CLAUSE 279.—(Persons not to be subjected to disability by reason of race, religion, etc.) (Hansard, 9 April 1935)

Duchess of ATHOLL
I beg to move, in page 161, line 13, after "India," to insert: "or in the United Kingdom, and no subject of a Ruler of an Indian State wheresoever domiciled. I would ask the Committee, in order that they may understand the reason for this Amendment, to look at Clause 111, which says: "Subject to the provisions of this chapter, a British subject domiciled in the United Kingdom shall be exempt from the 1041 operation of so much of any Federal or Provincial law as …imposes by reference to place of birth, race …any liability, restriction or condition in regard to travel, residence, the holding of property or public office, or the carrying on of any occupation, trade, business or profession. I would like to ask the Secretary of State or the Solicitor-General whether "public office" in that Clause means the same as "office under the Crown "in Clause 279. If it does not, and it does not seem to be quite as wide as the later phrase, then there is no provision that a British subject domiciled in England—and "domiciled" in law, I understand, applies to anyone who has an intention of returning to a, certain place—cannot be made ineligible for an office under the Crown in India. That is the first point which the Amendment seeks to clear up.
The second point is that inhabitants of a Federated State are not included unless the protection of the Clause is extended to them A Provincial Government might impose all kinds of restrictions on the subjects of a Federated State. The ease for the protection of subjects of a non-Federated State is not so strong, but in practice such persons are eligible for office in British India just as British Indian subjects are eligible for office in another Indian State. Therefore, I submit there are two useful purposes to be served by this Amendment, one to make quite clear that there is full reciprocity between British and Indians in regard to offices under the Crown, and the other to give opportunities to subjects of Indian States who otherwise might be debarred from them.

§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
British subjects domiciled in the United Kingdom are dealt with, as the Noble Lady said, in earlier Clauses of the Bill. As far as the particular point which she raised is concerned, the words "public office" which occur in Clause 111 are wider than "office under the Crown in British India" in the present Clause. The words have a good deal of history behind them, and have long been enshrined in Government of India Acts, and have been taken from Section 96 of the present Act. Under the general scheme of the Bill, those domiciled in the United Kingdom having been dealt with in an earlier Clause, this Clause is as it were the charter in the matter of those domiciled 1042 in India. As regards the second part of the Amendment, the subjects of Indian States, my right hon. Friend is proposing to put down a new Clause making it clear that they shall be eligible for appointments under the Federation. As far as the Provinces and States are concerned, it would be a matter of agreement between them, but it should be put in the Bill that subjects in the State should be as eligible as anybody else for Federal posts, that is to say, that there should be no ineligibility on the ground that they are subjects of the State in respect of Federal appointments.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
The hon. and learned Gentleman's statement has covered the two points which the Noble Lady raised, but it has not covered the Amendment. The Amendment deals not merely with ineligibility for office. It has far greater importance for the second part of Sub-section (1) than it has for the question of office; No subject of His Majesty …shall on grounds only of religion …be prohibited on any such grounds from carrying on any trade, business or profession in British India.

§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will look at Clause 111, which is where the persons domiciled in the United Kingdom are dealt with, he will find exactly the same words. I only referred to "public office" because that was the only point which the Noble Lady made. The Clause goes on to say: the holding of property or public office, or the carrying on of any occupation, trade, business or profession. I think that that is the point.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
That refers to people domiciled in India. I was thinking of the inhabitants of the Indian States. The Amendment if it goes through will be of enormous benefit to the inhabitants of the Federated States. There could be no discrimination against them in British India. I am sure that we do not want there to be any discrimination in British India. That is far more important than any question of British subjects domiciled in this country. It affects 70,000,000 or 80,000,000 whose livelihood is dependent really upon their being included in this Clause. It is a bad official habit to think that when we 1043 are dealing with a question like this, it is only the question of eligibility for office that matters. If it is a question of who shall be entitled to get a job, all the great brains at the India Office and in India, concentrate upon that point, and will provide amendments ensuring it and see to it that all is well. That is a matter of very trifling importance to India as a whole. What is important is that there should be no discrimination in Sind, Bengal or Madras against any of the inhabitants of the Indian States in those countries.
This is one of the Amendments which, if they cannot accept it as it is, the Government might at least include in their further amendment when they are thinking of putting words into the Bill which will ensure the right of the inhabitants of the Indian States to hold office in a municipality, or in a Province, or anywhere else. They might consider including in that prospect the promise that there should be no discrimination against them in the carrying on of trades or in their ways. I only wish that the Amendment covered the general facts that there should be no discrimination in any part of British India on the ground of race, religion or colour. That is what we want. At least let us give it to the unfortunate subjects of the Indian States, whom, by this Bill, we are putting perpetually into an anomalous position, the power of not being discriminated against in the various Provinces concerned.

§ Sir B. PETO
May I ask the learned Solicitor-General why there is this narrow definition of office, namely, "office under the Crown in British India" in this Clause, instead of "public office" which he said was more widely phrased in Clause 111, which deals with the Provisions as to British subjects domiciled in the United Kingdom. He told us that there was some history behind the particular words in Clause 279, but if we wish to prevent discrimination against the holding of office, why should not Clause 279 cover the whole field even under the municipality as well as under the Crown?

§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
We hope just as heartily as does the right hon. 1044 and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) that there should be no discrimination, and we hope as heartily as he does that in this matter there will be no discrimination anywhere within the British Empire. One might extend one's aspirations and hope that there will be no discrimination within the civilised world, but we have to deal at the moment with the provision it would be wise to put into this Bill affecting, as we only can affect by this Bill, numbers of citizens of British India. We do not think that it would be right, as far as the subjects of the States are concerned, to go on beyond the federal basis. It would be imposing certain restrictions on British India and her trade and professions without giving any corresponding disability to the States.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
The States always draw from British India.

