§ The CHAIRMAN
I understand the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala) wishes to move another Amendment in place of those on the Paper.
§ Mr. SAKLATVALA
Before moving my Amendment I wish to raise a point of Order. I wish to have your ruling, Sir, as to whether the Bill, as framed and worded, is in itself a valid document, and is in order at all. I ask your attention to the wording of the Title of the Bill, which says that it is "an Act to amend Section 84A of the Government of India Act"
§ The CHAIRMAN
That is a matter which ought to have been raised on Second Beading before Mr. Speaker. The House having committed the Bill, I cannot deal with a point of that kind.
§ Mr. SAKLATVALA
I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, at the end, to insert the words:Provided that the said Commission shall not be appointed until a Resolution shall have been agreed to by the Legislative Assembly of India approving of its appointment.I move this Amendment in place of the rather hastily drawn Amendments on the Paper, and I ask the Committee to treat it as a serious proposal. I do not1 move it merely with the desire of moving some Amendment to this Bill. In the first place, I have a little difficulty in reference to the previous Act. As I was trying to make clear in my point of Order, the Act which it is intended to amend is the Government of India Act of 1919.
§ The CHAIRMAN
No, that is not so. The procedure with regard to the Government of India Act is the same as that with regard to the Army Act. Whenever an amendment of the law with regard to the Government of India Act is passed, a new Act is drawn up, embodying the amendment, and that is the Government of India Act for the purposes of any further legislation—exactly the same as in the case of the Army Act.
§ Mr. SAKLATVALA
I suppose you will permit me to deal with the Government of India Act, 1919, by which the Statutory Commission has been created. It says in the Preamble:
"Whereas the time and manner of each advance can be determined only by Parliament upon whom the responsibility lies for the welfare and advancement of the Indian peoples:And whereas the action of Parliament in such matters must be guided by the co-operation received from those on whom new opportunities of service will be conferred, etc.I submit that when the original Act was passed, it was then put forward as a forecast that the people of India would have the machinery to express their opinion, and it was clearly intended in the paragraph I have read, that, whatever Parliament might do in the future, it would have to be done in co-operation with the newly created body in India. We are now adopting a procedure which is quite contrary to that legislative enactment of 1919. My Amendment, therefore, appears to me to be an essential one dealing with a point which ought to have been borne in mind by the Government. The Bill introduced by the Government simply takes cognisance of what existed before 1919, and does not take cognisance of the events and circumstances of 1927. We are certainly not proceeding in a manner by whichthe action of Parliament in such mattersisguided by the co-operation received from those on whom new opportunities of service have been conferred.There were many ways open to the Government, but probably Friday will be a better day for us to dilate upon those lost opportunities. Coming directly to this Bill, I submit that it is contrary, even to the spirit of the Act of 1919, to sanction a one-sided bargain 1823 as if the Legislative Assembly of India did not exist and as if Parliament never intended to be guided by that legislature in future movements. Apart from the wording of the Act, I submit that after its passage, though not perhaps during its passage, it had become a contract between two parties, between the Government of this country and the body entrusted with whatever measure of popular government was granted to India. To-day we are asked to take a course of action by which one of the contracting parties wants to alter the contract radically, completely disregarding the existence of the other contracting party. That other contracting party, having heard of our one-sided activity through other channels such as the Press, is objecting as strongly as possible and in whatever manner it can against this proposal. I have just this morning received a cablegram from the Trade Union Congress of India—
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton)
I wish to raise a point of Order. I ask you, respectfully, Sir, whether it is not quite out of order on any part of this Bill, much less on this Amendment, to discuss the composition or proposed composition of the Commission which it will be the duty of the Government to recommend to His Majesty. As I understand the hon. Member, he is now dealing with objections which are being taken in India to the proposed Commission.
§ Mr. SAKLATVALA
It is far from my mind to raise that objection at all, and I am sorry if the Noble Lord has got the idea in his mind that that is the only point which exists in regard to this matter. I assure the Noble Lord I am not bothered about the personnel of the Commission. If the Commission is wrong, any saint or scoundrel appointed to it will be in the wrong place.
§ The CHAIRMAN
If the hon. Member confines himself to the point that no such step should be taken until there has been a resolution from India, that will be in order. I have fortified myself with Mr. Speaker's ruling on the Second Reading and no reference to the method, personnel or probable proceedings of the Commission will be in order.
§ Mr. SAKLATVALA
I shall obey your ruling, which is exactly what I have in mind. I have nothing to say upon those other matters, my point being that there are two parties to this contract and that one of the two parties is now undertaking to modify the contract. The other party to the contract is completely ignored as if it did not exist. The other party to the contract is raising objections not to the personnel, but to the whole procedure, and my Amendment seeks to put this House in some position of justification, and to save its honour, as far as I can retrieve its lost honour. My Amendment does not interfere with the desire of the Government to remove that cast-iron barrier of 10 years which they are trying to remove now, but what it does is almost to compel the Government to take notice of the existence of the second party to the contract and not to move in the matter as if they alone count, and India does not exist at all. I appeal to the Committee to recognise the fact that if this Amendment be carried, the entire spirit with which any future Commission or Committee will be working will be quite different from the spirit of the Government Resolution, and the people who are most concerned with either expediting or delaying such inquiry will get a reasonable chance of telling this Parliament what they desire to be done with the original contract.
I strongly appeal to the Committee to set aside their prejudices and previously formed opinion, and to support my Amendment, which substantially carries out the Government's wishes, first, or removing the cast-iron barrier; secondly, reminds them of the original promise in the 1919 Act that in all future Measures Parliament will be guided by the co-operation of the new body created in India; and, thirdly, carries out the ordinary, honourable contractual obligation of letting the other side to the contract speak before one side settles the matter in a high-handed manner. I appeal to the Committee once again to be very reasonable in this matter and to accept my Amendment.
