asked the Minister of Labour when he hopes to receive the report from the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee on their examination of the working of the regulations relating to seasonal workers?

I understand that the committee hope to submit their report on this subject by the end of July. The question of seasonal workers was submitted to the committee on 18th March and they at once invited representations from persons interested but some important representations are only now being received.

Has there been any undue delay in connection with this report?

No, Sir. The committee have a great many varied subjects to deal with and they are working very hard. I do not think they can possibly be accused of any undue delay.

May we take it that the hon. Gentleman's answer implies that no decision is likely to be taken by the Government during this Parliamentary Session?

That largely depends upon what the report is and whether it can be put into operation easily or whether it will require legislation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will investigate the circumstances attending the assault by police constables upon two men at Romford, Essex, on Tuesday,7th May; and whether he is aware that the men in question were attacked both in the highway and at the police station?

If these men wish to pursue their complaint against members of the Essex Constabulary, they should communicate with the Chief Constable, in whom the disciplinary control of the force is vested by Statute.

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean by letter; and, if they attend in person, can they be assured that they will not be attacked?

asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the feeling among the workmen suffering from nystagmus against there being only one medical referee to decide on cases sent before him; and will he consider the advisibility of making two medical referees in place of one to certify the condition of the workman?

The hon. Member's suggestion would involve an important departure from the present provisions as to medical certification which could not be adopted without full inquiry. As I stated in reply to a question by 'bin' last Thursday, the whole position in regard to this disease is under consideration.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is now a long time since he made an order; that since then events have shown that many men are not getting the satisfaction to which they think they are entitled, in that one person decides their fate and that decision is final?

While recognising the complexity of this difficult problem, as the present position is fair neither to employer nor employé, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of arriving at an arrangement which will be fairer to both sides?

Yes, certainly.

In view of the obviously unsatisfactory nature of the law in this connection and the great uneasiness and discontent which exists in the coalfield concerning it, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of appointing a Departmental Committee to consider what alterations in the law appear to be desirable?

I am considering the whole question. I do not wish to make any statement at present.

asked the Home Secretary whether he will give particulars of the work to be undertaken by the Legion of Frontiersmen in connection with the protection of the civil population during gas attacks; and whether this includes gas-mask drill, compulsory or otherwise?

I understand that the Legion of Frontiersmen, like some other voluntary organisations, is in touch with the Order of St. John and the British Red Cross Society with a view to assisting in the measures to be organized by those bodies for the alleviation of the consequences of air attack. I have informed the Legion that in my opinion assistance of this nature would be work of national importance. No specific duties have been allotted to this body at present and any drill which may have been undertaken has been arranged voluntarily.

asked the Home Secretary whether he can give for the latest convenient date the total number of factories in England and Wales and also in Scotland, classified in both cases in accordance with the number of persons employed;

(2) whether he will state for the year 1934 the total number of persons employed in each group of factories under the classification which has been made according to the number of persons employed?

The latest information available is for 1933. As it involves a table of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the letter from the Atherton District Council containing a resolution, carried unanimously by the council, urging the introduction of legislation to give them greater powers to deal with the nuisance caused by burning colliery tips, and stating that they have two such tips burning at present and, though the colliery company are trying to put them out, the council feel that powers should be given to prevent the accumulation of colliery refuse that causes spontaneous fires; and will he say what he intends to do?

I received the council's letter on Tuesday last and I am in communication with the Secretary for Mines as regards the question.

Will the right lion. Gentleman consider introducing a Bill to deal with this matter, or else induce the Chief Whip to withdraw his opposition to my Bill?

asked the Home Secretary what progress has been made with the drawing up of a new list of poisons under the Poisons and Pharmacy Act of 1933; and by what date it is anticipated this new list will be available?

I am informed that the Poisons Board has prepared the Poisons List and is about to submit it to me, together with its recommendations in regard to the rules to be made under the Act. It is hoped that the proposals of the Board will be available to Members before the Whitsun Recess.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the inclusion of methylated spirits in the new list of poisons?

asked the Minister of Health whether he can furnish an estimate of the extent to which the increased number of persons in receipt of public assistance in the last 20 years is due to the increasing percentage of the population surviving the age of 65?

As the reply to my hon. Friend is rather long and contains a number of figures, with his permission I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the Minister of Health whether an unemployable blind person is regarded as one not capable of industrial occupation regardless of age or whether incapacity is regarded as unlikely to benefit from training; and whether his Department issues specific regulations to local authorities governing this principle?

I have not issued any specific instructions on this subject but model clauses have been prepared for the guidance of local authorities who make regulations governing the provision of financial assistance for the unemployable blind, and in these an unemployable blind person is defined as a person over a specified age who is not employed or under training, and who in the opinion of the authority is incapable of employment in an economic sense or of being trained.

asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the advisability of taking the necessary steps to confer upon the chairmen of urban district councils during their period of office, as an appreciation of their public services, some ancient historic title such as reeve, provost or steward?

This subject was considered about 20 years ago but no recent representations have been received from the Association of Urban District Councils. Should there be any general desire for a change on the part of the local authorities concerned, and if a suitable alternative can be suggested I should be willing to consider the matter, but I doubt whether there is any such desire.

What was the result of the consideration 20 years ago?

As far as my recollection goes, it was that to which I have referred in my answer. It was doubted whether there was any general desire for such a change.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the numerous resolutions passed by local authorities respecting the number of applications at present received by old pensioners for augmentation of income, especially from those living alone, owing to the inadequate amount of pension received, and asking the Government to consider the introduction of legislation for increasing the amount of pension from 10s. to 15s. per week; and whether he will take the necessary action to introduce legislation implementing the suggestions?

I have no personal knowledge of any resolutions of the kind indicated in the question. As the Financial Secretary informed the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) on the 15th April last, the cost of the increase suggested would be an extra sum of £21,800,000 a year to which a further £19,700,000 a year must be added if contributory pensioners between the ages of 65 and 70 and widows were to receive a similar increase. I am afraid that these figures render the proposed increase impracticable on grounds of cost alone.

Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has no knowledge of the resolutions?

I said I had no personal knowledge. I think that the hon. Gentleman's question was originally addressed to another Minister.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that on 1st May last the Sea of Galilee overflowed its banks and flooded the cellars of some of the houses in Tiberias, as well as the low-lying ground; that, owing to the formation of stagnant pools, there is fear of an epidemic of malaria; and whether he will take steps to insist that the sluices in the River Jordan shall be kept open to prevent the raising of the lake in future above its normal level.

I have no information regarding the situation referred to in the hon. Member's question, but I have asked the High Commissioner for Palestine for a report.

Will my right hon. Friend find out what was in those cellars?

No.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in view of the fact that, with the exception of a few scattered doroba, no native occupiers of land in the European Highlands of Kenya had been removed or dispossessed since the receipt of the Morris-Carter Report, there are now any further exceptions to this; and, in particular whether he will inquire whether any of the Kikuyu landholders at Tigoni have been ordered to move elsewhere?

I am not aware of any further moves from the European Highlands; but I will make inquiries of the Acting Governor.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that an order has been issued to the missionary in charge at Fort Hall, ordering the uprooting of all coffee trees planted there by the Kikuyu, although they were planted before the passing of the Native Grown Coffee Rules,1934; whether any compensation has been paid to the owners of these trees and, if so at what rate; and whether there is any provision for compensation in all cases where these rules are enforced retrospectively?

