SIXTH SCHEDULE.—(Excluded Areas and Partially Excluded Areas.)

HC Deb 13 May 1935 vol 301 cc1387-449

Amendment proposed [10th May, 1935]: In page 289, line 9, to leave out from the beginning to the end of the Schedule, and to add: The North Cachar Hills (in the Cachar District). The Mikir Hills (in Nowgong and Sibsagar Districts). All Tribal Territories on the frontier of Assam which at the time of coming into operation of this Act are unadministered.

Bengal.

The Chittagong Hill Tracts.

Madras.

The Ganjam, Vizagapatam, and Godavari Agencies.

The Nallamalai Hills (in Kurnool District).

The Laccadive Islands, including the Amindivi Islands and Minicoy.

Central Provinces.

The Dindori Tahsil of Mandla District.

The Garchiroli Tahsil, &c., Sironcha Tahsil and Zamindaris, and the Ahiri Zamindaris of the Chanda District.

Bihar and Orissa.

The Damin-i-koh (in the Santal Parganas District).

The Kolhan revenue thana (in the Singbhum District).

The Khondmals sub-division of the Angul District.

The Ranchi District, except the town and suburbs of Ranchi.

Punjab.

Spiti.

Lahaul.

United Provinces.

Almora District.

Garwhal.

PART II.

Partially Excluded Areas.

Assam.

The Garo Hills District.

The British portion of the Khasi and Jaintia Hills District other than Shillong Municipality and Cantonment.

Bengal, &c.

The Darjeeling District.

The Sherpur and Susung Parganas of the Mymensingh District.

Madras.

The Wynad Taluk of Malabar District.

The Kollegal Taluk and Anaimalai Hills of Coimbatore District.

The Palni Hills of Madura District.

The Javadi Hills of North Arcot District.

The Sitteri Shevaroy and Kollimalai Hills of Salem District.

The Kalrayan Hills of Salem and South Arcot Districts.

The Pachaimalai Hills of Salem and Trichinopoly Districts.

The Nilgiri Hills.

Central Provinces.

The Seoni District.

The Chhindwara District.

Such areas of the Mandla District as are not totally excluded.

Such areas of the Chanda District as are not totally excluded.

The Harsud Tahsil of the Nimar District.

The Betul and Bhainsdehi Tahsils of the Betul District.

Raipur District except the Raipur and Baloda Bazaar Tahsils and the Phusar, Bilaigarh, Katgi, and Bhatgaon Zamindaris.

The Sanjari Tahsil Zamindari of the Drug District.

The Bilaspur District except the Bilaspur Tahsil Khalsa and Janjgir Tahsil.

Bihar and Orissa.

The District of Sambalpur.

The Sadr Sub-division of Angul District.

Such areas of Chota Nagpur Division as are not totally excluded.

Such areas of the Santal Parganas District as are not totally excluded.

Punjab.

The Tahsil of Kulu and Saraj.

Bombay.

The West Khandesh District.

The Satpura Hills reserved Forest Areas of East Kandesh.

The Surat District.

The Thana District.

The Dohad and Jhalod Talukas of the Panch Mahals District."—[Mr. Cadogan.]

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the end of line 9, stand part of the Schedule."

3.21 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN

The Committee will remember that we have now come to the last three of the 30 days which, under the arrangement that was come to, were allocated to the Committee stage of the Bill. I am going to suggest to the Committee what seems to me to be the fairly obvious allocation of these three days, as follows. I suggest that to-day we might complete the Seventh Schedule, to which there are a large number of Amendments down, though I do not think any of them need take any long time. About half of them are consequential. Then I would suggest that to-morrow we should finish the remainder of the original Schedules to the Bill. There is not very much on any of these, with the exceptions of a few Amendments to the Eighth Schedule. Possibly, after that, to-morrow night, we might start the new Schedules (Provisions as to Franchise). That would give us at any rate the whole of Wednesday, and I should hope part of to-morrrow, for the new Franchise Schedule. I only submit this to the Committee as being, as I have said, the fairly obvious allocation of the time, as we are now pretty near the end, and I hope it may be possible to do it in that way.

3.23 p.m.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY

I feel a certain responsibility for the subject dealt with in the Amendment before the Committee, because I was Chairman of the Sub-Committee of the Joint Select Committee which heard the evidence on this subject presented by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Welling-borough (Wing-Commander James). I cannot say that I look back on the way in which I dealt with this subject as being one of the most successful of my efforts. The real truth is that, in this subject of backward tracts or excluded areas, we are dealing with a neglected garden. It is not a question of His Majesty's Government at this moment doing something new, which is going to throw these people into a dangerous position. The fact is that we are dealing with a number of areas which, under the old administration of the Government of India, before the reforms altogether, had not, perhaps, been dealt with with the discrimination which their particular problems demanded.

We listened on Friday to a most interesting speech from my hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Sir R. Craddock), but we are dealing, for instance in the Central Provinces, with a large number of tracts which have not only been already under the full operation of the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms, but which were, if I am right, never even specially treated under the Scheduled Districts Act; and the proposal which is now being put to His Majesty's Government, which was put to the Simon Commission, and which was put to the Joint Select Committee, is that something new ought to be done to protect these areas. What can we reasonably do at this moment? What is it that the needs of these special districts demand? We are dealing, roughly speaking, with two broad classes of areas. One is composed of those areas which have a homogeneous primitive population. Of these, certain tracts are already in the Schedule. We are also dealing with a number of tracts where the aboriginal population exists side by side with, generally, an Hindu population. That is the case, I think, with most of the tracts in the Central Provinces. There are tracts which it is proposed in the Amendment to schedule as partially excluded areas, where the aboriginal population is not claimed to be more than from 25 to 60 per cent.

For dealing with these two broad classes of difficult areas, the Bill provides no fewer than three methods—the method of total exclusion, the method of partial exclusion, and the method of dealing with the areas under the Governor's special responsibility for minorities. As between these methods we wasted, I think, a considerable amount of time on the Sub-Committee of the Joint Select Committee in considering the relative merits of total and partial exclusion. It does not seem to me to matter very much. Personally, I should consider that partial exclusion in itself gives so much protection that the question whether it should be total or partial is merely a matter of administrative convenience, on which the arguments are very even either way. But is even partial exclusion a possible way of dealing with areas where the aboriginal population and what I may call for short the ordinary population exist side by side?

We never get on to this subject without somebody talking about the "Jungle Book"; but the chief impression left on my mind by the "Jungle Book" is precisely that of an aboriginal population existing in a semi-settled, semi-nomadic condition in the midst of an ordinary agricultural population. Is it possible to deal effectively with that problem by the exclusion of a whole area, and what is the extent to which such a situation can be dealt with under the Governor's special responsibility for minorities? Can the Governor, in his ordinary special responsibility to minorities, for instance, issue an ordinance excluding the application of a particular piece of agrarian legislation from application of particular populations or particular tracts of land within one of these broad areas? Our real trouble to-day—and I think it is the feeling of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wellingborough and of my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan) and of those supporting this Amendment—is, frankly, that this subject has been so neglected in the past that we have not a reasoned and fully stated body of knowledge on which we can judge the situation and what we ought to do. The Joint Select Committee assumed in its report—I do not say that it recommended—that this question would be dealt with by Order in Council and not be in the Bill at all, and that would at least have given time for a full inquiry, for the collection of information and the opinions of local administrators, and it would have been possible to issue an Order in Council with full knowledge before the appointed day when provincial autonomy comes into operation.

In dealing with the matter at the moment we are bound to do it on very imperfect information and on such recommendations from local governments as, I have no doubt, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will give us in a moment. Therefore, all I can do as a contribution to this discussion is to suggest one or two broad principles. In the first place, wherever there is a homogenous population occupying a district of this kind without any great intermixture of other more advanced populations, that area should be totally or partially excluded, even if it be very small and even if it be so large—as may be the case in Orissa—as seriously to diminish the area over which the Provincial Legislature will be able to legislate. Whether that exclusion demands a form of total exclusion or partial exclusion, as I have said, I do not very much care. Secondly, I suggest that we should have a clear definition of the special responsibilities of the Governor outside exclusion towards minorities whose needs cannot be dealt with by the wholesale withdrawal of a region from the operation of ordinary legislation. Thirdly, I would suggest that this Schedule should give power to the Secretary of State to add other areas by Order in Council either at any date before the appointed day when provincial autonomy comes into operation, or, if that does not leave time enough, say, within one or two years after the appointed day. Meanwhile, and starting at once, cannot we have such a survey of the problem and a collection of data laid before this House in the form of a report as will enable it to feel that it really has the facts before it and is capable of judging?

It is the most difficult problem in the world as to exactly how far you are to keep back in cold storage the aboriginal population, and as to how far and how fast you are to lead it on towards absorption into the wider community around it. That problem may have different answers from different sections of the same people. I should imagine, for instance, that the hill dwelling parts of the population are far less advanced than the plain dwelling parts, and that in the plain dwelling parts there might be a very good argument for not excluding them from the ordinary operation of legislation and administration under the new system. But let us, by the laying of a report before this House, have the facts upon which we feel that we can come to a considered judgment, for at the present moment neither the Statutory Commission nor the Joint Select Committee nor His Majesty's Government have been able to give the House sufficient guidance for a decision upon this most important matter.

3.36 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler)

In view of the fact that this Debate started at our last sitting and of the speech which has just been made, I think that it would be advisable if I present to the Committee at this stage the problem of the excluded and partially excluded areas as it appears to the Government. The speeches to which we have listened have all shown great evidence of the importance which the House of Commons attaches to these aboriginals, either in a wholly excluded or a partially excluded area. I had the privilege myself of sitting on the subcommittee of the Joint Select Committee over which my Noble Friend presided. All of us there were impressed by the sincerity of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Wing-Commander James), who himself has had experience of these areas and of these tribes. The members of these tribes are such as to endear themselves to members of the Committee. They are of attractive disposition, free and friendly, and it would be the first wish of British legislators to do their best to look after them and to consider their economic and social welfare. Some hon. Members who have had the opportunity perhaps of meeting them in a shooting expedition in Central India know that they would do their best to provide any hon. Member with game, either large or small, and that by their general sportsmanship and their attractive character they would endear themselves to any hon. Member who had the privilege of having contact with them. Not only in these casual contacts, but also under the examination of specialists, who interest themselves in the aboriginal tribes of India, they reveal characteristics which should be of great interest to the Committee and cause us to insist upon attending to this matter with the utmost care and consideration.

My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan), speaking from his long experience, informed the Committee further upon some of these tribes. He referred to the Report of the Statutory Commission, and my Noble Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) referred to the Report of the Joint Select Committee. The assessment of my Noble Friend was perfectly correct, that, if he wishes more to be done by the way of partial or total exclusion of these areas, it is not to the advice of either of these authoritative bodies that he must look. But I must warn the Committee that it was not the proposal of the Statutory Committee nor of the Joint Select Committee that other areas, taking the broad question raised, should be added to the list than His Majesty's Government have included in the Bill. We have included in the Schedule those areas which were laid before the Joint Select Committee, and I do not think that the Noble Lord or the hon. Member for Finchley put before us exactly the point of view that they have given us the advantage of hearing on this Amendment. However, it is not through any criticism of His Majesty's Government's inclusions in this Schedule that we are approaching the subject but, as the Noble Lord said, with a view to exploring a deserted garden. I cannot, however, accept the suggestion that the garden has been as long neglected as the Noble Lord made out.

These questions were examined thoroughly by the Statutory Committee and by the Joint Select Committee. The long Amendment now before us has been submitted by us to the closest examination and has been submitted to every Provincial Government concerned in India and to the Government of India. So far as time permits, I shall do my best to give the Committee some of the information that has come to us on the subject of the areas proposed by the Amendment either to be totally or partially excluded. Let me at once remove any anxiety on the part of my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley. I congratulate him on having returned from a visit to the head hunters. The hon. Member will realise, I hope with satisfaction, that the undertaking that he gave to the head hunters that he would do his best to look after their wishes and exclude them from the operations of the Bill has actually been already fulfilled.

Mr. CADOGAN

I knew perfectly well that the Naga hill tribes had been excluded, and I was giving them as an example of the ordinary hill tribesmen of India.