§ Earl WINTERTON
The hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala) is entitled, if he believes it is right that it should be done, to ask that these words should be added, but he is not entitled, on the one hand, to say that if these
1825 words were added to the Bill it would be in accordance with the spirit or the letter of the Government of India Act, and, much more, he is not entitled to claim that the Government, in opposing the addition of the words would break either the spirit or the letter of the Act. He has made a serious charge of breach of contract not only against the Members of the Government, but, inferentially, against the leaders of every party in the House. Members on that side will hesitate to support an Amendment which involves a direct charge against the leaders of the Labour party, as well as hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, of a breach of faith. That is a serious charge, even though it proceeds from the hon. Gentleman, and I propose in very few words to explain the utter fallacy, the utter falsity, of that charge. The hon Member has the—I use the word in a courteous sense—effrontery to quote from the Government of India Act in support of his point of view. As a matter of fact it is in direct opposition to the point of view he has put. These are the words that the Preamble uses, after stating that it is the declared policy of Parliament to provide for the increasing association of Indians in every branch of Indian administration:And whereas the time and manner of each advance can be determined only by Parliament, upon whom responsibility lies for the welfare and advancement of the Indian peoples:And whereas the action of Parliament in such matters must be guided by the co-operation received …Not must "take the form of co-operation," but "must be guided by the co-operation." Then, as regards Section 84A, which the Bill before the Committee seeks to amend, that Section is even stronger than the Preamble as to the intentions of Parliament at the time the Act was passed. That Section says:At the expiration of ten years after the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State, with the concurrence of both Houses of Parliament, shall submit for the approval of His Majesty…There is no reference whatever to the Legislative Assembly. What right has the hon. Gentleman to come down here and make a most serious charge against every party in the House of breaking faith with the people of India by breaking the spirit and the letter of 1826 the Act of 1919? I submit that he has no right of any sort, and is absolutely denuded of argument in every respect. With regard to the other ground of his argument, namely, that it would be advisable to add these words, not that we have promised to do so, but from the point of view of satisfying Indian opinion, I must say quite frankly, again, that no one who has the remotest knowledge of India could possibly accept the hon. Gentleman as an exponent of Indian opinion. As far as I know, he has absolutely no authority of any sort. He is repudiated by every responsible organisation in India. There is not a responsible organisation in India that accepts the hon. Gentleman as its spokesman. He has made the statement this afternoon that opinion in India is in favour of this provision.
May I point out to the hon. Gentleman the fact, although he ought to have known it before speaking with such confidence, that there have been no less than five resolutions passed in the Assembly in India in favour of the acceleration of the date? The Leader of the Opposition, I think, emphasised that in his speech yesterday, yet here is an hon. Gentleman who comes down here and claims, forsooth, to be an exponent of Indian opinion, telling us that these five Resolutions have got to be entirely disregarded, that he, the Member for North Battersea, the representative of 300,000,000 Indian people, demands that this Committee shall retard the date, in face of the desire of the Indian Assembly to accelerate it, when the demand for years past has been that the matter should be accelerated. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition told us yesterday that it was under the consideration of his Government in 1924, but, for reasons which he explained then, he was not able to agree to that acceleration. It has been, as I explained yesterday, under the consideration of His Majesty's Government, and now, for the reasons which have been made clear, it has been determined to accelerate the date. The hon. Gentleman says, "No, this date is not to be accelerated. You have to ignore what the Legislative Assembly want. You are to insert a provision in the Bill—"
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
Will the Noble Lord kindly inform me the dates, roughly speaking, of these five Resolutions, or, say, the date of the last one?
§ Earl WINTERTON
I could not give the hon. Member the date off-hand, but Resolutions have been passed at different times ever since the Assembly came into being in 1920. Let me, in a friendly manner, assure the hon. Gentleman that he will be backing the wrong horse if he accepts the opinion of the hon. Member for North Battersea. I am quite sure he would agree with me that there is no demand in India that the date should be retarded, but that, on the other hand, there is a constant demand that the date should be accelerated. I say, in conclusion, that to accept this Amendment, on the one hand, would not only not be in accordance with the spirit and letter of the Act, but would be directly contrary to the spirit and letter, and, on the other hand, it would be flying in the face of the very demand constantly made by the Legislative Assembly for years past.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY
The Noble Lord must be very grateful to me, because but for my boldness in protesting against his attempt to rush the Committee stage yesterday, he would not have been able to treat the House this afternoon to this flow of invective against the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala). I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour is quite so grateful. I was watching his face when the Noble Lord was making the sort of speech he used to make with great success 20 or 30 years ago when he was the baby of the House, and in Opposition, and wanted to rouse well-disciplined supporters of the Government to reply.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I said "20 or 30 years ago." I suppose he and I are approaching middle age, although when I listen to him I can hardly believe it. The Noble Lord said that the hon. Member for North Battersea had no right to speak for any section of Indian opinion. I do not know that it behoves me particularly to defend the 1828 hon. Member for North Battersea; I think he can look after himself. But the Noble Lord seemed to question the right of any Member of this House to give certain opinions. The hon. Member for North Battersea was sent here by the electorate in his constituency, and has every right to voice his opinion in this House. I am sure the hon. Member treats the electors of North Battersea to a great many tirades on the Indian question, and that they well know his views. The Noble Lord, besides being a great ornament to this House, is an Irish Peer. What sections of Irish opinion does he represent?
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
The Noble Lord might make certain retorts against me, because we both suffer from accidents of birth. I was only protesting against the Noble Lord's suggestion that the hon. Member on this side speaks for no section of Indian opinion, and when an Irish Peer, who has estates in England, and sits for a Sussex constituency, says that, I make the obvious retort, but I will not repeat it. I really think the Under-Secretary need not get heated over this matter at all. I, personally, am very glad to hear the views of the hon. Member for North Battersea on Indian affairs. He is the only Indian-born native in the House, as far as I know. The Noble Lord can console himself that he is going to get the Committee stage of this Bill. He has no need to worry about that. What he has got to worry about is Indian opinion in India, and if he would address himself to that, and not allow his leg to be pulled by the hon. Member for North Battersea, it would be better.
