Commons Sitting of 15 May 1935

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Leigh Joint Hospital District) Bill,
Sheffield Corporation (Tramways) Provisional Order Bill,
Read a Second time, and committed

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERSOUTH OXFORDSHIRE WATER) BILL,
  "to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the South Oxfordshire Water and Gas Company," presented by Sir Hilton Young; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 66.]
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (HARPENDEN WATER) BILL,
  "to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the Harpenden Water Company, Limited," presented by Sir Hilton Young; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 67.]
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (MONKS AND PRINCES RISBOROUGH WATER) BILL,
  "to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to Monks and Princes Risborough Water," presented by Sir Hilton Young; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 68.]
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (RAINHAM WATER) BILL,
  "to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the Rain-ham Waterworks Company, Limited," presented by Sir Hilton Young; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 69.]
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (EAST SURREY WATER) BILL,
  "to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the East Surrey Water Company," presented by Sir Hilton Young; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 70.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS COVENANT (COMMITTEE).
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to state the names of the British and Canadian representatives on the League of Nations Committee, agreed to be set up at the April meeting of the Council, to study measures to render the Covenant more effective in the organisation of collective security and to define, in particular, economic and financial measures to be applied against a State endangering peace by the unilateral repudiation of its international obligations; when the first meeting will be held; and whether the British Government propose to take an active part in the proceedings and to take their full share in any scheme devised?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): The United Kingdom representative on this Committee has not yet been appointed. I do not yet know the name of the Canadian representative. The Committee will probably hold its first meeting during or immediately after the forthcoming session of the Council of the League of Nations. The United Kingdom representative will naturally take due part in the proceedings, and His Majesty's Government will carefully consider any recommendations that the Committee may make.

  ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any representations have been made to the Italian Government, or are contemplated, with reference to the obligation which this country would be under with regard to the use of the Suez Canal and facilities in British ports for Italian shipping in the

  1685
  event of hostilities arising between Italy and Abyssinia contrary to international treaty obligations?
  Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir.
  Mr. MANDER: Is not this matter likely to be raised in a very serious form in the event of hostilities.
  Sir J. SIMON: I have no reason to suppose that the Italian Government are not well aware of the obligations of this country.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it the case that British transport ships are conveying Italian troops across the Mediterranean?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That point hardly arises out of the question.

  PROPOSED WESTERN AIR PACT.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now able to make a statement with regard to the negotiations for the Western Air Pact?
  Sir J. SIMON: I have nothing to add at present to the answer I gave to the hon. Member on the 8th May.
  Mr. MANDER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects to be able to make a further statement on this matter?
  Sir J. SIMON: I cannot say now.

  MANCHURIA (OIL INTERESTS).
  Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any reply has yet been received from the Japanese Government to the further note addressed to them by the British Government with regard to the establishment of an oil monopoly in Manchukuo, and indicating that the Japanese Government would be held responsible for any loss on this account by the British interests?
  Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir.
  Captain MACDONALD: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be able to make a statement, seeing that this matter has been in abeyance for some months?
  Sir J. SIMON: The question I was asked was whether a reply had been received, and the answer was "No." I have no reason to think that we shall not get an answer, but I cannot, naturally, say when it will be received.

  WHALING CONVENTION (JAPAN).
  Mr. RANKINasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it has yet been suggested to the Japanese Government that they should accede to the convention for the regulation of whaling; and whether there is any evidence that Japanese whalers will be operating in the Antarctic during the current year as in 1934?
  Sir J. SIMON: I hope shortly to receive an indication of the views of the Japanese Government as regards accession to the convention for the regulation of whaling. Although I have no authoritative information it seems possible that Japanese whalers will be operating in the Antarctic during the current year.

  CHINA (BRITISH DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR REPRESENTATIVES).
  Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOXasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs upon what date His Majesty's Minister to China was last in Nanking and Shanghai, respectively; and what was the period of his stay on each occasion?
  Sir J. SIMON: His Majesty's Minister proceeded to Nanking from Peking on. 11th March last. On 1st April he went on to Shanghai where he remained till 8th April. On his way back to Peking, he made a further short stay in Nanking. I should like to add that His Majesty's Minister, since his arrival in the Far East last year, has spent a very considerable portion of his time in Central and South China, not only at Nanking and Shanghai, but also visiting other points where important British interests are situated. In November last, for instance, he paid a visit of several weeks to Canton and the south-western regions.
  Sir A. KNOX: On the average, how many days a year does His Majesty's Minister spend in the capital, Nanking?
  Sir J. SIMON: I should require notice of that question.
  Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Are not the Minister's residential quarters in Nanking finished and at his disposal?
  Sir J. SIMON: As my hon. and gallant Friend probably knows, the accommodation at Nanking is being enlarged for the purpose of enabling His Majesty's representative to live there in tolerable comfort—at present the place is very inconvenient—for a much more substantial part of the year.
  Mr. MOREINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Consulate-General in Nanking is to be replaced by a Consulate?
  Sir J. SIMON: There is no question of reducing the status of the consular officer at Nanking whose substantive rank is that of Consul with, until a short time ago, local rank of Consul-General. It was recently decided that, in order to facilitate the work of his Majesty's Diplomatic Mission at Nanking, this officer should, concurrently with his consular rank, be appointed an additional secretary of legation with local rank of first secretary. The effect of this change is that, while the officer in question has ceased to hold the local rank of Consul-General, he retains his substantive rank of Consul and, in addition while at Nanking, has become a member of the diplomatic staff of the Mission.
  Sir A. KNOXasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will state the progress made in the way of providing adequate residential and office accommodation in Nanking for His Majesty's Minister to China?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): It has been decided to give His Majesty's Minister, or his personal representative, the exclusive use of the house originally provided for His Majesty's Consul at Nanking, and this house is now about to be improved and enlarged at a cost of approximately £6,000. Provision of this amount has been taken in the Vote for Public Buildings Overseas, 1935. The offices and staff are housed in rented buildings which have recently been modernised and improved. These are in a compound adjoining the Consular compound.
  Sir A. KNOX: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it will be ready, in
  1688
  view of the importance of His Majsety's Minister being in touch with the Government of Nanking?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: We cannot proceed with any expenditure until the Vote is through. It was passed a few weeks ago and the work was put in hand as soon as possible.

  NAVIGABLE WATERS (OIL POLLUTION).
  Mr. DAVID GRENFELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Government, having brought the subject of pollution of the sea by oil before the League of Nations, will now give a lead towards international action for the prevention of pollution by declaring its willingness to agree with other nations that the fitting of separators shall, after a certain period, be made compulsory in oil-driven and oil-carrying ships?
  Sir J. SIMON: The United Kingdom representative on the Second Committee of the last Assembly of the League of Nations stated that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom were prepared to fall in with any international scheme calculated to lessen the damage done by oil pollution in navigable waters. The practicability of any remedy, including that referred to by the hon. Member, will be determined by a survey of the evidence which is at present being obtained from the Governments concerned by the Communications and Transit Organisation of the League of Nations, in accordance with the procedure outlined in the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Sir C. Rawson) on the 18th February.
  Mr. GRENFELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House of the nature of the reply given by His Majesty's Government to the specific question No. 3 of the questionnaire?
  Sir J. SIMON: If my hon. Friend will give me an opportunity to get the information, I will communicate with him, if I can.
  Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to receive a report of the Society of Engineers dealing with oil separation and with the magnificent work that they are doing in respect of it?
  Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: As representing the principal maritime country in the world, will not His Majesty's Government see that this country gives a lead in this matter?
  Sir J. SIMON: I would remind my right hon. Friend that I have already reported to the House that His Majesty's Government did give a very definite lead. As the representative of His Majesty's Government, I gave the lead.
  Sir H. SAMUEL: Seeing that the answer just given was that His Majesty's Government would be prepared to fall in with any international scheme, the suggestion which I would ask him to consider is whether His Majesty's Government will not themselves formulate a scheme for the acceptance of other countries?
  Sir J. SIMON: This matter is being dealt with by the League of Nations, and we have been very largely instrumental in pushing it forward. The League of Nations have instructed the proper organisation to go into the whole matter, and our own representative has played his full part there. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that if anything is to be done—and I hope that something can be done—it must be done by international agreement.

  HIS MAJESTY'S SILVER JUBILEE (CELEBRATIONS).
  Captain P. MACDONALDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many officers and men of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, the Royal Naval Reserve, the Royal Fleet Reserve, and from the regular, retired, and emergency lists will be ordered to participate in the Jubilee naval review at Spithead?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): 291 officers of the Royal Naval and Royal Naval Volunteer Reserves have volunteered to take part in the naval review, and most of these will probably do so, together with two chaplains on the retired list of the Royal Navy, who have similarly volunteered. Approximately 3,000 reserve and pensioner ratings will also be invited to take part. None of these officers or ratings has been, or will be, ordered to take part; their participation in all cases will be entirely voluntary.
  Captain MACDONALDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty which foreign nations have been invited to send representative ships to the forthcoming naval review at Spithead; and what foreign ships will be in attendance?
  Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: As the Jubilee celebrations are essentially domestic in character, no foreign nations have been invited to send ships to represent them.
  Sir JOHN HASLAMasked the First Commissioner of Works whether steps have been taken to express to his Department the gratitude of the Members of this House, and all other persons concerned, for the excellent way his Department carried out their duties during the Silver Jubilee celebrations?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The officers of my Department are most grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks, and for the expressions of appreciation which they have received from Members of Parliament.
  Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: Will the right hon. Gentleman also express appreciation to the police for the work they have done?
  Mr. REAasked the Prime Minister whether he will give instructions for the memorable series of speeches made by His Majesty during Jubilee week to be suitably printed and to be made available to Members of bath Houses of Parliament and the general public?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The speeches to which the hon. Member refers have been fully reported, and I think that any further step, such as is contemplated in the question, is more a matter for the initiative of publishing houses. I understand that no question of copyright will be raised.
  Sir PERCY HARRIS: Would it be possible for these magnificent speeches to be circulated in the schools through the education authorities?
  Sir A. KNOX: Is it not a fact that the "Morning Post" is already publishing these speeches?
  Mr. BAILEYasked the Minister of Labour whether His Majesty's Government are taking steps to ensure that the financial benefits in respect of His Majesty's Jubilee already enjoyed by

  1691
  other sections of the unemployed shall be extended to those members of the unemployed who are in receipt of statutory benefit?
  Captain FULLERasked the Minister of Labour whether it is now proposed to take steps to extend to those unemployed in receipt of statutory unemployment benefit the additional allowances which have been paid to those in receipt of assistance on account of His Majesty's Jubilee celebrations?
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I would refer my hon. Friends to the reply which I gave on this matter on 2nd May to the hon. and gallant. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Brigadier-General Nation).
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those on statutory benefit are not receiving any extra payment? Can he give any reason why they should be treated differently from other sections of the unemployed?
  Mr. STANLEY: In the previous reply, to which I have referred, I said that there were no funds at my disposal out of which such payments could be made.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it not the case that if the Act were fully operative those under Part I with statutory benefit claims would have been entitled to have had their money subsidised from those under Part II, but that owing to the delay that cannot happen. Cannot he see that Part II shall apply to statutory benefit claimants?
  Mr. STANLEY: That is not the position. If the second appointed day had come into force, no doubt those on benefit could have applied to the board, but they would only have been able to receive the second payment on proof of need. As the position was, they could equally well apply to the local authority, and where the local authority was making this extra payment, on proof of need, they would be able to receive the benefit.
  Mr. BAILEY: In view of the great dissatisfaction felt by certain sections of the unemployed, will the right hon. Gentleman consider introducing legislation to put this matter in order?
  Mr. STANLEY: The matter has received the fullest consideration, and it
  1692
  was felt that the action of the board and local authorities in giving this extra payment to those whose claims were based on need was justified. In the circumstances, the decision of the Government, which has been announced, is not to extend it to other classes of recipients getting allowances under statutory rights.
  Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Is it not the case that those who are getting the extra amount have already had their needs assessed, and that this sum was in addition to the amount assessed. Cannot the same distribution be made to those on statutory benefit since the money comes from practically the same source, that is out of the Government?
  Major COLFOX: Is it not the case that no Income Taxpayer has had any allowance to enable him to enjoy the Jubilee, and will the Government not take some steps to remedy this gross injustice?
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: It is now five weeks since I put a question to which the Minister of Labour said that he had no funds out of which to make the payment. Since then this House has voted £60,000—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now making a speech.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I am not making a speech. My question to the Minister of Labour is whether he is aware that if he comes to this House and asks for power to go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a grant to meet this demand, I am satisfied that the House will grant it.
  Lieut.-Colonel MASONasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will commemorate by a brass plate in the floor the spot where His Majesty stood to receive the Addresses at the Joint Session of Parliament on 9th May?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: As I stated in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for the Hanley Division of Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. Hales) on Monday last, the question of the best form of any commemoration of last Thursday's ceremony will require very careful consideration. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's suggestion.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    ROYAL DOCKYARDS (POLICY).
    Mr. GARDNERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the estimated 1935 decrease of £58,700 in the amount of dockyard work to be done on contract-built ships and the £792,062 estimated increase in contract work to be done on contract-built ships, together with the estimated decrease of £282,650 in dockyard work on dockyard-built ships, while contract work on these ships is only estimated to be reduced by £20,094, indicates any change of Government policy with regard to dockyard work and work to be carried out by private firms?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: There has been no change in policy with regard to work in the royal dockyards. The policy, as explained in the statement accompanying the Navy Estimates for 1905–6 is:
    "that the first business of the royal dockyards is to keep the Fleet in repair and accordingly the amount of new construction allotted to those dockyards should be subordinated to this main consideration".
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case, comparatively speaking, that as much work is done in the Government dockyards as in private yards?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: More, far more, work is done in Government yards than in private yards.
    Captain P. MACDONALD: Is it not a fact that the work is done much more cheaply in private yards than in the Government yards?

    CHINA STATION (OFFICERS' PAY).
    Mr. RANKINasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the recent increase in the value of the Chinese dollar in relation to sterling has caused a severe reduction in the pay of naval officers on the China station, in view of the fact that such pay is distributed in dollars; and whether, since the cost of living has not fallen by a corresponding amount, he proposes to take any steps to alleviate the hardship which may result?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: I am, of course, aware of the recent increase in the value of the Hong Kong dollar, and its effect upon the pay of naval officers
    1694
    on the China Station. I can assure my hon. Friend that the matter is already receiving consideration.

    AEROPLANE CATAPULTS.
    Mr. GARDNERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of aeroplane catapults that have been manufactured in this country during the last five years; how many of these have been sold within the Empire for naval purposes and for civil purposes, separately; and whether he can give similar figures for sales to foreign Powers and civil undertakings abroad?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: The total number of catapults manufatured in this country during the last five years is 36. Of these, 35 were sold within the Empire for naval purposes, and one was told to a foreign Power. None was sold for civil purposes.

  PALESTINE (HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION, TEL-AVIV).
  Captain STRICKLANDasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that inhabitants of Tel-Aviv, Palestine, in need of hospital treatment have in many cases to be transferred to hospitals in other parts of the country because of lack of available beds in the municipal hospital; and whether he is yet in a position to state if the Government has decided to accede to the request of the municipal authority of Tel-Aviv to be permitted to provide the necessary additional and improved accommodation?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I am not in a position to confirm the statement contained in the first part of the question. As promised in my answer to my hon. and gallant Friend's question of 3rd April, I have communicated with the High Commissioner for Palestine, but I have not yet received information as to the intentions of Government regarding the proposals of the Tel-Aviv municipality for financing the enlargement and improvement of the municipal hospital. I should add that during last year this hospital, to the cost of which the Government contributes, was enlarged from 125 to 184 beds.
  Captain STRICKLAND: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at the present time beds are having to be put up in the corridors of the hospital, and that, in addition, inhabitants of Tel-Aviv are having to be sent to Afulah to be treated, because there is no room in the hospital; and will he urge upon the High Commissioner the need for dealing with this matter with expedition?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I said, in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend, that I had forwarded his statements to the High Commissioner. I am sure we can reply upon the High Commissioner to give all due weight to all relevant considerations.
  Mr. JANNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman point out that in his opinion it is not correct to say that there should be no provision for maternity cases, whether rich or poor; that it is not correct that there should only be two beds for every 1, 000 of the population; and that 184 beds for a population of 12, 000 people is wholly inadequate?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think it would be very unwise for me to make ex parte statements to the High Commissioner, who, in the knowledge of this House, gives the most careful consideration to every possible interest.
  Mr. JANNER: While not casting any aspersions at all on the High Commissioner's views and intentions, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that there has been a considerable amount of correspondence on this matter for years; that cases have to be turned away; and that the facts which I have asked him to consider and send forward have been actually stated in a report of the medical officer in Palestine?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not aware of those facts, and do not know whether they are correct or incorrect; but I am sure that all relevant facts are very well known to the High Commissioner, who is constantly visiting Tel Aviv, and that he will give the fullest consideration to these matters.

  EAST AFRICA (ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.)
  Captain CUNNINGHAM - REIDasked the Secretary of State for the
  1696
  Colonies whether the conference of East African governors at its session, in May, 1934, or subsequent sessions, succeeded in accepting any further recommendations of the Report of the commission of inquiry into the administration of justice in Kenya, Uganda, and Tanganyika territory in criminal matters?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Report was exhaustively discussed by the East African Governors' Conference in May last year, with results which I communicated to the House in reply to a question on the 11th December. I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of that reply, and of my despatch to the Governors which summarised the decisions taken on all the Commission's recommendations affecting more than one territory.

  BRITISH WEST INDIES (CURRENCY).
  Captain CUNNINGHAM - REIDasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the intention, announced by him in February, 1934, of demonetising the gold dollar of the United States of America as legal tender in the British West Indies, British Honduras, and British Guiana, has yet been carried into effect.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The proposal to demonetise the gold dollar of the United States of America in the West Indies and British Guiana has not yet been put into offect, as doubt has arisen as to the effect of such action in those parts of British Guiana where the coin still remains in circulation. Action will be taken as soon as it is decided whether British Guiana should be included. As explained in the reply to my hon. and gallant Friend on the 8th February, 1934, British Honduras is in a special position, and it is not proposed at present to demonetise the United States gold dollar there.

  CEYLON (TRADE UNION BILL).
  Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has now received a copy of the Trade Union Bill which has secured a third reading in the legislative assembly at Colombo; and, if so, what action does he propose to take?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am aware from the Minutes of the State Council, of which I have seen a copy, that the Bill was read for a third time on the 29th of March. I shall no doubt receive the text from the Governor at an early date, but it has not yet reached me.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: When the right hon. Gentleman receives the text of the Bill, will he take an opportunity of examining it and its possible effect upon the disorganised workers of Colombo; and will he in due time inform the House what action he is likely to take in regard to it?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I cannot inform the House as to what my action is likely to be towards the measure until I receive the Bill, but of course the Bill will come home in due course in the ordinary way.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all those who claim to be able to speak for the organised, or disorganised, workers, were opposed to this measure, and that they regard it as the one means of preventing the workers of Colombo from being organised; and will he take note of that fact when he is examining the Bill?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I will take note of everything, but I presume that all these matters were debated in the State Council when the Bill was under consideration.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE (HUNGARY AND PALESTINE).
  Sir W. SUGDENasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that in the year 1934 Hungary exported to Palestine £115,000 worth of goods, and in return purchased fruit, goods, and materials to the value of only £920; and whether he will cause representations to be made to the Hungarian Government to withdraw its present refusal to grant the importation of Palestinian oranges into Hungary?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am aware of the trade position stated, and of the difficulties arising out of the import and exchange restrictions in force in Hungary, but I have no information of any discrimination against Palestine. If information showing the existence of such discrimination can be given, consideration
  1698
  will be given to the desirability of representations to the Hungarian Government.
  Mr. RADFORD: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it would be more useful if, instead of urging Hungary to buy more from Palestine, it were pointed out that, if Palestine transferred these orders to our own country, we should get the trade?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not know what the orders are, but certainly it is very wise that any country should buy from the best market in the world.
  Sir W. SUGDEN: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, so long as we allow Hungary to have cheap money from this country, we have the right to see that the taxpayers of this country have proper value in regard to what we spend in Palestine?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I understood the question to refer to trade with Palestine. I did not know that we were supplying cheap money to Hungary at the present time.

  AVIATION.

    FLYING REGULATIONS.
    Captain CUNNINGHAM-REIDasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he has considered the recommendation of the Gorell Committee on Civil Aviation relative to the conferring by the Secretary of State upon some approved person in control of an aerodrome of authority to prevent flights which contravene the regulations and are a cause of danger to persons on the ground or in the air; whether he has experimented in the sense recommended at any civil aerodrome; and, if so, whether the results attained have been satisfactory?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): Yes, Sir. Action in accordance with the Committee's recommendation has already been taken in two cases, and is under consideration in a third case. The results so far have been satisfactory.
    Major Sir SAMUEL HARVEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air (1) whether he is satisfied that the regulations to prevent flying

    1699
    over certain parts of London on Monday, 6th May, were complied with; and, if not, what steps have been taken against those who contravened them;
    (2) whether he is satisfied that the regulations regarding low-flying over London were complied with during the week commencing 6th May; and, if not, what steps have been taken against those who contravened them;
    (3) whether there are any regulations to prevent aircraft flying at low altitudes over London, carrying streamers or other devices for advertising purposes; if there were any cases of contravention of such regulations during the week commencing 6th May; and, if so, what steps have been taken against those who contravened them?
    Sir P. SASSOON: The enforcement of the regulations governing flying over London is a matter for the police. Great importance is attached to their proper observance, in the general public interest, and, if my hon. and gallant Friend has any information indicating that they have been contravened, I should be grateful to have it, and will assure him that action will be taken.
    Sir S. HARVEY: Was my right hon. Friend's attention called to a particular aeroplane which has recently been flying over London advertising some film, and another one advertising a radio set, which appeared to be flying very low, with a long streamer behind it?
    Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: May I ask what assistance the Air Ministry gives to the Home Office in order to enable an ordinary constable in the London streets to tell whether an aeroplane is contravening the regulations or not?
    Sir P. SASSOON: There are cases when it is obvious that aeroplanes are flying too low.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: May I ask how the policeman arrests the aeroplane?

    AIR DEFENCE (RESEARCH).
    Mr. LENNOX-BOYDasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the sum of money spent in the course of the last 15 years on research and experiments to devise or develop methods of preventing hostile bombers reaching our cities?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I regret that it is not practicable to segregate this expenditure from the expenditure on research and development generally.

  TRANSPORT.

    BUILT-UP AREAS (SPEED LIMIT).
    Captain STRICKLANDasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that on the Cobham-Esher road the commencement of the restricted speed area of Esher is indicated by a temporary paper sign pasted on a metal disc fastened by wire to the first lamp-post; that this sign has no reflectors and is invisible at night unless a car driver has his head-lights full on; and what steps has he taken to protect motorists from prosecutions arising from the delay and neglect of the local authority in carrying out his instructions?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): Yes, Sir, and as a result of representations by my Department a permanent sign with reflex lenses was erected at the point mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend on Saturday last.
    Sir W. BRASS: Is it not the case that these paper signs which are being put up all over the country at the present time are entirely illegal, and contrary to the regulations of my hon. Friend?
    Mr. HORE-BELSHA: They are coming down.
    Sir W. BRASSasked the Minister of Transport (1) the names of the local authorities who have agreed to de-restrict roads in response to suggestions made to them by him, indicating in the case of each authority the number of miles so de-restricted;
    (2) the total number of miles of roads the local authorities have agreed to de-restrict from the 30-miles-per-hour speed limit which had previously been restricted; and what percentage this number represents of the total number of miles of road included in the first list of roads suggested to him by the motoring organisations for de-restriction?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: In reply to questions by the hon. Members for Dorset East (Mr. Hall-Caine) and Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) on the 1st May, I gave an exhaustive list of authorities to whom

    1701
    I had addressed communications on this subject. I would point out, however, that I am, from day to day, approving orders for the de-restriction of roads which do not come within this category and if my hon. and gallant Friend desires particulars of these, including mileage, I shall be glad to send them to him when the position is more stabilised.
    Sir W. BRASS: Cannot my hon. Friend answer the first question that I have asked: Will he state the names of the actual local authorities—I understand that there are only a very few of them—who have agreed to his suggestions up to the present?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I think that that information is included in the answer to which I have referred my hon. and gallant Friend, and, as I only gave it on the 1st May, I hope that he will accept it at the moment. I would ask him to put down a question at a later date, so that I can give him a more complete list when the position has become stabilised, but I think he will find that information in the answer to which I have referred.
    Sir W. BRASS: Can my hon. Friend give any indication of the date when he thinks that he will be able to give me the information?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, if my hon. and gallant Friend will allow me, I will send him a note when he can put down a question.
    Mr. SUMMERSBYasked the Minister of Transport why the 30-milesper-hour speed limit restriction is still applied from the end of Colnbrook bypass road to Taplow station road on the Bath road?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have already given notice of my intention to make an Order to remove the speed limit from the Bath Road between the points mentioned with the exception of a section in the town of Slough and a short section at Everitt's Corner. The Order will be made this week.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that great expense will be caused to local authorities if he forces them to put up 30-miles-per-hour speed-limit signs on both sides of the road; and whether, in view of the fact that, as
    1702
    there is a de-restriction sign on the offside of the road opposite all restriction signs, these signs are unnecessary, he will reconsider his decision on this point?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I came to the conclusion that the erection of a sign on each side of the road indicating on different faces the beginning and end of the 30 miles-an-hour speed-limit would be of great assistance. The expense involved is extremely small, but I have informed local authorities that where the existing small de-restriction signs have to be replaced and cannot otherwise be used, the cost, including the cost of removal, will be met wholly from the Road Fund.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE: Will my hon. Friend consider putting the restriction sign on the reverse side of the new de-restriction sign?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: There is generally to be one on each side.

    SPECIAL TRAFFIC SIGN (WEIGHING VEHICLES).
    Captain STRICKLANDasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the undertaking given by the late Minister of Transport to Standing Committee A on the Road and Rail Traffic Act on 22nd June, 1933, that, it was right that vehicles for examination should be stopped only by a policeman and not by an examiner, he is now prepared to implement his promise to honour any obligation undertaken by his predecessor?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I assume that my hon. and gallant Friend refers to the statement made by my predecessor in the discussion of the provisions regarding vehicle examination during the passing of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933. Examiners have in fact been instructed that they have no authority to stop a lorry in motion on the road and I have no information that these instructions have been neglected. Highway authorities have power under Section 27 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, to appoint persons to weigh vehicles which appear to be overloaded and in these cases a traffic sign has been authorised by me for the purpose.
    Captain STRICKLAND: Will my hon. Friend indicate to the House the essential difference between stopping one type of vehicle for one purpose and stopping

    1703
    another type for another purpose, when such a statement was made that it was not considered right that vehicles should be stopped by anybody but police in uniform?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: We have two entirely different Acts of Parliament dealing with two entirely different subjects. If an examiner notices a defect such as a brake defect or a tyre defect in a lorry he can take its number. There is no necessity for him to stop the lorry. But a lorry which is overladen must be stopped and weighed in situ when the allegation is made. That is the essential distinction which my hon. Friend asks me to draw.
    Captain STRICKLAND: Does not my hon. Friend realise that it would be equally possible to have a policeman in uniform at the weighing machine so that a vehicle could be stopped with authority?

    TRAMCARS AND TROLLEY-OMNIBUSES.
    Sir JOHN POWERasked the Minister of Transport whether the reports received in his Department indicate that the replacement of tramcars by trolley-omnibuses has increased road safety?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It is naturally impossible to isolate statistically the precise effect of the substitution of trolley vehicles for tramcars because on any given road many other factors are involved. Investigation has shown, however, that some of the most dangerous sections of road are those on which tramway services exist. I am satisfied that the substitution of more mobile units, including trolley vehicles, which do not require the presence of rails in the road bed, does make for safety, and I shall do all I can to encourage the process.

    ROAD ACCIDENTS.
    Sir J. POWERasked the Minister of Transport whether, in the next report on fatal road accidents, it is intended to incorporate, so far as may be possible, the views of the chief officers of police as to the effect on road safety of the various reforms recently instituted by his Department?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The statistical report to which my hon. Friend refers is
    1704
    intended to show the circumstances in which fatal accidents occurred. The results of particular safety measures are under constant observation by officers of my Department, who are in frequent consultation with the chief officers of police through the Home Office.

    CYCLE TRACKS.
    Sir W. SUGDENasked the Minister of Transport what is the length of tracks specially laid down alongside the roads for the use of pedal cyclists in Great Britain; and has he issued any notice as to their use in view of their present insignificant length?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The experiment of laying down cycle tracks has only recently been instituted on 4½ miles of Western Avenue, and one mile on the Stony Stratford-Wolverton road. I have issued no notice about their use, but observation shows that where they exist cyclists use them in preference to the main carriageway.
    Sir W. SUGDEN: Can my hon. Friend tell me whether or not the number of accidents has been lessened in the slightest degree as a result of the use of these tracks?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I cannot give my hon. Friend any statistics about these short lengths of road, but it stands to reason that if traffic is segregated it reduces the risk of accidents.
    Sir W. SUGDEN: Will my hon. Friend issue to us a copy of the evidence to prove that it has the slightest effect in preventing accidents?
    Mr. WEST: Would it not be possible for these tracks to be constructed in just those places where there are most fatalities, that is, on the streets of our great cities?
    Sir W. BRASS: Would it not be better to have them somewhere, anyway, if we cannot have them in the places where the hon. Member wants them?
    Mr. WESTasked the Minister of Transport what is the length of the cycle path on Western Avenue; and what was the cost per mile?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Two cycle tracks have been provided on Western Avenue, one on each side of the road.

