House of Commons
Thursday, February 7, 1935
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
Private Business
Regimental Charitable Funds Bill [ Lords ].
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill pending in the House of Lords, no Standing Orders are applicable thereto, namely:
Regimental Charitable Funds Bill [ Lords ].
London Passenger Transport Board Bill (by Order).
Read a Second time, and committed.
Metropolitan Water Board Bill (by Order).
Second Reading deferred till Thursday next, at half-past Seven of the clock.
South Shields Corporation Bill (by Order).
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.
Oral Answers to Questions
Unemployment
Subsidisation of Wages
asked the Minister of Labour whether any countries are adopting the principle of the subsidisation of wages with a view to the relief of unemployment; and, if so, if he can give the details?
As the reply is long, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the reply:
From information in my possession, it would appear that the principle of subsidising the wages paid by private em- ployers, with a view to the relief of unemployment, has been adopted in the following countries: Austria, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal, Switzerland, the Union of South Africa, and New Zealand. Brief particulars of the main schemes are given below.
Austria. —The Austrian Unemployment Insurance Act empowers the Ministry of Social Administration, in prolonged periods of industrial depression, to make agreements with employers' and workers' associations under which an employer who refrains from dismissing workers during a period of complete or partial closing down is guaranteed repayment from the unemployment insurance funds of part of the expenditure thus incurred. The repayment may not exceed the amount which would otherwise have been paid as unemployment benefit. It is known that such an agreement was made for the textile industry in 1933.
France. —A Decree of 29th January, 1935, provides for the payment, under certain conditions, of a subsidy from the Unemployment Relief Funds to employers who increase their existing staffs in specified proportions by engaging workers in receipt of unemployment relief. The subsidy may not exceed the amount of unemployment relief, exclusive of dependants' allowances, to which the workers engaged would have been entitled had they remained unemployed, and may not be paid to the same employer in respect of the same worker for more than 180 days in twelve months.
Germany. —In 1932, the German Government introduced a scheme, which was in force from 1st Ocotber, 1932, to 30th September, 1933, under which employers who engaged additional workers from among the unemployed received subsidies in the form of "tax certificates," which they were authorised to use as instruments of credit or to tender in payment of certain Federal taxes during the years 1934 to 1938.
At the present time, arrangements exist for the grant to small-scale farmers of wage subsidies from the Unemployment Fund in consideration of the employment, for at least six months, of additional young workers as farm assistants. The subsidy is limited, in general, to a maximum amount of 25 Reichsmarks a month for each additional worker. The scheme was instituted in March, 1933.
An Act of August, 1934, relating to the substitution of older workers for workers under 25 years of age, provides for the payment of wage subsidies from the Unemployment Fund in cases where an employer engages trained non-manual workers over 40 years of age who have been unemployed for a prolonged period. The subsidy is payable during the first six months of employment, and varies according to the remuneration and family circumstances of the worker.
The Netherlands. —In the spring of 1934, an experimental scheme was instituted under which the Government undertook to pay to farmers and horticulturalists in certain districts a subsidy in respect of additional workers engaged for agricultural or horticultural work for which the employers were not in a position to pay the normal wage. The subsidy was to be equal to one-third of the wages normally paid. The scheme was limited to a trial period of four months, and it is not known whether it has been continued.
Portugal. —Employers are, it is understood, subsidised from the Unemployment Relief Fund to the extent of 50 per cent. of the wages of unemployed workers engaged by them for a minimum period of three days a week. Details of this scheme are not in my possession.
Switzerland. —Under a Decree of 18th March, 1932, subsidies are granted to Swiss undertakings for specified export orders if the orders could not be undertaken without such subsidies, and the undertakings would otherwise have to close down or dismiss a large number of workers. The subsidy may not exceed the amount which the Confederation would have to pay in the form of grants to unemployment funds or as emergency benefit if the orders were not undertaken. The Cantons in which the undertaking is situated are called upon to provide a subsidy equal to at least one-half of the Federal subsidy. Subsidies are granted: ( a ) as loans to be repaid in whole or in part out of subsequent profits; or ( b ) as non-recoverable grants. A Decree of 20th June, 1934, amends this Decree, and grants higher subsidies, in exceptional cases, in order to meet increased competition by foreign exporting undertakings assisted by special Government measures in the engineering, machine construction, vehicle building and tool-making indus- tries. Five million francs have been allotted for providing subsidies under the two Decrees.
South Africa. —In connection with recent schemes of assistance to farmers, the Government has undertaken to pay seven-eighths of the wages of unemployed Europeans employed by landowners and public authorities on anti-erosion schemes. With a view to the settling of white families on the land, the Government, in addition to granting loans to farmers to enable them to provide accommodation for such settlers, grants bonuses to supplement wages, the amount of the bonus being dependent upon the wage paid, the size of the worker's family, etc.
New Zealand. —The Unemployment Board pays wage subsidies of varying amounts from its funds to farmers who take unemployed workers into full time employment on work which the farmer could not carry out wholly at his own expense. The board also subsidises wages under various other schemes of land development work, and grants subsidies to gold mining companies in respect of unemployed persons taken into full time employment. In the case of gold mining companies, all subsidies must be refunded before dividends are paid or interests are disposed of to other companies.
Assistance (Adjustment of Allowances)
5 and 6.
asked the Minister of Labour (1) whether he can arrange for Members of the House to be supplied each week with typical assessments for different parts of the country, disguising the identity but setting out the full facts in each case, so that it may be possible for Members to see for themselves how the determinations are reached?
(2) whether arrangements can be made to supply Members each month with an analysis of the number of assessments which have been increased under the operations of the Unemployment Assistance Board; the number which have been decreased; and the number in which no change has been made?
asked the Minister of Labour the determinations made under the new unemployment regulations up to the end of January in the Birmingham area, the percentage of cuts, and the percentage of increases?
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will publish the percentage of assessments which had been reduced, increased, or altered, respectively, up to the date of the standstill now current?
I would refer my hon. Friends to the appeal made yesterday in the reply given to a similar question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Northampton (Sir M. Manningham-Buller).
Seasonal Workers
asked the Minister of Labour the precise nature of the questions with regard to seasonal workers which he proposes to refer to the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee?
I propose to ask the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee to consider the operation of the Seasonal Workers Regulation and to advise me generally on the matter. Public notice will be given so soon as the Committee are able to receive representations from interested persons.
Appeal Tribunals
asked the Minister of Labour what were the necessary qualifications in the appointment of chairmen and vice-chairmen of the unemployment assistance committees in Wales; what is the number of chairmen appointed who have a knowledge of the Welsh language; and in what form had they rendered public service to qualify themselves for such posts?
I assume that the hon. Member refers to appeal tribunals under the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934. In making appointments of chairmen and reserve chairmen of the tribunals I have endeavoured to find persons whose character, local reputation, experience and ability would ensure general confidence in the work of the tribunals. Of the 18 chairmen in Wales and Monmouth my information is that 15 speak Welsh and where the chairman does not, there is a reserve chairman who does.
Will the right hon. Gentleman say what local qualifications existed in the appointment made in the case of the Rhondda Valley?
asked the Minister of Labour what number of persons appointed as chairmen and vice-chairmen in Glamorganshire, under the Unemployment Assistance Board, are in receipt of a Government pension; and will he give the name of the person and the amount of pension received, together with his age?
The only chairman or reserve chairman of appeal tribunals in Glamorganshire in receipt of a pension paid from public funds is Mr. James Evans, the chairman of Rhondda, a retired civil servant. I understand that his pension is at the rate of £573 4s. 6d. and that his age is 66. The rules as to the adjustment of pension when a person in receipt of a pension paid out of public funds is employed in Government service will be applied in the case of Mr. Evans.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he has formed the appeal tribunal for the county of Durham under the Unemployment Act, 1934; and, if so, whether he will give the names and occupations of such members?
There are eight appeal tribunals in the county of Durham and as the answer involves a tabular statement, I will, with the permission of the hon. Member, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the desired particulars of the chairmen and reserve chairmen. As stated in the answer given on the 4th February to the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. Williams), I do not think the expense of publishing the panels of workers' representatives and representatives of the Unemployment Assistance Board would be justified, but I am sending the list to the hon. Member.
Following are the particulars referred to:
County of Durham Appeal Tribunals
Bishop Auckland — Tribunal to sit at Bishop Auckland, Crook, Spennymoor.
Chairman: N. Dewhurst, O.B.E., Solicitor.
Reserve Chairman: J. E. Brown Humes, Solicitor, Commissioner for Oaths.
Darlington — Tribunal to sit at Darlington, Northallerton.
Chairman: Councillor W. Heslop, J.P., Accountant and Public Auditor.
Reserve Chairman: George Kendrew, J.P., Retired Farmer.
Durham — Tribunal to sit at Durham, Consett, Chester-le-Street, Houghton-le-Spring, Seaham Harbour, Stanley.
Chairman: B. S. Roberts, Solicitor.
Reserve Chairman: W. Chrystal, J.P., F.A.I., Auctioneer and Valuer.
Reserve Chairman: Dr. J. G. Walker, Medical Officer of Health.
Gateshead—Tribunal to sit at Gateshead, Blaydon, Hexham.
Chairman: John Haswell, Solicitor.
Reserve Chairman: J. L. Taylor, Solicitor and Deputy Coroner.
Reserve Chairman: G. Lee Wanless, B.A., LL.B., J.P., Barrister.
The Hartlepools — Tribunal to sit at West Hartlepool, Hartlepool, Wingate.
Chairman: Major J. B. Graham, J.P., Steam Trawler Owner.
Reserve Chairman: Norman Graham. Solicitor, Deputy Coroner.
Reserve Chairman: Mrs. A. Swallow, J.P., No occupation.
South Shields — Tribunal to sit at South Shields, Jarrow.
Chairman: W. A. Armstrong, J.P., Solicitor.
Reserve Chairman: Councillor E. Thompson, J.P., Independent means, Secretary of Y.M.C.A., etc.
Reserve Chairman: Victor Grunhut, Solicitor.
Stockton — Tribunal to sit at Stockton.
Chairman: C. L. Townsend, Solicitor, Commissioner for Oaths.
Reserve Chairman: Mrs. L. Riley, No occupation.
Sunderland — Tribunal to sit at Sunderland, Pallion.
Chairman: James Patrick, Borough Treasurer (Retired).
Reserve Chairman: W. B. Lockerbie, Colliery Agent for Wearmouth Coal Co.
Reserve Chairman: W. Rex Gibson, M.C., Solicitor, Commissioner for Oaths.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he has had any requests from trade unions for representation on the appeal tribunal for the Unemployment Act, 1934; and what answer, if any, he has sent to such request?
I have received such requests in one or two cases. The answer given was that I was forming the panels of workpeople's representatives upon the appeal tribunals in the light of the advice of the local employment committees on which, as the hon. Member is aware, trade unions are fully represented.
Assistance Board
asked the Minister of Labour whether any members of the Unemployment Assistance Board are in receipt of a Government pension; and, if so, will he give the names and the amount of pension received in each case separately?
Yes, Sir. Dr. Thomas Jones, one of the members of the board who renders part-time service, is in receipt of a pension of £495 per annum in respect of previous Government service.
Gardeners
asked the Minister of Labour whether it is contemplated that gardeners will be included among agricultural workers in connection with the scheme that is to be introduced to provide unemployment in surance benefits for the latter; and whether, in view of the fact that there are over 100,000 persons in the country employed as gardeners, he will give sympathetic consideration to their claim for inclusion?
No decision has yet been reached on the question of unemployment insurance for agricultural workers, but I will see that my hon. and gallant Friend's point is borne in mind. As he no doubt knows, the report of the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee recommended that private gardeners should be excluded initially, but with power given to the Minister to bring them in subsequently by regulations.
Juveniles (Day Continuation Classes)
asked the Minister of Labour whether, during his discussions with employers' associations and trade unions on the question of hours of work, he will also take the opportunity of discussing with them the question of day continuation classes for young people between the ages of 14 and 18?
My hon. Friend may rest assured that if these matters should arise in the course of the discussions referred to, their effect on employment will not be ignored, but will be brought to the notice of the Departments concerned.
Exchange Accommodation
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make such arrangements as are necessary to ensure that persons attending the Employment Exchange at Tooting Broadway are provided with adequate shelter from bad weather and adequate privacy?
Arrangements are actively in hand with a view to the provision of new premises for this Exchange.
asked the Minister of Labour at how many Employment Exchanges provision has been made to secure that those attending or waiting outside are adequately sheltered from bad weather?
It is not usually necessary for applicants to have to wait outside for any length of time if they attend at the times previously indicated, and no provision of the kind mentioned is normally made. If my hon. Friend has any particular cases of difficulty in mind, I should be glad to know them.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of complaints about inadequate shelter, and is provision made in cases where permanent buildings are being put up?
When we put up permanent buildings we try to make them so that they will take the applicants inside and so that there will be no necessity for them to form outside at all.
If certain cases are brought to the Minister's notice will he give attention to them?
Yes, I shall be glad to do so.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that owing to the extension of work due to the coming into force of the Unemployment Act employment exchanges which were formerly adequate are now inadequate for the purpose, and will he inquire into the matter and see if improved accommodation can be provided?
Yes.
Questions
Sterling Exchange Values (Wages)
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the relationship between the exchange value of sterling and wages and prices in the unsheltered industries, he will arrange for a continuous analysis of wages in the basic industries to be made in such a form as will disclose the influence of unsheltered wage-levels upon sterling exchange values; and will he publish periodically the results of the analysis in the "Labour Gazette" and the "Board of Trade Journal" so that the influence of wages and prices upon the export trades can be studied?
There are serious difficulties in preparing such an analysis which at present I do not see my way to overcome. I should be glad if my hon. Friend could discuss the matter with me.
Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that we cannot form any accurate opinion on the subject of the future stabilisation of sterling unless we have a knowledge of these basic facts in some definite form; and as this information does exist can he take steps to see how it could be furnished?
asked the Minister of Labour the latest available approximate percentage figure showing how much the average purchasing power level of real wages, mainly in organised industries for those in full-time weekly employment, was above or below the figure applicable to persons of similar grades for the inclusive period 1925 to 1929, using for the calculation the official working-class cost-of-living index figures for the relative periods and omitting time and piece rates, variations in occupation and earnings, and in proportions and forms of employment?
The information in the possession of my Department, relating mainly to rates of wages in organised industries, indicates that for corresponding grades of workers the average level of full-time weekly rates of wages at the end of December, 1934, was approximately 5½ per cent. below the average level for 1925–29. The average level of working-class cost of living at 1st January, 1935, as measured by the official cost-of-living index number, was about 15 per cent. below the average level for 1925–29. On the basis of these figures the average level of real wages for workpeople in full employment was about 11 per cent. above the average level of 1925–29. This figure takes no account of changes in actual earnings resulting from variations in the state of employment, or from changes in the proportions of workers employed in different industries and occupations or paid at time rates and piece rates, as to which comprehensive statistics are not available.
Will the right hon. Gentleman allow this information to appear in the "Labour Gazette" and the "Board of Trade Journal," so that we can study its implications?
The facts upon which my answer is based already appear in the "Labour Gazette," but to publish them in the form in which they appear in the answer, in view of the last paragraph, would be rather misleading.
His Majesty's Silver Jubilee (Prisoners)
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider, in connection with the forthcoming Silver Jubilee celebrations, recommending the remission of sentences on prisoners, more particularly political and star prisoners, persons in prison wounded in the Great War, prisoners who may be regarded as the victims of prolonged unemployment, and debtors?
In the opinion of His Majesty's Government, proposals involving special clemency to persons who happen to be serving sentences of imprisonment on a particular date are open to grave objection, and it is not proposed to recommend that any such proposals should be adopted.
Has the right hon. Gentleman caused inquiries to be made in other countries as to what is the custom on these occasions?
I think we should follow our own custom.
Coal Industry (Workmen's Compensation)
asked the Home Secretary whether he is satisfied that the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation (Coal Mines) Act, 1934, are being complied with?
The Act does not provide for its enforcement by the Home Office or other Government Department, and I have no definite information, but I have received no complaints and I have no reason to think that the Act is not complied with.
"Fazackerley Estate."
asked the Home Secretary whether he is now in a position to give the result of his inquiries into the so-called Fazackerley millions; whether there have been any proceedings by claimants in the Chancery Court; whether any legal proceedings are now taking place in camera; whether there are any undistributed assets from the so-called Fazackerley estate; and what action he proposes to take to prevent people paying money to unscrupulous promoters alleging the existence of a valuable Fazackerley estate in Lancashire?
The inquiries which I have made show that there is no record of any Chancery proceedings in respect of any Fazackerley estate and that there is no such unclaimed estate being administered by the Court in Chancery. Similar inquiries at the Principal Probate Registry show that during the last 40 years there have been no probate proceedings in any case of Fazackerley deceased. There is no foundation for the suggestion which appears to have been made in certain quarters that proceedings of this kind might be taking place in camera. As regards the last part of the question, I fear that there is no action which I can take to prevent credulous persons from parting with their money on the faith of statements which they are prepared to accept in the face not only of ordinary probabilities but of specific contradiction.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that poor people, old age pensioners, are mortgaging their houses in order to purchase shares in this matter, and cannot he do something to stop this swindle which is going on in Lancashire?
Flogging
asked the Home Secretary whether there are any cases during the 12 months ended December, 1934, in which, following a flogging with the cat administered in any prison or Borstal institution in England and Wales, it was necessary, on account of septic wounds or other serious physical injury caused by the flogging, to keep the person who had been flogged under medical observation and/or treatment for a period of seven days or more; if so, whether he will give particulars of such cases, the nature of the injuries caused, and the period which elapsed before the persons concerned had completely recovered from the physical effects of the punishment?
There has been only one such case, which occurred in April last. In this case owing to an unexpected movement by the prisoner a superficial injury to the chest was accidentally caused by one of the strokes. No unfavourable symptoms appeared at the time. Some 15 days later a slight local inflammation was noticed which required treatment for some time but it has since completely subsided. At no time was it necessary to admit the prisoner to hospital. I may add that the records of the last ten years have been examined and there has been no similar case in that period.
Is not the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the time has arrived when this brutality ought to be stopped?
asked the Home Secretary which of the principal countries include flogging as a penalty that may be imposed by courts of criminal law, and for what offences?
Authoritative and up-to-date information on this matter could only be obtained by addressing special inquiries to a number of Governments; and information confined to the points mentioned by the hon. Member would be of little value. Comparisons between the penal methods of different countries involve the assessment of many complex factors.
Housing (Re-Housing, Manchester)
asked the Minister of Health whether any plan for re-housing tenants on the derelict sites of cleared slum areas in Manchester has been presented to the Ministry of Health by the corporation of the city of Manchester?
I presume that my hon. Friend has in mind the Collyhurst and West Gorton Clearance Areas which the corporation propose to use for re-housing. I have not yet received specific proposals for this re-housing.
Has the right hon. Gentleman any power to expedite this matter, in view of the urgency of the Housing problem in Lancashire?
I think the corporation have that consideration in mind.
Contributory Pensions Act
asked the Minister of Health what protests he has recently received against the provisions of the National Health Insurance and Contributory Pensions Act, 1932, as it affects unemployed persons; and whether he will consider introducing legislation to remove the hardships referred to in those protests?
I have received representations from various quarters urging reconsideration of the provisions of the National Health Insurance and Contributory Pensions Act, 1932, which affect unemployed persons. These are receiving any careful consideration, but I would refer the hon. Member to the replies which I gave on the 14th November and the 31st January last to the hon. Members for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and Wallsend (Miss Ward).
Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that some approved societies are able, because they are well placed, to pay the arrears for these unemployed persons, while other approved societies are not, and that consequently an anomaly prevails?
Though the form of that reply holds out no hope of the Government doing anything in the matter, are we to understand that the Minister is reconsidering the question, and that there is a prospect of the Government doing something?
If the hon. Member wiil look at the replies to which I have referred, he will see that we are awaiting the report of the Government actuary for the first decennial period.
asked the Minister of Health when he expects to receive and consider the Government actuary's report on the workings of the pensions scheme in connection with the National Health and Contributory Pensions Act, 1932?
I am informed that the calculations on which the first report on the financial working of the Contributory Pensions Acts will be based are far advanced. It is hoped that the report will be available in the course of a few weeks.
Local Authorities, Wales (Auditors' Reports)
asked the Minister of Health whether he is prepared to issue instructions for the publication of the district auditors' reports in the Welsh language as well as in English in the case of local authorities in Wales?
I am not prepared to issue any general instruction to this effect, If, however, a local authority wishes to produce for publication or for distribution to its members a copy of the Auditor's report translated into Welsh I have no objection, provided that the original report and the translation are issued together.
Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the constant refusal of requests by local authorities for reports of this kind in the Welsh language is causing great dissatisfaction throughout Wales, and cannot he give instructions that these reports shall be issued at the same time in both Welsh and English?
It is not necessary for me to issue instructions. The local authority knows that it is at liberty to issue Welsh translations.
In that case the responsibility for the accuracy of the reports does not rest with the auditor but with the local authority, and does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that that may lead to serious difficulty?
No. I do not think it need cause any serious trouble.
Commodities and Stock Exchange Securities (Speculations)
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the disastrous effect of speculation on the commodity market, he will ascertain the extent to which speculation in raw materials and in Stock Exchange paper values is being stimulated by abnormally cheap money; and whether, if gambling has been so facilitated, he will consider measures by which the benefit of cheaper money should be confined to legitimate industrial or financial reconstruction?
Speculation in commodities and Stock Exchange securities is not specially characteristic of periods of cheap money, but is found whenever there is increasing confidence in future prospects. Moreover forward dealings, which I understand is the form usually taken by speculation on the commodity markets, are not in fact facilitated to any material extent by the prevalence of easy money. The second part of the question does not therefore arise.
What is the actual state of the market in commodities now? Is there not ample evidence that considerable speculation has taken place and that very disastrous results have followed?
It does not appear to me to be due to the prevalence of cheap money.
Is it not the case that people who have control of large volumes of credit have been buying quite unnecessarily large quantities of a commodity in order to try to corner the market?
Is it not the historical fact that sooner or later not cheap money but abnormally cheap money usually gets us to a point at which legitimate trade is injured by the misuse of abnormally cheap money by speculators or gamblers?
Is it not the fact that in one of these cases it was not the fall of the commodity price but an unexpected rise which caught people out?
Is it not the case that large quantities of commodities have been bought and not paid for by buyers who have been unable to meet their obligations? Would the right hon. Gentleman consider an inquiry into the circumstances in order that the House and the country may know how far this thing has been done?
No, I do not think an inquiry is necessary.
Could any Government stop people from gambling?
British North Atlantic Shipping Interests
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will clear up the misunderstanding that exists with regard to the remaining Red Star Line ships by confirming that the Treasury and the Bank of England will not oppose, or take effective measures to oppose, any further action being taken by the British interests concerned if they wish to buy these ships and assuming the vessels are still available for purchase?
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will explain his attitude in permitting the Red Star liners "Minnetonka" and "Minnewaska" to be purchased by British interests for breaking-up purposes in this country whilst he continues to raise obstacles, or declines to remove existing obstacles, to the proposed purchase of the Red Star liners "Pennland" and "Westernland" by British interests for operating purposes from this country?
I have already explained to the House the reasons why, when informally consulted, I was unable to agree that this case should be excepted from the general request I have made relating to operations involving the transfer of funds abroad. My view on that subject is unchanged. The circumstances attending the sale of the "Minnetonka" and "Minnewaska" were entirely different, and the transaction did not fall within the category of cases to which my general request could apply.
Are we to understand from the reply that it is not the competition of the White Star merger but the foreign exchange problem which has made my right hon. Friend maintain his attitude?
No, Sir. I do not think that that would be a fair inference to draw from the answer I have given.
Arising out of the original reply, is it not a fact that the Red Star vessels are at present owned by a British firm, and that it would not in fact mean a transfer of money abroad if British interests were allowed to buy them?
That all depends on the circumstances of the purchase.
Are not the Germans in the same position about exchanges as we are?
I cannot speak for Germany.
Is it the case, if there is no difficulty about transference of money abroad, that the right hon. Gentleman will not exercise his influence to prevent the building of ships in this country, or the purchase of ships in this country, on the ground of competition against the White Star and Cunard liners?
In such a case I do not suppose that my opinion would be asked.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give particulars as to how and when the Treasury was approached in an informal manner by those concerned in purchasing the Red Star Line ships; and whether the British group themselves approached either the Treasury or the Bank of England?
On 8th November last I received an informal request for my view on behalf of the financial interests concerned. In accordance with a common practice in cases involving the remittance of money abroad, the request was transmitted through the Bank of England.
Is it not a fact that these ships have now been sold to a German firm, and that it is using them very largely as cargo vessels?
I have seen statements to that effect in the Press, but I can go no further than that.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will refuse to grant a licence for the sale and transfer to a foreign flag of the two remaining ships of the British Red Star Line?
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether effective steps have been or will be taken to prevent the threatened transfer of the last two remaining vessels of the Red Star Line from the British to the German flag?
The Board of Trade have no power to prevent the transfer of these vessels to a foreign flag.
Is it not a fact that any firm wishing to sell British vessels has to obtain a licence from the Board of Trade?
I have said in answer to the two questions on the Paper that we have no power to prevent this transfer.
Does any right hon. Friend realise that this is a reduction in the power of the auxiliary Navy in war time, and cannot he take steps to prevent it?
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there has been any change in the position with regard to the raising of money for the purpose of operating the vessels of the Red Star Line on a new type of Atlantic passenger service; and whether he has any information to the effect that such a service may be provided by any foreign country if the initiative is not taken by a British concern?
With reference to the first part of the question I would refer to the reply I have given to-day to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Rea) and to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Birkenhead (Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allen). With regard to the second part I have no information beyond statements that I have seen in the Press.
On account of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies to questions on this point, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.
Trade and Commerce
Granite (Import Duty)
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he has yet received from the Import Duties Advisory Committee any recommendation for an increased duty on imported granite; and, if so, what action he proposes to take?
I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which was given on 22nd May, 1933, to the hon. Member for Derbyshire South (Mr. Emrys-Evans).
When my hon. Friend is deliberating on the matter will he take into consideration the fact that there is an association which has a monopoly and is selling granite from Finland at prices which under-cut our own granite?
Is my hon. Friend aware that there is very grave unemployment in the granite industry, that it is increasing and that there are many hundreds out of work?
Is my hon. Friend further aware that the present duties are ineffective in carrying out their purpose?
Import Duties (Government Policy)
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the anxiety throughout the country as to the importation figures of foreign goods and also of the dissatisfaction at the non-use by the Government to the fullest extent of the tariff weapon; and if he will give the House a day for discussion of the position?
I am not aware that anxiety on this point is widespread; and it does not appear that the statistics of our foreign trade during the last year disclose any ground for anxiety. Any particular industry which considers that higher duties should be imposed on its goods should, under the procedure laid down in the Import Duties Act, make application to the Import Duties Advisory Committee. In view of the pressure of Parliamentary business, I can hold out no hope of a day being given for the discussion of this subject.
May I ask the Prime Minister whether, even at question time to-day, he has not had an illustration of the unsatisfactory working of the Import Duties; and as this Government was elected for the purpose of bringing in adequate tariffs—
No.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the policy of the Government not to restrict imports of goods used as materials of industry even if adequate supplies of these goods can be produced in this country?
The policy of the Government as laid down in the Import Duties Act, 1932, is that in considering what rate of additional duty should be imposed on any class of goods consideration shall be given to the interests of trade and industry generally, including the interests of trades and industries which are consumers of the goods as well as those which are producers. As my hon. Friend is aware, a number of the semimanufactured materials of industry are subject to additional duties, and some others are not made in substantial quantities in this country.
In view of that answer, will my right hon. Friend assure me that in future neither he nor the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade will contend that there is no objection to the importation of goods which go through subsequent processes of manufacture in this country?
That undertaking would be most unfair to the using industry.
Questions
River Don Drainage
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will state the date of the installation of the pump at the pumping station at Kirk Bramwith, near Doncaster; whether he is aware that the lifting capacity is so limited that the pump is unable to operate if the River Don is carrying a large volume of water; and whether he is satisfied that the drainage authorities are keeping the equipment of this pumping station sufficiently up to date to deal with present-day requirements?
I am informed that the pump referred to was installed in 1878 by the Dun Drainage Commissioners. It was designed to deal with the drainage from an area of about 6,400 acres and is stated to be still capable of doing so, given a normal level of water in the River Don. I understand that the Dun Commissioners have recently had the question of the revision of their drainage system under consideration but came to the conclusion that it would be premature to take any action in that direction.
Does my right hon. Friend realise that the normal water level of the Don is considerably higher than it used to be on account of building developments higher up the river, and does he not realise the necessity for considering the replacement of the existing pump by a more efficient model?
I am a little nervous about asking for reconsideration of any decisions reached in this area.
Fishing Industry
Air Bombing Practice
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has yet instituted any inquiry into the possibility of agreeing upon sites for air-bombing practice in home waters which will least interfere with fishing activities; and, if so, what arrangements will be made with regard to the hearing of the views of the various fishing interests?
My Department, at the request of the Air Ministry, has been making inquiries as to the districts which could be utilised for bombing sites without serious interference with fishing activities. It is the practice to consult the local Sea Fisheries Committee before arriving at any definite decision to use any area for such purposes.