Mr. BUTLER

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. The Naga hill tribes, to which he devoted some part of his remarks, will be excluded among the totally excluded areas in the Bill. I do not think that I can accept the suggestion of my hon. Friend that they do represent literally and exactly the various other bill tribes, which I shall endeavour to consider in some detail. They have the somewhat unpleasant habit of which my hon. Friend spoke. Apart from that fact, they are very much isolated from the rest of India. In the district in which they are situated they fall very easily into the category of total exclusion. Before I further examine the Amendment I would repeat that every authoritative body that has examined the question, every Provincial Government to whom we have submitted it, and also the Government of India, hold certain views which it would be right at this stage to lay before the Committee.

Let me take, first, the question of the excluded areas. The general principle upon which we have come to the decision with regard to total exclusion is that those areas should be few and be selected with great care and that their total exclusion should be justified. We have, therefore, included the areas which hon. Members will have noticed in the Sixth Schedule. We have consulted the Government of India and the Provincial Governments concerned as to what opportunity there is for other total exclusions, and as a result of investigation we have found it possible to give an undertaking that at a later stage of the Bill we will submit proposals to omit certain other areas from the operation of the Measure and add them to the totally excluded areas. The areas which we have in mind are the Laccadive Islands, including the Amindivi Islands and Minicoy, and in Assam the North Cachar Hills District. We have also named those two isolated areas in the Punjab, Spiti and Lahaul. These areas we shall be prepared to put in Part I because they seem to us to justify the description that I have given for the category of total exclusion.

When we come to consider some of the other areas mentioned on the Order Paper, we find that they do not in any particular correspond to that general description of total exclusion, and for three main reasons it would be unwise totally to exclude them from the operation of the reforms. Let me remind the Committee that total exclusion implies that those areas will come under the Governor in his discretion and that therefore the administration of the areas will be a direct responsibility of the Governor himself. The administrative difficulty which would arise out of the isolation of certain of the areas contained in the Amendment, and their total exclusion, would be very great, particularly if the area were a small one. An area, for example, which came wholly under the direction of the Governor would very likely not be able to profit by the general scheme of administration, whether it be in education or other matters, so that the results of the administrative difficulty would be more than we can contemplate.

The second difficulty that we have in regard to the question of total exclusion is that many of the areas mentioned in the list of the Amendment have been already under the existing reforms since they were brought into operation in 1919. In Madras I am told by the Governor of Madras that the Nallamalai Hills, in Kurnool District, have always been subject to the ordinary administration. In the Central Provinces the Dindori Tahsil of Mandla District and the Garchiroli Tahsil, have been under the present reforms and have had the franchise. In Bihar and Orissa the Ranchi District, except the town and suburbs of Ranchi, have already been included in the existing reform scheme and therefore for over 12 years have enjoyed the benefit of the reforms. It would therefore be very difficult for the Committee at this stage suddenly to suggest, in view of the administrative difficulties to which I have referred, that these districts, which have already been benefiting from the reforms, should be totally excluded from their operation. I can assure the Committee that such a proposal would be received with intense dissatisfaction in India, and the dissatisfaction arising from such a proposal would operate against the future happiness of the areas which it is proposed should be totally excluded.

Let me deal with another question. I will take the percentage of aboriginals in some of these areas. There are, for example, in the United Provinces two areas which it is proposed totally to exclude. The percentage of men of lower caste, whether aboriginal or not, in each of these areas is very small. In Garwhal the population is made up somewhat as follows. There are about 245,000 Rajputs, 101,000 Brahmins, and only 68,000 men of lower caste. The proportions in the Almora District are very much the same. There are large numbers of Rajputs and Brahmins; the figures correspond closely to those in Garwhal, while the number of Hindus of lower castes and the number of aboriginals is only 90,000.

The characteristically small percentage of aboriginals in the areas proposed to be totally excluded by the amendment is also a feature of the areas in Bihar and Orissa. In the Damin-i-koh there are only 25 per cent. of aboriginals according to our advices from the local Government. In view of the administrative difficulties and the fact that many of the areas have been under the reforms for some years, as well as the small percentage of aboriginals in a large number of the areas which we have not been able to accept for total exclusion, I submit that it would be very improper and invidious to do so, and that it would alienate the population in the surrounding districts. Let me remind the Committee that the Almora and Garwhal Brahmins are some of the most prominent people in the provincial services of the United Provinces. Garwhal is also a centre for the recruitment of the Indian Army, and it is one of the most sacred centres of the Hindu religion. The Holy Himalaya contains the sacred place of Badrinat, and to suggest total exclusion at this stage would I think be unwise, because it would alienate these classes whom we ought to try to interest in the future of the aboriginals.

It seems, however, that the Noble Lord and others are not so much interested in total exclusion but are ready, if we can help them, to consider the matter of partial exclusion. Total exclusion is extremely difficult; let me consider for a moment partial exclusion. The problem which the Committee has to face in dealing with partial exclusion is that these areas have a population which is partly aboriginal and partly the ordinary agricultural population of the Province. There are in many of the areas which it is suggested should be partially excluded small pockets of aboriginals whom it would be almost impossible to pick out and surround with a ring fence. To use the garden metaphor of the hon. Member, the aboriginals do not always stick to their own particular garden border; these blooms are to be found in every part of the garden, and it makes it difficult to pick out a particular bed of aboriginals and ring it round with a small fence. That is why we have had great difficulty in including certain aboriginal areas as partially excluded areas, but in Part II of the Schedule there are a number of areas which can definitely be classed as partially excluded areas.

If an examination is made in detail of some of the areas which it is suggested should be excluded you will find that great injustice would be done if they were classed as partially excluded areas. Take the Province of Bengal, and the Sherpur and Susung Parganas of the Mymensingh District. There are in that district, so we are informed by the Bengal Government, only 34,000 Garos in a population for the whole district of 4,000,000. In the Parganas the number of aboriginal are but a small proportion of the population, and to pick out this particular district as a partially excluded area would make it almost impossible to deal with the problem when you are considering the rest of the Province and the various minorities in the Province. In the same way, the tribes in the Nilgiri Hills are mixed up with the rest of the population, and it is almost impossible to schedule them as a partially excluded area. In Bombay we have asked the Provincial Government to investigate the districts referred to in the Amendment. They were not declared backward tracts under the present Act, and they are unsuitable for inclusion in the partially excluded areas under the present Bill. The Bombay Government consider that it would result in extra cost and considerable difficulty, and, in addition, there is no demand on the part of the districts.

Wing-Commander JAMES

When the Under-Secretary refers to the present Act, is he referring to the 1919 Act?

Mr. BUTLER

I am referring to Section 52, paragraph A of the 1919 Act. None of these areas in Bombay were regarded as backward areas under that Act. In considering the Central Provinces we see most clearly the difficulty of picking out certain of these aboriginal areas and attempting to make them into partially excluded areas. In certain districts of the Central Provinces, although the aboriginals are found in preponderating numbers in certain parts unmixed with the rest of the population, for the most part you will find a pocket here and a rather larger number there, and it is extremely difficult to pick out a district like the Mehlgat Tahsil of the Amrasti District, which is a very small area, in which there are but a small number of aboriginals who are mixed with the rest of the population. It is in the partially excluded areas that we are up against the problem of these pockets of aboriginals. We have included in the Schedule as many partially excluded areas as we can find which correspond to the Noble Lord's requirement of being a homogeneous unit, but we cannot find, as at present advised, in his long list other areas which are susceptible to the definition of being homogeneous units.

The Noble Lord referred to the possibility of dealing with these pockets of aboriginals under the special responsibilities of the Governor-General. I understand from reading the evidence of Dr. Hutton and from the speeches which have been made that the Committee will be anxious to secure that a too rapid land alienation will not take place in these areas, that the operation of the revenue law in a particular area will be satisfactory and that they will receive proper educational facilities. I am asked by the Noble Lord whether in order to deal with the problem of land alienation and the application of the Tenancy Act to the area it would be possible for the Governor-General to do so as a special responsibility. On this point let me refer the Committee to the Instrument of Instructions to the Governor-General in dealing with minorities. The Instruments of Instructions to the Governor-General and Governors in dealing with minorities has always had in mind the possibility that the special responsibility should be used, if necessary, in cases of pockets of aboriginals, and if the Committee will turn to paragraph X dealing with the special responsibility of the Governors, as defined in the Instrument of Instructions, they will see that it reads as follows: Our Governor shall interpret his special responsibility for the safeguarding of the legitimate interests of minorities as requiring him to secure, in general, that those racial or religious communities for the members of which special representation is accorded in the Legislature— This is the part to which I would call the attention of the Committee— and those classes who, whether on account of the smallness of their number of their lack of educational or material advantages or from any other cause, cannot as yet fully rely for their welfare on joint political action in the Legislature, shall not suffer, or have reasonable cause to fear, neglect or oppression. Those words in the Instrument of Instructions were intended to indicate to the Governor that he should use his special responsibilities for minorities, and, in particular, for aboriginals and backward tribes, and there is no doubt under his special responsibility it will be possible for him, in the words of the Noble Lord, to issue an ordinance to deal with particular populations in a particular way. The special responsibility, however, as defined in this Bill, in all matters operates within the sphere of action of the ministers, and, in the first place, it will be reasonable to hope that, in company with his own ministers, he can make the necessary arrangements. There are certain arrangements in force with regard to education, land alienation or tenancy in the Central Provinces, and it will be hoped that such arrangements will continue. In the event, however, of a quarrel with the ministers, the Governor would certainly be entitled to take the action to which the Noble Lord referred. The Committee may ask how can the Governor keep himself informed; how can he know that the situation is not deteriorating in one of those particular pockets of aboriginals, or that, say, in a little district the small tribe to which the hon. and gallant Member referred might be oppressed? How is the Governor of Madras to know how to start negotiations with ministers for the improvement of conditions, or, in the last and unpleasant resort, to use his own special powers under this Bill?

We have investigated this matter with as much sympathy as possible, and some time ago my right hon. Friend submitted a suggestion to local governments as to the possible appointment of an officer who should have the welfare of these particular backward tribes at heart. I am informed that the Government of Bombay have already such an officer and a board to deal with aboriginals and advise the local government, and on their advice it is possible for the local government to take action in cases where action is necessary. I can appreciate that the Committee feel anxious that there might not be sufficient information to deal with these areas. Therefore, the Government are quite ready, in submitting their draft of the Instrument of Instructions at a later date to the House, to give the assurance to the Committee now that, if the Committee so desire, some reference to this need for regular information being supplied to the Governor should be inserted, and the general wording of the Instrument of Instructions, advising the Governor of the method in which he should use his special responsibility, should also be reviewed at the same time, in order to try to meet the desire of hon. and right hon. Members who have raised this question in Debate in Committee. I am perfectly ready to give that assurance on behalf of my right hon. Friend whom I had the privilege of consulting over the week-end. We are extremely anxious to find the best possible solution for these areas. I have shown to the Committee the great difficulties of total exclusion, the partial difficulties of partial exclusion and the impossibility of further defining, as we can see it at present, homogeneous areas which it is possible partially to exclude.

In conclusion, I must warn the Committee of the general attitude on these matters of our advisers in India, of all the governments and of His Majesty's Government here. While we do not for a moment deny the importance of special measures for these areas, if we have to choose between assimilation or segregation, we go on as before with assimilation. Segregation, we feel, may not in every case meet the proper desires and needs of such areas. In certain areas, seats will be provided in the Legislature, and I believe that the arrangement made will be for the proper care and the proper welfare of these areas. But it would be disastrous at this stage to take any step which could alienate the public opinion of what may be called the advanced communities in India whom we wish to interest in the welfare of the backward areas. Let us look to the future. If at this moment we decide on a ring-fence policy and segregate as many areas as we can, we put off to a later date the chance of assimilating the backward areas in the general polity of India, and the Government are certain that if we insist on a policy of wholesale segregation, it will be unlikely to confer a benefit upon those areas commensurate with the discrimination against a majority of the population which would be felt by certain classes in India whom we wish to interest in these matters. We, therefore, regret that we are unable to accept the Amendment on the Order Paper, but I have given the assurance that we shall be ready to look into the matter in the sense I have indicated.

4.8 p.m.

