INDIAN REFORM

Hokitika Guardian, 9 February 1935, Page 5

INDIAN REFORM

BILL DEBATED fN COMMONS

(British Official Wirelesst)

RUGBY. February 7

In tbe "latter staffes of tli t . first day's debate on the second reading of the Government of India Bill, in the C°nr •rnons last night,, a reasoned amendment for its rejection, 011 the ground that it made 110 real offer of selfgovernment, was moved on behalf of the Labour . party by Major Attlee .

Sir Samuel Hore, moving the second reading, described the main features of the Bill.

Major AH lee. following Sir Samir*!, moved Labour's amendment. retc tlic Bill failed explicitly to recognise Indie's rigid to enfranchisement inf workers and peasants to enable them, constitutionally, to work out their own soda l and 'economic emancipation. He complained that the Bill ciave representation to land and capita], .bnt. very little to labour. It would establish in India a House of Lords, more powerful a nd more reactionary than Britain’s, end a bank similar to tbn Bank *>f England. Tile Liberal Leader (Sir Herbert, Samuel) promised the general support of bis rmi'tv for the principals of the Bill, which, he said, aimed at co-operation, and was infinitely preferable to either of the alternatives of abdication or dominion. :He objected to the adoption of the principle of indirect election, and secured a promise that a Government amendment would ensure that the Preamble of the 1919 Art would not bp repeated. Dime that, was made clear, the Bill represented a great advance. The Liberals welcomed the Bill, which was based on the best, principles of the British political system. Tt was interesting to hear Conservative statesmen preaching the pure doctrine of Liberalism in t.lve matter of Imperial Government. He TegVetted the Bill did not menion Dominion satus.

Sir Swnnpl interposed that the, undertook at a later stage to embody Dominion status in the Preamble fiom thp Government. Bill of 1919. Sir Herbert said the only alternative to the Bill was eoereiop and commercial boycott, whither Mr Ohuvchr'l’s policy would inevitable lead. The TPn l issue was; Can Democracy maintain the 'Empire Only an Empire, treating all citizens with eonal justice, irresnpetivp of race and colour, could endure.

Sir Alfred Knox ore of the omisery nt.ive opponents of RMnrn. deelnred that the Pill "■fin’d be unworkable, would imp n ril safety and orcle l ’, and would be unduly expensive.