§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
That is what you would be doing. You would be putting a statutory disability or restriction on British India. You would say to British India, "You may not discriminate," and therefore in any negotiations which you might conduct on this matter for mutual benefit and opportunity, your hands would be tied, although the hands of the Rulers of the States would be free. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman shakes his head. That is what you would be doing.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
It is a very nice argument, but it is not true, because the negotiations are going to deal with the Princes. We are talking about the Princes' subjects who have no voice on the question.

§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
That is quite another point, as the right hon. and gallant Member knows. In dealing with these matters and talking about negotiations, one must refer to the unit with which one is negotiating, whether it is a democratic government or whatever sort of government it is. If the Amendment were accepted, it would impose a statutory restriction on British India and leave rulers perfectly free to do, if they chose, the very opposite of what we would be preventing Indians from doing. Therefore, I am completely at one with the argument of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in hoping 1045 that there will be nothing of the kind, and that British Indians will have every facility in all the States, and that the subjects of the States will have complete facilities in British India. Quite plainly it would not be right under this Bill to introduce a provision of this kind applying to one of the parties, and not restricting the other side. Hoping as we do that mutual agreements and co-operation in this, as in other matters, will increase as a result of this Bill between the States and their subjects and British India, we do not think that on this subject it would be right to go beyond what is provided in the Clause.
In answer to the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto), the only explanation of the difference is that in Clause 279 we have stuck to the formula there which had its origin 102 years ago, in 1833. Speaking for myself, I could hot say at the moment whether there would be any adverse repercussions if we departed from the ancient formula and applied in this Clause the rather wider phrase which is being applied to subjects domiciled in the United Kingdom in Clause 111. I do not for the moment know of any objection to it, and my right hon. Friend will certainly go into it. I cannot go further than that at the moment, but that is the reason why there is a distinction between the two Clauses.

§ Sir B. PETO
I agree with my hon. and learned Friend in what he has said, but as an old Tory I am anxious that uniformity should be maintained. In this Bill you are introducing separate phrases, and surely it is more desirable to keep the two Clauses which deal with the same subject of the disability of certain people in line rather than include words which, in the circumstances of 100 years ago, might have been admirable words, and I hope that he will take that matter into consideration.

§ Mr. COCKS
Can the hon. and learned Gentleman explain whether there is any special definition of the word "office"? Does it mean the same as "employment"? I might give the instance of a soldier in the Army and ask whether his position would be an office under the Crown.

§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
I do not think that it would. The words cover 1046 ordinary civil and public offices, but I do not think they would cover officers in the Army.

§ The CHAIRMAN
Does the Noble Lady press her Amendment?

Duchess of ATHOLL
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment on the understanding that the right hon. Gentleman is going to consider this matter.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
I beg to move, in page 161, line 14, after "colour," to insert "sex."
The Clause reads: "No subject of His Majesty domiciled in India shall on grounds only of religion, place of birth descent, colour or any of them be ineligible for office under the Crown in British India, or be prohibited on any such grounds from carrying on any trade, business or profession in British India. The object of the Amendment is to make it clear that all women shall be eligible for office under the Crown and for carrying on any trade, business or profession in India. We want not merely to remove any sex bar, but, if possible, to prevent one from being set up. In this country we have thrown open to women many of the professions in which only a very short time ago it would have been considered out of the question to admit women. Generally speaking, public opinion both in this House and outside would say that we have passed the experimental stage with regard to women. We accept the fact that has been established that in every department that they have taken up women have shown equal ability, and sometimes superior ability, compared with men. I take my stand on this Amendment on exactly the same ground as I took my stand on the Amendment last night. When it comes to citizenship I do not differentiate between men and women. They are equally entitled to be recognised as citizens and to enjoy the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship.
The fact that Indian women are to get the vote and to be encouraged to take part in local and central government affairs is a sufficient reason why they should be eligible to carry on, if they so desire, any of the businesses or professions that operate in their own country. The day has long gone by when we should 1047 put up any sort of bar on account of sex. It is not very long ago that many—I was going to say respectable people—important people thought that the colour bar was something that ought to be maintained. We have grown beyond that, at least in India. In our general relations we never think of the colour bar now, nor do we think of the religious bar. There was a time in my own lifetime when people of the Jewish faith could not sit in this House because they could not take the oath in the form in which it was laid down. Previous to that Catholics had great difficulty in taking the oath. We have grown out of all that sort of superstition. Jews sit here, Catholics and Protestants sit here; nothingarians sit here and nobody makes any inquiry about it. We have found that differences of faith and opinion are not the questions which decide whether a man or a woman is good or evil. It is what they are that matters. We say that women should be eligible for any office under the Crown in India just as in this country. We have had one woman Cabinet Minister and other women as Ministers. In the Civil Service in this country there are women filling some of the highest posts. Strangely enough, we have women who sit under the gallery in this House to advise Ministers when they are defending their Estimates and the work of their Department. Women at the universities often beat men in the attainment of distinction.
We believe that women in India, given the same opportunities, will prove themselves of equal value. In the United States under Mr. Roosevelt, in spite of a great deal of criticism, the woman Minister of Labour who has helped him to carry through the very enormous task of dealing with the industrial situation has been one of the most excellent ministers. Anyone who heard that lady broadcast must have realised that she understood the whole, work of the department and everything connected with the work she had in hand. We do not see why in the new Constitution of India there should not be a safeguard, just as there are many other safeguards, securing that the sex disability shall not operate. I will not detain the Committee any longer at this stage except to repeat, because it is very necessary to repeat it, that I make this claim not that women should take 1048 part in public affairs simply to look after women's questions, but that they should take part in every department of life in the countries where they live as ordinary citizens, and be treated as ordinary citizens with the same status, rights and duties as men.