I have no information, but I will ask the Acting Governor for a report.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office to what institutions or purposes the profits derived from the military tattoo are devoted?

The profits derived from the Aldershot tattoo are devoted to Service charities and to the provision of recreational facilities for the troops of the Command.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, before making arrangements for the military tattoo at Aldershot, consideration has been given to the undesirability of holding military displays of this character at a time of international apprehension, as being calculated to incite militarist feeling?

No, Sir. The Aldershot tattoo is widely known to be an annual event held in the interests of charity. I do not agree that it can incite any such feeling as the hon. Member suggests.

Will the hon. Gentleman consider the substitution of the melancholy realities of war, to which the Lord President of the Council referred last night, for the display that is now being given?

I do not know whether the hon. Member has ever seen the Aldershot Tattoo. If he has not, I would advise him to attend. He would find that it is simply a piece of beautiful and interesting pageantry and has no connection at all with the militarism which he suggests.

Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to ban the use of the red flag at Socialist party meetings on the grounds of incitement.

asked the Home Secretary in how many establishments in the Metropolitan police area all in wrestling is provided as an entertainment on Sundays; and under which provisions of the Sunday Entertainments Act,1932, are such entertainments permitted to be held?

I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that there are 16 establishments in the Metropolitan Police District at which all in wrestling has been provided as an entertainment more or less frequently on Sundays this year. I am advised that all in wrestling entertainments are outside the scope of the Sunday Entertainments Act,1932.

Was it not on the Lord's Day that the angel wrestled with Jacob?

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether any discussions have taken place with the Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa on the subject of the High Commission Territories, and, if so, what has been the outcome of those discussions?

Yes, Sir. The future of the High Commission Territories has been fully discussed between General Hertzog and myself in the light of the provisions of Section 151 of the South Africa Act,1909, of the pledges given by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom during the passage of that Act and subsequently, and of constitutional developments during the last few years. As a result of our discussions it has been agreed that the best policy to pursue in present circumstances is to extend co-operation between the Union Government and the Administration of the Territories over as wide a field as possible, and in particular in all matters relating to the economic welfare and development of the Territories. A communication in this sense has been addressed to the High Commissioner by me.

Will the right hon. Gentleman define what is meant by extending co-operation between the Union Government and the High Commission Territories?

In view of the controversy in South Africa and in this country, I am sure the House will welcome this statement as an indication on the part of the South African Government that they realise the difficulties, and equally as a contribution on our part to the realisation of their problems. Boiled down, it means that if there is friction between the Union Government and the Territories and there is both sides suffer, and the arrangement we have made is that there shall be the closest co-operation between the Territories and the Union, so that if at any time a change takes place it will be with the good will and co-operation of all parties instead of the hostility which would otherwise be there.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be now read a Second time."

Hon. Members will see that I have tried to carry out the undertaking which I gave during the Committee stage with reference to the eligibility of women for the public services in India. This Clause proposes that women shall be eligible for the various public services unless the higher authority, that is to say the Secretary of State or the Governor-General or one of the Provincial Governments, schedules particular services or branches of services or particular appointments as unsuitable for women. The House will see, therefore, that, so far as the public services are concerned, I am fully meeting the views which were expressed from all sides during the Debate in Committee.

A further question arose during the Committee discussion as to whether it would be possible, simultaneously with the removing of sex disqualification for the public services, to remove the sex disqualification for the professions. Hon. Members will remember that in the Sex Disqualification Act there is a provision affecting the professions in additon to the provisions affecting the services. In the Committee discussion, I expressed my doubt as to whether it would be possible to give this further extension, which was evidently desired by several hon. Members. Since then, I have made further inquiries in India, and I find that the view of the Government of India is definitely against making this further extension. I also believe that there are serious difficulties in the way of it. In the first place, I am not sure how necessary it actually is. I understand that the main professions in India, such as the medical, legal and the teaching professions, are already open to women. That makes me think that it is, Jot necessary for us to make a further extension of this kind in the Constitution Bill.

Secondly, it has been made clear to me that it would he impossible to make -this extension without some power to enable the Secretary of State, the Governor-General or the Provincial Governors to make exceptions. In the present condition of India it will be necessary to be able to make such exceptions. Thirdly, I ask the House whether it is necessary that we, here to-day, should include in the Constitution Act, which is a permanent Act that cannot be altered without an amending Act of Parliament, a provision of this kind, that would for all time bind every Indian Legislature. I am inclined to say that there is no urgent grievance, nor is there likely to be a grievance in the near future. I should think that it is better to leave a question of this kind for the Indian Legislatures and the separate departments. On that account, I move the new Clause with that explanation of why I have not been able to include in it a provision about the professions.

I am sorry that it has not been possible for the right hon. Gentleman to go as far as we hoped he would, but so far as he has met us I want to express our gratitude. This is certainly an improvement' on the Bill, so far as the employment of women is concerned. I wish it had been possible to go further, but we will be thankful, I will not say for the small mercy, but for what he has done.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 13, at the end, to add:

"(2) A person shall not be disqualified by sex for entering or assuming or carrying on any civil profession or vocation, or for admission to any incorporated society."

We are very grateful to my right hon. Friend for implementing the pledge given during the Committee stage in regard to the Civil Service, but we are naturally extremely disappointed that he cannot see his way to give a further extension and to ensure freedom for women to enter into the other professions, by placing a provision in the Statute that they shall be allowed to do so. I appreciate the point that there may be some difficulty if opposition has been offered, or a suggestion has been made by the Government of India that it is not necessary to include such a provision in the Bill. I am disappointed at my right hon. Friend's further explanation that women are now eligible in India to enter professions, and therefore it is not necessary to embody a provision in the Bill.

If we look back to the period when we placed the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act on the Statute Book, there was not in this country, even in those days, such a prejudice against women taking up specific occupations as there is in India to-day. If we thought it necessary to introduce such a measure in this country then, is it not the more necessary that the same should be done in the India Bill? I am sorry that my right hon. Friend took up the attitude that there was complete freedom for women in India and that there was no doubt that that freedom would be allowed to continue in the years to come. If there were to be reactionary government in the Provinces, things might go badly against women. We are always profoundly grateful to my right hon. Friend for the attitude that he took up when our own Bill was introduced in 1919. I am told by my hon. Friends that he was a great champion of that Measure in those days, and that he was associated with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major Hills) who was to have moved this Amendment. I presume that there is no hope of persuading my right hon. Friend to include our Amendment in the Bill in another place. There will be great disappointment in the professions which would have been covered by the Amendment. Though we are grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he has done, we express our profound regret that he has not been able to go further.

I beg to second the Amendment.

It is a very great satisfaction to us to see the Secretary of State once more in his place after so long an absence. I wonder whether the suggestion was put to the Government in India, and whether they realised, that the form of the Amendment which my hon. Friend has just moved has been devised with the express idea of meeting such difficulties as might otherwise have arisen, and that it is precisely in the wording which is contained in the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act,1919. We cannot say that in the years since that Act was passed great difficulty has been found. There has been too little difficulty, on the other hand, in imposing disqualification upon women in cases where there was, on the ground of health and safety, an alleged serious difficulty to their practising a profession. This is not a question of any form of manual labour, with regard to which the forms of difficulty anticipated by the Secretary of State might perhaps arise; for example, the work of women in mines and so forth.

