HC Deb 10 March 1885 vol 295 cc628-39
Sir HERBERT MAXWELL,

Member for Wigtonshire, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely—the procedure of the Viceroy's Council at Calcutta in pressing forward the Bengal Tenancy Bill without giving time for due consideration or translation thereof into the vernacular.

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Baronet (Sir Herbert Maxwell) proposes to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance—namely, the procedure of the Viceroy's Council at Calcutta in pressing forward the Bengal Tenancy Bill without giving due time for the consideration or translation thereof into the vernacular. Is it your pleasure that the Motion should be made? ["No, no!"]

The pleasure of the House not having been signified—

MR. SPEAKER

called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places.

And not less than forty Members having accordingly risen in their places,

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL

said, that, at first sight, it might appear somewhat presumptuous on the part of a private Member to interrupt the course of Public Business for the purpose of discussing a matter of such grave importance as the policy of the Viceroy and his Council in India; but it seemed to him that no one except a private Member would feel himself at liberty to do so. If a right hon. Gentleman on either of the Front Benches were to do so, he would feel that he was taking upon himself the responsibility of run- ning the risk of interfering with the policy which commended itself to Her Majesty's Viceroy in India; hut he (Sir Herbert Maxwell) felt that, in approaching this subject, he was relieved in a great sense from such responsibility from the fact of his never having held any official position in that House. He had already read to the House part of a telegram which he had received from the Maharajah of Durbhunga, one of the Native Members of the Council, a name which would commend itself to the House. That message concluded with these words— We, however, hold that a Liberal Government like the present ought first to consult the convenience of the nation instead of their own. They wish to rush the Bill through next week. Kindly bring the matter before Parliament. When that request was put to him by a person of such importance as the Maharajah, he felt compelled to accede to it, in the only manner in which it was possible for a private Member to do. When he said the matter was urgent, he wished to point out that the Bill was introduced into the Council only a fortnight ago. There had been Tenancy Bills under the consideration of the Council for some time past; but this was a radically different Bill in many details from those which had been already introduced and withdrawn, and the complaint made by the Zemindars of Bengal was, that it had not been long enough before the country to let its provisions be known. He (Sir Herbert Maxwell) had often had to object, in the strongest possible way, to the home legislation of the present Government; but he never had to make the complaint that their legislation was hurried through in an indecent manner. Due time was always allowed for deliberating upon and discussing measures; and if such time were ever refused by the Government the nation would insist upon it being given. But what power had the Zemindars of Bengal to insist upon delay? None at all. The only power they could exercise was through their Representatives in the Council; and when those Representatives were overridden, on every point they brought forward, by the compact Government majority, no course was open to them except to appeal to public opinion at home, in the hope that some modification might be had of the system. As far as the Council of the Vice- roy was concerned, the case of the Zemindars was perfectly hopeless. In The Times of Monday a despatch had appeared, containing an account of the manner in which the Opposition in the Council were being met. It said that most of the Amendments to the Bill were either withdrawn, or defeated by the compact official majority voting to order. This matter was urgent, because if things were allowed to take their course the Bill would be passed in three days' time. It was also important, because it dealt with vast interests in an important Province of India—with the entire question of landowning and land tenancy. He was not prepared to say that the Bill was uncalled for. He did not know enough about the subject. He was not familiar enough with the provisions of land tenancy in Bengal to say whether they were entirely satisfactory or not. In fact, he believed, in many respects, the permanent settlement effected by Lord Cornwallis was unsatisfactory; but the fact that it was called a permanent settlement was a reason why an alteration of it should not be approached without due deliberation. Again, the matter was urgent in this respect. Was this a time when the Government of India was so secure in the affections of every class of the people—when the Frontiers were so secure from foreign molestation—that it could afford to alienate from us the affections and interests of the entire class of the landowners in Bengal? That, undoubtedly, would be the case if the Bill were pressed with undue haste. This class resembled, in many respects, the loyal garrison in Ireland; but there was this difference—that the Zemindars, unable to draw Party distinctions, would associate this legislation with the Imperial Government. Recent legislation had done much to alienate the loyal classes in Ireland from the Liberal Party, and it was possible that the Zemindars of Bengal might similarly be alienated from the Imperial Government. Being unwilling to delay further the progress of the Redistribution Bill, he would conclude by asking the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India for some assurance that the measure before the Viceroy's Council would not be passed with undue haste. He trusted that the reason why sufficient time in which to translate the measure into the Native language had not as yet been given was not that the Viceroy and his Council were in a hurry to get to Simla. He begged to move the adjournment of the House.