    1705
    Each track is approximately 2¼ miles in length, and the cost per mile of single track was approximately £1,750.
    Mr. WESTasked the Minister of Transport what is the estimated cost of constructing cycle tracks on all the first-class roads of Great Britain?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: As the value, availability and suitability of land for this purpose varies from mile to mile, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is not practicable to give a figure.
    Mr. WEST: Can the Minister give us an approximate estimate of the cost; and would it not be somewhere in the region of £100,000,000 for these tracks for cyclists to be built?
    Sir W. BRASS: Is it not the fact that these cycle tracks do not need anything like the foundations that ordinary roads require?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Certainly; and the cost of building a carriage way for heavier traffic is many times more expensive than the cost of making cycle tracks.
    Sir W. SUGDEN: Has my hon. Friend considered having these proposed cycle tracks put down on other than the first-class roads?

    STRAND UNDERGROUND RAILWAY STATION.
    Mr. SUMMERSBYasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that automatically-closing gates and loud speakers are now being employed instead of liftmen at the Strand underground station; and whether, in view of the possible danger to the public and also in the interests of employment, he will make representations to the Transport Board against the continuance of this practice?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am aware that the London Passenger Transport Board are now using new automatic control equipment at some of the lifts at their Strand station. Similar automatic lifts have been in satisfactory operation for about two And a half years at another station on the board's system and I am advised that there is no reason for apprehending danger to the public in connection with such use. I am, however, watching the experiment from this point of view.
    Mr. SUMMERSBY: Does not my hon. Friend think that this great London Passenger Transport Board has set the nation a very bad example by employing mechanical devices instead of labour when no great economy is effected; and is it not entirely contrary to the wishes expressed by His Majesty the King?

    SLOUGH AND MAIDENHEAD (BY-PASS ROADS.)
    Mr. SUMMERSBYasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the pressing need of roads to by-pass Slough and Maidenhead; and when does he expect a start on the work to be made in each place, respectively?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have informed the county councils of Berkshire and Buckinghamshire that I am prepared to make a grant of 60 per cent. of the cost of an approved scheme for by-passing Maidenhead but the councils have intimated that they are not prepared to proceed with the scheme on this basis. No scheme has so far been submitted to me by the responsible highway authority for by-passing Slough.
    Mr. SUMMERSBY: Is the Minister aware that all the controlled traffic which goes down the Great West Road and goes through Maidenhead has to pass through an 18-foot road for a quarter of a mile?

    MOTOR DRIVERS' HOURS.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the Minister of Transport why he refuses to grant a variation order in respect to drivers' hours to C licence holders, when such orders are granted to A and B licence holders; and whether in view of the difficulty caused to tradesmen in executing orders during week-ends and in the holiday season, he will in future grant variation orders to C licence holders?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would refer to the reply which I gave to a question by the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) on the 10th April, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

  EDUCATION (TEACHERS'PENSIONS).
  Captain CAZALETasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether his attention has

  1707
  been called to the case of the headmaster of Calne county secondary school, Mr. C. T. T. Apps, who is retiring in July next; whether he is aware that, owing to the fact that Mr. Apps's pension is calculated on the basis of his average salary for the last five years, he will sustain a loss in pension of £16 a year; and whether the board will arrange to restore the pension to the amount which it would have been had Mr. Apps's salary not been reduced by 10 per cent. in 1931?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): I am aware of the facts in this case. There is, however, no power under the Teachers' (Superannuation) Acts to calculate pensions on salaries in excess of those actually received. The general question of the possibility of steps being taken to mitigate the loss in such cases is under discussion with representatives of the teachers.
  Captain CAZALET: Is it to be understood that if the reply and contribution from the teachers is considered satisfactory that the Board of Education themselves will make some contribution towards remedying this injustice under which certain teachers who are retiring in the next few years are suffering?
  Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The whole matter at the moment is under discussion with the teachers' representatives. The Board of Education is with them in desiring to find a solution of the matter. I cannot at the moment say anything definite when it will be finally settled, but I hope the solution will not be long delayed.
  Sir P. HARRIS: Does the hon. Member realise that I raised this subject last August and that the Treasury then undertook to give speedy consideration to the matter? Does he consider that it is an example of speed that the matter has still to be opened in May, 1935?

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  Miss WARDasked the Minister of Health whether he is yet in a position to make a statement regarding the Government's proposals for dealing with persons who have fallen out of national health insurance?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): My right hon. Friend hopes to introduce legislation on this subject very shortly.
  Miss WARD: Is the hon. Member in a position to say that the medical side will be considered, as this matter is causing great anxiety to a number of people?
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I do not think my hon. Friend will have long to wait, but I cannot anticipate the terms of the Bill.
  Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: Will the maternity side be considered?
  Mr. RHYS DAVIES: May we take it that the Bill will be passed through all its stages before the end of July?
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Obviously, I cannot guarantee that, but we should like it.

  POST OFFICE (FACILITIES, ASTLEY).
  Mr. TINKERasked the Postmaster-General whether he has considered the resolution passed by the Tyldesley Urban District Council calling his attention to the inadequate postal facilities in the township of Astley, which is now joined on to Tyldesley; and whether he will look into the matter and try and remove the grievance?
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Ernest Bennett): The matter is under consideration and I will write to the hon. Member.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONSAND GRANTS.
  Mr. GROVESasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware of the case of Alfred Welch, 20, Hume Road, Notting Hill, London, who, after three months' training, was on war service at Ypres and the Somme, being there severely wounded; that the Ministry granted this man full disability pension, but afterwards reduced it to 8s. per week, terminating their liability by a gratuity of £10 in 1920; that the man's disability became aggravated to the extent that later he was admitted to Roehampton

  1709
  Hospital and one leg was amputated; and whether he will state what provision is now made for this man's maintenance?
  Major GEORGE DAVIES (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend is familiar with this case. He is informed that Mr. Welch was never assessed at 100 per cent., but drew pension at 70 per cent. for a few months, after which his disablement fell to 20 per cent. In 1921 he was found not to be disabled to such an extent as to justify the continuance of pension, and he received a weekly allowance for 52 weeks, followed by a terminal gratuity of £10. Except for a short period of out-patient treatment in 1926 and 1927 nothing further was heard of him until 1932, since when he has received a considerable amount of treatment from the Ministry, with allowances amounting to £2 14s. 6d. a week while maintained in hospital, and £3 3s. 6d. a week while living at home. Following the amputation of his leg he has continued under treatment and is at present receiving 3s. 6d. a week at home until able to use the artificial leg supplied by the Ministry. He will then receive pension at the rate appropriate to his amputation.

  NEWFOUNDLAND.
  Mr. NEIL MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can now make a statement regarding the disturbances in Newfoundland; and whether any action is being taken by him for the relief of the destitution existing among large numbers of the population there?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I read to the House yesterday an account of the demonstration by unemployed at St. John's on 10th May, which I had received by telegraph from the Government of Newfoundland. The very comprehensive measures taken by the Commission of Government for the relief of the unemployed were set out in a statement which I communicated to the House on 5th March. I have recently asked the Governor for a special report on the unemployment situation in Newfoundland, and I propose that this should be issued as a White Paper as soon as possible after its receipt.

  CINEMATOGRAPH ACT (REGULATIONS).
  Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is in a position to add to his statement of 1st November, 1934, with regard to the revision of the regulations made in 1923, under the Cinematograph Act, 1909?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): A draft of regulations so far as quick-burning films are concerned is near completion, but owing to uncertainty as to the scope of application of the Cinematograph Act, 1909, I have thought it right to hold in abeyance the question of issuing regulations in respect of slow-burning films.

  SCOTLAND.

    UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE.
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what contributions Clydebank has to pay under the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934; how much Coventry has to pay under the same Act; what are the respective populations of both towns; and what is the registered number of unemployed in each place?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Jamieson): The estimated contribution in respect of out-relief and institutional relief is £16,880 per annum in the case of Clydebank and £1,000 per annum in the case of Coventry. The estimated population at the middle of 1934 was 48,700 in Clydebank and 184,700 in Coventry. The number of persons registered at Employment Exchanges in these areas at 15th April, 1935, was 6,383 in Clydebank and 4,808 in Coventry.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: While thanking the Lord Advocate for his reply, may I say that since I put the question on the Order Paper the Secretary of State for Scotland has agreed to receive a deputation from the local authorities of the West of Scotland, when we shall fully discuss the matter?

    ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY (SPORTS CLUBS).
    Mr. NEIL MACLEANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it was his intention to include football clubs and others engaged in outdoor sports in the concession given in his proposed reduction

    1711
    in the Entertainments Duty; and, if not, whether he intends to include them in these concessions in the Finance Bill when it is introduced?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): The proposed remission of the Entertainments Duty on admission payments of 6d. or less will extend to all entertainments; but the reduced scale of duty on admission payments over 6d. will not be applicable to football and other outdoor sports. With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to Clause 1 of the Finance Bill.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the hon. Member aware that last year when we had this matter under discussion the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that this was not a cinema tax but an entertainments tax and that junior football associations came under that category?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: As far as I understand the reply, the remission applies to all forms of entertainment, whether football or not, up to 6d., and beyond that there is no dubiety?
    Mr. COOPER: That is what I said.

    TAXATION.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEANasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the amount paid per head of the population in Imperial Taxation in Ulster and Scotland, respectively?
    Mr. COOPER: I regret that no estimate for Scotland is available, and consequently the comparison desired in the question cannot he made.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Can the hon. Member say why no estimate can be made with regard to Scotland, since the Treasury get money from Scotland in taxation?
    Mr. COOPER: The estimates are not kept separately for the two parts of the Kingdom.
    Mr. MACLEAN: If the estimates are not kept separately, how it is that the Government can apply the Goschen formula of 11/80ths in regard to the money that goes to Scotland and what is obtained from Scotland? I should like an answer. Why is it that this information cannot be given? The figures must be in the Treasury, in order that they may
    1712
    impose the terms of the Goschen formula to the payments from and the payments to Scotland?
    Mr. COOPER: That formula is generally applied and is a rough test in applying new schemes of taxation to Scotland, but complete returns of all forms of taxation are not kept separately in regard to the two parts of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that three years ago a statement was made giving the general amount received from Scotland in taxation and the amount received by Scotland? If that could be done when it suited the Government, why can it not be done now?
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is it not a fact that Scotland ought to pay a great deal more than she does?
    Mr. MACLEAN: No.

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL (REMAINING STAGES.)
  Mr. ATTLEEasked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make with regard to the further stages of the Government of India Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. The House will be aware that to-day is the thirtieth day in Committee on the Government of India Bill and that under the agreement we are to finish this stage at to-day's sitting. Conversations have taken place with the parties and sections represented on the Committee presided over by the Chairman of Ways and Means with regard to the concluding stages of the Bill. It is agreed that four days should be adequate for the Report stage and two days for the Third Reading of the Government of India Bill. The Report stage will begin on Thursday next, 23rd May; will be continued on Monday and Tuesday, 27th and 28th May and brought to a conclusion on Thursday, 30th May. The Third Reading will be taken during the following week on Tuesday and Wednesday, 4th and 5th June.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Ordered,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.
  Considered in Committee [THIRTIETH DAy—Progress, 14th May.]
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.

    NEW SCHEDULE.—(Provisions as to Franchise.)
    Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: I beg to move, to leave out lines 83 to 85.
    This Amendment is moved in order to obtain from the Under-Secretary the reasons why Bihar is singled out in this way.
    3.38 p.m.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): This is consequential on a previous decision of the Committee to take out this particular Indian seat in Bihar and insert it in the special interest constituencies. There was a warning of our intention to do this in the original communal award, in which it was said that special arrangements would be made in Bihar and Orissa, where a considerable portion of the Indian community belonged to the aboriginal tribes. The local government of Bihar and Orissa have been interested in this subject. They have reported to us that the Christians and non-Christian members of the aboriginal tribes of Chota Nagpur, where the majority of the Christians are concentrated, do not desire that they should be split up into two different communities because of their religion. They say that it is much more necessary that special representation should be given to the aboriginals and non-aboriginals than that special representation should be given to Indian Christians, leaving aside the aboriginals who are not Christians.
    So in this district there has had to be a differentiation between the tribes which are aboriginal and non-aboriginal, or between Christians and non-Christians. It has been decided that the best way to meet this difficulty is to concentrate the Indian Christian seat for Orissa in this area, in which there are so many Christians. It followed from that that some arrangement had to be made, and the local government of Bihar and Orissa summoned a conference of Indian Christian interests in that Province. It was a
    1724
    very representative conference, and, arising out of it, it was decided that the Indian Christian seat should be allocated by the indirect method of election by the Roman Catholics and the Bihar Indian Christian Council. Therefore this decision to arrange for the Indian Christians to be represented in Bihar is based on the agreement of both sections of the Christian community in Bihar, and it is at their request that we are doing this. The difficulty that has arisen is because the Christians are so essentially located in this particular portion of Bihar and Orissa, and we wanted to avoid the danger of differentiation between aboriginals and non-aboriginals and between Christians and non-Christians, in the matter of representation.
    Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: After that statement I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    3.43 p.m.
    Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: I beg to move, in line 97, to leave out "language selected by him," and to insert "recognised language in current use in India."
    This is, perhaps, not a very important Amendment, and I do not propose to push it to a Division, but I suggest that the words are perhaps more suitable than those in the Bill.
    3.44 p.m.
    The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. J. C. Davidson): The Government have considered this Amendment, and in principle they are inclined to agree with it. We are prepared to put in words to give effect to this suggestion, but I cannot bind myself to the actual words at the moment. Possibly they will run something like this: "The recognised language in current use in India, selected by him." That would incorporate the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion.
    Mr. ATTLEE: Will that include the varieties of dialects spoken, say, in Assam? I do not know what "recognised language" means.
    Mr. BUTLER: The idea is not to exclude any language, but to accept the hon. and gallant Member's definition that it should be a language in current use and not one which was invented for the purpose of the gentleman in question.
    Sir A. KNOX: In view of the Under-Secretary's statement I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    3.45 p.m.
    Mr. COCKS: I beg to move, in line 156, at the end, to insert:
    "or
    (g) paid any other direct tax."
    We are moving this Amendment in a spirit of inquiry. We are not sure whether there are any taxes other than those already in the Schedule. If there are any, we feel that if a subject in India has to pay a tax it should qualify him for a vote.
    Mr. BUTLER: We have put this particular point to the Government of Madras, and they say that all these taxes are covered. The Franchise Committee suggested that the assessment for any tax, however small, should be a qualification for the vote in Madras. Every tax has been covered and we see no reason for the addition of these words.
    Mr. ATTLEE: Suppose that you get some new direct tax. Would it not be better to cover it in the Schedule?
    Mr. BUTLER: I appreciate the hon. Member's point. We have considered it, but I regret that the Amendment leaves the situation too open. If we were to accept the Amendment it would mean that any direct tax which was added to this list might add an administrative burden to the machine which the local Government could not manage.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    3.47 p.m.
    Mr. COCKS: I beg to move, in line 173, at the end, to insert:
    "or
    (e) paid house rent during the previous half-year."
    It is a fact that the present franchise in India favours the urban constituency rather than the rural one. Under the Bill, however, this balance is redressed and it may be that the balance has swung too far the other way. We feel that there may be certain residents in the towns, in Madras, for example, who should be on the register, and who could only be on because of this particular qualification.
    3.48 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLERThis matter of house rent was very carefully considered by the Franchise Committee three years ago. They investigated the question both in rural areas and urban areas, and they considered that it was almost impossible to relate rental value to the franchise in the rural areas. That is why, when we were considering the matter, we decided that in rural areas rent was almost an impossible basis on which to frame the franchise. We decided to adhere to land revenue. Let me examine the Amendment from the point of view of urban areas. Our franchise proposals for urban areas are to a large extent based on rent. We have already reduced the urban qualifications for the vote to the lowest point that we consider practicable. As the Franchise Committee said in their Report:
    "Any further reduction which would substantially increase the number of voters would be likely to swell the numbers on the electoral roll and produce an electorate of unmanageable size."
    As it happens, we have in urban areas reduced the rental qualification to quite a considerable extent. If the hon. Member will study the Schedule in detail he will see that in Bombay, in Bengal, in the United Provinces and in the Punjab, there is a definite provision made for rent. In Bombay we investigated the matter very closely and we found that in some cases lodgers would not be included in the franchise. That is probably the anxiety that the hon. Member has in mind. But in Bombay the rent in the chawls, which we shall include in our franchise, is so low already that it will take in a very large portion of the adult population. We do not think that we can possibly lower it and I am afraid, therefore, taking this Province as an example, we cannot accept the Amendment.
    Mr. ATTLEE: At what sort of level is the house tax under the Madras Local Boards Act? Does that include practically all the urban residents?
    Mr. BUTLER: It includes in the City of Madras, I am informed, a very large proportion of house-owners who would pay house tax on the basis of the houses they occupy.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    3.52 p.m.
    Mr. COCKS: I beg to move, in line 196, at the end, to insert:
    Qualification by reason of receipt of Wages.
    5. Subject as aforesaid, a person shall also be qualified to be included in the electoral roll for any territorial constituency if during any period in the previous fasli year he was in receipt of wages in cash or kind."
    This matter was discussed carefully by the Franchise Committee and they certainly came to the conclusion that the difficulties in the way of the proposal were too great, but some of the members of that Committee took the view that those difficulties had been greatly exaggerated. We feel that industrial labour will be to a large extent unrepresented in the Indian legislatures. Labour will only have a few reserved seats and as India becomes more industrialised and as new factories are started, the capitalists will be more strongly entrenched than they are at the present time. It is in the interests of the success of the Bill to see that the industrial workers in the Indian cities and towns are protected against Bombay millowners and other Indian capitalists. We know how necessary it will be to have factory legislation of the most up-to-date kind for the protection of the workers. Such legislation will be not only in their interest but also in the interest of our own people, because it will help to place competition between our industries and Indian in-duties on fair and equitable lines. Therefore it is really to the advantage of my hon. Friends opposite to support anything which will tend to improve labour conditions in India, in their own commercial interests quite apart from any question of ordinary justice and humanity. One method which will help to increase the power of labour under the new system will be to give the vote on a wages qualification and it is for that reason we are moving this Amendment.
    3.54 p.m.
    Mr. TINKER: The wording of this Amendment might convey the impression that we on these benches were in favour of excluding from the franchise those who did not get wages. That is not the case. We are in favour of adult suffrage. If we had our way we would not exclude anybody over 21 from the franchise. But as we have not been able to get our own way in that respect, we are bringing in
    1728
    this Amendment with a view to getting as many as possible included in the electoral roll.
    3.55 p.m.
    Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: I consider that the case put forward by the Franchise Committee against this proposal is very weak. They emphasise certain difficulties. They admit that those difficulties are less serious in the case of large industrial concerns, but in paragraph 231 of their Report they refer to the difficulty caused by the migratory character of agricultural labour in India and they state, as a still more serious objection, that the remuneration of the agricultural worker is to a large extent paid in kind. I submit that a stronger argument than that is required to convince us that there is a case against the proposal to include these wage-earners. The mere fact that an agricultural labourer may be paid in kind makes no difference. He is receiving wages. If a mine worker in this country received a certain quantity of coal as part of his wages or a cotton worker received some other form of wages in kind, we should consider it all as wages. The case made out by the Franchise Committee is so weak that I cannot understand the Government using it as a reason for not accepting this Amendment.
    3.56 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLER: I agree that this Amendment must seem attractive to hon. Members opposite who wish to encourage the labour movement and the representation of the labour movement in India but the difficulties in the way of defining such a qualification as is here suggested, are very great indeed in the present state of labour in India. In the case of rural labour, the remuneration—as hon. Members themselves acknowledge in their Amendment—is often paid in kind. The Franchise Committee considered the matter carefully and came to the conclusion that owing to the nature of labour in India, the indeterminate nature of the wages paid, the immense numbers involved, and the migratory nature of the labour it would be virtually impossible to make a satisfactory roll on this basis. As they say on page 247 of the Report, in reply to the case of the Labour representatives who wrote a minute of dissent on this point:
    "On the figures they quote, a scheme of this kind would necessitate detailed inquiries

    1729
    into the earnings in cash and kind of 25,000,000 or 30,000,000 people—an extremely difficult and costly task."
    Such an inquiry would be almost impossible and there would be all the difficulties arising subsequently from claims and so forth. As I have said, in India, wages are still often paid in kind as they used to be paid in some other countries many years ago and there would be great difficulty in assessing what had been paid in kind. Sometimes a man simply gets a bed for the night in payment for his labour or, perhaps he gets a coat or a meal. I have been told of a case of a camel drover who always got food and, apart from that, was given every third baby camel that arrived as the reward of his labour. Owing to the uncertain nature of those arrivals it would be almost impossible to assess that man's qualification for the electoral roll on the basis of wages. That is the sort of difficulty which would be found in India in trying to assess wages in kind.
    However, I do not wish to make fun of the proposal. I think the easiest way of dealing with this matter would be the method—also alluded to by the Franchise Committee—of attempting to compile lists of workers employed in factories and industrial concerns and saying that, above a certain level of wages, say 10 rupees or whatever it might be, those workers would be included in the electoral roll. An assessment of industrial labour in India would be difficult. It certainly amounts to several millions and it is largely migratory. The workers go back to their own villages in the off-period, and return to the towns in the season when labour is needed. It is therefore very difficult to have a roll of workers in factories or industries.
    I think that probably the best way of meeting hon. Members opposite is that proposed already—a proposal which has been made by the Franchise Committee—and that is the labour constituency. It will be necessary to choose a certain area which will be regarded as a labour constituency. There will be 38 members representing labour in the Provincial Legislatures. There will, therefore, have to be 38 labour constituencies. In a few cases where there are trade unions, a satisfactory roll can be chosen, but in the majority of cases the constituencies will have to be specially formed, and within a certain industrial area it will
    1730
    probably be necessary to establish a certain level either of employment, or wage level. That can only be done in certain specified areas, and all those areas, so far as we can see at present, are likely to be covered by labour constituencies. It will be impossible to compile a roll on the basis of wages paid by factories or industries beyond the scope we have already suggested of the labour constituencies, and I regret that even this method is impossible to accept in the way suggested by hon. Members opposite. We have already accepted the principle in the labour constituency in selected areas, but we find it impossible to arrange it all over the country, on the expert advice of the Franchise Committee. It will be quite impossible to accept this Amendment in the present form, owing to the indeterminate nature of the wages paid in cash or kind, which is referred to in the Amendment, and the impossibility of ascertaining how it is to be assessed.
    4.3 p.m.
    Major MILNER: The curious thing is that in all these debates the Government invariably raise objections to any proposal, whether it be a franchise proposal or otherwise, which is going to give better representation, or, indeed, representation of any kind to the masses of the population in India. The present case is a particular instance of that tendency on the part of the Government. The Under-Secretary knows that the franchise proposals which the Government are putting forward do not in any way meet the case of the landless labourer or the servant employed for wage, whether paid in money or in kind, and he knows quite well that that is the great defect in the proposals both of the Franchise Committee and the proposals which are before this Committee. The hon. Member also knows that on the Franchise Committee, while they were much attracted by the proposal, the majority did not find it possible to recommend a wage earners' franchise to the Government. There were, however, members of that Committee, including myself, who did not agree with that. I am confident that the hon. Gentleman very much exaggerates the difficulty of carrying such a proposal into operation.
    We on these benches must always make an effort, whether by this proposal or any other proposal, to ensure that all these classes, numbering many millions

    1731
    and far and away the greatest proportion of the people of India, should have, not merely a voice, but some real and substantial representation in all the Legislatures. There are half a dozen ways in which this proposal could be made practicable. The hon. Member says that it is not satisfactory in its present form—that it is too indeterminate. I am sure that my hon. Friends would be willing to consider any alternative, as, for example, the alternative that an application has to be made. The hon. Member says that there is difficulty in ascertaining particulars and admittedly there would be some difficulty, but not the difficulty he thinks in obtaining the necessary particulars of the wages paid. It would be quite possible to obtain returns from employers, and to give landless labourers the opportunity to have a vote if they made application for it, and gave particulars of their employer and of the wages paid.
    The whole of the difficulties in this matter are like so many other difficulties which the Government have made in the progress of this Bill when we have asked for some more democratic form of franchise, or some extension of the possibility—because it is only a possibility—under the present proposals, of the great masses of the people having a voice in the government of their country. If the Government desired, as they say they do, to give representation to those classes, it would be quite possible to accept this Amendment in its present form, or in some modified form, in order to ensure that the huge body of people—I should think more than 200,000,000—have some voice in the government of the country, which otherwise, under the Government's present proposals, they will not have. I recognise that the depressed classes who are landless labourers for the most part will have, by the reservation of seats, some representation, but that is not sufficient representation of the great mass of the people. Unless the hon. Member is willing to accept some of these Amendments giving the great mass of the people more representation than the Government propose, I hope that my hon. Friends will insist on carrying this Amendment and similar proposals in our Amendments to a Division. I am confident we shall find, when the endeavour is made to work
    1732
    these franchise proposals, that while the numbers of those on the register will be greatly increased, enormous masses of the population will have a just complaint that neither directly nor indirectly have they any representation in the matter of the laws made by the various legislators of the country. For those reasons, I hope my hon. Friend will press this Amendment to a Division.
    4.8 p.m.
    Mr. ATTLEE: The Under-Secretary, I think, rather over-emphasised the matter of the migratory nature of the wage-earner. After all, the provisions in these Schedules are subject to the general requirements as to residence. That may undoubtedly cut out certain migratory labourers, but I should have thought there was a distinct case for those labourers who were not migratory. I think the tendency will be for labourers to become more settled. That tendency, indeed, has shown itself already. There must be industrial areas in Bihar, and probably in the tea gardens of Assam, where you will have wage-earners who are more or less settled in those areas, and who would manage to obtain the vote under the qualifications proposed. I quite agree as to the difficulty of cash and kind, but I think you can get over that. No doubt there are numbers of cases of payments for small service done on one or two days of the year which would have to come out, but the fact remains that under this Bill a large mass of the landless labourers will not get any representation at all. You may get some urban labourers, but not rural labourers. I would like the hon. Member to consider whether the provision, which is not suitable, say, for Madras, might not be applied in Assam or Bihar, or some other Provinces, or even in particular areas. Could there not be a special provision made in their case? You have in these Schedules an infinite variety of qualifications for different cases, and it should be possible to meet this one.
    4.11 p.m.
    Sir REGINALD CRADDOCK: This is, perhaps, a convenient moment to make a few observations in reference to the criticisms from the Benches opposite. The qualification in respect of land is so low already that it includes practically everyone who pays rent of the smallest description. In the Central Provinces,

    1733
    the limit is anyone who pays land revenue or rent of two rupees a year. That brings into the franchise very small people indeed. In many of the districts of the Central Provinces it will bring in numbers of aboriginal tenants. These men are very often nothing but agricultural labourers who have a small plot near their hut, and grow yams and various kinds of beans and maize crops. Many pay two rupees a year for an area, which may be one-tenth or one-twentieth of an acre, and very often a quarter of an acre. Very often it is a fixed sum without any actual regard for the area. There they grow vegetables suitable to be grown without irrigation, and they come up in the time of the monsoon. These people are included, and there are practically none of the rural classes who would not fall within that very low test in the Central Provinces. In the United Provinces, I think, the figure is five rupees, and in Bombay where the land is richer, eight rupees. In the case of the Central Provinces it is exactly similar to the neighbouring district. The two rupees limit is put down instead of the Bombay rate of eight rupees, so that in a cotton-growing country like Berar you may say that the franchise comes down to the very minimum of the poorest ryot in the whole area.
    Therefore, I think that my hon. Friend's apprehensions certainly might be allayed in respect of the franchise not going down far enough. As a matter of fact, a great many of these people who can vote are extraordinarily ignorant. Especially is that the case among the aboriginals, and, indeed, among many others. Many cannot count at all. I had a witness before me who, when asked his age, burst into laughter, and asked bow he could be expected to know that. He was about 40 or 50 years old. When asked whether he knew approximately, he laughed again and said he might be 10 or 12 years old. That is only an illustration of the kind of very ignorant person who will have the vote, and I do not see how you could go much lower in the scale, unless you had complete adult suffrage, which would swamp all the electoral arrangements. I heard, from a man who was in high office in Rangoon for a number of years, that the labourers were brought up in lorries by millowners or other employers, and recorded their votes, and, as nearly everybody had the
    1734
    same name or something very like it, it was impossible to identify the particular voters on any electoral roll which could be prepared. That is one of the great difficulties that will arise when you extend the franchise to such masses of ignorant men. I do not, personally, take exception to this extension so long as it is within manageable limits, but the difficulty is that these people will not be able for years to come to protect themselves by their votes in any way, and will be almost certain to vote for the moneylender, or the capitalist, or whoever is employing them and is in favour of a particular man culculated to suit the moneylenders' and the employers' interests and not those of the voters.
    When I saw these franchise lists that are proposed, they rather astonished me, because they go down so far and are far more extensive than anything which the local Governments originally proposed to the Franchise Committee. I suppose they have since been compiled by the local Governments in order to get a certain number of voters, which is rather the wrong way to begin. I think you ought to select a fair test for intelligence and build up your numbers from the people who qualify for that test, but if you keep on going down and down in the scale in order to get a certain umber of voters, I do not think that is really the logical way of dealing with the subject. To give an instance, the Central Provinces Government proposed originally 10 rupees for this test, and now it is brought down to two rupees, in order to get a fixed number of 1, 500, 000, or whatever the number may be, for the total of voters, and it is not on a really intelligent appraisement of the voter who is likely to use his vote wisely or to understand it. But, as I have said, I am not prepared to oppose this proposal, because really the franchise for a long time to come will have so little effect on the choice of candidates that it does not much matter whether they are elected by 10, 000 ignorant people or by 50, 000.
    4.19 p.m.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I am very familiar with the arguments used by the hon. Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock). I have been in the House for about 15 years, and I remember hearing arguments against giving votes to women in this country on exactly the

