Lords Sitting of 9 April 1883

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLSߞ First Reading—Second Reading—Committee negatived—Third Reading—Explosive Substances (24), and passed.
Third Reading—Consolidated Fund (No. 2)*, and passed.

CHANNEL TUNNEL—THE JOINT COMMITTEE.
Message to the Commons, in answer to their Message of Thursday last, to inform them that this House has appointed a Committee of five Lords to join with the Committee of the Commons.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL— THE BOERS AND THE NATIVE TRIBES.—QUESTION.
LORD BRABOURNEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he was able to confirm or contradict the rumours which were in circulation to the effect that a peace was about to be concluded between the Boers and the Chief Mapoch; and whether, if so, Her Majesty's Government had interfered or remonstrated with the Boers, with the view of obtaining favourable terms for the Chief Mapoch? He had received a letter from an officer of the Cape Mounted Rifles, and he asked permission to read it, because it gave information which their Lordships might be glad to receive. The writer said—
"Let me explain that Mapoch's stronghold is situated between Lydenburg, the base of operations during the Secocoeni War, and Fort Weeber, which was the main camp during the long campaign. Mapoch's country is extensive, and the road through it, by which most of our supplies had to come from Lydenburg, was kept open to transport by Mapoch. The boundary of Mapoch's country joined that of Secocoeni's, and never, during the long war, did we get attacked by Secocoeni's Kaffirs while on Mapoch's country. This says something for the way in which he kept his frontier. Another road, outside his territory, being shorter was tried on one or two occasions, and there we got such a slating that it was not used afterwards except by an occasional despatch rider. I had the pleasure of despatch riding for many months between Lydenburg and the forts, and can, therefore, speak with accuracy. Further, Mapoch furnished Kaffir runners to carry the more heavy portion of the mail from and to Lydenburg, and fed the despatch riders' horses, allowing their masters to rest and sleep at his kraal. All that was known to the Secretary of State was that Mapoch refused to pay taxes. The claim made upon him was, in the opinion of many English, a most unjust one, for although the Boers, prior to the annexation, claimed Mapoch as a subject, still the question could but occur to us on the spot, why, in that case, do Boer farmers living in this district pay taxes to Mapoch?"
The writer then went on to remark that—
"We hear of Mapoch because he is strong enough to make a fight of it; but what of the countless small villages of kraal Kaffirs?"
He next related the cruel manner in which the Boers seize upon and sell the cattle of these poor people under the pretence of collecting taxes; and then he gives the reason why they are so unfairly treated—
"Because, during the war between the Boers and the English, these Kaffirs refused to act as

1735
spies for the Dutch, and offered to fight for the English, if permitted. From first to last, these Kaffirs were thoroughly loyal to the English., from whom they now reap their reward. These same Kaffirs came to me immediately after the surrender of the Transvaal to the Boers, and asked, Baas, we were told distinctly that the Dutch would never again have the country hack, that your great Chiefs had said so, that all we had to do was to he loyal to the English Government who would protect us. We were true to your Government, and we ask you now, Who has lied, Baas?"
THE EARL OF DERBY, in reply, said, the noble Lord seemed to have risen more for the purpose of supplying him with information than of asking him for information from the Government. With regard to the latter part of the statement read by the noble Lord, it seemed rather an argument against the retrocession of the Transvaal two years ago than against anything that had been done by the Government at the present time. He was not aware that it had ever been questioned that Mapoch did render important assistance to the English against the Boers during the war. It was quite true he did; but it was equally true that he then, and he certainly now, declined to consider himself subject to the authority of any Government. At the time when we administered the Transvaal he regarded himself as an independent Chief; and that was a contention which the Transvaal Government had never admitted. He (the Earl of Derby) could not say that, in those circumstances, the Boers were not right in taking steps to enforce what authority they possessed. Mapoch had made no appeal to Her Majesty's Government for support or assistance against the Boers. He was not able either to confirm or to contradict the report which his noble Friend had no doubt seen in Reuter's telegram in regard to the proposed terms of peace. If there was any question of peace between Mapoch and the Boers the Government would, no doubt, receive some information on the subject; but up to the present time they had none.

EAST INDIA—CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (NATIVE JURISDICTION OVER BRITISH SUBJECTS).

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, I rise, in pursuance of my Notice, to call attention to the recent action of the Government in India, with special refer-
  1736
  ence to its effect upon the status of the Native communities and upon their relation to the British Power. I have been told that the terms of this Notice are vague, and it is true that they are vague. I will at once explain the reason why. I do not wish to raise by it any single specific issue, or produce any single specific effect, upon the action of the Government in India; nor, apart from the earnest, but I hope fair, criticism of measures and principles that greatly alarm me, do I wish to say anything which should embarrass the noble Marquess now at the head of that Government (the Marquess of Ripon) in a task of which I well know by experience all the difficulties and all the anxieties. But, my Lords, I do wish—and this is all I wish—to give, as gravely and as temperately as I can, timely expression to the fears, by no means peculiar to myself, which have been aroused by what is now passing in India, and to induce, if possible, a consideration of them which will not, I think, be the less serviceable because it leads to no immediate action in this House. Parliament is clearly without the knowledge which could enable it to interfere with advantage in the precise details of Indian legislation, upon which it would, therefore, do well to abstain from expressing positive opinions. But it does not follow from this that Parliament ought, in either House, to be a merely silent and passive spectator of all proceedings on the part of the Government in India. Cases may arise—and the present is, I think, pre-eminently one of them—when it may be most expedient that the authorities in India should be plainly warned-not in a factious, but in a serious and in an honest spirit—by their well-wishers in this country and in this House, against dangers into which they are running, or into which they seem to be running. Now, I am anxious to point out certain dangers of this kind which are, I fear, being incurred, without any adequate appreciation of their magnitude, in the management of by far the greatest of all our national enterprizes. But I can truly say that no one will be more thankful than myself to find that my fears are unfounded, and that the policy undoubtedly indicated by the facts I am about to bring under your notice has not been seriously adopted. This policy may be described in three words. It is the

  1737
  policy of gradually transferring political power in India from European to Native hands. Numerous public declarations have lately been made, and various important measures announced, by the present Government of India, all tending in that direction, and all calculated to create that impression. But in referring to them I shall confine myself to two illustrations. The first is contained in a Resolution published by the Government of India last May; and the second is the proposed alteration in the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure, which is now profoundly agitating the whole European portion of the Indian community. I propose to deal with these two matters in the order in which I have mentioned them; and, first, as regards the Resolution of the 18th of May last. The subject of this Resolution is the introduction into India of local self-government, and the point to which I invite attention is not one of detail, but of general principle. I am, and always have been, in favour of the extension of local institutions in India to any degree which is compatible with, and can be made subservient to, the maintenance and support of the British power in that country. Much has been done for many years past in this direction, both by administrative Orders and by Acts of the Indian Legislature; and I am as far from saying that no more can or ought to be done in the same direction as I am from wishing to engage your Lordships in a detailed discussion of this or that particular measure for the purpose. I quite agree that to a great, and perhaps to an increasing extent, our Indian Empire must be governed through the agency of Natives, paid or unpaid, as it was certainly acquired, to a great extent, through the courage and discipline of Native soldiers. It is, however, one thing to admit and even to insist upon this, and it is quite another thing to wish to see the character of the Government of India fundamentally altered. That Government is an absolute Government. It has been so established by Act of Parliament. It is dependent, like all absolute Governments, partly on military force, partly on the support it derives from the acquiescence of a docile population which has daily experience of its benefits. Such, I believe, it must continue to be if it is to exist at all, and I look with the greatest apprehension
  1738
  on any attempts to change its nature. I listen with the deepest regret to all language used by the Head of it in his official character calculated to lead the Native populations of India to suppose that such a change is contemplated by the ruling Power. I must now ask leave to read two of the leading paragraphs of the Resolution in question. It contains many other expressions to the same purpose; but these two set in the clearest and strongest light the sentiment which pervades the whole. Paragraph 5 of that Resolution says—
  "At the outset the Governor General in Council must explain that in advocating the extension of local self-government and the adoption of this principle in the management of many local affairs he does not suppose that the work will be, in the first instance, better done than if it remained in the sole hands of the Government district officers. It is not primarily with a view to improvement in administration that this measure is put forward and supported. It is chiefly desirable as an instrument of popular political education. His Excellency in Council has himself no doubt that, as local knowledge and interest are brought to bear more fully upon local administration, improved efficiency will, in fact, follow. But at starting there will, doubtless, be many failures calculated to discourage exaggerated hopes, and even in somes cases to cast apparent discredit upon the principle of self-government itself."
  Paragraph 6 says—
  "It is not uncommonly asserted that the people of this country are themselves entirely indifferent to the principle of self-government; that they take but little interest in public matters; and that they prefer to have such affairs managed for them by Government officers. The Governor General in Council does not attach much value to this theory. It represents, no doubt, the point of view which commends itself to many active and well-intentioned district officers; and the people of India are, there can be equally no doubt, remarkably tolerant of existing facts. But as education advances, there is rapidly growing up all over the country an intelligent class of public-spirited men, whom it is not only bad policy, but sheer waste of power, to fail to utilize."
  And, at the conclusion of this paragraph, it is added that—
  "The Governor General in Council has no hesitation in stating his conviction that the only reasonable plan for the Government is to induce the people themselves to undertake, as far as may be, the management of their own affairs, and to develop or create, if need be, a capacity for self-help in regard to all matters that have not, for Imperial reasons, to be retained in the hands of the representatives of Government."
  Other parts of the Resolution contain a series of directions as to the spirit in which these principles are to be applied.

