The second reading of the Government of India Bill was
moved by Lord Crewe in the Lords on Monday. The ensuing debate was remarkable for the unanimity with which the three ex-Viceroys of India—Lord Curzon, Lord Minto, and Lord Lansdowne—condemned the choice of the new capital and the cost of the scheme. Lord Curzon noted that in the Bill itself there was no mention of Delhi or the transfer of the seat of government at all, which was apparently covered by the phrase "other administrative changes," and complained of the invidious position in which the House was placed by being asked to assent to a policy which had already been carried out, and of the irregular and unconstitutional procedure of the Government. After Lord Minto had associated him- self with Lord Curzon's criticisms and asserted that the volume of dissatisfaction in India was steadily growing, Lord Crewe defended the Government's policy in a singularly inconclusive speech. The site of the new Delhi had not yet been fixed, but the Durbar site would not be used for the main buildings. He refrained from saying anything about the total cost, but asserted that they were adopting the ordinary and common-sense course in meeting the charge out of surpluses and by ordinary loans. Lord Lansdowne, who followed, drove home Lord Curzon's criticisms.
Previous page