Motion made, and Question proposed) "That this House do now adjourn,"—(Sir Herbert Maxwell.)

Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL and Mr. MAC FARLANE

rose together. Mr. Speaker called upon the former hon. Gentleman.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he objected strongly to the course taken by the hon. Member opposite (Sir Herbert Maxwell). He thought nothing could be more inappropriate than the Motion of the hon. Member; for the reason that he was quite sure that the House knew nothing at all about the matter. He did not believe that the 40 hon. Members who had risen with him (Sir Herbert Maxwell) understood the question; and he was quite sure that the hon. Baronet who moved the adjournment knew least of all. It was an enormously difficult question, and he was free to confess that he himself did not understand it. He did not know the details of the Bill; but this, however, he did know—that the subject had not been hurried over. On the contrary, what Bengal had reason to complain of was the immense delay that had taken place, although the question had been made the subject of mischievous agitation for years. He asserted it was a matter of enormous public importance that this question should be settled, and not made the subject of a continued agitation and a war of classes. It was true there was some analogy between this question and the Irish Question; but there was this difference—namely, that the landowners of Ireland had a legal status to be considered absolute proprietors of the land; whereas, since 1793, the rights of the Zemindars had been limited bylaw, and this Bill was wanted to define and ascertain the exact limits of those rights as respects the ryots. The Zemindars of Bengal were mostly good and loyal subjects of the British Crown; and it was, he trusted, unnecessary to be unjust to any other class in order to secure their affection. The hon. Member was wrong in contending that the Bill ought to be delayed for some considerable time. He agreed, however, with the hon. Member in condemning the growing tendency of the Members of the Indian Council to hurry over business in order that they might leave Calcutta, and get away to Simla. He remembered the time when the Members of the Government and the Council were obliged to remain in Calcutta all the year round, and yet managed to thrive pretty well. He objected to the unsettlement of the Government, which resulted in a constant tendency on the part of the Members of the Government to hurry away. The British Government were not so weak in India as to refuse to do an act of justice, and it should be done, though an important measure of this kind should not be indecently hurried through. He hoped the Bill would be well settled, and if there were any difficulty in settling it in the time he thought the Members of Council ought to remain a few days in Calcutta for the purpose.

MR. MACFARLANE

said, that those who knew something should say something to those who knew nothing. With respect to the subject before the House, some of the statements of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Herbert Maxwell), if left uncontradicted, were calculated to mislead the public. The hon. Baronet had said that the Bill was brought before the Council only a fortnight ago; whereas the fact was that the Bill, or one very like it, had been before the Council for years and years, and was the result of a Commission upon this very subject. Then the hon. Baronet said the Bill was to be passed in a foreign language; but unless Bills for India were passed in a great number of languages they must be foreign to some of the people they affected. After all, this Bill was merely an extension of an Act passed in 1859, against which the Zemindars made exactly the same outcry. The hon. Baronet also said that the Zemindars of Bengal were a formidable body, and that they ought to be conciliated; but the hon. Baronet evidently did not understand the object of the Bill, which was not to conciliate the Zemindars, but to conciliate 70,000,000 of their tenants. Which of the two classes, he (Mr. Macfarlane) should like to know, was best worth conciliating? He did not pledge himself to the details of the Bill; but as to the principles, in his opinion they were nothing more than justice.