This Amendment would apply only to women in the learned professions and in executive positions in business, it is worded in the precise form of the Act of 1919, and the point in our mind is that, as we all know, where India is concerned we cannot foretell the future. The fact that women are now admitted to the legal profession, the medical profession, and most of the careers that are open to women in this country, is no guarantee that reactionary forces may not take command in India which women will have very poor means of meeting. The fact that we are leaving power to the Indian -legislatures in other matters has not deterred this House from imposing every possible kind of safeguard where British interests are concerned, where the in terests of communities are concerned, and in many other ways.

We suggest that this is one way in which the Government and Parliament might safeguard a perhaps improbable but by no means impossible future in which we might see, with no power on our part to stop it, women swept out of the professions where it is most essential that they should be admitted, such as the medical and legal professions, seeing that a woman in seclusion in India Can only see a person of her own sex. Even after the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, it is very difficult for us to see what are the dangers and difficulties. Are they equal to the dangers and difficulties of refusing to give this small measure of protection? A provision of this kind has been strongly urged by Indian women themselves, and I suggest that the concession might be made with very little difficulty and with excellent precedents behind it, and would constitute a real safeguard against the possibility of a danger which we all hope may never arise.

I am very sorry not to be able to accede to the appeal made by the two hon. Ladies. I feel that we must take into account, not only the (minion of the women in India—anyhow, the organised women in India—but we m List take into account the state of public opinion generally. I am informed that a provision -of this kind might needlessly excite all kinds of anxieties, and might give rise to a good many misrepresentations. We have to remember that one of the great communities in India, the Moslem community, looks very anxiously at 'any proposals of this kind, and I should have thought that, that being so, it is better to leave it to the Indian legislatures, that it is better to leave it to the progressive strength of public opinion in India, and particularly of women's opinion in India. After all, we are giving the women 'a very large number of additional votes, and I should think, myself, that women are going to prove a great force, particularly in the provincial elections and in the Provincial legislatures. I cannot believe, when women are going to have this increased power in India, that there is the remotest likelihood of the legislatures in India going back from the present system under which women are already eligible for the main professions. That being so, and without wishing to appear either dogmatic or unsympathetic on a, question of this kind, I would advise the House to accept my proposed new Clause without the additional proviso.

On Clause 236 of the Bill I had an Amendment for the purpose of clearing up a particular point, and I am not quite certain whether it is cleared up by this proposed new Clause. Under Clause 236 there was a saving, for the sons of persons who had served in a military or civil capacity in India, in respect of commissions in the Army. The point that I wished to raise —I am not certain to what extent it is now being covered—was whether positions in women's nursing services, or organisations of the kind that existed during the War, like the Women's Auxiliary Army Corps, would be military positions, and, if so, whether Clause 236 would apply to them. On the other hand, if these classes of military services for the fighting forces are deemed to be civil services, will this proposed new Clause apply to them? I mould be grateful if the Secretary of State would tell me how the Clause is to be interpreted jointly with Clause 236. I agree that the point may be a rather difficult one for him to answer at the moment, but I should be very grateful in any event if he would look into it.

I will certainly look into the point, but I think I can give my hon. Friend an answer at once. It seems to me that in either of the events that he has described there is no danger. If they are military personnel, obviously they come within the reserved department of defence, and we here have complete control over the position. Equally, if they are civil and necessary services in the Army, we should still be able—I forget under which Clause—to give directions on the subject. I cannot see that there would be the least risk in either ease of their position being compromised.

Under Clause 236 a statutory privilege is given to the sons of such persons. Will that privilege be equally given to their daughters, assuming that opportunities for the daughters arise?

I beg to move, "That, the Clause be read a Second time."

This Clause deals with a matter which was raised in a subsidiary list of smaller points to which attention has been given, and a promise was given that the matter should be considered with a view to seeing whether the existing exemption could be maintained. The present arrangement is that provincial and State Governments enjoy certain immunities from taxation in respect of property outside their respective territories. It is consistent with the general practice of federal constitutions to exempt the Governments of units from federal taxation, that being merely part of a reciprocal arrangement under which the Federal Government also is exempt from taxation by the several units. The Clause merely proposes to continue the existing position. It confers no new exemption whatever upon any of the persons or authorities affected by the Clause, and the House will observe that, by the two provisos (a) and (b), it is made plain that government trading or business operations are not to be entitled to the exemption, nor is the personal property of the Ruler of a State to be able to obtain any exemption by virtue of this Clause. In as much as the Clause, consistent with the general practice in federal constitutions, merely continues the existing arrangement, I hope that the House will have no difficulty in accepting it.

The Clause, as my right hon. and learned Friend has explained, deals with the property of a Prince which is situated in British India. I notice that this little tit-bit is only to go to the Prince who is a good boy and comes into the Federation, and the Prince who for some reason or other does not come into the Federation apparently is to be taxed in respect of his property in British India. I am not sure of the position under this Clause, but I suggest for the serious consideration of my right hon. and learned Friend that, in regard to taxation of the property of Princes in British India, the Prince within the Federation should be treated in the same way as the Prince outside the Federation. This is apparently a small matter, but it raises a large point of principle. Sometimes truth will out by accident, and it shows a tendency—I am sure an accidental tendency, and I particularly acquit the Government of any intention whatever to persuade Princes to come into the Federation—no doubt against the wishes of the Government, for favourable terms to creep into the Clause for the Prince who comes in, and for unfavourable terms to creep in for the Prince who stops out of the Federation.

I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will find it possible to explain the position so that we can continue in a spirit of unity and support the Clause, because we do not want to introduce any fractious opposition. It would comfort us very much if my right hon. Friend, because I am sure that he does not want to give preferential treatment to Princes who do what the Government wish, would tell us that in another place provision will be made so that Princes who do not federate will have the same terms in regard to their property in British India as the Princes who come into the Federation. That is only fair, unless the Prince who does not come into the Federation is to be treated penally. I have been looking at the two provisos of the Clause. Provided that they are worked in a conscientious spirit, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman desires them to be worked, they are not capable of abuse, but, if at some future time some Secretary of State not possessed of the rectitude of my right hon. Friend were to decide to persuade a particular Prince to come in, there is a possibility here of holding out a comparatively large inducement, especially if he were a Prince of a small State. I therefore suggest that it might be prudent to make the Clause retrospective; in other words, the property of Princes now held in British India should not be subject to taxation, but property subsequently acquired should be subject. to taxation if it exceeded the value of the property now held. I hope that he will meet us in the same spirit of conciliation and friendliness as we meet him in connection with this Clause.

May not a difficulty arise in connection with proviso(b)in that it draws a distinction between the private property of the Ruler of a Federal State and State property. It seems to he a case of autocracy, and it might be extremely difficult to draw this kind of distinction?

I wish to call attention to a point which possibly may be covered by one of the financial Clauses, but it is difficult in this great Bill to find out the exact relation between Clause and Clause. It says:

"Subject as hereinafter provided, the Government of a Province and the Ruler of a Federated State shall not be liable to Federal taxation in respect of lands or buildings situate in British India or income accruing, arising or received in British India."

If a Province owns property in the territory of a Federated State which is not in British India, there may be some other Clause which puts the matter right, but as I see it, if the Government of Bombay own any territory in another Province, they are exempt from federal taxation, but, if the property which they happen to own is in a Federated State, they are not exempt. I do not see why that should he so, unless the matter is made clear in some other, Clause.

