§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
On a point of Order. On the last occasion I endeavoured to speak on the question, "That the Clause stand part." I should like to know if there is any reason why I should not speak on the question, "That the Clause stand part."
§ Miss WILKINSON
It is now precisely one hour and five minutes since 1852 the Opposition first asked the Noble Lord to bring forward the five Resolutions—
§ Miss WILKINSON
Might I point out that the Opposition needs those five Resolutions on every Clause of the Bill, because it is impossible to discuss it adequately unless we have this information which the Noble Lord assures us is in his possession.
§ The CHAIRMAN
It is not needed on Clause 2. Clause 2 deals with the Title and printing. That is all it does.
Would it be in order to move to report Progress to give the Noble Lord an opportunity of justifying the Title of the Bill by producing proof of the extraordinarily untrue statements he made?
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
I should like to ask who is to bear the cost of printing and the other things mentioned in the Clause. If it is the British Government, why has no financial Resolution been put before us?
§ Earl WINTERTON
Of course the bill will be borne by the taxpayers of the country, as the cost of printing of Bills passed by the House is borne by the taxpayers. A financial Resolution is not required in order to authorise the cost of Bills printed in the House.
§ Mr. CRAWFURD
On a point of Order. More for the purpose of getting information than of prolonging the Debate, may I put this point? Would it be in Order—perhaps it is too late on this occasion—on a Clause dealing with the Title of a Bill, to move an Amendment—for instance in this case it might be to substitute the word "mis-government" for "government"—in order to raise any point connected with the Bill?
I want to oppose this Clause on the ground that the Bill is wrongly entitled. I have been at some pains to look up the Act of 1919, which talks about a Statutory Commission, and I am going to argue that as this proposal is not a Statutory Commission in any sense of the word, the Bill is wrongly worded from the start. Clause 41 of the Act says:At the expiration of 10 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 the names of persons to act as a Commission for the purposes of this section. The persons whose names are so submitted, if approved by His Majesty, shall be a Commission—There is nothing in that Section that justifies the Noble Lord calling an extraordinary Committee of the nature he proposes to set up a Statutory Commis- 1854 sion. What he is proposing to set up is merely a Parliamentary Committee, which does not meet in any way what I think was generally understood when the Act was passed. Everyone who listened to the Debates then visualised a consultation with the Indian Legislative Assembly and a careful combing of all the facts by the Government. I and all those with whom I have discussed the Bill were under the impression that the Statutory Commission referred to in the Act would be an inclusive and expert Commission. No Government has ever dreamt of calling a Parliamentary Committee an expert Commission. No Government, if it really wanted to find out facts or get a thorough investigation, has appointed a Committee of Members of Parliament.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is now going into the composition of the Commission which Mr. Speaker ruled yesterday was not in order.
I accept you ruling, Mr. Hope, but I am arguing against the Government appropriating the expression "Statutory Commission" in brackets in their Title, and it is rather difficult to do justice to that argument unless the House is very attentive—
I submit that under any rule of debate, if you say that is not a Statutory Commission, you really must examine what it is in order to prove that is not a Statutory Commission.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I think the hon. Member has not quite followed the wording of the Bill. This does not set up a Commission. It enables a Commission to be set up sooner than it otherwise would be. That is the whole purpose of the Bill.
This Clause says:Sub-section (2) of Section 45 of the Government of India Act, 1919.It quotes the Act, and Section 45 of the Act, a very long Section, says:The Amendments set out in Parts I and II of the Second Schedule to this Act, being Amendments to incorporate the provisions of this Act in the principal Act and further Amendments consequential on or arising out of those provisions shall be made in the principal Act.1855 6.00 p.m.
It seems to me, the Title of this Bill being founded on Clause 45 of the Act of 1919, if we can prove that what they are doing to-day is not what anyone would expect from Clause 45 of the Act of 1919, we have a valid and perfectly legitimate case for objecting to the Clause. The Act of 1919 was a very important Act, which greatly interested everyone who had the welfare of the Empire at heart. It probably caused inquisition into the exact meaning of every sentence. I remember that the Secretary of State for India at that time was at pains, on three separate occasions, to make speeches outside which he purposely addressed to the people of India in explanation of what he meant. If the Government have in their Bill of to-day stolen a worthy title for an unworthy purpose, it is perfectly compatible for the Opposition, and, indeed, not only compatible, but it is the duty of the Opposition to do their best to prevent such a thing being done. The Act of 1919 met with the approval of considerable numbers and influential sections of the Indian community. The Bill of 1927 meets with the approval of no representatives.
I am addressing myself to the Title, because I consider that it is so unfair to the Indian public, who had high hopes raised in their breasts by the Act of 1919, that that Act should be used for the production of an illegitimate child of this description. It is hoped that they will not notice that it is not really their child because it is given the same name. I do not know whether I should be in order, Mr. Hope, in moving that the Bill be recommitted, but I suggest that the Noble Lord should try to find a Title which would, with bluntness and veracity, give the people of India to understand that this was not a Statutory Commission, and not a Commission of experts, but merely a Commission of Members of Parliament who have many other duties.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
The Noble Lord might have given us some explanation. This Clause, after all, is an important Clause governing the Title of the Bill, 1856 and I think the Noble Lord might have given us some explanation as to what this Clause really means. It is always difficult, as the Noble Lord knows, in legislation by reference, for the ordinary Member to grasp the significance of a Clause in conjunction with the Act to which it refers. I think the Noble Lord should give us some reasons for the Clause. In answering a question he said it was not necessary for a Money Resolution to be passed in order to pay for the printing. I am not sure that the Clause really refers to the cost of printing. I think the Noble Lord would be very well advised if, in order to allay suspicions and get back the support of Members on these benches—because I would remind the Noble Lord that the great bulk of Labour Members are in favour of the Bill; they wish to see it passed—he would give us an explanation. Another reason I would plead with him to give an explanation is this: After all, he wants to show that he enjoyed something like a united House of Commons if this Bill is to succeed.
