but I suggest that the price which is being paid both in the Legislative Assembly and in the Federal Assembly is too high. They are being given a determining influence in both bodies. It was suggested in an earlier Debate in December that there was the possibility of bribes being accepted in India. I do not know whether Indians are more likely than Britishers to accept bribes but I know that if the Princes can use a form of bribery in either assembly, they can, with the power they already possess, influence and determine legislation. Does anyone think they will allow the Federal Assembly to improve conditions in British India to such an extent as to compel them to improve conditions in their own States? That tremendous sweep of power is an indication that there is no hope of progressive legislation either in the Federal or Provincial Assemblies. We have said before, and we say again, that we object to a Second Chamber because of our experience in this country of a Second Chamber, where it has always stood as a bulwark to safeguard vested interests. If in this enlightened country a Second Chamber does that, how can we expect a Second Chamber in India to do other than the same thing? However we look at the Bill, we find that it is weighted very heavily in favour of vested interests.
Was that so when the House of Lords introduced the medical inspection of school children, for instance?
The House of Lords may on some occasions pass a fairly good piece of legislation, but the history of the House of Lords in this country is such that it has always stood in favour of vested interests as against working-class interests. Judged from that point of view, we say that the same thing will happen in India, and therefore we object to a Second Chamber and the principle of Conservative and reactionary influence. A Second Chamber is intended to be so, and I suggest to the Secretary of State that that is the reason why it has been put into this Bill. I would not expect the Princes to come in without a Second Chamber because they know that a Second Chamber safeguards their interests. Eighty million people will be disfranchised and the power of nomination in the States will be entirely in favour of the rulers. Can anyone say that that is fair and just? It was suggested by an hon. Member that democracy was a very expensive thing. It may be expensive occasionally, but I have yet to learn that dictatorships of this kind are not more expensive, if not financially, in human misery.
Who wants this Constitution? I have not met any Indian who wants it. I have received messages from friends in India and not one of them wants it. It is no use the Secretary of State saying that it is only the Congress men who are against the Constitution. I have a document here, not from Congress, but from the National Liberal Federation of India which, is one of self-government for India. The second reason why we object to the Bill is because the provisions of the franchise and representation do not enable the worker to secure his own emancipation by the methods he selects. There may be left wing activities in India. I should be surprised if there were not. If there were not workers as left wing agitators in India, it would show that they had lost all the soul they had ever had. Does anyone think that the Great Powers to be entrusted to the Governor are to be used in favour of the working classes as India is at present constituted? We know that these powers are to be invested in the Governor because it is the price to pay in order to get certain elements in India in favour of the scheme.
I say frankly that we in Lancashire desire good Indian relations with Lancashire, but I do not for a moment think that the outline suggested by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Slater) is the right way for Lancashire. The Lancashire textile workers in my division have no desire to secure prosperity at the expense of the Indian cotton workers. They realise that ultimately their standard of life is determined by that of the Indian cotton worker. They know that British money is invested in India and that British machinery and engineering skill are there and that the same set of employers as deal with them in Lancashire also deal with India. They are suspicious. They say that goodwill is the only hope, and this Measure does not make any contribution towards creating goodwill in India. We want a constitution in India which will give to the Indian worker the status to which he is entitled. Goodwill is impossible where there is a grievance. You have to remove the grievance. Rightly or wrongly—rightly in my opinion—the Indian worker feels that he is not getting a straight deal from this Government. There can be no hope of goodwill and improvement of trade in Lancashire—and Lancashire needs it. I do not think that if you empowered the Governor to deal with the question of trade as he desired he could get goodwill. We say that self-government in India is the only hope of getting India satisfied and a working partner inside the Empire. So long as the Indian worker is crushed down, whether under the present regime or the new arrangement under this Bill, he will of necessity always protest against that attempt to govern him. If India chances to speak for herself she will tell you that this type of constitution is not what she wants. It is an insult to the intelligence of the Indians and does not enable them to take the active part which they ought to take in their own economic emancipation.
8.13 p.m.
I hope that the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) will forgive me if I do not follow him in the arguments which he has presented to us. They cover rather a wide field and a good deal of detail, but I have so far not intervened in the Debates we have had in this House on this great issue before and I want to deal with the broad issue of whether this House is really justified in giving India a further and a more real measure of self-government, and whether India is really ready to undertake it. We are hearing a good deal, perhaps a small minority, on that question to-day. It is my experience that I have had in India, limited though it may be, that is my excuse for intervening in this Debate to-day. I found that experience of considerable value in coming to the conclusions I have done and I should like to give the House a plain story of what my experience was. In doing so I hope that the House will not think that I am in any way being egotistical because I believe it is this sort of experience which will lead us to a sound judgment. It is some 14 years since I first went to India, but I spent two-and-a-half years there which gave me an opportunity, and perhaps a unique opportunity, of meeting Indians of various races and religions, rulers of States, judicial officials and Indian merchants, with many of whom I had opportunities of having quiet discussions as to the political future of India and on the very question that we are discussing to-day.
I was one of those who was opposed to the Act of 1919 before I went to India. I confess to knowing very little about the subject then, but as the picture there was gradually unfolded to me I began to realise what an immense and complicated subject it was, how ignorant I had been of the developments and the conditions as they were at that time, and how difficult it must be for any persons who have not seen for themselves India in its everyday life, to visualise it. Even those who have spent many years, say, in one province but who left India a few years ago would, I think, find it difficult to visualise present day conditions over the whole of that vast country. I think is was Lord Morley who said:
I should like to quote a conversation that I had with a Bombay merchant of high standing which much impressed me at the time, because I believed that it reflected then, and I believe that it reflects to-day, what is in the real mind of educated India. He said: for a further measure of self-government. That too must have been in the minds of Ministers in 1919. We were then told that the Act of that year was only provisional, and I assume that it was on that account that a time limit of 10 years was inserted. I have always thought that the mentioning of a time limit then was a great mistake and that it has been one of the greatest factors in preventing the reforms at that time working as well as they might have done. That mistake must never be repeated.
We cannot say that the reforms of 1919 were a failure, far from it. They went far in educating Indians to a greater sense of responsibility and giving them an insight into the working of government. Can anyone believe that the minds of Ministers in 1919 were so dull and cloudy that they did not realise that they were putting their hands to a Measure the policy and practice of which prevented the retracing of our steps, and which clearly indicated to India the road which we had definitely set ourselves to tread. That was the time, in 1919, when this House took the greater risk, and that is why it is so difficult for so many of us now to understand the attitude of my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), who was then a Member of the Government. I do not doubt his sincerity, far from it, but I have searched the official records of the Debates that took place in the House at that time and I cannot find any record of his having raised his voice to express the fears and anxieties which he now so strongly entertains.
All reforms until they are proved to work successfully must be a risk and cause anxiety. Anxiety is not the monopoly of those who are opposing this Bill. Those of us who have studied the position of India and who realise the magnitude of what we are called upon to decide, must feel a deep sense of responsibility and anxiety, for whichever method we may adopt, whether it be the proposals in this Bill or whether it be a restricted form of provincial autonomy, such as I understand is favoured by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping there is a risk from which we cannot free ourselves, but I contend that the greater risk lies in the restricted and, I think, more dangerous proposals which the right hon. Member for Epping would prefer to see.
Why not leave it to the Indians to decide?
I think that the attitude of my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping to-day has caused some astonishment to those who have some knowledge of India. Fear and anxiety are engendered by extreme views, whether from the right or the left, and when these views play on the feelings of very many who are necessarily ignorant of Indian conditions the effect is immeasurably greater. The Indian Congress? Well, the Congress is not India, any more, shall I say, than the right hon. Member opposite is England.
I was returned by 30,000 Englishmen.
When I referred to the right hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite as not being England I was referring really to extremes of view. When extremes obtain power they threaten darkly and sometimes quite frankly how they will do us in.
I am not an extremist. I am supported by all parties.
An atmosphere for calm consideration is not improved by these extreme factions. Those who reserved their judgment until the committee had reported and the Bill was before them were, I think, right in doing so. I am satisfied that the additional and improved safeguards embodied in the Bill have to a great extent removed many of the anxieties which some of us may have felt. I have always understood that our policy was to educate Indians to take a larger share in the government of their country. And this education has not always been in India; it has largely been in our own universities. How can you educate a governing class if you do not give them some share of responsibility? To do so would be a negation of all that we have told and promised India for years past; it would be courting failure, create untold difficulties and the dislocation of those friendly trade relations which are so vital to India and ourselves. It would be impracticable to expect Indian Ministers to act with real responsibility without responsibility for the results of their actions, and I welcome the recommendations made and the conditions which are now embodied in the Bill. I realise how important it is that the question of the police should be removed from political influences, and, if I am not mistaken, nobody will be more relieved than Indian Ministers themselves.