I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton (Mr. Bailey) that there is no motive underlying this Clause which might be supposed to he an inducement to one Prince to federate more than another. Indeed, his point is new to me, and I can assure him that there is no intention whatever of distinguishing between one type of Prince and another in this respect. As far as the Federation is concerned, I understand that both classes of Prince will be exempt. In any case, I can assure my hon. Friend that the problem with which we are dealing is a comparatively limited one. The extent of it is not in the least likely to snake a difference to a Prince as to whether he should or should not enter the Federation. I can assure him, from the advice that has just been given to me, that the property of the government of Princes, federated or not federated, will equally be exempt under this Clause.

Suppose a case arises in future will it be dealt with?

I will look into the matter.

Will my right hon. Friend answer my point, namely, the difficulty of distinguishing between private property and Government property.

There is no difficulty.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Clause which I commend to the House is only to fill a technical gap which has been found to exist in the Bill. There are a number of small States in some Provinces with which the Provincial Government have relations, and in order that those relations can be carried on efficiently it is necessary that the Governor-General should be enabled to delegate powers of the Governor to Provincial officers to carry on those arrangements. In the Province of Assam, for example, a deputy commissioner looks after small States, and it is in order that that sort of arrangement shall continue that this Clause has been moved as an addition to the Bill.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time.":

The House will see that Clause 173 which deals with property other than lands and buildings which come under Clause 172 is to be omitted from the Bill. It will be found, upon looking at Clause 173 that the principle adopted for the purpose of deciding the destination of property at present held in India by the Secretary of State to the Council is to be determined by reference to the use being made of the property at the time that Part III of the Act came into operation. The House will readily see that this is not a convenient way of dealing with the matter. The new Clause is to take the place of the existing Clause 173 which states that the destination of property, the future ownership of property, shall be decided in accordance with the purposes for which the property will be used under the new regime, that is to say if it is to be used for provincial purposes it will belong to the Provincial Government or if under the new Constitution for central purposes it will belong to the Federal Government. That is the first sub-section which appears on the Order Paper. The second sub-section, or rather the proviso which is part of the first subsection, deals with the question of existing cash resources and is merely a piece of machinery for providing that all existing cash resources are vested in the Centre.

The House will appreciate that up till now the Central Government have often had to act as banker for Provincial Governments. It is necessary to do what is not done in Clause 173, to arrange that these cash resources shall devolve on the Federal Government, so that all credits and debits of local governments on account shall be debited and credited to the corresponding government in the Federation. It is a piece of machinery so that Governments entitled to cash resources shall have the cash resources placed to their credit in an account. Subsection (4) of the Clause merely deals with arrears of taxes and provides that taxes when recovered shall belong to the Federal or Provincial Government as the case may be, according to whoever imposes the tax. The last part of this rather formidable looking Clause, which is largely a matter of redrafting, apart from the points I have mentioned, concerns property in Burma and Aden which shall vest in the new Governments of Burma and Aden. All property held under the old regime by the local governments of Aden and Burma, with the exception of rifles and equipment of all purely Indian troops in Burma for which there is a special proviso, shall vest in the new Government.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be read a Second time."

This Clause deals with contracts in connection with functions of the Crown in its relations with Indian States. It provides for a gap found to exist in Chapter 3, Part VII of the Bill, in relation to Clauses which we shall come to later, namely, Clauses 177 and 179. The existing contracts of the Secretary of State in connection with paramountcy including other contracts become liabili ties of the Federation. There is no provision for the enforcement of contracts that might be made after the commencement of Part 3. This new Clause on the Order Paper merely makes existing and any new contracts enforceable by or against the Secretary of State. Consequential provisions proposed in Clauses 177 and 179 will be made to fit in with this new Clause. This is an arrangement consistent with common sense.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This new Clause is on exactly the same lines as that which has just been accepted in the case of India regarding sex qualifications.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This Clause deals with a point accepted by the Committee when we discussed it before, namely, that the Governor-General and the Governors should have such staff as they require for their duties and that the salaries and expenses of that staff should fall within non-voteable items. It was suggested in the course of the discussions that, although that point was implicit in the provisions of the Bill, it was not sufficiently explicit. My only point in moving this Clause is to make it more explicit.

I think we are all glad that the Governor-General and the Governors should have these staffs under their immediate and personal direction. They have many functions to perform, using their own discretion, receiving advice from ministers which they may or may not accept, or acting where they must on the advice of ministers. When you have a person acting on advice upon which they are required to act, and the staff is not entirely under the control of the minister who gives the advice, what is the official arrangement between the minister and staff? Circumstances may arise in which the minister will have to be entitled to give orders to the secretarial staff of the Governor-General or Governor. It may be a quibbling question, but we are setting up a rather strange and unusual Constitution, and one is anxious to think -out in advance how the administrative machine will work.

I would like to ask the Secretary of State whether he can give any indication as to the increased cost of this machinery, which we all welcome.

May I also ask one question? I see that the Governor has. the power of appointment. I conclude he also has the power of dismissal?

The power of dismissal goes with the power of appointment. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) asked about the expense. We cannot give him an exact estimate. It ought not to add any substantially large sum to the existing expenditure. It will simply mean that officials of the type already working in the Provinces, will be working under the Governor-General and Governors rather than under the ministers, and, as I say, as far as the expense goes, I do not think it will make any substantial difference. My bon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) asked me whether ministers could give an order to one of the officials appointed in this way in the discretion of the Governor-General or Governor. My answer is, that while they will be working in the closest cooperation, a minister could not give such an order.

In Committee I moved a Clause to provide the Governor with special advisers, and to my great regret it was not accepted, for reasons which I need not repeat now. But I was given to understand by the Under-Secretary at the time that what the Clause aimed at would be provided by giving more extensive powers, or more explicit powers, to the Governor or Governor-General to employ a secretarial staff. I should like to hear very much whether this Clause is intended to cover the appointment by the Governor of some person not exactly as secretary but who would be a useful adviser in such matters as the exercise of his special responsibilities in respect of which otherwise a Governor unacquainted with the country would have no advisers to help him except the Ministers, against whose advice he might find it his duty to act. I should very much like to know whether the Secretary of State contemplates the possibility not merely of a secretary to the Governor but of an adviser with administrative experience to be really of help to him in the difficult circumstances to which I have referred?

I well remember the discussion we had with my hon. Friend on this question. I told him at the time that there was no intention in the Provinces that there should be a staff on the same basis as in the centre. But I did say that we would make it explicit in the Bill on the Report stage that the Governor would have the power to appoint a secretarial staff. I think I told my hon. Friend that we envisaged the possibility of the appointment of an experienced secretary who would assist the Governor, and I think I said that in the Presidencies it would probably be the case that where a Governor came from home he would appoint as secretary a man with considerable experience in the Presidency to help him in all his duties. In the same way in other Provinces, where more likely the Governor would be trained in administration, it would not be necessary to appoint so senior a man, but still a man of some experience to give the help the Governor desired. This Clause makes that possible, and also makes it possible for the Governor to attach to himself a subordinate secretarial staff in order that he may have efficient advice to enable him to fulfil his duties.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This Clause, which I am moving on behalf of my Noble Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington), is one to which, I think, the whole House will attach great importance whatever their views may be upon the question of constitutional reform. It is not my intention to speak at any length upon this subject, because I think the House is well aware of the whole difficulty of this question of finance. Although I cannot put my finger on the exact reference, I think I am right in saying that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—whom, if I may be permitted to do so, I would also like to congratulate on returning to his labours —made a statement, at the time of the Round Table Conferences, I think, to the effect that, of course, the reforms could not operate until the Government in this country were quite satisfied that the financial position permitted. I forget the exact words, but I do not think my right hon. Friend will quibble about that. So far as I am aware, there has been very little debate upon the subject as to what action it is proposed to take in order to satisfy this House that India is ripe financially to undertake what is admitted to be the increased burden of this reform. Let me remind the Committee of the words of someone who does not share my views. Sir Henry Lawrence about six months ago, speaking to a Committee upstairs—it was reported in the Press—said

"Almost every expert adviser has warned you that the burdens imposed under the White Paper are intolerable, and that the Governments cannot remain solvent."