I would ask the Noble Lord, therefore, in the interests of courtesy to give the Committee a short explanation of this Clause. We are dealing with a subject with which many of us are not too familiar. I wish hon. Members on the other side would confess this fact with the same openness. I would ask the Noble Lord to give those of us who do not understand all the implications of this Bill, with its references, to utter a few sentences of explanation in order that on any vote we may be called upon to give, we may give it with a full knowledge of what we are doing. I hope the Noble Lord, with his usual courtesy and good nature, will do so in order to get us back into the spirit of harmony that prevailed earlier in the Debate. I hope he will rise in his place and assure us as to the real meaning of this Clause. I would ask this in all seriousness, because he must not forget the fact that hon. Members on this side want to see the Bill passed. They are constantly suspicious of the Noble Lord and his Government. [Interruption.]An hon. Member says, "Not without reason." That may be so, but the Noble Lord must realise that if he wants to allay that suspicion and induce hon. Members to agree to the passing of the Bill, he must get up and say 1857 a few sentences. I appeal to him in the interests of British fair-play.
§ Earl WINTERTON
After such an appeal as the hon. Member has made, I should indeed be ungrateful if I did not respond. Certainly, I shall do nothing to interfere with what the hon. Member referred to as the spirit of harmony which prevailed in the earlier part of the Debate. I admit that, possibly, some explanation is required in a Bill of this kind, because this Bill, or rather the Government of India Act, is in the class in which many Acts of Parliament are—the Naval Discipline Act and the Army Annual Act, and, I think, one or two others, namely, the Consolidation Acts, which are constantly being added to. It has been the custom in this House for a very long time to put in words known as 'the printing Clause.' The object of the Clause, which has been inserted in identical terms in every Government of India Bill since 1919, to require all officially printed copies of the Consolidated Act which are printed after the passing of the Bill to incorporate in the text of the Consolidated Act the Amendment or Amendments made by the Bill. That has nothing to do with my Department, but it is an invariable rule of the House. The second thing is that the Act is correctly stated as the Government of India Act. That is the sole explanation. The language appears to be very technical, but this term has been in operation for many years. I hope that now the spirit of harmony has been restored the Committee will give us the Bill.
I should like to ask the Noble Lord whether he thinks he has justified the Statutory Commission or not?
§ Earl WINTERTON
I am very anxious that we should pass this Bill in the spirit expressed by the hon. Gentleman's own supporters. I would certainly, in order to meet the hon. Member's point, go into this matter, but it is absolutely out of order to discuss the Statutory Commission on this Bill. That will be discussed on Friday next. I would again point out that this Bill does not lay down the form of the Statutory Commission, but simply gives the Government power to appoint it.
May I ask your guidance, Mr. Hope? I appreciate im- 1858 mensely the argument the Noble Lord put forward, but suppose we abandon this discussion and we pass this Clause and say it is a "Statutory Commission" and then on Friday, after we have discussed the matter fully, we come to the conclusion that it is not a Statutory Commission at all—as I think we shall be bound to do—the House will be in a very unpleasant position. We shall pass this Clause and say that it is a Statutory Commission, and afterwards we may analyse the position and find it is not a Statutory Commission.
§ The CHAIRMAN
These arguments can be addressed to the House on Friday, not to-day.
Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
Bill reported without Amendment.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
§ Mr. WHEATLEY
I have listened to the discussion on the various stages of this Bill, and there are one or two remarks I would like to make before it passes from the jurisdiction of the House. There can be no subject—and I think the House will be in agreement with me on this—which it is more the duty of the House to consider in an even tone and in the very best of temper than that of our relations with India. We are taking the preliminary steps here with regard to legislation affecting the future of about, I suppose, 300,000,000 of our fellow human beings. No doubt the future of that vast multitude will be largely affected by the relations that exist in the future between Great Britain and India. I hope I shall not say anything that will restore in the House the unfortunate atmosphere created by the Noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill. I think it was most regrettable that he should have introduced the Measure to the House in the superior tone which he felt it his duty to adopt; not that I think anything which he said would leave any deep impression on any Member of this House. I regret it from the effect it may have in India, and among people who do not understand the Noble Lord as well as do the Members he was addressing this afternoon.
I said it was important that we should approach this problem, and particularly 1859 this question, in a manner that would be likely to sweeten the relations between the people of India and ourselves. It is not for me to say how far the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala) represents independent opinion or represents Indian flesh and blood, any more than it is within my province to estimate how far the Noble Lord represents the people of this country in its attitude towards India. But I think the proper line of approach to a problem like this would be on terms of equality with the people with whom we are dealing, that we should not assume a position of superiority towards them, that we should not view them as if they were inferiors whose views on even the government of themselves did not seriously matter, but who had been placed by the Great Architect of the Universe in the care of ourselves through the regency of the Noble Lord. If we adopt that attitude, we are bound at the very outset to create in India an atmosphere of hostility to the Measures which, with the very best intention in the world, we may be bringing forward.
It was the tone of superiority which the Noble Lord adopted this afternoon that I deprecated. What did the hon. Member for North Battersea ask? Simply that before proceeding with the major Measure we should, in a spirit of fraternity and with the best will in the world to create a proper atmosphere, wait until we had had a request from the people of India through their public representatives; quite a reasonable suggestion to make in the interests of the important proposals which will be discussed in this House within the next 48 hours. Instead of accepting that suggestion in a reasonable spirit and in the reasoned manner in which it was submitted to the House, the Noble Lord felt it to be his duty, I suppose as one of the superior people talking to one of the inferior people of India, to say that there was no need for him to come to this House and tell His Majesty's Government what they ought to do. Then, in order to bury him deep down in derision, the Noble Lord told us that five Resolutions had been already passed by the Indian Assembly in favour of the very course which His Majesty's Government are now adopting, and he said: "How dare the hon. Member for North Batter- 1860 sea come forward and ask us to wait until a sixth Resolution is actually proposed before we proceed with the Measure."