With regard to the question of Safeguards for trade, discrimination is extremely important and requires careful consideration. I fully appreciate what a thorny question it is and the difficulty of inserting definite conditions in the Bill. But we are entering upon a great business transaction. We are proposing to bring India into partnership with ourselves. That really is the true meaning of the Bill as I understand it. In arriving at the conditions it is a matter of give and take, seeing how much we are proposing to give and after all that we have done for India in the past I had hoped that what we really mean and wish to achieve would have been expressed in clearer and more definite language; that we should have clearly indicated what our intentions are, if not in the Bill, then in the terms of the trade agreement which has been concluded. So vital is this further smooth working of the partnership, not only for the next few years, but maybe for generations to come, that I urge the Government to reflect again and see if they cannot agree to clearer and more precise language so as to avoid all misunderstanding in the future. I am sure that this would be to the benefit of both parties.
An All-India Federation is the most important recommendation in the Bill. To give a restricted form of Provincial Autonomy without responsibility at the Centre, even in a British India Federation, would surely be as dangerous as it is unworkable. But a British India Federation will not solve the problem, as the Simon Report clearly pointed out, and anyone who knows India must realise it also. I believe that an All-India Federation is essential for the satisfactory and smooth working of the constitution, and I say that because of economic and political reasons. That point has already been dealt with somewhat fully in our previous Debates and I will not labour it, but I do say that if we are to take a risk—and which ever method we may adopt we shall have to take a risk whether we like it or not— I prefer to take a risk with our friends rather than without them. That is not a cowardly attitude, it is a matter of common sense and prudence. Who are our friends in India? I look upon the Princes as our backbone in India. Apart from their undoubted loyalty it is in their own selfish interests on account of the treaties that our presence in India should be strongly felt. I would far rather go forward with strength than with weakness, with an emasculated form of government which might lead only to friction and muddle and which would deny, perhaps for all time, having at our side, a great solid block of conservative opinion which when necessary could act with salutory effect.
I view this Measure as nothing more or less than a partnership, and in arranging a partnership, in defining the conditions, we must endeavour to make the clauses simple and clear to avoid misunderstanding. The Bill goes a long way to accomplish that, but I hope that when the Bill has been through Committee I for one shall be able to read the final Act and understand it without the assistance of great lawyers; that we shall feel that the Act is what we intended it to be and what we clearly intend India to understand it to be—a real partnership, since when the constitution must necessarily ever be a real working partnership with England and the Empire. If that is the final result of the immense work of the Joint Select Committee, to whom we are so much indebted, and whose work was indeed monumental, and not least to the Secretary of State himself, then I think we shall go far towards, I hope, obtaining the practically unanimous acceptance by this House of a great measure in the consolidation of the Empire.
8.34 p.m.
I do not propose to roam over the whole of the Bill but to confine myself shortly to one or two observations on the question of trade discrimination. I listened with great interest to what the Secretary of State said and properly said, that the question of trade discriminations was of paramount importance. I have listened to every speaker, I have sat here for four and a-half hours. Nearly the whole of the speeches have been based on the words "good will." Without good will the Bill will not work. That is the interpretation I have put upon all the speeches. I have listened to the Debate with a genuine desire for conviction that the Bill is as wise, as safe and as reasonable as it is claimed to be by those who support it; but my fears have not been allayed. On the contrary they have been strengthened.
In a matter of this nature, so complex and so vast, we have, of course, to a large extent to consult experts in Indian affairs. I am not one of them. But, having spent a lifetime in business, I have some qualifications for stressing certain economic aspects of the Bill. I submit, and I think it will be generally agreed, that they are all-important. It is no use beguiling ourselves with reassuring phrases, hopes about making India, through the grant of self-government, a loyal unit of the Empire, if we are doubtful about the attitude to trade with this country of the Indian Governments and Ministers that we are about to set up. There can be no progress in Imperial unity, no good will, no strengthening of the ties between this country and India or the forging of new ties, if Indian politicians and administrators are going to use their new powers in order to hamper and reduce our trade with India.
We have heard good will mentioned always. It was one of the stock phrases with regard to Ireland. It was used with regard to Egypt. It was also used with regard to Ceylon. It is being used now with regard to India. The plank upon which my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council said quite definitely that this Bill should be based was good will between the peoples. That, I submit, is the determining factor of the policy embodied in this Bill. Of the present bitter hostility to this country of Congress, which is the all-powerful political organisation in India, there can be no doubt. It has been expressed again and again, and as recently as a few days ago, when the Legislative Assembly passed a hostile vote on the Anglo-Indian Trade Agreement. But I am not concerned with whether that vote has any effect on the agreement or not. I am concerned with the implications of that vote and with the implications of many other exhibitions of hatred to this country afforded by the Indian politicians.
I speak for a great body of commercial opinion which must be patiently heard and carefully weighed. I have consulted many merchants' organisations and many individual merchants who have very important trading connections with India, and I have not found one who regards the future under this Bill with anything but very grave misgivings. These people are not politicians. They are not given to unwarranted optimism or pessimism. They are realists, and they see developing in India, after the passage of this Bill, a situation which will have a disastrous effect upon our Indian trade, and therefore on the employment in this country of those who depend upon that trade. They see Congress hatred transformed by devious methods to injure that trade, despite the alleged safeguards in the Bill. It has been said that even Indian politicians who are actuated by hatred of us are not likely to indulge in the foolish practice of cutting their noses to spite their faces, that Indians cannot afford to pursue such a course with a country which takes so large a proportion of Indian products as we do. But Indian fanaticism takes no count of common sense. It is blind and unreasonable and driven by emotions of strength and intensity which Western people cannot understand. If fanatical hatred drives the Indian to extreme courses against us, it is very little comfort or consolation to British industry and the workpeople in this country to know that if they suffer so also do the workers in India.
The safeguards in the Bill are supposed to prevent trade discrimination against Great Britain. It is said that the Governor-General can step in. In Clause 12 we find these words: fidential information to Indian trade rivals.
Another loophole is the imposition of tariffs. It may be said that there is the safeguard that the Governor-General can step in to prevent the imposition of tariffs if he has reason to believe that they are being imposed to the detriment of Great Britain and are of no benefit to India. For the last two years we have had 25 per cent. imposed on textile goods imported into India. That is to the detriment of Great Britain and it is of no benefit to India. The Indians who desire to buy our goods cannot afford to buy them. It is not in the interests of the Indian consumers. How is any Governor-General going to keep an effective check on all the intrigues that he will have ranged against him? He will have ranged against him all the effective machinery of day-to-day government, by means of which every possible obstacle can be put in the way of investigation and exposure. In other words the British trade front could be subjected in a concentrated form to sniping of the most vicious and damaging kind. I have no desire to deprive the people of India of the exercise of democratic freedom, always provided that there is reasonable assurance that it will not be abused, and that it will not be used to injure the Commonwealth and to inflict additional hardships on the helpless millions of India, merely for the purpose of serving a fanatical hatred of this country. The Congress Party which has always distinguished itself by hatred of this country is only about 100,000, I believe, and to that vicious caucus is to be given the wide powers at the Centre and in the Provinces proposed in the Bill.
May I be allowed to add this? We who oppose the Bill are not one whit less concerned with India and the Empire than those who support it. This is not a party question but a great Imperial issue, which closely affects the employment and the happiness of thousands of our workpeople. Once this Bill has been passed it will be too late to draw back. I ask the House, does anyone imagine that if Indian politicians abuse this measure of self-government and if we have to use the special powers placed in the hands of the Governor-General and the Provincial Governors, we shall be able to reverse the engines without enor- mous disturbance and loss? The time for caution is now, and I submit that it can best be exercised by amending this Bill so as to keep the Central Government of India in our own hands for the present. That would still leave Indian Ministers and administrators a much wider field than they have now, in the Provincial Governments to which, I suggest, they should be confined until they have proved themselves competent for the equitable discharge of their responsibilities as loyal subjects of the Crown.
8.48 p.m.