§ Major MILNER
My right hon. Friend has covered the ground very fully, but I should like to draw a distinction between this Amendment and the one that was before the Committee last night. In response to the appeal that we made that a woman should be appointed on the Secretary of State's Council the right hon. Gentleman said: "Do not tie my hands. Now that I have a perfectly free hand, I can appoint one if I so desire." That reply will not be open to the right hon. Gentleman now. All that we are asking is that women should not be considered ineligible and should not be prohibited from taking office under the Crown or from carrying on any trade, business or profession in India. That is the position to-day in this country, and I can see no reason why the same provision should not be made perfectly clear in the Indian Constitution. If the right hon. Gentleman accepts the Amendment, it will not put any positive obligation upon anybody, but will simply mean that the restriction which at present exists in some parts will no longer exist, and that women will be eligible for appointment to offices under the Crown and it will be permissible for them to take up any business, trade or profession. The Secretary of State will still have a free hand. The Amendment will simply mean that women are to be put on the same basis and level as men, as is the case in this country. I can see no reason why that should not be the position in India.

§ Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE
On a point of Order. Does not the word "subject" in this Clause include females as well as males?

§ The CHAIRMAN
That is not a point of Order.

§ Sir S. HOARE
I would advise the Committee not to make any alteration in the actual wording of the first three lines of the Clause. The history of this Clause was as follows: The Indian delegates were anxious to have some declaration 1049 of fundamental rights. The request that they pressed upon the Joint Select Committee and the various Round Table Conferences was that somewhere or other the effective words in Queen Victoria's Proclamation should be repeated. These are the words substantially from Queen Victoria's Proclamation. They have become consecrated by long usage in the minds of the Indians, and I suggest to the Committee that the wise course is to retain the words. It might be assumed from that that the world has not advanced since 1857. Although the word "subject" does, I maintain, include both men and women, the word "subject" in the minds of the people of 1857 may not have had the comprehensive meaning that it has in our minds now. However, I suggest that the best way to deal with the issue is to leave the words in the first three lines as they are and for the Government to put down a new Subsection to the appropriate Service Clauses, making it clear that the Secretary of State can recruit women to the various services covered in that part of the Bill. That will make it clear that in the matter of public offices we contemplate no discrimination on the ground of sex. The actual conditions must decide whether women should be recruited, but we will undertake to make it clear that in our view there should be no discrimination on the ground of sex.
A more difficult question comes up with the phrase about trades and professions. It is much more difficult to deal with trades and professions, for this reason. The Government control entry into the public offices, but do not control entry into the trades and professions. It is obvious that there must be certain cases in the field of trades and professions in which women should not be allowed to enter. I will tell the Committee the kind of case in my mind. There might be cases in the mining profession in which in the interests of women themselves they should not be allowed to enter. There may be cases due to the peculiar circumstances in India, for instance, the present circumstances in a Province like the North-West Frontier Province, where it might be wise to put some restrictions, perhaps a veto, upon the entry of women into a particular trade or professional occupation. I hope it is clear that there are difficulties in the way in connection 1050 with trades and professions which do not apply to the same extent in the case of public offices.
Having given an undertaking as to public offices, I will look again into the question of trades and professions and see whether, even in that case where, obviously, there are greater difficulties, we could put some restriction in the Bill against the possibility of discrimination in regard to sex. It would have to be circumscribed and within certain limited conditions, first, because the Government do not control entry into the trades and professions, and, in the second place, because there may have to be restrictions in the interests of women themselves. I hope that with the assurance I have given, the Committee will feel that we are doing everything in our power to make it clear that in the future there will be little or no discrimination on the ground of sex.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
We should be quite different persons from what we are if we did not express our gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement. The first part satisfies us completely, and I would like him, when he is considering the second part, to consult my hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) and see whether they cannot agree on the widest interpretation. In these circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Lady, no doubt, realises that the effect of her insisting on speaking will be to negative the Amendment. I am not sure whether that is in accordance with her wishes.

§ Miss RATHBONE
I realise that, but the fact of the Amendment being negatived will not prevent the right hon. Gentleman from carrying out the undertaking he has been good enough to give. I do not want to waste the time of the Committee, and I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the answer he has given. The reason why I am speaking is that there are other reasons which have not been dealt with which make us lay stress on the Amendment. I feel that it is necessary to keep in mind, when he is carrying out the undertaking he has 1051 given, as to how he can safeguard the interests of women in the professions, there is a real danger, unless safeguards are put in, that women in the future may be excluded from some of the professions they already occupy. Grave results may follow. I do not share the pessimistic view of the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and his friends as to the results of this Bill, but we must recognise that some of the pessimistic results may follow; they are not inconceivable. We might have a strong reactionary wave in India which would sweep women out of the small number of offices they have in Provincial government services and; in the Provinces.
You are setting up a very reactionary form of Federal Government. Suppose that government choose to pass a law excluding women from the legal or medical professions. Unless there are some safeguards in the Bill, that sort of thing is not impossible. It may be very unlikely, but who five years ago would have thought that Germany would relapse into mediaeval barbarism? We have to safeguard women against such a strong reaction against western customs as would gravely imperil the slender protection they have now from their position in medicine and law. I will not enlarge upon the matter, but I compliment the. right hon. Gentleman and hope that he will bear that in mind, and as far as possible reduce to a minimum the possibility of putting restrictions upon women in Government services or in the trades and professions. I could not follow him when he instanced the case of mining. I am afraid that it is only too easy to get round these fundamental Clauses. Merely to say that there is to be no bar on the ground of sex will not prevent discrimination against women on what may be called reasonable grounds which are not grounds of sex. If it could be proved, for instance, that if women entered into a certain profession it would be dangerous to the lives of women or the lives of others, it would not be necessary for the legislature to bar them on the ground of sex only. I think the possibility against discrimination should be reduced to a minimum.

§ Major HILLS
On this question the Secretary of State has taken a great deal 1052 of interest, and I should like to ask him one question on the second part of the Sub-section. As far as public offices are concerned, so far as the Civil Services are concerned, I gather that the right hon. Gentleman will go the whole way. Did his promise extend to the opening of all professions in India? I do not mean trades. There may be dangerous trades, but I cannot think of any dangerous professions. Will his proposal open the legal profession and the medical profession, or the profession of architects which have hitherto been regarded as men's professions? I need not exaggerate the importance of the question for the future of India, and I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman is to decide it here, and not leave it to be decided elsewhere. If I can get an assurance that all the professions which have hitherto been filled by men will be open to women who are fit to take their place—

§ Mr. ISAAC FOOT
May I put a question to the right hon. and gallant Member? How can you open the professions in the East unless they are opened by the people themselves? We have professions in this country like that of Holy Orders, which are not generally given to women. What power would any Secretary of State in this country have to open that profession; and if it is denied here how can we rebuke people in another country?

