asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Sir Samuel Wilson has instructions to consult with, and will have an opportunity to consult with, Mr. Srinivasa Sastri, in Kenya; and whether Sir Samuel is instructed that the question of communal representation is fixed and immovable so long as the present Government remains in office in this country?

Sir Samuel Wilson has received no instructions other than those which I communicated to the House on 27th March. If the right hon. Member will read them, he will see that they cover the first part of his question. As regards the second part, it is obvious that any change in the basis of the franchise in Kenya could only come about by agreement, whatever Government were in power in this country.

Do I understand, in the first place, that Mr. Sastri will be in the Colony at the same time as Sir Samuel Wilson, and, accordingly, will have an opportunity of meeting him? In the second place, do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to bind all Governments of this country never to alter the franchise in Kenya except with the consent of the three elements in the population?

Mr. Sastri is going in order to lay the case of the Indian community before Sir Samuel Wilson and will certainly have occasion for meeting him and consulting him. In regard to the second question, I am not binding any Government, but I think the obvious facts of the case bind them all.

Are we to understand that the Government rule out of practical politics any question of modifying the franchise without the consent of the white settlers and the Indians and the natives, and, if so, does that apply to modifications desired by the natives or desired by the whites?

No. The main basis—I am not discussing details—was laid down in the white paper issued in the time of the Duke of Devonshire. In view of all the circumstances of the case, no one could suggest that the basis should be altered except by consent.

The right hon. Gentleman's statement means, therefore, that no modification of the franchise in the direction desired by the natives or Indians will be brought about without the consent of the whites, but that modifications of the franchise in the interests of the whites might be brought about without the consent of the Indians or the natives?

No. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman must not read more into my answer than I gave. I may remind him that the recent Commission did not suggest any change in the basis of the franchise except by consent.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the existing communal franchise was introduced without the consent of all parties concerned and only under instructions from a microscopic minority of the inhabitants? Why did not he ask everyone's consent then?