  1739
  All over India a network of Local Boards is to be established, with a large preponderance of non-official members. They are to be constituted, wherever it is possible, by popular election. Honorary distinctions are to be given to their members, and the district officers of the Government are, as a rule, to be excluded from them; though these officers are to exercise some sort of external control by way of previous sanction in some cases, and by interference "in the event of gross and continued neglect of any important duty." Now, the first and most important point to be noticed here is the nature of the ground taken up. The measure is not intended to improve the administration of local affairs. An admission that this will not be its first effect, at all events, is made in the most pointed way. Its object is something quite different and much broader. "It is chiefly desirable as an instrument of political education." There may be failures; but—
  "If the officers of Government only set themselves, as the Governor General in Council believes they will, to foster sedulously the small beginnings of independent political life; if they accept loyally and as their own the policy of the Government; and if they come to realize that the system really opens to them a fairer field for the exercise of administrative tact and directive energy than the more autocratic system which it supersedes, then"—
  Well, what then? One is led to expect the announcement of some sort of Millennium; but no such thing—"then it may be hoped that the period of failures will be short"—surely a rather meagre conclusion to draw from so laboured an introduction. My Lords, every line of this passage suggests to my mind topics so vast—I may say so momentous—that it would be impossible, in the limited time in which I should be justified in claiming your Lordships' attention, to do justice to any one of them. But I must ask you to remember that this is part of a document addressed by one of the most powerful Governments in the world to, perhaps, 200,000,000 persons accustomed to look up to their Rulers with a reverence and submission of which we in Europe have almost lost the tradition, and to attach an almost superstitious importance to all that is deliberately said to them by the immediate Representative of their Empress. What suggestions must these words convey to every one of those 200,000,000 who can
  1740
  read them, or get them explained to him by others? A change is to be made affecting every one of their daily relations with the ruling Power. The old system to which they are accustomed is to be superseded. A new system, of which they have no experience, is to be established. Business is not to be done as well as formerly; it is, indeed, to be done a good deal worse; but this is in order to attain a great end—an end so great as to be even more important than good administration. And what is that object? "Political and popular education"—not school education, but "political and popular education." "The small beginnings of independent political life" are to be sedulously cherished, and the officers of the Government are instructed to make every effort to "induce the people themselves to undertake the management of their own affairs." I do not press the noble Earl the Secretary of State for India to tell us specifically what these utterances actually mean. I hope they may have been merely well-meant, though ill-judged, rhetoric. But there can be no doubt as to what they will be taken to mean all over India by men of all races and of all classes. There they will be universally understood as the expression of a wish, on the part of the Government of India, to establish throughout India, as early as possible, a system of representative Native government, and as a solemn charge to all Indian officials, from the very highest to the very lowest, to throw themselves heart and soul into this project under pain of the severe displeasure of the Governor General in Council. Now, my Lords, it is, of course, essential that the Viceroy of India should be able not only to give orders, but to compel obedience to his orders; but a Viceroy's power over the prospects and cherished objects of all the authorities under him is so great that he holds most significant and almost menacing language when he tells them officially that they are expected to adopt his views as their own, and that the independent opinion of men necessarily his superiors in Indian experience is regarded by him only as "a theory to which he attaches no great importance." But what gives special significance to this injunction is that the object of it is here officially stated in so many words to be "that the people may be induced to undertake, as far as may

  1741
  be, the management of their own affairs." Will not this be read as meaning—nay, ought it not to be read as meaning—"We, the English Government in India, feel ourselves in a false position, from which we wish to extricate ourselves as quickly as possible? We must, no doubt, hold Office for a certain time in order to train up you Natives to take our places; but this is our only object. As soon as it is accomplished—and the sooner the better—we shall retire and leave India to be governed by whatever Body her Native Representative Assemblies may see fit to entrust with the task of government." This is the plain meaning of the announcement; and, as a matter of fact, it is, I find, the meaning generally, and not unnaturally, attributed to it by the Native Press in India. It may not be, and I trust it has not been, the intention as well as the meaning of it. But in that case the language I have quoted was surely unfortunate and imprudent, for it is calculated to convey a totally false impression as to the real position and purpose of the ruling Power, and to excite expectations incapable of being realized. On the other hand, if the words I have quoted were really and seriously used with this, or with anything like this intention, I apprehend that in so using them the noble Marquess now at the head of the Government of India has so far exceeded the powers conferred upon him by his high Office—an Office in which I do not doubt that he is animated by the most benevolent dispositions and the best possible intentions. But, my Lords, if it is determined to establish popular representative government in India instead of the government already established there by numerous Acts of Parliament, this step ought to be taken only by Parliament itself, on a full consideration of the momentous questions involved in it. It is far too high a matter to be left to the discretion of any Viceroy in Council for the time being. My Lords, of Parliamentary government in general I will say only one thing. I think that we ought to be on our guard against making an idol of it by inferring from its undoubted services to our own country its invariable fitness for all others. Even among ourselves it is not quite an unmixed good. Party is inseparable from it, and Party warfare is not favourable to deliberate political wisdom. On the other hand,
  1742
  of absolute government, as it exists in India, I will also say but one thing. This form of government is as well fitted for India as Parliamentary government is fitted for England, and for the same reasons. It is the natural result of causes which may be traced far back in the history of the country where it exists. It is the form of government to which the Natives of that country have always been accustomed, which they expect, understand, and submit to without the least reluctance, so long as it is well administered; and it has, in fact, been, and is being, administered with as much attention to the interests of those whom it affects, as much purity, and as much success, as any government in the world. If you will but desist from attempting, in the name of political education, to excite against it the dissatisfaction of its Native subjects, it has also as good a chance, if not a better chance, of permanence as any other government in the world. This Resolution observes, with truth, that the Natives of India are "remarkably tolerant of existing facts;" and of all the existing facts, of which they are remarkably tolerant, the British Government, as it stands, is one of the most prominent, the most important, and the most beneficent. Why, then, should the British Government go out of its way to stimulate and stir up—I may almost say to irritate and worry—its Indian subjects into a less tolerant attitude towards it—an attitude of chronic discontent and dissatisfaction, which they would not feel if left alone, and then to embody the discontent thus artificially created in institutions which they do not understand or wish for? I am sorry to say it; but really the only intelligible motive for so extraordinary a policy is a wish to introduce into India by artificial means that restless, dissatisfied, and intolerant spirit, which here in England we call Radicalism. The Resolution says, no doubt, that—
  "As education advances, there is rapidly growing up all over the country an intelligent class of public-spirited men, whom it is not only bad policy, but sheer waste of power, not to utilize."
  But, my Lords, the proper way to utilize this intelligent class is not to withdraw them from British supervision, whilst, at the same time, assigning to them unaccustomed tasks in which you actually expect them, to make administrative

  1743
  failures, but to employ them in posts where, under official control and guidance, they would themselves form a recognized and honourable part of the established Government. No one who really knows and understands them can doubt that they would infinitely prefer positions of trust and profit in the service of the existing Government to unofficial positions outside of it which would impose upon them much labour and could bring them no profit, unless they yielded to the temptations which would certainly beset them of jobbing and taking bribes. My Lords, I am well aware of the commonplaces about the educational influence of local institutions; but I own I attach as little value to that theory as the Governor General in Council attaches to the opinion of his district officers. I do not believe that any people in the world ever were, or ever will or can be, educated in this manner. The opinion that in England parish vestries have been the great instruments of national political education I believe to be utterly unfounded. Whatever may have been the germs from which, in remote antiquity, the first developments were made towards national unity, all that we now understand by local government was the direct work of Parliament—work performed not for the purpose of politically educating the country, but of getting some part of its business done in the way most congenial to its settled character and habits. Many, indeed, of our local institutions—as, for instance, Municipal Corporations and School Boards—have been simply transfers of large portions of political power from one set of institutions to another. They were the results of the political education which the country had received from the course of events; they were not the authors, they were not the instruments, of that education. The political education given by a Government to the people governed by it must always depend on what the one has to teach and the other to learn. The British Government in India is teaching, and has to teach, a great many other lessons to the people of India than how to raise rates and spend them on objects of local importance. It has to teach, and they have to learn, the very first principles of civilization, order, and prosperity. Great progress has been made in teaching these elementary lessons; and perhaps
  1744
  the greatest, though the least sanguinary, of all physical, intellectual, moral, and religious revolutions ever known in the world has been set going in India by the influence of the English Government. European knowledge is cutting the Native religions into pieces. European law is giving to Native morals a totally new standard. European science is altering nearly every circumstance of Native life; and the peace and order which has been introduced throughout the whole of that vast territory has enormously increased both the population and its means of subsistence. In one point of view, nothing can be better calculated to excite just pride and satisfaction, and no more impressive answer can be given to those who lament or condemn our relations with India than by pointing to these beneficial results of it. But, on the other hand, they suggest most serious reflections. Peace has its miseries and its anxieties no less than war; and when we think of the exuberant population of India, of its vast trade growing with almost fabulous rapidity, of the moral and religious revolution in progress there, I, for one, am obliged to believe that the problems lying at no great distance ahead of us are as much more formidable than those which have been solved by our Predecessors, as a social revolution is more formidable than a foreign war. How are these huge multitudes to be employed, and protected from famine and disease, from themselves, and their own proclivities? These questions are already dimly shaping themselves on the horizon of our power. I do not view the solution of them with fear. I do not doubt that the qualities and resources which have dealt successfully with the simpler and rougher problems of the past will, if they are exerted with undiminished sincerity and vigour, be found able to cope with the more subtle difficulties of the future. But of two things I am firmly convinced. One is that bad administration, oven if by good luck it lasts only for a short time, is an evil so overwhelming and gigantic that no speculative advantages—such as political education—can for a moment be set in the balance against it. For what does bad administration mean in India? It means distress and disease and disorder; famine, cholera, and small-pox; the decay of civilization and the revival

