Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 297: debated on Monday 11 February 1935

House of Commons

Monday, February 11, 1935

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

Private Business

London Midland and Scottish Railway Bill (by Order),

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Oral Answers to Questions

India

Trade Agreement

asked the Secretary of State for India whether the validity of the letters which form part of the Indo-British trade agreement is any way affected by the recent vote of the legislative assembly?

Assembly Debates (Reports)

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will endeavour to arrange that the reports of debates in the Indian Assembly and the principal Indian newspapers may be made available for the use of Members in the News Room or Library?

Copies of reports of debates in the Assembly are already placed in the Library as soon as they are received. As regards the supply of newspapers, that is a matter outside my province.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say, approximately, how long it will take the reports of the meetings of the Assembly to reach this House?

Bangalore (Land Acquisition Act, 1894)

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that deeds of entitlement providing for the sale of land in the civil station of Bangalore by the municipal commission state that the hereditaments described in the deeds were acquired by the collector of the civil and military station by and on behalf of the Secretary of State for India in Council, under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894; that this Act refers to British India; and whether he will state by what authority Acts passed for British India can be applied to Mysore territory?

The Act in question is one of the numerous British enactments which have been applied to the civil and military station of Bangalore by the Governor-General of India in Council in exercise of the powers conferred on him by the Indian (Foreign Jurisdiction) Order-in-Council, 1902. The Act was originally applied to the station in 1894 in the exercise of powers conferred by the Foreign Jurisdiction and Extradition Act of 1879.

Does that not mean therefore that the Government of India exercises these powers in Bangalore and, if so, is that consistent with Bangalore being Mysore territory?

No, Sir, it means exactly the opposite. The Foreign Jurisdiction and Extradition Act would not have been applied to this territory if it had been British territory; the fact that it has been applied shows that it is not British territory.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the grants of land which have been made in the name of the Secretary of State in Bangalore for some years past have been legally exercised and that the title deeds held under such transactions are valid?

I must refer the Noble Lady to the answer I gave to her about a week ago.

Broadcasting

Indian Representatives' Views

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will endeavour to arrange for a series of broadcast talks in India by representative leaders of Indian public opinion to be relayed to this country?

This is a matter for the British Broadcasting Corporation, and I am unable to act as the hon. Member suggests.

Has the right hon. Gentleman no means of making suggestions to the British Broadcasting Corporation; and, if it is not possible to arrange for Indians to broadcast in England, could he not arrange to broadcast in India, so that Indian public opinion might know that the Government here are not indifferent to it?

Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider the utility of suggesting to the British Broadcasting Corporation that some such statement from India by representative Indians should be broadcast here?

I could not make suggestions on matters which are outside the scope of my official duties. I will, however, keep in mind the suggestions of my hon. Friends in case the opportunity ever arises of considering the matter further.

British Broadcasting Corporation

asked the Postmaster-General whether it is the intention of the Government to appoint a special Departmental Committee to investigate broadcasting and to report upon any change that should be made in the constitution of the British Broadcasting Corporation after 1936?

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to a question on this subject by the hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans) on the 28th January.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a statement in the Radio Year Book of the British Broadcasting Corporation for 1935 as to the probability of the Prime Minister setting up a special Departmental Committee to inquire into the constitution of the British Broadcasting Corporation after 1936?

British Union of Fascists

asked the Postmaster-General whether he has issued an experimental broadcasting licence to any individual residing at the headquarters of the British Fascist party in King's Road, Chelsea, where an apparatus for broadcasting has been installed capable of being used for sending out communications to be received by suitable receivers throughout the London area?

An experimental wireless licence was formerly held by a person residing at 33, King's Road, Chelsea. The licence authorised the use of a low-power transmitter solely for the purpose of experiment and research. Attention was, however, called to the fact that the licensee's address was the headquarters of the British Union of Fascists, and as it is not the practice to grant an experimental licence for a wireless transmitter installed at the headquarters of any political party, the licence was terminated in October last.

Ministers' Statements

asked the Postmaster-General whether he can inform the House as to the names of Members of the Government who have broadcast explanations of Government policy, and the number of times each has been given such facilities during the year 1934 and the month of January, 1935, respectively?

As the reply is of a detailed character, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Would it be beyond the right hon. Gentleman to try to improve the very low standard of the Opposition broadcasters?

Following is the reply:

China (British Minister, Nanking)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present position as to the provision of a residence for His Majesty's Minister at Nanking?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I returned to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Camborne (Lieut.-Commander Agnew) on 6th December last.

I am aware of that reply in which the right hon. Gentleman said that the Consul-General's house at Nanking was being adapted for the Minister. Can he say on how many occasions the Minister has visited either Nanking or Shanghai since his arrival in China a year ago?

Obviously, that is a different question. My hon. Friend may take it that the changes which we propose at Nanking are for the purpose of making it conveniently possible for His Majesty's Minister to discharge his duties in Nanking as often as he is required to go there.

Do I understand then that the alterations have not yet been completed?

Poland (Minorities)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the attitude of the Polish delegate at the recent meeting of the League of Nations Council during the discussion of two minorities complaints involving Poland; and whether, in view of this confirmation of Poland's virtual repudiation of the minorities treaties of 1919, he will bring the matter before the League of Nations?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, except that only one minority petition was involved. As the hon. Member is aware, the Polish delegate made a declaration to the Assembly of the League of Nations on the 14th September, refusing all co-operation with international organisations in respect of the supervision of the application by Poland of the existing system for the protection of minorities. I intervened on that occasion to make the position of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom clear, and the relevant extract from my speech was circulated in reply to a question by the hon. Member on the 14th November. The question of the Polish Government's attitude is therefore already before the League of Nations.

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the steps already taken in this matter, may I ask him whether we are to expect anything further shortly at the League of Nations on this very important subject?

Of course the matter is one for the Council of the League as a whole. I think the position taken up by the British Government and, I think, other Governments is quite clear, namely, that the minority procedure is still in force and cannot be modified by unilateral action on the part of any one State.

United States (Arms Inquiry)

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any official protests have been made to the United States Government concerning any of the evidence given at the United States senate arms inquiry; if so, when were such protests made and what was their nature?

I presume that the hon. Member, in referring to official protests, is enquiring whether any such protests have been made by His Majesty's Government. On this assumption the answer is No; the only exception was with reference to a ridiculuous story, to which I referred in an earlier Debate, which brought in the name of His Majesty the King.

Memel

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government are favourably considering the claim of the German Government for the proper government of that territory for which the Memel Diet are presumed to act, which could not be formed on any of the recent occasions when it has assembled; and if he is able to make a statement on the matter?

The situation in Memel has not materially altered since the reply which I gave to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) on 30th January. His Majesty's Government are at present in communication with the French and Italian Governments on the subject.

Naval and Military Pensions and Grants

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that disabled pensioners who cannot follow their employment through their having to receive medical treatment owing to war service are denied dependants' allowance while receiving such medical treatment; and what action he proposes to take to remedy this grievance?

I think that my hon. and gallant Friend is under some misapprehension. Allowances under Article 6 of the Royal Warrant are provided and are paid in cases in which the patient suffers loss of earnings in consequence of an approved course of treatment by having to give Up temporarily a remunerative occupation on which he was dependent for the support of himself and his family.

Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that when men are referred to panel doctors for treatment they are afraid to go to the panel doctors, because they lose their wages and the allowances for their children?

If a man is in employment, and subsequently gets treatment from us, he would get treatment allowances. The point raised in the question would not be relevant.

Agriculture

Milk Products

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, on the representations of the milk marketing boards of England and Wales and Scotland and the manufacturers of dairy products, the Market Supply Committee has reported that the increased home production of condensed whole milk and tinned cream enables the British industry now to undertake to fulfil all the needs of the British market; and whether, in the circumstances, the imports of these products from foreign countries will now be prohibited in the terms of the Marketing Act of 1933?

The question of the further regulation of imports of condensed whole milk and tinned cream is under consideration.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the statement made in the question as to the opinion of the committee is not correct?

My hon. Friend very well knows that the reports of the Market Supply Committee are confidential, and I am not to be drawn into giving an opinion one way or the other.

Is the matter referred to not within the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman?

Many facts may be within my knowledge which it would not be proper for me to communicate.

Pigs and Bacon

asked the Minister of Agriculture the actual number of bacon pigs received by the Bacon Board each month in 1934?

As the answer contains a number of figures, I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The answer is as follows:

The numbers of pigs delivered to curers in pursuance of contracts made under the Pigs Marketing Scheme, 1933 (excluding pigs delivered but subsequently rejected, and excluding also pigs produced by curers themselves) in each month in 1934 were as follows:

asked the Minister of Agriculture to what extent existing bacon factories in England and Wales will be unable to reach their maximum output during the first six months of this year owing to inadequate supplies; and whether the situation in this respect is any better for this half-year than for the corresponding half-year in 1934?

I am informed that the number of pigs contracted to be delivered in the first six months of 1935 represents about 60 per cent. of the curers' stated requirements. This is 31 per cent. more than was the case during the corresponding period last year.

Milk Reorganisation Commission

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can now give the names of the members and the terms of reference of the Great Britain Milk Commission?

The Secretary of State for Scotland and I have to-day appointed an Agricultural Marketing Reorganisation Commission for Milk, with the following terms of reference:

The composition of the commission will be:

Chairman:

While thanking the Minister for his reply, may I ask whether it will be outside the terms of reference of the Commission to recommend the Government to put on tariffs on skim milk and other products which are coming in here and ruining the home producer?

I am afraid the commission will need to interpret its own terms of reference. They are very widely drawn.

Will the commission have power to inquire into the prices charged by retailers, which are excessive to-day?

The terms of reference includes working of organised milk marketing in Great Britain and its effect on production, distribution and consumption.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any idea of when the commission will report?

If the terms of reference are not such as to allow the commission to deal with the question of a tariff on dried and skim milk products, can they be altered so as to include that question?

I am afraid I could not further discuss the terms of reference at this time. As my hon. Friend knows there are immediate problems confronting the Marketing Board, which immediate problems cannot include the levying of tariffs on certain articles which are excluded from them by trade agreements.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that representatives of the Milk Marketing Board are endeavouring to restrict the normal market for Northern Irish milk products in the Liverpool district; and whether he will take steps to prevent this practice?

No, Sir. I am not aware that any such endeavour has taken place, nor would I be willing to believe it unless some definite instance were brought to my notice.

Will my right hon. Friend consider the second part of my question, and, if I can bring such an instance to his notice, will he discourage people from doing this?

Will my right hon. Friend receive such information as I can give him on these points?

Post Office

Air-Mail Charges (Brazil)

asked the Postmaster-General why the minimum charge on a letter sent by air-mail from Brazil to London is 1s. 2d., while that on a letter from London to Brazil is three times as much, namely, 3s. 6d.?

The charge of 1s. 2d. is for a very light letter weighing only about one-sixth oz., whereas the charge of 3s. 6d. is for a letter weighing three times as much (½ oz.).

While thanking my right hon. Friend, may I draw his attention, with all respect, to the letter which has appeared in the "Times" newspaper to-day, on page 21, on this subject?

Is it not a fact that the minimum charge for letters from this country to Brazil is 3s. 6d.?

Telephone Charges

asked the Postmaster-General what complaints he has received from telephone subscribers regarding the change from a form for telephone charges which showed the number of calls charged to a form which shows only total amounts and would appear to deprive subscribers of the opportunity hitherto afforded them of checking their telephone accounts?

I have received a number of complaints from subscribers on the extension beyond 2d. of the previous system of showing in telephone accounts the total value in pence of local calls. The range of automatic working is being extended so as to permit a subscriber to obtain for himself calls up to 4d. in value by direct dialling without the aid of an operator. Under this arrangement it will be impracticable to show separately the numbers of 1d., 2d., 3d. and 4d. calls as these will be registered mechanically. In view of the great advantages of this extension of dialling, I trust that subscribers generally will accept the system, as in fact the great majority of those who have complained have done after explanation.

Sale of Stamps (Sundays)

asked the Post-master-General whether, in view of the large number of letters written on Sundays, he will take steps to improve the conveniences which exist for obtaining stamps on that day, either by increasing the present number of automatic machines, by installing new types which will deliver books of stamps as well as single stamps, or by making arrangements which would enable and encourage confectionery and tobacco stores to sell stamps on that day?

The installation of stamp selling machines is being proceeded with wherever financial considerations warrant; and machines for the sale of books of stamps are on trial. In localities where stamps cannot otherwise be readily obtained licences for their sale are freely issued to shopkeepers. I will examine whether the number of licences could usefully be increased.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take care not to warrant the sale of stamps in shops on Sunday—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—because in selling stamps in shops on Sunday shop assistants will be working seven days a week—and will the right hon. Gentleman urge people who want stamps to buy them on Saturday?

Engineering Department (Wage Increases)

asked the Postmaster-General whether he is now able to announce the result of the wage negotiations which have been proceeding with the representatives of the engineering classes employed in his Department?

I announced in this House in December last that I had been able to authorise increases in the pay of certain grades of postal servants but added that the case of various other grades, particularly in the Post Office Engineering Department, was still under consideration. I am glad to say I am now in a position, after having discussed the matter with the Post Office Engineering Union, to announce alterations in the pay of Post Office engineering skilled workmen and labourers corresponding to those previously announced in the case of the postal telegraph and telephone grades.

In accordance with the principle which I set before myself of dealing primarily with cases of hardship, the greatest benefit will be conferred on the labourers, the lowest paid group in the Engineering Department. But improvements will also be effected in the pay of skilled workmen and in the allowances granted to certain of them for undertaking special duties.

These improvements, like those already announced, are in addition to the increases provided for under the Government's consolidation scheme. The full cost of the latter in the case of the classes now in question is estimated at over £150,000 per annum, and the present concession will cost another £70,000 per annum. Some 25,000 persons are con- cerned. I have also approved of certain improvements in the scales of pay of inspectors in the Post Office Engineering Department.

The relevant particulars as regards the wages of the engineering labourers and skilled workmen, have been set out in a document, copies of which will be placed in the Library in the course of the next few days.

These increases will take effect as from the 1st January.

Television

19 and 20.

asked the Postmaster-General (1) when the British Broadcasting Corporation will be in a position to announce to all radio manufacturers the essential information preparatory to the construction of televisors, such as the nature of the apparatus, wavelengths, and the number of lines;

(2) whether he can give any date when the two main groups referred to in the report of the Television Committee, namely, the Marconi E.M.I. Television Company, Limited, and the Baird Television, Limited, will be in a position to market the appropriate apparatus; and when the new London station will be in a position to broadcast?

The points referred to by my hon. Friend are now under the consideration of the Television Advisory Committee, which I appointed on the 31st January. This committee held its first meeting on the 5th February; but there is a great deal of preparatory work to be done before any announcement can be made concerning the arrangements for the new service.

Are we to understand that in the meantime these two groups named in the Television Committee's Report will have a complete monopoly of the production of this apparatus?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement which I made and also to the report of the committee.

Regent's Park (St. John's Lodge)

asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that better decorative horticultural use could be made of the gravelled spaces between the walls of St John's Lodge and the steps down to the turfed flower borders leading up to the entrance to the Hylas garden of St. John's Lodge, Regent's Park; and, in order to remedy the dilapidated appearance of St. John's Lodge, will he seek outside advice as to how to beautify the spaces and paths immediately next the structure of St. John's Lodge and how to utilise this building for the use or enjoyment of the public instead of pulling it down?

As I informed my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) on the 6th February, negotiations are proceeding for the use of St. John's Lodge as a museum by the University of London. No question, therefore, arises at present of the demolition of the building. I cannot regard the present arrangement of gravel and grass at the entrance to St. John's Lodge as otherwise than appropriate to the front of the house. At this season of the year its aspect may be a little uninviting, but it will be made tidy in the spring.

asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he can recondition a small part of the premises of St. John's Lodge, Regent's Park, for use as a public convenience and for the storage of bicycles, and for adaptation as an addition to the existing bathing and dressing accommodation for those who use Regent's Park for games and theatrical performances?

Negotiations are at present proceeding with the University of London for the use of the whole of St. John's Lodge as a museum and training centre, and I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot consider the proposal made by the hon. Member.

Hyde Park (Conveniences)

asked the First Commissioner of Works the number of public conveniences in Hyde Park other than those with entrances outside the park and on the public roadways at Hyde Park Corner and the Marble Arch; and will he confer with the London County Council with a view to installing other concealed public conveniences near the Victoria Gate, Bayswater Road, and near the gates of Hyde Park entrances on the Kensington Road, near Kensington Gardens?

There is at present one convenience in Hyde Park near the refreshment pavilion maintained by my Department, in addition to those managed by the Westminster City Council at Hyde Park Corner and the Marble Arch. Another will be ready for opening in the summer. The hon. Member will appreciate that the number and the position of conveniences in Hyde Park must be studied in conjunction with those that are available in Kensington Gardens. As at present advised, I do not consider that additions are necessary, and I do not think, therefore, that a conference with the local authorities concerned is needed.

His Majesty's Silver Jubilee (Celebrations)

asked the First Commissioner of Works what arrangements are being made for the flood-lighting of the Palace of Westminster and Government buildings during the forthcoming Jubilee celebrations?

In addition to the list of buildings which I enumerated in my reply to the hon. Member for Bristol, North (Mr. Bernays) on the 29th January last, I am happy to be able to state that arrangements have now been completed for flood-lighting the Whitehall front of the Horse Guards and the Colonnade of the War Office. The Incorporated Accountants Hall and His Majesty's Ship "President" are also to be illuminated, and it is hoped that arrangements may be made to flood-light the new public offices, Duchy of Lancaster building, St. Paul's Cathedral, the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, Canada House, and South Africa House. Consideration is also being given to the possibility of flood-lighting the Victoria Tower of the Palace of Westminster in addition to the Clock Tower. By the generosity of the electrical and gas interests, the Government will be relieved of almost the whole of the expenditure involved. My Department is conducting experiments in Westminster Hall with a view to ascertaining the practicability of effectively flood-lighting the oak roof.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any special arrangements are to be made to ensure that an adequate extension of licensing hours will be permitted during the Jubilee celebrations in May?

No, Sir. As I have explained on previous occasions, the grant of special extensions of hours is a matter which lies in the discretion of the appropriate authority in each district, upon whom it is incumbent to consider each application individually and on its merits. I have no reason to doubt that all such applications will receive due consideration.

Is it not a fact that the powers of the licensing justices are limited to granting half-an-hour's extension in special cases, and can the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of extending the half-hour?

Parliament Square

asked the First Commissioner of Works whether any steps are to be taken by his Department to ensure that the amenities of Parliament Square will be preserved in the event of the scheme maturing for building a tall block of offices on the corner of Great George Street; and whether he will arrange to take such action before plans have been made in detail and con tracts entered into?

The scheme for the new buildings which it is proposed to erect on land belonging to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners at the corner of Great George Street has been submitted by the promoters both to the Royal Fine Art Commission and to the London County Council as the town planning authority. I have had the opportunity of examining the plans and elevations, and I cannot think that the new building as proposed would be otherwise than an improvement on the one which it displaces.

Air Defence

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the total num- ber of first-line aircraft stationed in this country on 1st January, 1934, and 1st January, 1935?

The numbers were 425 and 453, respectively, exclusive of aircraft of the Fleet Air Arm in home waters, numbering 86 and 108, respectively, at the dates specified. In addition, on both dates there were available 127 aircraft on the first-line establishment of non-regular squadrons.

Do I understand from those figures that the Government have changed their minds as to the immediate desirability of putting this country on a parity basis with all countries within striking distance of our shores?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether there has been any increase in the total number of first-line military aircraft of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics during the last 12 months?

There has undoubtedly been a substantial increase on the strength of 1,300–1,500 first-line aircraft which I gave my hon. Friend a year ago, but I am not in a position to give any definite figures.

Can my right hon. Friend tell the House the reason for this sudden expansion of the Soviet air arm, and does he consider that Russia is within striking distance of this country?

asked the Prime Minister whether he will state the results of the experiments recently carried out in the East End of London in making and building houses proof against aerial gas attack as part of the precautionary measures intended to be taken?

I have no knowledge of the experiments which the hon. Member suggests are being carried out in the East End of London. Perhaps he would be good enough to give me some information upon what he based his question.

Aviation (Landing Facilities, Weymouth)

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that the only possible aerodrome near Weymouth is to have buildings erected on it in connection with the Western Counties Show; and whether he proposes to take steps to keep this field free for aviation during the whole of the summer months?

It will be appreciated that the use that is made of the land in question is a matter for the owners, and, whilst my Noble Friend would like to see it preserved for use as a landing ground, he has no power to require it to be kept free from buildings. I may add that it has not hitherto been regularly licensed as an aerodrome.

Unemployment

Insurance Fund

asked the Minister of Labour the present assets and liabilities of the Unemployment Insurance Fund?

After allowing for the accrued charge for debt services under Section 18 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1934, there is a sum of approximately £10,310,000 in hand on the insurance account of the Unemployment Fund; the amount of the funded debt outstanding is about £105,740,000.

Special Area Commissioner (Publicity Agent Officer)

asked the Minister of Labour whether he can inform the House as to the amount of the lump sum which is to be paid to the advertising officer established at the offices of the Greyhound Association out of the £2,000,000 to be provided for the depressed areas up to 31st March, 1935?

The commissioner for England and Wales has made arrangements whereby he has a claim upon part-time of the services of a publicity agent for the purpose of explaining from time to time, as may be necessary, the various schemes and activities in progress. The agent in question, who undertakes work not only for the Greyhound Association, where his offices are situated, but for other bodies, will be remunerated by fee. He is not a salaried member of the commissioner's staff.

Assistance (Adjustment of Allowances)

asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any statement to make in regard to the special arrangement made with the Sheffield Corporation in respect of unemployment assistance payments?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on Friday to the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) by the Prime Minister.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the grave disturbance in the public mind caused by this surrender to mob violence in a particular case?

If the hon. Member had been here on Friday he would have heard one of the representatives of the city council state that this approach was decided upon before the riots in question.

Does not the position show that the Government are susceptible to advice from outside quarters if it is valuable?

Appeal Tribunals

asked the Minister of Labour how many of the chairmen of the appeal tribunals under the Unemployment Insurance Act who have been appointed recently are in receipt of pensions from any source; and if they are surrendering these pensions during the period of their appointment?

asked the Minister of Labour how many of those appointed as chairmen or vice-chairmen under the Unemployment Act, 1934, are in receipt of a Government pension; what is the amount of such pension; and will he state their names?

Out of 357 persons appointed as chairmen or reserve chairmen of appeal tribunals 20 are in receipt of pensions payable out of monies provided by Parliament, and seven others are in receipt of pensions payable from other Government Funds such as Indian Revenues. I would point out that these chairmen and reserve chairmen are remunerated by fee; the rules as to the adjustment of pension when a person in receipt of a pension out of public funds is employed in Government service will be applied. I will circulate the detailed information desired in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:

asked the Minister of Labour whether he has formed the appeal tribunals for the West Riding of Yorkshire under the Unemployment Act, 1934; and, if so, whether he will give the names, occupation and qualification of the members?

Yes, Sir. With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the names and occupations of the chairmen and vice-chairmen, and I will send the hon. Member particulars with regard to the representatives of the Unemployment Assistance Board and the panel of workpeople's representatives. In this connection, I would refer the hon. Member to the answers given to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr.

UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE ACT, 1934.

APPEAL TRIBUNALS.

List of persons appointed as Chairmen and Reserve Chairmen of Appeal Tribunals in the West Riding of Yorkshire.

Tribunal.

Name.

Occupation.

Barnsley

Norman Goodyear, Esq.

Solicitor.

G.H. Wilson, Esq.

Director of Company.

Bradford

Capt. A. W. Brown, M.B.E., J.P.

Local Official of the British Electrical Development Association.

Fred Pickering, Esq., O.B.E., J.P.

Retired Umbrella Manufacturer; Chairman of Bradford City Court and other Public Service.

J. C. Scott, Esq.

Solicitor.

Alderman J. Berry, J.P.

Retired Insurance Official; Chairman of Municipal Committees.

Dewsbury

Norman A. Blackburn, Esq.

Architect.

George E. Fergusson, Esq., LL.B.

Solicitor.

Doncaster

W. H. Carlile, Esq.

Solicitor.

A. B. Dunne, Esq.. M.B., B.A.

Medical Officer of Health.

Halifax

Lewis Rhodes, Esq., M.A., J.P.

Solicitor.

Ernest P. Learoyd, Esq.

Accountant.

Huddersfield

H. A. Bennie Gray, Esq., M.I.Mech.E.

Mechanical Engineer.

Harold H. Ramsden, Esq.

Solicitor.

Leeds

Prof. D. McCandlish, M.Sc.

Professor, Leeds University.

Hugh Prince, Esq.

Solicitor.

Mrs. Leonora Cohen, O.B.E., J.P.

Married Woman.

Wakefield

Arthur E. Hartley, Esq.

Solicitor.

J. Hardy Richards, Esq.

Director of Company.

O. D. Griffiths, Esq., M.A.

Director of Company.

York

Stanley R. Slack, Esq., B.A.

Retired Headmaster.

G. G. Stephenson, Esq., J.P.

Retired Bank Manager.

Rotherham

G. Marshall Hattersley, Esq., M.A., LL.B.

Solicitor.

Sheffield

W. A. Lambert, Esq.

Solicitor.

A. H. Styring, Esq.

Solicitor.

H. Keeble-Hawson, Esq.

Solicitor.

Public Health

Milk Supplies

asked the Minister of Health whether it is proposed to initiate legislation or to issue regulations with a view to securing a cleaner milk supply?

Detailed regulations for securing the production and distribution of clean milk are already contained in the Milk and Dairies Order of 1926 and it is not proposed at present to introduce legislation or to issue further regulations for this purpose. The question of the steps to be taken to secure a safer milk supply is under consideration in connection with the recommendations made on this subject in the recent report of the

Lawson) and the hon. Member for Neath (Sir W. Jenkins) on Thursday last.

Following is the list:

Cattle Diseases Committee of the Economic Advisory Council.

Will my hon. Friend take steps to see that an adequate water supply is provided for cleansing the cowsheds, etc.?

Chinese Eggs

asked the Minister of Health whether he has evidence of the sanitary conditions under which the greatly increased supplies of liquid eggs from China are produced and prepared for market; what effective methods of inspection are carried out in this country; and whether he will cause full inquiry to be made through our representatives in China?

My right hon. Friend has no evidence about the sanitary conditions under which eggs from China are produced and prepared for market, but such eggs are subject to examination at the ports of entry to this country and are liable to seizure and condemnation if found to be unsound or otherwise unfit for human consumption. It is, further, a requirement that imported eggs shall be free from preservatives. My right hon. Friend is not aware of any instance in which disease-producing organisms have been found in imported eggs, but he proposes to arrange for a special bacteriological examination of some samples of these eggs.

Will my hon. Friend ask the Minister to inform the House why we should receive these vast quantities of Chinese eggs without hygienic precautions similar to those imposed on our own producers?

Maternity Cases (Insurance Benefits)

asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called by the West Ham Insurance Committee to the present circumstances of unemployed pregnant insured women in relation to the benefits of National Health and Unemployment Insurance; whether he is aware that the experience of local insurance committees is to the effect that insurance medical practitioners and others have reported cases in which unemployed pregnant women, fully insured under the National Health and the Unemployment Insurance Schemes, through the interpretation of the regulations and rules have failed to obtain the cash benefit of either during part of the term of pregnancy although, in fact, entitled to the benefit of one or the other; and whether therefore he will, in collaboration with the other Government Departments, devise a scheme for the removal of the hardship from which these insured women suffer?

My right hon. Friend's attention has been, called to the statement of the West Ham Insurance Committee. He is having inquiries made into the matter and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as they are completed.

House of Lords

asked the Prime Minister what steps are being taken by the Government to secure that the long-promised reform of the Second Chamber shall be dealt with during the life of the present Parliament, so as to prevent the enacting of any unconstitutional legislation until the electorate have been given an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the matter?

It is impossible at this stage to make any statement as regards legislation during the remainder of the present Parliament.

Does not the Prime Minister recognise that the seriousness of the position in which this country stands in not having a Second Chamber has latterly been greatly increased, and does he not think it desirable and essential to amend the Parliament Act to provide that no constitutional change shall be made without an appeal to the people?

Australia (Sir Maurice Hankey's Visit)

asked the Prime Minister the circumstances in which Sir Maurice Hankey, after a visit to Australia which was to be private and without political significance, has recommended in a report the re-introduction of compulsory military training and the re-organisation of Australian defences; whether this report will be made public; and to whom it is to be rendered?