§ Mr. STEPHEN
I wish to join in pro-testing against the tone of the Under-Secretary of State for India in his references to the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala). He said the hon. Member does not represent any responsible Indian opinion. I do not know on what he bases that statement, and I think he might have been a little bit more definite when he was making that vague charge against the hon. Member. It is perhaps true or it is perhaps incorrect, but the point that struck me in this con- 1829 nection was that it came very badly from the Noble Lord to make such a statement, seeing that the Government of which he is a junior member was responsible for keeping the hon. Member for North Battersea from visiting his own country to get into touch with Indian opinion. I think the Noble Lord would have been well advised if he had kept his temper when he was replying to the speech of the hon. Member for North Battersea; and if that hon. Member's knowledge of responsible opinion in his own country is so limited, I hope the Noble Lord and his Noble Friend in another place will give the hon. Member the opportunity that he should have of getting into personal touch, if he so desires, with responsible opinion in his own country.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
In regard to the Noble Lord's personal feelings about any one associated with the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala), I wish he always had such kindly feelings for the Opposition as he has to-day. If he had remembered them during the Trade Disputes Bill, we might have thanked him, but to-day we cannot give him any gratitude at all. When he talks about not wanting me to back the wrong horse, he is talking with his tongue in his cheek, and to talk about what side we should take is sheer impudence. I heard the first part of his speech against the hon. Member for North Battersea—
§ The CHAIRMAN
It has been ruled that the word "impudence" must not be applied by one hon. Member of the House to another.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
Surely I am entitled to say that as the Noble Lord, without interruption from you, Mr. Hope, started to tell the hon. Member for North Battersea what he is entitled to do, I am entitled to tell the Noble Lord what he is entitled to do.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is entitled to argue, but not to use that particular epithet. It is not in accordance with Parliamentary practice.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
If you would show me where the word "impudence" is out of order, I would be very pleased. Can you show me the difference between the word "impudence" and the word "effrontery"?
§ The CHAIRMAN
In accordance with Parliamentary practice, I have ruled that the word "impudence" is out of order, and I must ask the hon. Member not to repeat it.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
Then am I to understand that there is to be one ruling for a Noble Lord and a different ruling for a commoner?
§ The CHAIRMAN
If the Noble Lord had used the word "impudence," I should have dealt with it in the same way. I must ask the hon. Member to accept that ruling from me.
§ Miss WILKINSON
On a point of Order. May I ask a question? When the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Harmsworth) was speaking a couple of days ago, he described the speeches on this side as hypocrisy, humbug, and cheek. Will you tell me, Mr. Hope, as the hon. Member was not called to order on that occasion, whether the words "hypocrisy, humbug, and cheek" are in any sense more Parliamentary than the word "impudence"?
§ The CHAIRMAN
I was not present at the time. All that I have to rule now—and I do rule—is that to use the word "impudence" across the Floor of the House from one hon. Member to another is not in order.
§ Mr. WILFRID PALING
On a point of Order. When the Noble Lord was guilty of using the word "effrontery," he qualified it by saying that he used it in a courteous sense. If the word "impudence" were used with the same qualification, would it be allowed to pass?
§ The CHAIRMAN
I think it is obvious from that that the Noble Lord felt he was going too far in using the word "effrontery"
§ Mr. WHEATLEY
Would it be in order for the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) to describe the advice given by the Noble Lord as a piece of impertinence?
§ The CHAIRMAN
That also has been ruled on. It is in order to use the word "impertinence" in the sense of "irrelevance."
§ Mr. WHEATLEY
Would you assist the Committee, Mr. Hope, by giving us a word that would properly describe the insulting remarks of the Noble Lord?
§ The CHAIRMAN
It is not the business of the Chairman to assist hon. Members in finding either epithets or arguments.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
The Noble Lord started to talk about the hon. Member for North Battersea being entitled to do this, but not to do that. Hitherto I had thought that the person to determine what we were entitled to do was the Chairman, and I am interested at the Noble Lord wishing to become Chairman of Committee in addition to Under-Secretary of State for India. My experience of him is that he is hardly capable of carrying his own post, without adding another to it, and for him to assume the duties of Chairman—
§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member seems to have gone off on the character of the Noble Lord. Perhaps he will address himself to the question before the Committee.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
If I have strayed—I. hope I shall not be impertinent, Sir—do not forget that the Noble Lord's speech was almost entirely addressed to the hon. Member for North Battersea. The Noble Lord definitely scored this point—and I grant it—that the Indian Legislature had in five cases passed Resolutions wanting this Commission set up, or to that effect. I hope the Noble Lord will not think it impertinent, or even cheeky, if I ask him what the terms of those Resolutions are. He has made a serious statement in direct contradiction of the hon. Member for North Battersea, and if the Noble Lord can assure me as to the terms of those five Resolutions, I think there is almost an unanswerable case for his point of view. I hope I shall not be accused of unbelief, but in these days, when political controversy is very acute, the Noble Lord cannot accuse me of being unbelieving, be 1832 cause I can remember his friends when they were on this side never accepting one of the words of our Ministers. The thing had always to be brought down, as we say in our Glasgow slang, to tin-tacks. Therefore, I want the terms of those Resolutions before accepting them, and I would like to be certain that they did definitely ask for the setting up of this Commission. If the Indian Assembly, by definite Resolution on five occasions, asked for this Commission, it seems to me that a considerable amount of weight is added to the Noble Lord's case and, at the same time, taken from any adverse criticism of it. When the Noble Lord criticises the hon. Member for North Battersea for not having his brief prepared, he himself in not having the dates and terms of those Resolutions, shows that his brief was not properly prepared, and it is more excusable perhaps in the case of the hon. Member for North Battersea than in the case of the Noble Lord.
The other point that I want to raise is this: We are told that the Mover of the Amendment is not representative of Indian opinion, and the assumption by the Under-Secretary is that he, the Noble Lord, is representative of Indian opinion. There is at least this much to be said for the hon. Member for North Battersea. He is at least representative of Indian opinion to the extent of one, that is, himself, whereas the Noble Lord is not representative of Indian opinion even to that extent. How far are we all representative of our own Divisions? [Interruption.] I think I could beat anybody on the other side in that matter, for in my Division at the last election the returning officer said he would stop counting my votes and start weighing them, they were so numerous. If anybody came to my Division, I would beat him by three to one, and after this Unemployment Insurance Bill is passed it will be about 10 to one, but even I might be said not always to be representative. It is always a question of degree, and for the Noble Lord to assume that he is more representative than somebody else is, to my mind, not a right attitude to adopt. The Noble Lord wants this Bill passed without opposition, and, therefore, his language ought to be couched in conciliatory terms. He ought not to talk down to anybody, but to try to get away 1833 from the atmosphere of superiority and to try and think that there are other Members as good as himself, that we are all elected by our constituents, and in so far as our election carries us equally representative. If the Noble Lord will just start to treat the Opposition, not as inferiors or worse, but as equals, it will be better for him and for the safe passage of this Bill.
