HC Deb 04 April 1935 vol 300 cc547-81

Amendment proposed [2nd April]: In page 127, line 23, to leave out "the recruitment of officers generally," and to insert: recruitment to such posts and in recruitment generally for railway purposes shall have due regard. to the past association of the Anglo-Indian community with railway services in India and." —[Sir R. Craddock.]

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

3.51 p.m.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT

I hope the Committee will forgive my continuing my remarks with regard to this important subject—for I think the Committee will recognise, especially having regard to some of the views which have been expressed before very important tribunals, that this, perhaps, is one of the most important matters in the whole Bill that we, as trustees, have to consider. Some of us have raised the question of British interests on several occasions, and I am afraid the Committee have thought it almost vulgar that we should stress the position of British trade and industry in India. To-day, however, we are not making any such demand upon the Committee; we are asking for their good will and for their altruistic attention in order that we may secure the lot of a section of people who deserve their very special consideration. The proposal that we make is a very simple one. It is that we want to do everything in our power—and we are not denying for a moment that the Secretary of State has the interests of this community at heart—to prevent the doom of the Anglo-Indian in India under the reforms.

This is a community to whom our nation owes much, and whom, as I think all Members of the House will agree, it should be our special care and, duty to preserve. Their position is really a tragic one, because their whole existence has been bound up with British rule and administration. Their loyalty has been consistent throughout, and their efficiency has been proved. The Montagu-Chelmsford reforms, when they were introduced, were a great shock to the Anglo-Indians, because they had imagined that the British Raj was in India for all time. Since the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms the Anglo-Indian and the docimiled European have been slowly but surely crushed out of their employment owing to the Indianisation of the Services, and Sir Henry Gidney, who represented this community, in evidence given on their behalf before the Select Committee and on other occasions, said that: If our experience of the past few years is to continue, then indeed we can see no hope. I think it will be admitted on every hand that under the present reforms, unless, in handing over the reins of government, we give at the same time some very complete protection to this community in the matter of fair play, they will be facing a future more bleak and more hopeless than they are at the present time, and indeed, from their point of view, the position may become desperate.

The Committee may be aware that, of this small community, something like 80 per cent. of the adult males took part in the Great War in one form of service or another. I doubt whether there is any part of the British Empire that can show a record superior to that. I do not think that even in this House we could in any way emulate that record. In the building up of the Indian transport system, which has made the India that we know to-day, with its 40,000 miles of railways, in the running of services which, like the telegraphs, are essential to the railways, and also in the Customs and in the Post Office, we find that Anglo-Indians have taken a very great part in the past. In fact, it is hardly an exaggeration to say that, in building up the whole of these services, this community has provided the key men under the British administrators and leaders in days gone by. When I remind the Committee that there are 800,000 employés on the Indian railway system at the present moment, and that only 3,500 of these are British-born, I think they will realise how essential it has been to have this intermediate class connecting up the British leadership with the very large number of Indian workers.

I think it will be admitted that the greatest risk of all in these reforms, in case of sudden emergency or great disturbance in India, would be a breakdown of the railway system. If the railways were brought to a standstill on account of a strike, even on one particular section of the line, at a time of some great disturbance such as has been seen in recent years at Cawnpore, the effect would be very serious. We might well find, if communal disturbance took place in a certain part of India and a railway line in that part of the country was manned almost entirely by either Moslems or Hindus, that the whole life of that part of the railway would be brought to a standstill. For this reason, I think it will be agreed that it is essential to endeavour to have in your employment at least an element of those upon whom you can absolutely rely as being distinct from these communal differences. During recent years, as Lord Hardinge mentioned in his special Memorandum published in Volume III of the Joint Select Committee's Report, this community have been slowly but relentlessly sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. Everyone is aware of the tremendous interest that Lord Hardinge has always taken in this community, and these words, coming from him, are very striking. As the services become still further Indianised, which is, of course, contemplated under this Bill, these people, for whom India is their motherland, will undoubtedly be more and more eliminated unless we take steps to see that the proportion of their employment is preserved. They cannot adopt Asiatic conditions without complete humiliation and great suffering. I think that that is understood. I believe it costs them 50 rupees a month to educate a child, and the work on the railways, if they were subordinated to the ordinary Indian coolie position, would bring them in something like 10 rupees a month. That is some indication of what their total income would be, and how hopeless it would be for them to maintain those standards which they have had up to the present.

The only way to stop the decline in the appointment of Anglo-Indians is to have a fixed, or as nearly as possible a fixed, number of appointments to maintain the percentage. I think the Committee will probably agree, if they read the evidence on this subject, that on the grounds of efficiency it is justified, that on the grounds of defence it certainly would be far-sighted and wise, and that on moral grounds the claim is overwhelming. But let the Committee realise that this community of, perhaps, 150,000 souls at the present time in India are really nobody's affair—in fact, they fall between the stools of the two civilisations, and when the inevitable struggle for life is going on in the days to come, with this vast mass of people living in India who have so enormously increased in numbers—I am not sure, but I think the Secretary of State will probably agree, that in the last 20 years the population of India has increased as much as the total population of this country—every day that this progress of population goes forward, the difficulties of the minority are going to be greater and greater in order to secure any jobs.

The hon. Member behind me frequently suggests, if one refers to the great religious beliefs of India, that one is therefore criticising. I am not. Whenever I refer to the great religious forces in India, it is because of the very sincerity, the very intensity of that religion, the fact that religion is to both Hindus and 'Moslems greater than life it self, that I point out this very great danger to small minorities who do not share those religious opinions. Suppose you have Hindus in control, and there is employment on a section of railway, from the nature of the case, with many of their own relations and friends out of work and appealing for a job, is it not almost inevitable that the Anglo-Indian Christian will be eliminated from employment? I do not think in suggesting that there is anything which is contrary to what some of us might even' feel ourselves if the-position were reversed. Take the question of promotion. It would seem to be almost inevitable, where these religious feelings are so great, and where you have Hindu or Moslem in whatever department or business they are concerned always trying to keep the end of their people uppermost, that the Anglo-Indian will have a bias against him. I will read, if I may, a few words from Sir Henry Gidney's evidence before the Select Committee in order to show the House how he, speaking on behalf of this community, felt. He said: So long as Indians identify us with the British, the question for every Briton to ask himself is When full measure of self-government is given to India, what will be the fate of our descendants and kinsmen in that land? In the circumstance we must look to the British Parliament to safeguard our interests—our religion, our education, our admission into the public services. If India is to have Dominion Status, England must demand, and India must guarantee, that we are effectively protected as citizens of India. We lo not seek preferential treatment. We aspire to equal partnership, and for this reason we must not be called upon to sacrifice anything which our Indian fellow-countrymen retain. We cannot give up our Christian Faith, our British ideals, our Western culture. Ask the devout Hindu to exchange his ancestral caste for secular advantage. Ask the pious Musalman to abandon his holy creed for temporal gain. Ask us to sell our British heritage for a mess of political pottage. In every case the answer is instant and clear. Ours speaks in the heart of each of us. It throbs in the blood that mingles with our breath. It leaps to our lips in the soul-stirring appeal—