I think the best reply to the hon. Member's question is to quote the official statement issued in Australia on the 11th January, which is as follows:

"The Minister of Defence (Mr. Parkhill), yesterday referred to the statement that the Secretary of the Imperial Defence Committee (Sir Maurice Hankey) had urged the re-institution of compulsory military training. It could be definitely stated, he said, that a request for compulsory training was not among Sir Maurice Hankey's observations.

The facts were that Sir Maurice Hankey had been for long connected with advisory positions in England, and opportunity was taken to obtain from Sir Maurice first-hand information regarding matters that were within his official knowledge."

Immediately on his return to this country, Sir Maurice Hankey categorically denied the report that he had given such advice, and I cannot refrain from regretting that the hon. Member has seen fit to renew the false report.

Trade and Commerce

Eggs

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the apparent failure of the voluntary restriction of egg imports and the increased British home production, he will institute a system of licences similar to that applied to potatoes, so as to ensure to the British producer an increasing share of his home market as contemplated in the terms of the Marketing Act, 1933?

The position with regard to the voluntary control of the importation of eggs was stated in the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries on the 7th February to a question asked by my hon. Friend. As regards future action, it is not possible at present to make any statement. I would remind my hon. Friend that the report of the Eggs and Poultry Reorganisation Commission was only issued last week, and that the commission for Great Britain has only recently been appointed.

Matches

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Russian matches are being imported into this country at 5s. 10d. per gross of boxes containing 50 matches each; that Japanese matches are also entering the country at 5s. 10d. per gross boxes, in both cases inclusive, at these prices, of an import duty of 4s. 9d. per gross boxes; and, in view of the extent of unemployment amongst British match-makers, will he adopt further measures, by restriction of imports or otherwise, to remedy the position?

There is no power to impose a quantitative restriction on the importation of matches, and any question of an increase in the Customs duty on them is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Will my hon. Friend be so good as to consider the possibility of preventing these foreign matches from coming into the country at all?

Can we have published the names of the firms who import these matches, and is it not a fact that most of them are supporters of the Government?

Russian Timber

50 and 51.

asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether Timber Distributors, Limited, asked for and obtained the approval of the Board of Trade of their new contract with the Russian timber trading department, which allows for an increase of 50,000 standards of Russian timber in 1935 over that imported in 1934;

(2) whether the contract between Timber Distributors, Limited, and the Russian timber trading department included a fall clause; and, if it does, how was this permitted, in view of the terms of the Ottawa agreements?

I understand that Timber Distributors, Limited, have concluded a contract which provides for a maximum import from the Soviet Union of 400,000 standards of sawn soft wood and contains a rise and fall clause. The questions raised by the contract are receiving careful consideration, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Persian Carpets and Rugs

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can furnish particulars of the transactions sanctioned under the Import Duties Act whereby Messrs. Gooch, of Brompton Road, London, were enabled to import 270,000 square yards of Persian carpets and rugs in exchange for a similar quantity of British carpets; whether duty was paid on the Persian goods; and whether the firm was authorised by him to publish an advertisement stating that the importation had been permitted?

I have been asked to reply. I have no knowledge of the transactions in question. No special sanction for the importation of Persian carpets and rugs is necessary under the Import Duties Act, 1932, but payment of any duty due under that Act is required before such goods are released out of Customs charge. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Does the hon. Gentleman think it desirable that advertisers should publish advertisements of this character which indicate that certain transactions receive the specific sanction of the Government?

Danube (Shipping Dues)

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the handicap to trade between Great Britain and the Danube ports imposed by the heavy dues levied by the European Commission of the Danube on the total register tonnage of shipping using these ports, irrespective of the amount of cargo carried; and whether instructions will be given to the representative of Great Britain on the European Commission of the Danube to endeavour to secure some lightening of these dues?

I have been unable to trace any recent representations on this subject. The position is a somewhat complicated one, and my right hon. Friend does not think that the present would be an opportune time to address instructions to the British representative on the lines suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend.

As the amount of British shipping cleared from the Danube ports in 1933 amounted to more than 136,000 tons, is this not a matter of some importance?

I think it is a matter of importance, but it is also rather complicated. If the hon. and gallant Member has anything further, perhaps we might deal with it by correspondence.

Kenya and Uganda (Japanese Imports)

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the amount of Japanese imports into Kenya for the year 1929 and the year 1933 or the last available date?

The imports into Kenya and Uganda (which are grouped together) from Japan were valued at £488,000 in 1929 and £633,000 in 1933. It is not possible to give the figures for Kenya alone, and figures for 1934 are not yet available.

Mauritius (Sugar Industry)

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what special assistance has been given to the sugar industry in the island of Mauritius; and if he will state why the assistance was required?

In consequence of unfavourable climatic conditions there was a serious fall in the sugar crop of Mauritius last year. This, combined with the low prices prevailing, reduced the receipts of the producers to such an extent that the reserves available in the island were likely to be insufficient to finance the forthcoming season's crop, especially as reserves had been depleted by several years of depression. I have accordingly approved a guarantee being offered by the Colonial Government to local banks up to a sum of £450,000 to enable them to secure the funds necessary to make the usual crop advances to planters. I have also indicated that I am prepared to approve the establishment of an agricultural mortgage bank in the Colony with the financial assistance of the local Government as a step towards the permament reform of the financial structure of the industry.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the continued subsidy to the British beet-sugar industry is in no way conected with the necessity for this assistance?

Irish Free State

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has any further agreements with the Irish Free State under consideration; and, if so, what is their nature?

As I stated in the House on 28th January, if the recent arrangement could be extended, the Government would certainly welcome it. But no definite proposal to this end is under consideration at the present time?

Would it not be prudent to get the Government of the Free State to honour their obligations in the past before making any fresh ones?

My hon. Friend knows perfectly well that the policy of the British Government is to see that the obligations are honoured, so far as they can do so. The recent agreement, coal versus cattle, certainly helps in that direction, and not hinders.

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs why the recent coal-cattle agreement with the Irish Free State did not follow the usual practice in trade agreements; what precedents exist for such a course; and under what authority it was made?

As I explained in reply to questions in the House on the 28th January, the recent arrangement with the Irish Free State was not a formal trade agreement but an informal understanding. The only action called for on the part of the United Kingdom Government was in connection with the cattle quota which, as my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Agriculture, explained in reply to questions on the 4th February, is an administrative matter.

In view of the fact that the Members of this Government have collectively desecrated the treaty and individually taken the Parliamentary oath with mental reservations, does my right hon. Friend think that this type of agreement is a very appropriate one?

Education (Milk Supply Scheme)

asked the President of the Board of Education, how many children are at present receiving free milk under the new milk-in-schools scheme; and what is the estimated figure to which this should rise during the present year?

The latest date for which complete returns are available is December, 1934. During this month the number of children provided with free milk by local education authorities was 198,462. It is not possible to say precisely how many of these children received milk under the new Milk in Schools Scheme, but arrangements for supplying the milk at the reduced rates are in force in practically all the areas. Since the inception of the scheme in October, 1934, there has been a steady increase in the number of children receiving free milk, but it is not possible to say what figure may ultimately be reached.

Are there any counties in which this scheme is not yet operating?

It is operating in practically all areas, though there may be one or two where it is not.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether children who are absent from school through illness are entitled to receive this free, or cheap, milk?

Metropolitan Police (Borrowing Powers) Bill

asked the Home Secretary whether, in the event of the Metropolitan Police (Borrowing Powers) Bill, 1935, being passed, it will place an extra rate upon the various local authorities in the Metropolitan police area?

As I explained when moving the Second Reading of this Bill on Monday last, it is estimated that the additional cost to the ratepayers of the Metropolitan Police District during the currency of the loans will amount, on the basis of present figures, to the produce of a ¼d. rate a year.

Trench Accident, Hurdsfield, Cheshire

asked the Home Secretary whether he has received a report from one of his inspectors in connection with the accident to three men who were buried up to their necks by 14 tons of earth at Hurdsfield, Cheshire; if he can state the depth of the trench; and whether it was closely timbered?

I understand that a trench for a sewer was being cut behind some dwelling houses, and at the point of collapse was 4 feet 6 inches to 5 feet deep and partly timbered, and the ground practically all clay, so that danger was not anticipated. Such work is outside the scope of the Factory Acts, and I have no power to regulate the methods of timbering.

Burglaries, East Finchley

asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that in Bishops Avenue, East Finchley, every house but two has been burgled in the last two years, one house five times in as many months, and that on 5th February burglars raided a house in Bishops Avenue, extracted a 5-cwt. safe, and lowered it 30 feet into the garden and escaped; that there have been complaints from other districts in the Metropolitan area of repeated burglaries in the same streets; and whether he will issue instructions to the police that special precautions shall be taken in those streets where numerous burglaries have taken place at frequent intervals?

As my hon. Friend is aware, I have spoken to the Commissioner of Police about this matter. All cases of this kind have the personal consideration of the Commissioner, and my hon. Friend may be sure that the situation in this district is receiving the fullest attention. I may add that the facts are not quite as stated in the question. There are 60 houses in Bishops Avenue, which is almost a mile long. I am informed that since the beginning of 1933, 13 crimes involving 10 houses have been reported, including the case on the 5th instant, and in six of them the offenders have been arrested and sentenced. No house has been entered more than twice.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to say whether there is anything in the suggestion that all this has occurred because the superintendent of police for the division is an ex-soldier without any police experience?

Disturbance, Sheffield (Arrests)

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can call for a report from the chief constable as to what were the circumstances which led to the breaking up by the police of a demonstration in Sheffield of unemployed men and women protesting against the new scales of relief?

I have received reports from the chief constable in regard to the disorder which occurred on this occasion. I understand that there was a crowd of about 10,000 persons; 26 persons were arrested, three of whom were subsequently released. Of the remainder, 21 have been charged with assaults upon the police, one with obstructing the police in the execution of their duty, and one with committing a breach of the peace. They have been remanded on bail until the 15th instant, and the hon. Member will appreciate that in the circumstances it would not be proper for me to make any further comment on the case at the present time.

Would it not be proper for the Home Secretary to institute an independent inquiry in the City of Sheffield as to the circumstances that led the police of that city to attack a peaceful demonstration, demonstrating on a perfectly legitimate grievance through the streets of Sheffield; and will the Minister make inquiries from some other person than the person responsible for making the attack on the demonstration?

I am sure that the House will realise that the kind of question which the hon. Member has put to me prejudges whether these were peaceful operations or not. Until the cases are tried I am not in a position to express an opinion.

Pending a settlement, or in consequence of a settlement being arrived at between the authorities and the Government, would it not be much better to advise that the prosecutions be withdrawn?

Entertainments Duty

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the possibility of granting relief from the Entertainments Duty to theatrical entertainments in which the human element predominates?

My hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion has been noted, but he will not expect me to anticipate the Budget statement.

Would the Minister in the meanwhile agree that the legitimate theatre, in which a great amount of employment is given, has a prior claim to relief over the mechanical theatre?

British North Atlantic Shipping Interests

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the Red Star Liners "Pennland" and "Westernland" are at present owned by the British firm of Messrs. Frederick Leyland and Company, Limited, he is aware that the suggested purchase of these vessels by British interests would not involve the transfer of funds abroad; and whether he will consider the advisability of taking such steps as will ensure that these ships remain under the British flag?

I understand that the firm of Messrs. Frederick Leyland and Company, Limited, is controlled by the International Mercantile Marine Company of America, and is disposing of its assets. A sale by it would, therefore, involve a transfer of funds abroad.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that these ships have already been transferred to Germany, owing to the dilatory action of the Government?

Is it not a fact that the Leyland Company will transfer the money to the United States whoever buys the ships?

Overseas Investments

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount of British capital has been invested in Empire countries during the last 10 years; and whether there are figures to show the comparative returns from investments in Empire and in other countries during the same period?

No official statistics on this subject are available, but I may mention that according to the estimates compiled by the Midland Bank, new issues on the London market for Empire countries (which are likely to differ materially from the amount of capital invested) amounted during the last 10 years to £543,000,000. As regards the comparative yield of investments in Empire and other countries, even unofficial estimates are very incomplete. Some light is thrown on the matter for one or two isolated years by the data compiled by Sir Robert Kindersley and the "Economist," which may be found conveniently summarised in the Bank of England Statistical Summary for August, 1932, July, 1933, and September, 1934.

Civil Service (Women)

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether His Majesty's Government have adopted as governmental policy the report of the National Whitley Committee on Women's Questions in the Civil Service, dated 23rd March, 1934; if so, whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to continue the policy of preference for ex-service men for posts in the Civil Service; and whether, in so far as this report abrogates the policy of preference for ex-service men, the latter will hold good?

The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative. The report of the committee referred to did not in any way affect the existing preference to ex-service men in the matter of employment in the Civil Service; the third part of the question does not therefore arise.

Transport (Pedestrians' Crossing-Places)

asked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet received a report in connection with the laying of yellow and black asphalt squares at a pedestrian crossing in Hammersmith Road, London; and, if these coloured crossings serve a better purpose than the metal studs, whether it is his intention to have further crossings laid?

I have been asked to reply. This crossing in Hammersmith Road has been laid down experimentally with a view to ascertaining whether, by the use of special paving material, pedestrian crossings can be made sufficiently distinctive from the remainder of the carriageway. Similar experiments are being carried out with other materials, and some time must necessarily elapse before any conclusions are reached as to the best types of material to be used for this purpose.

Colombia and Peru

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Colombian Congress has yet ratified the agreement signed at Rio de Janeiro in execution of the Geneva arrangement of 25th March, 1933, for the settlement of the Leticia war between Colombia and Peru; and whether the dispute still continues?

The Colombian Government have strongly recommended to Congress that this agreement should be approved. While the Colombian House of Representatives authorised its ratification on the 23rd December last, the Senate has not yet agreed to this step, although its sessions were extended with a view to enabling this question to be decided. In view of the attitude adopted by the Opposition in the Senate, the Colombian President decided to bring the present session of Congress to an end on the 6th February. It is understood that a general election will take place in May, after which the Colombian Government may be placed in a position to effect ratification without delay.

Of course, the dispute cannot be regarded as settled until both the parties have ratified the proposed agreement. In the meantime, no action will be taken which interferes with the negotiations. The Peruvian Government are confining their action to calling the attention of the League of Nations to the circumstances.

Coal Industry (Explosion, Yorkshire)

( by Private Notice ) asked the Secretary for Mines if he has any information regarding the explosion which occurred yesterday at Woolley Parkgate Colliery; how many persons were injured and whether any of them have since died?

I greatly regret having to inform the House that an explosion of firedamp occurred at Woolley Park-gate Colliery early yesterday afternoon during an exploration of an area which was sealed off in November last following a fire. A rescue team had examined part of the area in the morning and the conditions appeared to be suitable for further exploration, which was undertaken by a second rescue team in the afternoon. The explosion took place soon after this second team had entered the area, and involved also four officials and an inspector of mines who were present. Ten persons, including the agent, the manager (who is critically ill) and the inspector, were injured by burning, and the House will, I am sure, wish to join me in expressing sympathy for their injuries and hope for their early recovery. The area has since been re-sealed.

New Member Sworn

Joseph Jackson Cleary, Esquire, for the Borough of Liverpool (Wavertree Division).

Selection (Standing Committees)

Standing Committee A

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Mr. Savery; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Lees-Jones.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (added in respect of the Housing Bill): Mrs. Tate; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Bossom.

Standing Committee B

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Mr. Drewe, Miss Lloyd George, Mr. Ross Taylor and Mrs. Runge; and had appointed in substitution: Major Lloyd George, Major Sir Samuel Harvey, Mr. Orr-Ewing and Major Renwick.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Herring Industry Bill): Sir Arthur Michael Samuel; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Arnold Wilson.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Civil Estimates (Supplementary Estimates, 1934)

Estimate presented,—of a further Sum required to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1935 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day

Government of India Bill

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [ 6th 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 goodwill and co-operation of the Indian people by recognising explicitly 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."

On a point of Order. May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, before the hon. Member starts to speak, with regard to the Division that is to take place this evening? Is is not a fact that the only vote which will take place will be on the Amendment which has been proposed by the official Opposition, and that under the Standing Orders you, Sir, will be bound, if that Amendment is defeated, to declare that the Bill is read a Second time; and that, consequently, there will be no opportunity for any Division on the Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time"?

Yes; the right hon. Baronet has exactly interpreted what the Standing Order says. Standing Order No. 33 lays down that on the occasion of a Second or Third Reading, when there is any question of leaving out words and inserting others, and it has been decided that the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Question, the Bill, after that, is read the Second or Third time automatically. There will be only one Division.

When the Debate was adjourned on Friday, I had pointed out the difference between pledge and policy, and I was about to conclude that part of my observations by saying that we insist upon this distinction not to urge any change of policy, but, on the contrary, to urge the careful and determined execution of the policy set out in the Preamble to the Act of 1919. I should have liked to-day to develop to the House an argument upon more than one of the issues that have been raised in this Debate, but I deliberately refrain from doing so, for the reason that I understand that His Majesty's Attorney-General wishes to address the House at an early stage of the Debate, and I assure hon. Members that it is not my intention to stand between him and them. I shall address myself solely to one matter, but a matter which is of vital importance. I mean, the statement made by the Secretary of State on Wednesday last in regard to Dominion status. I think the House is entitled to know what meaning His Majesty's Government read into this highly ambiguous phrase. Let me remind hon. Members of the exact words of the Secretary of State. He said: upon the Preamble to the Act, the language of which he finds sufficient and comprehensive; and, indeed, the Preamble is the only safe and sure ground to rest upon. Why, then, did he resuscitate the Viceroy's declaration? The Viceroy's declaration was not necessary to the interpretation of the Preamble. Does the statement of the Secretary of State add anything to the Preamble? If so, what does it add? If not, why was it made? The expression "Dominion status" was deliberately avoided by the Statutory Commission and by the Joint Select Committee. To most men it is an expression of ambiguous meaning. But there can be no ambiguity in the mind of the Government, who have now repeated it in the most formal and solemn manner. Therefore, I invite His Majesty's Government to state exactly what it does mean.

Does status mean position, or does it mean Constitution? If it means position, then I say that a nation has that status which is secured to it by its history, by its art, and by its contribution to the happiness and welfare of the human race. But that status is independent of a Constitution. A nation, however, in which constitutional changes are occurring, is not, I think, content with that interpretation of status; it desires the embodiment of power in political forms. Does, then, status mean Constitution? If so, then I say that Dominion status means a Constitution which is comparable in its essential characteristics with the Constitution of any of His Majesty's Dominions. Do, then, His Majesty's Government, in any period of time for which we are legislating and to which this language applies, contemplate the limitation of the powers of the Governor-General of India within the limits that circumscribe the action, to take one instance, of the Governor-General of Australia? Do they contemplate the subjection of the Imperial Army in India to the orders of an Indian Minister responsible to the Indian Legislature? For these things are involved in the constitutional status of a Dominion, and there can be no doubt that in the understanding of India these are the characteristics of the Constitution which the language of the Secretary of State holds out to her in prospect.

It is really time to know where we stand, and to resolve these doubts and ambiguities. It is time to tell the truth to the House and to India in language plain and precise. Will the Attorney-General find it convenient to elucidate the points that I now put to him? Is the constitutional status of India, the attainment of which is contemplated by the statement of the Secretary of State, determined by the provisions of the Statute of Westminster? Under the constitutional development which His Majesty's Government contemplate, has India the right to secede from the British Empire? In this connection I should like to bring to the recollection of the House a statement that has been made by Mr. Srinivasa Sastri, a most distinguished Indian Liberal and, though it is hardly necessary to remind hon. Members of the fact, a Member of His Majesty's Privy Council. On 22nd July, 1930, Mr. Sastri, addressing in this country the East India Association, used these words:

3.54 p.m.

Every listener to the Debate must have been impressed by the sustained dignity of the discussion. Notwithstanding the very sharp differences that divide us, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have used forbearance in the expression of opinions sincerely felt, and I hope I shall be able to follow these good examples. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has been no exception. I shall have something to say later in reply to the questions that he has put to the Government and to me, and I shall have a word to say also about the rather fine spun distinction which he seemed to me to draw on Friday between the binding character of what he called a pledge or a promise and a declaration of policy. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) on Thursday was inclined to make it a matter of complaint that so little attention appears to have been given by the Government to the criticisms of the official Opposition and to their Amendment. I am sure hon. Members will accept the statement that it is out of no discourtesy to them if we have appeared to underrate the force of their argument. Perhaps, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman invited us to give a little more attention to the Opposition and their Amendment, I may say how gratifying it is to us that the policy that was declared by the Leader of the Opposition last June to be the official Labour policy finds no countenance in the present Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman's policy, which he deliberately said was Labour's policy, was that the Indians should be invited to summon a constituent assembly and then that they should be left to make the best of it that they could. No one who has studied the facts, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stepney (Mr. Attlee) and the Member for Broxstowe (Mr. Cocks) has done, could subscribe to the right hon. Gentleman's policy, and no one is surprised that it is no longer Labour's policy.

So far as the official Amendment is concerned, it introduces this question of Dominion status, and I propose to say something about that before I finish, but it introduces another theme. It suggests that the workers and peasants have nothing to gain from the Bill. Let me try to examine that suggestion. The question is often put in this way. Does this Bill as a whole make for the better Government of India? I will try to answer that question. I am entitled to ask my hon. Friends in this connection, and particularly the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), whether he really believes that their plan, what I may call a strictly rationed piece of self-government in the Provinces, would be for the better Government of India. The hon. Member for Chertsey (Sir A. Boyd-Carpenter) gave what I am sure would be his answer to the question. He was very eloquent as to the demand in India for the British Raj. I am sure what he intended to convey was that the great population of India want no change at all in their relations to the governing power. Indeed, I understand he suggested that he would like to go back to the pre-1919 position. But no one else seriously suggests that.

It is not surprising, therefore, that my right hon. and hon. Friends who are opposing the Bill have propounded a more attractive line of argument. They have suggested that the Bill neglects the interests of the masses. My first answer to that will be that you cannot pick out the masses and deal with them as if their interests were not the interests of the nations of India as a whole. A nation is not so simple an affair as all that. You cannot segregate the masses and put them, as it were, in a compound where they will be insulated from the discord and discontent which may be seen in other directions. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft), I think it was—he will forgive me if I am wrong—suggested that the electors of the humbler classes take no interest in the development of political thought, and would vote just as they were told, going to the polling booth like sheep. I very much doubt whether that is so. I remember an incident related to me by a ruling Prince of one of the native States who was also a member of one of the Round Table Conferences. He told me that he had been hunting a long way from any centre of population, and his motor car was waiting for him. As he came to it at the end of his expedition he saw standing beside it a tall, gaunt, thinly-clad old man leading a little boy as emaciated as himself. He thought that the old man had come with the lad to look at his great shining Rolls Royce car. He was not a little surprised when he discovered that the old man had waited to ask what had been the result of some vote of the Congress party, and then departed satisfied. I suggest that the masses of India are becoming very much more alive to political thought and more familiar with the ideas of political power than some of my hon. Friends would have us believe.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey referred to the confidence which is reposed by the Indian people in men of our own race. He will forgive me for saying that I think he passed rather a harsh judgment upon the Lord President of the Council, who suggested that the days in which the white man was looked upon as the only guide, philosopher and friend of the Indian people had passed. I have no right to tell my hon. Friend that he was behind the times, but there is good reason, I am told, to believe that the district officer is no longer the embodiment of all political wisdom and authority for the working masses of India. [ Interruption. ] My hon. Friend seems to think that that is a cause for dissatisfaction. I take the opposite view. I regard it as a compliment that has been paid to us if we have taught the people of India to honour the men of their own race, as we honour our own race. However that may be, of one thing I am sure. You may postpone a decision of this great question on the plea of untimeliness, that the Indian people are not ready for it. You may observe the wind and not sow; you may regard the clouds and not plough. You will only flout the aspirations you yourselves have aroused; you will dissipate the very confidence you have inspired. My hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey, who was so eloquent about the respect of the Indian for the Englishman, will have to rearrange his arguments. There is no doubt, at any rate, that we do hold the confidence of the Indian masses. Is it quite certain that if we disappoint the expectations which we ourselves have aroused on this occasion, we shall be able next time to use this tremendous asset for a partnership with the Indian peoples in the government of their country which, for so long, we have governed for them? Draw back, and who can tell whether we shall ever be in the same position with regard to their confidence that we are in to-day?

My hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) and hon. Gentlemen opposite have particularly referred to the Depressed Classes. They have spoken of the poverty and destitution under which so many of those people suffer. The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) expressed a desire, which I am sure he sincerely felt, and with which we should all sympathise, that we should bring the standard of living of the Indian people as soon as possible to the level of our own people. A magician's wand might do it, but nothing else will do it except the efforts of the Indian people themselves when they have got the best minds and the biggest hearts they can find to solve the almost insoluble questions of caste and creed that have, to a great extent baffled us. Our great administrators and engineers have paved the way. Those who have brought education to the Indian people have prepared the minds of the people. What is now wanted is the contribution that can be made by India alone, and I can see nothing that is more likely to quicken the pace of those reforms we should all like to see in these matters than the sense of power and responsibility.

May I add one more comment upon this part of the criticisms which have been made? I have been a little sorry to hear the somewhat disparaging observations which have been made about the Indian politicians. It is inevitable, I suppose, that those who talk most in India, just as in this country, should get most of the limelight.

The right hon. Gentleman seems to resent that anybody except himself should speak. We have not quite come to that in this country. I do not suppose that Indian politicians are immune from the faults which we see in ourselves, or, shall I say, in each other. There are public-spirited people in India as there are in this country. If these reforms are to work, our task is largely to attract into the legislatures and ministries the men who will be attracted by the ambitions these new reforms will offer to them. Why should we deny to those men the am- bitions which we ourselves value? Edmund Burke said he wanted to be a Member of Parliament to have his share in doing good and resisting evil. Are there no men in India who feel the same ambitions? And are we the people to deny those ambitions if they feel them? I believe those are right who look forward with new hope to the future of the depressed classes in India. Because of the power at the poll which they will receive, they will be a political force to be reckoned with, and the reform of the age-long abuse of Untouchability may become one of the dominant questions of Indian politics. If my hon. Friends asked me what the depressed classes and the masses of India have to gain by this Bill, my answer would be—everything.

There is at least one matter which admittedly concerns the masses very closely indeed, and I want to say a few words about that. The inclusion of law and order within the sphere of the action of Ministers has naturally and properly bulked largely in these Debates. My right hon. Friend and hon. Friends who assail the Bill are not alone in the importance which they attach to this question. In every line of the relevant paragraphs of the report of the Statutory Commission there are indications of the anxiety which the members of the commission felt upon this question, but that makes the substantial unanimity of the conclusions which have been arrived at the more impressive. Not only the Statutory Commission, not only the Joint Committee, but the Round Table Conference, the Government of India and the Government of this country have all come to the same conclusion after considering the matter with the best powers that they could command. I am aware of the opinion which my right hon. Friend holds of the stature of the Members of the Government. I am aware of the opinion which some of his friends expressed.

My right hon. Friend is never personal, if he will allow me to say so. He is never offensive in the wrong sense, but I am aware, at any rate, of the opinion which some of his hon. Friends hold as to the influences to which the great public servants in India have been exposed. But do not let me take the Government, or the Government of India or the administrators in India, but let me ask the House to consider the report of the Statutory Commission, if only because the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox)—or was it the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor)?—agreed that the Statutory Commission was a wholly unbiased body, the one unbiased body which, he said, had considered these proposals.

Is it not perfectly true that the Statutory Commission, though it did recommend the transfer of law and order, made a most important reservation that one or more Ministers should not be elected?

If the hon. and gallant Member will forgive me, I will deal with that later. Let me first get the fact, which no one can dispute, that the Simon Commission reported with grave anxiety in favour of the transfer of this particular subject. Indeed, they not only reported in favour of it after consideration, but they set out the facts and arguments to which many of my hon. Friends have resorted to make their own case against the inclusion of law and order. You will never find a more complete, accurate and impressive statement of the disadvantages of the transfer than you will find in the report, the baneful effect of Communal differences, the vital importance of impartiality in police administration, the danger of deterioration in the discipline and prestige of the police which might upon a sudden crisis produce a sudden collapse of authority. All of them were set out in the Simon Commission's report. What was the result? The scales were set, the balance was taken and it was found to be in favour, on the whole, of the transfer. Now, says my hon. and gallant Friend, there were two reservations, or there was at least one reservation. I think the first reservation he suggested was that there was to be a special Minister or a nominated Minister. He is in error in that. If my hon. and gallant Friend will look at the report again, and refresh his mind, he will find that there was no direction, no condition that there should be a Minister. There was a proposal that there might be a Minister. That was a very different proposition.