    1735
    same lines as those employed by the hon. Gentleman to-day. One hon. Member then on those very benches, I think, used exactly the same arguments against the franchise for women in this country as the last speaker has now used against giving votes to these people in India.
    Sir R. CRADDOCK: They were literate anyhow.
    Mr. DAVIES: We were told then that our people were not intelligent enough to vote, and indeed the argument was used by some hon. Members in this House then that there were some women too ignorant to put their cross on the paper. If hon. Members will look up the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings in this House, they will see the arguments employed by the hon. Member to-day about granting the franchise to the people of India employed in exactly the same way for the last century in this House. He says the franchise is extensive enough in India already, and you would imagine from what he said that nearly all the adult people in India will get the franchise under this Bill. I am told that the total of electors in India under the Bill will be about 35,000,000. I do not know how many adults there are in India, but I believe the total population of British India is some 280,000,000. I am informed that nobody can tell the actual population in India, but in any case there is indeed a vast difference between 35, 000, 000 voters who are being granted the franchise and the total adult population of India. We ought therefore to know who are the people who are being left out. If the argument of the hon. Member holds good that everybody with a plot of land on which he pays two rupees a year is brought in, where is that huge mass of people in India between the 35,000,000 already getting the franchise and the total adult population of India?
    The hon. Member told us about some man who could not tell his own age, but how many Members of this House have received complaints when they are claiming old age pensions for constituents that the old people do not know their own age? In fact, some of them do not even know where they were born, and they are living in this country. It is nothing new for a man of 70 to tell you he does not know his own age, and I am not so sure that every Member of this House
    1736
    would be able to tell his correct age. Then we are told that these people in India are too ignorant and too illiterate, but the point of view that we want to put forward is that men and women in practically every country in the world never know how to vote correctly until you give them the franchise to try them out. When the hon. Member opposite talks about the ignorance of voters, who were more ignorant than the electors of this country when they returned the National Government? And what a National Government! What a sample of Members of Parliament was returned at the last election! The hon. Gentleman then said that if you tell the Indians a few untruths, they will vote even for the moneylenders. Well, they do that here. They tell untruths over the wireless and bamboozle the electors here just as the hon. Member suggests they will do in India.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Is not my hon. Friend rather self-conscious?
    Mr. DAVIES: If I am self-conscious, I have a good friend in the hon. Member who has the same attribute. We feel rather strongly that wages at any rate ought to be one of the factors to determine whether or not a person is entitled to the franchise, and indeed, if a man is capable of working for wages, he ought to be able to vote at an election. I am sure he is not too ignorant to find out whether or not be is paid a proper wage. There is one thing above all other that we want in this Bill. In transporting the idea of the form of government that prevails in this country into India, on a small scale, we want to extend the franchise not only to meet the present situation in India, but to teach and educate the Indian people, especially the adult population, how to use the franchise. Unless you provide a man with tools, he may never know how to use them, and that is the intention of our proposals. Perhaps it will interest the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), who is very much concerned about this problem and especially about myself, to know that we intend taking this Amendment to a Division.
    4.25 p.m.
    Sir WILLIAM WAYLAND: I think the mistake of hon. Members of the Opposition is always to compare conditions

    1737
    in this country with conditions in India. In India, however, you have a very small industrial population and a very large rural population. You cannot even compare the conditions in India with those in Japan, because Japan is very much more industrial than India. I would suggest to the Government that there are so many seats to be allocated to labour in India, and it will be a very difficult task.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not develop that argument on this Amendment.
    Sir W. WAYLAND: Perhaps I may be allowed to say that I hope the Government will leave it in the hands of the Opposition to allocate those seats which are intended to be given to labour in India. If the Government did that, I think they would get themselves out of a very great mess, which one can see is going to take place when this Measure, if ever, is put into operation.
    4.26 p.m.
    Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: May I protest against the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Sir W. Wayland) that this matter should be left in the hands of the Opposition? I can conceive of no proposal which would be more calculated to damage the people whom we wish to befriend in India, and I hope the Government will not be deflected from their present proposals in that direction. I desire to intervene because the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), who is always so very courteous, spoke about the early situation in regard to votes for women in this country and compared it with the proposal for votes for labour and other classes in India. There never was any argument, so far as I know, at the time when women's suffrage was introduced in this country, that it was a danger on account of lack of intelligence on the part of the women. That was an argument against the later proposal for the general franchise, popularly known as the "flapper" vote. I happened to be on the Speaker's Conference when the general franchise question was considered and when the general agreement was arrived at, and at that time the members of that conference, far from wanting to go, as the hon. Member said,
    1738
    full steam ahead, were very desirous of limiting the age to over 25.
    The difference between us who resist this Bill and those who have supported the Government on nearly every occasion, but who want to go even further than the Government have gone, is that we believe that it is unsound to place the fate of this great sub-continent of India, with territories so great and with a population so vast, in the hands of electors so few of whom can read or write. It may be true to say that under the Schedules there are many millions enfranchised who can neither read nor write, but if you multiply that number and have the vast majority of your electorate quite illiterate, it cannot be a wise way of entering upon the thorny path of Western democratic institutions for India.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Does the hon. Member hold that because a man is not literate he cannot be intelligent?
    Sir H. CROFT: I admit that certain people have great natural cunning, even if they cannot read or write, but since it is essential for the electors in any democratic system to understand generally the proposals which their representatives are puttting forward in the Legislature, it seems desirable that, as they can never possibly reach their Members of Parliament personally over these vast areas, they should be able at least to read something in the newspapers as to what their Members are proposing. If you work it out, you will find that in these great constituencies in India Members will be quite unknown to the vast majority of their electors, and I think that will be admitted. Therefore, it seems to me supremely important not to have practically the whole of the electorate illiterate.
    The hon. Gentleman emphasises the fact that we must definitely limit the proposals to include those who are in receipt of wages; he is thus trying to build up at this first stage a class consciousness among the workers of India. Once again I desire to say, on behalf of those who resist this Bill, that we consider that the true labour of India among the millions of ryots spread throughout that vast territory will not be in contact with any of the organised labour machines, and we would be unwise to imagine that there is anything

    1739
    like what we know as the trade union movement in India, where it is merely a drop in the ocean of labour. The vast multitude of people affected by these proposals are the peasants of India, the backbone of that country, who are spread over all these thousands of miles.
    4.31 p.m.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The constitutional arguments against this Amendment have been advanced, and I would like to adduce certain purely practical arguments. The total membership of all the Provincial Assemblies is about 1,650, and the population of British India is in the neighbourhood of 280,000,000. I imagine that the proportion of adults to the total population is smaller in India than in this country, and I believe that, if this Amendment were carried, the total electorate would be between 150,000,000 and 175,000,000. I say that because the Amendment is so badly drawn that it will enable anybody to get a vote in India if he is an adult. If in any period in the previous year he was in receipt of wages in cash or kind—it may be only one anna paid once a year—he would be entitled to have a vote. You have only to establish a contract of service and pay a minimum amount of wages, and you could manufacture votes to any extent under this proposal. If you said that every adult should have a vote there would be something intelligible in the proposal. But there is nothing intelligible in saying that the qualification shall be regular employment, for that would merely mean adult suffrage. Anybody in the land could get a qualification to vote if this Amendment were carried. A man would only have to arrange with a friend to give him a job for an hour and he would be qualified. It is an amazing way of approaching this question. It would mean that the constituencies would have about 100,000 electors. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) is not privileged to represent as many people as that. Not even I have that number; I have 80,000, which is far too many, with all respect to them. It is absurd to suggest that kind of electorate under the conditions which prevail in India.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some members in
    1740
    America represent as many as 250,000 people?
    The CHAIRMAN: I hope that hon. Members will deal a little more exactly with the Amendment.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The consequences of the Amendment would be vast electorates and a vast cost of elections. In other words, it would enable whoever owned the moneybags to be the dominating factor to far too great an extent, and the organised moneybags would control the political destinies of India. The pure mechanism of elections would be totally impossible. The organisation of police, of polling booths, and of persons to take charge of the booths would not be possible under existing circumstances if there were adult suffrage in India. I am surprised that the Labour party should put forward a proposal which, if carried, would bring into complete disrepute the whole conception of elections and Parliamentary Government.
    4.36 p.m.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I would not have been tempted to say a word on this question but for the speech of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams). He is very cute and keen in detecting the errors or weaknesses in the armoury of other people. On this occasion he not only made reference to the apparent defects in the wording of the Amendment, but concentrated his eloquence on the vast constituencies which, he said, would be uncontrollable. Surely the hon. Gentleman cannot have looked round the world and picked up very much information about Parliamentary constituencies or he would not have made that statement. He has on this occasion rather overstated his case. I have just been to a country where one constituency covers 122,000 square miles and where it was not the moneybag representative who secured election, but a Labour representative. I refer to Queensland, Australia.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Had they any difficulty in getting people who can read and write to take charge of the polling booths?
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: So far as I can understand every intelligent person went to the poll. [HON. MEMBERS "Voting is compulsory."] It is not compulsory.

    1741
    Hon. Members had better go out to Australia and make an inquiry for themselves. If they think in terms of the Federal Parliament, they are right, but they are not right in regard to the State Parliaments.
    Mr. MABANE: It is certainly compulsory. I have been to Australia, and I know.
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not think it matters.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I agree. It does not matter very much whether the electors are compelled to vote by law or are subject to a fine if they do not vote. The point I am advancing is this. The hon. Member for South Croydon was eloquent with regard to the defects of the wording of this Amendment and to the administrative impossibility of carrying it out if it were passed. He was overstating his case, and he had better look round the world to see what is possible where people have been educated up to a point—
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: They have not been in India.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: If the hon. Gentleman and all his colleagues make a point of stating that the Indians are so ignorant that they are totally incapable of casting a vote in an intelligent way, he is not paying a very great compliment to all past Governments of this country which have dominated India so long. They have denied the right of any sort of education to fit the Indians for electoral power, and have now left them in a position which enables hon. Members to put up as their only substantial argument against giving them the vote that they have had no education and that they are all more or less illiterate and incapable of expressing intelligent political opinions. The wording of the Amendment may not meet the desire of hon.
    Members opposite, and there may be a good deal of truth in the argument of illiteracy and ignorance. That is an excuse, but not a reason why the forthcoming government in India should not be made to face these difficulties and overcome them so that their people may have a much more intelligent interest in the affairs of their own country and at least have a say as to who should be the governing factor.
    The CHAIRMAN: I am rather afraid that this debate seems to be developing into a discussion which has very little to do with the Amendment.
    4.40 p.m.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: It seems unwise to move an Amendment which can only do one thing, namely, make the whole of the electoral machinery of India imbecile and ludicrous. It could not do otherwise than stultify elections because there is no possible method of carrying them out in India with the large electorate which this Amendment would mean. I would ask those who are moving it for the credit of the House not to go on with an Amendment which it is clearly impossible to carry out.
    4.41 p.m.
    Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has reproached the British domination for the illiteracy in India—
    The CHAIRMAN: That is just the kind of thing I was deploring as being quite irrelevant to the Amendment.
    Mr. SOMERVILLE: That assertion has been made. May I not reply to it?
    The CHAIRMAN: It has been discussed already.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 35; Noes, 265.

    Division No 186.]

    AYES.

    [4.43 p.m.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Grenfell, David Bees (Glamorgan)

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)

    Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)

    Banfield, John William

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Batey, Joseph

    Jenkins, Sir William

    West, F. R.

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

    Lawson, John James

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Lunn, William

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Daggar, George

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Dobbie, William

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Edwards, Charles

    Maxton, James

    Mr. John and Mr. Groves

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    Milner, Major James

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

    Moore, Lt. Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)

    Allen, Lt. -Col. Sir William (Armagh)

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Munro, Patrick

    Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

    Gibson, Charles Granville

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Apsley, Lord

    Gilmour, Lt. -Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Assheton, Ralph

    Gledhill, Gilbert

    Norie-Miller, Francis

    Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

    Gluckstein, Louie Halle

    North, Edward T.

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.

    Nunn, William

    Bailey, Eric Alfred George

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Balniel, Lord

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd. N.)

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

    Granville, Edgar

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Peake, Osbert

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W).

    Peat, Charles U.

    Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (portsm'th, C.)

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.

    Penny, Sir George

    Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Petherick, M.

    Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Bernays, Robert

    Hales, Harold K.

    Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)

    Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)

    Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Blindell, James

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Boulton, W. W.

    Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)

    Potter, John

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Radford, E. A.

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Hartland, George A.

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Burnett, John George

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Butler, Richard Austen

    Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Rickards, George William

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

    Hornby, Frank

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Robinson, John Roland

    Carver, Major William H.

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Hunter Weston, Lt. Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Ross, Ronald D.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Russell, Alexander west (Tynemouth)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)

    Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Janner, Barnett

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Salt, Edward W.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Clayton Sir Christopher

    Ker, J. Campbell

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney)

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

    Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Sandys, Duncan

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Savery, Servington

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Selley, Harry R.

    Cooke, Douglas

    Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Copeland, Ida

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Levy, Thomas

    Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine. C.)

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Smithers, Sir Waldron

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Soper, Richard

    Culverwell, Cyril Tom

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset. Yeovil)

    Mabane, William

    Spens, William Patrick

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    MacAndrew, Lt. -Col C. G. (Partick)

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Dickle, John P.

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)

    Drewe, Cedric

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Duggan, Hubert John

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Stones, James

    Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Storey, Samuel

    Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Stourton, Hon. John J.

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Elmley, Viscount

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

    Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Bik'pool)

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Sueter, Rear Admiral Sir Murray F.

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

    Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Fermoy, Lord

    Mellor, Sir J. S. P.

    Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Thompson, Sir Luke

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Milne, Charles

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Train, John

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Fuller Captain A G.

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    1744

    1745

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Watt, Major George Steven H.

    Wise, Alfred R.

    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Womersley, Sir Walter

    Ward and Dr. Morris-Jones.

    White, Henry Graham

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    4.52 p.m.
    Sir A. KNOX: I beg to move, in line 212, at the end, to insert:
    "the Indian auxiliary force, the volunteer force, or the Indian defence force."
    Under this Schedule the vote is given to retired, pensioned or discharged officers, non-commissioned officers or soldiers of His Majesty's regular military forces in India, and the Amendment proposes to extend the privilege of the vote to retired, pensioned or discharged officers, non-commissioned officers and soldiers of the auxiliary force, the volunteer force, or the Indian defence force. If this Amendment is accepted, as I hope it will be, we propose to move, later, that the same right should be given to their mothers, wives and widows. The Indian auxiliary force and the former Indian defence force have deserved very well of the country. For a considerable time when the sub-continent of India was denuded of regular troops they did yeoman work in guarding stations in India and looking after public order. More recently, during the civil disobedience campaign, they did good work in guarding stations. These forces are mostly manned by the Anglo-Indian community, and during the Great War no less than 80 per cent. of the members did military service in or out of India.
    At the present time, as is well known, this Anglo-Indian community has come upon bad days, and probably as many as 90 per cent. of those who would receive the vote under this Amendment are now suffering from unemployment. Of the auxiliary force at least 75 per cent. are raised from railway employæs. They are all Anglo-Indians or domiciled Europeans. It is in every sense really a compulsory service force, because railway servants are compelled to join the auxiliary force as part of their duty. The Anglo-Indian community especially ask that this concession may be granted, and I hope that the Government will be able to meet their wishes. If it is considered undesirable that men should qualify for the vote by only a few months' service in
    1746
    these auxiliary force battalions and then cease to serve I suggest that a time limit might be inserted, so that the vote should be given only to men and their relations in the case of men who had served about five years with the Colours.
    4.55 p.m.
    Mr. DAVIDSON: As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, the Franchise Committee made an intensive study of this question, and came to the conclusion that in view of the low educational qualification necessary for the vote the enfranchisement of the great majority, if not all, of the members of the auxiliary and territorial force not already enfranchised would take place. So far as the volunteer force and the Indian defence force are concerned the same observation applies, although the volunteer force was disbanded in 1917 and the defence force was disbanded in 1920 and so are historical remnants of a past regime. According to our information, they will be fully enfranchised under the present proposals, and to include them specially in this way would be really redundant. So far as the auxiliary force is concerned, although the Franchise Committee did make this recommendation I think I can promise to give further consideration to the possibility of including them, accepting the stipulation which the hon. and gallant Member said he was ready to make, though it is not included in the Amendment, that they must do so many years' service to qualify for the vote, because otherwise serious difficulties might arise. I think I can safely give the hon. and gallant Member the assurance that we will look into the question further and see whether we can accept the proposal on those conditions.
    Sir A. KNOX: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    4.57 p.m.
    Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: I beg to move, in line 212, at the end, to insert:
    "or if he is a retired, pensioned, or discharged officer or member of the Indian Police Forces."

    1747
    As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) has just said, it is proposed to give the vote to retired, pensioned or discharged officers, non-commissioned officers or men of the regular army. We believe that the same qualities of courage, endurance and experience are also found in the Indian police forces, and we appreciate all that they have done to keep order in difficult times. We believe that something ought to be done to show our appreciation of their services by giving them the franchise on the same terms as it is given to the regular forces.
    4.58 p.m.
    Mr. DAVIDSON: It is very pleasant to hear well-merited words of praise bestowed on the great police forces of India, and it is an extremely happy task for me to be able to say that the Government are prepared to accept the Amendment. The numbers which will be added to the electoral roll are not very great, I believe somewhere in the neighbourhood of 170,000.
    4.59 p.m.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: As a comparative neutral in these matters, I should like to say how pleased I am to see the Government accepting this Amendment, from the point of view that it does encourage the idea that service to the State should be rewarded. I would also join in thanking the Government.
    Amendment agreed to.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move, in line 212, at the end, after the words last inserted, to insert:
    "8. Subject as aforesaid a person shall be entitled to be placed on the electoral roll for a Madras city constituency without other qualification than that contained in paragraph one of this Part of this Schedule."
    We want on this Amendment to raise the general question of adult franchise in urban areas. This would mean that in a Madras city constituency—which by a later Amendment we define—mere residence would give a qualification for the vote. I have always been very adverse to segregating labour in special constituencies. I would much rather that the wage-earners should be in a position to influence the views and actions of the
    1748
    candidates of all communities and all classes; that is to say, that the candidate should have to come before electors who would include all classes of the community, so that they would have to give some consideration to their views instead of segregating them into special classes with special electorates and with special candidates. One recognises that at the present time we cannot get adult suffrage over all India, because the administration is not sufficiently developed. I do not think that objection really applies to the great cities like Calcutta, Bombay and Madras, or to the more urbanised areas such as the coalfields, and possibly to some other great cities such as Allahabad, Cawnpore and the like. Our proposal is that you should in those cities give adult franchise and then you would manage to get the wage-earners put on a common electoral roll. At least it would be a common economic roll, so to speak, for we could not upset at the present time the communal constituencies; therefore, some would be in Moslem or Hindu constituencies.
    The broad point is that while we recognise that at the present moment you cannot get adult suffrage throughout India, we want to see it in certain areas, where we believe it would be feasible. When I was in India we discussed this matter with people on the spot, and I did not think that the objections were in any way insuperable. I think you would have quite enough people to man the booths in these areas like Calcutta and the adjourning suburban constituencies; and that there would be no difficulties about giving the chance for representation to the masses of the people. I do not think there is any real objection to giving a wider franchise in the towns than in the country. In this country for years we had quite different franchises in rural and urban constituencies; in fact, the franchise used to differ from town to town. We do not propose that the number of representatives should be increased in proportion to the number of voters. There will be the same election of members for constituencies, but in certain constituencies there will be a wider franchise.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that this would be practically a residence franchise. Dose he mean that there would be no distinction between men and women?
    Mr. ATTLEE: No, the hon. Member will see that lower down on the Order Paper we have a proposal that the wife of a qualified elector should have the vote. Therefore, with that Amendment we should get adult franchise. There is also a secondary Amendment to give votes to widows. The first Amendment is general and applies only to urban areas, but the effect of that with these other Amendments would be that you would get adult suffrage in urban areas. I think this is far better than any attempt to form trade union constituencies or anything of that kind. I believe that for the masses of Indian labour in the great cities there is nothing so good as giving them adult suffrage and getting a proper vote, with the opinion of the wage earners concentrated on the candidates of all communities and all classes.
    5.8 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLER: This is a matter which has been considered on previous occasions. I will, however, attempt to answer the arguments which the hon. Gentleman has just put forward. It seems an attractive idea to those who believe in the extension of adult suffrage that this principle should be extended to the large cities. But in the first place the large cities are very difficult to define. It is difficult to know what cities you would take in, and I do not think the hon. Gentleman actually defined where he would stop in his definition of large towns and at what point a town would become a country town.
    Mr. ATTLEE: I am ready with a list if the hon. Gentleman would like to see it.
    Mr. BUTLER: This is merely the first difficulty, and, if the other difficulties are disposed of, I might turn to the hon. Member and ask him for his list. I must now consider other arguments against this Amendment. The Franchise Committee considered the question and they considered in the first place that in the urban areas administrative difficulties are undoubtedly less than they are in the villages. That is the reason why at first sight this idea appears attractive. But, in fact, the effect of asking the administration to poll every one—which is what it would come to—by one immediate change in a big city like Bombay, for example, would be a very great jump to take at the present moment and would impose very great burdens on the administrative
    1750
    machine. One of the difficulties in India is to get the voters through the polling booths in the requisite time. It would undoubtedly be easier in a big city where the presiding officers and polling officers live on the spot to deal with the situation, but even so the time taken in polling a big city would be very great.
    In the second place, I think that our own suggestions as indicated in this Schedule do meet to a large extent some of the difficulties referred to by the hon. Gentleman. Leaving aside the question of labour constituencies, if we take the normal level of the franchise in Bombay City for example, we find that the property value defined in relation to a house or building, is an annual rental value of 60 rupees. That is all it is necessary to pay in order to have a vote in Bombay City. We believe that with all the other proposals set out and the qualifications dependent on property, a very large proportion of the adult male population in Bombay City will be qualified for the vote. The qualifications in Madras are local taxation. I have already told the hon. Gentleman that the payment of tax on a house will enable the ordinary house dweller to have the vote. Anybody qualified by the payment of tax on a house will, therefore, be able to vote in Madras City. In the same way, if the hon. Gentleman goes through the main cities according to the different Provinces in the Schedule, he will find that the qualification does go very low. The local Governments have been consulted on the administrative feasibility of these schemes, and I think they are satisfied that they can manage the numbers we suggest. But I am perfectly certain that we should get a reply from the Governments that it would be folly at once to adopt the suggestions of the hon. Gentleman. I agree that it is possible to develop too much the administrative argument. But you must remember that the people who have to work this scheme are the local Governments. If we press them beyond what they can manage and risk the grave danger of an administrative breakdown, the possible effects on the inauguration of the new Constitution would be very bad indeed.
    There are some other considerations which make me regretfully decline to accept this Amendment. I have very

    1751
    often in defending the franchise proposals referred to the change we have made by giving the countryside a better deal. One of the weaknesses of the Southborough Commission's Report was that it was based more on the towns than on the country. That was legitimate at that time. It was following to some extent what has happened in most countries—putting the towns before the country in the first place. One of the best things in the Franchise Committee's Report, to my mind, was that it did spread the level and give the countryside a much greater proportion of the electorate. I think that in Bombay we have the only case now where the proportion of urban electors is definitely more than the proportion of rural electors. In Bombay, 22 per cent. of the urban population is enfranchised and 15 per cent. of the rural population. But in Bengal, for example, we have achieved almost exact similarity of ratio between the urban and rural population. There are 14 per cent. of the urban population enfranchised and 14.6 per cent. of the rural population. We attach the utmost importance to preserving the proper ratio in India between town and country. This was one of the most difficult questions to decide—to try and find an equal level of franchise for the whole of India. If we accept the hon. Member's suggestion we shall at once topple over the balance in favour of the towns again.
    Mr. ATTLEE: I understand that it might make a difference if it were proposed to increase the number of members which the town has against the country. But how is the balance affected if 100,000 people have the vote in a town and elect one member and say 20,000 people in the country elect one member? How is the balance toppled over?
    Mr. BUTLER: I was alluding to the proportion of the electorate. The ratio of town and country would depend partly on the hon. Gentleman's definition of where a town stops and where the country begins. Some of the many constituencies will actually include both town and country. For instance, in England we have many constituencies which have in their midst a large town from which the constituency takes its name, surrounded by a belt of country
    1752
    making up a total electorate sufficient to secure the return of a member to Parliament. Our point is that in the electorate itself it is essential to have a proper balance of country people in order that the point of view of an essentially rural population shall be represented. We believe that by giving the urban electorate a greater measure of advance at the present time we should be acting unfairly to the rural electorate. The rural electors compared with the urban electors, as the Franchise Committee pointed out, have much less opportunity of learning how to exercise the vote. They have not the same facility of going to a booth in the next street, but often have to travel a certain distance, and they have not the amenities of education and enlightenment which very often come to those who live in towns and have the benefit of contact with their neighbours. In framing a franchise scheme, one has to be just to each section of the population. We understand the reasons for the hon. Member's suggestion, but we think that it would be unfair to the rural population as well as administratively impossible at the present time.
    Mr. ATTLEE: The hon. Member suggested that country areas would be included in urban constituencies. The whole point of our suggestion is that it would be simpler in towns like Bombay, Calcutta, Madras and other cities where there is an urban population. There is no suggestion to give a greater vote to urban electors in the smaller towns.
    5.17 p.m.
    Miss RATHBONE: I found it impossible, much as I should have liked to do so, to support the last Amendment of the Labour party, because I was unable to see how the administrative difficulties could be got over. I find myself equally unable to understand the objections of the Under-Secretary of State to this Amendment. He objects to the Amendment on two grounds: first, that it is impracticable; and, secondly, that it is unfair. I realise that it would offer administrative difficulties because it would mean very great enlargement of the electorate. May I make two suggestions which would very greatly modify that difficulty, although they were ignored in the Franchise Committee's discussions

    1753
    when that Committee rejected the proposal. One suggestion is that it is not necessary to assume that elections are all carried out on the same day, or should last only one day. A very few years ago in this country we were accustomed to elections which were spread over several weeks. If you got away from the necessity of polling all the constituencies in the Provinces on the same day, you would very much increase the possibility of dealing with an extended electorate. Obviously, you can move your polling officers and so forth from one constituency to another. That is one way in which the difficulty might be lessened.
    There is a second way. The Government have shown themselves fond of the method of requiring a voter to apply for his vote, in the case of women. On a later Amendment, I shall object strongly to that method being applied specially to women. Suppose that it were applied as a method of reducing the difficulty of a very much enlarged electorate all over India, I suggest that there might be a good deal to be said for it. I have never been able to see why what has proved possible and workable in Ceylon, with adult suffrage coupled with the necessity that the voter shall aply for his or her vote, should be impossible in India. The proposal here is more limited than that. It is that what would be practically adult suffrage should be confined to the urban areas. If it be confined to the urban areas where polling arrangements are much less difficult than in the rural areas, and if it were coupled with requirement of application, is it not likely that it might prove as practicable as in the case of Ceylon? I have never seen those two points fully dealt with by those who oppose adult franchise.
    Later on we shall be dealing with the various forms of what I am obliged to call fancy franchise adopted for the purpose of giving women the vote, but it will be much more satisfactory, both to men and to women, and would ease the administrative difficulties, if the franchise proposals of the Schedule were not so terribly complicated, and if one could cut the knot by adopting some simple qualification such as is proposed in the Amendment, coupled with the necessity of application. I know that the women of India are very keen about this proposal, and that they would very much
    1754
    prefer the methods proposed elsewhere in the Bill of increasing their vote, because it would give them a bigger vote and because it is more logical and simple. They maintain that at least in the big cities, and if coupled with the requirement of application, it would not be impossible to poll even considerably larger numbers. Local governments may think otherwise, but the two suggestions, are, I submit, worthy of the Under-Secretary's consideration.
    The second point was as to fairness. It is a curiously fallacious argument that this proposal involves any upset of the balance between urban and rural districts. I should be the first to be against it if I thought it did. Is it really maintained that an injustice is being done to a voter in a rural district because the number of the voters in an urban constituency is increased? I should have thought that, if anything, you were doing an injustice to the residents in the urban district. It is better to be one voter among 50,000 than one voter among 100,000. A rural voter belonging to a smaller constituency has a slightly greater degree of power than the urban voter who belongs to a larger constituency. It seems a wholly different and fallacious use of the idea of balance between urban and rural areas, which depends surely upon the number of members which the rural and urban districts respectively can elect, and not upon the number of voters behind each member. As for the argument of the Under-Secretary about the greater experience of the urban voter: that, I assume, is why the proposal is to be limited to the urban voter. There are greater administrative difficulties where there are inexperienced voters. The experiment of adult suffrage can be more reasonably begun in towns where the means of political education by wireless, Press and public meeting are very much greater, and where it is more possible to educate a larger electorate. The two arguments used against the Amendment are not, I suggest, nearly as convincing as those which the Under-Secretary employed against the previous Amendment.
    5.23 p.m.
    Major MILNER: The hon. Lady has rendered a service by the way she has dealt with the ratio between urban and rural populations. As she so well pointed out, a fallacious argument was used by