'O England! who are these if not thy sons?' That is a very pathetic statement from a gentleman who has devoted so much of his life to protecting this community, and I have read it in order to point out to the Committee that the very fact that the Anglo-Indians have been so consistently loyal to the British Raj in the days gone past, makes them suspect among the more extreme elements of Indian politicians such as we see in the great organised forces of Congress. I, therefore, urge the Committee to give their full, sympathetic consideration to this question, because after all it is not now a question of trying to placate those who are hostile to the British connection, but those who have been loyal, and who are unfortunate in having very few people to protect them. In 1919, it was stated in evidence, in the Punjab trouble, which almost developed into revolution, when telegraph wires were cut and many messages were distorted, I believe I am right in saying that the Anglo-Indians were called in to fill the posts of those who had failed in their duty. It has always been found that you can rely in that respect upon these people. In the Government of India's Despatch on Constitutional reform, September, 1930, they expressed views very similar to those in this Amendment. It reads: In view of the history of the community, a special obligation, we think, rests Parliament before relaxing its own control, to ensure as far as may be practicable, that the interests of the Anglo-Indian community are protected. The cruel fate of the Irish loyalists, I think, affects many of us, and makes us bow our heads in shame. I therefore ask the Committee to make every effort to prevent a similar fate befalling this community to which we are seeking to give some protection in India. With the Government pressing through this Measure on four days a week, people have not got time properly to study these big points. The Government may be determined to go on with the Measure in spite of Indian opinion, in spite of the fact that they have not the sanction of the British electorate, but I do beg in this special case that they will do everything in their power to see that these people have as large a proportion of employment as can with justice be given, and, if possible, maintain the percentage of employment as it was at the time of the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms. If we fail to do something like this, I venture to think that, in days to come our conscience will not be very clear and we shall feel that it is a great blot on the escutcheon of Parliament.

4.9 p.m.


I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for allowing me to speak before he replies, for I should like to address something in the nature of an appeal to His Majesty's Government on this subject. I do not think that my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment, if he will allow me to say so, is really suitable for adoption in the Bill, and I do not desire at all to press that form of words, or to provide at this stage any form of words of my own, but I do feel that for this particular community we have, perhaps, a more direct, a deeper moral responsibility than for any other section of the Indian people. Other races and communities we found. This community is the creation of British rule in India, and its situation, in any case a very difficult one, in many ways rather a pathetic one, may be made more difficult than it has been in the past by the process of these reforms and the Acts which follow, unless we take special measures in their behalf.

I am not quite content with the words in the Bill. I do not think they discharge our obligation to these people. I do not say in the words of the Amendment that it should be the duty of the Railway Authority to protect them, but I think you want something more than the vague words of the Bill to see that they are not edged out by degrees from employment in which they have so largely been engaged, and in which they have rendered services which everyone connected with the Government of India has been glad to recognise. I, therefore, beg the Government—it was for this reason. that I wanted to rise before they expressed their view—to consider this question more deeply, or afresh, and see whether they cannot bring up a form of words of their own which will meet the purpose of my hon. and gallant Friend opposite, and, I believe, the feeling of the whole Committee in respect of the duty that we owe to this special class of the community in India.

4.12 p.m.


I think that everybody must be impressed with the very unfortunate position of the Anglo-Indians. I was in very close contact with Sir Henry Gidney for many months in India, and I saw a great number of that community. One has to recognise the enormous difficulty of their position—a position for which they are not responsible. They are people of a certain standard of life, and are now in competition with people coining from different communities. Years ago they were more or less in a simple position, because they were the only English-speaking people who took these posts. Now every community is competing for these posts, and it is a competition between people of different standards of life. I am opposed to the Amendment, because if this obligation is on anybody, it is on the British people, and you are trying to put it on to the Indian people. You are saying that certain posts must be reserved for these people, who are a small community, while there are a very large number of other communities among them. You say that this community shall be given a privileged position as against other Indian communities. I say that if there is a moral obligation—and I think there is—it should be shouldered by this country and not put upon the people in India. By taking this kind of line in respect of this community vis-à-vis the rest of the inhabitants of India, you would make the position far worse than it is now. By all means let us meet this obligation, but let us meet it ourselves, and not put it upon someone else.

4.15 p. m


I feel sure that, the Committee will bear testimony to the intense sincerity of the many speeches which have been made both at our last sitting and this afternoon on this important subject about this vital community. I think that all the testimony which has been borne to the work which the Anglo-Indian community have done in the past, to their influence and to the place that they hold in India has not been exaggerated. The Committee will be grateful to hon. and right hon. Members for the trouble they have taken, and, if I may say so, I do not think that, in the speeches of those who have felt themselves responsible in this matter, there has been any sign of haste or lack of preparation in dealing with that excellent community. It only needs a word or two of mine to supplement what has been said about the services of the Anglo-Indian community. All of us recollect the services they rendered in the Indian Mutiny, the famous message of Brendish to Umballa which saved the Punjab at the time of the Mutiny, at the time when they composed three-quarters of the Indian auxiliary forces. To the fact that their services in the War were of a definite nature, to a great extent testimony has been paid in our Debates, but I think that few people realise, except those who perhaps have studied Sir Henry Gidney's memorandum to the Joint Select Committee, that both Lieutenant Robinson, V.C., who brought down the first Zeppelin in England, and. Lieutenant Warneford, V.C., who brought down the first Zeppelin in France, were members of the Anglo-Indian community with domiciles in India.

The hon. Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock), in introducing the discussion, spoke from his great experience upon the position of the Anglo-Indian community, and he told us that it was not good to ignore their position. The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) said he did not think that my right hon. Friend was giving their proper rights to this community. We had the advantage of the help of the hon. Member for the English Universities, of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), of the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) and of Lord Hardinge in the Joint Select Committee, and these hon. or right hon. Gentlemen and Noble Lords have assisted us in this Debate or taken part in the question of deciding the future of this community in India. If Members of the Committee will turn to paragraph 321 of the Report of the Joint Select Committee, they will see that every care and attention was given to this particular subject, and that reference was made to a resolution of the Government of India published on the 4th July, 1934, with regard to the position of the minorities in the public services. If hon. Members will turn to paragraph 9 of that particular resolution, they will see that it has been decided by administrative order, dated 4th July of last year, to reserve to Anglo-Indians 8 per cent. of all vacancies to be filled by direct recruitment in the subordinate grades of the railway service, and this Amendment relates particularly to the railway service.


How many does that mean?


Very much what they are at present. To put it in general terms, it consolidates the position at the 4th July, 1934. The recommendation goes on to say that this total percentage will be obtained by fixing a separate percentage, first for each railway having regard to the numbers in this community at present employed, and, second, for each branch or form of the railway service, so as to ensure that Anglo-Indians continue to be employed in the branches in which they are at present principally employed. These are the mechanical engineering, civil engineering and traffic departments. The object, therefore, of the Government of India in entering into these matters was to secure by this resolution a proportion of places for the Anglo-Indians in the subordinate posts of the railway service. My hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities asked us to ensure that some practical

effect is given to that rule in the case of appointments. I am going to try and tell the Committee now how we propose to give practical effect to that particular rule, and I presume, therefore, to meet the wishes of the community that definite posts will be reserved broadly in proportion to those which the community at present hold.