That was a very sweeping statement, but there are great expert advisers—we have heard many of them—who are doubtful as to the future, and I think I am not exaggerating when I say that a very large majority of the Provinces actually have shown a deficit in their budgets. When are we to know that it is safe to go forward with the reforms? Therefore, we hope the Secretary of State will accept this Clause, which proposes a very simple procedure:

"His Majesty may, by Order in Council, at such time as he thinks fit, appoint a Commisson to inquire into the financial position of India and to report whether or not such financal position justifies the establishment of the Federation."

Then the second Sub-section says:

"The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament the draft of the Order which it is proposed to recommend to His Majesty to make under this section, and no further proceedings shall be taken in relation thereto except in pursuance of an address presented to His Majesty by both Houses of Parliament praying that the Order may be made either in the form of the draft or with such amendments as both Houses of Parliament may have agreed to recommend to His Majesty."

That is simply in order that we may be on the safe side with regard to the launching of the reforms. Nothing could be more disastrous to the whole scheme than that there should be any doubt at the time the reforms actually commenced as to whether all the financial obligations will be met through all the various services—pensions, and so forth. All those questions hang upon whether the Indian financial position is so restored that, in fact, the machinery may be set at work. The House has considered this question for many months, and there is not a Member among our number who does not realise the gravity of the financial side of the whole question.

I beg to second the Motion

I am rather puzzled by the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Bailey) saying that this Clause is merely permissive, but it is a- fair 'inference from the Clause that the financial inquiry, which we all agree must take place, should be carried out by a Commission by Order in Council with the explicit consent of both Houses of Parliament. Unless such a- commission were appointed by the Secretary of State, with the consent of Parliament, Ii think the implication of the Clause is obvious: Parliament would not be justifies in assenting to the inauguration of the Federation. I think that before the Federation is inaugurated it is necessary that the fullest financial inquiry should be held. But I sincerely hope that it will not be held by a commission sent out from this country. We have had a number of these committees and commissions—I was chairman of one of them—and of all the useless proceedings in dealing with a question of finance, the sending out of visiting strangers to tell Governors what their finances are, or are likely to be during the next 10 years, is, I think, the most futile, and I hope that the inquiry will be carried out on the responsibility of the Secretary of State through the Governors concerned with such independent advice as he may wish to enlist, but not by a formal commission presided over by some Member of this House or the other House, or some distinguished economist whose conclusions would be blown to nothing three months after.

If the Government would accept the Clause it would go a long way to relieve the anxiety felt in Manchester by what is known as the Indian section of the cotton trade. The members of the trade with whom I have discussed the Bill find that the greatest difficulty they have in supporting the Measure is that there will not be enough finance to carry out its provisions, and, if a commission were appointed to go into the question and make a report, it would go a long way to allay the fears prevalent in the textile circles of Lancashire. They consider that the greatest difficulty in putting this Measure into operation will be the question of finance. As a Manchester representative, I feel strongly that such an inquiry should be made. I would rather see the word "shall" instead of "may" in the new Clause. I am satisfied that there is not one merchant in Manchester who really believes that the proposals of the Bill are financially sound, and, that being so, the Secretary of State should take every step to allay the fears of Manchester merchants who know the country with which they have been dealing for many years.

As I read the Clause, I think it would undoubtedly impose an obligation on the Government to appoint a commission to consider the finances of India, but the persons they would appoint is entirely a matter for the Government. They could appoint distinguished Indian experts or people who know India and have a special knowledge of Indian finance. There is no reason for assuming, as the Noble Lord has assumed, that we should have to send financial magnates from the City of London or any financial experts. The question of Federation has been before the Government for several years, and no doubt they considered the question of finance in the first instance. No doubt they considered whether the finances of India at that time were in such a condition that they could bear the imposition of an increase of expenditure. Several years have elapsed since then. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether the financial history of India during the years which have elapsed have made it more probable or less probable that these additional costs will be a serious, perhaps 'a crushing, burden to impose on Indian finances? If he can say that during the course of these years the finances of India have improved, that revenue has increased, that the collection of the taxes is easier and that the general financial situation is so good that this is a comparatively small burden to impose, it would almost be a justification for negative the new Clause. The right hon. Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) says that it is generally admitted that such an inquiry must take place. Therefore, we must take it that a considerable burden will be imposed on Indian finances. I think it is wise to put in a Clause which will ensure not only that the position will be considered as fas as possible, but that before taking the plunge and setting up Federation the Government shall have the best possible advice they can get on these essential financial questions. That can be done by the appointment of a commission. Who shall be appointed is entirely within the discretion of the Government.

I hope that the Secretary of State will see his way to accept this proposal and give us some explanation about the financial situation. Those who have had any experience of India, And her administration are more worried about the question of finance than any other part of the Bill. We did not debate this question very seriously during the Committee stage. It is interesting to hear the right hon. Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) acknowledge that the visiting committees which have gone out to India were perfectly useless—

The hon. and gallant Member must not expand my words. I said on the subject of finance.

I apologise to the right hon. Member. What we do not want is another committee led by prominent politicians. We want someone with financial ability and a knowledge of the finances of India to be sent out. We feel that the extra expenditure which this new Constitution will involve on India will fall on the peasants; they will pay the bulk of the taxes, and for that reason, although we are looked upon as capitalists by hon. Members of the Labour party, we really think it is our duty to look after the rights and interests of the peasants. A prominent Bengal leader, speaking on the finances of the Bill, said that democracy had never succeeded in any place except England, and he asked whether it was going to succeed in India where it was proposed to found democracy on a basis of bankruptcy. I know that the Secretary of State in his evidence before the Joint Select Committee said that we can only keep on hoping that there may be a turn in world affairs for the better, that the general depression will pass.

Calculations which have been made show that the extra expenditure in the Provinces will be about £6,000,000 and at the Centre from £1,500,000 to £1,750,000. That is very little, but there may be a lot of other things which will necessitate further expenditure. You will lose £2,000,000 by Burma being separated from India and £750,000 is to be remitted to the States when they come into the Federation. We believe that in order to safeguard the peasants of India and the honour of this House, some arrangements should be made for an impartial inquiry by experts to ascertain whether India can really stand this extra expenditure. The Montagu-Chelmsford reforms involved a great increase in expenditure. An enormous number of new officials were appointed, and the expenditure went up by large sums. This Bill will add further to the expenditure. A prominent propagandist of an organisation called the Union of Britain and India, said before the Joint Select Committee that India could not expect a brand new Constitution in a bargain basement. That is a clever way of talking about the peasantry of India, I hope the Government will accept the Clause.