Irish Free State Waters
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs under what Act the Government of the Irish Free State claim the right to prevent British fishermen from carrying on fishing operations within three miles of the coast of the Irish Free State; and if His Majesty's Government admit the validity of the Ordinance?
I would refer my Noble Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave on the 5th February to the hon. Member for Banff (Sir M. McKenzie Wood).
As the right hon. Gentleman's reply on that occasion was not susceptible of definite interpretation, could the right hon. Gentleman not give us a definite assurance as to what the intentions of the Government are in this matter?
I am quite ready to send my Noble Friend a copy of the reply, in which he will discover that it was a direct answer to a direct question.
Does my hon. Friend not agree that the real problem here is whether in fact the limits set to territorial waters are fair and reasonable, and will he not consider entering into negotiations on that special point, which is of great importance to fishermen?
My right hon. Friend has already expressed his readiness to consider the matter of making representations, if hon. Members will give him all the facts at their disposal.
Agriculture
Attested Herds Scheme
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that under the rules required to be observed for qualification in the Ministry's attested herd scheme it is practically impossible to make any contract for selling milk; whether any bodies of registered producers have been consulted on these rules; and whether he will take steps to have them amended in consultation with representatives of milk producers, so that a workable scheme can be evolved?
The Milk Marketing Board and the Association of Producers of Certified and Grade A (Tuberculin Tested) Milk were consulted upon the Attested Herds Scheme before it was issued; and no representations were made that the conditions of the scheme would interfere with contracts for the sale of milk from attested herds. I am advised that the conditions of the scheme, though they may appear stringent, are the minimum necessary to attain the object in view, namely, the establishment and maintenance of herds free from tuberculosis. I should be glad however to consider any representations on the subject.
Is the Minister aware that there has been some misunderstanding of these regulations; and will he be kind enough to consider the representations of the producers with a view to clearing up those misunderstandings?
I have said that I would be very glad to consider any representations.
Arising out of the original reply, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House the number of producers who expressed a desire to qualify under the scheme?
I am afraid I could not give that information.
Potatoes (Eel-Worm Pest)
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the increased infection and infestation of potato-growing districts from the eel-worm pest; and whether he is prepared to make this a notifiable disease, in view of the fact that the sale of seed potatoes from infected land has been one of the worst causes of spreading infection?
The answer to the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question is in the affirmative. The measures to be taken against the root eel-worm of potatoes will depend on the results of research in this subject, for which increased provision has recently been made. As regards the tuber eel-worm, evidence of the extent of infestation of seed potatoes by this pest is being obtained, and the most suitable method of preventing its spread will be carefully considered in the light of this evidence.
Will the Minister consider scheduling the infected areas as has been done in Sweden until there is immunity?
I am afraid I could not promise that without further consideration.
Eggs and Poultry Commission (Report)
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the voluntary quotas negotiated with the chief egg-supplying countries are now being strictly observed; and, if not, what steps are being taken to that end?
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the anxiety of the egg producers, he can state definitely that the report of the English Reorganisation Commission will be published this week; and whether, in view of the fact that the present restrictions of imports were only partially successful, he will take steps to augment these so that the position of the industry may not deteroriate during the consideration of the report?
The report of the Reorganisation Commission for Eggs and Poultry for England and Wales will be published to-morrow (Friday). It is too early to say whether the arrangements proposed for the regulation of imports of eggs in shell during the current quarter are being strictly observed, but the position is being kept under close review. I would draw the attention of my hon. Friends to the reply which I gave to questions by my hon. Friends the Members for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) and Honiton (Mr. Drewe) on 31st January, of which I am sending them copies.
Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the first part of my question, as to whether these quotas have been observed in the past?
I think the answer is given in the replies to previous questions, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.
Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the last part of Question 42 as to keeping down foreign imports during the consideration of the report?
Certainly, Sir. My hon. Friend knows that while the scheme is under consideration it is possible to regulate imports into this country.
Bacon (Import Quotas)
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in determining the home quota of bacon under the marketing schemes, any change has been made in the basis of calculation of pigs in terms of bacon; how the position of the British home-producer has been affected in relation to import quotas; and whether care has been taken to safeguard his interests, especially in view of the intended expansion of British land settlement?
The factor of 138 lb. of bacon per pig adopted in arriving at the estimate of home bacon output for the second contract period to 31st December was not realised in practice and it was accordingly decided for this year to revert to the factor of 128 lb. of bacon per pig used in the first contract period. Insofar as this tends to reduce the estimate of home bacon output to a figure more in accordance with probable results it also tends to increase import allocations since the objective of total supplies is the level recommended by the Lane-Fox Commission. I can assure my hon. Friend that the legitimate interests of the home producer under the bacon supply arrangements have been fully safeguarded.
Will the Minister, when considering the interests of the home producer, also consider the interests of the home consumer; and is he aware that owing to his policy large numbers of the working class to-day cannot afford to buy bacon?
I shall certainly do my utmost to take into consideration the position of the home consumer and indeed these matters have been reviewed by an independent commission. As for the position of the working class, bacon is cheaper to-day than it was when the Government which the hon. Member supported was in office.
They do not think so at Wavertree.
Is it not the case that the price of coal has gone up since pre-war days more than the price of bacon?
Yes, Sir. Under the quota system introduced by hon. Members opposite the price of coal is very considerably higher.
rose —
Mr. North.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in order to secure regularity in the operation of the bacon import quotas in relation to home supplies, he will arrange for the publication each fortnight of the quantity of bacon consigned by each importing country and the quantity allocated in each case?
Arrangements have been made this year by which imports of bacon from the five main foreign bacon exporting countries are regulated on the basis of fortnightly periods. Observance of these arrangements is checked initially by reference to import certificates, final adjustments being made on the basis of monthly import and re-export statistics. I do not think any useful purpose would be served by publishing fortnightly figures.
Can my right hon. Friend say whether, without such publication, it can be effective?
So far we have found the arrangements for fortnightly and monthly figures sufficient for the purpose.
Transport
Ribbon Development
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is now in a position to state when the Bill for control of ribbon development along the highways of the country is to be introduced?
I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Prime Minister on Monday last to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. V. Adams), of which I am sending him a copy.
London Underground Railways (Accommodation)
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the dangerous overcrowding which occurs, particularly in the evening rush hours, on the Piccadilly Tube trains from Hammersmith to South Harrow and Uxbridge; and whether he will address urgent representations to the London Passenger Transport Board with a view to immediate steps being taken to at least double the present service of trains to South Harrow in view of the fact that some of the trains at present carry 400 standing passengers?
The London Passenger Transport Board do not admit that crowding of a serious nature is taking place on the railways to which the hon. Member refers, but they inform me that the traffic is expanding and that they will shortly augment the service with additional rolling stock.
Is the Minister aware that if he investigates the condition of these trains leaving Hammersmith Station any evening after 5.30 o'clock he will find that the facts given in the question are accurate?
I would not impugn any facts brought before me by the hon. Gentleman, and, if he asks me to take action on any matter which is within my normal sphere of influence, I will do my best to help him. In this case, I cannot do more than I have done.
Westway (Extension)
asked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made with the eastern extension of Westway, W.12?
The London County Council, the appropriate highway authority in this case, are now preparing plans and estimates for the extension eastwards of Westway between Wood Lane and Latimer Road and when these are submitted to me I shall be prepared to consider the question of making a grant towards the cost of the scheme.
Menai Bridge (Toll)
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is prepared at the present time to make any reduction in the toll charges for vehicles using the Menai Bridge?
I am glad to inform the hon. Lady that I am reducing the Menai Bridge tolls as from the 1st April next. Particulars of the new charges, which represent reductions in general of 50 per cent., will be announced shortly.
While thanking the Minister for the concession which he has made, may I ask him now whether he would not be prepared to consider the abolition of this toll altogether, on a bridge which is, after all, a vital part of a national highway?
I do not like to refuse the hon. Lady anything, and I will, with pleasure, give the matter that further consideration for which she asks.
Road Surfaces (Visibility)
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that many road surfaces are being laid down which are practically black; and that, as visibility on such roads at night is greatly inferior to that on roads of lighter colour, he will endeavour to secure that, in the interests of public safety, material of lighter colour shall be used?
The attention of all highway authorities has been directed to the desirability of producing a light coloured surface when dressing and gritting roads. Experiments are at present being carried out, under the observation of officers of my Department, by certain highway authorities to increase the visibility of road surfaces at night.
Is it not a fact that concrete roads are invariably light in colour; and would the Minister recommend local authorities and highway authorities to use concrete roads on all occasions?
Manchester-Liverpool Road (Lighting)
asked the Minister of Transport whether any progress has been made with the local authorities concerning the lighting up at night of the new East Lancashire road (Manchester to Liverpool)?
I have asked the Lancashire County Council to be so good as to give attention to this matter, and I understand that they will consider it at their meeting on the 20th February.
May I ask the Minister to continue to use his influence in this matter to achieve two purposes—one to ensure safety and the other to provide additional employment?
I have every sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point of view. I have informed him that the county council will consider the matter on 20th February, and I hope that a satisfactory issue will result.
Is the Minister aware that there are already red lights at the end of this road—at Wavertree?
Questions
Naval and Military Pensions and Grants
asked the Minister of Pensions how many applications for pensions have been made to his Department during the last five years by ex-service men who have become blind; how many of such applications have been entertained; and how many refused?
I regret that the records of my Department do not enable me to give all the figures asked for by my hon. Friend, but I may say that during the last five years 89 cases have been admitted to pension in respect of eye disabilities resulting from war service. Of these, two were cases of total blindness.
asked the Minister of Pensions the procedure when an application from a pensioner is received at an area war-pension office for a domiciliary visit, and the number of days that elapse, on an average, before the area medical officer makes his visit?
Applications from pensioners for medical examinations are immediately referred to the local medical officer of the Ministry. The date of the visit, if a domiciliary visit is necessary, is determined in accordance with the circumstances of each case. I have no records which would enable me to make the calculation asked for in the last part of the question.
Scotland (Milk Marketing Scheme)
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make any alterations in his recent amendments to the milk marketing scheme to remedy the injustices from which milk producers in the south-west of Scotland consider themselves to be suffering?
The amendments referred to were made with a view to arriving at a fair settlement of the questions at issue, on a temporary basis, pending the outcome of the inquiry to be undertaken by the reorganisation commission. My right hon. Friend is not, therefore, prepared at present to make any modification of these amendments.
Will my hon. Friend consider consulting with the Secretary of State for Scotland as to the advisability of modifying the regulations still further in the interests of the East of Scotland producers, who are still suffering unfairly?
No; I think the answer I have given applies to both sides of the country.
Mercantile Marine (British Coloured Seamen)
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether lascars and other British coloured subjects employed on British ships receive the scales of pay laid down by the National Maritime Board; and, if not, what authority is responsible for regulating their pay?
The rates of pay agreed by the National Maritime Board apply to vessels of 200 tons gross and upwards whose crews are engaged in the United Kingdom on ordinary Board of Trade Articles. They cover lascars and other coloured British seamen on European Articles who form part of the mixed manning of the deck, engine-room or stokehold departments, but there is provision for considering separately a few special cases. There are no statutory powers for fixing the pay of any class of British seamen.
Have the Government any say in the rates of pay laid down by this body?
No. The rates that are adopted by this body are adopted by agreement.
Is it not a fact that the rates of pay given to lascars are below those given to our sailors, and is not that fact the main reason for the unemployment of the latter?
No, that is not the case.
Is it not a fact that there is an arrangement that a certain number of these men must be carried, and could not a provisional arrangement for our nationals to be carried be made instead?
India
Trade Agreement
asked the Secretary of State for India the numbers of elected Indians who voted in the majority in the Indian Legislative Assembly against the trade agreement, and the number of non-elected members who voted in the minority?
I have asked for this information and will let my hon. and gallant Friend know as soon as I receive it.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has taken cognisance of the action of the Legislative Assembly in connection with the Indo-British Trading Agreement; and whether, in consequence thereof, any change in policy is contemplated?
The Government of India have decided not to accept the motion recommending the denunciation of the agreement which was carried by 66 to 58 votes in the Legislative Assembly. The validity of the agreement is not affected, and no change of policy is contemplated.
Are we to understand that the validity, not only of the agreement but also of the exchange of letters which followed the agreement, is not affected?
I think my hon. Friend had better put that question down, but my impression is that the exchange of letters is not affected either.
Punjab (Administration of Justice)
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Chief Justice of Lahore High Court had a discussion recently with the members of the Bar Association at Lahore to devise ways and means for eradicating corruption in the courts; whether he has any report as to the ways and means devised; and what steps he proposes to take to support the efforts of the Chief Justice?
I have seen an account in the Press of a discussion between the Chief Justice and members of the Bar Association on this subject, but I have no official report. I have no doubt that the Government of the Punjab will give the Chief Justice their full support in any efforts he may make to improve the administration of justice in the Province.
Was there not a discussion in the House of Lords quite recently on this matter?
Terrorism
asked the Secretary of State for India the number of terrorist outrages which have taken place in the various provinces of British India since the 1st January, 1930, specifying the numbers of British and Indians, respectively, who were killed or injured therein and the number of such outrages and the numbers of British and Indians so killed or injured since the period covered by the memorandum of the Secretary of State presented to the Joint Select Committee in November, 1933?
I am unable to add to the information contained in the note published in Volume II (Records) of the report of the Joint Select Committee in respect of the period covered by it. As regards subsequent outrages I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Wise). According to the information at present in my possession six Indians were killed and four Europeans and approximately 25 Indians were injured in these subsequent outrages.
Mr. Chandra Bose
asked the Secretary of State for India upon what date Mr. Sabash Chandra Bose, president of the Bengal Congress, was released from detention as a dangerous political subject; whether, since his release, he has been made any and, if so, what allowance by the British Government; whether any terms were imposed to prevent his engaging in any anti-British propaganda; whether his attention has been drawn to the recent utterances in Italy of this gentleman to the effect that English merchandise should be boycotted and purchases made from other states of the world; and whether he proposes to take any steps to curtail such and similar subversive activities?
Mr. Bose was released on the 23rd February, 1934, in order that he might proceed to Europe for medical treatment. Except for his recent brief visit to India on the death of his father, he has been in Europe ever since. No allowances are paid to him while out of India. My attention has been drawn to certain statements made by Mr. Bose in Italy of the kind indicated in the question. I do not understand what kind of action my hon. Friend thinks it would be possible for me to take in the circumstances.
Mysore
asked the Secretary of State for India upon what date and upon what terms was the administration of Mysore handed back to the present dynasty; and in what respects any of these terms affect the interests of the British Government and of British subjects in the assigned tracts known as the civil and military station of Bangalore
I am not sure whether my Noble Friend is referring to the restoration of the present dynasty after the fall of Tippoo Sahib in 1799 or to the restoration of the administration to that dynasty in 1881 after 50 years of British administration. The relevant documents, which are too long to quote, will be found by my Noble Friend in the first case on pages 53 to 57, and in the latter case on pages 250 to 254 of Volume IX of Aitchison's Treaties, Engagements and Sanads, a copy of which is in the Library.
Hyderabad Residency Bazaars
asked the Secretary of State for India on what date the Residency Bazaar at Hyderabad was transferred to the administration of His Exalted Highness the Nizam; what was the size of the population so transferred; whether the inhabitants were consulted as to the transfer; and what their views were ascertained to be on this matter?
The jurisdiction over the greater part of the area formerly known as the Hyderabad Residency Bazaars was restored to Hyderabad on the 14th May, 1933. The inhabitants numbered about 14,000. The matter was one of restoring to the Nizam's Government full control over a portion of the State's territory and no special measures were taken for ascertaining the views of the inhabitants, of whom the greater part were the Nizam's subjects.
Will my right hon. Friend tell me why the Residency Bazaar was not included in the answer to the question which I asked him the other day as to what territories had been handed over to Indian States since the 1st January, 1931?
The reason is that my Noble Friend makes no distinction between two kinds of cession, namely, cession of British territory to Indian States, and the restoration of Indian States territory to Indian administration.
Village Industries Association
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the law member of the Government of India recently stated in the Indian Assembly that the aim of the Village Industries Association, which is a new feature of Congress organisation, was to drill and discipline the masses to be used later for political purposes; that the Government of India had recently issued to Provincial Governments a circular pointing out possibly dangerous potentialities of this association; and what steps the Government of India are taking to prevent the association, under the guise of working for economic betterment, from taking political action of the kind referred to?
The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the last part, the fact that the Government of India thought it necessary to issue this circular is sufficient indication that they are alive to the possibility that the movement will be used for subversive purposes, and that the necessary action will be taken if and when it is required.
In view of the importance of this matter, and the evident importance which the Government of India attach to it, will my right hon. Friend ask for further information so that we may know what has happened?
I think I have given my Noble Friend all the relevant information. If there is any specific information which she requires, perhaps she will communicate with me.
Questions
Chile (British Investors)
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will inform the Chilean Government that the demand, that their creditors should abandon their rights is not acceptable; and will he request the London and provincial stock exchanges to withdraw facilities for negotiating Chilean Government defaulted bonds, issued in London prior to the War, until that Government has terminated its default in a manner acceptable to those British subjects who before the War entrusted their savings to the good faith of the Chilean nation?
In reply to the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne North (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle) on the 30th January. Any action on the lines suggested in the second part of the question is a matter for the consideration of the stock exchange authorities concerned.
Is it not a fact that an important Commission is now on the way to this country from Chile to discuss this matter?
I must ask for notice of that question.
China (Piracy)
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will direct His Majesty's Minister in China to confer with the Chinese Government as to the steps which can suitably be taken by them, with the assistance of His Majesty's naval forces, to clear out the pirate settlements at Bias Bay, Hong-hai Bay and elsewhere?
As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, stated yesterday in reply to the question put by my noble Friend the Member for Bristol Central (Lord Apsley), close practical co-operation exists between His Majesty's Navy and the Chinese Navy for the suppression of piracy in China, and I am not aware that any useful purpose would be served at the moment by such further action as my hon. and gallant Friend proposes. The general question of piracy is, however, being carefully watched and my hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that no measure calculated to improve the situation will be neglected.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that action against this kind of piracy cannot be effectively taken solely at sea, because the inhabitants of the villages mentioned in the question in some cases collaborate actively with the pirates?
There has recently been a particularly successful result of action taken at sea.
Can further action be taken?
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement as to the seizure by pirates of the British steamship "Tungchow" off the mouth of the Yangtze; whether any of the party of British schoolchildren on board the vessel received any injury; and what steps are being taken to prevent similar incidents in the future?
On the 29th January the steamship "Tungchow" carrying 70 European children was seized by pirates off the mouth of the Yangtze and taken southwards in the direction of Bias Bay. As soon as they learned that the vessel was overdue, the naval authorities took steps to supplement the normal anti-piracy patrol, and aircraft from His Majesty's Ship "Hermes" were also employed in an attempt to locate the vessel. When, on the 1st February, one of the aeroplanes from His Majesty's Ship "Hermes" flew over the "Tungchow" which had meanwhile been disguised as a Japanese vessel, the pirates deserted the ship, which subsequently proceeded to Hong Kong escorted by one of His Majesty's destroyers. In the course of the piracy two Russian guards were killed and the second engineer was wounded; the children and other passengers were, however, unharmed. The circumstances in which the pirates obtained control of the ship are not yet known. The steamship "Tungchow" is due back in Shanghai to-day, and His Majesty's Consul-General at Shanghai will conduct a full enquiry into the circumstances in co-operation with the naval authorities and municipal police.
While thanking my right hon. Friend for the reply, may I ask him whether His Majesty's Government intend to make direct representation to the Chinese Government that the pirates shall be traced to their lair on shore and punished?
There is in this matter close, and, in this instance there was successful, co-operation between us and the Chinese authorities.
Will my right hon. Friend ask the League of Nations to appeal to the pirates' better feelings?
Strauss & Company Limited (Excess Profits Duty)
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his atten- tion has been called to the fact that a statement of the financial position of Messrs. Strauss and Company, Limited, shows a debt to the Inland Revenue of £500,000 in respect of Excess Profits Duty under appeal; and whether he can give any explanation why this large amount remains due under a duty which has been so long repealed?
I have been asked to reply. My hon. Friend's attention has been drawn to the case to which the hon. Member refers. With regard to the latter part of the question, my hon. Friend would remind the hon. Gentleman that assessments to Excess Profits Duty can still be made under the provisions of Section 38 of the Finance Act, 1926. My hon. Friend is precluded from disclosing information relating to cases of individual taxpayers; but he is satisfied that any delay in the settlement of this case is due to causes for which the Inland Revenue are not responsible.
Business of the House
May I ask the Prime Minister the business for next week? At the same time I wish to ask if he can tell us when the Unemployment Assistance (Temporary Provisions) Bill will be ready.
I will give the business first. As I announced on Thursday last, the Debate on the Second Reading of the Government of India Bill will be concluded on Monday.
Tuesday: Second Reading, Unemployment Assistance (Temporary Provisions) Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution; Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill.
Wednesday: Second Reading of the Housing (Scotland) Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution; remaining stages of the Unemployment Assistance (Temporary Provisions) Bill.
Thursday: Remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill.
The business for Friday will be announced later.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders may be taken.
The Unemployment Assistance (Temporary Provisions) Bill will be presented to-morrow, and copies circulated to Members on Saturday morning. The Bill is urgent, and the Government desire, if possible, to obtain its passage by, say, Wednesday.
We should like to discuss through the usual channels the allocation of time to the Unemployment Assistance (Temporary Provisions) Bill and the Consolidated Fund Bill, because it may be that we shall ask for one of the stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill to be taken formally, in order to discuss a Resolution which we would like to table for the consideration of the House; but we are not certain at the moment, and would like to see the Bill first, and then discuss the allocation of time.
Certainly, I should be most agreeable to that. We desire that the convenience of the House should be consulted before any final arrangements are made. There are certain times at which certain business must be concluded, but within those limitations we are quite agreeable to come to an arrangement.
I understand that these Regulations are temporary. Will the Prime Minister say when the permanent Regulations will be introduced?
I cannot say. The present situation must be dealt with in the first instance.
May I point out that in next week's Debate on the Scottish Housing Bill a large number of Members may wish to make speeches, because very important questions arise on this Bill, which is differentiated in many aspects from the English Bill, and I am afraid the time afforded may not be enough if the Bill is to be taken on the same day as the other important Measures to which the right hon. Gentleman refers.
We must see how we get on, but our view is that this Bill will go to the Scottish Standing Committee upstairs, and most of the points which I believe are likely to be in dispute are points that are essentially Committee points. We will see how we get on.
Ordered,
"That the Proceedings on the Report of Supply of 5th February be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[ The Prime Minister. ]
Post Office (Amendment) Bill,
"to amend the Post Office Act, 1908, and other enactments relating to the Post Office," presented by Sir Kingsley Wood; supported by Sir Ernest Bennett; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 26.]
Message from the Lords
That they have agreed to,—
Amendment to—
Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Bill [ Lords ], without Amendment.
Consolidation Bills,—That they propose that the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills do meet in Committee Room A, on Tuesday next, at Half-past Eleven o'clock.
Consolidation Bills
So much of the Lords Message as relates to Consolidation Bills considered.
Ordered, That the Committee appointed by this House do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships.—[ Captain Margesson. ]
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.
Selection (Standing Committees)
Standing Committee A
Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Major Colfox, Sir Gifford Fox, Mr. Holdsworth, Major Leighton, Brigadier-General Makins, Major Mills, and Mr. Patrick; and had appointed in substitution: Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allen, Major Lloyd George, Sir Robert Gower, Mr. Janner, Mr. Maitland, Mr. Petherick, and Sir Walter Womersley.
Standing Committee B
Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee: That they had appointed the following Members to serve on Standing Committee B: Miss Lloyd George, Sir Robert Hamilton, Mr. David Mason, Dr. George Morrison, Mr. R. J. Russell, and Sir Thomas Rosbotham.
Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Viscount Wolmer; and had appointed in substitution: Major Leighton.
Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Twenty Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Herring Industry Bill): Dr. Addison, the Lord Advocate, Mr. Boothby, Mr. Chorlton, Major Colfox, Sir Godfrey Collins, Mr. Smedley Crooke, Mr. Elliot, Mr. Harbord, Mr. Richard Law, Mr. Lovat-Fraser, Captain James MacAndrew, Mr. McEwen, Sir Ian Macpherson, Mr. Macquisten, Sir Arthur Michael Samuel, Mr. Henderson Stewart, Mr. James Stuart, Mr. David Williams, and Sir Murdoch McKenzie Wood.
Reports to lie upon the Table.
Orders of the Day
Government of India Bill
Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [ 16th February ], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Which Amendment was, to leave out from "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"in the opinion of this House, no legislation for the better government of India will be satisfactory which does not secure the good will and co-operation of the Indian people by recognising explicity India's right to Dominion status and by providing within it the means of its attainment, and which does not by its provisions as to franchise and representation secure to the workers and peasants of India the possibility of achieving by constitutional means their social and economic emancipation."—[ Mr. Attlee. ]
Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
3.45 p.m.
I confess that I find it more than usually difficult to speak on this large and complicated question. The Government of India is a subject which reaches far beyond the range of the best-informed Members of this House. The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Kirkpatrick) yesterday made a most impressive contribution to our knowledge of India, but I feel certain that he will not claim that the problems underlying this Bill have been simplified by his added knowledge. We are assuming a great responsibility in presenting to India the Constitution and the form of government contained in this Bill. Previous speakers have examined the main parts of the Bill and endeavoured to show how it is to apply. I have been able to get only a general picture of the proposed scheme of government and of the plan by which the several parts are related. The Explanatory Memorandum issued to Members does much to assist us to reduce the contents of this compendious document. In this Debate we have to select a few of the salient points upon which differences have arisen.
The Bill is to be offered to India as a charter of constitutional rights; in addi- tion, it is a fixed plan of government, permanent and unalterable unless it is changed by a future British Parliament. There is laid down in the first three Clauses the future position of India in relation to the British Crown. The Bill then proceeds to define the plan for the unification of India—its federalisation—so as to include the Provinces of British India, or the Governors' Provinces as they are henceforth to be called, and the Indian States which have voluntarily entered into the Federation. That recognition of India's unity is fundamental to the structure of government here provided. The powers to be conferred upon the Federal Legislature are superior to those of the Provincial Legislatures, because it has authority over the whole area of Federation. The Provincial Legislatures have a more limited legislative range and are to have an authority over the Provinces enumerated in the Bill. The framework of government, provincial and federal, is here laid down. The machinery contains much material which is not Indian and which is designed to retain the power of Britain in matters vital to India's interests.
Whether the Bill provides for the better government of India or not, it cannot be described as self-government. The whole of the Clauses from Part II to the end of Part V show clearly how the new order is going to preserve ultimate control in British hands. It is obvious that the Constitution is to be an instrument for permitting Indians to take part in the government and administration, but does not ensure that the people of India are to be given full rights in the control of local or national affairs. The Bill lays down the conditions under which rulers of the Indian States may accede to the Federation before or after establishment of Federation, and for reserving certain conditions from the authority of the Federal Legislature in those cases. At the head of the Federal Executive is the Governor-General, exercising executive authority on behalf of His Majesty.
Then we come to the Council of Ministers who advise the Governor-General in the exercise of his function. These Ministers are to be chosen by the Governor-General, and they are removable at his discretion. He is also to have three counsellors, including an Advocate-General. Special responsibilities are reserved to the Governor-General who, in those special responsibilities, retains full control of almost every important subject which may arise in India. There is to be a Federal Legislature with two Chambers for the Federal Government. The provincial executives will consist also of a Council of Ministers but executive power will be exercised by the Provincial Governors, who will have reserved to them control over external affairs, defence and ecclesiastical affairs. The Provincial Legislature is to consist of one Chamber in some Provinces and of two Chambers in others. There is so much machinery for dealing with legislation that one is given the impression that much of it is duplicated unnecessarily. Any kind of detailed examination is impossible in one speech at this stage. The main principles concern us all, and must be weighed carefully before we give our votes in the Division Lobby.
The Secretary of State for India, speaking yesterday on the Bill, compared the Bill to a gigantic boat such as Robinson Crusoe built to achieve his escape from the island on which he had been an unwilling resident for so long. The analogy does not exactly fit. Crusoe's boat was a dug-out, but this Bill is a construction of many pieces, with mortices, stays and plugs, and even putty. The right hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned with its seaworthiness. Our view is not that the design is not bold enough but that the materials are not well chosen. There is too little Indian wood in the boat and too much reliance on bolts and stays to keep the craft intact in stormy weather. This boat is to be launched under unfavourable auspices. The builders are quarrelling. If it does go to sea ill-manned or ill-provisioned, it will suffer damage and wreck long before the end of the voyage is reached.
It is because we do not want to start this enterprise in an unsound ship and with a mutinous crew that we desire to give attention to what we regard as the elements of success for the Measure. The first and the greatest of those concerns Status. We know that the Government stand firmly by the pledge in the 1919 Preamble and by the Viceroy's Declaration of 1929. From 1919 to 1929, 10 years passed, and they have been followed by five years. The world has been told over the whole of that period that the natural isue of Indian progress, as there contemplated, is the attainment of Dominion status. The right hon. Gentleman said yesterday that we can only reach the end which we have plainly set before ourselves when India has succeeded in establishing the conditions upon which self-government rests; but the Bill involves a co-partnership in legislation and administration, and in it Britain has the greater responsibility. Success does not depend wholly upon India's effort. She cannot establish conditions for self-government unless she knows that in this Constitution she is permitted to stand on terms of equality and to work for the attainment of equality of status. A considered declaration on this question of status would assist the right hon. Gentleman to overcome the suspicion of India. Why not, in the Preamble to this Bill, make the position clear beyond doubt?