No reference in the several speeches which have been made bas been made to the instruments of Instructions. If the Committee will turn to the Instruments of Instructions they will see, for example, in the case of the Provinces, in paragraph X: Further, Our Governor shall interpret the said special responsibility"— this is the special responsibility for the legitimate interests of minorities — as requiring him to secure a due proportion of appointments in Our Services to the several communities, and, so far as there may be in his Province at the date of issue of these Our Instructions an accepted policy in this regard, he shall be guided thereby, unless he is fully satisfied that modification of that policy is essential in the interests of the communities affected or of the welfare of the public. That is the Instruction which is to be given to the Governors and that was the understanding to which the Joint Select Committee came, and we believe that by including those provisions in the Instruments of Instructions we are implementing the general decision of the Joint Select Committee, that the present ratio as announced in the resolution of 4th July shall be fulfilled and ensured for the future. We believe that that therefore fulfils the wishes of the Joint Select Committee arid, as I have said, the noble Lord, Lord Hardinge, whose interest in this community is so well known, agreed with us at that time that that was a satisfactory method of ensuring a proportion of this community in this particular service.


I do not think that the Joint Select Committee had the Instruments of Instructions before them. What the Select Committeee agreed, if I remember rightly, and particularly my Noble Friend Lord Hardinge, was that it should be dealt with in the Instruments of Instructions.


My right hon. Friend is perfectly correct. That is exactly what happened on that Committee, and thus by this insertion in the Instruments of Instructions we have fulfilled the wishes of the Noble Lord and other members of the Joint Select Committee when they considered this important subject.


Has any comment been made by the organised members of the community expressing any opinion upon the Bill itself? Are they dissatisfied with the Bill as it at present stands?


That is all right; knock them on the head.


I was just coming to that particular point and to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain). No complaint of this suggestion or provision has come to our attention, and from what we have heard from Sir Henry Gidney, he has been satisfied with the arrangements made to secure a proportion in the railway service. As regards the point of view put by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham, we consider that what we have suggested in the Instruments of Instructions fully bears out the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee. But so important is this subject, and so clearly is the Committee interested in it that, if it be thought that this does not bear out the wishes of the Joint Select Committee, or if it be considered that some further safeguard is necessary, my right hon. Friend will be perfectly ready to look into the matter again. It is our opinion, however, that this does safeguard what would be the best interests of the members of this community.

The hon. Member for the English Universities expressed some doubt as to whether the Governor-General or Governors would be in the possession of the facts and whether they would know the proportion of the minority communities in the subordinate posts of the railway services. If the Committee will remember the terms of Clause 178, particularly Sub-section (2) which regulate the conduct of business between the railway authority and the Federal Government, they will see that in all cases where the Governor-General's special responsibility is involved there is special provision for information to come to him so as to ensure that the special responsibility is carried out. Further, it is the practice of ordinary business government in India that a statement of the proportion of communities in this particular service is brought to the notice of the highest executive authority. I am therefore satisfied that the Governor-General or Governors will have the full necessary information brought to them in order to ensure that they carry out the terms of the instruction which I have read out to the Committee.


Before the hon. Gentleman goes any further, may I ask him to specify once again exactly what paragraph in the Instruments of Instructions he is relying upon as fulfilling the purposes of the Joint Select Committee?


What are the words in the Instruments of Instructions which apply to the Governor-General to see that the Minute of the Government of India is complied with?


The particular Section from which I read is on page 13, paragraph X, and the actual words—I will repeat them again to the Committee—are these; or I will read the similar paragraph with regard to the Governor-General: Further, our Governor-General shall interpret the said special responsibility as requiring him to secure a due proportion of appointments in Our Services to the several communities, and he shall be guided in this regard by the accepted policy prevailing before the issue of these Our Instructions, unless he is fully satisfied that modification of that policy is essential in the interests of the communities affected' or of the welfare of the public. Therefore, I think that the words upon which my right hon. Friend would rely are the "accepted policy prevailing before" that date, and that accepted policy in the particular case of the railway authority is the resolution of 4th July, 1934, which controls the proportion of the minorities in these particular public services.

We feel that to insert the Amendment as it stands in Sub-section (2) of Clause 231 would not really meet the interests of the community so well as the method which we propose. For instance, to pick out in particular the Anglo-Indian community in this case would, we think, not ensure their proportion in any more efficient manner than by the method which we have suggested. We think, in fact, that by mentioning this particular community, we might excite the jealousy or the anxieties of every other minority, and that the particular end in view would not be achieved in the particular way that I have described. I therefore hope that, with this undertaking, which I am sure I can give on behalf of my right hon. Friend that this matter deserves the most serious and widest consideration, and believing that we have fulfilled the wishes of the Joint Select Committee in this matter by our insertion in the Instruments of Instructions, my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities will not press his Amendment.

4.29 p.m.


I am not quite clear from the speech of the Under-Secretary what is the new undertaking that he has given. It is evident to the Committee that he wishes to give a new undertaking and that he has recognised that the provisions at present included are not adequate. It is recognised that the provisions at present included are not adequate; otherwise, why should he give a further undertaking?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare)

For greater caution, and to remove any unnecessary suspicion.


In order to remove any unnecessary suspicion, but not because he considers it necessary. On this showing, the latest version, he is ready to cumber his Bill with otiose provisions in order to remove unnecessary suspicions, which he does not himself share and which he thinks are not at all valid. I think my right hon. Friend must not rest himself upon such a very insecure and abnormal foundation as that: otherwise, his Bill will very quickly be encrusted with a host of meaningless provisions. No, I take it that when the Under-Secretary of State was instructed and authorised to state that the matter would have further consideration and to give the new undertaking, it was because a point of substance had been raised of which the Government felt conscious and against which they wished to provide. I think, at any rate, that that really would be the best way for us to look at it.

I am not clear what is the new undertaking that has been given. If the new undertaking is simply to give, as I think the Under-Secretary said, careful and serious attention to this matter, that is what is called common form. I hope there is no part of this extended Bill to which careful and serious attention has not been given. I trust there is no point that is raised in these debates which, if it strikes a new chord in the breast of the Administration, will not win from it sympathetic consideration. But what does it all amount to? I was impressed with the tribute which the Under-Secretary paid to this community of Anglo-Indians, or Eurasians, as they used to be called in former years, to their great services and to the prowess of some of their young men, the brilliant prowess in deathless feats of arms to which he referred. He spoke of the service they had rendered, but we must be careful that their service is not repaid by the Under-Secretary's lip service. I do not see what the Anglo-Indians have got out of all these tributes, except this vague undertaking to do something or other, to give careful attention to the matter, and that only given to us, as the Secretary of State has said, in order to allay suspicion, not because the Government think it necessary. Therefore, the Government are contented with the existing proposals so far as the Anglo-Indians are concerned.