Wing-Commander JAMES

The Under-Secretary of State has for many months been most tolerant of my importunings on this subject, and in his defence this afternoon of these miserable, misleading proposals of the Government he has my most sincere sympathy. We recognise that he is not responsible for policy, and he is in an impossible position in trying to defend the policy of the Government in this matter. This problem of the backward tribes, as the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) said, has been allowed to slide all through. It has been a matter of no interest to anybody except to a few cranks like myself. These unfortunate people have always gone to the wall in politics, as in real life. In spite of what the Under-Secretary said, this subject has never been thoroughly examined. The Montagu-Chelmsford Report was quite clear on that point. It said this—I am quoting from the reference to the Report in the Simon Commission's report: There were certain backward areas to which the reforms could not apply and the typically backward areas should be administered by the Governors. Both the definition of these areas and their constitutional arrangements after the reforms were left for further consideration. Therefore, naturally when the Under-Secretary referred to the 1919 Act and said that the areas in Bombay to which he referred were not at that time scheduled, all that had happened was that they were just allowed to slide. They were not scheduled then because they were not bothered about. The Statutory Commission was equally clear, and went so far as to say that, unless the primitive tribes were entrusted to the Centre, their interests would be overlooked. I am not going to bore the Committee or the Under-Secretary by quoting paragraph after paragraph, but all of them in the survey and recommendations of the Simon Commission make that clear. I would, however, like to call attention to this point. It is commonly assumed that the drafting of the Statutory Commission's Report was the work of the present Foreign Secretary. We all know with what care he avoids ever letting himself be put in the wrong. And how, if there is any doubt that he might not be correct, he inserts some phrase that enables him later to express a slightly different opinion. The argument that by so doing, while he is never likely to be put in the wrong, and is never wholly in the right, does not apply here, because that survey has never been contested, and the unqualified recommendation was that this matter should be the subject of further consideration.

Then we come to the Joint Select Committee. By no stretch of the imagination can it be said, with deference to the members of the Joint Select Committee present, that this Schedule implements the recommendation of that Committee. The reference on page 222, paragraph 378, shows that quite clearly. They said that there were matters for subsequent delimitation, and that those matters should be looked into—not that this matter should be dealt with finally in the Act, as there would not have been time for the needed survey. I think there would have been time if the Government had gone ahead with the survey, for which some of us asked nearly two years ago but they let the matter slide again, and now they have to tinker with the Instrument of Instructions to get round the mess they have made. I apologise for speaking with some heat, but I feel very strongly on this matter. I have spent a good many months in those backward areas in three separate Provinces, in not one of which is there any exclusion at all.

The Secretary of State, as he showed in the Debate on Clause 92 of this Bill, is completely misinformed. He said in this House on 22nd March, in a speech of a few minutes, four things which were definitely and provably contrary to the facts. He said, for example, that there was no part of our administration in India of which we could be more justifiably proud than our administration of these backward areas. The Franchise Committee, which also incidentally recommended further examination, referred to the injustice and oppression which those areas have suffered in the past at the hands of the ignorance of administration and legislation as to their special customs and conditions. Then he said that the proposals of the Government did not cover the whole of the primitive population of India, but that they did cover those populations which are self-contained. That, of course, is the line on which the Under-Secretary has now gone. That is not the case. The Census Commission's report, 1931, shows that clearly. Take Bombay. There are 2,841,000 aboriginals in that Province. It cannot be contended that there are not very large areas with an overwhelming preponderance of aboriginal populations in Bombay. I have spent weeks and months in the areas. I do not profess to be an ethnologist or an anthropologist, but I know a Bhil when I see one. There are the Central Provinces, with 4,065,000 of these people, and huge areas as is so well known to the hon. Member for the English. Universities (Sir R. Craddock), and like part of South Chanda, which I know well, where you have 95 per cent. of population Dravidian, Madras has 1,266,000 of these people. I do not pretend that they are wholly in homogeneous areas, but there are large tracts which should well and properly be excluded. The principle of exclusion is not in dispute. What is good for one area surely cannot be bad for another area where the same conditions appertain?

Will the Under-Secretary reveal to the Committee the objections raised by the local Governments? If he will do that we shall be able to answer them. I am not prepared to guess, though I think I could do so fairly accurately, what the objections were. Will the Under-Secretary tell us in some detail what the objections were? I do not mind if the local Government is frightened of some particular politician. That is not a valid objection. My hon. Friend talked about the intense objection of those intellectuals whose help we want to secure. I can only say that the few prominent Indian politicians with whom in years gone by I have talked over this subject in India have never displayed the faintest interest in this subject. It was entirely outside their ken. They may be a little bit worried now about losing a little sphere of influence, but can anyone see a Poona Brahmin giving up anything willingly?

Then there is the question of cost. That is answered in the evidence and the discussion of the Joint Select Committee, as referred to in question No. 1675. At one time I thought that perhaps the Scheduled Districts Act might be applied, but the Act is entirely out of date and many of the names in it I cannot even recognise. Might not the Government consider reviving in some form the wide powers of certification that exist under the Scheduled Districts Act? Under the Bill areas excluded or partially excluded can revert, as and when they become fit, to normal government, and we would like to see them do so in due course, but there is no power whatever for a reverse procedure. If the Committee let this Schedule go through as it is, the matter is entirely out of their hands and in the hands of these local Governments, which I regret to say, are in many cases entirely hostile. I have had put into my hands this weekend a book which was published in Bombay last year. It is written by an unofficial Indian, Mr. A. N. Weling, and is a little study of one particular tribe. The author says in his preface that it is a revised version of the thesis that he submitted for his M. A. degree at Bombay University in 1930. He says, in his preface: Want of practical sympathy, or rather a right apprehension of the value and importance of anthropological research on the part of Indian administrative officers has at times proved an insurmountable obstacle in the way of giving the subject a thorough treatment. That is the recent testimony of an unofficial Indian in a book published in Bombay. It refers to only three years ago, and in Bombay of all the Presidencies, because the particular tribe, the Katkaris, that he investigated is in Bombay Presidency, which is not by any means the most backward or benighted of the Provinces.

Then a lot of play was made on the ground that we must not upset the practice now in operation, particularly with reference to the Central Provinces. It is said, "The areas that you wish to exclude are already under normal provincial government; how then can we at this stage put them under any other form of government?" They have drifted under normal government in many cases comparatively recently. Many of these areas have been only relatively recently administered at all, or at least thoroughly administered, and to say that we are to continue the existing administration surely ignores one very important fact, and that is that the administration up to a few years ago was largely in the hands of Europeans, or under the direct supervision of Europeans who had a natural and strong sympathy with these people.

I call to mind being in the backward area of a Province 10 years or so ago. I shall not name the area, because I do not want to hurt anyone's feelings. It was a fairly remote backward area, which under the Bill has no exclusion or partial exclusion whatever given to it. When I went there for the first time the local subordinate British officer of the Indian Civil Service took a tremendous interest in the particular tribe among whom I spent a few months. I went back to the same area two years later. The official had been replaced by a most charming and excellent Indian gentleman, in every way efficient, I have no doubt, and a very nice person, but he neither knew nor cared anything whatever about the aboriginals in the area. That was the trouble. The former official enjoyed travelling and camping among them, and shooting with them. Mr. — sat in his office, made up his files and the Banyas and Labour recruiters had full swing. That is a point in which hon. Members on the Labour benches should take a particular interest. I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles) is not present. He spoke briefly the other night, and told me that he could not be here to-day. He has personal knowledge of aboriginal labour recruitment. My hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities will know what real hardship is caused in these areas by recruiting for tea gardens in distant lands. These people must have supervision to prevent the grossest exploitation in this respect. Not all the recruiting is exploitation, of course, not by a very long way, but it is a general practice particularly capable of unscrupulous exploitation, particularly by Indians themselves.

The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) asked whether some of the areas that we have put into our proposed Amendment of the Schedule are not too small to be administratively possible. The answer is no! There is no area in our Schedule as small as one of the areas already in the Government's list. If the areas we have put down are examined with the aid of a map you will find that some of the smaller ones are not isolated as they look on the Order Paper but are contiguous to other areas already included or recommended for official exclusion, so that in effect administratively they would come within larger homogeneous areas. People with very great experience of the administration of these particular areas, people with very much more experience than the Provincial secretariats which advise the Government, have no doubt whatever as to the case with which these areas could be excluded and administered when excluded.

The Under-Secretary made play with the population of Garwhal. I am not going to reply in detail to his criticism of our Schedule. We did not classify the Garwhali for the purpose of our Amendment as primitive at all. We suggested the exclusion for Garwhal on the ground that the Garwhali are so racially distinct from the people under whom they would come, that they would be happier and better, and much less likely to cause subsequent trouble, if they were excluded at this stage, always bearing in mind that if at a later stage the reforms work well, or these people want it, they can be put back.

The Government's conscience is clearly uneasy on the subject. I consider that the concessions offered of three areas, one of which is already in effect totally excluded, I am reminded, by Snow, another which is already totally excluded in effect by the Indian Ocean, and a third which is of no importance or size, is one that the Government happens to have failed to exclude before only owing to an oversight—those concessions simply are not worth anything. I very much hope that, unless the Government are prepared to indicate that on the Report stage they will give an assurance that they do not intend here and now to close the door which has been open to them for all these years, the Committee will for once in a way, on a matter which involves no principle, divide against the Government on this issue and defeat it.

4.27 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL

I do not propose to occupy the time of the Committee for more than a few minutes. But like others I have been deeply interested in this debate as it has developed, and, if I may say so, particularly interested in the extremely able speech, so full of knowledge and practical information, which has been delivered by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Wing-Commander James). I know that other Members who have made a special study of this topic wish to take part in the discussion, and the only contribution which I desire to make at this moment, until I am a little further informed, is of an entirely general character.

I do not quite understand what is the position either of the Government or of some of my hon. Friends who are criticising the Government. I understood that by this Bill we were conferring the great boon and blessing of self-government upon the democracy and peoples of India; that the educative value of the representative institutions, working as they have done in the West, would in the East be the greatest elevating force and the greatest stabilising and sobering force, that could possibly be applied to the population of India; that there you would find that this sense of responsibility, the grant of the franchise, would bring the people forward very much more rapidly and bridge the gulf which may have been existing between the East and the West. That, I understood, was the position of those who support this Bill; and that the vote has never been given because of fitness to exercise it, but is given as a form of protection, and the more helpless people are, it is argued, the more they stand in need of this form of protection. Now I am frankly puzzled. I hope to have my doubts removed and my mind clarified in the course of this debate but now it appears that these blessings are to be withheld from these alleged primitive peoples.

Wing-Commander JAMES

Since the right hon. Gentleman has charged those of us who are supporters of the Bill with inconsistency—

Mr. CHURCHILL

No, I have made no charge at all.

Wing-Commander JAMES

As he has, I think, suggested that there is inconsistency on our part, in regard to this particular point at any rate, may I say that we are quite consistent because this proposal does not affect Indian self-government. These peoples are quite distinct from the bulk of the population and my purpose is to urge that they should not be put under domination, as alien as and as yet much less sympathetic than ours. May I also, for the second time beg the right hon. Gentleman not to prostitute a legitimate committee point by using it for a general attack upon the principles of the Bill? There is nothing whatever in this Amendment to justify that.

Mr. CHURCHILL

While I gave way to my hon. and gallant Friend I must point out again that I was making no charge at all and that he has in fact sought to reply to my speech in controversial fashion before I have been able to complete it. However, unabashed by his warnings and unmoved by his appeal I continue, if I may, to continue to put these necessary points. There are, we are told, 22,000,000 people involved in this proposal. We are assured that these people are too primitive to be allowed to share in the advantages and boons of liberty, of responsibility, of the franchise and of the Parliamentary and legislative institutions which you are going to confer on the rest of that vast population. The speeches which we have heard seem to indicate that if these people were included in the ordinary scope of the functions of the Provincial Governments or of the Federal Government their lot would be worse than it will be if they are left outside the scheme. That statement very much disquiets me.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wellingborough spoke of the disaster of leaving these 22,000,000 people in unscrupulous Indian hands. Apparently, he contemplates that when the new bodies which we are calling into being have come into existence there will be a far lower range of government and administration in operation than is attained at the present time. My hon. and gallant Friend takes a warm and philanthropic interest in the affairs of these primitive tribes with whom he has come in contact and wishes to save them from the evils which apparently he apprehends. But, on the other hand, we are told of all the blessings which this Bill has to offer and I really do not see how any logical argument can be held on the basis of such a contradiction. It is clear however that there is general agreement, in principle though not in detail, between the Government and the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his friends. The Government too, by their own exclusions, admit that there are large areas and large populations whose fortunes they will not entrust to these new bodies which they are creating.