MR. J. K. CROSS

said, he did not intend to enter into the merits or demerits of the Bill; but he thought, he should explain to the House the mode in which the matter was brought before him by the hon. Baronet. That night, when he came down to the House, he received a Notice from the hon. Baronet saying that unless the answer he (Mr. J. K. Cross) gave to the Question of the hon. Baronet was perfectly satisfactory the latter would move the adjournment of the House in order to bring the matter before the House. He told the hon. Baronet, practically, the answer he was going to give, and the hon. Baronet said he would consider whether it was sufficient. What was the Question the hon. Baronet asked? He asked whether he (Mr. J. K. Cross) was aware that this Bill, which had only been before the Council a fortnight, had not been translated into the vernacular, and told him, at the same time, that an eminent Native gentleman, a Member of the Legislative Council in Bengal, had sent a telegram, stating that the Bill had not been translated, and wished for the intervention of Parliament. That was an astonishing statement to him. If the hon. Baronet would give him time he would telegraph to India and get the facts of the case, and place them in his hands. He did not see that he could do anything more. He could only say that if, instead of sending him a note at half-past 5 o'clock that evening, the hon. Baronet had called upon him any time during the day, and asked his attention to a question of this importance, he would have been glad to place himself in communication with India at once on the subject. He hoped the hon. Baronet would accept this explanation, and withdraw his Motion for Adjournment.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that nothing could be fairer than the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India (Mr. J. K. Cross); but, at the same time, he was not quite sure whether he understood the hon. Gentleman to promise that the Bill should not be hurried through until it had been printed and circulated in the vernacular. [Mr. MACFARLANE: Which vernacular?] He knew of no case more than the present in which it was reasonable and desirable that a private Member should avail himself of the Rule relating to Motions for Adjournment, and bring them into requisition than on this occasion. He would remind hon. Gentlemen opposite, including some Members of the Government who were conspicuous for their disorderly interruptions during the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Wigton (Sir Herbert Maxwell), that the House of Commons discharged the functions of a Senate as well as those of a vestry; and if the House was to vindicate its claims to be the great Council of the nation, and to attend to the affairs of the whole British Empire, it must be occasionally content, at the risk of spending a few moments, to withdraw itself from merely domestic and Party political affairs in order to give attention to the vital and important interests of our Indian Empire. This Bill seemed to him to be simply an adaptation to Hindustan of the principles which had had such an unenviable notoriety in connection with land legislation in Ireland. That property guaranteed by previous legislation should be summarily taken away at a few days' notice without those primarily affected by it having a legitimate opportunity of making themselves acquainted with the contents of the Bill was, in his humble judgment, a monstrous and outrageous act of despotism, which the House should be slow to sanction. He hoped the Government would allow the House clearly to understand, not that three or four days after the Bill was passed his hon. Friend the Member for Wigton would be privileged with an interview at the India Office, and be told that the Government had ascertained that the Bill had passed, and that they could not pursue the subject further, but that the assurance of the Under Secretary of State for India was a bonâ fide one—namely, that Her Majesty's Government would communicate by telegraph with the Government in India, and would insure that due deliberation was observed, in order that the persons interested in the Bill might be made acquainted with the contents of the Bill, and have a legitimate time to consider so important a measure before it became law.

MR. GLADSTONE

The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. Lowther), with his usual moderation of language, relies upon the stock of knowledge that he possesses for the statement he makes, that there is now being perpetrated in India a monstrous and outrageous act of despotism. The violent language which the right hon. Gentleman uses both here and elsewhere does not tend to carry conviction to the minds of candid and unprejudiced gentlemen in the country, or in that House. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Herbert Maxwell), by his Motion, appears to me to ask for time. The right hon. Gentleman has supported the Motion; but he wants no time, because he says this Bill is an act of plunder; and what is the use of demanding time for an act of plunder? He has full knowledge of it already, and if he has had time to acquire that knowledge which he declares he possesses, and which we can judge of from the epithets he used, surely those who are in India, and who have been discussing it and hearing of it for two or three years, must have an adequate knowledge of it also. The right hon. Gentleman says that this is a very fortunate and happy use of the 40 Members' Rule. I am bound to express an entirely opposite opinion. The hon. Baronet, I think, is under a mistake in bringing this matter forward as one of urgent public importance without having previously done his best to obtain information as to the actual state of the case. No opportunity has been given to us of obtaining a knowledge of the actual state of the case by telegraphic communication. What is the state of knowledge with which the House is now called upon to discuss this matter? We have heard a telegram once read by the hon. Baronet which he said was sent to him by a Native Member of the Council—we have not got that telegram before us, and it is difficult to recollect its exact terms—and upon the mere strength of that telegram Her Majesty's Government are desired to interfere with the proceedings of the Council of India. In one thing I sympathize very much with the hon. Baronet—namely, in the weight he is evidently disposed to attach to the opinion of Native Members of Council. I believe the telegram states that the Bill has been passed by an official majority. Do I understand him to say that none but official Members voted for the Bill?

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL

said, he had only the information contained in that telegram, which he would again read for the information of hon. Members.

MR. GLADSTONE

I do not find that there is any statement in the telegram that the Bill was carried by an official majority.

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL

That was in the telegram in The Times of yesterday.

