HC Deb 15 June 1922 vol 155 cc686-702

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question, That a sum, not exceeding £75,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for a Contribution towards the Cost of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for India in Council, including a Grant-in-Aid.

Question again proposed.


It is a little difficult to bring one's mind back to the affairs of the Indian Empire when such thrilling subjects as municipal tramcars have been discussed for the last two hours. But resuming the enquiry on which I was engaged when the hour of 8.15 arrived, I must continue my endeavour to get a pledge from the Noble Lord as to what precisely was meant by his statement as to the "continuity of policy" which, as I understood, was about to rule at the India Office. That policy, in the days of his predecessor, involved placating every seditionist who came to London, even persons with somewhat doubtful reputations, even persons whose record in India was thoroughly disloyal. I trust that that particular form of placation may not form part of the policy which those now at the India Office will take in hand. But I was wishing to get an answer on certain other things that "continuity of policy" covered. There is the experiment which we may now speak of because it is ended, a thing which, for reasons of State and reasons of personal esteem, one could not mention before, that is to say, this policy of Royal Visits to India in time of trouble. It seemed to me that the most prominent feature in the late conduct of the India Office was this endeavour to tide over a difficult crisis in India, caused by those in charge of the Government of India, by sending two of our loved and respected Princes to India for an experiment. I do not think the experiments justified themselves for this reason. It is not only disloyal, it is wicked to risk the Princes of the Royal House in a country where sedition is rampant. Fortunately, both of them have returned and left that scene of trouble to which they were taken. But what humiliations were they put to while they were there? Does anyone remember the state of the country when the new Parliaments were opened and the horrid slurs that were put on a senior Prince of the Royal Blood sent to inaugurate them. But it stirs up worse indignation to think of what happened in the last six months when the most loved of Princes was sent round India. I do not know whether it was the wish of the India Office or of the Viceroy, but anyhow it was a most unjustifiable and wicked thing that you should send the Heir to the English Throne to land in scenes of blood at Bombay, while Europeans and Parsees were murdered in the back streets: and to witness similar things in Madras where, while his great reception was going on in one place, murders were going on at another: or to be taken through a large town like Allahabad with the whole place in mourning and streets deliberately kept empty. Is that to be the policy of the Government in future? Are we to send our Princes to be insulted for a doubtful end? Thank God! the Prince is back again, but I do not think that is any reason for justifying those who sent him to India. I do not know whether it is in London or at Simla that the originator of that unwise visit may be found, but wherever it is, let it be remembered against the unhappy man who tried to cover his own weakness or his own faults with the glamour of reverence that is paid to worthy Royalty. I trust we may have no more of that policy. I do not wish to see any member of the Royal Family sent out to India to be insulted by non-cooperationists.

The next point I have to touch upon is one in which, from what I gathered, the Noble Lord is rather to be preferred to his predecessor. His predecessor, whenever anything was talked of in regard to the Government of India, used to produce most unconvincing, and what I am afraid the House considered insincere, protestations that all that happened in India was the result of the doings of the Indian Government, and he had no responsibility for it. It was far from him to judge of what went on at Simla and other places! From the language of the Noble Lord, I understand he is rather inclined to acknowledge that he has something to do with the Government of India, and that he will not take refuge, as his predecessor did, behind such protestations. I therefore have to ask what are his views on future policy in India? There are two policies in India. One was carried out with extraordinary thoroughness by the Noble Lord's predecessor. It consisted in placating sedition, in "allowing things to ripen," in not being too hard, in "remembering that these masses of people were a very pathetic sight," so pathetic in their simple immovability that it was necessary to stir them up, as he so happily said in one of his earlier speeches. I trust he is satisfied with that "stirring up," and all the blood that stirring up has caused from Amritsar downwards. There are two policies. One is the policy of placating—the policy of sending for Mr. Gandhi to Simla and making him interview the Viceroy after he has been calling the Viceroy's Government Satanic and other charming epithets. That was the policy that ruled a little while ago. But I rather judge that it is no longer in continuous operation, because Mr. Gandhi is in prison now, as are a good many other people, though not so many as the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) stated. There are two policies—the policy of repression when crime breaks out, and the policy of endeavouring to placate, and to find out vain and abject methods of conciliation, which, unfortunately, does not act with some nationalities. It has been tried in Ireland, and the result there has been seen. Those who shake hands with persons taken in armed rebellion, and those who give tea to persons whom they have formally denounced as the head of a conspiracy of murder are on one side: but there is another side. There is a policy of repression. It seems to have been tried a little lately, and seems to a certain extent to have succeeded. These two policies cannot be one. The policy of repression and the policy of placation are not one logical, consistent whole.

