§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether Her Majesty's Government are able to confirm the statements of the Calcutta Correspondent of the "Times," that the great majority of the officials of India, and those of Bengal and Assam, almost unanimously, have reported against Mr. Ilbert's Native Jurisdiction Bill; and, when these reports will be laid upon the Table?
§ MR. J. K. CROSSSir, I am not able to confirm the statement of the Calcutta Correspondent of The Times alluded to in the Question of the hon. Member for Eye; and, considering that I do not know whether the Reports of all the Provincial Governments have yet been received by the Government of India, I cannot say when they will be laid upon the Table.
§ MR. RYLANDSasked the hon. Member for Eye, who had given Notice that, on Friday, he would call attention to the conduct of Lord Ripon in regard to this subject, whether, seeing that those Reports were not forthcoming, he would not postpone his Motion?
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTSir, I am most reluctant to abandon the opportunity, very rarely obtained by private Members, of bringing the menacing condition of India before the House. Since I referred to Lord Ripon's Administration, I have received an immense number of communications from all parts of India, testifying to the bitterness of race antagonism, caused by the Viceroy's action, and protesting against Lord Ripon's legislation and policy; but I feel that the point urged by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) is extremely important. The great majority of the official Reports are strongly opposed to Mr. Ilbert's Bill; and my case will be much strengthened by the production of these Reports. It is most desirable that they should be in the hands of Members before a dis- 386 cussion. For these reasons, I do not propose to proceed so soon as Friday with my Motion against the policy of Lord Ripon.