    1755
    the Under-Secretary, and I am surprised that he advanced it at this time of day to the Committee. I was pleased that he did not labour the point of administrative impracticability in the cities because there is no question about that. I am sure that he would not deny that in the larger capital cities the administrative difficulties—I will not say they do not exist—can be overcome comparatively easily. There are enough people to act as returning officers, schoolmasters, clerks and so on, to carry through any election necessary, even under adult suffrage. This proposal is not quite adult suffrage, but is rather household suffrage, and there is no question that its administration in the larger cities could be effectively carried through.
    Something has been said about the report of the Franchise Committee. Some of the Indian members of that Committee, Messrs. Tambe, Chintamani and Bakhale, made a minority report in which they strongly pressed for adult suffrage in the large cities. They suggested that it was quite practicable in cities with a population of 100,000 or more, or which there are some 30 in India. They said that if that were considered too much for the Committee—and now for the Government—to swallow they would even be content if they could have adult suffrage in all capital cities, of which there are some 10 in all. They pointed out that one provincial franchise committee which was appointed to sit with the larger Franchise Committee, namely, that from the United Provinces, recommended that the proposal should be introduced in all cities with a population of 50,000 or more. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Lime-house (Mr. Attlee) would restrict the proposal to the capital cities, which are some 10 or so in number. It is extremely desirable to make a start, because if you never make a start you obviously will never make a finish. For that reason we feel very strongly on the proposal. It is a matter of justice to get as many people on the electoral role as can be administratively dealt with and taught to use the vote when it is given to them. It would be of great value in order to familiarise the Indian population with the method of the vote, and the desirability of their making up their minds as
    1756
    between the different policies of different individuals. In that way alone the proposal would be a very valuable one.
    The Under-Secretary talked about the balance between rural and urban areas, and he instanced Bombay as having, under the Franchise Committee's proposal, 22 per cent. urban population as against 15 per cent. rural population. As the hon. Lady has pointed out, that ratio can be made almost anything you desire by delimiting constituencies. If the proposal were adopted, instead of there being an injustice to the rural population there might be an injustice to the urban population, because there might be 100,000 voters in one constituency in a city electing one member, and 20,000 rural electors also electing only one member. We should be taking a step in the direction of adult suffrage, and be helping the Indian electorate to familiarise themselves with the voting procedure, with a view, at as early a date as may be administratively practical, of extending adult suffrage, or even this household suffrage, to other parts of the country. I notice that the hon. Gentleman did not say anything about the difficulties in the way of making up the electoral register. Under the Government's proposal, to which the Amendment refers, some sort of residential qualification will presumably have to be established, but there will be no additional work on the local authority.
    Probably the Committee may desire to press the Government in this matter, because almost every hon. Member believes in adult suffrage, and we ought to give the Indians an opportunity of making a start with it. The place to make a start is in the larger cities, which are capable of dealing with the matter, and no valid reason has been put forward for refusing this concession. The hon. Gentleman has already made one or two concessions this afternoon, and I hope he may make a further concession in this matter, or at any rate promise to consider it further. If the Government are not prepared to do that, and cannot advance more substantial reasons, one can only conclude that in this as in other matters they are determined to see that the forces of property and privilege and reaction shall be permanently in charge of the Government of India. It is only by giving opportunity to as large classes of people as

    1757
    possible that we can ever approach even the semblance of democracy in India, and in our view the Government should take at any rate this first step towards that very desirable conclusion.
    5.31 p.m.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I have listened to the arguments in relation to this Amendment, and I am bound to say I think that the case which has been put forward by the Under-Secretary has been very largely met by the contentions of the Opposition. I was inclined to attach importance to the danger of this Amendment in exaggerating the claim of the town against the country. That is a tendency which everyone who is concerned for the future of India is desirous of checking. The people of India, in their philosophy and outlook, are countryside people, and the sudden and almost uncontrolled development of the big cities has given ground for apprehension. Therefore, we welcome the extension of power in the country districts, and I do not want to take any step to check a healthy movement on these lines. The point has been made by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) that it is not suggested that if the number of votes is increased the membership should be increased. I think it is possible to answer that point by saying that there will grow up an agitation in India on the part of the voters for an equality of franchise in this sense, that there will be a complaint on the part of the urban voter that he is not being fairly dealt with, and I am not sure whether he would be satisfied with the answer given in this House that you can give a member to 20,000 in a country district as compared with 60,000 in the town. That answer, although it may seem important to us, will not appeal to the urban voter in India.
    I find it extremely difficult to cast a vote against adult suffrage if it be feasible. The whole contention has been that we must, if we can, give to the people of India a larger share in their government, and the Statutory Commission emphasised that the only way to overcome some of the difficulties threatening Indian life was to enlarge the electorate as far as that could be done within the limits of administrative possibility and convenience. Therefore, I should not have the slightest hesitation in voting
    1758
    for adult suffrage. I think it is almost impossible in the end to give the vote to great numbers of the people of India and to deny it to others. It is not as though we had established a settled rule—for instance, to give it to the literate and to deny it to the illiterate. If we enlarge the electorate, there will be very little difference between those who are brought in as a result of the enlargement and those who already have the vote. On general grounds I must support the Amendment unless the Under-Secretary can be stronger on the point of administrative difficulty. He said that those who were able to advise us in India had stated that it would be practicable to carry out the scheme as it at present stood. Is he able to go further and say that such a suggestion as is now being made in the Amendment has been turned down as impracticable in present circumstances? I understand that this is not a new suggestion, but is one which the hon. Gentleman himself had the opportunity of discussing when he was in India and met some of those who, I understand, signed the Minority Report.
    Therefore, I assume that the proposal has already received consideration from those who are qualified to advise. If the hon. Gentleman is able to tell us that those charged with this responsibility say it will be impossible in present circumstances to carry out the proposal, I am so concerned to get some advance made that I do not want to be a party to such a headlong advance as would break down the machine. I would much rather that a certain percentage should now secure the franchise, and that that should be enlarged, than that such an impossible burden should be put upon those who will have to carry it through as would break down the machine at the outset. I have no doubt that, with the grant of the franchise to a certain percentage of people in India, it will be enlarged, and probably that was the desire of the Government as well as of those on this side of the House; but, unless it can be shown that in present circumstances it is administratively impossible, as far as can be seen, to carry out the Amendment in the towns, I certainly, having regard to the history of my party and to my belief in the vote and the education of the vote, could not vote against an Amendment intended to give that protection

    1759
    against bad laws and bad government which most of us would desire.
    5.38 p.m.
    Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: If the Under-Secretary will look at the figures given on page 45 of the Franchise Committee's Report, he will find in them an answer to his case. He mentioned the percentage of 22 for the urban population in Bombay, and of 15 for the rural population, and he did not infer that in that case, where the proportion of the urban was greater than that of the rural population, there was anything impracticable. If there was nothing impracticable in these figures, where the balance is in the direction of the urban population, there can be no practical argument with regard to Madras, the United Provinces, the Punjab and the Central Provinces, Against the figures being brought up to something like the same proportions, and I would ask the hon. Gentleman to meet the case contained in that table of figures. If it is not impracticable to administer those proportions of urban and rural population in Bombay, the same ratio would surely be equally practicable in the other provinces. I have to assume that the Government are anxious to extend the franchise as far as possible. In this Debate we have heard many arguments on the question of illiteracy, but surely that argument cannot be advanced here. Members of the Government themselves should welcome an extension of the franchise if the use of the franchise would give to the people of India the greatest possible measure of self-government, for that seems to be the general principle advanced by the Government in the Bill itself. This Amendment affords an opportunity, not to obtain an adult franchise, but to extend the franchise to a measure in which the intelligence of the people will enable them to exercise it correctly. Therefore, I ask the Under-Secretary to meet the argument as to the practicability of this Amendment, particularly in relation to the table of figures on page 45 of the Franchise Committee's Report.
    5.42 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLER: I have so often, when I have made what has been regarded as a purely official speech, been accused of stressing the argument of administrative
    1760
    impracticability, that I did not stress it in my original speech so much as I have done on previous occasions, but I think that now I had better develop it a little further. As the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) will remember, I said it would be folly, on the advice we have received from local Governments, to take this step under our proposals. Let me try to develop a little further the question of adult suffrage in the large towns from the point of view of administrative practicability. The expert body which examined this question was the Franchise Committee, and Lord Lothian and his colleagues recorded their view, in paragraph 49 of the Report, that adult suffrage in large towns was out of the question. They then had submitted to them a minute of dissent signed by the gentlemen to whom the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) referred. He said they thought that the difficulty had been overstated, and advocated adult suffrage in large towns. The majority of the committee, including all the members except these gentlemen and Mrs. Subbarayan, met in Simla immediately after the publication of this minute of dissent, and decided to reply to the suggestion that the difficulties had been overstated; and they stated categorically, on page 247 of the Report, that:
    "the introduction of adult suffrage in large industrial centres, like many of the towns mentioned by our colleagues, would necessitate a reconsideration of the proposals in Chapter IX of our Report regarding the representation of labour."
    Twice, therefore, the majority of the Committee, with the exception of only four members, and including, I think, the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds, although he stated in his minute of dissent, which I have also studied, that he thought the difficulties of wage qualifications had been exaggerated—the majority of the Committee were definitely of opinion that adult suffrage in the towns was impossible.
    Mr. ATTLEE: Surely that is entirely irrelevant. They met together and said that naturally, if labour were given representation through adult suffrage, it would be necessary to reconsider the other methods; but that does not touch the question of practicability, as to which we have had no evidence whatever.
    Mr. BUTLER: I was coming to that question. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not desire us at this stage to tear up or reconsider all the suggestions we have made for the special representation of Labour, and I think the Franchise Committee were right in their suggestion as to the relevance of the special seats reserved for Labour when we are considering adult suffrage, because there is no doubt that the special representation for Labour which we have included in our proposal has been included because we thought there might be injustice to Labour owing to the fact that, for administrative and other reasons, we were not able to extend the franchise a little further. I think that the two subjects are bound up together. Even so, in Bombay City, I believe, in one ward or more, it will still be possible for a representative of the wage-earning classes to stand as a candidate and get elected. That was the advice given to us when we were in Bombay. Therefore, I do not believe that the representation of Labour must depend only upon the Labour constituencies even under our proposal.
    I will deal a little further with the point raised by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot). I have already said that Lord Lothian and his colleagues definitely did not recommend this suggestion. We have since had the opportunity of the advice of the local governments. Reverting to the administrative question of town and country which has been touched on before, it must be realised that an election places a strain upon the administration in any particular Province. We have placed upon the administration a strain which we think they can bear, but in India we cannot rely, upon the same agencies for conducting elections and preparing electoral rolls or revising them as we can in this country. The whole strain falls on the administration. Very often the administration has to be taken away from its normal duties in order to conduct the actual business of an election and prepare for an election, revise the rolls and so forth. For that reason, we do not wish at this moment, on the advice of the local governments without exception, to place this immense burden of polling the very large numbers in these large cities in India in one go in the immediate future. We believe that it would re-act and place an impossible
    1762
    burden upon the whole administration of a particular Province if we were to single out its main city and insist that that roll should be prepared on a basis of adult suffrage, including, I understand from the hon. and gallant Member opposite, the women, and that, when the roll was prepared, the election should be conducted.
    I can give the most definite assurance to the hon. Member for Bodmin that it is our considered opinion, and one would not like to be responsible for measures which would cause, as I said in my first speech, the inauguratoin of the Constitution to be carried out under such difficult circumstances. We have, I am sure, all enjoyed the exchange of debating arguments on both sides, and I will conclude by saying that I cannot understand the argument of the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) when she said that it really would be worse to be one voter among 20,000 than to be one among 5,000. If that be really her view, I cannot understand her present wish to increase the number of voters in the towns so as to make the urban voter one in 20 instead of, as in the case of the rural voter, one in five.
    5.49 p.m.
    Major MILNER: The hon. Gentleman said that he bad done justice to me, but I am afraid that he did not quite do so. I have taken the trouble to look at my own dissenting minute on this particular matter, and I see that I said that in my view the introduction of adult franchise in large towns was both feasible and desirable. It is perfectly clear that the hon. Gentleman did not do me justice in that regard. When serving on the Committee in India I dissented from the majority of the Committee and decided, with the three Indian representatives whom I mentioned, in advocating the particular principle which is before the Committee to-day. So much for that, which is more or less a personal matter.
    The hon. Gentleman has not told us to-day, notwithstanding the appeal made to him by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot), that it is administratively impracticable to have adult suffrage in the large cities. The hon. Gentleman says that the local governments do not desire the work and effort necessary to draw up an electoral roll

    1763
    and so forth. He will not say to-day—and I challenge him to do so—that it is administratively impracticable to have adult suffrage in the larger capital cities. That was never said by the Franchise Committee. I am speaking from memory, but I do not recollect any Provincial Government taking that very strong view. Admittedly, they demurred with regard to it as they did with regard to 101 things, and to a number of proposals which the Franchise Committee and the Government have since adopted. There can be no question that it is administratively practicable to carry through this proposal in the large cities.
    The hon. Gentleman referred us to two paragraphs in the report of the Franchise Committee. My hon. Friend in front of me dealt with paragraph 2 on page 247, and I need not spend much time upon it. The three distinguished Indian members whom I have mentioned expressed the opinion that adult suffrage was practicable and that we ought to make a start with it, and they put in a dissenting minute to that effect. The only comment upon that by the majority of the Franchise Committee was a totally irrelevant one. They did not attempt to meet the statement of the Indian members that it was practicable at all. The majority of the Franchise Committee merely said that, supposing the proposal were carried into effect, it would necessitate a reconsideration of the proposals in regard to the matter and that was all.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: The hon. Member said "the three Indian members," and that would lead the Committee to think that the Indian members on the Committee sided with the hon. Member as against the majority. They were three of the Indian members were they not, and the majority of the Indian representatives supported the main contentions of the Committee?
    Major MILNER: The hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that that is so.
    Mr. FOOT: There were more Indian members on the Committee.
    Mr. BUTLER: Seven Indian members decided with the majority, and three against.
    Major MILNER: So that there was a majority of Indian members against the general proposals. [Interruption.] I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman means the proposals about the cities or not.
    Mr. BUTLER: I ought to make the matter clear to the Committee. Certain of the Indians were with the majority, and three were against the majority in their view that we should not have adult suffrage in the large towns.
    Major MILNER: However that may be, the three Indian members who fathered this proposal were three very responsible gentlemen. I again hark back to what I have already said, that there were other reasons for the attitude taken by the Indian representatives. The point which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin has taken is as to whether this proposal is administratively practicable. I assert that it is. The Franchise Committee, although they say that they had not a large body of evidence in favour of it, do not say anywhere in clearly expressed terms that it is administratively impracticable, nor do the local governments or the Under-Secretary. I appeal to the Committee to make a very small start in this matter. A commencement in the larger capital cities can be carried out without undue difficulties. The local governments have had time and opportunity to make their arrangements and preparations, and it would, I am sure, have a very helpful effect in India. The larger cities for the most part are the seat of what disaffection and difficulty exists, and, if such a proposal as this were accepted by the Government, it would have a very valuable effect indeed in regard to the opposition directed against the Bill.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 34; Noes, 272.

    Division No 187.]

    AYES.

    [5.52 p.m.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Cleary, J. J.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Banfield, John William

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Dobbie, William

    Batey, Joseph

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Edwards, Charles

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

    Daggar, George

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Maxton, James.

    West, F. R.

    Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)

    Milner, Major James

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Paling, Wilfred

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Lunn, William

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Drewe, Cedric

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leads, W.)

    Duggan, Hubert John

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Albery, Irving James

    Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Alexander, Sir William

    Edge, Sir William

    Mabane, William

    Apsley, Lord

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. C. G. (Partick)

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Elmley, Viscount

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Assheton, Ralph

    Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

    McConnell, Sir Joseph

    Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    McKeag, William

    Bailey, Eric Alfred George

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmln)

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

    Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

    Manningham-Bulfer, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Fuller, Captain A. G.

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)

    Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

    Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

    Belt, Sir Alfred L.

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Mellor, Sir J. S. P.

    Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Bernays, Robert

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Milne, Charles

    Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

    Blindell, James

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Bossom, A. C.

    Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Boulton, W. W.

    Goff, Sir Park

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Graves, Marjorie

    Munro, Patrick

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)

    Nall, Sir Joseph

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

    Burghley, Lord

    Hales, Harold K.

    North, Edward T.

    Burnett, John George

    Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)

    Nunn, William

    Butler, Richard Austen

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hn. William G. A.

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Owen, Major Goronwy

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

    Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Carver, Major William H.

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Peake, Osbert

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)

    Peat, Charles U.

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chaster, City)

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Penny, Sir George

    Cayzer, Maj, Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Petherick, M.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Hornby, Frank

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W)

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Clarke, Frank

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Potter, John

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Janner, Barnett

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Radford, E. A.

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

    Cooke, Douglas

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Kerr, Hamilton W.

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Cooper, T. M. (Edinburgh, W.)

    Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Copeland, Ida

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Ouinton

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Remer, John R.

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Rickards, George William

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Levy, Thomas

    Robinson, John Roland

    Culverwell, Cyril Tom

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset. Yeovil)

    Loder, Captain J. de Vere

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Dickle, John P.

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    1766

    1767

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Train, John

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Spens, William Patrick

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Stevenson, James

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Salt, Edward W.

    Stones, James

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Storey, Samuel

    Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

    Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney)

    Stourton, Hon. John J.

    White, Henry Graham

    Savery, Servington

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Selley, Harry R.

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Withers, Sir John James

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Womersley, Sir Walter

    Smith, R. W. (Aber'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Smithers, Sir Waldron

    Taylor, Vlce-Admiral E. A. (Pd'gt'n, S.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

    Sir Victor Warrender and Lieut.-

    Soper, Richard

    Thompson, Sir Luke

    Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    6.5 p.m.
    Sir A. KNOX: I beg to move, in line 218, after "forces," to insert:
    "or an officer or member of the Indian police forces."
    I move the Amendment in the absence of my hon. Friends in whose names it stands. It is proposed in the new Schedule that a woman shall be qualified to be on the electoral roll
    "if she is the pensioned widow or the pensioned mother of a person who was an officer, non-commissioned officer, or soldier of His Majesty's regular military forces;"
    We ask that the same privilege should be extended to the pensioned widows or pensioned mothers of officers or members of the police forces.
    Mr. DAVIDSON: This Amendment follows upon the previous Amendment which the Government accepted. On principle we are prepared to accept it, subject to the question of drafting. I put in that caveat so that we may be able to frame the Amendment in suitable words.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: May I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy for accepting the Amendment, and also congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend on extending the vote to more women? It is a gallant and chivalrous act, and I only wish that some of the women Members of the House had been able to get up and thank him for what he has done.
    Sir A. KNOX: In view of what the Chancellor of the Duchy has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Sir H. CROFT: On a point of Order. If it be not too late, I thought that the Amendment had been accepted on the understanding that it would be framed
    1768
    in such words as the Government accepted.
    Mr. DAVIDSON: Subject to drafting.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): It can be either withdrawn or the words can be inserted and amended on Report.
    Mr. DAVIDSON: I think we had better have our own words.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    6.8 p.m.
    Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move, in line 219, to leave out sub-paragraph (b), and to insert:
    "(b) if she is the wife of a qualified elector; or
    (c) if she is the widow of a man who was at the time of his death possessed of qualifications which would have entitled him but for his death to be included in the electoral roll had this Act then been in force."
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has already conceded this Amendment in principle, because when, earlier, an Amendment was moved to give the vote to retired police officers, he accepted at once the principle that the retired police officer should be given a vote and that his wife should necessarily have one. The principle has been conceded that where someone is qualified as an elector, his wife should also be qualified. I do not think that our Amendment will mean a great increase in the franchise. In regard to the first part of it, we know that if a man is qualified for the vote his wife is also qualified. We also seek to make provision for widows. Everyone knows the position of widows in India and we think it reasonable that a widow as well as a wife should be given a vote.
    Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE: Is it proposed to give the vote to widows for all time?
    Mr. ATTLEE: Our proposal is to give the vote to the widow of a man who was at the time of his death possessed of qualifications which would have entitled him to be included in the electoral roll. The proposal is to enfranchise existing widows and also widows in the future who are the widows of persons who have qualifications. I admit that this means a change in the proportion of the enfranchisement of men and women. One of the great blots on the Bill is the fact that so few women are enfranchised. I think that is a mistake, because we shall have to come, sooner or later, to adult franchise. If we are going to increase the franchise, I think the increases should be of men and women, and not first of a large number of men and then a number of women later. I do not think that it can be shown that the women of India are less qualified to be electors than the men. The point has been made by the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) that so many who are proposed to be enfranchised will not know how to exercise it. How are you to learn to use the vote unless you have one? At the first enfranchisement it always takes a long time to learn about the franchise, and it will be the same in India.
    I do not profess to have the wide knowledge of India that is possessed by the hon. Member for the English Universities, but I have heard that the women of India have a great deal more knowledge of public affairs than one would usually expect from the fact that many of them live a secluded life. The Indian ladies I have met had as high and intelligent an appreciation of political and economic questions as the men.
    Sir JOHN WITHERS: I do not know much about Indian affairs, but I have always understood that in certain cases widows are burnt in India. Therefore, it would not be very much use in those cases giving them the vote. I also understand that in accordance with Indian law a man may have a large number of wives. Therefore, there may be a large number of widows on his death. Is it proposed to enfranchise all of them?
    Mr. ATTLEE: The hon. Member is going back to the days of suttee, before I came on the scene. I do not think that he will find that the number of burnt widows is very large. In any case, if they are burnt, they cannot vote, so it does not raise a very practical issue. If he looks at the Bill he will see that provision is made in regard to polygamy. But the question of polyandry does not arise, because Todas and other polyandrous people are not enfranchised but come in the backward areas. That raises a rather interesting ethnological study. We want to see a wide extension of the franchise. We have been beaten on our endeavours to extend it, and we return to the fight on the subject of women. I do not think that anyone can say that the proportion of enfranchised women to men in the Bill is what it ought to be. Therefore, we have to try all kinds of schemes to enfranchise women. I think that the only really effective way in India of getting votes for the women is by enfranchising a large number of them because their husbands are electors.
    6.15 p.m.
    Sir H. CROFT: If the Amendment is to be seriously considered, there must be some age limitation in it, because there are numerous widows in India who are under age according to our ideas. The hon. Member, I take it, would not like to give widows of 13 and 14 years of age the vote.
    Mr. ATTLEE: There are general qualifications and special qualifications, and the general qualifications as to age apply to all. That consideration, therefore, does not arise.
    Sir H. CROFT: Then I take it that the fact that she is a widow would not qualify her for a vote. The hon. Member speaks with some knowledge of these questions, and therefore we listen to him with interest. Anyone who has had the honour of meeting some of the women who have been leading Indian thought on political questions will bear out what he has said. I have met a dozen or so brilliant women from India who have a great mastery of political questions, but is it not true that, speaking generally, the women of India have not as yet entered freely into political life? Is it not true to say that at this stage the

    1771
    majority of women in India are not in the same condition for receiving the vote as were our beloved sisters in this country when they were enfranchised? We must keep a sense of proportion and reality, and it must be admitted that the vast number of women in India are illiterate; that the seclusion of the more educated women has not made it possible for them to pick up a horse-sense of politics, such as women do who mix freely with people in the old world.
    The general status of women in the East is not the same as that of women in the West. It may happen that when this miracle has been performed, when India has this great boon of Western democratic institutions, we may see a great advance, but do not let us make the fatal blunder of attempting to enfranchise large numbers of persons, and thus have an overwhelming majority of illiterates. That will not work out as the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) would desire. The Simon Commission did not desire to see the wholesale enfranchisement of women suggested by the Amendment to the proposed new Schedule.
    6.19 p.m.
    Miss RATHBONE: As I foresee that the Government will not accept the proposal, I shall reserve most of what I have to say for those Amendments which, I think, there is a prospect of being carried. The last argument of the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) was peculiarly unfortunate, because it happens that the proposal embodied in the Amendment is precisely the proposal which the Simon Commission put forward—that wives and widows in general should be enfranchised, at the rather higher age level of 20 years. I can anticipate what the Under-Secretary will say about this Amendment. He cannot bring against it any kind of administrative difficulty except one, that it would largely increase the electorate. I recognise that difficulty, but, the proposal in the proposed new Schedule is in favour of the rather better-off class. The wives and widows who are to be enfranchised are those people who now have qualifications which enable provincial electors to vote. Therefore, it is the relatively well-to-do who will be enfranchised, and that is why the organised women of India
    1772
    who, although they may belong to the educated classes, are intensely democratic in their feelings, dislike the form of wife's franchise offered in the Bill. They hold the view that it will result in enfranchising women who belong to a class which will not hold progressive views. I think that they exaggerate this objection, but if the Government could accept the Amendment, it would give great gratification to the women of India and make the form of woman's suffrage much more adequate and much more democratic. In my view the wife's vote which is offered in the new Schedule is likely to be cut down and, therefore, the increase of numbers will not be so large as would appear to be from the Amendment on the Order Paper.
    6.23 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLER: The effect of adding these words would be that every qualified elector would have his wife put on the roll. In the case of Madras this would add 4,000,000 to 5,000,000 women to the roll. At the present moment there are in Madras 6,000,000 men, and 1,600,000 women on the roll, and if two-thirds of the men are married it would mean that over 4,000,000 women would be added to the electoral roll on the qualifications of their husbands, leaving out of consideration women who are on the roll on their own property qualification, and for education. It is a proposal to add at one blow the largest number of women suggested in these debates, and in view of what I have already said about the strain on the administrative machinery, it will be quite impossible to acid such large numbers. That is the case in regard to one Province only, but a similar increase will be necessary in every other Province if the Amendment were accepted.
    In paragraph (c)of the Amendment we are asked to add an existing widow who would be on the roll if her husband were alive and qualified for the franchise. Taking it literally, that would mean that the widow of a man who died 30 years ago would be entitled to be on the electoral roll; and we should have to search for her and put her on the roll. It would also mean that the widow of a man who has been enfranchised since the reforms of 1919 would be entitled to be on the electoral roll, and it would be necessary to seek

    1773
    out that widow and put her on the electoral roll. Widows have a habit of returning to their village after the unfortunate demise of their husbands. It would be necessary, first, to establish the fact that her husband had the necessary qualifications, then to find the widow, and, after satisfying yourself that she was indeed the widow of the man, place her on the electoral roll. This matter has been considered by the Franchise Committee, and in paragraph 216 they say:
    "We do not consider that it would be administratively convenient to enfranchise women, now widows, on a qualification which their late husbands enjoyed or might have enjoyed had they been alive at the time of the passing of the statute embodying the new constitution."
    Everything reasonable has been done to include widows. A widow qualified in respect of her late husband's qualifications will, under our proposal, continue to remain on the electoral roll until she remarries. That is a concession which has been made in respect of widows whose qualifications can be traced, and we have gone as far as we can to give a widow whose husband has died after the inauguration of this new franchise an opportunity of remaining on the roll in the event of her not remarrying. We cannot go further and attempt to find widows whose husbands may or may not have had the necessary qualifications. For these reasons, I cannot accept the Amendment.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: The Under-Secretary has given us the views of the Franchise Committee as far as the proposals relating to widows are concerned. Can he state what was the attitude of the Franchise Committee towards the general proposal with regard to the wife of an elector?
    Mr. BUTLER: On this matter we had the Advantage and help of the late Miss Mary Pickford, to whose work a tribute is due. She would have taken great interest in these Debates. Unfortunately, I am unable to accept this proposal owing to the immense extra burden it would put on the electoral roll and the inadivsability of so rapidly increasing the number of women electors. Such a big jump as this would militate against the success of the extended franchise which we hope to give to women.
    6.27 p.m.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I am naturally under a great disadvantage as compared with the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft), who knows a great deal more about this subject than I do. I cannot follow the argument of the Under-Secretary when he says that we are going to enfranchise an enormous number of persons. We are already putting 35,000,000 electors on the roll at one stroke, and, therefore, an addition of 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 does not seem to me to be very large.
    Mr. BUTLER: It will add 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 persons in one Province alone. And there are all the other Provinces.
    Mr. DAVIES: I still adhere to my argument. We are definitely of the opinion that the electoral roll in India is too small compared with the population. I do not know where the Under-Secretary got the idea that he would have to search for these widows. I should imagine that in the administration of a proposal of this kind there would be some inquiries, and that widows would come forward and claim the vote. Then an hon. Member used the strange argument, how can you tell whether a widow is qualified because her husband had died 30 or 40 years ago? Take the case in our own country. There are about 250,000 widows in this country who receive a widow's pension by virtue of the fact that their husbands died before the coming into operation of the Contributory Pensions Scheme in 1912; they are receiving the pension by virtue of the fact that their husbands would have been insured under the National Health Insurance scheme if they had been alive in 1912.
    We are frankly of opinion that something ought to be done to extend the electoral roll in India, especially to include more women. Once again I say that I am not as familiar with this problem as some hon. Members, but I hope that that is not a disqualification for speaking on it, because I notice that some hon. Members are very much more eloquent in their ignorance than in their knowledge. The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth, who always intervenes with a great deal of knowledge of this subject, said that women in India have not yet entered freely into the life of the country. Really they cannot do so