I should like to know whether the Noble Lord intends to placate or to suppress sedition. I do not in the least doubt that there will be considerable difficulties. I do not think that be has a very easy task before him, not because of the strange rhetoric of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, who seemed to rejoice so much in his acquaintance with convicted seditionists, and seemed to be rather proud that his friends were Mostly in prison, but because persons to whose opinion I attach great importance forsee trouble coming. I refer to the circular sent to the Secretary of State for India by the Central Association of European Government Servants, with regard to the future of Indian politics. I should like to read from that circular: The first General Elections under the Government of India Act were abnormal, in so far as the Extremist party deliberately stood aside. The Councils are composed almost Exclusively of members of the moderate party, whose programme is the realisation of Dominion self-government through co-operation with the Secretary of State and his officers. It now seems clear that the Extremist party will not continue to boycott the Councils and, with the aid of their superior political organisation and greater activity, it is almost certain that they will secure very large majorities on the legislative bodies, as they have recently done on the local bodies. The policy now publicly expressed by that party is the elimination of all foreign elements by means of organised obstruction in the Councils. The European officer can expect no sympathy, consideration or help from such a body, only sustained criticism, obstruction and invective, the deprivation of every right, exposed to attack, and determined resistance to every amelioration of his lot. That is very much what the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme said. He said that in the next Parliaments in India the Extremists will come in and, bad as the lot of the European administrative officer is at the present time, it will be far worse when deliberate obstruction, abuse and lying are used in every way to belittle him, to hinder his work, and to make his position impossible. I do not think that is a very happy prospect, and the fact that this circular has been issued by a body of people who know what they are talking about rather frightens me. What are the lies of the Extremists like? I know well myself. I will give one example which may amuse the House. A friend of mine, an Indian official, going round a district, found the villages all deserted. The people had taken to the jungle. He asked an old peasant to explain the reason his neighbours had fled. He said that the reason was that the survey for the railway which was being taken along the edge of the forest was going on, and that they knew that there had to be a baby sacrificed for every culvert, and that a man had to be sacrificed for every stone bridge: and as the survey had already begun, the villagers had fled, as they assumed that the official in question would probably be the person sent to kidnap the human sacrifices. This was told to me in a quiet Surrey garden last summer by the person to whom it happened.

This is the sort of lying propaganda with which friends of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme are wont to raise those riots which not infrequently break out in India. I do not know whether the policy of the Noble Lord is the policy of his predecessor, or whether, as I hope, it is not. I shall end with the simple remark that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, whom I still see flitting around, said that in the end the thing that would please Englishmen most would be that, while they found India chaotic when they went there, they might leave it in a condition of extreme peace, order and prosperity. To me the one thing absolutely certain is that if the English go from India they will leave it in ten thousand times a worse state of chaos than that in which they found it. Everybody knows that even with British rule existing there are still religious riots. You have the wholesale slaughter of Mahommedan villagers by Hindus in one place, and the slaughter of Sikh by Sikh to the number of three hundred in another place. This has taken place within the last two years. What it will be at that unhappy moment when the British withdraw entirely I do not know. But anything more contrary to the teachings of history than that our departure from India would bring peace and prosperity and a lively consciousness of nationality and a well established civilised Government, it is impossible to conceive.