§ Major HILLS
We opened the Bar and the solicitors' profession and university degrees to women in 1918, and I ask that we should put India in the same position as this country. That would be a very great thing for India. I agree with the Statutory Commission that the future of India depends largely upon Indian women. I hope the right hon. Gentleman can assure me that in all these professions in which educated women are able to devote their lives, he will be able to recruit all women who are suitable.

§ Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX
Can the Secretary of State give any indication of the public offices to which this will admit women? I can understand that they will not become officers of the Army, but will the civil service be open to women? Will it be possible for district magistrates to be women? Will it be possible for the Viceroy to be a woman? Did the delegates to the Round Table Conferences or the Joint 1053 Select Committee contemplate anything of that kind when they expressed a general opinion in favour of women being admitted to public offices?

Duchess of ATHOLL
I welcome the statement my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made, for I am extremely glad to hear what he said about the admission of women to public offices. I should like to support what my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) said in that I hope he will be careful how he limits their right to enter trades, business and profession. I think it has been forgotten that the legal profession is already open, but I would stress the importance of being certain that the medical profession remains open for women, since there is an enormous field of work for them there. While I agree that there may be occupations such as mining underground, the actual work of hewing and carrying which women do not do in this country, and that there may be other occupations it is better they do not enter on the ground of health, I would ask him to remember the handicap of Hindu widows, their handicap of not being allowed or supposed to marry again, and the urgency of it being made possible for them to help themselves, to get away from what is often a miserable existence. I would urge him to leave the field as wide open as he can. It may be some time before public opinion in India comes round to this view, but I do entirely approve any statement of this kind by the Imperial Parliament, for it will do a great deal to help the general status of women in India. I do agree, also, with the Joint Select Committee how much it will help the advancement of India for the women to have a better education and to take a more active part in the State.

§ Sir S. HOARE
I really have nothing to add to what I have said in my earlier statement. We have to apply this principle with common sense. We are agreed on the principle, and also that it must be applied with common sense, and that restrictions will he necessary. I agree, however, with what every speaker has said that we want to keep these restrictions to the lowest possible point. I think the best course I can take is that, having made the statement I have, I 1054 should consult hon. Members who are obviously particularly interested in this question, and see if we can agree to a form of words for the Report stage. With reference to a form of words about trade and professions, I think they will be more difficult than a form of words about public offices.

§ Mr. MORGAN JONES
I beg to move in page 161, line 18, to leave out Subsection (2).
My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle - under - Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), who is not in his place to move the Amendment, did explain the purpose of the Amendment to me and even though I do it inadequately I would like to present it to the Committee. My right hon. and gallant Friend would do it more efficiently than I could. The point he has in mind is, first of all, to move to leave out this Sub-section. My right hon. and gallant Friend is now here, so I will close my remarks

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
I am so sorry. I think everyone knows that this is an admirable Clause, at least the first part is. Under the first part; "No subject of His Majesty …shall on grounds only of religion, place of birth, descent, colour or any of them be ineligible for office under the Crown in British India, or be prohibited on any such grounds from carrying on any trade, business or profession in British India. Everyone will agree that that is an admirable Clause. I only wish that it could o be applied to the whole world. If that were enacted for the whole world, we should not have discrimination against Jews in Germany. So far as that part of the Clause is concerned let it stand. But, the second part of the Clause provides. if I may so put it, for the knocking of the stuffing out of the first part. Under the second part of the Clause "Nothing in this Section shall affect" exactly what we want to prevent, namely, discrimination. The second part of the Clause allows discrimination in the case of Hindus who are not of the agricultural caste. The second part allows legislation such as is already in force in the Punjab to be imposed or enacted anywhere else in British India, so that this Clause one more example of the hostility to the, 1055 Hindu which is betrayed in almost every section of this Bill. The law in the Punjab which discriminates against the Hindus is not merely safeguarded, but can be imposed in Sind, Bengal or the North-West Frontier, or Assam, where anti-Hindus are, I believe, in the majority.
This is the only example in India, if not in British India, of discrimination between two sets of British subjects, not absolutely on the ground of religion, but on the ground of caste. Those people who do not belong to the agricultural caste are not allowed to acquire land for agricultural purposes. Of course, we have never had the opportunity in this House of discussing the Punjab law, for it was passed in the Punjab and approved by the Governor-General. I am perfectly confident that such a law would never have obtained the sanction of this House if put before it. The law was imposed because the Hindu is predominantly a merchant and moneylender, and a good deal of money is lent by the Hindus in the Punjab on agricultural land to the Mohammedans. There is a natural tendency all over the world in that case to preserve the agricultural caste, the agricultural population, from the danger of being sold up and the danger of the land changing hands, a very natural feeling prevalent in this country and other parts of the world.
Let us observe the result of that sort of law. The agriculturist in need of money has to pay more for that money because his security is less. Therefore, their economic position is worsened. When they are sold up, the land being mortgaged to the Mohammedans, they get a smaller price because there are fewer people in the market. The bulk of the people in the market with money are not allowed to bid. The Mohammedan landlords are the only people allowed to buy, and they have not got much money, though enough to buy land provided the price is low enough. The agriculturist, therefore, has to pay more for money to carry on his business, and when the land is actually sold it only fetches half the price it should. The inevitable result of interference with the free play of the laws of supply and demand seems to be that that economic law comes and hits you back, the holdings of big Mohammedan landlords being 1056 increased and the smaller man being frozen out, so that there is an accumulation of land in fewer hands, just as there was in this country when the small yeoman farmer was frozen out by the big landlord, and as was the case with the latifundium in Rome. This all comes from the good-natured feeling against people having to sell up to pay the moneylender. But that ends in just as much ruin for the small farmer, with smaller prices for land as an agglomeration of estates.
That, however, is by way of a digression, for it was necessary to say what this legislation is. Under this Clause that legislation may be extended. I have two completely different Amendments down, my first being to leave out Subsection (2), so as to have no discrimination between races in India. My second Amendment, if the first be not accepted, is to- leave the law as it stands in the Punjab, but to prevent it from being extended. The Sind is the most difficult case of all.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I think, perhaps, I had better tell the right hon. and gallant Gentleman which Amendment I called, namely, the first one, which, of course, covers the others.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
To leave out Sub-section (2)?