    1775
    unless they get the franchise. In our own country women did not enter freely into the public life of the nation until they were given the vote. If we are told that the wording of our Amendment is clumsy, I would remind the Committee that when an hon. and gallant Gentleman a few minutes ago moved an Amendment to include on the electoral roll numbers of police pensioners, the Government came to the rescue and told the hon. and gallant Member that they accepted the principle of the Amendment, and they would insert the appropriate words on the Report stage. If the Government would be good enough to accept the principle of this Amendment we are not very keen about the exact words of it.
    6.33 p.m.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I also speak on this subject with some diffidence. All of us are dealing with a problem that is very largely beyond the grasp of any company of people in this country. I, therefore, suggest that our only safe course is to have some regard to the recommendations of those who made investigations of the subject on our behalf. We have the great advantage of the report of a Committee which, under the Chairmanship of Lord Lothian included the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner), and the present Under-Secretary, and covered a very wide area in India and took the advice of something like an equal number of Indian representatives. They got into touch with specially constituted committees from the several Provinces of India and they presented—I know there were one or two minority recommendations—a practically unanimous report. That report has been of great value to us here. I am bound to have regard to the fact that that Committee, having upon it very progressive men and women, including the Lady to whom reference has been made, Miss Pickford, who was a devoted supporter of the woman's cause in this country, came to the conclusion that they could not support the proposal contained in this Amendment. They state in paragraph 217 of their Report:
    "Our franchise proposals increase the men's electorate four and a half times, and the women's no less than 21 times."
    1776
    I do not know whether the proposals contained in the Bill do approximately translate into statutory effect what those recommendations were. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will say.
    Mr. BUTLER: The hon. Member may take it that as a result of the deliberations of the Joint Select Committee that proportion has been substantially restored in general terms.
    Mr. FOOT: I know that when the Joint Select Committee considered the proposals of the White Paper there was dissatisfaction expressed by some on the Joint Select Committee that the proposals of the Franchise Committee were not fully realised in the White Paper proposals, and Amendments were adopted which, I understand now, did roughly achieve that purpose. But I suppose that all the Committee would be agreed that the Statutory Commission laid its emphasis in the right direction when it said that women ought to take a fuller share in the development of India and that the key of progress was in their hands—that was a frequently quoted passage—and that the women in India in the past had had too little a share. Among the remarkable changes in India in recent years no change has been so noteworthy and outstanding as the stepping of women out of seclusion into the full life of political activity in India, and there should be some attempt on the part of this House to give them an opportunity for expression. Undoubtedly, even the proposals that are now made in the Bill, if carried out, will mean that women will take an increasing share in the political affairs of that country. But I think it would be a very big responsibility for this Committee to adopt the Amendment. We have had no figures put before us, and apparently there is no one who is qualified to say what the number of voters would be. We have had only the figures given by the Under-Secretary, who says that in one of the Provinces it would mean an increase of 5,000,000 voters. There are 11 Provinces in India. The Under-Secretary, of course, quoted a Province where there was the larger population. One result of this Amendment would be that the women's vote would be larger than the men's in India? Is that so? I do not know.
    Miss RATHBONE: I think I can put the hon. Gentleman right on that point. It would mean that the women's vote would be less than the men's vote, but perhaps not very much less. The Under-Secretary made the suggestion that probably two-thirds of the men were married. The proposal would not put women voters in the majority, because women in India as a whole, thanks to the causes which eat away their vitality, are in a minority.
    Mr. FOOT: I am much obliged to the hon. Lady for that information, which might have been given to us by those who support the Amendment. At any rate it would mean an untold and uncalculated increase in the electorate, and there is not the slightest indication that there would be any machinery which in present circumstances would enable the will of this Committee to be carried out if the Amendment were adopted. We should have the almost certain breakdown that was threatened if the last Amendment had been carried. It is a breakdown that would be threatened not merely in the urban district, where machinery could be more readily set up, but a breakdown that might threaten the whole of India.
    Mr. E. WILLIAMS: It did not break down in Ceylon.
    Mr. FOOT: A comparison between Ceylon and India is one on which I would like to hear some arguments. I have not studied the conditions in Ceylon. I am trying to understand something of the conditions in India. It may be that a comparison with Ceylon is not fair. We are bound to have regard to the advice given to us by those who can speak, and I gather from what has been said that we should at the very outset put a most difficult burden upon those who bane to work these reforms. If the Amendment were carried one minor result would be that we should be enfranchising widows and wives, but the unmarried woman would have no vote unless she came in under one of the Clauses applying to the rest of the electorate. That was a point to which the Franchise Committee drew attention. It may be that the unmarried woman in India is as much entitled to the protection of the vote as her married sister.
    1778
    The married woman has such protection as can be secured by the care and thought of her husband, and if anyone is entitled to the protection of the vote I should think that the unmarried woman is entitled even to come first. Agreeing as fully as I can with all that has been said by the supporters of the Amendment, I say that they must have regard to the recommendations of the Franchise Committee. If the hon. and gallant Member for South East Leeds is to speak later I hope he will tell us from his experience on that Committee what was the ground upon which the Franchise Committee came to a unanimous conclusion. Such information would be helpful.
    6.43 p.m.
    Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: I intervene only because of the remarks made by the Under-Secretary. I think he was a great deal too modest in his estimate of the class of people who will be enfranchised by the proposals of the Bill. I should have thought it was a much fairer statement to say that everyone of the men would be married. As is well known to people who have lived in India, marriages there are arranged for boys at a very early age, and there is practically no male population that is not married. This Amendment apparently is to enfranchise the widows for all time; the women are to remain enfranchised after the death of their husbands. A large proportion of men of the type who will be enfranchised under the Bill will marry again if they are unfortunate enough to lose their first wife. It is unfortunately the case in India that men of very advanced age marry very young girls. The consequence is that these very young girls become widows at a comparatively early age.
    I think it is no exaggeration to say that probably this Amendment will enfranchise something like 50,000,000 people. It would be an impossible task for any Government to follow the lives of these widows through a long period of widowhood. I suggest that the supporters of this Amendment have not really considered what this proposal would mean. It would be a complete change, and would add a very large number of women to the register, with the probable result that there would be an excess of women voters over men

    1779
    voters. In view of the conditions under which marriage takes place in India, I suggest that it would be wise to withdraw the Amendment.
    6.45 p.m.
    Mr. RAIKES: I intervene in support of the Government; I think, on this occasion, they are opposing an Amendment which, if carried, would prove extremely unsatisfactory. Under the present proposals 6,000,000 women are to be enfranchised, and I am inclined to think that is more than ought to be enfranchised under present conditions. As long as the caste system continues, women in India are going to vote in the same way as their husbands on almost every issue. We know that, on the whole, women in England do so, except of course that there are hon. Ladies like the hon. Member for Willesden (Mrs. Tate), who, I am sure—
    Mrs. TATE: May I ask the hon. Member what experience, if any, he has of marriage?
    Mr. RAIKES: I assure my hon. Friend that my experience of marriage is that of the looker-on who sees most of the game. Seriously, the point which I desire to make is in reply to one which has been put from the benches opposite. Hon. Members have argued that unless women in India get the vote they cannot achieve full political freedom. But the vote by itself cannot be a means of achieving political freedom unless we break down caste barriers. I do not consider that any further extension of the franchise to women is likely to help the women of India to play a greater part in the government of India. Therefore I have great pleasure, in this, the final stage of the Committee proceedings on the Bill, in supporting the Government.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Then I believe they must be wrong.
    6.48 p.m.
    Mr. COCKS: I intervene again, solely because of the speeches of the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) and the hon. Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Raikes). Believing as I do, that the whole future of India lies in the hands of the women of India, I am not deterred by the suggested possibility—which has been denied—that the Amendment
    1780
    would result in placing a larger number of women than of men on the register. I should not mind that result in the slightest. But apart from the need of giving women the vote in order that they may be able to change those terrible social conditions which we know to exist, I appeal to my hon. and gallant Friend on another ground. I listened to him the other night denouncing the communal system and with great earnestness and sincerity declaring that one of the evils of the present system was that it led to divisions between religions and castes. My hon. and gallant Friend has made a reference to the Indian ladies who gave evidence. What impressed me most about the evidence of the Indian ladies who came before the Joint Select Committee was that they were absolutely opposed to these divisions.
    Surely, those who do not want the communal system to be perpetuated, who do not want India to be divided permanently into electorates of Moslems and Hindus and so forth, ought to support any movement which tends to obliterate those distinctions and bring all these castes and religions into a larger unity. If the women's movement in India is going to achieve that end—and its leaders certainly have that idea—then I think we ought to support it, That is a very strong argument which ought to be well weighed by the Committee before taking a decision on this Amendment.
    6.50 p.m.
    Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: I wish to ask the supporters of the Amendment whether, if a man has more than one wife, it is contemplated by the Amendment that each wife should have a vote; and if so whether the result will not be an enormously greater number of women voters than of men voters?
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I do not think the hon. Member was in his place when my hon. Friend the Mover of the Amendment answered a similar question.
    6.51 p.m.
    Sir H. CROFT: The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks), who has made a profound study of this great question, suggests that I ought to be sympathetic to the Amendment on the ground that women electors in India will be more likely to bridge over the communal difficulty than men electors. I do not believe

    1781
    there is any real evidence to that effect. I believe that the women of India, whether Moslem or Hindu, are just as intensely attached to their religious beliefs as the men, and that all Indians, men and women alike, attach more importance to religion than to any political or social consideration whatever. That, I believe to be fundamentally true of the vast majority of the people of that country.
    I want to unburden myself to the Committee. If I were a Machiavelli I should support the Amendment. I can conceive of nothing more calculated to bring the whole scheme of these ill-thought-out reforms to a standstill than the carrying of this Amendment. I believe that it would arouse intense feeling in India if you were to impose a system involving a majority of women electors at this
    stage in the development of the status of women in that country. I feel almost inclined to go into the opposite Lobby from my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Raikes), because I believe that if hon. Members above the Gangway were to carry their point, they would destroy these proposals completely. In that case they would perhaps be the heroes of this country in years to come. But we are trustees for the people of India, and I believe that my duty is to support the Government against an Amendment which I do not believe is in the interests of the people of India.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 33.

    Division No 188.]

    AYES.

    [6.55 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Joel, Dudley J. Bernato

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

    Albery, Irving James

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

    Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

    Apsley Lord

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Dickle, John P.

    Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Drewe, Cedric

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Eady, George H.

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Bailey, Eric Alfred George

    Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)

    Lees-Jones, John

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmln)

    Levy, Thomas

    Beit, Sir Alfred L.

    Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

    Liddall Walter S.

    Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

    Galbraith, James Francis Wallace

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Blindell, James

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Lloyd, Geoffrey

    Boulton, W. W.

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Bracken, Brendan

    Glossop, C. W. H.

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Mabane, William

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Gower, Sir Robert

    MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Graves, Marjorie

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)

    McKeag, William

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

    Burghley, Lord

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Burnett, John George

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Butler, Richard Austen

    Hales, Harold K.

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Z'tl'nd)

    Manningham-Buller, Lt. -Col. Sir M.

    Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

    Harbord, Arthur

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

    Carver, Major William H.

    Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastie)

    Mellor, Sir J. S. P.

    Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)

    Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Milne, Charles

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)

    Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

    Clarke, Frank

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Hornby, Frank

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Howard, Tom Forrest

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)

    Cooper, T. M. (Edinburgh, W.)

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Morrison, William Shephard

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

    Munro, Patrick

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Nall, Sir Joseph

    Crook, J. Smedley

    Janner, Barnett

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

    Jennings, Roland

    North, Edward T.

    Nunn, William

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Strauss, Edward A.

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward

    Summersby, Charles H.

    Orr Ewing, I. L.

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Owen, Major Goronwy

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    Thompson, Sir Luke

    Peake, Osbert

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Peat, Charles U.

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Train, John

    Petherick, M.

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Salt, Edward W.

    Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

    Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Savery, Servington

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Selley, Harry R.

    Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

    Potter, John

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Radford, E. A.

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    White, Henry Graham

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Smithers, Sir Waldron

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

    Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Islet)

    Soper, Richard

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Ramsbotham, Herwald

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Withers, Sir John James

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Womersley, Sir Walter

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Spens, William Patrick

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

    Remer, John R.

    Stevenson, James

    Rickards, George William

    Stones, James

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Storey, Samuel

    Sir George Penny and Major George

    Robinson, John Roland

    Stourton, Hon. John J.

    Davies.

    NOES.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Banfield, John William

    Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

    Grundy Thomas W.

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Cleary, J. J.

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    John, William

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Daggar, George

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Lunn, William

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Dobbie, William

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Edwards, Charles

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    Maxton, James.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Milner, Major James

    Mr. Groves and Mr. Paling.

    7.3 p.m.
    Major MILNER: I beg to move, in line 228, to leave out "sixty," and to insert "ten".
    Shortly, the position is that the Franchise Committee, about which so much has been said, were instructed to pay special attention to the subject of enfranchising a large number of women. The two amendments they proposed were, first, a literacy qualification, and, secondly, the enfranchisement of the women who were the wives of men having certain high property qualifications. One of our complaints in regard to these franchise proposals is that throughout they depend on property for the most part. While I am bound to say, as one of the members of that committee, that it is extremely difficult to find other qualifications, there is no justification, in my submission, for the proposal to give the vote to the wives of men who have high property qualification as emphasising the objection we already have to these proposals. The two Amendments standing
    1784
    in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) are to bring down these property qualifications as low as possible. The first one has reference to the wife of a man who has occupied for not less than six months in the previous financial year a house in the city of Madras the annual value whereof was not less than 60 rupees. Our proposal is that 60 be reduced to 10, so as to give the franchise to the wives of men who are not necessarily highly qualified from a property point of view; that is to say, to give the vote to the wives of men who are not so well off in this world's goods.
    A property, however small, qualifies a man for a vote. The only reason why women are limited is because it was not desired that too many women should go on the electoral roll, and this 60 rupees is presumably inserted as the limit for that same purpose. I do not know what difference in numbers will be made by the alteration which I propose. I have no doubt that it may be quite consider

    1785
    able, but as I am of opinion that in cities adult suffrage is admitted to be practicable, and as the Government do not deny that practicability, if the Amendment be passed it will be possible to deal with the increased number of women who will have a vote. In regard to the second Amendment, there again a man in Madras is entitled to vote if he pays any property tax or profession tax. Women are entitled to vote only if the wives of men who pay not less than three rupees. Three rupees is not a large sum, but nevertheless we see no justification for it, and we think that the wife of a man who pays any property tax or any profession tax at all should have a vote.
    7.8 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLER: This Amendment, I think, calls for a certain comment on the franchise scheme as a whole. The women's franchise is based in respect of the property qualification of a husband under the existing franchise, and that is the principle which has been followed throughout in arriving at some decision for the ratio of men to women, and in arriving at a decision on the possible future number of women to be enfranchised. These franchise schemes are extremely complicated. We have been sympathetic before to the women. In adding numbers to the vote the qualification as regards literacy has been reduced.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I rather think that if the Debate goes wider than the Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for South East Leeds (Major Milner) on the general question as to what is the qualification of women, it might be a convenience if we included also in this discussion the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone), which is to add a new sub-paragraph (k) to this rather long one. It seems very difficult to have a discussion on that apart from this if we are going to have a general discussion. I am in a little difficulty here.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: Supposing your suggestion were accepted, I take it that that would not preclude the hon. Lady or anyone else challenging a vote on the particular point which she wants to raise?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Certainly not. Of course she would have the right of dividing the Committee on it in the same way as the hon. Member for Broxstowe (Mr. Cocks) will have the right. It seems to me that if we are going into the wider question, it will be almost impossible to keep the discussion in order.
    7.11 p.m.
    Miss RATHBONE: If it is your intention to include the Amendment in my name, will it perhaps be simpler to include also the Amendments on the following page in the names of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) and the hon. Member for Broxstowe (Mr. Cocks)—line 248, to leave out "or paragraph eight," and the manuscript Amendment which I handed in? It is very difficult to discuss all these women's Amendments separately. They are so much in relation to each other that if we go beyond this one Amendment, it might be easier to cover the whole lot and discuss the whole question.
    7.12 p.m.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I can quite understand that if the Under-Secretary is introducing now the argument that there has been a certain balance brought about as between the prospective women voters and the men voters, then the Amendment as to literacy moved by the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) would be quite relevant to that argument. But I think the other Amendment deals with an entirely different issue, because it contemplates there the total number of women who are to be enfranchised, but it does not touch the issue that is now being raised as to the balance between men and women voters. I must say, personally, it seems to me that the Amendment standing in the names of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) and the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) raises different issues.
    Mr. BUTLER: I think that it would be very much simpler to have one Debate on qualification, and after that one on application. It would be a convenience, perhaps, if I gave way to the hon. Lady to enable her to explain her Amendment before I continue my speech.
    7.14 p.m.
    Miss RATHBONE: The Amendment I understand, Captain Bourne, you wish to call is the Amendment in line 244:
    "(k) is included in the electoral roll by reason of literacy."
    This is a very modest proposal for slightly increasing the number of women voters. It proposes to include among the women who are to vote in respect of husband's qualification not only those who are qualified in respect of husband's property but also the wives of men who are enfranchised by the educational qualification. The educational qualification varies in different Provinces. Therefore, the number included under this Amendment would also vary. I suggest that it would be a very modest addition, because already the education qualification in every case is subjected to the requirement of application. Therefore, those in charge of the roll would have a complete roll of the men qualified by literacy, and women who wished also to qualify under this would merely have to say that they were the wives of those particular men.
    Although it would be such a small addition, I think it would be worth while. We want as far as possible not to lay stress upon the possession of property, but, if you are to have any consideration of quality as against quantity, it is a good thing to enfranchise the wives of men who have some education. The wife of a literate man is likely to have some sort of education. The Indian women's organisations, although, as I have already said, on general principles they do not like the wife's vote, have put forward the argument that if it is to be given at all, it should be given to the wives of educational voters as well as to the wives of property voters. Many of these educational voters will already be qualified also in respect of property, and there will be a good deal of overlapping. I should like to know what objection the Government can bring against this Amendment. It is so easy, so simple, and so obviously just that if the wife of a property owner has the vote, the wife of a man who votes in respect of education should also be allowed to vote. Therefore, we should have considerable confidence in asking the Government to accept our Amendment.
    With regard to our other Amendment, I hope that the Government might consider
    1788
    accepting it also. It is an instalment of the large Amendment which we were discussing previous to the last Division, but a very modest instalment. It really asks that the property qualification shall be lowered so as to take in rather more wives who belong to the working classes. There again it is a move in the direction of democracy, but it is not an overwhelmingly large move. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will let us know how many women it would enfranchise. I do not know, but I do not think the extension would be very large, and everything is to the good that does extend the number of women voters. Hon. Members must remember that, unless we are given actual figures, this offer that the Government are making of 6,000,000 women voters is to a certain extent misleading, because nobody knows what the actual result of it will be.
    7.18 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLER: I take it that the Committee expect me to refer to these three Amendments. They all seek, in different ways, to increase the number of women upon the roll. I was in process of saying just now that we had arrived at a definite decision upon what basis we should place the women's franchise in India, and that that basis was the simple one, thoroughly approved and recommended by the Franchise Committee, of taking the existing qualifications of the male electorate and using them as the basis for the women's qualifications. That is to say, a woman would have to be qualified in respect of the qualifications which her husband holds under the present franchise. That is a clear and intelligible basis on which to place the women's franchise, and on that basis, combined with one or two other qualifications, such as that of education and women under their own rights of property holding, we have arrived at a suitable proportion of men and women, which, the Committee will remember, was somewhat toned down by the publication of the White Paper.
    The Joint Select Committee then considered the general level of the women's franchise as proposed in the White Paper, and they toned it up again, with the result that the general conclusion, leaving aside all questions of application, which we are to discuss in our next discussion, brought it up to a figure almost equivalent to that originally suggested

    1789
    by the Franchise Committee. Although nothing is accepted in the world, especially in the world of women without certain discussion and observations being made, we understand that the original basis suggested by the Lothian Committee was regarded generally as a fair allocation of the franchise for the women of India in future, and I am at any rate able to tell the Committee that gratitude was expressed to us by representatives of women, both in Britain and India, when we followed the advice of the Joint Select Committee and rather toned up the franchise to something approximating to the Lothian ratio. Therefore, this matter has been before the public for some time, and we seem to have done something which I think we may claim is regarded as fair.
    The Committee has a perfect right to make detailed suggestions for improving it, but I think it is legitimate to say that this would very much complicate the plan and result in disturbing the general level at which we have arrived and which we regard as fair. Let me warn the Committee about over-complication in a franchise scheme. The Committee has already realised that this is one of the most complicated Schedules that it has had before it, and by adding details we shall further complicate the scheme. I therefore ask the Committee to rest on the general decision taken already, that we should place the women's vote on an intelligible basis which is easy to understand and which will operate in the best possible manner.
    Having made that appeal, I would like to deal with some of these Amendments. The first Amendment would depart from the arrangement arrived at and alter in an artificial manner the qualifications of the husband, upon which the woman gets her franchise. It would alter it from 60 rupees rental value to 10 rupees, and the result would be a great deal of inquiry and complication for the local administration. Secondly, it would add a very considerable number of women, and I am not prepared to recommend to the Committee a large increase in numbers at the present time.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Has the hon. Member any idea of the numbers?
    Mr. BUTLER: I have done my best in the short time available to obtain detailed
    1790
    figures, but the actual figures for the 60 and 10 rupees are not available, and I have not the exact figures of the amount that this would come to, but I am informed that it would add a very considerable number of women to the roll. Then we come to the second Amendment—in line 231, to leave out from "year" to "in" in line 232. This would respond to the same arguments that I have used already. It would complicate the qualification and add a considerable number of women to the roll. It is very difficult, without applying to the Government of Madras or without making corresponding application to the Governments of other Provinces, to reach exact figures, and I could not give exact figures to-day, but I am informed that the Amendment would result in so much complication and addition that it would really place a great burden on the local Governments.
    When we come to the third Amendment of the hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone), it is possible to arrive at some figures, because we have them here. She wishes to qualify a woman on the basis of the educational qualification of her husband. This is a proposition that is rather difficult to defend in logic, but I presume she wishes to defend it as a device for getting extra women on to the roll. I want to give the figures as to the result in numbers of this proposal, and then to try to show why I think it is difficult to defend in logic. If we were to accept this proposal, it would mean that the wives of literate men in Madras would be enfranchised. It is almost impossible, indeed quite impossible, to say what the overlap with that qualification would be, but the total number of literate men in Madras is 2,703,891. That is a very large number, and if their wives are qualified by this proposition, it means an addition of 2,000,000 to the roll. In the same way, in Bombay, the literate figure is nearly 1,500,000 men, and in Bengal it is nearly 3,000,000.
    Miss RATHBONE: Are we to understand that the men are to be enfranchised by means of literacy in Bombay? I know they are in Madras, but is not Madras the only Province where men are to be enfranchised in respect of literacy? In that case the hon. Member should allow for the overlap.
    Mr. BUTLER: That is true. With regard to the Presidency of Madras, it would be necessary to add 2,500,000 to the number, which is more than we can envisage. In the case of the other Provinces, I was misreading the hon. Lady's Amendment, which wishes to attach it to the educational qualification, and not to literacy. In that case it would correspond to the figures, which I find it hard to get, of the actual number of men qualified by reason of the educational qualification in each particular Province. In some Provinces it would be primary, in others middle school, and so on, according to the Schedule. The result would be a very considerable number of women to be added to the roll, besides the great complication which it would involve for the administration.
    Then we come to the attempt to defend this qualification in logic. I think there is some logical reason for attaching a woman's vote to her husband's on the basis of a property qualification, because in India, and I believe in this country also, women take a share in and a joint responsibility for the property, and interest themselves in it. If we accept this proposition, that because a man in Madras is literate and has an illiterate wife who is not qualified of her own right to have a franchise because she is literate, it seems to me to put a premium on illiteracy among women, because it does not give them the requisite encouragement to attempt to achieve the same educational status if they can get it at second-hand from their husbands.
    I think, therefore, for these four reasons, that the Amendments would be very difficult administratively, that they would disturb a simple and well-understood plan, that they would add large numbers, at any rate on the hon. Lady's suggestion, and, we believe, fairly large numbers on the suggestion of hon. Members opposite, and that they are not easy to defend in logic, we must regretfully decline to accept these three Amendments and adhere to the women's scheme which has been universally accepted in India, we believe, as being at any rate fair, even though some women may wish to go further. I beseech hon. Members, and particularly hon. Ladies, interested in this subject not continually to press Amendments of this sort, because we believe the position proposed by the
    1792
    Government with regard to women is regarded as reasonable in India. We have tried, and will continue, to do our best in the matter, but we cannot indefinitely add numbers to the women's franchise which they have already secured under the Bill.
    7.30 p.m.
    Mr. COCKS: I want to deal with another class of person other than those with whom the Under-Secretary has dealt, namely, the case of the women who are only affected in three Provinces, that is to say, Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member has forgotten his Amendment to leave out lines 537 to 539. It would be more convenient to take that particular case on that Amendment.
    7.31 p.m.
    Viscountess ASTOR: I do not want to be unreasonable as far as the women are concerned, but when I hear the Government talking about the administrative difficulties I am always a little suspicious. Certain administrators in India would not give any women the vote if they had their way. The Lothian Committee gave one woman in seven the vote, and the White Paper gave one in 20; then the Government burked the administrative difficulties and put it at one in five. When hon. Members talk about the enormous increase in women voters, I would ask them to remember that there are to be only 6,000,000 women who are to have votes, against about 29,000,000 men. Only 2,000,000 of those women will come automatically on the register, and the others have to apply for the vote.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have ruled that that question must be raised on a later Amendment.
    Viscountess ASTOR: I am only saying that when hon. Members talk about the enormous number of women voters, they must remember that there can only be 6,000,000, and I do not think that there will be even that number. A property qualification is all very well, and I am all for it, but, if we give the vote to women who are married to literate men, we shall probably give the vote to the best type, because we know that the enormous number of Indian students will pick out the best types of women. I do

    1793
    not think the House need really be afraid of the administrative difficulties or of the increase in the women voters. In a later Amendment we shall prove to the Committee how difficult it will be to get even 6,000,000 women on to the register. I feel that it is for the good of India that the reforms in this Bill should be carried out and that their success vastly depends on the women.
    I do not consider that an increase of women voters by 1,000,000 or 2,000,000, considering that there are 29,000,000 men, is a risk that we cannot take. You talk about democracy and you are taking an enormous risk in giving democracy to India, but you are risking it far more if you do not give more women the vote. A woman said to me that we have only had democracy in this country for 16 years for we could not call it a democracy when only men had the vote. India is going to start with a saner democracy than ours was, for we are treating women differently from the way in which we treated them in this country when we were classed for political purposes as criminal lunatics. If the Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) had her way, we would still be in that class. I want Indian democracy to start with as fair a chance as possible, and I believe that we can afford to have 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 more women on the register. If the Government pressed it, they would soon get over the administrative difficulties.
    7.36 p.m.
    Sir BASIL PETO: I think it is the common experience of the mere male that the one thing that is more abhorrent to the female sex than anything else is logic. In this Debate we have had that proved to the n-th degree. The hon. Lady who moved one of the Amendments cut clean across logic to show that the particular women she wanted to put on the role of electors had no qualifications as electors at all. She wants to include the wives of those who are literate or have obtained a certain educational standard. The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) attempted to defend it by saying that in her experience of India—
    Viscountess ASTOR: No, this country.
    Sir B. PETO: In her experience of this country, the educated man generally chooses very educated wives. I can remember an old tag that was going round a little while ago, "gentlemen prefer blondes." In this country gentlemen marry ladies for various reasons, but certainly not for their highly educated qualities. They want something on a little lighter plane. The two hon. Ladies who are defending this Amendment did not put forward the slightest argument to show that they would put on the roll of electors women who were in any way qualified to vote. A qualification seems to be the last thing they wanted, because the Noble Lady said that you could not have too much of a good thing, that 6,000,000 was a small number, and that anything that would add 1,000,000 or 2,000,000 more women was bound to be a good thing.
    That is not the basis of this franchise. It is a perfectly logical thing to enable women to have a qualification if they are the wives of men with a property qualification. The possession of property is not the interest only of one of the two married people; it affects them both, it affects their whole outlook, their sense of responsibility, and their stake in the country. To suggest that a woman who is the wife of a man who has attained a certain literacy standard should be put on the roll simply for that reason is the most extraordinary proposition of all these women's propositions that I have heard put forward. I am glad that the Under-Secretary has made it clear that the Government will be adamant on this point, and that, having got what some of us think is too much of a doubtfully good thing when it comes to voting power, the Government will not include anything so ridiculously impossible as the proposal of the hon. Lady.
    7.40 p.m.
    Major MILNER: I should have liked to hear the hon. Baronet address himself to the position of the woman who is to have a vote because of her husband's property qualification. It is just as reasonable to give a woman a vote because her husband has a certain educational or literacy qualification as to give her a vote because her husband has a certain amount of property.
    Sir B. PETO: I did address myself to that point. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not hear me or understand me.
    Major MILNER: I must apologise if I did not understand the hon. Baronet, but he did not address himself to it at any length or with any force or logic. It must be obvious to anyone that there is just as much sense and logic in giving the vote to a woman whose husband has a certain educational or literacy qualification as to give it to a woman whose husband has a certain amount of property. I suggest that it does not need argument in any way. The Under-Secretary said that the first two of these Amendments would be difficult administratively and would disturb the present simple plan. I imagine that he meant it would be difficult to compile the register of electors, and so on, but is it not likely to be much more simple to compile an electoral roll consisting of the wives of all those paying property tax or profession tax than to compile a roll consisting of the wives of husbands paying property tax above a certain amount? That would not be much more difficult administratively and would not disturb the Government's simple plan.
    Similarly, with regard to my Amendment. Under the Government's proposals there would have to be an inquiry as to the annual value of all houses in Madras city, and all the houses of an annual value above 60 rupees will have to be picked out. It should not be more difficult to pick out all the houses of an annual value above 10 rupees. It would require the same amount of work in going through the list, and my proposal would not in any way be administratively more difficult nor disturb the great and simple—and logical—plan of the Government. Women have an inadequate voting power in India, and there is no justification for the proportions which have been outlined. In Madras I think only one woman to 28 men has the vote. In common sense and in justice we must surely desire to make matters a little more equal. Although they profess it, I do not think the Government have shown any great sympathy with women so far, or any great desire to do anything approaching justice to them, and I would appeal to the Committee to bring pressure to bear on the Government to carry out these comparatively
    1796
    small but quite useful modifications of their plan.
    7.46 p.m.
    Miss WARD: We do know that the Government have shown themselves sympathetic towards what has come to be known as the women's cause in India, and I believe that is because they are extremely desirous that women should be placed in a position to assist in the solution of the social problems of India. At any rate I take it that that is the view of the Government. They want the women of India to be able to pull their weight in remedying some of the evils which we all know exist there. If that be so I would make this point with great emphasis. The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) and one or two other hon. Members who are opposed to any increase in the women's franchise have tried to shatter this Amendment on the score of the foolishness of adding to the electorate women who are not qualified under the qualification of literacy. Surely it is not necessary to possess the literacy qualification to know what is necessary to remedy social evils. It ought to be possible to cast a vote for or against the candidates who offer themselves for election accordingly as they show themselves sympathetic or not towards remedying social evils. I am not qualified to say whether this is a good or a bad Amendment, or whether it would be difficult to put it into operation, but I support it because, from the point of view of getting an adequate number of women voters in India, it is essential to add more women to the register. I believe that the addition of more women will safeguard the objects we all of us have in view and I support the Amendment.
    7.49 p.m.
    Mrs. RUNGE: Because I am a woman I suppose I shall be expected to support this Amendment, but I am not going to do anything of the sort. I expect I shall be called a traitor to my sex. I want to do the best I can for the women of India, and I am perfectly certain that the common sense thing to do and the best service that one can render to the women of India is to vote with the Government against the Amendment.
    7.50 p.m.
    Mr. E. WILLIAMS: I am sorry, of course, to have heard the remarks of the

