INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM.

§ The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare)

I am reminded by this Motion of a very wise observation of Dr. Johnson's, something to this effect: Make a man Prime Minister, and in 24 hours he will have lost all his friends. I would extend that observation to Secretaries of State for India, particularly when they are dealing with proposals for setting up Joint Select Committees of both Houses. I can assure the House that of all the difficult questions that have faced me during the last 18 months none has occasioned greater complexities than the proposal which I am here to make this afternoon. The communal decision to which the Government came last summer was child's play compared with the negotiations that led up to the proposals which appear on the Paper. Indeed, if I may make a further comparison, I would say that the selection committees for the Test Match or the Davis Cup had a task far easier and far more popular than that which has been imposed upon me and my colleagues.

To-day, in a very few minutes, I propose to explain to the House why we make the proposals on the Paper and the reasons which have led us to suggest a committee of this size and composition. I started innocently with the idea that much the best type of committee would be a small committee of five or six drawn from both Houses, distinguished people who were quite impartial, in fact a small committee of Aristides. My trouble there, as the Lord President of the Council has just observed to me, was that the people of that kind are very difficult to find and are often very unpopular when 2190 found. Step by step I was driven from the idea of this small committee of impartial people—I do not think anybody on Indian questions is entirely impartial—and I was driven to the conception of a bigger committee composed, first, of experts, and, secondly, of representatives of the main bodies of opinion in both Houses.

When one came to see how that conception could be carried out, inevitably one was driven from comparatively small numbers to larger numbers. Take, for instance, the number of Indian experts, men who have done great service to India and the Empire, men whose names we should all expect to find upon a Committee of this kind. There is a considerable number of them. Take again this House. It has always been difficult in chosing Members of Select Committees to balance the strength of the parties in the House of Commons. It is more than ever difficult in this House. In this House there are more groups and parties than there have ever been in any House that any of us remember. I suppose there are four or five parties in this House, and I see sitting over there my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) who is a party in himself, a kind of Athanasius contra mundum. When I come to my own party, I should be blinding myself to the very obvious facts if I said that the party was completely united upon Indian questions, and if I did not admit that there were definitely three groups, all of which ought to be represented on such a Committee as we are now proposing.

Let us remember that the Committee which we suggest is a Select Committee of both Houses. That means that we have to take both Houses as we find them. We have to take the representation that we actually see around us in this Chamber. We cannot go into abstruse and controversial questions as to what exactly is the balance of opinion in the country. No Select Committee has ever been formed on those lines. A Select Committee is formed on the basis of the representation of the parties and groups as they are actually found in the House of Commons. I have here an analysis of the membership of this House. I find that of the 615 Members who compose it 80.65 per cent, are Conservative, National' Labour and Independent—468 being Con- 2191 servatives—while 11.06 per cent, are Liberal—there are 68 Liberal Members —and 8.29 per cent. are Labour, representing 51 Members of the Labour Opposition. If you took the mathematical calculation as the exclusive test for a Committee of this kind, it would mean that in a Committee of from 15 to 17 Members—the actual number that we are proposing from the House of Commons is 16—but in the case of a committee of 15 the membership would be 12 Conservative, two Liberal, and one Labour. If it were a Committee of 17 the membership would be 13 Conservative, one Independent, two Liberal, one Labour. But the inquiries which I have made go to show that in actual practice, in the setting up of these Select Committees a "weightage"—an expression which is very common in Indian controversies about the communal question—is always given to minority parties. The result is, that the House to-day will find that we are proposing in the list of names which we have put before the House to give weightage, apart from their mathematical balance, first of all, to the Labour Opposition and, secondly, to the Liberal party.

I come now to the more difficult question of the representation of the Conservative party. I think I shall be right in describing the Conservative party as divided into three groups. First of all, there is the group that one may describe generally as in favour of the White Paper policy; secondly, there is the group definitely opposed to that policy; and, thirdly, there is the group, in undefined numbers, of my hon. Friends who have not made up their minds, or at any rate have not expressed them yet, as either in favour of or opposed to the Government proposals. We have taken into account all those three groups, and we have tried to see that they should be adequately represented on the committee as a whole. Let me say in passing, although it would obviously be out of order for me to make more than a passing allusion to the proposals for the House of Lords representation, that every hon. Member must take the proposals as a whole and must treat the committee as a single unit, and when he is considering what representation has been given to any group in this House, he must also take into account the representation that 2192 it is proposed to give to that group in another place.

Let me begin with the group of Conservatives who are definitely opposed, at any rate at present, to the Government proposals. On two occasions during this Parliament they have had the opportunity of declaring their views in the Division Lobby. In December, 1931, they voted against the Government after the discussion upon the White Paper that emerged from the Round Table Conference, and 43 of them went into the Division Lobby.

§ Mr. G. BALFOUR

How many abstained?

§ Sir S. HOARE

I do not know. In February of this year, when my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) moved a Resolution upon the Government of India, there again the issue was joined in the Division Lobby, and upon that occasion 42, of whom I think 41 were Conservatives, went into the Lobby against the Government.

§ Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT

Does my right hon. Friend suggest that those who went into the Lobby against my Motion were voting for the White Paper?

§ Sir S. HOARE

No, but I am coming to that. I think the House must take the evidence as we find it, namely, that upon the two occasions when the issue has been joined between the Government and one section of the Conservative party, upon one occasion 43 Members went into the Lobby against the Government and upon the second occasion 42. Then I come to the group—it may be a large group—of my hon. Friends who have either not made up their minds or at any rate have not yet declared their minds. We have taken their point of view very fully into account, and as I shall show in a moment, they have, taking both Houses together, able and adequate representatives to make known their point of view.

I was unfortunate in not being able to persuade all my hon. Friends whom we should have desired to see on this Committee to join the Committee. One or two of them refused to join because they disapproved either of the representation suggested on the Committee or of the 2193 whole basis. For instance, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) felt it his duty to refuse, and I was very sorry that he did. I should have welcomed his presence on the Committee. I believe, if I may say so, that his views would have carried much more weight if he had been there to express them. I am always doubtful myself—perhaps I am wrong—but time after time I have had it borne in upon my mind that non-co-operation is really a bad plan. That is one of the reasons why I have never been able to agree with Mr. Gandhi, and indeed I have noticed in more respects than one that, although differing in every essential point of view, my right hon. Friend and Mr. Gandhi have been sometimes inclined to adopt the same kind of policy.

§ Mr. CHURCHILL

I trust my right hon. Friend will see that it is for a different object, and that non-co-operation to injure the British Empire is different from non-co-operation to assist it.

§ Sir S. HOARE

I am not to be drawn into an argument with my right hon. Friend, but I would only say that I do not think Mr. Gandhi would agree with the observation that he has just made. Anyhow, rightly or wrongly, wisely or unwisely, my right hon. Friend did not see his way to allow his name to be proposed as a Member of the House of Commons representatives on this Committee. There were other of my hon. Friends whom I should like to have seen on the Committee, but who were prevented from serving for other reasons. After all, it is asking a busy man a great deal to devote day after day, it may be month after month, to work of this kind and to cut himself adrift from his ordinary avocations; and, very much to my regret, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) was debarred on this ground from serving on the Committee; and there were my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Swindon (Sir R. Banks) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison). I say unreservedly that the Committee would have been the stronger for their presence, and I am extremely sorry that their business and legal avocations prevented them from giving their time to this work.