Then one of the ordinary Scottish people got up and ventured to ask the Noble Lord, not having that deep-seated reverence for his warrant which ought to characterise the common people in referring to him, being of a more robust radical school, asked for some evidence that these five Resolutions had been actually passed. The Noble Lord felt rather embarrassed when the question was put to him, and all the services that are at the disposal of Cabinet Ministers were immediately requisitioned. Messengers ran to the officials behind the Chair, and no doubt other messengers were despatched to the Noble Lord's office in search of a scrap of evidence, even one little scrap of paper, in support of his assertion.
§ Earl WINTERTON
It may assist the right hon. Gentleman if I say here and now that I have had the evidence for a long time. I did not in the first instance suppose that anyone wanted me to quote textually the Resolution. If so, I will read it to the House.
§ Earl WINTERTON
I will not read all the five, but I will read the most important, the one passed in September, 1921:The Assembly recommends to the Governor-General in Council that he should convey to the Secretary of State the view of this Assembly that the progress made by India in the path of responsible government warrants the revision of the Constitution at an earlier date than 1929.
§ Mr. WHEATLEY
We are very grateful for even this belated courtesy from the Noble Lord, but it might have saved time and perhaps a little temper had the Noble Lord been as careful of what was due to this House an hour and a half ago as he is now. I am not sure that his case against the hon. Member for North Battersea has been very much strengthened by the document which he has read. I take it that the Resolution 1861 which he has read is a fair sample of the five Resolutions to which he referred, but may I remind the House that that Resolution was passed in 1921 and that we are now living in 1927. The conditions of India and the views of the Indian people may have undergone some slight modification during the six years. At home in Great Britain we have had many changes in political thought since that time. The change of political thought that brought the Noble Lord to the Treasury Bench is much more recent than 1921. The question that we are discussing now is not so much whether or not the people of India desire an earlier revision of the Government of India Act of 1919, but whether we should, out of courtesy to the people of India, who are the people primarily concerned, postpone taking the initial step until we have heard from them. I understand that in India there seems to be some difference of opinion in regard to the appointment of the Commission. I have had placed in my hands a statement to this effect:Interviewed by the Bombay correspondent of the Indian News service, Mr. Joshi, Secretary of the All-India Trade Union Congress, said: 'The boycott of the Royal Commission was inevitable.'I am informed that the gentleman whose words I have quoted is a very responsible person in India. Whether the hon. Member for North Battersea speaks for any section of Indian opinion or not, certainly the Secretary of the All-India Trade Union Congress does. I do not claim to have any special knowledge on the subject, but I take it that a man occupying a responsible position like that does speak for a substantial section of the Indian population. When that has appeared in the public Press, does it not strengthen the request, I will not put it any higher, the legitimate, reasonable and intelligent request of the hon. Member for North Battersea, that we should have some word from the Indians themselves before we take the important steps that are contemplated in the discussion which will take place in this House next Friday? We can never leave out of account the consideration that our treatment of India up to now has not been a great success. It may be that we have made money there; it may be that we have added to the numbers and the prestige, in one sense, of the British Empire, but there are 1862 many improvements possible in the condition of the Indian people that have not taken place under British rule in India.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy)
It is a very old rule that speeches on the Third Reading of a Bill should be confined to what is in the Bill itself. This history of British Government in India does not seem to be at all in order on the Third Reading of this Bill.
§ Mr. WHEATLEY
I do not intend to discuss at any length either the conditions of India or the Government of India. What I was wanting to bring to the notice of the House was the suspicion which exists in India regarding our government of it. The Amendment which was proposed when the Bill was in Committee was to the effect that in order to secure the good will of the people of India and that this Commission should be received in the spirit in which it is being tendered, we ought to delay further steps until a Resolution inviting the appointment of the Commission has been passed by the Indian Legislative Assembly.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that that particular Amendment was negatived by the Committee only a few moments ago. We cannot have another discussion on that subject.
§ Mr. WHEATLEY
I have not made myself clear. I am not proposing to insert these words in the Bill now. I am objecting to the Bill now because it does not contain those words.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
The House has only just negatived in Committee an Amendment on this question, and I cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman to discuss it.
§ Mr. WHEATLEY
I shall be guided by your ruling, but surely if I regard a Bill which is passing through this House as likely to be injurious to the interests of the country in the form in which it is presented for Third Reading, I am entitled to state my objections to the Bill and to oppose the Third Reading?
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
It is true that the House and when it is sitting as a Committee are not one and the same 1863 thing, but these particular objections of the right hon. Gentleman have just been negatived by the Committee, and he certainly cannot make a speech on a subject which has so recently been negatived. Our work would be null and void if we were to discuss that which has already been decided.
§ Mr. WHEATLEY
I will conclude my remarks on that particular point, but I do submit that it is of the utmost importance that we should have the goodwill of the Indian people in the steps we are now taking, and that we should take every step to assure ourselves that what we are doing has their heartiest support. It would be most unfortunate if we were to embark on a course that led to friction, when we are attempting to produce harmony. I think the Bill in its present form is more likely to do harm than good, and for that reason I am opposing the Third Reading.