  1745
  of barbarism. The other thing of which I am at least equally sure is that in India good administration must come from above. It cannot come from below. The Indian peasant perfectly understands that the Government must keep an Army and establish Courts of Justice; but he does not understand that sanitation and education and road-making are also administrative duties. This is quite a new, and it is even an unintelligible, idea to him. Entrust to his uncontrolled initiative the doing of such duties, and they will remain undone. In India all improvements of this kind have originated with the Government, and for all such purposes the district officers, practically, are the Government. Hence it is, my Lords, that the one condition which in India makes good administration possible, the articulus stantis aid cadentis imperii, is the full maintenance of the unimpaired power and authority of the district officers. These officers are both the eyes and the hands of the Government. In time of famine, for instance, the efficiency, the resource, the presence of mind, of a district magistrate may be literally a matter of life or death to thousands upon thousands of human beings. I speak of what I know by any own experience, and have seen with my own eyes. No body of men in the world ever conferred more splendid benefits upon any community than the district officers have conferred upon India. Unless I am utterly mistaken, the part which they will have to play in a time not far distant will be even more important than it has hitherto been. But now, in the most transitional, and, perhaps, the most critical period of our Indian Empire, we learn that the direct action of these officers is to be laid aside. The old "autocratic system"—that is to say, the system they have worked with such magnificent success—is to be superseded. A new system, which excludes their initiative and diminishes their authority, is to be established in its place. I can expect no one who has not personal knowledge of India altogether to understand how ominous these words appear to me. This new system, which is to supersede the direct authority of the district officers, and educate the Natives of India to do eventually without British supervision at all, how is it to be worked? In Bengal, we are told,
  1746
  it is to be worked by the Bengalee peasants, and that smaller class of Bengalees who are described as the educated men. Mr. Macaulay, the Government Secretary entrusted with the exposition of the new policy in the local Legislature, has officially described these two classes. The Bengalee peasant, he says, takes a keen interest in the affairs of his own village and its immediate neighbourhood, but knows and cares nothing about politics or representation, and has no idea of giving his time to the management of the affairs of other people. The educated Bengalees, a class which, as we know, consists of journalists and pleaders, have "political enthusiasm," the precise nature of which is not specifically explained, though I must say that such specimens of it as I have seen in the Native Press or elsewhere do not lead me to admire or trust in. Mr. Macaulay, however, explains that—
  "What we require is to establish a touch between the educated member of the Local Board with political enthusiasm, but without much local knowledge or interest, and the member of the Village Union Committee, with local knowledge and interest, but without political enthusiasm."
  I hope I do not lay myself open to the charge of cynical scepticism when I avow that I have no faith at all in either of the two elements which are here indicated as the sources of political education for the people of Bengal. To ascribe to a number of superficially educated Bengalee pleaders or journalists that sort of political enthusiasm which would prompt them to devote themselves, as intellectual missionaries, to the profitless task of leading selfish, ignorant, narrow-minded peasants to recognize by degrees the working of general principles in the detailed administration of the revenues of pounds and ferries, is simply dull romance. It is not, in the most remote degree, founded upon fact. But the most serious thing is the effect which the new system, as it is called, will have upon the district officers. They are told that—?
  "The system really opens to them a field fitter for the exercise of administrative tact and directive energy than the more autocratic system which it supersedes."
  What does that mean? As matters stand, the magistrates of a district put the law in force through the whole of it; and, having the power to keep their

  1747
  district in proper order, they are held responsible for its being out of order. If, instead of giving the orders which the present law enables them to give, they are to be confined to "administrative tact and directive energy," in other words—as relates to a great part of their functions—to wheedling these independent Local Boards and preaching political sermons to them—they will be placed in an entirely new position, and their work will suffer accordingly. The vigorous magistrate will continually find himself thwarted by the prejudices of ignorant, narrow-minded peasants, set against him by the political enthusiasm of the showy and shallow flatterers, who are to be so carefully stirred into activity. The inefficient magistrates will be only too happy to excuse their own shortcomings by the system of divided responsibility now to be introduced. If cholera prevails, if education languishes, if proper precautions are not taken against famine, an admirable excuse will always be available—it is all the fault of the Local Boards. You will be told that the district officer was so sedulously engaged in fostering the small beginnings of popular political life, and inducing the Natives of his district to take the administration of its affairs into their own hands, that he had neither the time, nor the power, nor the permission to manage those affairs himself. What is worse, the excuse will not merely be always ready, it will be true in fact. The real belief of probably the vast mass of the Indian peasantry is that life is only just worth living, and not by any means worth taking much trouble about; that the evils sent by the unseen Powers ought to be borne with resignation, and that it is certainly extremely troublesome, and probably rather impious, to try to remove them. It must never be forgotten that in India the Government is the improving agency, and its district officers the local channels and instruments of its improving influence. In whatever degree the district officers are reduced from power to persuasion, to that extent there will be impediment, delay, and paralysis in the application of all the means by which the lives of the enormous multitudes called into existence by our policy can be made tolerably comfortable. My Lords, I will say no more about this Resolution, except that there are some statements in it with
  1748
  which I am happy to say I feel able to agree. I fully assent to what is said in it as to the arduous nature of the duties of the district officers, and the importance of relieving them from part of their work. Local institutions, worked by Natives, are no novelty in India; and so long as they are auxiliary to the authority of the district officers, and not a substitute for it, I see no harm in their extension. I now pass to another subject closely related to the one I have thus far been considering. I refer to the Bill for the amendment of the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure. It has already excited so much discussion, both in India and in England, that I need not go into the details of it at length. I will only remind your Lordships of the leading points. The Company's Courts, so-called, were originally instituted for the administration of criminal justice among the Natives of India according to Native, and especially according to Mahomedan, law. The King's Courts were established for the administration of criminal justice according to the law of England in the Presidency towns. Their jurisdiction covered all persons and cases in which Europeans were accused throughout the Presidencies where they are situated. The Criminal Law itself was made uniform for all persons by the Penal Code of 1861. The Criminal Courts continued to be, and still are, different according to the race of the accused person. At one time it was considered, and no doubt was, a great scandal, that practical impunity was secured to European criminals in many parts of the country by the circumstance that no Courts had jurisdiction over them except those of Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay. To some extent this grievance was remedied by giving criminal jurisdiction over Europeans to the High Court at Agra, now removed to Allahabad, and to the Chief Court of the Punjab. A larger step in the same direction was taken in 1872, upon the re-enactment of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Jurisdiction over Europeans for all minor offences was then given to Sessions Judges and magistrates of the first class being themselves European British subjects. This change was not objected to by the European population. It worked perfectly well for 10 years; and when, a year ago—namely, in March, 1882—the Code of Criminal

