INDIAN SPEECHES

(1907-1909)

BY VISCOUNT MORLEY

OM

_The modern and Western spirit is assuredly at work in the Indiancountries, but the vital question for Indian Governments is, How farit has changed the ideas of men_?--SIR HENRY MAINE. 

1909

NOTE

A signal transaction is now taking place in the course of Indianpolity. These speeches, with no rhetorical pretensions, contain someof the just, prudent, and necessary points and considerations, thathave guided this transaction, and helped to secure for it the sanctionof Parliament. The too limited public that follows Indian affairs withcoherent attention, may find this small sheaf of speeches, revised asthey have been, to be of passing use. Three cardinal State-papers havebeen appended. They mark the spirit of British rule in India, at threesuccessive stages, for three generations past; and bear directly uponwhat is now being done. 

_November_, 1909. 

CONTENTS

I. ON PRESENTING THE INDIAN BUDGET. (House of Commons, June 6, 1907)

II. TO CONSTITUENTS. (Arbroath, October 21, 1907)

III. ON AMENDMENT TO ADDRESS. (House of Commons, January 31, 1908)

IV. INDIAN CIVIL SERVICE. (London, July, 1908)

V. ON PROPOSED REFORMS. (House of Lords, December 17, 1908)

VI. HINDUS AND MAHOMETANS. (January, 1909)

VII. SECOND READING OF INDIAN COUNCILS BILL. (House of Lords)

VIII. INDIAN PROBATIONERS. (Oxford, June 13, 1909)

APPENDIX

THREE STATE-PAPERS: 1833, 1858, 1908

INDIAN SPEECHES

I

ON PRESENTING THE INDIAN BUDGET

(HOUSE OF COMMONS. JUNE 6, 1907)

I am afraid I shall have to ask the House for rather a large draftupon its indulgence. The Indian Secretary is like the aloe, thatblooms once in 100 years: he only troubles the House with speechesof his own once in twelve months. There are several topics which theHouse will expect me to say something about, and of these are two orthree topics of supreme interest and importance, for which I plead forpatience and comprehensive consideration. We are too apt to find thatGentlemen both here and outside fix upon some incident of which theyread in the newspaper; they put it under a microscope; they indulgein reflections upon it; and they regard that as taking an intelligentinterest in the affairs of India. If we could suppose that on someoccasion within the last three or four weeks a wrong turn had beentaken in judgment at Simla, or in the Cabinet, or in the India Office, or that to-day in this House some wrong turn might be taken, whatdisasters would follow, what titanic efforts to repair thesedisasters, what devouring waste of national and Indian treasure, andwhat a wreckage might follow! These are possible consequences thatmisjudgment either here or in India might bring with it. 

Sir, I believe I am not going too far when I say that this is almost, if not quite, the first occasion upon which what is called the Britishdemocracy in its full strength has been brought directly face to facewith the difficulties of Indian Government in all their intricacies, all their complexities, all their subtleties, and above all in theirenormous magnitude. Last year when I had the honour of addressing theHouse on the Indian Budget, I observed, as many have done before me, that it is one of the most difficult experiments ever tried in humanhistory, whether you can carry on, what you will have to try to carryon in India--personal government along with free speech and free rightof public meeting. This which last year was partially a speculativequestion, has this year become more or less actual, and that is aquestion which I shall by and by have to submit to the House. I wantto set out the case as frankly as I possibly can. I want, if I maysay so without presumption, to take the House into full confidence sofar--and let nobody quarrel with this provision--as public interestsallow. I will beg the House to remember that we do not only hear oneanother; we are ourselves this afternoon overheard. Words that may bespoken here, are overheard in the whole kingdom. They are overheardthousands of miles away by a vast and complex community. They areoverheard by others who are doing the service and work of the Crown inIndia. By those, too, who take part in the immense work of commercialand non-official life in India. We are overheard by great Indianprinces who are outside British India. We are overheard by the dimmasses of Indians whom, in spite of all, we shall persist in regardingas our friends. We are overheard by those whom, I am afraid, we mustreluctantly call our enemies. This is the reason why everybody whospeaks to-day, certainly including myself, must use language that iswell advised, language of reserve, and, as I say again, the fruit ofcomprehensive consideration. 

The Budget is a prosperity Budget. We have, however, to admit thata black shadow falls across the prospect. The plague figures areappalling. But do not let us get unreasonably dismayed, even aboutthese appalling figures. If we reviewed the plague figures up to lastDecember, we might have hoped that the horrible scourge was on thewane. From 92, 000 deaths in the year 1900, the figures went up to1, 100, 000 in 1904, while in 1905 they exceeded 1, 000, 000. In 1906a gleam of hope arose, and the mortality sank to something under350, 000. The combined efforts of Government and people had producedthat reduction; but, alas, since January, 1907, plague has againflared up in districts that have been filled with its terror for adecade; and for the first four months of this year the deaths amountedto 642, 000, which exceeded the record for the same period in any pastyear. You must remember that we have to cover a very vast area. I donot know that these figures would startle us if we took the area ofthe whole of Europe. It was in 1896 that this plague first appeared inIndia, and up to April, 1907, the total figure of the human beings whohave died is 5, 250, 000. But dealing with a population of 300, 000, 000, this dire mortality, although enormous, is not at all comparable withthe results of the black death and other scourges, that spread overEurope in earlier times, in proportion to the population. The plaguemortality in 1904 (the worst complete year) would only represent, if evenly distributed, a death-rate of about 3 per 1, 000. But it islocal, and particularly centres in the Punjab, the United Provinces, and in Bombay. I do not think that anybody who has been concerned inIndia--I do not care to what school of Indian thought he belongs--candeny that measures for the extermination and mitigation of thisdisease have occupied the most serious, constant, unflagging, zealous, and energetic attention of the Indian Government. But the difficultieswe encounter are manifold, as many Members of the House are wellaware. It is possible that hon. Members may rise and say that we arenot enforcing with sufficient zeal proper sanitary rules; and, on theother hand, I dare say that other hon. Members will get up to showthat the great difficulty in the way of sanitary rules being observed, arises from the reluctance of the population to practise them. Thatis perfectly natural and is well understood. They are a suspiciouspopulation, and we all know that, when these new rules are forcedupon them, they constantly resent and resist them. A policy of severerepression is worse than useless. I will not detain the House withparticulars of all the proceedings we have taken in dealing withthe plague. But I may say that we have instituted a long scientificinquiry with the aid of the Royal Society and the Lister Institute. Then we have very intelligent officers, who have done all they couldto trace the roots of the disease, and to discover if they could, anymeans to prevent it. It is a curious thing that, while there appearsto be no immunity from this frightful scourge for the natives, Europeans enjoy almost entire immunity from the disease. That isdifficult to understand or to explain. 

Now as to opium, I know that a large number of Members in the Houseare interested in it. Judging by the voluminous correspondence that Ireceive, all the Churches and both political Parties are sincerely anddeeply interested in the question, and I was going to say that theresolutions with which they have favoured me often use the expression"righteousness before revenue. " The motto is excellent, but its virtuewill be cheap and shabby, if you only satisfy your own righteousnessat the expense of other people's revenue. 

Mr. LUPTON: We are quite ready to bear the expense. 

Mr. MORLEY: My hon. Friend says they are quite prepared to bear theexpense. I commend that observation cheerfully to the Chancellor ofthe Exchequer. This question touches the consciences of the people ofthe country. My hon. Friend sometimes goes a little far; still, herepresents a considerable body of feeling. Last May, when the opiumquestion was raised in this House, something fell from me whichreached the Chinese Government, and the Chinese Government, on thestrength of that utterance of mine, made in the name of His Majesty'sGovernment, have persistently done their best to come to some sortof arrangement and understanding with His Majesty's Government. InSeptember an Imperial decree was issued in China ordering the strictprohibition of the consumption and cultivation of opium, with a viewto ultimate eradication in ten years. Communications were made tothe Foreign Secretary, and since then there has been a considerablecorrespondence, some of which the House is, by Question and Answer, acquainted with. The Chinese Government have been uniformly assured, not only by my words spoken in May, but by the Foreign Secretary, thatthe sympathy of this country was with the objects set forth in theirdecree of September. Then a very important incident, as I regardit, and one likely by-and-bye to prove distinctly fruitful, was theapplication by the United States Government to our Government, as towhether there should not be a joint inquiry into the opium traffic bythe United States and the other Powers concerned. The House knows, by Question and Answer, that His Majesty's Government judge thatprocedure by way of Commission rather than by way of Conference is theright way to approach the question. But no one can doubt for a moment, considering the honourable interest the United States have shown onprevious occasions, that some good result will come with time andpersistence. 

I will not detain the House with the details, but certainly it is atrue satisfaction to know that a great deal of talk as to the Chineseinterest in the suppression of opium being fictitious is unreal. I wasmuch struck by a sentence written by the correspondent of _The Times_at Peking recently. Everybody who knows him, is aware that he is nota sentimentalist, and he used remarkable language. He said thathe viewed the development in China of the anti-opium movement asencouraging; that the movement was certainly popular, and wassupported by the entire native Press; while a hopeful sign was thatthe use of opium was fast becoming unfashionable, and would becomemore so. A correspondence, so far as the Government of India isconcerned, is now in progress. Those of my hon. Friends who think weare lacking perhaps in energy and zeal I would refer to the languageused by Mr. Baker, the very able finance member of the Viceroy'sCouncil, because these words really define the position of theGovernment of India--

 "What the eventual outcome will be, it is impossible to foresee. The practical difficulties which China has imposed on herself are enormous, and may prove insuperable, but it is evident that the gradual reduction and eventual extinction of the revenue that India has derived from the trade, has been brought a stage nearer, and it is necessary for us to be prepared for whatever may happen. "

He added that twenty years ago, or even less, the prospect of losing arevenue of five and a half crores of rupees a year would have causedgreat anxiety, and even now the loss to Indian finances would beserious, and might necessitate recourse to increased taxation. But if, as they had a clear right to expect, the transition was effectedwith due regard to finance, and was spread over a term of years, theconsequence need not be regarded with apprehension. 

When I approach military expenditure, and war and the dangers ofwar, I think I ought to say a word about the visit of the Ameer ofAfghanistan, which excited so much attention, and kindled so lively aninterest in great parts, not only of our own dominions, but in Asia. I am persuaded that we have reason to look back on that visit withentire and complete satisfaction. His Majesty's Government, previouslyto the visit of the Ameer instructed the Governor-General in Councilon no account to open any political questions with the Ameer. That wasreally part of the conditions of the Ameer's visit; and the resultof that policy has been to place our relations with the Ameer on aneminently satisfactory footing, a far better footing than would havebeen arrived at by any formal premeditated convention. The Ameerhimself made a speech when he arrived at Kabul on his return, and Iam aware that in this speech I come to a question of what may seema Party or personal character, with which it is not in the least myintention to deal. This is what the Ameer said on 10th April--

 "The officers of the Government of India never said a word on political matters, they kept their promise. But as to myself, whenever and wherever I found an opportunity, I spoke indirectly on several matters which concerned the interests of my country and nation. The other side never took undue advantage of it, and never discussed with me on those points which I mentioned. His Excellency's invitation (Lord Minto's) to me was in such a proper form, that I had no objection to accept it. The invitation which he sent was worded in quite a different form from that of the invitation which I received on the occasion of the Delhi Durbar. In the circumstances I had determined to undergo all risks (at the time of the Delhi Durbar) and, if necessary, to sacrifice all my possessions and my own life, but not to accept such an invitation as was sent to me for coming to join the Delhi Durbar. "

These thing are far too serious for me or any of us to indulge incontroversy upon, but it is a satisfaction to be able to point outto the House that the policy we instructed the Governor-General tofollow, has so far worked extremely well. 

I will go back to the Army. Last year when I referred to this subject, I told the House that it would be my object to remove any defects thatI and those who advise me might discover in the Army system, and moreespecially, of course, in the schemes of Lord Kitchener. Since then, with the assistance of two very important Committees, well qualifiedby expert military knowledge, I came to the conclusion that animproved equipment was required. Hon. Gentlemen may think that myopinion alone would not be worth much; but, after all, civilians havegot to decide these questions, and, provided that they arm themselveswith the expert knowledge of military authorities, it is rightly theirvoice that settles the matter. Certain changes were necessary inthe allocation of units in order to enable the troops to be bettertrained, and therefore our final conclusion was that the specialmilitary expenditure shown in the financial statement must go on forsome years more. But the House will see that we have arranged to cutdown the rate of the annual grant, and we have taken care--and this, I think, ought to be set down to our credit--that every estimate forevery item included in the programme shall be submitted to vigilantscrutiny here as well as in India. I have no prepossession in favourof military expenditure, but the pressure of facts, the pressure ofthe situation, the possibilities of contingencies that may arise, seemobviously to make it impossible for any Government or any Minister toacquiesce in the risks on the Indian frontier. We have to considernot only our position with respect to foreign Powers on the Indianfrontier, but the exceedingly complex questions that arise inconnection with the turbulent border tribes. All these things makeit impossible--I say nothing about internal conditions--for anyGovernment or any Minister with a sense of responsibility to cancelor to deal with the military programme in any high-handed or cavalierway. 

Next I come to what, I am sure, is first in the minds of most Membersof the House--the political and social condition of India. Lord Mintobecame Viceroy, I think, in November, 1905, and the present Governmentsucceeded to power in the first week of December. Now much of thecriticism that I have seen on the attitude of His Majesty's Governmentand the Viceroy, leaves out of account the fact that we did not comequite into a haven of serenity and peace. Very fierce monsoons hadbroken out on the Olympian heights at Simla, in the camps, and in theCouncils at Downing Street. This was the inheritance into whichwe came--rather a formidable inheritance for which I do not, thisafternoon, attempt to distribute the responsibility. Still, when wecame into power, our policy was necessarily guided by the conditionsunder which the case had been left. Our policy was to compose thesingular conditions of controversy and confusion by which we werefaced. In the famous Army case we happily succeeded. But in EasternBengal, for a time, we did not succeed. When I see newspaper articlesbeginning with the preamble that the problem of India is altogetheroutside party questions, I well know from experience that this is toooften apt to be the forerunner of a regular party attack. It is saidthat there has been supineness, vacillation and hesitation. I replyboldly, there has been no supineness, no vacillation, no hesitationfrom December, 1905, up to the present day. 

I must say a single word about one episode, and it is with sincereregret I refer to it. It is called the Fuller episode. I have had thepleasure of many conversations with Sir Bampfylde Fuller since hisreturn, and I recognise to the full his abilities, his good faith, andthe dignity and self-control with which, during all this period ofcontroversy, he has never for one moment attempted to defend himself, or to plunge into any sort of contest with the Viceroy or HisMajesty's Government. [1] Conduct of that kind deserves our fullestrecognition. I recognise to the full his gifts and his experience, butI am sure that if he were in this House, he would hardly quarrel withme for saying that those gifts were not altogether well adapted to thesituation he had to face. 

[Footnote 1: An unhappy lapse took place at a later date. ]

What was the case? The Lieutenant-Governor suggested a certain course. The Government of India thought it was a mistake, and told him so. TheLieutenant-Governor thereupon said, "Very well, then I'm afraid Imust resign. " There was nothing in all that except what was perfectlyhonourable to Sir Bampfylde Fuller. But does anybody here take up thisposition, that if a Lieutenant-Governor says, "If I cannot have my ownway I will resign, " then the Government of India are bound to refuseto accept that resignation? All I can say is, and I do not care whothe man may be, that if any gentleman in the Indian service sayshe will resign unless he can have his own way, then so far as Iam concerned in the matter, his resignation shall be promptly anddefinitely accepted. It is said to-day that Sir Bampfylde Fullerrecommended certain measures about education, and that the Governmenthave now adopted them. But the circumstances are completely changed. What was thought by Lord Minto and his Council to be a rash andinexpedient course in those days, is not thought so now that thecircumstances have changed. I will only mention one point. There wasa statement the other day in a very important newspaper that thecondition of anti-British feeling in Eastern Bengal had gained invirulence since Sir Bampfylde Fuller's resignation. This, the Viceroyassures me, is an absolute perversion of the facts. The wholeatmosphere has changed for the better. When I say that Lord Minto wasjustified in the course he took, I say it without any prejudice toSir Bampfylde Fuller, or the slightest wish to injure his futureprospects. 

Now I come to the subject of the disorders. I am extremely sorry tosay that some disorder has broken out in the Punjab. I think I mayassume that the House is aware of the general circumstances fromAnswers to Questions. Under the Regulation of 1818 (which is stillalive), coercive measures were adopted. Here I would like to examine, so far as I can, the action taken to preserve the public interests. Itwould be quite wrong, in dealing with the unrest in the Punjab, not tomention the circumstances that provided the fuel for the agitation. There were ravages by the plague, and these ravages have been cruel. The seasons have not been favourable. A third cause was an Act then onthe stocks, which was believed to be injurious to the condition of alarge body of men. Those conditions affecting the Colonisation Actwere greatly misrepresented. An Indian member of the Punjab Councilpointed out how impolitic he thought it was; and, as I told the Houseabout a week ago, the Viceroy, declining to be frightened by thefoolish charge of pandering to agitation and so forth, refused assentto that proposal. But in the meantime the proposal of the colonisationlaw had become a weapon in the hands of the preachers of sedition. Isuspect that the Member for East Nottingham will presently get up andsay that this mischief connected with the Colonisation Act accountedfor the disturbance. But I call attention to this fact, in order thatthe House may understand whether or not the Colonisation Act was themain cause of the disturbance. The authorities believe that it wasnot. There were twenty-eight meetings known to have been held by theleading agitators in the Punjab between 1st March, and 1st May. Ofthese five only related, even ostensibly, to agricultural grievances;the remaining twenty-three were all purely political. The figures seemto dispose of the contention that agrarian questions are at the rootof the present unrest in the Punjab. On the contrary, it ratherlooks as if there was a deliberate heating of the public atmospherepreparatory to the agrarian meeting at Rawalpindi on the 21st April, which gave rise to the troubles. The Lieutenant-Governor visitedtwenty-seven out of twenty-nine districts. He said the situationwas serious, and it was growing worse. In this agitation specialattention, it is stated, has been paid to the Sikhs, who, as the Houseis aware, are among the best soldiers in India, and in the case ofLyallpur, to the military pensioners. Special efforts have been madeto secure their attendance at meetings to enlist their sympathiesand to inflame their passions. So far the active agitation has beenvirtually confined to the districts in which the Sikh element ispredominant. Printed invitations and leaflets have been principallyaddressed to villages held by Sikhs; and at a public meeting atFerozepore, at which disaffection was openly preached, the men of theSikh regiments stationed there were specially invited to attend, andseveral hundreds of them acted upon the invitation. The Sikhs weretold that it was by their aid, and owing to their willingness toshoot down their fellow countrymen in the Mutiny, that the Englishmenretained their hold upon India. And then a particularly odious line ofappeal was adopted. It was asked, "How is it that the plague attacksthe Indians and not the Europeans?" "The Government, " said these men, "have mysterious means of spreading the plague; the Government spreadsthe plague by poisoning the streams and wells. " In some villages theinhabitants have actually ceased to use the wells. I was informed onlythe other day by an officer, who was in the Punjab at that moment, that when visiting the settlements, he found the villagers disturbedin mind on this point. He said to his men: "Open up your kits, and letthem see whether these horrible pills are in them. " The men did asthey were ordered, but the suspicion was so great that people insistedupon the glasses of the telescopes being unscrewed, in order to bequite sure that there was no pill behind them. 

See the emergency and the risk. Suppose a single native regiment hadsided with the rioters. It would have been absurd for us, knowing wehad got a weapon there at our hands by law--not an exceptional law, but a standing law--and in the face of the risk of a conflagration, not to use that weapon; and I for one have no apology whatever tooffer for using it. Nobody appreciates more intensely than I do thedanger, the mischief, and a thousand times in history the iniquity ofwhat is called "reason of State. " I know all about that. It is full ofmischief and full of danger; but so is sedition, and we should haveincurred criminal responsibility if we had opposed the resort to thislaw. 

I do not wish to detain the House with the story of events in EasternBengal and Assam. They are of a different character from those in thePunjab, and in consequence of these disturbances the Government ofIndia, with my approval, have issued an Ordinance, which I am sure theHouse is familiar with, under the authority and in the terms of an Actof Parliament. The course of events in Eastern Bengal appears to havebeen mainly this--first, attempts to impose the boycott on Mahomedansby force; secondly, complaints by Hindus if the local officials stopthem, and by Mahomedans if they do not try to stop them; thirdly, retaliation by Mahomedans; fourthly, complaints by Hindus that thelocal officials do not protect them from this retaliation; fifthly, general lawlessness of the lower classes on both sides, encouraged bythe spectacle of the fighting among the higher classes; sixthly, morecomplaints against the officials. The result of the Ordinance has beenthat down to May 29th it had not been necessary to take action in anyone of these districts. 