§ Miss WILKINSON
I have in the last few minutes listened with some interest to the noble Earl's appeal for harmony, and I can assure him for his future guidance that he will generally have harmony when he asks for it with courtesy at the beginning. I suggest that we have not been treated with courtesy in this matter of the five Resolutions about which the Noble Earl spoke, and on which he based his opposition to the request of the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala). It is a little unfortunate that the Noble Earl replied to me when I happened to be out of the House for precisely four minutes. Our case is not at all met by his reading of the one Resolution which was passed in 1921. We are not asking for these Resolutions to be read in any frivolous or mischievous spirit. We have a purpose in asking. We should not ask for the Resolutions if they were merely, as the Noble Lord has tried to suggest, repetitions of the one which he has read. We have very strong reason to believe, although we have not proof, and it is; proof for which we are asking, that the other Resolutions were different from the one which the Noble Lord has read. That is why I challenged the Noble Lord's statement when he said that he had five Resolutions from the Indian Legislature asking for the appointment of the Commission.
§ Earl WINTERTON
That is not what I said. I said that Resolutions were passed by the Indian Legislature but I never claimed to have the terms of those Resolutions by me. I merely said that Resolutions had been passed, and I have read the terms of the principal Resolution. Nothing could be more reasonable than my attitude in that respect.
§ Miss WILKINSON
This is a very serious matter. The terms of these Resolutions must be contained in the Minutes at the India Office—
§ Earl WINTERTON
They have nothing whatever to do with this House. I am not bringing forward this Bill because of the Resolutions passed in the Indian Assembly. I referred to them quite incidentally. The hon. Member said she did not believe me, and because she doubted my words I quoted the terms of the Resolution to the House.
§ Miss WILKINSON
It is true that I doubted the words of the Noble Lord but no one more desires to be convinced of his Veracity than I. What I wanted was proof.
§ Earl WINTERTON
I have read it out to the House. It is rather an odd suggestion for the right hon. Gentleman to make that he is not prepared to believe the word of another right hon. Gentleman. He can read it for himself if he doubts my word.
§ Miss WILKINSON
Let me explain to the Noble Lord the reason I am pressing this question. The Resolution he quoted was passed in 1921, and the Government of India Act only came into operation in 1920. The reason for the Resolution 1865 passed in 1921 was entirely different from that given by the Noble Lord. The reason that Resolution was passed was to challenge the Government of this country; it was saying that its government of India, and its proposals had, as a matter of fact, failed. The other Resolutions which were passed later during the operation of the Montagu-Chelmsford Committee asked for a round table conference. I am asking that these Resolutions should be read as they are entirely different in spirit to the one Resolution read by the Noble Lord. Why are we having a presistent refusal on the part of the Noble Lord to bring forward these Resolutions? Surely it is not correct for the Noble Lord, with all the resources of the British Government at his disposal, with the permanent officials sitting below the Gangway and messengers crowding the House, to say that it is not possible to get these Resolutions from the India Office if they are there. If they are not in the India Office, why did the Noble Lord quote them in support of this Measure?
It is not treating this House or the Opposition with courtesy for the Noble Lord to base his reply to the hon. Member for North Battersea on these five Resolutions and then bring forward only one which appears to prove his case. We do not want the out-of-date Resolution of 1921; we want the Resolutions of 1924, which, I submit, would put an entirely different complexion on what is now brought forward. I can quite understand why the Noble Lord has persistently refused, in face of all the courtesies of this House, to bring them forward. The Noble Lord, with a shrug of his elegant shoulders, says, "You cannot expect me to read all these Resolutions." In a matter of such importance I suggest that we do expect him to read them. We have a right to demand that they should be read. The actual reading of them would not take more than a few minutes, and if he is anxious to get this Bill through in good time he would have wasted far less time by sending for these Resolutions and reading them to the House. The reason the Noble Lord has not brought forward these other Resolutions is because they do not support his case. It is without precedence for a Minister to quote certain documents in the India Office in support of his case without quoting the documents themselves; if they 1866 are not in the India Office then he has no right to quote them. If they are there they should have been brought forward and read to the House before the Third Reading of such an important Bill.
It is unnecessary to remind the Noble Lord that we are not dealing with the politics of the parish pump, but with a Bill which affects no less than 300,000,000 people, and we have a right to demand that it shall be dealt with in a way which becomes such an important Measure. It does not become the dignity of the Noble Lord to sneer at a member of a different race from his own, and imagine that the Opposition are going to sit down under the treatment they have received. Let me remind the Noble Lord that in connection with another Indian matter no-one was more insistent in demanding exact proof than he himself when he demanded proof from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw), a Cabinet Minister, who in fact occupied a higher rank than the Noble Lord does at the moment. When that proof was forthcoming the Noble Lord wanted still further proof, and then still further proof. When we ask the Noble Lord to read out the Resolutions and bring forward proof of his assertions all we get is the reading of one Resolution which supports his case and a blank refusal to send a messenger to the India Office to obtain copies of the other four Resolutions which, he knows perfectly well, do not support his case. I feel that an insult has been offered to this House and that we have a right to demand that these Resolutions are placed before this House before we go any further with this Bill.
§ Mr. T. SHAW
After all, this is an issue which ought to be clear cut. I do not want to make any personal allusions of any kind, because the personality of any Member of this House, whether it is myself or the Noble Lord, is as a grain of sand on the sea shore in comparison to the importance of the question we are discussing. The whole question is, is it advisable at the moment to move more quickly than the Government of India Act prescribes? I ask myself this question: Is there any responsible body of opinion in India which is against moving quickly, apart altogether from the method of moving? I, personally, know of no body of opinion in India that is against bringing forward this proposal. 1867 I know many people in India who are against the method proposed, but I have to ask myself, if this Bill stood alone without any reference to method, is there any Member of this House who would oppose it? I cannot find a single argument against the proposal of the Bill—namely, to do what Indians of advanced tendencies have been demanding for years, to speed up procedure in order that India may have a different method of Government from that which she has now.
