– CLOSE VOTE t- , ' • . » ■ -—: -- –

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 114, 10 November 1934, Page 5

- CLOSE VOTE t- , ' • . » ■ -—: -- -

I PROBLEM. OF. INDIA . c CONSERVATIVE PARTY . y, (From "The Port's" Representative.) ° LONDON, October 5. The most important debate on the & opening- day of- the conference of -the a National Union of Conservative and - Unionist Associations was that relat- ?. ing to Indian Beforin.- , The conference gave a rousing ovation .to Sir i, Henry Page Croft-when, he moved his ' resolution warning the .Government of r the dangers of their India-n policy. The t resolution contained the words: y "This conference, while prepared to c support proposals for a greater measure >• of self-government in the Provinces - of India, step by step, in accordance j« with the Government of India Act, re- • cords its emphatic opinion .that the - partnership of Britain and India in the ? Central Government of the Indian Em- ' pire must not bo dissolved, and urgei - the Government to assent to no pro- , posals which would imperil the futura " of India within the Empire or impair - the confidence and unity of the Conservatiye Party in view of the menace h of Socialism." If they had strong views in this 3 matter, said Sir Henry Page Croft, it r was their duty to express them now, before Parliament or Mr. Baldwin was :, committed. The members of the con- . ference had just ds much right to say what their views were to the Joint r; Select Committee as had the scores of Indians who had come over here' to - give their, evidence. i- The White Pa ller meant the end of d the partnership of British and Indians in association in the internal govern meat and the administration of India 0 —(cries of ."No")—but, Conservatives .. refused to end that partnership, which they regarded as vital not only to the ~ masses of India but to the Imperial . connection. They were, however, prer. pared, not without serious misgivings. 1 to go so far as a tremendous , experi- , inent with self-government—home rula . ~ln. \ Provinces of India on the lines l, of the report of the Simon Commission, ; but they could not consent to abdicate at the -centre." '" «tla\ Wil ite. Paper polioy was iaiti> y ated by the last Socialist Government c and Lord Beading. It was opposed to :- the traditions of the Conservative , rarty; It was a reversion to the s ideals of Cobden. There was no des. mand for this policy among the British people, and it was not wanted in India. I, The provinces dreaded it, and the - Indian Liberal leaders only urgedv its ;• acceptance in order to 'emulate Mr. do 7 X. al era> , There was only °ne force i that could save Irdia for the Empire, . and that was the Conservative Party, t (Cheers.) J 7 Lieut-Commander Agnew, M.P., sepr onding, said the question of India had '■ never been laid before the people of » thjs country. There was no mandate to proceed with a scheme of federalI ised democracy, such as was laid down g in the. White Paper. He was dismayed that proposals sponsored by the Soeiali ist Party had been taken Up by a Govf ernment, f our-fif ths' of whose supporters were members of the Conservative , Party. c Alderman John Inskip (Bristol) . moved the following/ amendment:— '■ That in view ,of th y decision of the 3 conference last year at Birmingham that _ it would not come to any final conclusion on the proposals for. a new Constij- ution for India until the Joint Select £ Committee had made its recommendag tions, it is not in the interests of the party that this conference should pass - any resoluion, particularly as it has j been decided that a special meeting of the Council' of the National Union - should be held to. take' counsel with j the leader of the party when the rej port of the Joint Select Committee is published: He said that, Sir Henry Page Croft , would have tho conference believe! that the amendment was tantamount to sugr gesting , that ■ the "delegates had 'no 1 views of their own and had no right tr express themselves.' It was idlej to' suggest to a great assembly repret sentative of the Conservative Party that" they had no wills of their own. The ; question was not whether they should . have tho right to express those views, , but w.hether this was 'the time and place to express them on that question. ', (Cheers.) . • ; He invited the conference to await the report of the Joint Select Committ tee before passing any, resolution, and r that was the decision of the Conserva-tive-Party last year at the Birmingham '.' Conference. Did they want to tell • tho. world that they were prepared to s surrender ' their Indian-, policy now to • internal and party , considerations? (Cheers.) t The resolution could never . be effective. Thereafter' the conference made it : plain that it wished to vote as soon as c possible. ' . The.Duchess of Atholl.was given a: : second term of five minutes, which the delegates promptly followed up by re- ) fusing to listen to "her. When she sat I down the closure was moved and car- ; riedj although the conference had apparently overlooked the fact; until Miss Evans, the chairman, firmly pointed it out. that Sir Henry Page Croft had thus been deprived of his. right of re^ily. There was a babel of noise when the vote was taken. The result of the show of hands was obviously so close that the' decision to .■'take-a ballot was'generally Welcomed. ' The proceedings closed at 5 o'clock, i but a large proportion of the delegates i remained behind, until half-past five, . when, amid cheers and counter-cheers, . the chairman- announced ■■ that . the I amendment had been carried- by: 543 - votes to" 520. v - At Birmingham last year a similar i amendment-was carried by 737 votes • to 344, so that ' practically the same number of delegates took part in the . ballot on each occasion. i Speaking of the-debate'afterwards, ( Sir Henry Page Croft said: — . ( "I think it is a dramatic and re- ' markable result, and I imagine that it i can only have the effect of- influencing the whole policy of the Government in. [ regard'to India. ; "I was amazed to find that the closure was applied,. in view •of the fact that Mr. Baldwin had advocated the utmost frankness and freedom in , his recent correspondence with me. "The result shows a remarkable'increase in the vote of those who realise the perils of the Indian reforms. "It was, in ' my view, a great mistake to bring the discussion to a close, as the debate had only been in progress a very short time. "It seems very strange that Lord Ampthill, who was .Governor..pf Madras for five years,' and Viceroy of India for- a year, chmn B the late Lord Curzon 's absence, should have been precluded from addressing the conference for the first time, andyprovented from uttering his warniiig. Sir Alfred Knox, chairman of the Parliamentary Committee, was another of those prevented from addressing the conference. "I feel very strongly about that, and this conduct is extraordinarily strange, and may account for the small majority which they obtained for the amendment. "I do not wish to say very much about the methods which were adopted to carry that amendment, -but it is even suggested that a member of the Select Committee voted in the division, which, to my mind, is most im« proper."