If the Simon Commission attached the same importance as my hon. and gallant Friend does to that proposal, they would have inserted, not a permissive power but a mandatory direction which must be obeyed. Will he forgive me also for saying that there is no proposal that this Minister, nominated as he was, should hold any particular portfolio—none at all. It was a proposal, if I read the report aright, that had nothing at all to do with the conditions upon which alone the Statutory Commission were prepared to recommend the transfer of law and order.

Did not the Simon Commission very properly leave it to the Governor's discretion whether he should appoint a Minister or not? In certain Provinces you could obviously hand it over, but in others it would be dangerous to do so. Was not that the reason?

I cannot answer as to the reasons of the Statutory Commission except so far as they are expressed in the report which has been published.

I am prepared to answer every point which my hon. and gallant Friends desire to raise.

I should like to ask whether this condition that there might be a Minister who was nominated was not with particular reference to the transfer of law and order and, therefore, must have some particular significance when considering the transfer of law and order.

The answer to that, in the way in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has put it, is certainly, "No." I have already said that if the Simon Statutory Commission had attached the same importance to this proposal as my hon. and gallant Friends do, it would have been put in as a direction instead of as a suggestion. My hon. Friends cannot get away from that. The second suggestion or the second reservation which it is suggested was made by the Simon Commission affecting this proposal to transfer law and order was that there should be a strong Central Govern- ment, but you will find nothing in the Statutory Commission's report to suggest that the commission thought that the Central Government was going to intervene as such in consequence of any breakdown of law and order. The proposal was that the Governor should have certain powers and duties, but under the Governor-General, and under the Secretary of State, presumably, in the last resort. What the Simon Commission adumbrated in this respect has been drawn in clearer outline by the Joint Committee and by the Bill, and, if my hon. Friends will be good enough to look at the Bill, they will find the very same proposal there embodied, that the Governor, acting as the agent or under the directions of the Governor-General, and ultimately of the Secretary of State and of Parliament, was to intervene in the case of any breakdown.

My hon. and gallant Friend knows that I should, if it were convenient, like to meet every point which comes from his fertile and anxious mind, but that that mind, which has the sincerity which we all recognise in each other, should come to a different conclusion upon this important question shows how men may honestly differ. But the Government are at least entitled to claim that the grave and prolonged consideration of this question by the Statutory Commission is impressive. As I understand their report their main reason was this: they told us that the police had too often become the focus of political faction, that, while Indian politicians and the people enjoyed and indeed demanded the protection of the police, too often they made the police the target for their political criticisms. What is more likely to make those who will have to administer these reforms anxious to see that the police are used for their proper duties than the sense of responsibility they will now possess? I am indebted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for a phrase which puts the matter as I see it. To give these people the power of policy without the responsibility of maintaining order which may be connected with that policy is, as it were, "to light a fire without providing a chimney for it." It is the sense of responsibility which will help Ministers to realise the first, and almost the main elementary duty of a government, and that is to maintain order.

I cannot help thinking that if my hon. Friends are saying that they would agree to Provincial Autonomy if law and order were not transferred they are really clutching at a straw. They are not using words with their true meaning when they speak of Provincial Autonomy in the absence of the control of these departments that are comprehended in the phrase. The judges, the police, the gaols, and all the departments that come into touch with these departments are to be kept back from the control of those to whom it is said by my hon. Friends that they are prepared to transfer Provincial Autonomy. My hon. Friends are living in a world of make-believe in which they may deceive themselves if they call that Provincial Autonomy, but they will certainly not deceive the people who are most concerned. If I were free, or if I thought it right to express my own opinion, an opinion which has so little authority or weight behind it, as to this proposal, I should say, from such experience as I have, that a divorce between political power on the one hand, and authority in the sphere of public order on the other hand, would be certain to end in a collapse of either the one or the other. But once compel the critics to take responsibility upon their shoulders, I should expect, in the familiar phrase we sometimes use, that the poachers would be the best gamekeepers in the new circumstances. If I dwell on this matter, I hope I shall not be thought to insist too much. It has been made the critical issue between my hon. Friends and ourselves, apart from the question to which I am coming in a moment of Dominion status. The more this question is examined by minds that are prepared to be open to argument and to reason, the more likely is the conclusion of the House to be that at which the Statutory Commission arrived as well as the Joint Committee, that the department of law and order, should be a subject transferred to Ministers with other subjects.

I come to the question that no doubt chiefly interests the House, in so far as I have any observations to make. I think I am justified in saying that the declaration of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of the intentions of the Government has been generally accepted, that is to say, as making plain the intentions of the Government. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Gower said that the Opposition know that the Government stand firmly by the pledge in the Preamble and in the Declaration of the Viceroy. The words which my right hon. Friend used had behind them not merely the assent of the Government, but their considered judgment. As far as I know, apart from my hon. Friend who spoke before me, no one in this House or even outside the House has ever suggested that we could go back upon that which was contained in the Preamble. If I did not misunderstand my hon. Friend on Friday, he suggested that what people called the pledge or the promise in the Preamble in the Act was nothing but a declaration of policy, and that a declaration of policy is not binding but a promise is. I do not know anyone else in this House or outside the House who takes that view.

I did not at all suggest the abandonment of the policy laid down in the Preamble. On the contrary, both on Friday and at the beginning of my observations to-day, I made it plain that while we insist on the distinction, what we urge is the faithful, careful execution of the policy that is laid down in the Preamble.

The hon. Gentleman's explanation makes my task all the more easy on this part of the case. We may, therefore, accept the unanimous opinion of the House that the Government are right in maintaining both in the spirit and the letter their adherence to the Declaration contained in the Preamble. It was the second passage in the speech of my right hon. Friend which chiefly attracted comment. Perhaps it is useful to remember in passing that the Viceroy in 1929 had the express authority of the Government of the day behind him just as has my right hon. Friend, but it will also be remembered that the much quoted sentence as to Dominion status, in which the Viceroy described Dominion status as the natural issue of India's constitutional progress, was itself the result of doubts expressed both in this country and in India regarding the 1919 Declaration and the Montagu Declaration of 1917. My hon. Friend below the Gangway seems to suggest that there was some difference or some distinction to be drawn in intention and meaning between the Montagu Declaration of 1917 and the Preamble of 1919. I do not take that view, and I have never heard it suggested before. This House put in the Preamble in 1919 with a view to giving effect to the Montagu Declaration of 1917. Parliament at any rate did not take the view which my hon. Friend has presented to the House to-day. What is to happen? The Viceroy was himself, with the authority of the Government, putting an interpretation upon the 1919 Preamble. It is now suggested that we should pile Pelion on Ossa by putting yet another interpretation, suggested by hon. Gentlemen opposite, on that which was itself an interpretation.

The point is that, first of all, the interpretation of what was in the Act was called into question. The Viceroy cleared that up, and now it is argued that a Declaration by the Viceroy has not any binding effect unless it is passed by this House.

That is precisely the point upon which it is desirable we should concentrate our attention, and I think that I can ease the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. I am at present making this point that it is, generally speaking, more likely to darken counsel by merely multiplying words than to elucidate the meaning of words already used. To interpret an interpretation seems to be a course likely to cause more trouble than more clarity.

If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will meet his point precisely. Now it is said that, although the Declaration which my right hon. Friend made last Wednesday is satisfactory as far as it goes, it ought to have the legal sanction behind it of being embodied in a Preamble of the Bill. On this point, it is desirable to bear in mind that the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth drew a distinction between the legality or the bind- ing force of a Preamble and the validity of a mere Ministers expression of opinion on policy. I cannot help thinking that there is a good deal of confusion of thought in that distinction. A Preamble is, no doubt, an enactment, as far as it goes, upon which Parliament has expressed its opinion, but it is only binding, and it only has validity at any given moment not because Parliament originally gave it sanction, but because Parliament continues to give it its sanction. When Parliament changes its mind, and Parliament does sometimes change its mind, a Preamble loses its validity, and so does a Minister's statement. If a Minister makes a statement and the Government next day changes its mind, no doubt the statement of the Minister loses its validity. The point is that some declarations, whether in a Preamble or in a Minister's statement, are made under such conditions and to such people that it would not be honourable to depart from them. I want to persuade my hon. and gallant Friend, if I can, that he is wrong in saying that the Preamble is binding and the Viceroy's declaration is not. They are both of them equally binding, and for this reason, that they were both of them made to the people of India as a pledge, a promise, a declaration of policy, or whatever you like to call it, and they were accepted as such.

What I am arguing is, that a declaration of a Minister, with the assent of the Government behind it, is just as valid, just as strong, just as effective as anything you can put into a Preamble. Put your Preamble as high as you like, it is only efficacious or valid until Parliament choses to reverse it. So it is of the declaration of policy that my right hon. Friend has made. That will be binding upon this Government and upon every Government that may succeed it until a Government comes along—I hope it will never come along, having regard to our tradition of continuity of policy—and says: "We are not going to be bound by what the Secretary of State for India said in 1935."

That is the whole point, and I am very glad that my right hon. Friend has grasped it. The whole point is this, that my right hon. Friend's statement not only has, but was intended to have, precisely the same importance and to be treated with precisely the same respect as if the Government had been able to put it into the Preamble.

I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his courtesy. The point that has been raised, not by us, not by Indians, but by British-Indian statesmen, and also in this House and outside, that nothing is binding except it is embodied in an Act of Parliament. I should have thought that a Clause in the Act of Parliament or in the Preamble would be considered binding on the British Parliament, where the word of the Minister, or of the Viceroy, or of the King-Emperor has been called in question.

The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt deal with that point in his speech later to-night. What I have been trying to say, but I am not sure that I have succeeded, is that the declaration of my right hon. Friend must be accepted, and was intended to be accepted, as fully binding as the Preamble, and that whether you put it into the Preamble or only in the statement of the Government both of them are binding so long, and only so long, as the Government that succeeds, or the same Government, does not change its mind. I can quite understand views being taken that this declaration could be put into the Preamble. I do not take that view, and for reasons that I am going to mention. I think it would be extraordinarily difficult to frame suitable language as to the nature of the Dominion status which was intended to be conferred upon the Indian people, and put it in the formal framework of the Preamble.

In view of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, is it to be taken that if a statement is made by a Secretary of State and the Government is defeated by an enormous majority at the polls very shortly afterwards, that that statement inevitably stands? If that be the only test, is here going to be any chance of this House testing this vital issue?

Those are questions which any Member of the House can answer just as well as I. Everybody knows that any change of confidence by the electors results in a new Government, and a new Government may and often does reverse the policy of its predecessor. But there is this to remember, and any student of our constitutional history must recognise, that Governments even of directly opposing tendencies and opinions have been very tender indeed about matters of policy which concern other nations or other parts of the British Empire. It is one of the fundamental facts of our Constitution and the Constitution of our Empire, which no student of politics can afford to overlook. That continuity of our policy has been the keystone of the success with which we have been able to develop and maintain our British Empire. If there had been chopping and changing after every General Election we should not have been in the happy position that we are in to-day in regard to important matters of this sort.

May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman to touch upon a question of fact which has very great bearing upon the point before the House. Is he not aware that the Declaration made by the Viceroy in 1929 was followed within a day or two by an extremely impressive speech in this House by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, in his capacity as Leader of the Opposition, a speech in which he made it clear that, in his view, the road to Dominion status would be a long and very difficult one? He followed that up with a letter to the then Prime Minister, asking him if the Declaration represented any change in Indian policy by the Government, and the reply was in the negative.

I do not understand the Noble Lady's intervention. My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council seems to me, if her analysis is right, to have said precisely that which I should have expected him to say of that Declaration. Perhaps the Noble Lady can elaborate the point when she makes her speech later in the day. The fact remains, upon which I have been insisting, that this Government, the next Government, and as far as I know all Governments, are bound to have regard to that continuity of policy to which my right hon. Friend referred in his statement.

The next question, and it is the most important question that has been put to me is this: Do the Government intend that Dominion status shall be given to India of the nature of Dominion status after the Statute of Westminster? I am sure that those who have asked this question appreciate the fact that the Statute of Westminster did not mention, still less define, Dominion status. The phrase is often loosely used. It is just as well that we should remember that the word "status" in connection with the Dominions was first used in the well-known paragraphs of the Declaration known as the Balfour Declaration—

It is Dominion status both before and after the Statute of Westminster. It is idle to contend that the Statute of Westminster altered Dominion status at all, and I will tell my right hon. Friend why. I know perfectly well that he differs from the Government policy about this question of the Statute. I remember his criticisms, but I do not agree with them. Far be it from me to say anything more on this occasion than what the Statute of Westminster did, indeed, contain. Let me remind the House what it did contain. It gave the Dominions therein named increased powers of legislation, and indeed unrestricted powers, with one exception, and it is an important exception, as to the Constitution Acts of three Dominions. They have no power to alter those Acts except under certain conditions. It legalised what had long been the constitutional usage that prevented the Imperial Parliament from legislating for the Dominions without their consent. Lastly, it must be remembered that the five most important sections of the Act were not to apply to Australia, New Zealand or Newfoundland without their adoption. Far be it from me to minimise the importance of the Statute of Westminster. It was accepted in the spirit in which it was offered to the Dominions as establishing beyond the possibility of doubt or of quibble the full equality and status of Great Britain and the Dominions, each of whom, it is true to say, has its own point of view, and its own position but, let me add, always within the British Empire.

That India should at some time enter upon the same rights as the Dominions I most certainly affirm, but it is obvious to all that India from her size, position, and stragetic position will have more difficult problems presented to her than even those which have been presented to the Governments of the other Dominions. That we are bound to help her, pledged to help her in overcoming those difficulties and in her development, is accepted by every one. The Bill I contend is an instrument by the wise use of which India can take a great stride forward towards the attainment of the aims set out in the Preamble. She has difficulties to surmount in her journey. They are difficulties which she herself can solve. She can solve them only by the use which her statesmen will make of the powers conferred upon her for that purpose. Pursuing that course, it is worth while for her and for all in this country and in India to bear in mind that special arrangements, not in the statutory safeguards but freely negotiated and agreed, are not inconsistent with the ultimate attainment of the position of a Dominion within the Empire. Some of my hon. Friends seem to view with misgiving the prospect of India ever taking her place in full, free association with the other members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. I would rather say with Macaulay, 100 years ago, that when that happens it will be one of the proudest days in the annals of the British Empire.

It only remains for me to reply to the question raised by some of my hon. and right hon. Friends as to the so-called right to secede. I am bound to say that I regret that they have thought fit so much to insist upon that question. Let me remind the House of what Lord Balfour said in another place in 1926:

I am quite aware that Indians raise it, and I will add this to what I have said, that I deprecate that both Indians and English men should raise it. There is no possibility of the question ever arising as a matter of practical politics in the life time of this Parliament, or of any Parliament which we can foresee. Speaking for myself, and I think for the Government, I do not believe, although some Indians and some Englishmen are discussing it as an academic question, that there is any real possibility of it ever being entertained as a practical proposal in Indian—

If my hon. Friends who have raised the ques- tion insist on it and desire to have an answer they are entitled to it. All our pledges to India are pledges relating to the future development of India within the Empire, and the Preamble itself says:

I make no charge upon the sincerity and honesty of hon. Members who have expressed their views with so much force and consideration, but at any rate the Government are entitled to this satisfaction, that this question has been so long pondered, so wisely discussed by men of good will and experience, that we may go forward in the hope that our intentions will be accepted for what they are worth not only in this country but in India, and that India may, after this great Debate, realise that the people of Great Britain, who have so long helped her in her tutelage, are prepared now to lend all their efforts to enable the people of India to attain, what we think they desire, the full stature of manhood within the British Commonwealth.

4.50 p.m.

The Attorney-General, who has delivered a speech of first rate importance, will forgive me for saying that some passages in the speech leave us still in a condition of discontent. I want, in the first place, to make some observations upon the Amendments which are on the Order Paper, and therefore I will leave what I have to say on the question of Dominion Status to a later part of my speech. The Bill and the Amendments indicate three schools of thought in relation to the India problem. There is, first, the school of thought represented by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill); then there is the school of thought as represented by the Government in this Bill; and, thirdly, there is a school of thought which, like the Labour party, demands a much more radical approach to the problem. Let me deal first of all with the position taken up by those associated with the right hon. Member for Epping, and in discussing their point of view I do so, not as a defender of the Government, but as one who is examining their proposals, and the position they take up, on their intrinsic merits.

Let me go back to the beginning where I think we are on common ground. As I understand, the right hon. Member for Epping and his friends accept as their starting point in the controversy the Government of India Act, 1919. They always argue, and I think rightly, that the Government of India Act, 1919, in providing for the re-examination of the problem by a Commission at a later date, specifically allowed such a Commission to determine whether there was to be any further advance in constitutional progress, and indeed that they were free to recommend a restriction of the powers enjoyed by India. The Simon Commission was duly appointed and visited India. The first point I want to make is that the Simon Commission's Report, which the right hon. Gentleman in the main accepts, never suggested any withdrawal of powers. Its recommendations in the main were for a further advance, and the degree to which the right hon. Gentleman accepts that report is also the degree to which he accepts proposals in favour of advance. Since then we have had a series of conferences and discussions, round table conferences and committees, until finally we came to the Joint Select Committee. The right hon. Gentleman, I, gather, having reviewed the results of our deliberations in the Joint Select Committee for some 21 months says caustically, "this is the work of pigmies." The right hon. Gentleman must not be unduly hard upon us. What does he expect from pigmies when all the giants go on strike? They must do the best they can with the material available. But Gulliver himself came among the Lilliputians for three days, and we thoroughly enjoyed our discussions with him for that short period. He came like some great professor to a kindergarten. He said, "now children let us start with an elementary lesson in physics."

No, but no doubt the right hon. Gentleman recognises the professor. "First the bricks and then the wall; first the sticks and then the faggots." Those are the professor's own words. Having invited us to build in that spirit, he made a constructive suggestion of his own, the only one—the one to which he referred in his broadcast. He said to the assembled children of the kindergarten, "now boys do you remember the grants-in-aid which are going from the centre, and some scholar from Chelsea said, "please teacher, there are no grants-in-aid." Then the professor said "if there are no grants-in-aid there ought to be." If the world is not flat it ought to be. What pleasure is there in being a professor giving a lesson on India unless you can get the students to believe from the outset that twice two make five. That is exactly the right hon. Gentleman's position.

But let me put a serious proposition to the right hon. Member. He suggested that there should be grants-in-aid. I ask him: who is to administer these grants-in-aid? Is it the Governor-General in his personal capacity, or is he to have an advisory body associated with him? The right hon. Gentleman also said that there must be a certain number of inspectors. I suggest that there would have to be a whole army of inspectors, for, if the right hon. Gentleman's case is that there is such widespread corruption in India, then you must have inspectors like locusts all over India to see that the money is properly spent. But suppose the right hon. Gentleman argues that these grants-in-aid are to be administered by the Governor-General or some advisory body associated with him, then I ask him what is to happen? Are they going to operate side by side with the present Legislative Assembly? What are you going to do with that body? Are they to have no powers at all? The Legislative Assembly, as I understand, is to remain. What are they to do? Are they to administer these grants-in-aid or not? The right hon. Gentleman has never taken us into his confidence on this matter, and I suggest that it is vital.

Let me ask him another question. Grants-in-aid must be on a wide scale. What is going to be the effect on the central body of these grants-in-aid? The right hon. Gentleman will remember that 62.5 per cent. of central finances are now spent on the army. If, in addition, he is going to provide a vast army of inspectors, and further a properly constituted body, to administer the substantial grants-in-aid, how much money is going to be left to provide for the poor people to whom his Resolution refers and about whom he is shedding so many tears? I submit to the right hon. Gentleman with all respect that he is adopting an entirely and purely destructive attitude in this matter. Perhaps evil associations have corrupted good ideals. He reminds me of the man who journeyed from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among—highwaymen. There was another word, originally, I know. The right hon. Gentleman has fallen amongst those people, and since he has been among them they have torn away that mantle of social reformer which he used to bear. He is now clothed in the glad rags of reaction. He is not going to recover his political faith in Bournemouth. No new ideas come from there. There is no political creche to be found at Bournemouth; only a crematorium; and they will burn the right hon. Gentleman to a cinder before they have done with him.

The right hon. Gentleman and his friends are very concerned about what is called commercial discrimination. It is, I agree, a subject which must dominate their minds as well as ours. They are concerned with the future of Lancashire. The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) the other day put an argument like this: Referring to the declining trade of Lancashire in India and the increasing trade in Japanese goods going into India, he spoke as though that particular fact were due to some inherent quality in the attitude of Indians themselves. An hon. Friend this afternoon, at my request, asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to state what increase has taken place in the importation of Japanese goods into Kenya—a Crown Colony. The answer showed that even there Japanese goods in the last four or five years have increased in value almost by one-half. It is an inevitable consequence, a feature of international trade practically all over the world at the moment. It is unfair to attribute the increased Japanese imports into India, therefore, as a fault lying at the door of those much despised people called Indian politicians.

If Lancashire's trade is declining in India, how do the right hon. Member for Epping and his friends propose to revive it? There are only two ways—either by force or by friendship. Can you add by one piece to the sales of Lancashire goods in India through the application of force? Can you compel the Indians to buy one extra pound of British merchandise at the mouth of the gun? In the long run the only way to increase Lancashire's trade with India is by the development of good will and friendship. The right hon. Gentleman and his friends refer frequently to unemployment in Lancashire, and I do not complain of that, for it is quite natural that they should do so, though, perhaps, they play upon the fears of Lancashire people in this matter. But I would recall with pride one episode in the life of the Lancashire workers. It was at the time of the American Civil War, when the interests of the South were the interests of the slave-owners and the interests of the North were the interests that fought against the slave trade. The economic interest of Lancashire, of employers and employed, was on the side of the South. Even the Government of this country was in favour of the South because of economic considerations. But the workers of Lancashire said: "No, though we suffer greater unemployment we will stand by the great principle of freedom for the slaves in the Southern States." So in this Indian matter, though it may very well be that the workers of Lancashire may lose economically through greater unemploy- ment, through the development of new methods in India, I am sure they will take the stand that their forefathers took 80 or 100 years ago and will say: "We will not impose on these people burdens that we would not care to bear ourselves."

The right hon. Gentleman has his own point of view. But my argument is that if he is to allow Indians to have any measure of self-government, even if he allows the present Assembly to remain as it is, he must give them power to look after their trade from the point of view of the well-being of India and not from the point of view of Lancashire. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to avoid trouble of fiscal discrimination the only way of doing it is by having a trade agreement expressing good will and friendship between the one side and the other. I want to make one observation about the very eloquent speech of the hon. Member for Chertsey (Sir A. Boyd-Carpenter) last week. It seemed to me that he disclosed the real attitude of mind of some hon. Members in this matter. Controverting the argument of the Secretary of State, he said that the Secretary of State was not entitled to regard the trouble between ourselves and Canada, and the final settlement, as affording any parallel to this Indian question at all. I know he developed a further argument, but this is the important sentence: He said, "There is no analogy. After all, the people of Canada and America were of our own stock." Yes, but what does that mean? Does it imply that there is some special quality belonging to white people that does not belong to other people.

Does the hon. Member who says "Yes" imply that it requires some special kind of clay to make an hon. Member for Smethwick and another kind to make an hon. Member for Calcutta?

I am glad to have had it so pertinently said that Providence requires to put forth a special effort to make the hon. Gentleman opposite different from an hon. Member who sits in an Indian Parliament. I decline to believe it. There is great offensiveness in a declaration of that sort, which ought not to be offered to these people in far-off India. In the old baronial halls of this country those of inferior quality eat below the salt. Are we to understand that in the Imperial hall, where members of the British family of nations are to sit, the Indian people are always to sit below the salt while we gorge in splendid magnificence at the high table? Is that the hon. Gentleman's point of view? If so, if I were an Imperialist I would speedily repudiate such philosophy, for that point of view is divisive and destructive in an Empire like ours. I protest with all the force at my command against this racial snobbery. Let us begin to measure men according to the quality of their heads and their hearts, and not according to the colour of their skins. Speaking from experience, after having seen white men and other men from India sitting side by side for many months in the Joint Select Committee, I say that the Indian people need not be ashamed of any comparison or contrast which may be set up.

I turn from that question to consideration of the Government's case. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General made some reference to a complaint which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) made last Thursday concerning the amount of attention that the Government have given to our case. I join my hon. and gallant Friend in that complaint. This is the seventh day of this discussion. Throughout the three days discussion we had before Christmas right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite loftily disdained to discuss our position at all. They devoted the whole of their attention to the right hon. Member for Epping. Let me recall one fact. I with my colleagues sat for 21 months on the Joint Select Committee. I did not go there to form a background for the Conservatives. I went there to do my share of this job. We presented our own alternative draft proposals. But for six days we have not had one reference by way of argument to the case that we put up. I do not think it is just; I do not think it is fair; and I refuse to allow the Government to let the case of the 8,000,000 who voted for us in the country go by default. This is Parliament, not a Tory Conference. We have as much right to be heard, as much right to have attention given to our case, as has the right hon. Member for Epping. We may be on the Government bench before very long. The learned Attorney-General said this afternoon, though I do not accept his theory of continuity of policy, that the next Government, whatever it may be, would be held responsible for this legislation. It will not be the right hon. Member for Epping who will be responsible. That being so, we are entitled to have our point of view considered, discussed and answered in this House.

Let me now turn to the main question at issue. Speaking as a Socialist and member of the Labour party, I admit that I have some difficulties about this business of Federation. I do not deny it. I say frankly that if the territory of the States were all contiguous geographically in India I could conceive—I do not admit the case is wholly on that side—a case in favour of federating British India alone and leaving the States to come in later if they choose. But the situation is not like that. States are dotted here and there all over India. There are territorial problems, problems relating to railways, postal and telegraph services, and all sorts of problems involved, and the consequence is that we are bound to consider whether the States should be brought into some Federation or other.

But, having conceded that point, I must complain bitterly of the difference in approach made by the Government first to the Princes and then to British India. What do the Government say to British India? The Legislative Assembly has turned down the proposals of the Bill. There is scarcely a friend in the whole of India or in British India for these proposals. But the Government say to British India, "Here are our proposals. Take them or leave them." But when it comes to the Princes the Government say, "Gentlemen—your Highnesses—what would you have us do? What shall we do to please you? What conditions would you like to advance and what price shall we pay?" I ask the right hon. Gentleman, is the price to be found in the Second Schedule? Under the operation of the Second Schedule no sort of change whatever can take place in the future federated India, no change can take place in British India in the future without entitling each Prince to say, "That is an adequate reason for me to withdraw." Any such change absolves a Prince from his accession. He is free to retire—according to the Second Schedule. What this Schedule means is that in the Indian ship of state in the future, British India is to be in the stokehold, clamped down carefully, while the Princes walk gaily in the sunshine on the upper deck, splendidly protected from the glare by the great umbrella of safeguards, and if the temperature becomes a little too torrid the Governor-General and the Governor will be there to do the necessary fanning. That is the simple situation as it is now left by this Schedule.

What does this mean? Once this Bill is through, once this Constitution is passed, you cannot change it by one jot or tittle. It will be like the laws of the Medes and Persians. It cannot be altered—except of course later on with the assent of this House, and, may I add, with the assent of every Prince. In other words, His Majesty's Governor-General in India is reduced to the level of a petty policeman acting on behalf of the Princes of India to guarantee that the people of British India will behave themselves properly. I do not know that I am very much enamoured of the manner of approach of His Highness the Maharaja of Patiala to this question. He said, as quoted last week:

Are we to understand then that the hon. Gentleman, speaking for the Socialist party, would withdraw from the Princes the powers and privileges given them in the Bill?

When we present our Bill the hon. Member will see it. I will return to that subject in a moment. Let me now take the situation as we find it to-day. Here in Europe we have seen crowns tumble, thrones totter and constitutions crash, but the democratic countries alone have stood inviolate and inviolable amid the surging seas of disturbance on every hand. I want it to be understood that, as far as we are concerned, we are not going to be parties to tramping down the freedom of the people of British India. I ask again, therefore, whether because these Princes regard democracy as a discredited theory our Governor-General is to be there, always available to rake out the fires from the furnaces of freedom and progress in India? It looks like it.

