§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare)I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
It was once said by a small boy of Dr. Temple, when he was headmaster of Rugby, that he was a beast, but a just beast. The best that can be said of this Bill, and I hope the worst also, is that it is a just beast. Nothing could be more distasteful to me, and I believe that nothing could be more distasteful to any Member of this House, than to be discussing proposals to cut the salaries of so splendid a body of men as the Indian public servants. There is no finer body of public servants anywhere in the world than the men who make that great company of administrators in India, Indian as well as British. There is no greater service that the British Empire has conferred upon India than the creation of this service, which for impartiality, for efficiency and for expert knowledge is surpassed by no other public service in any part of the world. Nothing short of a great national emergency, nothing short of an acute financial crisis would justify me in introducing a Bill of this kind or would justify the House of Commons in passing it. Unfortunately, India is passing through much the same financial crisis as that which has been facing this country and most other countries. In India, no less than in Great Britain, there is a very serious deficiency on the annual Budget. If we compare like with like, the deficiency on the Indian Budget is about as great as the deficiency with which we were faced a few months ago.
Of course, Indian expenditure is a great deal less than our expenditure. A deficiency of no less than £29,000,000 over a period of two years is an enormous deficiency for India, and proportionately it is as great as the Budget deficiency with which we have had to deal in this country. It is obvious that a deficiency of that kind cannot be allowed to continue in India, any more 410 than in Great Britain. The Budget this year and next year must be made to balance, and the only way to make it balance is, speaking generally, the way that we have adopted in this country, namely, by heavily increased taxation and by cuts in the salaries of practically all classes of public servants. The Government of India have attempted, and I believe attempted successfully, to hold the balance evenly between these two methods of balancing the Budget. On the one hand, there is heavily increased taxation which, speaking generally, amounts to an increase of 25 per cent, upon the rate of both direct and indirect taxation; on the other hand, the cuts in the salaries of public servants up to a maximum of 10 per cent. The House will see that in the matter of taxation and of salary cuts, the Government of India have tried to keep the balance even.
In order to carry this policy into effect, it is necessary for me to introduce this Bill and for the House to pass it. In India there are several classes of officials. There are the provincial officials, enlisted in the Provinces. There are a certain number of central Indian officials, enlisted by the Government of India, and there is another class of central Indian officials, enlisted upon the guarantee of the Secretary of State. The latter class is divided into two sections. In the first place, there are the all-India officials, who were enlisted by the Secretary of State before the commencement of the Government of India Act, 1919. These officials have a Statutory guarantee, which is given in the Government of India Act of 1919, against cuts in salaries. There is another class, enlisted since 1919, who do not possess that Statutory guarantee. The object of this Bill is to enable the Secretary of State to deal with the comparatively small class, although it is a very important class, who possess the Statutory guarantee, and who were enlisted before the Act of 1919 came into force. The position, in a sentence or two, is this. If it is admitted that there have to be cuts in the salaries of the various Indian servants, it will further be admitted that, in the interests of justice, the cuts must be over all the services. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to exempt from the cuts this one comparatively small section of Indian officials.
411 Taking central and provincial cuts together they amount to about £6,000,000 a year, a sum so great that without it it would be practically impossible to balance the Budgets. In the saving of £6,000,000 is included the cut of 10 per cent. that is proposed to be made upon the salaries of this small and specially protected class. I am exceedingly sorry to have to make a proposal of this kind. I would much rather not have to come to Parliament to ask hon. Members to give me the power to break what appears to be an agreement—
§ Mr. BUCHANANIt is one.
§ Sir S. HOARE—and is, in fact, an agreement, entered into in 1919. I would very much have preferred if possible to have a voluntary cut, from this specially protected class. I made the proposal to the Government of India that the cut should be a voluntary cut. I had, as a precedent, the very big voluntary cuts that are being made by such officers as the Viceroy, the Members of the Executive Council, the Provincial Governors and other high officials. I would like to pay my tribute to their patriotism. When we went into the details, which were discussed with the Service Associations in India, it was found that the voluntary cut, in the case of a large number of officials with different salaries, and different conditions, would place some of them in a rather awkward position, giving rise to a feeling of discrimination between one and another. The result was that the services themselves, on the assumption that a cut is necessary, said that they would prefer that the cut should be a statutory, rather than a voluntary, one. That being so, it was incumbent upon me to safeguard them in every possible way.
It is important to note that this is not a Bill repealing any Section in the Government of India Act, which would be a most dangerous procedure for us to adopt, because of the guarantees contained in the Government of India Act. This Bill is an emergency Measure to deal with a particular situation, for a strictly limited period of time, until March, 1933. The time is therefore strictly limited, and the object is strictly limited, namely, to deal with the national financial emergency 412 with which we are faced, and which we hope will soon pass away, so as to make it possible for those officials to resume their full salaries.
Thirdly, pensions are not included. No officials' pensions will be changed for the worse in any way by this temporary cut for the next 15 months. I ought to explain that classes of public officials are exempted from the cut altogether. We have exempted the lower-paid classes of officials, and certain classes of service for which the standard of pay compares unfavourably with the standard of pay in other services, particularly in the case at the police, which is, admittedly, a very low-paid service. We have exempted all members of that service receiving up to 120 rupees a month, and some above that level. Further, I am asking the House to give the Secretary of State power to deal with certain cases of hardship. It may well be that, when we come to impose this cut, we shall be faced with genuine cases of exceptional hardship. Those cases I wish the Secretary of State to deal with sympathetically, and have power to do what he can to meet them.
Lastly, I want to make it clear to the House that on no account must this Bill be regarded as in any way capitulating to certain politicians in India, the extreme section, who have always looked with suspicion and dislike at the public service, and have constantly, in the past, made attempts to cut down its scale of pay. Nor must it be regarded as an admission by this House that we are indifferent to the claims of the services, or to the splendid work they are carrying out, in the face of great difficulties, not only for the British Empire but particularly for India itself. There is scarcely a field of public activity in India to-day in which the officials, British and Indian, are not exercising really beneficial influence. In India the civil servant is expected to undertake more various duties than the civil servant in Whitehall. A great deal of the work here is done by private enterprise, or as part of social reform. In India, it is undertaken by the Civil Service. Moreover, the civil servant in India, unlike his colleague in Whitehall, has often to play the part of a politician in the various assemblies, and to meet attacks of political parties. Further, it has been more and more difficult for many of these deserving officials to make two ends meet.
413 4.0 p.m.
We are very conscious of the fact that it is inherent in any period, such as that through which we are passing, that is to say, a period of transition when we are discussing all manner of constitutional changes, that the task of the civil servant becomes more and more difficult. We are not only conscious of his services to India, but we are fully conscious of all those great difficulties with which, particularly now, he is faced. I would therefore reiterate the statement which I made at the opening of my speech, namely, that this is nothing more than an emergency Bill to deal for a short time with a great national crisis, and that it is our firm intention to safeguard in every possible way, whether under the present regime or whether under any future changes to which the Government of India might be subject, the rights and guarantees of the services. Only yesterday, I was shown, by a deputation from the Services Association in England, a telegram that was sent to them by their Indian colleagues. The telegram was to this effect. It said that if the Secretary of State can assure us that there is a genuine national emergency, bitterly though we feel the cuts which are being imposed, we will be prepared to accept them as patriotic citizens, and we wish to do our best for India and the Empire.
§ Mr. WARDLAW-MILNEWas that the official attitude of the Services' Association?
§ Sir S. HOAREI can tell my hon. Friend that the Services' Association's attitude is perfectly clear. They feel bitterly the need for these cuts, and they are naturally anxious as to the reactions those cuts may have, but I believe that I shall be right in saying that the telegram which was shown to me yesterday does fairly represent the great body of opinion among the services in India. They resent the cuts—I should like to make that quite clear—but they patriotically say that if it is clear that this is a national emergency, and that it is necessary for these cuts to balance the Budget, they will accept them. I should like to pay a tribute to that spirit, and I should like to say to the services that it is in that spirit that I introduce this Bill to-day. It is in that spirit that I 414 shall carry out its provisions, and it is in that spirit that I shall hope to see the emergency pass, and once again these deserving officials receive the full salaries to which they are entitled.
§ Mr. ATTLEEWe must all have been struck, I think, by the tone of the right hon. Gentleman in introducing these cuts.
§ Mr. MAXTONOn a point of Order. I was proposing to move the rejection of this Measure.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat will come a little later.