Looking at the Bill without any consideration at all of the method to be adopted, I could not possibly make myself responsible for casting a vote or uttering a word which would give the impression in India that we were against moving more quickly than the Government of India Act prescribed. I may have a lot to say about the method proposed, but as to the Bill itself I should certainly, if it be carried to a Division, vote with the Government. I hope, however, that there will be no Division, and that India will feel that we are going to move before the time prescribed. I have said that I know of no responsible body of Indian opinion which is against the move being made. I hold in my hand a telegram from the Indian referred to by the right hon. Gentleman for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), which seems to indicate that it is not the move which is opposed, but the constitution of the Commission. I believe this Indian would be just as eager to get things moving as any hon. Member in this House, but he would insist that it should be a move with due regard to what he considers Indian opinion. I am in favour of the move. I may have a different opinion from hon. Members opposite as to the method, but if the Amendment is pressed to a Division, I shall go into the Lobby in favour of this Bill.
§ Earl WINTERTON
I can only speak again by leave of the House, but I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the speech he has just made, which in all the circumstances is a most generous one. He speaks with great authority as the representative of his party on the Front Bench in favour of passing this Bill without a Division. I want to make 1868 a strong appeal to hon. Members on this point. It does not matter much to the Government. We have a large majority and can pass the Bill, but I think a Division would be grossly misunderstood in India. The right hon. Gentleman has said nothing but the truth when he said that any discussion as to the composition of the Commission would be quite out of order. The proper time to deal with that matter will be on Friday next, and I have no doubt there is room for honest difference of opinion. But for this House to divide on this Bill, which has been demanded again and again by all forms of opinion in India, would, I think, lead to a certain amount of mischief or perhaps give a wrong impression, and I make an earnest appeal to the House to come to a decision without a Division.
§ Mr. MAXTON
It is very difficult to resist the appeal that is made by the Noble Lord, because I can assure him that every person on this side of the House who has taken any part in the opposition to this Bill is as anxious for a proper settlement of the whole Indian problem as he is himself. I want to make that perfectly plain. I do not want to argue on the Floor of the House with my right hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) as to the distinction that he draws between the principle and the method, but I would like to have a friendly discussion with him as to how he would apply that in certain difficult trade union situations in which I know he has been. It is right at one moment in certain circumstances, but it may be entirely wrong in other and entirely different circumstances. When one is out to achieve something that can be done only through conciliation, it is very bad to do it when tempers are at their hottest. We have found that in the House here and in trade disputes. We find it also in politics, and we can easily transfer ourselves in our imagination into some set of circumstances affecting a big issue like this. Therefore I do not think that my right hon. Friend's homily on the general principle applies. The important matter to those of us who have been speaking here on this Bill is that once we give the Noble Lord this Measure, our effective Parliamentary control of the future proceedings of the Commission is gone. I shall be glad if the Noble Lord will explain if that be not so.
§ Earl WINTERTON
The House will have a right to refuse to pass the Resolution which I am Tabling for the Debate on Friday. Without that Resolution no Commission can be appointed. This is not the stage to oppose the appointments to the Commission. The question is now whether or not it is desirable that a Commission should be appointed.
§ Mr. MAXTON
I agree with the Noble Lord's point there, but our effective control, when that Commission has started operations, is gone immediately the Third Reading of this Bill is passed. All of us here are strongly of opinion that a Commission should be set up and as speedily as possible. Many of us here hold the view that it would he most desirable to stop proceedings at this stage, to retrace our steps and to say quite frankly to the Indian people and the British people "We have made a bad start and we recognise that. We wash out all that has happened and we start as it were with a clean sheet." That need not take more than a week or two. Such a gesture to the people of India would wipe out all the bad passions that have sprung up in the last week or two, since the Noble Lord first outlined his proposals in this matter. We suggest a fresh start from the beginning and that the Government say to the Indian people "We shall begin again. Before we Table our proposals in the House of Commons we shall consult with responsible Indian opinion and get agreement as to how we are to proceed." I know that a great deal has been made in various speeches of the claim that there is no such thing as responsible Indian opinion that can be consulted. I am quite sure that that is not true. I am prepared to believe that you cannot get one man who can speak for the whole of India. I am quite satisfied that you cannot get one man who can speak for the whole of Great Britain. I question whether you can get one man who can speak in a really responsible way for the whole of the Conservative party.
§ Mr. MAXTON
I am quite sure about that. Therefore it is not fair criticism of the Indian people or fair criticism of the suggestion made by my hon. Friends to say that there is no one in India who can speak for the Indian 1870 people. In these circumstances you approach representative organisations and the representative men in those organisations. You hear what each has to say and strike for yourself the best average that you can get. The one thing that you do not do, if you want to carry the opinion of the people with you, is to say "These are our plans. You fall in with them." It is always wrong, and it is certainly quite undemocratic in the approach to what is supposed to be a great measure of democracy. Therefore I do not respond to the appeals either of the Noble Lord or of my right hon. Friend, although I stand alongside them in my complete desire that the Indian problem should be settled as speedily and as safely and securely as possible.
This Debate has been most illuminating. Here we have a most important question affecting one of the most important world connections of our country. The two Front Benches, speaking truly for their respective parties, say that there is no great difference in principle in regard to the Bill, that the whole House and all parties are agreed in principle, and yet there is an expression or insinuation of horror and outraged respectability because some of us on the back Benches, while not necessarily intending to vote against the Bill at all, do want to make sure, before the Bill is passed, that it is not merely an agreed compromise without any discussion, but that all the different views in the matter are to be expressed in the House. The Bill has had no discussion at all. The House appears to be tired of the Bill and to wish to go on to other matters. Reducing unemployment benefit is perhaps more congenial to the House. We have taken up very little time on the Bill, but the Noble Lord was preposterously amazing a little while ago when he got up with an air of outraged majesty and dignity and said, "Why, you are doubting my word!" I do not think there have been many cases in Parliamentary history when an Under-Secretary of State has been given so trustfully and completely by the Leaders of the Opposition a blank cheque for him to fill in.