I want to say also this about secession, and I am glad to see the Secretary of State in his place, because I am not sure that there has not been some misunderstanding about this question. When we had discussions about Burma it was understood that there was a section of Burmese delegates in favour of Burma being allowed to remain associated with India, they being presumed to believe that in their own time Burma could break away or secede from India. We settled firmly at the beginning this proposition—that once in the Federation no secession from it should be possible. For that reason, I for my part took the line that Burma ought to be separated staight away. If Burma was not to be allowed to secede, why are the Princes to be free to do so? I think that is an important question. I am prepared to vote for a Federation but I am not prepared to barter away the liberties of the people of British India in return for the acquiescence of the Princes.

But surely the hon. Member knows that the Princes cannot secede so long as the conditions continue to obtain under which they enter the Federation? That seems to be perfectly reasonable.

The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones) has just told us that his party are not prepared to barter away the liberties of the people of British India. Are they prepared to barter away the liberties of the people of Indian India—the people of the States?

I should be very glad to see some instrument established in the Indian States which would enable the people of those States to speak for themselves, but there is no such instrument as yet—at least not in all the States. There are Legislative Assemblies in some of them. But I think the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State and I understand our differences on this matter clearly. The point simply is this: If this Schedule remains as it stands, no change can take place in British India constitutionally without giving the Princes the right to withdraw if they or any of them think fit to do so.

I turn to another point. The Lord President of the Council told us that he had been assured that someone was going to work this scheme. Who? We ought to know. Who is prepared to work this scheme now? Congress will not do so. Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not mean that he is going to invite representatives of the princely States to form a Ministry for an All-India Administration—or may it be some representatives of the princely States plus some of the Moslems. I met representatives of the Moslems and I know they are very able men but with a Ministry of that sort you would certainly not get an All-India Federation. You would destroy even the vestiges of Indian unity. If it comes to other people, by whom are they going to be elected? They cannot get constituencies to elect them. I confess I cannot understand on what authority the Lord President of the Council assured the House a month or so ago that this scheme would be worked.

I come to the last point discussed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, namely, the question of Dominion status. Our point of view on this matter has been clear from the beginning. We have consistently argued that the Government should recognise the claim of the Indian people to Dominion status. Let me be clear as to what is meant by ordinary intelligent people in regard to this question. I think the Attorney-General will agree that the late Mr. Bonar Law was a person of great perspicacity. In 1920 he used these words about the status of the people of the Dominions.

The hon. and learned Member will forgive me if I dispute that proposition very seriously. We have steadily stood for a declaration in favour of Dominion status for India. The trouble arises in this way. The right hon. and learned Attorney-General says to us, "Oh, but you ought to be satisfied. We are going to put the Preamble of the 1919 Act of Parliament into this Measure." Well, what will be the effect of that? You repeal the rest of the Act, and you embody this Preamble in a new Act. At least, so I understood the Secretary of State to say last week.

Then it is the same as last week. In the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Debate in this House on the 6th inst. my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) asked:

"In what sense is he using the word 'unrepealed'? Of course he is not meaning that it will be legislatively unrepealed, because the whole of the Act of 1919 is to be repealed by this Bill, and that will include the Preamble."

To this the Secretary of State replied:

"Constitutional experts have never been quite clear as to whether the repeal of an Act means the repeal of the Preamble. There seems to be some doubt. In order to put all doubts at rest, I shall move at the proper time, when we come to the Schedule under which the Government of India Act, 1919, is repealed, an Amendment to say 'except the Preamble.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1935; col. 1189, Vol. 297.]

Very well then. The Act has gone, and we are left with the Preamble. A Preable to what will it be? What is the meaning of a Preamble that is hanging in mid air? What is the meaning of a Preamble that is not "pre" to anything? The right hon. Gentleman really should clear up this point. I understand that if you have a Preamble of this sort suspended, as it were, in mid-air and attached to nothing at all, it means nothing.

The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, and so does the right hon. and learned Attorney-General, and they are both enlightened lawyers.

Well, I want to know what it means. It is like taking away a man's shirt and leaving him with a button. A button is useful very often, but here it helps nobody, and it has no meaning whatever.

Even if the right hon. Gentleman puts the Preamble in, the Preamble will still be open to the same interpretation. That Preamble has been in since 1919, and Sir Malcolm Hailey, a high official and a very capable person, as we all know, when called upon to interpret the phrase "Dominion Status" said that when people used the phrase "Dominion Status," it did not mean what the Indians said it meant; so that it is no use your telling us that it is satisfactory to introduce the old Preamble. The whole trouble has been that in spite of declarations by His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught, on behalf of His Majesty the King, by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), when he was Colonial Secretary, by the Viceroy of India—Lord Irwin, as he then was, now Lord Halifax—and by all sorts of people, this phrase has been used, and Government spokesmen say, "Ah yes, we use those words, it is true, but they do not mean what you say they mean." The only way out of that difficulty is to state categorically that you propose to give Dominion Status, and, if necessary, to define exactly what you mean by it. The trouble is very serious, because out of all this kind of business has grown a profound distrust of us. They no longer believe our word. They have lost confidence in our pronouncements. It will not do to say that the statement of a Minister has the same effect as an Act of Parliament, because it has not. One is an opinion; the other is a binding agreement in words. Therefore, let it be clearly understood that if the Government insist upon standing pat on the 1919 position, they must not expect us, in pursuit of a continuity of policy, as they choose to call it, to accept those pledges as adequate. I hope that is as clear as the noonday sun.

The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy on Friday invited the House to allow him to state a declaration of his faith. May I venture to state mine too, very humbly? I believe that it is written on the tablets of destiny, by the very finger of God, that mankind shall be free. I know that some are more ready for freedom than others, but it should become their common lot. Freedom, to me, is a great citadel set upon a hill. We have all got to climb towards it. Some will have to approach it along winding roads, others perhaps will have to blast their way through rocks, but they must all climb. There will be occasions, I have no doubt, when the very difficulty of the journey will bruise and break the feet of many, but inevitably they must climb. They will rise and fall, at times they may even slip back, but in spite of the rising and falling, in spite of the striving and the struggling, in the long run the people of the world must climb to the summit, and when they have reached that summit, they must possess the citadel of freedom.

5.38 p.m.

I had the opportunity of serving for a long time with my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), and sitting side by side with him, on the Joint Select Committee, and I know how passionately he feels on the subject with which we have been dealing. I do not think that there is between him and me any fundamental difference. I think that, as far as the Labour opposition is concerned, it is mainly a difference of emphasis, and when the hon. Member complained just now that the Government were giving their attention mainly to the opposition within their own ranks, I think it was because it was from that direction that the attack was really coming. I do not understand that the Members of the Labour party would desire to defeat this Bill.

At any rate, I am sure the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) would not be able to speak for the rest of his party upon that. I suggest that it is a simple matter to vote for an Amendment with the happy assurance that it is not likely to be carried. If one takes the statement of the case submitted in our papers and headed "Mr. Attlee's Report," there is not much difference there from our general scheme. Indeed, they accept the principle of Federation and safeguards. The essential is Federation, responsibility at the Centre, safeguards. That is the threefold principle of this scheme, and that threefold principle was accepted by the Members of the Labour party, and by all the Members of the Labour party. When I hear the complaint that is now being made by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) as to safeguards and the rest, I only want to refer to words which were fully assented to by him with other Members of the Statutory Commission, because he was a signatory of the report of that commission, which was unanimously presented to this House. These words are as much his words as the words of any Member, and, as far as I know, he has never in the slightest degree withdrawn from them. In the early part of that report—and I am taking Vol. II—there is insistence upon the necessity for safeguards, and these are the words:

"The Governor-General or the Governor, as the case may be, must be armed with full and ample powers. We desire to give the fullest scope for self-government, but, if there is a breakdown, then an alternative authority must operate unhampered."

Again, at the end of the next paragraph, on page 23, it says:

"But we consider that the only practical means of protecting the weaker or less numerous elements in the population is by the retention of an impartial power, residing in the Governor-General and the Governors of provinces, to be exercised for this purpose."

I suggest that if the Members of the Select Committee said they were in favour of Federation, of responsibility at the Centre, and of Safeguards, and if those three elements are the essential elements in the Minority Report, if that term can be used, though it is not strictly accurate, or in Mr. Attlee's Report, as it is technically named, I do not see how Members of the Labour party can desire the defeat of this Measure.

I am sure my hon. Friend would not like to mislead the House, and I am sure he will agree that when my hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) spoke in those terms, he had not then seen the Safeguards embodied in this Bill.

I find great difficulty in reconciling what the hon. Member for Limehouse said as compared with the declaration of the Leader of his party, I find great difficulty in reconciling the views of the hon. Member for Limehouse with those of the hon. Member who has just resumed his seat, and I find great difficulty in reconciling the views of the hon. Member for Limehouse with those of the hon. Member for Limehouse at different dates. That is my trouble, and I think it must be admitted that the Government have had to turn to the real opposition, because to-night we are to vote on an Amendment which I really think not many people in this House desire to see carried, whereas there will be no opportunity for voting upon the Amendment which many desire to see carried in this House.

I want to turn, therefore, to what I consider is the real opposition to this Bill. Really the Secretary of State has had to consider opposition from three directions. There is the criticism of the Bill that has come from His Majesty's Opposition, there is the criticism of the Bill that has come from Members of his own party, and there is the criticism of the Bill that has come from India. With regard to the opposition from Members of his own party, the case could not have been put with more passion and eloquence than in the powerful speech delivered by the hon. Member for Chertsey (Sir A. Boyd-Carpenter). I think that speech suffered from the same defects as those from which every one of the speeches from that opposition has suffered. Every speech that has been made by Members of the Conservative opposition against this Bill has had one fatal weakness. It has shrunk from the conclusion to which all its arguments have led. When I heard the hon. Member for Chertsey and the rest of them emphasising, as they did, that this Parliament, in 1919, reserved under Section 41 of the Act, the power not only to go forward, but to go back, and then not one of them proposes to go back, it seems to me that every speech they make is an effort to weave a rope of sand. I think that the people of this country could understand a position of whole-hearted resistance to any surrender, as it is called, but they do not understand a policy of semi-surrender. They understand what is called scuttling out of our Imperial responsibilities, but they do not understand this scuttling by quota.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), speaking over the broadcast last week, concluded his remarks by saying that we were I submit that the astonishment of the world is not likely to be less when they see that he is himself taking part in this dreadful operation. The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) spoke last week, and dealt with the fiscal part of this question. He spoke scornfully of Swaraj which in one of its aspects is only economic nationalism. If, however, the ideal of economic nationalism has spread in India, who is responsible? The Indian, looking through the world, sees other countries adopting this policy of economic restriction and nationalism, and I think he is entitled to say to the hon. and gallant Member, who plays so great a part in this controversy and who is a protagonist in this matter, "If your policy is good for you, it is good for me; if it is bad,

—and also the burdensome effect of import duties on the people of India, I thought he was a Daniel come to judgment. His appeal for help to the Liberals was rather in contrast to his scornful reference in his Manchester speech a short time ago. The hon. and gallant Gentleman will perhaps remember the speech in which he spoke of "the disease of democracy" and asked the people of Lancashire:

We heard last week, as we have heard all through this Debate, about the burning passion for the masses of India, about our high Imperial mission and our dread responsibility that we have to discharge; and in the midst of it we have all this talk about protecting our trade. There has been nothing like it since Shylock went through the streets of Venice crying:

My whole case was that hitherto we had only been considering in this House Indian interests, and that surely British interests deserved more care. They were not even mentioned in the Prime Minister's speech.

I am willing to accept any qualifications, but we must take the words as the hon. and gallant Gentleman said them. At that time he was speaking of British interests as distinct from Indian interests. If that is the construction which he places upon the responsibility of this House, I disagree with him.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping, if I may turn in that direction, is having some trouble in his own division in relation to this Bill. I only refer to it in order to show what sort of Government will have to deal with this question of India, judging from his reply to his constituency, if the present Government goes out, as it would if his Amendment were carried. I want to read to the House his conception of a National Government. It is one in which Conservatism must be predominant:

The right hon. Gentleman knows that the root of this difficulty is responsibility. He is going to speak, and I want to put a direct question to him. Does he contemplate any permanent institution where responsibility is not given to the Minister? Can there be any permanence in a political institution where you have an irresponsible opposition face to face with an irremovable Executive? That is a question to which I would like him to address himself, because I was brought up in my early days on a book published by the right hon. Gentleman. When I was a young man in politics I gained great inspiration from a book of the right hon. Gentleman's speeches called. "Liberalism and the Social Problem," in which he gave us his view of responsibility. He was dealing with the South African question, and I would like to tell the House what the right hon. Gentleman said in this House upon this very question of responsibility:

If it is wrongly reported, I accept the right hon. Gentleman's correction. He speaks, then, of

I would like now to turn to the most important part of the opposition, namely, the Indian Opposition. The strongest part of the case for the opponents is the Indian Opposition, and certainly they are making the most of it. A sudden interest has developed in the proceedings of the Indian Assembly. I have never heard the opponents of this Bill attach so much importance to the Indian Assembly. Last week a telegram was received giving the results of the vote on a resolution in that Assembly, and it was passed round the benches here as though it had been the result of Wavertree. We have had references by almost every speaker to Mr. Sastri. I think he would be embarrassed by the amount of attention he has received. His credentials have been set out at great length. One speaker after another who probably never knew before that there was a National Liberal Federation in India has been quoting the resolutions of that federation with as much reverence as if they were the oracles of the sacred law.

I fully agree that it is highly proper that we should attach the fullest importance to Indian opinion. I was challenged the other evening by the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) as to something I said in a broadcast address about co-operation and consent and the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) quoted what was said in the White Paper as to consent being the basis of these proposals, and said he presumed that such agreement was assumed by the Joint Select Committee in their Report. That is perfectly true. Unless there is ultimately consent this Constitution cannot succeed. No constitution can work itself. A very keen observer of our English life, Joseph Conrad, said that

I quite agree as to the importance of the protests being made, and I will not dwell upon them, except to say that to a large extent it has been a protest against the absence of the words "Dominion status. [ Interruption. ] I have had a similar opportunity to the hon. Member of consulting the Indian papers, and have been as much in touch with the Indian people as himself, and I know that the first emphasis is laid on the absence of the words "Dominion status." I wish now, in the light of what has happened, that those words could have been used in the report of the Joint Select Committee. I think it is a pity that our not using those words, as we might have done, should have occasioned this opposition. Secondly, there is the emphasis on the safeguards, on which unfortunately I cannot stop to speak. Thirdly, there is the criticism as to indirect election. I had the opportunity, in the Debate a few weeks ago, of dealing with the question of indirect election, and everything I have seen coming from India since has borne out and confirmed what I then submitted to the House.

There is very great concern over the question of indirect election. One may turn to the resolutions of the National Liberal Federation, to the letters sent by all those who can speak for Indian opinion, or, what is more important, to what was said recently by the Viceroy. In an address to the Indian Assembly at Delhi only a week or two ago he referred again to indirect election, and said that the Government of India, and he himself as Viceroy, although they recognised how cogent were the arguments in favour of indirect election, still stood for direct election; and there are some people in India, as far as one can read Indian opinion, who have made the strongest possible protest against that port of our proposals which would take away from the Indian people a right which they have enjoyed for the last 14 years.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council, who throughout these proceedings has treated us with the fullest possible candour, will let us know before this question comes up in the Committee stage of the Bill what is the fully considered opinion of the Government of India. He will remember that the Statutory Commission which went to India reported in favour of the indirect system, that the Government of India considered that report and then stated why they still held by the principle of the direct vote. That comment was of the greatest value in guiding the people of this country. We are not ourselves in the best position to judge.

I suggest that before this question comes up for the consideration of this House, a question which, some Indians say; affects the life of their country, there will be a very full statement, at least as full as is necessary, to show what is the mind of the Government of India, and the Governments of the several Provinces, upon a matter which is to them of such deep concern. I would make this further representation, that I hope so important a matter will not have to be dealt with in the course of an hour or two. I do not know how much time will be set aside for the discussion of the Bill, but when we consider that the question of our own franchise has occupied the attention of this House through the past century, and how it has affected the making and the unmaking of Governments, I suggest that a matter which affects the franchise of one- fifth of the people living upon this planet, and one upon which they feel very deeply, is one upon which we should have the fullest opportunities for deliberation before coming to a decision. I cannot imagine that three or four days would be too long.

As far as I have been able to ascertain the Indian view, I think the main objection to these proposals is that they are made by us and not made by India. I really believe that if the Bill had been the most perfect Measure, drawn up by the wisest people imaginable, it would yet be condemned because it was not drawn up by Indians themselves. It is a question of sentiment; in the end all our relations with India depend upon sentiment. My view is that the future of this country in relation to India does not depend upon any Act of Parliament or the wording of any Statute but on how far we can convince the people of India that we are their friends, how far we can convince them that we are not out for domination but for an honourable partnership.

As to the evidence, I am quite sure that the policy which is sup ported by the hon. Member would at once turn many who at present are our friends into our enemies. He holds his view as sincerely as I hold mine, but, according to my reading of the situation, we have in India a great many friends and a great many enemies. No one can say how many enemies there are or how many friends, there is no statistician who can give those particulars, but everything depends upon whether we, by what we say in this House and by what we do in our Bills, can keep the friends we have and turn some who are now our enemies into our friends. It all depends upon, that. The damage that would be done if we tried to treat the Indians as being inferior to ourselves is incalculable. The damage that was done when Mr. Nehru,, now one of the most prominent men in India, came to this country some years ago with his wife and daughter and had to try more than a dozen hotels before he could get accommodation—

That left the most unhappy-impression in India. What happened in this country last week will be reprehended by every Member of this House. It is such things as that which count in India. We have to do what we can to keep our friends.

I would like before I close to refer to what has happened since the last Debate. I suggested then that in India they had great need of us but that also we had need of India. Members of the House will appreciate that that argument has been greatly enforced by what has happened since. General Smuts, when he spoke in this country on 13th November, referred to conditions in the Far East. He spoke of the possibility of notice being given for the denunciation of the Washington Treaties and said there was a cloud in the Far East that at present was no bigger than a man's hand. That cloud has begun to overspread the horizon, and every thinking Briton sees the necessity, I should imagine, of three things, especially when we consider the conditions in the Far East. First of all, if trouble is to arise in Asia, there is the greater necessity for Europe to put her house in order. Secondly, there is the necessity, the overwhelming necessity, for a frank, complete and absolute understanding with the United States of America. Thirdly, there is the necessity, and this is not less important than the others, that we should be friends with India—that we should retain our friendship with India. It would make all the difference if we could turn some who are opposed to us there into our friends. That may indeed be the deciding element in that great struggle. It is a big business upon which we are engaged.

The Debate we have had is one that has done honour to this House, because despite the sharp cleavage of opinion there has been great appreciation of the opinion of others. We are face to face with the greatest thing this country has ever tried to undertake. Here is something that is going to tax to the full the resources of what has been called man's unconquerable mind. Further, if this thing can be done in our generation it will not be the work of this generation alone. We are reminded of that as we come through Westminster Hall and through St. Stephen's Chapel. It will not be the work of this generation at all; and if following upon those many years, following upon the sacri- fices made in India, following upon the work which gives distinction to our history as regards the relations of this country with India, we can do this thing in our generation, it will prove again the truth of what was said by a very wise man, "The State is a partnership not only between those who are living. It is a partnership between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born."

6.13 p.m.

I am very glad to feel, from what I have heard, that our differences on this Bill, which are serious, are not likely to be aggravated by any differences about the time to be allotted to its discussion. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council will possibly give us some information upon this matter when he speaks to-night. I can assure him that those of us who are the Conservative opponents of this Measure do not wish to resist it by dilatory methods. We rest our hopes upon argument and upon reason. Personally, I have always felt that every Government, any Government, has a right to pass the main and major Bill of the Session in that Session, and if a fair, reasonable time is allotted for this Bill, which is one of great length, and in which many points of view are involved, I say on behalf of all my friends, that we will co-operate with the Government and with the other parties in order that the different stages of the Bill may be properly and adequately discussed over the whole area of the Bill, and that the Debates may be brought to a conclusion at a convenient point. We will do our very best to help and assist the Government in every way.

Surely it would be a very great credit to the House and to the Government, and especially to my right hon. Gentleman the Patronage Secretary, if a Bill of this extraordinary size and intricacy were to pass through Parliament, when feelings run so high about it, without there being the necessity of any formal Guillotine Resolution or without the necessity even of applying the Closure at any point. That, I believe, is not beyond our power to achieve, and if so, it will greatly enhance the procedure of this House and get us back to the period before our procedure was mutilated during the latter part of the nineteenth century. There is one advantage which will come from this to which I may, perhaps, refer. We are now at the beginning of these long debates on India. How shall we come out? How shall those of us, on this side of the House at any rate, who are political friends and in many cases personal friends, emerge from this long, rigorous controversy? No one can tell. This I will say, that if the minority can feel that the issue has been fairly tried, that they have had every opportunity which reason can afford for stating their case and for putting the really searching and questionable points in the case to debate; if they feel that they have done their best, then at any rate, they can feel that they are guiltless of any evil consequences that may result, and if anything could remove a lasting bitterness it would be that this matter has been thrashed out thoroughly in the House of Commons.

Of course, the grave new fact which is now before us is the declaration of the Secretary of State the other day reaffirming Lord Irwin's statement of October, 1929, about Dominion Status. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said in the course of his speech that the Viceroy had the express authority of the Government of that day behind him in 1929; there is much more in it than that. Our memories are very short, and I must ask a few minutes attention from the House to remind hon. Members of what really happened in 1929. The Statutory Commission were completing their report, and everyone was waiting with the very greatest respect and expectancy. Suddenly, Lord Irwin, as he then was, made this declaration. This phrase "Dominion Status" had been very loosely and unwisely used—by me, among others, certainly—in the years immediately after the War, that is, about 15 years ago, but time had passed by 1929, and in the interval it was felt among people in many quarters, and in Parliament, that so vague and indefinite a phrase ought not to play a part in the revision of the Indian Constitution. It was thought then especially wrong that such a phrase should be revived in the most solemn manner by the Viceroy, and on the eve when Parliament was expecting the report of its Statutory Commission.

We were told on Friday by the hon. Member for Broxstowe (Mr. Cocks), and I have no doubt that it is a perfectly valid explanation, that Lord Irwin's object was to create a favourable atmosphere for the publication of the report; but what this statement did was to overbid and to destroy the report of the Statutory Commission. It cut the ground from under their feet. The report was superseded before it was presented, and never since has it been thought worth while to bring this immense, invaluable and incomparable document to the formal consideration of the House of Commons. There was an immediate general protest at this statement. The indignation was intensified when it was found that the Statutory Commission—I hardly dare call it the Simon Commission any more—had themselves disapproved of this most improper departure.

Let me recall to the House the names of those who disapproved: Lord Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), and, of course, Lord Birkenhead. All these authorities upon the subject, leading men, disapproved in the strongest terms. My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council stood in a somewhat different position. He had been overtaken while on his holiday at Bourges by an emissary of the then Prime Minister—the present Prime Minister—and, in the belief that the Simon Commission—the Statutory Commission—favoured this declaration, he gave a conditional assent to it. The other day I saw in a newspaper: "Trial of the Tory rebels." What happened on this occasion was something very like the trial of the Tory commander-in-chief. I was not a member of the court. I was returning on the high seas, and when I arrived I acted, if I acted as anything, in the capacity of prisoner's friend. I hope my right hon. Friend will bear that in mind should the occasion arise. The right hon. Gentleman found it necessary to make a personal explanation to the House about it in which he said, about this declaration which the Attorney-General wishes us to suppose was almost taken for granted, and which had the full authority of the day, and so on:

The Prime Minister has carried his point, certainly. He is the only one who has. Lord Reading, released from the guidance of Carnarvon, rapidly slid over to the opposite pole and developed his own point of view. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham was, as he says, converted; the Foreign Secretary, of course, then quivering with indignation, has been what has been called, in American parlance, taken care of. So we find that this Declaration which was condemned then by the leading authorities, is now exhumed, resuscitated, and foisted upon the House of Commons, and that the House of Commons is expected to swallow it without further question.

What I ask, and what I think we should consider is, what has happened since 1929 to induce this change of view? The first thing that happened is this: The Statutory Commission have published their report and it was found that they unanimously concurred in omitting any mention of Dominion status from their report. I think that was a rebuke, in a way, to the persons who, like myself, in the atmosphere after the War, when these matters had not become closely debated and hammered out as counters of discussion, used such language. I accept the rebuke. I think it is right that people should be reproached for language that they have used 10 or 15 years ago in different circumstances if that should be found subsequently not to conduce to the interests of the country. What is the second fact? The Joint Select Committee, the body in which we are told such immense authority resides—the Government seem to ride through all difficulties on the back of the Joint Select Committee—deliberately omitted mention of Dominion status. Deliberately; it was not accidental. I cannot believe that it was accidental. They are no longer in existence; I wonder what that committee would have said if by a vote they had been asked to express their approval of the insertion of that statement in the speech of the Secretary of State last week. That the omission was not accidental cannot be disputed.

I was reading in the public print a few days ago a speech by the Archbishop of Canterbury in which he said:

There is a third event which has occurred since 1929, since the Irwin Declaration. It is the Statute of Westminster. Whatever reprehension may have been attached to the use of such a loose phrase as "Dominion status" before the Statute of Westminster, surely that is slight compared with the censure which should fall upon those who use it now that we have seen the Act of Westminster in all its repellent legalism. Before the Statute of Westminster, the relations of the various Dominions to one another and to the Mother Country were largely undefined; but now we have a written Constitution, or what is very largely a written Constitution.

My hon. Friend the Member for Spring-burn (Mr. Emmott) asked the Attorney-General a number of pointed questions at the beginning of our Debate this afternoon. The Attorney-General bore them with a stolid face and with his usual composure. But when he came to approach the point in his speech where he should give some answer to them, I thought his discomfiture and agitation and obscurity were painful to witness. My right hon. and learned Friend, who, of all men, can make things clear, was found to be also the man above all others who could enwrap and envelop them in the thickest of fogs. I think we must try to get a little clarification of the position from the right hon. Gentleman. There was one thing that he said in response to an interruption of mine. He said, as I gathered, that it was no use asking what were the differences between Dominion status in 1917 and in 1935, or something to that effect. I said, "Which is it that you are doing now? What is the meaning of your solemn promise; You have made a solemn promise; you tell us how solemn it is; you are forcing us to endorse it. Will you tell us whether it means that the Statute of Westminster applies to Dominion status when it is mentioned by the Secretary of State, or whether it does not?" That is a fair question, and it ought to be possible to give an answer to it.

My right hon. and learned Friend did give an answer—a very characteristic answer. I will not say it was characteristic of him; that would be discourteous; but it was characteristic of the method which is now in vogue in this matter. When I asked him, "Which is it—pre-Statute of Westminster or post-Statute of Westminster, 1917 or 1935?" he said, "Both before and after." That is very good. For his faithful followers it is all right, it is before the Statute of Westminster; for Indian consumption it is after the Statute of Westminster. That is a very dangerous method to apply, and one which, as I shall show, is frequently being resorted to, in the course of the Debates on this Indian matter, by His Majesty's Ministers. But there is no doubt whatever as to what the answer means. The Statute of Westminster does opply and does govern this Declaration, and is meant to govern it. It may be that the right of secession is not implicit in the Statute of Westminster; that is another matter; but the promise made was intended and meant to carry the force of the Statute of Westminster. The ultimate Dominion status which India is to achieve will be Dominion status as defined by the Statute of Westminster. You say it is not defined—I beg pardon—as expressed, as exemplified, as embodied in the Statute of Westminster. That is what it means. This shows the way in which we are treated. Three-and-a-half years ago, when I raised this matter first and when we had the first White Paper, with the Prime Minister's valedictory address to the delegates of the Round Table Conference—when that was before us, and the Government demanded approval for the White Paper, which was the forerunner of the policy which is now being carried out, I put it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, did it or did it not carry with it the implication of the Statute of Westminster which we had just passed? He said:

No wonder, with this guilty record, they did not dare to put it in the Bill. There, again, is another instance of this equivocation which, I am sure, is the worst way of dealing with India. It is not in the Bill, so that it can be said, "Well, it has no statutory effect." That is a re-assurance to the followers of the right hon. Gentleman. On the other hand, the language used by the Attorney-General, the language used by himself, this solemn Declaration, this deliberate, considered statement on behalf of the Government and so forth, is meant to have its advantage over there in India. Nothing can be worse than this. Let your yea be yea and your nay be nay in dealing with Asia and with the Indians. They may dislike what you say, but they will respect it. But the kind of very nice balancings and dodgings which I see too often in this matter are calculated, not morely to win their dislike, but to excite their contempt.