What are those existing proposals? Their highest aim is to stereotype the disastrous position to which the Anglo-Indian community has descended since the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms. A terrible blow has been struck at these men during the 15 or 16 years since those reforms were passed. Just at the moment when, after the Great War, 80 per cent. of them having volunteered, they had rendered these extraordinary services, which no one can deny and to which the Government have afforded a verbal, oratorical tribute, just at that very moment began these disasters, and whereas they were obtaining employment on the railways, for which they were well fitted and which fitted in so well with our schemes for maintaining peace and order in India, and military communications, just at that very moment, when they were looking forward to this employment, when they had rendered service in the hour of need, down through the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms fell this continued succession of blows.

It may be said that I was a Member of the Government which passed the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms. That is true; and what a lesson that has been to all of us, that a Parliament should not neglect its duties in regard to India and should not be easily gulled by a lot of tame magnates brought home from India to assure us that it will be all right, but that Parliament should go into the matter itself in great detail, because there is no doubt that the working of the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms inflicted horrid injury upon the Anglo-Indian community and was in effect an instance of base ingratitude on the part of the Imperial power to those who had so newly served them, and served them well. But the highest aim which His Majesty's Government have in view, according to the accounts which are now laid before us, is to stereotype this poor remnant, this fragment, of their previous employment. I am told that over 20,000 adult males of this community in India are now without employment, without the means of educating their children, invited to compete with coolie labour, which has entirely different requirements from the point of view of maintaining their standard of life.

The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) presents himself to help the Government out of its difficulties. He is so afraid that something more may be done for the Anglo-Indian that he gives him a good, Liberal whack on the head. It astounds me that an hon. Member with such warm-hearted sympathies in some directions should have the knack of putting up certain shutters in his moral and mental house and thereupon excluding all rays of light which might reach him from those quarters. No one can be harder than the hon. Member on causes which do not stir his imagination at the moment. But I hope the Secretary of State will not harden his heart because of the support which reaches him from almost the only other Member in this House besides himself who is enthusiastic about this Bill. I hope he will still continue to examine this question of the Anglo-Indians with patience and with care, not with perfunctory assurances. Something should be done to assure this community that in the present transference of sovereignty they are not merely to be stereotyped at the position which they now hold, but are to have an opportunity of expansion, because of their merits, in these services for which they are so peculiarly fitted and in which their collaboration is an 'essential part of the defensive arrangements of the British power in India.

The right hon. Gentleman spoke of Colonel Sir Henry Gidney. I have had the pleasure of making his acquaintance and of having some conversation with him on several occasions, and I must say that when I looked into Sir Henry Gidney's eyes I saw fear, and grief, and almost despair


You must have depressed him.


I wish I could inculcate a similar disciplinary effect upon the Noble Lord by the mere power of a glance, but I do not know why he should suppose that I should have depressed him except for the fact that I may exert a melancholy influence upon those with whom I talk. But he approached me as one of those to whom he looked in this House possibly to help them to state their case, and I thought when I saw him that he was a man in a most unhappy position. What was his position? Here was a great National Government, with a majority of hundreds in the lower House and with as many backwoodsmen as it cared to bring up in the Upper House; here was this National Government proceeding upon this path, with all the Conservative party joining with the Socialists and Liberals to carry this Measure, taking over Socialist schemes and ramming them forward with their mighty force; here was all the power of the Government of the day and the Secretary of State and the Viceroy, exercised through a thousand channels, certainly exercised upon a thousand occasions at least, to shape and turn and smooth the passage of this policy; and here was this poor Sir Henry Gidney come over here to represent the Anglo-Indian community. Anything more unequal I cannot imagine. And you say he is satisfied with what he has got. I believe that to be a most profound misrepresentation of anything which could, by the widest stretch of fancy, be brought into relation with fact. It is the most extraordinary mistake.

Of course, you can get away with anything, I agree. With this particular Government and this particular Parliament, you can get away with anything, but their day of accounting will come, and these statements will be brought home. You say the Anglo-Indians are satisfied with the treatment you are giving them in thus stereotyping them at this disastrous level to which they have fallen. They have fallen into the pit, and all you say is that they are to remain in the pit, but not to fall to a deeper deep which still opens to devour them. That is all you are doing for them, and because they dare not say a word, because they are prostrate before your conquering footsteps, you say, "We have had no complaint from the Anglo-Indian community. Here is Sir Henry Gidney, who represents them, and he has not made to us any recriminatory representations since our Clauses have appeared in the Bill." The Government know well that this particular case of the Anglo-Indians is poignant. We who know India can see what their lot will be. We can see the terrible future which awaits them. But this case is only one of a score of similar cases in which enormous misery is going to be inflicted on large masses of loyal people because His Majesty's Government, on whom they relied, are fundamentally altering the conditions under which the sovereignty of the King-Emperor has been exerted throughout India.

4.42 p.m.


The right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) has made it quite clear that this community, in which this House rightly takes so deep an interest, has suffered tremendously in the last 15 years. Its whole position has been steadily weakened, and obviously it will continue to be weakened under any alternative scheme of reform that my right hon. Friend has in view. What we have to consider is what we can do to help them, and I am sure the Government are alive to the fact that we have to do our best for them, and that the consideration which they have promised is not merely perfunctory. The real difficulty is that I doubt whether there is anything you can do, on the service and on the administration side, that will really meet their need. The real thing that this community have to face is that, after living for generations upon Government service, they have now to find in large measure a new opening for a career in India. They are alive to that fact. Some years ago I had a talk with a very eminent member of that community, who said that the only thing they could do was to take up settlement on the land, and a very gallant effort has been made, entirely financed among themselves, to set up an agricultural community some 200 miles from Calcutta. Whether on those lines or on lines of engineering and business, this community, which has an undoubtedly high average of ability, ought to find a place in India if it can be given a sufficient initial start.

There I come to a point raised just now by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee). That initial start must cost money, and if it is not put into this Bill, the moral obligation remains upon this country all the same. I would make a plea, most earnestly, to the Government that when their scheme is initiated, they should, out of British funds, apply a substantial endowment, whether it be for a technical, an agricultural, or an engineering college, for something which will not only be an indication of our moral obligation to that community, but of our good will, and which would be the most practical way of giving them a new start under conditions which will hold out hope for the future. This is not a unique problem. More than once we have had to face it when we have been doing what we thought to be the right thing in granting self-government, and I am afraid that at times we have ignored our responsibilities to those who have served us well and who have been left in an invidious position. Not only the loyalists in Ireland but the Assyrians in Iraq have suffered from our ignoring this country's responsibilities towards them. I have known few things meaner than our offering to do something towards any scheme the League of Nations might do for the Assyrians, instead of frankly acknowledging our obligations to them. Do not let us make the same mistake vis-á-visthe Anglo-Indian community. Let us in this Bill do everything that we possibly can to ensure their position. Over and above all let us as a nation, as a Parliament doing what we believe to be a great and generous thing towards India, do something which is not merely generous, but also just for those who have sprung from our own blood and who have served us so loyally in India.

