HC Deb 14 May 1935 vol 301 cc1629-63

7.55 p.m.

Miss RATHBONE

I beg to move in page 317, line 3, to leave out "ninety-one" and to insert "eighty-six."

This Amendment has been drafted to provide five seats for the women of Burma in the House of Representatives, and, in order to make room for these five women, to deduct five from the number of non-communal seats. At present it is not proposed to give women any reserved seats. I can anticipate the objection which the Under-Secretary will make, because it was foreshadowed in the report of the Joint Select Committee, who explained that they had originally intended, as proposed in a White Paper, to reserve three seats for women, but when the Burmese delegates attended the Joint Select Committee the one woman repre- sentative repudiated reservation of seats, and the Joint Select Committee therefore took away those seats, and proposed to give none to women. I want to point out that the women of India also repudiated reservation of seats like the Burmese women. They did it on the principle that what they wanted was complete equality between the sexes without any privileges. In order to do that the Indian women asked for adult franchise.

The Burmese women asked for a franchise for the wives of men voters calculating that they would get a perfectly adequate franchise, if not complete equality, and would be able to do without reservation of seats. In the case of India, provision was made for reservation of seats for women as some compensation, but in the case of Burma they took away the reserved seats but they did not give a real equality of voting rights or even the right of wives to vote on their husbands' qualification, for which the Burmese representative had specifically asked. I suggest that that was not fair. The two propositions hang together, and I think it was taking an unfair advantage of the Burmese women to say, "You do not want reserved seats. We are glad to have them to spare," and then to refuse to give them the wives' votes they had asked for. See the position that puts the Burmese women in. They will be in a worse position than the women of India. It is true that owing to the wider property rights and their higher degree of literacy they will have a higher percentage of electorate than the Indian women. In the case of Burma it is one woman's vote to over three and a half men's votes, and in India it is one to five, but that does not make up for having no security for seats in the House of Representatives.

Again, I may be told that the Burmese women are well able to look after themselves and are good business women and do not suffer from such evils as child marriage which break down Indian women. I am prepared to believe that the Burmese woman is a competent individual, but the position seems to be that she is equal to three and a half men because the percentage of voting strength cannot be expected to give her equality of rights and representation when she has only one vote to three and a half men's votes, unless you suppose that that represents her superiority over men. Therefore, I do ask the Under-Secretary whether he cannot, on behalf of the Government, either accept the Amendment down in my name and that of my hon. Friend, or tell us that he will accept, when it is reached, a corresponding Amendment which I have put down on a franchise schedule dealing with Burma to enfranchise the wives of men voters. Even if he would enfranchise a substantial proportion, I should be prepared to withdraw this Amendment, recognising that the Burmese women prefer an adequate franchise to reservation of seats. I suggest that the Government should give one or the other, because it is rather hard that the Burmese women, who, confessedly, in many respects are more advanced in respect of education and independence of spirit than the Indian women, should be put in an inferior position to the Indian women and not in a position of equality. If they are so competent, why only give them so small a percentage of voting strength? If they are not so competent, then I submit that they do need the security which a reservation of seats will give them.

I have noticed that the suggestion of the Joint Select Committee was to make the number of the House of Representatives 133. When they dropped the idea of reservation of seats for women they cut the number down to 130. I have already dealt with the question of the size of the Legislature, and I could only table this Amendment by suggesting that women's seats could be deducted from the general non-communal seats. It is perfectly open to the Government to change the number again on the Report stage and make it 133, and they would then make room for women's seats without taking anything away from the general non-communal seats that have been promised. Three is little, but it is better than nothing. I do not attach importance to the exact form of this Amendment, but we do want to secure more for the women of Burma than the Bill promises them.

8.1 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER

The hon. Lady is always very persuasive in these matters of women's franchise and women's seats. I should like to defer any detailed consideration of the question of franchise until later, because, as she says, the Amendment in question does not arise on this particular Schedule. I think that I should perhaps be corresponding to Order more if I followed that course. I do not wish to deny to her that the question of the franchise accorded to Burmese women has a relation to the number of seats. The Joint Select Committee had a unique experience in considering the case of the women of Burma. We had the advantage of there attending before us a capable delegate representing the Burmese women, and she stated emphatically that the women of Burma did not wish any special seats to be reserved to them. She said that she had had an opportunity of consultation with her fellow women in Burma, and, in view of this very decided opinion, I do not think that it would be wise to go against the expression of opinion that has been made by a competent representative of the Burmese women. The hon. Lady moved that five non-communal seats should be reserved for women. I do not think that the Government can at once increase the allocation which they had originally proposed, which was three seats. We are now asked to give five seats. We are asked to increase the number, and, in view of the statement I have made, we could not accept the Amendment.

We might have felt led to reconsider the matter if we had received representations from Burma, but we have received no representations which differ from the opinion given to us. We find that an additional argument for reinforcing our view that we should not have special seats reserved for women. The women of Burma have a special position. The hon. Lady has given statistics as to the corresponding value of a Burmese woman and a Burmese man. I would not attempt to vie with her, but there is no doubt that Burmese women do mix in the life of the community to a greater extent than in India. We all of us, whether we are considering India or Burma, take an opportunity not to introduce special representation or franchise. When an opportunity therefore arises to let women stand in the ordinary constituencies to find their own place in the political life of the country and when they ask us to allow them to do so, I think that the Government would be very wrong to go against the finding of the Joint Select Committee.

The hon. Lady said that if we could help her on franchise she would not attach so much importance to this particular Amendment. I am rather precluded from going into details on franchise and would only remind her that the women voters in Burma have increased to about 700, 000 from a figure of only about 124, 000. That is a very distinct increase in voting power for the women of Burma. I agree that we have not been able to concede the strength of franchise which the women of Burma desire, but we have increased their proportion to men, which is approximately one to 3.5. In view of the position held by the women of Burma, in view of the statement of their representative at the Burmese discussions before the Joint Select Committee, I regret that we are unable to accept the Amendment.

8.7 p.m.

Miss RATHBONE

I do not propose to press this Amendment to a Division, but I would suggest that the Under-Secretary did not meet my argument. He rather skilfully evaded it. It was hardly fair to take that one representative of the women of Burma, and yet refuse to give her the extended vote she asked for while it was on the ground of that extended vote that she said that the women of Burma did not want reserved seats. The two propositions ought to hang together. What assurance have we that that one woman could speak for the women of Burma? The movement in Burma has not been as vociferous or well organised as the movement in India. I think it is very rash to take it for granted that because one women came over here and assured the Committee that the women of Burma did not want reservation of seats that the seats which the Government had already undertaken to give in the White Paper should be taken away. That particular lady need not stand for any of these seats if she does not want to do so, but is it not likely that there would be women in Burma who would be very glad to stand? I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to give us some further concession when it comes to the franchise, because it is a very poor reason for refusing to give either an adequate vote or reservation of seats in compensation that they are already so advanced. That ought to be a reason for giving them more power, not less.