2194 The result of these negotiations and these deliberations, which have now been going on for many weeks, is that, so far as the Conservative representation on the Committee is concerned, we are proposing 22 Members of the Conservative party, taking into account the representation in both Houses, and of those I think I should be right in saying that 10 or 11 are generally in sympathy with the Government policy, and the rest have either expressed their disapproval of some material part of it or have maintained their complete impartiality. I maintain that a representation of that kind is a very fair mirror of opinion in the Conservative party as a whole—a representation divided, roughly speaking, between those in favour of the Government programme and those either opposed or doubtful about it. So much for the unofficial members of the Committee.

I come now to the Government representatives of the Committee, and I see that some of ray hon. Friends object to there being any Members of the Government on a Committee of this kind. How I should like to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend after months and months of committees and round table conferences and inquiries! If it were only a matter of personal convenience I would give up my chair to any other hon. Member in this House who desires it. But, quite apart from personal considerations, and apart from who may or may not be Secretary of State for India at the present time, I do not honestly believe that any committee of this kind can efficiently carry out its work without an effective representation of the Government upon it. My hon. Friends may say, "That is all very well for one or two Members of the Government, but why are six Members of the Government on a committee of this kind?" I hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping say, "Hear, hear" to that. I will give him the answer. These six Members of the Government are proposed to the Committee, not because the greater part are Members of the Government, but because the greater part, owing to their special claims in connection with India, and owing to their special fitness, ought to find a place on any committee of this kind.

2195 Take, for instance, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The House will see that we have taken special pains to see that members of the Simon Commission are well represented upon this Committee. What could be more foolish than to have two or three members of the Simon Commission and to exclude the Chairman? Take, again, the long list of great experts, men who served many years in India. What could be more foolish than to put on the Committee one or two ex-Viceroys and to leave off a third ex-Viceroy. Take, again, the work of the Round Table Conference. Some of my hon. Friends never liked the Round Table Conference, and they did not disguise their views, but I do not think any hon. Member will now say the deliberations of the Round Table Conference did not form an important stage in the discussions through, which we have passed. It is, therefore, essential that, if the Committee is really to be an effective and a representative body, to have the prominent members of the Round Table Conference represented upon it. Lastly, there were the committees that went out to India last year, I believe with the full approval of almost every Member of this House, one of them presided over by Lord Lothian, who, naturally, ought to find a place on the Committee, and another presided over by the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), and I am sure we could find no better man and no more experienced judgment than his to have on a committee. You have the chairman of those two Committees. What rhyme or reason could there possibly be—and here I am not dealing with personal considerations at all—in leaving out the chairman of the third committee and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who made the very important inquiry connected with the Indian States.

These are the main reasons which justify the proposals that I am making this afternoon. I believe that I have justified them upon the details. I believe that I have justified them upon an analysis of the actual numbers of the various groups composed in this House. But I do not base my main argument at all upon the details, or upon an analytical, mathematical computation. I base it rather upon the general personnel of 2196 the Committee as a whole, and I ask any impartial hon. Member, wherever he may sit in the House, to look at this list of names, and to ask himself the question, "Are these the kind of people who are going into this inquiry with preconceived and rigid views upon a Government or party ticket?" I believe that the great majority of these gentlemen will go into this inquiry with a genuine desire to arrive at a wise and an impartial conclusion, and the suggestion that these men will be at the beck and call of the Government, the victims of party Whips, is really a complete travesty of the kind of Committee we are setting up. I have had some experience of these inquiries, and I do not for a moment believe that this Committee is going to be ranged into a series of camps with no bridge between them and everybody approaching everything with a preconceived view. I believe that, in actual practice, there will be very little voting at all, and I say here and now that the fact that a particular group may be small in numbers seems to me to enter very little into the case. The views of the Members will carry the weight that is due. The sections which represent those views will carry the weight that is due to them also, and I do not contemplate for a moment the work of this Committee as a series of party votes between one section and another. I hope that I have said enough to justify the proposal that I have made this afternoon, and I should like to end by hoping that the Committee will be of real value to this House and another place in enabling us to come to wise judgments to produce, in due course, a Bill that will be generally acceptable to Parliament.

§ Mr. ATTLEE

I want to intervene only for a few minutes, because I feel that I am keeping Members of the Conservative party away from the joys of internecine strife. I sympathise very much with the Secretary of State in his extraordinarily difficult task. He told us that he had been looking out for a small committee of Aristides, but all his trouble has been with Alcibiades, and eventually he has been left out of the team. I want to state, briefly, our position in this matter. We are not concerned in the domestic question, which is between the various groups which support the Government. From our point 2197 of view, there is the Government and there is the Opposition. The Government consists of one party. It may be compared to a considerable building in which there are semi-detached portions, but with no party walls between them, and whether you put in a Liberal Member from one or the other groups, or a Conservative Member on this side of the Gangway or the other, from our point of view they are all Members supporting the Government. They have all been elected as supporters of the Government. They represent, or did represent 18 months ago, a very big majority of the electors of this country. We represented a smaller body at that time, but probably a very much bigger body to-day. Most people will be inclined to agree with that.

The difficulty of the right hon. Gentleman is in getting a just balance of the views of this House and of the people in the other place. He says, quite rightly, that Committees in this House are made up in proportion to the actual Members elected, but I do not know that it is absolutely wise in a matter of this sort to keep strictly to mathematical proportions. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman has not done so, and I believe he is perfectly right, because, after all, this Committee is not like a committee on some Private Bill, or even a committee on an ordinary party Bill. We are facing here a very, very big issue for the British Empire, and it is important when we discuss proposals which are going to affect not only the future of India but the future of this country and the future of the British Commonwealth of Nations, that we should endeavour to get on that Committee the experience of widely diverse opinion among the different sections of political thought in this country.

I frankly recognise that the right hon. Gentleman has given Members of this party more, than their actual mathematical proportion in this House, but we are always in a difficulty, because whatever we get, in this House we are bound to be a very small minority in another place, and the right hon. Gentleman said that in considering its numbers you must not think merely of the 16 representatives of the Commons, but you must think also of the 32 Members who form the whole Committee. We on these benches claim that we have been returned by one-third of the electors who voted at the election, 2198 and we say that in this business of Indian reform you have got to try to carry the whole country with you. You, therefore, want to have a number of people in all parties who will have had the experience of going into details on this matter, and I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it does make a very great deal of differ-once when one has had experience and the opportunity to grapple with these problems. We on this side of the House decided that we would take our share in the work of this Committee. We did not take the primrose path of irresponsible criticism and abstention. That is not very fruitful, though perhaps the action of the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) might encourage Indian people to believe that the gulf between East and West was not as great as was thought if they saw non-co-operation on both sides. We have not taken that line.

We consider that, having been sent here to do the work of the House of Commons, it is our duty to take our share of that work. We shall take our line on that basis, and we shall hope to co-operate fruitfully with others wherever possible without departing from principle. We feel that essentially in this House we have Government and Opposition. While we are not standing out and saying that we will not play because we have not got all we want, we should like to register our protest, because we believe that the Opposition, although small in numbers in this House and the other place, represents a big body of opinion in the country, a body which may before long return a Government into power in this country. That Government will have to deal with the Indian question. Any Government that is in power will have to face that situation. We should have liked to have a greater representation. I acknowledge the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties and the courtesy with which he has always met us. We leave aside as a domestic matter for the other side the question whether there should be Conservatives, National Liberals or Liberal Nationals or National Labour, or any section that composes the majority party, and we merely register our protest on behalf of the official Opposition that we think we should be more fully represented.