    1797
    hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mrs. Runge). Surely she appreciates the fact that the women voters under the Schedule prepared by the Government will not be more than about 20 per cent. of the total electorate, about 6,000,000 out of 35,000,000. Surely that is a very small proportion, and I should have expected all the lady Members to be behind one or other of the Amendments designed to increase the proportion of women electors to the aggregate total. But I rose to say a word on the speech of the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto). If he carefully analyses the franchise he will find that it is not based upon logic at all. That is about the last thing that can be found in it. The more one looks into it the more difficult it is to ascertain why this or that proportion or qualification was adopted.
    The Government have been trying, I presume, to give the vote to as large a number of persons in the aggregate in each Province as will make self-government possible. This is an experiment, and they have been endeavouring to secure the greatest proportion of intelligent persons, with certain qualifications, to administer self-government as an experiment. If one were dealing with the relation of women to men in society generally, one would say that we are living in a man-made world, with woman as just a convenience to man. Women have possessed property largely by accident—because they happened to be the widows of their husbands, who died and left the property. Surely it is as logical for the wife of an intelligent man, that is, an educated man, to have the opportunity of exercising the franchise, as it is for a woman who possesses property because her husband has died. Looking at this matter sociologically, one knows that marriage is for the purpose of breeding an heir in order that a man may leave his property to an heir. Human society is essentially based upon private property, and woman is just a convenience for the purpose of leaving property to heirs. Woman has been looked upon, substantially, as being an illiterate and ignorant person, never having the opportunities which come normally to man in this man-made world.
    Sir B. PETO: Is the hon. Member addressing his remarks to me, because I
    1798
    do not accept the view he expresses on the objects of matrimony?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I am certain that if the hon. Baronet will look at the history of human society—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think we had better leave the history of human society out of this discussion.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I do not want to broaden the discussion unnecessarily. On the other hand, one has to discover whether a woman who marries an intelligent man is as intelligent as a woman who possesses property, and that seems to be the issue in debate between myself and the hon. Baronet. But I do not want to carry the point any further, except to say that people long opposed the idea of women having the rights which are normally possessed by men. Until recent years women had not even the property rights that men had, apart from the right of the franchise, and there were distinctions in other important matters. I trust that the Under-Secretary will endeavour to meet us on one or other of these Amendments. We think that 20 or 23 per cent. of women voters in comparison with the total electorate is too small a proportion. If the Government are not prepared to accept the exact language of any of our Amendments we hope it will be possible for them to devise some machinery which would give women voters a larger percentage than in the present Schedule. Any machinery which they could devise would be welcome to us. We do not think such an increased percentage would upset the scheme. If the number of women voters, now to be 6,000,000, were increased to 7,000,000 or 8,000,000 it would bring the total electorate up to about 35,000,000, and that would not be too unwieldy a number, and certainly would not upset the ratio or make the scheme impracticable from the administrative point of view.
    7.56 p.m.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I would ask the Committee to consider the administrative 'side of this question a little more seriously than my Noble Friend the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) is prepared to do. She tossed the administrative difficulties aside very lightly, but if I remember

    1799
    aright the Lothian Franchise Committee attached great importance to them. They discussed what was the largest number of available officials who could be relied upon as competent to discharge the duties of returning officers and polling clerks. They decided that so many of these officials would be required for so many voters, they obtained information from the various Governments as to the number of officials available, and then they worked out their franchise proposals on the basis of the largest number of officials who could be found to carry out the necessary duties at elections.
    Mr. E. WILLIAMS: Has the Noble Lady considered the possibility of taking the poll on separate days, so that the services of the same officials could be utilised several times in the same election?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We cannot go into the question of the days on which people should go to the poll. The question before us is whether there should be more women on the register. It is quite in order to mention administrative difficulties lightly, but we cannot have a general debate about them.
    Miss RATHBONE: The Noble Lady has pointed out that the Lothian Committee thought it was possible to enfranchise one woman to four and a half men. The Bill is not proposing anything like—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I really do not think we can go into that point. The statement has been made, and we cannot have it repeated every time.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I was not dealing with the question of the proportion of women to men but the total number of electors which the Lothian Committee thought there ought to be. From my own recollection of the Lothian Committee's report the total number which the Government propose to enfranchise is the figure of the Lothian Committee, and I take it that is the largest number that can be dealt with by the officials who are available or likely to be available. I believe all relevant considerations were taken into account by the Lothian Committee, and, therefore, if there is any considerable addition to the number of
    1800
    voters we shall upset the whole basis on which their proposals were made. The machinery will not be able to cope with the larger number, and the thing will break down. That is a consideration which has to be borne in mind. If there be a proposal to add a considerable number of women to that proposed, it can only be done, if the machinery is to be workable, by taking away the vote from a similar number of men. I do not think anybody in this Committee will be prepared to associate himself with that proposal.
    8.1 p.m.
    Mr. BRACKEN: I only intervene in this Debate, because this is the first occasion on which I have been able to support the Government on the India. Bill. The argument of the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) struck me as being so extraordinary that I think we ought to examine it a little more closely. She said that a man with a university education would normally wish to marry a lady of similar education. That statement is absolutely wrong. The most distinguished university gentleman in England at the present time not so long ago decided to get married, but he did not take to the altar some meticulous bluestocking, but a very fine dancer, a lady of great fame and celebrated throughout Europe.
    Viscountess ASTOR: I was not talking about professors. I said that an educated man would be happier if he married an educated woman than if he married an uneducated woman. It is a very good point and gives you a chance to get up and speak, but stick to the point.
    Mr. BRACKEN: The Noble Lady, I suppose, regards a professor as a comparatively uneducated person? I want to say another thing about her arguments. She developed the point that it is an awkward thing in a home if the husband has the vote and the woman not and that to the educated man it must seem terrible that his wife could not vote because she was illiterate. The Noble Lady must know perfectly well that family life is not going to be affected because the husband has the vote and his wife has not. There has never been a series of more irrelevant, inconsistent arguments advanced by the feminine section

    1801
    of the House than those advanced this afternoon and the Government deserve the greatest possible credit for resisting the Amendment. I hope they will not burden this wretched Indian Bill with a provision to segregate a further million women, which will make it more unworkable than it is at present.
    8.4 p.m.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: We are not anxious to prolong this discussion as we undertook to complete the Committee stage to-night. Whatever the case for the Government's plan may be, I think it can hardly be argued, as the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) argued, that it depends on logic. There is no logic in saying that a man must live in a place for so many months and have, say, 60 rupees. Suppose it was 59 rupees—is there any logic in it? It may be convenient, but it is not logical. All through this plan it can be argued that it may be a convenient plan, but it cannot be assumed that it is a logical plan. The other point is that there are administrative difficulties. Of course, there are. No one can deny that, but at the same time let us be clear about it. Even to operate this plan you have to go through the preparation and examination of all sorts of lists, and I do not see that the administrative difficulty would be very much greater to operate the plan of my hon. Friends on this side than to operate the Government plan. But suppose we grant the Government case; what is the case for the Amendment?
    I would like to make this last plea to the Government on this particular issue. I have said more than once in these debates that the most hopeful thing in Indian public life at this moment, from the point of view of progress, is the emergence of women. There is no other feature in Indian social life so striking as the emergence of women who for long centuries have not been able to participate in public affairs. For the last 10 or 12 years they have come out not merely in thousands; I was almost going to say,
    in millions, but that is an exaggeration. Certainly, it is the most hopeful sign; and why hopeful? Everybody in this Committee who knows anything at all about India knows that one of the most pressing problems is the problem that deals with child life and woman life. It is a much more pressing problem than is the case in this country, great as it is here. If we have enfranchised our women in this country because women have a special contribution to make in relation to these particular problems of childhood and womanhood, surely in a country that is obsessed with this particular type of social problem the case for women's enfranchisement is all the greater.
    Last night I ventured to chide the Government for taking a short view of these things. Here, again, I think it is a short view. I admit it is difficult, but, while giving all the benefit to that argument, on the other side there is the incomparable advantage of giving a larger number of the women of India a definite share in guiding the destinies, through legislation, of the future children of their land. I would ask the Government to consider whether from that point of view it is an adequate number, even supposing they do actually enfranchise 6,000,000—and that is a questionable matter—out of this vast electorate which is to be established. I entirely refute the justice of an argument based on property qualification or anything of the sort. The claim for the franchise is the claim of citizenship. Citizens are called upon to obey laws, and the fact that they are called upon to do so is the case for having a right to a, voice in fashioning the laws. Therefore, I would ask the Government to consider more sympathetically—though we grant the case they make on administrative details—the larger claim that we make to enable women as a whole to participate more fully in the actual work of legislation in their native land.
    Question put, "That the word 'sixty' stand part of the proposed Schedule."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 203; Noes, 41.

    Division No. 189.]

    AYES.

    [8.10 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut. Colonel

    Assheton, Ralph

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Albery, Irving James

    Bailey, Eric Alfred George

    Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)

    Alexander, Sir William

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Beit, Sir Alfred L.

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.

    Bernays, Robert

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Blindell, James

    Bossom, A. C.

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Radford, E. A.

    Bracken, Brendan

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries;

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Brats, Captain Sir William

    James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.

    Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Janner, Barnett

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Jennings, Roland

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

    Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Burnett, John Goorge

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Remer, John R.

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Kimball, Lawrence

    Rickards, George William

    Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quintan

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Robinson, John Roland

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)

    Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Lees-Jones, John

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Russell, R. I. (Eddisbury)

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

    Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Cooper, T. M. (Edinburgh, W.)

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Salt, Edward W.

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney)

    Dickle, John P.

    Mabane, William

    Selley, Harry R.

    Drewe, Cedric

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Edge, Sir William

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Smiles, Lieut. -Col. Sir Walter D.

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

    Smith, Sir J. Walker-(Barrow-in-F.)

    Elmley, Viscount

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Smithers, Sir Waldron

    Erskine-Bolst. Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Manningham-Buller, Lt. -Col. Sir M.

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Soper, Richard

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Mellor, Sir J. S. P.

    Spens, William Patrick

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Fox, Sir Gilford

    Milne, Charles

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)

    Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Stevenson, James

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Stones, James

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Moore, Lt. -Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

    Storey, Samuel

    Gledhill, Gilbert

    Morgan, Robert H.

    Stourton, Hon. John J.

    Goff, Sir Park

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Graves, Marjorie

    Morrison, William Shepherd

    Taylor, Vice Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)

    Greene, William P. C.

    Moss, Captain H. J.

    Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.

    Nall, Sir Joseph

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingiwinford)

    Hales, Harold K.

    North, Edward T.

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)

    Nunn, William

    Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)

    Hanbury, Cecil

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Ward, Lt. -Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Harbord, Arthur

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)

    Penny, Sir George

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Helpers, Captain F. F. A.

    Petherick, M.

    Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

    Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hornby, Frank

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Sir Walter Womersley and Major

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Potter, John

    George Davies.

    NOES.

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Banfield, John William

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Batey, Joseph

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Cleary, J. J.

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    John, William

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Daggar, George

    Kirkwood, David

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewfek (Wallsend)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Dobble, William

    Lunn, William

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Edwards, Charles

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Maxton, James

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Milner, Major James

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Owen, Major Goronwy

    Mr. Groves and Mr. D. Graham.

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Paling, Wilfred

    8.17 p.m.
    Miss RATHBONE: I beg to move, in line 244, at the end, to insert:
    "(k) is included in the electoral roll by reason of literacy."
    The Under-Secretary of State for India has suggested that this Amendment would add a very substantial number of voters to the electorate. The only valid objection I can see is that it would include such a small number that the Government
    might have taken the view that it was hardly worth while. In most of the Provinces, the educational qualification is very narrow, and in all cases the overlap with the property qualification would be enormous.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 52; Noes, 172.

    Division No. 190.]

    AYES.

    [8.20 p.m.

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Owen, Major Goronwy

    Banfield, John William

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Paling, Wilfred

    Batey, Joseph

    Griffiths, George A. (Yorks. W. Riding)

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Cleary, J. J.

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Janner, Barnett

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

    Daggar, George

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)

    Dobbie, William

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Edwards, Charles

    Kirkwood, David

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Lunn, William

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianeily)

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Maxton, James

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Milner, Major James

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Albery, Irving James

    Fox, Sir Gifford

    Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

    Alexander, Sir William

    Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Mabane, William

    Assheton, Ralph

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Gledhill, Gilbert

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Goff, Sir Park

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Graves Marjorie

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Beaumont, Hn. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)

    Greene William P. C.

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Belt, Sir Alfred L.

    Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Blindell, James

    Guy J. C. Morrison

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Bossom, A. C.

    Hales, Harold K.

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Mellor, Sir J. S. P.

    Bracken, Brendan

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Harbord, Arthur

    Milne, Charles

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)

    Moosell, Rt. hon. Sir B. Eyres

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Morgan, Robert H.

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Butler, Richard Austen

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Hornby, Frank

    Morrison, William Shephard

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Hudson Capt A. U. M. (Hackney N.)

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    North, Edward T.

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Nunn William

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)

    Jackson J. C. (Heywood Radcliffe)

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

    Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

    Jennings Roland

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Jennings Major Thomas

    Penny, Sir George

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Kerr Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Kimball Lawrence

    Patherick, M.

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Lamb Sir Joseph Quinton

    Peto Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)

    Cooper, T. M. (Edinburgh, W.)

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.

    Law, Richard K. (Hull. S. W.)

    Procter, Major, Henry Adam

    Dickle, John P.

    Leech Dr J. W.

    Radford, E. A.

    Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

    Lees-Jones, John

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Edge, Sir William

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Elmley, Viscount

    Llewellin, Major John J.

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

    Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Remer, John R.

    Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)

    Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

    Robinson, John Roland

    Smithers, Sir Waldron

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)

    Ron Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Somerville, Annessley A. (Windsor)

    Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward

    Sopor, Richard

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    White, Henry Graham

    Russell, Hamor Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Spens, William Patrick

    Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

    Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Salt, Edward W.

    Stevenson, James

    Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

    Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney)

    Stones, James

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Selley, Harry R.

    Strauss, Edward A.

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)

    Sir Walter Womersley and Major

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Thorp, Linton Theodore

    George Davies.

    8.28 p.m.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to move, in line 244, at the end, to insert:
    "Special qualification for scheduled castes.
    10. Subject as aforesaid, a person who is a member of the scheduled castes shall also be qualified to be included in the electoral roll for any territorial constituency if either—

    (a) he is shown in the prescribed manner to be literate; or

    (b) he was at any time during the year ending on the thirty-first day of December next preceding the prescribed date a person actually performing in the Province the duties of an inferior village office, whether hereditary or not:

    Provided that a person who has been dismissed for misconduct and has not been re-employed shall not by virtue of sub-paragraph (b) of this paragraph be qualified to be entered in any electoral roll."
    I think that this new paragraph will explain itself, but I ought perhaps to say that it is our desire that a person who is a member of the scheduled castes shall also be qualified to be included in the electoral roll if he possesses certain qualifications which are set out in the Amendment. If hon. Members will look at paragraph 7 of the Schedule, they will see that it lays down that certain other persons in India shall enjoy the same privilege that we are now proposing for the scheduled castes. The wording is very similar to ours, but covers other categories. Paragraph 7 states that:
    "Subject as aforesaid, a person shall also be qualified to be included in the electoral roll for any territorial constituency if he is a retired, pensioned or discharged officer, non-commissioned officer or soldier of His Majesty's regular military forces,"
    while paragraph 8 provides that some women who are related to those persons who are qualified under paragraph 7 by service in Majesty's Forces shall also be entitled to be placed in the same category that we are now proposing for the scheduled castes.
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLER: I think I may perhaps be able to assist the hon. Gentleman on this point. It is difficult to grasp, on a first reading of the Schedule, why there is no allusion to the scheduled castes in Madras, while there is a differential qualification in the Central Provinces and the Punjab, and also in the case of Bombay. The intention of the Government has been throughout, since the report of the Franchise Committee, that in cases where, under the ordinary level of franchise, the depressed classes do not get 10 per cent. of their population on the electoral roll, there shall be a differential qualification. This is in order to ensure that the depressed classes shall be properly represented in the electorate. The reason why there is no insertion in the case of the Province of Madras is because it is thought possible that the general level of franchise will be low enough to provide the depressed classes with a franchise within the general level, and to ensure them an electorate of 10 per cent. of their population. If this is not so, a differential qualification will be necessary, and will have to be provided for at a later stage by Order in Council, before, of course, the actual election takes place. The reason why we must wait in the case of Madras is that we hope and think that this franchise level will give us the necessary level for the depressed classes, but that cannot be decided until the electoral roll has been compiled and the extent of any deficiency is known.
    The Amendment states clearly what qualifications are desired in the case of the depressed classes. With regard to literacy, this qualification will be unnecessary, as literacy is a general qualification in Madras. With regard to the village servants we have investigated this matter in Madras. The Franchise Committee thought that these offices were

    1809
    hereditary, but we are now informed that they are not. The question whether a differential qualification for village servants in Madras will be necessary depends, first, on the question whether a differential qualification is necessary at all, and also upon whether the local government advise us that it is necessary in this case. The references which I have already made to the hereditary village servants in Bombay and the Central Provinces will show that we are not against the principle of the Amendment, but have already in fact put into force in the Schedule certain of its suggestions, and in the case of Madras we are only waiting to see whether the differential qualification will be necessary. In the United Provinces 10 per cent. will get in anyway on the franchise level, and that is also the case in Assam. In Bengal the position is rather more striking, for, on the ordinary level of the franchise, over 10 per cent. of the depressed classes will be on the electoral roll. In Provinces where they get that proportion there is no insertion of a differential qualification, and, in Provinces where they do not get it, there is a differential qualification. I hope that what I have said will show the hon. Member that there is really no need for his Amendment.
    Mr. DAVIES: May we take it from the statement of the hon. Gentleman that he can give us some sort of guarantee that this problem is going to be considered later on?
    Mr. BUTLER: Yes.
    Mr. DAVIES: If that be so, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper:
    Leave out lines 245 to 251.
    In line 247, after "five," insert "or."
    In line 248, leave out "or paragraph eight."—[Mr. Morgan Jones.]
    The CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cocks.
    Mr. COCKS: I understand, Sir Dennis, that you propose to call the second and third of these Amendments which stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) and myself.
    The CHAIRMAN: I shall be glad if the hon. Member will take his choice as to which of these Amendments he moves. It will be understood, of course, that the others will only be divided upon if necessary, and not further discussed.
    Mr. COCKS: I beg to move, in line 247, after "five," to insert "or."
    I desire to move this Amendment and the following one. The object is to remove the necessity for application in the case of women in the Province of Madras, and, taking the three Amendments together, they are designed to meet the case in Bombay, the rural districts of the United Provinces, the Punjab, Assam and Sind. The Under-Secretary stated last night that under the Government's proposal 6,000,000 women will be placed upon the register. If the application test is retained, I am informed that, this number will be very considerably reduced, and, in fact, reduced, it is estimated, to one-quarter of that figure. The Indian ladies who came before the Joint Select Committee stressed very strongly that the application test should be done away with, and as a result the Government asked the Provincial Governments of India for their view on the matter. The Government did not take this as a question of principle at all. They were impressed, I think, by the arguments put forward by Indian and English women on the point, and they asked the Provincial Governments for their views. In this Bill the Government are following roughly what the Provincial Governments said on the subject. We are not bound to accept the views of Provincial Governments of India as sacrosanct, and also, we know that Government officials are usually inclined to stress the administrative difficulties.
    The Government of Bengal had no objection at all to the removal of this test, and, therefore, the test is not included in the Bill in the case of Bengal. If Bengal with 800,000 women with the husband's property qualification feel that they can dispense with the application test, why should it be impossible in Madras, with only 700,000 women, in Bombay with only 600,000, and in Assam with as few as 192,000? If a Province with 800,000 women can meet the administrative difficulties, why should not these others who have far fewer electors? The objections of the various Provincial Governments

    1811
    differed in degree. The Madras Government said that they considered that the application was essential. They took the strongest line of all. Bombay said that for administrative reasons they were strongly opposed to the removal of the test, I believe until after the first election. The Assam Government, however, merely said that they wished to retain the test. They did not put up any very strong argument against its removal, but said that as a matter of preference they would like to retain it. I ask the Government whether, in the case of Assam, they will not consider removing the test. Assam adjoins Bengal, which has no test of this kind. It is very unfair that the women of Assam should be deprived of the opportunity of getting on the electorate without the test of application, when the women of Bengal have no test at all. The retention of the test of application will greatly reduce the number of women put on the electoral roll. We know that it would be so in this country. If everybody here had personally to apply to be put on to the electoral roll, there would be fewer women on the roll than there are at the present time. In India it will probably have a greater effect, especially with regard to the fact that so many have never been on the roll before. The Under-Secretary, no doubt, may think that these are wrong estimates. The estimates which have been given of the result of putting the application test are, in Madras, instead of 700,000, only 175,000, in Bombay, instead of 600,000, only 150,000, and in Assam, instead of 192,000, only 48,000.
    Some Members of this Committee fear the activities of Congress, and I would point out to them that Congress is probably the only party likely to organise applications on an intensive scale. Therefore, if you keep in the application test, it will probably be the Congress party who will get most of the voters upon the list. In the Provinces I have mentioned the objections are purely administrative, but when we come to the Punjab we meet with other difficulties. The Punjab Government base their objection to this proposal on social reasons. The social reasons which exist in the Punjab make it more important than ever that women should be given their electoral rights in this matter.
    1812
    The experience of women under the present Turkish Government shows that the Moslem religion presents no insuperable bar to women's enfranchisement. They have been given the vote. The Moslems in India are apparently less progressive at the moment than the Moslems in Turkey. The Committee should not forget the fact that when a Moslem delegate came before the Joint Select Committee, he was asked about women in the Punjab and replied that women's interests were best looked after by men. A Moslem lady who was associated with us in our deliberations was extremely indignant at that reply. That showed to me that it was all the more necessary that, if there were social difficulties like that in the Punjab, we should face up to them. In view of the legislative needs of women in the Punjab we should face up to these difficulties and not pander to that attitude. I hope that the Government will give us at least some concession in these Provinces upon the application test.
    8.43 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLER: I understand that as there have been no other speeches, the speech of the hon. Gentleman is the one introducing the whole subject of the application test and the general discussion on the question. The hon. Member wished to gain further concessions with regard to the necessity for application by a woman to receive the franchise in respect of her husband's property in the Provinces of Madras, Bombay, the rural areas of the United Provinces, the Punjab, Assam and the North West Frontier Province.
    Mr. COCKS: I did not mention that. I said Sind.
    Mr. BUTLER: And Sind. I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving a picture of what he desired. The question of application has been considered, like everything else, by the various Committes, and especially by the Joint Select Committee. In the White Paper the Government, on the strong representations of local administrators in India, were obliged to insert the application provision in most of these Provinces in respect of a husband's property. It was felt to be a very stringent proposal by members of the Joint Select Committee, and that the application might operate to the disadvantage of women. Therefore, at

    1813
    the instant request of the Joint Select Committee we communicated with the local governments in India and attempted to improve the situation from the point of view of the Joint Select Committee. But I must not conceal from the Committee the fact that the Government had very good reason for insisting upon application originally in the White Paper, and those reasons still exist. However, when we had consulted the local governments we were able to agree with the Joint Select Committee that in certain Provinces, notably Bengal, Bihar and Orissa and the urban areas of the United Provinces and the Central Provinces the need for application could be dispensed with. That is a very big concession which was much appreciated at the time, together with certain other concessions which we are not now discussing, the reduction of the female level of literacy and the educational qualifications, also certain proposals with respect to military wives. We find in the Committee to-day that we are pressed to go even further. I regret to say that in response to previous requests we have already gone as far as is considered safe or reasonable in India.
    I should like to go a little into the details of the Provinces in order to explain why we have come to that conclusion. We have conceded the need for application in a certain number of Provinces and in the urban areas of the United Provinces. The reasons why the Governments wish to adhere to application are administrative and social. Take the case of Madras. The ratio of women electors in Madras is approximately 1 to 3.78, a satisfactory ratio. Madras also conceded that women should be qualified in respect of the literacy qualification. Therefore, in our submission, we gave in the case of Madras a very substantial proportion of women electors. We had to deal with this matter seriatim by Provinces; otherwise, we could not respond to the local provincial idiosyncrasies and arrive at a solution which was Anything like satisfactory. We gained in Madras this satisfactory proportion of women electors and the concession of literacy for men and women alike. In Bombay also we had the concession of literacy. In those two Provinces, therefore, we have definitely got for women a satisfactory ratio and a concession about
    1814
    the educational qualification. We were informed by the local Governments that they cannot possibly add any more in view of the nature of the concessions that have been made, including the satisfactory ratio of men and women electors.
    When we put these matters to each of the Provinces we had to be thankful that we were able to get the local administrations to agree to accept the extra burden of the arrangements for polling women and putting them on the roll, because there is considerable inconvenience and trouble to the local government in that respect. In Bengal we managed to get the application provision dispensed with, but we did not there get quite so many concessions in the case of the educational qualification, so that in one Province we gain something on the roundabouts and we lose it elsewhere on the swings. But hon. Members must look at the franchise problem in one total view; otherwise, they cannot appreciate the detailed concessions that we have obtained from the local governments. The addition of literacy in these two Provinces has caused considerable extra administrative burden, not an impossible one but one which causes us to think that the total numbers proposed to be enfranchised in these Provinces where we could not concede application is so great that it would be unreasonable to press them further. The administrative arguments in regard to women are very great. It is necessary to have special woman officers properly qualified not only to officiate on polling days, but in the case of literacy to administer the literacy test to the women electors. The women electors would resent it very much in India if they had to undergo the literacy test necessary through a man. I have already said that in India the whole burden of the pre-election Arrangements rests upon the local government administration. There are no independent electoral organisations to help at this stage, and therefore we cannot impose indefinite burdens upon the administration in the earlier days. I shall say something about the future before I conclude ray remarks.
    In the case of the Punjab and Assam there are very strong social reasons which, although they are present in the other Provinces of Madras and Bombay, are more strikingly present in the

    1815
    Mohammedan Provinces of the North and in Assam (in its position geographically, in the North), and Sind. In order to dispense with application in those Provinces it would be necessary to ask a Government officer to go to the houses and obtain the names of the women in order to put them on the roll. Sir Malcolm Hailey, the Governor of the United Provinces, informed the Joint Select Committee that it would be necessary to have some small revenue officer employed for this purpose, but that he could not guarantee his life and limb if he entered some of the houses with a view to ascertaining the name of the woman who ought to be placed on the roll. Therefore, for social reasons it was essential to cause application by the woman to take the place of automatic registration by the authorities. We were informed definitely by the Punjab Government that they would not be responsible if we dispensed with application, for the social reasons that I have given.
    The position of women in Mohammedan Provinces is not exactly the same in the public life of the country as we understand the position of women here, and it would be dangerous and offensive to the customs and habits of a large section of the population if a Government officer were to intrude upon the privacy of a home and insist either by a letter in the first place or later by calling upon a man to get the name of his wife or in any way to assist him to put her on the roll. Therefore, we ask that the woman should apply. Later on it will be made clear that these arrangements can be prescribed and that we are ready to help by way of letting the husband apply on behalf of his wife or by other suitable means in order to assist registration. We do not want to be unreasonable, but we cannot go against the advice of the local governments who for social or administrative reasons cannot further curtail the applications at the present time. I am told that it was intended that one or two other Amendments should be taken, but in view of the fact that nothing has been said about them I must deal with the Amendment before us and regretfully decline to accept it, reminding the Committee that we have given concessions so far as it is safe to do so. Consequently,
    1816
    I am not able to accept a quite reasonable Amendment, and for the reasons that I have given I hope that it will not be pressed.
    Mr. COCKS: In the case of Assam the proposal does not seem to be strongly opposed.
    8.55 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir WALTER SMILES: I am in entire agreement with the Under-Secretary on the matter of the Punjab. It would be very injudicious to force such a thing through in the Punjab, but I do not see why he couples the Province of Assam with the Punjab. The people of Assam are nothing like those of the Punjab. They are not so military, so truculent, shall I say, and have quite different customs. They have a great deal more in common with the Hindus in the East than with the Mohammedans in the West. The Under-Secretary has told us of the terrible things which might happen if a Government officer want round inquiring what women in a village were qualified to vote. These terrible things would not happen in Assam. What occurs when a census is taken. I have been an officer of the census, and we used to make the head man in a particular locality responsible for the houses in the village under him. When the Government officer makes this inquiry he can get in touch with the head man in the village to assist him. If the Government cannot accept the Amendment, I hope they will reconsider the question of Assam and will refer the matter to the Provincial Government again.
    8.57 p.m.
    Miss RATHBONE: I regret that the discussion on this Amendment comes after the discussion on the Amendment relating to the proportion of women voters. If it had come before it would have cast a different light upon the subject. The speeches on the previous Amendments were made under the serious misapprehension as to what is going to be the effect of this application provision. Leaving aside the difficulties of removing the application condition, let us consider what is the effect of retaining it. The Under-Secretary last night told us that the Bill proposed to grant 6,000,000 votes to women. I challenged him as to whether he had allowed anything for wastage, and he said that it was the gross

