India Waits for Changes in Rule

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 210, 24 November 1927, Page 15

India Waits for Changes in Rule

LAPSE OF TEN YEARS SETTING UP OF COMMISSION By Cable. —Press Association. —Copyright RUGBY, Wednesday. The House of Commons to-day passed without division the second reading of the Indian Statutory Commission Bill. The Under-Secretary for India, Earl Winterton, in moving the second reading, said It was necessary to alter the provision of the Government of India Act of 1919, which provided that a statutory commission was to be appointed at the end of 10 years. The present Bill proposed to substitute the words “10 years” for the words “within 10 years.” In addition it would be necessary under the provisions of the Act to ask Parliament to concur in the submission of the names of the commissioners to the King. A resolution to that, effect would be tabled by himself and discussed on Friday.

Earl Winterton pointed out that the third assembly under the Government of India Act would complete its period of life, and the third Parliament would come to an end some time In the spring of 1929. That was to say, when the commission would probably have finished taking evidence, and presumably before it had written its report. SPIRIT OF THE ACT

Therefore the Government could claim that this Bill, though making a change In the letter, did not materially affect the spirit of that Act. There was the recommendation of the joint Select Committee of both Houses, which was recognised in this country and in India as being unsurpassed in authority, as interpreting the policy of the Act. The recommendation of that committee was that no material change should be made in the constitution of India within 10 years. On that point Earl Winterton said he had a two-fold answer to make. First, this particular recommendation had reference to an earlier recommendation, made in the Montagu-Chelmsford report, that after five years’ experience of the working of the Act, proposals should be invited for modifications. In effect the joint committee did not accept the Montagu-Chelmsford recommendation. NO EARLY CHANGE

His second answer was that no change was 4ikely to be made as the result of the alteration of the date until well after the „o years’ period had been passed. The Statutory Commission w ould not report until at least well in the summer of 1929, and presumably the British Parliament of that date would qot be asked to deal with any alteration in the Act until the year 1930, or more than 10 years after the passing of the Act. It had been made clear, by statements made by members of tbe Government, that in certain circumstances it was inetnded to accelerate the date of the Statutory Commission, and that reasons had been given which had led the Government to decide that the commission should now be appointed. LABOUR LEADER’S SUPPORT The Leader of the Labour Party, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, in supporting the Bill, said the Labour Government in 1924 hoped to ottain a report on the subject, but unfortunately events in India had precluded this. The Labour Party would reserve its criticism until the debate on the personnel of the commission. Colonel J. Wedgwood. Labour member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, said the Government had chosen a most unfortunate moment and method for appointing the commission. The measure was likely to do more harm to British relations with India than anything the Government had hitherto done. The assent of the Indian Assembly might to have been obtained before the appointment. Mr. s. Saklatvala, Communist member for North Battersea, moved the rejection of the Bill, which ha described a hypocritical attempt to deceive India and the world. The people of India did not want the commission, hut wanetd a round-table conference.

Several Labour members attacked the Bill, but did not support its rejection.—A. and N.Z.