§ Mr. ATTLEEThe tone of the right hon. Gentleman in introducing these cuts offers a very remarkable contrast to the tone in which other cuts have been dealt with in this House. There was an air throughout that this was something temporary, that every care was going to be taken that there should be no hardship, that there would be careful consultation with those affected, which offers a remarkable contrast to the cuts which were inflicted on numerous categories of persons over here such a short time ago. We must regret, I am sure, that the right bon. Gentleman's influence in the National Government was not sufficient to overcome the line that was taken by the rest of his colleagues.
I want to define our attitude towards this Bill. We are entirely opposed to this method of balancing Budgets by cuts, whether it is done in this country or whether it is done in India, We have stated our position in this House that there are other ways of doing it. If that is true in this country, it is abundantly true in India. We have here an example of the ease with which this Government can break contracts made with individuals who are employed, and their reluctance to break contracts with property owners. India is full of parasitic interests which draw enormous sums from the workers of India and pay very little indeed to the National Government. There is an enormous land-owning class who, it is true, are supposed to pay land revenue, but, as everybody knows, that land revenue is, of course, passed on to the tenant. There are numbers of persons who escape taxation altogether. Take such an instance as that which I remember. A body came before us in Bombay 415 called the Imamdars, who, under special contract, get out of paying land revenue. I remember their appeal for political representation on the ground of taxation, which they did not pay.
The Income Tax has been increased, but Income Tax in India does not fall on persons who derive that income from laud. I do not believe that there was the least need for cutting the pay of Indian employés, whether the low-paid or the high-paid, if they wished to balance the Indian Budget. I think that this Bill reflects the fact that the Government in India, like the Government in this country is not Labour but Capitalist. They cannot conceive of a cut being made against property owners. The cuts, of course, are going to fall on people with varying force. I notice, however, that in this Bill a great deal more care is being directed towards how these cuts are going to affect individuals. Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 says:
If it appears to the Secretary of State in Council that any such direction occasions exeptional hardship in the case of any person, he may direct that that person shall be exempted wholly or in part from the effect of that direction.The right hon. Gentleman is to be allowed to do it where there is exceptional hardship, but the Government do not do it where the hardship is habitual. When there was a cut in unemployment benefit, there was no provision for dealing with exceptional cases of hardship. I hope that whoever is going to reply will tell us what those exceptional cases are. I can imagine very many. I can imagine an official in India on comparatively small pay with a large family, or a person who, somehow or other, has got special responsibilities. No attempt has been made to meet that in the case of teachers, or in the case of other public officials in this country, and no attempt has been made to meet it in the ease of the unemployed. There is a very remarkable difference of attitude in dealing with those two cases. I say that as a party here, we are entirely against this method of balancing Budgets by cuts. But there is another principle which comes in in this Bill. I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman was very careful to tell us that he was not suffering from any dictation by Indian politicians. It was very curious 416 that he should have anticipated a criticism of that sort. No one has said it in this House.
§ Sir S. HOAREIt was said in India.
§ Mr. ATTLEEIt is clear that some pressure has been brought to bear on the right hon. Gentleman. I think we ought to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether this has been a demand made by the Indian Government. We all know that the pay and conditions of the services are one of those subjects which are specially reserved for the Secretary of State, and for the Secretary of State acting with the Council of India. This Bill, in effect, is a Measure to extend the power of the Government in India as against the Secretary of State here. It is a temporary abrogation of certain of the powers and certain of the safeguards which are put in the hands of the Secretary of State. May we take it that this demand came from the Indian Legislature? Did this demand come from the Indian Government, who felt that in approaching this subject they had the whole of Indian public opinion expressed in the Indian Legislative Council behind them to the effect that if cuts were going to be made in those services predominantly staffed by Indians, the cuts would be made also in the higher services with a larger proportion of British officials?
Our reason for not opposing this Bill is that we in this party stand for India's control of her own affairs. We do not like the particular way in which the Indian Government and the Indian Legislature are acting in this matter, but our position is that India, as has been said, must be allowed to make her own mistakes. The fact that the majority in the Indian Legislature is not composed of representatives of the workers, is not composed of Labour men, but that there are, as a matter of fact, a capitalist Government and a capitalist class in power, does not in the least detract from the fact that we stand here in our belief that India has got to have control of her own affairs. In effect, this is an extension of the power of the Indian Government to deal with their own affairs, and, in effect, as this came from the majority of the Assembly as at present represented, we shall not oppose this Bill, but we state that we entirely object to the policy in this Bill.
417 It is not our policy. It is the policy of the Indian Government, and, in so far as the Indian Government are allowed to deal with their own affairs, and are not to accept dictation from the Secretary of State, we are prepared to allow this Bill to go through.
§ Sir REGINALD CRADDOCKThis is the first occasion on which I have the privilege of addressing this House. The opportunity has come to me rather late in life still, I hope that the House will extend to me the same indulgence it so generously gives to political babes and sucklings, to whom so much is revealed that is hidden from those who consider themselves wise and prudent. I am speaking on this occasion, not because I wish to oppose this Bill, but because I feel that this Measure and its effects should be understood by this House, and I ask the indulgence of the House, further, as I am one of only three representatives here retired from the Indian Civil Service, and I am an old servant of the Crown who served in India under nine Viceroys, so that I ought to be in a position, if anyone is, to interpret the sentiments and feelings of the services.
The services are, as the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State has himself stated, as loyal and as patriotic as any body of citizens. They are not in any way responsible for my speaking to-night, nor have they prompted me as to what I shall say. I am solely responsible for that. I may find allies in unexpected directions, and, perhaps, opponents in others, but I am absolutely prepared to say that I entirely dislike the whole system of cuts. The public servant, as a citizen, has to bear the same taxation as others do, but when, in addition, cuts are inflicted upon him, it is sort of force majeure, and it is one that no Government would impose unless it was absolutely necessary. We are living in a democratic country, and we feel that there is no Government, no party which has any animus against its public services. So that we feel that if these public services have been subject to cuts it is because that method was absolutely unavoidable. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State has proceeded on the assumption that the cuts have been unavoidable. The Indian politicians are delighted to inflict 418 these cuts. They resist any taxation which would obviate the necessity for these cuts. That makes all the difference to the spirit in which the public services submit to the cuts. What the Secretary of State has said about the attitude of public servants is correct in that they do not wish to embarrass the Government; but of course they depend upon the right hon. Gentleman not to use the powers which he is seeking to gain by this enabling Bill unless financial circumstances make it absolutely necessary.
The right hon. Gentleman alluded to the economic slump which is common to the world, as one of the defences for the action taken. No doubt the economic slump has extended to India, but it reached India at a later date than other causes which have produced this financial embarrassment. It is unfortunate that during late years the extremist politicians have gained a greater and yet a greater ascendancy over the councils of the Government of India. What produced the difficulties in India in the first place was nothing but the great loss of revenue and the extra expenditure entailed by what was a revolutionary movement, calling itself civil disobedience and passive resistance. The land revenue was delayed in collection, the excise revenue was almost destroyed, and that on account of people who felt that by picketing liquor shops and by cutting down poor people's toddy palms they could inflict the maximum loss on Government revenue. I make bold to say that the losses entailed by the civil disobedience movement in India were one of the predisposing causes of the economic slump.
It is well known that India contains one-fifth, or 20 per cent., of the population of the world, that China contains another 20 per cent., and that the population of Russia is a further 10 per cent. Add those three together, and the result is that 50 per cent. of the population of the world, for this or that reason—owing to their Government or failure to govern, or to the anarchy which has prevailed—had their purchasing power very largely reduced. I contend that the civil disobedience movement was one of the causes of the slump, and that when we now have to consider how our services should be treated we have to remember 419 that a great part of the loss entailed, if not all the loss entailed upon them, has been due, not to the economic slump itself, but to the great loss of revenue and the great- extra expenditure entailed by the inability of the Government to tackle the civil disobedience movement from the start.
The public debt of India is only about £800,000,000, with a population of 350,000,000. Of that total four-fifths was spent on such productive purposes as railways and irrigation works, and on this four-fifths there is no charge for interest upon the general taxpayer. That, therefore, leaves only £200,000,000 of what may be called unproductive debt. Of the taxes, the land revenue is not really a, tax at all; it is either a rent or a share of the rent according as there are landlords or not in that particular part of India. A great deal of revenue is derived from the sale of forest produce. That is not a tax. In these ways the financial situation of India is in nothing like the same critical position as the financial situation of this country.