§ The CHAIRMAN
That is so, but, of course, the greater includes the less, and that includes subsequent Amendments. I would ask anyone who takes part in this discussion to bear in mind the comparatively narrow point raised in this Amendment, which is not the question of the abolition of this discrimination in any way whatever, but simply provides that no subject shall "on grounds only of religion, place of birth, descent, colour or any of them be ineligible for office under the Crown in British India. It is simply that this shall not be used for the purpose of discrimination. Then comes the particular provision that this shall not be held to affect the operation of certain existing laws.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
I think that on that point it goes further. This is not to prevent the operation of existing law for that is covered by the second Amendment, but there may be a law passed hereafter.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I quite agree, but that only adds point to what I have said. The only effect of this Clause as it stands is that it provides in the first part that it shall not affect or alter a certain state of affairs.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
If this Clause is taken out, it does not alter the existing state of affairs, but Sub-section (2) does not prevent what is already being done in the Punjab from being done in other parts of India.

§ The CHAIRMAN
No, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is wrong.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
May I argue that point with you?

§ The CHAIRMAN
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had better go on and make his case.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
What I wish to prevent is that the Punjab law should be accepted as being the normal form of legislation which might be adopted in other Provinces, in spite of the first Sub-section of this Clause.

§ The CHAIRMAN
If that Amendment were moved to this Clause it would be definitely out of order. This Clause is not directed to altering that law. It is a mere proviso for the sake of caution, to the effect that the first Sub-section shall not have a certain effect.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
The first Subsection has a definite effect. If it remains in the Bill it will definitely have a certain effect. It will make it impossible for there to be any discrimination between the agricultural classes.

§ The CHAIRMAN
That is where the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is wrong.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
Then I will leave it out of the question for the moment. Let the first Sub-section of the Clause stand and we are safe, the Hindus are saved. If the second Sub-section remains in the Hindus are not safe and we shall be subjecting the Hindus all over India to a disability on the ground of religion and agricultural caste, a disability to which they are not liable now. This was all in the Joint Select Committee's Report. It was all in the White Paper. There was a special proviso there that this Punjab ordinance should be preserved in both.

§ Sir S. HOARE
It is not an ordinance; it is a Government of India law.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
But affects only the Punjab. That makes no difference. Therefore it may be extended by the Government of India to other Provinces as well, which makes it all the more dangerous. In the past, under the existing state of affairs, it was an Act of the Assembly in Delhi, I understand.

§ Sir S. HOARE
I think it was before the Assembly time.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
I do not think so.

§ Sir S. HOARE
It was in 1900.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
But it still only affected the Punjab. Can we have any assurance that under this Bill it will not be within the operations of Sind legislation to impose similar laws on Sind Province? In the Punjab the numbers of Hindus and Mohammedans are nearly equal, and the balance is held by Sikhs, who are Hindu and agricultural. In Sind the Mohammedans are in a majority; 17 per cent. are Hindus and 83 per cent. are Mohammedans. So it will he a greater temptation to that legislative body, with a permanent and statutory majority, for the Mohammedans in office to pass a similar law, and they will be able to do it if we do not remove this Sub-section from the Clause. You have all the Hindus in India saying; "This Bill is unfair to us and directed against us at every turn." They point to this Sub-section as an example of the unfairness. Do the Government wish to remove that suspicion on the part of the Hindus, or do they not? If they accept the Amendment, all suspicion on the part of the Hindus will be removed.
There are two things the Hindus are desperately interested in. One is the abolition of the statutory minorities in the Mohammedan provinces, and the other is this discriminatory legislation. If the Government wish this Bill to be accepted by Indians, if they believe that it is in consonance with all the traditions of the British Empire, then they must meet that objection. They have met the objection of the Princes and of the Mohammedans, and have declared an award which anyone who has studied it must regard as having anti-Hindu bias. Let them show, by making this sort of 1059 legislation impossible, that they wish to be absolutely fair between Hindu and Mohammedan. Without that, the feeling will become more and more accentuated. There is time between now and the Report stage to make the matter clear. The leader of the Hindus in the Assembly and the Chairman of the Hindu Mahasabha are on their way to England now; they started on the 28th March. Will the Secretary of State receive the Hindus as in the past he has received the Princes and the Mohammedans? Will he get their point of view and take cognisance of it, and consider their interest? The fact of the matter is that the Government and the India Office have regarded the Hindus as the bad boys—

§ Sir S. HOARE
That is quite untrue.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
It is perfectly true. I do not know that they have regarded them so, but they have treated them so.

§ Sir S. HOARE
It is not true.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
The Government have said that these people are the agitators.

§ Sir S. HOARE
There is no foundation whatever for what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has said, and he is making the greatest possible mischief between this country and the Hindu world in making statements of that kind.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
The mischief between this country and the Hindu world has been made by this Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well. A little justice to the Hindus is wanted, and not discrimination.

§ The CHAIRMAN
A great deal of this discussion has been very much far away from the Amendment, and I must ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to keep to his Amendment. We have done very well this afternoon until within the last two hours, during which we have got through less than we did in half an hour earlier.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
I am thinking about the attack made on me and the statement that I am making mischief. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that what has made mischief between him and the Hindus is putting this Bill through.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman may defend himself against an attack, but I cannot allow him to make another attack and he must keep now within the limits of his Amendment.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
In this House at the present time the only people who are keeping India and England together are the Labour party.

§ The CHAIRMAN
That statement is out of order on this Amendment.