I congratulate the Noble Lord the right hon. Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) on having discovered that at least one of these perambulating commissions was of no real value. I have always had my doubts as to the value of these commissions travelling around the world, and I welcome evidence of such a practical character. I should like the Secretary of State to give us some idea as to the future finances of India. Many of us have serious doubts on the whole position of the Bill and particularly as to how we are going to finance these various new organisations which are to be set up. I do not disagree with the Clause, but I do not think the appointment of a commission is the right way of dealing with the matter. If the Government would make it perfectly plain that they were going into the question of finance with great care, they would do a great service to India. Those who have watched the effect of federations which have been set up throughout the world will realise that the first effect is to add to the burdens of the taxpayer, and, therefore, we are justified in asking the Secretary of State to tell us clearly the prospects of Indian finances before we are committed in any way to the setting up of Federation. Unless we know that the future is financially sound, we may be imposing on the people of India something which is not necessarily for their benefit.

I think this is one of the most important proposals which has to be considered in connection with any constitution. Whether India can finance the new Constitution appears to be a matter of some doubt, but, if Part III, the provincial part, is to come into operation a substantial part of the new expenditure will have been incurred. It is clear, on the construction of the 13i11, that it is contemplated that Part III must come into operation before the Motions will be tabled in both Houses under Clause 5 which are necessary before His Majesty can issue the requisite Proclamation. If before these Motions are taken in both Houses of Parliament we are to have a financial investigation it may involve a rather longer period of delay between the establishment of self-government in the Provinces and the establishment of Federation at the Centre than would otherwise be the case.

Many of us who have doubts about the Bill feel that we should have time to see whether provincial government is a failure or not so that we may be able to resume effective control before we give the whole thing away. If there is a period of delay through a financial inquiry it would go a long way to placate the opposition of many of us to the Bill on the proposal to set up at the same time, more or less, provincial self-government and a considerable degree of responsibility at the Centre. In any case the new Clause would give more satisfaction to those who are critics of the Bill. The Noble Lord has indicated that he has always thought that some such inquiry is essential. If it is essential why not put it in the Bill and let us all feel happy that there will be a thorough investigation before this House and the other House of Parliament takes the official act of passing the Prayers which are required before His Majesty can issue the Proclamation.

I hoped that I had made the position clear on this question. I also hoped that the report of the Joint Select Committee, which deals at great length and in full detail with this subject, had made the position even clearer. If hon. Members will look again at the chapter in the Report of the Joint Select Committee which begins on page 160 and ends on page 172, they will find a complete answer to all the questions that have been raised this afternoon. May I attempt, however, as I have been invited to do so, to summarise the position so far as I can in a few sentences 1 I am inclined to think that at any rate some hon. Members are under a misapprehension. They seem to think that the formidable financial problem is connected with the institution of the Federation. In my view that is not the case. The more formidable side of the problem is connected with the Provinces. The extra expenditure needed for implementing these reforms is mainly connected with Provincial autonomy; that is to say the part of the Bill with which almost everyone in the House is in agreement, and the part of the Bill that I believe most hon. Members wish to see brought into operation with the least possible delay.

So far as the Federation is concerned the additional expenditure, in the view of the Joint Select Committee, and in the view of my expert advisers who time after time inquired into this question, is not a large amount. I will give the House an idea of what we believe to be the likely amount. It looks as though it would be about three-quarters of a crore for setting up the new Executive, the new Legislature, and the various Federal organs. That is about £500,000. It is not a sum of overwhelming proportions. I quite agree that it is a substantial figure, but it is not a figure that is unmanageable. The only other expenditure that is connected with the setting up of the Federation is the expenditure connected with liquidating the tributes of the Princes. That sum, which is spread over a number of years, looks as if it might amount to perhaps a crore.

Those are the figures connected with the setting up of the Federation, and I think the House will agree that they are not formidable figures. The more difficult side of the problem is connected with Provincial Autonomy, that is to say the sums that will have to be found as a result of the separation between Burma and India, a sum that may amount to between two and three crores as loss of revenue to India, and the sum that is necessary for setting the Provinces on an even keel by means of some kind of permanent subvention from the Centre. After all, it would be folly to set up these Provinces bankrupt from the start. They are the sum that is necessary to set up the Provinces on a sound financial basis at the beginning and the sum necessary for setting up the new Provinces of Sind and Orissa. The House will remember that that sum is really not additional, or only to a very limited extent, to existing expenditure, but is merely a question whether the subvention goes to the undivided Province of Bombay or the undivided Province of Bihar and Orissa, or whether it goes to Sind as a separate Province and to Orissa as a separate Province.

Taking those facts into consideration, it looks as if the cost of setting in motion Provincial autonomy might be from £4,000,000 to £4,500,000, a substantially larger sum than the £500,000 necessary to start the Federation. I quote these figures to show that the inquiry that was recommended by the Joint Select Committee is needed principally in connection with Provincial autonomy. That inquiry we should set in motion as soon as this Bill is on the Statute Book. It will not be anything in the nature of the Statutory Commission. We have had quite enough of Statutory Commissions in connection with India. We have had quite enough of investigations and inquiries of every conceivable sort during the last two years. It would be in the nature of a technical investigation, carried through at the earliest possible date, into the financial question, or to put it in a different way, to prepare with as little delay as possible an estimate of the sum that is necessary for starting the Provinces in a sound financial position.

When that inquiry has been completed the problem connected with the Federation will be a comparatively simple one. The main side of the financial problem will have been investigated. When it comes to the Federation the issue will be a simple issue of this kind: Is it possible to provide the comparatively small sum, about £500,000 a year, to the federal organs and institutions'? Is the central Budget likely to be a balanced Budget? Is the central credit of India in a satisfactory position? Those are very important issues, but they are the kind of issues that do not need a long and expert investigation. As at present advised I do not see the need for a further expert investigation into questions of this kind when the main problem will have already been considered in detail in connection with the setting up of the Provinces.

My hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) asked whether I could give him any information as to the course of Indian finance since these proposals were originally considered. I am glad to be able to give him a not unsatis factory report. When we first came to consider these questions four or five years ago the financial outlook was much more serious, as far as India was concerned, than it is to-day. The Budget was unbalanced, the revenue was coming in badly, the credit of India was at low ebb, it was necessary to make substantial cuts in the salaries of the Services, and in the pay of officers in the Army. I am glad to say that to-day the position is much more satisfactory. The Budget is balanced, there was a surplus in last year's Budget, there was to some extent a remission in taxation, the pay cuts have been restored, and, perhaps best of all as the outward and visible sign of the financial position of the country, Indian credit is immensely better to-day than it was four years ago. I can therefore assure the House that although I do not wish to underrate the financial difficulties of the problem, nor to suggest that they are by any means fully solved, I can tell the House that the position is much better to-day than it was a year or two ago, and that as at present advised I see no reason why, when this Bill reaches the Statute Book, Provincial autonomy should not be brought into operation in a very short time, and why from the financial point of view there should be any delay in subsequently setting up the all-India Federation.

Have all the pay cuts been restored.

Yes, entirely.

Is it not a fact that in the Provinces the deficits were actually greater last year than previously?

It is true to say that there are more Provinces in deficit now, but my hon. and gallant Friend will realise that that depends a good deal on the allocation of finance between the centre and the Provinces, and it is not in any way necessary to regard it as an indication of deterioration of the economic position. It is a very complicated question connected with the allocation of finance between the centre and the Provinces. Much better evidence of the financial position of India is the central Budget and the credit of the Indian Government. For these reasons I see no reason why we should have an inquiry of this kind, and I there fore ask the House to reject the new Clause.