Then as to the rate of progress. We should try to look upon this Bill as if it were to apply to ourselves. The inferior position which Indians occupy in their own country and in the management of their affairs is a fact, and it is not a pleasant fact. It is one of the disturbing, irritating and dangerous conditions which have been the cause of conflict and war all through the ages. There is no remedy for it except the removal of racial discrimination. The evil lies deep, but it can be overcome, and here is a great opportunity. Let us decide to come to terms with India so that the progress of India may be expedited and not delayed by acts on our part. For my part—I speak, I am sure, for my colleagues in this—I should like to see the general condition of India raised to our level as early as possible. That great country, with its 360,000,000 people who are increasing in numbers faster than they can raise their standard of subsistence, is not playing its full part in the world. Hon. Members yesterday insisted upon the retention of our markets in India. Those markets are valuable, but they are exceedingly poor when spread over the immense area and the great population with whom we deal in this Bill.
Our administration in India will be judged by the extent to which we are able to raise the standard of living for India's teeming populations. Nothing will stand to our credit if the standard of living for those masses of terribly poor people is not enhanced by our administration. India, like all other countries, is suffering poverty because she is badly governed. It is true of Britain as of India but not to the same bitter degree. We heard yesterday of the moneylenders, the castes and the low wages, they are familiar to us here in a less degree. Those conditions are not confined to India. There is illiteracy and bad housing in all the older countries, which move slowly. Such conditions must go, if modern industry is to find a place for its production. Lancashire cotton goods and British manufactures of all kinds cannot be sold to India unless she arrives at greater prosperity and is disposed in a friendly way to enter into economic co-operation with the people of this country. It is therefore vitally important that we should now secure the good will of the people of India. It is a very dangerous and wrong thing to ignore the feeling of Indians. They have declared against this Bill in its present form. We should now consult with them, and endeavour to make the Bill acceptable. The question of status is most urgent. Our word is given. There are pledges which, if they mean anything at all, bind everyone of us, and those in whose name we speak in this House. Our honour as a nation as it stake. Our peace with India rests on their faith in us.
Then we come to the machinery of the Bill. Indians have a perfect right to deny our claim to give advice, but if any constitution is to apply to a united India, she will herself have to cope with a great many difficulties for which Britain is not in the least responsible. Our idea of a constitution for India, as for Britain, is one based on liberty and equal rights for individuals, without distinction. India has a great task ahead. She is in a world where change is universal and rapid. The hon. Member who yesterday spoke of villagers waiting for the omnibus, referred to a change whose influence is incalculable in world of ideas and in politics. Where the omnibus, the wireless, the aeroplane go into primitive countries, those countries are never the same afterwards. The tractor plough, irrigation, electricity are elements of change and re-adaptation. India is influenced, as we have been, by the coming of industry and invention. She will meet those changing conditions by herself changing, by better education, by social organisation, by better politics and by better institutions. It is the people of India themselves who are to free themselves.
One of the grave defects of the machinery of government in this Bill is that it is not sufficiently representative. The question of franchise is not directly raised, but we would insist upon the extension of the franchise to all classes upon the same principle. The property qualification is unacceptable to us. India's backwardness in education should not be a bar to the franchise of an intelligent person who has been condemned to illiteracy. The electoral rolls for the Provincial and Federal Legislatures should be open to all classes. A simple educational qualification might be necessary, but it should apply to all men, whether they possess property or not. These details are important, but they are matters really for the Indians. It is not likely that they will tolerate a franchise where only an insignificant percentage of the people vote for the Federal Legislature, and only a minority for the Provincial Legislatures. Self-government for India does not mean the transfer of authority to the rich landed interests and the ruling classes of India. If the interests of the Indian people are to be considered, they must find a place in the constitution, and in the daily administration of their country's affairs. Education, taxation, finance, defence are all matters for control by the Indian people. They are asking for more than is being given in this Bill. We believe that they are entitled to more. We think, moreover, that the real interests of our own country will better be served by inviting India to join in a larger partnership with larger and higher aims than are foreshadowed in the Bill now before the House.
4.5 p.m.
It is with considerable trepidation that I rise, after some years, to address this Assembly, and I am going to ask for the indulgence of the House in so doing. Of course it is only when one feels very deeply upon a great subject that one is carried away, perhaps, and the House will forgive me if I am in some respects by my criticism, and by what may be called by some, want of judgment. This is a question which vitally concerns every Member of this House, and there is no party in this House or in the State which does not recognise that of all subjects which have been submitted to us in recent years this is the most prominent, the most important in its bearings for the hereafter of our people in England and in India. It is, therefore, a question which must evoke sympathy on one side, and some measure of indignation on another, and I am bound to admit, if the House will allow me to say so, that from my point of view, and the point of view of some others who may or may not agree with me—I think some do—we have been forced into a position, in studying this question, which is an unfair one to us in the whole history of this controversy.
The House will remember, and those who were in the House in 1919 will well remember, that when the Montagu-Chelmsford suggestions were made there was a distinct promise given to the Members of this House that as regards the experiment of giving powers for local legislation, the House was entitled to look at it and judge it by its results, and that when the report of those results was submitted, as it should be, to this House, then they would not only be entitled to review but to alter and restrict the activities of the authorities just in so far as they proved to be failures. In the whole of this discussion during the last two months there has been no reference whatever, not to a party report, but to the report of the eight Provincial Governments in India as regards that experiment. Four of the Provincial Governments in India have condemned the experiment as a complete failure in their four provinces, and the other four, while not condemning them as a whole, have had to admit, and have admitted, the incursion of corruption and indifference which are a negation of any form of successful democratic government. At the same time, while this has been stated, not by politicians but by the people responsible for submitting those reports, not a single word of reference to it in the development of arguments for the giving of further powers has been said.
The last speaker referred, and quite rightly, to the future of the people in India, not necessarily the electors in India but the people who are to be governed in the future. If the reports that have been submitted to the Government are correct, their lot is going to be considerably worse in the future than it has been in the past, and this House of Commons, representative of British democracy, is asked to give additional powers to a selected electorate in India which will, no doubt, carry on the machine in interests rather diverse from the interests of the proletariat and the people of India. If anything could have made me emphatic in my opposition, it would be the speeches of those people who have been by their position compelled to advocate so-called reforms. I speak with great respect for the Secretary of State for India, whom we all respect and admire in this House, but his speeches, and, indeed, the speeches of others who are pleading for this, have always an apologetic tone—a forgive-us-for-being-alive attitude. The Secretary of State for India made a speech the other day, which I read with great interest, in which he asked, "What is the alternative?" What a wonderful question from a statesman. It is the easiest question to put. It is just like at a General Election when everyone probably in this House has been asked by an elector to answer yes or no to an impossible question, and the ordinary refuge of the ordinary Member of Parliament is to retort, "Have you done kicking your wife?—Yes or no," and one cannot reply. But we can reply to the Secretary of State for India when he asks for an alternative. We can say to him, "There is no alternative to death, but there is no reason why we should commit suicide."
In this respect may I be allowed to go a step further? What has made us feel more than anxious as regards these proposals, based not upon principles but upon a practice which is growing up of ignoring previous pledges in the House of Commons, such as I referred to just now, when we were entitled to look back upon the experiment of 1919 and review it in the light of experience. We are entitled, therefore, to fear because of other suggestions which have been made from other quarters. May I suggest, with great respect to the Lord President of the Council, that when he made a speech on 12th December last year in this House on this question, he said a thing which to many of us was terrible to hear. Speaking on this India question, he said a thing that no man has ever experienced living in, the East, as I have in a humble way—a thing that is so untrue that it requires reference. He said: au fait with the facts that would justify these proposals. But he went a little further, if he will allow me to say so, when the other night he made his broadcast, which frightened a good many people in this country, for he said, in speaking of the policy underlying these proposals: to be called the greatest jewel of the British Crown is to be hurled aside because people who have no knowledge of the East think, for political reasons, that it is advantageous so to do? I ask the forgiveness of the House if I have spoken with some measure of feeling, but it is those utterances that have made me, although I did not wish to intervene in this Debate, feel that it was necessary to lodge a protest against suggestions and statements which may be the basis of future policy.
As regards the Bill itself, I agree that the ryot and the working man of India is going to get nothing out of it. He is going to be merely the pawn of the machine, the machine that is to be put over 350,000,000 people with a potential 35,000,000 electors. Who are they to be? We shall see. I remember some years ago a very distinguished ruling Sovereign of an Oriental State saying to me, "It has always struck me as so curious that you Englishmen are always trying to make us accept democratic institutions in exchange for the religions that we sent you from the East, and just at a time when you are rather doubtful as to whether they have any value in your own country."
We are asked to accept the analogy, put forward by the Secretary of State for India yesterday, between America and Canada and India. He will forgive me if I say it is incredible folly that he should have put forward an argument of that kind. There is no analogy. After all, the people of Canada and America were of our own stock; they had some measure of Parliamentary traditon behind them; they were brought up, even in the limited degree that existed in those days, with some representation in local authorities and central authorities; and to compare their lot, and what happened there, with what it is proposed to do in India, is to ask the House of Commons to swallow a good bit more than it has been accustomed to swallow for some years past. Therefore, it was intolerable that these analogies should be drawn, which have no substance in fact and no reality whatever. It is for you and me, as people who wish to see decent government established in the greatest dependency of the British Crown, to see that it should not be handed over to people who have openly said that they want the machine, and do not care about what happens to the people who have to work for that machine. That is not democracy; that is plutocracy. For that reason alone it is almost intolerable to me that this country should be asked to endorse a policy that will confirm in their offices a large number of people who have not the slightest wish to look after the welfare of their own people, but who are determined to wrest from us that measure of security which hitherto, through our government, we have been able to accord to the working classes and the ryots of India.
Let me go a step further. I remember another Indian of great position, who worked upon one of the Councils for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India was responsible. I asked him: "How can you be supporting these proposals?" His reply to me was, "'Safety first,' to use the words of the great leader of the Conservative party. If you are going out, we are going to get in and get hold of the machine before it is too late." What a wonderful idea of democracy that is. It is intolerable. [ Interruption. ] I will give his name privately; I cannot do so across the Floor of the House of Commons. He is a man of position and authority, and he has to live and earn all that he owns under the security of the British Raj.
The Lord President of the Council, in his broadcast, made a reference to what was happening in China and Egypt. The same thing that has happened in Egypt is happening, and will happen, in India. The people who were our best supporters are leaving us for "Safety first." They have to live in their own country; they have to move and have their being there. Their trade, their living, and the security that was accorded to them by the British Raj, are being withdrawn. Liberty and confidence are being taken from them. They have to live, move and have their being there, and, being not altogether devoid of thought, even though it may be of an inquisitive kind, they are going to establish themselves in the areas from which we are going to divorce our protectorate, and from which we are withdrawing the security of all.
Will anybody tell me, who has ever visited Egypt in the years that have passed since we gave up our hold there, whether the position of the fellahin is better or worse? It is infinitely worse. The same system of corruption and damnable misjudgment has come in. People in Egypt to-day, the fellahin, will come to you privately at night—they will not be seen coming to you in daylight; they are afraid; but they will come to you at night and tell you what has gone on, and say, "Why is not so-and-so back? We got water in those days, but now, unless we bribe the Omdeh or the Mudir, we get nothing." And yet we are contemplating on a bigger scale handing over to a section of the community, not representative of the people at all, these powers.
Think of the Bill itself. Look at the position of the Governor-General and the Governors. What an impossible position to put anybody in. You want a superman, and you will get a politician. What ridiculous nonsense it is to say that these people are to have such powers, when it will take them 24½ hours out of the 24 to study their responsibilities before they can take any action and see that things are carried out in honesty and in honour. It is stupid and absurd. Then there are the safeguards. What a magnificent suggestion. I remember that the Prime Minister, in a speech he made in 1911, said that safeguards were worth nothing, but apparently safeguards are now to be the watchword of the Government's proposals. Looking at safeguards from an ordinary point of view, you may put them on paper, but you forget the insult to the people to whom you are giving these powers. It expresses distrust of them to start with, and, therefore, it is the one thing that will prevent adequate action and interaction between the communities concerned.
You are creating an atmosphere of distrust and making for indignation by these proposals. It may be said that they are necessary. We might argue here from an academic point of view, and in different circumstances, that they are necessary, but you are entrusting 35,000,000 people in India with the control of their affairs, and you say to them, "We trust you so little that there are not only to be safeguards, but this, that and the other is to be reserved from the atmosphere of your own action." It is a stupidity beyond imagination that these things should be suggested. In this matter, whether it be in connection with the Governor-General, these safeguards, or law and order, you have the same indeterminate weakness and half-hearted- ness, not giving the encouragement to those responsible for law and order that they will be supported in their action; saying with one voice that somebody shall be there to whom they will never give their confidence, and saying at the same time that somebody else shall be in another position who will, if the knowledge is ever conveyed to him, be able to control the underling, although the damage has been done before the man in supreme control knows what has happened. That has occurred before.
I beg of this great House of Commons to think once, twice and thrice over this Bill. I am not going to suggest for one moment—it would be wrong to do so, however deeply one may feel on this matter—that it should create a division, not only in one party, but a division in the House of Commons. Members here and Members there are equally responsible for the future welfare of our Empire in India, and it is necessary that men of good will of all parties should come together and prevent this sacrifice from being achieved at the expense of all the interests of every section in the British Isles to-day. I beg them, therefore, not to divorce themselves from their own party allegiances, but, while maintaining their party allegiances, to divorce themselves entirely from the attitude of mind that, because such action must be taken, they are, therefore, going to be reprobated by this person or that.
I would express the hope, though it is impossible to hope for such a thing, that a Bill such as this, which has no party cry for it or against it, should be left to the free discussion and vote of the House of Commons, so that the opinions of all men of good will could be expressed. That, I am afraid, is impossible because of the determination of His Majesty's Government. The issue is too great, and I am afraid that minds are too small, and they will not adhere to a principle which in its essence is the greatest one of our great democracy. After all, the opinion of Lord This and Lord That really does not weigh against the opinion of the forest officer and the police officer when times of emergency arise. You may quote as much as you like what the Secretary of State has done, or the great names of great people whom we all respect. When the Secretary of State, in a speech the other day, quoted two distinguished admirals and two distinguished generals in another place, be must have had in his mind a challenge of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), whose opinion of soldiers and sailors is well known. He quoted them as people who were entitled to vote and speak on this matter. They are just as much entitled to vote and speak on this matter as we are, but their opinion, great as their position is, has no greater value than that of the forest officer, the police officer, or the man in daily contact with the ryots and the working men of India.
I did not quote these admirals and generals as experts on India, but as people unlikely to support a policy of surrender.
That does not alter my argument in the smallest degree. The right hon. Gentleman quoted them as supporters who voted for this. That was the point of my argument. But their value is no greater than that of any Member of this House of Commons.
The House has listened to me, and I am grateful. I have spoken with some measure of emotion and feeling on this matter which has vexed the country for a considerable time. I would ask hon. Members seriously to consider whether it would not be wise to think before they endorse a policy based upon fear, surrounded by so-called safeguards which must only militate against success, antagonising the very people whom it is proposed to enfranchise and creating in India itself, that great dependency of the Crown, an innate hostility which will increase the sense of irresponsibility to which the Secretary of State referred yesterday. Of course, it will. Irresponsibility will be shown in a greater degree in so far as this Measure, with its restrictions, its antipathies and its ordinances militates against the welfare of those submerged millions in India whom it is our first duty to protect and for whose interests many of us feel and speak.
I beg of the House to think twice before they endorse this. It can only bring friction and lead to further trouble. It will not create a sense of increased loyalty to the British Crown or of satisfaction among the citizens of the Empire. It can only widen what is hardly a breach to-day, for, after all, the breach has been effected by but a small percentage of the people of India who speak through a certain number of newspapers which they possess and which they finance, which represent in no degree anything but the smallest percentage of the people. We are asked to accept their opinion as the opinion of the millions of India who say, "Give us our British Raj." To millions of them Queen Victoria is not dead. She lives among them. She is there. She is on a pedestal of justice and righteousness for them all. They worship her to-day. We are asked to subordinate all that and kill the very fabric of enthusiasm which should give loyalty to the Crown and support to the British administration in India.
4.34 p.m.
The House will generally agree that my hon. Friend who has just sat down has made a most eloquent speech, imbued and impregnated with the deepest sincerity. I do not propose to follow the bad practice of the House of Commons in these days in saying, "I do not propose to follow the last speaker's speech." I propose to follow it very closely and to attempt to answer it. That seems to my mind to be the true function of debate. But before I come to it I should like to make one or two preliminary observations.
In the first place if the House will permit a personal reference, I have three unique experiences in connection with this great subject under review. Firstly, I am the only Member of the House who in recent years or, as far as I know, at any time has for nearly seven years represented the Secretary of State for India in this House. Secondly, I am the only back bencher who has sat on both the third Round Table Conference, the Burma Round Table Conference, and the Joint Committee. All of us who sat on those Conferences and Committees had to cary out a very long and sustained labour. I reckon, for example, that I myself sat for over 1,000 hours in Committee, sometimes when the House was in recess and sometimes when it was in session, and I can assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) that the pygmies did work on those Committees in their limited sphere. They worked very hard, not of course with the distinction and with the influence of world figures, those who move great armies and navies over the face of the earth, but at any rate they worked according to their lights, and the work they did is on record to-day. Let it not be, thought for a moment that this subject has been approached by the House without very considerable preliminary observation and preparation. Thirdly, I am the only member of the Joint Committee who has not yet taken part in the Debate, except my right hon. Friend below me. He has imposed a Trappist vow of silence upon himself throughout this Parliament though I understand he is going to break it to-morrow.
Having made these autobiographical observations, for which I apologise to the House, I proceed to say no more about my personal reasons for supporting the Bill, because it seems to me that there has been a tendency throughout these discussions rather to over-emphasise the personal factor. As I see it, at any rate, this Bill is not the result of the all-pervasive and all-persuasive influence of a Socialist Prime Minister or of a former amiable but too-yielding Viceroy, nor even of a Satanic Secretary of State, nor has the rather long conversion of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping made some play on a former occasion, nor the rather shorter conversion of the Foreign Secretary produced the process by which this Bill was brought into being. It has, in fact, only exemplified it.
It is, in my judgment, the fact that for at least a generation past the thoughts of all the wisest men in Indian governance, whether of Britons or of Indians, have been directed towards the confederation and consolidation of the whole subcontinent as a great unit in the British Empire, self-governed but guided and influenced by what may be called without exaggeration the incomparable tradition of British administrators and British administration. That process was, of course, accelerated by what occurred during the War, not only in India but elsewhere. India's participation in the War, her. Very material contribution to- wards the winning of it, the attitude which this country adopted to other countries both within and without the Empire since the War in the matter of self-determination and, above all, the fact, to which I will call the particular attention of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) who I understand is going to follow in this Debate because I think he cannot deny this—the paradoxical but indubitable parallel growth in the Dominions overseas since 1918 of a strong local pride and nationalism together with a broadening Empire patriotism, and sense of common right and common obligation towards the whole Empire. All these have accelerated the process to which I have referred.
It is quite obvious that my hon. and right hon. Friends who oppose the Bill and who have opposed the recommendations of the Joint Committee and of the three Bound Table Conferences have a completely different picture in their minds as to the position that India should occupy now and in the future. This is no quibbling difference of opinion. It is a fundamental cleavage within the party, a cleavage which of course is perfectly honourable to both sides. Holding those views, not only the official Socialist Opposition, who are also of course in fundamental opposition to our conception of the position that India should occupy in the Empire, but Conservative opponents of the Bill have a perfect right to offer strong opposition to it. I have never denied it, though I think they should remember, in putting forward their opposition, that at the most favourable estimate of the strength which they hold in the party it does not exceed 50 per cent.
The Government could, of course, hardly expect them to refrain from opposition, especially after the agreement to differ in the early days of this Parliament, and I for one think it is a very good thing in this respect that during the Debates that we shall have in Committee we shall return for a time, at any rate, to pre-war conditions of Debate where we shall have dissection and analysis, brilliant point and counterpoint, and not the pure mechanisation of legislation, which has done so much to injure the prestige of this House outside. We are now going to enter on a great period of controversy—one might also say historic controversy. I do not object to that though I am profoundly sorry to find myself in disagreement with those Members of my party with whom normally and usually I have worked and hope to work together in the future. That discussion will do good, I think, in many ways. The phrase is attributed to the Lord President of the Council—I do not know whether he ever used it—that oratory is the harlot of the Arts. I should rather prefer to say that oratory is the sister of free discussion and the daughter and upholder of democratic institutions. When the House of Commons ceases to be interested in historic issues it will cease to have any interest for the public outside.
I want to refer to one or two points which have been made by opponents of the Bill, and in particular by my hon. Friend who spoke last. First of all, it has been stated throughout these discussions by Conservative opponents that the whole thesis of All-India Federation is false because the Princes were not and could not be willing parties to it. This statement, which has been so oft repeated, is based on the grossly inaccurate belief that the Princes have been cajoled and coerced into declaring for Federation. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping has left the House, because I want here to refer to a statement which he made a short time ago upon this subject. Let me say, first of all, that there is not a shred of evidence which would be accepted in any properly constituted court of law to support this contention. On the contrary, the evidence is all the other way. The most astonishing efforts have been made to induce the Princes to make certain public declarations. Hon. Members of this House and others have gone to, what I venture to describe, the limits of decency. They have shown an officious and impudent interference in the affairs of distinguished men who are the feudatories, of His Majesty which I have never remembered to have occurred in connection with any other controversy in my experience.
What is the answer? The answer was given by two of the most distinguished of them, and I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bourne- mouth will deal with that answer in the course of his speech. I invite him to do so, and I put this specific question to him. Does he, or does he not, accept the statement which was made by the Maharajahs of Bikaner and Patiala the other day, and, if so, will he restrain himself and his friends from saying the things which they have been saying? I never remember any persons, whether humble or great, receiving such unsolicited and unwelcome advice as that offered by the right hon. Gentleman and his entourage. My right hon. Friend the Member for Epping not only says that the Princes have been cajoled and coerced but threatened in the actions which they took. He thinks that there is some dark plot as well. The other day he said, speaking in the country, "If the facts were only known." There is nothing to stop my right hon. Friend from giving the facts. We are not living in Soviet Russia or Hitlerite Germany. Distinguished statesmen are not put in concentration camps for giving, either here or outside, facts of importance which come under their observation.
I cannot understand why there is not a word. My right hon. Friend is allowing himself to be the victim of what is known in medical science as "persecution mania." He thinks that there is not only a plot which will destroy the British Empire, tout, what is worse, that it will involve him and his son in the ruins of it. I can only compare him to those persons who during the first two months of the War saw in every stranger they met a German spy and believed that every Cabinet Minister was in communication with the enemy. As my right hon. Friend is not here, but has a very distinguished substitute in the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth, I would really pray my hon. and gallant Friend not to allow these suspicions to impregnate a frank and open mind and not to believe that there is any plot in the matter or anything said by the Princes in public which is divorced from what they said in private. The Secretary of State made the position of the Princes perfectly clear yesterday.
The second point made by opponents of the Bill is that no one in India wants, or will work the scheme. I maintain that the first statement is a half truth and that the second is definitely untrue. It is a fact that most Indians in public life would like the scheme to go further and the safeguards to be reduced or abolished. Is it really surprising that keen and ambitious men, prominent in the public life of their own country, should press for a greater scheme of advance, even though most of us in this House think that they are not wise to do so? There is nothing necessarily incompatible in thus working, as they do, for fuller and freer powers with loyalty to the King-Emperor, and the desire to remain within the Empire. The Labour party do not object to the Constitution so much on those grounds; not so much on the grounds that Indians will not work it, but that, if they do work it, they will not work it in the way the Labour party would like to see India governed. That may well be so. I do not want to say anything wounding to the Labour party, but it is a fact that, except in this country, the views which the Labour party hold are not very popular anywhere. There is a slight, what one may call, retrocession from the summit.
They were very popular at Wavertree.
There has been a slight retrogression, perhaps that is the more correct term, from the position 10 years ago, when the views held by the British Labour party began to be popular in many countries in Europe. That is no longer so to-day. The trend is to the right rather than to the left, and therefore it can hardly be expected that in India or anywhere else the political views of the Labour party are likely to receive majority support in the near future. I would answer what has been said on this point in a sentence. Whatever you may say about the new Constitution, it gives a greater opportunity to the average Indian, which I should have thought, from the Labour point of view, was satisfactory, to exercise his influence through his vote. It gives a far greater opportunity than has ever been given before.
It was said yesterday—and there is no need further to emphasise or repeat the argument—that a large proportion of the Indians in public life are prepared to work the scheme of the Bill, but as regards that of my right hon. and hon. Friends, which I will call the Salisbury scheme, no one in India is pre- pared to work it. As far as I know, no one who has recently held, or is likely to hold office in India in the Civil Service is in favour of such a scheme. It is really not surprising. It is fantastic for the Conservative opponents of this Bill to put forward such a scheme, holding the views that they do. It is clearly shown—and never more clearly than in the speech of the hon. Member for Chertsey (Sir A. Boyd-Carpenter)—that in their opinion Indians are unfitted for any extension of self-government. Yet their conclusions are completely divorced from their arguments. My hon. and gallant Friend shakes his head. What then was the object of the eloquent speech he delivered wholly directed against giving India more opportunity to govern itself? He thought that terrible things had happened and made a fierce attack on the Lord President, but what is the meaning of his speech if he is not—as I maintain he is—fundamentally opposed in his heart, as are some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, to any extension of self-government in India?
There is not a word of truth in what the Noble Lord says. The whole point is that the speed with which the proposals have been made from 7,000,000 to 35,000,000 is a speed which the requirements of the situation do not justify.
Oh, no, my hon. and gallant Friend and none of his colleagues can get away with that. I could quote—I am not going to do so as it would take too long—speeches in this House and outside from which the only conclusion was that the Indians were not fitted to be trusted with self-government. But I will quote what Sir Michael O'Dwyer said in his answers to me in the Joint Committee. It will be generally agreed that Sir Michael O'Dwyer is the most distinguished Indian civil servant—I am not comparing him to Governors from this country like Lord Lloyd—who is on their side and is an able man and a good protagonist of their point of view. I asked him:
"Apart from that, I suppose I am right in inferring that you consider the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms to have worked well enough to justify the transfer now to Ministers of the important matters which you are prepared to transfer?—…In view of the expectations roused. They have worked very differently in different Provinces. In some there has been an absolute deadlock, such as in Bengal and the Central Provinces. It worked best in Madras and the Punjab, and with varying success elsewhere, but I am prepared to take the risk on the whole (and it is a big risk) of the course I have suggested.
"As a result of experience?—As a result of the expectations aroused. That test has, in fact, not been applied which was laid down in the Act of 1919, that future advance should be determined by the degree of co-operation and the sense of responsibility shown by those on whom greater opportunities had been conferred. That has more or less gone by the board, and we have to accept that fact now and decide what further advance can be made now with the least risk.
"You would be prepared to go further than you were in 1919?—Yes, undoubtedly."
I quote that as a typical instance of the lack of clear thinking on the part of those who are opposed to this Bill.
Oh!
Yes, a lack of clear thinking. If the right hon. Gentleman will listen, I will tell him that they are attempting to do two or three different things. First of all, they say that they are prepared to go further and then say that no real test has been applied. In other speeches they proceed ad nauseam to tell the people of this country that Indians are not fitted for self-government. Why do they need to go further? There is nothing in the Preamble to the famous Act of 1919 which causes you to go further. The hon. Member for Chertsey in the most eloquent part of his speech, said that there is no alternative to death but that that is no reason why we should commit suicide. The meaning of the phrase is somewhat obscure, but I submit in the judgment of those supporting the Government that this Bill does not involve either death or suicide. I should have thought, from the point of view of the opponents, holding the views which they do, that to support any scheme for the extension of self-government was to commite suicide in respect of themselves. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] I should be glad to hear the answer. It has not been given yet. Take the position of the Noble Lady the Member for Perth (Duchess of Atholl). She has devoted speech after speech in this House to explaining how the transfer of subjects under the existing law has been mismanaged and muddled by Indians, and how public health and education and everything has suffered, and yet my hon. Friend proposes to allow Indians to have even greater control over these things than before.
If the Noble Lord will refer to the speech which I made in December last on the report, he will see that I said that, if we were to keep strictly to the terms of the Preamble of the Act of 1919, to which he has just referred, and to think only of doing our duty to the Indian masses, we should not transfer any further departments until the steps recommended by the Simon Commission for restoring efficiency had been put into effect. But I went on to say, as Sir Michael O'Dwyer said, that in view of the expectations which had been aroused among the politicians, I very reluctantly had brought myself to being ready to transfer further provincial services, but not law and order.
The Noble Lady could not have given a better answer to my question. I think it was the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping. Perhaps he will answer that on Monday. I understood that his position was that we had a completely free hand in this matter, and there was no reason why we should advance at all. I cannot understand that point of view nor that of those outside this House. The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth in a most eloquent speech at the conference hall outside referred to the lonely White Man.
