Untitled

Hokitika Guardian, 23 November 1933, Page 4

The main difference between the Simon Report and the White Paper, said Mr L. S. Amcry, when discussing the Indian question at the Conservative Conference, was that the Simon C 'amission proposed a provisional and immediate scheme to establish self-responsibility in the Provinces, with the maintenance at the centre of tlie Legislature, from which the nominated element should be almost entirely excluded, and with a vast elected majority substituted, but without anv responsibility for their votes. What the White Paper urged was a federal scheme, such as the Simon Commission envisaged as the only sound ultimate solution, bringing in the whole of India, including the

Indian States and giving that Federal .Legislature responsibility for certain limited .subjects, more particularly those in which the functions of the Central and Provincial Governments overlapped. The argument for the Simon scheme was that it proceeded step by step, retaining central powers which, if things went wroiig, might give a better chance of reversing what had been done. But they must have a Constitution which would work, and as a Conservative he was convinced that the Simon scheme, with an overwhelming elected majority at the centre without any responsibility, could not work if it stood by itself. He regarded the Whits Paper as the more conservative and workable solution. This was not an easy or simple matter,- hut lie knew no mind more constructive or essentially Conservative, than that of Sir Samuel Hoare. Some of the best Conservative constructive and critical minds were on the Select Committee, ond he only regretted that they had not- been assisted by the great critical abilities of Lord Lloyd and Mr Churchill.