Once in a way I feel inclined to sympathise with those whom I have so often attacked, namely, the people who make long speeches. But let no hon. Member fear that I am going to translate my sympathy into action. I have been emboldened to intervene in this Debate because in the first place I realise that when convictions sincerely held are expressed in this House, they are always treated with the respect which they deserve. I have, too, considerable experience in working with men of other races, admittedly not in India but at the same time I feel that that has given me an opportunity of appreciating the difficulties and dangers which have had to be considered by every one of us in studying this problem. It is true that on a previous occasion I stated my general agreement with the policy of the Government. It is also true that ever since that occasion, some two years ago, I have done my utmost to weigh up the arguments and statements of those who have criticised that policy. I feel that it is worth while to say that because we must all realise how complex, difficult and grave this question is. I am very glad to say that I find that the critics and the supporters of the Bill have some common ground. Certainly we have all come to the realisation that there must be some advance, especially in view of the pledge which we gave in 1919.
This is not an advance.
I disagree. In my opinion it is an advance. I also feel very definitely in my own conscience—whether or not one puts aside subsequent proclamations and bases oneself only on the actual pledge in that Bill—that the intention of the British people was to make an advance in gradually giving responsible self-government to India. I was very glad to see in the Minority Report of the Joint Select Committee that that intention was admitted. Therefore, I believe I can fairly claim that there is the common ground stated in the Minority Report, namely, that we should now proceed, in any case, to undertake the establishment of constitutions in the Provinces. That is a very distinct advance on common ground, and the more common ground we can get the better pleased I and everyone else will be.
Having established the existence of that common ground I would like to say a few words as to the two sections who in this House and in the country are opposing some parts of the Bill. They represent two completely separate bodies of opinion. There is the left wing represented by hon. and right hon. Members of the official Opposition, and there is also a right wing. They criticise the principles of the Bill from different angles. I have referred to them as the left wing and the right wing respectively, and, to continue the sporting metaphor, I may say that they have a very formidable centre forward in the person of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). He can use his head, can shoot with both feet, and requires careful watching because he is a thoroughly good exponent of passing. I am sure that if any verbal dispute arose with the referee or with the opposite side, the right hon. Gentleman would be a very formidable protagonist in that dispute because of his great oratorical ability, his magnificent choice of adjectives and what one might almost call his predetermined spontaneity. These are all dangerous weapons which he well knows how to use.
I should like now to refer to the attitude of hon. and right hon. Members of the official Opposition. I have looked with great care at the draft which the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) presented. It is indeed a fine bit of writing and in it there are many fine phrases. At the beginning many things are said with which, I think, we all agree. I took note of some that I specially wanted to mention. He said in the Draft Report: I hope that that idea will not be put forward by the Opposition, because I am sure it will only do harm.
Turning to the other wing of the critics of these proposals, I realise that there are two great points of difference between those who support the Bill and those who are against it. I have stated before the common ground, but there is a great division on the question of the transfer of law and order. Again on a previous occasion I have said to this House that in my view it was necessary to transfer law and order. I said too at that time that I was speaking with considerable experience and appreciation of the full dangers and risks of such a transfer. I have not changed my opinion in that respect in any way, but my real reason for advocating the transfer is much more my belief that you cannot really try out responsibility without the transfer of law and order in the Provinces. That reason influences me much more than the idea that you would concentrate on to she police all the political hostility were the transfer denied. My own great reason for advocating transfer is, as I say, that I believe you must try out responsibility to the full.
I am, too, very glad indeed to welcome the extra Safeguards which are in the Bill and which were advocated by the Joint Select Committee. It is not now the moment to go into all those separate Safeguards, but I feel I might usefully say that as regards the "secret intelligence" new Safeguard, the withholding of information, I am convinced that there is nothing derogatory to the Indians or to anyone else in that. I am sure that everyone here who has had any experience of getting and giving secret intelligence must have had the experience, either as a subordinate or as a superior, both of giving and receiving definite secret information without disclosing and without knowing the source of the information. It is a very ordinary practice, not only at home, but certainly abroad, in such services, the reason, of course, being that the fewer people who know the source of the information in such circumstances as sedition, the less likely is harm to come to the informer; and I hope it will be thoroughly realised by the Indian people that there is nothing derogatory at all in that Safeguard.
As regards the other main point of difference, it is, of course, the composition of the Centre. I do not want to repeat in my own words arguments that have been used so much more ably by others, but I would like to try to put as simply as I can the position as I see it. If we grant, on common ground, Provincial Autonomy, we have then to face three possibilities at the Centre. We can, first, keep the Centre as it is, and I know of few people who advocate that. Hon. Members will remember that the Statutory Commission pointed out the very great weakness of the Centre and the very strong effect which the Legislative Assembly, which was irresponsible, had on the programme of the Government at the Centre. That weakness was fully endorsed when the Joint Select Committee inquired into the matter, and I am glad to say also that in the Minority recommendations put in by the Noble Marquess and his friends the words occur, speaking from memory, that the weakness of the Centre is a very serious blemish as things are at present. Therefore, nobody really advocates retention of the Centre exactly as it is. The critics say, "Let us help the Centre by adding to it an advisory council." There is, in my view, one very great objection to that proposal, and that is the attitude of the States, which dislike—in fact, would not enter—a council which would be purely advisory. That is a great fault in the proposal made by the critics.
Will the hon. Member say when the Princes said they would never enter such a council?
I am afraid I cannot give the Noble Lady the exact date, but I think she will see it stated in the report of the Joint Select Committee. It was certainly stated to be so from the Front Government Bench in the Debate we had a short time ago. The third alternative is the Federation as proposed in the Bill. I believe that some measure of responsibility has to be given to the new centre. The Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) pointed out what, in my opinion, was the great over-riding argument in favour of that. It is that any examination of the finances of India shows that the whole centre and interests of the Provinces must lie for many years to come in the financial and economic policy at the Centre. It would seem, therefore, a very dangerous thing to leave no nexus, no chain at all between the Centre and the Provinces.
I feel, too, that the other great argument in favour of Federation is the attitude of the Princes as declared. I am glad to see that they have recently declared that their attitude remains the same as before, and that they hold to themselves, perfectly rightly, the right to reserve their final judgment until they see the Bill, the accession treaties and the instrument of instructions. They made a most wise and statesmanlike pronouncement on the point. Therefore, I believe that of the three alternatives I have mentioned, the Federation as outlined in the Bill is the best. In my view, thoroughly realising the gravity of the decision and the full responsibility upon every member, the questions we have to ask ourselves are, Do we really want to try out Parliamentary Government institutions in India? Do we really believe in a united All-India Federation within the Empire as the goal and objective of our policy? If the answer to these two questions is in the affirmative, which it is in my case, I believe that this Bill is in the true line of progress. The history of England is the history of progress, and I support the Bill.
9.9 p.m.
My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Kirkpatrick), in the speech which he made earlier to-day, rather suggested that the opposition of those who were against the measures contained in this Bill was due to a superiority complex and an anti-Indian bias. Such a suggestion is totally unjustified. We are opposed to the Bill because we do not consider that the peoples of India to-day are ready for this tremendous advance in self-government. We do not in any way wish to restrict the measure of self-government which should be given to the peoples of India, but we desire that the stages of advance shall be in accordance with the abilities of the peoples of India to shoulder the responsibility of further self-government. I wish to criticise the proposals in the Bill from the point of view of the Simon Commission's Report, which is the greatest historical document in existence dealing with political and other conditions of India. I have not had the benefit of having been in India or of any practical experience of the conditions in that country. Therefore, I am forced to base my opinion on the report of the Simon Commission, upon the evidence that has been given, and on the various speeches and Debates which have taken place.
I have been led to the inevitable conclusion that the measure of self-government which is now proposed, if one takes the Simon Commission's Report as one's basis, is totally unjustified. We are not bound by any pledges which have been given, other than the promises which have been made on the part of the Sovereigns of this country, and what is contained in the 1919 Act. We are committed to try out self-government in India. That is the policy which we have carried out in every other part of the world, where we have had the opportunity. There is nothing new in that at all, but we do desire that the measure of self-government which shall be given to the peoples of India shall only be by stages, and such stages as the people have shown themselves fitted for. The 1919 Act says that the progress towards self-government is to be gradual by stages only, that Parliament alone is to decide what the stages must be, and that the decision of Parliament must depend upon the co-operation and sense of responsibility shown by those upon whom the Act conferred new powers.
