§ Mr. Whiteasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any modifications are contemplated in the proposals for Federal Constitution as a result of the recent expression of views by the Chamber of Princes?
§ Lieut.-Colonel MuirheadMy Noble Friend has so far only seen the accounts of the Princes' and Ministers' Meeting at Bombay which have appeared in the Press. The proposed terms of accession to Federation which His Excellency the Viceroy communicated to the States in January were the result of prolonged and careful consideration, and no prospect was held out of any substantial variation of the terms proposed.
§ Mr. Cocksasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can make a statement as to the attitude of the Princes' Conference to the revised draft instrument of accession to the Federation; and whether any steps are being taken to effect a settlement?
§ Lieut.-Colonel MuirheadIn regard to the first part of the hon. Member's question, I would refer him to my answer to the hon. Member for Middleton (Sir N. Stewart Sandeman), and as regards the second part, to what I have just said in reply to the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) and to what I said on 8th June in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne).
Sir N. Stewart Sandemanasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will give a list of the Indian States represented at the conference of Indian Princes held in Bombay this month?
§ Lieut.-Colonel MuirheadMy Noble Friend has received no list of the Indian States represented at the conference, but he is informed that in an official communiqué from the conference it was stated to have been attended by over 50 Princes and about 50 representatives of Rulers who were unavoidably absent, as well as by about 100 other Ministers and Secretaries.