I noticed an ironical look on the part of the right hon. Gentlemanwhen I referred with perfect freedom to my assent to the resort to theweapon we had in the law against sedition. I have had communicationsfrom friends of mine that, in this assent, I am outraging theprinciples of a lifetime. I should be ashamed if I detained the Housemore than two minutes on anything so small as the consistency of mypolitical life. That can very well take care of itself. I began bysaying that this is the first time that British democracy in its fullstrength, as represented in this House, is face to face with theenormous difficulties of Indian Government. Some of my hon. Friendslook even more in sorrow than in anger upon this alleged backslidingof mine. Last year I told the House that India for a long time tocome, so far as my imagination could reach, would be the theatreof absolute and personal government, and that raised some doubts. Reference has been made to my having resisted the Irish Crimes Act, asif there were a scandalous inconsistency between opposing the policyof that Act, and imposing this policy on the natives of India. Thatinconsistency can only be established by anyone who takes up theposition that Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom, is exactly on thesame footing as these 300, 000, 000 people--composite, heterogeneous, with different histories, of different races, different faiths. Doesanybody contend that any political principle whatever is capableof application in every sort of circumstances without reference toconditions--in every place, and at every time? I, at all events, havenever taken that view, and I would like to remind my hon. Friends thatin such ideas as I have about political principles, the leader of mygeneration was Mr. Mill. Mill was a great and benignant lamp of wisdomand humanity, and it was at that lamp I and others kindled our modestrushlights. What did Mill say about the government of India? Rememberhe was not merely that abject and despicable being, a philosopher. Hewas a man practised in government, and in what government? Why, he wasresponsible, experienced, and intimately concerned in the governmentof India. What did he say? If there is anybody who can be quoted ashaving been a champion of representative government it is Mill; and inhis book, which, I take it, is still the classic book on that subject, this is what he says--

 "Government by the dominant country is as legitimate as any other, if it is the one which, in the existing state of civilization of the subject people, most facilitates their transition to a higher state of civilization. "

Then he says this--

 "The ruling country ought to be able to do for its subjects all that could be done by a succession of absolute monarchs, guaranteed by irresistible force against the precariousness of tenure attendant on barbarous despotisms, and qualified by their genius to anticipate all that experience has taught to the more advanced nations. If we do not attempt to realize this ideal we are guilty of a dereliction of the highest moral trust that can devolve upon a nation. "

I will now ask the attention of the House for a moment while I examinea group of communications from officers of the Indian Government, andif the House will allow me I will tell them what to my mind is theresult of all these communications as to the general feeling in India. That, after all, is what most concerns us. For this unrest in thePunjab and Bengal sooner or later--and sooner, rather than later, Ihope--will pass away. What is the situation of India generally in theview of these experienced officers at this moment? Even now when weare passing through all the stress and anxiety, it is a mistake not tolook at things rather largely. They all admit that there is a fall inthe influence of European officers over the population. They all, ornearly all, admit that there is estrangement--I ought to say, perhaps, refrigeration--between officers and people. There is less sympathybetween the Government and the people. For the last few years--andthis is a very important point--the doctrine of administrativeefficiency has been pressed too hard. The wheels of the huge machinehave been driven too fast. Our administration--so shrewd observersand very experienced observers assure me--would be a great deal morepopular if it was a trifle less efficient, a trifle more elasticgenerally. We ought not to put mechanical efficiency at the head ofour ideas. I am leading up to a practical point. The district officersrepresenting British rule to the majority of the people of India, areoverloaded with work in their official relations, and I know there arehighly experienced gentlemen who say that a little of the looseness ofearlier days is better fitted than the regular system of latter days, to win and to keep personal influence, and that we are in danger ofcreating a pure bureaucracy. Honourable, faithful, and industrious theservants of the State in India are and will be, but if the presentsystem is persisted in, there is a risk of its becoming rathermechanical, perhaps I might even say rather soulless; and attention tothis is urgently demanded. Perfectly efficient administration, I neednot tell the House, has a tendency to lead to over-centralisation. Itis inevitable. The tendency in India is to override local authority, and to force administration to run in official grooves. For my ownpart I would spare no pains to improve our relations with nativeGovernments, and more and more these relations may become of potentialvalue to the Government of India. I would use my best endeavours tomake these States independent in matters of administration. Yet allevidence tends to show we are rather making administration lesspersonal, though evidence also tends to show that the Indian peopleare peculiarly responsive to sympathy and personal influence. Do notlet us waste ourselves in controversy, here or elsewhere, or in mereanger; let us try to draw to our side the men who now influence thepeople. We have every good reason to believe that most of the peopleof India are on our side. I do not say for a moment that they like us. It does not come easy, in west or east, to like foreign rule. But intheir hearts they know that their solid interest is bound up with thelaw and order that we preserve. 

There is a Motion on the Paper for an inquiry by means of aParliamentary Committee or Royal Commission into the causes at theroot of the dissatisfaction. Now, I have often thought, while atthe India Office, whether it would be a good thing to have theold-fashioned parliamentary inquiry by committee or commission. I haveconsidered this, I have discussed it with others; and I have cometo the conclusion that such inquiry would not produce any of theadvantages such as were gained in the old days of old committees, andcertainly would be attended by many drawbacks. But I have determined, after consulting with the Viceroy, that considerable advantage mightbe gained by a Royal Commission to examine, with the experience wehave gained over many years, into this great mischief--for all thepeople in India who have any responsibility know that it is a greatmischief--of over-centralisation. It seemed a great mischief to soacute a man as Sir Henry Maine, who, after many years' experience, wrote expressing agreement with what Mr. Bright said just before orjust after the Mutiny, that the centralised government of India wastoo much power for any one man to work. Now, when two men, singularlyunlike in temperament and training, agreed as to the evil ofcentralisation on this large scale, it compels reflection. I will notundertake at the present time to refer to the Commission the largequestions that were spoken of by Maine and Bright, but I think thatmuch might be gained by an inquiry on the spot into the working ofcentralisation of government in India, and how in the opinions oftrained men here and in India, the mischief might be alleviated. That, however, is not a question before us now. 

You often hear people talk of the educated section of the people ofIndia as a mere handful, an infinitesimal fraction. So they are, in numbers; but it is fatally idle to say that this infinitesimalfraction does not count. This educated section is making and will makeall the difference. That they would sharply criticise the Britishsystem of government has been long known. It was inevitable. Thereneed be no surprise in the fact that they want a share in politicalinfluence, and want a share in the emoluments of administration. Theirmeans--many of them--are scanty; they have little to lose and much togain from far-reaching changes. They see that the British hand worksthe State machine surely and smoothly, and they think, having no fearof race animosities, that their hand could work the machine as surelyand as smoothly as the British hand. 

And now I come to my last point. Last autumn the Governor-Generalappointed a Committee of the Executive Council to consider thedevelopment of the administrative machinery, and at the end of Marchlast he publicly informed his Legislative Council that he had senthome a despatch to the Secretary of State proposing suggestions fora move in advance. The Viceroy with a liberal and courageous mindentered deliberately on the path of improvement. The public in Indiawere aware of it. They waited, and are now waiting the result withthe liveliest interest and curiosity. Meanwhile the riots happenedin Rawalpindi, in Lahore. After these riots broke out, what was thecourse we ought to take? Some in this country lean to the opinion--andit is excusable--that riots ought to suspend all suggestions and talkof reform. Sir, His Majesty's Government considered this view, and inthe end they took, very determinedly, the opposite view. They heldthat such a withdrawal would, of course, have been construed as atriumph for the party of sedition. They held that, to draw back onaccount of local and sporadic disturbances, however serious, anxious, and troublesome they might be, would have been a really gravehumiliation. To hesitate to make a beginning with our own policy ofimproving the administrative machinery of the Indian Government, wouldhave been taken as a sign of nervousness, trepidation, and fear; andfear, that is always unworthy in any Government, is in the IndianGovernment, not only unworthy, but extremely dangerous. I hope theHouse concurs with His Majesty's Government. 

In answer to a Question the other day, I warned one or two of myhon. Friends that, in resisting the employment of powers to suppressdisturbances, under the Regulation of 1818 or by any other lawfulweapon we could find, they were promoting the success of thatdisorder, which would be fatal to the very projects with which theysympathise. The despatch from India reached us in due course. It wasconsidered by the Council of India and by His Majesty's Government, and our reply was sent about a fortnight ago. Someone will ask--Areyou going to lay these two despatches on the Table to-day? I hope theHouse will not take it amiss if I say that at this stage--perhaps atall stages--it would be wholly disadvantageous to lay the despatcheson the Table. We are in the middle of the discussion to-day, and itwould break up steady continuity if we had a premature discussion_coram populo_. Everyone will understand that discussions of this kindmust be very delicate, and it is of the utmost importance that theyshould be conducted with entire freedom. But, to employ a word thatI do not often use, I might adumbrate the proposals. This is howthe case stands. The despatch reached His Majesty's Government, whoconsidered it. We then set out our views upon the points raised inthe despatch. The Government of India will now frame what is called aResolution. That draft Resolution, when framed by them in conformitywith the instructions of His Majesty's Government, will in due coursebe sent here. We shall consider that draft, and then it will be myduty to present it to this House if legislation is necessary, as itwill be; and it will be published in India to be discussed there byall those concerned. . . . 

The main proposal is the acceptance of the general principle ofa substantial enlargement of Legislative Councils, both theGovernor-General's Legislative Council and the Provincial LegislativeCouncils. Details of this reform have to be further discussed inconsultation with the local Governments in India, but so far it isthought best in India that an official majority must be maintained. Again, in the discussion of the Budget in the Viceroy's Council thesubjects are to be grouped and explained severally by the members ofCouncil in charge of the Departments, and longer time is to beallowed for this detailed discussion and for general debate. One moresuggestion. The Secretary of State has the privilege of recommendingto the Crown members of the Council of India. I think that the timehas now come when the Secretary of State may safely, wisely, andjustly recommend at any rate one Indian member. I will not discuss thequestion now. I may have to argue it in Parliament at a later stage, but I think it is right to say what is my intention, realising as weall do how few opportunities the governing bodies have of hearing thevoice of Indians. 

I believe I have defended myself from ignoring the principle thatthere is a difference between the Western European and the IndianAsiatic. There is vital difference, and it is infatuation to ignoreit. But there is another vital fact--namely, that the Indian Asiaticis a man with very vivid susceptibilities of all kinds, and withliving traditions of a civilisation of his own; and we are bound totreat him with the same kind of respect and kindness and sympathy thatwe should expect to be treated with ourselves. Only the other day Isaw a letter from General Gordon to a friend of mine. He wrote--

 "To govern men, there is but one way, and it is eternal truth. Get into their skins. Try to realize their feelings. That is the true secret of government. "

That is not only a great ethical, but a great political law, and weshall reap a sour and sorry harvest if it is forgotten. It would befolly to pretend to any dogmatic assurance--and I certainly do not--asto the course of the future in India. But for to-day anybody who takespart in the rule of India, whether as a Minister or as a Member ofthe House of Commons, participating in the discussion on affairs inIndia--anyone who wants to take a fruitful part in such discussions, if he does his duty will found himself on the assumption that theBritish rule will continue, ought to continue, and must continue. There is, I know, a school, --I do not think it has representatives inthis House--who say that we might wisely walk out of India, and thatthe Indians would manage their own affairs better than we can manageaffairs for them. Anybody who pictures to himself the anarchy, thebloody chaos, that would follow from any such deplorable step, mustshrink from that sinister decision. We, at all events--Ministers andMembers of this House--are bound to take a completely different view. The Government, and the House in all its parties and groups, isdetermined that we ought to face all these mischiefs and difficultiesand dangers of which I have been speaking with a clear purpose. Weknow that we are not doing it for our own interest alone, or our ownfame in the history of the civilised world alone, but for the interestof the millions committed to us. We ought to face it with sympathy, with kindness, with firmness, with a love of justice, and, whether theweather be fair or foul, in a valiant and manful spirit. 

II

TO CONSTITUENTS

(ARBROATH. OCTOBER 21, 1907)

It is an enormous satisfaction to me to find myself here once more, the first time since the polling, and since the splendid majority thatthese burghs were good enough to give me. I value very much what theProvost has said, when he told you that I have never, though I havehad pretty heavy burdens, neglected the local business of Arbroath andthe other burghs. The Provost truly said that I hold an important andresponsible office under the Crown; and I hope that fact will be theexcuse, if excuse be needed, for my confining myself to-night to asingle topic. When I spoke to a friend of mine in London the other dayhe said, "What are you going to speak about?", and I told him. He is avery experienced man and he said, "It is a most unattractive subject, India. " At any rate, this is the last place where any apology isneeded for speaking about India, because it is you who are responsiblefor my being the Indian Minister. If your 2, 500 majority had been2, 500 the other way, I should have been no longer the Indian Minister. There is something that strikes the imagination, something thatawakens a feeling of the bonds of mankind, in the thought that youhere and in the other burghs--(shipmen, artificers, craftsmen, andshopkeepers living here)--are brought through me, and through yourresponsibility in electing me, into contact with all these hundredsof millions across the seas. Therefore it is that I will not make anyapology to you for my choice of a subject to-night. Let me saythis, not only to you gentlemen here, but to all Britishconstituencies--that it is well you should have patience enough tolisten to a speech about India; because it is no secret to anybody whounderstands, that if the Government were to make a certain kind of badblunder in India--which I do not at all expect them to make--therewould be short work for a long time to come, with many of thoseschemes, upon which you have set your heart. Do not dream, if anymishap of a certain kind were to come to pass in India that you cango on with that programme of social reforms, all costing money andabsorbing attention, in the spirit in which you are now about topursue it. 

I am not particularly fond of talking of myself, but there is onesingle personal word that I would like to say, and my constituency isthe only place in which I should not be ashamed to say that word. You, after all, are concerned in the consistency of your representative. Now I think a public man who spends overmuch time in vindicatinghis consistency, makes a mistake. I will confess to you in friendlyconfidence, that I have winced when I read of lifelong friends ofmine saying that I have, in certain Indian transactions, shelved theprinciples of a lifetime. One of your countrymen said that, like thePython--that fabulous animal who had the largest swallow that anycreature ever enjoyed--I have swallowed all my principles. I am alittle disappointed at such clatter as this. When a man has labouredfor more years than I care to count, for Liberal principles andLiberal causes, and thinks he may possibly have accumulated a littlecredit in the bank of public opinion--and in the opinion of his partyand his friends--it is a most extraordinary and unwelcome surprise tohim, when he draws a very small cheque indeed upon that capital, tofind the cheque returned with the uncomfortable and ill-omened words, "No effects. " I am not going to defend myself. A long time ago ajournalistic colleague, who was a little uneasy at some line I tookupon this question or that, comforted himself by saying. "Well, well, the ship (speaking of me) swings on the tide, but the anchor holds. "Yes, gentlemen, I am no Pharisee, but I do believe that my anchorholds, and your cheers show that you believe it too. 

Now to India. I observed the other day that the Bishop of Lahoresaid--and his words put in a very convenient form what is in the mindsof those who think about Indian questions at all--"It is my deepconviction that we have reached a point of the utmost gravity and offar-reaching effect in our continued relations with this land, and Imost heartily wish there were more signs that this fact was clearlyrecognised by the bulk of Englishmen out here in India, or even by ourrulers themselves. " Now you and the democratic constituencies of thiskingdom are the rulers of India. It is to you, therefore, that I cometo render my account. Just let us see where we are. Let us put thecase. When critics assail Indian policy or any given aspect of it, Iwant to know where we start from? Some of you in Arbroath wrote tome, a year ago, and called upon me to defend the system of IndianGovernment and the policy for which I am responsible. I declined, forreasons that I stated at the moment. I am here to answer to-night, when the time makes it more fitting in anticipation all thosedifficulties which some excellent people, with whom in many ways Isympathise, feel. Again, I say, let us see where we start from. Doesanybody want me to go to London to-morrow morning, and to send atelegram to Lord Kitchener, the Commander-in-Chief in India, and tellhim that he is to disband the Indian army, to send home as fast as wecan despatch transports, the British contingent of the army, and bringaway the whole of the Civil servants? Suppose it to be true, assome people in Arbroath seem to have thought--I am not arguing thequestion--that Great Britain loses more than she gains; supposing itto be true that India would have worked out her own salvation withoutus; supposing it to be true that the present Government of India hasmany defects--supposing all that to be true, do you want me to senda telegram to Lord Kitchener to-morrow morning to clear out bag andbaggage? How should we look in the face of the civilised world if wehad so turned our back upon our duty and sovereign task? How should webear the smarting stings of our own consciences, when, as assuredlywe should, we heard through the dark distances the roar and scream ofconfusion and carnage in India? Then people of this way of thinkingsay "That is not what we meant. " Then what is it that is meant, gentlemen? The outcome, the final outcome, of British rule in Indiamay be a profitable topic for the musings of meditative minds. But weare not here to muse. We have the duty of the day to perform, we havethe tasks of to-morrow spread out before us. In the interests ofIndia, to say nothing of our own national honour, in the name of dutyand of common sense, our first and commanding task is to keep orderand to quell violences among race and creed; sternly to insist on theimpartial application of rules of justice, independent of European orof Indian. We begin from that. We have got somehow or other, whateverthe details of policy and executive act may be, we are bound by thefirst law of human things to maintain order. 

There are plenty of difficulties in this immense task in England, andI am not sure that I will exclude Scotland, but I said England inorder to save your feelings. One of the obstacles is the difficulty offinding out for certain what actually happens. Scare headlines in thebills of important journals are misleading. I am sure many of you mustknow the kind of mirror that distorts features, elongates lines, makesround what is lineal, and so forth. I assure you that a mirror of thatkind does not give you a more grotesque reproduction of the humanphysiognomy, than some of these tremendous telegrams give you as towhat is happening in India. Another point is that the Press is veryoften flooded with letters from Indians or ex-Indians--from _Indicusolim_, and others--too oftened coloured with personal partisanship anddeep-dyed prepossessions. There is a spirit of caste outside the Hindusphere. There is a great deal of writing on the Indian Government bymen who have acquired the habit while they were in the Government, and then unluckily retain the habit after they come home and live, orought to live, in peace and quietness among their friends here. Thatis another of our difficulties. Still, when all such difficultiesare measured and taken account of, it is impossible to overrate thecourage, the patience and fidelity, with which the present House ofCommons faces what is not at all an easy moment in Indian Government. You talk of democracy. People cry, "Oh! Democracy cannot govern remotedependencies. " I do not know; it is a hard question. So far, afterone Session of the most Liberal Parliament that has ever sat in GreatBritain, this most democratic Parliament so far at all events, hassafely rounded an extremely difficult angle. It is quite true that inreference to a certain Indian a Conservative member rashly called outone night in the House of Commons "Why don't you shoot him?" The wholeHouse, Tories, Radicals, and Labour men, they all revolted against anysuch doctrine as that; and I augur from the proceedings of the lastSession--with courage, patience, good sense, and willingness to learn, that democracy, in this case at all events, has shown, and I think isgoing to show, its capacity for facing all our problems. 

Now, I sometimes say to friends of mine in the House, and I venturerespectfully to say it to you--there is one tremendous fallacy whichit is indispensable for you to banish from your minds, taking thepoint of view of a British Liberal, when you think of India. It wassaid the other day--no, I beg your pardon, it was alleged to have beensaid--by a British Member of Parliament now travelling in India--Thatwhatever is good in the way of self-government for Canada, must begood for India. In my view that is the most concise statement thatI can imagine, of the grossest fallacy in all politics. It is athoroughly dangerous fallacy. I think it is the hollowest and, I amsorry to say, the commonest, of all the fallacies in the history ofthe world in all stages of civilisation. Because a particular policyor principle is true and expedient and vital in certain definitecircumstances, therefore it must be equally true and vital in acompletely different set of circumstances. What sophism can be moregross and dangerous? You might just as well say that, because a furcoat in Canada at certain times of the year is a truly comfortablegarment, therefore a fur coat in the Deccan is just the very garmentthat you would be delighted to wear. I only throw it out to you asan example and an illustration. Where the historical traditions, thereligious beliefs, the racial conditions, are all different--there totransfer by mere untempered and cast-iron logic all the conclusionsthat you apply in one case to the other, is the height of politicalfolly, and I trust that neither you nor I will ever lend ourselves toany extravagant doctrine of that species. 

You may say, Ah, you are laying down very different rules of policy inIndia from those which for the best part of your life you laid downfor Ireland. Yes, but that reproach will only have a sting in it, ifyou persuade me that Ireland with its history, the history of theRebellion, Union and all the other chapters of that dismal tale, isexactly analogous to the 300 millions of people in India. I am not atall afraid of facing your test. I cannot but remember that in speakingto you, I may be speaking to people many thousands of miles away, butall the same I shall speak to you and to them perfectly frankly. Idon't myself believe in artful diplomacy; I have no gift for it. Thereare two sets of people you have got to consider. First of all, I hopethat the Government of India, so long as I am connected with it andresponsible for it to Parliament and to the country, will not behurried by the anger of the impatient idealist. The impatientidealist--you know him. I know him. I like him, I have been onemyself. He says, "You admit that so and so is right; why don't you doit--why don't you do it now?" Whether he is an Indian idealist or aBritish idealist I sympathise with him. Ah! gentlemen, how many ofthe most tragic miscarriages in human history have been due to theimpatience of the idealist! (Loud cheers. ) I should like to ask theIndian idealist, whether it is a good way of procuring what everybodydesires, a reduction of Military expenditure, for example, whether itis a good way of doing that, to foment a spirit of strife in Indiawhich makes reduction of Military forces difficult, which makes themaintenance of Military force indispensable? Is it a good way to helpreformers like Lord Minto and myself, in carrying through politicalreform, to inflame the minds of those who listen to such teachers, toinflame their minds with the idea that our proposals and projects areshams? Assuredly it is not. 

And I will say this, gentlemen. Do not think there is a singleresponsible leader of the reform party in India, who does not deplorethe outbreak of disorder that we have had to do our best to put down;who does not agree that disorder, whatever your ultimate policy maybe--must be with a firm hand put down. If India to-morrow became aself-governing Colony--disorder would still have to be put down withan iron hand; I do not know and I do not care, to whom these gentlemenpropose to hand over the charge of governing India. Whoever they mightbe, depend upon it that the maintenance of order is the foundationof anything like future progress. If any of you hear unfavourablelanguage applied to me as your representative, do me the justice toremember considerations of that kind. To nobody in this world, byhabit, by education, by experience, by views expressed in politicalaffairs for a great many years past, to nobody is exceptionalrepression, more distasteful than it is to me. After all, gentlemen, you would not have me see men try to set the prairie on fire withoutarresting the hand. You would not blame me when I saw men smokingtheir pipes near powder magazines, you would not blame me, you wouldnot call me an arch coercionist, if I said, "Away with the men andaway with the pipes. " We have not allowed ourselves--I speak of theIndian Government--to be hurried into the policy of repression. Isay this to what I would call the idealist party. Then I would saysomething to those who talk nonsense about apathy and supineness. Wewill not be hurried into repression, any more than we will be hurriedinto the other direction. This party, which is very vocal in thiscountry, say:--Oh! we are astonished, and India is astonished, andamazed at the licence that you extend to newspapers and to speakers;why don't you stop it? Orientals, they say, do not understand it. Yes, but just let us look at that. We are not Orientals; that is theroot of the matter. We are in India. We English, Scotch, and Irish, are in India because we are not Orientals. We are representatives, notof Oriental civilisation, but of Western civilisation, of its methods, its principles, its practices; and I for one will not be hurried intoan excessive haste for repression, by the argument that Orientals donot understand patience or toleration. 

You will want to know how the situation is viewed at this moment inIndia itself, by those who are responsible for the Government ofIndia. This view is not a new view at all. It is that the situation isnot gravely dangerous, but it requires serious and urgent attention. That seems for the moment to be the verdict. Extremists are few, butthey are active; their field is wide, their nets are far spread. Anybody who has read history knows that the Extremist often beats theModerate by his fire, his heated energy, his concentration, by hisvery narrowness. So be it; we remember it; we watch it all, with thatlesson of historic experience full in our minds. Yet we still holdthat it would be the height of political folly for us at this momentto refuse to do all we can, with prudence and energy, to rally theModerates to the cause of the Government, simply because the policywill not satisfy the Extremists. Let us, if we can, rally theModerates, and if we are told that the policy will not satisfy theExtremists, so be it. Our line will remain the same. It is the heightof folly to refuse to rally sensible people, because we do not satisfyExtremists. I am detaining you unmercifully, but I doubt whether--anddo not think I say it because it happens to be my department--of allthe questions that are to be discussed perhaps for years to come, anyquestion can be in all its actual foundations, and all its prospectivebearings, more important than the question of India. There are manyaspects of it which it is not possible for me to go into, as, forexample, some of its Military aspects. I repeat my doubt whether thereis any question more commanding at this moment, and for many a day tocome, than the one which I am impressing upon you to-night. Is allthat is called unrest in India mere froth? Or is it a deep rollingflood? Is it the result of natural order and wholesome growth inthis vast community? Is it natural effervescence, or is it deadlyfermentation? Is India with all its heterogeneous populations--is itmoving slowly and steadily to new and undreamt of unity? It is thevagueness of the discontent, which is not universal--it is thevagueness that makes it harder to understand, harder to deal with. Some of them are angry with me. Why? Because I have not been able togive them the moon. I have got no moon, and if I had I would not partwith it. I will give the moon, when I know who lives there, and whatkind of conditions prevail there. 