The speech of the Under-Secretary seemed to me to admit that these people or some of them at any rate would be better off if they were excluded. He agreed, partly, with my hon. and gallant Friend that some of them would be much better off if they were left outside this great liberating Measure. One thing which the Under-Secretary said struck me very much. He said that one of the difficulties of leaving out all these classes and districts enumerated in the Amendment was that it would alienate the opinion of the rest of the people of India. I suppose that means that those other people will be jealous at seeing all these districts and all these 22,000,000 people being allowed to continue in their present condition—which is admitted to be better than the condition into which they would be forced under the new system. Apparently it is feared that the people who are not excluded will say, "This is not fair. We are to have all these boons of democratic and modern Western institutions and here are these other people who are to be free from them." Naturally, the people who are in that position will envy the people who are being left alone and who are not to be subjected to the species of ingenious modern mental torments which constitute the higher forms of political thought at the present time.

We ought to know clearly from the Government and the supporters of the Bill whether they consider that the probable condition of these people, as they will be under the operation of the Bill, is worse or is better than their present condition. If their probable future condition under the Bill is regarded as worse than their present condition, then it is quite right to exclude these areas, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will not reject the Amendment. I shall certainly vote to exclude them. I am convinced from the admissions which have been made—and the fact that they are unconscious admissions makes them much more impressive—that the condition of these people will deteriorate under the proposed new system. I am satisfied that the more we can exclude from the operation of the Bill the better. I like this longer list. I like it much better than the Under-Secretary's list. The Under-Secretary proposes to exclude some millions but the Amendment would exclude no fewer than 22,500,000 people. If you have this feeling that you cannot trust the fortunes of these people in the hands of the new administration—to which you are going to entrust law and order, and every kind of vital function such as those connected with the police and the most difficult tasks of administration—if you think you cannot even trust them with administering the affairs of these primitive people surely you ought to pause. It might be argued that those to whom it is proposed to entrust the administration of these other matters know more about the primitive people than we do. Was not the whole idea of these proposals that Indian opinion was to be brought to bear on such problems? Did we not, hear the Lord President of the Council say how Indians would much prefer people of their own race and creed to white administrators?

I am at a loss to know on which ground the Government stand. Anyhow I know clearly that, for myself, the doubts which I have had all along are more than confirmed by the admissions which we are getting from people supporting the Bill, showing that they know that it will bring a worse form of government to India, and a less reliable form of administration and that they cannot trust these primitive tribes to the care of the new Indian bodies. The great issue of the government of a mighty land and such subjects as irrigation and police and revenue and so forth—all that we are told may be handed over to these new bodies. We are told that they can discharge those functions with perfect security. But when it comes to the administration of the primitive tribes, then sentimental reasons are advanced for taking another course and admissions are made which show that you know that the whole process in which you are engaged, means a great retrogression and decadence in the standard of administration in India to which you have reluctantly consented. I should be very glad indeed if the Under-Secretary were to accept the Amendment, and, even if my hon. and gallant Friend cared to add other districts to it, I should not object. I should not object indeed to including in it the entire scope of the great Indian peninsula. I am certain that the blessings which would be spread thereby would be gratefully received from one end of the continent to the other and really it would be the most happy exit we could find, after all this trouble and labour from the inconsistencies and contradictions of this Measure.

4.40 p.m.

Earl WINTERTON

Though naturally not in agreement with all that he has said, I should like to pay a perfectly genuine compliment to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) who has just delivered a most brilliant debating speech. At the risk of being unpopular I should like to say how very refreshing the Committee found his contribution in contrast with orations of the dreary type which we sometimes hear in this House. The right hon. Gentleman has made a perfectly fair debating answer to the points which were put forward by my two hon. Friends behind me. Every argument used by my hon. and gallant Friend below the Gangway could be extended to the whole field of the franchise in India.

Mr. CADOGAN

I am not concerned in this Amendment with the main principle of the Bill, but the point is that the Government have admitted the principle of excluding certain tribes and, once they have admitted that principle, I want them to apply it in the proper way.

Earl WINTERTON

My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. I was referring not to his speech but to that of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Wing - Commander James), and I think that whether one agrees or disagrees with the argument of the right hon. Gentleman one must in fairness admit that he was right in saying that my hon. and gallant Friend's argument could be extended to a far wider field than the excluded areas. But this is a very big issue and it would not be quite fair to say that the position occupied by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wellingborough is the same as the position occupied by the Government—for this reason. There have been, for generations past, ever since we attempted in India a system of real administration, areas corresponding to the excluded areas in the Bill. They have been treated as apart from the other areas in the particular provinces in which they were situated. Under what may be described without offence as a purely paternal government, prior to the reforms, prior even to the Morley-Minto Constitution, the method of administration in those areas was different from the method of administration in other areas. There were special officers responsible for them. Those Members of the Committee who are seized of what may be called the technical issues here involved will not have failed to notice that a great many of the charge's which my hon. and gallant Friend has brought—with perfect sincerity—are not so much charges against the present Government of India as against the general treatment of these excluded areas.

What do the Government propose to do? The Government in this Schedule propose to name certain areas which in the unanimous opinion of their experts—of the Government of India, I understand, and the Provincial Governments and official circles comprising in most cases the majority of Europeans—are held to be areas suitable for exclusion and roughly corresponding to those areas which both in the immediate and the remote past have been treated in a different way from other areas. But the whole trend of the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Welling borough and to some extent of my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan) was so to widen the areas of exclusion as to raise an entirely different set of problems. They propose not only to apply exclusion in those cases in which it has always been thought necessary, but to extend it to a great number of other tribes and in some cases sub-divisions of tribes. It is the genuine opinion of some of my hon. Friends who undoubtedly have wide experience that these people are in such a backward state that they cannot obtain or are not likely to obtain proper regard from the new government. Therefore, the attack—if it is to be called an attack—of the right hon. Gentleman on my hon. and gallant Friend is justified because the same arguments could be equally applied to some of the more backward people not in the list which my hon. and gallant Friend puts forward himself. He is in a dialectical difficulty, and I do not agree with that argument at all. This is not a party matter, and I hope we shall hear whether hon. Members opposite will support what I am going to say. I think they will. I believe far mere in assimilation than in isolation. I do not think you want to turn areas into modern Whipsnades where you have picturesque survivals and where Englishmen are able to go out and say, "This is a most interesting ethnological race of people divided by 500 or 1,000 years from the rest of India."

Mr. CADOGAN

That is exactly what the Government are doing.

Earl WINTERTON

In the report of the hon. Member's own committee, they said, on page 109: The responsibility of Parliament for the backward tracts will not be discharged merely by securing to them protection from exploitation and by preventing those outbreaks which have from time to time occurred within their borders. The principal duty of the administration is to educate these peoples to stand on their own feet, and this is a process which has scarcely begun, and so on.

Mr. CADOGAN

Will my Noble Friend read on?

Earl WINTERTON

Certainly; it goes on: Co-ordination of activity and adequate funds are principally required. The typical backward tract is a deficit area, and no provincial legislature is likely to possess either the will or the means to devote special attention to its particular requirements. That is where the present Schedule comes in.

Mr. CADOGAN

I was referring to the end of the paragraph, where it says: Only if responsibility for the backward tracts is entrusted to the Centre, does it appear likely that it will be adequately discharged.

Earl WINTERTON

Yes, but, as far as I know, there is no recommendation in the hon. Gentleman's report which would extend the definition of backward areas to the tribes and districts to which it is extended by the Amendment for which he is responsible. May I also point out another matter? It has been suggested in the Debate that this particular Schedule goes completely beyond the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee. It goes contrary to them in one sense, that the Committee suggested that the matter should be dealt with by Order in-Council. I do not know what the Government's attitude on this point will be, but if they are prepared to do that, I shall have no objection. It is, however, clear that my hon. Friends who are responsible for the Amendment would not be satisfied by any Order-in-Council which did not go nearly or entirely the length of their Amendment.

Wing-Commander JAMES

I hope the Noble Lord will not misrepresent us. What we have said is that this matter has not been surveyed.

Earl WINTERTON

There is no question of misrepresentation. I said that I understood from the speeches of my hon. Friends that they would not be content with any alteration of the existing Schedule, whether by Order-in-Council or otherwise, that did not go nearly or entirely the length which their Amendment goes; in other words, that their Amendment represents the object at which they are aiming. That raises a big question of principle, and I say that it would be impossible to exclude the areas which are placed in this Amendment to the Schedule without administrative difficulties of the greatest magnitude. You have a small district here surrounded entirely by administration districts, and 20 miles away another slightly larger excluded area, and it would be almost impossible—

Mr. CHURCHILL

I am most anxious to ascertain where my Noble Friend himself stands in this matter. Assuming that all these administrative difficulties could be overcome, would it be in accordance with his inclinations to allow these larger areas to be excluded?

Earl WINTERTON

No. My inclination is against having a large number of excluded areas. I believe that, except in the case of the areas already referred to in the Schedule and possibly one or two others such as those which the Government have already offered to consider, it would be in the interests of the Province as a whole and of the tribes themselves to be administered under the ordinary administration. I think we have to remember that we have put this Bill up, and this Committee has by its action, which I cannot criticise, put a very heavy responsibility upon both the Governor-General and the Governors. I think it would be greatly adding to those responsibilities to enlarge the excluded areas as proposed in this Amendment. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wellingborough is probably one of the prime authorities in this matter, but my experience of this House and this Committee tells me that it is not always safe to trust the greatest authorities on particular subjects to take a wholly common sense view of the situation, and I think my hon. and gallant Friend, who has made a personal study of this question and whose sympathy with these peoples we all recognise, is suggesting something which is administratively impracticable and also undesirable from the point of view of the interests of those people themselves.

I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not think that I am making a personal attack on him when I say that I very much deprecate the references he made—perhaps I was wrong in reading a particular meaning into those references—to the officials in India, whether European or Indian. In the long years during which I had something to do with the administration of India I never saw any sign in the Government of India, in Provincial Governments, or in the officials of those Governments, whether Indian or British, of anything but complete sympathy with the excluded areas. I hope the Government will not alter the big general principle. Whether they think it wise or not to make a change on the question of the Orders-in-Council is a different matter. As a member of the Joint Select Committee, I cannot but support, as I think we all do, whatever may be our views on the Amendment, the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee, but supposing that Order-in-Council were changed in the direction wanted by my two hon. Friends, would they be willing to accept that?

4.54 p.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD

The Noble Lord, if I heard him aright, said he was going to brighten up the Debate.

Earl WINTERTON

I never said anything of the sort. I never made the remotest reference to that. I paid tribute to the right hon. Member for Epping for the manner in which he had brightened up the Debate, and I am prepared in advance to pay tribute to the speech to which we are about to listen from the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood).

Colonel WEDGWOOD

I would call in aid, against the arguments of the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), the views and acts of the hon. Member for North-West Manchester when he wars Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies. Twenty-nine years ago, the right hon. Gentleman the present Member for Epping was pushing through a Bill exactly like this for South Africa, and he excluded from the South African settlement the three areas of Bechuanaland, Swaziland, and Basutoland for precisely the same reasons that we are asking the Government to exclude these areas from India. Those reasons were that under the Constitution which we gave to South Africa there were no votes for the Bechuanas, the Swazis, and the Basutos. Therefore, we said we would exclude them and reserve the administration of those areas. Exactly the same arguments apply to these areas. These people have no votes, and, therefore, if they come under a Constitution with which they have no connection whatsoever, they should be excluded. If they had manhood suffrage, I would not say anything about it, but they have no votes whatever.

Mr. CHURCHILL

The hon. and gallant Member for Wellingborough (Wing-Commander James) spoke of large masses of the population of these primitive tribes as being divided up among the other populations, that they were, as it were, mottled in the distribution of population. Do I understand that these people, because of their primitive character, would be deprived of the chance of obtaining the franchise, even if they lived in districts where the franchise and the ordinary reforms were operating?

Colonel WEDGWOOD

They all belong to classes which are not enfranchised. When the right hon. Gentleman was in charge of the South African Bill, I wish he had also excluded the Trans Kei. I want to save these people in India from precisely the things from which the right hon. Gentleman saved those tribes in South Africa. It is exactly the same principle. I would like to congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Wellingborough (Wing-Commander James), not merely on the presentation of his case, but on the whole way in which it has been supported. Never on any occasion during the passage of this Bill has an Amendment to the Bill been better prepared and organised. The objections raised by the Government really amount to two. In the first place, there is the administrative difficulty, and in the second place they say that there will be other people in these areas besides the aboriginals who would be shut off from the normal constitutional development in India and that they would object to being excluded from this Bill.