Having spent the greater part of my life in India and among her peoples, I should not like to lose the opportunity of taking a part, even though a minor one, in this Debate on Indian affairs. I say frankly that I am a reformer, and a great believer in the scheme of Indian reforms. In developing these reforms, however, we must remember in fairness to the Indian people, as well as to ourselves, that it took us several centuries to arrive at our present-day institutions, and it is necessary, therefore, that we should proceed most cautiously with them. Particularly do I call attention to this, that at all times you must administer law and order throughout the Indian Empire and that reforms and firmness must run together side by side. Too much firmness without reforms would be wrong, and reforms without firmness would be equally wrong. We have had suggestions made to-day that political prisoners should be released. But in view of what I have just stated, such a thing should not take place, and that it would be a terrible mistake, I am convinced of. What would become of law and order in this country if we acted in that way? How much more so in a country like India, not accustomed to these institutions? Gandhi, the Ali brothers and other political prisoners have only themselves to blame for the predicament in which they find themselves to-day. As they were tried in the ordinary courts of law and by no special commissions or special tribunals, they should be left to serve out their sentences. Some unfair criticisms of the Government have been made to-night. I need instance only one. One hon. Member referred to exchanges, and said the Indian exchange had gone up because the Government had not interfered with it. We all know that the reason for the advance of the exchange is that the balance of trade has again turned in favour of India, and she has once more become a creditor nation. It is not because of Government interference or non-interference.

As to Indian fiscal policy, after having been for 29 years in business in Calcutta, I would say that India's mind is strongly Protectionist. Whether we like it or not, we have to face the fact that India, particularly on the Western side, is strongly Protectionist. It may be a most unpalatable truth and against the best interests of this country, but we have to face the fact that the more we proceed with reforms and the more India develops on the lines of self-government, the more Protectionist country she will become. I predict that in the near future she will become the most strongly Protectionist country in the world. I am speaking from a continuous business experience which has brought me into contact with many business men all over the country. I must add a word or two on the question of the expansion of railways. There is no question that you cannot do a greater service to India than by helping on the development of her railways. I remember being stationed in 1901 in Northern Bengal. At that time we had a great difficulty with wagons. I was in charge of a jute business, and for days and days we had to shut down because we could not get wagons to clear our warehouses. Twenty-one years afterwards, that is a few months ago, I went back to India, and was told of exactly the same difficulty. Whether it was a coal mine or a jute mill or a jute bale press, there was the same difficulty with wagons. All over the country development is being retarded for want of transport. It is not so much a question of laying down or extending lines of railways as a question of rolling stock, sidings, and things of that sort.

I hope that this House will at all times give all the support it can to the development of Indian railways, for I am convinced that it cannot serve India better than by doing so. I hope some day to take a further and perhaps a fuller part in these Debates, but this being the first time I have spoken in the House, I will conclude by saying that, having been a witness of all that has taken place during the past vital 29 years, I look forward with confidence to a great future for the Indian Empire as part of the British Empire, with the King Emperor at its head. I picture India in the course of the next few years as a great self-governing Dominion of the British Empire.


The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken made a most valuable contribution to the Debate in his maiden speech. He spoke from the standpoint of one who knows India well, and I hope no other hon. Member who spoke will regard it as any reflection upon himself if I say that as the representative of the India Office in this House, I welcome very much here the presence of one who has had the wide experience of India of the hon. Gentleman—an experience of 29 years. I think, owing to the small number of those in the House who have spent their lives in India, hon. Members are inclined to put themselves in the position of thinking that they represent the Indian point of view. The speech we have just heard proves, if, indeed, proof were needed, that there is a wide divergency of opinion among those who have spent their lives in India as to the policy being pursued, and I think it will be a great mistake to assume that one point of view, because the hon. Member who puts it forward happens to have spent his life in India, is less likely to be right than the point of view of another hon. Member who has also spent his life in India. I therefore welcome the hon. Gentleman to the House.

Before going on to more important matters, I should like to refer to one or two comparatively small points. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Melton (Sir C. Yate), whose contributions to our Debates I always welcome, although I do not always agree with them, made reference to the difficulty experienced by some friend of his in India in obtaining a licence for firearms. I think he said he wished me to inquire into it. If were to inquire into the specific incident I should have to be supplied by him with the facts. On the general question of the law as it stands, I will inform him—as is doubtless generally known—that Europeans now in India, like all His Majesty's subjects, have to take out a pistol licence and pay a small fee before they can carry firearms. Everyone is in the same position in that respect, but the details of the granting of the licences are in the hands of the local Government, and it is impossible here to judge of the justice or injustice of the particular case to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred.