§ Captain CROOKSHANK

I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out the word "Sixteen," and to insert instead thereof the word "Twelve."

After the very able piece of pleading —almost special pleading—of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, it is rather difficult to intervene now because he did not refer so much to the Members of this House as to the general composition of the Committee. I do not think that it is seemly for us to discuss which Members should be on it, but I should like to take exception to the concluding part of the speech on behalf of some of my hon. Friends and myself who have put this Amendment down. We have not taken part at all in these Indian discussions, but we belong, I presume, to that little group to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, whose views are still locked up in the secret recesses of their own intellects.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD

On a point of Order. May I ask whether, if the Amendment is moved now, any general discussion will be ruled out of order?

§ Mr. SPEAKER

There will be no difference between the discussion on the Motion and the discussion on the Amendment.

§ Captain CROOKSHANK

I was saying that those hon. Friends of mine and I who are moving to delete the names of the Government from the Committee have not been associated with any of the agitation which has been going on. I saw on the Order Paper on Saturday that a similar course struck the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), which showed me that there was something in the point which we wanted to bring before the House. Needless to say, I hope the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State, will acquit me in thinking that I am in any way at personal variance with him or of his friends on the Front Bench, or that we entertain any feelings of animosity with regard to them. I suggested at Question Time a few weeks ago what the Government's faithful ally the "Times" called a curious suggestion, of which the right hon. Gentleman did not think very much. I suggested that we might have gone back to the practice of selecting 2200 members of the committee by ballot. That was the old practice of the House. I dare say that the right hon. Gentleman did not know that, but it was a custom up to comparatively modern times considering the length of time that Parliament has existed. It has saved many difficulties and it would probably have produced a much better Committee. The value of my question, if any, was to extract from the right hon. Gentleman some answer, which he gave as a matter of fact, in regard to the kind of Committee which he had in mind on the 20th March. He said: I am most anxious that it should he impartial."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March, 1933; col. 5, Vol. 276.] On that I was thoroughly satisfied, but is the right hon. Gentleman going to say that this Committee is impartial? Obviously not, as he does not reply. Whatever merits this particular Committee may have, no one in his wildest moments could accuse it of impartiality. He said that his first idea had been a small committee of impartial people and that he had found that very difficult to find. I do not know on what principle the original Simon Commission was selected, but my recollection serves me well when I recall that when the names were announced everybody was very struck at the skilful way in which the Government and the Opposition had managed to find certain Members of both Houses who had no known views on the subject which they were to investigate, but in the judgment of each one of whom the House as a whole had ample confidence. I find it hard to believe that the Parliament of 1931 is worse equipped than the 1924 Parliament in that respect. I cannot help thinking that a little more effort along those lines might have been tried with successful results. The other possibility which the right hon. Gentleman referred to was the Standing Committee procedure, but that is not really relevant to this issue.

When the right hon. Gentleman at the end of his speech told us that Members of both Houses were going to be on this Committee and were not going to vote on the Government or party ticket and were not going to be at the beck and call of Whips, had anyone in their wildest moments thought they would? That is not the way in which Select Committees 2201 work. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has not been on one. Many hon. Members have been on Joint Select Committees. I have myself, and to suppose that Whips or Government or party tickets play any part is entirely wrong. What does come in is the question of preconceived notions in regard to the Measures which are being discussed. That is the point over which the right hon. Gentleman skated—if I may use such a word—rather lightly. The only reasonable way, if you cannot have a committee in which all the people are presumably impartial, is to try the principle of equal thirds where you have one-third of the members supporting what is to be proposed, one-third definitely against, and one-third neutral. It would then be up to the right and left of the Committee to try and persuade the Middle body to adopt their views.

In the particular Committee which the right hon. Gentleman is proposing there are four Members of the Government, and we suggest that they should withdraw their names. The right hon. Gentleman himself said that he would be pleased to withdraw, from which I gather that he has had more committee work in the last two or three years than has ever fallen to the lot of any man; and right well has he done it. I do not say that the result has been satisfactory, but, so far as attention to the work is concerned, it has been as assiduous and as correct as we should expect from him. But does he not remember that a great deal of the trouble in the minds of many people over the original Government of India Measure was the very fact that the Secretary of State and the Viceroy evolved the scheme before it came to Parliament? Are we to have a repetition of that? The late Lord Chelmsford and the late Mr. Montagu produced something and got it through Parliament with a very much smaller Committee, which included seven Members of this House and only one Member of the Government. It is suggested that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs must be on the Committee because all the members except one of the Simon Commission are members of the Committee. That is an argument as far as it goes, but how often is the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ever likely to attend the Committee? I do not want to make any rude 2202 remarks about anyone, but we know that in the pressure of public business Disarmament and Geneva render it practically impossible for the right hon. Gentleman ever to come to the House. We have the most fleeting visions of him, and to think that he is going to spend morning after morning engaged in a committee of this kind is preposterous.

As a matter of fact, I could build up my own case on his name, because what I would like to see done, and what I am sure a lot of hon. Members would like to see done, is to remove the Members of the Government from the Committee and let them have exactly the same status as the Indian gentlemen who are coming over here. The right hon. Gentleman cannot object to that, because all along, in every speech lie has made, he has always told us of the value and importance of the co-operation of the Indians who are coming over. Some people were rather doubtful about that, but he is not, and he has stressed it time and time again. Indeed, in the Motion the Committee is to be given power to call people into consultation, and why should not they call into consultation Members of the Government as they desire? Then, at any rate, there would not be that huge block of opinion which must support the scheme in the White Paper. It is the Government's own scheme. You cannot imagine, if it ever came to a vote in the Committee, that the Secretary of State or the President of the Board of Education or any of the other Ministers would solemnly vote against it.

The Government are in the proportion of six to 32—an enormous proportion in the Committee, which will be the jury in this case; and then at the end the Government have got to judge on the merits of the report of the Committee. Quite apart from India or anything else, I cannot believe that it is right of Parliament to set up any committee on any subject in which there is that kind of weightage. I see the value of the experience and knowledge—I would be the last person to decry that—of the lady, the gentlemen and the Noble Lords who are being invited to serve on the Committee. But the trouble is that they have almost too much experience, if that is possible, because they do not represent, they cannot represent as a whole, the general opinion of this House. There is one thing about which I heard a lot when the House 2203 first met. It was about the splendid body of new young Members who were going to co-operate in the work of this Parliament. The Lord President was one of the most eloquent on that point, and quite rightly, but where are the young Members or even the new ones. There is only one new one on the Committee. I do her the courtesy of saying that she is a young Member, of course; common politeness would not have let me do anything else; and I acknowledge the charming way in which she has addressed us on many occasions. On the other hand, the House, and I am sure she would be the first to say that it was a pity that there are not some other new young Members on a body of this kind.

The right hon. Gentleman's case, based on those figures and statistics, rested largely on the proportions of political opinion, weightage to the Opposition, and so on; but we can look at the 16 Members of this House who are suggested for this committee from a different point of view, and get a very different weightage or different emphasis. First, there are the four Members of the Government. It is their scheme; they are for it. Then we get the three Members of the official Opposition who have, as we have been told, consented to do the work. We know that they will be for the scheme as far as it goes, only objecting to it because it does not go far enough, but they are sufficiently realist politically to take the little they can get instead of holding out for the great deal which they know they will not get out of this House. To that extent we now get seven Members committed to the scheme. The representative of the Liberal party was a member of one of the Round Table Conferences, and to that extent is personally interested in the scheme, which he helped to develop in its earlier stage. That makes eight out of the 16–50 per cent.—committed to the scheme. Next we have the Noble Lord who was a member of the last Round Table Conference. That makes nine. Then we have the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), who was chairman of one of the committees, and is not very likely to be very much against this scheme. That is 10. Then we have the hon. Lady, who was a signatory of the Franchise Committee. She said the other day in this House that the trouble 2204 about this scheme was that it did not go far enough in that direction. She, like the Labour party, would accept the less as she cannot get the greater.