I want, if I may, to make a little literary digression. Much of thismovement arises from the fact that there is now a large bodyof educated Indians who have been fed, at our example and ourinstigation, upon some of the great teachers and masters of thiscountry, Milton, Burke, Macaulay, Mill, and Spencer. Surely it is amistake in us not to realise that these masters should have mightyforce and irresistible influence. Who can be surprised that educatedIndians who read those high masters and teachers of ours, areintoxicated with the ideas of freedom, nationality, self-government, that breathes the breath of life in those inspiring and illuminatingpages. Who of us that had the privilege in the days of our youth, atcollege or at home, of turning over those golden chapters, and seeingthat lustrous firmament dawn over our youthful imaginations--who of uscan forget, shall I call it the intoxication and rapture, with whichwe strove to make friends with truth, knowledge, beauty, freedom? Thenwhy should we be surprised that young Indians feel the same movementof mind, when they are made free of our own immortals. I would onlysay this to my idealist friends, whether Indian or European, that forevery passage that they can find in Mill, or Burke, or Macaulay, or, any other of our lofty sages with their noble hearts and potentbrains, I will find them a dozen passages in which history is shown toadmonish us, in the language of Burke--"How weary a step do thosetake who endeavour to make out of a great mass a true politicalpersonality!" They are words much to be commended to those zealotsin India--how many a weary step has to be taken before they can formthemselves into a mass that has a true political personality! Mywarning may be wasted, but anybody who has a chance ought to try toappeal to the better, the riper, mind of educated India. Time has goneon with me, experience has widened. I have never lost my invinciblefaith that there is a better mind in all civilised communities--andthat this better mind, if you can reach it, if statesmen in time tocome can reach that better mind, can awaken it, can evoke it, caninduce it to apply itself to practical purposes for the improvementof the conditions of such a community, they will earn the crown ofbeneficent fame indeed. Nothing strikes me much more than this, whenI talk of the better mind of India--there are subtle elements, religious, spiritual, mystical, traditional, historical in what we maycall for the moment the Indian mind, which are very hard for the mostcandid and patient to grasp or to realise in their full force. But ourduty, and it is a splendid duty, is to try. I always remember a littlepassage in the life of a great Anglo-Indian, Sir Henry Lawrence, avery simple passage, and it is this, "No one ever ate at Sir HenryLawrence's table without learning to think more kindly of thenatives. " I wish I could know that at every Anglo-Indian table to-day, nobody has sat down without leaving it having learned to think alittle more kindly of the natives. One more word on this point. Badmanners, overbearing manners are disagreeable in all countries: Indiais the only country where bad and overbearing manners are a politicalcrime. 

The Government have been obliged to take measures of repression; theymay be obliged to take more. But we have not contented ourselves withmeasures of repression. Those of you who have followed Indian mattersat all during the last two or three months are aware there is a reformscheme, a scheme to give the Indians chances of coming more closelyand responsibly into a share of the Government of their country. TheGovernment of India issued certain proposals expressly marked asprovisional and tentative. There was no secret hatching of a newConstitution. Their circular was sent about to obtain an expressionof Indian opinion, official and non-official. Plenty of time has beengiven, and is to be given, for an examination and discussion of theseproposals. We shall not be called upon to give an official decisionuntil spring next year, and I shall not personally be called upon fora decision before the middle of next Session. One step we have takento which I attach the greatest importance. Two Indians have for thefirst time been appointed to be members of the Council of Indiasitting at Whitehall. I appointed these two gentlemen, not only toadvise the Secretary of State in Council, not only to help to keep himin touch with Indian opinion and Indian interests, but as a markedand conspicuous proof on the highest scale, by placing them on thisimportant and ruling body, that we no longer mean to keep Indians atarm's length or shut the door of the Council Chamber of the paramountpower against them. Let me press this important point upon you. 

The root of the unrest, discontent, and sedition, so far as I can makeout after constant communication with those who have better chances ofknowing the problem at first hand, than I could have had--the root ofthe matter is racial and social not political. That being so, it isof a kind that is the very hardest to reach. You can reach politicalsentiment. This goes deeper. Racial dislike is a dislike not ofpolitical domination, but of racial domination; and my object inmaking that conspicuous change in the constitution of the Councilof India which advises the Secretary of State for India, was to dosomething, and if rightly understood and interpreted to do a greatdeal, to teach all English officers and governors in India, from theyoungest Competition wallah who arrives there, that in the eyes of theruling Government at home, the Indian is perfectly worthy of a place, be it small or great, in the counsels of those who make and carry onthe laws and the administration of the community to which he belongs. We stand by this position not in words alone; we have shown it in actand shall show it further. 

There is one more difficulty--there are two difficulties--and I mustask you for a couple of minutes. I only need name them--famine andplague. At this moment, when you have thought and argued out allthese political things, the Government of India still remains a grimbusiness. If there are no rains this month, the spectre of famineseems to be approaching, and nobody can blame us for that. Nobodyexpects the Viceroy and the Secretary of State to play the part ofElijah on Mount Carmel, who prayed and saw a little cloud like a man'shand, until the heavens became black with winds and cloud, and therewas a great rain. That is beyond the reach of Government. All we cansay is that never before was the Government in all its branches andmembers found more ready than it is now, to do the very best to facethe prospect. Large suspensions of revenue and rent will be granted, allowances will be made to distressed cultivators. No stone will beleft unturned. The plague figures are terrible enough. At this seasonplague mortality is generally quiescent; but this year, even if thelast three months of it show no rise, the plague mortality will stillbe the worst that has ever been known, I think, in India's recordedannals. Pestilence during the last nine months has stalked throughthe land, wasting her cities and villages, uncontrolled anduncontrollable, so far as we can tell, by human forethought or care. When I read some of these figures in the House of Commons, a fewperturbed cries of "Shame" accompanied them. These cries came from thenatural sympathy, horror, amazement, and commiseration, with which weall listen to such ghastly stories. The shame does not lie with theGovernment. If you see anything in your newspapers about these plaguefigures, remember that they are not like an epidemic here. In tryingto remedy plague, you have to encounter the habits and prejudices ofhundreds of years. Suppose you find plague is conveyed by a flea upona rat, and suppose you are dealing with a population who object tothe taking away of life. You see for yourselves the difficulty? TheGovernment of India have applied themselves with great energy, withfresh activity, and they believe they have got the secret of this felldisaster. They have laid down a large policy of medical, sanitary, andfinancial aid. I am a hardened niggard of public money. I watch theexpenditure of Indian revenue as the ferocious dragon of the oldmythology watched the golden apples. I do not forget that I comefrom a constituency which, so far as I have known it, if it is mostgenerous, is also most prudent. Nevertheless, though I have to bethrifty, almost parsimonious, upon this matter, the Council of Indiaand myself will, I am sure, not stint or grudge. I can only say, inconclusion, that I think I have said enough to convince you that Iam doing what I believe you would desire me to do--conductingadministration in the spirit which I believe you will approve;listening with impartiality to all I can learn; desirous to supportall those who are toiling at arduous work in India; and that we shallnot be deterred from pursuing to the end, a policy of firmness on theone hand, and of liberal and steady reform on the other. We shall notsee all the fruits of it in our day. So be it. We shall at least havemade not only a beginning, but a marked advance both in orderand progress, by resolute patience, and an unflagging spirit ofconciliation. 

III

AN AMENDMENT TO THE ADDRESS

(HOUSE OF COMMONS. JAN. 31, 1908)

 DR. RUTHERFORD (Middlesex, Brentford) rose to move as an Amendment to the Address, at the end to add, --"But humbly submits that the present condition of affairs in India demands the immediate and serious attention of his Majesty's Government; that the present proposals of the Government of India are inadequate to allay the existing and growing discontent; and that comprehensive measures of reform are imperatively necessary in the direction of giving the people of India control over their own affairs. "

MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, I think the House will allow me in the remarksthat I wish to make, to refer to a communication that I had received, namely, the decision arrived at by the Transvaal Government in respectto the question of Asiatics. Everybody in the House is aware of theenormous interest, even passionate interest, that has been taken inthis subject, especially in India, and for very good reasons. Withoutfurther preface let me say, this is the statement received by LordElgin from the Government of the Transvaal last night:--"Gandhi andother leaders of the Indian and Chinese communities have offeredvoluntary registration in a body within three months, providedsignatures only are taken of educated, propertied, or well-knownAsiatics, and finger-prints of the others, and that no questionagainst which Asiatics have religious objections be pressed. TheTransvaal Government have accepted this offer, and undertaken, pendingregistration, not to enforce the penalties under the Act against allthose who register. The sentences of all Asiatics in prison will beremitted to-morrow. " Lord Selborne adds, "This course was agreed to byboth political parties. " I am sure that everybody in the House willthink that very welcome news. I do not like to let the matter dropwithout saying a word--I am sure Lord Elgin would like me to sayit--in recognition of the good spirit shown by the TransvaalGovernment. 

In reference to the Amendment now before the House, I have listenedto the debate with keen, lively, and close interest. I am not one ofthose who have usually complained of these grave topics being raised, when fair opportunity offered in this House. On the whole, lookingback over my Parliamentary lifetime, which is now pretty long, I thinkthere has been too little Indian discussion. Before I came here therewere powerful minds like Mr. Fawcett and Mr. Bradlaugh and others, whoconstantly raised Indian questions in a truly serious and practicalway, though I do not at all commit myself to the various pointsof view that were then adopted. But, of course, this is a vote ofconfidence. I am not going to ask members to vote for the Governmenton that ground. But I must submit that His Majesty's presentGovernment in the Indian department has the confidence both of theHouse and of the country. I believe we have. An important suggestionwas made by my hon. Friend now sitting below the gangway, that aParliamentary Committee should sit--I presume a joint committee of thetwo Houses--and my hon. Friend who spoke last, said that the fact ofthe existence of that committee would bring Parliament into closercontact with the mind of India. Well, ever since I have been at theIndia Office I have rather inclined in the direction of one of the oldParliamentary Committees. I will not argue the question now. I canonly assure my hon. Friend that the question has been consideredby me, and I see what its advantages might be, yet I also perceiveserious disadvantages. In the old days they were able to command theservices on the Indian committees, of ex-Ministers, of members of thisHouse and members of another place, who had had much experienceof Indian administration, and I am doubtful, considering thepreoccupations of public men, whether we should now be able to call alarge body of experienced administrators, with the necessary balancebetween the two Houses, to sit on one of these committees. And then Iwould point out another disadvantage. You would have to call away fromthe performance of their duties in India a large body of men whoseduties ought to occupy, and I believe do occupy, all their minds andall their time. Still it is an idea, and I will only say that I do notentirely banish it from my own mind. Two interesting speeches, andsignificant speeches, have been made this afternoon. One was made bymy hon. Friend, the mover, and the other by the hon. Member for EastLeeds. Those two speeches raise a really important issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds said that democracy was entirely opposedto, and would resist, the doctrine of the settled fact. [1] My hon. Friend tells you democracy will have nothing to do with settled facts, though he did not quite put it as plainly as that. Now, if that be so, I am very sorry for democracy. I do not agree with my hon. Friend. Ithink democracy will be just as reasonable as any other sensible formof government, and I do not believe democracy will for a momentthink that you are to rip up a settlement of an administrative orconstitutional question, because it jars with some abstract _a priori_idea. I for one certainly say that I would not remain at the IndiaOffice, or any other powerful and responsible Departmental office, oncondition that I made short work of settled facts, hurried on with mycatalogue of first principles, and arranged on those principlesthe whole duties of government. Then my hon. Friend the Member forBrentford quoted an expression of mine used in a speech in the countryabout the impatient idealists, and he reproved me for saying that someof the worst tragedies of history had been wrought by the impatientidealists. He was kind enough to say that it was I, among otherpeople, who had made him an idealist, and therefore I ought not to beashamed of my spiritual and intellectual progeny. I certainly have noright whatever to say that I am ashamed of my hon. Friend, who madea speech full of interesting views, full of visions of a millennialfuture, and I do not quarrel with him for making his speech. My hon. Friend said that he was for an Imperial Duma. The hon. Gentleman hashad the advantage of a visit to India, which I have never had. I thinkhe was there for six whole long weeks. He polished off the Indianpopulation at the heroic rate of sixty millions a week, and this makeshim our especially competent instructor. His Imperial Duma was to beelected, as I understood, by universal suffrage. 

[Footnote 1: The Secretary of State had on an earlier occasion spokenof the Petition of Bengal as a settled fact. ]

Dr. RUTHERFORD: No, not universal suffrage. I said educationalsuffrage, and also pecuniary suffrage--taxpayers and ratepayers. 

Mr. MORLEY: In the same speech the hon. Gentleman made a great chargeagainst our system of education in India--that we had not educatedthem at all; therefore, he excludes at once an enormous part of thepopulation. The Imperial Duma, as I understood from my hon. Friend wasto be subject to the veto of the Viceroy. That is not democracy. Weare to send out from Great Britain once in five years a Viceroy, who is to be confronted by an Imperial Duma, just as the Tsar isconfronted by the Duma in Russia. Surely that is not a very ripe ideaof democracy. My hon. Friend visited the State of Baroda, and thoughtit well governed. Well, there is no Duma of his sort there. I willstate frankly my own opinion even though I have not spent one singleweek-end in India. If I had to frame a new system of government forIndia, I declare I would multiply the Baroda system of government, rather than have an Imperial Duma and universal suffrage. The speechof my hon. Friend, with whom I am sorry to find myself, not incollision but in difference, illustrates what is to my mind one of thegrossest of all the fallacies in practical politics--namely, that youcan cut out, frame, and shape one system of government for communitieswith absolutely different sets of social, religious, and economicconditions--that you can cut them all out by a sort of standardisedpattern, and say that what is good for us here, the point of view, theline of argument, the method of solution--that all these things are tobe applied right off to a community like India. I must tell my hon. Friend that I regard that as a most fatal and mischievous fallacy, andI need not say more. I am bound, after what I have said, to add that Ido not think that it is at all involved in Liberalism. I have had thegreat good fortune and honour and privilege to have known some of thegreat Liberals of my time, and there was not one of those great men, Gambetta, Bright, Gladstone, Mazzini, who would have accepted for onesingle moment the doctrine on which my hon. Friend really bases hisvisionary proposition for a Duma. Is there any rational man whoholds that, if you can lay down political principles and maximsof government that apply equally to Scotland or to England, or toIreland, or to France, or to Spain, therefore they must be just astrue for the Punjab and the United Provinces and Bengal?

Dr. RUTHERFORD: I quoted Mr. Bright as making the very proposal I havemade, with the exception of the Duma--namely, Provincial Parliaments. 

Mr. MORLEY: I am afraid I must traverse my hon. Friend's descriptionof Mr. Bright's view, with which, I think, I am pretty wellacquainted. Mr. Bright was, I believe, on the right track at the time, when in 1858 the Government of India was transferred to the Crown. He was not in favour of universal suffrage--he was ratherold-fashioned--but Mr. Bright's proposal was perfectly different fromthat of my hon. Friend. Sir Henry Maine, and others who had beenconcerned with Indian affairs, came to the conclusion that Mr. Bright's idea was right--that to put one man, a Viceroy, assisted ashe might be with an effective Executive Council, in charge of suchan area as India and its 300 millions of population, with all itsdifferent races, creeds, modes of thought, was to put on a Viceroy'sshoulder a load that no man of whatever powers, however gigantic theymight be, could be expected effectively to support. My hon. Friend andothers who sometimes favour me with criticisms in the same sense, seem to suggest that I am a false brother, that I do not know whatLiberalism is. I think I do, and I must even say that I do not think Ihave anything to learn of the principles or maxims or the practice ofLiberal doctrines even from my hon. Friend. You are bound to look atthe whole mass of the difficulties and perplexing problems connectedwith India, from a common-sense plane, and it is not common sense, ifI may say so without discourtesy, to talk of Imperial Dumas. I havenot had a word of thanks from that quarter, in the midst of a showerof reproach, for what I regard, in all its direct and indirect resultsand bearings, as one of the most important moves that have been madein connection with the relations between Great Britain and India fora long time--I mean, the admission of two Indian gentlemen to theCouncil of the Secretary of State. An hon. Friend wants me to appointan Indian gentleman to the Viceroy's Executive Council. Well, thatis a different thing; but I am perfectly sure that, if an occasionoffers, neither Lord Minto nor I would fall short of some suchapplication of democratic principles. In itself it is something thatwe have a Viceroy and a Secretary of State thoroughly alive to thegreat change in temperature and atmosphere that has been going on inIndia for the last five or six years, and I do not think we ought tobe too impatiently judged. We came in at a perturbed time; we did notfind balmy breezes and smooth waters. It is notorious that we cameinto enormous difficulties, which we had not created. How they werecreated is a long story that has nothing whatever to do with thepresent discussion. But what I submit with the utmost confidenceis that the situation to-day is a considerable improvement on thesituation that we found, when we assumed power two years ago. Therehave been heavy and black clouds over the Indian horizon duringthose two years. By our policy those clouds have been to some extentdispersed. I am not so unwise as to say that the clouds will nevercome back again; but what has been done by us has been justified, inmy opinion, by the event. 

Some fault was found, and I do not in the least complain, with thedeportation of two native gentlemen. I do not quarrel with the manwho finds fault with that proceeding. To take anybody and deport himwithout bringing any charge against him, and with no intention ofbringing him to trial, is a step that, I think, the House is perfectlyjustified in calling me to account for. I have done my best to accountfor it, and to-day, anyone who knows the Punjab, would agree that, whatever may happen at some remote period, its state is comparativelyquiet and satisfactory. I am not going to repeat my justification ofthat strong measure of deportation, but I should like to read to theHouse the words of the Viceroy in the Legislative Council in Novemberlast, when he was talking about the circumstances with which we had todeal. He said, addressing Lord Kitchener--

 "I hope that your Excellency will on my behalf as Viceroy and as representing the King convey to His Majesty's Indian troops my thanks for the contempt with which they have received the disgraceful overtures which I know have been made to them. The seeds of sedition have been unscrupulously scattered throughout India, even amongst the hills of the frontier tribes. We are grateful that they have fallen on much barren ground, but we can no longer allow their dissemination. "

Will anybody say, that in view of the possible danger pointed to inthat language of the Viceroy two or three months ago, we did wrong inusing the regulation which applied to the case? No one can say whatmischief might have followed, if we had taken any other course thanthat which we actually took. 

Let me beseech my hon. Friends at least to try for some sense ofbalanced proportion, instead of allowing their wrath at one particularincident of policy to blot out from their vision all the wide anddurable operations, to which we have set firm and persistent hands. After all, this absence of a sense of proportion is what, more thanany other one thing, makes a man a wretched politician. 

Now as to the reforms that are mentioned in my hon. Friend'sAmendment. It is an extraordinary Amendment. It--

 "submits that the present condition of affairs in India demands the immediate and serious attention of His Majesty's Government. "

I could cordially vote for that, only remarking that the hon. Membermust think the Secretary of State, and the Viceroy, and other personsimmediately concerned in the Government of India, very curious peopleif he supposes that the state of affairs in India does not alwaysdemand their immediate and very serious attention. Then the Amendmentsays--

 "The present proposals of the Government of India are inadequate to allay the existing and growing discontent. "

I hope it is not presumptuous to say so, but I should have expected adefinition from my hon. Friend of what he guesses these proposals are. I should like to set a little examination paper to my hon. Friend. Ihave studied them for many months, yet would rather not be examinedfor chapter and verse. But my hon. Friend after his famous six weeksof travel knows all about them, and the state of affairs for which ourplans are the inadequate remedy. I do not want to hold him up as aformidable example: but in his speech to-day he went over--and itdoes credit to his industry--every single one of the most burning andcontroversial questions of the whole system of Indian Government andseemed to say, "I will tell you how far this is wrong and exactly whatought to be done to put what is wrong right. " I think I have got fromhim twenty _ipse dixits_ on all these topics on which we slow dullpeople at the India Office are wearing ourselves to pieces. When it issaid, as I often hear it said, that I, for example, am fallinginto the hands of my officials, it should be remembered that thosegentlemen who go to India also get into the hands of other people. 

Dr. RUTHERFORD: I was in the hands both of officials and of Indians. 

Mr. MORLEY: Then let me assure him, perhaps to his amazement, that hecame out of the hands of both of them still with something to learn. I wonder whether, when this House is asked to condemn the presentproposals of the Government of India as being inadequate to allay theexisting and growing discontent, it is realised exactly how the casestands. I will repeat what I said in the debate on the IndianBudget. The Government of India sent over to the India Office theirproposals--their various schemes for advisory councils and so forth. We at the India Office subjected them to a careful scrutiny andlaborious examination. As a result of this careful scrutiny andexamination, they were sent back to the Government of India with therequest that they would submit them to discussion in various quarters. The instruction to the Government of India was that by the end ofMarch, the India Office was to learn what the general view was atwhich the Government of India had themselves arrived upon the plans, with all their complexities and variations. We wanted to know whatthey would tell us. It will be for us to consider how far the reportso arrived at, how far these proposals, ripened by Indian opinion, carried out the policy which His Majesty's Government had in view. Surely that is a reasonable and simple way of proceeding? When youhave to deal with complex communities of varied races, and all theother peculiarities of India, you have to think out how your proposalswill work. Democracies do not always think how things will work. Sir Henry Cotton made a speech that interested and struck me by itsmoderation and reasonableness. He made a number of remarks in perfectgood faith about officials, which I received in a chastened spirit, for he has been for a very long time a very distinguished officialhimself. Therefore, he knows all about it. He went on to talk ofthe great problem of the separation of the executive and judicialfunctions, which is one of the living problems of India. I can onlyassure my hon. Friend that that is engaging our attention both inIndia and here. 

Another of the subjects to which the attention of the IndianGovernment has been specifically directed has regard to the mitigationof flogging, the restriction of civil flogging, and the limitation ofmilitary flogging to specific cases. In this we are making a markedadvance in humanity and common sense, --which is itself a kind ofhumanity. 