  1749
  Procedure was re-enacted for the third time, with certain alterations suggested by experience, no alteration was made in this part of its provisions, though they had been the subject of a good deal of discussion in 1872. There was literally only one person who had any observations to make upon the subject. This was a Bengal civilian, Mr. Gupta. He suggested that jurisdiction over European British subjects ought no longer to be confined to Judges and magistrates who were themselves European British subjects. My honourable and esteemed friend, Sir Ashley Eden, then Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, transmitted this note to the Government of India with an expression of his own agreement with it. But he did not do this till the Code of Criminal Procedure had passed; and as he is not alleged to have made any suggestion on the subject while the Code was under consideration, though his opinion must then, according to the usual course of Indian legislation, have been asked and given, the Government of India might well, I think, have let the matter rest. My Lords, having mentioned the name of Sir Ashley Eden, I cannot refrain from expressing my surprise at the imputation apparently cast upon that able and experienced officer, in a recent speech by Lord Ripon, of having gratuitously and carelessly thrust upon the Government of India unavoidable obligations in regard to this measure, without warning them of its probable unpopularity. It is undoubtedly true that Sir Ashley Eden recommended the careful consideration of Mr. Gupta's suggestion "on some future occasion, if a fitting opportunity occurred." But I believe, in the first place, that his action, so far from being gratuitous, was the result of communications previously made to him on behalf of the Government itself; and, in the next place, that he had the best reasons for believing Lord Ripon to be fully aware of the extreme delicacy of interference with the privileges of Europeans in India; while, on the other hand, he had no reason whatever to suppose that the Government of India would deem it either fitting or opportune to push forward this Bill immediately on the back of those other and more sweeping measures to which I have already referred, and which had already laid in the mind
  1750
  of the European community long trains of suspicion, alarm, and resentment, peculiarly inflammable by such a spark as this. But, be that as it may, my Lords, it is surely an unusual course for a Viceroy of India to throw the blame of unpopular measures upon his subordinates, however distinguished those subordinates may be. It seems, however, that the Government of India, for reasons of their own, resolved to take the matter up, not on some future and more fitting occasion, but at once. And they submitted it for opinion to the various Local Governments, with a strong indication of their own views. The Local Governments thus appealed to acquiesced; and to the introduction of the Bill the assent of the Secretary of State for India was then given, also in strong terms—terms which I think unfortunate, apart from the merits of the question, because they may, perhaps, be regarded as putting some difficulty in the way of the noble Earl the present Secretary of State, when he has to consider the degree of importance to be attached to the feelings since then expressed by the European community upon the subject. My Lords, I admit that if tills subject is looked at exclusively from the official point of view, and with reference to no feelings but those of the Native civilians, the proposed change would, so far as it goes, be a proper one. It would render the functions of the judicial officers in India slightly more symmetrical in one particular. It would, no doubt, be satisfactory to a natural feeling on the part of Mr. Gupta, and perhaps of some few other persons similarly situated. From this point of view, the only objection to the change is that it strains at a gnat and leaves camels to be swallowed. If it is an anomaly that Mr. Gupta should not be able to try a European at all, it is surely as great, perhaps even a greater anomaly, that he will not be able to sentence him to more than a year's imprisonment, when he can sentence a Native to death. But to look solely at the feelings of the Judge in matters of this sort is, I think, to look at them from a totally wrong point of view. The important person in such matters is not the Judge, but the prisoner. My Lords, in these days, when everything is liable to alteration, it may possibly happen that some day your

  1751
  Lordships' right to be tried by your Peers may, perhaps, be challenged. But when that happens—if it ever does happen—I venture to think that those who might then object to that right as an anomaly would scarcely be wise in resting their case upon a picture of one of the Judges of the High Court, writhing under the humiliation of being forbidden to try a Peer of the Realm for picking a pocket. Yet this, or something like this, is the sole reason given for a measure which has produced in India a state of feeling among the European population of which I do not think the importance can be overrated. I am bound to say that on one point the importance of the measure itself does not appear to mo overrated by those who are now protesting against it. I am not surprised that Englishmen and women, living in a country where false charges, supported by artful perjury, are the commonest means of annoyance, intimidation, and extortion, and where they occupy a position necessarily isolated and necessarily invidious, should attach importance to a trial before a Judge who knows their language and understands their feelings and sentiments—an importance which may appear excessive to those who have not their experience on the subject. But that is not the point of view from which I wish to direct your Lordships' attention to this unhappy measure, which, for no adequate reason, has given bitter and deep offence to the whole European community in India, and especially to the unofficial portion of it. What has made the most impression on my mind is this—that in whatever degree it may be proved that the present complaints of the Europeans are extravagant and excessive, in that same degree does it follow that the violence of their language and the depth of their feelings must be ascribed to some other and more far-reaching cause. And, my Lords. I fear that cause is clearly indicated in the strength of their impression—an impression which has become at last irresistible—that the new policy illustrated by the Resolution I have already discussed—a policy by which for the last 12 months the present Government of India has been endeavouring to alter fundamentally the political status of the Native population, and their relation both to the ruling Power and the ruling race
  1752
  —is a policy unfavourable to their interest as Europeans, indifferent to their sentiments, and calculated to mortify, to humiliate, and to depress them. My Lords, India is the last place in the world where matters of feeling, or questions affecting the privileges and sentiments of races, ought to be disregarded. To order cartridges to be greased may be a little thing; but we know by experience it may have considerable con-sequences. The non-official Europeans in India are, as a class, inferior in importance only to the official and military Europeans. The only way of solving the prodigious problems to which I have alluded as arising from the immense growth of population consequent upon peace and good administration is by the growth of commerce and agriculture—that is to say, by the application of capital to enterprise and industry. The capital with which this is to be done is almost entirely English. The persons by whom its application is actually managed are also almost entirely English. For the Government of India to be on bad terms with, or to be distrusted by, the unofficial Europeans in India is like a quarrel in business between partners whose interests are identical, and who are bound together by the strongest ties of self-preservation. Unwelcome as the fact may be to certain theorists, it is a fact which asserts itself at every turn that the men who are now rapidly enriching India by the cultivation of tea, coffee, indigo, and cinchona, by the manufacture of jute, the working of mines, and, the construction of railroads, are not the equals, but, the superiors, of the races benefited by their capital, and governed by their countrymen. And it is another fact of equal importance that this inequality is recognized by the Natives of India as a just, a natural, and a necessary inequality. In that land of castes, divided races, and conflicting creeds, the dominant caste of White men excites, as such, probably less opposition and active dislike than any other. The political equality, which is the aim and the boast of European democracy, is not only unknown to the Natives of India, but it is repugnant to their feelings, and condemned by their religious authorities. The whole organization of Native Indian life is based on inequality. Our own Government of India is also founded on a wise recognition of this inevit-

  1753
  able inequality. If you now place it on any other foundation, or administer it by any other principle, you may be certain that, as soon as your new system begins to bear fruit, the unofficial Europeans will leave India, and take their capital out of the country. Indeed, I noticed the other day a letter in a well-known paper, The Pall Mall Gazette, a letter from a gentleman who, disliking the indigo planters, expressed his hope that this Bill may become law, because he feels sure that in that case it will have the effect of driving them out of Bengal. The guarantee which our countrymen in India demand, and legitimately demand, for safety of their lives, their property, and their personal liberty is, that the country should be ruled by English people, and they themselves be governed by English law, administered in the main by English Judges. My Lords, I cannot too earnestly urge the impolicy, the folly, the danger—I might say the madness—of needlessly provoking the public discussion of these bitter and burning topics. Although, as the Governor General observes, the Natives of India are singularly tolerant of existing facts, they are quite capable of being lashed into fury against the Europeans; and although the Europeans are, as a rule, more or less indifferent to measures which do not immediately and directly affect their position, they are, as the present agitation shows, passionately, if not in every respect reasonably, attached to their privileges. Surely, in these circumstances, the removal of grievances which nobody feels, or anomalies which nobody perceives, is not a fit occupation for Indian statesmen. I do not say that the state of things I have described is an ideal one. There is much in it that is invidious. But it is the state of things you have to deal with in India; and the only practical question is—"What is the best way of dealing with it?" My Lords, there are two ways. One of them is to endeavour to place the Europeans and Natives on a footing of absolute equality by abolishing all laws and privileges that recognize any distinction between them. The other is to take things as they are in good part. To punish any proved act of injustice, and redress any serious practical grievance, if such a grievance can be shown to exist. But to avoid all language, and abstain from all action, likely to force
  1754
  into prominence inequalities you cannot remove. The first of these two policies appears to me unwise to an extent I will not venture to characterize. The second is, I think, commended to our common sense by the mere statement of it. And if I am asked what I should admit to be a serious practical grievance, I point at once to the grievance which, in this very matter, was removed by the Indian legislation of 1872, without any resentment on the part of those who were affected by the removal of it. Again, if you ask me what I mean by a proved act of injustice, I will take an illustration from my own recollections. I remember, my Lords, that the first instance in which I myself incurred considerable unpopularity in India was a case in which it appeared to me that the provisions of the law as they stood had not been employed as fully as they might have been, and as I thought they ought to have been, for the punishment of a European who had caused the death of a Native. But, except in very rare instances of this kind, when there is, at least, a strong primâ facie ground for believing that there has been a miscarriage of justice, I think you cannot too carefully avoid occasions of provoking, in India, the discussion of topics that tend to inflame the passions of separate races. And the fault I do impute to the present Government of India is that it has, on numerous occasions, used language, and that, in all matters affecting the future relations between Natives and Europeans, it has adopted and proclaimed with great parade a policy, certain soon or late to provoke, as it has provoked, and is still provoking, a most passionate discussion of such topics; a discussion in which I am afraid much has already been said on both sides that will not soon be forgotten upon either. My Lords, one last word upon this question of anomalies, and I have done. Anomalies are inseparable from our presence in India. When you have made all the alterations now proposed in the privileges and the rights of Europeans in India, their position there in relation to judicial matters will still be as anomalous as it is in China and Japan, in Turkey and Egypt. But if anyone believes that our position in. India was acquired, and can only be maintained, by disregard of the elementary principles of morals, to such a

