asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the interests of safety at sea, he will give, consideration to giving statutory effect to voluntary agreements reached between the Federation of Shipowners and the officers' and engineers' societies?

I am always prepared to consider the promotion of legislation or the making of regulations which may be considered necessary to secure safety at sea. Agreements between ship owners and employés naturally take into account many factors other than safety, and though I appreciate fully the value and the desirability of such agreements I can see no sufficient justification for a proposal to give them statutory force.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a great deal of feeling is aroused because a condition to pay the National Maritime Board scale of wages was not included in the Measure giving the subsidy to tramp steamers, and will he remember that voluntary agreements are not always effective?

It is quite true that voluntary agreements are sometimes not effective, but so far there has been no failure to abide by the National Maritime Board rates under the present scheme.

asked the President of the Board of Trade when the gas-grid scheme of supply being carried out by the Sheffield Gas Company will be completed; what proportion is now in use; and if such a scheme is under consideration for South and South-East Lancashire?

am making inquiries as to the progress to date of the Sheffield Gas Company's grid scheme, and I will send my hon. Friend the information as soon as possible. No proposal for a gas grid in Lancashire has been brought to my notice.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he will state what are the reasons for putting the whole cost of the Colwyn Bay Roman Catholic school upon the ratepayers?

The duty of maintaining this school as a public elementary school is placed upon the county education authority by the Education Act, 1921.Byneglecting this duty the authority have failed to fulfil the conditions of grant from the Board of Education. Consequently, the sums recovered from the county education authority under the statutory procedure, to defray the cost of maintenance, are necessarily charged by the authority wholly on the rates. The expenses properly falling on the managers of the school in respect of the school building are, of course, defrayed by them out of their own resources.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there has been great dissatisfaction in the county as a result of the inquiry held some time ago, and of the approval given to this school; and is it not possible to make some arrangement whereby a compromise can be arrived at?

The duty of maintaining the school lies with the local authority, and, as the local authority is not prepared to do this, the Board have no alternative but to make a reduction from the grant for the maintenance of the school.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered amending the Factory Acts, including special provisions to cover the 300,000 young persons who are with out any legal protection; and, if so, what decision has been reached?

):I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to my Noble Friend the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor)on 6th March last. I am afraid that I am not in a position to announce any decision in the matter.

May we take it, there fore, that it is the intention of this Government to do nothing for these 300,000 children, and nothing in the direction of extending the provisions of the Factory Acts?

No, Sir, the hon. Gentleman must not take it that the Government are not prepared to consider this problem. I have given an under taking that we would.

We may take it, there fore, that it is the intention of the Government to do something on the lines suggested in the question?

asked the Minister of Labour whether any steps are now being taken through the International Labour Office to negotiate agreements for the shortening of hours in industry?

Proposals designed to secure international conventions limiting hours of work in public works under taken or subsidised by Governments, and in their on and steel, building and contracting, glass bottle and coal-mining industries, are to be considered at the International Labour Conference which opens in Geneva at the beginning of next month.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the Post Office is proposing to purchase the old grammar school, Bungay, at present in private hands, and that this building is housing 24boarders, pupils of the Bungay Grammar School, most of whom could not attend the school as day pupils; and whether he will direct that inquiries shall he made for another site in Bungay for use as a Post Office, in view of the fact that there is no other suitable building available for use as a boarding-house for pupils of this secondary school?

The decision to purchase this site was only reached after intensive search had failed to produce any other site suitable for the pressing needs of the Post Office. I have no reason to suppose that further inquiries will be any more successful. On the other hand, I understand that suit able alternative accommodation has been offered to the tenant of the old grammar school.

:Will the hon. Gentle man consider allowing the school authorities 12months' notice, so that they can arrange for new accommodation, as that would very considerably ease the situation?

Yes, Sir, I shall be glad to consider the suggestion in the supplementary question, and to look into the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present estimated number of British, French, Spanish, and other European residents, respectively, in Tangier?

According to my information the approximate figures are as follow: British, 812;French, 2,420; Spanish, 11,700; other European residents, 1,350(including 1,000 Italians).As no census is taken at Tangier, the accuracy of these figures can not be guaranteed.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consider the advisability, as a means of alleviating the tension between Abyssinia and Italy, of proposing to the Council of the League of Nations that certain areas between the territories of the two countries in Africa should be patrolled by an international force?

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to a similar question on 27th February last.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether any communication has been received from the Italian Government with reference to the export of arms to Abyssinia; what rights Abyssinia possesses in the matter of the import of arms and whether these differ from those possessed by Italy and other countries; and whether any right is recognised for Germany to export arms to Abyssinia, and to what extent?

In answer to the first part of the question:No communication on this subject has been received from the Italian Government. As regards the second part, the importation of arms, munitions and implements of war by Abyssinia is regulated by the Treaty signed in Paris on 21stAugust, 1930, by Ethiopia, France, Italy and the United Kingdom. This Treaty established a special regime for Ethiopia, whose position as an arms importing country accordingly differs from that of Italy, whose rights have not been similarly defined. As regards the third part of the question, I would remind the hon. Member that Article 170 of the Treaty of Versailles pro hibits the manufacture for and export to foreign countries, from Germany, of arms, munitions and war material of every kind. This provision applies equally to Abyssinia as to all other countries.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that provision has been observed in fact?