My hon. Friend appeals to me saying that all will be well in India, if the Secretary of State will make a statement which will show theIndian people that, in his relations with them, his hopes for them, and his efforts for them, he is moved by a kindly, sympathetic, andfriendly feeling, showing them that his heart is with them. All I havegot to say is that I have never shown myself anything else. My heartis with them. What is bureaucracy to me? It is a great machine inIndia, yes a splendid machine, for performing the most difficult taskthat ever was committed to the charge of any nation. But show me whereit fails--that it is perfect in every respect no sensible man wouldcontend for a moment--but show me at any point, let any of my hon. Friends show me from day to day as this session passes, where thisbureaucracy, as they call it, has been at fault. Do they suppose itpossible that I will not show my recognition of that failure, anddo all that I can to remedy it? Although the Government of India iscomplicated and intricate, they cannot suppose that I shall fail forone moment in doing all in my power to demonstrate that we are movedby a kindly, a sympathetic, a friendly, an energetic, and what Iwill call a governing spirit, in the highest form and sense of thatsovereign and inspiring word. 

IV

INDIAN CIVIL SERVICE

(LONDON. JULY 1908)

GENTLEMEN, --I have first of all to thank you for what I understand isa rare honour--and an honour it assuredly is--of being invited tobe your guest to-night. The position of a Secretary of State in thepresence of the Indian Civil Service is not an entirely simple one. You, Gentlemen, who are still in the Service, and the veterans I seearound me who have been in that great Service, naturally and properlylook first of all, and almost altogether, upon India. A Secretary ofState has to look also upon Great Britain and upon Parliament--andthat is not always a perfectly easy situation to adjust. I forget whoit was that said about the rulers of India in India:--"It is no easything for a man to keep his watch in two longitudes at once at thesame time. " That is the case of the Secretary of State. It is notthe business of the Secretary of State to look exclusively at India, though I will confess to you for myself that during the moderatelyshort time I have held my present office, I have kept my eye uponIndia constantly, steadfastly, and with every desire to learn thewhole truth upon every situation as it arose. 

But there must be a thorough comprehension in the mind of theSecretary of State of two things--first of all, of the Indian point ofview; and, secondly, the point of view as it appears to those who arethe masters of me and of you. Do not forget that adjustment has to bemade. It would be impertinent of me to pay compliments to the CivilService, to whom I propose this toast--"The Health of the IndianCivil Service. " You might think for a moment, that it was an amateurproposing prosperity and success to experts. I have had in my days agood deal to do with experts of one kind and another, and I assureyou that I do not think an expert is at all the worse when he gets acandid-minded and reasonably well trained amateur. 

Now, this year is a memorable anniversary. It is fifty years within amonth or two, since the Crown took over the Government of India fromthe old East India Company. Whether that was a good move or a badmove, it would not become me to discuss. The move was made. (A voice, "It was a good move. ") My veteran friend says that it was a good move. I hope so. But at the end of fifty years we are at rather a criticalmoment. I read in _The Times_ the other day that the present Viceroyand Secretary of State had to deal with conditions such as the Britishin India never before were called upon to face. (A voice, "That isso. ") Now, many of you sitting around me at this table are far betterable to test the weight of that statement, than I can pretend to be. Is it true that at the end of fifty years since the transfer to theCrown, we have to deal with conditions such as the British in Indianever before were called upon to face? ("Yes. ") I cannot undertake tomeasure that; but what is clear is that decidedly heavy clouds havesuddenly risen in our horizon, and are darkly sailing over our Indianskies. That cannot be denied. But, gentlemen, having paid the utmostattention that a man can in office, with access to all the papers, andseeing all the observers he is able to see, I do not feel for a momentthat this discovery of a secret society or a secret organisationinvolves any question of an earthquake. I prefer to look upon it, torevert to my own figure, as clouds sailing through the sky. I do notsay you will not have to take pretty strong measures of one sort andanother. Yes, but strong measures in the right direction, and with theright qualifications. I think any man who lays down a firm propositionthat all is well, or any man who says that all is ill--either of thosetwo men is probably wrong. Now this room is filled, and geniallyfilled, with men who have had enormous experience, vast and wideexperience, and, not merely passive experience, but that splendidactive experience which is the real training and education of menin responsibility. This room is full of gentlemen with thesequalifications. And I will venture to say that the theories andexplanations that could be heard in the palace of truth from all ofyou gentlemen here, would be countless in their differences. I hearexplanations of the present state of things all day long. I like tohear them. You think it may become monotonous. No: not at all; becausethere is so much, I will not say of random variety, but there is somuch independent use of mind upon the facts that we have to deal with, that I listen with endless edification and instruction. But, I think, and I wish I could think otherwise with all my heart--that to sum upall these theories and explanations of the state of things with whichwe have to deal, you can hardly resist a painful impression that thereis now astir in some quarters a certain estrangement and alienation ofraces. ("No no. ") Gentlemen, bear with me patiently. It is our sharein the Asiatic question. 

A DIFFICULT PROBLEM. 

I am trying to feel my way through the most difficult problem, themost difficult situation that a responsible Government can have toface. Of course, I am dependent upon information. But as I read it, as I listen to serious Indian experts with large experience, it allsounds estrangement and alienation even though it be no worse thansuperficial. Now that is the problem that we have to deal with. Gentlemen, I should very badly repay your kindness in asking me tocome among you to-night, if I were to attempt for a minute to analyseor to prove all the conditions that have led to this state of things. It would need hours and days. This is not, I think, the occasion, northe moment. Our first duty--the first duty of any Government--is tokeep order. But just remember this. It would be idle to deny, and I amnot sure that any of you gentlemen would deny, that there is at thismoment, and there has been for some little time past, and very likelythere will be for some time to come, a living movement in the mind ofthe peoples for whom you are responsible. A living movement, and amovement for what? A movement for objects which we ourselves have alltaught them to think desirable objects. And unless we somehow or othercan reconcile order with satisfaction of those ideas and aspirations, gentlemen, the fault will not be theirs. It will be ours. It will markthe breakdown of what has never yet broken down in any part of theworld--the breakdown of British statesmanship. That is what it willdo. Now I do not believe anybody--either in this room or out of thisroom--believes that we can now enter upon an era of pure repression. You cannot enter at this date and with English public opinion, mindyou, watching you, upon an era of pure repression, and I do notbelieve really that anybody desires any such thing. I do not believeso. Gentlemen, we have seen attempts, in the lifetime of some of ushere to-night, attempts in Continental Europe, to govern by purerepression. Has one of them really succeeded? They have all failed. There may be now and again a spurious semblance of success, but intruth they have all failed. Whether we with our enormous power andresolution should fail, I do not know. But I do not believe anybodyin this room representing so powerfully as you do dominant sentimentsthat are not always felt in England--that in this room there isanybody who is for an era of pure repression. Gentlemen, I would justdigress for a moment if I am not tiring you. ("Go on, ") About the sametime as the transfer, about fifty years ago, of the Government ofIndia from the old East India Company to the Crown, another veryimportant step was taken, a step which I have often thought sinceI have been concerned with the Government of India was far moremomentous, one almost deeper than the transfer to the Crown. And whatdo you think that was? That was the first establishment--I think Iam right in my date--of Universities. We in this country are soaccustomed to look upon political changes as the only importantchanges, that we very often forget such a change as the establishmentof Universities. And if any of you are inclined to prophesy, I shouldlike to read to you something that was written by that great andfamous man, Lord Macaulay, in the year 1836, long before theUniversities were thought of. What did he say? What a warning it is, gentlemen. He wrote, in the year 1836:--"At the single town of Hooghly1, 400 boys are learning English. The effect of this education on theHindus is prodigious. . . . It is my firm belief that if our plans ofeducation are followed up, there will not be a single idolater amongthe respectable classes in Bengal thirty years hence. And this will beeffected merely by the natural operation of knowledge and reflection. "Ah, gentlemen, the natural operation of knowledge and reflectioncarries men of a different structure of mind, different beliefs, different habits and customs of life--it carries them into strange andunexpected paths. I am not going to embark you to-night upon thesevast controversies, but when we talk about education, are we notgetting very near the root of the case? Now to-night we are not in thehumour--I am sure you are not, I certainly am not--for philosophising. Somebody is glad of it. I will tell you what I think of--as I have fora good many months past--I think first of the burden of responsibilityweighing on the governing men at Calcutta and Simla and the other maincentres of power and of labour. We think of the anxieties of those inIndia, and in England as well, who have relatives in remote places andunder conditions that are very familiar to you all. I have a greatadmiration for the self-command, for the freedom from anythinglike panic, which has hitherto marked the attitude of the Europeanpopulation of Calcutta and some other places, and I confess I havesaid to myself that if they had found here, in London, bombs in therailway carriages, bombs under the Prime Minister's House, and soforth, we should have had tremendous scare headlines and all the otherphenomena of excitement and panic. So far as I am informed, thoughvery serious in Calcutta--the feeling is serious, how could it beanything else?--they have exercised the great and noble virtue, in allranks and classes, of self-command. Now the Government--if you willallow me for a very few moments to say a word on behalf of theGovernment, not here alone but at Simla--we and they, for after all weare one--have been assailed for a certain want of courage and what iscalled, often grossly miscalled, vigour. 

We were told the other day--and this brings us to the root ofpolicy--that there had been a momentary flash of courage in theGovernment, a momentary flash of courage when the Government of Indiaand we here assented to the deportation of two men, and it is made amatter of complaint that they were released immediately. Well, theywere not released immediately, but after six or eight months--I forgetexactly how many months--of detention. They were there with no charge, no trial, nor intention of bringing them to trial. How long were we tokeep them there? Not a day, I answer, nor one hour, after the specificand particular mischief, with a view to which this drastic proceedingwas adopted, had abated. Specific mischief, mind you. I will not gointo that argument to-night: another day I will. I will only say onething. To strain the meaning and the spirit of an exceptional law likethe old Regulation of the year 1818 in such a fashion as this, what would it do? Such a strain, pressed upon us in the perverseimagination of headstrong men, is no better than a suggestion forprovoking lawless and criminal reprisals. ("No. ") You may not agreewith me. You are kindly allowing me as your guest to say things withwhich perhaps you do not agree. (Cries of "Go on. ") After all, weunderstand one another--we speak the same language, and I tell youthat a proceeding of that kind, indefinite detention, is a thing thatwould not be endured in this country. (A voice of "Disorder. ") Yes, ifthere were great and clear connection between the detention and theoutbreak of disorder, certainly; but as the disorder had abated itwould have been intolerable for us to continue the incarceration. 

Last Monday, what is called a Press Act, was passed by the Governmentof India, in connection with, and simultaneously with, an ExplosivesAct which ought to have been passed, I should think, twenty years ago. What is the purport of the Press Act? I do not attempt to give itin technical language. Where the Local Government finds a newspaperarticle inciting to murder and violence, or resort to explosives forthe purposes of murder or violence, that Local Government may apply toa Magistrate of a certain status to issue an order for the seizure ofthe Press by which that incitement has been printed; and if the ownerof the Press feels himself aggrieved, he may within fifteen days askthe High Court to reverse the order, and direct the restoration of thePress. That is a statement of the law that has been passed in India, and to which I do not doubt we shall give our assent. There has beenthe usual outcry raised--usual in all these cases. Certain people say, "Oh, you are too late. " Others say, "You are too early. " I will say toyou first of all, and to any other audience afterwards, that I have noapology to make for being a party to the passing of this law now; andI have no apology to make for not passing it before. I do not believein short cuts, and I believe that the Government in these difficultcircumstances is wise not to be in too great a hurry. I have noapology to make for introducing executive action into what wouldnormally be a judicial process. Neither, on the other hand, have I anyapology to make for tempering executive action with judicial elements;and I am very glad to say that an evening newspaper last night, whichis not of the politics to which I belong, entirely approves of that. It says: "You must show that you are not afraid of referring yoursemi-executive, semi-judicial action to the High Court. " This Actmeddles with no criticism, however strong, of Government measures. Itdiscourages the advocacy of no practical policy, social, political, oreconomic. Yet I see, to my great regret and astonishment, that thisAct is described as an Act for judging cases of seditious libelwithout a Jury. It is contended by some--and I respect thecontention--that the Imperial Parliament ought to have been consultedbefore this Act was passed, and ought to be consulted now. (Criesof "No, no. ") My veteran friends lived before the days of householdsuffrage. Well, it is said that the voice of Parliament ought tobe heard in so grave a matter as this. But the principles of theproposals were fully considered, as was quite right, not only by theSecretary of State in Council, but by the Cabinet. It was a matter ofpublic urgency. I stand by it. But it is perfectly natural to ask:Should the Imperial Parliament have no voice? I have directed theGovernment of India to report to the Secretary of State all theproceedings taken under this Act; and I undertake, as long as I holdthe office of Secretary of State, to present to Parliament from timeto time the reports of the proceedings taken under this somewhatdrastic Act. 

When I am told that an Act of this kind is a restriction on thefreedom of the Press, I do not accept it for a moment. I do notbelieve that there is a man in England who is more jealous of thefreedom of the Press than I am. But let us see what we mean. It issaid, "Oh, these incendiary articles"--for they are incendiary andmurderous--"are mere froth. " Yes, they are froth; but they arefroth stained with bloodshed. When you have men admitting that theydeliberately write these articles and promote these newspapers witha view of furthering murderous action, to talk of the freedom of thePress in connection with that is wicked moonshine. We have now got avery Radical House of Commons. So much, the better for you. If I werestill a member of the House of Commons, I should not mind for a momentgoing down to the House--and I am sure that my colleagues will notmind--to say that when you find these articles on the avowal of thoseconcerned, expressly designed to promote murderous action, and whenyou find as a fact that murderous action has come about, it ismoonshine to talk of the freedom of the Press. There is no use inindulging in heroics. They are not wanted. But an incendiary articleis part and parcel of the murderous act. You may put picric acid inthe ink and pen, just as much as in any steel bomb. I have one or twoextracts here with which I will not trouble you. But when I amtold that we should recognise it as one of the chief aims of goodGovernment that there may be as much public discussion as possible, Iread that sentence with proper edification; and then I turn to what Ihad telegraphed for from India--extracts from _Yugantar_. To talk ofpublic discussion in connection with mischief of that kind is reallypushing things intolerably far. 

I will not be in a hurry to believe that there is not a great bodyin India of reasonable people, not only among the quiet, humble, law-abiding classes, but among the educated classes. I do not carewhat they call themselves, or what organisation they may formthemselves into. But I will not be in a hurry to believe that thereare no such people and that we can never depend on them. When webelieve this--that we have no body of organised, reasonable peopleon our side in India--when you gentlemen who know the country, saythis--then I say that, on the day when we believe that, we shallbe confronted with as awkward, as embarrassing, and as hazardous asituation as has ever confronted the rulers of any of the most complexand gigantic States in human history. I am confident that if thecrisis comes, it will find us ready, but let us keep our minds clearin advance. There have been many dark and ugly moments--see gentlemenaround me who have gone through dark and ugly dates--in our relationswith India before now. We have a clouded moment before us now. Weshall get through it--but only with self-command and without anyquackery or cant whether it be the quackery of blind violencedisguised as love of order, or the cant of unsound and misappliedsentiment, divorced from knowledge and untouched by any coolconsideration of the facts. 

V

ON PROPOSED REFORMS

(HOUSE OF LORDS. DECEMBER 17, 1908)

I feel that I owe a very sincere apology to the House for thedisturbance in the business arrangements of the House, of which I havebeen the cause, though the innocent cause. It has been said that inthe delays in bringing forward this subject, I have been anxious toburke discussion. That is not in the least true. The reasons that madeit seem desirable to me that the discussion on this most important andfar-reaching range of topics should be postponed, were--I believe theHouse will agree with me--reasons of common sense. In the first place, discussion without anybody having seen the Papers to be discussed, would evidently have been ineffective. In the second place it wouldhave been impossible to discuss those Papers with good effect--thePapers that I am going this afternoon to present to Parliament--untilwe know, at all events in some degree, what their reception has beenin the country most immediately concerned. And then thirdly, myLords, I cannot but apprehend that discussion here--I mean inParliament--would be calculated to prejudice the reception in Indiaof the proposals that His Majesty's Government, in concert with theGovernment of India, are now making. My Lords, I submit those arethree very essential reasons why discussion in my view, and I hopein the view of this House, was to be deprecated. This afternoon yourLordships will be presented with a very modest Blue-book of 100 or 150pages, but I should like to promise noble Lords that to-morrow morningthere will be ready for them a series of Papers on the same subject, of a size so enormous that the most voracious or even carnivorousappetite for Blue-books will have ample food for augmenting the joysof the Christmas holidays. 

The observations that I shall ask your Lordships to allow me to make, are the opening of a very important chapter in the history of therelations of Great Britain and India; and I shall ask the indulgenceof the House if I take a little time, not so much in dissecting thecontents of the Papers, which the House will be able to do for itselfby and by, as in indicating the general spirit that animates HisMajesty's Government here, and my noble friend the Governor-General, in making the proposals that I shall in a moment describe. I suppose, like other Secretaries of State for India, I found my first, ideawas to have what they used to have in the old days--a ParliamentaryCommittee to inquire into Indian Government. I see that a predecessorof mine in the India Office, Lord Randolph Churchill--he was there fortoo short a time--in 1885 had very strongly conceived that idea. Onthe whole I think there is a great deal at the present day to be saidagainst it. 

Therefore what we have done was in concert with the Government ofIndia, first to open a chapter of constitutional reform, of which Iwill speak in a moment, and next to appoint a Royal Commission toinquire into the internal relations between theGovernment of India and all its subordinate and co-ordinate parts. That Commission will report, I believe, in February or Marchnext, --February, I hope, --and that again will involve the Governmentof India and the India Office in Whitehall in pretty laborious andcareful inquiries. It cannot be expected--and it ought not to beexpected--that an Act passed as the organic Act of 1858 was passed, amidst intense excitement and most disturbing circumstances, shouldhave been in existence for half a century without disclosing flawsand imperfections, or that its operations would not be the better forsupervision, or incapable of improvement. 

I spoke of delay in these observations, and unfortunately delay hasnot made the skies any brighter. But, my Lords, do not let us makethe Indian sky cloudier than it really is. Do not let us consider theclouds to be darker than they really are. Let me invite your Lordshipsto look at the formidable difficulties that now encumber us in India, with a due sense of proportion. 

What is the state of things as it appears to persons of authority andof ample knowledge in India? One very important and well-known friendof mine in India says this--

"The anarchists are few, but, on the other hand, they are apparentlyprepared to go any length and to run any risk. It must also be bornein mind that the ordinary man or lad in India has not too muchcourage, and that the loyal are terrorised by the ruthlessextremists. "

It is a curious incident that on the very day before the attempt toassassinate Sir Andrew Fraser was made, he had a reception in thecollege where the would-be assassin was educated, and his receptionwas of the most enthusiastic and spontaneous kind. I only mentionthat, to show the curious and subtle atmosphere in which things noware at Calcutta. I will not dwell on that, because although I have amass of material, this is not the occasion for developing it. I willonly add this from a correspondent of great authority--

"There is no fear of anything in the nature of a rising, but ifmurders continue, a general panic may arise and greatly increasethe danger of the situation. We cannot hope that any machinery willcompletely stop outrages at once. We must be prepared to meet them. There are growing indications that the native population itself isalarmed, and that we shall have the strong support of native publicopinion. "

The view of important persons in the Government of India is that insubstance the position of our Government in India is as sound and aswell-founded as it has ever been. 

I shall be asked, has not the Government of India been obliged to passa measure introducing pretty drastic machinery? That is quitetrue, and I, for one, have no fault whatever to find with them forintroducing such machinery and for taking that step. On the contrary, my Lords, I wholly approve, and I share, of course, to the full theresponsibility for it. I understand that I am exposed to some obloquyon this account--I am charged with inconsistency. That is a matteron which I am very well able to take care of myself, and I should beashamed to detain your Lordships for one single moment in arguingabout it. Quite early after my coming to the India Office, pressurewas put on me to repeal the Regulation of 1818, under which men arenow being summarily detained without trial and without charge, and without intention to try or to charge. That, of course, is atremendous power to place in the hands of an Executive Government. ButI said to myself then, and I say now, that I decline to take out ofthe hands of the Government of India any weapon that they have got, incircumstances so formidable, so obscure, and so impenetrable as arethe circumstances that surround British Government in India. 

There are two paths of folly in these matters. One is to regard allIndian matters, Indian procedure and Indian policy, as if it wereGreat Britain or Ireland, and to insist that all the robes and apparelthat suit Great Britain or Ireland must necessarily suit India. Theother is to think that all you have got to do is what I see suggested, to my amazement, in English print--to blow a certain number of menfrom guns, and then your business will be done. Either of these pathsof folly leads to as great disaster as the other. I would like tosay this about the Summary Jurisdiction Bill--I have no illusionswhatever. I do not ignore, and I do not believe that Lord Lansdowneopposite, or anyone else can ignore, the frightful risks involved intransferring in any form or degree what should be the ordinary powerunder the law, to arbitrary personal discretion. I am alive, too, tothe temptation under summary procedure of various kinds, to the dangerof mistaking a headstrong exercise of force for energy. Again, I donot for an instant forget, and I hope those who so loudly applaudlegislation of this kind do not forget, the tremendous price that youpay for all operations of this sort in the reaction and the excitementthat they provoke. If there is a man who knows all these drawbacksI think I am he. But there are situations in which a responsibleGovernment is compelled to run these risks and to pay this possibleprice, however high it may appear to be. 

It is like war, a hateful thing, from which, however, some of the mostardent lovers of peace, and some of those rulers of the world whosenames the most ardent lovers of peace most honour and revere--it isone of the things from which these men have not shrunk. The onlyquestion for us is whether there is such a situation in India to-dayas to warrant the passing of the Act the other day, and to justifyresort to the Regulation of 1818. I cannot imagine anybody reading thespeeches--especially the unexaggerated remarks of the Viceroy--and thelist of crimes perpetrated, and attempted, that were read out lastFriday in Calcutta--I cannot imagine that anybody reading that listand thinking what they stand for, would doubt for a single moment thatsummary procedure of some kind or another was justified and calledfor. I discern a tendency to criticise this legislation on groundsthat strike me as extraordinary. After all, it is not our fault thatwe have had to bring in this measure. You must protect the lives ofyour officers. You must protect peaceful and harmless people, bothIndian and European, from the blood-stained havoc of anarchicconspiracy. We deplore the necessity, but we are bound to face thefacts. I myself recognise this necessity with infinite regret, andwith something, perhaps, rather deeper than regret. But it is notthe Government, either here or in India, who are the authors of thisnecessity, and I should not at all mind, if it is not impertinent andunbecoming in me to say so, standing up in another place and sayingexactly what I say here, that I approve of these proceedings and willdo my best to support the Government of India. 

Now a very important question arises, for which I would for a momentask the close attention of your Lordships, because I am sure that bothhere and elsewhere it will be argued that the necessity, and the factsthat caused the necessity, of bringing forward strong repressivemachinery should arrest our policy of reforms. That has been stated, and I dare say many people will assent to it. Well, the Government ofIndia and myself have from the very first beginning of this unsettledstate of things, never varied in our determination to persevere in thepolicy of reform. 