    1817
    number of those who were entitled to be enrolled. He used, to my astonishment, these words:
    "We do not envisage that the total will be very much reduced by wastage on applications."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th May, 1935; col. 1681, Vol. 301.]
    I hope he will say upon what he bases that optimistic view. It is not the view of the Joint Select Committee, or the view of common sense. What did the Joint Select Committee say about it?
    "It is in our opinion impossible to exaggerate the importance of securing in the new constitution a substantal increase of enfranchised women."
    Later on they say:
    "We are only too well aware of the formidable obstacles which every reformer in this field will encounter … We are particularly impressed by the unfortunate consequences likely to follow from the application' requirement, though we fully recognise that under existing conditions there are strong arguments which can be adduced in favour of it."
    Later they say:
    "We wish to place on record our view that it is important to attain at as early a date as possible, and if practicable before the second election under the new Constitution, the ratio of not less than approximately one woman to five men electors, save possibly in Behar and Orissa, which was recommended by the Indian Franchise Committee. We understand that in most Provinces under the proposals embodied in the White Paper, with the modifications proposed by us above, the ratio of women to men eligible to exercise the franchise will be higher than one to five; but the deterrent effect of the 'application' requirement, so long as it is necessary to retain it, particualrly in the case of women qualified in respect of a husband's property, is likely in practice to produce a much less favourable ratio of women to men on the electoral registers."
    It was not the view of the Joint Select Committee that wastage would be inconsiderable. The Under-Secretary, of course, does not mean to mislead the Committee, but I suggest that it is rather misleading to represent the number of women voters as 6,000,000, or anything like it. It is not at all unlikely that the 4,000,000 women voters who represent white voters will be cut down by half by the application condition. I have asked people of experience as to what is likely to be the effect. One said that not one woman in five would apply, another that it would be a minority who would apply. Consider the circumstances. The vast majority of women are scattered about in 750,000 villages, long distances between
    1818
    them, with polling stations five and six miles away. It is true that they can apply in writing, but what proportion of them are able to write? In this country if people had to apply personally in cold blood, not in hot fever of an election, to be placed on the register, how many would do so? This application provision is bound to cut down the proportion of women electors enormously, and there will not be 6,000,000 women voters on the registers. If the difficulties of removing this condition are insuperable, why did the Under-Secretary resist every previous effort to increase the number. If the Government are obliged to retain this condition, surely it would be the fairer thing to bulk out the numbers in some other way. We have put forward proposal after proposal to deal with this matter, but the Government have not accepted any Amendment. In every case the argument has been advanced that it would exceed the franchise proposed by the Lothian Committee. It would do nothing of the sort. If the Government had accepted one or two of the Amendments, we should not have reached the numbers proposed by the Lothian Committee, who did not anticipate the condition that women voters in the majority of the Provinces would have to apply for their votes.
    The Government, while they are in favour of a big women's electorate, in actual practice have made promises to the ear and broken them in the sense. They have laid stress on the deterrent effect of the application condition, and all they do in the Bill is to remove it in three or four Provinces. It is no consolation to the women of Bombay, the United Provinces and Assam that the women of Bengal have got to apply. In the majority of the Provinces this application condition will be retained. We are told that in those Provinces where it is retained a quid pro quo is given in the shape of reducing the education qualification of literacy. I myself attach great importance to that literacy qualification, because of its effect in the distant future, when the majority of women in India have received primary education. But the effect at the present time is infinitesimal. The Under-Secretary talks about it as a really substantial concession in point of numbers. If all the Provinces are taken together the educational voters will amount to only 300,000,

    1819
    we are told. How then can there be a very substantial addition in any one Province? No. We have now come on this Amendment to the really serious black spot on all the proposals of this Bill—this application condition which so greatly takes away from the nominal vote given to the women, and so greatly takes away from the prospect held out to women by the Lothian Committee.
    I should not feel so bad about it—I really feel bitter on this subject—if we had even any certain hope for the future. The Joint Select Committee suggested that the application condition should be removed as soon as possible, and if possible before the second general election. But there is nothing to that effect in the Bill. I believe that there is a Clause which permits a Provincial Legislature to remove the condition. Anyhow, there is a Clause which enables His Majesty by Order-in-Council to alter the franchise condition. But we shall have no certainty that it will be done. As the Provincial Governments have been so unfavourable to the cause of women in the past, why should we suppose that they will be more favourable in the future? Parliament cannot so shift its responsibility on to other shoulders.
    The Joint Select Committee, following all the other Committees, recognised to the full the terrible responsibility that is laid upon the shoulders of the British Parliament in letting the charge of the helpless women of India pass into others' hands without safeguarding it as closely as possible. In the case of pensioners and service men how careful the Government have been to prevent any possibility of injustice being done, but when they come to the most helpless class of all, I do not say that the Government have done nothing—I know the Government intend to be kind—so far as the franchise is concerned it is not a very good deal that the Government are giving to the women. A potential 6,000,000 of women's votes is certain to be cut down to a very much smaller number by the conditions of application. I beg the Under-Secretary to tell us that he has not said the last word on this subject. I beg him to give us some hope that if he cannot accept the present Amendment in full he will do something for women and will give some compensation, and that at any rate he will in this Bill
    1820
    and through this Parliament make quite sure that this application condition will be removed before the second general election. That would go some way, and in five years time something could be done to overcome the administrative difficulties.
    9.10 p.m.
    Viscountess ASTOR: I was particularly struck with the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles), who has had personal experience in India, and has assured us that in Assam there would be no difficulty at all. The Government should listen to the hon. and gallant Member, even if they do not listen to us, whom they may regard as fanatical on this subject. In the case of the hon. Member for Blackburn they have the advice of a practical man, who evidently does not think that women's questions in India can be settled better by men than by women. I am certain that if we could make Members of this Committee realise what are the conditions in India which we desire to clear up and clean up and which every committee which has dealt with India has said can only be cleared up by the women themselves in India, this Committee would say to the Government, "We know that you are going to have administrative difficulties, but this matter is of such vital importance to the future of India that you should face those difficulties and make certain that there is to be a really substantial proportion of the women on the register." A point has been made about the application condition. If it is difficult for an Englishman to make an application for a vote it must be at least 50 times as difficult for an Indian woman to do so. In fact a great many who have experience of India tell us that it is practically impossible, and that the women just will not make the application. It is no good Saying that it is permissive for local legislatures to waive the application condition later on.
    Even Indian women themselves do not realise what a great task they have ahead of them. We have been told that Indian men are more reasonable than Englishmen. I am not prepared to believe it. We know what an enormous difference there has been in the social and moral welfare of this country since women have had the vote here. Five years before the War this House passed only minor Bills

    1821
    dealing with matters that affected women, but once women had the vote the whole of our social legislation began to change. I remember perfectly well that only 16 years ago if one got up in this House and asked questions about education, housing, children, and the criminal law Amendment, all social questions, very little interest was aroused. I remember the question being raised of the age of consent. You cannot conceive what the fight was in those days. But if such matters were put before the present House of Commons Members would at once say, "All of us agree." The social conscience of this country has changed so much in the last 16 years that I can hardly believe I am sitting in the same House of Commons. As that has happened in England, what could happen in India if the women of India had a chance. Unless this Government makes it possible for the women of India to have a chance, I do not think they will get a chance, so desperate are the religious and social prejudices.
    Instead of the Government speaking of administrative difficulties, they should say, "No matter what the difficulties are, we are going to do something." Six million women voters in India are a very small number. The Government should guarantee that the number will be at least 10,000,000. I believe that if women have to depend on an application for the vote there will not be anything like 6,000,000 women on the roll. I hope that the Government will reconsider their decision on the subject. I know how much attention has been given by the Lothian Committee and in the White Paper to the administrative difficulties. I know the position of the Government in regard to this matter, and I am not asking about the Punjab. I take the word of Sir Malcolm Hailey as to that, but I have also the word of the hon. Member for Blackburn who assures us that it can be done, in Assam. I am convinced that if the Government had the will, a way would be found. This is a matter about which many of us are deeply concerned. It is one of the fundamental reasons why we want a change of the Government in India. We realise the things that have been going on there for generations, and that the only thing which could be said against British rule in India was that these matters had not been tackled before. We know that under the old conditions
    1822
    it was impossible because no outsiders could tackle these subjects. We now ask the Government to make it possible for the insiders, and, above all, for the women to do so.
    The progressive women in India to-day are a splendid body. I have never been more impressed in my life than I have been by the manner in which Indian women have fought for reforms in education and other services with everything against them. Against great odds they have done splendidly, and I would beg and implore of the Government to remove wherever they can this ridiculous application condition. We all know that some of us would not be in the House of Commons if we had such a condition in this country. I believe that if we had such a condition here we would find the advanced Socialists active in getting their women on to the electoral roll while probably other people would be indifferent and would not come forward at all. Therefore, from the Government's own point of view of safeguarding the future of India, I suggest that there is no better way of keeping India safe than that of making the vote easier for the women, instead of making it practically impossible for them by this condition.
    9.17 p.m.
    Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: The hon. Gentleman's argument in favour of the maintenance of this restriction seems to be illogical. I will not deal with what he called the social difficulties which apply particularly to Sind and the Punjab, but with what he described as the administrative difficulties. As I understand the scheme, it is proposed to set out first the qualifications as far as women are concerned, and that the Government's objective, if their scheme works properly, is to get all the women who come within those qualifications to register their votes in an electoral decision. But then the hon. Gentleman says, in effect: "I am relying on the failure of my plan to get these women to the poll, in order to make it administratively possible to work the scheme." Surely that is the very worst type of constitution-making. If it is impossible to deal with more than 3,000,000 women voters, why not say so and frame the scheme so that you will get only 3,000,000 women voters? You ought not to propose to give votes to a number

    1823
    of women and then, for the administrative purposes, rely upon a large proportion of those women not being able to exercise the right which you say you are giving to them. When the hon. Gentleman speaks of the removal of the application condition as being a great concession in some of the Provinces, he shows what a large elimination is expected to result from its imposition.
    To come to the administrative question itself, assuming that 100 per cent. of these women can be got to make the application, presumably those applications will have to be checked and some record of them will have to be made. Will it be any easier to deal with the 100 per cent. of applications than it would be to deal with the same number by going round and collecting their votes? In fact it will probably be more difficult because each application will have to be checked as regards its accuracy. That will be more difficult than making a direct collection of votes in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles) in the case of such a Province as Assam and you will not get over any of the administrative difficulties which arise as regards polling or tests of literacy or anything of that sort. Presumably the hon. Gentleman is not going to say that he hopes 100 per cent. will not apply. Presumably, he hopes that 100 per cent. will apply. He may say "Unfortunately we shall not be able to educate our democracy fast enough to get 100 per cent. to apply immediately, but our objective is 100 per cent." But if he reaches his objective he is going to encounter just the same administrative difficulties as would arise if he did away with application and went straight for his objective and made certain of reaching it. I believe, indeed, he will have even greater administrative difficulties.
    The hon. Gentleman is adding this risk of not reaching his objective, in order to satisfy the usual qualms of an administration which does not want to face a greater task than is necessary. The smaller the task the more readily will they face it and everybody can sympathise with that view. But is that to be the determining factor as regards the enfranchisement of the women of India? Once we admit that it is desirable that these 6,000,000 women should vote, we
    1824
    must logically require that everything should be done in order to get them to vote. We must not rely upon administrative difficulties defeating our express objective. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that his express objective is to get 6,000,000 women to vote but that his real objective is to get only 3,000,000 women to vote. If his express objective is 6,000,000, he must not put fences in his own way, making it difficult to arrive at the end of the course and possibly involving the risk of a fall. I am, sure that if the hon. Gentleman thinks over the matter again, he must say—as I know he will say—that his desire is that every one of these 6,000,000 women should vote on the first possible occasion. If that be his desire, then he must logically add that he does not propose willingly to put any obstacle in the way of achieving that end.
    9.23 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLER: The Committee will probably desire a short reply to some of the points which have been raised. First let me express my pleasure that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has taken part in our Debate. But I must refuse to enter into the net which he has spread for me. His case was presented with perfect logic, but I cannot accept the premises from which he started.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: Does the hon. Gentleman want the 6,000,000 to vote?
    Mr. BUTLER: The hon. and learned Gentleman's forensic talent is well known both inside and outside the House, but I am going to deal with the subject in my own way, and I shall restrict myself to restating the case for the retention of application in certain Provinces. Let me say, first, that as regards the case of Assam, I must naturally pay attention to what has been said by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles), who has only recently returned from Assam, and also to the representations of the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) and the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor). In the case of Assam, we have been definitely informed that they wish to retain application, and I cannot go against what they have to say on the

    1825
    matter there because they are the people who are going to administer the scheme, and it is to them that we shall look for its success. In view of what has been said, however, I can state that I will reconsider this matter of Assam with the local government, but the Committee must understand that I cannot guarantee to have that consideration made in the immediate future, that is to say, within the next week or two. It has to be referred to Assam, and consideration will have to be given to the views of the districts in Assam, and it will be impossible to do it in a hurry. Nor can I hold out any great hope of changing it; but the matter will be looked into in view of the arguments raised in this Debate, and we will undertake to make a change at a later stage, if necessary, by some such procedure as Order-in-Council.
    It seems to me that the Noble Lady accepted the position of the Punjab, and, therefore, our difficulties are very much reduced. Therefore, I want now only to clear up a point put to me by the hon. Member for the English Universities in which she said I had been too optimistic about the future of application. I had no intention of misleading the Committee in what I was saying on this important question just before we rose last night. But I do think it is a good thing to set my optimism against her pessimism, and I do not regret what I said. I admit that there will be a small wastage due to application, and the smaller it may be the better. I hope it will not be large, but I cannot give an exact estimate. In most Provinces it is hoped that at the same time the administrative difficulties will diminish and the manner in which the population will accustom themselves to application, will gradually increase, that is to say, that the population will get more used to application in ratio as the administration gets more used to the population. I do not believe that the amount of wastage will be as much as the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) suggested. I suppose the number of women voters will be somewhere between the pessimistic figure which he gave, and the figure of 6,000,000 which we have put in our estimate. I should be only misleading the Committee if I were to seek to give an exact figure. It seems to me that nothing has been said to deny the
    1826
    social arguments which I used. We do our best for the women, and we get very little gratitude for it. It is not for me to complain because hon. Members have pressed us, but I must remind them of the concessions we have given them during the last three years, ever since we have gone into this subject in detail.
    Viscountess ASTOR: I would not like it to go out from this House that I had been against the Government on the India Bill. To-day was, I think, the first time that I have ever voted against them, and I do not want it to go out to India that I am against it. I think the Bill is a remarkable performance.
    Mr. BUTLER: I am very grateful to the Noble Lady. I hope that the administrative difficulties will diminish, but I am afraid that the social difficulties will probably not do so. It is very difficult to foresee a great change in the immediate future, though we hope a change will come. I think there has been a change already in some parts of India, and I hope it will develop, although it will take longer than change in the case of administrative difficulties. The only remaining thing to say is as to the future. Under the Bill as drafted it is possible, even before the 10-year limit which governs other Amendments for the Home Government on the representation of Provincial Legislatures to alter this proposal for application, provided that a Provincial Legislature passes a resolution in favour of it, and submits it to His Majesty's Government. It is also possible for His Majesty's Government under the Bill to make this change by Order-in-Council. If they consider that circumstances warrant it, there is nothing to prevent that change being made after the first election. Those who say it will be in the interest of political parties to get their members enrolled may also rely on the argument that it will be in the interests of the politicians in India who wish to further the cause of women to get a resolution passed in their Legislature when they think the time is ripe. In that case, under the Bill, the resolution will have to return to this country and be acted on by us, or very good reasons given why we should not act on it. I can assure the Noble Lady that we would do nothing to stop any Provincial Legislature passing such a resolution or to hinder the taking

    1827
    of action on its representations. We believe that for the future there is the chance to change, so that the Noble Lady will get the gross total electorate she desires. We believe, therefore, that we have not closed the door; but we must start and proceed slowly upon these important social matters in the East.
    Miss RATHBONE: May I ask you, Sir Dennis, whether you intend to call my manuscript Amendment dealing with the same subject? I think it would perhaps simplify the matter if I might ask the Under-Secretary whether he could not give us some assurance about the point raised in the manuscript Amendment, which asks for the removal of this condition before a second general election shall be held?
    The CHAIRMAN: I think it is fairly obvious from the latter part of the Under-Secretary's speech that this matter has been covered by the discussion which has taken place now. That, as I
    understand it, is what was intended. I am quite prepared to call the hon. Lady's Amendment if she so desires, and if she thinks it necessary, for the purpose of a Division—but for the purpose of a Division only.
    Miss RATHBONE: May we not ask the Under-Secretary to say something about it?
    Mr. BUTLER: The first time I spoke the hon. Lady had not risen in her place, and, therefore, I had to attempt to cover her manuscript Amendment without reference having been made to it by the Mover, which was a very difficult position. But I have covered this manuscript Amendment in the latter part of the remarks I have already made to the Committee.
    Question put, "That the word 'or' be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 38; Noes, 186.

    Division No 191.]

    AYES

    [9.35 p.m.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)

    Maxton, James

    Banfield, John William

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Milner, Major James

    Batey, Joseph

    Groves, Thomas E.

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Buchanan, George

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Cleary, J. J.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Kirkwood, David

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Leonard, William

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Daggar, George

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Dobble, William

    Lunn, William

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Edwards, Charles

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Mr. Paling and Mr. John.

    Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    NOES

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Grimston, R. V.

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (P'rtsm'th, S.)

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Hales, Harold K.

    Albery, Irving James

    Colfox Major William Philip

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Assheton, Ralph

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Harbord, Arthur

    Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Cooper, T. M. (Edinburgh, W.)

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    Bailey, Eric Alfred George

    Copeland, Ida

    Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.

    Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Dickle, John P.

    Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)

    Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (prtsm'th, C.)

    Drewe, Cedric

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Wailer

    Beit, Sir Alfred L.

    Duncan, James A. L. (Remington, N.)

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Bossom, A. C.

    Eimley, Viscount

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

    Burnett, John George

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Janner, Barnett

    Butler, Richard Austen

    Gledhill, Gilbert

    Jennings, Roland

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Goff, Sir Park

    Jones Henry Haydn (Merloneth)

    Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd. N.)

    Kimball, Lawrence

    Carver, Major William H.

    Graves, Marjorie

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Law Sir Alfred

    Owen, Major Goronwy

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Penny, Sir George

    Soper, Richard

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Little, Graham, Sir Ernest

    Petherick, M.

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

    Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Spens, William Patrick

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Pike, Cecil F.

    Stevenson, James

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Stones, James

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Radford, E. A.

    Storey, Samuel

    Mabane, William

    Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.

    Stourton, Hon. John J.

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Strauss, Edward A.

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles)

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Rankin, Robert

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

    McKeag, William

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

    Read, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Thompson, Sir Luke

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Thorp, Linton Theodora

    Makins, Brigedler-General Ernest

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Robinson, John Roland

    Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Rothschild, James A. de

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Mellor, Sir J. S. P.

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

    White, Henry Graham

    Milne, Charles

    Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Salt, Edward W.

    Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

    Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut. -Colonel George

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Selley, Harry R.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Morgan, Robert H

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Womersley, Sir Walter

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    North, Edward T.

    Smith, Sir J. Walker-(Barrow-in-F.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Smithers, Sir Waldron

    Captain Sir George Bowyer and

    Major George Davies.

    Two consequential Amendments made.
    9.44 p.m.
    Mr. COCKS: I beg to move, to leave out lines 537 to 539.
    This raises the question of literacy as affecting the women of the three Provinces of Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa. When the women of India pressed that literacy should be the qualification for the franchise, instead of a higher educational qualification such as matriculation, the various Provincial Governments of India were consulted, and nearly all of them accepted the view that literacy should be the test, but the three Provinces of Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa expressed their opposition to that proposal. I would like to point out the effect of that. Under the literacy test, which is accepted by the rest of India—whether a person can read or write a letter is the kind of test we have in mind—377,000 women would be enfranchised in Bengal. In Bihar and Orissa 77,000 would be enfranchised. Although there is an over-lap of some who may come in on another qualification, the substitution of the matriculation test for the literacy test would disfranchise practically all of them. I have inquired into how many women in Bengal have passed matriculation, and I am informed on the highest
    1830
    authority that in the last 30 years only 3,000 women have passed at the universities of Calcutta and Dacca. These include those who lived in Bengal Province before the re-partition in 1912.
    It is therefore estimated that by substituting the higher test of matriculation for the literacy test, only 1,500 women will be put on the register instead of 377,000. In Bihar and Orissa the result is even more startling. It is estimated that, although 77,000 women would be put on the register under the literacy test, the matriculation test will add only 200, because only that number of women have passed matriculation in those two Provinces. The higher matriculation test from the educational franchise point of view is an absolute farce. In the memorandum which was sent to the Joint Select Committee, it was stated that Bengal was opposed to the literacy test, but I do not know why. All the other Provinces had accepted it. Bihar and Orissa, which are now two Provinces, although at that time they were one, gave the simple answer that the literacy test was impracticable under present purdah conditions. I cannot see why purdah conditions should prevent women who can pass the test and are in

    1831
    a position to apply from being placed on the register. I would like to ask the Committee how many electors of this country would be on the register if they had to pass a matriculation examination before being registered as voters. How many Members of this honourable House would be here if they had to pass the matriculation test? I venture to suggest that even some Members of the Cabinet could not pass it. Why should we then put such a test on the women of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa?
    9.50 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLER: The subject which we are now discussing is really a very small addition to what we have already discussed. It carries little further the general discussion which we have had in relation to educational qualifications in three particular Provinces. The point is further narrowed by the fact that on the advice of the Joint Select Committee we decided that after the first election these Provinces should descend to literacy. Therefore, the problem is narrowed to an appreciable extent and it relates only to the educational qualification in three Provinces. There is provision for automatic reduction after the first election. The point at issue is thus very small. The hon. Member wishes that it should be done at once, but the local Government in each case is emphatic against us doing it at once. In view of that position, which I could explain at greater length if the Committee desired, it would be unwise to force these Provinces when there is provision for the future and when the matter relates to a few women in only three Provinces.
    Amendment negatived.
    Two consequential Amendments made.
    9.53 p.m.
    Major MILNER: I beg to move, in line 968, to leave out from "have," to the end of the paragraph, and to insert:
    "successfully completed the upper primary course at a primary or elementary school."
    The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that, as far as possible, the educational qualification should be uniform throughout the country. I have not had the opportunity of comparing the forms of the educational qualification, but I
    1832
    think I am right in saying that in Madras this is the qualification. In Bombay, however, the qualification is the matriculation standard. The Franchise Committee, of which the Under-Secretary was a member, made a special point that the qualification should be uniform throughout the country. I am surprised that the Under-Secretary has not used the undoubted influence which we know he has with the Government to see that more of the Franchise Committee's recommendations were carried into effect. On this question, in particular, the Franchise Committee said:
    "The evidence which we have received shows that there are numerous educated men in every province, who are at present excluded from the franchise because they lack the prescribed property qualifications, and we think it is desirable that such persons should be admitted to the privilege of the franchise. A provision of this kind will be found particularly useful in the case of civil servants, school masters and others in a similar position, and also of joint families.…. After consideration of the various stages in the educational systems in force, we would grant the vote to all those who have successfully completed the upper primary course, which involves four or five years attendance at a primary or elementary school. It connotes ability to read and write, and knowledge of simple arithmetic, and the course usually includes also a certain amount of instruction in elementary history and geography."
    The purpose of the Amendment is that this should be the qualification. It is desirable that it should be uniform throughout the country. Why should matriculation give a vote in one Province, and in another Province the standard be the upper primary examination? The authority which the Under-Secretary so often quotes, the Franchise Committee, recommended uniformity. On those grounds, and on the obvious advantage to be gained, I put forward this Amendment.
    9.56 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLER: This Amendment is related to the Province of Bihar, and I will therefore deal with that specific point first. It appears that the reason why the education qualification is so fixed in the case of Bihar is that there certificates are not ordinarily awarded to those passing the upper primary examination, the successful completion of the middle course being the lowest stage at which certificates are normally issued. The local Government remain of the

    1833
    opinion that no lowering of the education standard below that embodied in the Franchise Schedule is practicable at this stage. I am sorry to have to repeat these references to the local Governments, as they must not come with any sense of novelty to hon. Members opposite. The wider point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) was that the education qualification should be the same throughout India, and I presume he meant literacy. As the Committee know, the qualifications suggested under the Bill are different; they are matriculation or a prescribed examination not lower than middle school vernacular final in Bombay, Bengal, Bihar, the Central Provinces and Sind, the upper primary or primary in certain of the remaining Provinces, and literacy in Madras.
    So I think the hon. and gallant Member's point is quite a legitimate one, because it does appear to be confusing to have these different qualifications, but the reason for the difference is based in almost every case not only on the administrative difficulty, but the difficulty from the point of view of the school records which are kept. We have investigated in each case what records have been kept. It might have been convenient to accept as the education qualification for men the upper primary standard or the middle school standard in Indian Provinces, but in the cases where we have had to apply the matriculation standard we have found that there are not the requisite middle school or upper primary certificates upon which the qualification for the vote could be based. It just happens that the administration of education in those places has been conducted on those lines. The only good point I can say about it is that we have an undertaking from those Provinces that in the future they will keep such records. Therefore, there may be an opportunity in the future to use those levels as the qualification for the franchise, if so desired.
    There is another sign of hope for the hon. and gallant Member, and that is that on the representation largely, I think, of the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) on the Joint Select Committee we did include a provision, a typical example of which is found at the bottom of page 2131, by which,
    1834
    after the first election, the local Governments will reduce the qualification. That does give some hope for the future. I am giving an example only, because if we go into too much detail the matter will not be so clear. On the Joint Select Committee we put an end to the perpetual high qualification of matriculation, and we have for the future arranged that those Provinces or Presidencies which have this high qualification shall be in a position to alter the qualification by keeping the necessary records. I hope those considerations will appeal to the hon. and gallant Member and show him that we are attempting to bring down the education qualification in the cases where it is already rather high.
    There is yet another ray of hope, and that is that the education qualification is not so important for men as hon. Members may imagine. The education qualification for men will in many cases overlap their property qualification. It is not necessary for them to depend solely upon the education qualification; it is an extra point; but it is pretty certain that among men the number enfranchised solely on the basis of the education qualification will not be large. But the education qualification will cover such gaps in the franchise system as are created by junior members of a joint family who would otherwise be omitted from the franchise, although they might be the most intellectual members of the family, through having no property. It is, therefore, important to have this provision in the Bill. Having made arrangements with a view to the future, I feel that the hon. and gallant Member's point is not of the importance that he considers it, though it is important in itself. I regret that we cannot accept the Amendment.
    10.1 p.m.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: I hope the Under-Secretary will forgive me if I say that we trust we have had the last instance of the citing of the local governments, because I confess my patience is fast running out. When it suits the Government they conveniently throw over the opinions of the Government of India and the Franchise Committee in favour of the local governments. The Franchise Committee were set up to study this as an ad hoc subject, and we are entitled to say that we are reaching the limit of our patience when we find the local governments

    1835
    of India being continually brought forward as a special prop on which the Government may lean. In point of fact, this is a disfranchising rather than an enfranchising proposal. We are erecting a formidable education barrier. Suppose this qualification were demanded in this country. How many people can say they have reached the matriculation standard? Many people who have passed the matriculation examination probably could not pass it now. It is really an impossible standard to set up in any country. In any case surely a better one can be found. We are told by the Franchise Committee that people may possibly have left school a good many years ago and that the actual certificates may not be available. That must be true, but the school registers must be available, and the fact that the name is on the register of the final class surely ought to be evidence enough to show that a person has been in the primary school, or some other school, as the case may be. We are erecting an impossible standard for electors and reducing the number to a very low figure indeed, and, whatever hope we may have for the future, the fact remains that as large a section of the people as possible ought at once to have a direct voice in determining the course of their country's development. I submit that the Under-Secretary has not defended this proposal as adequately as he might have done. He has failed this time to carry conviction, even to those of us who are most willing to listen to his advocacy of the case.
    10.4 p.m.
    Miss RATHBONE: I cannot resist pointing out a little inconsistency in the reply of the Under-Secretary. He told us just now that we need not be unhappy about his refusal to reduce the education qualification for men, as nearly all men who would be enfranchised on an education qualification were already enfranchised on a property qualification. But when I suggested not long ago the enfrachisement of the wives of these very same educational men voters he represented
    it as an immense addition to the franchise. I would suggest that he cannot have it both ways. I think the real truth is that the majority of the men educational voters will be on the list through a property qualification and that is a reason why he could have extended the franchise to their wives.
    10.6 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLER: The hon. Lady does me a slight injustice. On her Amendment she was considering Madras. In the case of Madras there is a large number of men on the educational qualification of literacy. When she corrected me and showed me the figures in other Provinces, I corrected my words, if she will remember.
    10.7 p.m.
    Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: The argument of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) seems to me to be very reasonable. The standard which is set up in this particular paragraph on the Province of Bihar is high, it seems to me, but this, I understand, is for the first election and that for subsequent elections the standard may be lower.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: There is no guarantee.
    Mr. SOMERVILLE: The hon. Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) pleaded for a uniform standard, and that seems to me a most reasonable plea, but a difficult one to attain. The literacy education has been in the hands of the Provincial Governments for the last 13 or 14 years, and it is they who will have the future in their hands. Such a standard as the hon. Member for Leeds wishes to attain should be done by agreement between the Provincial Governments in the matter of education. I regret more and more that there is not some co-ordinating power on the subject of education.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Schedule."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 204; Noes, 35.

    Division No. 192.]

    AYES.

    [10.10 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Assheton, Ralph

    Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

    Bailey, Eric Alfred George

    Beit, Sir Alfred L.