We are getting on now, Mr. Speaker. The committee is not quite what the right hon. Gentleman suggested. I hope that in what I am saying I am not being personal. I am merely going on published statements and speeches made in this House; I have nothing to do with the private opinions of people. Then we have the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne), who supported the scheme in this House the other day in a very brilliant speech. We are left now with only four out of 16; 75 per cent. of the committee are what one might call definitely Government weightage. [Interruption.] I can take away the word "Government," and will say they are weightage for the scheme so far as it goes. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will agree to that. He does not. Well, I give him up. Of the four other Members with whom we are left, two of them frankly represent opposition to the scheme, that is admitted; another is my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan), who is there because he was a Simon Commissioner. I would not say he was very enthusiastic for the scheme judging by the speech he made the other day. We are left finally with the light hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), who is, so far as I can detect, the only impartial person. He has made no statement at all on this subject. Two hon. Gentlemen, one representing the English Universities and the other a division of Manchester, are frankly in opposition, they have made speeches in that sense. The only person who has not made a speech is my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham. Therefore, he is the "impartial neutral representative," as the Secretary of State said, of that great body of opinion in the Conservative party, and he is a very good representative of that opinion.

I would stress the point that we cannot discuss the Members of the Committee from the House of Lords in a matter like this, we really cannot. We are concerned only about our own nominations. The House of Lords may choose a very different committee after Debate than what is proposed, and we cannot discuss them. I hope I have not 2205 given any indication of the views of myself or of my hon. Friends on the Indian question, because I did not intend to, but if we look at this Committee impartially there is more or less of a weightage in favour of the Government scheme in the proportion of 75 to 25. If we take away the four Ministers we do reduce that proportion. At the same time the Committee would not be deprived of their advice; they could call them in consultation every day if they liked. Further, the Government would be less likely to be in a false position at the end of the proceedings supposing the Committee recommended something which the Government did hot like. What is to be the position of the six Ministers—six out of 32 who are on the Committee—in that case? It is going to be a very difficult task for them to have to persuade their colleagues back along the path on which they have advanced, or make them move further along the path which they have refused to follow. In either case, to ask four Ministers from this House, however able their work in this matter—and we all recognise and admire their steady devotion to this most difficult problem over a long period of time—to serve on this Committee is to ask too much. Therefore, I beg the House to be so good as to accept this Amendment to reduce the number in order that we may have an opportunity to move the consequential Amendments to leave out members of the Government.

§ Sir JOHN GANZONI

I beg to second this Amendment.

At the outset I would like to say how very much I enjoyed the battle of flowers which we have seen just now. I could not help admiring the way in which the Secretary of State threw bouquets with unerring aim at all the Ministers and ex-Ministers who have been chosen to serve on this Committee. Never before have I had the privilege of witnessing a battle of flowers upon the ice, or even upon thin ice—an engaging and memorable spectacle. I feel emboldened to second this Amendment because I am quite certain that I am not by any means speaking for myself alone. Like the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, ever since I came into this House I have tried to steer clear of juntas, cabals 2206 and groups of all kinds, and I make a point, as far as possible, of refusing to sign proposals which are brought before me pleading for all sorts of innovations; but I do feel that the manner in which the personnel of this Committee has been chosen will be bad for the reputation of the Government in this country and in India.

The other day, when we had a Debate upon the setting up of a Committee on India, I voted in favour of it because it was recommended upon the ground that the Committee would make a thorough, a searching and an impartial examination of the proposal. I was by no means enamoured of the whole of the proposals. Like many others in the House and in the country I was certainly not prepared to condemn them, and I sincerely hope that after their examination I shall not be obliged to condemn them, but I do feel that the searching and impartial examination we were promised would be very much prejudiced by the presence of four Cabinet Ministers and other Ministers upon the body. It will naturally make things rather difficult for the other members of the Committee, for however much the Chairman endeavours to protect them, the weight carried by those Cabinet Ministers and ex-Cabinet Ministers is bound to make itself felt, and therefore it seems to me undesirable that they should serve. I take the words of the Secretary of State himself when he said, "After all, it is asking a great deal of a busy man." He went on to refer to the fact that the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), who is a very hard worker, is occupied in commerce, and that the hon. and learned Member for Swindon (Sir R. Banks) and the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison) are very hard-working members of the Bar.

I think we are learning to-day that Cabinet Ministers are an unorganised trade or profession, because if they had any union behind them that union would have had a word to say about all this overtime. It is going a little too far to expect a man like the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to be available for the continual sittings of a Committee of this kind while at the same time looking after the interests of his difficult office and going abroad to wrestle with beasts at Ephesus—well, not exactly that, perhaps, but argue with delegates from all parts 2207 of the world at Geneva and other European centres. I think I have said enough to show how very strongly I feel on this point. I am jealous of the reputation of the Government, and I think they should avoid every appearance of partiality, and I feel that what they propose would not be keeping faith with those in this House who still have open minds and want to see the proposal properly examined. It would certainly have a very much better effect throughout the country and the Empire and in India if this Amendment were accepted.

§ Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT

In rising to offer a few remarks to the House I would like to assure hon. Members that it was only after the very deepest searching of heart that I felt it impossible for me to serve on this Committee. I will briefly give my reasons for that attitude. I confess that I came here hoping to hear from the Secretary of State some really adequate reasons for the personnel which we are asked to vote upon this afternoon, and I think it will be very difficult for anyone to feel satisfied after the explanation we have heard. When he quoted a vote in the Division Lobby on a Private Member's Motion as representing a decision of this House, I must remind him that the Motion which I moved on that occasion was in favour of the Simon Commission's Report, with certain reservations as to law and order temporarily. The Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) invited the House, I thought with the co-operation of the Whips, to go into the Lobby with him not against my Motion but in order that there should be no decision at that time. That was perfectly clear, and I think that on reflection the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it was hardly fair to quote that as a vote by the House of Commons—with over 200 Members of the Conservative party absent—in endorsement of the White Paper.

It was only when I was convinced that the Committee must be overwhelmingly committed to the Government proposal, and that any Member of our very small and almost negligible minority thereon could have no opportunity of deflecting the Government from their main purpose, that I very reluctantly decided that 2208 it was impossible for me to accept the invitation to join the Committee. I regret this the more because for nearly 30 years during which I have followed a certain course I have in consequence found myself on repeated occasions in conflict with His Majesty's Government, and I did hope two years ago that all these strivings on my part had now come to an end and that I had come to a time when I could sing a political Nunc Dimittis. But this question is one which seems to me to be greater than any issue which has ever tested us, except perhaps that of August, 1914.

When I was invited—and I cordially admit the honour which the Secretary of State did me—to join this Committee, I felt that I was in a very similar position to one which I can recall very early in the War in 1914, when I was a young company-commander. I happened to be with two private soldiers carrying out the very ordinary duty of examining German wire. It was a very dark night, and we bumped into a working party of Germans numbering about 40. If I had been merely a brave man, I suppose I should have rushed and endeavoured to slay one of those Germans, with almost suicidal results to myself; in other words, I should have joined the German select committee. I should also have been imperilling the lives of my two comrades. Some hon. Members may say that it was cowardly, but very discreetly I decided that if I was going to fire another shot in the War the thing to do was to get away as quickly as possible to an entrenched position, and I took my comrades with me.