8.9 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT

Before the Government yield to the pressure of the hon. Lady who has just spoken, as they might do on second thoughts, may I say that the hon. Lady earlier in the evening was rather severe in her strictures on myself? I do not need to adopt a similar role, but I do feel that the lady who gave evidence before the Joint Select Committee was a particularly well-qualified woman who was entitled to speak for the women of Burma, and I do not think it is fair to say that the Government ought not to listen to the only Burmese woman to express an opinion and that they ought to listen to the only British woman who has taken part in this Debate.

Miss RATHBONE

They might have listened to everything she said and not only half of it.

Sir H. CROFT

I think that we listen to a great deal that the hon. Lady says. We know how enthusiastic she is on this subject. The Committee ought to realise what a danger there is of being carried away by emotion with regard to all these questions. The hon. Lady took a great part in winning the vote for women in this country, and we have all now accepted the situation that we are all equal in our opportunities for entering this House, but after all everybody must realise that the women in the East have taken a very much less part in all sorts of public and social life than women in the old world. In view of the fact that a substantial representation is being given to them it is unwise to give any impression to the women of Burma that they are not, being adequately represented. I suggest that all through these Debates we have been too much inclined to compare the position in the Provinces of India and in Burma with the position at which we have arrived after 500, 600, 700 years of political education in this country. I therefore hope that the Government will not be in any way influenced by what the hon. Lady said either in this or any future discussions, because we have in the matter of female suffrage taken a step forward with regard to this constitution at a far greater rate than has been taken anywhere in the old world.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS

I should not have risen but for the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken. I trust that the Government will relax and will yield to the pressure of the hon. Lady. The case that she made out has still to be answered. The Under-Secretary is wrong if he takes the one representative, whom I had the pleasure of seeing sitting at the Burma Round Table Conference, as fully representing in this matter the view of all the women in Burma. The hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) is correct when she says that if he takes the Burma representative's view on this matter he should equally take her view on all matters. That is so logical that the Under-Secretary will be obliged to answer her case in that respect. Certainly the hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot be correct if he argues that the women of Burma are more ignorant than the men of Burma. I think that it is admitted by most persons who have studied this matter that the women of Burma are looked on as being perhaps the most intelligent women we have in the East, and that they should have the opportunity of exercising their intelligence by having an increase in the franchise extended to them. I adduce from the remarks of the Under-Secretary that some concession is likely to be made.

Mr. BUTLER

I think that it would be out of order for me to start discussing in detail the proposed new franchise or to have any deductions made by hon. Members.

Mr. WILLIAMS

I thought that in making reference to it he was trying to bring pressure to bear upon the hon. Member to withdraw the Amendment, in the hope that something would happen which was favourable to her point of view. I will not continue that argument, because it would be out of order, but I trust that the Under-Secretary will endeavour to meet the logic of the case. He should not regard the representative at the Round Table Conference as fully representing the whole of the women's demands in this matter, and if he does he should meet in all respects all the claims put by her on behalf of the women. I do not want to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth into the franchise issue in this country. I supported the cause of women's suffrage. Many things which happened at the time were deplorable. Most of the arguments advanced at the time were comparable to the arguments advanced by the hon. and gallant Member just now, that women do not possess as much intelligence as men or that if they do they are not able to exercise it.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is doing what he said he was not going to do. He is certainly getting beyond the bounds of this discussion.

Mr. WILLIAMS

I am endeavouring to follow the hon. and gallant Member in his remarks.

The CHAIRMAN

If the hon. Member does that there may be no end to where he goes, and he is certainly getting beyond the bounds of order.

Mr. WILLIAMS

I was only following the hon. and gallant Member in his arguments.

The CHAIRMAN

But it is not in order to do so.

Sir H. CROFT

May I intervene to say to the hon. Member that I never used the phrase which he attributed to me?

Mr. WILLIAMS

Then I am afraid I was arguing on an assumption rather than on a definite statement. I hope the Under-Secretary will again reply to what the hon. Lady had to say.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. NOEL LINDSAY

In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) I desire to say a word on this Amendment, to which his name is attached. The argument so far has proceeded solely on the grounds put forward by the hon. Lady representing the English Universities (Miss Rathbone), who desires to reduce the number of general seats in order to confer additional seats upon the representatives of her sex. My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster desires also to reduce the number of general seats, but for a different purpose, as appears from another Amendment in his name. He desires to reduce the number of general seats in order to increase the European representation. Our roads go a certain distance together, only we desire to reduce the number of general seats from 91 to 86 to make use of them for European representation and she desires to transfer them to the ladies.

I am given to understand that the European interests in Burma are profoundly dissatisfied at the amount of representation which is being given to them. At present there are seven European representatives in a House of 103, not counting the official bloc of 16 seats, most of which are occupied by Europeans. If strict proportional representation were adopted, in a House of 133 the European representation would be not three, as provided for by the Schedule, but something like 11. The Amendment does not ask for as much as that, but only for representation for eight, which I am sure the Under-Secretary will agree is a modest request. The principle which was adopted generally and which was recommended by the Joint Select Committee was that there should not be a lesser proportion of European representation than exists at present, and even if this Amendment were carried, with the other in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster, and European representation were increased to eight, there would still be, in proportion, a lower representation of European interests in the new House than there is in the present House. The Under-Secretary knows very well that in Burma the European interest is greater probably than in any part of India, with the possible exception of Bengal.