It is, I think, most important in these Debates that we should try as far as possible to answer each other's arguments. I used a lot of arguments when we last discussed this subject, but no attempt, as far as I can see, has ever been made by the Government to answer any of them. They make their own speeches from their own point of view. We shall never get to grips with this matter unless we really try to face up to the awkward points and posers which are put to us from the other side of the argument. I will try to deal with a few. The first important point to deal with is one which has been put by the Secretary of State, and implied in his answer to an interruption of mine about our complaint of the omission of any care for the welfare of the masses of India in all this great Bill and in all these reports and commissions. If I rightly interpret my right hon. Friend—and I am trying to do so—this was the position: We complained that the welfare of the Indian masses is virtually ignored in all these reports—their agriculture, their education, their hospitals, their water, their forests, their labour standards, their social services. The Imperial Power divests itself of interest in and control over all these matters, grasps solely what is essential to its own self-interest, and, with a shrug of its shoulders, leaves this enormous peasant proletariat to take their chance in the inexperienced hands of whatever may be the dominant party in the different Provinces or in the Central Legislature.

That is our complaint. What is the answer of my right hon. Friend? If I may give what I conceive to be his answer—he will correct me if I am mis-stating it, but I am really his advocate for these few moments—he says: "The Act of 1919 transferred the bulk of the services; as for the rest, you and your friends are willing to support Provincial Autonomy, which covers the rest and governs the future. What right, then," he says, "have you to accuse us of being indifferent to the welfare of these masses, when you are equally committed to leaving them to shift for themselves?" I do not know whether that does justice to his point of view, but I certainly felt that it was an argument which we had to meet. What is our answer? We have an answer; it is this: The first 10 years of the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms showed a marked deterioration in the transferred social services—such a marked deterioration that we cannot allow this process to continue unchecked. Now that we are extending a far fuller measure of Home Rule to the Provinces, we must make a new provision to secure reasonable and decent efficiency. We are handing over services of immense consequence, for instance, irrigation and the forests—irrigation, that highly artificial system upon which a quarter of the food of India depends; and the forests, the cutting down of which would affect the humidity, and also the springs and the whole drainage and canal system on which great Provinces and communities exist in what would otherwise be blistering desert. These are handed over, in contradiction, I gather, of the whole advice of the Simon Commission—I have their report here. I cannot find an absolute positive veto, but the whole page which I have here deprecates this course in the strongest manner.

It seems to me that there is only one way for us to preserve this control, and that is by the system which was mocked at by the hon. Member for Caerphilly in a personal sense, but not in a Parliamentary sense. It can only be done by a portion of the money available for the Provincial Governments being meted out to them from the Central Government under some system and with an inspectorate similar to that to which we are accustomed here in regard to education and other matters, which will ensure that there is not a grave administrative breakdown or a serious decline in the Provinces. That is our answer, and it is the only safeguard against progressive deterioration. Moreover, it is the Government's only defence against the charge that they have abrogated their present responsibilities to the people of India, and that they are not caring any more what happens to these poor people. We shall place upon the Paper a series of Amendments to give effect to this method and system, which, I firmly believe, we are bound in duty to do if we are to proceed even with the Provincial sections of this Bill.

The hon. Member for North Bristol (Mr. Bernays) put a series of questions to us on Friday, one of which was: "Do you or do you not believe in democracy?" That is a fairly large question. We all remember the gentleman who, on being shown an elephant for the first time, said he did not believe it; and there was the lady who wrote a metaphysical treatise, whose name, unfortunately, escapes me. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Lord President, whose various and numerous excursions into literature adorn the culture of our political life, will be able to supply the missing name. This lady began her treatise with the words: "I accept the Universe." And, as we all know, Mr. Carlyle made the celebrated comment: "Gad, she'd better." That is rather like my feeling about democracy. I accept it. But I am a good deal more doubtful whether democracy believes in Parliamentary institutions. There was a very fine article, which greatly impressed me, written by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) reminding us of the utter failure of all the Parliaments that have ever been set up in the East. We have only to look across the Channel in Europe to see how democracy tends in its present manifestation to be injurious to the Parliamentary system and to the personal liberties which are dear to the Liberal heart. I should like to ask the hon. Member, does he call this Bill democracy? Is the communal franchise democracy? Is caste reconcilable with democracy? Is the idea of 60,000,000 untouchables reconcilable with any sort of democratic system? The foundation of the democratic idea is that one man is as good as another, or better. Are the second chambers in this Bill democracy? Is it democracy to have indirect election—four or five men in a room, we were told, choosing the delegates of a great Province? The hon. Member takes us to task as to whether we believe in it. I ask him the kind of democracy he is voting for. Is it democracy to spatchcock into the midst of your central elected chamber one-third of the representation of the stewards and bailiffs of the hereditary Princes, who are autocrats? The hon. Member had really better go to the Liberal Summer School without delay and brush up his fundamentals, or else he will run a very grave risk of forfeiting his deposit.

It is fashionable, wherever the influence of the Government extends, for prominent Conservatives and high officials to take a needlessly poor view of our rights and our position in India. I was sorry to read of a high military officer in India speaking of us as aliens. The Joint Select Committee repeatedly stigmatised our rule in India as irresponsible. The Lord President made a reference to the Indians having an increasing preference for putting their confidence in men of their own race and language. To-day the high water mark is reached by the Attorney-General, who, on being challenged by me, exulted that the influence of the British district officer was now no longer so paramount as it used to be. I am very sorry to hear of this downcry of our national credit. None of it is true. All of it is utterly untrue. We are no more aliens in India than the Mohammedans or the Hindus themselves. We have as good a right to be in India as anyone there except, perhaps, the Depressed Classes, who are the original stock. Our Government is not an irresponsible Government. It is a Government responsible to the Crown and to Parliament. It is incomparably the best Government that India has ever seen or ever will see. It is not true to say that the Indians, whatever their creed, would not rather have their affairs dealt with in many cases by British courts and British officers than by their own people, especially their own people of the opposite religion. Any Hindu would prefer to have his case dealt with by a British officer than by a Mohammedan, and vice versa. I have been told that there are frequent instances, and modern instances, of peasants who have a quarrel in a village and both parties walking 40, 50 or 60 miles to find a British district officer who can adjust the trouble between them. Talking about going to people of your own race and language and so forth, when Mr. Gandhi had his appendix removed he was very careful to insist upon a British surgeon. Instances like this could be multiplied indefinitely and it is wrong, indeed it is heartbreaking to find the great name of Britain in India so wantonly and improvidently depreciated by the very functionaries whose prime duty it should be to defend them.

A similar mood of disparagement affects the defence of our commercial rights with India. I always pay great attention to what my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) says of India. The line that he has taken upon it is remarkable. As the old song says, his propensities are all the other way. He asked me whether we who constitute the Conservative Opposition adhere to the so-called Fiscal Convention of 1919. I do. But I place a very different interpretation on it from that of the Government spokesmen. The Fiscal Convention of 1919 is not a convention in the sense of being a treaty. It is a unilateral declaration of policy. It does not confer fiscal autonomy upon India or upon the Government of India. It does not transfer British sovereignty to an independent external body. The Government of India is not an independent body. It is a projection, to a very large extent, of the Government of Great Britain. It is open to the Secre- tary of State to address and, if necessary, to instruct the Viceroy, and through him the Government of India. The closest consultation in practice—the weekly letter—prevails, or ought to prevail. Many representations in my own reollection have been made by Secretaries of State to Viceroys in regard to tariffs affecting different branches of British trade. The Crown appoints the Viceroy, the Crown appoints the Finance Member of the Viceroy's Council, the Crown appoints the important functionaries who compose the Government of India, and in the ultimate issue these functionaries can be recalled by the authority of the Crown and others appointed in their stead whose views are in harmony with those of Parliament. Of course, it might not be right or expedient to do that. That would entirely depend on the circumstances of the case and the time, but to say that we have transferred fiscal sovereignty, that India has complete fiscal autonomy, is not warranted either by the letter or by the spirit of the so-called Fiscal Convention. It has always been understood, until the last five disastrous years of these relations, that both the Viceroy and the Secretary of State owe a duty to both countries in the maintenance of healthy, fruitful, fair trading conditions. While we maintain an Army in India at a great burden of expense to this country, while we give the protection of our fleet, while we give the fruitful advantage of our trade, we are entitled on the highest grounds of justice, as well as empowered by hitherto unimpaired sovereignty, to proper and special consideration in regard to our trade.

Is my right hon. Friend in favour of continuing the system under which we do not interfere when the Viceroy and the Legislature agree on tariff questions, that is to say, would he impose a tariff upon India if India were unwilling to have it?

If my right hon. Friend had followed my argument he would see that it entirely covers the point. I have pointed out that, if the Viceroy and the Assembly are in accord, the Secretary of State does not interfere, but, as the Secretary of State is in special relation to the Viceroy, it is not an agreement of two external independent bodies. Do you think you could let a point like that slip when the livelihood of millions in this country might depend on the interpretation of our rights? It may be well and wise to give way and to interpret your rights with prudence and discretion, but that our own Minister, the representative that we have in this House, should take such a very low and poor view of the valid rights and authority that we possess in this House is indeed much to be regretted. [ Interruption. ] During the last five years certainly it seems to me that duties have been raised out of all relation either to the trade between the two countries or even to the interests of the Indian revenue. The hon. Member for Caerphilly and the hon. Member for North Bristol speak of this matter as if in trade matters what becomes an advantage to one country can only be obtained to the detriment of another. That is an absolute contradiction of all Free Trade principles. One of the first maxims that I honoured, and still honour, in the Free Trade armoury is that all legitimate interests are in harmony, and that the good of one country may well be the good of another, whether within or without the Empire, and all the more stimulating and all the more beneficial if within the Empire. It is not a question of one country exploiting another, but of both deriving reciprocal benefits through the interchange of goods and services upon the largest possible scale.

Of course, we are confronted with the old choice of self-government versus good government. We are invited to believe that the worst self-government is better than the best good government. That is going too far, but I think no one would look at it in that way. It is a matter of degree. It is a matter that can only be judged in relation to the actual circumstances and conditions. Everyone is, in fact, approaching it on those lines. The modern view is not concentrated entirely on the sovereign virtues of self-government. On the contrary, there is the idea of the external aid to be given by one nation to another. How happy we should be if the United States were willing to place her fleets and armies at the disposal of the League of Nations to protect countries in Europe against an aggressor. How we should rejoice. Yet it is those very functions which we have discharged and are discharging in India that have given India its immunity from the perils, the anxieties, the disorders and the burdens which oppress the strongest and most civilised nations in Europe. That is not the principle of self-government. It is the principle of beneficial aid from an external source for a virtuous object.

This protection and security cannot be removed from India. They have grown with our growth and strengthened with our strength. They will diminish with our diminution and decay with our decay, if I may paraphrase a famous sentence. In so far as they are withdrawn and this external aid withheld, India will descend, not quite into the perils of Europe but into the squalor and anarchy of India in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It seems to me that the present infatuation of the Liberal mind, and I must say of the more intellectual part of the Socialist mind, is at this moment very serious. Their error is an undue exaltation of the principle of self-government. They set this principle above all other principles; they press it to the destruction of all other principles. Let satisfaction be given to the idea of self-government and in the end, they assure us, all will come right, and the consequences, however evil, will fade into the background. Let there be self-government and all will be well. But see the absurdity of this in application. Let me take an instance. The Bombay and Ahmedabad mill-owning millionaires, we will say, obtain a corrupt influence over the Congress Party and so exercise a dominating influence in the new Legislature; and the Legislature, under their influence, sets up a prohibitive tariff which causes widespread distress in Lancashire, which affects the Indian revenue and which horribly denies and stints the vast agricultural population of India in its legitimate needs.

In the result enormous profits are reaped by this handful of exploiters. And then what does my right hon. Friend say? That he must regard that with sombre acquiescence as an example of the less successful working of his system of self-government: But if, on the other hand, the Viceroy and the Secretary of State in close association influence the Government of India to limit the tariff to bona fide revenue purposes and to the degree within which the interests of the Indian consumer are adequately con- sidered and protected from monopoly, then that wise and prudent and righteous measure would be condemned as the shameful exploitation of one country by another. No other country in the world would consider such an argument for a moment. No other country in the world having Asiatic possessions would for a moment look at such arguments—and other countries are as intelligent in their own spheres as we are.

The French, I believe, export 50 per cent. of their whole exports to their own Colonies; and the Dutch also. None of these countries would submit to this extreme interpretation of a theoretical doctrine, pushed beyond all bounds of common sense and beyond all bounds of common humanity, either to the people of India or to the people of this country. I accept the so-called fiscal Convention with the interpretation which I put upon it. I have been at the centre of affairs for a very long time, and I know the interpretation that has been put on it for many years by people just as competent as many of those who now direct our affairs.

I am afraid that I cannot give way. The hon. Member as a Lancashire Member ought to be helping. The moment you set up responsible Government at the Centre, you begin to make effective the transfer of sovereignty. Then you make the great change, and that is the moment at which, we hold, as a condition of making this transference you should obtain sure and lasting guarantees for mutually advantageous trade between the two countries. If the Federal Clauses of this Bill are persisted in by His Majesty's Government, we shall certainly endeavour to introduce such provisions into this Bill and to take the opinion of the Committee upon them. My Noble Friend the Member for Horsham set out to convict us of inconsistency and want of logic in our position. He said, if I rightly interpret him, that we did not really believe in the spread of Western democratic methods in India and yet we were willing to agree to a far-reaching scheme of Provincial Home Rule, imputing to us want of logic in that. Any concession made to the opinion of others may be turned against us in that way. But that is not a very hopeful way of approaching these long Debates, when obviously there must be a good deal of give and take oil both sides. I answer that, not by logic, but by an appeal to history in this controversy.

I have always felt bound to a very large extent and in principle by the great compromise and settlement between representatives of all British parties embodied in the report of the Statutory Commission. I do not agree with it in every detail, but in the main I have felt greatly under the impression of its authority. I should have been glad if the commission had reported, in view of the lack of co-operation by Congress and other elements and in view of the deterioration of the transferred Services, that no further advance was justified at the present time. I have not the slightest doubt that that would have been the best and most sensible decision to be reached, and I have no doubt that many people in their heart of hearts, not only here but in India, would take that view. But we bowed, as often we have to bow to a practical working proposal. People ought not to underrate the work of the Statutory Commission. They condemn dyarchy in all its forms and sought to eradicate it from Indian polity. What they gave they gave fully; what they withheld they withheld firmly. They gave full Autonomy to the Provinces but maintained integral cohesion at the Centre. If the experiment in the Provinces came to grief, then it could be stopped and the powers resumed. Meanwhile, none of the grave complications attendant upon All-India Federation would have been raised. I still think that after all these five years of discussions and inquiry no advance or improvement of any sort has been made upon the report of the Statutory Commission. There has been no advance towards efficiency, no advance towards finality, and, above all, no advance towards agreement. All these protracted, tumultous confabulations which followed Lord Irwin's unfortunate Declaration in 1929—all this labyrinth through which we have been led has brought us nothing that has been good for this country or India.

We have gone further, and we have fared worse. We have gone into infinite worries, bitter quarrellings, toils unending, and ever-deepening confusion, with sharper disagreements between friends at home and with fellow subjects in India. There has been no foothold for us to stand upon. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last argued that no one should pay attention to the opinions of anyone holding our views. It seems to me that their opinions should not be overlooked entirely. Then comes this extraordinary point. The present position of the Indian Legislature, judged by this Resolution which they carry by so large a majority of elected members, is almost identical with the recommendation of the Statutory Commission set up by us some five years ago. It is extraordinary that they recommend that Provincial Government should be proceeded with, although they do not like it in its present form, and that the Federal system should be dropped. They say:

The Government proclaim their trust in the Indian political classes—but they show their distrust by the multitude of Safeguards they have introduced. Take the question of the provisions with regard to the handing over of the police. We hear all this talk about the educative value of responsibility, and it is beautifully expressed, but what is the responsibility that will really be given to the Indian Minister of a Province in regard to this? It seems to me that it is very seriously inroaded upon. He must not interfere with the internal government of the police; he cannot appoint or dismiss the chief of the police; and he is not to know the information on which the police act, although he will have to bear the responsibility of action which may involve bloodshed. It is no good saying that one should not tell them these things for they must be well known to Indian lawyers and others who have studied the matter. Here, again, you have made the great mistake of using all kinds of language not fully justified by the act and facts for which you are responsible. The Government are floundering in the old bog of government by consent with consent not forthcoming.

But there is one matter upon which the Indian Legislature will have great power and great temptation to use its power, and that is in the matter of trade relations between the two countries. When this Trade Pact, this poor meagre Pact for the sake of which the Manchester Chamber of Commerce sacrificed its opportunity of stating its whole case before the Joint Select Committee—when this Pact was rejected the other day, some of our friends who support the Government Bill met us with a superior, but at the same time rather sickly smile and said: "This means nothing; they are not responsible; they have not yet got the healing, educative, steadying, stabilising force of responsibility operating upon them; when they have that it will be all very different." I do not know about that. If there is a man who wishes to kick you but has not the power, are you to say: "Give him the power and you may be sure you will be quite safe"? It may be true. No one cay say that it is not conceivable, but it is not at all a convincing or alluring argument.

Here our Irish experiences ought to be relevant. It ought to be relevant upon this question of the healing, educative virtues of responsibility. We gave them full responsibility and everything necessary to full autonomy. We had a solemn treaty and there you had able and resolute men who had pledged their faith to that treaty. But what happened? It was this. Both the Government in Ireland and the Opposition were forced to vie with one another in showing who could be the most disagreeable to England. The Government would have liked, as I know, to show us friendly feeling, but they did not dare for Opposition Members gained popularity throughout the country by showing how they could beat the Government hollow at the game of twisting the lion's tail. Because the Government were not so good at kicking England as they were the Opposition finally installed themselves in their places, broke the treaty and ruined the country. That is what happened in Ireland. Of this healing virtue of responsibility this certainly is not an encouraging example. It is not at all proof that the medicine in which you have such unbounded faith will in all cases produce immediate recovery.

You have not got, as you have in Ireland, a practical and complete autonomy. This new Parliament will be obstructive at every point. The Opposition said the other day that they would have very little to do. They could criticise the administration and attack the safeguards, and you have furnished them with a means to attack the safeguards. What is the means by which they can attack the safeguards? It is by maltreating the trade. They will have Lancashire as a hostage, they will be able to torture Lancashire, and they will be able to extract from the Government and extort from the Viceroy diminution of the safeguards. They will have that in addition to all the other mighty persuasive powers of Parliamentary procedure.

I have watched this story from its very unfolding, and what has struck me more than anything else about it has been the amazingly small number of people who have managed to carry matters to their present lamentable pitch. You could almost count them on the fingers of one hand. I have also been struck by the prodigious power which this group of individuals have been able to exert and relay, to use a mechanical term, through the vast machinery of party, of Parliament and of patronage both here and in the East. It is tragical that they should have been able to mislead the loyalties and use the assets of the Empire to its own undoing. I compliment them on their skill, and I compliment them also on their disciples. Their chorus is exceedingly well drilled. We listen to their parrot cries—"We have set our hands to the plough; we must plough the furrow to the end, even if the course is folly, and even if the end is disastrous."

We are told that something must be done. My father Lord Randolph Churchill was often credited with saying that when he heard people going about saying that something must be done, he had noticed that something very foolish was done. We are told that you cannot put the clock back. What nonsense. We put the clock back every year with highly beneficial results. Why do we put it back? That is what I want the House to notice. We put it back to place ourselves in more harmonious relation with the great facts of nature. We do not try with our little clocks and watches to run counter to nature. That would bring us into confusion or be entirely ineffectual. The error of the Government is that they are trying to put the clock forward without regard to the true march of solar events. They are trying to put it forward in the hope that the sun will alter its process because of their little dodges. So much for the argument that you cannot put back the clock.

There is one final argument that remains. I will endeavour to compress and put it as shortly as possible, but it is one that must be met. We are told that by opposing the India Bill and India policy here and in the country we are running the risk of putting the Socialist Opposition into power, and that they will pass a much worse Bill. If that doctrine is to be accepted, it means that right hon. Gentlemen opposite, whether in office or in Opposition, are always in power. It really destroys the Conservative and Liberal parties. But in actual practice the passage of this Bill as it stands will make very easy the path of a Socialist Government in carrying a solution of the India problem which not one of those who are going to vote on the Government side to-night would for a moment contemplate or tolerate. One Parliament cannot bind another, but there are certain practical securities. The first is well organised parties expressing their national and traditional view, balancing each other and reacting upon a healthy public opinion in the country—that is the great security against foolish or dangerous legislation.

But there is another, and it resides in the Procedure of the House of Commons, which I am glad to know the Government themselves are respecting in this case. This Bill is a gigantic barrier against hasty or imprudent legislation. Imagine the party opposite installed on these benches having to pass through Parliament a Bill with hundreds of Clauses during their first or second Session. They would never be allowed by their followers. They would say: "Get on making the new order of society; get on with your cure for unemployment; get on with your nationalisation of the banks, and so forth; do not spend all your time on these intricate matters." A Bill of this kind is an immense deterrent with all its complications, but you are doing all this work and you are sweeping all this barrier out of the way. When this Bill is passed it will be quite an easy matter to amend it. There will not be the slightest difficulty. A dozen or 15 Clauses in a little, light paper Bill would be quite sufficient to tear away all these safeguards which are comforting so many hon. Gentlemen tonight, and which they are laying to their hearts as the grounds to justify them in What they are doing and to quiet their misgivings—the natural pricks and stings of conscience by which they are undoubtedly afflicted. Take the question of the Federal Clauses of the Bill. I have not been able to estimate how many there are. Perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us some other time. At any rate, there are hundreds of them.

Let us say a large proportion. We will ascertain the figure later. As we stand at present, if this Bill is passed as it is, the Federal system can be brought into operation in three, four or five years, when the circumstances may be wholly different from what they are now and when, in our opinion, it would be most unwise and unnecessary to bring them into operation. But they can be brought into operation by a single vote; an Address in both Houses of Parliament. Can you expect the House of Lords, which the Lord President has so persistently refused to reform or strengthen, to stand up in these circumstances against a Measure, the principle of which has been conceded, and against a Socialist Administration in power, on a matter which would be said to be vehemently demanded in all parts of India? No, the security against bringing into operation the Federal system at an unsatisfactory time is that the Federal system should stand over from this Parliament and be left to be brought in when the circumstances are apt and ripe for it.

I will make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, if he will allow me to do so, an appeal which is earnest and governed by sincere respect. Will he not consider the division of this Bill into two parts and the omission of the Federal Clauses? That will enormously relieve the whole position and follow on the advice and wishes expressed by the Indian people through the only channels and organs which are open to them. Moreover, it does not in any way prevent the Government exposing their whole design. They have already exposed it in this Bill, which has passed the First Reading, and which is going to pass through Second Reading. You have unfolded your great plan of Indian Parliaments of the future, and you can put it up in the tea room for everyone to see. There is only one block which you can build now and for a good many years to come, for which you have the funds and for which you have the agreement, or measure of agreement. Put that up, and when, later on, the time comes, it will be possible to relate the other parts of the building to what has already been erected.

The Vote we are going to give to-night will be a vote against the Second Reading of this Bill. As it is put from the Chair it gives a perfectly clean, clear, simple vote against the Second Reading on the Question of whether the word "Now" and other words stand part. That Vote in no way involves the terms of the Amendment placed on the Paper by the Opposition. If we were successful in our vote against the Second Reading of this Bill, another Question would have to be put from the Chair, that their words be there inserted. There could be no question of their coming before the House if we were successful in the first Division. We should vote against the words of the Socialist Amendment in the second Division and, I trust, that we shall be assisted by any debris of His Majesty's Government who may still find it necessary to take an interest in public affairs.

This is the first time that this extended and elaborate Bill has been brought out into the open and exposed to the criticism of the House of Commons. I believe that it will be possible to convince the House and the country that the Federal proposals are untimely and unworkable. I believe that they could be riddled in fair and free Debate, and that if the scheme which is now being pressed forward—the whole of it, not only the Federal, but also the Provincial—were dropped by the Government it would be the cause of great relief not only throughout this country, but from one end of India to the other. We shall endeavour to conduct our opposition as far as in us lies to show the fatal faults and defects of this Bill. But we shall aim at doing more. We shall try to instil into the minds of the peoples of Britain and of India a different and a new conception of the relations between the two countries. We hope once and for all to kill the idea that the British in India are aliens moving, with many apologies, out of the country as soon as they have been able to set up any kind of governing organism to take their place. We shall try to inculcate this idea, coming now to be mentioned more and more in many quarters of the House, that we are there for ever as honoured partners with our Indian fellow subjects whom we invite in all faithfulness to join with us in the highest functions of government for their lasting benefit and for our own.

7.29 p.m.

In one thing, at any rate, I warmly agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), that it is our business in these Debates to answer each other's arguments, and I propose to answer his. I was very much struck on Friday by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Battersea (Commander Marsden). He complained that he was unable to get from the Government any real appreciation of the point of view of himself and his friends, and I feel that there is a case to be answered by those who support the Second Reading of this Bill. But I am bound to say that I am not sure whether that case has been in any way very much strengthened by the speech of my right hon Friend which was supposed, I gather, to sum up the case against this Bill. Was it necessary for my right hon. Friend, in endeavouring to answer argu- ments, to answer so many arguments which have never been put at all, to spend so much time in talking about words and phrases like democracy, self-government and the aspirations of our Indian fellow subjects, none of which have been seriously advanced in the sense in which he referred to them by any supporter of the Bill? Was it necessary to imitate the Congress point of view and to devote so much time to the mere phrase "Dominion status"? Many of us were shocked a little immediately after the report of the Joint Select Committee when we found that, apparently, no vocal section of political opinion in India was prepared to consider the constitutional scheme, but that they ran off, trying to argue about Dominion status. My right hon. Friend has now thought it wise to do the same thing. He has found that perhaps constitutionally it is not so vulnerable as he at first thought, and he has found it convenient to raise this question about a phrase in order to create prejudice against a Bill which does not contain the phrase, against a report which does not contain the phrase, against proposals which have nothing to do with the phrase, and in relation to the Second Reading of a Bill which has nothing whatever to do with that question.

Moreover, was it necessary for my right hon. Friend to introduce that particular kind of prejudice which consisted in saying, in insinuating, in an aside almost too cursory to notice, that a small and sinister group in this country have carried out their policy by the free use of patronage? What is the use of saying things which nobody believes? I would recall to my right hon. Friend's memory a speech by my right hon. Friend the Senior Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil), when he said that, really, statements in politics need not be true, but that they must have verisimilitude; that to make a charge which was obviously untrue was useless and that it was better to reserve one's breath for more profitable mendacity.

Am I to understand that my Noble Friend is applying the term "mendacity" to anything that I have said?

I said that it was a quotation, but I certainly think that if that quotation was in order on the occa- sion that it was made it is in order to use it in reference to the imputation which the right hon. Gentleman levelled against an anonymous group, that they had used the power of patronage to force through a policy against the good judgment of Parliament.

As I understand it, my Noble Friend is now definitely applying the word "mendacity" to me, not in the sense that I have been misled or have used an unwise or improper phrase which I cannot substantiate, or one difficult to substantiate, but an accusation of mendacity in the sense of wilfully and intentionally saying what is mendacious and untrue. That, I am sure, is not a statement that I can permit to pass without placing myself under the protection of the Chair.

The right hon. Gentleman asks me for my Ruling. If one hon. Member speaks of another in terms of that description, directly, then, of course, it is unparliamentary, and must be withdrawn.

On a point of Order. Is not a right hon. or hon. Member entitled to quote a phrase which was used in Debate and which went without rebuke from whoever occupied the Chair at that time? I should like an answer to that very important point.

That statement, if I recollect correctly, was used generally and without application to any particular person.

I desire to raise a definite point of Order. It is a very important question of principle. Is an hon. Member of this House not entitled to quote words which were used in Debate on a previous occasion by an hon. or right hon. Member about another, and went unrebuked at the time?

Allow me to assure my right hon. Friend that, while I must continue to say that the actual statements he made were untrue—

Of course, I do not impute to him and I would never impute to him or to any of my hon. colleagues in this House any intention of making a charge which he did not believe himself.

I am very much obliged to my Noble Friend. The remarks that he has now made entirely satisfy me.