§ Mr. WALLHEAD
It would have been as well if, before the Noble Lord thought out his scheme of indictment against the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala), he had been quite sure of his facts. He ought to be in a very good position to know what the facts regarding the situation really are, but he charged the hon. Member for North Battersea with not being representative of Indian opinion and Said that he represented no one at all. I believe that on a recent visit to India the hon. Member was presented with nine open Addresses by nine of the great cities of India, some of which have refused the same privilege and honour to Lord Irwin, the Viceroy. If that is true, the charge levied by the Noble Lord is not correct, and the hon. Member for North Battersea can say, I think, with some amount of assurance, that he does at least speak the mind to a large extent of a large number of persons in India occupying very responsible positions. If what I say is correct, as I am sure it is—and I believe the hon. Member for North Battersea has these Addresses in his possession now—I think at least the Noble Lord might have known those facts, because he must get the news from India. Certain words have been questioned, but I think the Noble Lord should withdraw his statement and apologise to the hon. Member for North Battersea for the statement he has made.
I want to enter my protest against the idea that emanates from the Front Bench on the Government side with regard to the right of individuals in this House. I understand that a Member's right in this House rests upon the fact that he has been returned here by a majority of constituents, and that he has a right to raise any question of public, importance, which he thinks is necessary, affecting the public welfare and conduct here or in any part of the Dominions with which the House is connected. Therefore, to 1834 speak of rights or to challenge what is called the right to speak or to raise a question is to my mind not in accord with facts.
§ Mr. MAXTON
I do not want to delay the progress of the Bill for any length of time, but, listening to the Noble Lord to-day and the subsequent discussion gives the impression that the Government seem absolutely determined in the handling of this question to proceed from folly to folly; and as one who is genuinely anxious that the great Indian people shall be established in a position of liberty and dignity to develop their nation according to their own genius, I regret very much that first the Noble Lord the Secretary of State, in the other place, and then the Noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State in this House, should indicate to the Indian people that they had nothing but contempt for them. What possible measure of confidence can we have that the Government will deal with the Indian people in a decent gentlemanly, man-to-man fashion when they cannot treat with ordinary common courtesy the one representative of the Indian people who sits in this House? It seems to me to indicate quite clearly, what has been shown by their recent activities on the Indian question, that there is not the proper frame of mind on the part of the Conservative Government for the approach to a problem which is fraught with the very deepest possibilities, but also with the greatest danger for the future, not merely of the Indian people but for the whole of the East, and therefore for the whole of the human race. I think it should have been possible for a responsible Minister of the Crown to have put through this Bill, to have listened to any criticism to it with restraint and dignity, having regard to the fact that there were bigger issues at stake than his amour propre.I hope that both the Noble Lord in the other place and the Noble Lord who is piloting this Bill through the House will take serious thought to themselves and try to change their attitude towards the Indian people.
I am rather surprised that the Under-Secretary of State resented this Amendment quite so strongly. I only felt, when reading it, amazement that the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala) should have come 1835 forward with such an extremely mild Amendment. It seems to me such a very reasonable request to make that I cannot understand why any hon. Member on the other side of the House should hesitate for a moment to support it. It certainly does not justify the very un-English practice of standing up supported by big battalions and taunting a man in the way that has been done just because he happens to be in a minority of one. I do not suppose any Member will find more points of disagreement with the hon. Member for North Battersea than myself, but he is certainly entitled to express his opinions without being treated insolently, and in this particular case I think he has moved an Amendment which has nothing to do with any particular party prejudice, but is an extremely moderate and very helpful Amendment. The party opposite are always telling us how India is the jewel of the Empire and have used all kinds of extravagant metaphors to show their affection for everything Indian, but, when we are discussing a Bill which is extremely important to the Indian people, except for the speech, which perhaps it is kinder not to deal with, from the Front Bench, we do not get a single word of any kind from the Members opposite, who are the self-appointed custodians and guardians of the Empire.
I happened to have spent some little time in India and Burma myself, and my views on this subject do not always run on parallel lines with those of my Friends on this side of the House; and I want to say, quite definitely, that if British interests in India—and I think some of the interests are helpful to the Indian people—are to be maintained, if we are not going to develop an extraordinarily bitter and unpleasant hostility between the awakening man of the East and our own race, we have got to approach these problems with the most extraordinary tact and discretion and delicacy. We have always to bear in mind when we are dealing with Indian problems that India is in the strict sense of the word not a white man's country. Englishmen cannot go there and settle with their families and found ancestral homes in the way that they can in Africa and other parts of the Commonwealth; and, because that is so, and because the English population in India must always be of a temporary, floating character, because it 1836 must be always greatly outnumbered, and because we cannot hold it by developing racial interests and family interests, we can only hold the Indian nation by two methods—one, the unrestricted and most brutal use of force; the other, a determined effort to understand, sympathise with and assist the Indian people in their struggle.
I will try to relate my argument to the Amendment, and I think it will be quite clear in a moment or two longer. I use that argument because I do want to impress upon the Committee the importance of not taking any step in relations to our present governance of India without having very carefully considered beforehand the effect that it will have upon the Indian people. I do not think hon. Members opposite will accuse me of party prejudice in saying that their party is more suspect by the Indian people than any other political party in this country. Rightly or wrongly it does not matter, but it is a fact, and when a Government such as this, which is strongly under suspicion, if only from the nature of the occupants of the India Office, suddenly develops a desire, as they say, to do something for India 12 months before they need to do it, the Indians remember the old saying—"Beware of the Greeks when they come with gifts in their hands." They are extremely suspicious of it. The argument, as I understand from speeches made on the Government side yesterday and in another place is, that the Government is genuinely anxious to get this Commission appointed to find out what is best for India, and to do it. If that be the case, if this Commission is going to do the best thing both for India and for the permanent relationships between the two people, it is absolutely necessary that the Commission should start its work clear of suspicion and of prejudice and be able to get the best and most expert witnesses and advice from all sections of the Indian people.