I have no information to the contrary.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the committee appointed at the last meeting of the Council of the League of Nations to advise appropriate sanctions in the event of unilateral repudiation of treaties will expedite their work in view of the threatened breach of the Covenant of the League of Nations by Italy in connection with Abyssinia?

I see no reason to link the dispute between Italy and Abyssinia with the work of the Committee to which the hon. Member refers.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will ascertain why the earlier award by the Argentine President, prior to the Ortiz-Nogues recommendations, for improving the working of the Argentine railways has not been carried out; and whether he will notify the Argentine Government that the operation of Clause 8 of the presidential award, as well as the Ortiz-Nogues recommendations, will be considered in relation to the extension of the Argentine trade agreement so as to protect British capital sunk in Argentine railways?

I am informed that an interpretation by the President of the Argentine Republic of the clauses of his previous award, over which there has been difficulty, is expected to be issued shortly. As regards the recommendations referred to by my hon. Friend, I under stand that they will have to be submitted to the Argentine Congress before they can take effect.

asked the Prime Minister, in view of the ease with which personal contact with representatives of the Dominions is now possible, whether the establishment of a small imperial council to discuss and suggest solutions to inter-Imperial problems is contemplated?

His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are always ready to consider any practical suggestion for supplementing the existing arrangements for consultation and co-operation between this country and the Dominions. I doubt, however, whether the establishment of a formal permanent body on the lines suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend would be generally acceptable or materially assist in securing the objects desired.

:Has the right hon. Gentleman obtained the views of the Dominions on this matter?

:I think it is quite unnecessary to obtain their views formally, because I happen to know exactly what reactions they would show if His Majesty's Government made this proposal to them.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether in view of the numerous similarities between and the identical trading methods of co-operative societies and limited liability companies he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to secure that the names and addresses of members of co-operative societies shall be registered and disclosed in the some way as those of members of limited liability companies?

The Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, under which co-operative societies are registered, already provide for the books containing the names of the members to be open to inspection by persons interested. Disclosure of names and addresses of members, by the method laid down for limited liability companies, is not appropriate to these societies, as the holdings of the majority of members are of trivial amount, but the question of introducing some alternative method of disclosure to persons interested will be considered in connection with any suitable amending legislation.

In view of the fact that about 7,000,000 names and addresses would be involved in this proposal, will the hon. Gentleman discourage any suggestion of the kind?

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is in a position to state whether Mr. John Mulholland, who is an inmate of the Argyll and Bute district asylum at Lochgilphead, has yet been discharged from that institution as sane?

Mr. Mulholland was liberated to his sister's care at Glasgow on the 23rd instant, having been granted 28 days' leave of absence. It has been arranged that his sister is to report to the medical superintendent of the asylum before expiry of the 28 days, and if Mr. Mulholland continues to keep well mentally he will then be formally discharged.

asked the Home Secretary whether he has considered the recommendation contained in the report of the Commissioners of Prisons for 1933 that it would be an advantage in police court cases if the usual period of remand for eight days on bail or in custody could be extended to 14 or21 days, without producing the prisoner, if the court was satisfied by a medical report that such extension was desirable to ascertain the mental condition of the prisoner; and whether he proposes to accept this recommendation and implement it by the introduction of the necessary legislation?

This recommendation has been noted for consideration when there is an opportunity for legislation, but I cannot say whether it will be possible to give effect to it.

asked the Home Secretary whether he has received a report from his factory inspector in connection with the death of a casual labourer at Portsmouth who was assisting to carry an acetylene welding-plant; whether he can state the cause of the accident; and whether be has any record of similar cases?

I have received a preliminary report from which it appears that the accident occurred in an unusual manner owing to sparks entering an acetylene generator which was not altogether cleared of gas. The case will be followed up with a view to the prevention of any similar accident.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any representations have been made through the Chinese Government to the North China River Commission that the port of Tientsin is practically closed to ocean-going ships, which are unable to proceed beyond Tangku, cargo at that point having to be transferred to lighters at heavy cost to British shippers for lighterage and unloading charges; and, if not, whether he will cause inquiries to be put in hand with a view to action being taken?

The reason for the conditions described in my hon. Friend's question is that the scheme for preventing silt from reaching Tientsin harbour has proved ineffective. Representations have been made in this connection to both the central and the local Chinese authorities, and His Majesty's Ambassador and Consul-General are in close and constant touch with the situation.

May I ask the Prime Minister what business will be taken on Friday?

Supply, Committee. The Foreign Office Vote is to be put down.

I beg to move, in page89, line 19, after "guarantees," to insert:

"or (b) in return for the discharge of the State from obligations to provide military assistance."

This Amendment is put down to cover a small point. It was found that the existing drafting did not cover the case of the State of Sangli, one of the five States which have ceded territory or waived guarantees. Sangli is a small State in the Deccan, which has ceded territory, and these words are necessary in order to cover the point.

The House is much indebted to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for the explanation which he has given, though it was, from some points of view, commendably brief; but I think it is a pity that we are not in formed why a point like this was not foreseen when the Bill was going through its Committee stage. It has now been found necessary, on Clause 148, to put down nearly half a page of Amendments. The point here, as stated by my right hon. Friend, appears to be a fairly simple one, but we should be very glad, as my right hon. Friend has exhausted his right to speak, if one of the other Ministers in charge of the Bill could tell us exactly what is the reason why it was not fore seen before.