The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Waddington) made a very interesting speech on the subject of the development of the irrigation system in India. He said there was a lack of co-operation as between the local Government, the Government of India, and the home Government, and he gave one instance in particular, that being the case of the Sukkur Barrage. Of course, the position with regard to irrigation is, that the full extent to which money can be supplied for public purposes in India is limited at the present time, as in every other country, and the question is where the money available for the Government of India to spend on public works can best be spent. I have no doubt it can best be spent at the present time, as the hon. Member in another part of his speech more or less admitted, on the development of the railway system. It is a supreme and urgent question in connection with the development of India at the present time. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken drew attention to one aspect of that when he referred to the difficulty of obtaining railway wagons. With regard to this particular barrage, I think the matter was one for the local Government. The hon. Member for Rossendale also mentioned the question of cotton. As the question of cotton imports has not been raised to-night except, I think by him, I do not propose to deal with it.


We did not get an opportunity.


I am not responsible for the fact that hon. Members who got up to speak did not raise it. I hope there will be some other opportunity. I should welcome it, as I informed my hon. Friend, who was, I think, a member of the deputation to the India Office, but I do not think it would serve to-night any useful purpose to go into any general discussion. There has been no change in the position regarding the duty for the last 15 months, so far as Lancashire is concerned, except slightly for the better, because, as I pointed out at the time to the deputation, the increase under the recent Budget of the duties under other heads unaccompanied by any increase in the cotton import duty has left the position, so far as Lancashire is concerned, in a relatively better position than it had previously occupied.


I understand that there is a duty on yarns.


I cannot speak offhand on that point, as regards this particular Budget, but my impression is that that duty was not imposed in this particular Budget under review this year. My right hon. Friend at my side (Mr. Chamberlain), whose knowledge of the subject is greater than mine, assures me that I am quite right. The reason why I hesitated is that I thought the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Greenwood) would not have made the statement he did make unless he had some good ground for it. I think the duty was imposed in a previous Budget.


There has been no duty suggested on yarn until this Budget.


There is no duty on foreign yarns this year?


Yarn was entirely free in India until this year.


However that may be, the position is that the Budget for this year, for good or for evil, has been passed. On the main question, I am quite ready on a future opportunity to enter into a detailed discussion with hon. Members, although it would be necessary for me to warn them, standing at this Box, as they have been warned already by the Lord Privy Seal and others in past years, that this is a question of the greatest difficulty and delicacy, and that while my right hon. Friend would be as ready as any previous Secretary of State to give the most respectful consideration to any representations made by the great Lancashire cotton interest, the day has gone by when that interest can suppose that its interests in India must be considered as paramount. That is all I have to say on that to-night, and I am certain that in this matter I have the sympathy of the great majority of the Committee and of the House, irrespective of party, and I am equally certain, although I do not suggest that they have done it, that if they pressed their case to extremes those Members who represent Lancashire would not have the sympathy of the Committee or of the House.

I turn from that to the very important series of questions that have been raised by various speakers on the subject of the position of the civil servants. My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir T. Bennett) said he hoped it would be possible to modify the declaration which those who wished to retire on a propor- tionate pension scheme are at present required to make. I myself hope it will be possible to modify the declaration in such a way as to remove any reason whatever for exception to its terms. That is my hope. In the same connection, I think perhaps in my speech in introducing the Estimates this afternoon I gave a wrong impression as to the alteration of the date by which the option of retirement of civil servants was to be exercised. I gave the impression that that date had been altered during the Secretaryship of the present Secretary of State. As a matter of fact, although the final decision was taken by my Noble Friend, it is only fair to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge County (Mr. Montagu) to explain that the proposal on this point, and other proposed alterations and conditions which will be announced shortly, had been initialled by his predecessor, and to the best of my recollection my Noble Friend himself made this clear in another place in answer to a question.