I am sorry if my right hon. Friend thought that I meant anything else. I was going on to ask whether it was necessary for my right hon. Friend to use a certain liberty in quotation. He led the House to believe, indeed, he almost stated it in terms, that the Resolution of the Assembly was a Resolution in favour of the Simon Report, in substance. Did he omit to notice the last Clause in that Resolution? is used against these proposals, and used especially by those who, in another communication to the Maharaja, were modest enough to say: "We are the best of the Conservative party." How comforting it must be to have such an opinion of oneself.

I come to two arguments which the right hon. Member for Epping put forward, points which have been reiterated by the opponents of the Bill several times. The first is the argument about the welfare of the masses. Here, my right hon. Friend obviously found it very difficult to reply to the question: "What are you proposing to do for the welfare of the masses if you propose to hand over the whole sphere of provincial government?" He says: "I propose to have the scheme which I laid before the Joint Select Committee—a complete inspectorate appointed by the Central Government and controlling the expenditure of the provincial Governments on all social services."

I know. There is to be a grant from the Central Government, and in return for that grant there is to be control by an inspectorate over those central services, not only control over the grants made by the Central Government but over the whole services. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was going to move Amendments to that effect and that that was the policy of the group which he is leading. I wonder how many of the Members of that group knew that before the right hon. Gentleman stated it? There is only one other hon. Member of this House, so far as I know, who has said that that was his alternative solution, and that was the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox). He said that his alternative scheme was the right hon. Gentleman's scheme, complicated by Sir Michael O'Dwyer's scheme. No other hon. Member has ever mentioned it. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Battersea North (Commander Marsden)—I am sorry that he has left the House?—said that his alternative solution, or what he and his friends wanted to do, was this:

"My suggestion would be to restrict, if necessary, the sphere of the Minister's duties"—

He was referring to Provincial Autonomy—

"and when you have done that, to give him real responsibility, not cloaked responsibility, when every moment other people may step in and override what he is doing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February, 1935; col. 1528, Vol. 297.]

That, I gather, was the solution of my hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir A. Boyd-Carpenter). That is dyarchy. That is the whole policy of dyarchy. That is the policy which was tried in 1919, which was condemned by at least four out of eight Provincial Governments, condemned by the Statutory Commission, and condemned, I think, by everybody. It is an exact definition of dyarchy. You cannot have that complete responsibility in India unless you have a system of dyarchy.

Dyarchy means that there is a division of power, but in this system the power rests with the local bodies, the provinces, and if they wish to earn a grant they have to obtain a certain standard of efficiency.

The right hon. Member has misconceived my argument. I do not misunderstand what the right hon. Gentleman wants, and I am pointing out what some of his followers want. The hon. and gallant Member for North Battersea and the hon. Member for Chertsey believe in dyarchy and the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe stated his alternative. His alternative, will it be believed, is the Salisbury Report. "Among the many faithless, faithful, only he." He is the only one who has mentioned the Salisbury Report since it was adopted by the India Defence League, and then hurriedly dropped. Now the right hon. Member for Epping has thrown further light on the matter and has said that this scheme holds the field. The most authoritative report on the scheme is that of the Statutory Commission which made an exhaustive inquiry and report on these matters. It considered the right hon. Gentleman's scheme, which was put before it with great force by its auxiliary Committee on Education.

The Statutory Commission. I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman has not been fully coached on this subject. What is known as the Hartshorn Committee put forward a scheme of central grants with some degree of inspection before the Statutory Commission, which considered it at great length, heard all the arguments in favour of it, and finally turned it down quite definitely. It has been turned down since by the Joint Select Committee and by the minority of the Joint Select Committee, who never mention it in their report. It has no friends at all. Why? Some hon. Members in this House speak as if the history of India began in the year 1919. There was a Government of India before that, and a social policy in India before that date. Since 1882 at least the Government of India have followed a policy of definite decentralisation of education of an extreme kind. A resolution carried in 1882 called for:

I recognise the real genuine feeling that under the franchise we can give at the moment undue power will be put into the hands of the moneyed classes. I would ask my hon. Friends to consider whether in fact that has been the experience since 1919. You may say with some force that the efficiency of the service has deteriorated in the past, that the policy has not been wise and that too much money has been wasted, but you certainly cannot say that the policy of the provincial councils, elected on a far narrower franchise than that which we are proposing in the Bill, has been an illliberal policy. On the contrary. Here again I must protest against the very false impression on these matters which is conveyed too often by pamphlets about the evils of education in India. All the evils of education, from the days of Lord Macauley, are laid down in the provincial councils, which have existed only since 1919. I am addressing myself now to the question as to whether it can be said that the policy in intention has been reactionary; and I need only quote a few words from the present Educational Commissioner of the Government of India: Lancashire cotton spinners and operatives with the interests of our Indian fellow subjects by making the very curious asumption that anything but a low revenue tariff on cotton goods must be to the disadvantage of the great masses of the people of India. That is not the sort of argument which if I were an Indian I should make to a committee responsible for the Indian tariff policy of this House. One of the main economic facts of Indian at this moment—

Is it not a fact that 75 per cent. of the population in Calcutta and in the big mill towns like Bombay are lodgers, who want to get back to the land; who have only come into the towns to work for a short time, and whenever they have money saved want to get back to the land?

The economic view of my hon. Friend is too often influenced by a sort of vague remark about the toiling millions who are using the same primitive methods on the land which they have used for 100 years. Yes, quite so; but they are not the same toiling millions. There are a great many more of them. In the last 80 years the population of India has grown by something like 150,000,000. Its rate of growth for the last 200 years means that it has been nearly doubling itself every century; and the great economic fact which India has to face, and which the Government of India to-day have to face, is the growing pressure of population and the means of subsistance. When that happens in primitive agricultural countries—agricultural methods are always primitive—history teaches us that there are only two alternative lines of development—one is emigration and the other industrialisation. Almost every avenue of emigration has been closed to Indians in the last few years, and closed by none more than by the British Empire. I should be very slow to say that in view of the need for a better balance of Indian agriculture and Indian industries, difficult and dangerous as it is in view of the low standard of industrial business management, and dangerous as are the conditions which may be created by a too rapid industrialisation, that I think industrialisation, behind if necessary a good wall of protectionist duties, is as necessary to India to-day as it was to England in the early days of the industrial revolution. I implore my hon. Friend to realise that he must not get over the conflict of interests between the Lancashire operatives and his Indian fellow citizens by calmly assuming that the interests of both are the same. They are different.

What is the policy of this House of Commons? The answer of the right hon. Member for Epping is simple. He says let us follow the fiscal convention, which says that where the Viceroy and the Legislature agree the Secretary of State will not interfere. He says that when the Secretary of State does not agree with the Legislature he will tell the Viceroy not to agree with the Legislature, and all will be well. If there is no objection to Americanisms, it is a little bit like a raw deal. If that is the sort of phrasing that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to offer to India as a sign of his honesty, his strictness and the honour of this country, then I do not wonder that he says that the Indian is beginning to doubt the honour of this country, because all that is done is to reduce the fiscal convention to a pure fraud, and that it never was.

Yes, but who is to tell what normal circumstances are. Really, the right hon. Gentleman was pouring scorn on what he called the vagueness and the shiftiness of our remarks about Dominion Status, and now we have listened to his definition of what the fiscal convention is. Again, I would suggest to the House that the history of the British Empire did begin earlier than the fiscal convention of 1919. It was in 1786 that the British Parliament passed a Colonial Laws Act definitely laying down that this Parliament would never again levy a tax on the plantations in America or the West Indies—not on Dominions, but on Crown Colonies, which were much more the mere projection of this House than the Government of India has ever been. It is true that that original Act contains a proviso. There was a right reserved to levy duties for the regulation of trade, provided that the yield of the duties was paid into the Colonial Exchequer, but in fact that power was not used and has not been used for something like a century. We have accepted the principle, even in dealing with a Crown Colony, that this Parliament, which does not represent the taxpayers of the Crown Colony, must not tax that Crown Colony. What the hon. Member for Middleton was really doing is to suggest that this country should deal with the Indian tariffs in a way in which it would not deal with the tariffs of any Crown Colony, say the Gold Coast Colony.

Surely he has. Is it used? No it is not. What has been the whole difficulty? Does the hon. Member remember the time before the War, when the question of whether a system of Colonial preference was to include the Crown Colonies was raised. Mr. Bonar Law was inclined to do so, but then drew back on the ground that you could not have a system of preference including the Crown Colonies without arrogating powers or the right to tax the Crown Colonies. Really these things are the elementary foundation of British constitutional history.

I do not want to interrupt the Noble Lord, but surely there are instances within the recollection of the whole House of the Secretary of State disallowing certain duties imposed by Crown Colonies, and giving undertakings, very often to private concerns which were engaged in a new outbreak of industry, that certain duties would not be levied in the Crown Colonies?

That is perfectly true. Where you have a complete Crown Colony it is very often very difficult to separate the responsibility of the Secretary of State to Parliament from his responsibility for the Crown Colony itself, but, broadly speaking, I am laying down the principle from which Parliament has never departed.

Does the Noble Lord think that the Indian import duties were increased for revenue and revenue only?

I suppose my hon. Friend is referring to the present surcharges? My whole argument has been that a protective policy is justified in the interests of the Indian masses. I am not defending the present tariff. I am not saying that it is not too high. But I do say that if you are going to interfere in the tariff policy of India you have to interfere with a view to regulating the protectionist policy, not merely a simple system of keeping revenue duties as low as possible in the interests of the poor consumers; you have to dictate to India the whole system of protective tariffs. Finally, I come to the surcharges. The surcharges are quite definitely put on for the purpose of revenue. I understand they are definitely intended to compensate in part for the falling off in the yield of the duty exactly as the surcharges on Income Tax are supposed to compensate for the falling off in the yield of Income Tax. What Lancashire is now complaining about is not at all the original protectionist part of the duty, but of a revenue surcharge which may have a very serious protective effect, but whose main purpose was undoubtedly a revenue purpose.

I think that this sufficiently indicates the real weakness of the arguments, so far as they are new, which have been used in this Debate against the Bill. If I have been controversial I hope that hon. Friends with whom I have been controversial will at any rate appreciate that I have attempted to deal with their arguments and to get down to their real case. I hope they will not think that in anything I have said I have exacerbated feelings which are already quite sufficiently bitter or divided. I do not think that anything in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton impressed me more than his reference to his kinsman Sir John Sandeman. I suggest that he should remember what one historian said about him as characterising the whole frontier—"He recognised that the British side of the question was not the only side." I think that that is too often forgotten.

When my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Nunn) appealed to the old Anglo-Indian families, like the Lawrences and so on, he forgot many things that Lawrence said, and the folly of supposing that the aspiring and energetic among the great masses of the population would like our own dead level and would be grateful to the British for arrogating to themselves all authority and all emoluments. That was realised by the greatest and most dictatorial of the British Indian civil servants in the past. We are to-day doing something which will not be disapproved by these men, and I think that these men would disagree less with what they might consider our rashness than with the hit-and-miss polemics that come too often from right hon. and hon. Friends of mine, like the right hon. Member for Epping and the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth.

8.10 p.m.

The Noble Lord who has just spoken, like other speakers in the Debate, has spent his time not in defending the Bill, nor in answering the arguments of this side, but in attacking the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). If the Noble Lord found it no easy task to attack the right hon. Member for Epping—his attack was a little laboured—he has found how much more difficult it is, how impossible it is, to meet the arguments against the Bill which are brought forward by the people who have to suffer from it. There has been no attempt made to answer the objections of the Indian people. It is time that those objections were stated and clearly understood. It is the Indian people who have to work the Bill and who will suffer if what we do goes wrong.

What are the objections to the Bill? The first objection to the Bill is that it is putting the Indian people, not merely the poor but the whole of the Indian people, under the control of non-representative Princes of India. Our landlords in this country are well educated by democracy, and with all their failings are, after all, men very much like ourselves. But in India you are putting the whole of the 340,000,000 people into the hands of an aristocracy which has stood still since the 16th century, and you are doing it in spite of the fact that the Indians themselves do not want it. You are not merely condemning for all time 70,000,000 inhabitants of the Indian States to remain without rights and without liberty, but you are condemning all the rest of India to the same permanent injury. If you look at the list of proposed members of the Legislative Assembly, and still more at the list of members of the Council of State, you will see that by no possible manner of means can Congress or the Hindus ever have a majority, ever have any absolute control over that Assembly. So that the first fear of the Indians is that we are definitely removing our own hand and substituting a deader hand than ours in the control of the destinies of India.

Their next objection is one which relates to the words "Dominion status" in the Preamble. I myself attach no importance whatever to the words "Dominion status," but I do attach the greatest importance, as do the Indian people, to the question of the finality of this scheme. If this Bill becomes an Act any words about Dominion status in the Preamble will be meaningless nonsense, for we have to realise that this Bill, when we pass it, is the Act. It may have been all right in the Preamble to the Bill of 1919 to state that that Measure was the first of a series of stages in the intended development of Home Rule for India, but what would be the point of attaching a statement to this Bill suggesting further steps forward when, by the very fact of passing this Bill, we make any further step forward impossible. Even my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) when dealing with this point did not realise how absolutely impossible it is to change this Bill.

Suppose we were the Government in six years' time, and suppose that we genuinely wanted to take a forward step. We should be faced with the difficulty of not only repealing an Act of Parliament, not only repealing a Constitution but of breaking a treaty with some 600 native races—and that is a thing which you cannot do. The Indians realise perfectly well that this Bill when it becomes an Act and is brought into operation in India will be the end. This is a treaty between one sovereign nation and a large number of sovereign Princes which cannot be altered without the consent of every one of those sovereign Princes. It is not merely a question of the new Indian Assembly reforming itself. I think that would be extremely unlikely, seeing that the directly elected element is so small. It is not a question of the Legislative Assembly sending resolutions to us urging that this Measure should be altered. It will be noticed that in these discussions emphasis has been laid on the fact that the only thing that can be altered by Parliament here is not this Measure but the Instrument of Instructions.

This Measure therefore is sacrosanct, and in order to realise the desperate opposition to it in India, one must realise that by its passing, all future hope of constitutional advance is destroyed in toto. That is the real reason why the Government stand out against a meaningless Preamble to the Bill about Dominion status. If this is not Dominion status, then nothing else can be done. The first objection then is to federation with the Indian States which puts India under the control of the Indian States and the Princes of those States. The second objection is that the Bill is absolutely final, and that there is no hope of the best-intentioned Labour Government in the future ever doing anything more. The next serious objection—which has not been once mentioned not even from these benches—is the rooted objection of the whole Hindu population to communal representation. That is an objection, the force of which must be felt by every one who understands our own institutions in this country.

So far as the Princes are concerned, they only rule at the Centre. So far as finality is concerned it only affects the Centre. But this communal objection affects every one of the Provinces as well as the Centre. We had in this country last week an admirable example of the value of democracy, in the explosion which took place in connection with the unemployment scales of pay. It was reflected immediately in this House and immediately produced an unexampled volte face on the part of the Government. That was a triumph of democracy. If it had been a case of a number of Labour Members on these benches complaining about those scales, their views would have been discounted and nothing would have been done. Had the Liberals complained they would have been told that they were making it into a party squabble. It was because the complaints came from the Tory benches that they produced such an effect.

Suppose that we had been living under the system which we propose for India. Suppose that the Members on these benches were elected by the trade unions, and the Liberals by the chambers of commerce and the Conservatives by some other section. Suppose that you had the Moslems sitting here and the Sikhs over there and the Hindus somewhere else each body representing select communi- ties. A dozen Members of the Labour party or a dozen Members representing depressed classes would feel bound to get up and say something when the interests of their people were attacked. But the rest of the House would walk out. Their remarks would be treated with contempt and derision because it would be known that they would never be in a majority. The other Members would also know that they themselves had not one single constituent affected by the difficulty whatever it might be. But that is the sort of system which we are proposing to establish in India.

I notice a tendency even on these benches to consider it a matter of importance whether a minority has eight members or 10 members on a council. It does not matter a rap. Two men could express the Labour point of view on a council where there was a large anti-Labour majority but from the point of view of power 10 men would be just as helpless as one. The number of the minority is known and can be discounted and their views can be taken as read. On the other hand, if working men have votes in the constituencies and if all the members are dependent on those votes then the working men can get their views expressed as the views of the unemployed were expressed the other day in this House—by their Tory representatives. The vice of the system which we are about to import into India is inconceivable and its effects will be widespread. It means that at election time the only views which candidates will express will be views of bitter hostility to other creeds, classes and interests. It means that all politics will be directed towards hating somebody else, instead of trying to co-operate with the other people concerned.

In this country we are moderate in our views. The Conservatives are moderate. Labour is most moderate. The Conservatives know that there are some Labour people who will vote for them. We on these benches know that there are probably a good many nominal Conservatives who may vote for us. If I were elected by the Protestant Alliance or the Cooperative Union exclusively, my speeches would be directed towards the errors of the Catholic faith, or the vices of uncontrolled competition as the case might be. As it is, we represent all sections and therefore we are more moderate, more careful and more willing to co-operate with others. We propose to bring this vice of communal representation into this new Constitution but we know that there is not a man in this country who would tolerate it here. Yet there has been not one word from the Government in defence of it although in India, it is the one issue with 240,000,000 Hindus. It is all they are thinking of in connection with this Bill and it affects every one of them.

In four Provinces, Bengal, the Punjab, the North-West Frontier, and Sind, there is a statutory Mohammedan majority for all time. No matter what these people do, the Hindus will always be out of office and in a minority. No single Hindu will be allowed to vote for a Mohammedan or to choose between one Mohammedan candidate and another. He will have no vote for the ruling class, no vote for the Government, no right to vote against the Government, and no power to vote for the Government, and, above all, the Mohammedan need never demean himself by asking for a vote from a Hindu. That is a nice way of bringing people together.

The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) said the other day how advantageous it was to have a Constitution wherein there was some chance of the person who went in for real politics getting into office, that, after all, the desire to control and rule was a legitimate desire for anyone in public life. In all the Provinces in India, under this Bill you are making it impossible for the minority ever to hold office. The swing of the pendulum cannot take place. In Madras no Mohammedan has a vote for a Hindu and he has only a small minority of the seats. The Hindu Government in Madras Province need not regard him. The Hindus, however, are a mild, gentle race—they are not accustomed to bullying minorities—but when you get up into the Punjab and, worse still, into Sind and into the North-West Frontier Province, what sort of treatment will be meted out to the statutory minorities there, the people who have no votes for their masters, the people who are 20 per cent. of the population in the North-West Frontier Province and in Sind, but very nearly 50 per cent. in the Punjab? They can never have a vote for the people who are ruling them or against the people who are ruling them.

What use the vote is supposed to be for them in these circumstances I cannot conceive. They can go on returning a body of Brahmins, but never will they have the opportunity to take office or the right of expressing effectively their detestation of the way in which the government of the Province is conducted. The Provincial Government, it should be remembered, controls education, police, public works, and water, and the whole life of the minority can be made intolerable by the hostile government of people who not only do not inter-marry with them, but who despise them, and treat them, and view them as Jews now, and who will treat them and view them as Hitler does, once they have permanent power over these unfortunate people. That is why you get these votes against this Bill in the Indian Assembly.

Turn to Bengal, where up till now 60 per cent. of the seats on the Bengal Council are Hindu seats and 40 per cent. Mohammedan seats. Under this Bill, for which the Government is responsible, communal representation is perpetuated in Bengal, against the wishes of the majority of the population, and instead of the 60 per cent. being Hindus and 40 per cent. Mohammedans, you are arranging for 80 of the seats to be Hindu seats at the outset and 119 Mohammedan, and not only at this next election, but for all time, you have a majority for the Mohammedans on that Legislative Council, so that they can never be unseated in Bengal. What do you think the teeming 48,000,000 of people in Bengal, the majority of whom are Hindus, and those Hindus perhaps on the whole better educated than the Mohammedans—what do you think their attitude is likely to be towards a Bill which deprives them of some control of their affairs and, with a gesture of benevolence to these people, hands them over to the Mohammedans and the Princes? We have just managed to block the idea of giving responsible representative Government to Palestine. Why? Because the minority of Jews objected. We have managed to stop the same thing in Cyprus because the minority of Mohammedans objected.

In India you have the wishes of this vast majority of the people, 240,000,000 out of 350,000,000, disregarded in a Constitution which no one in this House can defend, which enshrines for all time injustice, intoleration, and bullying, in a country which up to now has enjoyed British rule, and which is at any rate free from that sort of thing. Did hon. Members notice that in the Assembly the other day, by an extraordinary miracle—I do not know how it happened—the Mohammedans joined with the Hindus in passing a resolution to the effect that this Bill was fundamentally bad and utterly unacceptable? The majority that carried that was telegraphed to us here as about 74 to 58, but of those 58, nearly 50 were not elected members, elected, that is, by the Anglo-Indians or by the Chambers of Commerce. The overwhelming majority of the elected members of that Assembly voted that this Bill was fundamentally bad and utterly unacceptable, and the only effect of that in this country is to say "Silly fools, they are only saying that in order to get more." If you go on thinking that the Indian objections to this Bill are put-up objections, simply raised in order to bluff the Government into giving more, or into taking away some of the safeguards, or something of that sort, you are in for an ugly awakening.

The impression conveyed to India to-day by the refusal to meet these objections from the Indian people, by the refusal to look at them, by the sneering way that they are always spoken of as bluffs, is that you are determined to put this Bill on the Statute Book and into operation in India against the wishes of the Indian people and even though the Indian people are diametrically opposed to it and may refuse to work it. But to refuse to work this Bill is impossible. No party in India will be fools enough not to go on to the councils and take what chance they can under the Bill. They will cut their own throats if they do not, but when they are on, then how are they going to operate the Bill? Aroused to fury by the fact that it has been imposed upon them against their wishes, with all this slobber about amity and unity and friendship thrown in to make it more bitter, they are then going to use what opportunities they have under the Bill of getting a bit of their own back on us. Why go on with this? Why persist in making enemies, doing what we do not want and doing what they do not want? What is the reason for persisting? Could we not at least put everything right even now if only we got a statement from the Government that when this Bill is passed it will be at the option of India whether it is imposed or not?

When we got out a new Constitution for Ceylon, a small island rather more backward than India, with a population of 5,000,000, we got out what I think was a good Constitution and what the Ceylon people did not. It was not good enough for them, and they bluffed, or tried to, in order to get more. They really objected to the franchise. We did not force it on Ceylon, though it would have been perfectly easy to force her. We gave her the opportunity of voting upon it, and told her frankly, "If you want it, there it is, accept it." She boggled about it for pretty nearly a year, and she accepted it by a majority vote at last. It may not have worked well since, but, at any rate, the passing of the Measure and the institution of the new Constitution was not done against the wishes of the people of Ceylon. Why cannot we have a statement from the Prime Minister before this Debate closes that if the people of India really prefer the status quo to this Bill they should at least be permitted to say so? That would prevent the Bill being put into operation against their wishes.

Fifteen years ago my right hon. Friend and I were together with Mr. Gandhi at Nagpur when the first claim for Dominion status was made. I want to ask my right hon. Friend whether this scheme does not provide a larger measure of self-government than was then contemplated?

It is not comparable in the least. What I am saying is that, even if we believe this to be a good scheme, we have no right to force it on people who do not want it. I say that so far as the federal part is concerned, it should depend upon a vote of the elected members—Mohammedans, Hindus and Sikhs—in the Assembly at Delhi; and as to the Provinces, it should be left to each present Province to decide whether to set up this new Constitution or remain as it is. I think that in all the Provinces except four the new Constitution would come into force, but I am confident that Bengal, Punjab, North-West Frontier and Sind would reject it, and go on rejecting it. It will always be in the power of India to take a step forward once the Hindus and the Mohammedans can come together on a sound democratic basis without this communal system of election. I am tired of putting this point of view to the Government, but really it has never been put in this Debate at all. It is question for the Indians, and not for the English, to decide whether this Constitution should become law.

8.38 p.m.

I had hoped to be able to catch your eye, Sir, before the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) intervened in the Debate, because I wished to address to him an argument and an appeal based upon a speech which he made in this House earlier in his career in circumstances not really unlike the circumstances in which we have been debating this Bill. Unfortunately, the opportunity for that has passed, and, since the time left to us is very short, I am afraid I must let the right hon. Gentleman off this evening. There is only one point with which I should like to attempt to deal. When this Bill was first introduced it seemed to me to give a perfectly clear statement of our intentions in regard to the Central Government of India. Since then a further statement has been made bringing in the phrase "dominion status." Since it is a phrase with many meanings, the Bill has, I am afraid, been obscured and complicated, and nobody quite knows now what our intentions are in India. I am sorry that this vague phrase has once again made its appearance. It is bound to lead to misunderstanding and to charges of breaches if faith unless it is cleared up in the near future. I hope that as the Government have gone to the length of deciding that something more than the language of the Bill is necessary, and that the Preamble of the 1919 Act should be resolved to be still valid, they will go yet further and decide in the near future to make a declaration on the question of the future constitutional development of India which will leave no room for misunderstanding.

Let us consider what dominion status can possibly mean in regard to India. It suggests at once—and this is why it is so misleading—development on the same lines as the Dominions. That seems to be quite impossible in India. I am glad that the Archbishop of Canterbury called attention to that fact the other day, and he rendered a great service in doing so. There is no possibility what- ever of India developing on the same lines as the Dominions towards dominion status because it would infallibly make an end of both her peace and her unity. The Dominions have developed in an entirely different manner in different conditions, and, while I am certain that India will be able to take her place in the Commonwealth of Nations side by side with the Dominions, I am certain that her internal constitution will be entirely different. She has already dominion status in two important respects. She became a member of the Imperial Conference in 1917 with the Dominions in recognition of her great services during the War. She also signed the Peace Treaties and became a State member of the League of Nations in 1919.

The only difference now between India and the Dominions lies in the character of her internal constitutional system. The Dominions differ from each other in their constitutional systems, but they are all based, as India cannot be based, on the union of a group of similar Provinces. The central governments in the Dominions have been modelled more or less on the long practice of constitutional government in the Provinces, and in the central governments, as in the Provinces before the union, the Crown and the representatives of the Crown play a purely constitutional role. In India the Crown and the representatives of the Crown play a much more important part. In a Dominion the Crown is essential to its membership of the Empire, and I do not agree from that standpoint that the Statute of Westminster allows for the right of secession, but the Crown is not essential to the unity of any Dominion. It is conceivable that the Crown might be eliminated, but the Dominion would remain united.

The case of India is different. Unity there must involve three separate and entirely different factors. It must involve the Indian States, which are self-governing autocracies. Even after Federation, even if the Princes declare their adhesion to the Federation and come in under instruments of accession, they will not be subject to the Federal Legislature. They will still be related to the Crown by treaty. The Crown, therefore, will be absolutely indispensable in India as the link between the Princes and the Federation. The Provinces are the second factor. The Provinces by then will also be self-governing, like the Indian States at the present moment.

But the whole system of provincial self-government which we are establishing depends on two things. It depends, in the first place, on the position of the Crown as the guarantor of the communal settlements, and from that point of view the Crown is indispensable. It also depends on the fact that the Crown, and the British forces subject to the Crown, guarantee India's internal peace and external security. Those forces must be controlled by an impartial authority, they would not guarantee the peace of India otherwise, and the Indian Constitution, therefore, cannot possibly follow Dominion lines. It is much more conceivable that it should follow the lines broadly laid down in the Constitution of the United States of America, where there is a similar magnitude and a similar diversity. That must mean that there will be a strong central executive independent of the legislature, in India as in the United States. But in India the central executive must be impartial in a sense which is not required in America. It cannot possibly be an elected authority, it must be impartial and must be appointed by the Crown. Therefore, a strong central executive appointed by His Majesty, the King Emperor seems to me essential to Dominion status in India, because it is essential to Indian unity. That is not a purely Conservative argument, still less is it a diehard argument, that India must always contain it its constitutional system a central, impartially-appointed executive authority. Here is a quotation from a very different source. It is from an interesting book, the author of which I will name in a moment:

The Crown is an immense power in India. The hon. Member for Chertsey (Sir A. Boyd-Carpenter) spoke last week of the veneration still felt for the memory of Queen Victoria. There is the same veneration among millions in India for the present King-Emperor, and Indians will accept his authority when they are not prepared to accept an outside authority which they believe to be controlled by outside and un-Indian interests. There is no disloyalty in that. It is precisely what the Dominions also have done. New Zealand, the most loyal of the Dominions, was perhaps one of the earliest examples. It was Godley, one of the superintendents of Canterbury back in the nineteenth century, who said: "Better have a Nero on the spot than a committee of archangels in Downing Street." And if that was said in New Zealand in the 1860's, it may well be said in India at the present moment. I do not believe the objection of India is to a central impartial authority under the Crown if it is believed to be impartial. What India fears is the shadow of Downing Street, the shadow, also, of Thread-needle Street, and the pressure from a great and interested electorate.