MR. GLADSTONE

Well, I want to know whether the hon. Baronet has any knowledge as to what is exactly meant by carrying the Bill by an official majority? Was there any statement in The Times on that subject? These words are often very loosely used. I should like to know what course was taken by the other Native Members of the Council? It has been stated by my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India that this Bill is in substance the same as has been before the Council in former years; and it is within my own knowledge that Lord Ripon considered that he was handing over to Lord Dufferin substantially the same Bill. ["Oh, oh!"] We have no evidence of its being a Bill of a different character. I must confess it appears to me that the position is a very singular one. Are we to say that, upon the view of a single Member of Council sending a telegram, giving his impression of the Bill, this House is to be called upon, by means of the 40 Members' Rule, and in derogation of the ordinary course of Business, distinctly to interfere with the regular action of the Legislative Council of India? It appears to me that that is a very questionable and inconvenient mode of proceeding. I know there have been cases of scandalous rapidity—I need not quote them—in passing Bills through the Legislative Council of India; but I have not hoard of any such under the management of Lord Dufferin or Lord Ripon. Whenever such a case occurs it will be a very proper matter for the investigation of this House; but as the right hon. Gentleman thinks this is a most appropriate manner of using the 40 Members' Rule—I must say that a statement conveyed upon such grounds as have been recited, with such a total want of particularity—without any application to the official organ of the Indian Department to improve our knowledge of the case, does not warrant a demand that this House should use its influence with the Executive Government for the purpose of interfering with the course of business in the Legislative Council. We must have some confidence in the Governor General and Executive Council until some grounds have been laid before us for presuming that they have acted wrongly; and I submit that no grounds have been shown which ought to overbear that general confidence, and induce us to do that which has a tendency to weaken the authority of the Legislative Council. The right hon. Gentleman has asked whether the assurance of my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India was bonâ fide? [Mr. J. LOWTHER: I assumed that it was.] Having assumed that it was bonâ fide,the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to give a construction of his own, metamorphosing that assurance into something totally different, and reserving to himself, with his usual discernment and moderation, if my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State did not conform to the right hon. Gentleman's definition of the bonâ fide assurance, the right of coming down and accusing my hon. Friend of bad faith in not having acted up to his assurance. I do not think there is any doubt as to the bonâ fides of the offer of my hon. Friend; and, unquestionably, I think the House will do well to allow my hon. Friend—who, I believe, is at present so occupied—to endeavour to ascertain the real facts of the case.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

I am always very reluctant to bring Indian questions under the consideration of this House by resorting to a Motion for Adjournment, except under very pressing and exceptional circumstances which render such a step necessary; and if the step taken by my hon. Friend (Sir Herbert Maxwell) was for the purpose of discussing the merits of this Bill, I should feel considerable hesitation in approving of, or taking any action respecting, it. But the question raised by my hon. Friend does not relate so much to the character of the Bill as to the course of proceeding on the part of the Legislative Council. He is in this position. He has been appealed to as a Member of Parliament by a Native of great distinction, who holds a most important position in that Council, to do what? Not to oppose any of the provisions of the Bill, but to bring the matter before Parliament, and to ask that time may be given for its consideration. It appears from what has been said by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India (Mr. J. K. Cross) that, under such circumstances, it is not an unreasonable thing that an inquiry should be made as to the correctness of the statement of the Native gentleman to whom reference has been made. Then the Prime Minister gets up and begins to find fault with my hon. Friend for making use of this particular opportunity of moving the adjournment of the House in order to bring the case before Parliament; and the right hon. Gentleman says that it is highly inconvenient and unfair that the course of Public Business should be thus interrupted. We are told that we should not now have raised this question at all, though it is one of great urgency, because it infringes on the time to be devoted to a matter of great internal importance, but which does not press in the same way from day to day. There is, I take it, a considerable amount of parallel between what is going on here and at the other side of the world; for while that is the answer we are given here, on the other side of the world we see in India, in reply to a request for time, an answer, not on the merits of the Bill, but that it is necessary for the Governor General and his Council to go to Simla without delay. There is a great deal of similarity between these two pleas; but neither of them touches the root of the matter—namely, that time ought to be given for the consideration of this Bill. The subtle distinctions raised by the Prime Minister are really, I think, not quite worthy of the occasion. My hon. Friend says that he has been informed by a Member of the Governor General's Council that such and such feelings are entertained on this subject; and the right hon. Gentleman meets this by asking—"Do you know what the other Members think?" I do not see that it was necessary or possible for my hon. Friend to know that. Then the right hon. Gentleman asks as to the opinions of the official Members on this subject. It is easy for the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India to obtain that information in a very short time. In an hour or two he will probably obtain information which will set all these matters at rest. He has shown no disinclination to give that information, and I shall be perfectly satisfied with his answer and the promise he has given. Had it not been for the rebuke which the Prime Minister has given to my hon. Friend, and which, I think, under the circumstances, was hardly called for, I might not have thought it necessary to rise.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he held that it was the duty of the Legislative Council of the Viceroy to allow no delay to take place in passing this meritorious and beneficial measure into law.

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL

asked the leave of the House to withdraw his Motion. ["No, no!"]

Question put, and negatived.