4.46 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN

I am glad that I was unable through illness to take part in the Debate last night and that I have been called to-day, because as the representative of the Anglo-Indians in this country and President of their Association, I may be able to throw some little light on this Debate. Many misstatements have been made, not deliberately but through ignorance of the circumstances. The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) said that we should be responsible for the Anglo-Indians, and not the Indians. The hon. Member made a mistake. He entirely forgets that the Anglo-Indians are statutory natives of India. They have as much right in India as any man born there. Because they have white blood in the veins that does not do away with their nationality or their right to their position in India. They are a small community, mostly Christians, none of them Mohammedans, none Hindus, and because of this fact they fall between these two mighty forces which are going to govern India in the future, and not only will they be the underdog but they will be crushed in the mud and disappear.

They have a right to their position on the railways and the telegraphs of India. We made and built those railways with British money, British engineers and British labour, and we put the Anglo-Indians there in a large percentage. I am not going to say what the percentage is to-day; I do not think that anyone knows what it is, but it was then somewhere between. 40 per cent. and 60 per cent. The main positions were held by Anglo-Indians. Practically every railway station had an Anglo-Indian stationmaster and 'an Anglo-Indian ticket collector. Practically every engine was driven by an Anglo-Indian, and a vast number of other minor posts were held by Anglo-Indians. Knowing that they have a right to those positions, and having to sit here and listen to statements that we cannot do this or that for fear that we may hurt the feelings of somebody, makes my blood boil with indignation.

We are giving to India our form of self-government, probably the greatest gift that has ever been given by any one nation to another people, but we are giving it in haste, and possibly our gift will be useless because we are giving it in haste; but there is no reason why we should penalise the people whom we deliberately created. It was an order of the old East India Company that their soldiers, and even their officers, should 'ally themselves with Indians in marriage. They were given houses when they took Indian wives, and it was in that way that the Anglo-Indian community was created, not by illegitimate alliances but by legitimate marriages fostered by the Government of that day. Therefore, the present Government in this country is peculiarly responsible for the sons or the grandsons of that Anglo-Indian community that we thus created. That community has inherited the best of both sides. They have the best blood of the Indians and they have all the virtues of the Englishman. They are proud of their mother country and loyal to it. They are the people of all others who ought to be employed on the railways. If Sir Henry Gidney said that they were content with only 8 per cent. of employment on the railways I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that he was wrong. As the representative of the Anglo-Indians in this country I know that the whole Anglo-Indian community are horrified at the idea of 8 per cent. Forty per cent. is what they would like. That is what they had before the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms. That was what they had before they were gradually pushed out.

Let me give a much bigger reason than the sentimental one on behalf of the Anglo-Indians. The railways can only be rim in India so long as they are worked under peaceful conditions. A railway is one of the easiest things to destroy when there is a riot. It is easy to take up a rail and wreck a train. Nothing can be more easily destroyed than a railway in India. The Anglo-Indians form the railway volunteers, manned by Anglo-Indians. Those regiments can only exist if the men who belong to them are employed on the railways, because the various companies are formed at the depots and the railways carry the companies to their central positions. I know something about this matter because I happened to be commanding officer at Satara and was ordered to inspect an Anglo-Indian regiment down the Madras line. I went there and found something like 1,000 officers and men, I watched their manoeuvres, their shooting and their drill and I could not wish to see more efficient men or a more excellent regiment than that railway volunteer regiment. That regiment were mobilised in the Moplahs rebellion. They held that line and the line ran throughout the rebellion with little interruption.

Without these men we cannot run the railways. In view of any possible trouble in the future, apart from the frontier, we must have men on the railways and who are loyal, who are capable of forming small groups of trained men to defend the railway stations and the line. Who can do that better than those who are railwaymen themselves? If it were only for strategic reasons and for the sake of the railways of the country the Anglo-Indians ought to be retained on the railways in a very much larger percentage than the figure quoted by my right hon. Friend. The figure of 8 per cent. will certainly not satisfy the Anglo-Indian community. Eight per cent. is an infinitesimal proportion of the people who are on the railways. We do not know how the 8 per cent. is applied. To what category is it applied? If it applies to a very small category it may be a large proportion but if it applies to all categories, station masters, ticket collectors, guards, engine drivers, engineers and so on. it is very small.

There is another point which I would stress. I want the Committee to realise that the Anglo-Indian community is a very wide and diverse community. Every grade of society is represented by the Anglo-Indians. You have what would be called by hon. Members opposite the capitalist class represented. I am sorry to say there are very few of them. There are also those who are sent over here as young men to our hospitals and to our Inns of Court and become doctors and barristers. There are men whose fathers and grandfathers were on the railways and who themselves come over here, go through our engineering colleges pass with the highest honours and go back to India fully qualified engineers. I do not mean engineers who drive trains, but fully qualified engineers who have passed through our engineering colleges and have gone out to India as skilled railway engineers and have obtained high posts on the railways. There are men among the Anglo-Indians capable of becoming the general managers of a whole railway. The various grades are represented, down to men who are only capable of greasing an engine.

It is because of the diversity of the Anglo-Indian community that we must see that something is done to ensure that the community, from the highest to the lowest, shall have a share of the work which the government can give them and which they had before the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms. We have a moral obligation towards them, and something more. We have an obligation to the people of India, the 320,000,000 of people who go up and down the Indian railways. We must see that when they are carried they travel in safety. No community that I can think of in India is better fitted to ensure the safety of the railways and the passengers than the Anglo-Indian community who have been tried in the fire and not found wanting and who have served us so well in the past. I trust that in the future they will receive a reward for their services by being allowed to have their due proportion of work on the railways, where they can still render such excellent service in India.

4.56 p.m.


I yield to no one in my appreciation of the services of the Anglo-Indians, and certainly no one could have championed their cause more eloquently than my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Enfield (Lieut.-Colonel Applin), who for many years has taken a very close personal interest in their fortunes. Let us not enlarge the field of the controversy. I believe there is very little controversy between one section of the House and another on this matter. Let us, in particular, not assume that some of us are only paying lip-service to our intentions to do well by this deserving community. Let us, least of all, none of us put up the shutters in our moral and mental homes to exclude all rays of light from us. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) for that phrase. As the discussion proceeds my vocabulary is becoming more and more varied, and I thank my right hon. Friend for that illustration.

Let us look at the actual facts. The two main interests of the Anglo-Indian community are, in the first place, education and, in the second place, a proper share in public employment. As far as education is concerned, I think it will be admitted by every Member of the Committee who has studied the Report that we have safeguarded their future. Education is the key to their position. One of the difficulties in their future in the public services is connected with education. The fact that their percentage of public service has fallen from the higher percentage of some years ago to something like 8 per cent. now is not solely due to the rivalry of other communities, but is due to a great extent to the fact that the standard of education of the other communities has risen, and that in the competitive examinations other communities, owing to that rise in the standard, are getting a bigger and bigger share in the appointments. We have to take that fact into account, and, while we are all of us most anxious to do justice to the Anglo-Indian community, we must not ignore the position of the other communities who, owing to better standards of education, are gradually making a bigger way for themselves in the public services.

