INDIA.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2533, 21 June 1909, Page 5

INDIA.

MR ASQUITH AND THE DEPORTATION SCHEME.

UPHOLDS GOVERNMENT’S ACTION.

United Press Association —Copyright LONDON, June 18.

In the House of Commons, in reply to Messrs Lynch, Wedgewood, Mackarness, and others, Mr Asquith firmly upheld the Government of India’s action in connection -with deportations. He declared that the Imperial Government would not countenance attempts to amend the regulations of 1898. Any effort to mitigate its strictness would deprive it of value as a deterrent, and render it less effective as an instrument against anarchical terrorist conspiracies. He warned the questioners they were encouraging a revival of mischief in India, which the deporta-f tions had done so much to abate.

REHOUSING THE POOR. SIR SYDENHAM CLARKE’S SCHEME. LONDON, June 18; The “Times’ ” Bombay correspondent says that if Sin Sydenham Clarke’s great scheme of rehousing the poor and improving Bombay is realised, Sir Sydenham Clarke will leave an, indelible mark on the Empire’s second city.

Referring to the proposal to appointan Indian to the Executive Council, the Englishman, a Calcutta journal, in its issue of 4th February, remarked: — He (Lord Morley) has sailed farther down certain doctrinaire channels- than rpany experienced men. consider quite safe. The only reason given by him for the placing of an Indian on the Executive Council cannot be described as very much more sound than that advanced by a delegation that recently waited on him, and was rebuked by him, for the appointment of sectarian members. Lord Morley. pleads that to prove the correctness of every word of the Proclamation of 1858, and also in order to have the Indian view of things, it is essential that one of the six members of the Viceroy’s Executive Council shall be an Indian. It is exactly similar reasoning, added to the certainty that the official Indian member will always be a Hindu, that induced the Moslem plea, and that would bo used to back up a demand in future years for the appointment of an Indian as Viceroy. Both views argue an incorrect conception of the functions and character of the council. Lord Morley’s Indian member is to be a partizan as surely as would any officially styled -Hindu or Moslem member. Lord Morley and his supporters will not recognise this, but it will be found to be the truth. There is no room for a representative of anything but work onvtlie council, and certainly none for a partizan. Neither is it the business of the council to sift and present opinions for some one else to act on. That is done by the subordinate executive and the departmental secretaries. Lastly, as has been urged by everybody. ... who has had to do with this country, there is danger in the. appointment of an Indian to the Supreme Executive. This is even recognised by a-few Radica.s at Home; 'and Lord Morley himself promised' to ponder the matter. Arguments for such a course are plausible, and sentiment is a charming thing, but the fatal.objection is that stern facts are against it. It touches the point _of sovereignty, arid there is no getting round the fact. that, sentiments and opinions notwithstanding, the sovereignty of India must remain British.