The point, I think, was foreseen, but it was not covered by our original wording. In a Bill of this kind, immensely complex as it is, it is not to be wondered at that the first edition is not word perfect.

I beg to move, in page 89, line 21, to leave out from the second "State," to "guarantees," in line 22, and to insert

"but in the first mentioned case on condition that the said."

Do I understand that this is covered by the explanation that has been already given?

indicated assent.

I beg to move, in page 90, line 38, to leave out "privilege," and insert" right, privilege, vantage."

These five Amendments are purely drafting. They make no alteration of substance, but are merely for the purpose of greater accuracy of language.

I think we might be told what advantage is gained by the insertion of these words "right" and "advantage "in addition to the word "privilege." I do not quite understand what their effect will be. Undoubtedly they are not mere repetition. It is true that there are some aspects of the word "privilege" which would coincide with some aspects of the word "advantage," but "right" is quite different from "privilege." It is in sharp contrast with" privilege." Privilege is favour; right is what anyone in particular, in respect of a particular case, is entitled to. How, then, can it be said that the insertion of the words "right" and "advantage" as well as "privilege" is merely repeating in more precise language what was originally intended? There may be a perfectly good explanation, but certainly the explanation which has been given by my right hon. Friend in no way covers the point.

I wonder if I might add a short question on this matter? It seems to be a tremendously large experiment to extend the word "privilege" to cover the three words "right," "privilege" and "advantage." An advantage puts someone in a far stronger position than privilege, while, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) has pointed out, rights are in a very different position from privileges. If, in a rather important Clause of the Bill, the word "privilege" is to be extended to cover these other points, we ought to be told fairly clearly and, if possible, concisely, precisely why it is that these changes are being made. They are not merely verbal; the words mean entirely different things. I have no doubt that some Members of the Government have looked them up in the dictionary, and may be able to explain how the use of these three different words will affect the Bill as it stands.

I hon. Members will look at the place in the Bill where these words occur, they will see the generality of the words already in the Bill. The Clause says:

"In this chapter privilege or immunity 'means any such privilege or immunity of a financial character enjoyed by or under any treaty or agreement, or by usage, as is hereinafter mentioned.?

As the House is aware, the treaties and agreements which have been made from time to time with the Indian States fill several volumes, and a variety of terminology is used in these various documents. There will not be any such difference in meaning between "privilege" and "right" as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) suggests, but, in considering the vast variety of terminology and the number of different phrases which have been used, it has been thought that, as a matter of drafting, the words "right" and "advantage" should be added to the word "privilege," in order to cover the very varied terminology which is used in these documents. Nothing will thereby be added to the effect of the Clause, but, purely as a matter of expression, to cover the subject-matter, it is better to use these words, which are already used in the different documents.

I beg to move, in page 90, line 38, to leave out from "character," to "as," in line 40.

I suppose we shall be assured that this also is merely a draftingAmendment, but at first sight the words

"enjoyed by or under any treaty or Agreement, or by usage,"

which it is proposed, at this ante penultimate stage of the Bill, to delete, appear to be important words. They have been found necessary during all the years that the Bill has been in preparation, and, during all the months that it has been discussed in this House, no doubt has been cast upon the need for their presence in the Bill. Why, then, are they to be cast away as if they were of no purport? I suppose that the effect of cutting them out would greatly to broaden and widen the scope of the rights, privileges and advantages which are to be preserved, giving security not only to anything that may have arisen from any treaty or agreement or by usage, but to matters even outside those wide provisions. In no sense is it pure drafting.

I do not say that the Government may not be right in omitting these words, but do not let us be told that they are merely drafting Amendments, when, as a matter of fact, they are obviously intended to give wider scope to the already widened privileges now to be defined as "rights, privileges or advantages" which the House has just agreed to in regard to preceding Amendments. I think that we must have some fuller explanation upon the point. May I ask, if you leave out "treaty, agreement, or by usage, "what other class of rights or privileges or ad vantages are contemplated except those derived from the words" treaty, Agreement, or by usage "I agree that it is always very difficult on the spur of the moment in handling matters like this to consider what may not be included. It is always very difficult to take an ex- haustive view of the position, but, judging by the proposals made by the Government, it seems to me that the words they have in the Bill cover almost every thing. Why then do they wish to take them out, and what is it they wish to include which is not comprised in these words? I hope that, as we have been disappointed with the explanation of the Secretary of State, we may have an explanation from the learned Solicitor' General.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) that this appears to be an enormous widening of the whole position of the Sub-section, and I can well imagine that if any private Member came down to the House with an Amendment of this kind he would be told that it would be opening the door to all sorts of things. I see my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General looking at me very severely—and muttering, and I wonder whether he or anyone else will explain to the House whether the word "usage" covers the meaning which might be applied to it. One might use the word "custom" as well. Usage and custom are fairly closely allied as words, and sometimes one can be used and sometimes the other. When the Government make an Amendment of this kind and move it in such away, though we have the greatest faith in their ability to have gone into all these things, it rather gives their case away. I should like to know what influences have been at work to enable this very large and widening Amendment to be brought in. We should like to know something about the factors which suddenly caused the Government to widen the Clause in such a curious way.

