THE INDIAN COMMISSION

Taranaki Daily News, 9 February 1928, Page 9

THE INDIAN COMMISSION

EXPLANATION IN COMMONS SESSION WORK COMMENCES SHORT SITTING PREDICTED By Telegraph—Press Assn.—Copyright. Received Feb. 8, 9.30 p.m. A.P.A. and Sun London, Feb. 7. Mr. Baldwin read a letter from Sir John Simon, chairman of the Indian Commission, to the Viceroy proposing a joint free conference consisting of seven British commissioners and a corresponding body of representatives chosen by the Indian legislatures. The letter pointed out that the conference, besides giving recognition of equal statue, provided opportunity for the free exchange of views and mutual influence best calculated to promote the largest possible measure of agreement. The letter emphasised that the commission was in no sense an instrument of either the British or the Indian Governments, but was an independent, unfettered body approaching the Indian legislators as colleagues. The commission was neither an executive nor a legislative body. It was authorised only to report and to make recommendations. It was hoped to include in the report a faithful account of the opinions and aspirations of the Indians. If preferred the Indian joint committee’s report could be annexed to the commission’s and both presented to His Majesty and published simultaneously. Mr. Baldwin said he was glad of Mr. Lloyd George’s and Mr. MaeDonlad’s endorsements regarding 'China, as they made the Government’s policy a national policy. The Foreign Secretary would deal with the question of arbitration with the United States to-morrow.

Referring to the Franchise Bill the Premier emphasised the point that new-ly-enfranchised persons would be enabled to vote at the next general election. Regarding the small amount of business outlined he said the Government had decided to wind up the session at the end of July and begin the new session in October or November. It was impossible to deal with controversial matter like the Factory Bill before August.

Labourites tabled an amendment te the Address-in-Reply expressing regret that there was no mention of measures to grapple with the presiding urgency of employment, especially in coal and other basic industries, and its menacing effects in many areas where industrial enterprise was being crippled and local government was breaking down. Complaint was made that reservists from China were not being reinstated in employment.

HOUSE OF LORDS’ BRIEF DEBATE. GOVERNMENT AND THE LEAGUE. Received Feb. 8, 7.30 p.m. A.P.A. and Sun London, Feb. 7The House of Lords ended the debate on the Address-in-Reply at a single sitting. The Address was moved by the Duke of Montrose and eecowbed by Baron Cranworth. The latter described the extension of votes to young women as wise and statesmanlike. Lord Haldane atributed the cryptic nature of the King’s Speech to the approach of the general election. He, Lord Fitzalan and Lord Younger all condemned the omission of any reference to the reform of the House of Lords. Lord Beauchamp demanded that the Franchise Bill should include electoral reform to prevent a repetition of minority governments like the present. He was disappointed that the Government had taken up the position of being a drag upon the activities of the League of Nations. Lord Salisbury, replying, said the Government favoured arbitration to the utmost length to which it could earry the Dominions and the British Government’s support. The Government would keep its pledge and deal with the reform of the House of Lords in the present Parliament.