Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I wish to say a few words on this article. My honourable Friend Moulvi Mohammad Tahir has moved an amendment objecting to the use of the word ‘Lower House’. Practically speaking as is known to everybody, the lower House means really the Upper House. That is the House which has a more important voice and has the upper hand in the administration of the province. Similarly the House of Commons is the House of the Commoners and the House of Lords is the House of the Lords. All the same the House of Commons exercises more powers than the House of Lords and nobody for a moment suggests that the name should be changed for that purpose only. Furthermore the use of the word ‘Lower House’ connotes that there must be an Upper House in the same province. Now so far as the Upper House is concerned, its members have been denied many privileges–for instance, one would have normally expected that in selecting or in electing members of the Council of States their compeers, the member of the Upper House should certainly have a voice. Because after all the birds of the same feather flock together and there is a sort of sympathy between members of the Upper House in a province and the members of the Council of State in the Center but, Sir, when you are not giving them the privilege which is exercised by the ordinary members of the Lower House or the Assembly, you must console them by calling them members of the Upper House. Therefore from that point of view also the words ‘Lower House’ should be allowed to remain where they are firstly because the Lower House does not mean a House of Lower dignity but it has to be used for purposes of expediency; and secondly, Sir so long as we think that we must have a second legislature in a Province, there should be one which is called ‘Upper House’ because as a matter of courtesy we should call them Upper House because we are not giving them many privileges.