Temporarily, no doubt, there has been great loss of revenue for the reasons that I have mentioned. But, indeed, one must allow, and I think that this House will take into consideration, when they give the right hon. Gentleman the powers under this enabling Bill, the fact that the position of the services, if one examines the march of events, is that of men who are subject to losses of which I can perhaps explain the nature by giving an illustration. You first allow incendiaries to go about the country putting inflammable material into inflammable places. You do nothing to check them, and then when the train is laid and the conflagration breaks out your trusted and faithful firemen are driven to subject themselves to the strain, the excessive work, the injury, and in some cases to death, to combat that conflagration. After that, when the conflagration has at last been checked if not entirely put out, you call upon those firemen to pay a contribution to the damage which has been caused. The incendiaries, who have been tardily checked and temporarily restrained, are set absolutely free to laugh at the firemen, who have now got a reward for their exertions. The incendiaries themselves contribute little or 420 nothing towards the wanton damage that they cause. That is the position of the public services in India. No wonder they feel sore. No wonder they are disheartened and disillusioned. They play up, as they always have played up, and they say that they do not wish to embarrass the Government. That is true; but the bitterness that they feel is probably not even now understood by the Members of this House.
There is another point with which I want to close my remarks. It relates to the question of safeguards. The talk of safeguards is in the air; everyone is talking about safeguards. The object of safeguards is to safeguard the just rights and liberties of the people. The object is to safeguard public servants, to safeguard all interests in order that justice may be done to them. The alarm of the services and their disquiet, the inconvenience that they have suffered under the actual cuts, weigh but little compared with the alarm and the grave apprehension that they feel at the precedent that has been set. Can you wonder that they ask themselves why these things are done while there is a Government responsible, while there is a Parliament responsible for law and order and for maintenance of justice in India? Can you wonder that they ask themselves, if these things can be done in the green tree, what can be done in the dry?"
They feel grave apprehensions when they are subject to political influences which first of all forced the hand of the Government of India and then forced the hand of the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman came into the proceedings at a late stage, and it was impossible for him to stand out against a situation which had arisen before he himself took office. A precedent of that kind, set at this moment, is particularly disheartening and dangerous to the services concerned. What is to prevent financial mismanagement in the future, resulting in yet more cuts being demanded from the services? There are people in India, politicians, who wish to be rid of the British and of the British services entirely. The British services stand between them and their power to exploit the people. The services have always stood to protect the people against exploitation. It is quite natural that the moneylenders and the Brahmin privileged 421 classes should resent restraints imposed upon them by the presence of the British in the services, and, I may add, of their Indian colleagues who are trained up in the same tradition.
4.30 p.m.
What I urge, therefore, is that the right hon. Gentleman who has asked for these powers should once more address himself to the question whether these cuts are absolutely unavoidable. He has certainly proceeded on the assumption, according to his speech, that the economic situation is the same in India as here. The services ask for the assurance that the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely satisfied that there is no other way by which the Budget can be balanced. A tax of a penny per head on the people of India brings in more than £1,000,000 sterling and, as has been pointed out already, there are large sections of very rich people in India who own the land, which is exempt from Income Tax and Super-tax. The services pay their Income Tax to the last cent, whereas there are crowds of firms and moneylenders and traders of all kinds who are notoriously able to evade their just payments. We are dealing with a people among whom it is said that a dealer keeps three sets of accounts, one for the income Tax collector, one for himself and a third for his partner.
§ Mr. McGOVERNThey do that here as well as in India.
§ Mr. MAXTONSome of them are doing time for that.
§ Sir R. CRADDOCKI am sorry to hear from hon. Members opposite that these practices are not confined to India. I had hoped that Scotland at all events was free from vices of this description.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODThis is in England.
§ Sir R. CRADDOCKI extend my hope to England as regards that matter. I know that these services feel that the resources have not been exhausted—put it as you will. As the House is aware it was only the other day that the Legislative Assembly threw out all emergency taxation and the services feel that a breach has been made in the dam which the Government of India Act provided for them, for their security and the security of their emoluments. They asked 422 for an assurance from the Secretary of State, that he will at all events leave the matter open to reconsideration. I am informed—I think, credibly and the right hon. Gentleman can deny it if it is not true—that great pressure was put upon the services to consent to voluntary cuts. The right hon. Gentleman has pointed out that they were given a chance of representing their views. Well, they were, but the notice given was so short that the representatives from the different provinces could not arrive in time, and, moreover, even those who lived nearer to Delhi had no opportunity of consulting their colleagues. I have also been told—and from what I know, this also may be true—that the pressure put upon these services was such as to prevent them agreeing to the voluntary cuts even if they wished to do so. I am told that it was put to them that if they did not agree to the voluntary cuts, it would be possible to go behind Parliament, by enacting a special capitation upon the services equivalent to the cuts which the Government were afraid to ask Parliament to sanction.
§ Sir S. HOARE indicated dissent.
§ Sir R. CRADDOCKI am glad to know that that is not so, but 1 was told that that was the attitude adopted. I suppose that the Government of India, if some of its members did adopt that attitude, would have been careful to inform the Secretary of State of the course of the discussions. Anyhow just as the services do not wish to embarrass the Government, so I do not wish to embarrass the Secretary of State because he has been doing what he can. I know that he is anxious to see that justice is done but his hands have been forced by the Government of India, and the hands of the Government of India are being forced by the Indian politicians.
I make one last appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. He has power to exempt certain persons in cases of special hardship. I feel sure that I shall have the sympathy of the House and the consent of all the other services in asking the right hon. Gentleman to exempt the police of India. The police, as he has told us, are much less well-paid than the other services. The Income Tax was raised in April and has been raised again since by 25 per eent.—12½ per cent. this 423 year and 25 per cent. next year. Customs, already high, have been increased by 25 per cent. The police officer often requires a motor car for carrying out his duties and the import duty on motor cars has been increased and is now between 40 and 50 per cent. The police officers have borne the heat and burden of the day through all this frightful nightmare of revolution, disguised as civil disobedience. The British officers in that force constitute the inspiring element which has secured that the force has remained contented and loyal. Their energy, their influence over their men and their men's belief in them have enabled the police force from top to bottom to withstand appeals, calumnies, stoning, injuries, the boycotting of their relatives and the inducements, cajolery and insults to which they have been subjected.
I ask the Secretary of State to do his best for the exemption of the police. No other service will grudge such a concession. No other service will ask: "Why should this concession be given to the police; have we not been as badly treated?" They know that the police are not so well-paid. They know the exertions of the police and the temptations to which the police are subjected and the taunts which they receive from the men against whom they have, had—although it was no joy at all to them to do so—to make their lathi charges. Those men will say to the police: "This is the reward of the Government to which you have been so loyal." One would have to live in India long to understand the sensitiveness of men of this class—the sensitiveness especially of the Indian members of the force to insults of that description. We ought not to do anything which would make it harder for them to do their duty. I have spoken longer than I had intended to hut I hope that I have the sympathy of the House in the request which I now address to the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. MAXTONI beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
After the three speeches which have been offered to the House upon this Measure I make no apology for this Amendment. There has been, so far, no 424 defence of the Measure. The Secretary of State made a, rather extended apology for it, interlarded with eulogies of the Indian services. My hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee), who said that he was speaking on behalf of the Opposition, said that he was quite against this Measure but that he did not propose to vote against it. The hon. Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock) has delivered the most devastating criticism of the Measure that will be delivered in the course of the Debate—certainly more devastating than the criticism which I propose to make. I congratulate the hon. Member on his first speech in this House. We have all known of his distinguished services in other fields, and at a period when this House is likely to be much concerned with the Indian question, in one form or another, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's presence here will compensate to a very large degree for the great loss which the Government suffered by the failure of the Attorney-General to gain a seat.
The Secretary of State did not make quite clear the precise numbers or classes of persons affected by the Measure. He explained quite adequately that it was intended to get at the people who had been specially protected by charter in 1919. Presumably there was some strong reason in 1919 for believing that this special protection was desirable. If there were strong reasons in 1919 for giving these public servants very special protection, then it seems to me that much stronger reasons than those given by the Secretary of State ought to be given in 1931 for withdrawing that special protection by this enactment. We move the rejection of the Measure because the group for which I speak has steadily endeavoured, both in the last Parliament and in this, to prevent the Government from pursuing the disastrous policy of attempting to take the nation out of its industrial and financial difficulties by an economy policy. When the first proposal in this direction was made, in the setting up of the May Committee by the Labour Government, we voted against it. We have used every possible influence against any movement in that direction, believing as we do that the problems which this nation, India and the world are confronting, are not problems which can be solved by reducing the purchasing power of any section of the community.