The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman said that the Clause has been widened, but I can assure the House that they are both wrong. As I understand the position, one can properly describe an Amendment as being a drafting Amendment if it does not alter what the ordinary person reading the Clause would take to be its original effect. It has been discovered that, owing to some detail which was overlooked, that the correct words have not been used. I can assure the right hon. Gentle man, the hon. Gentleman and the House that we are not really widening the Clause at all by the use of the proposed words. The Clause as drafted referred to privileges or immunities

"of a financial character enjoyed by or under any treaty, or agreement, or by usage."

The right hon. Gentleman said that it was very difficult to imagine anything which would not fall under those three heads, and, therefore, any Member of the House reading the Bill as originally drafted would say that that was our intention, and that there was no room left for widening in any material sense words which originally appeared to be as wide as possible. There is no sinister motive in the proposed words, and the reason for their introduction is somewhat similar to that explained on the last Amendment. It has been discovered that the words previously used might be held not, to cover the origin of some of the things which are referred to in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d). For instance, there might be a great deal of discussion of one kind or another as to what actually the word "usage" means. It is undesirable to put into a Bill, unless you have to do so, a word as to the meaning of which there is considerable controversy. There might be an item of this kind which arose unilaterally which could not properly be called a treaty or an agreement.

Could it not be called "usage"?

It might be. The word "usage" is one which has created controversy between the States in the past as to what exactly it covers. I am not sure that it is right to say that, if there be a definite grant by a document, the immunity enjoyed under it would be enjoyed by usage. I do not think that it is. It is enjoyed by reason of the grant. It it for these reasons that it has been thought better, as a matter of drafting, to omit the three words relating to specific objects and leave the matter at large, the limitations being in the later part of the section, which make it quite clear what are the items to be covered irrespective of their origin. That is the whole explanation of the Clause. I apologise to the House for detaining it at such length, but I hope that the explanation meets the desires of the right hon. Gentleman.

I beg to move, in page 90, line 41, to leave out paragraph (a), and to insert:

"(a) rights, privileges or advantages in respect of, or connected with, the levying of sea customs or the production and sale of untaxed salt."

This Amendment is consequential.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster ejaculated the phrase that the Amendment is consequential.

I ought to have said drafting.

But surely it is part of the general series of Amendments which are now being inserted. They are intended as being drafting Amendments, but what is their cumulative effect? It is to make or to endeavour to make this Clause more acceptable to the Princes concerned. Far from being a drafting Amendment it is part of the attempt to make what one might describe as a new deal with the Princes. It may be a small part but, at any rate, it is a part, and to pretend that it is simply a case of the draftsman looking over the Clause in retrospect and coming to the conclusion that he had put down something that was wrong and that he wanted half a page of the Order Paper in order to make the Clause more word perfect, is surely falling short of the actual truth. I have of ten seen, especially after Questions have come to an end early, the Government endeavouring to sweep through a whole set of Amendments by the mere suggestion that they are really drafting Amendments, or purely consequential on what we have already done. Therefore, the House ought always to look rather narrowly at the legislation which is passing through the House; otherwise, some parts of the Bill may slip through with out receiving that meticulous attention which it requires.

With regard to the proposed change, I have read and re-read the existing words and the words which it is pro posed to substitute for them, and it is clear that a greater assertion is to be made of the power of levying sea customs and of producing and selling untaxed salt. I suppose that untaxed salt means salt which is immune from Federal taxation by the Government of India, but it does not mean that a Prince having produced this salt which is immune from the taxation of the Government of India, cannot tax it himself for his own revenue. He can. Is that not so 7 I gather from the Chancellor of the Duchy that that is so. The object is to make sure that the Prince has a more assured facility for imposing a salt tax upon his subjects. Whereas the Federal Government, the Imperial Government have a tax which runs over the whole country and whereas some of the States have, as it were, the right to produce salt without its being taxed now, the proposed wording will give a greater right and a greater facility for the Princes to impose a salt tax. That may be very desirable. No doubt it is very desirable when you want to win the assent of the Princes, but it is perfectly clear that the whole purpose of these Amendments is to secure to the native Prince a greater privilege, a more assured application for the purposes of imposing a salt tax upon his subjects. That is the intention. No doubt he has that right at the present time, but this Amendment is to make his right far more secure than it was. I have no doubt that what is called a mere drafting Amendment is the result of a long process of haggling between the advisers of the Secretary of State and the legal advisers of the Princes. Did I say the legal advisers of the Princes? There is, I should say, one legal adviser who is carrying on negotiations at the present time. I have no doubt that prolonged discussion has gone on with regard to this point, which is represented to us as a mere drafting Amendment.

I do not see why the draftsman should have made any move if the Amendment were not the result of a bargain. I do not remember that this point was discussed in Committee. It is new to me. When our discussions reached this part of the Bill nothing was said about this matter. Therefore, it is not a question of the draftsman going through the Bill between the Committee stage and the Report stage and saying: "Let me look at the Bill; let me take note of the pledges given by Ministers; let me note the weak points which have been ex posed; let me tighten up the armour in these respects, and let me prune away excrescencies." What has moved my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his right hon. colleague the Chancellor of the Duchy to bring forward this Amendment? It is, as I say, part of an attempt to sugar the pill for the Princes. I do not at all blame the right hon. Gentleman for doing that. Much of the fortunes of his Bill rest upon his being able topersuade—I will confine myself to the word "persuade," because I do not wish to get on to controversialgrounds—the Princes to accept it, but what I object to is that after he has engaged in this elaborate piece of eighteenth century diplomacy he should come down to the House and pretend that the whole series of Amendments which he has presented to us are merely drafting and con sequential.

