HC Deb 06 November 1906 vol 164 cc323-5
MR. C. J. O'DONNELL (Newington, Walworth)

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can indicate, even generally, what are the political reasons: that prevent him from re-opening the question of the partition of Bengal, which he admits to be offensive to the nation concerned; and whether he can lay upon the Table any official report or letter which suggests that there is political danger in doing justice in regard to this national grievance.

*MR. REES (Montgomery Boroughs)

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask, with reference to the expression "national grievance," whether mass meetings of Mahomedans have; expressed their gratification at his statement that this policy is a settled fact, and have denounced the agitation against it as factitious and manufactured in Calcutta; further, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Hindu cultivators of Eastern Bengal have expressly protested against, and repudiated the agitation: whether he is aware that the Christians of Calcutta—

*MR. SPEAKER

Order, order;: this is in the nature of a speech.

*MR. MORLEY (Montrose Burghs)

I think I had better not intervene in this discussion. In regard to the Question on the Paper, I have nothing to add to what I said on Thursday, † that the production of Papers would in my view be prejudicial to public interest, and that the disadvantages of reopening the question of partition would greatly outweigh any possible advantages. But I should like to remove a misapprehension. It was suggested here on Thursday that the present House has had no opportunity of discussing, with full information before it, the question of the partition of Bengal. That is not the case. The full Papers promised by my predecessor were published in the autumn, and on 26th February last an Amendment to the Address was moved by my hon. friend the Member for West Denbighshire, and debated for nearly four hours.‡ Since that date I have answered some forty Questions on the subject, and I hope hon. Members will therefore recognise that their desire for discussion and information has not been altogether baulked.

*MR. LUPTON (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)

May I ask whether in the last fifty years there has been a similar agitation in Bengal, and whether the information of the last eight months would not give some justification for the reconsideration of a decision necessarily taken on very slender information?

*MR. MORLEY

As to what has happened in the last fifty years, the hon. Gentleman perhaps knows better than I do. I fail to see what bearing the point has upon this question.

MR. C. J. O'DONNELL

May I ask whether the Prime Minister did not promise that, if further facts were laid before the Secretary of State, he would further investigate the matter? † See (4) Debates, clxiii., 1316–18. ‡ See (4; Debates, clii., 811 et seq.

*MR. MORLEY

. What the Prime Minister said was that he was quite sure that if new facts, on good authority, were placed before me, I should be quite ready to listen to them and weigh them all.