If it had not been that the Noble Lord at once started to slash out right and left at the mildest questions, the House would probably have been happily en- 1871 gaged by now in taking unemployment benefit away from young people. When I say the House would be happily so engaged, I mean that unfortunately the House's actions at the present time are decided by an unrepresentative majority. What is the blank cheque? I recall the Noble Lord's speech on the Second Reading of the Bill, when he said, in effect: "If you give us this Bill, if you let us rush it through in our intervals of ill-doing, later on, when we have our Act, we will introduce a Resolution, and then we may discuss the projected procedure, the incidence of the expenses of the Commission and other kindred matters." It is not that any of my friends object to the setting up of a Commission or to the proposed policy of the Government in that regard. What we object to is the utter flouting of all conscious Indian opinion, a deliberate declaration that "We are the all-high, endowed, aristocratic Englishmen, who can tell the Indians and the Chinese and the British workers and everybody else what they are to do, and they are to be very grateful to us." That is not the way to move the world now. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite may have been able to do that 30 or 40 years ago, when no one else knew much about gunpowder except themselves. This Government is exactly like the Bourbons, it learns nothing and forgets nothing. It conducts itself as if it has still only to rattle the sabre and everyone else will shake. That is not the case. India cannot be held for ever by these brusque methods of conducting negotiations.
What must happen with regard to India, when the Government suddenly decide that they are going to do something, is that proper discussion must take place. It is not too late for that now. There is influential Indian opinion in London now. There are people of great weight in London now—many of them. We have here prominent men like Pandit Nehru, who is on a visit to London this week. It is not too late for the Government to abandon this almighty pre-ordained attitude, to come off their perch and to realise that they must discuss with other nations the kind of Government they propose and the action they are going to take. As we have spent a comparatively small amount of time in discussing this Bill it ill becomes the 1872 Front Benches, the occupants of which take very much more time than any of us, to suggest that we must not be allowed to discuss anything at all. I appeal to the Government. I am no more anxious to go into the Lobby against the principle of this Bill than is the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Shaw), but I am anxious to press upon the Government, and upon the Noble Lord in particular, that they cannot treat the Indians as coolies and they cannot treat His Majesty's Opposition as coolies, as the Noble Lord tried to do this afternoon.
§ Mr. SAKLATVALA
I appreciate the difficulty of my position, as is often the case, yet I have to carry on, expressing views which otherwise could not be expressed. While I have listened to the charming appeals made by the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) and the Noble Lord, about this House unanimously passing the Bill with all graciousness and sympathy and so on, I honestly and sincerely warn the House that if that well-intentioned but misdirected advice is followed, in the eyes of intelligent Indian opinion this House will be stooping to a meanness towards the whole of India. It is not easy trying to make the Indians and outside world believe that this Bill is nothing but a set of harmless phrases and words put together, that behind it there is going to be nothing, and that as a consequence of this Bill the people of India are not going to have something done which tramples upon their feelings and flouts their opinions. The right hon. Member for Preston and the Noble Lord, from certain circumscribed view-points, still look upon this Bill as something against which India has not expressed an opinion. Let ore submit certain evidence to the contrary.
A Member of this House, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Mardy Jones), is now in India. When he reached Bombay he conveyed to many Indian friends a piece of advice as coming from this House generally and from the Labour party in particular, namely, that the Indians should make the best of the coming opportunity, and accept the Commission. That hon. Member himself has sent a telegram from Calcutta to the effect that it is the unanimous opinion of all intelligent politicians in 1873 India that this Bill ought not to be carried; and that the Labour party, at least, should be advised to wash its hands of it, and should remain aloof from the great tragedy which is being enacted against India and the conspiracy which is being hatched in the shape of this so-called harmless Bill of a few words concerning a very narrow and limited issue. The hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Purcell) has also gone to India to confer with the Trade Union Congress and the Labour elements there, and yesterday we received a similar protest from the leaders of the Trade Union Congress—not from one individual, but from the Congress Committee as a whole. Again, I put it to the House that this Bill is an act of meanness when viewed from the Indian side of the transaction. As I pointed out previously, the Preamble of the 1919 Act lays down in very clear terms that while Parliament shall be the authority, yet Parliament must be guided—and "must" is the word used—by the express wish and opinion of the newly-created body in India. It is no use trying to get behind the fact that this Bill, this so-called collection of harmless words, flouts the opinion of one party to the contract, and that Parliament is refusing to allow itself to be guided by Indian opinion.
There is no provision that the Bill is to be subject to ratification by the Indian Assembly. Parliament takes up the position of an autocratic dictator. We are not allowed to anticipate arguments appertaining to another discussion which will arise later, but in international relationships, in the relationships between peoples such as those of Great Britain and India, coming events cast their shadows before. Unfortunately in this case the shadows have been cast, and we need not try to deceive ourselves by pretending that the shadows do not exist. It is no good saying that this is a harmless Bill with a narrow issue. I appeal again to the House to consider that by this Bill we are committing a crime against India, and it is a falsehood to say that by it we are doing something for which Indians have unanimously wished. The Noble Lord, after all the manipulation of a surgeon extracting a tooth, at last produced one resolution out of the five which were mentioned. 1874 That one resolution is against his own argument.
What are the circumstances of that Resolution? The new Act came into operation in India towards the end of 1920, and when it began to operate the people were under the impression that it was to operate for 10 years. This Resolution was passed in 1921 when the Indian Legislative Assembly, with the Act before them, thought it was going to operate for 10 years. They were bound to express themselves in technical language, or in language governed by the rules of debate and procedure. They said in effect at the end of the 12 months, "Do not wait for 10 years to elapse, but get on with it, and let us have another Commission." That did not mean that the Indians were demanding from this House what the Noble Lord is giving them. The spirit of that Resolution was, "Your Act is a complete farce and a scrap of paper and worse than useless. Get on with the job, and reconsider the situation." The subsequent resolutions which the Noble Lord, despite persistent demand did not produce will support that argument. As differences of opinion developed Indians have appealed to various parties in this House and to individual friends in the Labour party to the effect that it would be fatal merely to appoint a Commission such as was provided for in the old Act before certain issues were cleared up by heart-to-heart talks and unhampered discussions. They have asked for round table conferences. They have suggested that deputations should be officially invited by the Secretary of State to come here. They have asked that delegates should be sent from here to India and that delegates from India should be received here, but all these demands we are ignoring.