425 We believe that in a crisis which arises from glutted markets the reduction of the standards of life of masses of the people whether unemployed, civil servants, soldiers, sailors or police, can only make a bad crisis into a worse crisis; can only compel further progress along the same road until you pass from crisis into catastrophe. The reasons which have compelled us to oppose cuts at home on unemployed, civil servants, teachers, Army, Navy and police force, are our reasons for offering the most direct opposition to the same conception when it is carried into Indian affairs. I make no special plea for special treatment for Indian civil servants because of the nature of their work. People choose their walk in life and know the nature of the job which they are undertaking and, presumably, weigh up the inconveniences and advantages and go into it with open eyes, and I am not prepared to pay any more tribute to the men working in India than to the men who go down into the mine or who work in the shipyard. They are doing the job which they undertook to do. All I am concerned with is that the contracts which we have entered into with them shall be loyally maintained, and that they shall not be used as pawns for the furtherance of a national policy which I profoundly believe to be based on complete misconceptions.
The hon. and gallant Member opposite, who spoke with immense knowledge of Indian affairs, blamed the bad financial position of India on the politicians. He will find, as he progresses in the realm of politics, that the politicians here also are not free from that charge, that the politician, because he is very much in the public eye, is very often made the whipping-boy for other people who do not appear so prominently in the public eye; and I am afraid that the economic conditions of India, as of England, Germany, and the United States of America, are to be laid at the door of more important, more powerful and more influential people than the politicians, either in the one country or the other. Indeed, it seems to me that the politicians have in most cases prevented those who were running industry and finance from carrying their desire for exploitation to extremities that would have brought us to bigger disasters than those we are in just now. Therefore, I hope there will 426 not be any attempt here to play off the politician against the civil servant, to play off the Indian politicians or the leaders of Indian movements against the Indian civil servants.
My view is that English rule in India will not be maintained for a very much longer period. I think that that phase of history must necessarily come very soon to an end, in spite of any efforts that may be made to stay it. I think that the whole trend of world affairs is against the possibility in the near future of small nationalities being able to impose their rule and their will on hundreds of millions of their fellows, and the condition in which India is to-day, the condition that has been so adequately described by the last speaker, does not justify us in paying tributes to ourselves as to the amount of progress that has been made while we have been in occupation. If it be true, as I believe it will be true, that English domination in India will shortly cease, let us try, if we possibly can, that our Civil Service, our Army, our Air Force, and our police shall be withdrawn in decent and orderly fashion, and without any unnecessary ill-feeling being fomented between them and the civil population.
To come to the somewhat narrow purpose of this Bill, I expect to have certain Amendments to move on the Committee stage, should the Bill receive a Second Reading, but I want whoever is replying for the Secretary of State to tell us just exactly how many persons are affected by it, what particular branches of the public service are affected by it, how many of the persons concerned are Indians and how many are British, what proportion of the total expenditure on the public service is entailed by these particular cases, as against the total amount, what were the reasons for giving these people special protection in 1919, and what was the idea in putting them in a position, as I take it, similar to that of judges in this country, whose emoluments are almost beyond challenge by this House. The idea here is that they shall be above the possibility of influence. Was that the reason for putting these Indian servants in this position, so that their livelihood could not become the subject of fluctuating political power in one hand or another, or so that they could exercise 427 their functions, as it were, above the battle, without any fear for their own livelihood?
Further, I want to know what are the lower limits of the incomes that are proposed to be cut under this Bill. The Secretary of State himself, I think, referred to a salary of about 120 rupees per month. Just at the moment, I am not quite sure what the exchange value of the rupee is. Indeed, I am not sure about the pound itself at the moment, and I am even more indefinite about the rupee, but I take it that 120 rupees a month represents something less than 210—£0, I think it is. Is it proposed to impose a 10 per cent. cut on a wage of that kind? The Secretary of State in Council has the opportunity, under Subsection (2) of Clause 1, of considering cases of exceptional hardship, and I want to know if it is these people, who are on the very lowest level of remuneration and who are probably numerous, who are going to be the subject of the special concessions; or is it going to be, as we have seen it in our own land, that it is the hardship of people holding the higher public positions that rends the heart of the Secretary of State? These points I should like to have definitely answered by the responsible spokesman of the India Office here.
I noticed with interest that there has been an attempt to get these people to impose a voluntary cut on themselves. That, I gather, was rejected; they refused to impose upon themselves this voluntary cut. I am not surprised. A large proportion of them are barely managing to make ends meet. I knew, in my student days, many young men who chose the Indian Civil Service or the Indian police as the profession that they were going to follow in life. Many of them came out of very humble homes. The examination that they had to pass was generally regarded as the stiffest competitive examination that was set in this country, and not only was it a very stiff competitive examination, but it could only be looked at by men who bad undergone a very advanced university education. I have known men out of very humble homes going through that strenuous course, sitting for that very rigorous examination, coming out with flying colours, and having exhausted not merely 428 their own resources, for they had none, but their family resources as well in the doing of it, and who went out to their appointments feeling themselves in honour bound to repay the father, the mother, the brother, or the sister who had stood by them while they were going through their course. I should imagine, from those who came before my own personal notice, that there must have been hundreds of that type in the Indian Service, and I am quite satisfied that the reason why these people are putting up a very stubborn resistance, and have refused to accept a voluntary cut on their wages, is simply because a large proportion of them cannot possibly do it and remain solvent under the conditions under which they have to live.
I ask the Secretary of State again to tell me to what extent he is prepared to go in considering cases of exceptional hardship. I might even put it more definitely, and ask to what amount he is prepared to go in making concessions in cases of particular hardship. Are these concessions to be made to the people who need them most, or are they to be made, as they were made here, to the people who look more dangerous and more awkward? We appealed to the Government again and again to consider the very exceptional hardship of the unemployed classes, but the Government remained adamant—no concession there for exceptional hardship. One little bit of noise in a particular key Service, and then it was recognised that the cuts to be imposed in the Navy would inflict serious hardship, and a concession was made there. Is that to he the method of the India Office in considering special hardships under this Bill? Is it to be the fellows who are hard up or the fellows who can make a noise who are to be the subject of the right hon. Gentleman's special mercy?
5.0 p.m.
One good thing that can be said about this Bill is that it is limited to two years. I hope that the anticipation that the situation will have been overcome in two years will be justified. My view, and that of my hon. Friends, is that the situation will have been worsened, but in any case we were dealing on Monday with a whole collection of Bills which, when passed, were for one year, two years, or three years only, but which, 429 year after year, are shoved into the Expiring Laws Bill, because although in their wisdom several years ago the politicians thought they were dealing with a temporary situation, events have proved that it was a more stubborn situation than they had deemed. Probably in 1933, when we come to discuss the Expiring Laws Bill, we shall find added to the long list that is already there the Indian Pay (Temporary Abatements) Bill. The right hon. Gentleman in introducing it told the well-known story of a certain distinguished schoolmaster who was described by a small boy as a beast, but a just beast. One may describe this Measure as one that is beastly, but not just. An examination of it discloses the beastliness, but a most careful scrutiny fails to discover the element of justice.
§ Mr. KIRKWO0DI beg to second the Amendment.
§ Mr. ENTWISTLEI wish to raise the question of the Judges of the High Courts of India who, I am sure the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) will be surprised to hear, are covered by this Bill. It will be generally admitted by the House that it is a matter of high policy that the judiciary should be independent of the executive. It is clear that that was recognised by this House when the Government of India Act was passed, because the Section of that Act which deals with the pay and salaries of Judges is quite separate and distinct from the Section which deals with the pay and allowances of the Indian Civil Service. The Section which affects the High Courts in India is Section 104, which reads as follows:
The Secretary of State in Council may fix the salaries, allowances and retiring pensions of the chief justices and other judges of the several high courts, and may alter them, but any such alteration shall not affect the salary of any judge appointed before the date thereof.that is to say, before the date of the fixing of the salaries. It is clear, therefore, that this House, when it passed the Government of India Act, intended that it should not be in the power of the Secretary of State to interfere with the pensions or salaries of any Judges who were then appointed, and that the only power he should have to affect salaries was in regard to Judges appointed after the date 430 of the fixing of the salaries. The Section of the Act which affects the Indian Civil Service apart from the Judges is Section 93 (b), and that is in different terms and has not the qualification as to the power of the Secretary of State. Therefore, I submit that the position of the High Court Judges stands on a different footing from that of the members of the Civil Service.The Secretary of State said that lie was in favour of these cuts being carried out in a voluntary manner, and that he was disappointed that the Service Associations had expressed their desire that they should be compulsory rather than voluntary. That is so. I have read the resolutions of most of the Civil Service Associations, and while they, as the right hon. Gentleman said, bitterly resent the cuts, they say that if there have to be cuts, they prefer them to be compulsory rather than voluntary. Does that also apply to the Judges of the High Courts of India? I should be very surprised to hear that they would prefer the cuts being compulsory rather than voluntary. I daresay that there are a few Judges in India, or a few of the High Courts in India, who, if the cut were left to their voluntary agreement, might not consent; but I think, on the other hand, that there are many High Courts of India—I know, for instance, of one in particular, the High Court of Allahabad—whose Judges volunteered to accept the 10 per cent. cut.