The instructions given to the Simon Commission were that they were to report the advance shall be and the rate at which advance shall take place. The changes now contemplated in this Bill have reached the stage where they can no longer be treated as an experiment. They have gone long past that stage, and they are far too comprehensive to be regarded as an experiment. If an experiment fails in its nature as an experiment, it cannot do any particular harm, and it may do good, but this proposed Constitution is too great to be considered as an experiment. If it fails, the disaster will be on such a scale that it will be a disaster to India, to this country and the Empire alike. The Simon Commission, speaking of the first experiment in self-government, that is, the Act of 1919, reported:
Again, we have been told by speaker after speaker, and quite rightly so, that we must rely upon the good will and the co-operation of the people in India in order to make this proposed Constitution a success. Have we had that loyal co-operation and good will so far? It is notorious that the only well organised political party in India, the Congress party, did their utmost to make that Act a failure, and they succeeded to a very great extent. They were opposed to the White Paper proposals, they were opposed to the Joint Select Committee's Report, they are more than ever opposed to this Bill, and there will be no possibility of relying upon their co-operation and good will to make this Constitution a success. I quite agree that no Constitution given to India, other than complete independence, would satisfy the Congress party, but we have to remember that they are the majority party in India, and therefore we set off with this Constitution knowing that we can place no reliance on the good will and co-operation of the strongest party in India. The Government, I believe, rely upon the mass of moderate Liberal opinion in order to work the Constitution; but what are the facts? The National Liberal Federation held a conference at Poona in December, 1934, and an important resolution was passed unanimously. The "Times" of 31st December, 1934, published a short report of the proceedings. Mr. Sastri, who is a man of great political standing, a very important political figure in India, a man who must have the complete confidence of the Government—certainly he has had the complete confidence of the Government of India in the past—moved a resolution which was carried unanimously. I will read that resolution, because from my point of view it is of the utmost importance:
Is the hon. Member desirous of following the lines laid down by Mr. Sastri?
No, my case is that the Government are dependent on the good will and co-operation of moderate Liberal opinion in India for the working of this Bill. As the Govern- ment cannot rely on the largest political party in power in the Central Legislature, cannot rely on the mass of Liberal opinion, upon whom do they rely? I think the House is entitled to an answer to that question. The Government have based the whole of this Constitution on obtaining good will. It seems to me that if they are going to rely on good will for the working of this Constitution they are backing the wrong horse, for it will not run. It was clearly shown in the evidence before the Simon Commission that where British control had been relaxed or taken away altogether, that communal troubles had been intensified, that the services themselves had suffered, and that bribery and corruption had increased, as a result of the 1919 Act. There was no question about that whatever. I would ask the House to consider, when this tremendous advance in self-government is given, what will be the further extent of these evils which came about as a result of the 1919 Act. I would refer to the transfer of law and order in the Provinces, which is a matter on which Members who disagree with this Bill hold very strong views. It is not only Members in this House who feel keenly on this matter, but those who are responsible for working it in India. Police officials are extremely uneasy about it. Every line of evidence before the Joint Select Committee betrays the great uneasiness at this transfer of law and order. The Simon Commission were fully aware of the gravity of the situation if this transfer took place, and gave arguments condemning the transfer, which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs described as apparently unanswerable. However, he is quite capable of making out a case on the opposite side.
Notwithstanding the very strong arguments which were contained in the Simon Commission report against transfer, it did recommend that transfer should take place, because they said that if it did not then responsible government in the Provinces would be a farce. In my humble opinion I do not agree with that. We are going to give to the Provinces a tremendous advance. If the Ministers who will take charge when there is autonomy in the Provinces are not satisfied with the administration of other departments over enormous areas involving a population of between 30,000,000 and 40,000,000, then I should be very sorry for the future of India. The whole of their ability—and many of them will be inexperienced—will be severely taxed, quite apart from the transference of law and order. The Simon Commission did not recommend this transfer without any qualification. On the contrary, there were two qualifications, and very important ones, neither of which appears in this Bill. First of all, there were to be one or more Ministers who could be nominated by the Government.
I did not say there should be one, but that there might be one.
"Might be." Does the hon. Member suggest that "might be" means nothing? If it means nothing, they had no right to put it in their report.
Why does the hon. and gallant Member confine himself to the Simon Commission instead of dealing with the Joint Select Committee?
Because the Simon Commission's Report is the most historical document about India.
Why does the hon. and gallant Member confine himself to one document, when there is another one of at least equal authority?
I do not at all agree that the report of the Joint Select Committee is of equal authority. The Simon Commission was completely unbiased in this matter, and spent three years in India and on its report.
And all the survivors have now changed their mind.
The Joint Select Committee was composed of a majority of those in favour of the Government proposals. That is why there is an enormous difference in the significance of the Simon Commission's Report and that of the Joint Select Committee.
Does the hon. Member say that people were honest in 1929 and dishonest in 1934?
I have not brought honesty or dishonesty into it. I never do. I give everybody full credit for their own convictions, and I trust that hon. Members will give me it also. Let me get back to this Simon Commission's Report. There was to be, in addition, a unitary central government and a strengthened government. The Simon Commission when they reported did not visualise a system of governments at the Centre such as is proposed in this Bill, but that there was to be a unitary system of government at the Centre, the same as then existing. That is not in this Bill. These are two vital differences between transfer of law and order in the Simon Commission and in this Bill. I entirely agree that there are Safeguards for the police, special powers in the hands of the Governors and the Governor-General, but I would remind the House with regard to the question of Safeguards that they are anathema to every shade of political opinion in India. It is quite obvious that those who are opposed to Safeguards will do their very utmost to make these Safeguards of no use, and at the first available opportunity do away with them altogether. Another point is that when the Simon Commission reported the regrettable terrorist campaign had not taken place.
Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman contend—
Is it not possible in any way to prevent the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Nicholson) from behaving like a mechanical jumping toy?
I do not think that it will be argued that the terrorist campaign which has taken place had taken place when the Simon Commission reported.
Oh!
Well, we will leave it at that. If the terrorist campaign had assumed the proportions which it has—I hope the hon. Member will concede that—I do not think the Simon Commission would then have recommended the transfer of Law and Order.
There is a further point with regard to the Safeguards. You may safeguard the police, but what about the magistrates and the law courts? Law and order do not merely consist of the police, who are merely part of law and order; we must also have safeguards in regard to the magistrates who control the police in the Provinces. If you merely safeguard the police, you are not safeguarding the transfer of law and order at all. In the course of time there will undoubtedly be Indian Governors in the Provinces. We know that the police now carry out their duties in an extraordinarily efficient and commendable manner, in the face of tremendous difficulties which are due to communal and political pressure. They can only carry out their duties because they know for certain that they will be backed up by those in authority, whatever they may do in carrying out their duty, provided that it is their duty and not only because of their discipline and loyalty. When you transfer law and order, is it suggested by any hon. Member that political and communal pressure and intrigue will not increase enormously? A Minister will have the greatest difficulty in resisting those influences, and when there is an Indian Governor, what then? It would be almost beyond the power of man for an Indian Governor with an Indian Ministry and an Indian electorate all bringing pressure to bear against him, to bring into operation these Safeguards against those people's wishes. For those reasons, we view the transfer of law and order with the gravest apprehension.
We are not alone in that feeling. The police in India view this proposal with the same grave concern. The efficient administration of law and order is one of the departments which touch the everyday life of the common masses of India more intimately than the administration of any other department. It is almost true to say that the administration of all the other departments is dependent upon the efficient and just administration of law and order. It is therefore absolutely essential that the administration of law and order should be above suspicion, should be outside political and communal pressure, and that the police in exercising their duty should be certain in their minds that they will be supported. Otherwise, I believe that the poison of doubt and mistrust will permeate the whole of the police force, whose efficiency will deteriorate, that law and order will suffer and that the scales of justice itself will no longer be evenly held.
I am sorry to have to read so much to the House, but I must do it in support of my argument. I propose to read what the late Mr. Montagu wrote in his book "An Indian Diary" on this subject. He said:
In regard to responsibility at the Centre, I again refer to the Simon Commission's Report. They stated:
The pity of it all is that the Simon Commission's Report was never brought before this House and discussed as the basis of a future Constitution for India. As regards Federation, the Simon Commission's Report said: This very important fact was changed, that, if and when a Federation was possible, the Indian Princes would come in and make a Federation of All-India, instead of a Federation of British India only. That is most important, and there is no disagreement that, when federation does take place, it must be a Federation of All-India. I think we are all agreed about that. But I would ask the right hon. Gentleman how the accession of the Princes can possibly accelerate by one minute the time when the Provinces are fitted and ready to enter a Federation at all? That is the real point with regard to Federation.
