INDIAN REFORM

Evening Star, Issue 21904, 15 December 1934, Page 17

INDIAN REFORM

HOUSE OF LORDS DEBATE OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT'S SCHEME Press Association—By Telegraph—Copyright LONDON, December 13. In the House of Lords the Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr Cosmo Lang) resumed the • debate on India. He expressed the opinion that it was time we got rid of the misleading phrase “ dominion status for India.” It was inconceivable that she could be given a Constitution identical with that of the dominions; but surely a great all-India federation would increasingly have a place of honour in the Empire, as distinct from any of the dominions. After all the months of consideration of the path further delay, was a path of danger, not safety. The great mass of Indian Christians desired further selfgovernment. . ... Lord Rankeillour, in opposing the Government’s scheme, voiced the opinion that the Select Committee’s report was not, a judicial finding of unbiased minds, as the majority were “ np to the neck ” in Government policy before the inquiry began. . , _ , Lord Strabolgi said that the Labour peers would support neither the. Government’s motion nor Lord Salisbury’s amendment. The Primate’s reference to dominion status .was most unfortunate. Britain was pledged to give India dominion status, and must keep her word. . _ The debate was adjourned., TRADE RELATIONS HOPES OF EARLY AGREEMENT.’ (British Official Wireless.) RUGBY, December 13. ' Answering a 'question in the House of Commons regarding negotiations for an Anglo-Indian trade agreement, Mr Walter Runciman (President of the Board of Trade) said that the main difficulties had been surmounted and there was every reason to hope that an agreement would be settled at an early date. Regarding its scope, Mr Runciman said it did not deal with the actual rates of duty on particular commodities, but laid down the principle to be followed in fixing Indian protective duties on" United Kingdom goods, not only textiles, but also other goods subject to protective duties.