Orders of the Day — Government of India Bill. – in the House of Commons at on 27 March 1935.
Colonel Josiah Wedgwood
, Newcastle-under-Lyme
I oppose this Clause, but I do not propose to divide against it. I think the Committee should understand what this Clause is. It reads:
Nothing in this Act shall be construed as empowering the Federal Legislature, in virtue of the accession of a State to the Federation, to make Laws extending to the State.
It is a demonstration of what this Federation means. The States are represented in the Assembly. Nothing done by that Assembly can affect the States, either the Princes or the subjects of those States, save in so far as is conceded by the ruler of a State in the Instrument of Accession. In no Federation in the world would such a Clause be found, and it is only put in here because this is not a Federation. This is the handing over of India to the rulers of the States.
Mr Samuel Hoare
, Chelsea
My right hon. Friend's criticism surely has gone a long way beyond the limits of fair criticism. There never has been a federation of this kind in the history of the world in which, presumably, the federal legislature has had an unlimited field of legislation. I have never heard of a federation in which there is no such limitation.
Colonel Josiah Wedgwood
, Newcastle-under-Lyme
That is not the point at all. There is represented in this Federation the Indian States. They are to make Laws for British India, and the laws they make are not to apply to the States which they are supposed to represent.
Mr Samuel Hoare
, Chelsea
I have never heard of a federation in which the federal legislature has these unlimited powers. The whole essence of federation is that the units surrender definite powers, but beyond that field the Federal Legislature has no power over units at all. That is exactly the position. The Federal Legislature has power over the units to the extent of the federal field; and in the case of the Indian Princes to the extent that they have surrendered their powers in the Instruments of Accession. That is altogether in keeping with the letter and spirit of every federal legislature in the world. It would be contrary to every theory of federation if the Federal Government had more extended powers.
Colonel Josiah Wedgwood
, Newcastle-under-Lyme
The right hon. Gentleman is really playing with the subject. Take the case of income tax. You impose income tax on the whole of India except the Indian States. The representatives of those States can vote the income tax, and the Princes of the States can escape all liability. The Act they pass does not apply to those States. I say that that is exceptional.
Lieut-General Edward Fitzroy
, Daventry
Now that I have followed what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has been saying, I have come to the conclusion that the question is one which we have already discussed. It certainly is not in order on this Clause.
Mr Morgan Jones
, Caerphilly
Is there not a point to be cleared up? There is the difference between this Federation and other federations in this respect. The whole of British India is covered by the Federal subjects, but a State comes in not necessarily in respect of all the federal subjects in the federal area. Suppose a Prince accedes in respect of 50 subjects in the Federal List, so far as those 50 subjects are concerned they are common to India, but in respect of the subjects to which the Prince does not accede, in that respect he is in a different position from the various Provinces of British India. Surely, therefore, there is a very big difference between federation with which we are acquainted and this one. May I take the other point which my right hon. and gallant Friend took? Though a Prince accedes, say, in respect of only 50 subjects on the Federal List, in spite of that his subjects have a voice in regard to the whole field.
Lieut-General Edward Fitzroy
, Daventry
I still cannot think that that is in order on this Clause.
Viscount Wolmer
, Aldershot
Surely we are in order in discussing that on the Question, "That the Clause stand part"? It is the essence of the Clause:
Nothing in this Act shall be construed as empowering the Federal Legislature, in virtue of the accession of a State to the Federation, to make Laws extending to the State.
except in so far as it is covered by the Instrument of Accession. Surely it is in order to argue that it is an unjust or an unwise Clause, in view of the fact that the State representatives in the Legislature are entitled to vote on all these other matters?
Lieut-General Edward Fitzroy
, Daventry
I still maintain, with all respect to the Noble Lord's contention, that this is merely a precautionary Clause, as I read it, put in for greater caution. The principle raised by the Noble Lord and by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) is a principle which was undoubtedly accepted in an earlier part of the Bill.
A parliamentary bill is divided into sections called clauses.
Printed in the margin next to each clause is a brief explanatory `side-note' giving details of what the effect of the clause will be.
During the committee stage of a bill, MPs examine these clauses in detail and may introduce new clauses of their own or table amendments to the existing clauses.
When a bill becomes an Act of Parliament, clauses become known as sections.
As a bill passes through Parliament, MPs and peers may suggest amendments - or changes - which they believe will improve the quality of the legislation.
Many hundreds of amendments are proposed by members to major bills as they pass through committee stage, report stage and third reading in both Houses of Parliament.
In the end only a handful of amendments will be incorporated into any bill.
The Speaker - or the chairman in the case of standing committees - has the power to select which amendments should be debated.
Laws are the rules by which a country is governed. Britain has a long history of law making and the laws of this country can be divided into three types:- 1) Statute Laws are the laws that have been made by Parliament. 2) Case Law is law that has been established from cases tried in the courts - the laws arise from test cases. The result of the test case creates a precedent on which future cases are judged. 3) Common Law is a part of English Law, which has not come from Parliament. It consists of rules of law which have developed from customs or judgements made in courts over hundreds of years. For example until 1861 Parliament had never passed a law saying that murder was an offence. From the earliest times courts had judged that murder was a crime so there was no need to make a law.
Mr Thomas Inskip
, Fareham