It is true.
It was a very eloquent passage in a very fine speech, but the White Man will be lonelier under his proposal. There will be fewer of them. They will have less power.
Hear, hear!
My right hon. and hon. Friends are able to produce intellectual arguments in this House, but no one has attempted to explain this extraordinary divorce between the conclusion of their speeches and the arguments they have used. Not one, and I challenge them to do so. We are told that they support the Simon Commission Report. They support it in this sense, that they support some of its conclusions but none of the spirit in which it was written, because the spirit in which it was written was not a spirit impregnated with distrust and hostility to the Indian people. They are impregnated with mistrust and dislike of the Indians in public life—and they are entitled to hold those views—but, holding them, it seems to me very odd that they should support the Salisbury scheme, which is going to set no sort of bar against them. Although they believe that the Indians are dishonest in public life, they are willing to give an extended opportunity to that dishonesty.
They remind me of the position of a banker to whom a borrower goes and says, "Lend me £2,000. I want to extend my business. I consider that I have most capably managed my own affairs." The banker replies, "I will not lend you £2,000. You are unfitted to manage your own business. You are incompetent, but I will lend you £100. It does not matter whether I lose £100, but I do not want to lose £2,000." The borrower in those circumstances would change his bank. I say to my hon. and right hon. Friends that they have made the worst of both worlds. They have created great feeling in political circles in India but have done nothing whatever, and do not propose to do anything whatever, to prevent Indians from having an extended opportunity of doing the things which they do not want to see them doing.
They make reference to the fact that trade is going to be lost under the Bill. They tell us that the Bill will injure British trade with India, which means, so far as it means anything, that in some mysterious way Indians can be compelled to buy British goods. If it were true that we could compel the Indians or anybody else outside these islands to buy British goods, we could close the Employment Exchanges all over the country.
The fact that we cannot do so is one of the difficulties at the present time. The only way that we can get British goods sold is by good will between us and our customers and, in the case of the Empire, by mutual inter-Imperial preferential trading. I should have thought that the opponents of the Bill would have been grateful that for the first time in India, during the rule of a much-maligned Viceroy and Secretary of State, we have established preferential trading between this country and India. I should have thought that the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth would have been very pleased with that. I have been reading the speech of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Slater). He spoke of the great decrease in Lancashire trade. That is perfectly true and it is a very deplorable thing, but the decrease is not entirely due to the loss of the Indian market. It is due to a great many causes. The whole state of the Lancashire cotton industry is undoubtedly bad, but it is not wholly due to external causes. There were internal causes, particularly during the War, which had something to do with it. I have not, however, time to develop that argument.
The hon. Member's argument, which is generally that of the Diehards, was that if you stop the Indian millowners from having protection and allow a completely free market into India for cotton and other British goods the consumers in India would be infinitely better off. With that mixture of self-interest and idealism, which is characteristic of some people in this country and which is sometimes referred to by foreigners as British hypocrisy, the minority, speaking for Lancashire, would say: "Take off all the Indian duties and destroy the Indian millowners." The answer is very simple, and it is this, that the principal competitor both of Lancashire and of India is Japan. The competitor with Lancashire is not primarily the Indian mills but the Japanese mills. Therefore, if you really want to help the Indian consumer you will not help him by letting him have Lancashire goods without duty, because Japanese goods will always be able to undersell Lancashire goods in a completely free market. What then becomes of the hon. Member's argument?
So far from this Bill doing injury to Imperial trade, it is a step forward towards the goal that some of us, certainly the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), myself and others have had in view for many years past, and that is the gradual economic and strategic unification of the whole of the British Empire. I agree with what Lord Beaver-brook has said about opportunities of inter-trade between Great Britain and India, and I think that will be brought about by this Bill. Given good will and common sense on both sides, there are almost illimitable opportunities for trade expansion between Great Britain and India. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook and myself visualise an evolving British Empire, unity in diversity, with increasing self-government locally, coupled with increasing trade within the Empire and a progressive sharing of responsibilities for mutual help in both peace and war.
That is our conception of the British Empire, but we would go much further. We want to see not a dependent but an inter-dependent Empire. We believe that the days of the dependent Empire have passed away. We want the whole of this evolving inter-dependent British Empire linked together by fealty to the Crown and appreciation of the material and moral benefits to be found within a great world-wide confederation. I suggest that there are only two ways in which a modern and scattered Empire composed of different races and religions can be held together—the method which France has adopted and the method which we have adopted. France says to her fellow citizens in her Colonies and Dependencies: "We will admit you to our family life, and our Legislature, also to our army on equal terms, and in return you must be for ever France. Share with us the traditions, the privileges, the dangers and the sacrifices of our great country."
And trade.
And trade. Britain, on the other hand, says to her fellow subjects overseas: "We will teach you to govern yourselves as we have learned to govern ourselves. In return we expect you to remain loyally and contentedly within the British Empire, because that Empire affords within its component parts the best working partnership ever seen between free peoples. It is an example to humanity." Some difference of opinion has arisen about the meaning of the relationship of the different Dominions one to another. It is not true to say that legally and constitutionally Dominion status involves the right of secession. I definitely say that and I definitely challenge anyone to deny it. I challenge my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping to deny that. Dominion status does not involve the legal and constitutional right of secession from the Empire.
My Noble Friend is no doubt speaking of Dominion status as defined by the Statute of Westminster?
Yes, I say that on high expert opinion. Therefore, let it not be thought that in using that phrase—
What about South Africa?
My hon. Friend may say "What about South Africa?" The view that I have put is the conception that is put by high legal authorities. Some parts of the Empire may challenge it. By using the term "Dominion status," there is not the slightest suggestion that His Majesty's Government have altered the attitude towards this question which their predecessors held in 1919. They have not done so. In 1919 it was clearly laid down, and the House accepted it without a vote, that the goal in India should be the eventual attainment of the status of a self-governing unit within and as an integral part of the British Empire. That was the promise given to India. There has been no recession and no alteration. I think it is very necessary to say that, because great Imperial harm is going to be done if two things are said: (1) as a result of the Statute of Westminster there has been an entire alteration in the whole conception of Dominion status, and (2) that by giving to India Dominion status there has been any alteration in the position that existed before.
We who hold the views which I have just described, that of unification in both an economic and strategic sense of the British Empire, repudiate the notion that those who are in favour of the Bill are in favour of either abdication or surrender. That would indeed be contrary to the practice and profession of a lifetime in both peace and war. On the contrary, we say that this is no question of a weary worn-out land, discarding its rights and obligations towards a conquered territory, but rather it is the case of a vigorous mother or centre State of a great free Empire, taking one further step to cement a world-wide fellowship that surmounts race, creed and colour.
5.13 p.m.
If I were to sum up the three speeches to which we have listened I would say that the spirit of one speech was India for Congress, the second was definitely India for Britain, while the third was India for the Indians. As far as I am concerned, I should come down strongly on the side of the last speaker. The spirit of the speech of the hon. Member for Chertsey (Sir A. Boyd-Carpenter) was that we should rule India until the end of time. That is a distinct contravention of many pledges that have been given to India by right hon. Gentlemen both inside and outside this House. I do not want to make quotations from statements made by great pro-Consuls, because the hon. Member for Chertsey rather derided the Secretary of State for doing that, but I should like to remind the House of a very memorable saying of Lord Curzon as far back as 1904, when he said: the same policy which caused the trouble between this country and Ireland, from which we are still suffering.
The proposals put forward by the right hon. Member for Epping and his faction are so numerous and vague that if I am to consider their point of view I must restrict myself to the authoritative proposals made on their behalf by Lord Salisbury in the Joint Select Committee. The proposals of Lord Salisbury are that there should be no Federation. Instead of Federation the Noble Lord goes back to the proposals of the Simon Commission, and wishes only for a Greater India Council, having nothing but advisory powers, and no influence whatever. He wishes the powers of the Governor-General to be increased, and he wants the veto to be strengthened. He expects the Princes to swallow these proposals because he says they will favour their administration. The Princes have not lent their ears to Lord Salisbury. That is not to be wondered at, because the advisory council, which is supposed to further their interests, would be a rival to the equally feeble Legislative Assembly in existence at present, which he wishes to carry on.
As regards the Provinces, the right hon. Member for Epping and his friends are prepared to carry out and extend some of the proposals in the White Paper, but they draw the line at law and order. All subjects are to be transferred except law and order. Most people who are cognisant of what has been going on in India during the last 13 years know that at the present time, in practically every Province, only the two subjects of land revenue and law and order have not been transferred. What advance is therefore proposed in this case? Moreover, how can anybody say that real authority is transferred if the main power of law and order is kept in other hands. Provincial Autonomy, which the right hon. Member for Epping and his friends are prepared to grant to the Provinces is quite useless, quite nugatory, without Federation, and will lead only to the complete disintegration of the unity which exists in India at present. Lord Hardinge, speaking in another place, pointed out that since 1919 there had been a growth in the Provinces of a very strong provincial feeling and that if there were as many as 11 great Provinces set up, with their own particu- lar interests, they would create a centrifugal force which would detract from the power and coherence of the centre.
The only way of consolidating Federation is to create it now; to give the country the freedom which is proposed in the Bill. That is not the policy of Lord Salisbury and the right hon. Member for Epping and their friends. What they want, as far as I can make out is the iron hand and the mailed fist—nothing less will satisfy the Sultan of Epping and his janissaries. These gentlemen are constantly appealing to and basing themselves on the Simon Report. It is true that the Simon Report did reject a British-India Federation, but it did not reject an all-India Federation. I think that the Foreign Secretary himself has in some measure been responsible for the misconception which has arisen. He did not see fit to make it clear very early to this House and to the country that the declaration of the Princes vitiated the conclusions of the report which he had drawn up with his colleagues. May I remind the House that the declaration of the Princes was in January, 1931. The Foreign Secretary spoke in this House in December, 1931, almost a year later. He was non-committal. He explained the difficulties, weighed the pros and cons, but came to no conclusion; he gave no lead. In April, 1933, on the Motion to set up the Joint Select Committee, he was equally non-committal. Again he weighed the pros and the cons, and again he gave no opinion of his own. In both these speeches he stated the issues involved, but gave no indication of what he himself desired should take place. He explained what Federation was, but he did not tell us what he thought it should be. He explained it in the abstract, but did not say what it would be when applied to India.
It was the Foreign Secretary himself who suggested the Round Table Conference, in the exchange of letters which took place between the Prime Minister and himself. Why did he suggest the Round Table Conference? Because he recognised that the discussion of the relations between British India and the Indian States was a matter of great importance, especially for the constitutional development of India. Following the suggestion of the Foreign Secretary himself, the first Round Table Conference was convened. Its object was to seek the greatest possible measure of agreement between British India and the Indian States, and for final proposals to be submitted to Parliament. It is obvious, therefore, that the Foreign Secretary did contemplate at that time that some arrangement would be come to between the Princes and British India, and that on these lines some form of Government should be elaborated. Why did he not indicate at once how far the declaration of the Princes had modified the conclusions of the Statutory Commission? What did the right hon. Gentleman do? He joined the Select Committee; but he attended it only once, and that was six months after it was convened, on a formal occasion, when a resolution of regret was passed on the death of two members.
It is true that the right hon. Gentleman's acceptance of membership of that committee deprived him of the privilege of speaking his mind in public, and some people may think that that is the reason he joined it. But it should have given him a greater opportunity. He could have put forward his views as a member of the committee, or as a witness before the committee. That opportunity he never took. If he had, then Lord Salisbury and those associated with him could not have based every one of their proposals on the findings of the Simon Commission, nor could they have quoted from the Simon Commission over and over again in order to substantiate their proposals? On 31st October, 1934, the Joint Select Committee's Report was published, and at last, a month later, the Foreign Secretary first stated his acceptance of Federation in his speech at Dumfries. Speaking later in this House, on 12th December, four full years after the declaration of the Princes, the right hon. Gentleman again stated his acceptance of the declaration. January, 1931, the declaration of the Princes—December, 1934, the right hon. Gentleman's acceptance of it at Dumfries. Four full years for the Conservative opposition to fatten and batten on the Simon Report. Now at last the Conservative opposition is deprived of the authority of the Simon Commission. They have claimed the support, however, of other bodies—and these claims are proving equally false. They have claimed the support of the Services in India. It has been disproved. There have been a few sporadic excep- tions who have come forward and criticised the plans of the Joint Select Committee and the White Paper, but, on the whole, there has been a concensus of opinion in the administration undoubtedly favourable to the White Paper and which will be favourable to the Bill. It is also claimed that the Princes are not supporting these proposals. They have already come forward and rebutted this statement.
What do hon. Members who are opposing the Bill say now? They say that members of the Administration and the Princes are concealing their true convictions, that they have been coerced and browbeaten into complacent asseveration. I do not understand how you can, on the one hand, say "Here are these great administrators, who throughout the ages have conducted the affairs of India with such skill and raised the status of the ryot, who have administered this gigantic country and these huge Provinces with fairness and intelligence," and on the other hand say, "These are the people who to-day, in order to save their own skins, in order to keep their own places, are agreeing to kow-tow to the Government and agree to any proposal which is made to them." How can you say that these great potentates, whose line has been carried on for over 1,000 years, these men whose families and ancestors have ruled over these great territories, can be browbeaten at the present time into obedience to a Viceroy who is the very man whose powers you want to increase yourself?
Let me turn for a brief instant to the Labour criticisms. It is difficult to assess the exent of their criticisms. Indeed the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) who spoke on behalf of the Opposition yesterday, has complained, especially in his broadcast, that the criticisms of the Labour party are not being considered. I really do not know which one of their criticisms we are to consider. Are we to consider that of Lord Strabolgi, who was put up to speak for them in another House, whose points were condemnation of the communal award, which is opposed to every tenet of the Labour party, praise of the occupational franchise and a distinct understanding that the occupation by Britain is to go on, and that no Labour government would ever clear out of India because our presence is necessary in case there is a war and invasion from the North. How does that square with what the Leader of the Opposition said, not only in his articles in the "Clarion" but also in his broadcast the other day, when his view-point was that we should jettison this Bill, give it up altogether, set up a constituent assembly in India, and give Indians the right to frame their own Constitution and to remain within the British Empire or leave it at their will?
I prefer to restrict myself to the views and the considered proposals made by the hon. Member for Limehouse in the draft which is known as Mr. Attlee's Draft, in the report of the Joint Select Committee. The points which were made by the hon. Member for Limehouse were, first of all, the acceptance of the communal award in contradistinction to the view of Lord Strabolgi; then to recognise the responsibility of the British Government to devise an Indian Constitution with safeguards—that in opposition to his leader. No wonder that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench do not know which one of these lovely sirens to answer. One of the pet theories advocated in the Draft Report is the transference of foreign affairs to a responsible Minister, and the hon. Member for Limehouse yesterday stressed that point with great vigour. He still thinks that you can reserve defence on the one hand and give up foreign affairs on the other. I cannot see how you can dissociate those two. He says that India has paid for her defence for years. But are you going to transfer Imperial troops in India into common mercenaries? Are you going to give the Government employing them the right to involve them in war at any time? Further, suppose that there were a war in India, suppose that the foreign policy carried out in India did lead to war, if the foreign policy endangered the safety of India, does anyone believe that India would then be paying for her defence and that it would not be Great Britain who was footing the Bill?
What is the Labour party's attitude to Safeguards? Labour puts forward many safeguards far more stringent than those put forward in the Bill itself. But all those safeguards relate to one thing only—tyranny, reaction, social injustice, racial and communal minorities. But the Leader of the Opposition does not believe in any safeguards at all; he wants to do away with them altogether. In this respect he and the Draft Report are once more at issue. Not only does the Draft Report condone the safeguards, but it does not object to the safeguard which is for the prevention of commercial discrimination. The hon. Member for Limehouse wants the best of both worlds; he wants to please both Lancashire and Indian Nationalism. The Bill confers emergency powers on Governors and Governors-General. These powers will fall ultimately into disuse. But the safeguards that the Labour party wishes to impose will affect the electoral system. They are there in order to create a particular economic outlook in the Indian situation. They will be permanent, they will be rigid and they will be unalterable.
Here again, I cannot understand how the hon. Member for Limehouse can plead the cause of self-government. Not only does he want to fasten on India an electoral system which runs absolutely counter to the wish of every thinking Indian in that great sub-Continent, but he has constantly opposed the will of the Indians by recommending indirect election to the central Chamber. Yesterday he did not discuss the point but discussed only the question of franchise. I would like to know where he stands to-day on that point, because his attitude all through the different conferences that have taken place and ever since the Simon Commission, would make an eel jealous. On 15th March, 1934, the hon. Gentleman submitted to the Joint Select Committee a memorandum advocating indirect election. There came the 18th June, only three months later, when his own draft was submitted, and that recommended direct election. In this he was supported by his three Labour colleagues.
Does my hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) know that the hon. Member intended to raise these points?
I do not see why I should have let the hon. Member for Limehouse know? There is no reason whatever why I should have done so.
I think you should.
I should have expected an hon. Gentleman who made a speech yesterday to have been here to-day listening to the answer. I regret that the hon. Member does not think my speech is worth listening to. He may be right, but I am sorry he is not here. On 6th July, the Amendment of my hon. Friend on these benches was brought before the Joint Select Committee. It was an Amendment, as the House knows, for direct election, and on that occasion the hon. Member for Limehouse did what he has done to-day—he did not appear; he abstained; whereas his colleagues voted for the Amendment. Then on 12th October the hon. Gentleman supported by his vote a paragraph in the final Report which recommends indirect election, and on this occasion he was not supported by his colleagues. Notwithstanding these gyrations, these circumvolutions of the hon. Member, I still hope that in our plea for direct election we shall be reinforced by the support of the Opposition; and I also hope that the Government will be tempted by the arguments we have put forward to return to the proposals of the White Paper. Indeed, this is not a minor matter. It is a matter which concerns primarily the community of India. It is necessary, in order to maintain the unity of India, to increase the interest in national affairs versus provincial or parochial affairs.
To this Bill we shall give our most cordial support. There is, obviously, no alternative to the principles which underlie it—Federation, responsibility at the Centre and in the Provinces, subject to certain emergency powers and safeguards. But I regret, for the sake of India, that the Opposition has magnified this question of emergency measures and safeguards to such a degree. Those measures will never need to be operative in India if that great country shows its fitness for self-government. It will be far better for the hon. Members of the Opposition who have such influence with certain parties in India to persuade the Indians to accept this Bill at its true value; because I believe it will create a new atmosphere of peace and good will. I do not believe that India's Legislative Assemblies and its Ministries will ever menace the peace and tranquillity of the country. I do not believe that they will threaten financial stability, or interfere with the rights of the Civil Service, and as peace and good will increase, owing to the responsibility which is put into their hands, I do not believe that there will be any discrimination against British trade.
I know that Indian public opinion does not feel very cordial to this Measure. Nevertheless, I would like to say that it will give them full scope to fulfil many of their aspirations for self-government. It will open to them the vast channels of health, of education, of agriculture, and of social services, and I hope and believe that it will bring the conscientious and the patriotic to co-operate, and will cause the ambitious to try for the glittering prizes. The Indians, indeed, have shown their great faculty for co-operation. I would remind the House of what took place at the first meeting of the Round Table Conference. India was seething with discontent, the prisons were full, the Viceroy was governing the country by Orders-in-Council. Yet at that very time the Indian intelligentsia rallied to our cause and came here, many of them the most intelligent, the most educated, and the most expert politicians in India, to give their help to British politicians who were sitting with them, in solving the many problems that were arising at the time.
It is incumbent upon us to induce the Indians to give this Measure a fair trial, and in this respect I welcome the pronouncement made by the Secretary of State reaffirming our ultimate aim—to give India a place among the nations of the British Commonwealth as a responsible united and self-governing Federation. I hope—and nothing has been said about this up to the present—that when, in a few days' time, the Instrument of Instructions is published, there will be in it some reference to this point. It will be remembered that in the Instrument of Instructions published in 1921 this point was made abundantly clear, and after the very responsible statement made yesterday by the Secretary of State it is not too much to hope that some Instruction of the same kind will figure in the document which is to be presented to the House in a few days' time. The paths of Britain and India must run together for many years. Co-operation between us must continue, and I hope that India will trust and support us in the policy of world peace and the betterment of the people. We shall be happy to see the consummation of her national pride.
This Bill is indeed a great step towards the fulfilment of India's highest ambitions. But, let me say, the task of the English in India is by no means over. The inauguration of this great Constitution is fraught with grave difficulties. It will require tact and ability of the highest order on the part of the whole of the British personnel in the Services from the lowest rungs of the ladder to the Governors and the Viceroy. They must continue in India the task of the last 100 years, the task which has been so admirably carried out, particularly in the last 13 years, the task of developing the capacity of the Indians for legislation and administration. They will have, more than ever, to impart to the Indian people those specifically English gifts of willingness and enthusiasm for responsibility, of capacity for taking sides and of ability to make decisions. The men who are called upon to do this work are made of the same stuff as that distinguished band, which found a continent famine-stricken, in turmoil, and in discord, and led it to plenty, to peace and, above all, led it to unity.
5.49 p.m.
I shall endeavour, in the short time at my disposal, to deal only with the broad and general considerations which have persuaded me to give my support to the Second Reading of the Bill. Even the most cursory study of the Bill impresses one with the fact that we are dealing here with issues unequalled in their magnitude by any issues which have ever appeared before the British House of Commons. They are issues which affect the destiny of one-fifth of the globe, which affect the destinies of the rich and poor but particularly the poor, in a population of 350,000,000. I think even the opponents of the Bill must recognise that the British Parliament has done everything in its power, within the last decade in any case, to bring before the people of this country by minute and careful examination of the question at the hands of bodies of the most authoritative and impressive character, the real salient facts of the situation.
Many of us have been in close touch with the question of self-government in this country, and I may say that for good or ill I have been in close touch with it, in a particular form, for nearly a quarter of a century. I remember even the awakening, many years ago, in the Morley-Minto Reforms, of the spirit of self-government in India. I was in the Government of 1917, and from that period up to 1920 or 1921 I was in the closest possible touch with the ideas of the British Government with regard to self-government all over the Empire. Indeed I saw, and I think I took part in, the drafting of the Preamble to the Act of 1919, and I remember saying to the then Secretary of State for India what I would say to my colleagues in the House of Commons to-day, "After this you cannot go back." It is on that Preamble, and particularly on the instructions to the Viceroy in 1921, and the declaration of the Viceroy in 1929, that this Bill is founded, and I cannot think that we can go back from the attitude which we took then.
I do not think there is any justification for saying that we are pursuing a policy of scuttle or surrender. What is the actual fact?—and this has weighed with me more than anything else. One of the most remarkable things of the time to which I refer was the Indian effort and Indian co-operation in the War. The spirit of self-government at that time was in the air. I remember perfectly well—and it has been referred to by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton)—that without a vote in the House of Commons we gave a pledge to India of responsible government, with a generosity remarkable for its spontaneity. Why? Because of the effort and the co-operation of that great Dominion in the time of crisis and of danger. It was one India that fought in the War. It was one India that signed the peace.
One hears a great deal nowadays and we have heard a great deal in this Debate about Dominion status. That term has acquired a sinister meaning for many, particularly since the passing of the Statute of Westminster. I am not sure that Dominion status involves the right to secede but I am satisfied of this, particularly having heard the statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his admirable speech, that whether you include the words "Dominion status" or not, the fact remains that in this Bill as it is presented to the House we are giving India the measure of self-government which was intended for her in 1919. It cannot be doubted what was meant in 1919. It cannot be doubted what the Bill means to-day. It cannot be doubted that the Secretary of State in his clear and lucid statement conveyed the meaning and intention of the British Government.
I was one of those who thought the report of the Statutory Commission presided over by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary one of the greatest documents ever presented to any Parliament. I thought it was conclusive in its logic, in its reasoning and in its findings. Many others took the same view. But that document, magnificent as it was, did not deal with the whole subject. It dealt only with British India. Whether it dealt with the whole subject or not however, it envisaged Federation as the ultimate goal for the Indian people and if anyone wishes to get the best and most accurate justification for Federation in India he can go to the report of the Simon Commission for it. Since that date, as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild) has pointed out, events have supervened and what was foreshadowed in the Simon Commission's Report as the ultimate goal has become in this Bill, after meticulous consideration by one of the greatest bodies ever brought together, not the ultimate goal nor a provisional goal but the actual possible and practical goal.
This Bill is, no doubt, based upon the Joint Committee's report. It differs in many respects from the White Paper. That is admitted. It deals with innumerable subjects but having taken the trouble to go through all Clauses of the Bill and having compared it with the report of the Joint Committee, I find very little difference between the two. The main points decided upon by the Joint Committee are in the Bill and I am not surprised, because that committee, as I have said, was one of the most comprehensive and brilliant that ever sat to decide any issue of importance. The main point of controversy ever since the days of the White Paper has been the question of Federation. What do we find? I had very grave doubts about it myself. I had misgivings about a good many things connected with the proposed government of India. But five or six of the most distinguished of those who have made a study of this subject—ex-Viceroys, ex-Cabinet Ministers, ex-Governors—went to the committee in the same spirit of trepidation and misgiving and the only conclusion to which they could come after minute examination of all the facts, presented not in an ex parte manner but presented by both sides—the conclusion to which they could not hesitate to come, after all that, was that Federation was bound to come, and that they approved of it, and that it was the natural outcome of self-government in India. If there are to be Provincial Autonomous Councils and Centres, there is no doubt that you must have, as the natural conclusion from these, a Federal Centre also, and if you are going to have Provincial Centres, you must have them represented in the Federal Centre. This, I believe, was the real reason why the Joint Select Committee made the system of elections not direct but indirect.
We heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) what actually happened during the discussion of whether the system of elections for the Central House should be direct or indirect. In the Bill it is by indirect election. He pointed out that that meant that six or 10 people who themselves were elected had the power to elect a member to the Federal body. The other side of the question is this: He pointed out that indirect election meant corruption and in many cases that the right person would not be sent, but when you are dealing with direct election, you have illiteracy to consider and also this fact, that no member could possibly have time to overcome the distances and the magnitude of the work entailed. But the additional advantage of having the Provincial Centres very strongly represented in the Federal Centre was that a great many cases had to go through the Federal Centre, and it could be more easily done by agreement there with the elections indirect than it could otherwise. Finally, if there is any fear as to federation and its results, it is clear in the Bill that it cannot come into effect without a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
With regard to the other controversial point, Provincial Government, the Bill gives a great deal of power to the Provincial Centres, but that means that it extends, consolidates, and carries out what is practically already done in the Provinces to-day. Provincial autonomy undoubtedly is the main foundation of this new constitution, and that foundation has for a long time been promised. To be quite frank, the Indian people have shown by experience that they are well qualified to form an efficient Executive and, under the close guidance of the various Governors—and I lay great stress upon the Governors, because they are the chief points in the situation—to administer the 11 Provinces of India which will now exist instead of the old nine. A good deal has been said about safeguards, and I had very grave misgivings myself about them, and about special safeguards, and all the rights connected with the Anglo-Indian community in India, but I am satisfied, after reading the Bill and listening to the speech of my right hon. Friend, that we need not in this British House of Commons really fear any disaster in that respect. I regard it as being intolerable to think that a British House of Commons could for a moment sacrifice the interests of those who had struggled hard to maintain the best traditions of our race in the Indian Empire.
There was another cause for alarm, and that was subversive terrorism. I read in this Bill that very special precautions are taken to cope with that. The control of subversive terrorism is not really in the hands, in the long run, of the police at all, or even of the Provinces, but of the Viceroy, who has very strong powers, in co-operation with his forces of defence and his Foreign Office powers, to deal with questions of this kind. The Bill goes so far as to say distinctly that, where Bengal is concerned, nothing can happen there, so far as handing over the question of law and order is concerned, unless special arrangements are made for that purpose. A good deal also was said in the course of the discussion on the White Paper about the anxiety which had been expressed about the Ministers in the Executive keeping important information away from the Governors in these Provinces where their responsibility was concerned. I am glad to see that in the Bill itself it is expressly provided that all such information must be supplied and that Ministers on all occasions must be the very first to provide the Governor with adequate and complete information dealing with any of these particular subjects.
There are a good many details connected with the Bill, and I will not deal with any of them except to refer to them generally. I think the amount of detail discussed in the Bill is a clear proof that the Joint Select Committee left no stone unturned to deal with this question as a whole. I was very much attracted by the brilliant speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir A. Boyd-Carpenter), who dealt with the subject with hereditary eloquence, but in the course of my study of the Bill I was pleased to see that they have dealt with the whole question of the use of water, and that not only is there authority for dealing with the question of water as it affects the various Provinces, but they also pay attention to another matter which has affected other Dominions where self-government exists, namely, the question of railways. They have a water board and they have a railway board, and these two boards dealing with the amenities of the situation are, in my judgment, clear proof that nothing has been left untouched or unthought of by the Joint Select Committee. I am also glad to see, as a lawyer, that everything is done, not only to preserve the maintenance of law and order, but to preserve the Judicature from any political interference. The Federal Court is entirely independent, and so are the subordinate courts, and I think that should bring a great deal of reassurance to many people in this country.