  1755
  person all our Indian institutions must, no doubt, present themselves in the light of revolting anomalies. To those who hold this view of our great Indian enterprize I have only one word to say—Leave it alone. A system which you regard as founded upon fraud and maintained by oppression can never come to good in your hands. You are attempting an impossible task. Imitate the honourable example of Mr. Bright, who once, I believe, declined the Secretaryship of State for India, because he could not place himself at the head of a military enterprize. I do not suppose, and I do not wish to imply, that views of this kind, which are openly avowed by Mr. Bright, but which could not be openly avowed with impunity by persons actually engaged in the government of India, are now being secretly harboured by such persons, with the intention of carrying them out in disguise, through measures introduced as inaugurations of a great political principle, and then explained away as mere removals of insignificant administrative anomalies. But, for that very reason, I am convinced that the authors of this unfortunate Bill cannot be indifferent to the alarm, amounting to panic, which it has caused. The measure involves no general principle which can be generally applied; it is not intended to redress any serious grievances; nor does it remove any anomaly deserving of serious notice. It is officially described as a small measure. But, my Lords, the alarm and resentment provoked by it are by no means small. If it was not intended to provoke them, is it worth while to prolong and increase them? Would it not be the part of wise and firm men—men strong and just enough to acknowledge a venial error—were the authors of this Bill now to say frankly—"Since you, the un-official Europeans, attach such unexpected importance to a privilege not considered important by us, it shall never be said that the Government of India preferred the introduction of Party spirit into India, and the stirring up of bitter feelings between its Native and European subjects, to the abandonment of a measure not intended to produce any great results, and the reconsideration of a policy which seems likely to produce results very much greater and graver than any which were originally contemplated in the adoption of it?"
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I do not in the slightest degree complain of the noble Earl, either on account of the tone in which he has treated an important subject, or for having taken an opportunity to bring it before the House. I entirely agree with him as to the great importance of our giving our attention to the policy that is being pursued in India, and also as to the great interest of the topics to which attention has been called; and I most fully agree with him as to the necessity for caution in dealing with that vast Empire. All I wish is that the task of defending the policy of my noble Friend (the Marquess of Ripon) was in the hands of one who had had greater experience of Indian affairs, and who could speak with greater authority than I can command. I shall have to trespass for some little time upon your Lordships' attention, because it will be my duty to answer the noble Earl in some detail. I will refer to the two subjects of local self-government and the Criminal Procedure Bill. "With regard to the measure for local self-government in India, I cannot help thinking that the noble Earl, fastening upon three or four words of this Resolution in May last of the Government of India, has conjured up to his own view, and that of your Lordships, a bugbear which does not exist. The noble Earl has told us that he apprehends that the Government of India contemplates the introduction of representative and Parliamentary institutions into India. If any such thing were contemplated, I should not be surprised at the noble Earl's alarm. But if the Government of India contemplated taking steps for the introduction of such a change, they would not think of doing so without first obtaining the consent of Her Majesty's Government and of Parliament. I may say, however, that no such intention exists in the mind of my noble Friend (the Marquess of Ripon). Look at the words in the Resolution which have so frightened the noble Earl. The Resolution says that the measure is chiefly desirable as "an instrument of political education;" and the officers of the Government are bade "to foster sedulously the small beginnings of independent political life." In one sense every local institution which is to be worked by itself is a beginning of political life.

  1757
  Everything, however small, is political, and in that sense it would be impossible to give the Natives any share whatever n government without making a beginning, as regards them, of political local life. But the assertion that this is but a step to pave the way to the introduction of Parliamentary institutions is one that I most emphatically deny, and is a construction of his words which my noble Friend never intended them to bear. I now come to what I perfectly admit is a most important policy, as shadowed forth in this Resolution. I hold that in dealing with an Empire such as India, perhaps one of the most important principles to be observed is not suddenly to introduce some entirely new policy, but to build carefully upon old foundations; and if I can show, as I think I can, that the Viceroy in this policy is merely following upon the steps of his Predecessors, and building upon foundations they have laid, I can somewhat calm the fears of the noble Earl. Let me first refer to the previous movements in this direction. I have here an interesting extract from a Resolution passed by the Government presided over by Lord Lawrence, who I do not suppose will be considered a person likely to take any rash or ill-considered views. On the 31st of August, 1864, the Resolution from which the following extract is taken was passed by the Government of India:—
  "One of the greatest advantages of this mode of providing for the police of towns is that it renders necessary the creation of a Municipality and a municipal fund; and although the application of this fund is obligatory to the extent of the cost of the police, beyond that limit its appropriation to Conservancy improvement, education, &c, is at the discretion of the municipal authorities. Great public benefit is to be expected from the firm establishment of a system of municipal administration in India. Neither the Central Government nor the Local Governments are capable of providing either the funds or the executive agency for making the improvements of various kinds in all the cities and towns of India which are demanded by the rapidly developing wealth of the country. The people of India are quite capable of administering their own affairs. The municipal feeling is deeply rooted in them. The village communities, each of which is a little republic, are the most abiding of Indian institutions. Holding the position we do in India, every view of duty and policy should induce us to leave as much as possible of the business of the country to be done by the people."
  This Resolution is signed by Lord Law-
  1758
  rence, a man who, above all others, was distinguished for his knowledge of India and of the Indian Races; and does the noble Earl suppose that he would have been guilty of the extreme indiscretion now attributed to Lord Ripon's Resolution of publishing to the people of India that they were quite capable of governing themselves? But it was Lord Lawrence's opinion that it was our duty to leave as much as possible of the business of the country to be done by the people themselves. This policy is also in accordance with the view taken by Lord William Bentinck and Lord Auckland, and Lord Canning attempted to give effect to it in 1861 and 1862. Their words go just as far as the Resolution of the present Viceroy, which has been so much censured. Then I have another quotation to make which contains the opinions of a Viceroy whom, I am sure, the noble Earl must look upon with respect. Lord Mayo, who was one of the best Governor Generals who ever ruled India, and who, when establishing the system of allotting to the Provincial Government certain sums from the Imperial Revenue, took the first steps which led to the foundation of the existing system of municipal administration, said, in a despatch written on December 14, 1870, that the operation of the Resolution passed by his Government would afford opportunities for the development of self-government, and for strengthening municipal institutions, and associating Europeans and Natives in the administration of affairs. He added that he was aware of the difficulties of carrying such a scheme into operation, and was prepared for partial failures; but the object being "the instruction of many people and races in a good system of administration," he felt that the Local Governments and all their subordinates would endeavour to enlist the sympathies and co-operation of many classes which had hitherto taken no part in the administration of public affairs. Anyone who will read the Resolution of the present Viceroy, and compare it with the Resolutions of Lord Lawrence and Lord Mayo, will find that the Resolution of my noble Friend, as regards principle, is but a repetition of the principle already recognized by those Viceroys. I do not understand how anyone can shut his eyes to the fact that the policy which my noble Friend is pursuing is the