I would ask the Secretary of State to lay on the Table, before the Committee stage of this Bill, communications which lie has received from the high courts of India on this important matter, which they regard as of supreme importance and a matter of really high policy in the interests of the State. I understand that an important letter, dated 7th August this year, from the High Court of Calcutta to the Secretary of the Home Department of the Government of India, is in the possession of the Secretary of State, and sets out very fully the objections of the high courts to this Measure being introduced. It is undoubtedly of great importance that the judiciary should not be subject to Executive control and interference. A dangerous precedent will be set if the Secretary of State seeks powers compulsorily to deal with the salaries of the high court judges. We 431 know that conferences have taken place with regard to additional autonomous powers being granted to the Legislature in India, and if there is an alteration of the Central Government in India, which is more under India's control, it will be a serious thing if this Bill were taken as a precedent by them to interfere with the judiciary in India.
Gandhi, I understand, has expressed the view that no one should have a salary of more than £500 a year, whoever he is. I believe that some Members of this House have expressed this view on some occasions, but we can understand that if Gandhi or his followers have more control, as they might have some day, in the Government of India, one of the first class of persons which will be attacked will be the high court judges. I submit to the Secretary of State that the category of judges stands quite different from that of the rest of the Indian Civil Service. It is different because there is a separate statutory enactment in a different form dealing with their position. Furthermore, they are as the judiciary in a different category from that of the Civil Service, who are the direct servants of the executive. In addition, high court judges of India have, if I am correctly informed, as have the other members of the Indian Civil Service, expressed their desire for a compulsory rather than a voluntary cut. In these circumstances, I would ask the Secretary of State to consider before the Committee stage whether the high courts of India should not be exempted from the provisions of the Bill. I understand they are affected because the Bill says:
If it appears to the Secretary of State in Council that it is necessary.… to make abatements from the pay of persons in the service of the Crown in India.Clearly, the Judges of the High Courts of India are persons in the service of the Crown in India, and therefore they will be affected by the provisions of this Bill. I do not want to put their case on pure questions of merit, because I think that it is really a question of high policy; but, if it comes to a question of merit, I understand that they have had no increases whatever in their salaries for a great many years, whereas all other classes of the Civil Service in India have.432 It is unfortunate that when you get a body of people like Judges—and the same thing applies in this country—the Government, owing to the small number of persons concerned and the relatively high salaries that they receive, never think of coming before the House to increase their salaries because of the objections which might be raised. Nevertheless, when it comes to any cut for reasons of economy, the Judges have to suffer with the rest, although they have had none of the increases that the rest have had. Although many promises have been made to them that there shall be an increase, it has never been carried out. I understand that in the official correspondence which has taken place, it has frequently been recognised that the salaries of the Judges of the High Courts of India should be increased, and I should be glad if the Under-Secretary who will reply will confirm or deny that statement.
I have restricted my remarks purely to the question of the judiciary, because that stands in a different category. I believe that the example which is required will be given if the cut is a voluntary one, and, if it is voluntary, you will avoid a repeal or modification of a Section of the Government of India Act. When moving the Second Reading of this Bill, the Secretary of State said that it does not repeal any Section in the Government of India Act. I do not know what he means. If he means that it does not repeal in toto any particular Section, that is true, but it does repeal part of Section 104. That would be a most undesirable precedent, which we might bitterly regret in future. I appeal to the Secretary of State not to allow that precedent to be set. It is easy to differentiate this particular class from the others, because there is a separate Section, namely, Section 104, dealing with them. I appeal to the Secretary of State to allow the cut in the case of the Judges to be obtained by voluntary means. I am sure that he will get all the response which is needed, and, in addition, he will safeguard the independence of the judiciary in India, which is of such great importance to our government in that country.
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Oliver Stanley)I hope that the House will excuse the absence of my right hon.
433 Friend the Secretary of State. Unfortunately, he had arranged a meeting of vital importance, which alone would enable him to ask the forgiveness of the House in absenting himself during a Debate on a Bill of such importance as this. I have been able, I hope, to secure answers to the many questions which hon. Members have asked; I hope, therefore, that they will permit me to deputise for my right hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee), who on this occasion was the Leader of the official Opposition, promised his support of the Bill in a rather remarkable speech. To a listener such as myself, it appeared to be a hang-over from his election campaign of last month, with the simple change that all the remarks about the parasitic classes which he had addressed in one form and another to his constituency, were altered to suit a little the colour of India. He certainly astonished me, and I think other hon. Members on my side of the House, when he said that he wanted to take this opportunity of showing that his party was entirely opposed to the policy of balancing budgets by cuts, because he left out the words, "When in Opposition." We know that when in power, when sitting round a Cabinet table, they get down to cuts as quickly as any other Government.
§ Mr. BUCHANANHear, hear! But that is a thing of the past now.
§ Mr. STANLEYThe hon. Member must not think that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite enjoy a close season from everybody except themselves. The few points which the hon. Member made with regard to the actual Bill were as follows. He asked, as other hon. Members have asked, about the exceptional cases of hardship with which the Secretary of State has reserved himself the power to deal. My right hon. Friend has asked me to say that he cannot here and now tell the House whether this case or that will receive his consideration, but that he intends to consider representations from all classes of officers under his control who feel themselves to be suffering a special hardship at a- time when, I am afraid, all are suffering inconveniences and many suffering hardships, and will consider them in the most sympathetic 434 spirit. The only other point the hon. Member made had reference to pressure by politicians. As a matter of fact, the provisions for cuts which this legislation is necessary to implement were included in a budget for which the Finance Minister and the Viceroy's Council were responsible. The pressure which was exercised by the Legislature was not for the cuts which we are discussing to-day but for cuts far more serious and greater in their intensity.
Lastly, I would like to comment on the quite moving peroration with which the lion. Member closed his speech. His sole reason for allowing this Bill which so affronts his economic principles to pass the House was that it was desired, wrong though it might be, by the Indian politicians. He was anxious that the desire of the Indian politicians to control their own affairs should receive the assent of the hon. Member. I cannot be certain whether I have made a mistake, or whether it was the hon. Member who signed the constitutional report two years ago.
§ Mr. ATTLEEThe hon. Member may not know that it has been an accepted convention that where the Government of India and the Legislature of India are in agreement in general principles the Home Government should not oppose it.
§ Mr. STANLEYThe hon. Member in his original speech was careful to leave out "the Government of India."
§ Mr. ATTLEEOh, no!
§ Mr. STANLEYMay I now turn to the maiden speech made by the hon. Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock). I hope he will not think it presumptuous of me if I add my quota to the tributes already paid to him by hon. Members for that speech. We all know his record and the service he has rendered in India, and I am sure that even those who may take a somewhat different view of India and Indian politics to himself will realise that his presence here means a real addition to the debating power of this House when dealing with Indian questions. The hon. Gentleman asked the Secretary of State to assure him that the method here proposed was unavoidable because, he said, representing, I think, the spirit of the Services for whom he spoke, that if they 435 were convinced that this method was unavoidable in order to meet a financial crisis of the greatest gravity they would be prepared to accept it in that spirit. I am asked by the right hon. Gentleman to assure the hon. Member that in his view that grave crisis does exist, and that this is the unavoidable way of meeting it. The hon. Member referred to the effect that civil disobedience as distinguished from world economics had had upon the budgetary position of India. It is true, of course, that civil disobedience had an injurious effect upon India, but whereas one would naturally expect that the financial effects of civil disobedience would be limited to the current budgetary year, and that, if that were the greatest cause of Indian financial difficulties the position next year would be better, I must point out that the estimate made by the Finance Minister is for a deficit of £14,500,000 this year and the same, and not a less deficit, next year.