I want to bring forward another argument with regard to federation. The Simon Commission point out in their report that experience shows that federation has generally come about some time after the federating units have become politically self-conscious. In Australia and South Africa, unity at a common centre was only brought about a substantial time after each of the constituent units, or at any rate most of them, had achieved self-government; and the same is true of the Dominion of Canada and the United States of America. History has shown the necessity of federation growing gradually, after the lapse of a substantial time, out of the desire and recognised needs of politically self-conscious federating units, in the case of European countries, where the nation was of one race, with practically one language and one mentality, knowing the whole details of democratic government, and where there were not the almost insuperable barriers to a democratic form of government that exist in India to-day, with the communal question, with a history of 3,000 or 4,000 years with an autocratic form of government, and where their territory was infinitely less and their population considerably smaller than that of India, If in their case history has shown that it was necessary for federation only to come gradually, as the federating units prepared themselves for it and were fitted and able to federate, and when they wished to do, so I would ask the House whether it is not common sense that, in the case of India, where the difficulties are infinitely greater, we should go slowly in the matter of Federation, and should not throw completely on one side, not only the Simon Commission's Report, but the whole teaching of history itself.
We who oppose this Bill do not do so because we do not desire to help the Indian peoples to develop self-government. Far from it. We desire that we should go forward towards self-government in India. But we say that no one in this country or anywhere else can say what form of Government will ultimately be proved by experience to be fitted to the mentality, the needs and the conditions of the peoples in India. We say give them self-government in the Provinces. Let them, with that tremendous extension, as it is, of self-government, try out the experiment with our fullest co-operation and good will and support, and find out by experience whether a democratic form of government—which in most cases has proved not to be fitted to European countries and may also not be fitted to the Indian people—can be tried out first in the Provinces. Let them, as is so clearly pointed out in the Simon Commission's Report, evolve from experience the form of self-government that is really fitted to their needs. Instead of doing that however, we are imposing upon the people of India a Constitution unparalleled in the history of the world—the greatest experiment of all time, to use the words of the Secretary of State. Should it fail, what then? On whom will the failure chiefly fall? On the 300 millions or more people on the land in India over 90 per cent. of whom are illiterate and whose welfare should be our special care. It is upon them that the failure of this Constitution will chiefly fall. I ask the Government in view of the remarks I have made, inadequate though they may be, to stay their hands and not go forward with this tremendous advance in constitutional government which, from all the facts, would appear at the present time to be totally unjustified.
9.53 p.m.
I must express my sincere sorrow at having to disagree with my hon. and gallant Friend who has just sat down. He has, however, expressed his views with such vitality, and his voice has also exhibited that quality so strongly, that I feel he will get over it. Whatever old soldiers do, it is quite obvious that old sailors do not fade away. It was about two years ago that as one of a lone band of 43 I spoke and voted very regretfully against the Government on the first White Paper proposals. I did so because of my experience, possibly very trifling, of India now 25 years old; but I also did so because I had an inherent feeling to which I could not assign any particular reason that the Government were going too far and too fast. I had also some other reasons. I was greatly guided by a speech made by my light hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council and also by a speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) upstairs, in which the outstanding argument was that, as federation depended upon the Princes, and as the Princes would form a stable and conservative element in the future Central Government of India, and as they had given an indication of co-operation in that Government, the best course was to take on ourselves this responsibility and get them into this complete Federation that is outlined in the Bill.
But I have been thinking during the last few months while the Bill has been under consideration, whether there was not some even more fundamental reason why this step is inevitable. I believe it became inevitable from the time the first Briton set foot in India. I do not believe it is inevitable because of any declaration made under the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms Act. I do not believe it is inevitable because of any statements made by successive Viceroys or Secretaries of State or statements made in the Preamble of the 1919 Act. I believe it is inevitable because we took upon ourselves certain responsibilities when we took over from the East India Company. We encouraged missionaries to go to India and bring with them education and equality of social status. Then followed education by the Government. Then we welcomed Indians here to our public schools and universities and our big medical schools, and not alone did we give them equality in the social sphere but we went further and gave them equality of sex. Can one wonder why they have thought themselves qualified and why they went back to India feeling that they should have the same equality in the government of their own country? That is one of the main reasons why I decided to support the Government on the Motion on which this Bill was based and why I propose doing the same thing again on Monday night.
But, although I am supporting the Government, I have, like probably every Member of the Select Committee and everyone who is supporting the Government to-night, very grave misgivings in regard to what will actually happen. For instance, I imagine that the Bill will be viewed from three different angles. The first is that of the British man in the street, the voter, the man whom we here are representing, the man who will be held responsible when we put this Bill through Parliament. The second angle would be that of the Indian politician and the third, that of the man at home here who knows India and is yet opposed to the Government's proposal. Those, I imagine, should be the three guiding critics of the attitude of the Government. Take the point of view of the man in the street. He has not read the report of the Select Committee. He will not read the Bill itself. He will only take the views of his favourite newspaper. If he is a student of the "Times" or the "Daily Telegraph," he will believe that anything that the Government do is well done, whether it is about India or anything else, and he will not worry any more, whereas if he reads the "Morning Post" or the "Daily Mail" he will assume that, whereas the Government may be right in most things, on India they are dead wrong. If his political gospel is taken from the "Daily Express" or the "News-Chronicle" or the "Herald" he will be quite satisfied that all the activities of the Government on India or anything else are stupid, vicious and reactionary. It depends on the paper.
I do not think therefore that the opinion of the man in the street can be given too much weight or confidence, so we are thrown back on the other two categories the Indian politician and our own cultured educated Briton who has been to India and knows it. What is the Indian politician's point of view? This is not my idea of the Indian politician's view, but the views that I paraphrased from the Indian papers. The Bill will appear to him as an absolute mockery of self government in that it seeks to persuade him that he is getting control over his own affairs, whereas in actual fact he will have less control than under the present regime. It will appear to him that there are so many restrictions put to self-government—the special responsibilities of the Viceroy, the reserved departments, the Viceroy's discretion, his power of interference, and finally his complete dictatorial powers should there be any breakdown of government either at the Centre or in the Provinces. To Indians, this will mean in actual practice that with a strong, determined Governor-General and with a British Secretary of State of a reactionary outlook, there will be practically little, if any, freedom of government at the Centre and very little in the Provinces.
So we come to the third category, those in this House who, like myself and many others view the Bill with misgiving, who know India, some to a greater extent, some to a less, with a desire to see the right thing done but who yet feel that the Government have gone too far in this case. They see, I imagine, two great dangers. They see, first of all, the difficulty of finding a man of the necessary quality, eminence, character and ability as the King's representative in his dual capacity of Governor-General and Viceroy. The second difficulty they see is the attitude of a Socialist Government should they be called upon at a later date to implement the Act of Parliament which will be based and framed on this Bill. Many of us feel that, if a National or a Conservative Government will be in office, they can rest in peace because they will be assured that a man of outstanding qualities and integrity will be appointed and that, therefore, the Safeguards will be properly imposed and executed. But if, for instance, as some of these critics feel, by subtle, unscrupulous propaganda this Government were defeated at a General Election on some issue such as housing or depressed areas or the Unemployment Assistance Regulations, and then a Socialist Viceroy were appointed with strict instructions not to implement the Safeguards, what is the safeguard against that? That is one of the things that appeal to many outside the House who are taking a great interest in the Bill. I do not attach so much importance to the argument that India must be kept within the Empire. If we deserve to keep India, we shall keep it, but if a Socialist Viceroy, with strict instructions not to implement the various Safeguards was sent out, India would not only be lost but also handed over to chaos, misery and, of course, to bloodshed.
Then there is this other difficulty that appeals to me of the Viceroy or Governor-General, even under a National or a Conservative Government, carrying out his special responsibilities, exercising his discretion or using his individual judgment. Suppose he finds it necessary to discharge these special responsibilities in regard to a particular Province and he is forced as a last resource to resort to the Army. We all hope, of course, that he will not, but he may find that the Minister in charge of some particular Department on which the Army depends is hostile to his Government. What then? He can of course dismiss and replace them, but he cannot go on doing that indefinitely. Then he himself takes over the appropriate Department or Departments, but he can only move the Army to the disaffected Province if the railwaymen operate the railways, if the clothing factories turn out the clothing and equipment, and if the commissariat and ordnance departments shell out stores and ammunition. What is the safeguard here? That is one of the things which worries me a lot, and I hope that whoever replys to this Debate, will help us out of this difficulty.
Is my hon. and gallant Friend, from the argument that he has just used, in favour of reserving communications as well as defence?
If my hon. and gallant Friend will pardon me, I am putting some of the difficulties which I experienced in reading this Bill, and I am asking the Government to help me to have those difficulties solved. At the same time, I have decided to support this Bill in its present form because I believe that it is an experiment which must now be carried out. We have gone far too far, and, as I have said from the minute the first Britisher landed in India and the first missionary taught education and equality this moment had to come. I only pray to God that it will be a success. But it would be far better, in my opinion, if we gave self government generously and unanimously to the people in India so that they will be encouraged and made confident that if they do try to implement this great Measure, they will have the support of the vast body of public opinion in this country behind them as well as our assistance and good will.