I notice that my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) is in a very suspicious mood this afternoon. He seems to see round every corner some terrible conspiracy on the part of the Minister or some of the people who are working with him to get round the Bill and to sugar the pill for the Princes, as he put it. I am not sure that this comparatively innocent Amendment, the description of which changed very quickly from consequential to drafting, is really a matter of any importance, but there is one point which might be explained by the Government, and that is why the word "retention" has been left out of paragraph (a). That word had considerable meaning and had an important bearing on the original wording of the Clause. By leaving it out we are making the matter entirely different. If we leave out the word "retention" it may be possible that we in crease the privileges. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will say whether there is any intention in, the proposed new words to extend the rights and privileges. It would not be polite to say that originally the draftsman made a mess of it, but certainly the word "retention" did have a meaning. If we are making the Bill better, I think we ought to know why this word has been left out.

Would not the Bill be made very much simpler and easier and much more satis- factory to the Princes, if we took out all these complicated words and simply said "privileges or immunities of any sort enjoyed by any Prince whatsoever"

My right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) his face suffused with smiles, has put to the Government a number of questions about a series of Amendments, and he appears concerned whether or not they are drafting. He said that the Government are very apt when questions come to an end before the time to try and rush Amendments through without pro per consideration. Is it not rather that my right hon. Friend's eyes were on the clock and that he thought we were going too fast? Let my right hon. Friend take it from me, if he will take anything from me.

No.

I will withdraw my appeal to him and make it to the House generally, excluding him, and will say to the House that these are definitely drafting Amendments. They are not the result of any sinister negotiations; and if accepted would not add one jot or iota to any rights and privileges at pre sent possessed by the Princes. With that explanation I ask the House to accept the Amendment. The omission of the word "retention" makes no difference whatever.

I beg to move, in page 91, line 15, to leave out "a privilege or immunity," and to insert "one."

What is the point of this How is it that when the Bill was maturely considered this point was not dealt with, and that it is only now that the redundancy or tautology is deemed to be cacophonous. Why has not this been noticed before? I should have thought that it was legally necessary to repeat the words "privilege or immunity." If this is mere repetition, it is extraordinary that it has not been noticed by the draftsman before. Is there no explanation at all on the point?

The only explanation is that the draftsman has gone through the process which the right hon. Gentleman goes through in polishing up his speeches.

I beg to move, in page 91, line 19, to leave out sub-section (7), and to insert:

"(7) His Majesty shall not accept the Instrument of Accession of any State, un less it contains such particulars as appear to His Majesty to be necessary to enable due effect to be given to the provisions of this and the next but one succeeding sections, and in particular provision for deter mining from time to time the value to be attributed for the purposes of those provisions to any privilege or immunity the value of which is fluctuating or uncertain.?

This Amendment has the effect which the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) feared that the other Amendments had. It definitely widens the scope of the Clause, and it is moved in order to be certain that a complete balance-sheet of the debits and credits shall be inserted in the Instrument of Accession, to make the position clear and final.

It appears to me to be a considerable addition to the Instrument of Accession. All the minor particulars upon which the rights, privileges and advantages are to be based must be set forth in the Instrument of Instruction. That is not unreasonable. If we are to give these privileges it should be perfectly clear and plain the basis upon which they are exercisable and enforceable. No one will object to that. I am, therefore, all the more puzzled when the right hon. Gentleman says that the Amendment is of a widening character. The effect produced on me by reading it is that it is of a narrowing character. Without this Amendment the general assertions of the Princes in regard to their rights, privileges and advantages would receive an indefinite sanction and authority, whereas the moment you put this in you say that they must be catalogued before hand and that only such rights, privileges and advantages as are catalogued will he held to be valid. How then does the right hon. Gentleman say that it is a widening Amendment? It is a narrowing Amendment, and, although it may be a proper one to make, the reasons given for its insertion are diametrically opposite to the truth.

Can the Secretary of State give us any explanation—I am sure the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) cannot—as to what is meant by. the words "fluctuating or uncertain"? There are some people and some things which are fluctuating and uncertain, but I want to know what is a fluctuating or uncertain privilege. The fact that the proposal widens the whole scope of the provisions under which the Princes can come in seems to me to be of great value. We want to see the Princes come in on a fair and reasonable basis, and I take this opportunity of congratulating the Government on making things easier and fairer. I do not take the view Which some hon. Members do in regard to the Princes. I think everything should be done to allow them to come in on proper terms when they think best for their own people, and if that is what the Government are doing they should make a little more of their case and explain that they are doing something which is really valuable.

I think I can answer the question of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). We have a fluctuating and uncertain privilege in the assistance of the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill)in these Debates.

May I point out that it is not the privilege or immunity which is fluctuating or uncertain; it is the value of the privilege or immunity which is fluctuating or uncertain.

It is the same thing.

The Amendment is drafted in a rather unusual form. It says:

"His Majesty shall not accept the Instrument of Accession of any State, unless it contains such particulars as appear to His Majesty to be necessary."