The difficult problem is to hold the balance between the various communities. We have attempted to do that. What we did some months ago was to have a very full inquiry made throughout India as to the share that ought to be given to the various communities in the public services. We went rather further than to stereotype the existing position. We arrived at a series of percentages that did seem to us to be fair, taking the interest of one community with another. Those percentages were inserted in a resolution of the Government of India, and we intend that, there shall be no alteration in those percentages without the assent of the Governor-General or the Governor. We are prepared to make that clear, either in the Instruments of Instructions or in the Bill itself. I gather that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) was doubtful whether we had made that sufficiently clear. I own that, looking again at the words in the Instrument of Instructions, they do appear to me to be too general. I think we might well tie the phraseology in the Instrument of Instructions much more definitely to the resolution of the Government of India, under which the percentages for the various communities are set out. I will certainly look into the Instrument of Instructions from that angle, and also into the body of the Bill from that angle, to see if we could not make it more explicit.

So far as the percentage is concerned, I was rather taken aback by the demands made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping. I am told that any percentage such as he mentioned—30 or 40 per cent.—is a percentage which may have been in existence in the very early days of the railways 40 or 50 years ago, but that within his memory and mine nothing like that percentage has been in vogue. I am told that in the years before the War the percentage was nearer 15. The Committee may ask why, if it was 15 per cent. 20 or 25 years ago, it is now only 8 per cent. There are two reasons for that. The first reason is the great reduction in employment on the railways; and the large number of Anglo-Indians unemployed at the present moment, I imagine, is very largely due to the big reductions made over the whole field of railway employment in the last 15 years—and particularly' in the last 10 years.


Why has there been this reduction.


Because every railway system in the world, owing to the bad times that there have been, has had to make heavy cuts, and particularly in recent years. The fall in the percentage is to a great extent due to these higher standards of education in the other communities. It would not be fair—and I could not admit it would be fair—to ignore that fact and to attempt to continue the system that was in vogue when the Anglo-Indian community were almost the only community, from the educational point of view, competent to hold these posts. I do not know what may have been the views of my colleagues on the Joint Select Committee, but I certainly gathered that so far as the percentage was concerned —and we did consider it in some detail—there was general agreement that the fair course to take was to stereotype the existing position and prevent it from going lower. In actual practice. we may send it up a little, but to go further would inevitably lead us into injustices towards other communities. With regard to my hon. and gallant Friend's remark I have no reason to think that Sir Henry Gidney was horrified at this percentage.

I did not gather that impression at all. I gathered that we were doing what Sir Henry Gidney asked for.

Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN

I said that the community did not in the least agree with what Sir Henry Gidney accepted, any more than the Bangalore community agreed with him. It was exactly the same thing; he let the community down.


Sir Henry Gidney did come here as the representative of the community, and we were in very close communication with representative members of the community throughout all our discussions. I certainly did gather the impression that the main interest in the minds of the Anglo-Indian community was that at least this percentage should not go lower. We have prevented it from going lower, and we are quite prepared to make that clear in the Bill.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR

What particular section does this 8 per cent. refer to?


It is 8 per cent. in the subordinate posts, and 9 per cent. in the higher. But over and above this minimum it is open to the community to get as many posts as they can in the competitive examinations. This is a minimum and not a maximum. In view of the explanation I have given, that so far as the Joint Select Committee could judge we are meeting legitimate demands, that if we go further inevitably we shall be driven into acts of injustice against other communities, and that I will make these changes as clear as I can, either in the Instruments of Instructions or in the body of the Bill, I hope the Committee will feel that we have not ignored the just demands of this very deserving community, but that, while meeting their demand, we are anxious to avoid doing injustice to any other community.

5.8 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL

I should like to ask a question about what the right hon. Gentleman said as to the superior attainments of Hindus and Moslems in examinations as compared with Anglo-Indians. I can understand that may apply with regard to the Hindus, but is he sure that is the case also in regard to the Moslems? I was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that the Moslems outshone the Anglo-Indians.


I never suggested that the Moslem community outshone the Anglo-Indian community. What I did say—and it is a fact which cannot be contradicted—was that the general standard of education in the other communities has risen. This applies to the Moslem community, too, and the most significant feature of recent years is that the Moslems have taken a, much greater interest in education. The old days, when the Anglo-Indians were the only educated community, have come to an end and these other communities are better qualified.

Duchess of ATHOLL

Then the right hon. Gentleman did not mean that the Moslems generally outclass the Anglo-Indians?


I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question. I did not quite gather what his intention is. We feel very strongly that special reference should be made to the Anglo-Indian community. As I understand it, nothing in the Instrument of Instructions or in the Bill makes that clear. We find that they are in the same position as any other community, and we want particularly to call attention to them. Is the right hon. Gentleman definitely going to put in words to that effect?


My difficulty is this. I have no objection to putting them by name into the Instrument of Instructions, but I would ask the Committee whether they think this is really the wisest course? Is it wise to single out one particular community? I should have thought that the wiser course was to make specific reference, in the Instrument of Instructions, to the Government of India Resolution under which all the percentages are set out. The reason against the other course is that you thereby isolate the Anglo-Indian community. There is already a good deal of bitter feeling among certain sections in India against them, and you may make matters worse.

5.12 p.m.


I am not entitled to speak for anybody else, but the Secretary of State has met the request I put when he undertakes that the Bill shall link up with the Resolution of the Government of India, either directly or through the Instrument of Instructions. I was afraid that the Instrument of Instructions and the Bill, as drawn, did not make clear that the policy that was to prevail was the policy of the Resolution of the Government of India.

5.13 p.m.


I understand that several of my hon. Friends have made several speeches on this subject, and I should now like to make my first, because of my great interest in this matter. The hon. and gallant Member for Enfield (Colonel Applin) will recollect that I had the pleasure on several occasions of being his co-guest at the dinner of the Anglo-Indian Association in London; and I have also had the pleasure of being associated with him in the past in making representations on behalf of this community. I have listened with great interest to the eloquent speech he has made. None of us can fail to realise the enthusiasm and sincerity with which he approached this matter. But there was one reference he made which. I rather regret, and that was to our mutual friend, Sir Henry Gidney. I should like to say that Sir Henry Gidney, who was the representative of the Anglo-Indian Community at the Round Table Conference and the first Committee, has been for many years the respected leader of the community in India. Like the leader of every other community in a matter of this kind it was not possible for him always to obtain unanimous support. But, speaking generally, he was not only their accredited representative in the literal meaning of the term, but he was the representative accepted by all. I have no doubt that any Member of the Joint Select Committee would agree that Sir Henry Gidney, though in other directions he did wish further concessions to be made, was satisfied with the actual question of percentages. I think that should be on record.