It seems perfectly obvious, that on a Committee where there is such an overwhelming majority against those who hold my views, I should no longer be able to fire a shot with any effect on a question of such great moment, and that I should be entirely muzzled from endeavouring to put the case before the people in the country, on account of the fact that one would naturally be precluded from doing so by joining a Committee of this character. When I learned what was to be the complexion of the Committee, I confess to being staggered. I saw at once that, with the exception of my right hon. Friend, the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), I should be absolutely alone, among 16 or 17 persons, in holding the 2209 view that you should not abdicate central government and should at the same time maintain the power of law and order in the provinces. I would remind the House that there was to be not one man representing the great business interests of this country in India, such as the industries of Lancashire and elsewhere.

I am rash enough to suggest that probably if hon. Members had been asked a fortnight ago how this Committee would be composed, nine out of 10 would have replied "Well, they contemplate a Committee of about 24 in all, with a majority, of course, of 10 supporting the Government policy of self-Government at the Centre, as against seven who believe in the continuance of British rule at the Centre in India and at least seven —who are not strongly committed to either policy." As has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), the House expected to see some middle body of opinion from those who had not been committed one way or the other. Instead, there are only two, representing the view which is held not by a few but by a very large number of hon. Members in this House, and which I claim to represent, and one the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan), who is supporting the Simon Commission pure and simple, and who slightly varies his view from that of myself, and of some of my hon. Friends, with regard to law and order.

We have heard it suggested that possibly the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) also holds views against the policy of abandoning rule at the Centre. I could hardly believe that if the right hon. Gentleman, who is an ex-Secretary of State for India, had held any strong views on this subject, he would have kept silence all this time. He does not hesitate to express views, inconveniently sometimes, as was shown a week ago. I am convinced that had he had strong views on this subject he would have found an opportunity of warning the country, if he had thought that such a warning was necessary. What are the rest of the Committee? There are three right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen representing the Official Labour party. They go even further than the policy which they bequeathed to His Majesty's Government. Then there is the repre- 2210 sentative of the independent Liberals. That is four. Already my right hon. Friend and I would have been in a minority of two to one. I am not suggesting that this is going to be a question of votes all through, but I am trying to get the degree of opinion to which people are committed, if they are committed.

The calculation so far leaves nine others, every one of them pledged, in spite of what the Secretary of State said. If I understood him rightly, he said that there were only 10 Members of the whole Committee of both Houses who could really be described as pledged. I say that there are nine others, every one in this House, pledged either to the federal plan or to ultimate abdication of British Government at the Centre in India, two of whom also served on the Indian Committee—the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) who was a Round Tabler, and the chairman of the Indian Committee. If I understand his speech, he has come off the fence and is definitely committed to the Government proposals. Everyone knows that they are very estimable gentlemen of very high character, and nobody is questioning their desire to do their very best on the Committee from every point of view. We know that they will do so. Nevertheless, if a man has been devoting his time to a cause for two years and produces a White Paper which is brought before Parliament, it is almost too much to ask, unless he is an archangel, that he will not consistently and continually support those policies in the future. They are sincerely convinced, there is no doubt about that, but I think that a lot of people in the Conservative party would be inclined to say that they are rather among the intellectuals and the Kerenskies of the party who believe that in this post-War era one can settle so many questions by setting up committees or holding conferences, and by giving every imaginable type of person a vote.

Can we look to the House of Lords for any redress? I know that I am not allowed to discuss their personnel, but I have taken a little trouble to make inquiries, and I think that I know the views of most of the Noble Lords concerned. Nobody could claim that there are more than three, or possibly more than four, who hold the view that Britain should stay definitely governing India at the 2211 centre. If that is so, to bring the House of Lords into the picture does not help the situation, but it shows that in that House the position is very similar to the position in this House.

I attended the Blackpool Conference of the Conservative party last autumn. There I heard the admirable speech of my Noble Friend Lord Lloyd, and anyone who was there on that occasion will bear me out when I say that, while he was speaking, the whole conference shared his views. The right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State, got up and made an excellent speech, as he always does, and he pleaded for a Select Committee. The same thing happened at the Central Council which met in London, where there was a very close vote. I think the majority was only 24—I am not sure—and I think that there were 25 seats on the platform. The Secretary of State on both those occasions spoke very fairly to the assembly. He said: "Do not make my task more difficult." We had all been cheering him a minute or two before for his administration, and our good will was with him. He said words to this effect: We ate going to do an exceptional thing; we are going to set up a Joint Select Committee of the Lords and Commons, in order that this question may be referred to them. You could almost have heard the sigh of relief that went throughout that conference, when he uttered those words. Those innocent people did not know that he was going to set up a Joint Select Committee with a majority of five or six against the views about which they were so anxious. I would like to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he really thinks he could have carried the vote on either of those occasions if the people present had realised how heavily the scales were to be weighted against their views, and how very far from impartial this committee was to be.

I have only one or two words more to say to the Secretary of State. I think he misunderstood me, and I did not take the opportunity of replying to him in the Press, with regard to my letter and to my failure to join the committee. I said in my letter: I would remind you that the present House of Commons was elected for certain definite purposes and no single Member is elected with a mandate to abandon British 2212 rule in India, and this fact I should have thought would have caused His Majesty's Government to take special pains to see that at least 45 per cent. of the Select Committee should represent those who believe that India can be preserved for the Imperial Crown and that reforms should be instituted step by step as indicated in the Government of India Act. The Secretary of State replied: I could not for a moment accept your contention that you and your friends are entitled to 45 per cent. of the representation. The Secretary of State missed my point. I did not say for one moment that we represented 45 per cent. of the hon. Gentlemen of this House, but I ask him, how does he know that we do not represent the majority of the people in the country when the Government have taken no steps whatever to consult the electorate? Even by his own test, which he took this afternoon, his arithmetical test, what representation is he giving to those 200 Members of the Conservative party who, so far, have not expressed themselves definitely one way or the other? Are they not entitled to some representation? The right hon. Gentleman has from the first admitted, in regard to the group of which I am a Member, that we are entitled to some representation, small and inadequate in my humble submission, but surely 200 Members who have given no views on this subject have a greater right to be represented, and they ought to be represented by at least six Members of this House if the committee is to be truly representative in every direction.

Again, taking that test, may I ask him if the views of the Members of another place are in any way representative of the Members of that House on the same question. If we take the test proposed by himself, I think that it will be found that it is quite impossible to regard this committee as impartial. He further stated in his reply to me that he could not accept the view that it is only you and they who believe that India can be preserved for the Imperial Crown. Why did I deliberately insert those words? I can explain very briefly. In forming this committee we want to know what the Members' views are. The reason was that I had listened with dismay, and with the keenest distress, to that portion of the speech of the Lord President of 2213 the Council in which he used these words: I decided, after mature reflection, that if we went forward we might save India to the Empire, but, if we did not, that we should lose her."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th March, 1933; col. 1130, Vol. 276.] My hon. Friends and I are in absolute conflict with those views. I assumed that those views were shared by the Secretary of State and by those whom he has nominated from the Government. May I now assume, from the Secretary of State's answer, that he repudiates those views? If so, I rejoice. That is a policy of complete and utter defeatism, and there is no mandate for that. I take the opportunity to suggest to the Lord President of the Council that any question of losing India, or of leaving the Government of India at the Centre, because the British Government refuses to yield to agitators, no more represents the views of the Conservative party than the views of the few hon. gentlemen of the Oxford Union represent that great university of 4,000 persons.