When I was interrupted by my hon. and gallant Friend, I was trying to point out the difficulties that the Governor-General would experience without a loyal administration. If disloyal, the Army is helpless, and therefore his one power seems to be gone. There may be answers to these conundrums. If so, I hope that we may have them. There is one other consideration because it is no good criticising constantly unless one can make some suggestion to help to alleviate one's own doubts as well as possibly help the Government, if one may make such a bold suggestion. There is this consideration which does appeal to me, and that is in regard to the present form of the Bill. Let us retain the principle of federation as provided under the Bill, but insert a Clause that Federation is only to be applied in practice by a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament, and that Resolution to be based on the report of another statutory Commission, who would report that the time is ripe and the conditions are suitable.
I know that there will be many who feel and will say, "Let us get done with the question of India. Let it now be dealt with with finality and for all time." But the question of India will never be finally dealt with. If this great adventure of the Government comes to full fruition, it is possible that in 10 or 20 years' time, we may be taking one more, and a greater, step, and therefore it is no use saying that we have finished with it. And so I would like to feel that we should have that further safeguard that we might have the report that the time and the situation are ripe for the practical establishment of the federal system. If success is achieved, as I believe and hope it will be, in the Provinces, then we can give Federation at the Centre without any safeguard; without any of these paper safeguards in which so many have trouble in believing. But we would have the one essential safeguard, that is the experience, good will and the loyalty of the peoples of India themselves.
I have not time to go into the questions of elections, of finance, the federal bank or the judiciary, or even the Indian States. In any case these are largely Committee matters, but I would remind the House that we have three major responsibilities to discharge. One is as my hon. Friend has said, to look after and direct the welfare of the peoples of India themselves. That is the first and chief one. The second is to protect the property and capital of those who have placed it in India for the benefit of India, and the third is to justify the work of those who have sacrificed their health and their lives, so that India and Britain may prosper.
I hope that this great adventure will succeed. I somehow have the belief that there is an inherent genius in the British people for government by compromise. I believe that there is also and will remain in India a great British tradition of justice, honour and integrity, and that with that permeating our various great services and our Civil Service, and of course the Army, although the adventure is dangerous, it may be and can be carried to a successful issue. I feel that this experiment had to be made. There are two or three great experiments that have had to be made in this twentieth century of ours. Prohibition in America had to be tried, and it failed because it was tried out as a result of a deep and passing emotion. Communism has failed in Russia because it was tried out in a moment of great enfeeblement of the country, and by a caucus who temporarily eliminated all opposition. But neither of those conditions apply to this experiment. It is being carried out after seven years of thought and consideration. It is being carried out without any danger to the parties in opposition or else we would not have had so many of them vocal to-night.
Therefore, we have every quality to enable the adventure to be safely embarked upon. If we do it with confidence, unanimity and with sufficient hope and belief and faith we may evolve out of this experiment an India which will be a happy, prosperous and contented member of the British Empire. I hope so.
10.14 p.m.
The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Kirkpatrick) gave us a very interesting speech, and I am sorry that he is not in his place. There were a great many words in it that were quite outside the knowledge of the House, and he had evidently been in India for a considerable time. He told us that he had been a diehard, but that he had gone soft. We do not find a diehard going soft, so I think that his original attitude in 1918 must have been wrong. He had a lot to say about good will and getting trade through good will. My experience of life is that you get far more trade out of respect than good will. If we talked a little more and made the Indians respect us a little more, I think that we should have better trade with India. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) made a statement that the Lancashire cotton operatives would not do anything at the expense of Indian labour, but I do not think that he would mind the Lancashire cotton operatives getting a little bit of work at the expense of the dividends of the Ahmedabad mill-owners. The Secretary of State for India, with that humility which we are accustomed to from him, gave the impression that he knew he had solved the inscrutable riddle of the East and that he had joined the East and the West, but he did not quite tell us how. I do hope that he is right and that we who take a different point of view are wrong.
I have prepared several Second Reading speeches on this Bill in my spare time, but with no success, none of them sounded right, and finally I spoke to a friend, who solved the difficulty for me, thereby doubtless preventing me from saying a great many things that I should have been sorry for afterwards. When one feels very keenly about a subject one is perhaps apt to be a little hasty in saying things that one is sorry for afterwards. My friend said to me: "Go into a room by yourself and speak straight to yourself and tell yourself why you are taking up the attitude that you are on this Bill." That seemed to come very easy. Why was I taking up this attitude? When I was young, I suppose, like a great many of us, I read a great deal of Kipling. Kipling struck me as the sort of man who understood men in all classes, from the highest to the lowest. He got right inside them and saw inside them and then he had the gift of telling what he saw. I shall never forget the passage where he says:
I was elected to the House in 1923 on a full-blooded Protection policy, with Empire Free Trade. There were only a few of us who won seats that year, and it was for a Lancashire seat that I was elected. Since then India has been more in my mind than anything else, because India gave employment to those people whom I had the honour to represent in Parliament and for whom I felt responsibility. I began to get very much afraid of the way that the Indian tariffs were going. On this question we must go back, because it is only from the experience of the past that we can form our ideas of the position to-day and what our future policy ought to be. Every year, from 1924 onwards, I spoke to the powers that be about the question of the tariff against Lancashire cotton. One year it was, "You are just a day too late. Nothing can be done." Next year it was, "There is a ticklish question arising just now about India. Do not bring it on in the House as it will be very awkward. Just keep quiet. Do not make any noise." What was the result? The only person who did not lead me up the garden path about tariffs was Mr. Wedgwood Benn, who said that he would do absolutely nothing for Lancashire as far as tariffs were concerned, although it was a matter of life and death to the people there.
I am afraid that there is a good deal of eyewash about. If Lancashire Members in 1922 had made a sufficient row about it and had examined the whole point of the fiscal convention Lancashire would be in a better position to-day. I am told that it was a gentleman's agreement. All the gentlemen were on one side, and they were led up the garden path by people in India. It was a unilateral agreement, and could have been broken, and should have been broken, when it was seen that the tariffs were not being used for revenue purposes but to keep Lancashire goods out. The gentlemen on this side were duped. The Bombay and Ahmedabad mill owners made the profits, while Lancashire people had to walk the streets. I feel strongly about this question. I feel as though I am to blame, that I should have been quicker to see what was going on, and what was at the back of the fiscal convention. The people who were responsible for the Convention cannot get away from their responsibility. I consider that they were responsible for being lulled into quiescence by the talk of grave State issues and that this so-called fiscal convention should have been got rid of the moment they saw how it was being used. It was their duty to have done so. I know that some people were not very happy when Mr. Edward Wood, now Lord Irwin, went as Viceroy to India. We felt that his attitude of mind was one of compromise. I have a great admiration for the man, his personal courage and undoubted ability, but he did not understand the East, and I am rather afraid that he was as wax in the hands of Mr. Gandhi.
What was the result to Lancashire, and to the Indian peasants, who, I firmly believe, wanted to buy Lancashire goods. It is all very well to talk about regiments walking from Cape Coromin to the Khyber Pass with cotton goods on their bayonets. I agree that it is no good doing that if the people do not want the goods. But we know that the people do want to buy Lancashire goods. There is no reason to suppose that they do not want to buy Lancashire goods. We have heard stories of how the women find Indian home-made cotton so rough that they would much prefer Lancashire goods; and would rather have them. Why should they not have them? Let me quote something which will confirm what I am saying. Sir Charles Innes, the late Governor of Burma was in 1922 a member of the Government of India for Commerce and Industry. In introducing into the Assembly a Bill setting up a Tariff Board he used these words:
What is the result of trying to placate those who are resolute in their hate for us? The Congress Party has shown exactly what it thinks of the trade agreement, which I do not think was really of much use to Lancashire, though the Lancashire men who had gone abroad had to make a good deal of it. Congress has thrown out the agreement. It is not very much consolation to know that they have not the power really to throw it out and that it still stands. But surely that is an earnest of what is to happen in the future. I am worrying only about the future and trying to use our ex- perience in the past to make something better for the future. I understand that there is to be a tariff board in India, which is to do exactly what it likes. The mere fact of appearing before a board to state your case is not going to prevent a tariff being raised.