With regard to the administrative difficulties, let us observe that they come entirely from the Administration. The Administration's views on this particular question must, I think, be to a certain extent discounted. The Administration are to a certain extent in the dock, and they have not perhaps done all that they might have done for these backward tribes in India. At least, that is the argument in favour of increasing the number of excluded areas. Is it not natural that, when they have drafted their Bill and got their reasons accepted by the India Office here, when they have got the solution that they wish for, they will find every objection to excluding other tribes and increasing the number of scheduled areas? I think it is almost inevitable. They have a vested interest in the present position, and any change would naturally be one that they would counter by talking of the administrative difficulties.

The other objection is much more serious. The objection of the Under-Secretary of State was that in each of these areas there was a large number of Hindus or Mohammedans who would otherwise have their rights as citizens in the Provinces and elsewhere who would object to these areas being excluded. I do not believe there are many people in India who would not welcome exclusion from this Bill. But I am perfectly certain that the aboriginal inhabitants, these backward tribes, would object to a man to separation from the British Raj to be put under this Bill. The people whom we are asking help for now are people who unanimously would prefer British rule to this Bill. I think it is very probable that the others would as well.

If we have a certain number, of people, whether in India or elsewhere, who want unanimously to remain in the British Empire under British rule, have we the right to deprive them of their citizenship and of the rights which they enjoy to-day? We are treating all these backward tribes as though they were chattels who could be handed over either to the Indians or to Princes. The principle is all wrong. If people who have once had the advantages of British rule want to remain under British rule, we have no right to deprive them of it. That applies to the whole of India. If the whole of India objects to this Bill and wants the status quo then she is perfectly justified in demanding the status quo. It applies infinitely more to people who have no votes. Their interests must come first, and not administrative difficulties or the possibility of offending some Poona Brahmins who may live in the area.

The real reason why these people want to retain British rule is perfectly simple. If they are taken away from direct British rule, their land would be alienated, and they would be recruited for the tea plantations and elsewhere. Ordinarily labour recruiting is bad enough, but if you are dealing with people who have no education then labour recruiting becomes one of the most cruel forms of exploitation imaginable. They are taken away from their families, whom they never see again. They sign contracts which they know nothing about, and they are practically the slaves of the Khidmutgar. He is the man who is the foreman on the job. They all get in debt to him and can never get out of debt, and consequently they are enslaved for life. That sort of thing is bad enough anywhere in India, but when you are dealing with these absolutely savage people and you leave them at the mercy of the labour recruiter you are depriving them of their real right to live. It is not a question of exclusion or assimilation but of protecting these people until by the method of direct British rule they have sufficient education to be able to stand up for themselves and protect themselves by the vote.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON

Before the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) rushed like a rogue elephant into a perfectly orderly part of the jungle—not only like a rogue elephant, but a very provocative rogue elephant, because he provoked the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), usually a most orderly elephant, into being disorderly—before that —I will not carry the simile any further or I may be thought to be rude—we were discussing the interests of the backward tribes, and I want to get back to the speech of the Under-Secretary, the only speech so far which has been really against the Amendment. I do not want to attack the Under-Secretary too bitterly for views which I do not believe he holds. I believe he is really with us in the spirit, like the Almighty, of whom the Scottish Minister said "The Almighty is forced to do many things in his official capacity which he would not do as a private individual." We are, after all, completely in the hands of the India Office. The hon. Gentleman never said that he was satisfied that the interests of the backward tribes would be adequately protected under the arrangement as suggested in the Bill. He chose his own examples when he went through this list. The Khondmals is almost solidly aboriginal. The hon. Gentleman appealed to the census figures, entirely omitting to mention the fact that the census is done on a linguistic basis which is not accepted as a guide by expert anthropologists. I think the Amendment goes too far. I am grateful to the Government for the areas that are included in the Sixth Schedule of the Bill, but I feel that one must admit that the situation is not satisfactory, that it never really has been looked into. I want to appeal to my hon. Friend on this ground. The Movers said that the people behind this Amendment are loyal supporters of the Government. I suggest that for once the Government make some concessions to their friends.

Sir JOHN HASLAM

What about Lancashire?

Mr. NICHOLSON

I shall come to other backward tracts later on. I suggest that concessions have been made to every form of critic and enemy of the Government, and I think that supporters of the Government are due for a little consideration. This is a political question rather than an anthropological question. The anthropologists are united in the sense of this Amendment. The answers must be political; the case is a political case. The case is not that we accuse Indian political opinion of being hostile or neglectful with regard to the backward tribes, but that it is not fair firstly to the tribes, secondly to the provincial legislatures, to place them in charge of the legislatures. The Government have admitted as much. The real basis of the case is not that there will be wilful neglect, but that inevitably economies will be made when it comes to spending more on an area. Orissa is a deficit Province at the best of times. I cannot think that the future of a deficit area in a deficit Province will be particularly rosy. I should be very sorry indeed to have to vote against the Government on this question, but I cannot see that a promise at any rate to give this matter serious consideration would impinge on any provisions of the Bill, nor can I see that a promise to extend these areas is committing the Government to anything final. Any inclusion in the Sixth Schedule can always be gone back on at a moment's notice. I shall vote against the Government if the Under-Secretary does not make any further concession either in detail or in his attitude. If he fails to make a concession, I hope that there will be the largest possible vote against the Government.

5.11 p.m.

Mr. CADOGAN

Perhaps I might shorten the proceedings in Committee if I made a suggestion now to the Under-Secretary in view of the fact that this Amendment is not, like so many, either a suggestion to insert something in the Bill or to take something out. It is merely a suggestion to improve on what appears in the Bill. In view of the fact that my Amendment has a very considerable measure of support from various sections might I suggest that the Under-Secretary should reconsider the matter before the Report stage and see whether it would not be possible to retain some power of adding to the Schedule. If he can hold out any hopes of that kind, I should be prepared to withdraw my Amendment.

Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE:

If the Debate is to go on, I want to say that, like other Members of the Committee, I have considered this matter and found it one of the most difficult to come to a decision about, and that largely because I share the experience of others of being in the position of knowing nothing personally about these excluded areas, with one or two small exceptions. That naturally must be the position of most Members of the Committee. But the difficulty I am in is this. While I entirely agree that the Statutory Commission and the Joint Select Committee have not been able to give the full and detailed consideration which is perhaps required to come to a decision on this matter, I do not quite know what we are to gain or to whom we can refer if we delay. The Amendment as I see it does include in it certain areas which to me at any rate make it appear impossible of acceptance. I could not possibly conceive that anybody who knew India at all, even if they knew nothing about the backward tribes, should include such districts as Darjeeling and the Surat District. These are immense areas in which there cannot be more than a fractional proportion of the population classed as aboriginal. To exclude in one Amendment enormous areas, which I know well personally, and which are inhabited by hundreds of thousands—for all I know mllions—of people who are closely engaged in industry and agriculture and in daily touch by cablegram with firms in this country, to exclude them, because there are some aboriginals, is carrying the proposal too far. For that reason I find it impossible to support the Amendment as it stands, but that does not mean that I am entirely satisfied that the whole subject has been thoroughly gone into. I am not. Further than that, I am in another difficulty. Suppose we defer the question, to whom can we go for information on a matter of this kind? The only people really capable of giving Parliament any information are the officials of the Government of India and the Provincial Governments, and it seems to me that, whatever course we take, we are bound on this matter above all others to depend on the authority and the opinion of the men on the spot. I assume that the Under-Secretary, in speaking for the Government, is giving the House the concensus of opinion of the Provincial Governments and the Government of India.

Lord E. PERCY

I have no objection to getting more facts from the Provincial Governments or British officials, but what we want are facts and not merely opinions. It is the facts that we have not got.

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE

On that point, my noble Friend and I are entirely at one. I was trying to make clear that in the end the only people who can give the facts are the British officials. There is no dispute about that. If the Schedule in the Bill is the opinon of those officials, I do not see that we shall get very much further by delay. As I see it, the Bill contains the view of the Government of India, and I do not see what we are to gain by referring the matter back to them and saying: "Are you sure these are your views? Should there not be something more? "I understand that they have had this Schedule put before them. The Under-Secretary dealt with a number of the proposals in the Amendment and showed how impracticable they were. I can only deal with the one or two which I have mentioned and which do not appear to me to be desirable to put into the Schedule. Therefore, I get back to the difficulty that if we defer it we shall only arrive at the same opinion as we have now, and I do not know to whom we can apply further to get the matter cleared up.

We must be very careful in this matter not to forget the enormous responsibilities which are already placed upon the Governor-General and the Governors. I am well aware that it is a matter of argument whether we have not already put too much responsibility upon them. At any rate, if we realise that every matter connected with areas which are excluded will have to be a matter of personal examination and decision by the Governor, we must appreciate that it is undesirable to expand that work and responsibility more than is necessary. I do not want to oppose further consideration of the matter if it will result in further authentic information being given, but as matters stand I do not see what is to be gained by it.

5.20 p.m.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip)

My hon. Friend who has just spoken has rightly expressed the difficulty in which the Committee is when he pointed out that no reason has been given for believing that if the Government think again about this question they will arrive at any different opinion from that which is embodied in the Schedule. I am not thinking about the comparatively small additions, some of which have been mentioned—and there might possibly be one or two added to those—but what my Noble Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) said that the Committee wants, not opinions or reconsidered opinions, but facts upon which the Committee can form its own opinion. It is, I think, plain to everybody that the Amendment, owing to its length and having regard to some of the areas it is proposed to include in it, cannot possibly be accepted as it is. I do not think that anybody, not even my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Wing-Commander James), expects that. If we were to take the Amendment and deal with the different areas one by one, the Committee would have to sit as a sort of Royal Commission, a committee of inquiry, without any facilities for having papers and information before us, and we should have to include some new places and exclude others. Manifestly, the Committee cannot to-day, or possibly at any time, embark upon an operation of that kind. At the same time, it is plain that the Committee, or those Members of the Committee who are present, are in some difficulty—that is to say, the Members who, generally speaking, support this Bill and are in favour of making it the best measure it can be.

I fully understand the attitude of my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), whom we are glad to see after a prolonged absence, or, perhaps, I ought to say, delighted to hear after a prolonged silence. He is too old a Parliamentary hand not to have taken advantage of the opportunity of baiting the Government and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wellingborough, and he holding us all up as the victims of inconsistency while he himself is the only steady consistent mind in the Committee, always prepared to give effect to a constructive and sane policy. My right hon. Friend, I know, will not object to my saying that the Government must always bear in mind his point of view, but the Committee listened to his speech with great delight. It was a very good debating speech, but it did not get near the merits of this question as to which areas should be excluded because those who support the Amendment are moved by a different principle from that which my right hon. Friend follows, namely, that it is bad for anybody to be under the new form of Government in India. We do not accept that view, nor does my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. G. Nicholson) who supports the Amendment, nor does my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan). Nobody accepts it except, indeed, the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), who made a speech on very much the same lines as my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping.

In these circumstances, the Government do not wish to take up the position of being deaf to all appeals far information. It is very easy to represent us as unable to give way to anything because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not here. We are very vulnerable. We are doing our best in the absence of my right hon. Friend. I suggest to the Committee that with a view to giving further information we shall withdraw the Schedule as it exists to-day. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members had better wait before they cheer and hear the whole of what I have to say. We shall withdraw the Schedule as it stands, and then we shall prepare an Order-in-Council which will be submitted to the House in due time with all the necessary information giving the areas which it is proposed to exclude. The Order-in-Council will be issued before the grant of provincial autonomy, and it will be one to which additions may not subsequently be made and the provisions of Clause 91, which will need some amendment, will substantially apply.

Mr. CHURCHILL

Additions may not be made except in the House?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Except in the House in the first instance. When the first Order-in-Council is made it will not be possible to add other excluded areas by subsequent Orders-in-Council. Once the Order is adopted and decided by the House it will be the final settlement of the question, and it will be subject to the provisions of Clause 91 of the Bill. That course will have the advantage of giving the House the facts which my Noble Friend the Member for Hastings desires. Now this is the observation with which some of my hon. Friends may not be so well satisfied: I want the Committee to understand in the most explicit way that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary sees no reason whatever to anticipate that, except for a few comparatively minor additions, in addition to the one or two which he has mentioned, there will be any additions which we shall feel justified in offering to the House as fit to go into the category of excluded areas. There has been a certain amount of argument which would lead one to suppose that all that is necessary to justify an area being an excluded area is to show that the people are backward or helpless or illiterate. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme described some of the disadvantages under which the backward peoples labour at the present time, but he did not seem to recognise that that was not a very good argument for keeping them under the very same system which produces the conditions of which he complains.