If I am right on that, the only thing that requires to be done from the point of view of Sir Henry Gidney as the representative of the community was to do what, in fact, the Secretary of State promises to do—to make it clear in the Instrument of Instructions that the intention will be carried out. With regard to my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion that Sir Henry Gidney was repudiated by the community, I think that was not so. I am convinced that the main reason why there has been such a great reduction in the number of Anglo- Indians on the railways is the reason given by the Secretary of State, and that it is because of the question of education. I do not think there is the bias which is alleged against the Anglo-Indian community. It may exist to some extent, but the main reason has been education; which of course it is not in order to discuss at the moment. At the same time I think that the Anglo-Indians have a very substantial grievance in the provisions for educational facilities which have been provided for them, but these grievances will be removed by the proposals to which the Secretary of State has referred. I suggest that my contention is right, and that there is likely to be a far greater percentage of Anglo-Indians employed on the railways because of their success in competitive examinations which is, of course, the subject mainly at issue in this Amendment.

5.17 p.m.


I am disappointed with the reply of the Secretary of State, who while doing his utmost to put himself into agreeable relations with the Committee, really said nothing at all. He satisfied the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) by making some rather clearer definition in the Instrument of Instructions, but on the essential point of giving this community a larger percentage of the appointments, when we are handing them over to a government quite different to anything which has ruled India hitherto, and when we might have insisted on a larger percentage, the Secretary of State said nothing. He said no more than the Under-Secretary of State. This community is going to be left in the miserable position to which it has been reduced, and the method by which it has been reduced is so characteristic of the relaxing control by Great Britain over India that I must refer to the speech of the Noble Lord the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). The Noble Lord is a warm sympathiser with the Anglo-Indian community, although I do not think that they are going to get fat on his sympathy judging by the character of his intervention.


I said that I had received the thanks of the community in the past. Whether they will accord it in the future, I do not know.


As to the measure of gratitude they will owe to the Noble Lord they must be the computants. I cannot attempt to estimate it, although I imagine it will not be such a sum as will take a long time to calculate. The Noble Lord, who has long been saturated with the fetishism which prevails in certain British circles in regard to India, and who has certainly given great attention and careful study to the matter, has explained why it is that the percentage of Anglo-Indians has fallen. He says it is because of their education. How absurd to allow education alone to be a test of fitness for employment on the railway services. The passing of a literary examination—how absurd to let that be the only test. Surely a sensible administration, having the safety of the travelling public at stake, and the safety of military communications in time of war, would have provided other tests than a mere literary test. The hon. and gallant Member for Enfield (Colonel Applin) spoke of the battalion with which he was connected. Why should there not be a test of military service, some qualifications of having served for some time in a railway cadet corps or battalion? Why should these not play their part in the qualifications for fitness? If you are going to find reasons for leaving them out and casting them aside, you can discredit every reason; but if the whole bias instead of being turned against British Indians and the interests of their friends in India was sometimes exerted in their direction, there would be no difficulty in finding good, sound arguments which Parliament would understand, and which would make their appeal to the country on the grounds of justice and practical good sense.

Let these appointments on the railways be governed not merely by educational tests, but by these tests supplemented by an examination of the personal qualifications of the parties, or alternatively by some service in the territorial army, or a military or a railway unit. Then you would have good ground not for having a wretched 8 per cent.—I hesitate to say what the percentage should be—but 15 per cent. which I should have thought was the least to aim at now that you are handing over your responsibilities in India. If 15 per cent. were achieved, and it could be achieved perfectly well by a sensible system of exam- inations which took into consideration all forms of fitness, and not merely literary fitness, you would render a service, and you would not, in handing over your responsibilities, leave behind this trail of human and moral injustice.

5.25 p.m.


I want to put one question to the Secretary of State. The fall in the percentage of the Anglo-Indians employed is alleged to be due to the rising standard of education on the part of other communities. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee what proportion of these subordinate posts on the railways are filled as a result of competitive examinations, and what proportion are appointed without such examinations? I cannot believe that the Government of India have a literary qualification for engineers and apprentices. These are the posts which we are discussing, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some information on the matter.


I have not the figures with me, but I am told that they are very substantial. Whole branches of the railway administration. are filled by examinations.


Is there any possibility of the right hon. Gentleman considering the broadening of the process by which the fitness of candidates for this employment is determined, so that physical and moral fitness and military fitness can be taken into consideration, as well as literary fitness?


Even if that were so, I am doubtful whether the percentage of Anglo-Indians would rise very much. There are other communities who also have a fine record as to military aptitude and physical fitness. The question of recruitment in the future will be in the hands of the Federal Railway Authority. They will run the railways as a business concern, and it will be for them to settle the question.

5.27 p.m.


I am sorry to keep the Committee, but having recently been to India and talked with members of the Anglo-Indian community, I should not be doing justice either to them or myself if I did not say that I am not quite satisfied with the reply of the Secretary of State. Honestly, I fail to see why the Committee should be tied hand and foot by percentages which were arrived at without discussion by this Committee. The Secretary of State may be right, and far be it from me to pit my puny knowledge against that of the Government of India, but I want to say that if any injustice is being done to any community in India, we would rather it was being done to any community but the Anglo-Indian. Speaking as a convinced supporter of the Government of this Bill, I hope they will keep as open a mind as possible on the matter.

5.28 p.m.


As the Mover of this Amendment I should like to say in a few words why I cannot see my way to accept the explanation of the Secretary of State, and withdraw it. People will not look at facts as they are. Everyone must know of a certainty that you want auxiliary forces in India, and that the main source of recruitment for the auxiliary forces is the Anglo-Indian community. In a number of instances the existence of the Anglo-Indians on the railways, and the fact that they are enlisted in railway battalions, has been a source of strength in troublous times. Why cannot you enact in this Bill that the Governor-General, in his reserved powers of defence, shall decide how many men of this class shall be recruited on the railways for the purposes of the protection of the railways and the safety of the country in troublous times? That is the reasonable way of doing it, instead of trying to satisfy this person and that, and the aspirations of Hindus or Mohammedans.

The Secretary of State has said that there are other martial races in India. Yes, but they have plenty of opportunities of serving in the army while the Anglo-Indian has not. He has asked for it over and over again, and I feel convinced that if the military authorities had given them more opportunities of justifying their claim to be numbered among the martial people of India they would

have fully justified it. The reason why he has not been given this opportunity is that the question of pay has made it difficult for the military authorities to agree to it. There is no doubt that he is perfectly fit to take his place with the martial races of India if he is given a chance, and there is no doubt that the, railway battalions were extremely efficient. There is also no doubt that you want a man of his class on the railways for purposes of defence. If that be the case, why not have the courage to say so, and not be always looking to find out what the Saprus and Jayyakirs will say on this subject? Say so firmly, and none of them would say a word.


This is what you agreed to.


I did not agree to it


The hon. Member did.