I put two plain questions to your Lordships. I am sick of all theretrograde commonplaces about the weakness of concession to violenceand so on. Persevering in our plan of reform is not a concession toviolence. Reforms that we have publicly announced, adopted, and workedout for more than two years--how is it a concession to violence, topersist in those reforms? It is simply standing to your guns. A numberof gentlemen, of whom I wish to speak with all respect, addressed avery courteous letter to me the other day that appeared in the publicprints, exhorting me to remember that Oriental countries inevitablyand invariably interpret kindness as fear. I do not believe it. TheFounder of Christianity arose in an Oriental country, and when I amtold that Orientals always mistake kindness for fear, I must repeatthat I do not believe it, any more than I believe the stranger sayingof Carlyle, that after all the fundamental question between any twohuman beings is--Can I kill thee, or canst thou kill me? I do notagree that any organised society has ever subsisted upon either ofthose principles, or that brutality is always present as a fundamentalpostulate in the relations between rulers and ruled. 

My first question is this. There are alternative courses open to us. We can either withdraw our reforms, or we can persevere in them. Whichwould be the more flagrant sign of weakness--to go steadily on withyour policy of reform in spite of bombs, or to let yourself openlybe forced by bombs and murder clubs to drop your policy? My secondquestion is--Who would be best pleased if I were to announce to yourLordships that the Government have determined to drop the reforms?Why, it is notorious that those who would be best pleased would be theextremists and irreconcilables, just because they know well that forus to do anything to soften estrangement, and appease alienationbetween the European and native populations, would be the very bestway that could be adopted to deprive them of fuel for their sinisterand mischievous designs. I hope your Lordships will agree in that, andI should like to add one reason which I am sure will weigh very muchwith you. I do not know whether your Lordships have read the speechmade last Friday by Sir Norman Baker, the new Lieutenant-Governor ofBengal, in the Council at Calcutta, dealing with the point that I amendeavouring to present. In a speech of great power and force, he saidthat these repressive measures did not represent even the major partof the true policy dealing with the situation. The greater task, hesaid, was to adjust the machinery of government, so that their Indianfellow-subjects might be allotted parts which a self-respecting peoplecould fill, and that when the constitutional reforms were announced, as they would be shortly, he believed that the task of restoring orderwould be on the road to accomplishment. For a man holding sucha position to make such a statement at that moment, is all thecorroboration that we need for persisting in our policy of reform. Ihave talked with Indian experts of all kinds concerning reforms. Iadmit that some have shaken their heads; they did not like reformsvery warmly. But when I have asked, "Shall we stand still, then?"there is not one of those experienced men who has not said, "That isquite impossible. Whatever else we do, we cannot stand still. "

I should not be surprised if there are here some who say: You ought tohave some very strong machinery for putting down a free Press. A longtime ago a great Indian authority, Sir Thomas Munro, used languagewhich I will venture to quote, not merely for the purpose of thisafternoon's exposition, but in order that everybody who listens andreads may feel the formidable difficulties that our predecessors haveovercome, and that we in our turn mean to try to overcome. Sir ThomasMunro said--

 "We are trying an experiment never yet tried in the world--maintaining a foreign dominion by means of a native army; and teaching that army, through a free Press, that they ought to expel us, and deliver their country. "

He went on to say--

 "A tremendous revolution may overtake us, originating in a free Press. "

I recognise to the full the enormous force of a declaration of thatkind. But let us look at it as practical men, who have got to dealwith the government of the country. Supposing you abolish freedom ofthe Press or suspend it, that will not end the business. You willhave to shut up schools and colleges, for what would be the use ofsuppressing newspapers, if you do not shut the schools and colleges?Nor will that be all. You will have to stop the printing of unlicensedbooks. The possession of a copy of Milton, or Burke, or Macaulay, or of Bright's speeches, and all that flashing array of writers andorators who are the glory of our grand, our noble English tongue--thepossession of one of these books will, on this peculiar and puerilenotion of government, be like the possession of a bomb, and we shallhave to direct the passing of an Explosives Books Act. All this andits various sequels and complements make a policy if you please. Butafter such a policy had produced a mute, sullen, muzzled, lifelessIndia, we could hardly call it, as we do now the brightest jewel inthe Imperial Crown. No English Parliament will ever permit such athing. 

I do not think I need go through all the contents of the dispatchof the Governor-General and my reply, containing the plan of HisMajesty's Government, which will be in your Lordships' hands veryshortly. I think your Lordships will find in them a well-guardedexpansion of principles that were recognised in 1861, and are stillmore directly and closely connected with us now by the action of LordLansdowne in 1892. I have his words, and they are really as true a keyto the papers in our hands as they were to the policy of the nobleMarquess at that date. He said--

 "We hope, however, that we have succeeded in giving to our proposals a form sufficiently definite to secure a satisfactory advance in the representation of the people in our legislative Councils, and to give effect to the principle of selection as far as possible on the advice of such sections of the community as are likely to be capable of assisting us in that manner. "

Then you will find that another Governor-General in Council in India, whom I greatly rejoice to see still among us, my noble friend theMarquess of Ripon, said in 1882--

 "It is not primarily with a view to the improvement of administration, that this measure is put forward, it is chiefly desirable as an instrument of political and popular education"

The doctrines announced by the noble Marquess opposite, and bymy noble friend, are the standpoint from which we approached thesituation and framed our proposals. 

I will not trouble the House by going through the history of thecourse of the proceedings--that will be found in the Papers. I believethe House will be satisfied, just as I am satisfied, with the candourand patience that have been bestowed on the preparation of the schemein India, and I hope I may add it has been treated with equal patienceand candour here; and the end of it is that, though some points ofdifference arose, though the Government of India agreed to dropcertain points of their scheme--the Advisory Councils, for example--onthe whole there was remarkable agreement between the Government ofIndia and myself as to the best way of dealing with these proceedingsas to Legislative Councils. I will enumerate the points very shortly, and though I am afraid it may be tedious, I hope your Lordships willnot find the tedium unbearable, because, after all, what you arebeginning to consider to-day, is the turning over of a fresh leafin the history of British responsibility to India. There are only ahandful of distinguished members of this House who understand thedetails of Indian Administration, but I will explain them as shortlyas I can. 

This is a list of the powers which we shall have to acquire fromParliament when we bring in a Bill. I may say that we do not proposeto bring in a Bill this session. That would be idle. I propose tobring in a Bill next year. This is the first power we shall cometo Parliament for. At present the maximum and minimum numbers ofLegislative Councils are fixed by statute. We shall come to Parliamentto authorise an increase in the numbers of those Councils, both theViceroy's Council and the Provincial Councils. Secondly, the membersare now nominated by the head of the Government, either the Viceroy orthe Lieutenant-Governor. No election takes place in the strict senseof the term. The nearest approach to it is the nomination by theViceroy, upon the recommendation of a majority of voters of certainpublic bodies. We do not propose to ask Parliament to abolishnomination. We do propose to ask Parliament, in a very definite way, to introduce election working alongside of nomination with a view tothe aim admitted in all previous schemes, including that of the nobleMarquess opposite--the due representation of the different classes ofthe community. Third. The Indian Councils Act of 1892 forbids--andthis is no doubt a most important prohibition--either resolutionsor divisions of the Council in financial discussions. We shall askParliament to repeal this prohibition. Fourth. We shall propose toinvest legislative Councils with power to discuss matters of publicand general importance, and to pass recommendations or resolutionsto the Indian Government. That Government will deal with them ascarefully, or as carelessly, as they think fit--just as a Governmentdoes here. Fifth. To extend the power that at present exists, toappoint a Member of the Council to preside. Sixth. Bombay andMadras have now Executive Councils, numbering two. I propose to askParliament to double the number of ordinary members. Seventh. The Lieutenant-Governors have no Executive Council. We shall askParliament to sanction the creation of such Councils, consisting ofnot more than two ordinary members, and to define the power of theLieutenant-Governor to overrule his Council. I am perfectly sure theremay be differences of opinion as to these proposals. I only want yourLordships to believe that they have been well thought out, and thatthey are accepted by the Governor-General in Council. 

There is one point of extreme importance which, no doubt, though itmay not be over diplomatic for me to say so at this stage, will createsome controversy. I mean the matter of the official majority. TheHouse knows what an official majority is. It is a device by which theGovernor-General, or the Governor of Bombay or Madras, may securea majority in his Legislative Council by means of officials andnominees. And the officials, of course, for very good reasons, justlike a Cabinet Minister or an Under-Secretary, whatever the man'sprivate opinion may be, would still vote, for the best of reasons, and I am bound to think with perfect wisdom, with the Government. But anybody can see how directly, how palpably, how injuriously, anarrangement of this kind tends to weaken, and I think I may sayeven to deaden, the sense both of trust and responsibility in thenon-official members of these councils. Anybody can see how the systemtends to throw the non-official member into an attitude of peevish, sulky, permanent opposition, and, therefore, has an injurious effecton the minds and characters of members of these Legislative Councils. 

I know it will be said--I will not weary the House by arguing it, butI only desire to meet at once the objection that will be taken--thatthese councils will, if you take away the safeguard of the officialmajority, pass any number of wild-cat Bills. The answer to that isthat the head of the Government can veto the wild-cat Bills. TheGovernor-General can withhold his assent, and the withholding of theassent of the Governor-General is no defunct power. Only the otherday, since I have been at the India Office, the Governor-Generaldisallowed a Bill passed by a Local Government which I need not name, with the most advantageous effect. I am quite convinced that if thatLocal Government had had an unofficial majority the Bill would neverhave been passed, and the Governor-General would not have had torefuse his assent. But so he did, and so he would if these gentlemen, whose numbers we propose to increase and whose powers we propose towiden, chose to pass wild-cat Bills. And it must be remembered thatthe range of subjects within the sphere of Provincial LegislativeCouncils is rigorously limited by statutory exclusions. I will notlabour the point now. Anybody who cares, in a short compass, can graspthe argument, of which we shall hear a great deal, in Paragraphs 17to 20 of my reply to the Government of India, in the Papers that willspeedily be in your Lordships' hands. 

There is one proviso in this matter of the official majority, in whichyour Lordships may, perhaps, find a surprise. We are not prepared todivest the Governor-General in his Council of an official majority. In the Provincial Councils we propose to dispense with it, but in theViceroy's Legislative Council we propose to adhere to it. Only letme say that here we may seem to lag a stage behind the Government ofIndia themselves--so little violent are we--because that Governmentsay, in their despatch--"On all ordinary occasions we are readyto dispense with an official majority in the Imperial LegislativeCouncil, and to rely on the public spirit of non-official members toenable us to carry on the ordinary work of legislation. " My Lords, that is what we propose to do in the Provincial Councils. But in theImperial Council we consider an official majority essential. It may besaid that this is a most flagrant logical inconsistency. So it wouldbe, on one condition. If I were attempting to set up a Parliamentarysystem in India, or if it could be said that this chapter of reformsled directly or necessarily up to the establishment of a Parliamentarysystem in India, I, for one, would have nothing at all to do with it. I do not believe--it is not of very great consequence what I believe, because the fulfilment of my vaticinations could not come off verysoon--in spite of the attempts in Oriental countries at this moment, interesting attempts to which we all wish well, to set up some sortof Parliamentary system--it is no ambition of mine, at all events, tohave any share in beginning that operation in India. If my existence, either officially or corporeally, were prolonged twenty times longerthan either of them is likely to be, a Parliamentary system in Indiais not at all the goal to which I would for one moment aspire. 

One point more. It is the question of an Indian member on theViceroy's Executive Council. The absence of an Indian member from theViceroy's Executive Council can no longer, I think, be defended. Thereis no legal obstacle or statutory exclusion. The Secretary of Statecan, to-morrow, if he likes, if there be a vacancy on the Viceroy'sCouncil, recommend His Majesty to appoint an Indian member. All I wantto say is that, if, during my tenure of office, there should be avacancy on the Viceroy's Executive Council, I should feel it a dutyto tender my advice to the King that an Indian member should beappointed. If it were on my own authority only, I might hesitate totake that step, because I am not very fond of innovations in dark andobscure ground, but here I have the absolute and the zealous approvaland concurrence of Lord Minto himself. It was at Lord Minto's specialinstigation that I began to think seriously of this step. Anyhow, thisis how it stands, that you have at this moment a Secretary of Stateand a Viceroy who both concur in such a recommendation. I suppose--ifI may be allowed to give a personal turn to these matters--that LordMinto and I have had as different experience of life and the world aspossible, and we belong I daresay to different schools of nationalpolitics, because Lord Minto was appointed by the party opposite. Itis a rather remarkable thing that two men, differing in this way inpolitical antecedents, should agree in this proposal. We need notdiscuss what particular portfolio should be assigned to an Indianmember. That will be settled by the Viceroy on the merits of theindividual. The great object, the main object, is that the merits ofindividuals are to be considered and to be decisive, irrespective andindependent of race and colour. 

We are not altogether without experience, because a year ago, orsomewhat more, it was my good fortune to be able to appoint two Indiangentlemen to the Council of India sitting at the Indian Office. Manyapprehensions reached me as to what might happen. So far, at allevents, those apprehensions have been utterly dissipated. The concordbetween the two Indian members of the Council and their colleagues hasbeen unbroken, their work has been excellent, and you will readilybelieve me when I say that the advantage to me of being able to askone of these two gentlemen to come and tell me something about anIndian question from an Indian point of view, is enormous. I findin it a chance of getting the Indian angle of vision, and I feelsometimes as if I were actually in the streets of Calcutta. 

I do not say there are not some arguments on the other side. But this, at all events, must be common sense--for the Governor-General and theEuropean members of his Council to have at their side a man who knowsthe country well, who belongs to the country and who can give him thepoint of view of an Indian. Surely, my Lords, that cannot but prove anenormous advantage. 

Let me say further, on the Judicial Bench in India everybodyrecognises the enormous service that it is to have Indian members ofabundant learning, and who add to that abundant learning a completeknowledge of the conditions and life of the country. I propose atonce, if Parliament agrees, to acquire powers to double the ExecutiveCouncil in Bombay and Madras, and to appoint at least one Indianmember in each of those cases, as well as in the Governor-General'sCouncil. Nor, as the Papers will show, shall I be backward inadvancing towards a similar step, as occasion may require, in respectof at least four of the major provinces. 

I wish that this chapter had been opened at a more fortunate moment:but as I said when I rose, I repeat--do not let us for a moment taketoo gloomy a view. There is not the slightest occasion. None of thosewho are responsible take gloomy views. They know the difficulties, they are prepared to grapple with them. They will do their best tokeep down mutinous opposition. They hope to attract that good willwhich must, after all, be the real foundation of our prosperity andstrength in India. We believe that this admission of the Indians to alarger and more direct share in the government of their country and inall the affairs of their country, without for a moment taking fromthe central power its authority, will fortify the foundations of ourposition. It will require great steadiness, constant pursuit of thesame objects, and the maintenance of our authority, which will be allthe more effective if we have, along with our authority, the aid andassistance, in responsible circumstances, of the Indians themselves. 

Military strength, material strength, we have in abundance. What westill want to acquire is moral strength--moral strength in guidingand controlling the people of India in the course on which time islaunching them. I should like to read a few lines from a great oratorabout India. It was a speech delivered by Mr. Bright in 1858, when theGovernment of India Bill was in another place. Mr. Bright said--

 "We do not know how to leave India, and therefore let us see if we know how to govern it. Let us abandon all that system of calumny against natives of India which has lately prevailed. Had that people not been docile, the most governable race in the world, how could you have maintained your power there for 100 years? Are they not industrious, are they not intelligent, are they not, upon the evidence of the most distinguished men the Indian service ever produced, endowed with many qualities which make them respected by all Englishmen who mix with them?. . . I would not permit any man in my presence without rebuke to indulge in the calumnies and expressions of contempt which I have recently heard poured forth without measure upon the whole population of India. . . . The people of India do not like us, but they would scarcely know where to turn if we left them. They are sheep, literally without a shepherd. "

However, that may be, we at least at Westminster here have no choiceand no option. As an illustrious Member of this House wrote--

 "We found a society in a state of decomposition, and we have undertaken the serious and stupendous process of reconstructing it. "

Macaulay, for it was he, said--

 "India now is like Europe in the fifth century. "

Yes, a stupendous process indeed. The process has gone on withmarvellous success, and if we all, according to our various lights, are true to our colours, that process will go on. Whatever is said, Ifor one--though I am not what is commonly called an Imperialist--sofar from denying, I most emphatically affirm, that for us to presideover this transition from the fifth European century in some parts, inslow, uneven stages, up to the twentieth--so that you have before youall the centuries at once as it were--for us to preside over that, andto be the guide of peoples in that condition, is, if conducted withhumanity and sympathy, with wisdom, with political courage, not only ahuman duty, but what has been often and most truly called one of themost glorious tasks ever confided to any powerful State in the historyof civilised mankind. 

VI

HINDUS AND MAHOMETANS

(AT THE INDIA OFFICE. JANUARY, 1909)

[A deputation of the London Branch of the All-Indian Moslem Leaguewaited upon the Secretary of State, in order to represent to him theviews of the Mussulmans of India on the projected Indian reforms. ]

I am delighted to meet you to-day, because I have always felt in mypolitical experience, now pretty long, that it is when face answersto face that you come best to points of controversial issue. I havelistened to the able speech of my friend Mr. Ameer Ali and to thespeech that followed, with close attention, not merely for the sakeof the arguments upon the special points raised, but because theunderlying feeling and the animating spirit of the two speeches arefull of encouragement. Why? Because instead of any hostile attitudeto our reforms as a whole, I find that you welcome them cordially andwith gratitude. I cannot say with what satisfaction I receive thatannouncement. If you will allow me, I will, before I come to thespecial points, say a few words upon the general position. 

It is only five weeks, I think, since our scheme was launched, and Iam bound to say that at the end of those five weeks the position mayfairly be described as hopeful and promising. I do not think that themillennium will come in five more weeks, nor in fifty weeks; but I dosay that for a scheme of so wide a scope to be received as this schemehas been received, is a highly encouraging sign. It does not followthat because we have launched our ship with a slant of fair wind, thismeans the same thing as getting into harbour. There are plenty ofdifficult points that we have got to settle. But when I try from myconning-tower in this office, to read the signs in the politicalskies, I am full of confidence. The great thing is that in every partyboth in India and at home--in every party, and every section, andevery group--there is a recognition of the magnitude and the gravityof the enterprise on which we have embarked. I studied very closelythe proceedings at Madras, and the proceedings at Amritsar, and inable speeches made in both those places I find a truly politicalspirit in the right sense of the word--in the sense of perspective andproportion--which I sometimes wish could be imitated by some of mypolitical friends nearer home. I mean that issues, important enoughbut upon which there is some difference, are put aside--for the timeonly, if you like, but still put aside--in face of the magnitude ofthe issues that we present to you in these reforms. On Monday, in _TheTimes_ newspaper, there was a long and most interesting communicationfrom Bombay, written, I believe, by a gentleman of very wide Indianknowledge and level-headed humour. What does he say? He takes accountof the general position as he found it in India shortly after myDespatch arrived. "I might have dwelt, " he says, "upon the fact thatI have not met a single official who does not admit that some changeswhich should gratify Indian longings were necessary, and I might haveexpatiated upon the abounding evidence that Lord Morley's despatchand speech have unquestionably eased a tension which had becomeexceedingly alarming. " That is a most important thing, and I believeParliament has fully recognised it. 

We cannot fold our arms and say that things are to go on as they didbefore, and I rejoice to see what this gentleman says. He is talkingof officials, and I always felt from the beginning that if we did notsucceed in carrying with us the goodwill of that powerful service, there would be reason for suspecting that we were wrong upon themerits, and even if we were not wrong on the merits, there wouldbe reason for apprehending formidable difficulties. I have myselfcomplete confidence in them. I see in some journals of my own partysuspicions thrown upon the loyalty of that service to his Majesty'sGovernment of the day. It is absurd to think anything of the kind. Ifour policy and our proposals receive the approval of Parliament andthe approval of officials, such as those spoken of in _The Times_ theother day, I am perfectly sure there will be no more want of goodwilland zeal on the part of the Indian Civil Service, than there wouldbe in the officers of his Majesty's Fleet, or his Majesty's Army. Itwould be just the same. I should like to read another passage from_The Times_ letter:--"It would probably be incorrect to say thatthe bulk of the Civil Service in the Bombay Presidency are gravelyapprehensive. Most of them are not unnaturally anxious"--I agree;it is perfectly natural that they should be anxious--"but the mainofficials in whose judgment most confidence can be placed, regard thefuture with the buoyant hopefulness without which an Englishman inIndia is lost indeed. " All that is reassuring, and no sign nor whisperreaches me that any responsible man or any responsible section orcreed, either in India or here, has any desire whatever to wreck ourscheme. And let me go further. Statesmen abroad showing themselvescapable of reflection, are watching us with interest and wishing uswell. Take the remarkable utterance of President Roosevelt the otherday at Washington. And if we turn from Washington to Eastern Europe, Iknow very well that any injustice, any suspicion that we were capableof being unjust, to Mahomedans in India, would certainly provoke asevere and injurious reaction in Constantinople. I am alive to allthese things. Mr. Ameer Ali said he was sure the Secretary of Statewould mete out just and equitable treatment to all interests, if theirviews were fairly laid before him. He did me no more than justice. 

The Government are entirely zealous and in earnest, acting in thoroughgood faith, in the desire to press forward these proposals. I may tellyou that our Bill is now quite ready. I shall introduce it at thefirst minute after the Address is over, and, when it reaches theCommons, it will be pressed forward with all the force and resolutionthat Parliamentary conditions permit. These are not mere piousopinions or academic reforms; they are proposals that are to takeParliamentary shape at the earliest possible moment; and after takingParliamentary shape, no time will, I know, be lost in India inbringing them as rapidly as possible into practical operation. 

Now the first point Mr. Ameer Ali made was upon the unfairness to themembers of the Mahomedan community, caused by reckoning in the Hinducensus a large multitude of men who are not entitled to be there. Isubmit that it is not very easy--and I have gone into the questionvery carefully--to divide these lower castes and to classify them. Statisticians would be charged with putting too many into either oneor the other division, wherever you choose to draw the line. I knowthe force of the argument, and am willing to attach to it whateverweight it deserves. I wish some of my friends in this country wouldstudy the figures of what are called the lower castes, because theywould then see the enormous difficulty and absurdity of applying toIndia the same principles that are excellent guides to us Westerns whohave been bred on the pure milk of the Benthamite word--one man onevote and every man a vote. That dream, by the way, is not quiterealised even in this country; but the idea of insisting on aprinciple of that sort is irrational to anybody who reflects on thismultiplicity and variety of race and castes. 