We are making no promises and holding out no prospects of any substantial addition to the category of excluded areas. I am justified in saying that because we are satisfied with the very full examination which has been given to this question—and may I say, not only by anthropologists, because you cannot decide this question merely by anthropological considerations; it depends partly upon the conditions of the people concerned and partly upon the possibility of applying ordinary administrative measures to the particular tract or tribe. The Government are convinced that they have a good case, and they are anxious to submit it to the House. We will lay a Paper before the House with all the information and facts and all the necessary references before the Order-in-Council is made. The House will have the fullest opportunity of forming its own opinion upon the facts, which will be laid before it in the most convenient form. I would also ask the Committee to assent to this further condition. It is understood that we shall not have another prolonged Debate on this question on the Report stage, because I do not think that that would be reasonable. If the Committee assents to this proposal, we will have this discussion after the Bill is passed and before provincial autonomy is brought into operation. I hope that the suggestion I have made will meet with the approval of all parties and show that the Government are anxious to be as reasonable as possible. What I have said will cover not only the totally excluded areas, but the partially excluded areas.

Wing-Commander JAMES

I am not well acquainted with Orders-in-Council, whether closed or open, but will the paper to be laid before the House explain the facts relating to the areas we have included in the Amendment, or only the areas which are already included by the Government?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

The intention is that the facts shall be stated in reference to all the areas which it has been suggested should be included.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL

I think that the Attorney-General has made a very important concession. The hon. Member opposite urged him to make a concession to his friends, on the basis, I suppose, that one good turn deserves another, after those friends have for so long supported a matter in regard to which we can now see what their interior misgivings must be. It is only reciprocating a service rendered for the Government to change their position during the course of the Debate and make a concession to them. But better than making concessions to foes or friends is making concessions to reason, and I suppose that the reasons which have been adduced from all quarters during this discussion have led the Government into the course they have taken in withdrawing the Schedule altogether and taking it away for further consideration, with a promise that it is to be discussed in another Parliament where an Order-in-Council is to be brought forward regulating these matters.

I think that is a very remarkable step for the Government to take, and I really find it difficult to know why they have taken it. The anthropological party, which has taken the field to-day, is a very highbrow, docile, well-meaning association, but not numerically very powerful. I confess that I sympathise with the anthropological party. I, too, am an anthropologist, in my way, only, I am bound to say, I take as much interest in the fortunes of the white people in India, for instance, as I would in these backward tribes. I feel just as much disturbed about their police and security being handed over to a Government which I do not trust as the anthropological party represented here this afternoon are about the handing over of these backward areas to a Government which they do not trust, so that really we are almost in the same party in this respect. The hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. G. Nicholson) described me as a "rogue elephant," but I certainly have not gone so far this afternoon in my criticisms of the Government as he has in accusing the Under-Secretary of gravely misleading the House. That is a very serious charge to make against the Under-Secretary, and I am bound to say that if the Under-Secretary were to retaliate in the kind of language which the hon. Member has applied to me we might really have to call for the intervention of the Chair in order to preserve the dignity and sedateness of our discussions. But I want to bring before the Committee the new position—

Mr. NICHOLSON

Has the right hon. Gentleman finished with me? I should like to make a personal explanation.

Mr. CHURCHILL

After I have finished the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to speak and will not be confined, even, to making it a personal explanation. We are in Committee, and he will certainly be able to explain his point of view and explain the charges which he made against the Under-Secretary. I want the Committee to see where we stand as the result of the concessions which have been announced. The whole of this question of the excluded areas is to be put off to another Parliament. That is the effect. The whole question is to be shelved and put back to another Parliament. I do not think the Government need have taken this very serious step. They tell us that they want to settle this Indian question once and for all, to reach a solution, to give peace and security, to let people know what their fate is to be; yet here are these 22,000,000 people whose fate is involved, all the people in the 30 districts enumerated in the Amendment and the others enumerated in the Government Schedule, and no one is to know which are to be in and which are to be out.

Perhaps the Attorney-General will give me his attention. He complained just now of my prolonged silence. May I not complain of his continued volubility? I certainly should not complain if only we had the advantage of hearing him, because when he is addressing us it is deeply interesting to study the forensic methods which he so skilfully employs. Out of the 22,000,000 people affected, the Government proposals affect about 10,000,000 or 12,000,000. All those people will remain uncertain what their fate will be, not only during this Parliament but until Provincial Governments are set up sometime during the next Parliament. We have no idea of what the next Parliament will be and what treatment will then be applied to this subject. We have plunged 22,000,000 people in India into absolute uncertainty as to their fate. They will not know which districts are to be in and which out. Look at the admission which is made—that these districts, many of them, must, be excluded, because the new Governments which we are setting up cannot be trusted to administer these backward peoples. These unfortunate people will not know whether they are to be reserved for the protection of the Imperial representative, the Governor, or whether they are to be left to take their chance in one of the provincial administrations.

As between the mover of the Amendment and the Government there is a matter of 10,000,000 souls. The Government agree that 12,000,000 must have protection, but the other 10,000,000, because they are mixed up in particular Provinces, cannot be protected on account of administrative difficulties; though we know that these 10,000,000 are the type of people the Government admit ought to be protected from the inferior administration or exploitation which they will receive at the hands of the bodies which are to be set up. The 10,000,000 are to be left without the vote, because they are all too poor to qualify. They are without the slightest protection given by the vote or by any protection which comes to them through the exercise of the Governor's authority. That is indeed a forlorn position—neither the Imperial Raj nor the vote. Ten million people of the type specially indicated as requiring particular protection are to be relegated to that fate, but the whole 22,000,000 people share the uncertainty, because it will not be known precisely which of them will be in and which will be out.

To leave this over to be settled by an Order-in-Council in another Parliament is the most extraordinary step to take, and it only shows that if there had been a little more support the Government could have been turned from this misguided policy. Why, even before a handful of anthropologists they run away and withdraw their Schedule and adjourn the matter to the Greek Kalends—to another Parliament. It is an extraordinary situation. I am amazed that the Government should have taken such a step. I had no idea that anything would be promised which would go beyond a promise of reconsideration on the Report stage; but to say you are going to put the other thing off till another Parliament—I never heard of such a process in legislation. It only shows the want of confidence and of conviction which lies behind those who are conducting the Bill. They have made up their minds that on the whole the best thing is to ram it through, and their followers have put their heads down and devoted themselves to this butting process. But now, in this matter, the Government have lost their nerve. They are frightened of the attacks directed upon them, by the attacks of their friends the anthropologists and so they have in this case gone back and passed all this matter over to another Parliament. That is a very far-reaching step to take, and if it were not that I am most anxious not to delay the proceedings I should certainly ask leave to Report Progress.

I do not remember this procedure ever being adopted before, though I have sat on many Bills and have heard concessions promised in Committee to be settled on the Report stage, the Report stage being delayed, if necessary, for another month till the matter was settled. Here we throw 22,000,000 people into the melting pot and leave their fate to a new Parliament. To do that and still press this Bill through is to take up an attitude which is altogether unreasonable. I cannot help thinking that probably the Attorney-General and his colleague took this decision with a little less premeditation than serious Government departures require. I have always understood that it was the desire of the Government to have this Indian question settled as a whole, and surely this is an integral part of the Bill. It is not a, new question. It is true that the Amendment has only just been put down, but the Government have had their Schedules on the Paper for weeks and weeks, and for months the matter has been in their hands. Why have they only just now discovered these uncertainties which make it necessary for them to put off the solution of this question to another Parliament? How can they leave this aspect of Indian affairs in that complete confusion into which it is now thrown?

I protest against the procedure. The proper course for the Government to adopt is to promise to reconsider the matter upon Report stage; to delay the Report stage until they have made up their minds about it and then to bring it before Parliament in the ordinary way. To say that this Parliament is to jettison large chunks of this Bill and leave them to be dealt with in another Parliament, is, I should have thought, a most incredibly clumsy and improper procedure. I strongly urge that the Attorney-General should reconsider what he has said and promise to make the decision of the Government plain upon the Report stage. Those who dislike these present proposals should have the courage of their convictions and give effect to them by their votes—they have no chance of beating the Government, the Government have 200 or 300 people who are ready to vote for whatever they say or do, so there is no danger. If the anthropological party have the courage to go into the Lobby, which I greatly doubt, for they have been wriggling and twisting for the last quarter of an hour trying to find an excuse to get out of their position, that will be the best way and the only constitutional and Parliamentary way of bringing their influence to bear on the Government and getting the matter dealt with on the Report stage. The Report stage can perfectly well be adjourned until after Whitsuntide, till the Government can confront us with a reasoned, well-thought-out and final proposal upon a matter affecting 22,000,000 people and one which is inherent in the general structure of the Bill.

5.44 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

I hope the Committee will allow me to make one or two observations. My right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) has repeated over and over again references to "the next Parliament." There are many things under this Bill that have to be done by Order in Council and a great many of them will be done in this Parliament, and I see no reason why this matter should not be dealt with in this Parliament. I do not know where my right hon. Friend got his assumption that it will have to be done in the next Parliament.

Mr. CHURCHILL

I should think the right hon. and learned Gentleman is sanguine if he imagines that provincial government is going to be brought into being in India within the next 12 months.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

My right hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. I said that the intention was to do this before provincial autonomy was brought into operation—before, not after. I see no reason why it should not be done in this Parliament. A great deal of the eloquence of my right hon. Friend was unnecessarily expended, and he strikes me as someone who has been baulked of his prey. He hoped to make a speech pointing out how the Government were relying upon the big battalions and how obstinate they were, even in face of the closely reasoned speeches of some of their best friends. The right hon. Gentleman forgot the course which, I hope, will justify the Government's decision as well as meet the views of my hon. Friends. My right hon. Friend protests that we have been unreasonable;; well, we must put up with his strictures in the hope that, although we cannot satisfy him, we have been able to satisfy the Committee.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL

I cannot accept the statement of the Attorney-General that this matter could be dealt with in the lifetime of the present Parliament. There is no certainty about that. If the Government have that intention, and if they could give us an assurance that it would be dealt with towards the end of the present Session, that would invalidate any portion of my argument, whether closely reasoned or not, which depended upon the matter being held over until another Parliament. I certainly think that we ought to have a pledge from the Government that the matter will be dealt with in the present Session. It is most undesirable that the matter should continue upon the present basis.

5.47 p.m.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON

This matter ought to be cleared up, because it affects 22,000,000 people. One remembers how, in regard to Ireland, although only 4,000,000 people were concerned, it was necessary to have longer and more protracted debates. In all that the Attorney-General has just said, I see no reason why this should not be dealt with in this Parliament. The present position is not, good enough, and I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) that, if we are to leave this truncated Measure to the chances of another Session, we ought to have an assurance from the Government that it will be dealt with. In regard to the return which the Committee have been promised, not a word has been said whether the return will contain information as to whether these classes of people desire to be left in their present position or desire to come into the new government. It is a matter of vital importance to us that we should know whether these 22,000,000 people, who have required special protection in the past, desire to be placed under the new government or prefer to remain under the direct control of the British Government. The Committee ought not to allow the matter to be withdrawn because of the submission of the Attorney-General that the matter will be dealt with by Order in Council, until we know that that Order in Council will be made before the present Parliament comes to an end.

5.49 p.m.

Mr. CADOGAN

I do not know whether my part in the Debate has been that of a wriggling, twisting anthropologist, but I know that there has been an attempt on my part to champion the cause of tribesmen with whom I have come into contact, and of whom some of my hon. Friends who have supported the Amendment have far greater knowledge than I. I am prepared to accept the concession which the Government have offered through the Attorney-General, because I believe it will be the best chance of obtaining further concessions for the tribesmen for whom I have been speaking. I trust also that it will mean a re-examination of the whole case. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

HON. MEMBERS

No.

5.50 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN

I have to explain that the Amendment proposes to leave out the words from the beginning of line 9 to the end of the Schedule, and to add a long series of words which are on the Order Paper. The question which is before, and will be put to the Committee is, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule.