These post-War ideas that we have paraded before us ignore the facts which are being realised by practically all other countries. Numerous countries, in their distress, are throwing up strong men to meet their emergencies in this post-War world. Some of them may be repugnant in their methods, ideas and measures to us in this country, but we should not forget that those strong men apparently have their nations behind them. They are being supported to the full, and we cannot base our whole policy in this country on declaring that we no longer have the strength to govern India, and that we must lose her anyhow unless we accept these reforms, though we may hold her if we introduce them. That is not the spirit of the country. Even if it were the spirit of the politicians of the country, there is one warning that I want to give. The ex-service men of this country do not believe that that is a right policy, and, when they remember all that they suffered to preserve the Empire, they will be no party to a policy of abdication. It seems to me that the whole of this policy is being forced through without any popular sanction whatsoever, and for this reason I would say, let us have a committee of reasonable proportions, and let us do what we can, even at this late hour, to see that 2214 it is more representative of the differences of opinion in this House.

§ Viscount WOLMER

As one of those who declined the invitation to serve on the Committee, I would like to give the House very shortly my reasons for doing so. I do not share, and did not share, the surprise of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) that this was a packed Committee. To my mind it was inconceivable that the Government really intended to have an impartial Committee on this question, and I very much regret that the Secretary of State for India should have used words which undoubtedly led a great many people, in this House and outside it, to think that that was the Government's policy. When one realises the amount of labour that the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister, and other Members of the Government have bestowed on this subject, it must surely be obvious to everyone that they are absolutely convinced that this is the right policy in regard to India, and, therefore, they must feel it to be their duty to carry this policy through by every means in their power. After the Round Table Conferences and negotiations, and the steps which the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have taken, it is impossible to regard their attitude from any other point of view. Therefore, personally, I do not wish to make any complaint at all that this is a packed committee. It appears to me to be perfectly consistent with the course that the Members of the Cabinet have pursued in regard to this matter, although I agree that it is at variance with some of the assurances that were given from time to time.

The only thing that I should like to say to the Secretary of State about it is that I think he is overdoing it a little bit, and I was amazed to hear him express the confident opinion that at least half the Conservative Members of this House are whole-heartedly in favour of the White Paper policy. I do not believe that that represents the facts at all. I also think he is entirely mistaken in regarding the declared opponents of the White Paper policy as numbering 42 or 43. If he studies the two Division lists, he will find that they contain by no means the same names. For instance, I voted 2215 against the Government in the first Division, because I felt that it was one of those Divisions which one was not morally justified in shirking; but, being a Member of the House who has no desire to divide against the Government more than I can possibly help, I did not support the second Motion, because I thought it was unnecessary to take a Division on the question; and there were a good many other Members in the same sort of position. But there were a great many more Members who abstained from both Divisions, simply through a desire not to vote against the Government, but who agreed in their whole-hearted condemnation of the White Paper policy. I should have thought that the Secretary of State for India was well aware of that fact. Therefore, when I was invited, after my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) declined, to serve on this committee, I felt that there was no hope of anyone who was entirely against the Government's policy doing any good on such a committee except in regard to detailed points, and in that connection I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock), who has infinitely greater knowledge of the details of Indian administration than I have, would do very much better work on the committee. It was simply for that reason that I declined.

Those of us who oppose the Government's White Paper policy are opposing it on a great principle. We do not wish to fight a ding-dong battle in a committee, to obstruct as the Irish obstructed the Measures of the Conservative Government, or as the Conservative party obstructed the Home Rule Bill. That would not be our plan. We wish to carry the issue to the country. We feel that all that this Select Committee is doing is to hammer out the policy of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for India—that the personnel of the Committee is such that it can have no other function. It is composed primarily of the people who are responsible for that policy, and to ask them to look at the thing impartially at this stage is surely only an absurdity. It is simply a stage which the Government are taking quite properly from their point of view. I make no complaint; they are merely anxious to see that their plan, which they have carefully thought out, is polished 2216 up and perfected in its details, and improved as far as they can get it improved. I make no complaint of that at all, but I, for one, will have neither part nor lot in it.

I believe that the plan is a defeatist plan, a plan to give up responsibilities at the centre which it is not right for us to give up. I believe that they are responsibilities which the people of this country do not wish us to give up, and I am sure that the great majority of the Conservative party do not wish us to give them up. But the steam roller has started; the Select Committee is going forward with the same irresistible force; the sausage machine is at work, and in due time we shall be presented with the result of its labour. We all know now that the result of this Joint Committee can but be a perfecting and an elaboration of the White Paper policy, and, therefore, no Member of this House can now be in doubt that, unless those who think strongly on this question do what they can to defeat that policy, they will lose their opportunity before very long. The Government are irrevocably committed to this tremendous revolution in India. They believe it to be the right policy, and they will show that they are determined to carry it through by every means within their power. I shall support my hon. and gallant Friend in the Division Lobby, as a part of my general protest against the Government's policy, but I ask everyone in the House and outside it to realise the road down which we are now going. Let us all realise what are the issues that are at stake.

§ Mr. G. BALFOUR

I wish to say a word or two in support of my hon. and gallant Friend. I endorse every word that he has uttered, and could, were it necessary, say a great deal in extension and support of what has fallen from him. I wish, however, to direct my short observations to that part of the Secretary of State's speech in which he laid down the principles upon which a Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament should be constituted. He detailed at some length the machinery which should be adopted so as to give proper and full representation, not only of the political parties in the House, but of the groups within those political parties. That proposal was in my judgment a sound one, 2217 but I will go so far as to say that, even if the committee were properly constituted on the principles laid down, and even if it were an impartial committee—which I totally and absolutely deny—it would not, even then, comply with the necessities of the case, nor would it meet the demands of the country. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) has truly said, the present House of Commons was not returned in order to deal with this matter, and no committee representing the political complexion of parties, or groups within parties, within this House, can in any sense represent the feeling of the British public outside. I deny entirely the right of the right hon. Gentleman to ask the support of the House for this Committee on the basis of the theory that the political parties in this House have a right, as the House is at present constituted, to determine this issue by means of any committee, even though it were an impartial committee. Of course, however, the case does not rest upon that; it rests upon the absolute condemnation which has been so effectively placed before the House by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gains-borough (Captain Crookshank), and on what has fallen from the lips of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth. As far as I am concerned, I regard the constitution of the Committee, as it has been submitted to the House, as an insult, not only to the intelligence of the Members of the House, but also to the intelligence of the people in the country outside.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD

The composition of this Committee is really of vital importance from a point of view that has not yet been mentioned in the Debate. Anyone who took part in the Morley-Minto reforms, or in the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms, and who remembers the form in which those Bills were presented to the House, must realise that it is impossible, or, if not impossible, exceptionally difficult, to draft any sort of Amendment to Bills of that kind when once they are brought before the House. All the details as to the franchise, communal representation, the distribution of seats, reservation—all these details are inevitably reserved for rules and regulations which are enacted after the Bill 2218 has become law. They do not come before Parliament. Merely the general principle is put before Parliament, and the details rest with the Secretary of State. If, therefore, the House is to discuss the details, if it is to express its views on those details, it must be before this Joint Committee, and, therefore, the composition of the Joint Committee should he such as represents the House as a whole, and not the Government in particular. I differ from the view of the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) that it is not possible or practicable any more to fight this Bill in Committee—

§ Viscount WOLMER

I do not want the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to misrepresent me. I did not say that, and I did not mean that.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD

I understand that the Noble Lord's refusal to serve on the Committee was due to the fact that he thought that improvement was impossible.