I know, of course, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has more detailed and more recent figures before him than are available to most of us, but at the same time have a very considerable acquaintance with the general financial conditions prevailing in India from time to time, and as to the possibility of keeping up or increasing the large items of revenue which have been very important in the past but have shown a tendency to stagnate or actually to diminish in recent years. Of course the civil disobedience movement and the boycott first gave a tremendous shock to the revenues of the various Provinces and indeed to those of the Government of India. On the top of that came the economic slump. One of the most serious questions that require to be answered is how far have the reviving prices of agricultural produce of all kinds been able to restore some degree of the greater prosperity of the whole agricultural classes which had prevailed, say, up to the year 1928 or 1929.

I am well acquainted with the question of land revenue settlements, because during all my service as a revenue officer I was accustomed to deal with the incidence of rents and land revenue and the capacity of the people to pay. Work of that kind brings one into close contact with all these problems. While there have been certain signs of recovery in the past three years, it is well known that the state of the peasantry is far from having recovered as prices for their crops have not yet risen to those which prevailed a few years back. The paying capacity of the peasantry has declined enormously, and it is well known all over India that the chances of land revenue becoming a rising revenue have almost disappeared, and that it will be exceedingly difficult to proceed with the programme of land revenue settlement with any view to an increase of the resources of the Provinces. Indeed, it is not unlikely that such settlements may have to be undertaken at great cost in order to try and reduce to a considerable extent land revenue which up to a few years ago was easily payable.

The same sort of thing has largely happened in the case of revenue from excise on native drugs. There has been a very marked fall. In the Province which I know best the revenue from excise had risen to a crore and a-half. Well, last year or it may be the year before it had dropped to under 60 lakhs. It was an enormous fall and it does not seem likely that the revenue will recover, partly because of the greater poverty of the people and partly because the Governor did not feel like persuading Ministers not to attempt a policy of prohibition. That sort of policy may continue in the future. Therefore, I feel that, although the Secretary of State has naturally got some figures which support his hopes, it may be a long time before those hopes are fulfilled. In addition, there are always circumstances about Indian finance for which you have to allow. You must allow for wholesale failure because of the monsoons. Works of irrigation have done a great deal to save India from the worst features of famine, but they would suffice no longer to avoid the effects of famines of the intensity from which India has suffered, say, two or three times in a century. It is not so many years since they had such a devastating famine. I do not think the authority who have made these estimates have fully allowed for devastating events of that kind which may throw back finances for many years.

Provincial finance depends a great deal on what part of the income tax the Central Government can forgo for the Provinces. Central and Provincial finances are inextricably connected on that score. In regard to land revenue, falling prices by reducing the capacity of the purchasing power of the country must prejudicially affect the Customs. Furthermore, there are the surcharges still prevailing on Income Tax and on Customs and everyone knows that the duty on sugar has been raised so high that the people have suffered. They depend a great deal upon sugar, and because of the highly increased prices consequent on the protection of sugar I do not think the revenue from that source can be maintained. In addition to that, as the revenue authorities in India know the only revenue obtained from the export of opium is disappearing altogether. It is very necessary that the whole finances—the prospective as well as the immediate figures—should be thoroughly examined before this House and the coun try are committed to the establishment of the Federation.

I would not have risen if it were not for the fact that I think the speeches delivered by hon. Gentlemen supporting this Clause are contradictory. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State rightly declines to accept this Clause. The speech of the hon. Gentleman who spoke last is the most contradictory of all. He warned the Government against the effect on the revenue of India of monsoons, famines and calamities of that kind, and contended that the governmental organisations sought to be set up in India might be too costly and the financial strain too great. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State said, I think, that the cost of setting up these institutions would be about £4,500,000 per annum.

For the Provinces.

£4,500,000 for the Provinces and £500,000 for the Centre. I have been looking up the cost to the Indian finances of pensions to people living in this country who have served in India. I have yet to learn that any famine or calamity in India has ever affected the pension rights of persons living in this country drawing their income from India. I want to be frank and to say that the Indian people ought to be able to afford £4,500,000 per annum for the Provinces and £500,000 for the Centre when more than £4,000,000 per annum already comes from the revenues of India to pay the pensions of our people here at home who have served there.

Is it suggested that those pensions should be repudiated.

The hon. Gentleman is a little too previous. The purpose of the Clause is that a commission of inquiry into the financial position of India should be establshed. The Indian Government have the same right of imposing taxation on their people as we have in this country, unless I am mistaken. More than that, when it became necessary to raise large sums of money for the Great War from 1914 to 1918 the Indian people contributed a great deal to the cost of that War. Surely, we are not going to deny them the right on financial grounds to stay the coming into force of certain provisions of this Bill. We do not think much of the provisions of this Bill, but we think less of the attitude of mind.

We must not at this stage discuss the general provisions of the Bill.

Well I want to oppose the setting up of a commission, and I think the Secretary of State is quite right in resisting the Clause. Perhaps we shall not therefore be called upon to go to a Division.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This Clause represents a last effort to try and get some fiscal help for British trade in connection with India. It will be within the memory of the House that when we were in Committee two or three efforts were made to try and secure, in the first place, fair play for British trade, and, secondly, a preferential entry for British goods. There was another Amendment down which was not debated and was not voted upon of a similar character to that now before the House. His Majesty's Government have refused the demand that there should be mutual preference between Great Britain and India under the new Constitution. They definitely turned that down in spite of the fact that it would seem to be the most obvious thing to do in view of the spirit of the Ottawa Agreement and so long as it was reciprocal.

We come here to-day as a last resort to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will not at least see to it that British goods should be permitted favoured nation entry into the Indian market. It does not seem very much to ask. Indeed, I am almost ashamed of having to make this appeal to His Majesty's Government, but it does seem only right that we should do everything in our power to try and secure that, at least, we shall have as good an entry as other countries into India. It may be said by my right hon. Friend that we have just fixed up a preferential agreement which is of a satisfactory character, and we are thankful for any small mercies. That, he may say, is apart from the Constitution, and he may say trust and rely upon good will, but the fact that there may have been some mutual spirit of good will between Lancashire representatives and India at this moment is no reason why it should be so for all time. We have evidence, as hon. Members below the Gangway know, of lack of good will in the last few years in regard to Lancashire products.

In the Committee stage I found that there were several hon. Friends in this House who did not seem to appreciate in any way the really serious decline of British trade with India in comparatively recent years. I ask the House to bear with me in order to appreciate what has happened: First of all, there is the decline in trade in our cotton piece goods which, in the past, have been the most important of our exports to India. Then I want to say one word with regard to general trade. If we take cotton piece goods we find that as recently as 1924 we were exporting 1,641,000,000 square yards and that in 1934 the exports dropped—I am giving round figures—. to 582,000,000 square yards. There has been a very serious drop in this trade. It is now only approximately one-third of what it was in that year.