Take another thing that happened about the agreement that the English Bombay mill owners had to sign—an agreement to take in Indian capital and Indian managers, to use Indian banks and to ship all their goods in Indian bottoms? Is that sort of thing to go on? It has happened in the past. How are we to stop it? Is there anything in the Bill that makes it impossible for such things to happen? Another thing about which I am disturbed is the question of pledges. We have been told, and I think it is true, that we are in no way pledged, that the House of Commons is in no way pledged. But all along I have said that the Indians consider that we are pledged. I think they are quite right to think that, because if the Viceroy makes a statement about Dominion status or the Prime Minister makes a statement on policy, they naturally think it is a pledge. I should like to know whether Lord Halifax when he was at home was empowered to use the expression "Dominion status" and also whether it was agreed to by the Conservative party. If, having talked to the Government here and to the Chief Whip and the Conservative party, he went out to India and talked about Dominion status, then the Indians must look upon it as a pledge, though it is a funny sort of pledge, I admit. I think everyone would be better pleased if this point were elucidated. Nobody wants Lord Halifax to be blamed if he was not to blame, and I am sure nobody wants to shelter behind him.
Then there is the question of solvency throughout India. The Secretary of State answered on Monday a question on that subject put by the hon. Member for the English Universities. His answer does not make very good reading. If you were proposing a combine and had to show these figures, you would not get many people to take shares in it. After all, it may be said it is all right. We are not being asked to take shares in it. But some of the poor people in Lancashire and also hundreds of millions of people in India are not only being asked to take shares in it. They have to put their lives and their all into it. I do not think it is a good thing to start a Constitution with such deficits hanging over it. We talk about "Dominion status," but it is very difficult to define what the expression means. I suppose that each Member in this Chamber if asked for a definition would have a different idea of it. But I always understood that if you belonged to a Dominion, you were also a British subject, and I see a great deal of difficulty arising in that connection. How are those who belong to the Indian States going to be members of the Dominion of India? It is a difficult question. I cannot see that the Princes will jump at our suggestion that they should become British subjects themselves and that their own subjects should also become British subjects, but surely that is the only logical way in which we can give India Dominion status.
I have read a great deal on this subject in recent months, and the more I read the more doubtful I become. I have read most of the evidence which was led before the Joint Select Committee, and I cannot see any sign of unity or agreement in it. The Members of the House are taking a great deal of responsibility upon themselves in dealing with this matter if they have not tried to study it at first hand, and if they are merely going to accept blindly what is put to them by people who are, we know, perfectly straight—we are making no accusation against them. But a great many of us, I fear, are following them blindly without trying to find out the facts for ourselves. Those who do so are undertaking a responsibility which I should not like to undertake. I studied the Simon Report carefully, and I thought it went too far. I could not agree with handing over law and order. The maintenance of law and order for thousands of years in India, indeed from time immemorial has been the prerogative of the Crown, and I personally think that it ought to remain the prerogative of the Crown or the Viceroy. I think handing it over to Ministers is bound to land us in a most awful lot of harm and trouble. After the Simon Report we had the Round Table Conferences, which did not quite give one a feeling of reality, and what really finished me was when we had the Joint Select Committee, with—I am not saying it in an invidious way—the Secretary of State for India witnessing to them and telling them what to do, sitting as a judge on them, and so many people who—
I do not know to what my hon. Friend is referring.
The Joint Select Committee, the composition of it. That committee did not strike me at all as a judicial committee. It struck me as a committee composed of a lot of people who had made up their minds one way or the other, but if you have people like that, it is very difficult indeed to come to what I should call a fair and just decision. I should not have minded those people all appearing before a committee composed of the Judges, because they could have sifted the evidence out very much better, and I am certain that the Secretary of State would have given just as good evidence before the Judges as he did before the Joint Select Committee.
What is going to happen if this does not work? I have heard many opinions about that. I have even heard people who dared to say, "Well, if it does not work, it is all right, for we can then go back." But surely that is a policy of fear and cowardice, and it is not straight. I do not think the Secretary of State for India thinks that way at all. I believe he thinks it will work. I do not think it will, but anyone who supports it with the idea of its not working, so that they can have gone the easy way and then come in again—I think very little of people who think like that. It shows a want of courage and everything else. Why must we dash in so fast? I think we are doing a grievous wrong to the majority. In all this evidence and in all these reports we hear continually of minorities, but what about the 300,000,000, the vast majority? We never hear a word about them, and they are the people that I am sorry for. I am not at all sorry for the few people who are going to get jobs, but I am sorry for these people, about whom nothing is going to be done. Really they are going to be handed over. We are bound by the promise of Queen Victoria to look after the whole lot and to govern India for their good.
So far as the Montagu-Chelmsford Report is concerned, the Preamble is a definite promise, which remains unchanged, that we should go back, advance, or stay on the way as might be proved by events during the next 10 years. That Measure was to decide at what pace we were to go forward. One hon. Member said, "We are only asking you to take two steps down instead of one," but I always think that one at a time is plenty. Careful consideration of all these Departments should have been made before any other Departments were handed over. Where a scrutiny has been made, the results have not been good and have shown constant deterioration in the Departments. These Departments, which even under good British management were finding it hard enough to go ahead, have since British management ended—take the Medical Department, for instance—gone back steadily. It is not noticeable yet, because the impetus which they had gathered up has not quite died out, but all the reports that one gets are to the effect that they are not in the position they were in before, when they were under the British Raj and British management. Then why go on? Let us keep the medical service in our own hands.
Then I hear, with regard to irrigation, and education also, that people are afraid of a deterioration all round. I would not be talking as I am if I did not feel very deeply about the subject of the majority of Indians. I think that we are handing them over to the few. I have a great deal of sympathy for the people of Lancashire who, I think, might have been in a different position to-day if the Fiscal Convention had been properly used. I have figures to show that as the duty went up the revenue went down, with the exception of 1932–33. In 1920–21 there was a comparatively small duty of about 6 crores. In 1929–30 it went down to 3; in 1931–32 to 3 odd; in 1933–34 it was 4. I suppose that that money went into the pockets of the Allahabad and Bombay millowners. What are we going to get out of this? I think we are going to get the wails and curses of the millions whom we are betraying and the contempt and derision of those whom we are trying to placate.
10.42 p.m.
The hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir N. Stewart Sandeman) said that those of us who were prepared to come to a decision upon this question without any direct experience of India were taking a heavy responsibility and one which he would not like to have to take. That is true, but it is a responsibility which we cannot avoid. If we supported the hon. Members who are opposing the Bill, or if we abstained from voting at all, we would still be assuming a responsibility. The only thing we can do is to exercise our judgment upon such evidence as is available to us and to act accordingly. The hon. Member is very angry about the Fiscal Convention, and I do not blame him. If I were a Lancashire Member I should feel the same way about it, but I cannot feel that the solution which the hon. Member offered—which I take it is to denounce the Convention—is a very happy one. The Secretary of State reminded us of what happened in the American Colonies when we adopted the kind of attitude which the hon. Member recommends that we should adopt now. There is an even higher authority than the Secretary of State to whom we might refer. The hon. Member lays great store on people with a direct and long experience in India. More than 100 years ago Warren Hastings said that the day might come when India would be lost to the Empire, as the American Colonies were lost, on the Floor of the House of Commons. I think that that authority should satisfy even the hon. Member.
I find myself in a certain confusion of mind regarding the attitude of those hon. Members of my own party who are in conflict with the Government on this subject. The hon. Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) said, what I take to be more or less the official view of the Conservative opposition, that there was no real distinction in principle between the attitude of the Government and the attitude of the Conservative opposition, and that it was a distinction only of degree and of speed. He said that he, for his part, was equally anxious with the Government to make an advance on this Indian question, but that the advance should not be as fast as the Government proposed. If that is the case, how can it be that what we might call the keystone of the Opposition policy is denunciation of the Fiscal Convention? That is not any advance at all, but is a step backwards for 14 years. I think that when hon. Members say it is only a difference of degree and not a differ- ence of principle at all that they are deceiving themselves, and that what they really want to do is to go backwards, and to go a pretty long way backwards.
The hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox), in a speech which, if he will allow me to say so, impressed the whole House, I am sure, by its sincerity, was very solicitous for the welfare of the masses of India. He asked what good could come to the masses from the operation of democracy in India; he said they are not fit for it, that they are illiterate, that they do not understand what voting means, and that it was quite hopeless. On that kind of assumption democracy is quite unworkable anywhere. If we proceed on pure logic it is quite unworkable in this country, where it has worked very well on the whole, and probably will continue to work very well on the whole until such time as the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir A. Cripps) gets hold of the machinery of government. But even in this country it would be possible, I think, to match the kind of story which the hon. and gallant Member told about the difficulties in which the Indian peasant finds himself when asked to vote. I can certainly match them from my own experience in my own constituency, and I daresay other hon. Members can also. Not long after the General Election, when one might have supposed that even the most obscure Member of Parliament would have been known, to some extent, in his division, at any rate, a constituent of mine was asked, "What is the name of your Member of Parliament?" and I am told that he replied, "He is a decent enough chap, but I do not remember his name. I know he is a Socialist and I know his father was Lord Mayor of London." That constituent was evidently not a very close student of local politics, though he knew a good thing when he saw one. In the same way, I think it is fair to suggest, as I am told by a man with very great experience of India, that the Indian ryot, though not able to read or write, and not quite sure where he ought to put his cross on the ballot paper, is a very hard-headed fellow and has a very good idea of what is to his own benefit. He is not nearly so easily put upon as hon. Members are inclined to make out.