If you adopt this Amendment, if you go to the Indian people and say, "We think this is the best, but we do admit, that you have a little idea of what is best as well as us, but we suggest to 1837 you it is best, and we put it in the hands of the only kind of vocal assembly you have which can be recognised at all as representative and ask their opinion of it"—if you accept this Amendment, and follow that procedure, you are letting your Commission start on an absolutely clear and straight basis. It is true the Assembly is not as representative as it ought to be, for it represents vested interests too much and personal interests too little, but, at the same time, we have brought this Assembly into being, and we have made a pretence of gradually approaching to the grant of Home Rule to India; and if we are going to make this more than a pretext, we are not justified in taking such an important step without the slightest consultation with the body which we ourselves have set up for the purpose of causing Indian feeling to be represented. Therefore, I do suggest that we should not allow any prejudice against Communists, or against Indians, or against anybody who does not happen to be pure white and belong to the Primrose League, to prevent us from considering this Amendment on its merits. There is no party in this House which has any direct and interest-bearing majority-holding on the Union Jack or the future of the British Commonwealth. It is a matter that concerns all parties, but how can you expect a party which holds least in England to support without protest a Bill which is giving to India even worse treatment than is given to our constituents? This Amendment need not cause great delay if there be goodwill, suitability of handling and tact, and the recognition that the Indian peasant is often a better man than an English lord, and I am certain it would greatly expedite and improve the work of the Commission.
§ Mr. PILCHER
On a point of Order. May I draw your attention to the first of these Amendments—in page 1, line 6, after the word "Act" to insert "1919"?
§ Mr. MONTAGUE
I hope this Amendment will not be pressed to a Division. As I see it, but for the objection that some Members of the House have and that I have myself to the proposed composition of this Commission, nothing would have been heard at all of any objec 1838 tion to the acceleration of the action as proposed in this Bill. I hope it will not be pressed, because I feel that the passing of an Amendment of this character, or even the support of such an Amendment by any considerable section of the House, would have an undesirable effect in India and in this country with reference to Indian affairs. I do appeal to the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala) to withdraw for that reason. I think we ought to keep the two things distinct and reserve for Friday our real criticism and our objections.
§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
It would be as well if we reserved our real objections to this Measure, but I think this Amendment is certainly justified and ought to have been met in a different spirit by the Noble Lord opposite. All sides of the House wants precisely the same thing so far as India is concerned. The main thing is that the Indians should not be on their knees begging for favours, but that they should be consulting with us as to what is in the interests not only of India but of the two races. Indian psychology at the present moment shows intense resentment against begging for small doses of freedom. They hold the view that in all matters they ought to be treated as equal partners; that the time for petitioning is coming to an end and that the time for consultation should dawn. If it were possible for the Government to await confirmation by the Legislative Assembly in India of the determination to set up this Statutory Commission before its time, we should begin on an entirely different plane from the rather unfortunate standard we have at the present time.
I am sorry to go back to the question of finance. The other day the Noble Lord declined to say whether India or England is to pay for this Commission. If India is to pay, surely a resolution by them in favour of setting up this Commission would be only the natural and right thing to ask. If they have to pay they ought to have some rights in calling the tune. I would urge that from the financial point of view, and, above all, from the psychological point of view, it would be infinitely more desirable if this effort for peace were initiated by both sides, instead of being left to the sole initiative of the British Parliament.
§ 5.0 p.m.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOUR
I followed very closely the reasoned case submitted by the hon. Member for North Battersea(Mr. Saklatvala), and equally closely the statement made by the Noble Lord. I think the answer given by the Government is effective, if these resolutions have been passed, as we have been told, and there has been no contradiction.
§ Mr. SCRYMGEOUR
I am simply summarising the situation as we have it up to now. The Noble Lord has given evidence of something which I take it can be effectively established, and if that be so, it would point to co-operation in the carrying out of this proposal. In that case, I submit there is no real ground for the Amendment. Yesterday I was directing attention to the composition of this Commission, and it was on account of my views on that aspect of the matter that I took up the attitude I did; but if there is proof of that co-operation, the need for which was the point of the argument of the hon. Member for North Battersea, I do not think there is a case for the Amendment. At the same time, as a Member of the House holding a similar position to that of the hon. Member for North Battersea, that is to say, not being a member of one of the large parties in the House, I want to say how gravely disappointed I was with the action of the Noble Lord in speaking so contemptuously, if I may use that word, concerning an hon. Member who was submitting a case in an effective fashion, even though it did involve a serious charge of diversion on the part of the leaders of the political parties. I may say for myself that I should not be extraordinarily surprised if the leaders of the parties did not adhere exactly to any particular agreement. There are ways of not adhering to an agreement which may be explained away so as to make it appear that there has been an honourable fulfilment of the undertaking. That is why I was led to interject that I should think it was derogatory to the honour of the House, especially as coming from a member of the Government, to say of an hon. Member that he would be backing the wrong horse if he undertook 1840 to support a given proposal. My idea is that we in this House are not supposed to be backing horses; we are concerned about the interests of mankind. As for myself, I would not trouble whether, anybody were going to support me about any given proposal; if I thought it right I should take my stand upon it. When a man does that, he is worthy of the highest possible consideration in this House or anywhere else.
§ Miss WILKINSON
It is, I think, precisely 20 minutes since the Noble Lord was asked to bring forward proof of his statement that the Indian Legislature had five times passed resolutions asking for this Commission to be set up. We have waited for the Noble Lord to lay before the House those proofs, which he has now had ample time to obtain. I presume the Noble Lord would hardly have made that statement if the proofs had not been obtainable, unless he imagines that we on this side are so cowed by his general attitude of superiority to Labour men and black men and other inconsiderable trifles as to take his word without any further proof at all. May I say to the Noble Lord, perfectly flatly, that unless he can produce those five resolutions we do not believe him? If he will put those five resolutions on the Table, if he will read them to us so that we may know their actual terms, I will, of course, withdraw my statement. We are waiting for that proof. Particularly do we expect it from the Noble Lord, because on a previous occasion when he challenged a statement by the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw), he again and again demanded proof. In exactly the same way we demand proof from the Noble Lord. If it be true that the Indian Legislature have passed five resolutions asking for a Commission, I cannot for the life of me understand why he opposes the moderate request of the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala). If the Indian Legislature are so anxious for this Commission, to get a resolution from them, as the Amendment asks, would be a mere matter of a cable. If the Indian Legislature are so anxious for this Commission, why is it that we are not deluged with cables congratulating the Government, instead of being deluged with cables strongly protesting against the setting up of this Commission at all?
1841 The point of the Amendment rests on a question of time. We may assume that both the English people and the Indian people are anxious to find out what would be the very best time to appoint this Commission, and I would suggest that the Noble Lord is riding roughshod over the best opinion in both countries by the insolence of his attitude, both in this House and outside, as regards the native problem. In the 20th century you cannot treat these 300,000,000 awakening people as the Noble Lord's ancestors treated them in the 18th and the 19th century.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member seems to be referring to outside utterances which have no connection with this Debate or with this Amendment.
