INDIAN SUBJECTS (EDINBURGH). (Hansard, 31 May 1927)

§ Mr. SAKLATVALA
I beg to draw the attention of the House to a matter of which I have given private notice, in regard to what we now know as the 348 notorious colour bar question introduced into Edinburgh and other parts of Scotland. I do not wish to detain the House long, as some of my colleagues may have a word or two to say. It is not my intention to call upon the Ministers to account for any of their own misdeeds. It is really my intention to ask the House to help the Ministers to put an end to a practice which is extremely obnoxious. The last time I raised this question there was some doubt as to the powers of the Ministers, or of any of the authorities, to interfere in what looked like an absolutely private affair, but, since then, certain points have arisen which make me hopeful that, with the expressed opinion of this House, and with the representation of the India Office an the matter, the authorities can take some kind of action which may at least stifle this new evil which is growing up in this country. The last time I raised this question, the Secretary of State for Scotland gave a reply, and, following on that reply, the Under-Secretary of State for India wrote to me to say he had nothing to add. When I approached him again to discuss some possible suggestion, he wrote to me again to point out that he still felt he was equally helpless.
Following that correspondence, my attention was drawn to a paragraph in the "Manchester Guardian." It was not an editorial opinion, but some responsible person was writing to say that, on the authority of the police officials, no restaurant had power to refuse admission to customers, unless, of course, they were objectionable when seeking entrance. There never had been a single complaint of such a nature. The restaurants, both licensed and unlicensed, according to this police official, never attempted to impose a colour bar. As regards licensed premises in the City, the position is similar. No premises had the right to exclude customers on account of racial origin, and the police themselves would be the first to pursue inquiries if any fact, showing that such was being done, came to light. Before I raised this question last time, there was evidence that at least two restaurants in the city of Edinburgh were guilty of what we may term this indiscretion. I have also sought legal advice from competent lawyers in Edinburgh, and they mention four dance places and two restaurants. They say those restaurants are also licensed for 349 dancing purposes. None of the above is licensed for intoxicating liquor. The dancing licences are issued by the corporation under local Acts, and the legal point is whether the licence is such that they are bound to admit all comers. There can be no doubt that the licensees will have the right to refuse admission to any individual, but it is quite another point when they endeavour to exclude a community. This, however, depends upon the power of the local authority under their Acts, and so on. The same firm of lawyers wrote that they had investigated these licences. They say: In our view, the licences are granted by the Corporation to the licensee for the benefit of the public, and the licensee has no right, therefore, to exclude the public. No doubt he could exclude any individual member but certainly not a whole community. I have a further letter, received the day before yesterday, in which I am informed—but I have no time to verify it, so I give it subject to correction—that the same nefarious practice is being imitated in some other places such as Dundee, Aberdeen and Glasgow. We have heard of these colour distinctions very often in the Colonies, and I quite admit, with all my sentimental sympathy for my own racial people, that I have always had considerable sympathy with those who express themselves in that way. It is a kind of economic grievance, where the right colonials leave their motherland to improve their social and economic condition and go and settle abroad. They certainly do not like men of other races coming in to undercut and undermine their position. But this practice, which has been introduced in Scotland, is that obnoxious practice of the same kind that we hear about in America, in the lynching of negroes and so on. I appeal to the House to put it down with as strong a hand as possible, because, otherwise, it would be imaginable that the people of India, Africa and the West Indies might persecute the white populations in those countries. There is one other point I wish to bring to the notice of the Under-Secretary for India, not that I hold him responsible for it. An Edinburgh newspaper makes rather a dubious kind of suggestion. This is not only an Edinburgh City question, but one of national and Imperial importance. I submitted it to my colleagues for the City of Edinburgh, and they give it their sympathy. 350 The people of India are cognisant of the fact that all the best elements in this country, the leading ecclesiastics, and Members of this House of all parties are supporting the contention which I put forward. The London correspondent of this newspaper writes: I understand that some members have rushed in with questions in the Commons regarding the action of certain proprietors of dance halls and restaurants in Edinburgh. I believe that this matter was communicated to Edinburgh members, but, with greater experience of Parliamentary work, they decided that the sound course was to approach Lord Winterton, M.P., at present the Parliamentary Secretary to the India Office. I understand that in acknowledging the letters he had promised to see what could be done. How far he will be prejudiced by the questions which have been fired at the Secretary for Scotland is difficult to see. I hope for the honour of the House as well as of the India Office it will be publicly denied that the Secretary of State for India or the Under-Secretary would feel offended if the question was raised in Parliament——

§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton)
The only correspondence I have had with any hon. Member has been with the hon. Member himself and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham). I told the right hon. Gentle man that I would look into the matter at once and communicate with him again.

§ Mr. SAKLATVALA
I should like to be correctly understood. I do not blame the Noble Lord at all, and I am only drawing his attention to this very stupid criticism, which is offensive to this House and possibly unjust to the Noble Lord himself. I do not for a moment associate myself with this suggestion, and I am only drawing his attention to it. My sole object in bringing this question before the House, and not bringing it up in private correspondence is to satisfy the people of India, Africa and the West Indies, that this House does not encourage such an idea and that all the best elements of Scottish life do not encourage it. Now that it is possible to have the position tackled by some authority, Parliamentary or municipal, I should like both the Under-Secretary and the Secretary for Scotland to give their assistance to this House in suppressing the evil.

§ Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS
As an Edinburgh Member I should like to say a word before the Secretary of State for Scotland replies. I have no complaint to make about the hon. Member for North Battersea raising this subject, but Edinburgh as a result has had an imputation cast upon it which it hardly deserves. I regret the action of these proprietors of dancing halls and restaurants. They are, however, private people and, in the first place, they are running their establishments for commercial purposes. If they find that those commercial purposes are advanced by excluding or placing restrictions on certain patrons, they doubtless consider that they have a right to do so, from the commercial point of view. It will be noticed that these cases always have reference to establishments where dancing takes place; but this is really part of the larger question of the relations of the sexes in this country with those of other races. Whatever may be our opinions upon that, the question of inferiority does not necessarily arise, and I think the hon. Member will agree that there are members of other races who would have the same scruples and the same reservations as a number of people have in this country in regard to these matters.
I would like to point out however that as regards Edinburgh as a whole, that the attitude of these people does not represent the feeling of the citizens. Edinburgh has been, both as a city and especially in its university, cosmopolitan, and has welcomed students and visitors from every part of the Empire and from every part of the world. As regards the university there is perfect academic and social equality between all races. The Edinburgh Indian Association is actively supported by some of the chief citizens of Edinburgh who give lectures in their rooms and engage in social life with the members. The Indian Association of Edinburgh has recently given a number of dramatic entertainments which have been largely attended by Edinburgh people and which were much applauded both by the Edinburgh Press and public.
The Indians of Edinburgh also run a cricket team which has regular fixtures with the most prominent cricket teams in Edinburgh, and there is no inequality of any kind in that connection. While, as I have said, this question forms part 352 of a larger question which we as an Empire will need to go into at no distant date, I say that there is no city in the Empire which shows a better feeling in regard to our fellow-subjects of other races than does Edinburgh. I only desire to say this because imputations have been made, not by the hon. Member for North Battersea himself, but as a result of his raising of this question, which in my opinion are undeserved.

§ Mr. SCRYMGEOUR
May I be allowed, so far as Dundee is concerned, to point out that there was a reference made of this kind more than a year ago to that city, but that, as far as I understand, was applicable only to dance establishments, and I do not know that any difficulty arose at all in regard to restaurants. The representations made to me in this case related purely to dancing, and since then the interferences have been desisted from and there has been nothing more of the kind as far as I know.

§ The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour)
The hon. Member who raised this question put a question to me not long ago, when I told him that I really saw no way in which I could officially intervene in this problem. I cannot say that to-night I have learned either from what the hon. Member has said or from, such inquiries as I have been able to make, that there is any official action which I can take. I pointed out that, however much one may regret what has been done, it is really a matter for those who run these particular places. The hon. Member has said it is clear that of the six places which are in question, four are dance halls pure and simple and two are restaurants in which dancing takes place. I understand from the hon. Member that there is no question of a licence for intoxicants being concerned. Under these circumstances, the question of the right of exclusion could not come in. What I would say to the hon. Member and those who are interested in this question is that, when the question of licensing these places by the local authority arises, they should represent to the authority the views which have been expressed and no doubt the authority may take them into consideration. I do not know what are the actual powers which are in their hands. On that point I am not expressing an 353 opinion, but I think we may rest assured that throughout the country, as a whole, there is none of that extreme racial antipathy which has been suggested. I hope we may find that such expression as has been given to this matter in this House may have an ameliorating effect upon the problem.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN
I do not know the local government of Edinburgh, but in Glasgow the body responsible for licensing is the magistrate, and I assume it is the same in Edinburgh. It is always competent for any group of citizens to make representations to the licensing authorities, but is it not possible for the Secretary of State to make representations to them? I have known cases where an individual might be banned from entering a place, and that might be desirable from the public point of view, but this is the first time this has been done to a race, and, therefore, a totally different question is raised. This is an insult to a Colony of ours, and in my opinion it is the duty of the Secretary of State to act. This business can go much further. It is all very well to say that in this case only dance halls and restaurants are concerned, and for the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Dr. Shiels) to say that they are privately owned and that their owners have a right to do it. Are we to assume that he would say the same of trams if they are privately owned. The railways, too, are privately owned. Would it be correct in that case? It appears to me that the Secretary of State ought to make representations. There is nothing to hinder him doing so, as the chief officer of Scotland. Representations by two or three isolated individuals 354 would not have any great weight, but if the Secretary of State were to take up this matter with the magistrates and let it be known that in his opinion this was an insult to India, it would have a bad effect upon our prestige, it would be very helpful.
The Presbyters at their annual meetings asked that something similar should be done, and I hope the Secretary of State will consider the point, and not only consider it, but make, if possible, joint representations with the Under-Secretary of State for India. If that were done the whole thing would be wiped out quite easily. We often hear in this House about things which have been done to Britishers abroad, of so-called insults, and in those cases a representative of this country always makes representations to the authorities concerned. In this case it would be a becoming act and one which would raise the credit of the Secretary of State. The licensing authorities are his particular friends. Three-fourths of them are Conservatives. They are not likely to pay the same attention to their opponents. I hope the Secretary for Scotland will, for the sake of his own party-because it is his party who are doing this—see that their good name is cleared.

§ Mr. MAXTON
The right hon. Gentleman in his reply said he could not do anything officially. Are we to understand from that that he is proposing to do something unofficially to remedy this awkward state of affairs?