I dwell on this subject because it is of immense importance to the trade of this country. Good will between this country and India must mean, if it is to continue, good and mutually satisfactory trade relations, though it will never be established unless Indians feel that they are free to choose and that they are not under the pressure of an interested outside authority. There is no time to develop this argument further, but I should like to say that the Preamble to the 1919 Act seems to me to be obsolete in many respects at the present moment. The declarations which have now been made in regard to Dominion status leave the situation still obscure, and unnecessarily obscure, and that is dangerous, and I hope that occasion will be taken to make some further statutory declaration which will make our position perfectly clear, and make charges of breach of faith on our part impossible in future.

In the two or three minutes that remain to me, I would like to say a word about one other most important factor in the success of the Bill, the Second Reading of which I shall vote for this evening. That factor is the character and quality of the men we send to India, especially in the position of Viceroy and Governor. That has always been immensely important, and it is going to be more important than ever before under the new Constitution. I regret, and I have always regretted, that in the appointment of Indian Governors there has been a tradition of party patronage which, curiously enough, does not apply to any other great administrative appointments throughout the Empire, so far as I know. It is a curious anomaly that always there has been a strong tradition of party patronage in regard to the appointment of the Viceroy and Indian Governors. I think an end should be made of that tradition. The net should be thrown as wide as possible in the selection of men for the position of Governor, and, above all, there should be no political bias whatever in the choice that is made. I understand that under the Act of 1919 it was laid down that the Viceroy was entitled to advise on the choice of Provincial Governors. I am sorry that in that respect the Act of 1919 will no longer have statutory effect, and I hope it will be laid down again that the Viceroy is entitled to be consulted in the future on the choice of Provincial Governors. But, most important of all, of course, will be the choice of the Viceroy himself. He is the lynch-pin of the Constitution.

This is a delicate subject to mention, but, if I may put my hope in what, I trust, is dutiful and loyal language, I would venture to express the hope that His Majesty may take occasion in the future to declare that, in his choice among his subjects of men to fill this position he will never allow his Prerogative to be affected in any way by a partisan or a narrowly political recommendation. I believe that would give a much greater sense of security in India, and it would certainly give a greater sense of security here. The occasion might possibly arise in the Proclamation that will be issued upon the setting up of the Federation. It is too late, I fear, for me to address the argument and the appeal which I wished to address to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping; in any case, he is not in his place, and I therefore reserve them for another occasion.

8.56 p.m.

The subject of India is so vast that in spite of four days' Debate, there are many important points in regard to the Bill which have not yet been made clear to the House, and we have heard a good deal of repetition of political maxims current in the West without much recognition of some of the realities which make it difficult to apply those maxims to the situation as it exists in India. Speaking last Wednesday, the Secretary of State for India did not make clear to the House what were the Safeguards in the present Fiscal Autonomy Convention, nor did he make clear whether that Convention was to stand or not. I think it is quite clear from the terms of the Bill that the Convention inevitably goes. I am very glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) has reminded us of, at any rate, one of the safeguards of the Convention, in order that we may realise something of what we shall lose in the proposed transfer of commerce to the control of a responsible Minister.

My Noble Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E: Percy) rather objected to my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping's interpretation of the Convention, and spoke as if Indian politicians might regard it in those circumstances as rather a fraud. On the responsibility of someone who was a member of the Indian Legislature during the Debates of 1930–31, when the higher tariffs were being imposed, I can say that the view which was then accepted by the Indian members of the Legislative Assembly was that if the Government of India objected to a tariff, the Secretary of State for India had the right to intervene.

I would also like to tell the House from how many well-informed sources, from men of long and recent experience in India, I have heard of the real desire of the Indian masses to buy British goods, particularly cotton goods, as they wear better than their own, and being of better finish are more comfortable. I have been assured—and I believe that the facts recorded make this quite clear—that the boycott of British cloth from 1930 to 1932 owed any success it had to consistent and often violent intimidation, and that when Lord Willingdon, early in 1932, made an Ordinance rendering intimidation with boycott illegal, which it was not before, wherever there was adequate police protection to see that the Ordinance was carried out the boycott collapsed.

Again, my Noble Friend spoke as if he greatly desired a rapid industrialisation of India, and wished a high tariff to that end. I would remind him that a very contrary opinion was expressed to the Joint Select Committee by a representative of the Bengal trade unions, who deplored the trend that led men from the villages of India into unhealthy factories very much to the detriment of their health and of amenities generally, and often with very insufficient pay. It seems to be far more in the interests of the Indian peasant that we should do all we can to help him with improvements in agriculture—such improvements as were desired by the Royal Commission on Agriculture in India—improved irrigation, improved sanitation and measures against disease, and so on.

Returning to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India, may I remind the House that the right hon. Gentleman told us that the purpose of the Bill was to continue recruitment as at present. I would ask hon. Members who heard that speech: Who would have understood from this that under the Bill the right hon. Gen- tleman would hand over his powers of recruitment for such very important subjects as irrigation and forestry, and that such powers as he is going to retain in the meantime with regard to recruiting for such vitally important Services as the Indian Civil Service, the police, and the Indian medical service, he could, under Clause 251, at any time transfer to another authority in India? That seems to be a very big point which has not yet been made clear to the House.

The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that in the view of the Government and of the Joint Committee,

My right hon. Friend went on to say that the Chapter on the Judicature in the Bill should not prove controversial. Who would understand from that that the Clauses dealing with the High Court, that is, the chief court in each Province, would give away the proviso which at present exists that not less than one-third of the judges in each High Court must be men in the Indian Civil Service, British or Indian, who have inherited the high tradition of that Service, and that another third must be men, British or Indian, who have had the benefit of qualifying at a British Bar? It is widely held that the greatest boon that we have brought to India has been increasing impartiality of justice, and there is much evidence that however conscientious an Indian or Mohammedan judge may be in trying cases in which men of the other community are concerned, it may be very difficult for him to win the confidence of members of that other community. It seems to me a very serious fact, to which, I repeat, no attention has been drawn, that the present provision that the High Court shall have a due complement of members of the British Bar or of the Indian Civil Service is to go.

Then my right hon. Friend spoke of finance, and said that there was to be a transfer, from the Provinces to the Central Budget, of a burden of about £4,000,000 a year. He said that that was not in any sense attributable to the constitutional proposals. But, like my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, he omitted to tell the House of the remission of tributes from the Princes, which will gradually amount to a sum of £750,000 a year, falling on the proposed Federal revenues. I know that my right hon. Friend, in November, 1933, strenuously denied the suggestion that these remissions of tribute were in any way connected with the Federal proposals. He told the House that "they were only a part of the general question of the relations between the Princes and British India which formed the main scope of the Harcourt Butler inquiry in 1928." I have taken the pains to look up the Harcourt Butler Report, and I can find no mention whatever in it of these tributes or of the question of their remission; and when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, on page 164 of his report dealing with this subject, recommended the remission of these tributes, he said in the most specific and emphatic terms that he was not authorised to suggest the remis- sion of tributes except in the case of Princes who entered the Federation.

Therefore I claim that this charge of £750,000, not mentioned by the Secretary of State in his speech last Wednesday, is a direct result of the constitutional proposals, and is obviously a monetary inducement to various Princes to enter the Federation. My right hon. Friend said that the £4,000,000 he mentioned would be only 4 per cent. of the total revenue of India. But, as the £4,000,000 is to be a burden on the central revenue only, and the central revenue amounts to about £58,000,000 a year, it is obvious that the £4,000,000 is an additional burden of more like 8 per cent. on the central revenue than of only 4 per cent. Then my right hon. Friend made the very important announcement that the Government were going to move for the insertion in the Bill of the Preamble to the Act of 1919. I, of course, with all those who share my views, warmly welcome that insertion, but I venture to say that the greater part of the Preamble seems to be quite inconsistent with the action which the Government are taking.

My right hon. Friend said that, when the question of repealing previous Acts was reached during the Committee stage, he would move to provide that the Preamble to the Act of 1919 was not actually repealed, but only the other portion of that Act, excluding the Preamble; that is to say, that the whole Act excluding the Preamble would be repealed.

I do not think I have in any way misstated the case. At any rate, I understand that the Preamble is to stand. Now, the Preamble contains two extremely important points which have not been referred to in this Debate. One is that Parliament alone must decide what the various stages of advance towards self-government in India are to be; and yet, by the Secretary of State's own admission, the Instrument of Instructions to the Governor is to allow for growth and flexibility, which, of course, means that an Indian Assembly may in some way add to its powers. Moreover, Clause 108 of the Bill and other Clauses point to the fact that, with the previous consent of the Governor-General, there are different respects in which the Constitution Act may be amended by the Indian Federal Assembly. I submit, therefore, that any power of that kind is in direct conflict with this very important point in the Preamble.

Another very important point in the Preamble is that it makes all advance towards self-government dependent on the co-operation and sense of responsibility of those to whom all these powers are entrusted. I do not want to go into the question at any length, but there is ample evidence in the official reports year by year, of the continued and increasing inefficiency of local authorities; we have the evidence of the Simon Commission for the inefficiency of education; the Joint Select Committee heard evidence of deterioration in the medical services; the Secretary of State himself admits irresponsibility on the part of many of those to whom powers have been transferred; and it seems to me, therefore, that a Bill which proposes to make such a very much larger transfer of powers, in spite of the considerable evidence that there is that the powers already transferred have not been used as well as they might have been, flagrantly disregards an important part of the Preamble.

I turn now to the speeches which have been made by other hon. Members. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Sir I. Macpherson) spoke of the meticulous examination made by the Joint Select Committee, and said that he readily accepted their findings. I pay tribute, as we all do, to the great amount of time spent by the committee in examining this subject, but, great though that time was, the subject is vaster still, and many important matters were left on which no evidence was heard. Evidence was heard on only one of the transferred subjects, namely, health. No evidence was heard as to education, or agriculture, or the work of local authorities, or public works. No one was heard who had had any long experience of the Finance Department of the Government of India; no one was heard who had had experience of land revenue and land settlement, which involves working in the closest touch with the people; and no Indian member of the Government Services appeared before the Committee. Lord Salisbury, speaking in another place, said that the committee had not so much examined the proposals on their merits as sought to see how they could give effect to the proposals that had been made.

When I hear enumerations of the many distinguished men with experience of India who sat on that Committee, I cannot forget that the only two men on the Committee who had had more than five years' responsible service in India were my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock), with his 35 years' experience, and a Noble Lord who had served for 15 years in the Indian Army. Therefore, I feel that the weight of experience of men who really know life in India at first hand, and have had close contact with the masses of the people, was with Lord Salisbury's minority.

Next my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. G. Nicholson) commented on the fact that I and others had not been to India. Some of us, perhaps, have not gone there because we know that civil servants are not free to speak their minds—

Only yesterday morning a man who retired a year or two ago from a responsible position in a Government service, when I spoke to him on this matter, replied to me at once in that sense. My Noble Friend has not served in the Government service in India. He has had much experience, but not that. A year ago a man who had retired three or four years previously from a high position in the police in India also enlarged to me on this point, saying that men who were serving out there were very chary of making any comments on the action of the Government, particularly to Members of Parliament, because some Members of Parliament unlike my hon. Friend, had written books on their return in which they felt that their views had been misrepresented. He went on to say that for that reason civil servants either kept silence to Members of Parliament who were anxious to discuss public questions with them, or, if they spoke, they pulled their legs.

Does not the Noble Lady think that if she had taken the trouble to go to India she would have got a different feeling? Does not she also think that, if her leader the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) had joined the Joint Select Committee, they would all have been in a better position than they are to-day and would know more about the subject?

For many years I have wanted to go to India more than to any country in the world, but I have never had the opportunity, and I feel that, in present circumstances particularly, it must be very difficult for serving civil servants to speak freely to Members of Parliament in India. I can get much more freedom of speech in my drawing room.

The Noble Lady has quoted me specifically. I do not like to say that she is necessarily wrong, but, if she still held the same views after having gone to India, they would carry more weight.

I have never said anything on this question for which I could not give chapter and verse either from an official report or from someone of long service in India. I can only say to the hon. Member that of all the people that I have met in the course of my life I have never found men so desperately anxious about any public proposals as the men of long experience and of recent experience in India with whom I am in touch.

Then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) and others are in favour of these proposals because they think it will be easier for Indians to deal with some of the social reforms which I know that my Noble Friend and others, myself included, would like to see carried through in India. I think we ought to remember that we made suttee, infanticide and slavery illegal, and that we managed to do that without alienating the orthodox Hindus, who claim that there is idealism behind some of the social customs of their religion. The orthodox Hindus I believe to be a very loyal element in the population. I have also realised that they profoundly distrust the westernised Hindus who, rather late in the day, appear to be beginning to reform some of these customs. Seeing how very bitterly Indians are divided from each other and how very outspoken they can be when they differ from each other, I cannot but believe that we still have a part to play in seeking to get reforms of this kind carried out without alienating the orthodox Hindus, who more than any other body represent the great mass of the people in India.

Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) told us that, while he had been opposed to the Montague reforms, he had been pleased to find that they had not led to as much bloodshed as he had expected. I should like to ask him how serious was the bloodshed that he anticipated from these reforms, because it seems to me that there is a very terrible tale to tell. In communal riots in Bengal in 1926 some 160 persons were killed. In Bombay in 1929 there were what were officially described as mass murders, in which 200 were killed, and about 1,000 injured. In Bombay 61 persons were killed in 1930, the worst year of civil disobedience, and in Bengal in the same year, as the result of civil disobedience and terrorism, 101. In Bombay again in 1932 in communal riots there were over 200 killed and some 2,500 injured. In Cawnpore in March, 1931, in a terrible riot a senior military officer present counted 20 lorries piled high with dead and there were hundreds besides brutally mutilated Most of these terrible happenings were due to communal tension which the Simon Commission clearly stated had increased as a result of the Montagu reforms. I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman if this is not a terrible enough toll of life to have justified all the anxieties that he felt in 1919.

The hon. Member for North Bristol (Mr. Bernays) spoke of the civil disobedience campaign which he had seen at its height in Bombay in 1930, when women supporters of Congress lay down in front of the trams. He said that if we did not give everything that the Bill proposed we should have to meet trouble of that kind again, and we should have to adopt the methods of Hitler to put it down. The answer given to me by an ex-police officer to whom I mentioned what had been said was to the effect that the instinct to protect their women is a very fundamental one with Indians, and that therefore they do not bring the women out to help them in demonstrations unless they believe the Government is so weak that very little is likely to happen. The moral, therefore, is to act at once—when trouble occurs to nip it in the bud. But that is exactly what was not done, as we know, in the civil disobedience troubles in 1930. At the beginning of that year the Congress party pulled down the Union Jack at Lahore and proclaimed independence. Yet Gandhi was allowed to begin his march to the sea and the movement, like a snowball, gathered size and momentum as it went, and finally reached the position in which the hon. Member found it. This need for instant action when troubles threaten, is a very important point, because it is just that prompt action which will be so difficult under the proposals of the Bill. Broadly speaking, the safeguards proposed in regard to the police will give the Governor power to do something when he sees that something has gone wrong, but by the time that becomes evident a great deal of harm may have been done. It is obvious that there will be many influences at work on the Minister to make him delay taking effective action at once—many more than there are to-day on the Governor or Member of the Council responsible.

Now I come to our attitude towards the Bill. We feel that it is entirely contrary to the spirit of the 1919 Act and its Preamble to hand over the Centre until Provincial self-government has proved itself a success. I know the Government hope that the representatives of the States will be a moderating element in the Federal Assembly, but the Congress party has shown itself so determined and so powerful and it is so difficult in India for men to stand up to a very determined lead, that I cannot believe that the States representatives, the majority of whom will be Hindus, will find it easy to make an effective stand against the Congress Hindu party. We know also that power is to be given to the Governor-General to resume control of any Department in the event of a breakdown of government, but seditious influences obviously have a great chance in a country in which 92 per cent. of the people are illiterate, who are almost all so poor that an anna or two a day is something of value and where the strength of communal caste and family feeling make fetters on personal independence to an extent which is difficult for us to realise.

An instance of the almost ridiculous influences which may affect Indians in the lower ranks of Government services is to be found in the Ordinance which Lord Willingdon had to pass making mock funerals illegal. We also have the authority of the Secretary of State for the fact that Communism has increased, that terrorism is no longer confined to Bengal but is to be found in all the Indian Provinces; and that there has been even a revival of the dangerous movement among the Sikhs which caused so much trouble during the War. There is real reason, therefore, for the fear that, if things reach a pass where a breakdown of government is recognised to have taken place, the Government Services in their lower ranks may be so demoralised that they may prove a broken reed in the hands of a Governor or Governor-General. The Army too may be held up by trouble on the railways or in the posts or telegraphs, and may well be in less close touch with the police than it is to-day.

Then we regret that the Bill will not enable the Central Government to have any power of guidance over Provincial Departments, or at least most of these Departments. My right hon. Friend the Member for Epping spoke of his desire that power should be taken to the Central Government to make grants to Provincial Departments and to appoint inspectors to keep them up to a certain standard. The Simon Commission laid down that they wanted the Central Government to have the power of giving guidance and advice on Provincial subjects—and power of making grants, with or without inspectors, would mean that something could be done to advise and guide Provincial Ministers on important subjects such as education and agriculture in a way quite impossible under the Bill. We feel, therefore, that the proposals for complete and exclusive Provincial Autonomy will lead to continuing and increasing inefficiency.

Does the Noble Lady realise that this power is given in Section 140?

It is not the power which the Simon Commission desired. Simply to dole out money without doing anything to restore efficiency is not at all the same thing.

Finally, I would say that the Government have seen one pillar after another on which they have relied in this matter fail. They ignored the Congress policy, but it has forced itself to the front, and it has rejected the report. They pinned their faith to the Liberals, but the Liberals have rejected the report also. And at the moment in which this is happening there is reason to believe that the Government of India have grave fears that Mr. Gandhi, under the cloak of his Village Industries Association, is starting a new and very important civil disobedience movement. It seems to me, therefore, that the Government have ample justification for pulling things up. They have shown their desire to give India a generous settlement and it has been rejected by all parties. Surely, then, they have ample cause to say: "Well, if you will not have our scheme—the scheme we have thrashed out with your representatives—now we will consider for ourselves what we feel it is safe and advisable to give you."

After all, the situation has profoundly changed since the Simon Commission reported. Since they recommended the transfer of law and order there has been a tremendous increase of communal trouble and terrorism. This does seem to me to make a situation in which the whole question ought to be thought out afresh. I would appeal to the Government, therefore, to drop their Federal proposals and to think out again proposals for further self-government in the Provinces which will enable some guidance and assistance such as was desired by the Simon Commission to be given to Provincial Departments, and which will not put into the hands of Ministers responsible to an elected legislature powers actually affecting the life and limbs of the people. If they would do this, they would safeguard in the main the life of the masses of the people. They would also safeguard the livelihood of thousands of our workers and would save this country and the Empire from what I believe is likely to be the greatest disaster in our history.

9.31 p.m.

I would like to remind the House that we are discussing the affairs of a country that has possessed a much better civilisation than our forefathers enjoyed. We are discussing the rule of India for 450 years, by what is an alien race—a race that went to India for the purpose of trade and remained there as conquerors of the country. Our rule there has certainly been different, I think, from that of any other conquerors in a similar position. During these discussions we have talked of the Dominions and have displayed pride in our country for having planted our institutions in various parts of the world. If any of us go out to Australia we glory in the fact that we become Australians. If we go to Canada the same thing happens—we are the same kith and kin. But if we go to India, as a Civil Servant or in any other way, we never expect to become absorbed into the Indian nation. We remain English or British, and we hope to save enough money by serving there to come home and spend the rest of our lives here. In the next place we draw from India—and I hope no one will think I am saying this in an offensive manner—enormous wealth in the form of salaries, pensions, travelling allowances, holidays and so on, in addition to very considerable sums in dividends and repayments for loans for public works. If we remained in India and spent there the wealth which has to be sent to this country I do not believe that the people of India would be living under the terribly poverty-stricken conditions they are living under to-day.

I am old enough to remember the campaign on behalf of the Egyptian bond-holders, somewhere about 1880. It was proved at that time that many of the loans that had been raised had not been spent in Egypt but had been spent in the capitals of Europe. It was pointed out then, I think by the late Lord Morley, that that kind of indebtedness, that that kind of drain on a nation could only mean ultimate ruin. And so it is to-day in India. The Indians with whom I have talked all ask me to remember that while the British connection may have built railways and while the British connection may have protected them, the Indian people have found all the money required for these purposes, and that the maintenance of a British Army in India is a terrific strain on the resources of that country. It is not that India is a poor country, but that her population is very poor. Something like 63½ per cent. of the money raised at the Centre has to be spent on the Army, the cost of which has tremendously increased because it is a British Army and not an Indian army.

It is sometimes said that the Indians cannot defend themselves. It is certain that the British have not allowed the Indians to have an army, and part of the reason is that an Indian must not be put in control of white troops. I hope that when we come to Amendments on this subject the Committee of the Whole House will consider these matters. Education, as the Noble Lord said just now, may have improved a little during the last two years, but it is certain that education and social services cannot advance very far until the drain upon the resources of India is in some way stayed.

It has been said during these Debates that we should answer one another. No one has answered a single speech made from these benches during the whole of the Debate, and no one has challenged any of the statements as to the conditions of the masses in India that have been made from this Box and elsewhere during the discussions. I think that the reason they have not been challenged or that no attempt has been made to answer them is that there is no answer; they are facts. I become rather impatient when I hear the story of what we have done for India and the great benefits which we have bestowed upon her. In the article quoted by the Attorney-General to-day I paid whatever tribute I could to those who have gone out to India, whether as civil servants, missionaries, or doctors, or in any other capacity, for the work that they have done. But the position in India is exactly the same as it is in this country. You cannot cure poverty and destitution until you get down to the causes of poverty and destitution, and the causes in India are the same as in every other country, except that they are imposed in India by an alien Government. We read very often of the magnificent pageantry of the Viceregal court, and, when pictures of these scenes are printed, we ought also to see pictures of the infamous housing conditions in the cities.

We are sorry that in these discussions we should have to take what appears to be the same line as the friends of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), because we would have liked, if there were three Lobbies, to have been in a Lobby by ourselves, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would have liked the same sort of thing. But in this world we have to take things as they are, and there are only two Lobbies in the House. We oppose this Bill, as hon. Members have heard from our speakers time after time. I have seen the same sort of thing happen to other parties besides our own. I am told that the Lord President is to make a statement about the time to be allocated to the Bill, and, if so, I want him to know that we are not in favour of the Motion that this Bill should take up practically the whole of the time of this Session. The condition of the people question, as Carlyle would call it, is of equal importance to the India Bill, and I would like the Lord President to know that we intend to do our best to bring before the House the social and economic conditions of the country. We intend that the unemployment question, which, I am sorry to say, is not in quite as favourable a condition as it was a month or six weeks ago, shall not be allowed to go by the board.

I wish to answer something else which has been put forward. It is that our opposition to the Bill is not a real opposition, but only an opposition because we are the Opposition. I would not stand at this Box to oppose a Bill, not even the smallest Bill, merely because we are the Opposition. I have seen enough of that sort of jiggery pokery in this House, and I certainly do not intend to take a hand in it myself, and I have never done so. I want the House to understand that we have our point of view in this matter, and it is a very simple one. The voice of India ought to be heard in this country either through broadcasting or in some other way. The nation ought to know what Indians themselves are thinking of the Bill. We and other hon. and right hon Gentlemen know, because we have been told by our friends or by the Indian press, but that is not enough for the country. Indian speakers ought to be allowed to go to the microphone of the British Broadcasting Corporation and put their own case.

The Attorney-General quoted something which he had taken from an article I wrote in the "Clarion" back in the summer. I do not take back a word of that article. I sent for it, and I have read it, and it is in line with the policy adopted when the Prime Minister, who has been conspicuous by his absence from these Debates, was leader of our party. In our judgment, the Bill fails to give the people of India that advance in self-government to which we think they are entitled, and it does not fulfil the principle of self-determination. Our declaration, to which the Prime Minister agreed—it can be found in the Official Report many times during these discussions—can be summarised in this way. We declared at our conference at Blackpool for self-government and self-determination for the Indian people. Self-determination, as the Attorney-General will agree, means the right of the people themselves to decide their form of government. The point that I want to make on that is, that India is to be, from our point of view, a partner of her own free will in the British Commonwealth of Nations. This Bill does not fulfil that principle at all. The Indian people have not been consulted during the period of the present Government. There is no one on the Government side who will stand at the Box and say that the Bill is supported by any body of opinion in India. Until we can allow them to produce a Bill for their own government and for our acceptance, we cannot satisfactorily settle this matter.

While I was ill I read the story of Canada and Lord Durham's tremendous fight in order to bring about a settlement there. In the end, it seemed to me that he had to bring into all kinds of conferences, the French and the English and, finally, he evolved a scheme which every one admits enables two different races to live together. When the Australian Commonwealth was first discussed, this House did not sit down and draft a Commonwealth Bill. The Australians themselves did it, although they were only a population of a few millions of people, and that Bill came to this House and was accepted practically as it was sent here. Therefore, I do not think that anyone has any right to say that we in our party are wanting to break up the British Empire or, as I prefer to call it, the British Commonwealth of Nations, because we desire that the people of India themselves, those who take part in their affairs, in the Congress, in the trade unions, in the Liberal party and in the women's associations, should draft a Measure and send it to us for our consideration. I believe that all the talk about the Indians desiring to break away is only because they are continually treated in the discussions that we hear in this House as a sort of inferior race.

That brings me to another point. The Attorney-General as I understood him to-day, was at some pains to tell us that the right to secede did not exist in the Statute of Westminster. I think he will agree that if South Africa or Australia desired to go out of the British Commonwealth of Nations no one would say that we should go to war to keep them in. If you can say that of those two Dominions, or of any of the Dominions, what right have you to say that the Indian people must stay in whether they will or will not. My view of that matter is a simple one. I should like to say, in passing, that although I have not visited India for I do not know how many years, I have met Indians of all classes, many Princes, many of their representatives in the trade union movement and in the Congress, and I have never yet met any one of them, even Mr. Gandhi himself, who has advocated cutting the painter with this country and going free, away from us.

I mean in the sort of language that the right hon. Gentleman would use, "cutting the painter." I am quite certain that of all the Indians whom I have met, and my hon. Friends here have met many of them, the one thing that they want is partnership, comradeship and friendship with us, but what they do say is that after 150 years of being under the control of British rulers it is time that they should be given an opportunity to rule themselves. That brings me to the speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He made one of the best speeches in the Debates. He had not the torrential eloquence of the right hon. Member for Epping but he had many more facts to give us than had the right hon. Gentleman. I think he made the case for the Indians to be consulted better than any of us have made it, because he visited the Princes, and he has come back full of admiration for the manner in which Indians rule in their own States, and full of admiration for their capabilities. Then why should we draw a line and say: "Here, the Indians can manage their own affairs, but there, they cannot." I do not understand it.

I cheered the Chancellor of the Duchy because I felt as he went along that he was making an excellent case for British India. That is why I cannot understand why he is not joining us in the Lobby to-night against the Bill. He knows perfectly well, and the Lord President of the Council knows perfectly well, that no Prince is going to be forced into this Federation. They are coming in of their own free will, with all their rights and privileges safeguarded. The only people who are not to be consulted and who are not to be asked to agree to the Bill are the masses in British India. It is an amazing contradiction to me, and I do not understand how the Chancellor of the Duchy is going to get away from that. Either the Indians can manage their own affairs or they cannot. Where they have an opportunity of managing their affairs, he says "Bravo, they are splendid." Where they have not got that chance, he says: "You are unfit for it."

There is another thing which the right hon. Gentleman knows, but I will remind him of it, and that is that the bulk of the population in the States are Hindus and not Mohammedans. They are of the same religion; and how in the name, I was going to say, of common sense, he can support this Bill passes my comprehension. The argument is put forward that Indians are always fighting one another about religion. We have done our whack of that in our time. Religion is the one thing about which people quarrel most because they have so little of it. Where people hold their faith strongly they do quarrel about it. But are we to point to their political differences? Here is the Tory party smashed almost to atoms. The right hon. Member for Epping is running up and down the country calling the Prime Minister—I would not like to repeat what he said about him at Manchester, and other people running about the country contradicting the right hon. Gentleman and the poor Liberals running in between trying to be a kind of Jack of both sides. A few are very rude because the Indians happen to disagree. You do not give them a chance to agree. You have not put the Bill to them in the same way as you have to the Princes. You say to British Indians, "Take it or leave it." That is all wrong, and it is another reason why we oppose the Bill. I hear tariff reformers arguing that India ought not to have the right to put duties on, ought not to have the right to control their own fiscal policy. That is a very extraordinary thing. Are not Indians entitled to say "Buy Indian goods," if you have the right to say "Buy British." Have they not the right to ask their own people to buy their own goods?