§ Miss WILKINSON
I beg your pardon. What I was referring to was the well-known attitude of the Noble Lord, which we suffer from in this House, and which the country has unfortunately inflicted upon it.
§ The CHAIRMAN
That is not relevant to this Amendment, which is concerned with the Indian Legislature.
§ Miss WILKINSON
Quite so. I was only pointing out that the attitude of both the Noble Lord and of his predecessors has some bearing in regard to seeking the consent or otherwise of the Indian Legislature to this Bill. The whole point of my speech is that we are concerned to find the best possible time at which to appoint this Commission. We do not want a Commission which will force something down the throats of the Indian people, and the point of the Amendment is that we might dissolve a great deal of quite legitimate opposition in the Indian Legislature by consulting them first. The Amendment is so moderate that it does not even ask the Noble Lord to consult the Indian Legislature as regards the personnel of the Commission, a subject which will come under consideration on Friday. All the Amendment asks is that he should consult the Indian Legislature as to whether they agree that the Commission should be set up before the expiration of the 10 years contemplated by the Montagu-Chelmsford Report. The Montagu-Chelmsford Report has been regarded by a large number of 1842 Indians as a charter, which gave them certain rights and privileges, and it did definitely lay down that 10 years were to elapse before a Commission was appointed.
I think, with all my colleagues on this side, that it would be a good thing for the Commission to get to work in order that it may be ready to submit its report to the Government of the day—and Heaven grant it is not this Government—before the expiry of the 10 years. Therefore, we are concerned with regard to the question of time, and if the Noble Lord wishes to ensure that he has got the best possible time what he ought to do is to consult the Indian Legislature. He seemed to give away the whole of his case when he said these five resolutions had been passed by the Indian Legislature. If they have been passed, why is he afraid to consult the Indian Legislature? In conclusion, I must press, and in this I believe I am at one with all my party, that before any vote is taken, or before the Committee stage is passed, the Noble Lord should lay before the House those five resolutions. I put it to you Sir, that the Noble Lord is not treating the House fairly in making a statement like that and then refusing to lay the proofs of it, and escaping the issue by taking refuge in contemptuous silence. Those proofs are most material to this discussion; we cannot go on without them, if they are available; and surely there has been time enough to get them, because it is at least half an hour since we asked for them.
§ Mr. PILCHER
The hon. Lady who represents East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) has just said that the Under-Secretary of State for India has made a statement which he cannot prove, namely, that the Indian Assembly on five different occasions has pressed for the setting up of this Statutory Commission. I want to say that I was a member of the Indian Assembly in 1924, when one of these Resolutions was adopted, and I voted upon it.
May I ask the hon. Member whether the Resolution which was then debated was one dealing with a Commission of this kind, or was it a proposal dealing with a round table conference?
§ Mr. PILCHER
The original Resolution to which I have referred had no relation whatever to a round table conference. It was sent home with a certain addendum. The only point we are discussing now is whether the Assembly desires to have this Commission appointed earlier than 1929 or not. I stand here as an ex-member of the Indian Assembly who assisted for weeks in its debates. The Resolutions which were adopted for the most part asked that India should not be kept waiting, and that the Commission should be appointed at an early date.
§ Miss WILKINSON
May I ask if it is not usual for such a Resolution as that to which the hon. Member has referred to be put before the House instead of asking us to rely upon somebody's vague recollection of what happened in 1924?
§ The CHAIRMAN
Very little said in this House would be in order if it had to be supported by written evidence.
I would like to know if the Opposition as a whole are pressing this Amendment, or is it only being pressed by the back benchers?
§ Mr. PILCHER
May I be allowed to state that hon. Members will find a verbatim account of the proceedings of the Indian Assembly downstairs, and they can verify all these statements for themselves?
§ Mr. SAKLATVALA
I apologise for intervening in this Debate a second time, but I think the extraordinary character of some of the arguments which have been used demands some further explanation. On former occasions, during the general Debates, many unjustifiable and untruthful assertions have been made by the Noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for India which I did not get an opportunity of answering. The Noble Lord said emphatically that nearly every organisation in India repudiated my authority to speak on behalf of Indian subjects. That statement is far from the truth, and the Noble Lord knows that it is contrary to the truth. I quite appreciate the reference to myself which has been made by an hon. Member with regard to the nine cities which welcomed me in India, while several of those cities refused to extend an official or even a formal welcome to the Viceroy of India. The Noble Lord knows all this, and he 1844 has reports in his possession showing that hundreds of thousands of the people of India approve of my plans and my policy, and they also approve of what I have been doing for India while residing in this country. If the Noble Lord would make a journey with me to India, I would be quite willing to organise open public meetings—not camouflaged and manœuvred meetings—and he would then find that 99 people out of every 100 at those meetings would declare in favour of my authority to speak on their behalf. I want to remind the Noble Lord that he has been guilty of deceiving the British people and the whole world by placing unrepresentative Indian Princes on the League of Nations to speak in the name of India. Some of those Princes are corrupt men who are afraid to go back to India, and they are afraid of holding a single meeting in India. Nevertheless, the Noble Lord brings them to this country to speak in the name of the Indian people, when he knows that they are corrupt-minded Princes.
§ Mr. SAKLATVALA
These Princes are not trotted out as the heads of the Indian Government, and I am talking about them as citizens.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member has used certain epithets with regard to them, and it is not in order to speak in such terms of the members of a friendly Government.
§ Mr. SAKLATVALA
I know that not one of those representatives of India on the League of Nations would be able to secure at a public meeting one vote as compared with the million votes I could secure declaring the belief that I do represent Indian opinion. For the Noble Lord to make such remarks as he has done on this point is rather stupid. With regard to my Amendment, I do not know whether the Noble Lord intends to confuse the Committee. I quoted from the Preamble and what the Noble Lord has said shows that the words I read out were correct. The Under-Secretary has read to us Section 84, but I suppose he understands the value of a Preamble. He says that he does not find those words in Section 84, but I would like to point
1845 out that the Preamble is the proper place to put those words and not Section 84. That is the spirit which should be applied to every Section in the Act. What I read out shows that Parliament in 1919 agreed that any future action in regard to these Acts would be taken by Parliament, and that Parliament must be guided by the opinion of the new body created in India.