In Bengal the European representation amounts to 10 per cent. of the lower House, which is slightly greater than we ask here. The Burma Chamber of Commerce feel that this is a very modest request and ought to be granted. They do not feel that the Burman population has yet reached a standard of political development which would justify a reduction in the European seats, particularly as Burma is not in the same position as a Province. In the case of the Provinces there is the safeguard of the existence of the Central Government, but Burma is to stand by itself, and there will be no Central Government to cover up mistakes which may be made. In Burma, as elsewhere, there are the reserved powers, but no one wants to call them into operation unless that is essential. We think that if the European representation in Burma can be increased there will be fewer occasions for resorting to the reserved powers, and that a greater European representation will enhance the possibilities of the success of this great constitutional experiment. It is sometimes said that the Continent of India is ripe for this experiment. Of Burma that is perhaps less true. It is for these reasons that the European interests in Burma desire this Amendment to be pressed, and ask for a greater share of representation in the Burma House of Representatives.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER

In the original Amendment no reference was made to this subject and that is why I did not touch upon it earlier. I will give an answer to my hon. Friend; but before doing so perhaps I had better refer to the points raised by the hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman opposite. I have little to add to my original statement with regard to the number of seats for women, because we are not proposing to reserve them, and regard the representative of Burma as competent to express the views of Burmese women. We have received no representation at all from Burma on this subject differing from her views. The hon. Lady representing the English Universities (Miss Rathbone), with clever dialectical skill, tied up this question with that of the franchise. I do not want to mislead the Committee, but I do not think, speaking from memory, that these matters are tied up together as conditions in the submission of the hon. lady from Burma who attended our deliberations to speak on behalf of Burmese women. She definitely asked for an increased franchise and for no seats to be reserved. I do not think she tied the two questions together. We are dealing with the first of her requests that there should be no seats reserved. When the time comes I shall try to deal with the second request. With regard to representations from Burma, we have received none from the women.

I agree that the Europeans in Burma are not entirely satisfied with the allocation of seats to them in the Chamber. We have, however, exhaustively reviewed this matter; we did so on the Joint Select Committee, as well as previous to the deliberations of that body and since it finished its labours. Let me describe the position of the European community in Burma at the present moment. The European community numbers about 11,650, a comparatively small proportion of the population. I agree with the hon. Member, however, that they have contributed a great deal, both in capital and in their influence, to the development of Burma, which, as I have previously described to the Committee, is developing its great natural products of rice, tea and oil largely with the assistance of European capital and European initiative. I do not deny for a moment the importance of their stake in the country or of their importance to Burma's future.

Leaving aside the representation which the European community will receive in special interest constituencies, the number of Europeans as such, as representing the community, will be increased, in our proposal, from one representative to three. That is a substantial increase. On the basis of their numerical proportion and their correspondence with other communities it was thought that that rise in the number of their representation was just. The Europeans will have a total of nine seats. In answering the hon. Member, I think it desirable to go into this point in some little detail. There will be three seats for the European community as such—that is, as a community—five for the Burman Chamber of Commerce, which will represent those very interests to which the hon. Member made such striking reference, and one for the Rangoon Trades Association. Therefore, in the Burma Legislature there will be a total of nine seats representing the European point of view, some through the medium of their special interests, upon which the hon. Member has very largely based his case, and some because of the increase from one to three representatives of the European community.

The hon. Member referred to the Constitution of Burma and to the contrast between Burma and the Indian Provinces. He mentioned Bengal in particular. In considering the detailed question of representation in the eleven Provinces of India and in the country of Burma, there have throughout been special considerations which have applied to the Europeans in Bengal, who are in a Province in which there are two almost equal communities and who—without developing the point further—occupy a very particular position in the face of those two communities. These considerations, which are exceptional in the case of Bengal, have never been applied to any other Indian Province and have not been applied, to some extent, in the country of Burma. We have always considered that there is no direct relationship, therefore, between the argument of Bengal, which the hon. Member has used, and the argument of Burma, although I am doing my best to make reference to it owing to the fact that the hon. Member raised it.

The hon. Member proceeded to develop his argument that the Burma Constitution was such that matters would be more uncertain in the future if there were no central government to intervene in time of necessity; but in Burma there are exactly the same provisions for the time of trouble as there are in an Indian Province, the Governor's special powers. Let me remind the hon. Member that the Upper House in Burma is constituted in a particular way which will reassure anybody who believes in political stability. The constitution of the Upper House has appealed to the European community in Burma. I regret that the Government have been unable to raise the number of seats for Europeans above the figure of nine. Recently it was decided to allot two extra seats, and to raise by two the size of the Burman Legislature, after we had subtracted the women's seats which Dr. Ma Saw Sa said she did not want. One of those seats had been allotted to the European interests and one to the Chettiars. This shows that, in the allocation of seats, we have paid particular attention to the Europeans. In the last month or two we have done our best to meet their desires, and aye paid attention to what they have asked. On the other hand, we have been unable to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member, which goes against all the local advice that we have been offered, and which might console the European community, but, by alienating the opinion of Burma would do them more harm than the few extra seats would do them good.

The CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. Lady wish to press her Amendment?

Miss RATHBONE

Yes, Sir.

Amendment negatived.

8.31 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

I beg to move, in page 317, line 9, to leave out "Anglo-Indians," and to insert "Anglo-Burmans."

This is one of a number of Amendments designed to comply with the request of the Anglo-Indian community in Burma that they should be known in future as Anglo-Burmans. It is a request to which the Government are prepared to agree.

8.32 p.m.

Sir R. CRADDOCK

I was not aware that this request had been made, but I understand from what the Attorney-General has said that the change is being made at the request of those concerned. That means that all the Anglo-Indians, who are quite distinct, of course, from Anglo-Burmans, have asked specially that they may be called Anglo-Burmans in future. In that case, there is no objection, if that be the fact. I would, however, like to know whether the persons who made the request are representative of the Anglo-Indians in Burma, and whether they can bind the whole community in this matter; otherwise, there might be numbers of Anglo-Indians in Burma, either those who live there or those who come there in the course of business or the transfer of appointments, who have not been party to this arrangement, and do not like the obliteration of the distinctive term which has been applied to them. I have raised this point in order to clear up all doubts. The matter occurs in other Amendments later on, but anything that is to be said on the subject ought to be disposed of now.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

I can only tell my hon. Friend that from the resources which are at our disposal the Government have come to the conclusion that those who have claimed to represent the Anglo-Indians, as desiring the use of this phrase, do represent them. I am not going to say for a moment that they represent 100 per cent. of Anglo-Indians. It is inevitable that some people should disagree with the views expressed by those who represent them. We are satisfied that, broadly speaking, the community is represented by those to whose views the Government believe that they are giving effect in this Amendment.

Sir H. CROFT

Is there any association of Anglo-Indians in Burma who may have agreed to this proposal?

The CHAIRMAN

I am not sure that it would not be more convenient to deal with this matter when we reach the Amendment in which Anglo-Indians are defined.

Sir H. CROFT

Certainly, if that be in order.

Amendment agreed to.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER

I beg to move, in page 317, line 13, to leave out "nine," and to insert "eleven."