§ Viscount WOLMER

May I make my position clear? I did not wish to obstruct in the Committee, or to take part in deliberations on a scheme with which I was fundamentally out of sympathy.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD

I agree with the Noble Lord as to the desirability of rejecting the White Paper, but I asked the Secretary of State to put me on the Committee. [A laugh.] Why should people laugh? It is such a misconception. Getting on to a Committee is not necessarily a favour.

§ Sir PATRICK FORD

Some of us laughed at the same view being arrived at in such diametrically opposed ways.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD

The views are absolutely identical, but it is a question of how they are put into operation. The Secretary of State, in his kindly reference to me, pointed out that I was Athanasius contra mundum and he could not make room for Athanasius. There would be something to be said for it if it were not for the fact that in the end Athanasius proved right. I cannot help thinking even now that you might have Athanasius not so entirely in a minority if the Government Whips were taken off, 2219 and if the House decided whom they would have on the Committee. I feel certain that, if we could vote freely today, we should get a better Committee.

§ Viscount WOLMER

Athanasius was a member of the Council, too.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD

I wish I had remembered that point. In that case, no doubt, I should have been one of the select and favoured few. The point of view that the ordinary Member of this House represents to-day is not, I believe, overwhelmingly represented on that Committee. You have put on the Committee people who have taken part in the past stages. They were on the Simon Commission or the Lothian Committee, or on the Round Table Conference. Those people have not merely made up their minds on the question. They have a vested interest in the particular point of view. Those people who are on the Committee are not subject to pressure from the Whips, but they are subject to the ordinary feelings of human nature. When you have an overwhelmingly strong Government, it is much easier to please that Government and it is much easier to anticipate the reward of ordinary political life. I can see in this Select Committee quite a number of prospective Viceroys and Governors and Secretaries and Under-Secretaries of State. This is the first step on the political ladder and, therefore, the Government not merely have on their side the fact that most of the people who have been appointed have already made up their minds and made them up for the Government scheme, but you also have the inevitable result of political life in driving Members to share in the Government point of, view. It would be much better if we had a Committee drawn by ballot or a Committee drawn, as Standing Committees are, by the Committee of Selection, which would make it less of a new Government Department and more of a representation of opinion in the country.

The real point at issue is this: The Secretary of State has said over and over again that there will be an opportunity before the committee of raising all points in detail, and that he will listen to every point of view and see that, if 2220 it is an improvement, it is embodied in the scheme. There is a chance of improvement in detail. Will he take evidence? Will Members of the House who have a point of view which they wish to put forward have an opportunity of putting it before the committee? Secondly, while it is possible, I hope, to improve the Bill in detail, will it be possible to make any modification in it on the real issue before us, whether there shall be this transfer of powers at the centre, which, to my mind is such a reactionary step at present? I do not think there will be much division of opinion in the House on the matter of provincial autonomy. On that side we all agree. The real issue is the transfer at the centre to what I maintain to be a most reactionary body, a permanently Conservative organisation. Shall we possibly be allowed to persuade the Government on that point and to fortify the views that I expressed the other day on the main issue, that the people in India itself do not want this transfer at the centre to this Conservative organisation?

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert)

I think the right hon. Gentleman is now getting on to the merits of the proposals in the White Paper. We cannot discuss those on this Motion.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD

That is the real issue which the committee has to decide, the major issue of whether we are definitely committed to the whole scheme of transfer at the centre. It is on that point that the composition of the committee becomes vitally important. We read to-day in the "Times" the following interview with Mr. Gandhi. It is evidently curtailed very largely, but I wish the Secretary of State and the House to observe what Mr. Gandhi is reported as saying: If peaceful conditions for the evolution of independence were possible, I would use influence with my friends of the Congress to induce them to agree to a suspension of strife and to the operation, after examination, of Provincial Constitutions as, in my opinion, they may be a truer test of the real transference of power. That emphasises the point that there you have the best of liberally-minded opinion in India moving in the same direction as most people in this House, that whereas there will be unanimous agreement on provincial autonomy on the lines of the 2221 White Paper, you will have the most determined opposition both in this country and in India to the setting up of this new body involving Princes and millionaires.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is still transgressing my Ruling and dealing with the merits of the proposal.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD

It is very difficult to distinguish. The real point of objection to the present composition of this joint committee is the fact that they are apparently prejudging that major issue, whereas the Secretary of State has repeatedly told us that there will be opportunities on the committee to put every point of view and to raise every issue, even the major issue, of whether change at the centre is inevitable and is part of their definite scheme or not. What I would press is that the committee be modernised so as to represent more fully the opinion of this House and possibly more the opinion of the country, and less the official view of those who have made up their minds.

§ Mr. MOLSON

It is remarkable that we should have heard charges of bad faith against the Secretary of State being bandied about. He has been subjected to much criticism in India, but I do not think that particular accusation has ever been brought against him before. I cannot quite understand why so much resentment should be expressed by Members at the composition of this Select Committee. I have followed the question with some care, but I have never understood the Secretary of State to make a promise that the Government's considered policy was to be referred to some committee consisting of people who have not made up their minds upon it, and that the Government were to accept the decisions of that Committee as binding upon them. The hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) constantly refers to two domestic meetings of our own party, one at Blackpool and the other in London. It seems to me that he could hardly refer to them more frequently had he been successful in getting the majority of the people present on those two occasions to support his point of view. If I understood the 2222 speeches of the Secretary of State on those occasions rightly, it was that he undertook that the proposal of the Government should be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses, which would carry confidence in the country, and when one sees the array of talent, of experienced administrators, ex-Secretaries of State and ex-Governors, I believe the vast bulk of the people in the country, at any rate, who ask for some reassurance from the Secretary of State will say that that is precisely the kind of Joint Select Committee that they had in mind. They will say there is only one defect in it. They would have desired that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Bournemouth, and possibly even my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox), who is interrupting me, should have been there in order to express their point of view. It is their failure to accept the invitation that was extended to them which will make a very large number of people in the country who, in the past, have had some sympathy with their point of view, ask whether the diehard section have all the courage to which they have laid claim in the past.

I never expected to hear the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth put forward such strange constitutional theories as that the Government were, in the first place, to invite the two Houses to appoint two Select Committees upon some estimate which they might form of the popularity of certain views in the country. I have always understood that Parliament was a Sovereign body, that it was to Parliament that the Government must look in order to ascertain what representation should be expresesd to various opinions. We are not only told that the Government should consider the alleged popularity of certain opinions in the country, but we are also told that the Government should be willing to set up a Joint Select Committee and submit its fully and carefully considered proposals to a body of that kind and then be prepared to have them amended in principle as well as in detail. I was interested to hear a reference made to the uprising of strong Governments in various countries of Europe. In 1931 the people of this country expressed their desire to have a strong Government. 2223 That is the Government that is in power at the present time, and I rejoice that the Secretary of State and the Government are prepared to carry through the considered proposals which they have put forward in the White Paper.