Suppose the schedule of the rights, privileges and immunities has been prepared to the best ability of the legal advisers of the Princes and is believed to be comprehensive, and that after they have joined the Federation it is found that other immemorial privileges have been omitted, what is the position then? It says that "His Majesty shall not accept the Instrument of Accession," but it has been accepted under a misapprehension. Does it mean that no privilege which has been omitted by accident can be allowed in the future?

There is one question to which I hope I shall have an answer. As far as I recollect, no Bill has ever given instructions to the Crown. In this Amendment we have the words:

"His Majesty shall not accept the Instrument of Accession of a State.?

The question, I think, was raised in the Joint Select Committee, and I think it is necessary that we should not create any constitutional innovation in this way. I am sorry that I have not raised The point before, but it has just occurred to me.

I will certainly look into the point of drafting mentioned by the Noble Lord the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). As at present advised, I understand that the phrase would not be objectionable in this connection, but I will look into it again. The answer to the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) is that the Instrument of Accession will be final; it will not be possible to raise claims subsequently. I do not think he need feel any anxiety. I shall be very much surprised if a Prince in any part of India fails to draw attention to any special rights or privileges that he may possess.

I beg to move, in page 92, line 2, after "made," to insert "in any year."

This and an Amendment which follows have been put down to meet an apprehension on the part of the States that as the Clause was drafted it might be possible to bring into account arrears of immunities and not set of f those immunities against the debits on the other side. That was never the intention. As the Clause was drafted it was feared that it might have been possible to have brought in a series of years instead of one year.

Our intention was always that only one year should be taken into account.

I beg to move, in page 92, line 5, after "State," to insert:

"in respect of any former or existing source of revenue from a similar duty or tax or from goods of the same kind, being a privilege or immunity."

This Amendment is also moved to meet wishes expressed by the States.

I beg to move, in page 94, line 23, to leave out "in the United Kingdom."

This is a very small Amendment which I hope the Government will be able to accept. It deals with the question of pensions payable in the United Kingdom. There are certainpensioners—they number over 100 at present and there might be many more at another time—whose pensions are not paid to them in the United Kingdom. They have made arrangements through the India Office or the High Commissioner to have the pensions paid elsewhere, and as it is well to be very precise in these Clauses and it is very important to the pensioners concerned, they are anxious that the pensions which are remitted to them in various ways through the High Commissioner or the Secretary of State and through authorities accountable to him, should be definitely mentioned in the Bill. I am advised that the wording of the Amendment would meet that wish, but if the Secretary of State cannot accept the wording, perhaps he will frame the Amendment in better form.

:I beg to second the Amendment.

I need not stress the point that there are many pensioners or pensioners' wives who, after a long period of residence in India, find it difficult to face the cold of an English winter, and for that reason they live abroad in one country or another. I speak from experience of people who are in fact domiciled abroad. I feel sure that the wording of the Clause is just an unintentional omission, but the Amendment will give effect to what is desired.

I am always glad when I find myself in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock). I am delighted to accept this Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 98, line 3, at.the end, to insert:

"and the salaries, allowances, and pensions payable to or in respect of members of his staff shall be paid out of those revenues."

This is a drafting Amendment, to rectify a small omission in the original Bill. The original draft did not provide for the staff of the Auditor-General being covered by this Clause. This Amendment puts that right.

How was it that this was forgotten? It seems to me rather an important point to be forgotten in the drafting of the Bill. Apparently when the Bill was drafted no thought was paid to the fact that the members of the staff of the Auditor-General would also be required to be paid out of the revenues of the Federation. The learned Solicitor-General represented it as a drafting Amendment, whereas, in fact, it is a slovenly omission which has been tardily made good.

I beg to move, in page 98, line 21, after "Province," to insert "and his staff."

This is a consequential Amendment to cover the staff of the Auditor-General of a Province in the same way as the staff of the Auditor-General in the previous Clause.

This Amendment gives the learned Solicitor-General the opportunity of answering the question as to how this was omitted. It is a very important point. Anything more ridiculous than to provide for the payment of the chief, whoever he may be, without providing for the payment of any of his staff can hardly be imagined. How much more of this is there in the Bill? Is it imagined that the Auditor-General call act like a disembodied spirit without the slightest secretarial or official assistance It is said that it was only discovered as an after-thought. It is very right and proper that it should be discovered. Indeed, we may admire and acclaim the efficacy of our parliamentary procedure which gives time for these Amendments to be made, but it seems extra ordinary in a Bill of this kind that these important officials have been left high and dry in respect of the means of providing for the salaries of the necessary staff without whom they cannot possibly do their duty. Surely the learned Solicitor-General will give some explanation. Perhaps I used the words I did just now too hastily—I hope I did. I trust he will be able to show that there was nothing careless or slovenly in providing for the payment of ministers without pro viding for the payment of the staff in any way from the revenues. -At present I rest under the unsatisfactory impression to which I have given voice, I hope precipitately, and I trust that the learned Solicitor-General will be able to remove that impression, in which case I shall be quite willing to withdraw the word "slovenly."

I wonder whether this Amendment is altogether consequential, because the last Amendment referred to the salaries, allowances and pensions payable to the Auditor-General's staff and this one makes the Sub-section read:

"The provisions of the last preceding Section shall apply in relation to the Auditor-General of a Province and his staff."

I think we ought to be told whether the words "and his staff" axe really in tended only to be consequential on a further Amendment, or whether they are consequential on the first Amendment and the whole Clause. If they are consequential on the whole Clause, the intention of the Government ought to be made clear.