§ Mr. BUTLER
I think it would be convenient if I took part in the discussion at once in order to give the Committee a slightly different version of the Punjab Land Alienation Act. Reinforcing what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, I think it a great pity that the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) with his experience should have regarded this Act as having been couched in any spirit of hostility to the Hindus as such. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had examined a little more closely the operations of the Punjab Land Alienation Act he would have seen that the Act in reality is not intended to discriminate against Hindus as such, but is intended to stop agricultural land being taken away from what are known as the agricultural tribes in the Punjab. If one examines the constitution of those tribes one finds that there are many Hindus included in the scheduled list of agricultural tribes at set out in the Act. For instance, the Jats of the South-East Punjab are protected. The Gaur Brahmans are also Hindus and are also protected by the operation of that Act. Many of the Sikhs are scheduled in the agricultural tribes, and they are also protected by the operation of the Act. A similar Act operates in the Bundelkund district of the United Provinces. It is largely Hindu landowners who are protected by the operation of an Act similar to that of the Punjab.
I, therefore, hope that the right hon. Gentleman will at once realise that the fact that there is legislation of this sort is not intended to be hostile to the Hindu community, and that in considering his pet subject of the Punjab Land Alienation Act he will revise his views as to the Act and its operation. I had the honour of being born in the Punjab 1061 and have been closely associated with it, and during most of my career have heard about this Act, which is only slightly older than myself. The Act is bound up with the whole structure of the Punjab. That is why we have found it necessary to insert Sub-section (2) in this Clause. It saves the operation of that particular Act, which we consider vital to the present situation in the Punjab. But we should realise that in future the people whom it is going to affect are those who will probably wish it to be continued in operation. If we were to take the advice of the smallest landowners in the Punjab, who are saved by the operation of this Act, we would realise that they wished it to continue in order to stop the alienation of the land to the moneylending classes in the Punjab, as was happening in 1900, when the military classes who are very much bound up with the agricultural tribes—from the agricultural tribes a large proportion of the military are recruited—showed by their demeanour that had there not been such an Act passed there might have been a very serious situation in the Punjab; and such a situation might arise in the future if this Bill did not have regard to the operation of an Act of this particular sort.
In view of this statement about the Land Alienation Act I hope that the Committee will realise the importance of saving its operation. In regard to later Amendments of the right hon. Gentleman, I hope the Committee will realise that Sub-section (2,b) saves certain customary law in the Punjab, particularly the law of pre-emption. It gives to the villagers of any village, if it is to be sold, the right to be the first buyers of the land.

§ Mr. MORGAN JONES
I owe the Committee some explanation of my position in this matter. I moved this Amendment, which stands in the name of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), largely in order that I might get some information as to what is involved in this Sub-section. 1 did so on my own responsibility and not in any way committing my hon. Friends who sit with me. I have listened with great care to this discussion, and to the 1062 information given by the Under-Secretary. After the somewhat acrimonious discussion of a few minutes ago and the more pacific intervention of the Under-Secretary later, I feel that I am not justified in carrying any further my opposition to the Clause. I think I appreciate the honest apprehensions felt by my right hon. and gallant Friend, but, for my own part, the Under-Secretary has to a large extent removed any apprehensions which I felt. I dare say it is necessary from the Government's point of view that Sub-section (2) should be included in the Bill. I would have preferred the simple declaration of rights with which the Clause opens, without any qualification, but perhaps it is not possible to leave it in that bald manner. I like Sub-section (1) very much indeed. 1 think it is a fine and noble declaration of rights, and I am sorry that it could not be left in the clear and simple way in which it is set out in Sub-section (1) without the limitations which follow in Sub-section (2). But there it is. I gather that the Government feel that Sub-section (2) is necessary, and therefore with very great regret—because I never like deserting a comrade in the middle of the fight—I must withdraw from the field and leave my right hon. and gallant Friend alone in possession.

§ Major MILNER
I should like to make some reference to the Amendment on the Paper in my name which proposes to leave out paragraph (b).

§ The CHAIRMAN
May I point out that when I called the Amendment now under discussion I indicated that that point could be discussed on this Amendment. I find that I shall have to put this Amendment in such a way as to save the Government Amendment which stands later. I had overlooked that for the moment.

§ Mr. KIRKPATRICK
I have an Amendment on the Paper which proposes to insert after the word "area" in line 25: "Provided that such law does not affect any interest already created in such land, or any remedy which would, but for such law, have been available against such land in respect of liabilities incurred before the commencement of any such law.

§ The CHAIRMAN
That Amendment. is not selected.

§ Major MILNER
I am grateful to-you, Sir Dennis, for having made the position clear. The reason why I desire to speak on the point as to paragraph (b) now is because as the Clause now stands it preserves a certain disability attaching to the scheduled or depressed classes, and my purpose is to ensure that that should not be the case.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
On a point of Order. If you put the Question "that the words stand part" down to the point at which the Amendment of the Secretary of State comes in, is it not the case that we cannot discuss the other parts of the Clause which arise after that Amendment?

§ The CHAIRMAN
No, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is wrong. We discuss the Amendment as it is on the Paper.

§ Major MILNER
As I understand the purpose of this Clause is to preserve the right of pre-emption, a purpose with which I agree in the circumstances as explained by the Under-Secretary. My point is that the Clause—after the general declaration of which my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) has spoken in such high terms—goes on to say that nothing in that declaration shall affect the operation of any law which recognises the existence of some right, privilege or disability attaching to members of a community by virtue of some personal law or custom having the force of law. I take it that the social and economic difficulties—some of them of a terrible nature—under which the scheduled classes suffer is included in the expression "customs having the force of law." I desire to omit paragraph (b) in order to ensure that members of these depressed classes shall not be discriminated against by reason of such a provision. The paragraph would preserve a discrimination which I and those sitting with me desire to see removed. I therefore hope that the Government will either agree to the omission of the paragraph or will consider some other alteration of the Clause which will meet my point while preserving the right of pre-emption in the Punjab.