Surely there is no comparison between the electorate here, even in the hon. Member's constituency, and in India. The stories I told were of people being hustled into the polling booth who did not know the name of the person for whom they were going to vote.
As the hon. and gallant Member says, it is perfectly true that it is not an equal comparison, but what I was saying was that if we take the ground of pure logic we are going to prove that democracy is absolutely unworkable anywhere. There has been a great deal of talk to-day on the subject of Safeguards, but it seemed to me, listening to the Debate, that the attitude of a good many people towards Safeguards has undergone quite a considerable change. In previous Debates on this subject we have heard a great deal about paper safeguards. We have not heard nearly so much about paper safeguards to-day. Indeed, anyone who reads the Bill must come to the conclusion that the safeguards are made rather of steel than of paper. I may not be a mathematician, but if I were I should have tried to have counted how many times the phrase "in his discretion" applying to the Governor or Governor-General occurred in the Bill. Whatever safeguards there are, they are not paper; they are pretty solid and severe. If that is so, then we are told that we are up against the old dilemma that there can be no real responsibility with real safeguards. I am sure that is quite a false dilemma. It has been said by dozens of Members in this House that these safeguards would only apply when a sense of responsibility failed, when responsibility turned into irresponsibility, when and if India proved itself incapable of responsible government. The Secretary of State in his speech this evening compared this Bill to the gigantic vessel to which Warren Hastings referred. This Bill seems to me much more like one of those enormous buildings of steel and concrete, the steel and concrete very hard and stiff and not very malleable, but the occupier of the building perfectly free to move about and make his own arrangements.
Unless there is an earthquake.
Only when the incendiary comes along to set the building on fire or the burglar to break in, does the steel and concrete become important. It is much the same in this Bill. The safeguards will only be brought into effect by irresponsible Indian politicians, but there are many responsible Indian politicians. In the Debate that we had before Christmas the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) twitted the Lord President of the Council for being a prophet, and told him that prophets were often wrong. The right hon. Member for Epping is hardly the person to talk about prophecy, for he has been prophesying doom ever since this Bill on India hove on to the horizon. Probably he would say that the Lord President's prophecies are based on the opinion of pygmies—of Viceroys and Governors—while his are based on the sage experience of men who have spent many years of their lives with their noses to the grindstone in India. There may be something in his contention. But I have gathered from the reading of history that India is an uncertain continent and even those with thorough knowledge do not always make the most expert and accurate prophets.
It is very interesting to refer back to Debates held in this House after the Indian Mutiny. It is very interesting to see the kind of argument put forward in those Debates. In those days the question was not whether Parliament should divest itself of responsibilities, but whether it should assume responsibility for India from the East India Company. It is very interesting to read those Debates and to see how those whom I may, perhaps, without impropriety, call die-hards, those who had most experience of India, were most franctically opposed to Parliament assuming responsibility, just as they are to-day most opposed to Parliament divesting itself of responsibility. What is even more interesting is that a great many of the arguments which they used 80 years ago are being used in exactly the opposite sense to-day. For example, one Member pointed out to the House that if this dreadful thing were done, and if the House of Commons assumed control of the destinies of the Indian Empire, it would have a terrible effect upon recruitment for the Indian Service. It was pointed out that at that time the flower of the English race went into the Indian Service, but that if Parliament assumed control you would get only political hacks and second-rate people going out to India.
An hon. Member asked whether the House was aware what people who really knew India thought about the House of Commons as a body for governing. He said that the confidence which those experts had in the House of Commons was of an entirely negative quality and that they were quite convinced that the House of Commons was not qualified in any way to control the Secretary of State and the Indian Empire. Another hon. Member asked the Minister who was responsible for the Bill: "Do the Government seriously believe that an Indian Empire constituted as these Resolutions propose, will ever pay its own way?" The analogy is a strangely complete one, and though this is an argument which one might easily push too far, it does give one room to hope that a good many of the gloomy prophecies which we have heard about this Bill from people who know India very well indeed may not be fulfilled in exactly the way the prophets believe.
It is not my place to lecture any of my fellow Members, but I would like, if I may without presumption, to repeat from my own humble position something which was said by the Secretary of State this afternoon. He said that he hoped that this Bill would get through as expeditiously as possible. I do not wish to imply that those who take a different view from my own on this Bill have not, from their own point of view, a great deal of strength and force on their side, or that they should not do everything they can to make better a Bill which they consider to be bad, but as Members of Parliament we have other responsibilities besides this responsibility of India. We have responsibilities nearer home which, to my way of thinking, are even more urgent than this. We must remember that in hundreds of thousands of homes in this country to-day there is still a feeling of despair which has not been lifted, and I suggest that it is the duty of every Member who is a supporter of the Government to do nothing that will postpone the consideration of those other urgent domestic problems, and that we ought to do everything we can to stimulate and encourage the Government in their dealing with the terrible problems with which we are faced at home.
Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[ Mr. John. ]
Debate to be resumed To-morrow.
Consolidation Bills
Ordered, "That the Lords Message [5th February] be now considered."—[ Sir F. Thomson. ]
Lords Message considered accordingly.
Ordered,
"That a Select Committee of Six Members be appointed to join with a Committee appointed by the Lords to consider all Consolidation Bills in the present Session."—[ Sir F. Thomson. ]
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.
Mr. Fielden, Mr. Janner, Mr. Holford Knight, Major Milner, Mr. Ross Taylor, and Sir Robert Smith nominated Members of the Committee.
Ordered,
"That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records."
Ordered,
"That Three be the quorum."—[ Sir F. Thomson. ]
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
Unemployment Assistance
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Sir F. Thomson. ]
11.2 p.m.
At Question Time I gave notice to the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Labour that I would raise a point concerning the regulations for payment in connection with public assistance. I regret that the hon. Gentleman is not present. I said quite definitely at Question time that I would raise the point to-night, and I thought that that notice was sufficient. I am rather surprised that no Minister is present.
I do not think the hon. Member said exactly that he was going to raise the matter to-night He did not give the Minister warning during the day that he was going to raise it to-night.
I said clearly that I would raise the matter to-night, and I thought the Minister understood. In the circumstances, if I can raise it on the Adjournment to-morrow, and if the Government will not count me out, I will do so. Obviously a mistake has been made, and I have nothing to say against the Minister. I give notice that I will raise the matter to-morrow.
The point that I want to raise is that I have had urgently represented to me the question of Poor Law authorities being allowed to supplement unemployment benefit. I have read carefully the Minister's statement on this matter, and, while I quite agree that no man can make a point more clear than the Parliamentary Secretary, I confess that, after reading and re-reading the statement, I cannot get the drift of it or fully understand what it means. In Glasgow two things are being done which I understand are not uncommon. The town council have said that they ought, in the case of children, to make the allowance 3s. for a child; they do not supplement anything else. As far as I can understand the law, we have now gone back to the public assistance scale, and I want to ask whether the law means that the scale will be the public assistance scale of 3s. plus the other money. In other words, will the allowance remain what it was before the 3s. was given? One reason why the scheme broke down was that the public assistance committees in this country, to their credit, often came to the aid of very poor people. I remember that, when the hon. and learned Gentleman was Solicitor-General for Scotland, I raised the question of evictions in Glasgow. The Poor Law authorities come to the aid of people by making grants to enable them to pay rent and to tide them over. I want to know if that will be allowed in future. I should like to have had it made clear to-night as the Glasgow Town Council meet to-morrow, but a mistake has been made, and I will raise the question again to-morrow.
11.6 p.m.
We understand that under the law public assistance authorities will no longer be able to give grants to the able-bodied to supplement transitional payment in special cases. What will happen in the thousands of cases where these grants have been made owing to the inadequacy of transitional benefit to meet the needs of the household? I particularly refer to the question of high rents. That is where it comes in very much in London. It is well to give the Minister the points that we and the country want elucidating so that he can clear up the position to-morrow night.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Nine Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.