The hon. Baronet the Member for Twickenham raised a question of some delicacy, and, I admit, of great importance, which, if he will allow me to say so, he dealt with in a very tactful way, namely, the question of the provision of European doctors for attendance upon European patients, with special reference to women and children. I am afraid I cannot hold out great hopes that it will be possible to increase greatly the actual number of English doctors, but it may be possible, by some arrangement, to make those who are available more available for those who want them, particularly in the scattered districts. I am fully cognisant of the difficulties of the situation, and I know that my Noble Friend has it under consideration. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks complained, as I understood him, that those who retired from the Service before the year 1913 got no increase in their pensions.


My references to that matter related, not to the Indian Civil Service, but to a number of other Departments—Police, Public Works, and so on. I objected to the time bar by a rule which prevented those who retired before 1913 getting the increase of pension, but not to the Indian civilian.


While that is so, I believe that the British civil servants are in the same position, except those who are on a very low basis of salary. That, however, is outside the scope of this Debate. The cases are analogous in that everyone, I think, realises the hardship that is done to all civil servants, Indian and British, who retired before a certain date. We all wish that it were possible to alleviate that hardship, which I think is inevitable, and is due to the great increase in the cost of living, which could not be foreseen in the past. As other Ministers have pointed out, it would be impossible really to deal with that situation without imposing a far greater charge upon the country than it can stand.


Will the Noble Lord forgive me if I say my question had nothing whatever to do with the increase in the cost of living? It was a pre-War claim, and before the War it was decided in favour of the pensioners.


I understood the hon. Gentleman to make the point that those who retire from certain services before a certain date do not get any increase of pensions, and my answer to him is that British pensioners are in the same position in analogous circumstances. It is too big a subject to go into here. I only repeat, it is a regrettable situation, but there is no way of dealing with it without imposing such a charge on the Exchequer of both countries that they could not possibly bear it. I am sorry the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) is not; in his place while I refer to a rather amazing statement he made, which I regret he made, for with the rest of his speech I have nothing with which to quarrel. The amazing statement he, made was that there was likely to be jealousy on the part of the Civil Service because of the high pay enjoyed by the Indian and British Army officers. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not carry away so deluded an idea of the members of the Civil Service. In respect to the question of the pay of Indian officers, while it is true that the Indian Army officers have obtained slightly more improved pay than that of the civil servants, this has been done to make their pay more relative to that of the British Army officer, and even now I do not think that they can he said to be overpaid, having regard to all the circumstances. I am very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman, speaking with considerable authority, used what he must realise is a most unhappy phrase. When he said that India had been a happy playground for British officials he used a most unfortunate term, and I was surprised at it, because it bore no relevance to the nest of what he had to say, inasmuch as the right hon. Gentleman went on to pay a very high tribute to hat civil servants had done in India.

It is unfortunate the right hon. Gentleman should have said what he did, because it is just the kind of accusation made by people outside this House against civil servants in India, while the truth of the matter is that there has never been a harder worked body of men or one occupying a more honourable position than the British civil servants in India. India never has been a playground for the civil servant or any other person who has served under the Crown in India. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland referred to the increased cost of Army headquarters staff in India. It is true there has been an increase in the staff due to technical improvements and the fact that there are more technical services that have to be replaced on the staff, and other cognate matters. The Commander-in-Chief (Lord Rawlinson) has recently cut down the staff, and he is fully alive to the necessity for making further economies when and where possible.

As regards the cost of the Army generally, although there has been criticism from unexpected quarters, although I have not time now to go into it fully, I can say that it is unfair to call attention to the increase in Army expenditure in India without at the same time realising the fact that the cost of the soldier and officer per unit per man has increased all over the world or at any rate all over the British Empire. It was quite time that there should have been an increase in the cost of the Sepoy. I cannot admit that the cost of military defence at present is extravagant or is greater than needed, in view of the circumstances. The proportion of military to general expenditure must necessarily be considerable, in view of the frontier to be defended, and no system ever devised, whether favoured by hon. Members opposite or by the Government, will avoid that expenditure in view of the frontier of India and the position of India in Asia. Let us, at any rate, face facts in this matter.

As regards the question of Waziristan, incidentally referred to, I can only say that the Government of India, with the full concurrence of His Majesty's Government, decided two years ago on a certain policy of occupation in that country. They have not departed from that policy. The details of that occupation, in view of the fact that the country has never been pacified, it would be inappropriate to discuss. I am convinced, however, that the steps that are being taken to-day are such as are necessitated by the circumstances.