I was very much interested in one statement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen, and I quite agree with what he said about instructions to the Viceroy. I think these are very important. They are new, and they may be very far-reaching. We do not know whether, if they are statutory, amendment means that you can add to them or subtract from them, and we should like, in the course of the discussions on the Bill, much more information with regard to them, but I can see why these were introduced. It is clear that the constitution as its exists now is a rigid constitution, and if you want growth and flexibility, these two characteristics can only be given to it by a measure of this kind. Accordingly, we await with great interest whatever further statement my right hon. Friend may make with regard to these instructions.
I was hoping very much that when we dealt with this gigantic problem of India we should deal with it as a real National Government. That would appear to be impossible, but I have been very much surprised at the attitude adopted by the Labour party. I have listened with the greatest attention and care to the principal speeches delivered by them, particularly from the Front Bench. I know that they want self-government for India—it is part of their policy—but every speech that I have listened to has been a speech not to create good will, but to create bad will, and the main charge in the speech of the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) was a charge which could not be brought against this Bill. He complained about the social and economic conditions in India as if we were responsible for all these things. What are the facts? We have had great trouble in the past in dealing with these matters, because they were all mixed up with the religious factor, and for the first time we find presented to the House of Commons a Bill by means of which in any case a genuine attempt is being made to give the people of India the right to deal with their own people, in their own way, and in their own institutions; and the one party which has done more to create a bad atmosphere, not only in this country, but in India, has been the Labour party. I am very much astonished, because I know that in their heart of hearts they are just as anxious to give self-government to India as is the Government.
Not this Bill though.
I am not sure whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is a member of the Labour party or is his own Member. I think he represents no party. He represents a point of view, and I hope that the Chair will be able to call upon him to give us that point of view in the course of these Debates. I am very sorry that there is dissension in the great Conservative party. It is not for me to call attention to it, but this I may say, that those who are dissenting are sincere. It is my good fortune to know a good many of them personally, and I know that they have taken up this matter with sincerity and with a courage which is very remarkable. I have listened to my right hon. Friend and Parliamentary tenant, the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), delivering one of the best speeches I have ever heard in this House; I have envied the tireless intellectual energy of my Noble Friend the Member for Kinross and Western (Duchess of Atholl), whose anxiety for the welfare of the Empire I know well; I recognise the sincerity of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft), whose consistency and courage I admire both in peace and in war; but I am forced to ask myself this question: If they succeed, what will be the result?
I will not dilate upon the alternative put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen—I have had enough of coercion in my time—but with the impassioned description of our unparalleled and unimpeachable record in India I agree wholeheartedly. I know of generations of Anglo-Indians who have devoted their lives in a spirit of self-sacrifice to maintain in India the finest traditions of our race. Their example has impressed itself, generation after generation, on that great dependency. Is it not more imperative than ever now for us not to fall below those standards, and to seek a great and lasting settlement in a spirit of co-operation and in accordance with the dictates both of interest and of honour?
6.16 p.m.
Before turning to the subject of this Bill, I would like to say to the Secretary of State that if, in view of the momentous telegram which I presume he has received from India this afternoon, he feels that we should adjourn the Debate in order to reconsider this question and have time for thought, no one in this House will put any difficulty in the way. I will refer to the matter a little later, but I will only say now that I realise that for the Secretary of State this must be a very tragic moment, in which everyone will sympathise with him, for everyone knows his extraordinary sincerity in the whole of this question. It is difficult for me as a humble backwoodsman to follow the big guns who have addressed the House. I feel rather like an anti-aircraft gun firing at three great bombers. They have all been very kind in regard to the spirit which has animated my hon. Friends, and we appreciate the spirit in which their speeches were delivered.
I must confess that I trembled for my hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir A. Boyd-Carpenter) when my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) rose to his feet and said that he would depart from Parliamentary practice and would deal entirely with his speech. The Noble Lord need not have apologised for the warmth of his attack on me, because it was delivered in such courtly phrases that no one could possibly have complained. Indeed, I enjoyed his pleasantries, but I was alarmed for the fate of my hon. Friend. The only point in which he really attempted to devastate my hon. Friend was with reference to his attitude in regard to Indians and democratic government. The House ought to be quite fair about this. It may be that, like myself, my hon. Friend thinks that the reforms of 1919 were most unwise. Is there any Conservative who does not? My hon. Friend does not suggest that we ought to get rid of the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms. What we do say is that Indians have not yet graduated in the arts of self-government to such an extent as to enable us to hand over to them the fate of a great country as large as the whole of Europe, excluding Russia. My Noble Friend asked me particularly to deal with the question of the Princes. I will endeavour to oblige him in a moment or two, and, since he asked what the Princes said, I will endeavour to tell him.
I would like to say a word or two about the origin of this policy, because it has been stressed both in speeches of the leaders of the Conservative party in the House and in speeches in important assemblies outside. I do not think it matters very much, but a great deal has been made of it. The fact is, I think, that up to three or four years ago no leader of the Conservative party has ever suggested to the people of this country that a policy of this description was desirable. If my Friends and I are reactionary, there is not a leader on the Front Bench who was not equally reactionary three or four years ago, until they were entangled in the spider's web of Lossiemouth, or until the first Round Table Conference was jockeyed by the Noble Marquis, Lord Reading, who was so proudly claimed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) as the author of these reforms.
What does the hon. and gallant Gentleman mean by "jockeyed"?
That he ran off all the horses on to the rails, that he consulted with none of his Conservative colleagues before he made that dramatic speech. Therefore, I deliberately use the word "jockeyed." I would further ask whether any Conservative candidate at the last election indicated that he was going to take this line of policy and engage in this great revolutionary, constitutional proposal. If there be one such, I ask him to rise in his place here and now.
rose —
An hon. Gentleman rises in his place. We can all now acquit him, at least, of issuing a fraudulent electoral prospectus, and we can congratulate him. The fact of the matter is that assurances have been given recently on every hand since this great change has taken place. We have been told, "We are only taking a small step forward, a logical step forward. You have all these wonderful safeguards. It is not true what these people are saying; there are no real dangers. It is not true to say that if you take all the administrators away from him the Governor will become lonely. That is something which is so ridiculous that it need hardly be argued." We heard all that. Then we heard the momentous statement of the Secretary of State yesterday with regard to Dominion status. I want to read his words in case any Members were not present. He said:
I wish to ask the Government this definite question. When they speak of the attainment of Dominion status, do they mean Dominion status as understood under the Statute of Westminster? If the right hon. Gentleman would nod his head we would know exactly where we are.
Answer!
I beg my right hon. Friend not to press for an answer. This is such a very vital question that I would rather not press the Secretary of State as long as he will give an answer before the Debate ends. If the right hon. Gentleman is unable to answer now—
I am quite able to, but I think it had better be done in its proper place in the Debate.
That is very convenient for my right hon. Friend, but it is impossible for me to draw a conclusion as to what his policy is unless he is prepared to state "yea" or "nay." Therefore, I must consider both sides of the question. If he does not mean Dominion status under the Statute of Westminster, does he realise that the phrase is so much in the minds of so many Indians that they think it gives them the right to secede? Mr. Sastri has said so. If, on the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman means the full implication of Dominion status as it is now understood, what becomes of all the promises to the Conservative party, who were told that we are to have all these safeguards and reservations? Dominion status would destroy the very instrument that is being set up. Therefore, every pledge given in trying to collect the faithful into the fold goes by the board if you mean Dominion status under the Statute of Westminster. My friends and I cannot admit that this statement is anything but a pious personal opinion, and we cannot agree that it is binding in any way on this House.
Great play has also been made at important gatherings of the Conservative party outside the House with regard to the fact that the intense desire of the Princes to come into this Federal scheme changed the whole situation. We are told that we must not override the desire of those loyal allies who have always stood by the British Throne. This is, and always has been from the start, the purest invention. I will give the facts for which the noble Lord asked me as stated by the spokesman of the Chamber of Princes at the recent meeting of the Chamber. I refer to the Maharaja of Patiala, who said: this House. The noble Lord specially pointed his accusing finger at me with regard to the Viceroy and the Princes. He said, "Tell me all the details you know." I think it will be better for me to suggest that I know no details.
I do not want to interrupt my right hon. Friend, but I have put it to his right hon. Friend, whom I challenged to give the facts to which he referred in the speech in the country in which he said, "If only the facts were known." I challenged the right hon. Gentleman to say whether or not he accepted the statement made by the two Maharajas with regard to the suggestion that unfair pressure had been brought to bear.
I thank the Noble Lord. The Viceroy, in this very Debate to which the Noble Lord is referring, admitted that he had advised the Princes on this subject. He did not deny it. I ask the Secretary of State, "Is it or it is not the fact that not only did the Viceroy advise the Princes, but did he not telegraph to several of them inviting them to come and discuss the question with him? After all, he is the representative of the King-Emperor, and if he calls by telegram Princes to come and discuss this question and, as he has told us, urges this policy upon them as being in the interests of India, it is very difficult for a loyal Prince to imagine that that is anything but putting pressure on him—I will not say anything more than that.
In all the Debates we have had in this House we have been principally concerned with the subject of the Constitution as it affects India. To-night I want to deal with that very much neglected side, the great problem of the peril to our great industries in this country and to the artisans, operatives and transport workers, the great multitude of whom depend for their livelihood upon our Indian market. Apart from the right hon. Gentleman, whom, I am glad to say, did refer to the question yesterday, hardly a Minister has referred to British interests. When the Prime Minister spoke in the first White Paper Debate in this House, from start to finish he never said one word as to British interests and the reaction thereon. I go further. The Prime Minister, from that day to this, as far as I am aware, though I may be wrong, has hardly made a speech on the subject of India at all. He merely dropped the ugly brat on the knees of my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council and forgot all his obligations of parenthood. It is just as important for this House to look after British interests as it is to consider the few vocal agitators in India. It is the prime duty of Ministers, it is why they hold office and why they receive their, I admit, inadequate, salaries—to look after British interests.
May I give briefly the fiscal history of our trade in India? In 1895 there was a revenue duty imposed upon imports into India—I am speaking of textiles—of 3½ per cent. The Government in this country were determined, however, to see that that duty did not operate to the disadvantage of Lancashire and our other trades, and so they insisted on a countervailing duty of 3½ per cent. Thus we competed on equal terms in India with Indian manufacturers—in that great market which has been sustained and defended and built up by British genius and British wealth. It was, therefore, a thoroughgoing British policy, supported not only by the Conservative Governments of those times but by a succession of Liberal Governments—the Government of 1906, the two Governments of 1910, the Government of 1914, and the first Coalition Government. The Liberals of those days—there is only one real Liberal left in the House, my right hon. and gallant Friend on my right (Colonel Wedgwood)—insisted on keeping India a free market for British goods. They were adamant about that. Then came the late Mr. Edwin Montagu, determined to stir Indians out of their pathetic contentment, and equally prepared to arm Indians against Lancashire's products, as the Indian millowners demanded. It was under the 1919 reforms, with utter disregard of the great British interests which had been built up, that the so-called Fiscal Convention was initiated. Thereafter the Excise Duty was abandoned and the duty was raised against Lancashire—to 11 per cent. in 1921, to 15 per cent. in 1930, and to 25 per cent. in 1931. The Secretary of State, I believe I am right in saying, had power to intervene, but neither he nor his predecessors took any steps to stop this policy by which Lancashire's trade has been so largely strangled in the market upon which their prosperity chiefly depends.
I do not want to weary the House with figures, but they are so essential that I beg hon. Members to bear with me if I tell the story in figures. In 1913–14 the United Kingdom supplied 57 per cent. of India's consumption of cotton textiles. In 1933–34 we sent only 8 per cent. India in 1913–14 provided 40 per cent. and last year 85 per cent. This is only the beginning of the story. Without our lifting a finger in this country Lancashire has been to this enormous extent ousted from India by sweated goods made under factory conditions which no one would tolerate in this country. As a result, 350,000,000 poor people in India are having to be content with goods of far rougher quality and more expensive. As my last figure I will give square yards, in case the significance of the total proportions is not recognised. From 1914 to 1934 we had this change, that Japanese imports increased from 9,000,000 to 349,000,000 square yards, British imports decreased from 3,000,000,000 square yards to 426,000,000 square yards, while India's production during the same time increased by over 2,000,000,000 square yards. It will be observed that this vital trade—it really is important, in spite of my Noble Friend—has been almost entirely lost to Lancashire.
The Fiscal Convention, of course, lapses with the lapse of the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms. The whole position is considered de novo, and surely this is the time when our National Government should consider national interests in connection with this great problem. We have before us now all the evidence of the Indian outlook on this matter. We have before us the evidence of the boycott, the whole Swaraj movement demanding the elimination of all imported foreign goods. We have had the exhortation of Congress that Indians should burn everything British except British coal. Was it surprising, in these circumstances, that the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, in drawing up their first evidence, before persuasion entered into the matter at all, demanded that real safeguards should be given in future? I submit that with these great changes now being discussed this is the hour when we should tell the truth to India. The truth, as I see it, is as follows. We have built up the prosperity of India with the cheapest credit that any country in the world has ever given to another. We have poured out our wealth in building up India out of chaos to the eighth greatest commercial trading country in the world. We are prepared to continue it, and to give India the benefit of our defence, that wonderful boon which no country in the world needs more than India—defence in the air, on the sea and on land.
In bestowing this gift of self-government I suggest that we have every right, in justice to ourselves and to the stake that we hold in that great country, to insist that we should have a permanent basis of reciprocal trade as nearly as possible approximating to Free Trade between the two great countries. The power to impose revenue duties remains in the two countries, and I can quite understand that either might say "We must have a tariff of something like 10 per cent.," but when we are starting on this new path is it not a necessity that we should take a long view? Surely the long view, the view of statesmanship, is that we should, in building this structure, see that the basis is reciprocal, preferential and permanent, and say that we are not going to have a tariff war for all time with India. Instead, we have the Secretary of State and his colleagues contemplating, as far as I can see, possibly permanent high Protection against Lancashire and permanent Free Trade for Indian goods in this market. He called on Lancashire to disarm and rely on good will. Good will, when he knows perfectly well that Congress, which is based upon the antithesis of good will, will control India in the days to come. Good will, when Congress swept every Hindu seat in the recent elections for the Legislative Assembly. Good will, when only last week we had that definite warning from the Legislative Assembly by a majority being cast for repudiating the good will agreement which had been made between this country and India so recently.
Ministers come to this House wringing millions of money from the taxpayers of this country in order to help the depressed areas, when it seems to me that by our failure to deal with this question, by our weakness and the whole outlook of this policy, we are condemning Lancashire to depression for all the years till she can find some new industry such as jam and pickles to employ her people. I venture to think the time has come when the people of this country are beginning to wake up on the subject of British trade. We have every good wish for the people of India, but we also feel that the interests of our own people are worthy of consideration, and I venture to think that if Palmerston, or Beaconsfield, or Joseph Chamberlain were sitting on that bench we should not have allowed this great sacrifice of Lancashire industry. I specially want to point out to my hon. Friends—if I may call them so—of the Liberal party who sit behind me that this fiscal policy which we are establishing in India is absolutely repugnant to all that they hold dear. In fact, from all quarters of the House we again and again hear criticism of foreign countries for erecting these barriers against trade and making it difficult, and yet they contemplate with equanimity a permanent barrier in a country of the British Empire. Surely it is time they were up and doing and beginning to take an interest in this affair, more especially those who sit for Lancashire constituencies.
Just one word upon the general issues. Are we or are we not imposing this policy in order to meet the aspirations of the Indian people? That is a question I should like answered during this Debate. If we are not, then what is the justification for pulling down what the Select Committee describe as the "Majestic structure of British rule and British administration"? If it is the real desire of the Government to meet the wishes of Indians and not to dash the cup from their thirsty lips, then I confront the Government with the fact that India, by the very machinery set up in 1919, has rejected that boon. Congress swept the board at the general election, and now, this evening, we have this momentous information, that the Legislative Assembly, by a surprising vote—74 to 58—has carried an amendment which makes the pursuance of this policy in this country, unless we are out against India's will, one which is really ridiculous. The amendment reads that the All-India Federation scheme:
I cannot conceive that this is a wise policy or that it is going to lead to peace. Is there anybody in this House now who denies, after making any real study of the question, that there is one course, and one course only, which can bridge the gulf between Moslem and Hindu, and that is the Pax Britannica, based upon the faith, hope and charity and the enlightenment that British rule has taken to all its possessions. That is why we have succeeded as no other conqueror in the world has ever succeeded. What has been the British ideal? To listen to some of the speeches of the Opposition you might imagine that we rule by force. We have never, since 1857, used force in self-defence except to preserve peace between those two warring sections of the Indian community. The Indian Congress, Liberals and Chambers of Commerce urge you to maintain the status quo. Are we wise to go on pushing this policy forward when we realise that the feelings to which I have referred still exist in India? With the holocaust of Cawnpore and Moplah rebellion so fresh in our memories, I ask if we take a step unwisely, to what red hell will we lead the second greatest population in the world? When we have removed the police and the judges, how shall we preserve the peace that all the world has envied when we have no longer the power to keep it?
I do not like this opposition to His Majesty's Government. The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild) spoke of us as a faction, but there are more of us than of the two other oppositions combined. We are concerned to support His Majesty's Government in other directions, and we are not asking Mr. Speaker's permission to sit on the Opposition Benches, but we think that this question is something immensely greater than perhaps the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) realises. Many of us have forbears of long service in India, and I want her to believe that they think we have done a most marvellous thing in India. With our task far from complete, suddenly to say: "Although we know from all reports that Indians have not been successful in governing the municipalities—never mind; let them now run an Empire containing one-fifth of the human race," is engaging in a gamble such as the world may never have seen before.
Rot.
I am not going to delay the House because a siren's voice seeks to turn one from the path. Men feel this subject very intensely, and I am afraid we cannot consider personal friendships or political attachments, or what even happens to ourselves. I still believe there is a path of honour which would be acceptable to everbody, and which would be far the wisest course. That is to say to India: "We have offered you this great gift in all good will"—as the Government have—"You have from every quarter rejected it. Very well then; we accept your verdict, and we will go on step by step in our own time to give government in the Provinces." Do that, even now at this late hour, and you will heal a wound which is festering, and which may well prove mortal to your political hopes. If you do that, I believe you will rally the nation once more, as you did in 1931, and you will be able to pursue the only great mandate which you received at the hands of the nation.
6.51 p.m.
I am sure I shall have the sympathy of the whole House in following such a brilliant and practised Parliamentary orator. The deep sincerity shown by those who are opposed to the Bill demands an equal honesty and sincerity on the part of those who support it. If prizes for veracity and honesty were being distributed, a large number would go to what we call the Diehard opposition. I hope the House will not misunderstand me when I say that if I were considering prizes for political sincerity I should find the hon. Baronet the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) very near the bottom of the class. I will ask the House to note what he has done in reference to India. He feels strongly on a certain question, very strongly; so strongly that he uses language which I might almost call intemperate of those who hold opposite opinions. Does the hon. Baronet take the trouble to fortify himself with a single fact as to the beliefs of the men on the spot? Has he the time, and does he dare, to go to India and find out what those who are and will be responsible for government and administration in India think?
When I was in India the other day I read the Debates that took place in this House in December, and I paid particular attention to the remarkable and emotional speech, the feeling speech, of the hon. Baronet—"I feel this," "I feel that." Last night the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) said: "I feel in my bones that it is wrong." I do not wish to draw the obvious conclusion that if he were using his brains—[ Interruption ]—I am afraid it is not complimentary. In the whole of this opposition to the Government, sincere if you like, there has not been one single attempt on the part of the Diehard opposition to find out what Englishmen who are in the true line of tradition in India, bearing the burden and heat of the day, think about it. There has not been an effort to go to India, and find out.
I must point this out: We are in touch with not hundreds but thousands of men recently returned from India who have joined the India Defence League. I beg the hon. Gentleman to remember that. We are in daily contact with hundreds.
I am sure the House will allow me to say that, having just returned from India myself, my im- pressions are exactly the opposite of those of the hon. Baronet. If he had managed to find time even for the shortest possible visit to India, he would have found that while opinion in India is divided over the Reforms, as it is in this country, there is almost unanimity on one point. Almost every Englishman in India will tell you that rejection of this Bill would be sheer folly on our part and would bring unqualified disaster to India in its train.
I only spent a few months in India, a ridiculously short time, I admit, and I shall not for one moment inflict upon the House my own personal experiences. I have not written a book and I am not going to do so. My one endeavour when I went to India was to get as many opinions as possible from as varied a selection of people as possible on this question. I ask the House to have the charity to believe that I am honest, and that I went to India as unprejudiced and with as open a mind as I could. I ask hon. Members to believe that I am telling the truth when I say that I met all sorts of Englishmen—officers of government, junior members of the Civil Service, members of the subordinate services, business men, missionaries, journalists and so on, not to speak of Indian politicians—and I ask them to believe that I am capable of making an honest report to the House, not in a partisan spirit. If they will do me the charity to believe that, I ask them to attach some little importance to my definite statement—I give them my word of honour that this is true—that of all the responsible people I met in India—members of the Indian Civil Service and so on and all the people I have just mentioned—I met exactly one who said seriously that Parliament should reject this Bill. I do not for one moment want to give the impression that everybody in India is enthusiastic over the Bill, because nothing would be farther from the truth. Many people said to me: "It is a hateful business. You politicians have made a mess of it from the start."
But unlike the hon. Baronet the Member for Bournemouth, who is determined to stand no nonsense from facts, those people face facts, and they say that rejection at this moment would open the door to—words fail me to say to what it would open the door—strife, disaster, exacerbation, all the favourite words of the political speaker are inadequate to the occasion. Naturally there is a great variety of opinion in India. There are certain people, such as those in secretariats, who are paid one might almost say to support the policy of the government of the day. I ignore their opinions. They have got to hold them. I do not wish to impugn their honesty in any way. But there are other people who hold high posts in the administration and who are responsible and will be responsible in the near future. Their almost unanimous verdict was that it would be the greatest dereliction of duty on our part to reject this Bill. The vast majority of them not only considered that the reforms are inevitable but that the reforms are a right and wise thing to do and that they will lead to better government and better feeling in India.
Hon. Members may say that I am a fool and that I have been misled. They may even, in a Parliamentary way, say that I am a liar. I believe that I have enough friends to believe me when I say that that was my clear and honest impression after three months in India travelling widely and meeting hundreds of Englishmen. I sincerely wish that those in my party who are opposed to the Bill had visited India. I firmly believe that the hon. Baronet himself would have come back and voted for the Bill, and would have concentrated his energy in securing the Amendments which he would think desirable. I am glad I have had the opportunity of speaking after him. A few weeks ago I was staying with a distinguished Indian statesman who said to me: "When you get back to England, I hope you will speak to Sir Henry Page Croft and say to him that if he quotes me in Parliament I should be very much obliged if he would not quote me out of my context." In the Debates in December, the hon. Baronet made great play with a sentence taken from the speech of Sir Akbar Hydari who, I think at the third Round Table Conference, used some such words as "relentless pressure" exercised by the British Government to drive the States in to the Federation. When the context of that speech is read it will be seen—and I have Sir Akbar Hydari's own words for it—that the speech was directed not to show that the British Government had exerted unfair pressure but to prove to the States that if they advocated Federation they would have the support of the British Government. What was in doubt then was whether the British Government were wholeheartedly in favour of Federation. I do not impugn the hon. and gallant Gentleman's sincerity but I do impugn his accuracy. I think I am entitled to impugn what I will call his political sincerity in producing an isolated sentence like that without, as I think, himself having taken the trouble to study the context.
I understand that the Simon Commission reported before the Bound Table Conference and that they dealt very exhaustively with this question.
I am not very interested in what the Simon Commission said about Federation. Much water has flowed under the bridges since then.
rose —
I think it would be as well not to interrupt the hon. Member.
I do not wish to run down the Simon Commission's Report, but things have happened since then. History does not stop even for a dozen Simon Reports, and I leave it to the judgment of the House whether we are not dealing with the actual situation as it exists in February, 1935, rather than with the situation as it was when the Simon Commission reported. After what I have said about the prevailing state of opinion as I found it among Englishmen in India to-day, is it surprising that I shall vote for the Bill? I shall vote for it believing that it will succeed—in spite of any vote in the Legislature to-day. I believe that it will be worked. I have talked to many Indian politicians, and they have said to me: "Of course, we shall protest against these reforms; but when they come along we shall work them." One thing I wish to make clear to the House is that I shall not vote for this Bill in any spirit of apology or in any spirit of defeatism, but because I believe this Bill to be right and wise.
It is not for me to elaborate the reasons which have led the type of man I have referred to in India to advise me to support this Bill. I shall cover them as briefly as I can. I should like to say, in passing, that the phrase most constantly used to me was this: "When building a Constitution, and above all in the East, no power without responsibility." I was very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman use that phrase yesterday. That alone to me is an adequate answer to all this by-play about the votes in the Legislative Assembly during the last few days. There are two ways of looking at the reforms. I think it is generally agreed that reforms on these lines are inevitable some time. I should like to point out that the very day when you allow freedom of criticism you have given birth to a movement that will one day reach manhood, a movement that will demand a large measure of responsibility. The real author of these reforms is not Mr. Montagu or Lord Chelmsford or Mr. Morley or Lord Minto but Lord Ripon, who gave freedom to the Press in India. The universal view is that a benevolent bureaucracy, by its very nature and its very benevolence, is not a good form of government for a modern civilised country. If it is benevolent, it must allow a certain amount of freedom in criticism and action. For that reason I would ask the House to cling to the axiom: No power without responsibility. It must be remembered that you cannot have criticism without one day giving some measure of power if you are a benevolent bureaucracy—and I think most bureaucracies are benevolent.
The real point is: Why are these reforms necessary now? If I may presume to say in a few words what I think the consensus of opinion in India is on this point, I should say it runs something like this: You cannot insulate a civilised subcontinent like India from world conditions and thought. Then India demands reforms. You cannot get away from that by saying that only a relatively small intelligentsia is politically conscious. It has been proved at least twice in the past 10 years that every adult Indian is potential fuel for political agitation when that agitation has a just cause. I refer to the non-co-operation movement and the civil disobedience movement. I do not think they were just causes; it was very largely the weakness of the Government in India which allowed them to reach the dimensions they did reach. But I say that there would be a just cause for agitation if we rejected this Bill; and no self-respecting Government in India would or could expect its servants to repress with the necessary vigour the movement that would then arise. It is not a question of funk.
This is the question that has to be decided, and it has to be decided this year: What is our idea of our future relationship with India? Is it to be one of co-operation, as an elder brother? Or is it to be one of domination, as a proprietor? It is a perfectly simple issue. If the answer is that we wish to co-operate as an elder brother, then the proper treatment of a popular movement like the non-co-operation or civil disobedience movements is impossible. The proper treatment of these movements would need more severity than an elder brother could possibly claim to be allowed to use. If it is to be domination as a proprietor, then let us have the courage to say so. Do not let us have any half measures and say that our hearts are bleeding for the condition of the masses while still we are prepared to hand over every one of the social services. Is that going to be our attitude? No. I say distinctly that our very nature as Englishmen demands that our future relationship with India shall be that of the elder brother. There is an immense harvest of good will and co-operation to be reaped. Every Indian to-day is both anti-British and pro-British. A very slight change in our attitude will make the pro-British side of every Indian the dominant side and convert the anti-British side of him to self-respect and independence. Before leaving the purely theoretical side of this Bill I should like to ask the House a question. Is it not possible that this Bill indicates the future type of government for all countries where the application of democracy is, for whatever reason, difficult? May it not be that we in this Bill have stumbled on what will be the future line of development in all countries where democracy is difficult of application?
As to the Bill itself I think its success will largely depend on what I call visible and invisible safeguards. The visible safeguards are included in the Bill, and I consider them to be fairly adequate. There is one slight alteration I should like to make but on the whole I consider them fairly adequate. There are, however, the invisible safeguards, or imponderables. They are three in number. The first is finance. It is a commonplace in India that the Provincial Governments and the Central Government are as poor as church mice. I do not know if hon. Members realise it, but Bengal, with an area equivalent to that of Great Britain and a population bigger than that of Great Britain, has to balance its Budget at about nine crores, which represents about £6,750,000. Bihar and Orissa, which is very little smaller in area and population, has a Budget of four or five crores. I think that finance will be a very definite safeguard. The slightest divergence from the path of strict and upright government will show itself at once in the budgets. You will see it at once if your Provincial Governments are going off the rails. We have the same thing in England in a different way. The slightest mistake in Government here raises the unemployment figures. That is the thermometer here; the thermometer in India is finance.
Then there are two imponderables which depend very largely upon the tone we take in the Debates in this House. The first is the efficiency of the administration, by which I mean all ranks of all Services, British and Indian. It is often said that we in this country exaggerate the importance of efficiency. I maintain that the welfare of the masses is directly dependent on the efficiency of the administration. The Labour party suggest that we should safeguard the welfare of the masses by means of an extended franchise. This is their panacea everywhere. I do not accept it. I believe that the ballot box is only a mouthpiece, and that without an informed public opinion to speak through that mouthpiece, to rely on the ballot box as a protection against exploitation and bad government is to rely on a broken reed. I firmly believe that the only protection against exploitation and bad government is the efficiency of the administration.