  1759
  old settled policy of many Viceroys, and that the principles which he has brought forward are the principles which have been entertained by the Government of India for many years. But my noble Friend, in acting as he has done, has acted not merely with the view of educating the people of India. There was also a practical reason for the course he took. Bear in mind these words which occur in his Resolution—
  "The task of administration is yearly becoming more onerous as the country progresses in civilization and material prosperity. The annual Reports of every Government tell of an ever-increasing burden laid upon the shoulders of the local officers. The cry is everywhere for increased establishments. The universal complaint in all Departments is that of overwork. Under these circumstances, it becomes imperatively necessary to look around for some means of relief; and the Governor General in Council has no hesitation in stating his conviction that the only reasonable plan is to induce the people themselves to undertake, as far as may be, the management of their own affairs."
  The noble Earl said a great deal about the loss of position which, according to him, will be suffered by the district officers; but the very essence of the present scheme is to give assistance to these officers, and there is no intention to set them aside. I entirely agree that the district officers should have very considerable responsibility still as to the local work of their districts. It will be their duty to review the action of the Local Bodies, to check them when they are going wrong, and to insist that the work should be done. It would, of course, be a very unwise policy to determine to hand over the whole local administration of the country to Bodies which are yet untried. The noble Earl said that the Marquess of Ripon attached no importance to the value of the opinion of the local officers. But, as a matter of fact, nothing could have exceeded the caution of my noble Friend the Governor General; and, as the noble Earl will see, when the Papers which he apparently could not wait for are made public, his first step was to discuss the proposed change with the local officers themselves. Among the well-known names of Indian officials who have stated their approval of the principle of the proposal are Sir Ashley Eden; Mr. Rivers Thompson; Lieutenant Governor of Bengal; Sir Charles Aitchison, of the Punjaub; Sir Alfred Lyall, of the North-West Provinces; Mr.
  1760
  Morris, the Administrator of the Central Provinces; and Mr. Bernard, the Chief Commissioner of Burmah. Here are six of the most distinguished men in India, who, though, no doubt, holding different opinions as to the details of the measure, have yet pledged themselves to the principle of an extension of local government. But the noble Earl himself has said to-day that he is in favour of a cautious and wise extension of local institutions, provided that they are co-operative and auxiliary, and not independent of the Government. We propose nothing further. It is precisely what we are doing. To show that the Government in India is conscious of the necessity of keeping in view the circumstances of each district, I may state that instructions are given that each particular Province and district shall have such institutions as are best adapted to its condition. The noble Earl's view seemed to be that there are two conflicting and contending policies—the one the Democratic, the other the Autocratic—and he seems to think we mean to set aside the Autocratic form. If he means that the Government should be entirely Autocratic, I think that would be a3 unsafe in India as elsewhere. I repeat that there is no intention to change the Government of India into a Representative Government. The policy which is being pursued is one, the principle of which has been followed for years past, of admitting the Natives more and mere to a share in the administration of the affairs of their country. Ever since the Mutiny, successive Governments, successive Secretaries of State, and successive Viceroys have introduced more and more the Natives of India into the management, not only of small village affairs, but of offices and very important functions of all kinds in the Empire. Surely you cannot build from the top and have no basis. Are you to bring together the most able men at the summit of your Government and make no use whatever of those humbler members of the community who might assist you? I am, I may assure your Lordships, in favour of cautious advance, whether in this or in any other matter; and I believe the Marquess of Ripon also to contemplate a wise and cautious advance upon the lines already laid down. I believe he is taking this step at a moment when a fresh step is demanded;

  1761
  and I feel confident he will obtain the support of Parliament in the course he is pursuing, as he will receive the cordial and continual support of Her Majesty's Government. The next subject to which the noble Earl referred was the Criminal Procedure Bill; and I think it is to be lamented that this measure has evoked such a strong feeling among the European population in India—fears which I think are unfounded. To explain this matter it is necessary to state what the nature of the measure is, because there has certainly been a great deal of exaggeration connected with it. The peculiarity of this Bill is that it gives jurisdiction to Natives, and I am not to be understood as forgetting that in the observations I am about to make; but what I desire to show your Lordships is that the Government of India have not suddenly adopted some now course, but that they have really been acting in accordance with views held by previous Governments. Tour Lordships are, no doubt, aware that there was a time when Europeans in both civil and criminal matters were subject only to the High Courts; but in 1836, for the first time, they were made subject, as regards civil actions, to the Companies' Courts. I mention this, because it bears on the matter so far as excitement on the part of the Europeans is concerned. Your Lordships must be familiar with the account of what then took place in the well-known Life of Lord Macaulay. The alarm and excitement were then great; it was said that perjury and false accusation would prevail; that no man's property would be safe, and that it would be impossible for Europeans to remain in the country. However, the Act was passed; the Courts have ever since administered justice in civil causes to Europeans as well as Natives, and no one now thinks of complaining. As long since as 1849, when Lord Dalhousie was Governor General, a Bill was brought forward to entirely abolish the exemption of Europeans from the criminal jurisdiction of magistrates in the Provinces, and it did not provide that all the magistrates exercising jurisdiction over Europeans should be Europeans. But it did not pass, because, on its being sent home, it was suggested that it would be well to postpone for a time such a considerable change. The next step was,
  1762
  in 1856, to refer the whole subject of Indian Law to a Commission to consider the reform of judicial establishments in India. That Commission consisted of Lord Romilly, Sir John Jervis, Sir Edward Ryan, Sir John Macleod, Mr. Cameron, and Mr. T. E. Ellis; and they reported as follows:—
  "We assume that the special privileges now enjoyed by British subjects are to be abolished; and we, therefore, make no provision for such exceptional cases. In the system which we propose, all classes of the community will be equally amenable to the Criminal Courts of the country."
  In consequence of that Report a Bill was introduced by Lord Canning, in 1857, bringing Europeans under the jurisdiction of the magistrates, including Native magistrates; but, the Mutiny shortly after breaking out, it was not proceeded with. But this question of the reform of Indian Law was resumed as soon as quiet was restored. In 1860 the Indian Penal Code was passed. In 1870 the Indian Law Commissioners made another Report. At this time they were Lord Romilly, Lord Sherbrooke, Sir John Macleod, Sir Edward Ryan, Sir Robert Lush, and Sir W. M. James. They reported—
  "We concur with the Commission which prepared the Code in thinking it desirable that a general and uniform system of Criminal Procedure should be applied to persons of all classes without distinction, and we regret that greater progress has not been made in giving effect to this principle."
  A measure was introduced in accordance with that Report; but it was amended, and the exemption of Europeans from the jurisdiction of Native magistrates was maintained. In 1872 the matter came up again. The Criminal Procedure Act was then brought under consideration, and this particular point was discussed at the time. It is a remarkable fact that, there being a division of opinion in the Indian Council on the subject, it was resolved by a narrow majority that Europeans should not be under the jurisdiction of Natives. The Members voting in the minority were Lord Napier of Merchistoun, then acting as Viceroy, Lord Napier of Magdala, Sir George Campbell, Sir Richard Temple, and Sir Barrow Ellis, who moved the Amendment. I should mention that in 1857, also, as now again, there was great agitation, among the Europeans against the proposal; and that agitation showed itself in a similar way in 1865, when it was

  1763
  proposed that Grand Juries should be abolished in the Presidential towns. The alarm of the Europeans then was extreme; and to show your Lordships how frightened they were I will read to you a short extract from a Circular issued by a landowners' association at that time. The Circular said—
  "On the abolition of Grand Juries there would be no protection to gentlemen from being accused of crimes of which they were entirely innocent whenever the local magistrate was supposed to be inclined to believe in such charges, and of being put upon their trial whenever a credulous or prejudiced magistrate would be found."
  At a public meeting held in Calcutta very strong language was used. One speaker regarded the abolition of Grand Juries as—
  "The thin end of the wedge, which threatened to bring down and destroy the whole fabric of our Constitution."
  I wish to speak with every respect of the Europeans in India; but on every occasion when any diminution of their privileges has been proposed they have been in the same state of excitement; and what is far more important is this—that the consequences which they so confidently predicted on these various occasions must follow from the changes made have not followed in any one case. That re-assures me, and makes me hope that when this Bill passes into law it will prove as innocuous as have the previous measures to which I have alluded. Your Lordships are aware that the policy of opening the Civil Service to Natives has been carried out to a large extent recently. It has long been desired that the intention expressed by Her Majesty in Her Proclamation should not be made a mere intention, but should be carried into effect to a considerable extent; but it is obvious, for various reasons, that the number of the Natives entering the Service of India through the ordinary channel of competition in England must be very small. In order to counteract that, rules were made, by which it was provided that one-fifth of the number appointed by the Secretary of State to the Covenanted Service of India shall every year be appointed by the Viceroy from among the Natives of India; the consequence of which is that at least one-sixth of the number yearly appointed are, under these rules, which were made under the Government of the noble Earl (the Earl of Lytton), necessarily Natives.
  1764
  Now, it is quite obvious that, under these circumstances, we must look forward to an increasing number of Natives holding high posts in India, and to see every year more and more of them appointed. I wish upon this subject to quote one authority, and one only. In the despatch of the noble Viscount (Viscount Cranbrook), dated the 7th of November, 1878, he says—
  "The class of appointments for which Natives will be most eminently fitted is, no doubt, the judicial; but in exceptional cases I can well understand that a Native of high executive capacity may be usefully selected for an administrative office."
  It is quite clear, then, that these rules specially contemplated the extension of judicial offices to the Natives of India; and, therefore, as one-sixth every year of the officers of the Civil Service are to be Natives of India, besides those who obtain entrance to it through the examination here, a considerable number of the magistrates must eventually be Natives. Now, I ask your Lordships whether the Government of India were so very rash in considering whether or not the time had come to make a change, when throughout the country there will, before long, be a very considerable number of Natives holding judicial offices? I know it may be said—Why cause this great disturbance about so small a matter? But I think it proves the wisdom of the Government, and is a proof of their caution. What they said was—"We see what is going on; we know what must take place; let us, therefore, try this experiment in good time." Well, my Lords, that is one of the practical reasons which have weighed with my noble Friend in dealing with this subject. The Viceroy took the very proper course of consulting various Local Governments; and, upon the whole, there was a very decided consensus of opinion on their part that the change was desirable. They differed somewhat in detail; but in principle they were agreed. Lord Ripon has, I believe, been supposed in some quarters to have endeavoured unduly to shift the responsibility for what has occurred on others, and specially on Sir Ashley Eden, the late Lieutenant Governor of Bengal; but the Viceroy's argument amounted only to this—"If I am blamed for not having foreseen that this storm would arise, at all events other gentle-