5.51 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

On a point of Order. I am not sure whether the Committee appreciate that the proposal I have made requires that the Schedule shall be omitted in toto. If that proposal is agreed to, the Committee will negative the Motion which you, Sir Dennis, have put. If the Committee are not prepared to accept the proposal which I have made, then the withdrawal of the Amendment having been refused, it will be necessary for the Government to adhere to the Schedule and to ask the Committee to affirm the inclusion of the words which you have put to the Committee.

The CHAIRMAN

On that point of Order. The Attorney-General is quite right. I approach the question from a slightly different angle. There is very little at issue upon this Amendment. The main issue presumably will arise on the question, "That this Schedule be the Sixth Schedule to the Bill."

5.53 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL

I venture to ask very respectfully for your guidance of the Committee, because there is a danger owing to the form in which the Question is put, of a misunderstanding as to which way hon. Members should vote in order to express their perfectly clear opinions. I would also ask personally for an explanation as to the course that I should adopt. I desire to vote for the carrying of the Amendment which was moved by the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan), the question which we have been discussing all the afternoon. Would you kindly advise me, as I am sure your advice would be of great assistance to myself and to some of my hon. Friends to enable us to discharge our duty? We do not want to vote in the wrong Division Lobby by mistake.

The CHAIRMAN

I can tell the right hon. Gentleman at once. He should vote "No", the question before the Committee being that certain words, proposed by the Mover of the Amendment to be left out, stand part of the Schedule. The right hon. Gentleman wishes them to be left out, and he will vote, therefore, that they do not stand part.

Mr. CHURCHILL

That is exactly what I thought.

Sir H. CROFT

On a point of Order. May I ask the Attorney-General whether

there is any specific undertaking that this matter will be dealt with in this Session?

The CHAIRMAN

That is not a point of Order.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the end of line 9, stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 234; Noes, 36.

Division No. 179.]	AYES.	[5.55 p.m.
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher	Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)	Mabane, William
Albery, Irving James	Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst	MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)	Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)	MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)	Fox, Sir Gifford	Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Attlee, Clement Richard	Fraser, Captain Sir Ian	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Fremantle, Sir Francis	Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Banfield, John William	Gardner, Benjamin Walter	McEntee, Valentine L.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)	McKle, John Hamilton
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar	George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey	Gillett, Sir George Masterman	McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Batey, Joseph	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Mainwaring, William Henry
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell	Glossop, C. W. H.	Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th. C.)	Gluckstein, Louis Halle	Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Belt, Sir Alfred L.	Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.	Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel	Goldle, Noel B.	Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Blindell, James	Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas	Martin, Thomas B.
Bossom, A. C.	Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur	Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Boulton, W. W.	Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)	Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.	Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)	Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Brass, Captain Sir William	Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)	Mailer, Sir Richard James
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George	Grimston, R. V.	Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Groves, Thomas E.	Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Grundy, Thomas W.	Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Butler, Richard Austen	Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.	Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Cadogan, Hon. Edward	Gunston, Captain D. W.	Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)	Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)	Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)	Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)	Morrison, William Shepherd
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Moss, Captain H. J.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)	Harris, Sir Percy	Munro, Patrick
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)	Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)	Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)	Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)	Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)	Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.	O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric	Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.	Orr Ewing, I. L.
Christie, James Archibald	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.	Paling, Wilfred
Clarke, Frank	Hicks, Ernest George	Patrick, Colin M.
Clarry, Reginald George	Holdsworth, Herbert	Peake, Osbert
Cleary, J. J.	Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)	Penny, Sir George
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Howard, Tom Forrest	Percy, Lord Eustace
Conant, R. J. E.	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Perkins, Walter R. D.
Cook, Thomas A.	Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)	Petherick, M.
Cooper, A. Duff	Hume, Sir George Hopwood	Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)
Cranborne, Viscount	Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)	Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Hurd, Sir Percy	Potter, John
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)	Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.	Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Cross, R. H.	Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)	Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Daggar, George	Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)	Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Kerr, J. Campbell	Rickards, George William
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)	Ropner, Colonel L.
Dickle, John P.	Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton	Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Dobble, William	Lambert, Rt. Hon. George	Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Doran, Edward	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Rothschild, James A. de
Drewe, Cedric	Law, Sir Alfred	Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington. N.)	Lawson, John James	Runge, Norah Cecil
Dunglass, Lord	Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony	Leonard, William	Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Edwards, Charles	Lewis, Oswald	Salmon, Sir Isidore
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey	Little, Graham, Sir Ernest	Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson	Lloyd, Geoffrey	Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.	Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. G'n)	Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney)
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard	Loder, Captain J. de Vere	Sandys, Duncan
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare	Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander	Savery, Samuel Servington
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)	Lunn, William	Selley, Harry R.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.	Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)	Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)	Strickland, Captain W. F.	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Shute, Colonel Sir John	Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-	West, F. R.
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)	Sugdan, Sir Wilfrid Hart	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)	Thorne, William James	Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)
Smithers, Sir Waldron	Tinker, John Joseph	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Somervell, Sir Donald	Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)	Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.	Train, John	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.	Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Spens, William Patrick	Turton, Robert Hugh	Withers, Sir John James
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)	Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)	Womersley, Sir Walter
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)	Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)
Stones, James	Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Stourton, Hon. John J.	Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)	Sir Victor Warrender and
		Commander Southby.
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Davison, Sir William Henry	Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.	Dawson, Sir Philip	Pike, Cecil F.
Atholl, Duchess of	Emmott, Charles E. G. C.	Remer, John R.
Bailey, Eric Alfred George	Fuller, Captain A. C.	Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)	Goodman, Colonel Albert W.	Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Broadbent, Colonel John	Greene, William P. C.	Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n. S.)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)	Hales, Harold K.	Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Browne, Captain A. C.	Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger	Wayland, Sir William A.
Carver, Major William H.	Knox, Sir Alfred	Wells, Sydney Richard
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer	Levy, Thomas	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Marsden, Commander Arthur
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry	Mellor, Sir J. S. P.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Moreing, Adrian C.	Mr. Lennox-Boyd and Mr. Bracken.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Schedule be the Sixth Schedule to the Bill."

6.5 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL

I understand from the remarks which fell from the Attorney-General that it is the intention of the Government to withdraw this Schedule, so I presume that, when the Question is put from the Chair, the Government will vote against the Schedule. I heard the Attorney-General in the course of his speech speak as if there were some suggestion of an agreement or a bargain that, if the Government made this concession and withdrew the Schedule, the matter would not be raised and there would not be a long debate on the Report stage. I thought that my right hon. and learned Friend said that; in fact, everyone beard him say that. I am sorry he has forgotten it already.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

I have not forgotten. What I did say was that I hoped I might say that it was the hope that there would not be a debate on the Report stage as well as on the Order-in-Council.

Mr. CHURCHILL

My right hon. and learned Friend could not have been thinking the matter out clearly, because, if the Government withdraw the Schedule at this stage in Committee, there will be nothing in the pages of the Bill on the Report stage. It only shows the sort of haphazard manner in which these things are being carried through.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

I am sorry to interrupt, but my right hon. Friend is not accurate. Clause 91 is still in the Bill; Clause 91 deals with this matter; and, therefore, there would be plenty of opportunity for a long debate on the Report stage.

Mr. CHURCHILL

I am relieved to that extent, because undoubtedly this is not a matter which should be the subject of any bargain in that respect, and I think it is always a good thing to make it quite clear, because otherwise we get reproaches about not keeping engagements or understandings arising at a later stage. I propose to vote for the retention of the Schedule, inadequate as it undoubtedly is. I should have been glad to see it largely extended and voted in that sense, but, such as it is, I think it must remain in the Bill unless the Government are here and now prepared to give us an undertaking that the matter will be dealt with before the end of the present Session. If we can get an undertaking that the Order-in-Council dealing with this subject will be brought forward during the present Session, I should be perfectly prepared to assent to the proposal that the Sixth Schedule should be withdrawn, but failing that I think we must protest against leaving this matter in a condition indefinite in point of time and uncertain in point of fact when it affects the well-being of 22,000,000 people. I hope we may hear from the Government that the undertaking will be given that we shall have this Order-in-Council before us in the form which the Government consider finally appropriate before the end of the Session.

6.9 p.m.

Sir BASIL PETO

On a point of Order. You have heard, Sir Dennis, what the Attorney-General said in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill)—that the House on the Report stage could fully discuss this matter on Clause 91. I do not know whether you have Clause 91 before you, but it says: In this Act the expressions 'excluded area' and 'partially excluded area' mean respectively the areas specified in Part I and Part II of the Sixth Schedule to this Act. The point that I want to put before you—

The CHAIRMAN

Is the hon. Member proposing to ask me what can be done on Report?

Sir B. PETO

I want to ask you whether as a general rule it would be possible on the Committee stage or any other stage of the Bill to debate the question on a Clause worded as that Clause is, if there is no such Schedule?

The CHAIRMAN

I am not called upon to give a general Ruling on a point which does not arise. I can give no Ruling on Clause 91, because we have passed it as far as the Committee is concerned. I can give no Ruling on Clause 91 on Report, because it has nothing to do with me.

Sir B. PETO

Will you allow me to address the Committee for a moment on that point in support of what my right hon. Friend has said? It is very desirable that the Committee should know where it stands. We have had from the Attorney-General what amounts to a pledge that, even if this Schedule is withdrawn, we shall have full opportunity to discuss the matter on Report stage. It appears to me from the wording of the Clause that that would be quite impossible, because it commences by referring to a Schedule which, on the hypothesis now before the Committee, it is proposed to leave out of the Bill, so that we shall have a truncated Bill before us with a Clause 91 in it the whole meaning of which is to specify that certain excluded or partially excluded areas are such areas as are specified in the two parts of the Sixth Schedule to the Bill. If there is no such Schedule to the Bill, I hold at any rate that the House will certainly not be in a position to debate the matter at all. There is no object in the Clause being there if there is no Schedule. There is no meaning in the Clause unless the Schedule is either left in the Bill or amended. The Government have refused to amend it at this stage, and now propose to take it out, and therefore, if we want to settle this matter while this great question, which has now been debated for a long while, is before this House—this House for certain, not some other House in another Parliament—we must leave this Schedule in the Bill.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL

I think we must have an answer from the Government to the question which has been put. The Attorney-General, in the hearing of all of us, referred us to a particular Clause in the Bill, but when that Clause is examined it is found to stand upon the Sixth Schedule, which is now to be withdrawn. What is the Attorney-General's position with regard to this second thought, so hastily adopted when he was convicted of the first haphazard statement? What is his position now in regard to his second happy thought?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

My right hon. Friend must, if he desires to do so, misunderstand me, but I do not think anything I have said is capable of misunderstanding. I expressed the view some quarter of an hour ago that there should not be a Debate on the Report stage on this matter as well as on the Order-in-Council. On that my right hon. Friend pointed out that there weuld be no Schedule on Report, and therefore no opportunity of debating it on Report stage, whether he wanted it or not. I called attention to the fact that Clause 91 will still remain in the Bill. That was not a promise that we should have a full Debate. I am still of opinion that it is better not to have a Debate on two occasions. It would be necessary, obviously, to move Amendments to Clause 91 to make it fit in with the new situation if this Schedule is omitted from the Bill.

Mr. BRACKEN

Ah!

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

As I said when I was making my original statement, in spite of my impulsive Friend the Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken), as to the question whether we were promised a Debate on this question this Session, I can give no such promise, if only for the reason that at the moment I am not at all informed whether we could possibly collect all the information necessary to give the House what it desires in the way of facts about these backward tracts. I do hope the Committee will allow us to decide this question whether the Schedule should be left in the Bill or not, in view of what has been said, and will let us proceed with the Bill under the arrangement.

Mr. CHURCHILL

I certainly am not at all satisfied with what has been said. The Attorney-General, with tremendous authority, swept away my contention that we were in all human probability adjourning this matter to another Parliament. It is generally agreed, I think—it is common opinion—that we ought not to do that, but ought to face the difficulty while we are with it in the present Session. When the Attorney-General is asked whether he will agree that the Order-in-Council shall be considered during the present Session, he says: "I cannot give such a promise, because I do not know whether all the information will be collected." Have you got to the stage in this Measure that you have not yet collected all the information dealing with these 22,000,000 people—that you have not got this information and do not know that you will be able to get it—that, although we are only now in the middle of May, and are to sit here till August, even by August you do not know whether you will have got the information which one would have thought you had thoroughly digested long before the matter was placed in print in the Bill?