Duchess of ATHOLL
I wish to say how very glad I was to hear the statement of the Under-Secretary on this matter. I have been very anxious ever 1064 since I learned of the existence of these Land Alienation Acts as to the possibility of their repeal as a result of the transfers proposed under the Bill. I hope my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) will forgive me if I say that I find it difficult to recognise him from the speech which he made just now. I have always regarded him as being par excellence the friend of the poor and oppressed of all races in the Empire overseas, and I do not feel that he was appearing in that role this afternoon. He seemed to be rather led away by his sympathy with the Hindu minority in Sind. I sympathise with his anxiety in regard to that minority but I feel that my right hon. and gallant Friend has been led by his sympathy with them into playing a role rather the same as that played the other day by another hon. Member who championed the cause of the moneylenders. I never thought I would hear the cause of the moneylenders championed in this House, and I am sure there are many hon. Members opposite as well as hon. Members on this side who feel that the moneylenders—

§ Mr. KIRKPATRICK
I was championing the cause of the Indian mercantile community.

Duchess of ATHOLL
It sounds very well when it is put in that way, but I think if the hon. Member reads his speech he will see that it was much more specific than that.

§ Mr. KIRKPATRICK
It depends on the way in which it is interpreted.

Duchess of ATHOLL
I can only say that I listened to the hon. Member with great surprise, but I listened to my right hon. and gallant Friend this afternoon with even greater surprise. I do not think he had all the facts clearly in view. He spoke of Moslem moneylenders but I understand that moneylenders are seldom Moslems. Again it is not a question of Hindu or Moslem but of the cultivator—in the majority of cases a very poor man —and the moneylender who is charging rates of interest going up, I understand, as high as 100 per cent. and even 150 per cent. That is a state of things absolutely unknown in this country and very difficult for us to realise. It is only when we realise all the facts and realise what it is that has brought about legislation 1065 of this kind that we are in a position to judge whether it ought to continue or not. These Land Alienation Acts have been passed mainly under British influence—the influence of British officials who knew the great poverty and difficulties of the peasantry and the need that there was for saving them from the moneylenders and preventing their lands from being mortgaged.

§ Mr. KIRKPATRICK
Perhaps the Noble Lady will inquire whether it is not a fact that the Land Alienation Acts both in the Punjab and in Bundelkund have been declared by official bodies not to have been altogether for the benefit of the people for whose benefit they were introduced.

Duchess of ATHOLL
No doubt that may be the opinion of some people, but I know others with great knowledge of the conditions of the peasantry who regard them as a protection for the peasantry and who live in dread of seeing them repealed under a new Constitution. I am very glad therefore that the Under-Secretary has found it possible to safeguard them. I know that the point of view mentioned by my right hon. and gallant Friend opposite as regards the Hindus in the Punjab has been put very strongly, but I would ask him to bear in mind that the caste system though it may not be as rigid as it was in former days, is based on occupation, and it has therefore to be remembered that there is not the same view in India in regard to restrictions on following particular occupations that we have in this country. It cannot be as great a deprivation to the Hindu who comes of a money-lending class not to be able to acquire the ownership of land as we should feel such a restriction to be in this country if we had any barrier of that kind. In any case as these laws are for the protection of the very poor I am thankful that they are being preserved by this Clause.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
When the Noble Lady speaks to me in that manner it goes to my heart, because she and I have fought a long fight together on these matters, but in this case she is wrong, and the Under-Secretary is wrong. If these laws provided a protection for the poor, then we should all be 1066 in favour of them, but that is not the case. It is a delightul thing, no doubt, to prohibit people from borrowing money, but suppose that a man wants to borrow money.

§ The CHAIRMAN
We cannot discuss on this Amendment what the law is or what it does.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
The whole defence of the Government on this Amendment has been that this law is for the protection of certain classes. That is a delightful idea. One has only to say that a law is for the protection of somebody and we immediately assume that it is therefore for their good. But we are all moneylenders, and the sooner we realise it the better. If we were not to buy the Noble Lady's land, where would she be? The real point is this. I think this is a bad law. I do not think that it has operated in the right way. It has pro heed the natural result of injuring the people whom it was meant to protect. But I should be satisfied to withdraw this Amendment if I understood from the Under-Secretary that this provision is solely for the preservation of this particular law, and does not give power to all Provinces to enact similar laws. If it is solely a question of safeguarding the Punjab Land Alienation Act, then cadit quaestio—I withdraw the Amendment. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that that was so, but he did not say it in so many words. Does this open the door to die enactment of many similar laws in other parts of India?

§ Mr. BUTLER
The hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) raised the question of paragraph (b) and asked whether it would preserve the disabilities under which the depressed classes labour and which we all wish to mitigate. According to the terms of the Sub-section, this would have to be a disability having the force of law. That would not apply to the social disabilities of the depressed classes, which we wish to see remedied by the extension of the franchise to them, the operation of the special responsibility of the Governor for minorities, and so forth. This is intended solely to preserve the customary law which prevails, for example, in the Punjab and which it is of value for certain classes of the community to preserve.

§ Major MILNER
Will the hon. Gentleman make the paragraph more precise? It appears to me to be much wider than he has indicated. Could he not have it reconsidered before the Report stage with a view to making it more precise, to relieve the depressed classes from discrimination?

§ Mr. BUTLER
I am advised that it is perfectly clear, and this is the first occasion, so far as I know, on which these words have been regarded as not meeting the future of the depressed classes in the way we should like to see it met. Naturally, however, I will look into it again and take advice upon it. The right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) asked me whether we should be able to say that there would be no legislation in any other Province under the terms of this Clause. I am afraid I cannot give him that assurance, because we do not wish to rule out the possibility of similar legislation in any other part of India which might have the same objects and achieve the same results and benefits for certain sections of the agricultural population. This Subsection is destined primarily and fundamentally to deal with the Punjab Land Alienation Act, but I would not be honest if I told the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that it was our wish to reserve this Sub-section for the purposes of the Punjab solely. I think that answers the two points raised in the discussion. I note what the Noble Lady the Member for Kinross and Western (Duchess of Atholl) has said, and I am glad to think that we are actually in agreement for once.