No, no; I did not agree. It was agreed to by Lord Hardinge and others, but I did not agree. I might not have said anything. I put before the Committee once or twice the suggestion that the matter might be dealt with on defence, but I could not get support. It does not follow that you need to increase the percentage. The requisite number of men which will fulfil the percentage on the railway should be determined by a certain strength of the auxiliary force. I do not make a similar suggestion for the Customs and the Post Office. They are under a different ruling. But so far as the railways are concerned I do ask the Secretary of State to reconsider the question whether the railway battalions and the necessity for the auxiliary force, which is very urgent should not justify him in declaring the number of Anglo-Indians required for service on the railways.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 232; Noes, 52.

Division No. 142.] AYES. [5.35 p.m.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) Attlee, Clement Richard Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T.(Leeds, W.) Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M. Braithwaite, J. G.(Hillsborough)
Agnew, Lieut.-Com P. G. Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Brass, Captain Sir William
Albery, Irving James Batey, Joseph Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent) Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. Belt, Sir Alfred L. Buchanan, George
Aske, Sir Robert William Bernays, Robert Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Assheton, Ralph Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton) Blindell, James Butler, Richard Austen
Cadogan, Hon Edward Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller Peat, Charles U.
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley) Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. Percy, Lord Eustace
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J.(Aston) Petherick, M.
Caporn, Arthur Cecil Hornby, Frank Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City) Horsbrugh, Florence Potter, John
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.) Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. Pownall, Sir Assheton
Cazalet, Capt. V.A. (Chippenham) Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Procter, Major Henry Adam
Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm., W.) Hume, Sir George Hopwood Radford, E. A.
Clayton, Sir Christopher Hurst, Sir Gerald B. Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Cleary, J. J. Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Cocks, Frederick Seymour James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H. Rathbone, Eleanor
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J. Jamleson, Douglas Rea, Walter Russell
Conant, R. J. E. Joel, Dudley J Barnato Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Cook, Thomas A. John. William Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Cooke, Douglas Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Cooper, A. Duff Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West) Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Rlckards, George William
Crlpps, Sir Stafford Ker, J. Campbell Ropner, Colonel L.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.(Galnsb'ro) Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose) Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Cross, R. H. Kerr, Hamilton W. Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward
Culverwell, Cyril Tom Kirkpatrick, William M. Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Daggar, George Knight, Holford Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Dalkeith, Earl of Lambert, Rt. Hon. George Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C. Lansbury, Rt. Hon George Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) Law, Sir Alfred Salmon, Sir IsIdore
Davies, Stephen Owen Lawson, John James Salt, Edward W.
Denman, Hon. R. D. Leckle, J. A. Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Denville, Alfred Leech, Dr. J. W. Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).
Dickle, John P. Leighton, Major B. E. P. Sandys, Duncan
Dobbie, William Lewis, Oswald Savery, Samuel Servington
Doran, Edward Lindsay, Noel Ker Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Both well)
Duckworth, George A. V. Lloyd, Geoffrey Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel Loder, Captain J. de Vere Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) Logan, David Gilbert Smithers, Sir Waldron
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey Lumley. Captain Lawrence R. Somervell, Sir Donald
Emrys-Evans, A. V. Lunn, William Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard Mabane, William Spens, William Patrick
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.) MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick) Stevenson, James
Evans, R.T.(Carmarthen) MacAndrew, Capt. J.O.(Ayr) Storey, Samuel
Foot, Dingle(Dundee) Macdonald, Gordon (ince) Strauss, Edward A.
Foot, Isaac(Cornwall, Bodmin) MacDonald, Malcolm(Bassetlaw) Strickland, Captain W.F.
Fox, Sir Gilford Macdonald, Capt. P. D.(l. of W.) Summersby, Charles H.
Fraser, Captain Sir Ian McEntee, Valentine L. Sutcliffe, Harold
Fremantle, Sir Francis McEwen, Captain J. H. F. Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Gardner, Benjamin Walter McKeag, William Thorne, William James
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A Hamilton McKie. John Hamilton Tinker, John Joseph
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston) Tree, Ronald
Gillett, Sir George Masterman Macmillan, Maurice Harold Tryon, Rt. Hon George Clement
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Mainwaring, William Henry Turton, Robert Hugh
Glossop, C. W. H. Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Goldie, Noel B. Mason, David M (Edinburgh, E.) Ward, Irene Mary Bewlck (Wallsend)
Gower, Sir Robert Maxton, James Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nichotas Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) Meller, Sir Richard James Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Grimston, R. V. Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Groves, Thomas E. Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) West, F. R.
Grundy, Thomas W. Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) Weymouth, Viscount
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B. Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'tles) White, Henry Graham
Guy, J. C. Morrison Mulrhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J. Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Hall. George H. (Merthyr Tydvll) Munro, Patrick Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd) Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. Wilson. Clyde T (West Toxteth)
Harris, Sir Percy O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh Winterton, Rt. Hon Earl
Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes) Orr Ewing, l. L. Womersiey, Sir Walter
Haslam, Henry (Morncastle) Owen, Major Goronwy Worthlngton, Dr. John V.
Headiam, Lieut.-Col Cuthbert M. Paling, Wilfred
Hellgers, Captain F.F. A. Palmer, Francis Noel TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Henderson, Sir Vivian L.(Chelmsl'd) Patrick, Colin M. Sir George Penny and Major George
Herbert, Major J. A (Monmouth) Peake, Osbert Davies.
Hicks, Ernest George Pearson, William G.
Acland-Truyte, Lieut.-Colonel Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K. Courtauld, Major John Sewell Gritten, W. G. Howard
Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Atholl, Duchess of Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Bailey, Erie Alfred George Davison, Sir William Henry Knox, Sir Alfred
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury) Dawson, Sir Philip Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Broadbent, Colonel John Donner, P. W. Lees-Jones, John
Burnett, John George Emmott, Charles E. G. C. Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Burton, Colonel Henry Walter Everard, W. Lindsay Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Carver, Major William H. Fuller, Captain A. G. Loftus, Pierce C.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Ganzonl, Sir John McConnell, Sir Joseph
Cobb, Sir Cyril Goodman, Colonel Albert W. Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld) Summersby, Charles H. Wayland, Sir William A.
Reid, David D. (County Down) Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne) Wells, Sydney Richard
Sanderson Sir Frank Barnard Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n,S.) Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D. Templeton, William P. Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Somerville, Annesley A (Windsor) Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E. Touche, Gordon Cosmo TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Mr. Wise and Mr. Ralkes.

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."


There is one question I wish to ask. I have on the Paper an Amendment which has not been selected. I wish to know why it is contemplated that, generally speaking, it should not be an obligation on the Railway Authority to consult the Federal Public Service Commission in connection with all appointments on the railway.

5.41 p.m.


As the hon. Member said, he had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out the last three lines of Subsection (2). This Sub-section requires the Railway Authority to consult the Federal Public Service Commission on the question of recruitment, but save as aforesaid it shall not be obligatory on the authority to consult with, or otherwise avail themselves of the services of, the Federal Public Service Commission. The Federal Railway Authority will be a, big undertaking run on business principles, and it is not proposed to impose an obligation on it to consult the Federal Public Service Commission, save as is stated in this particular Sub-section. That does not mean that it will not be possible for the Authority to consult the Commission, but merely that there shall not be an obligation on it to do so. This is put in with a view to the particular nature of the Railway Authority, but it does not stop the Authority from consulting the Commission if it so desires.