There are two methods only, in India or in any country in the world, of ensuring efficiency of administration. The first is by guaranteeing that there is no political interference with the administration—no interference on the part of the Legislature or Ministers or by Members with the administration or with the machine of the administration. In this country we accept it as the air we breath, that I, as the Member for Morpeth, do not appoint the Mayor of Morpeth or the police constables. We accept it that the President of the Board of Education does not promote or degrade teachers, and so on. We accept it as natural that the judiciary should be free from political influence. But we must face the fact that this convention is not as yet accepted in India. There are historical reasons for that. When Lord Ripon formed the district boards he put the district magistrates in charge of the district boards and there was inevitable confusion in the minds of the population between the functions of the district magistrate as an administrator and magistrate and his functions as a legislator on the district board. I believe that most politically-minded Indians have a faint suspicion in their minds that I, as Member for Morpeth, do have something to do with the appointment of the police constables and the mayors in my constituency. It is going to be perfectly easy for the Secretary of State and this House to give instructions to the Governor-General and to the Governors that they shall allow no interference with the administration. But that will be of little avail unless Indian political opinion accepts the convention of non-interference. Indians are very quick to learn, especially in the political realm, and it will depend almost entirely on the tone we take in these Debates, and on the number of times we reiterate our firm belief in the necessity for this convention, whether it is accepted by Indian political opinion. That is the first thing that we have to do in these Debates.
The second way of maintaining the efficiency of a civil administration is to see that the best men are appointed, by which I mean that, if the necessity for the non-political nature of the administration is accepted, the efficiency of the service must take precedence over such theoretical matters such as Indianisation. I met a very large number of Indians in the various services and I was deeply impressed by them. I say that quite sincerely. But in any case, owing to the very nature of the difficulties inherent in the Indian problem, a minimum of Europeans must be retained in an advisory capacity, or in an inspecting capacity. I think we are asking a great deal if we ask India to start and to run services which, after all, are purely Western in origin and conception.
I was very glad to see that there is a Clause in the Bill, Clause 234, which gives the Secretary of State the power of appointment, in case of necessity, in irrigation matters. I should very much like to see that Clause extended to the education services, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will seriously consider doing so. I consider that education is the most essential service of all. I feel that the Lee Commission made a most terrible blunder when they recommended the complete Indianisation of education. As the House knows, European recruitment for the Indian education service ceased in 1924. Under this Bill, education will be a purely provincial subject. Education is in a unique position. Deterioration in education is not immediately evident. Deterioration in irrigation is evident in five minutes; deterioration in the police is evident in five minutes; deterioration in almost any Service is evident in five minutes; but not deterioration in education.
I promised the House that I would not inflict upon it any of my own personal reminiscences. I propose to break my promise. From my own personal experience, I believe that continued recruitment to the ranks of the Bengal terrorists is directly due to inefficient inspection of the high schools in Bengal. I say that from my own personal experience; I shall not elaborate it. I should very much like to see inserted in the Bill some provision by which the Secretary of State, or the Governor-General, or the Governors, could appoint Englishmen in an advisory and/or inspecting capacity in the education service. I want also to see some method of co-ordinating educational services as between the different Provinces. I do not share the prevailing criticism of our educational policy in India. I think Macaulay was absolutely right. If we believe in ourselves and in our outlook on life, the least we can do is to give the best possible English education to Indians. All this talk about giving Eastern education to Easterners is, to my mind, nonsense. It springs from a misapprehension of the truth that the wisdom of the East is the wisdom of an attitude of mind, and not the wisdom of book-learning. But be that as it may, the system we have given to India must be run efficiently.
My second imponderable is something far more important than Acts and Amendments and Constitutional Conventions, more important even than efficiency of the administration. I think the House will agree that two things are necessary in dealing with India—sympathy and definiteness. I see in this Bill a proof of our sympathy and understanding. Have we the definiteness? That is to say, are we sure of our faith in ourselves, and of our courage to shoulder the responsibilities we have undertaken? I wish I could say "Yes." If I had brought back a definite message from India—of course I have not—I should like it to be something like this, that all the Acts of Parliament in the world avail nothing if we are not sure of ourselves. It has been only too clear that, since the War, our Indian policy has been directed by a spirit of expediency and compromise. I found that throughout India the question was: "We will do what you tell us to do in India, but do you believe in yourselves? Does England believe in her mission? Does she believe in her destiny"? I said, of course, "Yes," but do we? I am not so sure.
What is the message that we, through these debates, will send to India? Is it that we regard India as a new Gallipoli, to be evacuated with a hasty and apologetic dignity? I am afraid that that is the message of some. Is it that these reforms are merely an episode in an inevitable series of rearguard actions? Is it that we calmly visualise the day, not far off, when England will have no role to fulfil in India? Is it that we believe that as elder brothers we are no longer essential to India? If I thought for one moment that this Bill was conceived in that spirit, every ounce of energy at my command would be directed towards securing its rejection. If any Member of the House believes that this Bill is conceived in a spirit of defeatism, I think it is his clear duty to Vote against it, whatever the consequences may be. Almost the last prominent Indian that I met in India, four weeks ago to a day, used words to me which summed up my position with complete accuracy. He said: "What worries me is England's attitude towards these reforms. If you are not giving them with courage and faith in yourselves, you had better not give them at all. You must give them because you believe they are right, not because you are driven into them by cowardice or expediency." I remember reading the other day something that Queen Victoria said. She said, "Do not tell me what is expedient; tell me what is right."
My visit to India taught me two things—an abiding love of India and a renewed pride in the achievements of the English race. The achievements of England in India are not to be summed up in terms of sieges and battles, any more than in terms of canals and bridges. Our supreme achievement in India is that we have made the name of England synonymous with fairness, justice and peace, with kindliness and self-sacrifice. It is an extraordinary thing in India to-day that, while the extremist is arguing with you, when he wishes to condemn something most unequivocally, he says that it is un-English.
I wonder if I dare inflict upon the House a small personal memory. When I was in Delhi one day I walked along the historic Ridge, so full of memories of a gallant and contemptible little Army that, during the long-drawn heat of an Indian summer, withstood the attacks of scores of thousands. About a mile away I wandered into a little disused cemetery, where many of the officers and men who had fallen during the siege had been buried. It was full of other graves of soldiers, civilians, and, above all, of their wives and children, who died in the early years of the last century. In one corner was a monument to men who had fallen during the siege, and the words on it impressed themselves deeply upon my memory. They stated that the monument had been erected to the memory of so many officers and so many men who had been killed during the siege, "gallantly upholding their country's cause." Both England and India are full of the graves of men, women and children who have given their lives, their health, and their happiness to gallantly upholding their country's cause, in the service of England and out of love for the peoples of India. The greatest service that we have rendered to India is that we have served her with love—with love of the Indian people and with love of India itself. I resolved that I would never do anything that would be false to their memory or tarnish the glory of their achievements and their services.
It is because I believe that this Bill points the way to a future at least as glorious as our glorious past that I shall vote for it. It is because I believe that those who have given their lives to India in the past would, like those who are giving their lives to India to-day, ask me to vote for the Bill, that I shall vote for it. Finally, it is because I believe that this Bill is in the true tradition of the English nature, of English kindliness and courage, that I shall vote for it. The real criterion, surely, is this: In voting for the Bill, shall we be true to ourselves; shall we be true to the part that England has played in history; shall we be true to English kindliness and courage? I repeat that I wish I could say I brought back a message from India. I think that the message I should have liked to bring back would have been one that was written by Shakespeare nearly 350 years ago. He said:
7.29 p.m.
This is the first time that I have had an opportunity to address the House on the question of the Indian constitutional reforms, and, if I may, I should like to make some personal explanation of my attitude. Ever since this question was raised in the House of Commons, I have been trying to maintain the ideal condition of the perfectly open mind. It has been immensely difficult. I have heard authorities on this side and on that. Men of great eminence have spoken in favour of the Government's proposals, and I have heard men of equal eminence speak against them. I have received on occasion what I may describe, I hope without offence, as a somewhat cheap and perhaps undignified magazine, which used to reach me regularly without my desiring it, and which struck me as bearing a strong family resemblance to certain propaganda publications put out on behalf of the licensed victuallers' trade. I gathered from that document, when I read it, that all the influence and experience of India was expressed in it. On the other hand, I have met on many occasions eminent men, both British and Indian, recently over from India—many of them retired, but many of them actually in service as civil servants, soldiers, judges, business men; and their story and their ideas were entirely contrary to those of the others. I found it extremely difficult and, after hearing the words of the hon. Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Law) last night, my difficulties were increased, because we have been told all through this controversy by the exponents of the White Paper policy that we have to listen to the voice of authority from India—recent authority, and not those persons who like myself have been away from the East for nine or 10 years but those who are still in the East or have only recently retired.
My hon. Friend took great pains to explain to us that those who knew most about India were the last persons that one should follow. It was unfortunate, because I was beginning to think I was getting my mind into a somewhat settled condition, and once again I was unsettled. But, obviously, the time comes when one has to make up one's mind. I am not and have not been a member of any organisation working for the defeat of the Government's proposals. I have kept myself entirely free from those organisations in the effort to maintain an open mind. But it becomes necessary to make up my mind; in fact, it became necessary last December that I should make up my mind. I have done so. I voted against the Report of the Joint Select Committee for two reasons. The first seems to me to be not unimportant. It is that, with all respect to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, if there had been no opposition from the great party which constitutes the mass of members of this Government body there would have been no effective opposition against the Bill. One thing that has pleased me more than anything else about the discussion these last few days has been the good natured way in which exponents of the Government's policy have accepted opposition in the right spirit. We have avoided acrimony. We have avoided any form of mud-slinging. Without the opposition that has been put up from this side of the House, there really would have been no effective opposition to the Government proposals, and, however good proposals may be, it is vitally essential, and it will be much more essential during the Committee stage of the Bill, that there should be a sound and a strenuous opposition.
My second point is more personal. One hesitates to say this sort of thing, but it has to be said. It is purely a matter of conscience. I do not feel, after having given the most careful consideration to the question, and having some little experience, though perhaps not so recent as that of the last speaker, of the East, that I can in conscience support this Measure. My own experience is not strictly of India, though I have been in India. I spent many years in the Far East in which the conditions of my service were such that I was very closely in touch with governmental processes. Those years were spent mainly in a small country where the processes of government were so much under one's eye that it was rather like looking at a very perfect small model of a very large machine. One was able to see the whole thing working. During the course of my years I had to play a considerable part in advising an Oriental Government, and my experience there may perhaps enable me to look upon this question of the constitutional reform of India from a somewhat unique angle. My work consisted mainly in trying to train those Oriental people who were connected with me to perform their own functions in government with as much efficiency and straightforwardness as possible. I should resent anyone's saying that the Oriental is not capable of being an efficient administrator. I felt, when I left my work, that many men who had passed through my hands had become really efficient and trustworthy administrators. But I should have hesitated very long during my time in the East to attempt to encourage in any of the people with whom I had contact a greater interest in becoming politically conscious. That is a very different matter. One may train, and hope to see success in training, people of another race to be efficient in the art of government, but anyone of my temperament hesitates very long—and I should hesitate in this country if it were not past hope—to encourage in anyone more political consciousness than there is at present.
I wonder very often how this present situation arose. Perhaps it is wrong of me to ask who it was who put the cuckoo egg in the nest but one wonders how it came there. After all, India had been going on very well in the last few years. A firmer system of government was showing its effect in better administration and one wonders why it became suddenly necessary to stir up all this trouble. It has left us in this position. Most of us have to consider, first of all, that we do not like the idea of further political advance in India, but, secondly, that we are faced with certain facts. The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) suggested that those of us who are opposing this Measure believe that the British hand should be kept upon India and that we have no sympathy at all with any form of political advance. I do not believe that that is a correct statement of the case.
I and all those with whom I have now associated myself recognise that a certain amount of advance is necessary. We may wish it were not so. The hon. Member who spoke last referred to Lord Macaulay, who went to India determined in a matter of five or six years to make a sufficient competency to have set himself up as a politician in this country and who managed to secure in Calcutta the atmosphere of Clapham and achieved his end in the matter of four years. We might well wish that he had devoted his time to other things than establishing in India a system of education which, as the First Commissioner of Works said, was one of the greatest blunders that have ever been made in India. I know that that view is held by a very eminent Member of another place. I remember distinctly some four years ago hearing that Noble Lord lecture in the North of England upon the absolute killing of the possibilities of advance. However, that has all gone past. We cannot help it. We recognise that certain things have come about and that, the position being what it is, we must face it. But it does not follow from that that we must take desperate steps now to hurry on a movement which has already been to a large extent disastrous to India.
When one considers the report of the Joint Select Committee, it seems to me that its greatest outstanding characteristic was that fear was the watermark on every page. Throughout the whole of the document, and indeed throughout this Bill, one is impressed by the overhanging dread of the consequences of what the Government are doing. One is impressed by the insistence upon safeguards. I think it was the hon. Member for Chertsey (Sir A. Boyd-Carpenter) who thought that that in itself was something in the nature of an insult to the Indian people. But there it is. On page after page there is this expression of dread—a great overhanging fear. Accompanying the fear there are assurances. When I was a small boy, if I was going along a path and was a little nervous about myself and saw a nasty looking shadow ahead, and my companion assured me with an over emphasis of heartiness that it was only a shadow, if I detected in his assurance something of a ring of apprehension, my nervousness increased. That is the feeling that the assurances in the report of the Joint Select Committee gave me. We have been told that we must anticipate the success of democracy. I wonder why. In these days democracy has not been showing itself as a very thriving plant anywhere in the world. Even in this country it is beginning to croak and groan to a certain extent, and we have had a long experience of its working. We have heard Egypt referred to. We have seen something of the workings of democracy in Ceylon. I do not know that democratic institutions in Turkey are so flourishing that one wishes to refer to them too closely. We have been told at various times in the course of these Debates something about China. China has never been held up as an example of the success of democratic institutions.
I should like to dwell a little upon the Chinese situation. China lost its Imperial family in 1911 and immediately plunged into a sea of anarchy. For many years people died by the million, by starvation, flood, and famine. Warfare was constant all over the country, and it is only in the last six years or a little more that China has begun to recover, and now the Government controlling the Yangtse Valley and the immediate neighbourhood is begining to re-establish conditions of safety and security. That looks as if I had defeated my own argument, but it is really not so, because what happened is this. In 1924 the so-called Christian General took upon himself to abolish the last Parliament, and there has never been a Parliament in China since. The Government which has held power in China in the last six years is not a democratically-elected Government at all. It is merely the party caucus; more or less, it is the executive of the Kuomintang, and there is precious little democratic spirit in that with which these very able realists of Nanking are carrying on to-day. It is true that recently they produced a new constitution, but they have no intention, so far at least, of putting it into operation. It is a museum exhibit. Anybody who feels that he wants to see what the constitution would look like it entitled to go and see it, but they have no intention of starting upon the operaton of that constitution until they have got conditions straight. That is a very significant fact. The Chinese are great realists, and, being realists, they understand that they have to get their country into a good state and in a proper condition before they can indulge themselves in the luxury of extended democracy.
I am very sorry once again to refer to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hull. I make my apologies for criticising his speech last night, but he referred to the question of the intelligence of the masses of India, and in order to make his point, said that he had noticed, on one occasion at least, a certain lack of intelligence in his constituents. I felt that he was doing a rather dangerous thing in making that statement in the House. I hope that he will not hear about it, but I think that it is possible. Is he not rather confusing two things? He discovered a constituent of his who did not know his name and did not quite know his pedigree, but surely it is not correct to say that in this country the average constituent is unable to grasp a political fact? My experience of going round not only my constituency, but other areas where I am on very friendly terms with the people, is that one can go into almost any cottage at any rate in the north of England, or stand with any group at the corner of a pit row and hear the most intelligent discussions on current political affairs. To compare the electorate of this country with the type of electorate in the villages of India, is a very unfortunate thing indeed. Really when one remembers how something starting as a wild and silly rumour, may rush through the community of India, one cannot compare it with what is, after all, the calm and dispassionate discussion of affairs in this country. I do not think that the comparison is at all relevant, and I should be very sorry to make it myself.
One wants to know, are we definitely abandoning co-partnership with India? Are we definitely placing ourselves not as the willing friends of India, but as definite outsiders? It seems to me that this Measure definitely places us in that position. Throughout the Bill, one gets the impression that we are only setting up machinery by means of which ultimately we shall allow ourselves not to be pushed, but, on our own accord, to go out of India, because in this Measure we are admitting that we are unnecessary and undesirable. The hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. G. Nicholson) referred to that cemetery at Delhi. I wonder what some of those men who lived about the Mutiny time would think if they could look down and see our proceedings to-day? I wonder what the old Anglo-Indian families would think about our present position with regard to India? What about the Cootes? What about the Lawrences, and what about Nicholson, and the other big families? How would they feel if they could look down on us to-day and see us discussing a Measure which definitely places us as aliens in a country where we have given our blood?
I do not want to assume an oratorical aspect, but really this thing moves one so much that one cannot control one's patience. We are definitely casting ourselves off from a great heritage. The Under-Secretary of State will probably reply to this Debate, and I want to know definitely, and the House is entitled to know, Are we now stating the limit? It is all very well to say that Dominion status is the ultimate aim. We have had several of these ultimate aims apparently pushed into the far distance, but in the course of time we find that, by some curious means or other, the moment seems to be near us. I do not believe that calling Dominion status the ultimate aim puts it very far from the present day. We cannot compare the relationship of ourselves and India with our relationship with any of our Colonies. Things are not comparable. Comparisons cannot be made. I dispute them, because they are not comparable.
I will say a few words about the question of administration. We have had ample evidence that political influence in the Provinces, where that influence has been uncontrolled, has nothing but bad effects. Anyone who knows anything about the social conditions of India—and this is very difficult to say, because one hesitates to convey the impression that one is in any way saying anything derogatory about Indian people—knows that those conditions are antagonistic to good, sound administration. It is not because there is any defect in the Indian and the Oriental character; it is simply and solely—and I disagree entirely with the ballad—that
I very much question whether, when once the one independent factor in the whole system is removed—the British factor—it will be possible to get even a workable state of efficiency into the administration of India. I remember not very long ago asking a very eminent British civil servant who was speaking not far from this Chamber in support of the proposals of the Government, what would be the result of the application of these reforms in India? Ultimately, he replied, he thought there would be a serious deterioration in the administration of the government of affairs and that industry would be greatly damaged. But he added—I am not quoting his exact words; there are probably hon. Members here who were present at the time—that however bad the condition of affairs might be, he believed that the people of India would like it better, because it would be their own government. That may be true, but it does not relieve us of our responsibilities as trustees for India. Those of us who are parents would think that a pretty poor argument if it were put to us from the nursery that, however bad their conditions up there might be, they were the conditions they would like for themselves, and would we kindly stay outside. I do not think that it is a sound argument or one which anybody occupying the position of trustee ought to use.
In order to obviate all the dangers, which obviously the authors of this Measure anticipate, we are provided with safeguards. Those safeguards are based mainly upon hope. Although the safeguards may be statutory, hope is not, and I fail to see how hope can become a plain fact. The oustanding point about the safeguards is that they all depend upon the personality of a mere handful of men, the Governors in the Provinces and the Governor-General at the Centre. I hope that this country will always produce great men of the type that has been in India before, but even with the greatest, the question to be answered is, with all these safeguards, who is going to safeguard the safeguarder? In the history of this country it has not been uncommon for a man, honourably and bravely doing his duty in the face of dreadful odds, to find himself abandoned by the Government. There are instances which I need not mention. What is to happen suppose an honourable and brave man applies the safeguards which the Act will authorise him to apply, and suppose he is invited to return home as a result of having done his duty? The sudden vision of General Dyer might cut across his eyes when he was thinking about British safeguards. I do not think that it is fair that this heavy and awful responsibility should be placed upon one man's shoulders. Though I am prepared—I think that most of us are prepared— to accept a measure of advance which will give full autonomy in the Provinces, the Government should hesitate very long before they remove from the Central Government that system which will enable them to be drawn in if danger comes. I should like to see some means put into the Bill by which there should be associated with the Governor-General other men who, if things go wrong, would have to be recalled as well as the Governor-General. The Government might bring one Governor home, but they might hesitate if they had to bring four or five home. I hope the Government will consider the possibility of that situation arising. I remember that Warren Hastings' life was made a misery by Sir Phillip Francis and his friends. The system of having a number of people at headquarters did not work. But we are living in different times, and it is not fair to place such an awful responsibility on one man's shoulders.
A mistake is being made in imagining that the Princes are going to provide a solid weight of Conservative opinion at the Centre. The Princes are doing something far otherwise. Anxious as they will be to retain their position, it is obvious that they know better than we what influence will be exerted upon their States once the Indian politicians get full charge, and it seems to me impossible to imagine that the Princes will not make friends as soon as possible with the people who will to their eyes appear to be their coming masters. I think the Government are making a grave error if they imagine that the Princes will provide any sort of additional safeguard in the interests of a steady government. I do beg that we shall consider well, before we allow this Measure to pass through, the provision of means by which we can maintain the Central Government more surely than this Measure provides.
We are told that India asks for this Bill. I have here a copy of the "Review of India" for November. I believe it is a journal of the European Association, which I understand does not oppose the Government with regard to the Bill. It appears that a certain Colonel Mackay wrote to the "Journal" contesting a statement made by a Mr. Villiers that the people of India wanted the reforms. It is not necessary to read the letter, but I should like to read a portion of the footnote to the letter, which has been written, I suppose, by the editor of the "Journal":
Last night one hon. Member said that Warren Hastings had stated that India could be lost on the Floor of this House. It is that danger which we wish to avoid. Some of us feel from the bottom of our hearts that what we are doing now will lead to the loss of India, and we do beg of the Government before they finish with this Measure, to give an opportunity to the country still to maintain its trusteeship, at any rate at the Centre, and to retain power by which we can correct a mistake if it is made. We are not blaming the Indian people if they make mistakes, because they are new to the work. Surely it is better for us, with our long record of efficient and honourable work in India, that we should try to retain, at any rate at the Centre, the means by which we can set the country straight if they go off the rails. I appeal to the Government on those lines and ask them to believe that those of us who are opposing this Measure are doing so because we feel from the bottom of our hearts that they are going too far. All that we ask is for a braking power to be provided, and I trust that the Government will not forget that we are trustees. We took great responsibility with regard to India when we first entered that country 300 years ago, and we have never lost that responsibility. To-day we stand, not as people calculating how much we shall make for Lancashire or anywhere else, but as trustees for the helpless people of India who, whether they know it or not, have their destinies in our hands.
8.8 p.m.
The hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Nunn) began with a curious apology for his opposition to the Government's proposals. He sought to justify that opposition because he said that from the official Opposition there was no real attack being made upon the Bill. Therefore, he felt that he ought to reinforce the ranks of those who are opposing the Measure. I do not know what he wanted us to understand precisely by the argument he used with refernce to China. I am certain that he knows a great deal about China, far more than I do, but I do not think he will be able to deny the fact that for very many centuries China had one of the most stable social systems that could be found anywhere in the world. China had an agricultural economy which had produced a state of equilibrium that lasted for many hundreds of years, and it was not until capitalist imperialism impinged upon China and her ancient civilisation that the anarchy that the hon. Member denounces began to make its appearance. It is true that there have been invasions of China in the past, but the invader has invariably been absorbed by the Chinese people in general, and the equilibrium of that agricultural economy, which allowed vast aggregations of populations to develop in that part of the world, was more or less maintained. The disturbance has been caused primarily by imperialistic capitalism impinging upon an ancient regime.
I do not know that it is exactly germane to the question before the House to discuss China, but I would point out that although the long period of peace in China was interrupted by certain incursions from abroad, it is not correct to say that the invaders were always swallowed up. That long period was an intensely imperialistic and tyrannical period. There was no form of democratic government in China until 1911, and it was then that the trouble started.
The hon. Member said that there never had been any democratic form of government in China and that even the events of 1911 did not lead to the establishment o a democratic form of government. The hon. Member was careful to point that out, and he also said that the Government was under the control of what he called a party caucus.
I said that from 1911 to 1924 the Parliament in China did not function because there was anarchy throughout the country. It is only in the last six years that the party caucus has taken charge.
I found it very difficult to understand the relationship between this argument about China and the Bill as I listened to the hon. Member's speech, and I find it more difficult after the two or three interventions he has made. It is very difficult for me now to associate the argument in any way with the Bill. The hon. Member made a remark about the educational system that was established in India by Lord Macaulay, and in commenting upon that event he regretted that it ever took place, intending his hearers to assume that if Lord Macaulay had not initiated that movement India would be much the same to-day as it was in the middle of the last century. That seems to me to be a most absurd argument. It does not matter very much in the long course of events whether Lord Macaulay introduced a system in India of that kind or not. India's contact with the outside world would have had much the same results whether or not the movement had been quite different from that to which the hon. Member referred.
Those who are defending the Government's Bill to-day have had one theme running through the whole of their speeches. In effect they say that the force of circumstances compel us to proceed with the extension of self-government in India, and they describe that force of circumstances as a brutal political consciousness in India. In the second place the supporters of the Bill contend that the Government, faced with those circumstances, have bowed to the inevitable and brought forward the Bill. In my view the Bill grants the minimum that can possibly do anything at all to conciliate opinion in India. The right hon. and learned Member for Ross and Cromarty (Sir I. Macpherson) made an attack on the Labour party, because he said we were not out to create good will. He said that our speeches were calculated to make a bad atmosphere. If that be the result of our concentrating attention on the social and economic conditions of the people in India, if it creates a bad atmosphere, we cannot help it because it is the primary concern of hon. Members on these benches.
Many of my colleagues think that we are going to devote far too much time to the subject of India in the House during the next two or three months and that we might be spending some of our time in dealing with urgent political problems at home. I confess that in many ways the subject of India and the future of India fascinates me. Let me say how entertaining to me are the dissensions in the Tory party. I hope that as a result of these dissensions Indians will derive some benefit. I am not quite certain about that, although in my heart I hope they will. We have already reaped the first fruits of these differences, and if they can be intensified and deepened there is going to come to us greater advantages still. If advantages come to us through these differences in the Tory party, then I hope we shall be able to confer some advantages on the people of India. But I am not so foolish as to believe that the Conservative party as a whole will seriously imperil their political future by continuing the curious quarrel which has developed in their ranks. When they feel the moment has arrived when their political prestige and property and financial interests are threatened they will join hands right enough, they will unite quickly, and the dissensions will entirely disappear.
I have listened to many speeches on the question of India with great interest, and only once during the five years I have been in the House have I ventured to take part in a Debate on India, and that was in order to call attention to some matters which were found in the report of the Royal Commission on Labour in India. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) has called attention to the more important facts to be found in that publication, and therefore I am not going into any details. I ask myself one question in connection with the Bill. Everyone will agree that the machinery of government in India, I mean the machinery which has existed up to date, has not made as great a contribution as it should have done to the improvement of the lot of the great masses of the Indian people. There may be various reasons for this. I am not unwilling to admit that irrgitation schemes and the development of transport in its various forms has perhaps eliminated the possibility of famine which was once so frequent in India. But when I ask myself the question whether the machinery of government in India has done all that it could have done for the benefit of the great masses of the Indian people, I am compelled to answer the question in the negative.
Further, can the machinery of Government in any country be used to improve the economic conditions of the people? We believe it can, and there are many countries where the machinery of Government has been used and is being used for this purpose. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Slater) said he regarded the Indian question as a constitutional one, that others regarded it as a political one, and others as an economic one. It may be useful on occasions and as a matter of convenience to split the matter up in that way in order to help us to clarify our thoughts, but really there is no distinction between these two things. Constitution, politics and economics are closely related. When I ask whether the machinery of Government in India has been used to lift the great masses of the Indian people, to improve their economic conditions, and have to answer it in the negative, I then asked myself is the Bill which we are now considering likely to set up government machinery which will enable the people to lift themselves out of the poverty and misery in which millions of them are placed to-day. Is the Bill likely to establish a constitutional system in which political parties can freely function in such an effective way as to use the machinery to improve their economic and social condition? What is wanted is a constitution which will give complete political freedom to alter the economic foundations of India, if that is necessary, in the interests of the poverty stricken millions of that country. I ask whether the Bill will give to India such a constitution, and I am bound to answer that I do not think it will. Within the framework of the proposals I do not think it will be possible for the Indian people to do what I should like to see them do.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne in his speech expressed some fears about the industrial development in India. India is now the seventh industrial nation in the world and the process of industrialisation is likely to go on. It is curious to listen to the speeches of hon. Members who are now afraid of the capitalism which they themselves have created in these so-called backward countries. They are really responsible for the industrialisation of India. The thing which they have called into being now fills them with fear and anxiety, and they are wondering what is going to happen in the future. Look at the process which has gone on. You could not go on sending cotton frocks from Lancashire to India indefinitely without the Indian people asking themselves at some stage whether they could not make cotton cloth for themselves. It is a question which they were bound to ask. It inevitably follows that they would answer the question "Yes we can, there is the labour here." Then the question arose, Can we get the machinery, and again they understood that they could get the machinery easily from the country which made it. The manufacturers of cotton machinery did not hesitate to send cotton manufacturing machinery to India. And when the Indians saw the machines they put a further question—and British capital is ready all the time to assist in this process.