Then there is the question of the joint electorate--what is called themixed electoral college. I was very glad to read this paragraph in thepaper that you were good enough to send to me. You recognise the veryprinciple that was at the back of our minds, when we came to theconclusion about mixed electoral college. You say:--"In common withother well-wishers of India, the Committee look forward to a time whenthe development of a true spirit of compromise, or the fusion ofthe races, may make principles indicated by his Lordship capable ofpractical application without sacrificing the interests of any ofthe nationalities, or giving political ascendency to one to thedisadvantage of the others. But the Committee venture to think that, however ready the country may be for constitutional reforms, theinterests of the two great communities of India must be consideredand dealt with separately. " Therefore, to begin with, the differencebetween us in principle about the joint electorate is only this: weare guilty of nothing worse than that we were premature, in the viewsof these gentlemen--we were impatient idealists. You say to me, "It isvery fine; we hope it will all come true; but you are premature;we must wait. " Still, though premature, I observe that your ownsuggestion in one of those papers adopts and accepts the principle ofthe scheme outlined in our despatch. It is quite true to say, "Oh, but you are vague in your despatch. " Yes, a despatch is not a Bill. A Minister writing a despatch does not put in all the clauses andsections and subsections and schedules. It is the business of aMinister composing a despatch like mine of November 27, 1908, toindicate only general lines--general enough to make the substance andbody of the scheme intelligible, but still general. I should like tosay a word about the despatch. It is constantly assumed that in thedespatch we prescribed and ordered the introduction of the jointelectoral college. If any of you will be good enough to look at thewords, you will find that no language of that sort--no law of theMedes and Persians--is to be found in it. If you refer to paragraph 12you will see that our language is this:--

"I suggest for your consideration that the object in view might bebetter secured, at any rate in the more advanced provinces in India, by a modification of the system of popular electorate founded on theprinciple of electoral colleges. "

You see it was merely a suggestion thrown out for the Government ofIndia, not a direction of the Mede and Persian stamp. You say, "Thatfor the purpose of electing members to the Provincial Councils, electoral colleges should be constituted on lines suggested by hisLordship, composed exclusively of Mahomedans whose numbers and mode ofgrouping should be fixed by executive authority. " This comes withinthe principle of my despatch, and we shall see--I hope veryspeedily--whether the Government of India discover objections to itspracticability. Mark, electoral colleges "composed exclusively ofMahomedans whose members and mode of grouping should be fixed byexecutive authority"--that is a proposition which is not outside thedespatch. Whether practicable or not, it is a matter for discussionbetween us here and the Government in India. 

The aim of the Government and yours is identical--that there shallbe (to quote Mr. Ameer Ali's words) "adequate, real, and genuineMahomedan representation. " Now, where is the difference between us?The machinery we commended, you do not think possible. As I havetold you, the language of the despatch does not insist upon a mixedelectoral college. It would be no departure in substance from thepurpose of our suggestion, that there should be a separate Mahomedanelectorate--an electorate exclusively Mahomedan; and in view ofthe wide and remote distances, and difficulties of organisation inconsequence of those distances in the area constituting a largeprovince, I am not sure that this is not one of those cases whereelection by two stages would not be convenient, and so there might bea separate electoral college exclusively Mahomedan. That is, I takeit, in accordance with your own proposal. There are various methods bywhich it could be done. In the first place, an election exclusivelyMahomedan might be direct into the legislative council. To this itmay be said that it would be impossible by reason of distance. In thesecond place, you could have an election by separate communities to alocal board, and the local board should be the electoral college, theMahomedans separating themselves from the other members of the boardfor that purpose. Thirdly, the members of the local board, thecommunities being separate in the same way, could return a member forthe electoral college. Fourthly, you might have a direct election toan electoral college by the community, and this electoral collegewould return a representative to the legislative council. These, yousee, are four different expedients which well deserve considerationfor attaining our end. 

I go to the next point, the apprehensions lest if we based our systemon numerical strength alone, a great injustice would be done toyour community. Of course we all considered that, from the Viceroydownwards. Whether your apprehensions are well founded or not, it isthe business of those who call themselves statesmen to take thoseapprehensions into account, and to do the best we can in setting upa working system to allay and meet such apprehensions. If you takenumerical strength as your basis, in the Punjab and Eastern BengalMahomedans are in a decisive majority. In the Punjab the Moslempopulation is 53 per cent. To 38 per cent. Hindu. In Eastern Bengal 58per cent. Are Moslem and 37 per cent. Are Hindu. Therefore, in thosetwo provinces, on the numerical basis alone, the Mahomedans willsecure sufficient representation. In Madras, on the other hand, the Hindus are 89 per cent. Against 6 per cent. Of Moslems, and, therefore, numbers would give no adequate representation to Moslemopinion. In Bombay the Moslems are in the ratio of 3-3/4 to 14millions--20 per cent. To 77 per cent. The conditions are very complexin Bombay, and I need not labour the details of this complexity. I aminclined to agree with those who think that it might be left tothe local Government to take other elements into view required orsuggested by local conditions. Coming to the United Provinces, therethe Moslems are 6-3/4 millions to 40-3/4 Hindus--14 per cent. To 85per cent. This ratio of numerical strength no more represents theproportion in the elements of weight and importance, than in EasternBengal does the Hindu ratio of 37 per cent. To 58 per cent. OfMoslems. You may set off each of those two cases against the other. Then there is the great province of Bengal, where the Moslems areone-quarter of the Hindus--9 millions to 39 millions--18 per cent. To77 per cent. 

We all see, then, that the problem presents extraordinary difficulty. How are you going in a case like the United Provinces, for example, tosecure that adequate and substantial representation, which it is theinterest and the desire of the Government for its own sake to secure. No fair-minded Moslem would deny in Eastern Bengal, any more than afair-minded non-Moslem would deny it in the United Provinces, thatthere is no easy solution. You see, gentlemen, I do not despairof finding a fair-minded man in a controversy of this kind. Frominformation that reaches me I do not at all despair of meetingfair-minded critics of both communities, in spite of the sharpantagonism that exists on many matters between them. But, whatever maybe the case with Mahomedans and Hindus, there is one body of menwho are bound to keep a fair mind, and that is the Government. TheGovernment are bound, whatever you may do among yourselves, strictly, and I will even say sternly, to insist on overcoming all obstaclesin a spirit of absolute equity. Now, what is the object of theGovernment? It is that the Legislative Councils should represent trulyand effectively, with a reasonable approach to the balance of realsocial forces, the wishes and needs of the communities themselves. That is the object of the Government, and in face of a great problemof that kind, algebra, arithmetic, geometry, logic--none of thesethings will do your business for you. You have to look at it widelyand away from those sciences, excellent in their place, but not ofmuch service when you are solving awkward political riddles. I thinkif you allow some method of leaving to a local authority the power ofadding to the number of representatives from the Mahomedan community, or the Hindu community, as the case may be, that might be a possibleand prudent way of getting through this embarrassment. Let us all beclear of one thing, namely--and I thought of this when I heard oneor two observations that fell from Mr. Ameer Ali--that no generalproposition can be wisely based on the possession by either community, either of superior civil qualities or superior personal claims. If youbegin to introduce that element, you perceive the perils to that peaceand mutual goodwill which we hope to emerge by-and-by, though it maytake longer than some think. I repeat that I see no harm from thepoint of view of a practical working compromise, in the principlethat population, or numerical strength, should be the main factor indetermining how many representatives should sit for this or the othercommunity; but modifying influences may be both wisely and equitablytaken into account in allotting the numbers of such representatives. 

As regards Indian members on the Executive Council, if you will allowme to say so, I think it was dubious tactics in you to bring thatquestion forward. We were told by those who object, for instance, to my recommending to the Crown an Indian member of the Viceroy'sExecutive--that it will never do; that if you choose a man of onecommunity, the other will demand a second. The Executive Council inall--this will not be in the Bill--consists of six members. Supposethere were to be two vacancies, and I were to recommend to the Crownthe appointment of one Mahomedan and one Hindu, the effect would bethat of the six gentlemen one-third would be non-English. You maythink that all right, but it would be a decidedly serious step. Suppose you say you will bring in a Bill, then, for the purpose ofappointing an extra member always to be an Indian. That is much moreeasily said than done. I am talking perfectly plainly. You would notget such a Bill. I want to talk even more plainly. I want to saythat reference to the Hindu community or the Mahomedan community, inrespect to the position of the Viceroy's Executive, is entirely wideof the mark in the view, I know, both of the Viceroy and of myself. If, as I have already said I expect, it may be my duty by-and-by torecommend to the Crown the name of an Indian member, it will not besolely for the sake of placing on the Viceroy's Executive Council anIndian member simply as either a Hindu or a Mahomedan. Decidedly weare of opinion that the Governor-General in Council will be all themore likely to transact business wisely, if he has a responsibleIndian adviser at his elbow. But the principle in making sucha recommendation to the Crown, would be to remove the apparentdisability in practice--for there is no disability in law--of anIndian holding a certain appointment because he is an Indian. That isa principle we do not accept; and the principle I should go upon--andI know Lord Minto would say exactly the same--is the desirabilityof demonstrating that we hold to the famous promise made in theproclamation of Queen Victoria in 1858, that if a man is fullyqualified in proved ability and character to fill a certain post, heshall not be shut out by race or religious faith. There is a verygreat deal more to be said on this most important subject; but to-dayI need only tell you--which I do with all respect, without complainingof what you have said, and without denying that in practicalusage some day there may be means of alternation for meeting yourdifficulty--I see no chance whatever of our being able to comply withyour present request. 

I have endeavoured to meet you as fairly as I possibly could. I assureyou again we are acting in earnest, with zeal and entire good faith;and any suggestion that any member of the Government, either in thisoffice or the Government of India, has any prejudice whatever againstMahomedans, for the purposes of political administration in India, isone of the idlest and most wicked misapprehensions that could possiblyenter into the political mind. I am greatly encouraged by having metyou. I am sure that you speak in the name of important bodies of yourown countrymen and of your own community. I am sure that you are goingto look at our proposals in a fair and reasonable spirit, and giveus credit for a desire to do the best that we possibly can in theinterests of all the communities in India, including also theinterests of the British Government. I can only tell you further, thatif this action of ours fails, miscarries, and is wrecked, it will bea considerable time before another opportunity occurs. You will neveragain--I do not care whether the time be long or be short--you willnever again have the combination of a Secretary of State and aViceroy, who are more thoroughly in earnest in their desire to improveIndian government, and to do full justice to every element of theIndian population. 

VII

SECOND READING OF INDIAN COUNCILS BILL

(HOUSE OF LORDS, FEBRUARY 23, 1909)

MY LORDS. I invite the House to take to-day the first definite andoperative step in carrying out the policy that I had the honour ofdescribing to your Lordships just before Christmas, and that hasoccupied the active consideration both of the Home Government and ofthe Government of India for very nearly three years. The statement wasawaited in India with an expectancy that with time became impatience, and it was received in India--and that, after all, is the point towhich I looked with the most anxiety--with intense interest andattention and various degrees of approval, from warm enthusiasm tocool assent and acquiescence. 

A few days after the arrival of my despatch, a deputation waited uponthe Viceroy unique in its comprehensive character. Both Hindus andMahomedans were represented; and they waited upon the Viceroy to offerwarm expressions of gratitude for the scheme that was unfoldedbefore them. A few days later at Madras the Congress met; they, too, expressed their thanks to the Home Government and to the Governmentof India. The Moslem League met at Amritsar; they were warm in theirapproval of the policy which they took to be foreshadowed in thedespatch, though they found fault with the defects they thought theyhad discovered in the scheme, and implored the Government, both inIndia and here, to remedy those defects. So far as I know--and I dobeg your Lordships to note these details of the reception of ourpolicy in India--there has been no sign in any quarter, save in theirreconcilable camp, of anything like organised hostile opinion amongeither Indians or Anglo-Indians. 

The Indian Civil Service I will speak of very shortly. I will passthem by for the moment. Lord Lansdowne said truly the other night thatwhen I spoke at the end of December, I used the words "formidable andobscure" as describing the situation, and he desired to know whetherI thought the situation was still obscure and formidable. I will notabandon the words, but I think the situation is less formidable andless obscure. Neither repression on the one hand, nor reform on theother, could possibly be expected to cut the roots of anarchical crimein a few weeks. But with unfaltering repression on the one hand, andvigour and good faith in reform on the other, we see solid reason tohope that we shall weaken, even if we cannot destroy, those balefulforces. 

There are, I take it, three classes of people that we have to considerin dealing with a scheme of this kind. There are the extremists, whonurse fantastic dreams that some day they will drive us out of India. In this group there are academic extremists and physical forceextremists, and I have seen it stated on a certain authority--itcannot be more than a guess--that they do not number, whether academicor physical force extremists, more than one-tenth, or even three percent. Of what are called the educated class in India. The secondgroup nourish no hopes of this sort; they hope for autonomy orself-government of the colonial species and pattern. The thirdsection in this classification ask for no more than to be admitted toco-operation in our administration, and to find a free and effectivevoice in expressing the interests and needs of their people. I believethe effect of the reforms has been, is being, and will be, to draw thesecond class, who hope for colonial autonomy, into the ranks of thethird class, who will be content with admission to a fair and workableco-operation. A correspondent wrote to me the other day and said:--

 "We seem to have caught many discontented people on the rebound, and to have given them an excuse for a loyalty which they have badly wanted. "

In spite of all this, it is a difficult and critical situation. Still, by almost universal admission it has lost the tension that strainedIndia two or three months ago, and public feeling is tranquillised, certainly beyond any expectation that either I or the Viceroy venturedto entertain. 

The atmosphere has changed from dark and sullen to hopeful, and I amsure your Lordships will allow me to be equally confident that nothingwill be done at Westminster to overcloud that promising sky. The nobleMarquess the other day said--and I was delighted to hear it--thathe, at all events, would give us, with all the reservations thatexamination of the scheme might demand from him, a whole-heartedsupport here, and his best encouragement to the men in India. Iaccept that, and I lean upon it, because if anything were done atWestminster, either by delay or otherwise, to show a breach in whatought to be the substantial unity of Parliamentary opinion in face ofthe Indian situation, it would be a marked disaster. I would ventureon the point of delay to say this. Your Lordships will not suspect meof having any desire to hurry the Bill, but I remember that when LordCross brought in the Bill of 1892 Lord Kimberley, so well known and sopopular in this House, used language which I venture to borrow fromhim, and to press upon your Lordships to-day--

 "I think it almost dangerous to leave a subject of this kind hung up to be perpetually discussed by all manner of persons, and, having once allowed that, at all events, some amendment is necessary in regard to the mode of constituting the Legislative Councils, it is incumbent upon the Government and Parliament to pass the Bill which they may think expedient as speedily as possible into law. "

Considerations of social order and social urgency in India make thatjust as useful to be remembered to-day, as it was useful then. 

The noble Marquess the other day, in a very courteous manner, administered to me an exhortation and an admonition--I had almost saida lecture--as to the propriety of deferring to the man on the spot, and the danger of quarrelling with the man on the spot. I listenedwith becoming meekness and humility, but then it occurred to me thatthe language of the noble Marquess was not original. Those noble Lordswho share the Bench with him, gave deep murmurs of approval to thehomily that was administered to me. They forgot that they once had aman on the spot, the man then being that eminent and distinguishedpersonage whom I may be allowed to congratulate upon his restorationto health and to his place in this Assembly. He said this, whichthe noble Marquess will see is a fair original for his own littlediscourse; it was said after the noble Lord had thrown up the reins--

 "What I wish to say to high officers of State and members of Government is this, as far as you can trust the man on the spot. Do not weary or fret or nag him with your superior wisdom. They claim no immunity from errors of opinion or judgment, but their errors are nothing compared with yours. "

The remonstrance, therefore, of Lord Curzon, addressed to the nobleLords sitting near him, is identical with the warning which I havelaid to heart from the noble Marquess. 

The House will pardon me if for a moment I dwell upon what byapplication is an innuendo conveyed in the admonition of the nobleMarquess. I have a suspicion that he considered his advice was needed;he expressed the hope that all who were responsible for administrationin India would have all the power for which they had a right to ask. Upon that I can--though I am half reluctant to do it--completelyclear my character. In December last, shortly before I addressed yourLordships, Lord Minto, having observed there was some talk of myinterference with him and his Council, telegraphed these words, anddesired that I should make use of them whenever I thought fit--

 "I hope you will say from me in as strong language as you may choose to use, that in all our dealings with sedition I could not be more strongly supported than I have been by you. The question of the control of Indian administration by the Secretary of State, mixed up as it is with the old difficulties of centralisation, we may very possibly look at from different points of view. But that has nothing to do with the support the Secretary of State gives to the Viceroy, and which you have given to me in a time of great difficulty, and for which I shall always be warmly grateful. "

The MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I think the noble Viscount will see fromthe report of my speech, that the part he has quoted had reference tomeasures of repression, and that what I said was that justice shouldbe prompt, that it was undesirable that there should be appeals fromone Court to another, or from provincial Governments to the Governmentin Calcutta, or from the Government at Calcutta to the Secretary ofState for India. I did not mean to imply merely the Viceroy, but themen responsible for local government. 

VISCOUNT MORLEY: I do not think that when the noble Marquess refers tothe report of his speech he will find I have misrepresented him. Atall events, he will, I do believe, gladly agree that, in dealing withsedition, I have on the whole given all the support the Government ofIndia or anybody else concerned had a right to ask for. 

I will now say a word about the Indian Civil Service. Three yearsago, when we began these operations, I felt that a vital condition ofsuccess was that we should carry the Indian Civil Service with us, andthat if we did not do this, we should fail. But human nature beingwhat it is, and temperaments varying as they do, it is naturalto expect a certain amount of criticism, minute criticism, andobservation, I have had that, but will content myself with onequotation from the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal, well known to thenoble Lord opposite. What did he say, addressing the LegislativeCouncil a few weeks ago?--

 "I hold that a solemn duty rests upon the officers of Government in all branches, and more particularly upon the officers of the Civil Service, so to comport themselves in the inception and working of the new measures as to make the task of the people and their leaders easy. It is incumbent upon them loyally to accept the principle that these measures involve the surrender of some portion of the authority and control which they now exercise, and some modifications of the methods of administration. If that task is approached in a grudging or reluctant spirit, we shall be sowing the seeds of failure, and shall forfeit our claim to receive the friendly co-operation of the representatives of the people. We must be prepared to support, defend, and carry through the administrative policy, and in a certain degree even the executive acts of the Government in the Council, in much the same way as is now prescribed in regard to measures of legislation; and we must further be prepared to discharge this task without the aid of a standing majority behind us. We will have to resort to the more difficult arts of persuasion and conciliation, in the place of the easier methods of autocracy. This is no small demand to make on the resources of a service whose training and traditions have hitherto led its members rather to work for the people, than through the people or their representatives. But I am nevertheless confident that the demand will not be made in vain. For more than a hundred years, in the time of the Company and under the rule of the Crown, the Indian Civil Service has never failed to respond to whatever call has been made upon it or to adapt itself to the changing environment of the time. I feel no doubt that officers will be found who possess the natural gifts, the loyalty, the imagination, and the force of character which will be requisite for the conduct of the administration under the more advanced form of government to which we are about to succeed. "

These words I commend to your Lordships. They breathe a fine and highspirit; they admirably express the feeling of a sincere man; and I donot believe anybody who is acquainted with the Service doubts thatthis spirit, so admirably expressed, will pervade the Service in theadmittedly difficult task that now confronts them. 

The Bill is a short one, and will speak for itself. I shall be briefin referring to it, for in December last I made what was practicallya Second-Reading speech. I may point out that there are two rivalschools, and that the noble Lord opposite (Lord Curzon) may be saidto represent one of them. There are two rival schools, one of whichbelieves that better government of India depends on efficiency, andthat efficiency is in fact the main end of our rule in India. Theother school, while not neglecting efficiency, looks also to what iscalled political concession. I think I am doing the noble Lord noinjustice in saying that, during his remarkable Vice-royalty, he didnot accept the necessity for political concession, but trusted toefficiency. I hope it will not be bad taste to say in the noble Lord'spresence, that you will never send to India, and you have never sentto India, a Viceroy his superior, if, indeed, his equal, in force ofmind, in unsparing and remorseless industry, in passionate and devotedinterest in all that concerns the well-being of India, with animagination fired by the grandeur of the political problem that Indiapresents--you never sent a man with more of all these attributes thanwhen you sent Lord Curzon. But splendidly designed as was his workfrom the point of view of efficiency, he still left in India a stateof things, when we look back upon it, that could not be held asatisfactory crowning of a brilliant and ambitious career. 

I am as much for efficiency as the noble Lord, but I do notbelieve--and this is the difference between him and myself--that youcan now have true, solid, endurable efficiency without what are calledpolitical concessions. I know the risks. The late Lord Salisbury, speaking on the last Indian Councils Bill, spoke of the risk ofapplying occidental machinery in India. Well, we ought to have thoughtof that before we applied occidental education; we applied that, and ameasure of occidental machinery must follow. Legislative Councils oncecalled into existence, then it was inevitable that you would havegradually, in Lord Salisbury's own phrase, to popularise them, so asto bring them into harmony with the dominant sentiments of thepeople in India. The Bill of 1892 admittedly contained the electiveprinciple, and our Bill to-day extends that principle. The noble Lord(Viscount Cross) will remember the Bill of 1892, of which he hadcharge in the House of Commons. I want the House to be good enough tofollow the line taken by Mr. Gladstone, because I base myself on that. There was an amendment moved and it was going to a division, but Mr. Gladstone begged his friends not to divide, because, he said, it wasvery important that we should present a substantial unity to India. This is upon the question of either House considering a Bill like theBill that is now on the Table--a mere skeleton of a Bill if you like. I see it has been called vague and sketchy. It cannot be anythingelse, on the broad principle set out by Mr. Gladstone--

 "It is the intention of the Government [that is, the Conservative Government] that a serious effort shall be made to consider carefully those elements which India in its present condition may furnish, for the introduction into the Councils of India of the elective principle. If that effort is seriously to be made, by whom is it to be made? I do not think it can be made by this House, except through the medium of empowering provisions. The best course we could take would be to commend to the authorities of India what is a clear indication of the principles on which we desire them to proceed. It is not our business to devise machinery for the purpose of Indian Government. It is our business to give to those who represent Her Majesty in India ample information as to what we believe to be sound principles of Government: and it is, of course, the function of this House to comment upon any case in which we may think they have failed to give due effect to those principles. "

I only allude to Mr. Gladstone's words, in order to let the House knowthat I am taking no unusual course in leaving the bulk of the work, the details of the work, to the Government of India. Discussion, therefore, in Parliament will necessarily not, and cannot, turnsubstantially upon details. But no doubt it is desirable that the mainheads of the regulations, rules, and proclamations to be made by theGovernment of India under sanction of the India Office, should be moreor less placed within the reach and knowledge of the House so far asthey are complete. The principles of the Bill are in the Bill, andwill be affirmed, if your Lordships are pleased to read it a secondtime. The Committee points, important as they are, can well be dealtwith in Committee. The view of Mr. Gladstone was cheerfully acceptedby the House of Commons then, and I hope it will be accepted by yourLordships to-day. 