I was sorry my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Melton should have made himself responsible for the statement that we had so cut down the Army in India that it would be possible for the Afghans to invade India to-morrow. I object to that statement for two reasons. The first is that we are now on terms of friendship with Afghanistan, with whom we have concluded a treaty. We have our representative at Kabul, and Afghanistan has her representative here. To say the least of it, it is ungracious for my hon. and gallant Friend to say that the people of Afghanistan wish to invade India. Secondly, I object to the statement because it is quite inaccurate and bears no relation whatever to the true facts of the case. I must say that I regard it as a very seriously inaccurate statement for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to make, in view of his knowledge of India.

The only other speeches to which I wish to refer are those made by the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme and the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland. The hon. and gallant Member is very pleased with the figure, which, I think, he originally got from the right hon. Member for Camborne, of 20,000 of what he calls political offenders in gaol. I asked him to give his authority for making that statement, and his answer was that he had read the figures somewhere in a newspaper, and it was my fault that they could not be verified, as I had refused to say what a political offender was. I have refused to say what a political offender is because I have never been able to understand from the hon. and gallant Gentleman what is his definition of a political offender. His view, apparently, is that a person who goes to gaol for conscience sake is a political offender, because, in the course of his speech, he made a very rhetorical reference to those who went to gaol for conscience sake. If I were inclined to enter into a controversy, I should ask him whether breaking a policeman's head in a street not caused by an inflammatory speech constituted a man a political offender, and whether such a gentleman had gone to gaol for conscience sake, because a great many of the people who have been arrested in India have been arrested for disturbances of that kind.


If the Noble Lord had more acquaintance with the people who are put in gaol in India, he would have realised that the people to whom we refer as political offenders are put in gaol owing to the exceptional legislation that India enjoys at the present time, and under the particular Section by which anybody who is held to be causing a feeling of sedition or dissatisfaction with the Government is liable to be put in prison.


If that is the hon. and gallant Gentleman's definition of a political offender, then I must dispute his figures. I have only referred to this matter at all simply because I do not want it to go out from this House that the statement has not been contradicted that there are 20,000 people in gaol as political offenders. The whole trend of the hon. and gallant Member's speech interests me, as one who has been for some time an amateur student of psychology. What was the burden of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland's speech? After he had got up to answer my speech, what he said had no reference at all to anything I had stated. The burden of his speech was that you should let out of gaol everybody arrested for so-called political offences, and then he made every sort of allegation against the British officials in India. If hon. Members opposite think that the bringing forward of that sort of argument is ever going to assist them, if they do come to administer the affairs of this great Empire, then they are very much mistaken, because the first thing they would find, if ever they sat on these Benches, would be that they would have to eat the very words they had used. If I broke the hon. and gallant Gentleman's head he could call it a common assault, and if he were sitting on these benches as Home Secretary, I am sure he would not let me out. There is nothing that I resent more than attacks upon civil servants, whether British or Indian. If hon. Gentlemen opposite did ever make such accusations while sitting on this side of the House as they do now on the other side, I venture to say they never could carry on the machinery of government at all. There is a point at which civil servants cannot bear these accusations any further, and for this reason I deeply regret the sort of speeches made by hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for Twickenham asked how far the speech of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland had done harm. It is too late to discuss that now, because I do not think that any hon. Gentleman can do very much harm by a speech which is so deficient in humour as that made by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland. An hon. Member so deficient in humour—as revealed in the speech read by the hon. Member for Twickenham—who can go about the country garlanded with roses, cannot have a very great influence on British or Indian opinion.


I wish to reply to the statement which has been made that Lancashire people want the interests of Lancashire made paramount in India. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] At any rate those words were used in the Debate. I wish to point out that that is not the position which Lancashire takes up. All that Lancashire people want is that the old free trade policy shall be continued with India, and if that is done they will be perfectly content. We want a reversion to that state of things. The Noble Lord, I understand, has promised that a day shall be given us for a discussion of this subject, and if that is done, then we shall be quite satisfied, because we think the time has arrived when such a discussion should take place.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Forward to