An important point was raised by the hon. Member regarding the question of safeguarding the future. He pointed out, quite rightly, what the effect on the Services must be when they find that something which has had Parliamentary sanction is now to be altered by the assent of the House, and, indeed, the very preamble which authorises the making of temporary abatements:
Notwithstanding subsisting statutory rightsis a warning to all of us that in this Bill we are asked to do something which is exceptional and disagreeable. The hon. Member feared that this may be a precedent, and that the hardship which is caused to-day may, by a subsequent extension of this precedent, become ruin in the future. May I point out that every attempt has been made in the way this Measure has been drawn up to avoid its being, or having the appearance of, a precedent. It is deliberate that there is no repeal of any Clause in any Statute, that it provides merely for these temporary abatements, and that its operation is limited in time. Therefore, as far as possible, we have taken steps to make sure that it shall not be a precedent. Further, I would point out that the real safeguard of the services lies in Parliament, that it has been necessary for the 436 Secretary of State to come to this House to try to persuade them to alter the sanction which Parliament formerly gave. Any further attempt made in that direction would also have to receive the assent of the House of Commons, and I am sure the House would never give assent to a Measure which they thought was involving the Services, of whom they are proud and to whom they are grateful, in ruin and disaster.I will turn now to the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). When I saw it on the Order Paper this morning in his name I was considerably surprised. Up to the present he and those with whom he is associated have shown, perhaps, more criticism of than sympathy with the class of people with whom we are dealing to-day, and I rather wondered whether the fact that in his new position he has to rub shoulders with men of other parties had had some effect upon him. I wondered whether the old proverb, "Evil communications corrupt good manners" was being reversed, and that arising out of the press of Members on the same bench the feelings of himself and his friends were changing. But even if this Amendment were actuated, as it is quite clear from the speech of the hon. Member that it was not, by a desire to protect the classes of people who are dealt with, I should advise the Indian Services to be a little cautious of their new friends. One of the few legacies which I retain from about eight years of classical education is the Latin tag, "Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes," which one might roughly translate, "I fear the Clyde when on my side."
I have discovered that this Amendment has little to do with the facts either of the Bill or with the Indian situation, but was largely a peg upon which the hon. Gentleman could hang his economic views. This, however, is hardly the time for me to debate world economics with the hon. Member. We have debated that before. Over a space of some hours we discussed in public whether the rich were robbers, to our mutual satisfaction and disagreement.
§ Mr. McGOVERNHe won.
§ Mr. STANLEYI have no doubt the hon. Member thought so. He objects 437 on principle to economies in dealing with the present world crisis, believing that any reduction in the consuming power of any section of the people will only aggravate the financial difficulties in which we find ourselves. I wonder whether he believes in taxation, because taxation, like economy cuts, reduces the consuming power of some of us. If you add 25 per cent. to the Income Tax that people pay you reduce their consuming power, just as if you take 10 per cent. from their salaries. I am forced to the conclusion that the hon. Member objects to balancing budgets at all, for that is the only way in which to avoid decreasing the consuming power of some section of the population. It is not easy to say what should be done in India if the Budget were not balanced, whether to meet the deficit by borrowing—though India with an unbalanced budget would, perhaps, not be a good borrower—or meet it by the time-honoured but disastrous process of printing notes and in flating the currency. But that broad question, and the even broader one on which the hon. Member embarked of our future association with India, is one which must stand over to some other occasion.
5.30 p.m.
The hon. Member did, however, ask me certain definite questions connected with this Bill, the answer to which I am glad to say I am in a position to give. He asked how many persons are affected by it. It is not possible to give the exact figure, but a rough idea can be arrived at in this way. The total number of members of the services who owe their appointment to the Secretary of State as opposed to the Government of India or Provincial Governments is in round figures 5,000. The people affected by these cuts are those who joined prior to the commencement of the Government of India Act, 1919; that is to say, those who have had more than 10 years' service. The average length of service is 30 years, and we assume that the number affected will be about two-thirds. I have been asked what are the individual services which are affected. Most of the services affected come under what is known as "all-India services," and they include the, Indian Civil Service, the police, the agricultural and education services, the forest services, the service of engineering, the Indian medical ser- 438 vice, the Indian veterinary service and the Indian general service. The proportion of British to Indians is about 2½ to one. The amount of money involved is about £3,000,000, and it represents about 3 per cent. of the total expenditure.
I have been asked why this question was not dealt with in the Act of 1919. It is well known that that Act made a very considerable change in the constitution of India, and at the time those changes were made we did not know how they would ultimately affect those in the Indian service. Reference has been made to the lower grades of the service and those getting 120 rupees per month have been mentioned. The Secretary of State referred to these people and he gave the exemptions, but he was not referring to the cuts under this Bill but to the cuts going to be made by the Government of India and the provincial Government under their own authority. All those affected by this particular Bill are members of the ordinary service with at least 10 years' service and enjoying salaries considerably in excess of those to which the hon. Member referred. With regard to the judiciary of India, it is quite true that they could be included, and I will certainly convey to the Secretary of State the considerations which the hon. and gallant Member opposite put before the Committee.
I will certainly bring to the notice of my right hon. Friend what has been said with regard to the position of the judiciary and the possibility of there being a difference in their treatment between them and the rest of the Civil Service on the question of voluntary cuts. The power given to the Secretary of State under this Bill is not obligatory but permissive, and it will be for my right hon. Friend to decide how these cuts are to be applied. I hope I have now answered satisfactorily the points which have been raised by hon. Members. It is no pleasant task for me to ask the House to pass this Bill and for the house to grant support to a Measure which is bound to entail inconvenience and loss to a class for whom we have a great admiration. I do not think any hon. Member disputes the claim which these men have upon this country, more especially during the difficult times of the last few years. The House in passing this Measure will be conveying to this 439 service that what we are doing in this Bill is being done in no spirit of depreciation of their service but as an unavoidable financial alternative. I am sure that this service still occupies in the minds of the British people that place of pride which they have occupied for many years.
§ Mr. BUCHANANI want to make one or two observations dealing with what has been said in the speech made by the hon. Member who has spoken on behalf of the Government. The hon. Gentleman in seeking to justify this Bill said that India was passing through an acute financial crisis and that this was a Measure which must be passed in order to restore the financial position of India. The hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Entwistle) said that this Measure was a terrible hardship upon the Indian Civil Service because some of them had received no increases for many years, and it was unfair to subject them to cuts of this description. The same hon. Member also said that these cuts would affect the police terribly, and he asked the Secretary of State to deal differently with the police.
An appeal has also been made to exempt the doctors, the police, and the judges, and, in face of all that, we have been told that this Measure has been accepted without any great feeling of resentment by the services involved. The question I put to the Government is, first of all, are the reductions provided for in this Bill justified? That is a question to which we should receive an answer. I also wish to know whether after the reductions have been made there is left for a great number of the members of the services involved a decent and adequate income. That is a point which has not been answered. When these cuts have been made, many of these officials will be left with an income which few Members of this House can defend. We have been told that the pay of the police is £2 5s. per month, or about 120 rupees. I would like to know if we are treating the Indian Civil Service in the same way as the British Civil Service.
§ Mr. STANLEYOnly those receiving over 120 rupees per month will be included.
§ Mr. BUCHANANI understand that every person receiving more than 120 rupees per month will be affected by this Bill.
§ Mr. STANLEYCertain classes above 120 rupees-per month.
§ Mr. BUCHANANWe were told that all these people were to be treated equally, and now we are told that some classes are exempted. The hon. Member has also told the Committee that certain classes are to have their pay reduced by the Indian Legislature and local authorities; that these sections were safeguarded in 1929 and that this Bill now brings those who were safeguarded in 1919 into the same category. I understand that everybody is free up to 120 rupees a month, but that there are certain classes with more than 120 rupees per month who are not to be touched. Who are these exempted people? I would also like to know who are to make the exemptions, and what are the reasons for those exemptions? Are they receiving too low wages or are they people in a privileged. position who can exert influence? Are they friends of politicians?
§ Mr. STANLEYThe classes exempted are sub-inspectors and European sergeants.
§ Mr. BUCHANANThose two classes are to be exempt, but the ordinary-policeman is not to be exempt. I assume that those two classes have been able to exercise extra pressure upon the authorities. The defence which has been put forward for this Measure is that these people can stand the cuts which are proposed. I believe that the Budget of India is somewhere round about £30,000,000, and it may he more.