  1765
  men well acquainted with the people of India made the same mistake." That is not an unfair argument; in fact, he says—"I simply swim in the same boat with Sir Ashley Eden;" and, my Lords, I think Sir Ashley Eden may fairly be quoted in favour of the measure. My noble Friend omitted to read the last paragraph of the letter of the 20th of March, 1882, from the Secretary to the Government of Bengal. Now, it is as follows:—
  "For these reasons, Sir Ashley Eden is of opinion that the time has now arrived when all Native members of the Covenanted Civil Service should be relieved of such restrictions of their powers as are imposed on them by chap. 33 of the new Criminal Code of Procedure, or when, at least, Native covenanted civilians, who have attained the position of district magistrate or Sessions Judge, should have intrusted to them full powers over all classes, whether European or Native, within their jurisdictions."
  What the Bill does is this—it gives four classes of magistrates jurisdiction over Europeans in the Provinces, such magistrates being possibly Natives. The first are the Sessions Judges, who are officers holding sessions in each large district. The next are the district magistrates, who are also officers of great importance. The others are the Assistant Commissioners in non-regulation Provinces, and the cantonment magistrates being magistrates of the first class. As regards the Sessions Judges and district magistrates, there is a general consensus of opinion that they ought to be intrusted with this jurisdiction, though it has not been so with regard to the other two. Now, then, let us see the amount of their jurisdiction. The Sessions Judge, as regards a European, may sentence him to imprisonment not exceeding one year, or inflict a fine, or both. The magistrate may inflict imprisonment not exceeding three months, or fine up to 1,000 rupees, or both. This being the limitation of their powers, what are the safeguards? In the first place, there is an appeal to the Sessions Court from the magistrates, and there is an appeal from that to the High Court. By the Criminal Procedure Code, 1882, the High Court has practically unlimited power of interference with magistrates' decisions—(1) Section 435 of the Code authorizes the High Court to—
  "Call for and examine the record of any proceedings before any inferior Criminal Court;"
  1766
  (2) Section 437 gives the High Court power, on examining any record, under Section 437, to order a further inquiry to be made; (3) Section 439 enables the High Court—
  "In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by itself, or which has been reported for orders, or which otherwise comes to its knowledge,"
  to exercise any of the usual powers of a Court of Appeal—namely, (a) it may reverse the finding and sentence; (b) it may alter the finding, maintaining the sentence; (c) it may, with or without altering the finding, reduce the sentence; or (d) it may alter the nature of the sentence. A further special provision authorizes the High Court to enhance the sentence. Then, consider how the whole circumstances of the country are now changed. In introducing these reforms we are only adapting ourselves to the times. Formerly things might be done in the mofussil, as it is called, which the Government did not hear of for many weeks. Now we have railways and telegraphs, and a Press which certainly is not deficient in criticizing official acts; and with all this machinery it is impossible to suppose that anything would be done by a Native Judge which would not shortly be reported to the Government if it aroused the jealousy of the European portion of the population. Such a state of things affords the best guarantee that justice will be done. But I do not say that this alone would justify us in conferring jurisdiction on the Natives. The question is, whether they will exercise that jurisdiction wisely? Now, Natives have exercised jurisdiction over Europeans for many years past, and have sat in the highest Courts of Justice. The present Advocate General to the Government of India is an Armenian Native of India; and a short time ago a Brahmin, whose name I will not venture to read to the House, was standing counsel to the Government, his duty being to conduct prosecutions against Europeans. The noble Earl said, no doubt, that this Criminal Procedure Bill must be read by the light of the local government policy; and he thought that the proposal to extend the jurisdiction of the Natives would not otherwise have attracted so great an amount of attention. This may be so; there may be in the mind of the Europeans a feeling that

  1767
  there is too great a desire on the part of the authorities to extend the privileges of the Natives. It is a question, and a high question, of policy; and it is natural that the Europeans should be jealous. But has it not been our intention, for many years past, to give the Natives a higher position; and does not that necessarily, to some extent, lessen the privileges of the Europeans? I do not hesitate to say that this is a necessity arising from our policy. I believe it to be for the ultimate safety and security that there should be a gradual introduction of Natives into our Service; and I should dread to see this country lay down the rule that we would abide by a high autocratic policy, ruling by the sword alone, rather than by conciliating and obtaining the good wishes of the Natives. That is the spirit in which the Viceroy of India has addressed himself to these questions; and I believe it is a policy which will not diminish, but strengthen, our rule in India.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: The noble Earl who has just addressed your Lordships has shown, by his able speech, that there was no occasion to apologize for the short period of his acquaintance with Indian affairs; but I think the noble Earl, in diminishing the scope and effect of the policy of the Government of India, has taken a different view of it from that taken by the Governor General himself in the first instance. As a despatch of mine has been adverted to, I will not take first the question of local self-government, but begin with the measure upon which the noble Earl spoke last. I have ever been, and am, most anxious that considerations of Party should not enter into Indian discussions, but that every subject connected with India should be kept clear from Party lines, and should be treated upon its own merits. I think also, as I have expressed in the despatch, that we should avail ourselves of all the knowledge of those educated Natives of India, and of their services in places adapted to them. I have always, since the time when I first took an interest in Indian affairs, been of the opinion of Sir Stafford Northcote, Canning, and many others—that it was an essential part of our system to employ the most trustworthy Natives, and employ them largely; and, indeed, it would be impossible that we should be able to govern a people of
  1768
  200,000,000 without so employing them, and I am just as anxious now as I was at the date of the despatch referred to that it should be so. But with reference to Executive appointments, the noble Earl will see that I laid down a different rule. While asserting their fitness for judicial work, I distinctly said I was not prepared to extend those to them, because difficulties might be raised by their coming into collision, as superiors, with Europeans. Sir Ashley Eden has been cited here, and in India, as a strong advocate for Mr. Ilbert's Bill; but he limited himself to the Covenanted Civil servants, in recommending the appointment of Natives who had risen to a certain position to the posts in question; he was leaving India, and left the Government there the duty of testing unofficial opinion, and selecting a suitable time. But with regard to the measure itself, a peculiar course seems to have been taken by the Governor General in the recent discussion upon it. Everyone seemed disposed to rid himself of the responsibility of its initiation, and there was a general inclination on the part of everyone present to relieve himself of the odium of having been the person to introduce it. Mr. Ilbert, the Legal Adviser to the Government, said it was most unlikely that he, who had so recently come to India, and necessarily knew so little of those affected, should have proposed the measure; and the Governor General did not seem to like the notion that he had suggested it; or, from a generous disinterestedness, threw upon Sir Ashley Eden the suggestion, and upon Sir Alfred Lyall the formation, of this great, but by no means popular, measure. And here I may point out certain disadvantages of a system which sends out a legal Member of Council, fresh from England, naturally desirous to connect his name with new legislation, though I am far from the opinion that such Members have not done most efficient service. Still, the means being by, to do ill deeds makes ill deeds done; while the Governor General may too often have reason to say, like King John to Hubert—"Hads't not thou been by, this measure ne'er had come into my mind." In this way the Legal Adviser, inexperienced and new, is the instrument of hastily bringing in measures which are as hastily withdrawn. But we are told

  1769
  that the step taken is logical and inevitable. If we are to govern India according to the principles of logic, and take one step after another in accordance with them, the Europeans may well show that alarm which the noble Earl seems to make so light of. Suppose we were to apply those principles to the Army or the Executive Government of India, and say that because the Natives have filled adequately subordinate posts, therefore we are to imply that they are qualified to act independently of the Government without being controlled by them. That is the whole matter at issue. You are proposing to give them a jurisdiction which they never had hitherto, and a position which, if founded on the ground of logical progress, will carry them very much further than this Bill. In all the resolutions of the Indian Government, I find the statement that the time has arrived for these changes; and I want to know what there is to show that the time has arrived when every one of these disturbing measures is to be put into execution, and why? According to the admissions of the Government of India, there was no demand for this Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill on the part of the people, or on the part of anyone, but Mr. Gupta. Therefore you have this—that after 10 years of deliberate sanction to this particular exemption, and submission to it by both Europeans and Natives, when there was not a single grievance alleged, and nothing to show that everything was not working as it should be, you take this time for stirring up this question and raising these animosities. Indeed, the authorities put before us give but a faint idea of the kind of feeling in India on this subject. Those who have seen the letters from every part of India must be convinced how real and genuine is the feeling against the Bill. Nor is it doubtful that it has elements of permanence which former agitations had not. Look at the language of the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal upon this point, and add to it the large subscription, it is said of £30,000, to give duration to the opposition of the European community. Mr. Rivers Thompson gives the solemn warning—
  "I should be wanting in my duty, if I failed to press upon the Government that I hope that in their abstention from any personal contact with public feeling, they will not allow them-
  1770
  selves to think that the calm, which I trust will supervene, is any indication of apathy or indifference. It may be the opinion of the Government that this is a case of temporary excitement which will soon be over. Still, I feel that in my whole experience of India this is unmistakably the strongest and most united and unanimous expression of public discontent which I have ever known. I believe that the last stage will be worse than the first; and if there is any thought that this is a transient ebullition of feeling, I believe that view will in the end be proved to be wrong. I therefore wish that the Bill may be withdrawn."
  Far be it from mo to say that there are not a great number of Natives who would do their duty conscientiously. I only say that we are here attempting to deal with two separate peoples, who have different objects, different sentiments, and different modes of life, caste, rank, treatment and estimate of women, exemption from appearance in Court, and other circumstances separating Indian life from English. Those who are in favour of the Bill may say what they will; but when we find that an association has been formed by Europeans, and £30,000 subscribed for carrying on resistance to this measure, there can be no doubt that there is considerable feeling in the matter. And I regret to hear the noble Earl say that he hoped the Bill would be carried. It is a most serious matter when we come to consider that the Europeans in the Provinces will have to submit to men whom they will not look upon with respect, or consider qualified to govern them. In 1872, when this measure was considered, it was deliberately rejected by the Governor in Council. If you say that the time has now come for making these changes, why was it not considered the time then? There was then the possibility and probability of Native Covenanted Civil servants attaining an high position. Sir Fitzjames Stephen has thought the measure so dangerous that he has conceived it to be his duty to write a letter, which most of your Lordships have probably seen, to show how strongly he feels that they were right in 1872, and that there was no occasion to vary from that position. As to the anomaly which exists under the present system, why our whole position in India is, to a certain extent, an anomaly. You cannot rectify that. It exists, to a great degree, in the force of character in the dominant race; in a great degree in the peculiarly submissive and trusting disposition of a great