This process has been going on, and it has been a profound tragedy for Lancashire. But it will be remembered that on the Committee stage there were hon. Members—even hon. Members on that Government Front Bench in the absence of the Secretary of State—who got up and tried to soothe the House with the idea that although Lancashire cotton exports to India had greatly decreased the picture with regard to our general trade with India was very much improved. I would ask the House to bear with me while I call attention to the general figures of trade with India. In 1913 our domestic exports to India amounted, in round figures, to £70,000,000. in 1924 the figure was £90,000,000. Then the figure began to sink and in 1929 it had fallen to £78,000,000. In 1933 it was £33,000,000, and the fall in that year was rather aggravated by the boycott. In 1934 the figure was only £36,500,000. The House will realise that the drop in our total trade with India has been something which makes a very serious picture. I doubt if we can match it in our trade with any other part of the Empire.

This has all occurred since we began constitution-mongering in India. You would naturally have thought that from the date of the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms you would have seen good will and trade expanding between the two countries. But we saw trade rise to a peak, and since the year after the reforms were actually workings since 1924, we have seen this very serious decline. I think it must be clear that we have suffered in our exports to India in recent years owing to the fact that there has not been that response to constitutional expansion which one might have hoped for. I think the House will agree that there is no reason to believe that these reforms are bringing about an increase of good will. It is clear now to everybody that every organised body of opinion in India is against the reforms. With one exception practically all the organised bodies of Indian opinion have said that they prefer thestatus quo.

That being so, we have to contemplate that the reforms will not lead to a feeling which will increase trade with India. You will have the fact thrown up against you all the time that these speaking for Indian opinion—I deny that they do represent Indian opinion as a whole, but those claiming to speak for it—are opposed to them. [Interruption] The vast majority of people in India are unable to organise themselves into any organisation. They cannot read or write, so how can they join such organisations? [An HON. MEMBER: "Who do you represent?"] I represent a constituency of 76,000 electors, all of whom can read and write. I would remind the House that it is clear that you are not going to get that good will for which the Secretary of State first hoped. I have no doubt that he still hopes, but he has been told by his very best friends in India that these reforms are not going to lead to good will. Mr. Sastri himself told us that this would lead to greater bitterness in the days to come.

With these changes before us we have to realise that there is not going to be some sudden demand to give greater advantages to British goods. Therefore, we are asking the Government to consider whether it is possible that British goods should have at least favoured-nation treatment in India. It may be that the Secretary of State will make some suggestion. of a more favourable character. If he can make some further suggestion and can give some sort of assurance that an Amendment to this effect will be made when this Bill goes to another place, I will not press the Clause to a Division. But I do feel that this is absolutely our last chance to do anything.

Under the Bill as it stands there is an undertaking in Clause 12, paragraph (f), that it shall be the special responsibility of the Governor-General to prevent the imposition of penal tariffs. I would like to ask the Secretary of State whether he could inform us at this moment whether he has yet decided what penal tariffs are? Can he tell us for instance whether under the Clause as it stands it will be possible for Indian legislators to discriminate against this country to the extent of a small percentage? May I ask him whether the Clause we have on the Paper is not really necessary if we are to make absolutely certain that there is to be favoured-nation entry of goods from this country into India? It may seem strange to those who have not followed the course of trade with India in the last few years that this argument should have to be made. It does seem an extraordinary thing that anybody should have to stand up here and say: At least, let us make sure in the days to come that British goods will be treated in India as favourably as those of any foreign country. That is the modest demand we are putting forward, and I cannot help thinking that the whole House would desire to support the Clause if the Secretary of State will let it.

I beg to second the Motion.

I will be brief, as the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) has stated the case fairly fully. But I rather wonder what will be the interpretation of the word "discriminatory" in Clause 12, Sub-section (1), paragraph (f.) I can imagine a trade agreement being negotiated by the Government of India with the Government of some foreign country whereby India would accord to the goods of that country specially favoured treatment and whereby the goods of all the rest of the world, including the United Kingdom, would be left on a higher scale of duties. That would clearly be discrimination in favour of the goods of that particular foreign country. But it might not be regarded as being discrimination against the goods of the United Kingdom because the goods of the United Kingdom were put in the same category as the goods of most other countries. Having regard to the fact that in certain commodities the competition with which we are faced in India comes from special countries, and that in some cases the overwhelming competition comes perhaps from only one country, that form of treatment might be very harmful to us; and yet it might be accompanied by an interpretation of paragraph (f) of Clause 12 to the effect that it was not "discriminatory" against the goods of the United Kingdom. In these circumstances, it does not seem unreasonable to say to the people whose chances of good government—if this Bill represents good government—are being given them by the people of this country: "At least you are not to treat us worse than anybody else." There would be a strong case for saying: "We think you should treat us better." But this Clause does not ask that. It simply says that we shall not be treated worse than any foreigner. It is not an unreasonable proposal, and I do hope—although I suppose our hopes are going to be disappointed—that the Secretary of State will look more kindly on this than he has on some of the other proposals for guaranteeing Imperial preference.

I would not have intervened in this Debate but for the fact that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) mentioned Lancashire. It is rather strange when we are debating Indian tariffs to find who are the Members who are interesting themselves in Lancashire trade. This new Clause was moved, strange to say, by the hon. Member for I3ounemouth—and Bournemouth is not in Lancashire. It was seconded by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams)—and neither is Croydon in Lancashire, so the House must understand that there must be some deeper reasons than those stated for putting down this new Clause. I am almost sure that the Secretary of State will not accept this new Clause because if it were passed it means that, the new Indian regime would not have freedom to determine for itself what it ought to do in the matter of tariffs, and that we should tie it up in respect of tariffs beforehand. I am one who wants better treatment for Lancashire goods from the Indian Government. Indeed, it is the wish of us all that the trade between Lancashire and India should be increased. We are satisfied, however, that this sort of proposal will certainly not improve those trade relationships. We have said over and over again that even if you do put a Clause of this sort into the Bill and you do tell the Indian Government beforehand what it has to do in relation to tariffs it does not necessarily follow that the Indian people will buy our goods. After all, it is a question of the desire and the capacity of the people to buy goods in respect of which tariffs are imposed that matter.

May I remind the hon. Member that we have favoured nation treatment in almost every country in the world. Surely it is not unreasonable to ask that we should have the same thing in India.

Yes, but the obvious answer is that those agreements are entered into on a basis of good-will between the parties and that you cannot impose them from this Parliament as is now proposed. The difference between those agreements and what we are discussing now is that this Clause proposes to impose an agreement upon India. The hon. Member would not dare to suggest that we should impose a similar condition upon South Africa, Canada or Australia or any other country in the world. Does the hon. and gallant Member suggest that India must be reduced to Crown Colony status in order that this Clause may be passed? Surely that is not the intention of even the greatest "Die-hard" Tory in the House of Commons. When we were dealing with this matter a short time ago I was challenged by one or two hon. Members with regard to a statement that I made. I made a statement that.

What were the exact words?

The hon. Member is happily not my master or teacher. I will do what I like. But in order that I may not do him an injustice I will read his words because they are more important on this occasion than mine. This is what I said on this subject when we were discussing it on 30th April:

"Hon. Members complain that the Lancashire textile industry is not doing well. What has happened? I think I am right in declaring that there have been firms in Lancashire who have actually stripped their own mills in the county of Lancashire of textile machinery and have shipped it to India, and that Lancashire machinery has been put into Bombay mills to produce the very commodities that we used to export." —[OFFICIAL REPORT,30th April,1935; col. 209, Vol. 301.]

The argument which the hon. Member is now advancing may have been entirely proper on another occasion but it certainly does not come within the very narrow terms of the proposed new Clause.