This Amendment is consequential on the Amendment which was made to Clause 313 (2) by which the House of Representatives was increased by two members, and will consist now of 132 members instead of 130. I should like to correct a previous impression that I gave to the Committee. The extra seat for European interests was given to the Burma Chamber of Commerce, and not to the Rangoon Trades Association.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES

I cannot agree that this Amendment is necessarily consequential. As the hon. Gentleman says, there are now two extra seats available, but I do not see that it is necessarily consequential that those two seats should go to those to whom they are allotted. Why should they be reserved for commerce and industry? Why is the number of seats for commerce and industry to be raised from nine to eleven? Look at the number of Labour seats. Only two seats for the whole of Burma are held by representatives of Labour.

Mr. BUTLER

On a pure point of Order, I should like to say that this merely increases the seats from nine to 11 consequentially upon the taking of the previous decision. I do not know if the hon. Gentleman can raise here the question of how they are filled. I do not want to avoid any discussion on the matter, but on the strict point of Order I am not sure that we can do more here than just raise the number.

The CHAIRMAN

On that point of Order, I am not quite sure that I have followed the hon. Gentleman. The Amendment is in line 13 on page 317, where paragraph (f) says: nine seats shall be filled by representatives of Commerce and Industry. The Amendment would increase the representatives of commerce and industry from nine to 11.

Mr. BUTLER

Yes.

Mr. JONES

I thought I was correct, and therefore it is not at all consequential upon the increased number of seats. I am not examining the question whether the Government should have accepted the view that the two seats for women were not required; that is another matter entirely; but there are two seats that are now available. The Government have already provided nine seats for commerce and industry, and that is not all by any means. If hon. Members will look at the list and see how the seats are allotted, they will find that quite a number of seats are held by people whose interests will be very largely the same as those of commerce and industry. For instance, the three seats for Europeans will be mainly commercial, and these, with the other nine seats for commerce and industry, will make 12. Now still another two are to be given. Really the Government must have some sense of proportion in this matter. I submit with all respect that commerce and industry and European interests are amply looked after in the provision already made in the Schedule. It cannot be argued by any stretch of the imagination, however, that Labour interests are amply safeguarded by the provision of two seats—

Mr. BUTLER

Four seats.

Mr. JONES

Yes, four—two for Indian Labour and two for non-Indian Labour. But four is surely a very poor proportion compared with the 11 which are now proposed for commerce and industry. I wish the Government would take a little longer view of this problem. On the short view they are perhaps entitled—I do not know—to say that it might be difficult to find more than four people who could be deemed to represent labour. But that is a short view. In a few years from now opinion may rapidly change. Education among these poople may develop speedily; organisation may develop also; and the case, therefore, for increased representation of Labour as against the interests of the commercial classes may be much stronger 10, 15 or 20 years hence than it is to-day. There- fore, the Government must not take it for granted that, because there are two more seats, those seats should automatically go to commerce and industry. I want to know what case there is for it. The Under-Secretary must justify it on grounds of reason, and not merely on the ground of arithmetic.

8.40 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT

I should like to say a word with regard to the interesting speech of the hon. Gentleman, who always appears to think that Labour is a distinct depressed class which has nothing to do with the general community. Taking the 91 general seats in Burma, do not they represent those millions of the population who are going to be enfranchised, and does not the hon. Gentleman think that possibly the masses in Burma may be included among the working classes? If that be so, it seems extraordinary to advance the claim for a larger number of distinct Labour representatives. Nobody would call hon. Gentlemen on the opposite Benches Labour except by way of distinction. They are the representatives of the British people. Why set up these absurd class distinctions in Burma? Four representatives are to be put there specially, in addition to the overwhelming working masses of Burma, who will of course control the situation, as they do in this country. It is always very difficult for hon. Gentlemen to understand that I am sent here by an overwhelming majority of the working-class in my constituency.

The idea of the Government, as far as I understand it, is that, as is well known, there is very little organised labour at all in Burma; it is almost negligible; but His Majesty's Government, in their generosity of heart, naturally want to give something to the right hon. Gentleman and his friends who have supported them in the Lobby day after day and night after night. Counting the Members coming through the Lobbies, one cannot tell whether they are Conservatives or Socialists; it is true Nationalism. One must realise that they have had something thrown to them. My hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock), who knows Burma better than any other Member of the House, will bear me out when I say that organised Labour in Burma is so small that it is almost quixotic that it should have any representation at all, but perhaps it is good that it should be given, to keep the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) sweeter.

The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), speaking on behalf of the Socialist party, said he was shocked that 11 seats should be given to Europeans in Burma; but where would Burma be to-day but for British guidance? Where would Burma be as an independent country but for British defence? What do the people of Burma have to contribute towards their defence against the perils which every nation has to face? Are they not able to work out their destiny free from the anxieties that other countries have to face? What other eastern country has made such great progress as Burma has made since the British flag has flown in that country?

It is a very great country, and it has a very great trade. I think it may be said that it is almost entirely through British India and British interests that Burma has been brought into touch, through her seaborne commerce, with the countries of the world. Her great export trade has been developed owing to the fact that Britain, and British India, also taught by Britain, went to Burma and led the way so that she could sell her vast products, without which she could not exist, to the rest of the world. Therefore, when members of the Socialist party say how wrong it is that you should have 11 European representatives—they need not even be British—in this chamber out of 133, I really say, could you haul down the flag much more quickly than that? I think that the time has come when the British people are beginning to realise how ready we are to eliminate British representation, guidance and rule in these territories of the Empire. When you look at what the British Empire was at the conclusion of the War, as far as British guidance and control were concerned, and look at it to-day, or what it will be after this Bill, in addition to Ceylon and Irak, and what you have attempted in Egypt, the British people will wonder why they did not sit up and take notice of what was happening on these empty benches at Westminster at a time when we were so little concerned for the fortunes of British interests which have done so much to maintain and to build up the prosperity of Burma.

8.47 p.m.