I think my right hon. Friend spoke, perhaps, a little severely. I cannot believe that in the course of his long and varied political career he has never made any omissions or failed to get his first draft in perfect and final form. It was thought, I believe, that the staff was covered by the Civil Service provisions. There was, of course, never any question of officials not being paid. All officials, of course, will be paid under the general powers of the Bill, but some doubt was expressed as to whether this staff was covered by the Civil Service provisions, and therefore these words are proposed in order to make it clear. As regards the point put by my hon. Friend opposite, this is clearly con sequential in the sense that it has been found necessary to make special provisions for the staff in addition to the Auditor-General for the reasons I have given; otherwise they would not be covered by the Clauses with which we are now dealing.

I beg to move, in page 98, line 23, after "India," to insert "and his staff."

I take advantage of this second Amendment, which relates to the topic of the conversation which has just taken place, to thank the learned Solicitor-General for the explanation which he has given. I think that that explanation fully justifies me in applying to the omission of which the Government have confessed themselves, I will not say guilty, but as having fallen into, a word less strong than "slovenly," I will, there fore withdraw that word and substitute the word "inadvertence."

I beg to move, in page 101, line 2, to leave out from "were," to the end of line 5, and to insert:

"then used, otherwise than under a tenancy agreement between the Governor-General in Council and the Government of that Province, for purposes which there after will be purposes of the Federal Government or of His Majesty's Representative for the exercise of the functions of the Crown in its relations with Indian States."

This Amendment raises a somewhat similar point to one which we discussed at an earlier stage of the Bill. In the Bill, as drafted, the criterion was the purposes for which buildings were being used at the appointed date. Under this Amendment we adopt the other criterion of the purposes for which they will be used under the Bill when the new Constitution comes into force.

I assume that this Clause deals with such things as Army barracks which are taken over by the Federation. Is it implicit in the Clause that these belong to the Crown and are therefore part of the Federation, or is this Clause more to do with the exercise of the functions of the Crown in its relations with Indian States? Army land, I suppose, will be governed by this Clause, and I hope that it will not be in any way interfered with, but will be used for the same purpose as at the present day.

I will answer my hon. and gallant Friend's question in a sentence. Barracks and military land are taken over by the Federation, defence being a Federal subject, are served department, but legally the Federation takes the mover, even although the administration and management of them remain under the direct control of the Imperial Parliament and the Secretary of State.

Thank you.

May we, then, assume from the statement of the Secretary of State and from the somewhat fuller, though I am bound to say rather complicated, statement of the learned Solicitor-General, that the new words are designed to have the effect that all these buildings, barracks, etc., State property, shall be transferred to the Federation in their completeness, and that nothing shall be left out—to give a wider scope to the Clause so as to make sure that the whole property will be transferred?

It is a different way of describing it.

A different and a longer way. Is it for the purpose of making the catalogue more exact, or the definition of the property more precise or more full Otherwise one does not see any great advantage in adding a couple of lines or so to this voluminous Bill. I am still at a loss to know what is the purpose. There must be some purpose in having these extra words. I am not suggesting that any sinister motive or deep plot has inspired the Secretary of State in making the change. I am only animated by the desire to know what is the extra advantage claimed.

The purpose of the service is the test. If my right hon. Friend had been here when we were discussing one of the new Clauses the other day, he would be aware that it was generally accepted by the House that this was a very correct definition.

Thank you very much.

I beg to move, in page 104, line 16, to leave out "at the said date," and to insert:

"immediately before the commencement of Part III of this Act."

This is a drafting Amendment. The words proposed in the Amendment are considered to be more suitable.

I beg to move in page 101, line 34, at the end, to insert:

"(3) The lands and buildings vested in His Majesty by virtue of this section for the purpose of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom shall be under the management of the Commissioners of Works, and, subject to the provisions of sub section (2) of this section, the provisions of the Acts relating to the Commissioners of Works shall apply in relation to those lands and buildings as if they had been acquired by the Commissioners in pursuance of those Acts."

This new Sub-section is for the purpose of making clear the destination of the buildings of the India Office.

The destination of the India Office?

It refers only to the destination of the material structure. Under the proposals in the Bill "the Secretary of State in Council," as a corporate body, comes to an end, and these buildings being at present vested in that corporate body, it is necessary to make provision for their destination. As it is contemplated that the India Office under the reforms would become what is generally described as a Treasury Office, that is to say an Office administered in the same way as other Offices in White hall, it is proposed that the building also should be treated in the same way and should be vested in the Office of Works with the condition that, although it is so vested, it should only be used for the purposes of the Government of India. The next Amendment on the Paper is part and parcel of the same proposal, and the two taken together vest the buildings in the Office of Works. As the contents are of interest both to India and Great Britain they remain 'with the Secretary of State, but the building must be vested somewhere and the Office of Works seems to be the appropriate body.

It is clear that the Amendment as it stands is merely a matter of transference, but I should like to ask who is to pay for the upkeep of the buildings when the transfer takes place. The financial considerations involved in this Bill are very extensive, and I think it is right that we should know whether the Office of Works, that is to say the British taxpayers, are going to pay for the upkeep of these buildings. I do not raise the matter in any controversial spirit, but unless someone asks for information of this kind and the information is given in the House, difficulties may arise in the future

We dealt with that question upon the Financial Resolution. It was then made clear that the charge would fall upon the revenues of this country with this exception—that in respect of the comparatively wide field in which the India Office will still be acting as agent of the Government of India, a suitable contribution should be made by India to that extent. My answer to my hon. Friend, therefore, is that both the British taxpayers and the Indian tax payers will pay, according to the use which is made of the Office.