What I am urging is that the way in which the Government are now proceeding, as far as the people of India as a whole are concerned, is contrary to the old spirit, and the Government are not obtaining any guidance from the new Indian body. With regard to the Noble Lord's statement that the Legislative Assembly has expressed its approval of this Commission on five different occasions. I can only say that that is not my opinion. The Noble Lord is altering the Act of Parliament by the Amendments he has introduced in the new Bill and something is going to remain permanently in the annals of Parliament in consequence. Even if the Legislative Assembly did express itself five times in favour of appointing this Commission, I cannot see why the Noble Lord should not incorporate my Amendment in the permanent Act in order to secure that the Indian Legislature will be consulted in the future.
§ Mr. WELLOCK
I think there is much more force in this Amendment than has been recognised by the Government. We are considering the claims of a nation of 300,000,000 people, and if I were asked how I thought those people would vote on this Amendment, knowing what I know about the state of the Indian mind after receiving the information that we have in regard to the Commission and its proceedings, I do not think there is any doubt whatever that a majority of the people of India would vote for this Amendment. That being so, I think that the Noble Lord who has spoken in reply to the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala) owes an apology for using the word "effrontery" about his claim to represent public opinion in India. This Amendment is far more representative of Indian opinion at this moment than the Bill which is now before the House. As far as the people of India are concerned, I daresay they are in the same position as I am, because all along I have believed in pre-dating 1846 the appointment of this Commission. We have to recognise how this Commission is to be constituted. The result of that information is that India has no faith in what is going to be done. While I myself could not Vote for this Amendment, on the ground that I do believe in pre-dating the Commission, at the same time, considering what our hopes are for the future, and the procedure adopted by the Government, there is a very great deal to be said for it. I rose particularly in order to justify the plea that has been put forward by the hon. Member for North Battersea, and also to protest against the statement of the Noble Lord with respect to the extent to which the hon. Member represents public opinion in India on this important matter.
§ Earl WINTERTON
I would appeal to the Committee to come to a decision on this point. Really, the only question at issue is a very narrow one. It is, first, whether or not this amendment of the Government of India Act is in accordance with the spirit of that Act. I have endeavoured to show, I think successfully, that it certainly is most essentially in accordance with the spirit of that Act. If it were not, I venture to say it would not have been supported by all parties in the House. The only other point is as to whether or not there has been in India any demand for the Amendment which has now been moved. I have stated that the contrary is the case, but apparently some hon. Members do not believe what I said. The hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) said that she did not believe the first hand evidence of my hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Pilcher), who himself was a Member of the Assembly, and who has already given the sense of the Resolution that was passed. [Interruption] It is obvious that, if hon. Members will not accept the first-hand evidence of someone who was in the Assembly when the Resolution was passed, they will not accept what I say when I quote that evidence. [Interruption] Will hon. Members allow me to point out that the evidence has been given by my hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth, who was himself a Member of the Legislative Assembly when this Resolution was passed?
May I point out, in the first place, that the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Pilcher) only, at the best, confirmed one instance, and not five, and, secondly, that he was only speaking from memory? We do not doubt his word, but we do somewhat doubt his memory
§ Earl WINTERTON
I am sorry if the hon. Member doubts my hon. Friend's recollection, but, seeing that my hon. Friend was himself a Member of the Assembly, and was present on the occasion in question, quite obviously, if what my hon. Friend says is not accepted, what I say will not be accepted either.
§ Earl WINTERTON
The proof is in the statement I have made that these Resolutions have been passed, and there is even stronger proof in the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth. If hon. Members will not accept the proof offered by someone who was a Member of the Assembly which passed the Resolution, what proof will they accept? This matter has loomed far too largely in the discussion. The whole point of the demand from India, quite apart from the Assembly, has for years past been, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle - under - Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) knows perfectly well, for an acceleration of the date, and that is what we propose to do. The hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala), on the contrary, proposes to retard the date, and that, I say, is quite contrary to the wishes of India as expressed through the Legislative Assembly and by private individuals and associations in India.
§ Mr. T. SHAW
I should be extremely sorry if it became the general practice in the House of Commons to doubt the good faith of the statements of Members of the House, but the Noble Lord has himself to thank. I hope he will remember in future that courtesy pays better than the use of words like "effrontery,"
§ which he has used this afternoon in connection with the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala), who, whatever his views are, does, after all, speak on India in a different way from any other Member of the House. I was in India at the same time as the Noble Lord and the hon. Member for North Battersea, and I think it was the hon. Member for North Battersea who was getting the addresses of welcome, and not the Noble Lord. These, after all, are facts. Nearly all this discussion has arisen from the use of that word "effrontery," which was quite uncalled for and quite unnecessary. I am afraid we have allowed ourselves to get away from the point at issue, which is whether or not it is necessary to accelerate the sittings of this Commission in India. For my part, I believe it is absolutely accurate to say that repeatedly demands have come from India that this matter should be accelerated. The differences of opinion are as to how it should be done, and not as to whether it should be done. To-day we are deciding, not how it should be done, but whether it should be done, and I could not possibly go into the Lobby and vote for an Amendment which, whatever it says, will be understood outside this Chamber to mean a checking of the desire for this acceleration. It would be impossible for me to go into the Lobby to vote for an Amendment of that kind. I hope, now that we have allowed our feelings to have full play, and now that we have come, perhaps, to a state of greater normality than we were in an hour ago, we shall be able to proceed to other business, and allow what I think India as a whole desires, namely, that the work of this Commission should start, the only difference of opinion being as to what kind of Commission it should be
§ Major Sir GEORGE HENNESSY rose in his place, and claimed to move,"That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 265; Noes, 137.1851
|Division No.369.]||AYES.||[5.38 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Astor, Maj. Hn.John J. (Kent, Dover)||Barnett, Major Sir Richard|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T||Astor, Viscountess||Barnston, Major Sir Harry|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)||Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.|
|Ashley, Lt. Col. Rt. Hon. Wllfrid W||Balnlel, Lord||Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)|
|Astbury, Lieut-Commander F. W.||Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Berry, Sir George|
|Bethel, A.||Grant, Sir J. A.||Nuttall, Ellis|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Oakley, T.|
|Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)||Greene, W. p. Crawford||O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)|
|Boothby, R. J. G.||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Grotrian, H. Brent||Pennefather, Sir John|
|Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Penny, Frederick George|
|Braithwaite, Major A. N.||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Brassey, Sir Leonard||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Perkins, Colonel E. K.|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)||Perring, Sir William George|
|Briggs, J. Harold||Hammersley, S. S.||Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Pllcher, G.|
|Brittain, Sir Harry||Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)||Pilditch, Sir Philip|
|Brocklebank, C. E. R.||Hartington, Marquess of||Power, Sir John Cecll|
|Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R.I.||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Preston, William|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Haslam, Henry C.||Price, Major C. W. M.|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Hawke, John Anthony||Radford, E. A.|