Sir R. CRADDOCK

I do not want to repeat the arguments which my hon. and gallant Friend has just put forward, but there are other points which certainly deserve mention in this matter of European seats. The first thing to remember is that all this time there have been a number of nominated official members who are naturally ready and willing to support all those European claims and considerations which they regard as just. The disappearance of these nominated members from the new Legislature undoubtedly requires that European interests should be adequately represented. European interests in Burma are so very important now that the whole country has been opened up by the Bombay-Burma Corporation, which began its enterprises in the times of the Burmese Kings—they incurred great risks at that time in their commercial enterprise—and certainly it is only fair that the European interests in Burma should be adequately represented. As my hon. and gallant Friend has said, the total representation on the Council is really very small, so far as commerce is concerned Burmese people themselves have taken comparatively little part in it, and the greater part of the commerce of Burma has been in Indian hands. Indian commerce attained its footing there when the British took over possession of Bombay. There is, moreover, a large number of Chinese in Burma who have not much representation, but they also represent commerce. For all these reasons, I entirely agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that these objections to the number of seats given to Europeans will not bear scrutiny or examination, and that they are perfectly just and reasonable in the circumstances of their history and the circumstances which prevail now, and, as far as one can see, in the circumstances which will prevail after this new constitution comes into operation.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. FLEMING

I should like to point out the attitude of Lancashire on this matter. We are delighted that there has been a small increase in the representation of Europeans in this new constitution for Burma, but, slight as it is, we in the North cannot forget that we have great commercial interests in that country which we hope not only to maintain in the low condition to which they have dropped, not only in Burma but in India, but to increase them, if possible. When we examine the question we come to the conclusion that the best way of looking after Lancashire interests is to have as strong a European representation in the constitution as possible. For that reason, as well as for the reasons so ably put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) and the distinguished Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock), I have great pleasure in raising my voice in opposition to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) as regards the increase in European representation from nine to 11.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER

The case put forward by hon. Members who have touched upon European representation has, I think, been met to the best of my ability by the arguments I have used, and I should like to address myself to the points raised at the start of the discussion by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), when he asked why, when we were raising the number of Chamber seats, we attach these seats to representatives of commerce and industry. We have given the question of labour representation most exhaustive consideration. My right hon. Friend and I, ever since we have been involved in these matters, have been in communication with the Government of Burma, and I myself have taken a personal interest in the matter in view of the fact that I had the privilege of visiting India on the Franchise Committee and there raised, with the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) and others, the number of seats for Indian labour by a very appreciable amount both in the Provincial Lower Houses and in the Central Assembly. I therefore hoped that it would be possible to raise the number of seats in Burma, and we have included a provision in the Schedule for four extra seats. The difficulties connected with labour in Burma are greater than they are in India. For the most part labour is very difficult to tie down or to attach to one particular place. It is migratory and shifting in nature. If the hon. Member will refer to the Memorandum submitted by the Government to the Joint Select Committee he will see this phrase: Much of the labour which is employed is of a shifting type. The greater part of it consists of Indians ordinarily resident in the country. This is the case in Rangoon where there is a population of 400,415 of whom 212, 929 are resident, and about 30,000 Chinese. The Indians probably supply most of the industrial labour also in the up-country towns of lower Burma, with the exception, when you go on to the oilfields, that this Burman labour is largely seasonal and casual. That is why we have great difficulty in attempting to find Labour constituencies in which we can have a satisfactory system of Labour seats. We thought that we had a solution by attaching the Labour seats to vocations. There are practically no trade unionists in Burma. We are informed that there is only one which has a membership of not more than 56. I do not wish to exaggerate, but that is the information which we had at the time of the sittings of the Joint Select Committee. The largest body who made application to us for labour seats were a society of omnibus owners who thought that they might come under the category of labour. We were able to find tram, transport, and taxi drivers and omnibus owners who could form a constituency representing a section of labour but, unfortunately, we could not regard it as pure labour and we had to take the opportunity of creating a labour seat and to restrict ourselves to certain definite areas, of which the oilfields and the portion of Rangoon itself are the most suitable. Labour representation is divided between Indian labour and Burmese labour. That is done because, I regret to say, there is violent antagonism between labour gangs of Burmans and Indian labour, and it is necessary to separate them when forming labour constituencies. In order to make the deal for labour a little fairer we have in the case of Burma a separate provision from that in the case of India. The Joint Select Committee in their report say that four labour constituencies may appear short measure, but certain weightage will be given to labour in that labour electors in labour constituencies will be able to exercise their votes also in the general constituencies. So much for the actual representation of labour as such.

It is when we turn to the general nature of the franchise that we find that in Burma there is a greater proportion of male electors to the population than in any province in India. When the franchise provisions, which were at that time greater than in any province in India were made, and in regard to which my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock) played so honourable a part, bachelors and widowers were, unfortunately, omitted. We have remedied that defect, with the result that a very large proportion of the male population in Burma will in future have the vote. I have already announced to the Committee the number of women who will be receiving the vote. The result, roughly, is that in urban areas in Burma nearly every permanently situated male citizen will be in possession of the vote, which means a greater degree of relative franchise than in some of the similar urban areas on the continent of India. That being the case and it having arisen out of a previous decision taken with the help of my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities, Burma labour interests as such, providing that they are permanently domiciled in the country, will have a definite opportunity of gaining representation in perhaps some of the general constituencies as well. In view of these facts I hope the hon. Member will see that we have given the closest consideration to the claims of labour. There are few subjects in which I have taken more interest. I should have liked to have seen more seats reserved for labour, but in view of the great difficulty of organising those seats and the difficulty of having a satisfactory election, we have been obliged to restrict ourselves to four.

Mr. PALING

I understood the Under-Secretary to say that in the urban districts most of the adult males will have the franchise. May I take it that in so far as the labour constituencies are concerned, that means that they will vote in the labour constituencies as such and also because they live in the urban districts, and that in addition to being able to vote for the four labour seats most of them will be able to vote in the general constituencies?

Mr. BUTLER

Suppose the labour constituencies are situated one on each side, say, of the Rangoon river and the other two in the oilfields, in those particular districts the voters in the labour constituencies will be entitled to exercise their votes in the general constituencies.

Sir H. CROFT

I would point out that this is a principle against which the Socialist party have always most strenuously fought. The Committee ought to realise that they are now demanding the plural vote for Burma. A thing that they would, not allow in this country is all right for Burma.

Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendment made.

9 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I beg to move, in page 317, line 41, to leave out paragraph 6, and to insert: 6. The provisions of the Schedule (Provisions as to Franchise in Burma) to this Act shall have effect with respect to the election of persons to hold the seats in the House of Representatives mentioned in subparagraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) of paragraph three of this Schedule. This Amendment is merely drafting. It is consequential on the decision to put the franchise provisions in a separate Schedule.

Amendment agreed to.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I beg to move, in page 318, line 14, to leave out "four," and to insert: one shall be filled by a representative of the Nattukottai Chettiars' Association, five. This Amendment is consequential on the decision to give an additional seat to the Chettiars' Association.

HON. MEMBERS

What is a Chettiar?