Much of the opposition to the Bill comes from the fact that a very large amount of British capital is invested in India. Indians were bound to ask, "Can we make this cotton machinery for ourselves?" The answer again is "yes." And then they sent for the geologists who examined the strata and said, "There you will find coal; there you will find iron." And so they dig their coal, smelt their iron for their machinery and manufacture cotton goods. And now you complain of the menace to your industry of the very thing that you yourselves have helped to create in that great country. In spite of all the propaganda carried on by Mr. Gandhi, I am rather inclined to fear that the future of India is in the hands of the engineer with his leather jacket and not in the hands of Mr. Gandhi with his spinning wheel. It may be that in the long run that will result in benefits to the great mass of the people in India. But the benefits are slow in coming. Therefore, when I consider this Bill I ask myself, is it likely that the governmental machinery set up by this Bill will expedite the process by which it will be possible for the masses of the Indian people to raise themselves to a higher level of social conditions?
I see in this Bill a great menace to the future of India. Rather than being something helpful to the masses of the people I think it is calculated in some ways to injure them. What is it really, when you come to examine it closely? The right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and his friends say, "You should have nothing to do with the extension of self-government in India. Let the British Government keep the upper hand. These people are not fit for self-government. Let them be ruled with an iron hand from Great Britain." The hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan) shakes his head. He may dissent from the phraseology that I am giving; he may think it far too strong. But that is the effect of the words being used by the right hon. Member for Epping and his friends.
I have no illusions at all about Indian Nationalism. I do not want to be mistaken or misunderstood. I think the Indian Nationalist, the Bombay mill-owners, are quite as likely as the English capitalists ruthlessly to exploit the Indians. I do not think that the Indian Nationalist movement is Socialistic or Labour, for it is nothing of the kind. The right hon. Member for Epping says: "Push them out of the picture and keep control yourselves." The Government are more subtle than that. They say: "Oh, no, do not keep them out of the picture. Let us have co-operation with the Indian capitalists." That is really the basis of this Bill. It is meant to cement co-operation between the British exploiter, the Indian capitalist and the Indian Princes, who between them hold in subjection the mass of the Indian people, and there is no real intention to give a form of government or set up a machine of government through which the Indian masses will be able to liberate themselves. For my part I shall have no hesitation at all in voting against the Bill when the time comes.
8.29 p.m.
I have listened to the Indian Debates in this House during December and on the two days of this month, and up to now I have not heard any right hon. or hon. Member lift up his voice on behalf of the people in India who have very few to speak for them and yet represent by far the largest population of that great Continent. I speak now for the Untouchables.
They are not now called the Untouchables.
Up till now I have scarcely heard the name mentioned. I know they are now called the scheduled caste. I prefer to call them the Untouchables, because during my experience of 18 to 19 years in India I mixed a great deal with them and I know quite a lot about them, perhaps as much as any European in England to-day. It is on their behalf that I am going to ask a few questions of the Government. Let me say first that the Secretary of State seems to be rather in a hurry about this Bill. He is trying to hustle this immense Measure, the most bulky that has ever been presented to Parliament, according to the Press. What are his reasons for the tremendous hurry? What does he give as a reason for wanting this done so quickly. The first reason is un- doubtedly that the opposition to these proposals has already gone too far. This view was expressed before the provisions of the Bill were made public and before Members of Parliament were made acquainted with the legislative proposals of the right hon. Gentleman. He says now that Members of this House should not discuss at any great length that which, at that time they had not been permitted even to see. I do not want to say too much on the point, but I think that even a Secretary of State might learn something from his leader about the principles of democratic constitutional government.
Why are we commanded to expedite this Measure with the terms of which we were scarcely acquainted 10 days ago, and in regard to the interpretation and the operation of the most important provisions of which we have no information whatever until a provisional draft instrument is presented to this House, and that will not be for a few days? Why? Because, according to the right hon. Gentleman's statement, in the view of the Viceroy and of the other Governors of India the changes in the Government of India to which the Bill will give effect are already long overdue. I make no observations on the propriety of bringing into the region of political controversy eminent men whose public and official responsibilities and duties place them outside the field of political criticism and discussion. It seems to me to be regrettable that a Mnister should find it necessary to look for support for his case by reference to those who hold official positions. In any event, whatever may be their view, the House of Commons is still entitled to discuss Measures which are brought before it.
The Secretary of State has a further reason for intimating that this House should pass his Measure almost sub silentio. Why, he says, should both Houses he asked to sacrifice for this Bill time that might be better spent in the discussion of domestic affairs? My right hon. Friend, a good Conservative as we admit him to be, has quite failed to assimilate the observation of a Conservative leader who said in another place:
The right hon. Gentleman's attitude to those of us who feel our responsibilities in this matter is to denounce us as wasting the time of Parliament. I sincerely trust that the Brahmins of the Treasury Bench will accept the humble disclaimer of those of us who are considered the untouchables of the back benches, that we are not actuated otherwise than by a sincere desire for the welfare of and a sense of duty towards the tens of millions of lower caste Indians, who are being condemned by this Bill to life-long political servitude to the higher castes. I do not know a single Clause in the Bill which brings a ray of hope of material or economic advancement or improvement to these toiling millions whose welfare is declared to be constantly in the minds of the Government. I ask hon. Members whether throughout this Bill of over 400 Clauses they can find more than one reference to the untouchables or the scheduled classes as they are named. On the contrary, if this Bill passes in its present form, the stranglehold of the Brahmins will be tightened round the throats of millions of the lower castes in India.
The Secretary of State loudly praises the provisions of the Bill relating to the untouchables, for whom, he rightly says, he has sincere sympathy. The untouchables could, I think, dispense with quite a lot of his sympathy in exchange for a little appreciation of the realities of their existence. He calls the evidence of Dr. Ambedkar as to the view of the masses of the people on their future prospects under this Measure. The right hon. Gentleman has not been very fortunate in his selection of a witness. What Dr. Ambedkar thinks of the prospects of the Depressed Classes is not exactly what the Secretary of State leads his audiences to believe. I quote an extract from a speech which Dr. Ambedkar made three weeks ago to-day:
I recollect listening to the right hon. Gentleman's contribution to the broadcasting discussion on this Bill. He then ruled entirely out of consideration the opposition to the Bill in Parliament, as being unworthy of thought, because in the Division, only 25 per cent. voted against it, or rather 20 per cent. in the House of Commons and 25 per cent. in the other place. I fear the right hon. Gentleman has two definitions of what constitutes an effective voice in politics. He seems to be satisfied with 10 per cent. for the Depressed Classes in India, but he wants quite another ratio for this Parliament, where an opinion represented by 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. is regarded by him as so ineffective as not to be worthy of a moment's consideration. I, as one of the 20 per cent. minority here, genuinely question the effectiveness of the 10 per cent. minority in the case of the Depressed Classes in the Provincial Legislatures.
In our public life majorities have a habit of shrinking into minorities, and minorities of gaining in strength until they become majorities. The majority, therefore, refrain from exercising their strength unjustifiably or tyrannically against the minority, for fear of what may happen to them when their victims for the time being, eventually become a majority. Therefore, there is a spirit of compromise and in a rough and ready way justice is done as between contending policies. But in India no such transformation is possible. In India the Depressed Classes were Depressed Classes thousands of years ago and will still be Depressed Classes thousands of years hence. The differences are not political. They are religious. They do not depend on the chance of the ballot. They are governed by the principles of a strong and strict religious belief. The Depressed Classes can never ascend to a full and free political life as long as the principle upon which the Hindu religion is founded continues to obtain. Any idea that a candidate of the Depressed Classes will obtain the support of other castes is futile. It is not possible in the religion of the Hindus.
The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. C. Brown) said that the Constitution might, though he did not think it would, give complete political freedom. Under the caste system it would be absolutely impossible. The Depressed Classes alone represent between 50,000,000 and 60,000,000 of the population of India. There are four great castes in India. There are the Brahmins, the Kshatrya and the Vaishya who are all styled "twice born." Then there are the Sudras who are regarded as only "once born," and no matter to what part the Sudra goes or to what sub-caste he belongs, he is always beneath and the servant of the three superior castes.
Although I agree with the hon. and gallant Member that the caste system is a powerful factor, resting as it does on religious sanctions, in my view it really has an economic basis as well. May I put this to the hon. and gallant Member—does it not break down where industrialism has been established in India?
I am not aware that it has broken down where industrial systems have been established, except to this extent that members of different castes may mix together there as they would not do elsewhere in the country. But it is a fact that although members of the higher castes may mix together they do not mix with the untouchables, and it is for the untouchables that I am speaking. There are from 50,000,000 to 60,000,000 of them, and it is impossible for them, under any Constitution, to have complete political freedom. In addition to the position of not being twice born, they are, and have been for thousands of years, the servants of the three senior castes. The depressed castes in the Legislative Assemblies in the Provinces are, under the Bill, condemned to a permanent minority of 10 per cent. What consideration does this House think they are ever likely to receive at the hands of the majority? In what way can their voice ever be heard in politics? The contention of the Secretary of State is really impossible and will not bear examination.
I notice that the Secretary of State made no claim that the Bill gave a voice, effective or otherwise, to the Depressed Classes in any of the Federal politics. I recognise his caution, but up till now I have heard no explanation or defence of the omission. Surely, if it be such a strong recommendation of the Government's scheme that the Depressed Classes should have an effective voice in Provincial politics, it would have been an even stronger recommendation for the Measure if those depressed and toiling masses were represented in Federal politics. But they are not, and they never will be. They have 19 out of 375 seats in the Federal Assembly—just 5 per cent.—and so far as I can forecast, knowing India, but not setting up as an authority in any way, not one of them will ever even get a sight of the seats in the Council of State. The lot of the untouchables, and even of the Sudra, politically in India is quite impossible and will never count.
In conclusion, I would like to say a word to the Secretary of State for India. He tells us—and I recognise his frankness—that the plan which he has brought forward has been received with a chorus of disapproval in India. He said there was bound to be an outburst of criticism, but the reason that he advances needs attention. The disapproval is expressed, he says, because no Indian public man can afford to be wholly satisfied with any scheme that contains safeguards or reservations, and that is only too true. I could not and I do not think anyone who has any connection with this opposition could advance any more convincing argument against it than can be deduced from that admission. So far as I can see from this amazingly frank utterance by the Secretary of State, it follows, first, that no Indian public man upon whom falls the responsibility for the working of this Bill has sufficient courage to face criticism, and, secondly, that no scheme that contains reservations and safeguards will ever satisfy those to whom the responsibilities for the good government of India are entrusted if this Bill becomes law. This is the type of politician to whom the Secretary of State and the Government are asking this House to entrust the destinies of a fifth of the whole world. These people really represent at least 66 per cent. of the whole of the population of India—there are from 50,000,000 to 60,000,000 Untouchables, and the balance is made up of the Sudras, the lowest of the four great classes—and I say emphatically that unless something is done for these people, this is not a Bill for India, but a Bill for Brahmins, and as such I could never bring it over myself to vote for the Government's policy.
8.50 p.m.
To-day we have heard a number of sincere and skilful speeches which have ranged over the whole sphere of the purpose of this Bill. I make no apology for the fact—and it will probably be a relief to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—that I shall not emulate those speeches. I hope to restrict my observations to the effect that the Bill may have on the close trade relationship between Lancashire and India, and I hope by that restriction and by my brevity to add a little extra weight to what I have to say. The Bill, impressive in its scope and affecting the conditions of hundreds of millions of His Majesty's subjects, a Bill resulting from many years of examination, study, and deliberation of the problem, is in principle simple. It seeks to make a great step forward along the road which will give the people of India their own self-government.
The first point that I want to make, speaking as a Lancashire representative, is that Lancashire has no hostility to that aim. The people of Lancashire, possessed themselves, as they are, of the utmost political freedom, do not consider that political freedom is something which should be reserved for a select few. They look upon it as a principle desirable in itself, a principle which is inherent in true democracy, and a principle which, if the British Empire is to remain, must form part and parcel of the common foundation of that Empire. In my view, the vast majority of the people of Lancashire regard the political aspirations of the Indian people as legitimate. They look upon the proposals in this Bill—to set up Provincial Parliaments, with an over-riding Central Administration of an all-India character—as far as it is possible for them to understand these proposals, as proposals of a comprehensive character which are designed to provide an outlet for those aspirations and at the same time to maintain the unity of India.
Lancashire, however, has a more direct interest than the mere theoretical consideration of a Constitution. There was a time when over 3,000,000,000 yards of cotton cloth left British shores in one year for India. Now there are less than 500,000,000 yards sent out there in the average year, but in spite of that catas- trophic decline, India is still to Lancashire a valuable customer. Hundreds of thousands of British citizens depend for their livelihood on the maintenance of that valuable trade link, and they want to know: Is there anything in this proposed new Constitution which of itself is harmful to the trade of Lancashire and India? Will the passing of this Bill mean to them more unemployment? Will it add to the burden of an already overburdened county? The answer I give—and I give it to the best of my ability, after using such judgment as I possess—is that there is nothing in the proposals themselves which could automatically injure British trade. There is nothing that could add to the already grievous burden of employment in the County Palatine. In fact, the proposals themselves contain the germ of something which, if it could be brought to fruition—and that something is whole-hearted co-operation—would extend Indo-British trade.
It is worth while considering on what grounds British trade with India depends now and on what grounds it will depend when the Bill becomes law. Surely in the final analysis all trade depends upon the mutual benefit of those people who are engaged in it. It must be obvious that unless a transaction is considered to be favourable a trader will not enter upon it. The results of passing this legislation, if it leads to the growth of reciprocal trading interests between representatives of India and Lancashire, will be that Indo-British trade will grow. If, on the other hand, the steps which are now to be taken result in the new legislatures endeavouring to make British trade unprofitable by their subverting their power to anti-British aims, a further diminution of Indo-British trade is inevitable. It is clear that it is not in the giving of the new Constitution that the danger to Lancashire trade arises; it is in the working of the new Constitution. Surely we are entitled to expect that with the greater good will which the new Constitution should provide, we shall get better trade; certainly, we shall not get the repercussions of the situation which would result if we were to hold back from the Indian people the expectations which we have held out to them.
The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) made refer- ence to the fact that we had never used force in India since 1857. That is true. We have never conquered India. The danger is that if we do not take some step forward we may be faced with the problem of having to conquer India, and, whatever might be the result, we should not get much extra trade from a policy which would mean the military forces taking command of the whole situation. The Lancashire delegation which went to India 18 months ago learned there practically what they had been told before, namely, that politically-minded India is extremely suspicious of Lancashire. There is a belief among the politically-minded Indians that in some way Lancashire exercises a great political influence in this House, and that through that influence the wheels of government in India are caused to revolve to the benefit of Lancashire trade. There is no basis to that belief, but in days long past there was. When the original 3½ per cent. duty was put on Lancashire imported cotton, goods, a supplementary excise duty was put on, and it was felt that things were done in this House to try and retain for Lancashire the benefit of the Indian market, quite apart from the consideration of the welfare of the Indian people.
One of the disadvantages from which Lancashire trade suffers to-day is that it has to labour against that atmosphere of suspicion. One of the results of the trade mission was to assuage that feeling. It did not do away with it, but I think that it mollified it. Certainly, as the result of the labours of the mission there was an atmosphere of toleration, if not of complete confidence. But the background of suspicion still remained. We in Lancashire made great efforts to remove that suspicious atmosphere. We have now induced the Lancashire cotton manufacturers to use greater quantities of Indian cotton. We have provided through the influence of the Government openings for Indian cotton manufactured goods in British Empire markets. These are real and substantial advantages, which have been given to India by the people of Lancashire in an effort to do away with the feeling of suspicion and to bring into existence a feeling of good will.
It was, therefore, with great disappointment that the people of Lan- cashire learned that the recently concluded Indo-British Trade Agreement failed to find approval in the Legislative Assembly. They felt that this failure to approve a principle which harmed no Indian interest, and which gave benefit to many, was the result of unfounded suspicions. I should be lacking in candour if I did not say that the first result of that information was a feeling of great resentment that so slight a recognition of the common interests of India and Lancashire failed to find acceptance. It is a difficult matter for two commercial communities, separated as they are by thousands of miles, to understand each other's minds.
The Lancashire people still feel that the good will which they are desirous of maintaining, on which they built up so much hope, and for which they have been prepared to make substantial sacrifices, must be continued. I believe I am correctly expressing the opinion of the county and of those concerned in the trade when I say that on reflection they hope that they are wrong in their interpretation of this rejection of approval, namely, that it rests, not on the merits on the proposal itself, but on the assumption that in some way the Government of India have affronted Indian commercial opinion. To sum up, Lancashire is disappointed but is not dismayed, and, in spite of the definite rebuff which failure to approve this Indo-British Trade Agreement has caused, Lancashire is determined not to abate by one whit the policy of good will and co-operation. Lancashire wants a friendly India; she wants a contented and prosperous population in India; and she welcomes every step which will advance India along the road of representative self-government. Lancashire's good wishes in that respect are not confined to her commercial community. I believe that they are shared by her political representatives, and it will be found, when the Division is taken on Monday, that in deed as well as in words Lancashire, commercially and politically, is carrying out her policy of good will.
9.4 p.m.
The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Hammersley) dealt with this Bill from the point of view of its effect on Lancashire trade. He said it was not on the new Constitution itself, but on the working of the Constitution, that Lancashire's trade depends. It is to that point that I will address my remarks. Neither in the speech of the Secretary of State yesterday, nor in any speech on behalf of the Government in the three days' discussion in this House and the four days' discussion in another place of the Government's proposals for Indian constitutional reform, was any reference made to a basic and fundamental paragraph which appears on page 15 of the introduction to what is known as the White Paper proposals. I think that is very remarkable, as the paragraph lays down a primary condition without which the proposals for constitutional reform in India are valueless and could not be proceeded with. The paragraph says:
The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee), in his recent broadcast speech on behalf of the Socialist party, said, rightly, that in giving a Second Reading to the Bill the questions which the House would have to decide were: (1) Will these reforms be accepted and worked by Indian politicians? And (2) Will they make for the happiness of the Indian people, numbering in all some 340,000,000 or 350,000,000? I accept that statement as expressing the duty which falls upon the House of Commons. Therefore, it is necessary for us to decide whether the Bill will commend itself to politically-minded people in India who have to work it. If politically-minded Indians are not prepared to work it, or will only work it in order to secure complete independence, and throw off all connection with this country, how can it be possible for the great masses of India, to whose happiness the hon. Member for Limehouse referred, to be better governed and in a better position than they are to-day, while Great Britain will have deprived herself of the power to implement the first and most important of all pledges, that given by Queen Victoria, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Chertsey (Sir A. Boyd-Carpenter) so eloquently in his speech to-day: did not provide for complete independence. They said that before they could accept an Indian Constitution it must provide that Indians should have full control of the Army, the police and finance, and that at such time as they obtained power they would repudiate the National Debt of India—money borrowed by Great Britain on behalf of India—and would then proceed to exclude from India all foreign, and especially British, goods. That is the policy of Congress, and they are the people who have swept the political board in India. In all earnestness I say to the House, "Is it not an amazing thing to give a Constitution which will either not be accepted at all by these people or, if they do work it, will only be used to secure the complete sweeping away of all connection between this country and India?" If hon. Members think my statement goes a little too far I will quote one sentence from another broadcast address, which we heard a few days ago, from the Reverend C. F. Andrews. He is a university professor in India, well known to all parties in India and also an author of some repute. I took it down during his address: Chimanlal Setalvad, a distinguished member of the Indian Bar and an ex-Minister—those two gentlemen of high repute in India, representing the middle classes and the great Liberal party in India, who, we are told really want these reforms moved a resolution. If the House will forgive me for a moment, I will quote the resolution, which was carried unanimously only a week or two ago. It was: working of the Constitution and partnership in a common enterprise, Sir Chimanlal Setalvad, seconding the resolution, said, according to the "Times":
Now let me take another section of India which has already been referred to—the Federation of the Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry. They had a meeting, and they said that the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee were on the Red Shirts. The hon. Baronet the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) has pointed out in his speech to-day that a telegram had only just come to hand saying that the Indian Legislative Assembly had just carried an Amendment by 74 votes to 58 declaring the Federation plan to be "fundamentally bad and totally unacceptable." I have only to add that the distressed classes, about which an hon. Member referred in such eloquent terms, have also passed a resolution indicating that they cannot support the present scheme.
Are they the terms of the resolution?
No. I am only speaking generally, because I have not the terms of the actual resolution. The other resolutions are verbatim as to their terms, but I have not the actual terms of the depressed classes resolution. Anyway, they have turned down the scheme as not being satisfactory.
I think the position is that the depressed classes are not complaining in the slightest, in so far as the Provincial Parliaments are concerned—the ordinary lower Houses and the Central lower House. Their complaint is actually directed to the fact that in the upper Houses in the provinces and in the Centre they have no substantial representation. That is all.
I accept that. All the other resolutions I gave were verbatim as to chapter and verse. I have reason to believe that the depressed classes were, generally speaking, not in favour of the scheme. Anyway, they are not in favour of the provisions for the Federal Assembly and the Upper Chamber of Parliament. The scheme is not satisfactory to them; I put it no higher than that. I have now been through every section of Indian society so far as I know, and there is not one of them which will have anything to do with the scheme. They say that it will cause unrest, that it will mean bitterness and that urgently needed reforms will be put off indefinitely. Lord Halifax, speaking a few weeks ago at Bedford, said that he went out to India as Viceroy with one principal purpose, and that was to retain India prosperous and contented within the British Empire. It is rather funny that this Viceroy's idea was to keep India contented, while the late Mr. Montagu's idea was to arouse them from their "pathetic contentment." It is certainly pathetic that the furious discontent to which I have just alluded, should have been the result of the reforms which were so urgently recommended by Lord Halifax. I have a great deal of sympathy with the views expressed by the Indian intelligentsia to which I have just alluded. They understood autocracy with advisory councils, such as we have had in India and, although they would have liked to have been the autocrats themselves, without grumbling a great deal they accepted the existing regime. When they were told by British politicians that they were to have democratic government, something on the lines of the British Dominions, and then they found that they were to have a scheme with all these safeguards, and were further told that the British intend to enforce them, they naturally are angry and they say, "This is a sham." I am bound to say that I have a great deal of sympathy with them. In any event, to return to my main argument, there is no evidence anywhere of political India showing any desire for co-operation in the government of India with Great Britain. I am simply dumbfounded by the statement made yesterday by the Secretary of State when he said: "Nothing has happened since I spoke in December to alter my view that this Bill will be worked by all classes in India"—I suppose as partners in a common enterprise. "We can never expect," he said, "to get more agreement in India for any scheme than for this scheme." All I can say is that if we cannot get more agreement than I have described, we had better govern India as we have governed her in the past, with a very considerable measure of success.
I submit that I have shown the House that the basic assumption of partnership in a common enterprise must be abandoned. There is no evidence, and no possible ground for saying, that the electors of India will administer the reforms on that basis. The only course therefore open to the Government if they proceed with this Bill is, as was stated by the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth, to force this Constitution on an unwilling India, while we have a National Government in power. The reason which is urged for that is that, owing to the ebb and flow of British politics, we may have a Socialist Government in power presently and they may do something far worse. They may remove all the safeguards and give a fixed term for the achievement of full Dominion status, under the Statute of Westminster.
Then it is said, also by the Government, that we must remove India from British party politics. But will the passing of this Bill remove India from British party politics? Of course it will not, it will exacerbate the matter, not only in India but in this country. It will make this a bone of contention not only in India but in this country. The Socialist party have given notice of their intention to amend the proposed Constitution as soon as they obtain office by abolishing all safeguards and fixing a definite and unconditional time-limit for the giving of full Dominion status to India. How can it be said then that this Bill will remove the question from politics either here or in India?
If this Bill be passed now the path of a Socialist Government of the future is made plain and easy. Only a few simple Amendments of this colossal Bill will be required in order to do away with the Safeguards and to fix a time limit for the achievement of full Dominion status. That will be the end of our long and honourable partnership in the government of India. If that comes about, then indeed may Great Britain hang her head in shame at her cowardly abandonment of the first and most solemn pledge given by Queen Victoria to all the peoples of India, the pledge to see justice done to them all, whether Moslem or Hindu, Untouchable or Brahmin. The right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), in an unguarded moment yesterday, said something that fully justified our whole case with regard to this Bill. These are his words, and the House will remember that I said "Hear, hear!" very loudly, as a result of which I have the honour of having that short speech recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The right hon. Member said: Is not that our whole case? We say we have grave misgivings about all this talk by Viceroys and Prime Ministers, talk at conferences, talk here and talk there. Let India, we say, get on with the Provincial Assemblies. We have grave doubts whether that will be for the benefit of the people of India, but let them try it. If we are still in control at the Centre, we can put matters right if necessary. That is our whole case. When we venture to question the wisdom or the safety of this new experiment in Federation, all at once and not step by step as recommended by the right hon. Member for Darwen, and as laid down in the Preamble of the Government of India Act, 1919—with both of which I agree—it is said: "Who are you to question the wisdom of the opinion of the majority of the Select Committee, composed of men of such eminence and distinction as ex-Viceroys like Lord Reading and Lord Halifax and others?" I am not saying a word against their eminence, but I say that we all have our constituents to represent, and we are trustees in this great matter.
We cannot take the opinion of even the most eminent and distinguished men. I remember when I was at the Bar that the late Lord Russell of Killowen was once dealing with a case in which there appeared some expert witnesses. One rather bumptious witness said in effect: "The evidence I have just given settles the case. You will quite see that it is conclusive." Lord Russell said to him, "Sir, I am the judge to try this case, and you are only a person to tell me what will happen on certain conditions obtaining, or what should happen under certain conditions." In the same way we in this House of Commons are the judges. We are the trustees for the people of Britain and of India, and we cannot accept the opinions of any other person, however distinguished or reputable he may be.
In conclusion, may I remind the House of the eloquent words of a great Liberal statesman who was Secretary of State for India, a man who cannot be dismissed as a Conservative or Tory "diehard," who prophesied how deplorable would be the result of a withdrawal of British rule in India:
9.33 p.m.
While I have listened to the speech of the hon. Member who has just spoken I have been wondering what would be the result in India if the Bill now before the House were withdrawn. Would it really lead to peace and good government such as we have given, or would it lead at once to an outbreak throughout the length and breadth of India? I have no doubt in my own mind that it would at once cause all those difficulties which have gradually died down during the last few years to arise again. To a very large extent I attribute the peaceful condition of India to-day to the fact that the Government of this country during the past few years have been steadily pursuing a consistent policy regarding India. There has been a consistent policy at last with regard to India. The hon. Gentleman said also that he deprecated the constant appeal to authority. Another hon. Member who spoke on the same side referred to the great administrators of the past, and asked the House where they would have stood to-day. I think I can answer that question; their names would have been on the Majority Report, so far as the Joint Select Committee was concerned.
The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) asked what would happen to India if the judges and the police were withdrawn. I do not know that there is any Clause in the Bill which suggests that the judges and the police would be withdrawn. I think we must approach this question from an angle rather different from that of those hon. Gentlemen who belong to the same party as myself, but take a different view with regard to India. India, after all, is definitely a part of the British Empire; it is part of the British Imperial system; and I do not believe that it can be left out completely and dealt with as an absolutely peculiar problem. There is, however, no real comparison between the problem of India and those twin problems which have been referred to so often during the controversies on this question—the problems of South Africa and of Ireland. Both of those questions were settled after a long and bitter estrangement. They were settlements between men racially akin, and the same civilisation. This Bill has been introduced in order to prevent what might easily come about—a long period of bitter estrangement between this country and India.
We are dealing, of course, with one of the most complex and complicated questions that have ever come before this House. The Peninsula of India is essentially a geographical unit. We cannot get away from that fact, or deal with India on any other basis. If it were possible we should do so, and within the scope of the Bill, we propose to separate Burma from India. Within this geographical unit we have the problem of different races, different religions, and different social conditions. There is no parallel to this problem in the British Empire, or, indeed, in the world to-day.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and his friends, in the many speeches they have made on this subject, have continually harped on that side of the problem which deals with democracy. They have pointed out that the democracy which was adopted in many countries of Western Europe in the nineteenth century has been abandoned during the past few years. That is true, and from it it is deduced that we should not try democratic institutions in India. But, if democracy is at a discount, nationalism is at a premium. It has swept over Europe, and is sweeping over Asia. In this Bill we are dealing not so much with the question of democracy as with a definite question of nationality for the British Government, by its efficiency and effectiveness, has given to India a cohesion, a national spirit and a patriotism which it never possessed before. It is not the same kind of patriotism that we understand in this country, but it is nevertheless a real thing, with which we are called upon to deal.
You cannot reverse the whole British Imperial process. Up and down the world during the last 100 years we have been engaged in creating nationalities. That is our system, and during the last 50 years that system has become established. Can we deny to the Indian Empire that advance towards nationality which we have encouraged in other parts of the world? The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth said that we have never conquered India. I would refer him to a passage at the end of a lecture by the late Sir J. R. Seeley, who was a prophet of British Imperialism. He said that we had never conquered India, that we had never treated India as a conquered country; and he went on to say that it was useless to discuss that question, for, if we had tried, we should have failed financially long ago.
