IRWIN DECLARATION

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 111, 6 November 1929, Page 11

IRWIN DECLARATION

HOUSE OF LORDS DEBATE

QUESTIONS RAISED

British Official Wireless. (Piceeived 6th November, 11 -.urn.) . RUGBY, sth November. The Marquis of Reading, former Viceroy of India, in the House of Lords called attention to the recent statement issued by the Viceroy of India regarding the attainment by India of Dominion status; and asked the Government (1) to state their reason for the extraordinary course of making this pronouncement without having consulted the Statutory ■ Commission upon it, and before the Commission had reported; (2) whether the conditions con-, tamed in tlie declaration of 1917 to the Government of India Act remain in full force and efieet, and are applicable to Dominion status; and (3) whether this statement implies any change in policy hitherto declared or in the time when this status may be attained. "DOMINION. SVATUS,1 ' The Marquis of Reading said that the change of procedure whereby a conference of politicians representing all parties in India would be held before and not after the Government had formulated its proposals was very important. He welcomed it, and hoped that it would help to satisfy Indian opinion. The other parties approved it. But when the Secretary for India made a further proposal that reference should bo made to the future of India in the language or something approaching the language used in the Viceroy's statement, he at once took objection. "Let me make it plain that neither I nor my party object to Dominion status regarded as the ideal which we-even-tually hope to reach in relation to the Government of India." DANGEROUS PHEASE. He objected to the use of the term because it had never appeared before in^any document)" and because it would be impossible to make a statement of this character without the assent of the Simon Commission. Nevertheless, it was proposed by the Government that the statement should be made' which must affect the prestige, influence, and authority of the Simon Commission. He himself, when Viceroy, had ' been careful never to use thg words ''Dominion status." The very phrase conjured up at once a position to someextent at least in advance of what might bo ascribed to responsible Government. Such a phrase was-liable to be misunderstood in India, and by many people in this county. Mr. Lloyd George took exactly the same attitude as himself. , The Conservative Party refused to assent to the statement regarding Dominion status. On 27th October ho wrote to the Secretary for India, expressing his grave regret at the proposal of the Government and the Viceroy .to make a pronouncement. The statement, unless itv was corrected, would be heralded throughout India as a promise tq give at once Dominion status. He wanted the Government to make it clear, without any ambiguity, throughout India that the language used by the Government in its pronouncement was only an interpretation of the ultimate go;il to which India might attain when various obstacles were surmounted. NO AMBIGUITY. Lord Parmoor, replying for the Government, said that he could find no ambiguity in the pronouncement. The Viceroy issued it in order that Indian opinion -might be- educated and that Indians who were doubtful before would now have a full assurance as regarded the political and constitutional future of India. Nothing eouia be clearer in the pronouncement of the Viceroy than that the reservations in the Declaration of 1919 were retained without altering and without exception. Though Dominion status was the ultimate goal, the Government ana the Viceroy drew a distinction between the purpose and the means whereby that goal might be reached. The purpose remained unaltered and unchanged. The qnestion of policy with respect to the time in which Dominion status niight be attained could not be considered and ought not to be considered until the Statutory Commission and the Indian Central Committee had' submitted their reports and the Government, in consultation with the. Government of India, had considered those matters in the light of the material available and furthermore until after the meeting of the conference it was intended to summon.

Lord Parmoor contended that the pronouncement in no way undermined the authority of the Simon Commission. The _ Government was well advised in leaving the Commission alone in making a statement of policy of this kind. It would be wrong if it should be thought in India that there was no special connection between the Government for the time being ana the Simon Commission. RELATION TO COMMISSION. Dealing with the reasons for making the pronouncement without having consulted the Statutory Commission, Lord Parmoor said that it was" considered by the Government, with the full concurrence of the Viceroy, that, in view of the impending open invitation to representatives of British India and Indian States to attend a conference, it was very desirable to re-state clearly what was the purpose of Great Britain in regard to the Government of India. It was ascertained that the Commission was averse from being associated in correspondence in which this reaffirmation should appear and the Government decided that it should be made in a document. The Government was aware that the Statutory Commission did not wish to be so associated, but it did. not think that precluded it from making reaffirmation. They had the deepest anxioty to do nothing -which would in any way-prejudice the position of the Statutory Commission.