We are pretending that this Bill is something desired by the Indians. I consider it my duty, not so much towards my Indian compatriots or towards the British working class, as towards this House, to say that what we are doing to-day in the name of peace and harmony is an act of unpardonable and contemptible meanness towards India. I still advise the Government to withdraw the Bill and to send a telegram to the Indian Legislative Assembly, and I undertake there shall be no further delay than one week in obtaining an expression of their views. By doing so, the Government will 1875 act in the manner provided for in the Preamble of the Act of 1919, and Parliament will be enabled to have that guidance from the Indian contracting party, which it is supposed to have. By proceeding along those lines, although a delay of a week may be involved, the Government will tread a safer road than that which they propose to-night to take.
§ Mr. BUCHANAN
I rise to criticise this Measure and to oppose its Third Reading. No one could have listened to the speeches of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala) without feeling that there is something in the plea that this Bill should be withdrawn and the whole position reconsidered. The only thing we are allowed to discuss on this Bill is the question of the date at which the Commission shall meet. As the hon. Member for Bridgeton pointed out, the issue arises as to whether the date in the Bill is or is not a suitable date for embarking on the project of the Commission. During the Committee stage the Noble Lord stated that on five occasions the Legislature of India had made requests that this Commission should be set up at the earliest possible moment and facilities given for its work. The hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Pilcher) said that when he was a member of the Indian Legislature, the Indian Legislature did pass such Resolutions; and he went on to make the further statement that, if Members wanted evidence, it could be found in this House. I have had an exhaustive search made for that evidence, and we cannot find any evidence in this House to back up the Noble Lord's statement or the statement of the hon Member for Penryn and Falmouth that the Indian Legislature made these requests to the House of Commons. I wish the hon. Member had given us some remote idea as to where that evidence is to be found.
The Noble Lord quoted one Resolution, but circumstances have changed since that Resolution was passed. The Bill before us proposes to bring the date forward by one year, and the question which we have to consider is whether the new date proposed is the best date or not. The hon. Member for Bridgeton has argued that the date is not suitable 1876 because public opinion in India is at the moment inflamed. I think no one who is in touch with Indian affairs can deny the fact that Indian opinion at the present time is inflamed. How can a proper discussion take place on the Resolution which is to be moved on Friday next if we are here bringing forward a Measure of this kind which may well have a contributory effect in inflaming Indian opinion? No doubt the Noble Lord would not admit it, but we say that Indian opinion is inflamed and aroused, and on that ground we say it is the duty of the Government to withdraw the Bill. The proposed date is obviously wrong, and instead of proceeding with the Bill, an attempt ought to be made by the Government to search out representative opinion in India, and to try to get in touch with the leaders of thought, the leaders of religious and political movements in India, the leaders of all those movements which make or mar the people of India. If we are to solve the great problem in India, the proper course will be to consider the whole position anew, and, instead of looking for disunity, and for points of difference, we should search for those points on which we can co-operate. We should start afresh, and from that angle this Bill should be withdrawn
In conclusion, I would like to reiterate what I said on Second Reading. I said then that I thought the time was inopportune, because the Government choosing the time was a bad Government. I want to reinforce that, and to say to my colleagues on this side who are going to allow the Third Reading to pass, and whom I believe to be as honest as I am, as desirous of seeing a united India as I am, as desirous of uplifting the Indians as I am, that in allowing this Bill to pass they are doing something which I believe to be wrong. This Government could not, in the very nature of things, even taking the most desirable steps imaginable, be doing the right thing as it has forfeited the confidence of a large mass of the people at home. That loss of confidence has its repercussions abroad, and especially in the minds, wishes and aspirations of the Indian people. Even though the antedating of this Commission may be desirable, yet, because the people who are ante-dating it are not the people calculated to create confidence, because the 1877 Government who are ante-dating it have forfeited the confidence of the great mass of the people, the party to which I belong would have been well advised to oppose it. I am in a party for good or ill, and have to accept largely the views of my colleagues. Nevertheless, I fear that we are doing something more important and more unfortunate to-night than on Friday. On Friday there will be the great Debate with a great blare of trumpets and the big guns on either side marched in to debate the pros and cons of the Resolution, but to-night I be-
§ lieve that we are taking a most unfortunate step and that the passing of this Bill will be looked upon as a great misfortune and will not be to the benefit either of the people of India or of this country.