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL

A "Chettiar" is a form of banker.

Sir H. CROFT

Not a money-lender?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

Bankers lend money. The money-lenders in this country have an association. The Amendment is consequential on the decision to give a seat to the Chettiars' Association and one additional seat to the Burma Chamber of Commerce.

Amendment agreed to.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I beg to move, in page 318, line 36, to leave out from "a" to the end of the paragraph, and to insert: Karen, an Indian, an Anglo-Burman, or a European, no person shall be eligible to fill the vacancy who is not, as the case may be, a Karen, an Indian, an Anglo-Burman, or a European. This also is a drafting Amendment. Hon. Members will see on page 318, line 36, of the Bill that in the Schedule there appear the words: A member of the Karen, Indian, Anglo-Indian, or European community. The Amendment is to get rid of that phrase and to insert the words in the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 318, line 43, after "income-tax," insert "in Burma."

In line 5, after "service," insert "in Burma."

In line 6, leave out "in Burma."[The Solicitor-General.]

9.4 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT

I beg to move, in page 319, to leave out lines 23 to 29, and to insert: 'a European' means a person whose father or any of whose other male progenitors in the male line is of European race and who is not a native of India as defined in section six of the Government of India Act, 1870; 'an Anglo-Burman means a person whose father or any of whose male progenitors in the male line is of European race, but who is a native of India as defined in the said section six. This is a subject similar to that which we discussed previously in regard to India. I do not want to delay the Committee by repeating the arguments then used. I presume that we may take it that the promise of the SOLICITOR-GENERAL that the matter would receive consideration as regards India will also apply to Burma, as it is exactly the same point. The only question which I desire to put in asking the Government to accept the Amendment, is whether the term "Anglo-Burman" may cause great anxiety in Burma. Have the Government received any authoritative message from Burma expressing the opinion of the Anglo-Indians as a whole on this question? Pride of race is still strong. As in the past so in the future we may have many Anglo-Indians going over the border and carrying out work in Burma. If the solicitor-general says that the Anglo-Indian community in Burma agree I shall not press the Amendment but if not then I would ask him to consider the insertion of some words to show that this does not in any way exclude Anglo-Indians in Burma from these privileges.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

Before I put the question I must say that I seem to remember that in the case of the provision in the India part of the Bill in the definition of "Europeans" the word "or" was altered into the word "and."

9.6 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

May I say that the Government prefer the Amendment in the form in which it is on the Order Paper. It is quite true that a similar Amendment was moved on the Schedule to the India Bill, and I was responsible for suggesting that in the definition of "European" the word "or" should be "and." In making that suggestion I was in fact wrong. These words have been considered by the European communities in both countries, and they desire the words as they appear on the Order Paper. We are, therefore, prepared to accept the Amendment in its present form and will put right the definition in the India part of the Bill on Report. The matter is not an easy one. I am informed that my right hon. Friend has been in communication with two bodies, the Anglo-Indian or the Anglo-Burman Association and the Anglo-Indian or Anglo-Burman League, the two bodies which are representative of the opinion of the Anglo-Indian communities, and they both desire this change. The Anglo-Indian League was at first inclined to doubt it, but having considered the matter further they think it desirable that this provision should be inserted. The definition is on all fours with the definition of Anglo-Indians and there is no question of any one being left out of the definition who should be included.

Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendment made.

9.10 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I beg to move, in page 320, line 3, to leave out "British India or in any State in."

I will deal with this group of Amendments together. This is the definition of Indians for the purposes of Indian representation in Burma. The first is merely drafting, but the Second Amendment is perhaps a little more involved. We propose to leave out the words "has or had up to" and instead insert the words "had at." That makes the provision refer to the date of the birth. It would be absurd because a man's father has changed his domicile that the status of the son, as far as this matter is concerned, should be affected. The next two Amendments are purely drafting while the last merely fills up a gap in the definition.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 320, line 5, leave out "has or had up to," and insert "had at."

In line 7, at end, insert "and."

In line 10, leave out "are," and insert "is"

In line 13, at the end, insert: (2) In determining any question as to whether a person was born in or had, at any past date, a domicile in India, regard shall be had to the boundaries of India at the date when the question falls to be determined and not to the date of the birth of that person or, as the case may be, the said past date."—[The solicitor-general.]

9.15 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT

I beg to move, in page 320, line 13, at the end, to insert: (2) For the purposes of this paragraph, any reference in section six of the Government of India Act, 1870, to India shall be construed as a reference to India and Burma. I do not think that this Amendment needs any explanation, and I hope that the Government will be able to accept it.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

Yes, we accept it.

Mr. MORGAN JONES

We cannot agree to pass this Amendment without some explanation of what Section 6 of the Government of India Act of 1870 implies.

9.16 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

This Amendment is really consequential on the provisions which have been made with regard to definition. Section 6 defines a statutory native of India. Broadly speaking, it says that statutory natives of India include those who are normally resident in India, although they may have European descent. As Burma is now separated from India it is necessary that the definition should include Burma as well as India.

Amendment agreed to.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I beg to move, in page 320, line 15, to leave out "Schedule," and to insert "Act."

This is a drafting Amendment consequential on the decision to insert franchise provisions in a new Schedule.

Amendment agreed to.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I beg to move, in page 320, line 35, to leave out, "in his discretion," and to insert "exercising his individual judgment."

The words are really a survival, a remanet, from the original draft of this provision before the scheme had been adopted of distinguishing the words "individual judgment," and "in his discretion," according to whether the matter was a ministerial matter or within a reserved department.

Amendment agreed to.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I beg to move, in page 320, line 37, after "Schedule," to insert: and the provisions of the Schedule (Provisions as to Franchise in Burma). This Amendment is consequential on the decision to incorporate the provisions of the franchise in a new Schedule.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Schedule, as amended, be the Twelfth Schedule to the Bill."

9.20 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT

There are two points I wish to raise before the Committee ends this very short visit to Burma. The first point is with regard to the complete elimination, as I understand it, of all nominated seats in the House of Representatives that is to be set up. My hon. Friends and I were most anxious to have an opportunity of moving an Amendment which provided that there be 20 nominated members at the inception of this legislative body. The Government apparently are not anxious for such a provision or they would have put it into the Bill. However, I ask them whether they would not consider between now and Report the wisdom of such a provision, assuming that they want the new form of government in Burma to be a success. For a limited period of years could they not provide for some trained advisers in this new House of Representatives Can it be denied that in any of these Eastern constitutions which we have attempted the little success which has been attained has been very largely due to the fact that the well-affected legislators have been able to turn to their elder brothers, their British colleagues, and to ask them how they can get over this or that difficulty according to the experience of those Westerners who were helping them and were in their midst?