§ Mr. STANLEYThe deficit for 1931–32 will be:£14,500,000, and the estimated deficit for 1932–33 is £14,500,000, making the total £29,000,000.
§ Mr. BUCHANANThe hon. Member said that savings amounting to £3,000,000 would he effected by this Bill.
§ Mr. STANLEYI must have misunderstood the hon. Member's question. I thought he was asking for the proportion of the pay relating to the people who are exempted. The sum of £3,000,000 is not the savings to be made under this particular Bill, but it is an estimate of the pay received by the people who come under the Bill. The savings under this Bill will be limited to a 10 per cent. reduction.
§ Mr. BUCHANANThat is to say, India's Budget is to be saved if you can take £300,000 from these poor folk. That is what we are passing this Bill for. India would be in a state of collapse if the Imperial Parliament did not pass this Bill to-day. I am amazed at the Opposition, while saying that they believe these cuts to be wrong and unjust in most cases, saying at the same time that the Indian Legislature has agreed to them, and that therefore they believe in allowing the Indian Government to carry them out. Surely, if the Indian Legislature agreed to anything that was wrong, the Opposition would not agree with it in this House. Surely they would not agree that the Indian Legislature has reached the stage of being a democratic assembly, because it has not. In any case, we have our duty to do here, and, as long as Parliament devolves that duty upon us, we have the right to say that no cuts shall be imposed.
The only reason that has been given for this Bill so far is that certain cuts were going to be imposed on others, and that therefore these cuts should follow suit. No one believes that India is going to be saved by this sum of £300,000; no one believes that these cuts are absolutely necessary. The hon. Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock) who has so great a knowledge of India, knows, as indeed the elementary student of India knows, that possibly you might lose far more than £300,000 by your cuts, because you might raise so much discontent and ill feeling that the £300,000 may well be lost. If I may give an illustration, it would have paid the country to have exempted the Navy from the cuts imposed upon it. That would have saved a tremendous amount of trouble and crisis. In this case the saving is comparatively a minor one.
My hon. Friends and myself are going to divide against this Bill. It is quite true, as the hon. Gentleman said, that we have been critical of many Indian civil servants and police, but we have often been critical of the Scottish and Indian police as well. We have been critical of many interests, but that does not hinder us from defending a class of people who are engaged in a wage struggle. We have been critical of school teachers, and 442 sometimes of doctors, but we have at all times set out to defend them when their wage standards were being attacked meanly and unfairly, and we felt that we had a duty to do so. We have criticised Indian civil servants, and we intend to criticise them in the future, but that has nothing to do with this issue. The issue is that, as the hon. Member for the English Universities knows, large numbers of the people affected by these cuts cannot stand the reduction, for they will be left with a margin totally insufficient to enable them to lead a human and a happy life such as they rightly demand.
This Bill cannot be defended on the ground that it is necessary for balancing the Indian Budget. The sum involved is only £300,000, and the Government could have raised it in a much better fashion than by attacking what are in many cases meagre wage standards. We range ourselves with these people, not because we defend every or any action that they take, but because the Bill attacks a certain class of working people—[Interruption] —hon. Members may smile, but they are working people; they are people who render services which the nation believes to be necessary for it. We range ourselves with working people, even though they be Indian civil servants, as we are always prepared to do in this House. Our number may be small, but I hope that the four or five of us who are now here will always range ourselves with the Indian civil servant, or any other civil servant, if he is being attacked unfairly and meanly.
The Government might have raised this £300,000 from people who had a surplus out of which they could pay it. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) was twitted with the statement that purchasing power can be attacked by taxation as well as by direct reduction, and that is true, but there are limits within which a person can live. Even a rich person cannot eat two breakfasts, or wear three suits of clothes at one time, and anyone who has enough to buy himself three suits to wear is keeping two suits from someone else. [Interruption.] They are taking from the community a surplus to which they have no right, we believe that the community has a right to recoup itself from that surplus, and 443 we say that from that surplus which is to be found in India this £300,000 could have been found.
§ Mr. STANLEYrose—
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne)I would point out that the House is not now in Committee, and that we cannot carry on a Debate in the House if hon. Members, by way of interruptions, make more than one speech.
§ Mr. BUCHANANWould the hardship have been greater if the taxation of rich people had been increased to the extent
| Division No. 20.] | AYES. | [5.54 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Clarke, Frank | Gledhill, Gilbert |
| Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) | Clarry, Reginald George | Glossop, C. W. H. |
| Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. | Clayton, Dr. George C. | Gluckstein, Louis Halle |
| Albery, Irving James | Clydesdale, Marquess of | Golf, Sir Park |
| Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Llverp'l, W.) | Cobb, Sir Cyril | Goodman, Colonel Albert W. |
| Allen, Maj. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd,W) | Colfox, Major William Philip | Gower, Sir Robert |
| Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh) | Colman, N. C. D. | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Colville, Major David John | Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas |
| Anstruther-Gray, W. J. | Conant, R. J. E. | Graves, Majorie |
| Applln, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K. | Cook, Thomas A. | Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John |
| Apsley, Lord | Cooke, James D. | Griffith. F. Kingsley (Mlddlesbro',W.) |
| Aske, Sir William Robert | Cooper, A. Duff | Gritten, W. G. Howard |
| Astbury. Lieut. Com. Frederick Welle | Copeland, Ida | Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Courthope, Colonel Sir George L. | Gunston, Captain D. W. |
| Bailey, Eric Alfred George | Cowan, D. M. | Guy, J. C. Morrison |
| Baillie, Sir Adrian W. B. | Craven-Ellis, William | Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Crooke, J. Smedley | Hales, Harold K. |
| Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J. | Crookshank, Col. C. de Wlndt (Bootle) | Hall, Lieut. Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Croom-Johnson. R. P. | Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon) |
| Balniel, Lord | Crossley, A. C, | Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd) |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard | Hanbury, Cecil |
| Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey | Cuiverwell, Cyril Tom | Hanley, Dennis A. |
| Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury) | Curry. A. C. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry |
| Belt, Sir Alfred L. | Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovll) | Harris, Percy A. |
| Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley | Davison, Sir William Henry | Hartland, George A. |
| Bernays, Robert | Denman, Hon. R. D. | Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kennlngt'n) |
| Blaker, Sir Reginald | Denville, Alfred | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) |
| Bilndell, James | Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F. | Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) |
| Boothby, Robert John Graham | Dickie, John P. | Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. |
| Borodale, Viscount | Donner, P. W. | Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. |
| Bossom, A. C. | Doran, Edward | Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford) |
| Boulton, W. W. | Drewe, Cedric | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. |
| Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton | Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel | Hepworth, Joseph |
| Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. | Duggan, Hubert John | Hillman, Dr. George B. |
| Boyce, H. Leslie | Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) | Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller |
| Bralthwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E.R.) | Dunglass, Lord | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. |
| Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) | Eady, George H. | Holdsworth, Herbert |
| Brass, Captain Sir William | Eden, Robert Anthony | Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston) |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge) |
| Broadbent, Colonel John | Elliot, Major Walter E. | Hornby, Frank |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Ellis. Robert Geoffrey | Horsbrugh, Florence |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Ncwb'y) | Elliston, Captain George Sampson | Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. |
| Buchan-Hepburn, p. G. T. | Elmley, Viscount | Hume, Sir George Hopwood |
| Burnett, John George | Emmott, Charles E. G. C. | Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg) |
| Butler, Richard Austen | Emrys-Evans, P. V. | Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) |
| Cadogan, Hon. Edward | Entwistle, Major Cyril Fullard | James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H. |
| Calne, G. R. Hall | Ersklne, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) | Jamleson, Douglas |
| Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley) | Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool) | Janner, Barnett |
| Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley) | Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.) | Jesson, Major Thomas E. |
| Campbell-Johnston. Malcolm | Evans. R. T. (Carmarthen) | Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan) |
| Carver, Major William H. | Flanagan, W. H. | Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Foot, Dingle (Dundee) | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) |
| Castle Stewart, Earl | Fraser, Captain Ian | Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West) |
| Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) | Fuller, Captain A. E. G. | Kerr, Hamilton W. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston) | Gibson, Charles Granville | Kimball. Lawrence |
| Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.) | Glllett, Sir George Masterman | Kirkpatrick, William M. |
| Christie, James Archibald | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R. |
§ of £300,000 than is entailed by reducing the meagre wages of people who have £9 10s. or a month? Our case is that it would have been much more just to raise this £300,000 from people who are relatively well off compared with these people. We consider that these people are being unfairly and wrongly attacked. We range ourselves with these civil servants, Indians and British alike, and we intend to press the matter to a Division.
§ Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 345; Noes, 3.
445| Division No. 20.] | AYES. | [5.54 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Clarke, Frank | Gledhill, Gilbert |
| Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) | Clarry, Reginald George | Glossop, C. W. H. |
| Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. | Clayton, Dr. George C. | Gluckstein, Louis Halle |
| Albery, Irving James | Clydesdale, Marquess of | Golf, Sir Park |
| Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Llverp'l, W.) | Cobb, Sir Cyril | Goodman, Colonel Albert W. |
| Allen, Maj. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd,W) | Colfox, Major William Philip | Gower, Sir Robert |
| Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh) | Colman, N. C. D. | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Colville, Major David John | Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas |
| Anstruther-Gray, W. J. | Conant, R. J. E. | Graves, Majorie |
| Applln, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K. | Cook, Thomas A. | Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John |
| Apsley, Lord | Cooke, James D. | Griffith. F. Kingsley (Mlddlesbro',W.) |
| Aske, Sir William Robert | Cooper, A. Duff | Gritten, W. G. Howard |
| Astbury. Lieut. Com. Frederick Welle | Copeland, Ida | Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Courthope, Colonel Sir George L. | Gunston, Captain D. W. |
| Bailey, Eric Alfred George | Cowan, D. M. | Guy, J. C. Morrison |
| Baillie, Sir Adrian W. B. | Craven-Ellis, William | Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Crooke, J. Smedley | Hales, Harold K. |
| Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J. | Crookshank, Col. C. de Wlndt (Bootle) | Hall, Lieut. Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Croom-Johnson. R. P. | Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon) |
| Balniel, Lord | Crossley, A. C, | Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd) |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard | Hanbury, Cecil |
| Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey | Cuiverwell, Cyril Tom | Hanley, Dennis A. |
| Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury) | Curry. A. C. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry |
| Belt, Sir Alfred L. | Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovll) | Harris, Percy A. |
| Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley | Davison, Sir William Henry | Hartland, George A. |
| Bernays, Robert | Denman, Hon. R. D. | Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kennlngt'n) |
| Blaker, Sir Reginald | Denville, Alfred | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) |
| Bilndell, James | Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F. | Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) |
| Boothby, Robert John Graham | Dickie, John P. | Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. |
| Borodale, Viscount | Donner, P. W. | Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. |
| Bossom, A. C. | Doran, Edward | Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford) |
| Boulton, W. W. | Drewe, Cedric | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. |
| Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton | Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel | Hepworth, Joseph |
| Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. | Duggan, Hubert John | Hillman, Dr. George B. |
| Boyce, H. Leslie | Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) | Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller |
| Bralthwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E.R.) | Dunglass, Lord | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. |
| Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) | Eady, George H. | Holdsworth, Herbert |
| Brass, Captain Sir William | Eden, Robert Anthony | Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston) |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Edmondson, Major A. J. | Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge) |
| Broadbent, Colonel John | Elliot, Major Walter E. | Hornby, Frank |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Ellis. Robert Geoffrey | Horsbrugh, Florence |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks.,Ncwb'y) | Elliston, Captain George Sampson | Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. |
| Buchan-Hepburn, p. G. T. | Elmley, Viscount | Hume, Sir George Hopwood |
| Burnett, John George | Emmott, Charles E. G. C. | Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg) |
| Butler, Richard Austen | Emrys-Evans, P. V. | Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) |
| Cadogan, Hon. Edward | Entwistle, Major Cyril Fullard | James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H. |
| Calne, G. R. Hall | Ersklne, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) | Jamleson, Douglas |
| Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley) | Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool) | Janner, Barnett |
| Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley) | Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.) | Jesson, Major Thomas E. |
| Campbell-Johnston. Malcolm | Evans. R. T. (Carmarthen) | Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan) |
| Carver, Major William H. | Flanagan, W. H. | Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Foot, Dingle (Dundee) | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) |
| Castle Stewart, Earl | Fraser, Captain Ian | Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West) |
| Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) | Fuller, Captain A. E. G. | Kerr, Hamilton W. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston) | Gibson, Charles Granville | Kimball. Lawrence |
| Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.) | Glllett, Sir George Masterman | Kirkpatrick, William M. |
| Christie, James Archibald | Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R. |
| Knox, Sir Alfred | Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John |
| Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton | Newton, Sir Douglas George C. | Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness) |
| Latham, Sir Herbert Paul | Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) | Skelton, Archibald Noel |
| Law, Sir Alfred | Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Peters'fld) | Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam) |
| Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.) | North, Captain Edward T. | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dine, C.) |
| Leech, Dr. J. W. | Nunn, William | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Lees-Jones, John | O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh | Somerset, Thomas |
| Leighton, Major B. E. P. | Ormiston, Thomas | Somervell, Donald Bradley |
| Lennox-Boyd, A. T. | Owen, Major Goronwy | Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor) |
| Levy, Thomas | Palmer, Francis Noel | Soper, Richard |
| Lindsay, Noel Ker | Pearson, William G. | Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E. |
| Lister, Bt. Hon, Sir Philip Cunliffe- | Penny, Sir George | Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L. |
| Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest | Percy, Lord Eustace | Spencer, Captain Richard A. |
| Llewellln, Major John J. | Perkins, Walter R. D. | Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H. |
| Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick | Petherick, M. | Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland) |
| Lloyd, Geoffrey | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur |
| Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn.G.(Wd.Gr'n) | Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bllston) | Stevenson, James |
| Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.) | Pickering, Ernest H. | Stones, James |
| Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley) | Plckford, Hon. Mary Ada | Storey, Samuel |
| Lumley, Captain Lawrence R. | Pike, Cecil F. | Strauss, Edward A. |
| Lymingion, Viscount | Potter, John | Strickland, Captain W. F. |
| Lyons, Abraham Montagu | Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H. | Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) |
| Mabane, William | Procter, Major Henry Adam | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart |
| MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick) | Pybus, Percy John | Taylor,Vlce-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n,S.) |
| MacAndrew, Capt. J. D. (Ayr) | Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich) | Templeton, William P. |
| McConnell, Sir Joseph | Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian) | Thorn, Lieut.-Colonel John Gibb |
| McCorquodale, M. S. | Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles.) | Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford) |
| MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) | Ramsbotham, Herswald | Thomas, Major J. B. (King's Norton) |
| MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) | Ramsden, E. | Thompson, Luke |
| McEwen, J. H. F. | Rankin, Robert | Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles |
| McKeag, William | Rathbone, Eleanor | Thorp, Linton Theodore |
| McKie, John Hamilton | Rawson, Sir Cooper | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton | Rea, Walter Russell | Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.) |
| McLean, Major Alan | Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter) | Train, John |
| Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Corn'll N.) | Reid, David D. (County Down) | Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) |
| McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) | Reid, James S. C. (Stirling) | Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend) |
| Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. | Reid, William Allan (Derby) | Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock) |
| Macqulsten, Frederick Alexander | Remer, John R. | Warrender, Sir Victor A. G. |
| Maklns, Brigadier-General Ernest | Renwick, Major Gustav A. | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. | Roberts, Aled (Wrexham) | Watt, Captain George Steven H. |
| Margesson, Capt. Henry David R. | Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell | Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour- |
| Marjoribanks, Edward | Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge) | Weymouth, Viscount |
| Marsden, Commander Arthur | Runge, Norah Cecil | White, Henry Graham |
| Martin, Thomas B. | Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy) | Whiteside, Borras Noel H. |
| Mason. Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.) | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) |
| Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John | Russell,Hamer Field (Sheffield,B'tside) | Wills, Wilfrid D. |
| Meller, Richard James | Rutherford, Sir John Hugo | Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth) |
| Millar, James Duncan | Salmon, Major Isidore | Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.) |
| Mills, Sir Frederick | Salt, Edward W. | Wlndsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Milne, Charles | Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Milne. John Sydney Wardlaw | Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart | withers. Sir John James |
| Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k) | Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard | Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley |
| Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) | Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D. | Wood, Major M. McKenzie (Banff) |
| Mltchescn, G. G. | Savery, Samuel Servington | Worthington, Dr. John V. |
| Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr) | Scone, Lord | Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks) |
| Moreing, Adrian C. | Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. | |
| Morgan, Robert H. | Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Moss, Captain H. J. | Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar) | Captain Austin Hudson and |
| Munro, Patrick | Slmmonds, Oliver Edwin | Commander Southby. |
| NOES. | ||
| Buchanan, George | Maxton, James | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Devlin, Joseph | Mr. McGovern and Mr. Kirkwood. |
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Stanley.]