There is one very important chapter in these regulations, which Ithink now on the Second Reading of the Bill, without waiting forCommittee, I ought to say a few words to your Lordships about--I meanthe Mahomedans. That is a part of the Bill and scheme that has nodoubt attracted a great deal of criticism, and excited a great deal offeeling in that important community. We suggested to the Government ofIndia a certain plan. We did not prescribe it, we did not order it, but we suggested and recommended this plan for their consideration--nomore than that. It was the plan of a mixed or composite electoralcollege, in which Mahomedans and Hindus should pool their votes, so tosay. The wording of the recommendation in my despatch was, as I soondiscovered, ambiguous--a grievous defect, of which I make bold to hopeI am not very often in public business guilty. But, to the best ofmy belief, under any construction the plan of Hindus and Mahomedansvoting together, in a mixed and composite electorate, would havesecured to the Mahomedan electors, wherever they were so minded, thechance of returning their own representatives in their due proportion. The political idea at the bottom of this recommendation, which hasfound so little favour, was that such composite action would bringthe two great communities more closely together, and this hope ofpromoting harmony was held by men of high Indian authority andexperience who were among my advisers at the India Office. But theMahomedans protested that the Hindus would elect a pro-Hindu upon it, just as I suppose in a mixed college of say seventy-five Catholics andtwenty-five Protestants voting together, the Protestants might suspectthat the Catholics voting for the Protestant would choose what iscalled a Romanising Protestant, and as a little of a Protestantas they could find. Suppose the other way. In Ireland there is anexpression, a "shoneen" Catholic--that is to say, a Catholic who, though a Catholic, is too friendly with English Conservatism and otherinfluences which the Nationalists dislike. And it might be said, ifthere were seventy-five Protestants against twenty-five Catholics, that the Protestants when giving a vote in the way of Catholicrepresentation, would return "shoneens. " I am not going to take yourLordships' time up by arguing this to-day. With regard to schemesof proportional representation, as Calvin said of another study, "Excessive study of the Apocalypse either finds a man mad, or makeshim so. " At any rate, the Government of India doubted whether our planwould work, and we have abandoned it. I do not think it was a badplan, but it is no use, if you are making an earnest attempt in goodfaith at a general pacification, to let parental fondness for a clauseinterrupt that good process by sitting obstinately tight. 

The Mahomedans demand three things. I had the pleasure of receivinga deputation from them, and I know very well what is in their minds. They demand the election of their own representatives to thesecouncils in all the stages, just as in Cyprus, where I think, the Mahomedans vote by themselves. They have nine votes and thenon-Mahomedans have three, or the other way about. So in Bohemia, where the Germans vote alone and have their own register. Therefore weare not without a precedent and a parallel, for the idea of a separateregister. Secondly, they want a number of seats somewhat in excess oftheir numerical strength. Those two demands we are quite ready andintend to meet in full. There is a third demand that, if there is aHindu on the Viceroy's Executive Council--a subject on which I willventure to say something to your Lordships before I sit down--thereshould be two Indian members on the Viceroy's Council and one shouldbe a Mahomedan. Well, as I told them and as I now tell your Lordships, I see no chance whatever of meeting their views in that way. 

To go back to the point of the registers, some may be shocked atthe idea of a religious register at all, a register framed on theprinciple of religious belief. We may wish--we do wish--that itwere otherwise. We hope that time, with careful and impartialstatesmanship, will make things otherwise. Only let us not forgetthat the difference between Mahomedanism and Hinduism is not a meredifference of articles of religious faith or dogma. It is a differencein life, in tradition, in history, in all the social things as well asarticles of belief, that constitute a community. Do not let us forgetwhat makes it interesting and even exciting. Do not let us forgetthat, in talking of Hindus and Mahomedans, we are dealing with, andare brought face to face with, vast historic issues. We are dealingwith the very mightiest forces that through all the centuries andages have moulded the fortunes of great States and the destinies ofcountless millions of mankind. Thoughts of that kind, my Lords, are what give to Indian politics and to Indian work extraordinaryfascination, though at the same time they impose the weight of anextraordinary burden. 

I come to the question which, I think, has excited, certainly in thiscountry, more interest than anything else in the scheme before you--Imean the question of an Indian member on the Viceroy's ExecutiveCouncil. The noble Marquess said here the other day that he hoped anopportunity would be given for discussing it. "Whether it is in orderor not--am too little versed in your Lordships' procedure to be quitesure--but I am told that the rules of order in this House are of anelastic description and that I shall not be trespassing beyond what isright, if I introduce the point to-night. " I thoroughly understand LordLansdowne's anxiety for a chance of discussion. It is quite true, and the House should not forget it, that this question is in noway whatever touched by the Bill. If this Bill were rejected byParliament, it would be a grievous disaster to peace and contentmentin India, but it would not prevent the Secretary of State the verynext morning from advising His Majesty to appoint an Indian member ofthe Viceroy's Executive Council. 

The noble Marquess the other day fell into a slight error, if he willforgive me for saying so. He said that the Government of India hadused cautious and tentative words, indicating that it would bepremature to decide at once this question of the Indian member untilafter further experience had been gained. I think the noble Marquessmust have lost his way in the mazes of that enormous Blue-book which, as he told us, caused him so much inconvenience, and added so much tohis excess luggage during the Christmas holidays. The despatch, as faras I can discover, is silent altogether on the topic of the Indianmember of the Viceroy's Council, and deals only with the Councilsof Bombay and Madras and the proposed Councils for theLieutenant-Governorships. 

Perhaps I might be allowed to remind your Lordships of the Act of1833--certainly the most extensive and important measure of Indiangovernment between Mr. Pitt's famous Act of 1784, and Queen Victoria'sassumption of the government of India in 1858. There is nothing moreimportant than that Act. It lays down in the broadest way possible thedesire of Parliament that there should be no difference in appointingto offices in India between one race and another, and the coveringdespatch written by that memorable man, James Mill, wound up by sayingthat--

 "For the future, fitness is to be the criterion of eligibility. "

I need not quote the famous paragraph in the Queen's Proclamation of1858. Every Member of the House who takes an interest in India, knowsthat by heart. Now, the noble Marquess says that his anxiety is thatnothing shall be done to impair the efficiency of the Viceroy'sCouncil. I share that anxiety with all my heart. I hope the nobleMarquess will do me the justice to remember that in these plans I havegone beyond the Government of India, in resolving that a permanentofficial majority shall remain in the Viceroy's Council. LordMacDonnell said the other day:--

 "I believe you cannot find any individual native gentleman who is enjoying general confidence, who would be able to give advice and assistance to the Governor-General in Council. "

Well, for that matter, it has been my lot twice to fill the not veryexhilarating post of Chief Secretary for Ireland, and I do not believeI can truly say I ever met in Ireland a single individual nativegentleman who "enjoyed general confidence. " And yet I received atDublin Castle most excellent and competent advice. Therefore I am notmuch impressed by that argument. The question is whether there is noone of the 300 millions of the population of India, who is competentto be the officially-constituted adviser of the Governor-General inCouncil in the administration of Indian affairs. You make an Indiana judge of the High Court, and Indians have even been acting ChiefJustices. As to capacity, who can deny that they have distinguishedthemselves as administrators of native States, where a very fulldemand is made on their resources, intellectual and moral? It is saidthat the presence of an Indian member would cause restraint in thelanguage of discussion. For a year and a half we have had two Indianson the Council of India, and we have none of us ever found theslightest restraint. 

Then there is the question, What are you going to do about the Hinduand the Mahomedan? When Indians were first admitted to the HighCourts, for a long time the Hindus were more fit and competent thanthe Mahomedans; but now I am told the Mahomedans have their fullshare. The same sort of operation would go on in quinquennial periodsin respect of the Viceroy's Council. Opinion amongst the greatAnglo-Indian officers now at home is divided, but I know at least one, not at all behind Lord MacDonnell in experience or mental grasp, whois strongly in favour of this proposal. One circumstance that cannotbut strike your Lordships as remarkable, is the comparative absence ofhostile criticism of this idea by the Anglo-Indian Press, and, as Iam told, in Calcutta society. I was apprehensive at one time that itmight be otherwise. I should like to give a concrete illustration ofmy case. The noble Marquess opposite said the other day that there wasgoing to be a vacancy in one of the posts on the Viceroy's ExecutiveCouncil--that is, the legal member's time would soon be up. Now, suppose there were in Calcutta an Indian lawyer of large practice andgreat experience in his profession--a man of unstained professionaland personal repute, in close touch with European society, and muchrespected, and the actual holder of important legal office. Am I tosay to this man--"In spite of all these excellent circumstances toyour credit; in spite of your undisputed fitness; in spite of theemphatic declaration of 1833 that fitness is to be the criterionof eligibility; in spite of the noble promise in Queen Victoria'sProclamation of 1858--a promise of which every Englishman ought to befor ever proud if he tries to adhere to it, and ashamed if he tries tobetray or to mock it--in spite of all this, usage and prejudice areso strong, that I dare not appoint you, but must instead fish up astranger to India from Lincoln's Inn or the Temple?" Is there one ofyour Lordships who would envy the Secretary of State, who had to holdlanguage of that kind to a meritorious candidate, one of the King'sequal subjects? I press it on your Lordships in that concrete way. Abstract general arguments are slippery. I do not say there is noforce in them, but there are deeper questions at issue to which both Iand the Governor-General attach the greatest importance. My Lords, Ithank you for your attention, and I beg to move the Second Reading. 

VIII

INDIAN PROBATIONERS

(OXFORD. JUNE 13, 1909)

[The Vice Chancellor of Oxford University and the teachers of theIndian Civil Service probationers gave a dinner to the probationerson Saturday at the New Masonic Hall, Oxford, to meet the Secretary ofState for India. The Vice Chancellor was in the chair]

It is a great honour that it should fall to me to be the firstSecretary of State to address this body of probationers and others. Personally I am always delighted at any reason, good or bad, thatbrings me to Oxford. A great deal of Cherwell water has flowed underMagdalen Bridge, since I was an undergraduate here, and I have afeeling of nostalgia, when I think of Oxford and come to Oxford. Thereminiscences of one's younger days are apt to have in older times anironical tinge, but that is not for any of you to-day to consider. Iam glad to know that of the fifty odd members of the Civil Service whoare going out this autumn, not less than half are Oxford men, nearlyall of them, Oxford bred, and even the three or four who are notOxford bred, are practically, so far as can be, Oxford men. Now I willgo a little wider. An Indian Minister is rather isolated in thepublic eye, amid the press and bustle of the political energies, perplexities, interests, and partisan passions that stir andconcentrate attention on our own home affairs. Yet let me assure youthat there is no ordinary compensation for that isolation in thebreast of an Indian Minister. He finds the richest compensation inthe enormous magnitude and endless variety of all the vast field ofinterests, present and still more future, that are committed to histemporary charge. Though his charge may be temporary, I should thinkevery Secretary of State remembers that even in that fugitive span hemay either do some good or, if he is unhappy, he may do much harm. 

This week London has been enormously excited by the Imperial PressConference. I was rather struck by the extraordinarily smallattention, almost amounting to nothing, that was given to the Dominionthat you here are concerned with. No doubt an Imperial Conferenceraises one or two very delicate questions, as to whether commoncitizenship is to be observed, or whether the relations between Indiaand the Colonies should remain what they are. I am not going toexpatiate upon that to-night, but it did occur to me in reading allthese proceedings that the part of Hamlet was rather omitted, becauseIndia after all is the only real Empire. You there have an immenseDominion, an almost countless population, governed by foreign rulers. That is what constitutes an Empire. I observed it all with a rathergrim feeling in my mind, that, if anything goes wrong in India, thewhole of what we are talking about now, the material and militaryconditions of the Empire as a whole, might be strangely altered andconvulsed. One of the happy qualities of youth--and there is nopleasure greater than to see you in that blissful stage, for one whohas passed beyond, long beyond it--is not to be, I think I am right, in a hurry, not to be too anxious either for the present or futuremeasure of the responsibilities of life and a career. You will forgiveme if I remind you of what I am sure you all know--that the civilgovernment of 230, 000, 000 persons in British India is in the hands ofsome 1, 200 men who belong to the Indian Civil Service. Let us followthat. Any member of a body so small must be rapidly placed in aposition of command, and it is almost startling to me, when I lookround on the fresh physiognomies of those who are going out, and thenot less fresh physiognomies of those who have returned, to think ofthe contrast between your position, and that, we will say, of some ofyour Oxford contemporaries who are lawyers, and who have to spend everso many years in chambers in Lincoln's Inn or the Temple waiting forbriefs that do not come. Contrast your position with that of memberswho enter the Home Civil Service, an admirable phalanx; but still fora very long time a member who enters that service has to pursue theminor and slightly mechanical routine of Whitehall. You will notmisunderstand me, because nobody knows better than a Minister howtremendous is the debt that he owes to the permanent officials ofhis department. Certainly I have every reason to be the last man tounderrate that. Well, any of you may be rapidly placed in a positionof real command with inexorable responsibilities. I am speaking in thepresence of men who know better than I do, all the details, but itis true that one of you in a few years may be placed in command of adistrict and have 1, 000, 000 human beings committed to his charge. Hemay have to deal with a famine; he may have to deal with a riot; hemay take a decision on which the lives of thousands of people maydepend. Well, I think that early call to responsibility, to a displayof energy, to the exercise of individual decision and judgment is whatmakes the Indian Civil Service a grand career. And that is whathas produced an extraordinary proportion of remarkable men in thatservice. 

There is another elevating thought, that I should suppose is presentto all of you. To those who are already in important posts and thosewho are by-and-by going to take them up. The good name of England isin your keeping. Your conduct and the conduct of your colleagues inother branches of the Indian Service decides what the peoples of Indiaare to think of British government and of those who represent it. Ofcourse you cannot expect the simple villager to care anything or toknow anything about the abstraction called the _raj_. What he knows isthe particular officer who stands in front of him, and with whom hehas dealings. If the officer is harsh or overbearing or incompetent, the Government gets the discredit of it; the villager assumes thatGovernment is also harsh, overbearing, and incompetent. There is thispeculiarity which strikes me about the Indian Civil servant. I am notsure that all of you will at once welcome it, but it goes to the rootof the matter. He is always more or less on duty. It is not merelywhen he is doing his office work; he is always on duty. The great menof the service have always recognised this obligation, that officialrelations are not to be the beginning and the end of the duties of anIndian administrator. It has been my pleasure and privilege during thethree or four years I have been at the India Office, to see a streamof important Indian officials. I gather from them that one of theworst drawbacks of the modern speeding up of the huge wheels of themachine of Indian government is, that the Indian Civil servant hasless time and less opportunity than he used to have of bringinghimself into close contact with those with whose interests he isconcerned. One of these important officials told me the other day thisstory. A retired veteran, an Indian soldier, had come to him andsaid, "This is an odd state of things. The other day So-and-so, acommissioner or what not, was coming down to my village or district. We did the best we could to get a good camping-ground for him. We wereall eagerly on the look-out for him. He arrived with his attendants. He went into his tent. He immediately began to write. He went onwriting. We thought he had got very urgent business to do. We wentaway. We arrived in the morning soon after dawn. He was still writing, or he had begun again. So concerned was he both in the evening and inthe morning with his writing that we really had nothing from him but apolite _salaam_. " This may or may not be typical, but I can imagineit is possible, at all events. That must be pure mischief. If I weregoing to remain Indian Secretary for some time to come, my everyeffort would be devoted to an abatement of that enormous amount ofwriting. You applaud that sentiment now, and you will applaud it moreby-and-by. 

Upon this point of less time being devoted to writing and more time tocultivating social relations with the people, it is very easy for ushere, no doubt, to say you ought to cultivate social relations. Yet Ican imagine a man who has done a hard day's office work--I am sure Ishould feel it myself--is not inclined to launch out upon talk andinquiries among the people with whom he is immediately concerned. Itmay be asking almost in a way too much from human nature. Still, thatis the thing to aim at. The thing to aim at is--all civilians whowrite and speak say the same--to cultivate social amenities so far asyou can, I do not mean in the towns, but in the local communities withwhich many of you are going to be concerned. I saw the other day aletter from a lady, not, I fancy, particularly sentimental about thematter, and she said this: "There would be great improvement if onlybetter social relations could be established with Indians personally. I do wish that all young officials could be primed before they cameout with the proper ideas on this question. " Well, I have no illusionswhatever as to my right or power of priming you. I think each of uscan see for himself the desirability of every one who goes out there, having certain ideas in his head as to his own relations with thepeople whom he is called upon to govern. That is the mission withwhich we have to charge you, and it is as momentous a mission aswas ever confided to any great military commander or admiral of thefleet--this mission of yours to place yourself in touch with thepeople whom you have to govern. I am under no illusions that I canplant new ideas in your minds compared with the ideas that may beplanted by experienced heads of Indian Government. The other day I sawa letter of instructions from a very eminent Lieutenant-Governor tothose of the next stage below him, as to the attitude that they wereto take to the new civilians when they arrived, and you 24 or 25gentlemen will get the benefit of those instructions if you are goingto that province. I do not think there is any reason why I shouldnot mention his name--it was Sir Andrew Fraser, the retiredLieutenant-Governor of Bengal--and those instructions as to the temperthat was to be inculcated upon newcomers, were marked by a force, afulness, and a first-hand aptitude that not even the keenest Secretaryof State could venture to approach. I know that exile is hard. It isvery easy for us here to preach. Exile is and must be hard, but I feelconfident that under the guidance of the high officers there, underwhom you will find yourselves, you will take care not to ignore theIndian; not to hold apart and aloof from the Indian life and ways;not to believe that you will not learn anything by conversation witheducated Indians. And while you are in India, and among Indians, andresponsible to Indians, because you are as responsible to them as youare to us here, while you are in that position, gentlemen, do not livein Europe all the time. Whether or not--if I may be quite candid--itwas a blessing either for India or for Great Britain that this greatresponsibility fell upon us, whatever the ultimate destiny and endof all this is to be, at any rate I know of no more imposing andmomentous transaction than the government of India by you and thoselike you. I know of no more imposing and momentous transaction in thevast scroll of the history of human government. 

We have been within the past two years in a position of considerabledifficulty. But the difficulties of Indian government are not theresult--be sure of this--of any single incident or set of incidents. You see it said that all the present difficulties arose from thepartition of Bengal. I have never believed that. I do not think wellof the operation, but that does not matter. I was turning the otherday to the history of the Oxford Mission to Calcutta. In 1899--thepartition of Bengal, as you know, was much later--what did theysay? "There exists at present"--at present in 1899--"an increasinghostility to what is European and English among the educated classes. ""No one can have, " this Oxford report goes on, "any real knowledge ofIndia without a deep sense of the splendid work done by the IndianCivil Service. The work is recognised by the Indian people. Theythoroughly appreciate the benefits of our rule, they are bound to usby self-interest, but they do not like us. " It is intelligible, butthat is a result to be carefully guarded against by demeanour, bytemper, by action--to be guarded against at every turn. Every onewould agree that anything like a decisive and permanent estrangementbetween the Indians and the Europeans would end in dire failure and anoverwhelming catastrophe. I am coming to other ground. The history ofthe last six months has been important, anxious, and trying. Eightmonths ago there certainly was severe tension. That tension has nowrelaxed, and the great responsible officials on the spot assure methat the position of the hour and the prospects are reassuring. Wehave kept the word which was given by the Sovereign on November 1 lastyear in the message to the people of India commemorating the 50thanniversary of the assumption of the powers of government in Indiaby the Crown, the transfer of the power from the old Company to theCrown. We have kept our word. We have introduced and carried throughParliament a measure, as everybody will admit, of the highest orderof importance. It was carried through both Houses with excellentdeliberation. I have been in Parliament a great many years. I havenever known a project discussed and conducted with such knowledge, and such a desire to avoid small, petty personal incidents. The wholeproceeding was worthy of the reputation of Parliament. 

You are entering upon your duties at a stage of intense interest. SirCharles Elliott, who was Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal, wrote theother day, that this is "the most momentous change ever effected byParliament in the constitution of the Government of India since 1858. "He goes on to say that no prudent man would prophesy. No, and I do notprophesy. How could I? It depends upon two things. It depends, firstof all, upon the Civil Service. It depends on the Civil Service, andit depends on the power of Indians with the sense and instinctsof government, to control wilder spirits without the sense or theinstincts of government. As for the Civil Service, which is the otherbranch on which all depends, it is impossible not to be struck withthe warmest admiration of the loyal and manful tone in which leadingmembers of the Civil Service have expressed their resolution to facethe new tasks that this legislation will impose upon them. I have notgot it with me now, but certain language was used by Sir Norman Baker, who is now the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal. I think I quoted it inthe House of Lords, and, if I could read it to you, it would be farbetter than any speech of mine in support of the toast I am going topropose to you. There never was a more manful and admirable expressionof the devotion of the service, than the promise of their cordial, whole-hearted, and laborious support of the policy which they have nowgot to carry through. I am certain there is not one of you who willfall short, and I am speaking in the presence of those who are notprobationers, but persons proved. There is not one of you who, whenthe time comes, will not respond to the call, in the same spirit inwhich Sir Norman Baker responded. 

I am now going to take you, if you will allow me, for a moment, to apoint of immediate and, I can almost say, personal interest. Everybodywill agree, as I say, that we have fulfilled within the last six oreight months the pledges that were given by the Sovereign in November. An Indian gentleman has been placed on the Council of the Viceroy--notan everyday transaction. It needed some courage to do it, but it wasdone. Before that, two Indians were placed on the Council of Indiathat sits in my own office at Whitehall. We have passed throughParliament, as I have already described to you, the Councils Act. 

Those are great things. But I am told great uneasiness is growing inthe House of Commons as to the matter of deportation. You know whatdeportation means. It means that nine Indian gentlemen on December 13last were arrested and are now detained--arrested under a law which isas good a law as any law on our own statute-book. You will forgive mefor detaining you with this, but it is an actual and pressing point. Some of the most respected members of my own party write a letter tothe Prime Minister protesting. A Bill has been brought in, and thefirst reading of it was carried two or three days ago, of which I canonly say--with all responsibility for what I am saying--that it isnothing less, if you consider the source from which it comes, and ifyou consider the arguments by which it is supported, than a vote ofdistinct censure on me and Lord Minto. The Bill is also supported bya very clever and rising member of the Opposition. Now words of anextraordinary character have been used in support of this severecriticism of the policy of myself and Lord Minto. In a motion, not inconnection with the Bill, but earlier in the Session, words were readfrom _Magna Charta_, with the insinuation that the present Secretaryof State is as dubious a character as the Sovereign against whom_Magna Charta_ was directed. Gloomy references were actually made toKing Charles I. , and it was shown that we were exercising powers that, when attempted to be exercised by Charles I. , led to the Civil War andcost Charles I. His head. This was at the beginning of the presentSession. I doubt if they will get through to the end of the Session, whenever that may be, without comparisons being instituted between theSecretary of State, for example, and Strafford or even Cromwell in hisworst moments, as they would think. If Cromwell is mentioned, I shallknow where to point out how Cromwell was troubled by Fifth Monarchymen, Praise-God Barebones, Venner, Saxby, and others. In historicalparallels I am fairly prepared for the worst. I will take my chance. 