I can understand what the Government have done with regard to Burma, because they have been overwhelmed by the great pressure of the Indian problem, and it has been very tempting to them to say, "Let us bring Burma in along the lines of the same sort of scheme. Burma having been a Province of the Indian Empire, perhaps the Burmese would not like to have anything different from the Provincial Governments we are setting up in India." That may have seemed expedient, but I do not think it was wise. I urge the Government to consider once again whether they could not provide some skilled guidance in this matter of nominated members of the House of Representatives. Obviously, if they want their scheme to succeed, if they had no other consideration before them than that of not offending this man or that man, they would do something such as I suggest. They would say, "We will have a small body of skilled advisers who cannot by their smallness of numbers upset the decision of that Legislature but will for a period of time lead the Legislature along towards wise decisions." Could not the Government consider on Report putting in some provision of that description, even if for a period of only 10 years, so as to give the scheme a fair trial? I do not like to refer to Ceylon too often, but let me ask, how could the State Council there have proceeded without the guidance of those Europeans who have been there?

My other point is a very minor matter, and is in connection with the Senate. The Committee will see, on page 318 of the Bill, in paragraph 10, line 33: … proportional representation by means of a single transferable vote, and 18 shall be filled by persons (who shall not be persons holding office under the Crown) chosen by the Governor in his discretion. I cannot for the life of me see why none of those 18 should be persons holding office under the Crown. The Governor wants to get the very best men he can, and it does seem to me that to eliminate everyone holding office under the Crown is a mistake. You have not got so many very highly qualified legislators and statesmen in Burma that you can afford to eliminate those who may hold office under the Crown. For that reason I had hoped that those words could have been eliminated, and that there could have been accepted words similar to those in our Amendment. The second is a smaller point, but one which is well worth the consideration of the Government. This is a country covering a vast area and with great difficulties confronting it. They are a scattered population with very slender communications; and with their different religions and different origins the people in Burma will not have an easy task.

This self-government will be self-determination in the case of Burma much more than in the case of the Provinces of India, for Burma is to be left right on its own. Burma will skip all the Crown Colony intermediate period, and become a self-governing Colony at once. The case of Burma will probably be unique. I think she will have greater power than we have given India because of the isolation to which I have referred, and there will be no Governor-General, no remnant of the British Raj, to bring his influence to bear, if it is found that unwise decisions are being taken. For that reason, I feel we are hastening far too much in this question of the constitution of Burma. I do not know whether hon. Members have consulted their constituents as to whether they think it desirable to part with British sway in Burma. I expect they have all brought mandates; but I frankly confess that when I mentioned the matter at a mass meeting of my constituents the other day, they said they had not the smallest conception that we were going to give what amounts to complete self-government to the Burmese.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I rather think this matter has already been decided by the House when the Debate took place as to whether Burma should be separated from India.

Sir H. CROFT

I apologise if I have been somewhat stretching the Rules of Order in the few remarks that I have made. I will merely say, in conclusion, that we are now deciding once and for all in this Schedule what form of government the people of Burma are to have in their two Chambers; and I do not think that the people of this country really desire that we should have given up so much or so speedily all our sway. I believe they would have preferred that we should have continued a real partnership between the British and the Burmese until the Burmese were really able to stand on their own feet.

9.30 p.m.

Sir R. CRADDOCK

I do not want to repeat the arguments already used, but I should like to support one point made by my hon. and gallant Friend, namely, that the Government should still keep their minds open as to the possibility of nomination being continued in the case of the new Legislature in Burma. Until Mr. Montagu arrived on the scene, and made his famous inquiry, there had been no political feeling at all among the Burmans. There had been no desire expressed for self-government. I found that political extracts from the Burmese newspapers were unobtainable at the Secretariat in Rangoon. When I asked why, it was explained that these newspapers had never contained any political matter at all and that they discussed either matters of amusement or matters of religion. I was quite sure that after Mr. Montagu's visit it would be necessary to take and to examine the papers, and have an abstract made to know what was being said. At that time, the Legislative Council contained only two elected members out of a total of 19, and neither of the elected members was Burmese. One was a representative of the Chamber of Commerce, and the other was a representative of the Trade Association. All the rest were nominated. Only two of them were Burmans, and the rest included a Shan chief, two or three Indians, some nonofficial Europeans, and about nine or ten official men.

Then the question of the reforms came along, and about a year and a half before I left I got permission to raise this number to 30. I nominated a number of young Burmans. They were political adversaries, but I felt that they ought to be in, and I nominated five or six of them. So it was carried on until the new reforms came in—and they began in 1923, so that Burma has had a much shorter experience of the Montagu reforms than India has had. In addition to that, there is not nearly so much English education in Burma, as may be seen from the fact that quite recently the Burmese Legislature got Agitated about the removal of their President, the Speaker, on the ground that he did not know Burmese, while there were a number of members of the Legislative Council who knew no language but Burmese. Whether that was the real reason or not I do not pretend to say, but, at any rate, they got rid of him on that ground. That was the obstacle to his continuance—because those who wanted to speak could only speak Burmese, and the Speaker, their President, could not understand what was said, which was strange because he had two Burmese wives. I should like to inform my colleague who represents with me the Combined English Universities, in case she does not know, that the only woman who has hitherto served on the Legislative Council does not know a word of English and makes speeches in Burmese, which a great many people cannot understand.

However, my point is that not only has Burma no political experience of that kind but that English education there is much behind English education in India. The Burmese have put up no democratic show themselves in the past. In the old days if a Burmese king was displeased with the attitude of his council or with their proposals or decisions, he put them in the stocks and kept them there until such times as they became more amenable to his wishes. That was the only kind of council that ever existed in Burma before the British regime and that is not so very long ago—only since 1887 or not 50 years ago. Having regard to all those considerations, and also the fact that we are now proposing to put Burma far ahead of India, I think the Government ought to go into this matter of the nominated element again. Had Burma remained a Province of India, as she is now, she would only have received provincial autonomy. As it is, Burma, having previously been so far behind India, now leaps far ahead of any Indian Province into a position in which she will be able to deal with all those subjects which will be Federal subjects in India when the Federation comes into operation there. I hope that the question of the nominated element in Burma will still be kept under consideration by the Government and that they will not rule out the possibility of its retention, at all events for a period of years, as my hon. and gallant Friend has suggested.

