206 LABOUR IN MADRAS In the Bill before us I find no attempt made to introduce any measure of reform which will give the labourer any voice in safeguarding his own interests ; in no way can he better his own conditions ; he will have to rely, as in the past, on the goodwill of others, be they foreigners or be they his own countrymen ; he has been exploited in the past and will continue to be so exploited. But what is worse, the people who exploit him are coming into greater power. Take Madras--the Franchise Committee recommend a Provincial Council of 120, of which 13 are unalloyed capitalistic seats. A factory manager, a shopowner, a planter, can not only vote but get elected from his Chamber of Commerce, his Trades Association, his Planters Association. Capitalists will form a powerful element in the Provincial Council ; and under the system of franchise recommended by the Southborough Committee, the labouring classes will not be able to in. fluence the election. I am speaking specially with reference to the factory labourer, and Bombay affords a better example; the Millowners Association returns a member, but no labourers' association exists. Commerce and Industry have eight seats-excluding landholders' seats--and not a single seat is made available for the representative of labour. I will grant at once that labour organisations do not exist to any great extent ; but is that sufficient reason for allowing the exploitation of Indian labour ? Is there no way to bring the Indian labourer into power ? I maintain that the Indian labourer's interests must be safeguarded, and that the process of safeguarding them must be put into his own hands and into no one else's. I beg to submit that the masses in India—and among them are the factory
