sion. His Majesty's Government suggest that the Commission on arrival in India should consider and decide by what machinery this work may most appropriately be discharged. This will not, of course, debar the Commission from the advantage of taking evidence itself upon these subjects to whatever extent it may think desirable:

(e) When the Commission has reported and its report has been examined by the Government of India and His Majesty's Government it will be the duty of the latter to present proposals to Parliament. But it is not the intention of His Majesty's Government to ask Parliament to adopt these proposals without first giving a full opportunity for Indian opinion of different schools to contribute its view upon them. And to this end it is intended to invite Parliament to refer these proposals to consideration by a Joint Committee of both Houses and to facilitate the presentation to that Committee both of the views of the Indian Central Legislature by delegations who will be invited to attend and confer with the

to

Joint Committee and also of the views of any other bodies whom the Joint Parliamentary Committee may desire し L consult.

In the opinion of His Majesty's Government, the procedure contemplated fulfils, to a very great extent, the requisites outlined above. Such a Commission, drawn from men of every British political party and presided over by one whose public position is due to outstanding ability and character, will evidently bring fresh, trained and unaffected judgment to bear upon an immensely complex constitutional issue.

Morcover, the findings of some of its own members can count in advance upon a favourable reception at the hands of Parliament, which will recognise them to be speaking from a common platform of thought and to be applying the standards of judgment which Parliament will feel instinctively to be its own. For myself, I cannot doubt that the quickest and surest path of those who desire Indian progress is by persuasion of Parliament, and that they can do this more certainly through members of both Houses of Parliament than in any other way. The Indian Nationalist has gained much if he can convince the Members of Parliament on the spot: and I would therefore go further and say that, if those who speak for India have confidence in the case which they advance on her behalf, they ought to welcome such an opportunity being afforded to as many members of the British Legislature as may be, thus to come into contact with the realities of Indian life and politics.

Furthermore, while it is, for these reasons, of undoubted advantage to all who desire an extension of the Reforms that their case should be heard in the first instance by those who can command the unquestioned confidence of Parliament, I am sanguine

enough to suppose that the method chosen by His Majesty's Government will also assure to Indians a better opportunity than they could have enjoyed in any other way of influencing the passage of these great events. For not only will they, through representatives of the Indian Legislatures, be enabled to express themselves freely to the Commission itself, but it will also be within their power to challenge in detail or principle any of the proposals made by His Majesty's Government before the Joint Select Committee of Parliament and to advocate their own solutions. It should be observed, moreover, that at this stage Parliament will not have been asked to express any opinion on particular proposals and therefore, so far as Parliament is concerned, the whole field will still be open.

I hope that there will be none, whatever may be their political opinions who will fail to take advantage of this potent means thus presented to them of establishing direct contact between the Indian and British peoples. There will be some whose inclination it may be will prompt them to condemn the scheme of procedure on which His Majesty's Government has decided. Others may criticise this or that part of the proposals. The reply to these last is that the plan outlined stands as a single comprehensive whole and should be so regarded. Of the first I would ask in all sincerity whether disagreement on the particular machinery to effect the end which we all alike pursue, is sufficient ground for any man to stand aside and decline to lend his weight to the joint effort of the peoples that this undertaking represents.

I have never concealed from myself that there are, and will be, differences of opinion between the two peoples, just as there are differences of opinion within Great Britain and India on these matters; it is through disagreements accenting clashes of judgment that it is given to us ultimately to approach knowledge of the truth. It is also inevitable that on issues so momentous differences of judgment will be founded on deep and sincere conviction. But, if difficult, our general line of conduct is surely plain where possible it is our duty to bring these differences to agreement; where this is at any given moment not practicable without the surrender of something fundamental to our position, it is our duty to differ as friends, each respecting the standpoint. of the other and each being careful to see that we say or do nothing that will needlessly aggravate differences which we are unable immediately to resolve.

The effect that such differences will have upon the relations between the two countries will depend on something which lies. deeper than the differences themselves. All friendships are subject at times to strains which try tempers and lay men under the necessity of exercising considerable forbearance and restraint. Such strains are indeed a sovereign test; for just as one is the

stronger for rising superior to temptation to which another yields, so true friendship flourishes on the successful emergence from the very test which would dissolve any less firmly founded partnership. In real friendship each party is constrained to see the best in the other's case, to give credit for the best motives and place the most charitable interpretations upon actions which they might wish otherwise. Above all, friends will strive to correct differences by appealing to the many things on which they are agreed rather than lightly imperil friendship by insistence on points in regard to which they take conflicting views.

Thus I would fain trust it would be in the present case. I do not think I am mistaken if I assert that it is the fixed determination of the overwhelming majority of citizens both of India and Great Britain to hold firmly by the goodwill which through many trials, and it may be through some false steps on the part of each, has meant much to both in each country. There may from time to time be misunderstanding of the other. Let us not magnify such things beyond their value: least of all let us not permit such transient influences to lead us to lose sight of the rich prize of achievement of a common purpose which we may assuredly win together but can hardly win in separation. It is my most earnest hope that this joint endeavour to solve a problem on the wise treatment of which so much depends may be inspired by such a spirit as shall offer good hope of reaching an issue to the great and abiding good of India and of all her sons.

(822-6) Wt. 17669-679 1000 11/27 H. St. G. 3.

DRAFT INDIAN CHURCH MEASURE

introduced to the National Assembly of the Church of England by order of the House of Bishops

and

DRAFT INDIAN CHURCH STATUTORY RULES

proposed to be made under clause 5 of the Indian Church Bill, if it passes into law.

Presented by the Secretary of State for India to Parliament by Command of His Majesty. May 1927.

LONDON:

PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY HIS MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE To be purchased directly from H. M. STATIONERY OFFICE at the following addresses: Adastral House, Kingsway, London, W.C. 2; 120, George Street, Edinburgh; York Street, Manchester; 1, St. Andrew's Crescent, Cardiff;

15, Donegall Square West, Belfast;

or through any Bookseller

1927.

Price 3d, net.

Cmd. 2860.