READ SECOND TIME

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 119, 13 February 1935, Page 9

READ SECOND TIME

Government of India Bill AMENDMENT LOST Conclusion of Four-day Debate By Telegraph.—Press Assn.— Copyright. (Received February 12, 7.20 p.m.) London, February 12. At the conclusion of a four days’ debate in the House of Commons on the Government of India Bill, a Labour amendment was defeated by 404 votes to 133 and the Bill was read a. second time. The figures were received with cheers and counter-cheers. The amendmeat, moved by Major Attlee (Limehouse), regretted that the Bill failed explicitly to recognise India’s right to Dominion status or provide for the enfranchisement of workers and peasants to enable them constitutionally to work out their own social and economic emancipation. The minority consisted of SO Conservatives, including Mr. Churchill, Sir Henry Page-Croft, Lord Hugh Cecil and the Duchess of Atholl, 51 Labourites and two Independents. Divergent views on the principles of the measure were summed up by Ml’. Winston Churchill, the last speaker for the dissident Conservatives, Mr. George Lansbury, Leader of the Official Opposiation, the Attorney-General,' Sir Thomas Inskip, and Mr. Stanley Baldwin, who concluded the debate. The Attorney-General, Sir Thomas Inskip, a British official wireless message states, dealt in particular with the problem of the depressed classes, the inclusion of law and order within the sphere of action of Ministers, and the question of Dominion status. . The depressed classes and masses of India, he said, had everything to’ gain by the Bill and nothing was more likely to quicken the pace of internal reforms, for which Britain’s great administrators and engineers had paved the way, than the fact of bearing great responsibility. Those who said they would agree to provincial autonomy, if law and order were not transferred, were clutching at a straw. Divorce between political power on the one hand and authority in the sphere of public order o_n the other hand would be certain to end in the collapse of one or the other. Views on Dominion Status. Referring to Dominion status, Sir Thomas said that the Secretary for India’s declaration last Wednesday had not merely the assent of the Government, but expressed their considered judgment. To put that declaration in the Bill, however, would be interpreting an interpretation—more likely to darken counsel than to elucidate words already used. Sir Samuel Hoare’s statement was intended to have precisely the same importance and to be treated with the same respect as if the Government had been able to put it into the preamble. It would be extremely difficult to frame suitable language for a formal statement of preamble. The Statute of Westminster did not mention, still less define, Dominion status and did not alter it at all. That India should at some time have the same rights as the Dominions he most certainly affirmed, but it was obvious that India from her size, condition and strategic position would have more difficult problems presented to her than were ever presented to the Governments of other Dominions. He regretted that the purely academic question of the right .to secede from the Empire had been raised/ All pledges to India were pledges relating to its future development in the words of the 1919 preamble “as an integral part of the Empire.” It was so stated in the Irwin Declaration. It would apply to the Irwin Declaration, even if it were not stated, because that declaration was solely put forward as an interpretation of the preamble. Quite obviously none of the pledges included the promise of status outside the British Empire, nor was the Constitution intended to be used to take. India out of the Empire. They were told they were taking great risks in this Bill, but was there ever a time when the British nation was not taking risks. The whole Empire was one long history of risks wisely taken. The Government felt that this question had been so long pondered, so widely discussed by men of goodwill and of experience, that they might go forward in the hope that their intentions would be accepted for what they were worth, and that India might after this great debate realise that the people of Britain were prepared now to lend all their efforts to enable the peoples of India to attain what they had taught them to desire — full stature of manhood within the British Commonwealth. Mr. Churchill’s Criticism. Later speakers included Mr. Winston Churchill, who prefaced his criticism of the Bill by referring to the Dominion status declaration’ as a’grave new fact. He admitted that he himself had loosely and unwisely used the phrase immediately after the war, but later 'it was felt in many quarters in politics that such a vague and indefinite phrase ought not to play its part in a revision of the Indian constitution. He claimed that they were entitled to a clarification of Sir Thomas Inskip’s statement. There was no doubt that that the Statute of Westminster would apply to the Dominion status for India which the 'Government' contemplated, Mr. Churchill added, Press Association cable states. They were told that if they did not accept the Bill they would put the Socialists in power and get a worse one, but whenever the Socialists attained office it would be easy for them to tear away all safeguards. Mr. J. C. Wedgwood (Lab.; New-castle-under-Lyme) said that none of the supporters of the Bill had answered the Indians’ objection. “We are removing our hand and introducing the deader hand of the princes and aristocracy which has stood still since the seventeenth century.” Mr. G. Lansbury, Leader of the Opposition, said his party regretted to enter the same lobby as Mr. Churchill and pis supporters, and would like to go aloile into a third lobby. Labour’s view was that the Bill did not give the people of India that advance to self-government to which they were entitled. Mr. Baldwin’s Speech. Mr. Stanley Baldwin said a section of the Press next day would doubtless infer that there would be an election at Whitsuntide. He was in no wise conscious of the Government being on its last legs and it had not begun to 4

consider the question of an election. If they failed to pass a Bill based on the conclusions of successive inquiries spread over several years they would be open to reproach for a breach of faith. (Cheers.) All the invaluable services which Britain had established in India would be continued, but Indians alone could deal with profound changes in religious and social customs rendered necessary by, the increase of population and the struggle for subsistence. Britain had already begun an attempt to make trade agreements with India in the same way as with the Dominions. She was bound by the pledges of 1917 and 1919 to make as big an advance in the direction of self-government as circumstances in India permitted. If the Empire to-day was loyal it was because Britain had conceded in good time the reasonable claims of its units to become controllers of their own affairs. The same principle must be applied to India. The majority in India had no greater ambition than for her to become a permanent partner in the British Commonwealth. “Let us welcome her in no huckstering spirit, but willingly and generously,” he said. NO CHANGE IN BILL Pleasing Conservatives SUGGESTION DENIED (Received February 12, 7.10 p.m.) London, February 12. “The Times,” in a leader, says: The overwhelming majority on the second reading of the India Bill sufficiently answers the absurd suggestion that it should be withdrawn and recast to please Conservatives. The Government would run a far greater risk by being too tolerant, of clamour than by standing firmly by its considered decisions.

The “Daily Telegraph” states that there is not the slightest ground for the supposition that the Government is likely to listen to the plea that the provisions of the Bill should be modified in important respects in order to restore unity in the Conservative Party. “Cabinet," it says, “is firm on this point, which, in spite of published suggestions to the contrary, it has not considered as a serious proposition." BENGAL TERRORISM Government’s Tight Hold (Received February 12, 7.30 p.m.) Calcutta, February 12. The Governor, Sir John Anderson, addressing the Bengal Legislative Council at Calcutta, claimed that the Government had a tighter hold on the terrorist situation than ever before, but if pressure was relaxed the situation would speedily deteriorate. Many desperate characters were still at large.