Immigration Bill.

Part of Class Ii. – in the House of Commons at on 25 July 1923.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr Reginald Banks Mr Reginald Banks , Swindon

There are three points on which I desire to express my gratification—and I think other hon. Members share it. The first is that His Majesty's Government have been firm enough—and if I may say so with modesty—wise enough to resist certain demands from the Indian representatives in this case, demands which can only be described as exorbitant. In the second place, the Government has kept the pledges which were made to the colonists, and which have been abundantly ratified by successive administrations, upon which these colonists have taken their stand, and upon the security on which they have made their homes and invested their capital in Kenya Colony. In the third place, although because of what I agree is a wise estimate of the present state of affairs, the Government has not seen its way to concede to Kenya which it has conceded to Rhodesia, yet it has not deprived the settlers there of the hope to which, in my humble opinion, they are entitled, that in the fullness of time, as the resources of the Colony develop, they may hope to arrive at the end of that stage along which they have already proceeded some distance from the status of a protectorate to the status of a Crown Colony, and finally a self-governing Dominion, as Rhodesia now is in a position to be.

There has been, as one hon. Gentleman said, a good deal of propaganda on both sides. I think we must assume that the case for the Indians is summarised finally in the memorial which they presented to the Prime Minister. I say that their demands are exorbitant. Their aims are based on statements which are untrue, and their aims are very much more ambitious than they are ready to confess. First of all they say the subject is already the cause of grave discontent in India and a strong weapon in the hands of the natives whose object it is to decry and destroy the British connection. It is only the persons who so decry and destroy the British connection who feel any substantial discontent. I am persuaded that the discontent is felt only amongst political agitators in India and that the enormous mass of the 350,000,000 persons there will feel less excitement over this than they felt over the Salt Tax, and that was precious little indeed. Secondly, they say that this is a violation of a series of Proclamations beginning with Charles II and ending with George V. "I am not prepared to extend my historical researches quite as far back as the Merry Monarch, but I think he was probably more occupied with Lady Castlemaine than with the state of affairs in Kenya Colony.