9.37 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER

The two hon. Gentlemen who have put this proposition before the Committee have stated their case with moderation and I shall attempt to answer some of their arguments. I think the first request of the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) was that there should be 20 nominated members in the Lower House. His second request was that, of the large nominated element, which amounts to half, in the Senate, the Governor should reserve a portion for officials. The Committee will pardon me if I keep to those arguments of the hon. and gallant Member, as they were reinforced by the general argument of my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock) and if I do not follow my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities into the picturesque description of Burma long ago with which he delighted the Committee. I am aware of his great experience but I must venture to remind him that some water has flowed under the bridges since that time.

Sir H. CROFT

For the benefit of those hon. Members who have just come into the Committee, may I point out that it is only 12 years ago since the Burma Constitution was brought in and in 12 years you are expecting the Burmese to be able to take a position far ahead of that of India.

Mr. BUTLER

I quite understand the hon. and gallant Member's point but ever since the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms, Burma has enjoyed a constitution of the same nature as that in India. Indeed in one respect, namely the transfer of the forests to Burmese control, Burma has had a larger grant of power than some of the Indian Provinces. I think therefore it may be said with justice that much water has flowed under the bridges since the time when my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities did such excellent service for the Crown in Burma. I sympathise with him in his reflections upon his early memories of administration in Burma but I find it difficult, at this stage of Burmese development, to concede the point that we ought to allow a certain proportion of officials in the legislature. The question of the official bloc has already been considered and debated in relation to the Indian Provinces. We have now the opportunity of considering it in relation to Burma and all the arguments against the official bloc, whether those which were used by the Statutory Commission, or those which were used by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for State, apply in this case. An official bloc, would be contrary to the undertakings which we have given to Burma to develop true responsible government there.

While I am on this point I should like to remind the Committee that the position which we envisage for Burma has always been announced by the Prime Minister and Government to be equivalent to what we believed she ought to hold, in relationship to the position which India has gained. The constitution for Burma will in fact be equivalent to that of India with the difference that she will have a Government in which the federal form and the unitary form will be combined. There are in the Burma constitution certain characteristics of the Federal constitution. The Governor of Burma is empowered under Clause 303 of the Bill, as originally presented, to appoint three counsellors to aid him in those functions which he is asked to exercise in his discretion, namely, defence, foreign policy and ecclesiastical affairs. Under Clause 316 those counsellors are entitled to enter either chamber of the legislature and to speak but not to vote therein. Therefore the hon. and gallant Gentleman's desire that the Governor should have spokesmen in the legislature is fulfilled by this very combination of the unitary and the federal forms of government which Burma will have in the future. These counsellors will be able to explain, in either chamber, the point of view of the Governor on the reserved departments which I have mentioned and I think that to some extent at an rate meets the hon. and gallant Member's desire.

As regards the specific proposal to have 20 nominated members I regret that the Government cannot accept the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion. As regards his request that out of the nominations in the Upper House a certain number should be reserved for officials, we believe that the need for giving official explanations in the Senate will be just as well met by the possibility of the presence of one of the counsellors to whom I have referred, should it be found necessary. They will represent the Governor in dealing with his discretionary powers. I must also remind the Committee that the Senate in Burma will be constituted in a very special way. Half the members will be nominated by the Governor in his discretion and if the hon. and gallant Member is looking far an element of stability I think he will find it in that special constitution of the Senate. That ought to be some answer to him and if he is, as I believe he is, of a conservative frame of mind it ought to remove some at any rate of his apprehension. I believe that his wishes in this respect are genuine but I must remind him that to conserve the official bloc would be to go further back than the reforms which Burma has already had for 12 years. It would be most unacceptable in Burma and would prejudice the whole operation of the reforms. We could not possibly undertake to do anything of that kind. I think, however, that the hon. and gallant Member's desire is really met by the provisions of the Bill as they apply to Burma and I must ask the Committee to come to a decision upon this Schedule without acceding to the proposals of my two hon. Friends.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT

May I say, following upon what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) and supporting what has been said by the Under-Secretary, that it is true that Burma in many respects is behind India and in many respects more advanced. Whether or not there is a difference between Burma and India in the political development of the two countries, one thing is absolutely clear, namely, the unequivocal status of this country in relation to Burma. When the Round Table Conference was held in the later part of 1931 when there took place one of the most remarkable assemblies in the history of the world, when representatives of Burma came over and for many weeks discussed their case with some of the representatives of this House and the then Government, one thing was specifically stated. It was stated by the Government as well as by the previous Secretary of State. That was that, whatever advance was made in relation to India, a corresponding step would be taken in relation to Burma.

If a protest had to be made, I suggest that it should have been made by the hon. and gallant Member at that time. Some interest was felt in Burma as to what would be their position if any advance were made in relation to constitutional government in India, and the Prime Minister of the day, following upon the declaration made by the previous Government, said that, whatever was done in relation to India, a corresponding step would be taken in relation to Burma, and that Burma would not be granted a system of Government that fell short of what would be given to India. I suggest to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that if that were a startling and revolutionary counsel, it ought to have brought forward his protest at that time, and the country should have been warned against a step which he regards as being most serious and dangerous. I am sure that anything that was now done to hold from Burma what was so expressly promised would cause incalculable danger and reaction in that country. I think that the Under-Secretary has taken the only course that is possible having regard to the specific pledges that have been given.

9.48 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT

I cannot for the life of me see why His Majesty's Government should have given any sort of pledge without consulting Parliament and to have said that whatever we do for Burma it should go to the full length of what we give to India.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT

The statement was made in Parliament.

Sir H. CROFT

It may have been made in Parliament in answer to a question, but what I complain about, and what I complained about on the Second Reading, is that we lump this question of Burma with the whole question of India. As Burma is to stand on its own footing, it would have been better to have a separate Bill so that the House could have concentrated on it, and so that the vast interests of Lancashire need not have been passed over without a word and other great subjects passed over without a Debate worthy of so great a country. I am not going to press this matter to a Division because we are anxious to fulfil the agreement that has been made, but I must say that, if we do not divide against this Schedule, it is not because we do not feel strongly; it is because we realise now that it is no good casting our vote on a subject like this when our words fall on deaf ears and when we are so unsuccessful in presenting the British point of view.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY

The Under-Secretary has explained that the Governor will be able to make a statement having relation to his discretionary powers. Will he be able to make some official statement in connection with matters which have not to do with discretionary powers?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

It hardly seems to me that that question arises on this Schedule.

Thirteenth Schedule agreed to.