I say that that is a highly unsatisfactory state of affairs, and that it does justify the use of the words "haphazard" and "precipitate," which I am very pained to use, in regard to anything with which the Attorney-General is concerned, because no one works harder and bears a heavier daily burden of skilfully discharged mental toil than he does; but I must say that the words are applicable to this particular lapse into which he has fallen—what other words could be appointed?—in having now shifted and shuffled the whole of this question off beyond the present Session, and cannot give any guarantee that it will be dealt with in the present Session, admitting that he is not in possession of the information necessary for doing so. We do not know what the future will have in store. The countryside is agog with rumours that this Parliament may not see the year 1936, and in any case the period must be very short. I say I am absolutely justified in saying that the Government in all probability are leaving this vast body of poor people—primitive, aboriginal people scattered about in all parts of India—with their fate utterly unprovided for by the Parliament which his carrying out this whole scheme. The question whether we shall have a further opportunity on the Report stage—as I gather we shall, since Amendments will have to be moved to Clause 91—for debating the subject of excluded areas, sinks into insignificance in the absence of a definite undertaking that this matter shall be dealt with in a manly, precise and serious fashion during the present Session. Certainly the withdrawal of the Schedule leaves the Bill meaningless, and leaves these poor people suspended between heaven and earth in total uncertainty as to their future and what that future will be.

6.15 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL

I should like to add a few words in support of what my right hon. Friend has just said. The admission of the learned Attorney-General that it would be impossible for him to give the undertaking asked for that a new Schedule could be produced in this Session because so much work would be required and so many investigations would have to be made, seems to me to be a staggering indication of the haste with which this Bill has been introduced.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

The Noble Lady really must not, even at this moment, misrepresent me. I am not in the habit of giving pledges unless I know that I am in a position to keep them. I never said for a moment that the Government were not in a position to be in possession of the facts, or that it was necessary to make a fresh investigation. I never said it, and my Noble Friend has no right to put it upon me. I said that I was not prepared to give a pledge, because I did not know at the moment whether there were any fresh facts which it would be necessary to obtain in order to fulfil the promise and lay the full information before the House. I hope that my Noble Friend will not apply that statement to me.

Duchess of ATHOLL

I have certainly no wish to misrepresent the learned Attorney-General, but I must say that his statement gave me the impression that there were a great many facts to be collected, and that he was not able to do so within the limits of the present Session. That seemed to me an indication of the haste with which the Bill was introduced to Parliament. The Bill is by far the largest and longest that has ever been presented to Parliament in its long history. I remember that only five weeks elapsed between the precipitate approval given by Parliament to the report of the Joint Select Committee and the publication of this Bill. We were asked to believe that the Bill had been drafted in the course of only five short weeks, which I never found easy to believe. I believe that the Bill was in draft months before the Joint Select Committee reported.

The CHAIRMAN

I hope that the Noble Lady will remember what we are now on.

Duchess of ATHOLL

I did not wish to stray from the point. It was only incidental, but it was obvious that five weeks was a very short period in which to draw up a Bill.

The CHAIRMAN

I have already interrupted the Noble Lady by saying or implying that this is not in order. She must not discuss the Bill now. We are simply discussing whether this Schedule shall be the Sixth Schedule to the Bill.

Duchess of ATHOLL

I can only say that it seems to me a very serious matter that, on anything that is mentioned in a Bill which has been under discussion by the House of Commons for three months, it should be said or indicated by the Government that it is impossible to say whether the discussions can be concluded in the course of this Session, and I must join my protest to that made by my right hon. Friend.

6.19 p.m.

Mr. BRACKEN

I want to make an appeal to the Attorney-General. He has told us that he is not aware of the fact that the Government have not collected the relative information necessary to come to a decsion upon this important matter. He has also told us that we must postpone or wait peacefully until the Secretary of State returns to his duties. Does he realise that there are 22,000,000 people whose fortunes are at stake until he can condescend to make up his mind, and that that number is more than double the population of Australia, South Africa, Canada, New Zealand and other parts of the Empire? Is it fair to treat those people in this fashion and to say, "I cannot make up his mind. I think I may be able to make up my mind, but I am not sure." I agree with the Noble Lady when she says that this is a very bad case of drafting in haste 'and repenting at leisure. The lives of 22,000,000 people and the conditions under which they live and their future are at stake, and yet the Attorney-General tells us that it is improbable that he will be able to attend to this matter before the present Session ends, and he will not give a guarantee. It is really treating the House cavalierly to refuse to give a definite undertaking.

I hope that hon. Members who feel so strongly on this matter will again vote against the Government. It is the most unsatisfactory compromise I have ever heard in this House. The Attorney-General has really given no compromise at all. He has rebuked everybody. He has been proved totally wrong on several occasions, and now we have to wait before he can express any opinion on the future of 22,000,000 people. No dictator in Europe, however powerful, would say that 22,000,000 people must be in a sort of limbo for 12 months before he makes up his mind. I hope that the Government will not continue to adopt this autocratic and trenchant attitude.

6.21 p.m.

Sir W. DAVISON

The learned Attorney-General said that he never said that the Government were not in possession of facts regarding the matter. If they are in possession of the facts, why do they not adopt the usual Parliamentary practice and withdraw this Schedule and introduce a new Schedule on the Report stage? Then we would have the new Schedule before us and be able to discuss it in connection with the Bill as a whole. To withdraw an important Schedule which affects the lives of 22,000,000 people, and to say that it may or may not be dealt with in the course of the present Parliament is prostituting the responsibility of Members in this Parliament. None of us knows whether we shall be returned in the next Parliament, but we are responsible for a new Constitution for India. Why should we allow this new Constitution to pass away and receive its final form from Members in this Parliament without knowing what will be the fate of 22,000,000 of our inhabitants It is not unreasonable, and it is far better, that the Government, with such information as they have—if they have not full information they ought to have it after all this time—should withdraw the Schedule now and introduce a new Schedule on the Report stage, and then the House as at present constituted would know how to deal with the matter.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL

May we not have an answer? I am not going to preface my remarks with a desire not to speak for more than a minute or two. This is a very important point, and a very important thing in procedure. It is a lightning flash, and reveals a great deal of what many of us believe, and what we have endeavoured to persuade others, about the Bill, namely, that it is full of contradictions and anomalies, and has not been thought out in a great many respects. On this particular occasion in the Committee stage we have been able to show the very insecure foundation upon which all this great air of ministerial power and authority stands. I counsel the Attorney-General and the Under-Secretary that they are adopting an unusual and unnecessary Parliamentary procedure. The natural and proper course would be, as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison), to withdraw the Schedule and to introduce a new Schedule on the Report

stage. Then the Bill would be self-contained. The Government know perfectly well that a Schedule dealing with this matter ought to be in the Bill otherwise why should they have drafted it in this form? As they have omitted what is an integral part of the Bill, they ought not to change the procedure and leave it over to another Session or to another Parliament by an Order in Council as a sort of something which has been left behind to be attended to piecemeal at a later stage. They ought to propose a new Schedule when the Report stage is brought on. Why is there such a hurry to bring on the Report stage? It should be brought on after matters have been materially considered.

However, there you are. The Government have made up their minds that the question affecting the primitive tribes and backward races of India is one that they are incompetent to deal with in this Parliament. They are afraid of having half a dozen anthropologists added to this Bill. They are afraid that it will be said that opposition to the Government of India Bill is growing. They have taken the most unusual, almost unprecedented step of striking an entire Schedule out of the Bill and of leaving one essential, vital and integral part of the Bill completely unprovided for, in the hope that probably in another Parliament the apologetic and anthropological party will not be there to challenge them. Over and over again the exact procedure which the Government have adopted in the last two and a half hours has shown a very great infirmity of purpose and a very great lack of knowledge of the ordinary workings of the House of Commons, and they have introduced in our treatment of the India question an air of carelessness and levity which should never have touched such a grave matter, and should never, above all things, touch the fortunes of these poor people.

Question put, "That this Schedule be the Sixth Schedule to the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 33; Noes, 255.

Division No. 180.]	AYES.	[6.30 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer	Greene, William P. C.
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.	Courtauld, Major John Sewell	Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Atholl, Duchess of	Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry	Hales, Harold K.
Bailey, Eric Alfred George	Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)	Davison, Sir William Henry	Knox, Sir Alfred
Browne, Captain A. C.	Emmott, Charles E. G. C.	Levy, Thomas
Carver, Major William H.	Goodman, Colonel Albert W.	Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Marsden, Commander Arthur	Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)	Wells, Sydney Richard
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.	Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)	Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Moreing, Adrian C.	Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)	Touche, Gordon Cosmo	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)	Wayland, Sir William A.	Major George Davies and Dr.
		Morris-Jones.
NOES.
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)	Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher	Foot, Dingle (Dundee)	McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Albery, Irving James	Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)	Mainwaring, William Henry
Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)	Fox, Sir Gifford	Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Fraser, Captain Sir Ian	Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.	Fremantle, Sir Francis	Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)	Gardner, Benjamin Walter	Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Attlee, Clement Richard	George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)	Martin, Thomas B.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)	Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)	Gillett, Sir George Masterman	Maxton, James
Banfield, John William	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Glossop, C. W. H.	Mellor, Sir Richard James
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar	Gluckstein, Louis Halla	Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey	Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.	Mills, Major J. O. (New Forest)
Batey, Joseph	Goff, Sir Park	Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)	Goldie, Noel B.	Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Belt, Sir Alfred L.	Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas	Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel	Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur	Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Bernays, Robert	Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)	Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Blindell, James	Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)	Morrison, William Shepherd
Bossom, A. C.	Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)	Most, Captain H. J.
Boulton, W. W.	Grimston, R. V.	Munro, Patrick
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.	Groves, Thomas E.	Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)	Grundy, Thomas W.	O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Brass, Captain Sir William	Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.	Orr Ewing, I. L.
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George	Gunston, Captain D. W.	Owen, Major Goronwy
Broadbent, Colonel John	Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Paling, Wilfred
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)	Parkinson, John Allen
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.	Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)	Patrick, Colin M.
Burghley, Lord	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Peake, Osbert
Butler, Richard Austen	Harris, Sir Percy	Pearson, William G.
Butt, Sir Alfred	Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n)	Penny, Sir George
Cadogan, Hon. Edward	Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)	Percy, Lord Eustace
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)	Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)	Perkins, Walter R. D.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.	Petherick, M.
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)	Heligers, Captain F. F. A.	Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonal Arthur P.	Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)	Hicks, Ernest George	Potter, John
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)	Holdsworth, Herbert	Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)	Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Asten)	Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)	Howard, Tom Forrest	Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Rathbone, Eleanor
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric	Hume, Sir George Hopwood	Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Christie, James Archibald	Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)	Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Clarke, Frank	Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.	Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Clarry, Reginald George	Iveagh, Countess of	Rickards, George William
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)	Robinson, John Roland
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.	Ropner, Colonel L.
Conant, R. J. E.	Jenkins, Sir William	Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Cook, Thomas A.	Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)	Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Cooper, A. Duff	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward
Cooper, T. M. (Edinburgh, W.)	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Runge, Norah Cecil
Copeland, Ida	Ker, J. Campbell	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.	Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)	Russell, Hamar Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Kerr, Hamilton W.	Salmon, Sir Isidore
Crookshank, Col. C. da Windt (Bootle)	Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton	Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.	Lambert, Rt. Hon. George	Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney)
Cross, R. H.	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Savery, Samuel Servington
Daggar, George	Law, Sir Alfred	Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.	Lawson, John James	Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Shute, Colonel Sir John
Denman, Hon. R. D.	Leonard, William	Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)
Dickle, John P.	Lewis, Oswald	Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Dobble, William	Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest	Smithers, Sir Waldron
Drewe, Cedric	Lloyd, Geoffrey	Somervell, Sir Donald
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)	Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)	Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Dunglass, Lord	Loder, Captain J. de Vere	Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Eales, John Frederick	Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander	Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Eastwood, John Francis	Lunn, William	Spens, William Patrick
Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony	Mabana, William	Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Edwards, Charles	MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)	Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey	MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)	Stones, James
Emrys-Evans, P. V.	Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)	Stourton, Hon. John J.
Entwlstle, Cyril Fullard	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)	Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare	Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)	Strickland, Captain W. F.
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)	McEntee, Valentine L.	Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)	McKie, John Hamilton	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

Thorne, William James	Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)	Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
Tinker, John Joseph	Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of	Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)	Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.	Womersley, Sir Walter
Train, John	Waterhouse, Captain Charles	Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.	West, F. R.	Worthington, Dr. John V.
Turton, Robert Hugh	Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)	Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord	Mr. Lennox-Boyd and Mr. Bracken