Let us look at this seriously, because serious minds are exercised bydeportation, and quite naturally. On December 13 nine Indians werearrested under a certain Indian Regulation of the year 1818, and theywho reproach us with violating the glories of 1215 (which is MagnaCharta) and the Petition of Rights, complain that 1818 is far tooremote for us to be at all affected by anything that was then madelaw. Now what is the Regulation? I will ask you to follow me prettyclosely for a minute or two. The Regulation of 1818 says:--"Reasonsof State occasionally render it necessary to place under personalrestraint individuals, against whom there may not be sufficientgrounds to institute any judicial proceedings, and theGovernor-General in Council is able for good and sufficient reasons todetermine that A. B. Shall be placed under personal restraint. " Thereis no trial; there is no charge; there is no fixed limit of time ofdetention; and in short it is equivalent to a suspension of _habeascorpus_. That is a broad statement, but substantially that is what itis. Now I do not deny for a moment that if proceedings of this kind, such as took place on December 13 last year, were normal or frequent, if they took place every day of the week or every week of the month, it would be dangerous and in the highest degree discreditable to ourwhole Government in India. It would be detestable and dangerous. Butis there to be no such thing as an Emergency power? I am not talkingabout England, Scotland, or Ireland. I am talking about India. Isthere to be no such thing as an emergency power? My view is that thepowers given under the Regulation of 1818 do constitute an emergencypower, which, may be lawfully applied if an emergency presents itself. Was there an emergency last December? The Government of India found inDecember a movement that was a grave menace to the very foundations ofpublic peace and security. The list of crimes for twelve monthswas formidable, showing the determined and daring character of thesupporters of this movement. The crimes were not all. Terrorismprevented evidence. The ordinary process of law was no longeradequate, and the fatal impression prevailed that the Government couldbe defied with impunity. The Government of India did not need to passa new law. We found a law in the armoury and we applied it. Verydisagreeable, but still we should have been perfectly unworthy ofholding the position we do--I am speaking now of the Government ofIndia and myself--if we had not taken that weapon out of the armoury, and used it against these evildoers. 

It was vital that we should stamp out the impression that theGovernment of India could be defied with impunity, not in matters ofopinion, mark you, but in matters affecting peace, order, life, andproperty--that the Government in those elementary conditions of socialexistence could be defied with impunity. I say, then--it was vital inthat week of December that these severe proceedings should be taken, if there was to be any fair and reasonable chance for those reformswhich have since been laboriously hammered out, which had been forvery many months upon the anvil, and to which we looked, as we looknow, for a real pacification. It was not the first time that thisarbitrary power--for it is that, I never disguise it--was used. It wasused some years ago--I forget how many. I was talking the other day toan officer who was greatly concerned in it in Poona, and he describedthe conditions, and told me the effect was magical. I do not say theeffect of our proceedings the other day was magical. I do not say thatbombs and knives and pistols are at an end. None of the officers inIndia think that we may not have some of these over again, but at anyrate for the moment, and, I believe, for much more than the moment, we have secured order and tranquillity and acquiescence, and a warmapproval of, and interest in, our reforms. I have said we have hadacceptance of our reforms. What a curious thing it is that, after thereforms were announced, and after the deportations had taken place, still there came to Lord Minto deputations, and to me many telegrams, conveying their appreciation and gratitude for the reforms, and otherthings we have done. Our good friends who move a vote of censure uponus, are better Indians than the Indians themselves. I cannot imagine amore mistaken proceeding. 

Let me say one more word about deportations. It is true that there isno definite charge that could be produced in a court of law. That isthe very essence of the whole transaction. Then it is said--"Oh, butyou look to the police; you get all your evidence from the police. "That is not so. The Government of India get their information, notevidence in a technical sense--that is the root of the matter--fromimportant district officers. But it is said then, "Who is to decidethe value of the information?" I heard that one gentleman in theHouse of Commons said privately in ordinary talk, "If English countrygentlemen were to decide this, we would not mind. " Who do decide? Doyou think this is done by a police sergeant in a box? On the contrary, every one of these nine cases of deportation has been examined andinvestigated--by whom? By Lord Minto, by the late Lieutenant-Governorof Bengal, by the present Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal, by two orthree members of the Viceroy's Executive Council. Are we to supposefor a minute that men of this great station and authority andresponsibility are going to issue a _lettre de cachet_ for A. B. , C. D. , or E. F. , without troubling themselves whether that _lettre de cachet_is wisely issued or not? Then it is said of a man who is arrestedunder this law, "Oh, he ought not to be harshly treated. " He is notharshly treated. If he is one of these nine deported men, he is notput into contact with criminal persons. His family are looked after. He subsists under conditions which are to an Indian perfectlyconformable to his social position, and to the ordinary comforts andconveniences of his life. The greatest difference is drawn betweenthese nine men and other men against whom charges to be judiciallytried are brought. All these cases come up for reconsideration fromtime to time. They will come up shortly, and that consideration willbe conducted with justice and with firmness. There can be no attemptat all to look at this transaction of the nine deported men otherwisethan as a disagreeable measure, but one imposed upon us by a sense ofpublic duty and a measure that events justify. What did Mr. Gokhale, who is a leader of a considerable body of important politicalopinion in India, say? Did he move a vote of censure? He said in theLegislative Council the other day in Calcutta, that Lord Minto and theSecretary of State had saved India from drifting into chaos. I owe youan apology, Mr. Vice-Chancellor and gentlemen, for pressing upon yourattention points suggested by criticisms from politicians of generousbut unbalanced impulse. But they are important, and I am glad you haveallowed me to say what I have said upon them. 

APPENDIX

A

_Extract from the dispatch of the Board of Directors of the East IndiaCompany to the Government of India, December 10, 1834, accompanyingthe Government of India Act_, 1833. [1]

[Footnote 1: Tradition ascribes this piece to the pen of James Mill. His son, J. S. Mill, was the author of the protest by the Companyagainst the transfer to the Crown in 1858. ]

103. By clause 87 of the Act it is provided that no person, by reasonof his birth, creed, or colour, shall be disqualified from holding anyoffice in our service. 

104. It is fitting that this important enactment should be understoodin order that its full spirit and intention may be transfused throughour whole system of administration. 

105. You will observe that its object is not to ascertainqualification, but to remove disqualification. It does not break downor derange the scheme of our government as conducted principallythrough the instrumentality of our regular servants, civil andmilitary. To do this would be to abolish or impair the rules whichthe legislature has established for securing the fitness of thefunctionaries in whose hands the main duties of Indian administrationare to be reposed--rules to which the present Act makes a materialaddition in the provisions relating to the college at Haileybury. Butthe meaning of the enactment we take to be that there shall be nogoverning caste in British India; that whatever other tests ofqualification may be adopted, distinctions of race or religion shallnot be of the number; that no subject of the king, whether of Indianor British or mixed descent, shall be excluded either from the postsusually conferred on our uncovenanted servants in India, or fromthe covenanted service itself, provided he be otherwise eligibleconsistently with the rules and agreeably to the conditions observedand exacted in the one case and in the other. 

106. In the application of this principle, that which will chieflyfall to your share will be the employment of natives, whether of thewhole or the mixed blood, in official situations. So far as respectsthe former class--we mean natives of the whole blood--it is hardlynecessary to say that the purposes of the legislature have in aconsiderable degree been anticipated; you well know, and indeed havein some important respects carried into effect, our desire thatnatives should be admitted to places of trust as freely andextensively as a regard for the due discharge of the functionsattached to such places will permit. Even judicial duties of magnitudeand importance are now confided to their hands, partly no doubt fromconsiderations of economy, but partly also on the principles of aliberal and comprehensive policy; still a line of demarcation, to someextent in favour of the natives, to some extent in exclusion of them, has been maintained; certain offices are appropriated to them, fromcertain others they are debarred--not because these latter belongto the covenanted service, and the former do not belong to it, but professedly on the ground that the average amount of nativequalifications can be presumed only to rise to a certain limit. It isthis line of demarcation which the present enactment obliterates, orrather for which it substitutes another, wholly irrespective of thedistinction of races. Fitness is henceforth to be the criterion ofeligibility. 

107. To this altered rule it will be necessary that you should, bothin your acts and your language, conform; practically, perhaps, novery marked difference of results will be occasioned. The distinctionbetween situations allotted to the covenanted service and all othersituations of an official or public nature will remain generally as atpresent. 

108. Into a more particular consideration of the effects that mayresult from the great principle which the legislature has now for thefirst time recognised and established we do not enter, because wewould avoid disquisition of a speculative nature. But there isone practical lesson which, often as we have on former occasionsinculcated it on you, the present subject suggests to us once more toenforce. While, on the one hand, it may be anticipated that the rangeof public situations accessible to the natives and mixed races willgradually be enlarged, it is, on the other hand, to be recollectedthat, as settlers from Europe find their way into the country, thisclass of persons will probably furnish candidates for those verysituations to which the natives and mixed race will have admittance. Men of European enterprise and education will appear in the field; andit is by the prospect of this event that we are led particularly toimpress the lesson already alluded to on your attention. In every viewit is important that the indigenous people of India, or those amongthem who by their habits, character, or position may be induced toaspire to office, should, as far as possible, be qualified to meettheir European competitors. 

Thence, then, arises a powerful argument for the promotion ofevery design tending to the improvement of the natives, whether byconferring on them the advantages of education, or by diffusing amongthem the treasures of science, knowledge, and moral culture. For thesedesirable results, we are well aware that you, like ourselves, areanxious, and we doubt not that, in order to impel you to increasedexertion for the promotion of them, you will need no stimulant beyonda simple reference to the considerations we have here suggested. 

109. While, however, we entertain these wishes and opinion, we mustguard against the supposition that it is chiefly by holding outmeans and opportunities of official distinction that we expect ourGovernment to benefit the millions subjected to their authority. We have repeatedly expressed to you a very different sentiment. Facilities of official advancement can little affect the bulk ofthe people under any Government, and perhaps least under a goodGovernment. It is not by holding out incentives to official ambition, but by repressing crime, by securing and guarding property, bycreating confidence, by ensuring to industry the fruit of its labour, by protecting men in the undisturbed enjoyment of their rights, andin the unfettered exercise of their faculties, that Governments bestminister to the public wealth and happiness. In effect, the freeaccess to office is chiefly valuable when it is a part of generalfreedom. 

B

_Proclamation by the Queen in Council, to the Princes, Chiefs, andPeople of India, November_ 1, 1858. [1]

[Footnote 1: This memorable instrument, justly called the Magna Chartaof India, was framed in August, 1838, by the Earl of Derby, then thehead of the Government. His son, Lord Stanley, the first Secretary ofState for India, had drafted a Proclamation, and it was circulated tothe Cabinet. It reached the Queen in Germany. She went through thedraft with the Prince Consort, who made copious notes on the margin. The Queen did not like it, and wrote to Lord Derby that she "wouldbe glad if he would write himself in his excellent language. " Thespecific criticisms are to be found in Martin's _Life of the PrinceConsort_ (iv 284-5). Lord Derby thereupon consulted Stanley; saw theremarks of some of the Cabinet, as well as of Lord Ellenborough, uponStanley's draft; and then wrote and re-wrote a draft of his own, andsent it to the Queen. It was wholly different in scope and conceptionfrom the first draft. The Prince Consort enters in his journal that itwas now "_recht gut_. " One or two further suggested amendments wereaccepted by Lord Derby and the Secretary of State; experts assuredthem that it contained nothing difficult to render in the nativelanguages; and the Proclamation was launched in the form in which itnow stands. One question gave trouble--the retention of the Queen'stitle of Defender of the Faith. Its omission might provoke remark, but on the other hand Lord Derby regarded it as a doubtful title, "considering its origin" [conferred by the Pope on Henry VIII] and asapplied to a Proclamation to India. He was in hopes that in the Indiantranslation it would appear as "Protectress of Religion" generally, but he was told by experts in vernacular that it was just the title toconvey to the Indian mind, the idea of the special Head and Championof a creed antagonistic to the creeds of the country. Lord Derby wasinclined to omit, but he sought the Queen's own opinion. This went theother way. The last sentence of the Proclamation was the Queen's. Thethree drafts are all in the records at Windsor. ]

Victoria, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britainand Ireland, and of the Colonies and Dependencies thereof in Europe, Asia, Africa, America, and Australasia, Queen, Defender of the Faith. 

Whereas, for divers weighty reasons, we have resolved, by and with theadvice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in Parliament assembled, to take upon ourselves the government of theterritories in India, heretofore administered in trust for us by theHonourable East India Company. 

Now, therefore, we do by these presents notify and declare that, bythe advice and consent aforesaid, we have taken upon ourselves thesaid government; and we hereby call upon all our subjects within thesaid territories to be faithful, and to bear true allegiance to us, our heirs and successors, and to submit themselves to the authority ofthose whom we may hereafter, from time to time, see fit to appoint toadminister the government of our said territories, in our name and onour behalf. 

And we, reposing especial trust and confidence in the loyalty, ability, and judgment of our right trusty and well-beloved cousinCharles John, Viscount Canning, do hereby constitute and appointhim, the said Viscount Canning, to be our first Viceroy andGovernor-General in and over our said territories, and to administerthe government thereof in our name, and generally to act in our nameand on our behalf, subject to such orders and regulations as he shall, from time to time, receive through one of our Principal Secretaries ofState. 

And we do hereby confirm in their several offices, civil and military, all persons now employed in the service of the Honourable EastIndia Company, subject to our future pleasure, and to such laws andregulations as may hereafter be enacted. 

We hereby announce to the native princes of India, that all treatiesand engagements made with them by or under the authority of the EastIndia Company are by us accepted, and will be scrupulously maintained, and we look for the like observance on their part. 

We desire no extension of our present territorial possessions, and, while we will permit no aggression upon our dominions or our rights tobe attempted with impunity, we shall sanction no encroachment on thoseof others. 

We shall respect the rights, dignity, and honour of native princes asour own; and we desire that they, as well as our own subjects, shouldenjoy that prosperity and that social advancement which can only besecured by internal peace and good government. 

We hold ourselves bound to the natives of our Indian territories bythe same obligations of duty which bind us to all our other subjects, and those obligations, by the blessing of Almighty God, we shallfaithfully and conscientiously fill. 

Firmly relying ourselves on the truth of Christianity, andacknowledging with gratitude the solace of religion, we disclaim alikethe right and the desire to impose our convictions on any of oursubjects. We declare it to be our royal will and pleasure that none bein any wise favoured, none molested or disquieted, by reason of theirreligious faith or observances, but that all shall alike enjoy theequal and impartial protection of the law; and we do strictly chargeand enjoin all those who may be in authority under us that theyabstain from all interference with the religious relief or worship ofany of our subjects on pain of our highest displeasure. 

And it is our further will that, so far as may be, our subjects, ofwhatever race or creed, be freely and impartially admitted to officesin our service the duties of which they may be qualified by theireducation, ability, and integrity duly to discharge. 

We know, and respect, the feelings of attachment with which natives ofIndia regard the lands inherited by them from their ancestors, and wedesire to protect them in all rights connected therewith, subject tothe equitable demands of the State; and we will that generally, inframing and administering the law, due regard be paid to the ancientrights, usages, and customs of India. 

We deeply lament the evils and misery which have been brought uponIndia by the acts of ambitious men, who have deceived their countrymenby false reports, and led them into open rebellion. Our power has beenshown by the suppression of that rebellion in the field; we desireto show our mercy by pardoning the offences of those who have beenmisled, but who desire to return to the path of duty. 

Already, in one province, with a desire to stop the further effusionof blood, and to hasten the pacification of our Indian dominions, ourViceroy and Governor-General has held out the expectation of pardon, on certain terms, to the great majority of those who, in the lateunhappy disturbances, have been guilty of offences against ourGovernment, and has declared the punishment which will be inflictedon those whose crimes place them beyond the reach of forgiveness. Weapprove and confirm the said act of our Viceroy and Governor-General, and do further announce and proclaim as follows:--

Our clemency will be extended to all offenders, save and except thosewho have been, or shall be, convicted of having directly taken partin the murder of British subjects. With regard to such the demands ofjustice forbid the exercise of mercy. 

To those who have willingly given asylum to murderers, knowing them tobe such, or who may have acted as leaders or instigators of revolt, their lives alone can be guaranteed; but in apportioning the penaltydue to such persons, full consideration will be given to thecircumstances under which they have been induced to throw off theirallegiance; and large indulgence will be shown to those whose crimesmay appear to have originated in too credulous acceptance of the falsereports circulated by designing men. 

To all others in arms against the Government we hereby promiseunconditional pardon, amnesty, and oblivion of all offences againstourselves, our crown and dignity, on their return to their homes andpeaceful pursuits. 

It is our royal pleasure that these terms of grace and amnesty shouldbe extended to all those who comply with these conditions before the1st day of January next. 

When, by the blessing of Providence, internal tranquillity shall berestored, it is our earnest desire to stimulate the peaceful industryof India, to promote works of public utility and improvement, and toadminister the government for the benefit of all our subjectsresident therein. In their prosperity will be our strength, in theircontentment our security, and in their gratitude our best reward. Andmay the God of all power grant to us, and to those in authority underus, strength to carry out these our wishes for the good of our people. 

C

_Proclamation of the King-Emperor to the Princes and Peoples of India, the 2nd November, 1908. _

It is now 50 years since Queen Victoria, my beloved mother, and myAugust Predecessor on the throne of these realms, for divers weightyreasons, with the advice and consent of Parliament, took upon herselfthe government of the territories theretofore administered by the EastIndia Company. I deem this a fitting anniversary on which to greet thePrinces and Peoples of India, in commemoration of the exalted taskthen solemnly undertaken. Half a century is but a brief span in yourlong annals, yet this half century that ends to-day will standamid the floods of your historic ages, a far-shining landmark. Theproclamation of the direct supremacy of the Crown sealed the unity ofIndian Government and opened a new era. The journey was arduous, andthe advance may have sometimes seemed slow; but the incorporation ofmany strangely diversified communities, and of some three hundredmillions of the human race, under British guidance and control hasproceeded steadfastly and without pause. We survey our labours of thepast half century with clear gaze and good conscience. 

Difficulties such as attend all human rule in every age and place, have risen up from day to day. They have been faced by the servantsof the British Crown with toil and courage and patience, with deepcounsel and a resolution that has never faltered nor shaken. If errorshave occurred, the agents of my government have spared no pains and noself-sacrifice to correct them; if abuses have been proved, vigoroushands have laboured to apply a remedy. 

No secret of empire can avert the scourge of drought and plague, butexperienced administrators have done all that skill and devotion arecapable of doing, to mitigate those dire calamities of Nature. Fora longer period than was ever known in your land before, you haveescaped the dire calamities of War within your borders. Internal peacehas been unbroken. 

In the great charter of 1858 Queen Victoria gave you noble assuranceof her earnest desire to stimulate the peaceful industry of India, topromote works of public utility and improvement, and to administer thegovernment for the benefit of all resident therein. The schemes thathave been diligently framed and executed for promoting your materialconvenience and advance--schemes unsurpassed in their magnitude andtheir boldness--bear witness before the world to the zeal with whichthat benignant promise has been fulfilled. 

The rights and privileges of the Feudatory Princes and Ruling Chiefshave been respected, preserved, and guarded; and the loyalty of theirallegiance has been unswerving. No man among my subjects has beenfavoured, molested, or disquieted, by reason of his religious beliefor worship. All men have enjoyed protection of the law. The law itselfhas been administered without disrespect to creed or caste, or tousages and ideas rooted in your civilisation. It has been simplifiedin form, and its machinery adjusted to the requirements of ancientcommunities slowly entering a new world. 

The charge confided to my Government concerns the destinies ofcountless multitudes of men now and for ages to come; and it is aparamount duty to repress with a stern arm guilty conspiracies thathave no just cause and no serious aim. These conspiracies I know to beabhorrent to the loyal and faithful character of the vast hosts of myIndian subjects, and I will not suffer them to turn me aside from mytask of building up the fabric of security and order. 

Unwilling that this historic anniversary should pass without somesignal mark of Royal clemency and grace, I have directed that, as wasordered on the memorable occasion of the Coronation Durbar in 1903, the sentences of persons whom our courts have duly punished foroffences against the law, should be remitted, or in various degreesreduced; and it is my wish that such wrongdoers may remain mindfulof this act of mercy, and may conduct themselves without offencehenceforth. 

Steps are being continuously taken towards obliterating distinctionsof race as the test for access to posts of public authority and power. In this path I confidently expect and intend the progress henceforwardto be steadfast and sure, as education spreads, experience ripens, and the lessons of responsibility are well learned by the keenintelligence and apt capabilities of India. 

From the first, the principle of representative institutions began tobe gradually introduced, and the time has come when, in the judgmentof my Viceroy and Governor-General and others of my counsellors, thatprinciple may be prudently extended. Important classes among you, representing ideas that have been fostered and encouraged byBritish rule, claim equality of citizenship, and a greater share inlegislation and government. The politic satisfaction of such aclaim will strengthen, not impair, existing authority and power. Administration will be all the more efficient, if the officers whoconduct it have greater opportunities of regular contact with thosewhom it affects, and with those who influence and reflect commonopinion about it. I will not speak of the measures that are now beingdiligently framed for these objects. They will speedily be made knownto you, and will, I am very confident, mark a notable stage in thebeneficent progress of your affairs. 

I recognise the valour and fidelity of my Indian troops, and at theNew Year I have ordered that opportunity should be taken to showin substantial form this, my high appreciation, of their martialinstincts, their splendid discipline, and their faithful readiness ofservice. 

The welfare of India was one of the objects dearest to the heart ofQueen Victoria. By me, ever since my visit in 1875, the interests ofIndia, its Princes and Peoples, have been watched with an affectionatesolicitude that time cannot weaken. My dear Son, the Prince of Wales, and the Princess of Wales, returned from their sojourn among you withwarm attachment to your land, and true and earnest interest in itswell-being and content. These sincere feelings of active sympathy andhope for India on the part of my Royal House and Line, only represent, and they do most truly represent, the deep and united will and purposeof the people of this Kingdom. 

May divine protection and favour strengthen the wisdom and mutualgoodwill that are needed, for the achievement of a task as glorious aswas ever committed to rulers and subjects in any State or Empire ofrecorded time.