When we are discussing the question of a Constitution for India to-day, we are not necessarily discussing the setting up or development of democratic institutions. In the early days of the British connection between India and this country, the Government of this country was constitutional, but was not democratic. It was constitutional for a long period after the British connection began, and only gradually became democratic. The Bill does not propose to impose on India the same kind of Constitution which we have in this country, or which exists in other parts of the British Empire. We have no other means of taking any step on the way of constitutional progress than by our own method, and that is by setting up a Constitution. Of course, no one who sets up a Constitution can deny that it may very likely lead to further advance in democracy, but that need not necessarily be the case. In setting up in India the bodies which will be set up under this Bill, we are giving India the power to guide herself over the courses which seem best to her, we are not imposing our own ideas upon her.
Hon. Members who are opposed to the Government on this question have said that the Government are actuated by fear, and that those who support the Government are actuated by fear. They have said that the administrators and civil servants in India are to some extent actuated by fear. I do not for a moment admit that there is any fear in the action taken by the Government. It seems to me to be logical process of British Government. It seems to me an inevitable step, the same kind of step that has been taken in every part of the Empire. Fear seems to come from those who are nervous about the next step, the people who are afraid to go forward. It was said by a distinguished Frenchman that Colonies fell like ripe fruit from a tree. They fell, I believe, because the men who controlled them treated them as plantations, treated them in the same way as the Empire of Spain was treated, as something to be sucked dry and not as living political entities. They were, therefore, incapable of bold and brave political action which forestalled the day of separation. I think every Member of the House, when he considers the Bill, must feel a certain amount of anxiety. We cannot deal with this vast complicated question in any light-hearted manner. There is anxiety and doubt in the minds of all of us in going forward. I hope we shall not be nervous but shall go forward boldly. I believe that is the road to success. I believe that is the road which will enable us to build a bridge where there might be a great division.
9.48 p.m.
I do not want to indulge in any picture painting. We have had some very lurid pictures drawn, and we have had some very brilliant pictures. I want rather in all humility to ask for a chart to guide me. I represent the point of view which was expressed by the Scottish Unionists in their conference in Glasgow. The real point of the resolution passed there was to urge upon the Government that it should be very careful in this transition period with regard to the method in which a change was made in the control of the services of the police and of the courts. I was rather disappointed that the Secretary of State gave us so little guidance on this question that exercised our minds in Scotland so much. His speech was more of a chart than a picture. Yet his reference to the point was about—on a generous estimate—a third of a column out of 18 columns of his speech. He had a great deal of ground to cover, but I hope Government speakers before the conclusion of the Debate will clear up some of the doubts and difficulties that people like myself have. The right hon. Gentleman said:
I admit I am in a little difficulty in finding out exactly what the provisions of the Bill on this matter are and whether they are really up to the level of the report or have gone back to the White Paper or whether they are just on the report level. I will give one difficulty that I have in a rather technical part of the Bill dealing with the appeal to the Federal Courts from the High Court. It seems, as far as I can interpret it, that practically appeals are only allowed on questions of the interpretation of the Statute of the Constitution. Many people may think it a great shame that you cannot take up your case from a Provincial Court, where there may be influences at work which may be overruled in a clearer atmosphere, but having regard to the practical point I do not find any fault in the Bill on this account because it seems to me that, if you have thoroughly reliable High Courts in the Provinces, it is in the interests of the poorer litigant that he cannot have his bluff called and be put to the expense of going up and up to the court above.
That is one of the difficulties with which we are faced, and, when we come to the status and position of the police, it seems to be recognised by the Government that in this transition period there ought to be effective British supervision of the police, and they have made the recruitment of the police on particular terms and have to a certain extent safeguarded them with regard to the laws, the rules and regulations, the postings and the promotions. Personally, I do not think that they met the pleas put forward by the representatives of the police before the Joint Committee. One of the things upon which they laid great stress was that there should be a Federal superintendence of the police in the Provinces. It is more a Committee point, but it is one of great importance which has been omitted entirely from the Bill.
I do not intend to labour all these points, but would merely say, as this is a Second Reading Debate, that our grave fear is that anything might be done to remove the hand of the British administrator from the effective supervision of the courts and of the employment and conduct of the police, and before the whole situation had settled down—whatever period for that might be wanted—and these people to whom we are proposing to hand over these grave responsibilities had really acquired the technique, the outlook and the experience to make these things a success as we have undoubtedly made that part of the administration in India to-day. It is the fear of the people for whom I speak, that whatever we may say against the Federal part of the question—and some of us have grave doubts—after all, we are committed.
It is no good, as did the Noble Earl on these benches, challenging us by saying, "You have your doubts, yet you go on." You may have doubts but feel you have got into such a position that you must go on. There is all the more reason to safeguard the process. If in the course of the Debate I could have a definite undertaking as to what the Bill at present proposes and to what extent the points of difficulty I have endeavoured to raise would be met, I should have less doubt—even then, I confess, I should have some doubt—in giving my vote to the Second Reading of the Bill. I am bound to say in all honesty and without any passion, but looking at the matter as a Scotsman interested in the administration of India, and coming from a country which has sent out a great many distinguished administrators and military men to India—speaking from that point of view, without heat and without passion, I want some assurances on the points which I have very indifferently and ineffectively tried to raise before I can in my conscience find myself able to give a Second Reading vote to this Bill.
9.59 p.m.
I have sat through two days of the Debate on this Bill, and it is about time that one thing was made clear both to the public outside and to India. This is not a Conservative party debate. It is not a debate, as so many Members on the other side of the House would have us believe, as to the respective advantages and disadvantages of the policies advocated by the Government on the one hand, and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) on the other. Nor it it a case of a bold, courageous and progressive Government taking their stand for the rights of the Indian people against the reactionary elements represented by the right hon. Gentleman and the friends who support him. There is in fact little difference in essentials between the programme of the Government and that of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends. The Government, and for that matter, the Liberal party, want to set up a Constitu- tion where the wretched brat, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping termed the Bill, is bound hand and foot like Chinese children in the old days so that they could only hobble along.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping and his friends who really live in a world of unreality, a world of their own, would not even permit that kind of movement. The right hon. Gentleman, I believe, would, if he could, strangle the puny infant at birth. It is only this party—and I would call the attention of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild) to the point—who have had the vision of imagination not only to desire to provide the means of a free and a happy future for the child, but by our help and encouragement to give the child the thyroid extract it requires to enable it to grow and to develop. That is the choice, not between the policy of the Government and the policy of the right hon. Gentleman, but between the policy of giving various degrees of minor responsibility grudgingly, ineffectively and unhopefully, and giving whole-heartedly and generously all that has been promised, all that India has been led to expect and all that will enable Indians to achieve in due time, but with certainty their full emancipation as a nation. That is what is meant by the vote in the Legislative Assembly to which reference has been made to-day, not a return to the status quo as the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) would have us believe, but a carrying out of the various promises which have been made. In looking at some of those pledges, I make no apology for returning to the subject of Dominion Status because the position is still far from clear in regard to that matter. No one has stated it generally more clearly or with greater authority than Sir Frederick Sykes, who was a most conscientious and competent recent Governor of Bombay, when in the "Times" the other day, he said:
Is that a paraphrase?
The hon. and learned Member may have that opinion, but there are contrary opinions. "Responsible government" may be quite a different thing from Dominion status. As the hon. and learned Member has raised the point, I would tell him that one of the reasons for suggesting that the term "Dominion status" ought to be put into the Preamble, is because the Preamble of the 1919 Act has been variously interpreted in the past. In a discussion in the Indian Legislative Assembly in February, 1924, the Leader of the Assembly, who was then Sir Malcolm Hailey, probably the most experienced Governor of a Province in India, an administrator for many years, said that the term "responsible government" as it appeared in the Preamble of the 1919 Act did not mean Dominion status. He said:
"If you analyse the term 'full Dominion self-government' you will see that it is of somewhat wider extent, conveying that not only will the Executive be responsible to the Legislature, but the Legislature will in itself have the full powers which are typical of the modern Dominion. I say there is some difference in substance, because responsible government is not necessarily incompatible with a Legislature of limited or restricted powers. It may be that full Dominion self-government is the logical outcome of responsible government; nay, it may be the inevitable and historical development of responsible government, but it is a further and a final step."
Responsible government and Dominion status are not the same.
If you simply take out the words "responsible government," yes, but "responsible government" standing in the sense in which it stood in the Preamble of the Act of 1919, clearly points to Dominion status.
Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will be good enough to read the facts which I am providing. I submit that, in the first place, Dominion status is not mentioned in the Preamble. In the second place, to put it mildly, there is very great doubt, amounting almost to certainty, that "responsible government" does not mean Dominion status. The Secretary of State said that he accepted the interpretation of the Preamble of the Act of 1919 given by the Viceroy in 1929, and that the Government stood by that interpretation. But it is agreed on all hands that the Viceroy's statement in 1929 does not resolve the doubt, because it has no validity what- ever. A very eminent ex-Member of this House, an ex-Chairman of Committees, now in the other place, Lord Rankeillour, said, on the 13th December: Sir John Thompson said:
Take another of the promises, in the matter of an agreed Constitution. On the 1st December, 1931, the Prime Minister, speaking on behalf of the National Government at the conclusion of the second session of the Round Table Conference, said:
I said that co-operation implies consent, but I also spoke with great regret of the way in which the proposals had been received in India, and pointed out what I thought were some of the things which the Indian people should consider in working so large a scheme. But I never said that they have consented to the proposals.
No other implication can be put on his words than that which I have put upon them. He also said:
"The plain fact is that in this India business we must decide between government by autocracy and government by consent."
Hear, hear!
Is the hon. Member going to say that under this Constitution, which he and his party support, there is going to be government by the consent and good will of the Indian people?
I say that unless there is consent to the working of this scheme then obviously it must fail. No one can work the scheme but the Indians themselves.
The hon. Member must agree that there is no consent to-day, and therefore if he supports the Bill he is supporting a scheme which, on his own showing, must fail. The only scheme which will succeed is one which has the consent and good will of the Indian people. In my submission you are not carrying out any of these pledges or expectations. Are you even providing the means for any of these things to come about in the future? I say no. The case seems to me to be like this. It is the case of a father who brings his son into his business. The son has been trained, and guided, given a standard of conduct, a system to look up to; taught his trade, served his apprenticeship and has been encouraged throughout the whole of that period to expect a full partnership. Eventually, after much doubt, hesitancy and inquiry, the son is given not a partnership, not even a junior partnership, but a job at the most as foreman or departmental manager. Having made the son a manager the father does not permit him to manage. He sits in the boardroom or counting house with his ear to the telephone and his eye to the keyhole. The father gives to the son no opportunity or a very limited one for initiative. He keeps the books himself and allows his son no access to them. He still controls the clerks and commissionaires and never shows any signs of implementing his promise to give him full partnership.
What is the result? Obviously dissatisfaction, resentment, rebellion against authority, perhaps disaster to the firm, because the son recognises that until his father dies or he breaks away he can never grow to his full stature. How different if the son is really brought into partnership, a junior partnership at first if you like. He is given responsibility, given opportunity, given praise for what he does and friendly help when he desires it, and a definite assurance freely offered that he may take over the whole business as soon as, in the normal course, he might reasonably expect to do so. In those circumstances with what pride does the son work, with what zeal does he care for the business, with what capacity does he demonstrate his fitness to control, and with what affection and good will does he regard the parent who has given him this opportunity?
That is the position which we ought to endeavour to take up towards India and the Indian people. Give them that junior partnership fully and freely and without stint and they will rise to the occasion. On the Franchise Committee, where I had the pleasure of serving with the hon. Gentleman who is now Under-Secretary of State, we met Indian gentlemen of all denominations, who served with us and could and did rise to the occasion. For example, in the India Labour representative I found a man who, as soon as he was satisfied that I desire genuinely to work with him and to be helpful and to work on an equal footing, gave me his confidence without reserve and trusted me to put his case in his absence. To him and his like I felt that I could safely leave India and Indian affairs with as much confidence as I could leave them to any compatriot of my own.
So it would be in the larger field. Give the Indian people as a whole, not a part of them, responsibility and opportunity, and they will rise to it. Deny such liberty and you will never be free of complaint, of resentment, perhaps of rebellion—rebellion which you can no doubt overcome for a time but rebellion which will leave its seeds behind for ever. Give responsibility freely and generously and with definite assurances for the future, and you do obtain that good will which is the condition precedent to success in the enterprise. Furthermore, give responsibility and, whatever its consequences, you will have done not the expedient thing in the opinion of some, but the right thing, the just thing and the big thing; and, as the Lord President of the Council once said, "You have then at any rate a chance of keeping India within the Commonwealth."
The matter of good will is all-important to our trade. Our exports and imports from India are to-day about equal. We heard something from the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) about reciprocal trade and about having an agreement which would apparently last for ever. But there is reciprocal trade to-day; the interchange of trade between England and India is within a very few hundred pounds equal. India does a greater trade now with us than any other Dominion. Given a policy of greater good will, is she ever likely to do less? She will have no grounds for doing so. But refuse to create that greater good will, and to give that opportunity for the future, and as sure as night follows the day your trade and your common interests will suffer, and at the first opportunity the cord which binds India to us may break.
Let me speak of the hope for the future, if there be any, held out by this Bill. I agree that if the new Constitution set out in this Bill were at least a satisfactory starting-point, if it were possible to build upon it a superstructure, it might be wise to accept it. It has been laid down repeatedly that the Constitution ought to contain within itself, as far as possible, provision for its own development. I need only quote the Statutory Commission. They said:
To begin with, the franchise is fixed for 10 years. I for one do not believe that adult suffrage is practicable for administrative reasons in India at the moment. It cannot be given at present because it would not work. If however we promised it or provided for it in 10 years, in my opinion it could then be worked. I think the Under-Secretary would agree that it could be worked in the towns to-day and I certainly am of that opinion. The Franchise Committee whose report was substantially accepted recommended the enfranchisement of 43 per cent. of the adult males, and 10 per cent. of the adult females. They said, and the Under-Secretary agreed, that there was nothing inherently impossible about eventual adult suffrage. But while there is merely the power of revision in 10 years, on a petition being submitted, is it likely that those in power will be willing to petition to have their powers taken away or at any rate distributed more widely. I submit that that is not in the least likely. The franchise is rigid and fixed.
Moreover, the Constitution provides that the Princes always retain their representation of one-third or in the Upper House 40 per cent. of the voting power in the Federal legislature. There is always therefore a block of votes at the Centre impossible, without mutual agreement, of modification or alteration. Surely that again is binding India hand and foot and keeping her people as mere managers all their lives. On the matter of the franchise I desire to put a question to the Government. The Bill goes back on all previous recommendations in one respect, namely, in proposing indirect election. The Joint Select Committee in 1919 decided against indirect election. So did the Franchise Committee and the Government of India and His Majesty's Government themselves in the White Paper. Why this change? Will the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary say why the Government of India have changed their opinion after so many years? Has pressure been brought to bear upon them? How many times were they asked to reconsider this question during the last year or two? I should like to have a specific answer to that question, because when in India I had some opportunity of obtaining the views of those in authority on this matter, and without exception the Gov- ernment of India at that time, and before, and since, up to quite a recent date, favoured direct and not indirect election.
One further point, a further test of the hope and opportunity held out to the masses for whom we all profess to be concerned. I for one, and most of us in this House, will judge of the real sincerity in this matter of those who profess themselves to be so concerned for the Indian masses by the powers they transfer to the Indian masses in the discussions which will no doubt take place and in the votes which will be given on the question of the franchise. Then we shall see whether there is that real concern for the masses in India. To speak for a moment of labour representation, which in our view would best represent the masses, quite clearly it is inadequate in all the Lower Chambers. Worse than that, there is no representative of labour at all in either the Provincial or Federal Upper Chambers. Labour is not likely to obtain any there, because the general constituencies are formed, admittedly, of people having property or with vested interests, and where the seats are filled in Upper Chambers by election from Lower Chambers, there is no sufficient labour representation in the Lower Chambers to ensure representation in the Upper Houses. For example, in Bengal there are 27 seats to be filled by the votes of 250 members. It is obvious, therefore, that the minimum number to ensure election to one seat is 10, and the number of members is only eight. Representation in the Upper Chamber is therefore impossible. We are opposed to Upper Chambers, but if they have to be, common justice demands that labour should have at least a minimum representation therein.
There are other matters to which I had hoped to refer, but time does not permit. I will conclude by saying that there is no assurance in this Bill as to the ultimate aim of Parliament, there is no generous handing over of real responsibility or power, there is no hope of or opportunity for the masses ever obtaining that responsibility or power. It is as if the Bill had said: stantial extensions of power, but what body, what nation, what self-respecting people can you expect to receive, willingly, thankfully, and with any enthusiasm, a pretence of power without the substance, and without even a promise of the substance in even an approximate period of time? There is a motto or principle of conduct in one of our public schools: "Put yourself in his place." Let us put ourselves in the place of the Indian people. Should we accept a constitution so hamstrung and so grudgingly and patronisingly conferred? And why should we expect the Indian people, a people as proud and, given the opportunity, as intelligent, as resentful of domination, and with at least as long a tradition and history as ourselves, to accept it? Hence the vote at Delhi to-day. We on this side still hope, even at this eleventh hour, that better counsels will prevail, and we shall do our best in Committee to persuade the Government to accept them.
10.34 p.m.
In answering this Debate so far as it has gone over the two days that have hitherto run, in my capacity as Under-Secretary of State I have no doubt a certain belief in predestination. The House will remember the little rhyme: house (Mr. Attlee) said that the Indian people have been left out of the Bill. The hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir N. Stewart Sandeman) said that the majority have been handed over to the few. The hon. Member for Chertsey (Sir A. Boyd-Carpenter) said in his eloquent speech that we are not considering the proletariat and the people of India.
I shall try to review some of those arguments by studying the representation which has been given to the various, interests in the legislatures. It gives me particular pleasure to follow the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner), in view of the time we spent in India together considering some of these questions of representation and franchise. I was particularly struck by his simile of the father thinking of the son to whom he had not given sufficient responsibility. That father sat with his ear to the telephone and his eye on the keyhole. I can only recommend to the hon. and gallant Member that he should in future support the activities of the Postmaster-General in the National Government who is daily bringing television nearer. I feel sure that if he were to change his political allegiance, the father in question would save himself a great deal of inconvenience. The hon. Member for Limehouse raised the question of the omission of the details of the franchise from the Bill. He must have been aware that in the Memorandum accompanying the Bill this point was referred to. It is stated there that the franchise can be inserted in a schedule if desired. I would like to remind the House that there is a certain value in the procedure by Order in Council owing to the technical nature of the subject and the time that is taken to prepare all the necessary details in regard to the franchise; further, that an Order in Council can be discussed and amended by this House. However, I will reaffirm the statement made in the Memorandum and leave the matter for the time being.
I should like to mention the very great labour involved in preparing all the details about franchise and representation, and here I would like to refer particularly to the great work that has fallen on the draftsmen and officials who had prepared this Bill and have worked so long on this subject. They have lived in an incessant rush, which, for those chiefly responsible, has lasted seven or eight years since the Simon Commission went to India. They deserve all the tributes that this House can give. May I say, in response to the hon. Gentleman, that there is certainly no wish to deprive the House of an opportunity of discussing any question of the franchise?
In answer to the detailed points raised by my hon. Friend who has just sat down and by the hon. Member for Limehouse, I would point out that Labour will be represented not only by the special constituencies, which have been increased by a very large number under our proposals, but also by the provisions in the general franchise. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will study the provisions of the general franchise and study the level of the franchise, particularly as regards house rent, in some of the great cities in India, and remember that Labour will be represented as well by special constituencies, they will see that Labour will have a definite opportunity of representation in the Legislatures of India in the future. Further, rural labour will be represented also by the level of the franchise suggested. In one Province, at any rate, the level of the franchise will descend to the smallest cultivator who pays two rupees in land revenue, and in other Provinces to those who pay five rupees in land revenue. Moreover, rural labour will be represented by the large amount of representation which will, be given to the depressed classes.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Islington (Colonel Goodman) raised the question of the depressed classes, and feared that they were not getting sufficient attention from His Majesty's Government. I would only repeat the words used by my right hon. Friend, which must have shown the House that the depressed classes have received every consideration, and that it is our earnest desire that under this Constitution they should have an opportunity of improving their lot. Their seats are to be increased approximately to 151 in the Provincial Councils and 19 in the Central Assembly. Besides this they will have a differential franchise, and I feel certain there will be opportunities for the depressed classes under the new Constitution, and I support the view of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) that their objections to this Bill are chiefly on details, with particular reference to the question of upper Houses in the Provinces and the upper House at the Federal centre. In the latter case I would remind the representatives of the depressed classes that the Governor-General will have the right of nomination which could be used in their interests. The hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) was concerned with the extension of the franchise to what he termed the uneducated classes. I had always thought that his chief objection to our plan was that it put power into the hands of the intelligentsia, but here is is telling us that we are wrong in putting the power of the franchise into the hands of the uneducated classes.
The whole of my argument was directed to prove that the vote meant nothing in India—that you might extend the vote enormously, give universal suffrage, but that these people would not be able to defend their interests owing to the lack of civic sense.
I am much indebted to the hon. and gallant Member, and I hope to deal with that point in a few minutes, as I much appreciate his argument. The hon. Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Law), in the excellent speech he made yesterday, gave us the right impression of peasants all the world over. They have a shrewd sense, and know a good thing when they see one, and I am certain that by this extension of the franchise to the level which I have described we shall genuinely put power into the hands of the peasants; and I believe that those of us in this House, particularly in my own party, who have the privilege to be elected by rural voters, realise that we are following the path of wisdom in extending the vote so considerably to the rural classes in India. I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wycombe what is his alternative to this extension of the franchise? Does he believe in keeping the present franchise, which has been openly declared to be in the interests of the urban voters, and of the intelligentsia? Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who oppose our scheme are too often prone to forget the alternative and to minimise the definite merits that there are in our proposal.
The hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe very rightly raised the question of whether the franchise will give any real power to the people in the countryside in the future Constitution of India. But that is very important. I believe if he will look at the recent legislation passed in some of the provincial councils and deduce from that the sort of legislation which may be passed in future, he will see that the rural interests are gaining more and more power. I think that power will be very considerable under the new Constitution. I need only refer hon. Members to the recent rural debt legislation passed in the Punjab Council which takes up some of the points about moneylenders which were raised notably by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Kirkpatrick) in the remarkable speech which he made on the subject yesterday. The provincial councils I am sure will have to consider rural interests in the future. We have only to reflect upon the preponderance of votes which rural interests will have. All of us as Members of Parliament can well remember that in any election we have to remember that classes of the community from which most of our support is likely to come. I believe that when an Indian Member stands for a provincial council he will take into consideration, the rural interests very much more than he has done in the past, and I feel sure that there will be an improvement in the legislation of the provincial councils.
The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) questioned whether the Constitution will give a chance for labour and social legislation. Our view is that those questions are in India so much engrained in Indian life and customs that they are best tackled by the Indians themselves. There is nothing in the Bill which would stop those questions being tackled in the immediate future in India. The Opposition have raised the question of whether there is sufficient opportunity for co-ordination with the Centre. If reference is made to the proposals in the Joint Select Committee's Report which are carried out in the Bill for co-ordination and possible central control in questions of labour legislation and social questions, they will notice that there are, by the special proposal made for the second part of the Concurrent List, definite opportunities for central co-ordination in these matters. Our conception of the constitutional scheme does not imply a conception of strict central control or the idea of grants-in-aid from the Centre with a consequent power of inspection. I note that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) gave an appreciative grunt. I refer particularly to the very excellent evidence to which we had the privilege of listening from him on the Joint Select Committee. But I will refer him to the report of the Statutory Committee in which they say:
The hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. G. Nicholson) made an excellent speech which I confidently recommend to all his friends in India, and I hope they will all read it in order to see how much he reflects the views of the younger generation in England in regard to Indian constitutional reform. He raised the question of co-ordination in such matters as education. There are provisions in the Bill for the establishment, if necessary, of an inter-provincial council, and this with the other proposals in the Bill will, I think, give an opportunity for co-ordination on such important matters as education and health and other questions which have been raised, and will be raised by hon. Members in the course of this Debate. I believe that this co-operation will be helped rather than hindered by the system of indirect election which the Joint Select Committee has recommended.
I had the privilege of sitting for over 18 months on the Joint Select Committee and reflecting upon the problems of Federation. I do not want to minimise the problem, and I do not think that any of us can afford to do so. I believe that the system of indirect election will have exactly the opposite effect from that expected by hon. Members of the Liberal party. I believe that its effect will be to tie the units together by representing in the Central Legislature more closely the representatives of the units, and this I noticed with interest was the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Sir I. Macpherson). I do not believe that in the words of the hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) this system of election would encourage fissiparous tendencies. As for the question as to which is the better method of election, direct or indirect election, I prefer to regard this as a question of machinery, and I shall be quite ready to discuss it in detail when we come to the Committee stage. Both of these methods of election I think might have very grave difficulties in them, the question of direct election in the large areas necessary for the constituencies, and the question of indirect election in the small quotas of electors necessary to elect a member. I am fully aware of the difficulties and would prefer to go into them in more detail later and I shall be only too glad to give my contribution to the subject when we come to the Committee stage.
The question of trade has been raised by many speakers, and I think it was right that it should have been. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Slater) and others raised the question of the position of the peasants in India and their purchasing power and the value of British trade to them. I would say that the new Central Legislature will no doubt represent the consumer of British India indirectly and also the consumer in the agricultural States, and will thus look after the consumers' interests in framing tariff policy. That I hope and believe will be the safeguard for the consumer and will have an effect on its tariff policy. In reply to those who say that this Constitution is not in the interests of the peasants and the poorer classes in India I would only remind the House that if you take an indication which is usually taken to represent the confidence of certain classes of the community and take the Post Office cash saving certificates in India this is what you will find. Before the Statutory Commission visited India these certificates stood at Rs.30 crores. During all this period when the new Constitution has been fashioned the money invested in these cash savings certificates has risen to Rs. 65 crores which is more than double the figure reached before the visit of the Statutory Commission. That does not show any lack of confidence in the reforms we are proposing.
The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Hammersley) made a very interesting and valuable speech on the question of trade. I find that those who discuss Lancashire trade may be divided into those who have a more recent and sudden interest in the subject and those who are associated perpetually with it. I do not want to impugn the genuineness of the motives of either class, because naturally in this House we are all concerned with the effect on British trade, as indeed we ought to be. But there is a radical difference between the point of view of the two classes—the recent and more sudden class and the perpetual class. The recent and more sudden class are apt to take a very gloomy view of our trade with India and to prefer coercion to co-operation; whereas the class who are perpetually involved in trade with India, such as the hon. Member for Stockport who has visited India, believe rather in co-operation. I would only remind the House of the very successful result of the policy of good will started by the Ottawa Agreement, and followed up in the recent Supplementary Trade Agreement. In the annual report of the Trade Commissioner in India, it is stated that "there is no doubt that the Ottawa Agreement has inaugurated a new era of closer and more profitable trade between the United Kingdom and India."
There are certain problems that I can only touch upon in the last few minutes. The question has been raised of the intervention of the Executive in certain cases of necessity, and the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) raised the question of the Governor-General's intervention in questions of communications, a point which has been raised very often in the country. I would remind hon. Members that in Clauses 177 (4) and 178 (2) of the Bill there is provision for the Governor intervening and giving directions to the Railway Authority in cases of necessity. We believe that the policy of good will must not only exist in the realm of trade, but in the realm of the relationships between the Governor-General and his Ministers, and between the Governor and his Ministers. We are surprised that, either on questions of trade or on questions relating to law and order, hon. Members who are opposed to us and who ask for further safeguards should tell us that the safeguards we have included show our mistrust of the Indians. We believe that a policy of good will, whether in trade or in the relations between the Governor-General and his Ministers, will be ultimately successful.
What of the future? The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) raised several points about the position of India within the Empire. My right hon. Friend, in his statement yesteday, showed that His Majesty's Government believed in the continuity of British policy, and stood by all the pledges given to India in the past. I will confine myself now to reaffirming his statement, with this addition, that all pledges given were given to India within the Empire, and, therefore, there can be no question of the secession of India from the Empire being possible as a result of the reaffirmation of any of those pledges. I agree that many issues have been and can be raised on this matter. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will be speaking on Monday, and it is perhaps more suitable and proper that he should reply to these many points.
In conclusion, I would like to take up the words of the hon. Member for Morpeth who expressed the hope that we had stumbled on a future line of development in regard both to a Constitution for India and, possibly, a model Constitution for the world. I believe that in this Constitution are the features of the strong Executive known to the East, and of the democratic form known to the West; and I sincerely hope that we have found a future form of government that will not only provide a possible modification of democracy which may work satisfactorily, but may also tie together the best in the East and the West.
Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[ Captain Margesson. ]
Debate to be resumed To-morrow.
Supply
Report [5th February]
Civil Estimates, Supplementary Estimates, 1934
Class VI
Resolutions reported,
1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,150,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for a Subsidy on Sugar and Molasses manufactured from Beet grown in Great Britain."
2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £50,950, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Overseas Trade, including Grants in Aid of the Imperial Institute and the Travel and Industrial Development Association of Great Britain and Ireland."
Resolutions agreed to.
Ways and Means
Report [5th February]
Resolution reported,
"That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, the sum of £8,659,450 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
Resolution agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Duff Cooper, and Captain Margesson.
Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill
"To apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-five," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed.—[Bill 27.]
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
Adjournment
Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Captain Margesson. ]
Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.