§ Duchess of ATHOLL

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India has told the House that in regard to this very grave question of India he divided the Conservatice party into three groups —those who favoured the policy indicated in the White Paper, those who were definitely opposed to it, and a third group which he described, rather superciliously it seemed to me, as indefinite in number who had not made up their minds or expressed them. Taking both Houses together, he claimed that all their groups, particularly the groups of his critics, were adequately represented. Before passing to speak particularly on the third of the groups of my hon. Friends, I should like to join with those Members who have deprecated considering that the representation given to the various groups here be amalgamated with the representation of similar groups in another place. It is impossible for hon. Members here to know exactly the position of Noble Lords in another place, and we are bound to consider whether the personnel proposed adequately represents the opinions expressed in all parts of this House. I always understood that that is the principle on which Committees in this House are set up, namely, that, as nearly as possible, the Members are nominated to adequately represent different points of view.

I wish to speak on behalf of the third group of Conservative Members. In the first place, I suggest to my right hon. Friend that the genesis of this group dates from further back than perhaps he realises. He spoke of the Division in this House on the White Paper in December, 1931, and mentioned that not more than 43 voted with my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) against that White Paper. He omitted to mention the fact that over 150 Conservative Members abstained from voting, and I venture to say that that was a portent which deserved to be taken into very serious consideration when we remember that my right hon. Friend the Lord Presi- 2224 dent of the Council had wound up the Debate with an appeal to a party which regarded him with great loyalty, respect and personal affection, to support the Government. It seems to me that the abstention of over 150 Conservative Members on such an occasion was a writing on the wall of which Members of the Government ought to have taken more account than they appear to have done. Then my right hon. Friend twits those Conservative Members with not having expressed their opinion. I would remind him how very little opportunity they have had to do so. In the course of 1932 three committees were sent out to India to examine and report upon matters connected with the Government's proposals. The House was not allowed any opportunity of discussing the reports of those Committees when they were presented. We had no opportunity of debating the proposals of the Government between December, 1931, and the 22nd February, 1933, when three hours were devoted to the subject on the Motion of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft).

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, who, I am sorry, is not in his place, because this is rather an important point, if he does not remember that, in February, before the Debate upon the Motion of my hon. and gallant Friend, representations were made to him by members of this group which not only consisted of questions to try to elucidate further information as to the intentions of the Government on matters connected with their proposals, but also contained expressions of grave anxiety with regard to several proposals which had been discussed at the Round Table Conference. Further, the representations included also definite recommendations with regard to several matters. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is hardly in a position to say that this group of Conservative Members has not expressed any opinion upon this tremendous question. I also would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he was not informed at the time these representations were made, that those for whom the deputation spoke were considerably more numerous than those who had voted against the Government with my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping? Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman, from what he learned in February, was bound to have regard to the fact that, in addi- 2225 tion to those who had openly shown their views in the Division Lobby, there was a larger number of Conservative Members showing great anxiety and making definite recommendations to the Government in regard to this question.

But when it came to the Motion of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth, it is true that Members of this group did not go into the Lobby with the hon. and gallant Member. That is very easily explained by the fact that the deputation, as I have said, had not only made recommendations and expressed opinions, but had asked for more information, and they felt that it was, therefore, only right to get the full information for which they had asked, namely, to wait until the White Paper was published before definitely recording a vote against the Government, or in favour of other proposals. Therefore, the fact that there was only a small Division for the Motion of my hon. and gallant Friend is of little account. The appearance of the White Paper, with nothing in it to set at rest the anxieties which we had expressed, and nothing done to meet the recommendations which we had made, has in no wise diminished the number of Members who made those representations to my right hon. Friend before the 22nd February. But, again, those Members have had little opportunity to speak. We had, it is true, a three days' Debate when many Members of the group put down their names to speak, but in view of the great number of Members wishing to take part in this very important Debate, only three or four Members of this group were able to make their voices heard in the Debate. Certainly all four showed great anxiety, and three out of the four I think showed very little hesitation in the way in which they expressed their anxiety and their views in general. However, I would point out that, owing to the form in which the Government cast their Motion, there was, fortunately, no need for this group, or, for that matter, the group associated with my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping, to move any Amendment, or to suggest any addition to the Government Motion. Therefore, again, this group had no opportunity of showing, as a whole, their views.

When we come to examine the representation which this group is to be given on the Joint Select Committee from the 2226 House of Commons, we find that out of three definite critics of the White Paper only one of them represents this group. I think that I am right in saying that two of them, namely, my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Sir R. Craddock) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall) are both Members of the Committee associated with my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping—the India Defence Committee. Only my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan) represents what has been indicated to the right hon. Gentleman as a very much larger group than those who are members of the India Defence Committee. The group, though mainly Conservative, includes some representation of Liberal and Labour opinion. My observations lead me to believe that this group, and the group associated with my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping, together account for considerably more than one-third of the Members of the whole House. I submit that the representation that should have been given to all the critics of the scheme of the Government taken together should at least be five out of the 16 members whom it is proposed to select. The group of which I have spoken should have not less than three members in addition to the two from the India Defence Committee. It is all the more extraordinary that my right hon. Friend has nominated only three critics from the House of Commons, when we are led to understand from the letter written by the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth to the right hon. Gentleman, declining the invitation sent to him, that originally four critics had been invited to serve. I understood from the letter of my hon. and gallant Friend that he objected to the fact that only four out of 17 Members altogether would hold the view which he holds.

§ Sir H. CROFT

Only two Members holding the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and myself were selected from the House of Commons as far as I remember.

§ Duchess of ATHOLL

I read from the letter of the hon. and gallant Gentleman— I gather that there will be four members out of 17 selected in the House of Commons who are presumed to be in opposition to the Government's proposals in regard to Indian reform.

§ Sir H. CROFT

I understood the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) might be presumed to be sympathetic to the views of those who were opposed to the proposals of the Government, and the four included the hon. Gentleman the Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan). There were only two absolutely opposed to law and order being transferred in the Provinces and abdication at the centre.

§ Duchess of ATHOLL

I have not been treating the subject in any detail but trying to keep within the ruling recently pronounced on the matter. I am referring broadly to those whose attitude is that of criticism towards the proposals of the Government. I certainly gathered from the letter of my hon. and gallant Friend—I may be wrong—that in the beginning my right hon. Friend had invited four who were definitely, or who were believed to be definitely, critics of the proposals to serve on the Committee. I do not know the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain). Perhaps my right hon. Friend will inform the House if I am wrong in saying that, independently of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, he originally invited four Members whom he believed to be critical of his policy, whether associated with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping or not, to serve on the Committee. But now, independently of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, there are only three. Unless I am wrong in my reading of the letter of my hon. and gallant Friend, the right hon. Gentleman has made a very grave mistake and seems to have sinned against the light, when at the moment, when two representative Members who have shown themselves to be critics of his proposals refused to serve on his Committee because they considered that the representation was inadequate, he cuts down the representation of critics to three. It seems to be an extraordinary step to have taken, if that is the case, but no doubt if I am wrong, my hon. friend the Under-Secretary of State for India, or the right hon. Gentleman will tell the House. I think that the representation is extremely inadequate, more especially in regard to the large number of Members who are gravely anxious on this subject but who have not joined the Committee 2228 of my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping. But I do not think that the Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) is practical politics. To reduce the Committee to 12 would leave the representatives of this House four fewer than the representatives from the other House.

§ Captain CROOKSHANK

The other place has not taken their decision yet. They might reduce their numbers.

§ Duchess of ATHOLL

We cannot be sure that t