|Buchan, John||Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.||Raine, Sir Walter|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Henderson,Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)||Rawson, Sir Cooper|
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)||Reid, D. D. (County Down)|
|Bullock, Captain M.||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Remnant, Sir James|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||Hills. Major John Waller||Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Hllton, Cecll||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y.Ch'ts'y)1|
|Calne, Gordon Hall||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)|
|Campbell, E. T.||Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Holt, Captain H. P.||Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Hopkins, J. W. W.||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)||Salmon, Major I.|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)||Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.||Sandeman, N. Stewart|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Sanders, Sir Robert A.|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whlteh'n)||Sanderson, Sir Frank|
|Charterls, Brigadier-General I.||Hume, Sir G. H.||Sandon, Lord|
|Christle, J. A.||Hume-WIlllams, Sir W. Ellis||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.|
|Churchman, Sir Arthur C.||Hurd, Percy A.||Savery, S. S.|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Hurst, Gerald B.||Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie|
|Clayton, G. C.||lllffe. Sir Edward M.||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine.C.)|
|Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)||Smithers, Waldron|
|Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth)||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Conway, Sir W. Martin||Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William||Sprot, Sir Alexander|
|Cooper, A. Duff||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)||Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.|
|Cope, Major William||Kindersley, Major Guy M.||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)|
|Couper, J. B.||King, Commodore Henry Douglas||Steel, Major Samuel Strang|
|Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Storry-Deans, R.|
|Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)||Lamb, J. Q.||Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Strauss, E. A.|
|Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)||Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.|
|Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)||Little, Dr. E. Graham||Styles, Captain H. Walter|
|Crookshank.Cpt. H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser|
|Cunliffe, Sir Herbert||Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)||Sykes, Major-Gen, Sir Frederick H.|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Loder, J. de V.||Tasker, R. Inlgo.|
|Davidson,J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)||Long, Major Eric||Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)|
|Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.||Looker, Herbert William||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)|
|Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)||Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Davles, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)||Lumley, L. R.||Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-|
|Dawson, Sir Philip||Lynn, Sir R. J.||Tinne, J. A.|
|Dean, Arthur Wellesley||MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Dixey, A. C.||Maclntyre, Ian||Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||McLean, Major A.||Waddington, R.|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Macmillan, Captain H.||Wallace, Captain D. E.|
|Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)||Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm||Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Elliot, Major Walter E.||Mac Robert, Alexander M.||Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.|
|Ellis, R. G.||Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|England, Colonel A.||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)||Malone, Major P. B.||Wells, S. R.|
|Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn||Wiggins, William Martin|
|Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.||Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)|
|Fairfax, Captain J. G.||Meller, R. J.||Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Meyer, Sir Frank||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Fanshawe, Captain G. D.||Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)||Winby, Colonel L. P.|
|Fenby, T. D.||Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Fielden, E. B.||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.||Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Finburgh, S.||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Moore, Sir Newton J.||Womersley, W. J|
|Forrest, W.||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut. Col. J. T. C.||Wood, B. C. (Somerset. Bridgwater)|
|Foster, Sir Harry S.||Morrison, H. (Wllts, Sallsbury)||Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)|
|Foxcroft, Captain C. T.||Murchison, Sir Kenneth||Woodcock, Colonel H. C.|
|Fraser, Captain Ian||Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph||Wragg, Herbert|
|Galbraith, J. F. W.||Nelson, Sir Frank||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Gates, Percy||Neville, Sir Reginald J.|
|Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES|
|Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Major Sir George Hennessy and|
|Goff, Sir Park||Nicholson, O. (Westminster)||Captain Viscount Curzon.|
|Grace, John||Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Hardie, George D.||Sakiatvala, Shapurji|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Harney, E. A.||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Harris, Percy A.||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Ammon, Charles George||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Sexton, James|
|Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Hayday, Arthur||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Baker, Walter||Hayes, John Henry||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Barnes, A.||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Batey, Joseph||Hirst, G. H.||Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)|
|Beckett, John (Gateshead)||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Snell, Harry|
|Bondfield, Margaret||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Phillp|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles|
|Bromfield, William||John, William (Rhondda. West)||Stamford, T. W.|
|Bromley, J.||Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)||Stephen, Campbell|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Kelly, W. T.||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Kennedy, T.||Sullivan, J.|
|Buchanan, G.||Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M||Sutton, J. E.|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel||Lansbury, George||Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)|
|Cape, Thomas||Lawrence, Susan||Thomson, Trevelyan (Mlddlesbro. W.)|
|Charleton, H. C.||Lawson, John James||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)|
|Clowes, S.||Lee, F.||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Cluse, W. S.||Lowth, T.||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Connolly, M.||Lunn, William||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Cove, W. G.||Mackinder. w.||Townend, A. E.|
|Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||MacLaren, Andrew||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.|
|Crawfurd, H. E.||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Varley, Frank B.|
|Dalton, Hugh||MacNeill-Weir, L.||Viant, S. P.|
|Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)||March, S.||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Day, Colonel Harry||Maxton, James||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)|
|Dennison, R.||Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Dunnlco, H.||Montague, Frederick||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Morris. R. H.||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Gardner, J. P.||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Welsh, J. C.|
|Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.||Murnin, H.||Westwood, J.|
|George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd||Naylor, T. E.||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Oliver, George Harold||Wllkinson, Ellen C|
|Gillett, George M.||Owen, Major G.||Williams, David (Swansea, E.)|
|Gosling, Harry||Palin, John Henry||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Paling, W.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln., Cent.)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Greenall, T.||Pethick- Lawrence, F. W.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Ponsonby, Arthur||Windsor, Walter|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Potts, John S.||Wright, W.|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Riley, Ben|
|Groves, T.||Ritson, J.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Grundy, T. W.||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)||Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Whiteley|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)||Robinson, W. C. (Yorks.W.R., Elland)|
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put accordingly, and negatived.
Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.