In what proportion

This seems to raise a matter of some material interest and it may also involve a rather serious point of financial procedure. I may betaking a wrong view and if so perhaps my doubts will be relieved by the Secretary of State but unquestionably this proposal seems to involve a new charge.

We discussed this on the Financial Resolution.

But is it not the case that it does mean a new charge thrown on the British taxpayer?

It is covered by the Financial Resolution.

As long as the right hon. Gentleman says he has covered it by the Financial Resolution that is all right, but I do not remember at what stage we dealt with the matter.

At the very beginning.

That is to say at the very beginning and before we had entered on the consideration of the Bill.

Both before and in Committee.

I am glad that it has not been overlooked because other wise it would appear that this proposal by itself would have converted the Measure into what is virtually a money Bill. As the right hon. Gentleman assures me that the necessary steps have already been taken I do not press the matter.

I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that this matter was considered during the Committee stage of the Financial Resolution. I have no recollection of any discussion upon it.

I explained it in detail.

Sub-section(2) of this Clause provides that except with the consent of the Governor-General effect shall not be given to any proposal for the diversion of any buildings for uses not connected with the discharge of the functions of the Crown in relation to India or Burma. That may be appropriate as regards buildings in India, but surely the buildings of the India Office here in London are in a different category. Sup posing those buildings were found to be redundant or much too large for the purposes for which they were being used, and were required for some other purpose not connected either with India or Burma. Is it proposed that we should have to go to the Governor-General in India and ask his consent to their diversion?

I beg to move to leave out the Clause.

The provisions included by the Amendment dealt with a few minutes ago are to be substituted for the provisions of Clause173. We have already discussed the new provisions for the destination of property other than lands and buildings being decided according to whether it is used for Federal or Provincial purposes. This is only an Amendment to leave out the existing Clause.

I beg to move, in page 104, line 1, at the be ginning, to insert:

." Subject to the provisions of this Act with respect to the Federal Railway Authority.?

Sub-section (3) of the Clause, as it appears in the Bill, provides that all contracts made in the exercise of the executive authority of the Federation or of a Province shall be expressed to be made by the Governor-General or by the Governor of the Province as the case may be, and shall be executed on behalf of the Governor-General or Governor. It is necessary to insert the words of the Amendment in order to except cases where the Federal Railway Authority make contracts in their own name.

I beg to move, in page 104, line 40, to leave out "in connection with the affairs," and insert:

"for purposes which will after the commencement of Part III of this Act be purposes of the Government."

This Amendment and another Amendment on the Paper to this Clause are similar to those which the House has already made in Clause 172.The Clause as drafted refers to contracts made "in connection with the affairs of a Province," and it is proposed to insert the words of the Amendment instead. The effect is to make the criterion the future purposes, instead of the past purposes.

I beg to move, in page 105, line 8, at the end, to insert:

"or solely for the purposes which will after the commencement of Part III of this Act be purposes of His Majesty's Representative for the exercise of the functions of the Crown in its relations with Indian States."

"except in so far as the context otherwise requires."

This is consequential upon the new provision which the House has already passed. These words are necessary in order to except contracts made by the Secretary of State in connection with paramountcy, for which provision has already been made.

I beg to move, in page 105, line 20, after "therein," to insert:

"except in so far as -the context otherwise requires."

This is a comparatively small point. The Clause provides for the substitution of references to "The Secretary of State" for references to "The Secretary of State in Council." There may be cases, however, in which the context will clearly demand that the words should be "The Secretary of State in Council."

I beg to move, in page 106, line 2, at the end, to insert:

"(6) The provisions of this Section apply to the liabilities of the Secretary of State in Council in respect of the Burma Rail ways three per cent. Debenture Stock, but, save as aforesaid, do not apply to any liability solely in connection with the affairs of Burma or Aden."

This Amendment brings into the list of securities Burma Railways three percent. Debenture Stock. That is an obligation of the Secretary of State in Council now, and we think it should remain an obligation of the Secretary of State in Council and should not be transferred to the Government of Burma.

Are there any other exceptions of a financial character of this sort? I think we ought to know if this is a matter which stands alone, and does not cover any other loan of any kind.

So far asI am aware, this is the only one.

I beg to move, in page 106, line 27, after "be," to insert "deemed to be."

This is purely formal, to provide for the automatic substitution of "the Secretary of State" for "the Secretary of State in Council" in connection with any ordinary legal proceedings.

I beg to move, in page 107, line 17, at the end, to insert:

"other than liabilities which are by this Act made liabilities of the Federation, or to contracts or liabilities for purposes which will, after the commencement of Part III of this Act, be purposes of His Majesty's Representative for the exercise of the functions of the Crown in its relations with Indian States."

This is for the same purpose as the last Amendment but one, namely, to keep out of the scope of the Section liabilities on paramountcy contracts.

I beg to move, in page 107, line 21, after "the," to insert "regulation and the."

This and the next Amendment go together. The first is purely drafting, and the second is made to cover the small point that the railways under the control of the Federal Railway Authority in some instances run outside India.