§ Mr. ATTLEE
Does this mean that a law could be passed by a caste majority incorporating caste privileges which are valid now only by custom and giving them the force of law? Take the case of the depressed classes and the use of certain wells or their exclusion from schools. Is it possible that a Bill might be passed giving the force of law to that which is at present valid only by custom?

§ Mr. BUTLER
That is certainly not the intention, and I presume that if there were any Bill introduced which so vividly disagreed with the proper interests of minorities as to pass legislation, for example, about wells, the Governor would 1068 certainly intervene by virtue of his special responsibility for the minority in question.

§ Mr. ATTLEE
Is not the danger of this Clause the effect of its operation in the future? If you wish to preserve such a thing as the Punjab Land Alienation Act, that might be done by referring to past action. It seems to me to mean that a caste majority or a privileged majority could, without any objection except from the Governor's responsibility, which might not be exercised, be used to give the force of law to all kinds of injurious customs.

§ Mr. BUTLER
I told the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) that I would examine the wording of paragraph (b) Our interpretation of it is that the hon. Gentleman need have no apprehension about it at all. I will, however, examine his words, just as I said I would examine the words of the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds.

§ Mr. KIRKPATRICK
Will the hon. Gentleman look into the similar proviso which appears in my name as an Amendment to Clause 435 in relation to Burma?

§ Mr. BUTLER
Certainly, when we come to that Clause.

§ Mr. BUTLER
I beg to move, in page 161, line 22, after "land," to insert "situate."
It is not quite clear from the drafting of this Sub-section whether we achieve the objects which I have already described to the Committee. It is not quite clear, for example, that it would be possible under the Sub-section for a non-agriculturist to sell land to another non-agriculturist, which, of course, the Punjab Land Alienation Act does not prohibit. This is therefore a drafting Amendment in order to safeguard the particular objects of that Act by the terms of this Sub-section.

§ Mr. BUTLER
I have a further Amendment in page 161, line 25, after "area." to insert: to any person not belonging to some such class.

§ Mr. KIRKPATRICK
I wonder whether the words "some such class" are not too vague and indefinite and not sufficiently meticulous. The words "some such class" might be misinterpreted.

§ Mr. BUTLER
I am advised that these Amendments which I am moving on behalf of my right hon. Friend are destined to fulfil the objects which we have in view, and I think the words "some such class" relate to the sort of class which this, legislation affects. I think they are quite satisfactory.

§ Sir B. PETO
Will the hon. Gentleman consider the point? It really does seem vague to put "some such class" in an Act of Parliament. I cannot remember any such words being inserted in a Bill before, when you are dealing with classes, to say that the same thing is to apply to "some such class."

§ Mr. BUTLER
I would remind the hon. Baronet that in the Punjab Land Alienation Act the agricultural classes are defined in the Schedule, and the words "some such class" would apply to a member of those classes as defined in the definition of an agricultural class in the Punjab Land Alienation Act. I am informed, however, that the drafters do not object to the words "any such class" being substituted to make it slightly more exact.

§ Sir B. PETO
If the words that the hon. Gentleman has now suggested were in the Bill, there would be no objection whatever to them. I agree that "any such class" would be much more correct drafting.

§ Mr. KIRKPATRICK
I am glad I brought up the point.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
I would like to point out the reason for the change. Apparently the castes are carefully scheduled in the Punjab Ordinance, but if it is to be applied in other districts, it will not be the same castes, and therefore these words "any such class" are introduced specifically so that that legislation may be passed in other Provinces.

§ The CHAIRMAN
Perhaps it will meet the general convenience of the Committee to substitute the words "any such class" for the words "some such class."

§ Mr. H. WILLIAMS
I should like to raise the question contained in an Amendment to this Clause in my name which the Chairman did not select, because I think that there is some substance in it. After the words in the Clause: "No subject of His Majesty domiciled in India shall, on grounds only of religion"— I was desirous of inserting "caste or religious status." I have not that familiarity with India that many have, but religion is something which differentiates one general community from another, and I do not understand that the word "religion" will discriminate between a number of communities inside a general religious community. Might I furnish an analogy? In this country, broadly speaking, we have no religious discrimination. There are, I think, one or two offices that cannot be held by Roman Catholics or Jews for particular reasons arising out of the establishment of the Church of England, but, apart from that, there are no religious discriminations in this country. There is no religious discrimination for or against the Church of England, but it happens to be true that a clergyman of the Church of England cannot be elected to this this House. For the purposes of my analogy, I will call a clergyman of the Church of England a Brahmin. We have, therefore, a caste discrimination. I think very definitely the fact that a clergyman of the Church of England cannot sit in this House is of the category of a caste discrimination, though it is not a religious discrimination. I believe the reasons are that the clergy are believed to be represented in one sense by the Bishops in another place.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
The reason was that Horne Tooke was a parson, and they did not like it.

§ Mr. WILLIAMS
I know the Attorney-General, who has strong views on the Church of England, not very dissimilar from my own, if that is any comfort to him, may contribute something, but under this Clause as it stands I think you cannot discriminate in favour of a Mohammedan against a. Hindu or in favour of a Hindu against a Mohammedan. You are, however, still free to discriminate in favour of one caste of Hindus against another, and I do not believe these words as they stand carry us sufficiently far. There is one other point that I want to raise. The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Kirkpatrick), who was a little doubtful about Subsection (2), expressed the hope that the Under-Secretary of State when he came to Clause 435 would give consideration to all these points, hoping, in other words, to raise the same points on a later stage than the Committee stage, so that if we made the Amendment in Clause 435, it could be inserted by agreement on the Report stage in Clause 279.

§ Mr. KIRKPATRICK
No, it was because much of my Amendment was more applicable to Clause 435 than to Clause 279.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I think we had better come back to this Clause.

§ Mr. WILLIAMS
As far as I can make out, Sub-section (2) of this Clause was really inserted because of the Land Alienation Act in the Punjab. There is no Punjab in Burma. That is the only point I wish to raise.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I have just told the hon. Member that he must not discuss Burma.

§ Mr. WILLIAMS
I agree.