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

    Albery, Irving James

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Blindell, James

    Apsley, Lord

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Bossom, A. C.

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Boulton, W. W.

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Bracken, Brendan

    Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

    Radford, E. A.

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

    Ramsay Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Ramsay, T. B. W. [Western Isles)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Rankin, Robert

    Burnett, John George

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Rea walter Russell

    Butler, Richard Austen

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Reed Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Cadogan, Hon. Edward

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)

    Reid William Allan (Derby)

    Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

    James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

    Remer John R.

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Janner, Barnett

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Carver, Major William H.

    Jennings, Roland

    Robinson, John Roland

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Ropner Colonel L.

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (p'rtsm'th, S.)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Ross Taylor Walter (Woodbridge)

    Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Rothschild James A. de

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Kimball, Lawrence

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Lamp, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside.)

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Law Sir Alfred

    Salmon Sir Isidore

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Salt Edward W.

    Cook, Thomas A.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

    Cooper, T. M. (Edinburgh, W.)

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).

    Copeland, Ida

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Selley Harry R.

    Craddock, Sir Regianld Henry

    Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

    Crooke, J. Smedley

    Loftus, pierce C.

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.

    Lyons, Abraham Montagu

    Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, yeovil)

    Mabane, William

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Dickle, John P.

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Drewe, Cedric

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Soper, Richard

    Duncan, James A. L (Kensington, N.)

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Sotheron Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Eastwood, John Francis

    McKeag, William

    Southby Commander Archibald R. J.

    Edge, Sri William

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Elmley, Viscount

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Spens, William Patrick

    Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

    Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot

    Stevenson, James

    Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)

    Manningham-Bulter, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

    Stones, James

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Storey, Samuel

    Evan, R. T. (Carmarthen)

    Marsden Commander Arthur

    Stourton, Hon. John J.

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Mayhew Lieut.-Colonel John

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Mellor Sir J. S. P.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Tate, Mavis Constance

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Milne Charles

    Thompson, Sir Luke

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Mitchell Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Molson A. Hugh Elsdale

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Goff, Sir Park

    Moore-Lt.-Col Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

    Wallance, Sir John (Dunfermline)

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    Moreing Adrian C.

    Ward, Irene Marv Bewick (Wallsend)

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Morgan Robert H.

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rid, N.)

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Graves, Marjorie

    Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Greene, William P. C.

    O'Donovan Dr William James

    Wllis, Wilfrid O.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Owen, Sir Charles William C.

    Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Owen, Major Goronwy

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

    Palmer Francis Noel

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Hales, Harold K.

    Patrick Colin M

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Penny Sir George

    Young Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Harbord, Arthur

    Petherick, M.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward

    Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    and Sir Walter Womersley.

    Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

    Pike, Cecil F.

    NOES.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Granfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

    Paling, Wilfred

    Banfield, John William

    Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Batey, Joseph

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Cleary, J. J.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Leonard, William

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Daggar, George

    Lunn, William

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Dobbie, William

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Edwards, Charles

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Mr. John and Mr Groves

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Milner, Major James

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Six consequential Amendments made.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That this Schedule, as amended, be added to the Bill."
    10.17 p.m.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: Before we depart from the Schedule, at least temporarily, I want to say how disappointed we are that the Government have not been able to meet our wishes in respect to some of our Amendments. In particular, we attach special importance to two subjects, the enfranchisement of women and the enfranchisement of the depressed classes—or of a larger measure of the depressed classes. I do not wish to traverse ground again, but I venture to say that the Government have taken a step which future Governments will learn to deplore. They have not listened to appeals, addressed to them not merely from these benches but from some of the women members of the Committee who sit on other benches. It is of the utmost importance that a larger number of women should participate in the right to vote in India, because there are pressing social problems which merit immediate and urgent attention. There is the problem of child marriage and innumerable cognate problems to which some Government in India must speedily pay attention.
    There has been no vehicle by which women's opinions could, in the past, be adequately expressed in India. We Shall probably all agree that in our own country the coming of women into politics—whether that has had a retrograde effect or not is not for us to discuss now—has had the consequence that social, child, health and women's problems have received a larger measure of attention from those who sought the votes of the electors than was ever the case before. That is a tribute to the enfranchisement of women in this country, and shows what a potent instrument in the hands of women the vote can be in pressing upon legislators the claims of those who deserve attention. I am sure the Government will find that they are doing the new India a great wrong in not taking steps to enfranchise a larger number of women than will be the case under the operation of this Schedule. It is claimed by the Government that some 6,000,000 women will be enfrandhised, but it is open to doubt whether in practice there will be 6,000,000, and it seems probable that the number will be considerably less. Our opinion is that there ought to be a good number more, because it is obvious to those who watch the development of affairs in India that the women are becoming more and
    1840
    more aware of the potential value of a share in determining the political development of their country. I regret more than I can say that the Government have been so adamant in this matter.
    What I have said with regard to women applies in a similar degree to the depressed classes. They are people who merit and receive, I am sure, the sympathy and interest of Members in all parts of the House. I can only express regret that the Government have not found it possible to give them a larger measure of political power, so that they might, by the exercise of that political power, do more, perhaps, for themselves than has been done for them by others in the past. I content myself with repeating—and I apologise for the repetition—our objection to the shortcomings of the Schedule as it has been presented to the Committee. We shall not divide against it again, as we have already divided in regard to essential particulars of it, and I content myself with repeating our objection to its shortcomings.
    10.23 p.m.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I beg the indulgence of the Committee for a few minutes to express my regret that in this Schedule we are not going to enfranchise the number of women that I had hoped. I had intended, and my friends had intended, to support the Amendment dealing with the question of application for registration, but I was very much influenced by what was said by the Under-Secretary as to the social difficulties of that matter, and I felt that, as one who was not closely acquainted with affairs in India, I could not take the responsibility of forcing upon those Provinces the conditions which were explained to us by the Under-Secretary. Had I known how serious those difficulties were, I think I should have supported some of the earlier Amendments that would have enlarged the votes of women. I have been led to believe, and I think other Members of the House have been led to believe, that there would be something like 6,000,000 women voting, out of the 35,000,000 electors that we shall have under the new Constitution, but it seems very clear, from what was said by the Under-Secretary, that there cannot be anything like 6,000,000 women voting. If the social difficulties with regard to registration are so strong, 6,000,000 is not merely an

    1841
    outside figure, but an impossible figure in the conditions which the hon. Gentleman himself has explained, and the very arguments he has used to show how serious it would be to force these conditions upon the Punjab and elsewhere indicate what a substantial deduction we must make from the figure of 6,000,000.
    I am bound to say I regard with apprehension starting upon this immense experiment—the greatest experiment in our Imperial history—if we have not an adequate representation of women in the working out of these schemes. I think it will depend very largely upon, and the hon. Gentleman himself spoke of the importance of, the interest of the Provincial Governments that will have to bring home to the electors in India the rights of the women. Here in this country, supposing the women were to be entitled to vote if they applied, they would know all about it, because the Press would make them well acquainted with their rights. We have in this country highly organised parties who would get into touch with those immediately concerned, but in India those conditions do not obtain. If you have a provincial government that is reactionary, and does not take the steps essential to bring home to the electors their rights, what this House has done in securing even this measure of votes for women may be reduced to a dead letter. You may have districts where very few women will be voting at all, because there is no one to acquaint them with their rights and bring home to them the advantages to which they are entitled. I hope that it may yet be possible on the Report stage to enlarge in some direction or other the 6,000,000 votes we have already in contemplation, because I am sure that there will have to be a very much bigger effort than some of us think.
    What has led me to that view was the very strong speech made by the Under-Secretary as the social difficulties which would have to be overcome before women could be induced even to make the application for their votes. If there is to be that difficulty in getting them to apply for their votes, what likelihood is there that those votes will be cast, or even that the application will be made? Will the Government have regard to the fact that the people have been led to rely
    1842
    upon that 6,000,000, and that as a result of the work of the Joint Select Committee there was to be a very much larger and substantial woman electorate? If it should prove in actual experience during the earlier years' working of this reform that a very much smaller number of women are taking their share in the political life of that country, it will cause a great disappointment. I believe that can still be remedied. We have the remedy in our own hands, and I hope that, in one direction or another, the Government may be able to enlarge the woman electorate, so that we may, at any rate, make some allowance for what will be the inevitable wastage, and bring the vote very substantially below the 6,000,000, which is the figure upon which we have set our minds.
    10.28 p.m.
    Sir W. SMILES: Before we leave this Schedule, I ought to say a word or two. My conscience pricks me. We are leaving the women of India in a worse state than we ought to do. I am in the happy position of being able to vote on this Bill exactly as my conscience dictates. I have not voted with the diehard party or with any party here, because I have taken advantage of the decision given by the Leader of our party, that we should be allowed to vote as our conscience dictates on this subject of India.
    Mr. CAPORN: So are we all.
    Sir W. SMILES: Party Whips I have seen before, but in this particular case they have not been put on to me at any rate. However, I have obeyed them before, and I shall obey them again. This is a very big question, and all of us must realise that the women of India are not in a very comfortable position at the present time. I believe that the last Act which went through the Legislative Assembly, the Sarda Act, about the age of marriage, is being evaded in India. There are a, great many other disadvantages under which women labour in India as compared with the position of women in this country. In this country, in the relationship between husband and wife, it is possible for one to be a Socialist and the other a Conservative, and still there may be peace in the house, as long as the husband does not let the wife know the way he votes.

    1843
    I can well imagine that application by women for the vote in India will have the very grave effect of reducing very largely the number of women who will go to the poll. I can also imagine an Indian wife saying to her husband words to this effect—she cannot call him by his name, but has to call him by the name of the father of her child—"If you are going to the court to-day will you put in my name for a vote?" I do not think that she will get the vote although she may apply for it again and again. The hon. Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock) has very great experience, far greater than I have, in important Provinces in India, and I think he will agree with me when I say that I doubt whether 50 per cent. of the women who are eligible for the vote will get it through having to make the application. I question whether under this Schedule we are leaving the women of India in as strong a position as they ought to be. I do not believe that India will make progress and be fully worthy of self-government and gain her place in the Commonwealth of the British Empire to which she is entitled until the position of women is far more guaranteed and assured.
    I very much appreciate the promise made by the Under-Secretary that he will refer the position in regard to Assam back again to the local Government. There are times when he should not absolutely dot the "i's" and cross the "t's" of the local Government. I have known local Governments in the past make mistakes, and I know that when a new Governor goes to a Province at the end of five years very often he does not endorse the policy of the old Governor. The Under-Secretary might sometimes take the recommendations of the local Governments with a grain of salt. Let him examine the things for himself. He has a tradition of India, and from his speeches I know that he is upholding very worthily the family tradition. The whole Committee is very gravely responsible for the position in which we are leaving the women of India, and there may come a time in the future when we shall regret our action.
    10.28 p.m.
    Sir R. CRADDOCK: After what my hon. Friend has just said I should like to say a few words. I have not been
    1844
    keen on extending the franchise to women for the simple reason that I do not believe that the franchise will do them very much good until the education among women has extended and been much more widely diffused than it has been up to the present time. It is only about 20 years ago, I suppose, that female education came to the front in India. In my own Province we could not get the district boards and the municipalities either to allot the funds or to take the slightest interest in the education of girls. So far as the education of girls was concerned, the Provincial Government had to provide the money out of provincial funds. At that time there were few mistresses, who had been trained, to take charge of the girls. At that time you generally found an elderly man of about 65 years teaching these girls. In the village schools practically all over the Province, and in the wilder districts especially, there were always a few girls in the boys' school, but, unfortunately, they were usually withdrawn at the age of 10 or 11 years and never carried on their education always found that these small girls were fully equal to, if not better, than the small boys in the schools. What I want to urge is that things will not advance as we should like to see them until we have reached a stage when grandmothers are educated. It requires more education of the girls before you can get the advantages of an extended franchise for women.
    10.36 p.m.
    Miss RATHBONE: The last speaker has truly said that we shall not get the full advantages of women's franchise until we have an educated womanhood in India. May I remind him that we shall not get an educated womanhood in India until women can pull their weight in the political world. According to the Report of the Statutory Commission only one-seventh of the money spent on education in India is spent on the education of girls. That is the amount which Provincial Government spend on the education of girls, and we shall not get that changed until we get a more substantial political influence of women than is given by the Schedule. I entreat the Government to take the responsibility on themselves and not trust too much to local governments in India, seeing how

    1845
    little they have done for the women of India in the past.
    Major COLFOX: I feel that some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles) cannot go unchallenged. It seems to me that he took a great deal upon himself when he suggested that he himself alone on this India Bill voted, according to what he said—
    The CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow the remarks of the hon. Member to be debated; they have nothing whatever to do with the Schedule.

    NEW SCHEDULE.—(Provisions as to new Franchise in Burma.)— [Mr. Butler.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    10.39 p.m.
    Mr. BUTLER: I beg to move, "That the Schedule be read a Second time."
    I do not wish to detain the Committee at this late hour on the provisions of the franchise in regard to Burma. At present in Burma 16.9 per cent. of the population are on the franchise; 57.4 per cent. of the adult males and 4 per cent. of the adult females. This is on the present property franchise. The new proposals do not alter in principle the existing franchise in Burma, which will be found set out in the report of the Joint Select Committee, on pages 266–7. So I need not go into great details, because they are explained there. Let me sum up the effects and tell the Committee that all that this new Schedule does is to correct the defects. Then I shall give, I think, a proper picture of the contents of the Schedule. The proposal in the new Schedule is to alter the rate of capitation tax, the usual minimum of which will be in the neighbourhood of 2½ rupees per annum. This will let in about 90,000 men. Unfortunately the old Burma proposals left out large numbers of married men and bachelors. This new franchise makes up for that deficit and includes this number of men. All men who reach the age of 60 and cease to be assessed through this tax will continue on the electoral roll if they reach the qualification before that day. Besides this main eradication of defects in the present system, there is an adaptation of the property qualification
    1846
    rules in urban areas. This will bring about 19,000 on the roll and will correct the disparity between urban and rural enfranchisement. Therefore, it will be seen that we have corrected a defect which was unfair to certain sections of the male population and readjusted the ratio of urban and rural enfranchisement.
    With regard to women, a relaxation of the property test in urban areas will bring in a certain number, which is rather indeterminate. But, besides this, there is a new literacy test. Any woman of 21 who has attained Standard IV or who can say that she can read or write, will be enfranchised. This alone will enfranchise about 600,000 women, bringing up the total from over 100,000 to 700,000 in the future. These are the main points in the Schedule.
    I will conclude by giving the general effects. The general effects are that about 23¼ per cent. of the total population in the areas which will be made into constituencies will be enfranchised, that is areas other than the excluded areas. There will be 3,000,000 adults in a population of 12,000,000, made up of just over 2,300,000 men and 700,000 women. The male electors are about 70 per cent. of the adult male population, and the women are about 21 per cent. of the adult female population, and the ratio of women to men electors will stand as one to about 3.3. That is the effect of the new Schedule. When I moved the Second Reading of the India Schedule I made the point that the franchise is a matter of justice and a measure of political power. We believe that the same considerations will apply to the case of Burma as to that of India. Most of the problems are the same in each case hope, therefore, that we may without undue delay come to a decision on this proposal.
    Mr. DAVIDSON: I beg to move, in line 49, after "forces," to insert:
    "or if he is a retired pensioned or die-charged officer or member of the Burman police."
    Amendment agreed to.
    10.45 p.m.
    Miss RATHBONE: I beg to move, in line 138, at the end, to insert:
    "or if her husband possesses a qualification entitling him to be included on the electoral roll."

    1847
    I think the women of Burma have been rather harshly dealt with because, when they repudiated the reservation of seats, the Government withdrew that proposal but did not extend to Burmese women under the Bill the wives' qualification for which they asked. Broadly speaking, the result of the scheme in the Schedule is to enfranchise women in the proportion of one to three and a half as compared with men. In India the proportion is supposed to be one to five but it will probably be less as the result of the application condition. In India, however, the women are, at least, sure of a certain number of seats in all the lower Houses in the Provinces and in both Houses at the Centre. In Burma the women will have no seats reserved. We have constantly heard it said that the women of Burma are in many ways advanced, that they take a very active part in the business of the country, that a large proportion of them are literate and that they are on the whole very well up to the standard of the men as regards these matters. It semes, harsh, therefore, that they should be given such a small proportion of votes in comparison with the men.
    The representative of the Burmese women before the Joint Select Committee, while repudiating the reservation of seats asked that Burmese women should be enfranchised on their husbands' qualifications. I understand that in Burma husband and wife look upon the family estate as their joint property and Burmese women feel that it is only fair that they, like the Indian women, should be enfranchised on their husbands' property. The reply given in the report of the Joint Select Committee is that it would greatly extend the women's vote and would mean an addition of 40 per cent. to the electorate. But why should we assume that whatever franchise is thought right should be given to the men and that women should have to take the leavings? If there is to be any cutting down to meet administrative—difficulties why should it always be at the expense of the women? I ask the Under-Secretary at least to reconsider this matter before the Report stage. There is not that tragic background to the position of women in Burma which exists in India. Nevertheless we feel that before passing over
    1848
    control in Burma, to other hands, the position of Burmese women ought to be more adequately safeguarded than it is in the Schedule, and the simplest way of doing that would be to accept the Amendment.
    10.49 p.m.
    Mr. COCKS: The fact that, there is a strong case for this Amendment was recognised by many members of the Joint Select Committee not belonging to our party. It has been said that the women in Burma are in an exceptional position. When one witness before the Joint Select Committee said that in Burma women did all the work a Noble Lord remarked that it seemed to be an ideal country in which to live. It was also stated that men and women there owned property in common and were regarded as equal partners in all the affairs of life, including political affairs. Furthermore, there are no difficulties in Burma as in India. There is no purdah in Burma. There is no question of searching out a lot of illiterate people and explaining to them how to vote, because the educational standard is very high. There are no social customs, as in the Punjab, to prevent women going to the poll. Indeed, if women get the vote in Burma they will go to the poll and take their husbands with them. Their husbands have not recorded the vote in an exceptional way in the past. In the general election in Burma only 16 per cent. took the trouble to vote. Even at the important election to decide whether they were to be united with India or not, only 38 per cent. voted.
    Why should this right to the franchise which the Indian women have got be withheld from the Burmese women? It is for no other reason but the fact that the present Burmese Government stated there would be administrative difficulties. What are the difficulties? I think we ought to go into that matter. Here is a question of justice, and if justice is to be withheld from the women of Burma because of administrative difficulties, we ought to be sure that these difficulties are insuperable. Many of them are put up by people in office and administrative difficulties can often be overcome by a little effort. What is the difficulty? You have to print a little longer register, and put the wives' names after those of the husbands. You must have 1,300,000

    1849
    extra ballot, papers, and provide more polling clerks. That, as the Under-Secretary knows very well, is a difficulty that can be avoided by having the election on two days instead of one.
    Seeing that the Under-Secretary said just now that only 21 per cent. of these admirable women are to be enfranchised, and he says it is a question of justice on which this franchise should be based, it is wrong that injustice should be done to these women because of these difficulties. It is not only our party who say that. On the Joint Select Committee we had the support not only of his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, but of sound Conservatives like Lord Hardinge of Penshurst, and the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) and of sound Liberals, I imagine, like Lord Hutchison. Under the Schedule the male electorate is to be increased from 2,000,000 to 2,300,000, and the women from 124,000 to 700,000. We propose in the amendment to keep the males at 2,300,000 and bring the women up to 2,000,000, which in view of the situation women have held in Burma from immemorial times is the only just figure to arrive at.
    10.54 p.m.
    Mr. DAVIDSON: I regret to tell the hon. Lady that the Government are not able to accept her Amendment for the reasons which have been hinted at by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks). In looking at this franchise question it is well to remember that we have got to walk before we can run. When the Government have stated, as they have on several occasions—almost too often for the pleasure of hon. Members opposite—that there are administrative difficulties, it must be remembered that India is completely different from this country, that the political development there is not at the stage that we have reached, and that the whole of the burden of preparing the rolls and obtaining the information on which the electoral rolls are based, has to be under
    taken by the Government machine. That applies, also, to the conduct of the election. The dislocation which would result in trying to pass through the polling booths a larger number of people than could be coped with would be very unfortunate at the very outset of working the Constitution, and if there was a breakdown in the conditions under which an election was carried through, it would be almost fatal to the working of the Constitution. If the hon. Lady had her way, it would mean, on her own figures, that 70 per cent. of the adult population of Burma would be enfranchised, and the task of the officials would be quite insuperable. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) suggested some word like "injustice" in connection with the action which the Government propose to take in the enfranchisement of the women of Burma. I do not think that the enfranchisement of one woman to 3.5 men can be called an injustice. It is not a bad proportion to start with in Burma. I very much regret that, for the reasons I have given, we are unable to accept the Amendment.
    10.57 p.m.
    Earl WINTERTON: I understand that the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) mentioned my name just now, when I was out of the Chamber, and lest I should be charged in Burma with inconsistency, I would like to say that, while it is true that I supported the hon. Member and, I think, the Archbishop of Canterbury in a demand that greater facilities should he given to Burmese women, owing to the fact that they were more advanced and possibly more suitable to vote than the women of India, I was convinced by the arguments then used, as I have been by those used by my right hon. Friend a moment ago, that it is not practically possible to do so at present.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 36; Noes, 204.

    Division No. 193.]

    AYES

    [10.58 p.m.

    Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

    Edwards, Charles

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Gardner, Benjamin Walter

    Leonard, William

    Banfield, John William

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Logan, David Gilbert

    Batey, Joseph

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Lunn, William

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

    Grenfell, David Reel (Glamorgan)

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Cleary, J. J.

    Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Biding)

    McEntee, Valentine L.

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Horsbrugh, Florence

    Mainwaring, William Henry

    Daggar, George

    Jenkins, Sir William

    Milner, Major James

    Parkinson, John Allen

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

    Smith, Tom (Normanton)

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)

    Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

    Mr. John and Paling.

    NOES

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut. Colonel

    Graves, Marjorie

    Owen, Major Goronwy

    Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

    Greene, William P. C.

    Palmer, Francis Noel

    Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Patrick, Colin M.

    Albery, Irving James

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.

    Perkins, Walter R. D.

    Apsley, Lord

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Petherick, M.

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Guy, J. C. Morrison

    Pickering, Ernest H.

    Assheton, Ralph

    Hanbury, Cecil

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Bailey, Eric Alfred George

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Procter, Major Henry Adam

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Harbord, Arthur

    Radford, E. A.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Harris, Sir Percy

    Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

    Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

    Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

    Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

    Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey

    Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)

    Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M (Midlothian)

    Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

    Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

    Ramsay, T. S. W. (Western Isles)

    Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)

    Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

    Ramsden, Sir Eugene

    Beit, Sir Alfred L.

    Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)

    Rankin, Robert

    Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)

    Holdsworth, Herbert

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Blindell, James

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

    Bossom, A. C.

    Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)

    Reid, William Allan (Derby)

    Boulton, W. W.

    Hume, Sir George Hopwood

    Remer, John R.

    Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

    Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

    Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

    Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Ropner, Colonel L.

    Brass, Captain Sir William

    Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

    Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

    Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

    James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

    Rothschild, James A. de

    Broadbent, Colonel John

    Janner, Barnett

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Jennings, Roland

    Runge, Norah Cecil

    Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Jesson, Major Thomas E.

    Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)

    Burnett, John George

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Salmon, Sir Isidore

    Butler, Richard Austen

    Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

    Salt, Edward W.

    Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

    Kimball, Lawrence

    Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).

    Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

    Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

    Selley, Harry R.

    Caporn, Arthur Cecil

    Law, Sir Alfred

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Carver, Major William H.

    Leech, Dr. J. W.

    Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

    Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

    Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-in-Spring)

    Liddall, Walter S.

    Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Little, Graham, Sir Ernest

    Smith, Sir J. Walker-(Barrow-in-F.)

    Clayton, Sir Christopher

    Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

    Somervell, Sir Donald

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Loftus, Pierce C.

    Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

    Soper, Richard

    Conant, R. J. E.

    Mabane, William

    Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

    Cook, Thomas A.

    MacAndrew, Lt. -Col. C. G. (Partick)

    Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

    Cooper, T. M. (Edinburgh, W.)

    MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

    Spencer, Captain Richard A.

    Copeland, Ida

    McCorquodale, M. S.

    Spens, William Patrick

    Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

    Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)

    Stevenson, James

    Cranborne, Viscount

    McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

    Stones, James

    Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

    McKeag, William

    Storey, Samuel

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.

    McLean, Major Sir Alan

    Stourton, Hon. John J.

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

    Strickland, Captain W. F.

    Dickle, John P.

    Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

    Doran, Edward

    Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

    Drewe, Cedric

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

    Duggan, Hubert John

    Manningham-Buller, Lt. -Col. Sir M.

    Thompson, Sir Luke

    Eastwood, John Francis

    Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

    Todd, Lt. -Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

    Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

    Marsden, Commander Arthur

    Turton, Robert Hugh

    Elliston, Captain George Sampson

    Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

    Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

    Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

    Mellor, Sir J. S. P.

    Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline)

    Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)

    Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

    Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

    Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

    Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

    Milne, Charles

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tl'd & Chisw'k)

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Fremantle, Sir Francis

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

    Wills, Wilfrid D.

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

    Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

    Gillett, Sir George Masterman

    Moreing, Adrian C.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Gluckstein, Louis Halle

    Morgan, Robert H.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Goff, Sir Park

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Worthington, Dr. John V.

    Goldie, Noel B.

    Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)

    Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

    O'Donovan, Dr. William James

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'd, N.)

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

    Sir George Penny and Sir Walter

    Womersley.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House."
    Mr. MORGAN JONES rose—
    The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member is proposing to speak on this Motion, I should like to say that it is a matter which I have had occasion to go into very carefully lately. It is quite true that technically this is a question which is debatable, but, as a matter of order and custom, we have come to the conclusion that it is not advisable in the House to follow a practice which, believe, sometimes obtains in Standing Committee. The point is that we have been unable at present to think of anything which would be relevant on this question. If the hon. Member can get over that, of course I cannot stop him from speaking.
    11.7 p.m.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: As a matter of fact I was not proposing to discuss the Bill in any way whatever, but to ask permission to make a reference which I think will be in accord with the desires of the whole Committee, and that is to express our great appreciation—speaking on behalf of all of us who have participated in the discussions on this Bill—to the Government representatives for their very courteous and unfailing assistance during these very prolonged discussions. As everyone will appreciate, it has been by no means a simple problem to unravel, and we have, I most cordially acknowledge, been assisted with unfailing courtesy by those who have represented the Government on this Bill. I would say also how very sorry we all are that we have been deprived of late of the assistance of the Secretary of State for India, and I can only express the hope that when we reach the next stage of the procedure he will be with us in person. I am sure the older hands will not begrudge a special reference, if I may single out one individual in this team, to the Under-Secretary. I can assure him that however much we have differed from him in the arguments he has adduced in the course of our discussions we have never on any single occasion observed any failure on his part to try to appreciate our point of view and to meet our arguments as best he could. The Under-Secretary is entitled to and I am sure will receive our unfeigned thanks for the most excellent and efficient way in which he has conducted
    1854
    this Bill in the Committee in the absence of his chief. It was a singularly difficult task to undertake. He is much younger than I am, alas, and this is his first Ministerial experience I believe. I can only say to him that he has proved to us that we may anticipate from him more excellent service in the years to come.
    11.10 p.m.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I was not aware that a tribute of this kind was to be paid—but as some of us have opposed this Bill and are still opposing it and the policy it represents, from another point of view I should desire to associate myself with much of what has fallen from the hon. Gentleman who has spoken for the official Opposition. Certainly, the Under-Secretary has shown an example of knowledge, industry and good will in dealing with the House of Commons in all the difficulties of this Bill; and certainly he deserves the congratulations bestowed upon him by the Opposition spokesmen, which have been so cordially endorsed by the Committee. The Committee also owes you, Sir, congratulation because of the way in which this experiment, which seemed in many ways quite an adventurous experiment in Parliamentary procedure, has brought us so punctually and so successfully to the end of this stage of the discussion of this great Measure. Our differences on it remain completely unaltered, but our differences have not been complicated or exacerbated in any way by the procedure adopted to enable us to exchange our opinions and try to convince each of our differing points of view. It seems to me that what has occurred in these thirty days may well form a model which will alter and shape the procedure of Parliament and which will lead Parliament back to the old flexible procedure of the House of Commons, where every facility was given to fiercest interchange of conflicting views while the Government at the same time received the necessary votes and were able to transact routine business in such a way as to enable Parliament to discharge its affairs within the ordinary limits of the Session. I think we may feel that an event has occurred which will restore to some extent that old Parliamentary procedure and that future Parliaments—not only future Sessions—will first of all endeavour to see if an arrangement can be made on an agreed

    1855
    time-table within the limits of which very wide latitude of expression and debate will be permitted.
    11.13 p.m.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: We are all very glad that we are at the end of the thirty days, and especially those of us who have been occupied on the subject for an even longer time. No one will appreciate our coming to the end of the journey more than the Under-Secretary. It is a matter of great regret to us that the Secretary of State has been kept away by illness, and the good wishes of the House will go out to him for his early and full recovery. I only want to say that I want to associate myself most sincerely with what has been said by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) and to congratulate, in particular, the Under-Secretary for the most distinguished way in which he has discharged unexpected and very heavy burdens.
    The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I should say before I put the Question again that I am afraid I have been guilty of not keeping the Committee in order. The Debate has been out of order. I only
    1856
    say that, because, as I said to start with, I think it would be most undesirable that Committees on the Floor of the House should adopt the practice of making this Question one that can be discussed or debated in any way. But this has been a very exceptional Bill, and it is only by reason of the exceptional nature of this Bill that I can claim the indulgence of the Members of the Committee for having allowed this irrelevant discussion.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
    Schedules, as amended, to be printed. [Bill 60—(ii).]
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

    ADJOURNMENT.
    Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
    Adjourned accordingly at Sixteen Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.