§ Earl WINTERTON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 267; Noes, 120.1879
|Division No. 370.]||AYES.||[7.20 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Courtauld, Major J. S.||Henderson,Capt.R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)|
|Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.||Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)||Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)||Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.|
|Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)||Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.||Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)|
|Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.||Crookshank,Cpt. H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)||Hilton, Cecil|
|Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)||Cunliffe, Sir Herbert||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.|
|Atkinson, C||Curzon, Captain Viscount||Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Davidson,J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)||Hopkins, J. W. W.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovll)||Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)|
|Balniel, Lord||Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)||Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)|
|Barclay-Harvey, C. M.||Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.|
|Barnett, Major Sir Richard||Dawson, Sir Philip||Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.||Dean, Arthur Wellesley||Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland,Whiteh'n)|
|Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)||Dixey, A. C.||Hume, Sir G. H.|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Drewe, C.||Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis|
|Berry, sir George||Eden, Captain Anthony||Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer|
|Bethel, A.||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Hurst, Gerald B.|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)||Iliffe, Sir Edward M.|
|Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)||Elliot, Major Walter E.||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.|
|Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)||Ellis, R. G.||Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)|
|Boothby, R. J. G.||England, Colonel A.||Jephcott, A. R.|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)|
|Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.||Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith||Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)|
|Braithwaite, Major A. N.||Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)||King, Commodore Henry Douglas|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement|
|Briggs, J. Harold||Everard, W. Lindsay||Lamb, J. Q.|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Fairfax, Captain J. G.||Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)|
|Brittain, Sir Harry||Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Little, Dr. E. Graham|
|Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.||Fanshawe, Captain G. D.||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C. (Berks,Newb'y)||Fenby, T. D.||Loder, J. de V.|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Finburgh, S.||Looker, Herbert William|
|Buchan, John||Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Forrest, W.||Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman|
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Foster, Sir Harry S.||Lumley, L. R.|
|Butt, Sir Alfred||Foxcroft, Captain C. T.||Lynn, Sir R. J.|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Fraser, Captain Ian||MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen|
|Calne, Gordon Hall||Galbraith, J. F. W.||Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)|
|Campbell, E. T.||Gates, Percy||MacIntyre, I.|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham||McLean, Major A.|
|Cassels, J. D.||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Macmillan, Captain H.|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||MacRobert, Alexander M.|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Makins, Brigadier-General E.|
|Cayzer,Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Malone, Major P. B.|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Grotrian, H. Brent||Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn|
|Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)||Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Marriott, Sir J. A. R.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Melier, R. J.|
|Charteris, Brigadier-General J.||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Merriman, F. B.|
|Christie, J. A.||Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)||Meyer, Sir Frank|
|Churchman, Sir Arthur C||Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)||Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-|
|Clarry, Reginald George||Hammersley, S. S.||Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)|
|Clayton, G. C||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.|
|Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.||Harney, E. A,||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. R. C. (Ayr)|
|Colfox, Major William Phillips||Hartington, Marquess of||Moore, Sir Newton J.|
|Conway, Sir W. Martin||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.|
|Cooper, A. Duff||Haslam, Henry C.||Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)|
|Cope, Major William||Hawke, John Anthony||Murchison, Sir Kenneth|
|Couper, J. B.||Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.||Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph|
|Nelson, Sir Frank||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)|
|Neville, Sir Reginald J.||Salmon, Major I.||Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-|
|Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.)|
|Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)|
|Nicholson, O. (Westminster)||Sandeman, N. Stewart||Tinne, J. A.|
|Nuttall, Ellis||Sanders, Sir Robert A.||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Oakley, T.||Sanderson, Sir Frank||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)||Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.||Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough|
|Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William||Savery, S. S.||Waddington, R.|
|Penny, Frederick George||Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie||Wallace, Captain D. E.|
|Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Sheffield, Sir Berkeley||Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)|
|Perkins, Colonel E. K.||Shepperson, E. W.||Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.|
|Perring, Sir William George||Sinclair, Col.T.(Queen's Univ.,Belfast)||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)||Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dine, C.)||Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)|
|Pilcher, G.||Smithers, Waldron||Wells, S. R.|
|Power, Sir John Cecil||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.||Wiggins, William Martin|
|Preston, William||Sprot, Sir Alexander||Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)|
|Price, Major C. W. M.||Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.||Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)|
|Radford, E. A.||Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)||Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)|
|Raine, Sir Walter||Steel, Major Samuel Strang||Winby, Colonel L. P.|
|Rawson, Sir Cooper||Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Reid, D. D. (County Down)||Strauss, E. A.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Remnant, Sir James||Streatfeild, Captain S. R.||Withers, John James|
|Rentoul, G. S.||Styles, Captain H. Walter||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.||Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser||Woodcock, Colonel H. C.|
|Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)||Sugden, Sir Wilfrid||Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.|
|Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)||Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.||Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)|
|Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)||Tasker, R. Inigo|
|Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)||Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Ropner, Major L.||Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)||Major Sir Harry Barnston and Captain Margesson.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Hayday, Arthur||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Hayes, John Henry||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)||Scurr, John|
|Ammon, Charles George||Henderson, T. (Glasgow)||Sexton, James|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Hirst, G. H.||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Baker, Walter||Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)||Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertiliery)||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)|
|Beckett, John (Gateshead)||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Bondfield, Margaret||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Sneil, Harry|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Kelly, W. T.||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Broad, F. A.||Kennedy, T.||Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)|
|Bromfield, William||Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Kirkwood, D.||Stamford, T. W.|
|Buchanan, G.||Lansbury, George||Stephen, Campbell|
|Cape, Thomas||Lawrence, Susan||Sullivan, Joseph|
|Charleton, H. C.||Lawson, John James||Sutton, J. E.|
|Clowes, S.||Lee, F.||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Cluse, W. S.||Lowth, T.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Connolly, M.||Lunn, William||Townend, A. E.|
|Cove, W. G.||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.|
|Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)||Mackinder, W.||Varley, Frank B.|
|Day, Colonel Harry||Maclean, Neill (Glasgow, Govan)||Vlant, S. P.|
|Dennison, R.||MacNeill-Weir, L.||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Duncan, C.||March, S.||Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Maxton, James||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Gardner, J. P.||Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Montague, Frederick||Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah|
|Gillett, George M.||Morris, R. H.||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Gosling, Harry||Murnin, H.||Welsh, J. C.|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Naylor, T. E.||Westwood, J.|
|Greenall, T.||Oliver, George Harold||Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Palin, John Henry||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Groves, T.||Ponsonby, Arthur||Williams, Dr. J. H (Lianelly)|
|Grundy, T. W.||Potts, John S.||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)||Riley, Ben||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Ritson, J.||Wright, W.|
|Hardie, George D.||Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)|
|Harris, Percy A.||Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Saklatvala, Shapurji||Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Whiteley.|
§ Question put accordingly, and agreed Bill to.1880
§ Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.