The right hon. Gentleman will agree that the whole of our policy has been to give complete free trade to Indian goods in this country, and all we ask is that we should have the same treatment.

But if they do not sell their goods here or elsewhere you cannot get your pensions and allowances. The idea is that it is a good thing for us to manage our own fiscal affairs but not a good thing for 300,000,000 of people to manage their own industries in the best interests of their own people. Why should they not? No one can say that there is any argument, ethical or economic, which gives us the right to say that they should serve our interests first. I should like to see the Bill taken back and the Government send out not a big commission but three or four men, one a Member of this House—[ Interruption ]—I am not aware that there is anything to create hilarity in the suggestion that three or four people, one of whom should be a woman, should go to India to consult with British Indians about this Bill, whether in their judgment it can work, and whether it is a Bill which they think should be passed by this House. I should have thought it was rather a sane proposition coming from one who wants to see self-government in India, and who is quite certain that you cannot get a satisfactory system without the consent of the people in British India. I do not believe the Measure can work. You are foisting on the people of British India a system of government which will be costly and practically unworkable.

One or two hon. Members have referred to General Smuts and his statement about Asia. We are all worried and distressed about trade and industry in our own country. You are not going to settle questions which will arise in regard to China and Asia generally by building great fleets or getting ready to fight in the Pacific. We are being told of the danger that is rising there. I should like to say to the House—I do not suppose anyone will take much notice, and I do not care whether they do or not, I am going to say it because I want to say it. It is a mad world. Here is General Smuts, one of the greatest thinkers of our time, or supposed to be, warning us of the terrible difficulties which are likely to arise in Asia. He said that we shall settle our affairs in Europe—I am not so sure about that—and then went on to speak about Asia. When I think of Sir Maurice Hankey going around on a pleasure tour and incidentally consulting first in Africa, then somewhere else and finally at Singapore, I ask myself whether the world of men and women is not going really crazy. What is it that people go to war about? What are we worried about in regard to India? We are afraid that we are going to lose a market, in some way lose the means of amassing wealth and finding occupation for our people.

We speak very often of abundance. In a way there is too much, but it is all artificial; there is not enough for the needs of mankind. There are teeming millions of people in China and in India who are living lives of which we who call ourselves Christians ought to be ashamed. It might be tolerable if we could not help it. Instead of first asking what are we going to give India in the way of government we should rather be consulting them on the bigger question as to how we can help them and their masses of people to get out of the quagmire of misery and destitution in which they live. I believe that we would do not only the world but our own country a service, if we took that line. I believe, further, that there is room enough in the world for the Japanese and all their tremendous productive power. The Chinese need to be lifted out of a terrible morass of poverty and destitution. But we are being warned against the rise of these people.

I would like to know—[ Interruption. ]

I would like to know—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"] It does not matter; if I do not get listened to here, I get listened to elsewhere. This is the most contemptuous House of Commons that I have ever spoken in. One of my hon. Friends stood up to speak to-night and the whole House at once nearly emptied, and he was left to speak to a few dozen people. I personally am too old and I do not mind. I know perfectly well that I shall get as many thousands to hear me outside as will any Member of this House, so I am not bothering about the insults. On the last occasion a right hon. Gentleman said he was determined to be heard. I am determined to be heard. I think that the friends of the right hon. Gentleman might treat my friends a little more decently than they do. We are subjected to a continual chattering of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] Excuse me, I can see and hear; I am neither blind nor deaf. But I will finish what I was saying. I think that if instead of doing what we are doing, that is passing a Bill which no one in India wants—

If we endeavoured to pay back to the Indian people something of what we have taken from them all these years, and if instead of men like General Smuts and others fearing the rise of the Asiatics, we were to extend to them the hand of friendship and co-operation, and if the civilised Governments of the world, instead of relying on force and domination, were to ask those other nations in the Pacific to join us in controlling raw material and in sharing the market—there is raw material enough and there are markets enough for all the peoples of the world—it would be far better. Instead of doing that first of all we are forcing this Bill on the people of India, and at the same time we are talking of what may happen in the Pacific because of the rise of the Japanese.

An Empire cannot last when it is built on force and domination. All history proves that. Whatever we have not learned, we have learned that from the merest history book. Empires rise on military power, on the strength and force and domination that come from a virile race. But in this Empire of ours this is what we are faced with: We may have the British flag flying over the seven seas; we may have the greatest finance houses in the world; but here, right in the heart of the Empire, we have a mass of people decaying both mentally and physically because we cannot find them the means of livelihood. What benefit is it that we rule in India if masses starve or are semi-starved here? What benefit is it to those in my constituency and in other constituencies, whatever you may do in India? You have to find some other and more excellent way, and the only more excellent way is to apply the principles that the late Bishop of Bombay wrote about recently in the "Times"—to have the wisdom of foolishness sometimes—and that is the wisdom which enables men to take big risks and to say that they will not put their trust in force, but will put their trust in giving to others the hand of friendship and brotherhood.

The hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. G. Nicholson) spoke the other day about his recent visit to India. As he was speaking I thought of that beautiful poem in which Rupert Brooke wrote:

10.15 p.m.

If I may be allowed for one moment to refer to an observation or two which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition just now, I should like to assure him that I always listen to his speeches with attention and with enjoyment, because, although I cannot always agree with him, and although sometimes life does not appear to me to be as simple as it is to him, yet I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman places before this House certain aspects of life which might otherwise be forgotten.

Before I proceed to the terms of the Amendment which has been moved by the Opposition I desire to inform the House of an agreement which has been reached with regard to the time to be devoted to the Committee stage of this Bill, and I should like to give expression to my own opinion, if I may, upon it. I think this agreement redounds immensely to the credit and the common sense and the responsible sense of the House. I am grateful to all sections of the Opposition for having joined in it, and I am also grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) for his reception of it and for the way in which he put it to the House. I am glad to say that when we get to the business part of this Bill we are going to deal with it, thoroughly, I hope, and with due deliberation but fairly speedily. I am sure we all feel convinced, whatever our views of the Bill may be, that when once the general principle is decided upon, it is not a good thing for India or for this country that too long a time should elapse before they know exactly what the Bill is, and it will also be agreed that the Bill should have an early opportunity of proving itself in action.

The agreement is this. The Government propose to allocate 30 days for the Committee stage of the Government of India Bill, and 26 of those days will be apportioned by a time-table Resolution, so that the House may have a definite programme, while the remaining four days will be reserved and drawn upon if it should be found that any particular apportionment is inadequate. I think that a very wise and sensible provision. It will enable certain great matters of principle to be debated at length and I think will constitute a useful precedent which might well be followed in the future. If this proposal can be worked with good will, the elasticity of such an arrangement will undoubtedly lead to the convenience of Members. I am pleased to be able to inform the House that the Chief Whip has secured a large measure of agreement with regard to the arrangement of the time-table. It is proposed that an informal committee representing all parties and all sections shall meet and draw up a time-table for the 26 days in the most convenient form, and the Chairman of Ways and Means has kindly consented to take the chair of that Committee.

I should like to be the first to give notice that very likely the stunt press to-morrow will say that the speed with which we are dealing with this Bill means that there is going to be an Election at Whitsuntide. I am told by my friends who read with more care than I do the hebdomadary issue of the papers on the Sabbath that there were wars and rumours of wars yesterday with regard to the Government; that we were said to be on our last legs and that an Election was imminent. I have no consciousness of being on my last legs, and I have not even considered the question of an Election yet. There is work to be done, and I hope that the House will get on with it.

There can only be one at a time. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping came in just after the right hon. Gentleman the Leader, of the Opposition had begun his speech. The Leader of the Opposition made an observation which perhaps I ought to pass on to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping. He wished that there were three Lobbies as it was no pleasure to him to appear in the same Lobby with the right hon. Gentleman.

My right hon. Friend will probably remember that immortal picture by John Leech representing the little Cockney sportsman saying to the Duke "The beauty of 'unting, your Grace, is that it brings together people who would not otherwise meet."

Now I should like to devote some little time to the consideration of the Amendment moved by the official Opposition, which will ultimately be put to the House. It is divided into two parts. One part says that:

We all agree probably that, so far as possible, there should be continuity in policy either abroad or in the Empire. Alternations of policy at home may cause trouble and difficulty, but that alternation does not have the same effect at home that it has abroad. It always seems to me that a well defined, consistently pursued policy is the only one if we are to maintain our prestige and authority in the world, and that rapid alternations of policy, whether Imperial or foreign, only cause trouble in the long run and have in times past been the source of some of the greatest mistakes that we have made. The strength of our position both abroad and in the Dominions consists in letting people know exactly where we stand and just where we can be relied upon and in making them realise that our undertaking shall be fulfilled. Therefore, there is a real danger, it seems to me, of implying in words that you will undertake something that it is extremely problematical that you will be able to do in the near future. The Government have tried to base themselves on that principle. The statement that the Secretary of State made on behalf of the Government is clear and unambiguous. It preserves a line which successive Governments have taken. We stand on the pledge of 1919, endorsing, as the Secretary of State said, the interpretation placed upon it by Lord Irwin. This is what I want to draw the attention of the House to and this is really all I want to say on this first portion of the Amendment; the second in many ways is the more important.

What is the position of the Opposition to-day? In 1929 it was made quite clear in the Debates, both in this House and in another place, that there was no intention in the minds of the Labour Government of widening the aim of British policy prescribed in the Preamble of 1919. There was a desire, as was freely stated by the Secretary of State at that time, to get what he called a more sympathetic treatment. I do not think that is a phrase to which anyone could have any objection. There was a development of procedure by the setting up of the Round Table Conference. I do not know that there is any profound difference of opinion on that. But there was no extension of the objects of our policy. That was acknowledged beyond any question by the spokesman of the Labour Government at that time. I just wish to make that point clear before passing on to what I think is the gravamen of the Opposition Amendment. I feel strongly about it, because I do not think that the wording of the Amendment is justified, and I do not think I shall have much difficulty in showing that that is the case. It is, in effect, a statement alleging that the Constitution we are offering is a denial of democracy. The Amendment speaks of "provisions as to franchise and representation" which do not

I do take strong exception if it be said that, recognising these facts, we fail thereby to recognise what we have done and what, in my belief, we shall do, in India. It is due to us that there is any conception of unity in India, that there is a unity in India from which she has been estranged for centuries. That is due solely to us. We have established the rule of law and order, we have created the credit of India, we have run railways all over India, and we have built up a great system for the relief of famine and the prevention of disease. We have organised agricultural and veterinary services. We have developed institutions for education and for research. All these will go on. The inestimable value of these services is so well established and so well realised in the minds of Indians that they will not voluntarily let them deteriorate, nor seek to deprive themselves of the help which will still be available to them for their maintenance and their expansion.

I do not look upon it as a complete answer that in some services the maintenance may not always have been at the high level to which we are accustomed. We must remember that there has not yet been any real responsibility on the shoulders of the Indians, nor can we expect, with the best will in the world, that the standards maintained by men—or by the help of men—of the experience of those who have done that work can be reached in a moment. Of the desire for the services and of the spirit that will be put into them by India I myself have no doubt, but the problem of raising the standard, it may well be, of the masses of India cannot be resolved by such methods alone. When you have irrigated the last acre of land that remains to be irrigated in India and when you have brought into being all the schemes that you may have, the growth of population, stimulated again by the Pax Brittannica, by our improvement in the health services, by our measures for dealing with pestilence, will still continue to press harder and harder upon the means of subsistence.

We are reaching the point, if we have not reached it already, when nothing will avail but profound changes in those deep-seated customs and habits of thought which we are powerless to touch, because they have their sanction in religion. They are matters with which only Indians can deal, and unless we place responsibility upon their shoulders and furnish them with a constitutional means for dealing with these matters, as we maintain we are doing, and as I hope to prove in a moment, we incur the risk of making ourselves responsible for the perpetuation of conditions that must always stand in the way of an improvement in the conditions that must always stand in the way of an improvement in the condition of the people. May I remind the House that such changes as are mooted would, in the more natural order, precede an advance in democratic government, yet owing to the very circumstance that their environment is a religious environment, the changes must be made after the democratic change has been made which gives the people tools to use to effect those changes, if they choose to use them.

It has been one of the principal objects of the Bill to establish that conditions, which are in the interests of the ordinary, common people, and not those of any narrow oligarchy, will prevail. We believe, and I think the Opposition believe this with us, that the voters of India will soon learn to use political power through the vote. Practical intelligence does not necessarily depend upon literacy, or I should abandon all hope for our people after reading yesterday's Sunday Press. The Indian peasant is no less shrewd than the peasants of other countries, and if his political leaders abuse his confidence, he will soon be aware of the fact, and will choose others. The electorate proposed amounts to some 35,000,000; that is, four or five times the present provincial electorate. It amounts to over 40 per cent. of the adult population, and three-quarters of them are rural voters; the majority, or all of them, will be drawn from what Mr. Gladstone called, the masses. The representation of the Depressed Classes is being increased out of all knowledge. The special representation provided for what might be called the privileged classes, that is the commercial interests, the universities and the landlords, does not amount to more than 7 per cent. of the total provincial seats, and in proportion to the present provision for these classes the representation in the future will be reduced. It will give these classes an adequate voice in debate, but it will not give them a disproportionate influence. If, as the Government believe, the peasantry are able to assert themselves through the vote, a franchise on the scale recommended will certainly enable them to do so, but the mere doubling of the franchise would, therefore, have no effect one way or the other. The franchise now proposed is the largest that the administrative machine is capable of dealing with at present. There is nothing to be gained by creating an unmanageable electorate that could no more effect what is our desire than the electorate that we have brought into being.

I want to say a word or two on the subject that interests the Opposition as well as all other sections of the House—not that I think all sections of the House are not interested in what I have just been speaking about. I want to say a word or two about trade. There is a tendency, and there always has been in this country, to look at this country's trade with India from a sectional point of view, that is, from the Lancashire point of view. It is very natural that the cotton trade should figure largely in all discussions about Indian trade, because it has figured very prominently both in our political and in our economic life for the last half-century or more, and the story has not always been a happy one. I have no time, however, to go into that to-night. I want the House to remember that, while the cotton trade is the most important single item, it does not amount to more than a quarter of our total exports to India. Of the remainder, the group which includes the various metal and machinery trades amounts to about one-third of the whole of our exports, and the miscellaneous exports, including such things as chemicals, rubber manufactures, paints, paper, soap and woollen manufactures, add up to about twice the value of the exports of cotton yarn and textiles.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the figures he is giving represents volume or value?

Value, I think. Many of these industries have had practical experience of co-operation. Let us keep all these interests in our minds. There are elements who speak for Lancashire, and there are some elements in Lancashire that would like us to believe that they speak for British trade as a whole. But we have evidence of the views of British trade as a whole in the recorded opinion of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, which, of course, includes the Manchester Chamber of Commerce. They passed unanimously, on the 2nd January of this year, the following resolution: relations with India or with the Dominions on the platform and the more we do it in council the better will be the result.

I wish to say a word on a subject on which we have had something said, but I want to try to think clearly on it. That is the question of pledges and breach of faith. The great pledge, of course, is the statement made, I think, in 1917 and in the Preamble of the Bill of 1919. I accept—I have said it on previous occasions—all that my right hon. Friend has said on that subject of the House of Commons being the judge of the pace of progress or whether it should be retrogression or progression. The Government of the day has a perfect right to adopt any of those methods if after examination it thinks right, but I wish to submit this to the House. We are bound, it seems to me, to go as far in the direction of giving effect to our pledges as our judgment of the present circumstances of India permits. As long as we do that, no one can charge us with breach of faith. If we fall short of that, we break faith with the Indian people and we are untrue to the tradition of Imperial policy. If our Empire to-day is loyal, as it is, it is largely because we have conceded with good judgment and in good time, the reasonable claims of the units of that Empire gradually to become the controllers of their own affairs. The principle applied elsewhere equally applies to India. The sole question is to determine to the best of our power the extent of the advance that is feasible. It is a very difficult question and a profoundly important one. We have spared no pains in this matter. I will not weary the House by repeating what has taken place in these years of examination before the final proposals were reached which are embodied in this Bill.

Infallibility in political affairs is unfortunately an unattainable ideal. I do not pretend to it and I doubt if any Member of the House does, but I am convinced that on this particular subject we shall never get nearer to it or with a more united opinion than we are now, because we have the opinion of the great majority of the Joint Select Committee and we have the endorsement of both Houses of Parliament. In those circumstances, if the Government failed, and if Parliament failed, to pass a Bill based upon these conclusions, in my view we should lay ourselves open to the reproach of having broken faith. I am not dismayed at these reports that have come from India about people who say they will not collaborate. All the official advices that we get are that the Bill will be worked in India. I will observe this. In time of conflict, such as has been going on about this Bill, and will until the Bill becomes law, there is uncertainty in men's minds. Many things are said, Many things are said in India. I would ask the House to take the case of my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping. I was always under the impression that he wanted to get rid of the National Government. Then I am told on Sunday that he is perfectly willing to join one.

I said I would stand as a candidate on a Conservative and National footing, but I have never suggested for a moment that I was anxious to be included in my right hon. Friend's Administration.

My reading was very cursory, but I thought the right hon. Gentleman specified the colleagues he would like to work with.

My right hon. Friend is thinking of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George).

Perhaps we cannot have one without the other. One thing which my right hon. Friend asked me was whether it was possible to take the Bill in two parts. Much as I should like to meet my hon. and right hon. Friends, it cannot be done, and for this reason. The Bill stands as a whole, comprehensive, single scheme which cannot be divided, and Federation is an essential part. Speaking for myself, and, I know, for many of my colleagues, the views to which we have come in approaching this subject are such that we should be extremely apprehensive about granting the measure of Provincial Autonomy that is provided for if it were not for what we believe to be the security in Federation for India. I should like to say a good deal more, but other opportunities may arise in the Debates on the Committee stage of the Bill. I would, however, like to make one or two observations of a general kind. I remember very well the Debates of 1919. I re- member the attitude of the Chamber when the Debates took place. I remember that there was no Division. I remember very well the speech made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft). Some words he used that day, divided as we are at this moment, represent my own views, except that he is not ready for them and I am. He said:

"I am glad to say that I am one of those who, many years before this Measure was introduced, had always held out the dream of India holding Dominion powers in the Indian Empire."

It is quite true that he qualified those words by saying: "Do not wreck the machine in your haste," or words to that effect. But I regret that that dream of his, in the process of the years, has now become a nightmare to him. It is a dream that I see approaching. He and I, and there may be a few more in this House—my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), and my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain)—in our different capacities have worked for Imperial unity and Imperial preference for 32 years. We have had our difficulties, but we have seen that great policy adopted by the nation, and adopted, I venture to say, in such a way that it will be the policy of this country for many years to come. I believe that there is no part of the Empire that can play a greater part than India. We are

offering her the opportunity of making a considerable step forward to the day when she will be a full partner with us in the Empire. Let us welcome into our Commonwealth of Nations the Indian people, the majority of whom, I am confident, have no greater ambition than to see their country play a worthy part in that Commonwealth. We have, as I said one day in this House, no secular feud with the Indian peoples, as, alas, our people had in Ireland. There have been mistakes, but again, as I said, we have always had more friends in India than we have had enemies. Let us, in offering what we believe to be a precious gift, do it in no huckstering spirit, After it has passed through Parliament, let them know that we offer it willingly, generously, with a full heart and with full sympathy for the difficulties they will have to undergo, but in full confidence that, whatever the trials and tribulations may be through which they may have to work their way in the course of the next generation, the end is assured, and India with the rest of our Empire banded together indissolubly under one British Crown, may exist for the peace and for the betterment of this world for generation after generation.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 404; Noes, 133.

Division No. 45.]

AYES.

[11.0 p.m.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

Boothby, Robert John Graham

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

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

Borodale, Viscount

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

Bossom, A. C.

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

Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

Boulton, W. W.

Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

Albery, Irving James

Bower, Commander Robert Tatton

Clarke, Frank

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

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Clarry, Reginald George

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

Boyce, H. Leslie

Clayton, Sir Christopher

Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

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

Brass, Captain Sir William

Colfox, Major William Philip

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

Apsley, Lord

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Colman, N. C. D.

Aske, Sir Robert William

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

Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Assheton, Ralph

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Conant, R. J. E.

Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

Buchan, John

Cook, Thomas A.

Baillie. Sir Adrian W. M.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Cooke, Douglas

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Bullock, Captain Malcolm

Cooper, A. Duff

Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

Burghley, Lord

Copeland, Ida

Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

Balniel, Lord

Butler, Richard Austen

Cranborne, Viscount

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Butt, Sir Alfred

Craven-Ellis, William

Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

Cadogan, Hon. Edward

Crooke, J. Smedley

Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

Campbell, Vlce-Admiral G. (Burnley)

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

Bateman, A. L.

Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Cross, R. H.

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

Cassels, James Dale

Crossley, A. C.

Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Cruddas, Lieut-Colonel Bernard

Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

Culverwell, Cyril Tom

Bernays, Robert

Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)

Curry, A. C.

Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Dalkeith, Earl of

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

Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

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

Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

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

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

Hornby, Frank

Moreing, Adrian C.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert s

Morgan, Robert H.

Danville, Alfred

Horobin, Ian M.

Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Howard, Tom Forrest

Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)

Dickie, John P.

Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

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

Doran, Edward

Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

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

Dower, Captain A. V. G.

Hume, Sir George Hopwood

Morrison, William Shephard

Drewe, Cedric

Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

Moss, Captain H. J.

Duckworth, George A. V.

Hurd, Sir Percy

Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Munro, Patrick

Duggan, Hubert John

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

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

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

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

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

Dunglass, Lord

Iveagh, Countess of

Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

Eady, George H.

Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

North, Edward T.

Eales, John Frederick

Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)

O'Connor, Terence James

Eastwood, John Francis

Jamieson, Douglas

O'Donovan, Dr. William James

Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony

Janner, Barnett

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

Jennings, Roland

Ormiston, Thomas

Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

Jesson, Major Thomas E.

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

Elliston, Captain George Sampson

Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

Orr Ewing, I. L.

Elmley, Viscount

Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)

Owen, Major Goronwy

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

Palmer, Francis Noel

Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Patrick, Colin M.

Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

Peake, Osbert

Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

Ker, J. Campbell

Pearson, William G.

Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

Peat, Charles U.

Fermoy, Lord

Kerr, Hamilton W.

Penny, Sir George

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Kirkpatrick, William M.

Percy, Lord Eustace

Fleming, Edward Lascelles

Knight, Holford

Perkins, Walter R. D.

Flint, Abraham John

Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

Peters, Dr. Sidney John

Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Petherick, M.

Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

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

Fox, Sir Gifford

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

Potter, John

Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

Leckie, J. A.

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

Fremantle, Sir Francis

Leigh, Sir John

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Procter, Major Henry Adam

Ganzoni, Sir John

Lewis, Oswald

Pybus, Sir John

Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

Liddall, Walter S.

Radford, E. A.

Gibson, Charles Granville

Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)

Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

Gillett, Sir George Masterman

Lindsay, Noel Ker

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

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

Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-

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

Gledhill, Gilbert

Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

Ramsbotham, Herwald

Glossop, C. W. H.

Llewellin, Major John J.

Ramsden, Sir Eugene

Gluckstein, Louis Halle

Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

Ratcliffe, Arthur

Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.

Lloyd, Geoffrey

Rea, Walter Russell

Goff, Sir Park

Locker-Lampson, Rt.Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)

Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

Goldie, Noel B.

Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

Gower, Sir Robert

Loder, Captain J. de Vere

Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)

Loftus, Pierce C.

Reid, William Allan (Derby)

Granville, Edgar

Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

Renwick, Major Gustav A.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

Graves, Marjorie

Lyons, Abraham Montagu

Rickards, George William

Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

Mabane, William

Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

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

Robinson, John Roland

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

MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Ropner, Colonel L.

Grigg, Sir Edward

McCorquodale, M. S.

Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

Grimston, R. V.

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

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

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

MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

Rothschild, James A. de

Gunston, Captain D. W.

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

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward

Guy, J. C. Morrison

McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

McKeag, William

Runge, Norah Cecil

Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)

McKie, John Hamilton

Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

McLean, Major Sir Alan

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

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

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Russell, Hamer Field (Shef'ld, B'tside)

Hammersley, Samuel S.

Macmillan, Maurice Harold

Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

Hanbury, Cecil

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian

Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

Hanley, Dennis A.

Magnay, Thomas

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

Salmon, Sir Isidore

Harbord, Arthur

Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

Salt, Edward W.

Harris, Sir Percy

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n)

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

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

Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)

Martin, Thomas B.

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

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

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

Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

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

Savery, Samuel Servington

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Selley, Harry R.

Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

Meller, Sir Richard James

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)

Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Shaw, Captain William. T. (Forfar)

Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

Milne, Charles

Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

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

Shute, Colonel Sir John

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

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

Holdsworth, Herbert

Mitcheson, G. G.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)

Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)

Hopkinson, Austin

Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

Skelton, Archibald Noel

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

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

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

Watt, Captain George Steven H.

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

Summersby, Charles H.

Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

Smithers, Sir Waldron

Sutcliffe, Harold

Weymouth, Viscount

Somervell, Sir Donald

Tate, Mavis Constance

Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

Soper, Richard

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

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

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

Wills, Wilfrid D.

Spens, William Patrick

Thompson, Sir Luke

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

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

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

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

Womersley, Sir Walter

Stevenson, James

Train, John

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Tree, Ronald

Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

Stones, James

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Worthington, Dr. John V.

Storey, Samuel

Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

Stourton, Hon. John J.

Turton, Robert Hugh

Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Strauss, Edward A.

Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

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

Captain Margesson and Mr. Blindell.

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Edwards, Charles

Marsden, Commander Arthur

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

Maxton, James

Alexander, Sir William

Everard, W. Lindsay

Milner, Major James

Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)

Ford, Sir Patrick J.

Nall, Sir Joseph

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

Fuller, Captain A. G.

Nathan, Major H. L.

Atholl, Duchess of

Gardner, Benjamin Walter

Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Peters'fld)

Attlee, Clement Richard

Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

Nunn, William

Bailey, Eric Alfred George

Greene, William P. C.

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

Parkinson, John Allen

Banfield, John William

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Batey, Joseph

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

Purbrick, R.

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

Gritten, W. G. Howard

Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Groves, Thomas E.

Rathbone, Eleanor

Blaker, Sir Reginald

Grundy, Thomas W.

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

Hartington, Marquess of

Ray, Sir William

Bracken, Brendan

Hartland, George A.

Reid, David D. (County Down)

Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)

Hepworth, Joseph

Remer, John R.

Broadbent, Colonel John

Hicks, Ernest George

Salter, Dr. Alfred

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

Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Browne, Captain A. C.

Jenkins, Sir William

Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

Buchanan, George

John, William

Slater, John

Burnett, John George

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

Smith, Tom (Normanton)

Burton, Colonel Henry Walter

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

Somerset, Thomas

Caine, G. R. Hall-

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

Cape, Thomas

Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)

Carver, Major William H.

Kimball, Lawrence

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

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh

Kirkwood, David

Templeton, William P.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Knox, Sir Alfred

Thorne, William James

Cleary, J. J.

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Thorp, Linton Theodore

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Lawson, John James

Tinker, John Joseph

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Lees-Jones, John

Touche, Gordon Cosmo

Courtauld, Major John Sewell

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Wayland, Sir William A.

Cove, William G.

Leonard, William

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

Levy, Thomas

Wells, Sydney Richard

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)

West, F. R.

Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.

Logan, David Gilbert

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Lunn, William

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Daggar, George

McConnell, Sir Joseph

Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

McEntee, Valentine L.

Wilmot, John

Davison, Sir William Henry

McGovern, John

Wise, Alfred R.

Dawson, Sir Philip

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

Dixey, Arthur C. N.

Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

Wragg, Herbert

Dobbie, William

Mainwaring, William Henry

Donner, P. W.

Maitland, Adam

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mr. Paling and Mr. D. Graham.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[ Captain Margesson. ]

Government of India [Money]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Resolved,

"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision for the Government of India, it is expedient to authorise—

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Adjournment

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Captain Margesson. ]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.