  1771
  portion of the Natives. They are ready to hang on to the stronger race, and do not want to be deprived of their services. I will venture to say that, in many instances, a Native would be better pleased to be tried by an English than by a Native Judge; and, further, that a Mahomedan, going before a Hindoo Judge, would consider himself far more liable to be dealt with unjustly than if he were going before an English one. Then the noble Earl said that there was great authority on his side. There was one most remarkable fact which must be admitted, and that was that the Local Governments were in favour of the Bill. Why, the reasons for that were two—first, because the Bill had been pressed upon them by the Governor General, whose strong opinions in favour of it were known throughout India; and, secondly, because they did not foresee what was going to happen. Nay, nothing is so astonishing as the ignorance shown by them of non-official feeling. And yet the Marquess of Ripon himself did not appear to be unaware of what was likely to happen, although he seemed to have expected that Sir Ashley Eden should have prophetically warned him. In a speech made months before, on Mr. Stokes' Bill, the noble Marquess said—
  "I should he very glad, if it were possible, to place the law in regard to every person in the country, not only on the same footing, for that the Bill, I hope, will practically do, but to embody it in the very same language, whether it relates to Europeans or Natives. But no one who recollects the history of questions of this kind in this country can doubt that to deal with that special chapter which regulates the procedure with regard to Europeans and Americans would be to deal with very difficult and very delicate questions. Cases have arisen in which the Government has been beaten in the Legislative Council. We all know the agitation which has taken place, and the strong excitement which has arisen in past times on questions of this sort. They are not to be entered on without very full consideration."
  But they were entered upon without consideration, and without seeking from the non-official Europeans in the country any information as to their feelings. There was not a single person who seemed to have felt their pulse at all; they appeared to have been unconscious that the non-official Europeans had any feeling at all on the matter, until it flashed on them like a spark of gunpowder. Had it been foreseen, in all probability there
  1772
  was not one of those officials who thought the time had come, but would have said that, "although we may approve of the principle of the Bill, this is not the time nor the occasion for introducing it." But if the hour had not come, the man had, and the Government of unrest has stirred conflicting elements which it will take long to appease. I know that my noble Friend says there have been Reports on this subject, and in favour of it; they were considered in 1872 by a competent Council. I have not heard from the noble Earl that they were considered carefully and deliberately by the Council at home. It would certainly have been desirable that the opinions of those who were opposed to it should have been known.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYwas understood to say there was no dissentient.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: It is quite absurd to say that an administrative difficulty has arisen which requires the adoption of this change. The administration difficulty has been started; but it would be quite competent and easy for any Government to provide sufficient English Judges to meet all the demands—which, I am happy to say, are not great—in regard to the trial of English criminals. It is not because they are guilty of crime that Europeans dread this measure, but because, being innocent, they dread to be accused before Judges who do not understand their feelings. An English man or Englishwoman may have been misunderstood by, or supposed to have wronged, some Native who procures false evidence, or resorts to forgeries, too common, alas! in many parts of India; and the injury done him or her cannot be redressed by telling them to appeal to a distant Court. But if the failures of justice—and you contemplate them—should come out, and there should be signs of partiality or injustice from want of appreciation of English habit, feeling, or action on the part of these Judges, the outcry which you despise now will swell to much greater dimensions. With respect to Mr. Ilbert's Bill, the Government, with the fact that a storm had arisen in India against it, and with the difficulties they will find in giving effect to it, are, as I understood the noble Earl, determined to carry it out. I hope that may not be so. I hope

  1773
  that the Government, with its hands so full of questions so momentous—such as the disturbance of the Bengal Settlement, the question connected with local self-government, and other matters of infinite importance which the Government have stirred in India—will be content with these subjects, and will not add to them changes calculated to excite the feelings of a class which has been most obedient to the law, and which has given no just cause of complaint since this matter was finally settled in 1872. Is there no danger that the excitement may extend to the question of Natives trying Europeans in the Presidency towns, where that system has been acquiesced in, under special circumstances, and without the idea that it was to be a premise for the logical conclusion of this Bill and of other measures which may spring from it? As to the Local Self-Government Bill, the measure is one which should be well discussed, and put prominently before the country, so that it may know what is going on. We are, unfortunately, without full Papers on the subject; and, therefore, we are at a loss to know what has taken place in regard to it in various parts of India. But I believe I am correct in saying that, with respect to this scheme of local self-government, there is hardly a district officer in India who has not emphatically condemned it. Among those who are with the people, and who have been acting with them in such local self-government as at present exists, there are, I believe, but very few who give to this Bill their approbation in its main provisions and its entirety. Everybody will admit that there should be an improvement in local government in India; that you should take steps, as far as you can, to improve the Natives, and make them more acquainted with the necessity of sanitation, vaccination, and so on, and to call out their faculties in assisting those who administer the local affairs of the country. But this measure of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Ripon) is founded on a totally different principle. The object of the noble Marquess's measure is, wherever there are local governing committees to take from them the European and English representation, and leave them purely Native Bodies, and make them ultimately elective. The object is to eliminate the official European ele-
  1774
  ment. On that single point I venture to say that there is hardly a man in India, or in this country, who has been connected with the active Administration, who is not of opinion that it would throw the country into barbarism if they went as far as was proposed by the noble Marquess. The missive went forth from the noble Marquess that there was to be throughout all India a network of local self-government for the purpose of political and popular education, with a design to elevate a people who must be dependent into independent political life. We are not without some experience on this subject. One authority, Mr. Lee Warner, cited, when favourable, on any point by the Government of India, has said that if this withdrawal of official control, as contemplated in the Resolution of May 18, is literally carried out, the political future of the country will be sacrificed, and the principal work of the last 20 years will be undone. That I believe. Sir Salar Jung, the great Native Administrator, whose death we all regret, did this very thing; he gave over the local administration to Local Bodies for seven years. The time came to an end very shortly before his death; and what was the result? The good roads that were given into their custody were gone; everything was in confusion; and all the works they had destroyed by their negligence and inefficiency had to be recommenced. Then you propose that to these people shall be given sanitation. In the large towns, where there is more watchfulness, the people can act in masses if the managing bodies fail in their duty, and there is a Press and men of intelligence to enforce the law; but even the sanitary arrangements of the Municipality of Calcutta itself are far from satisfactory, and I have seen statements that a large proportion of sewage added to the hydrant water would make the mixture served out in the municipal tanks. This was said by the Government analyst. Are you to give over vaccination to Hindoo peasants? They would rather resort to the goddess of small-pox than to the matter which Dr. Jenner introduced, and sanitation generally is alien to their habits. There is no question that the object you have in view would be frustrated by taking away the centre of authority; he must be the person to take the initiative; but now this power

  1775
  is to be taken away from him. The noble Marquess is afraid of dissension within the Boards. He speaks of the effect produced by the absence from them of the pressure of official control. It is well known how hard it is to spur these Boards into action. The noble Earl has quoted Sir Ashley Eden and Sir Alfred Lyall; but they have expressed opinions totally opposed to his views. As to the former, I am authorized to say that his statement was that under no circumstances would it do to have Local Boards of which the district officer was not Chairman; and as to the latter, I feel sure that I remember seeing, though I cannot lay my hand on the Paper, that the non-officials required were not to be found in his Province. Do you suppose that there is such unanimity of sentiment throughout India that the Local Boards, without European officials, can check that hostility of castes and sects which divides the various factions and parties, and which only the presence of European officials prevents breaking out into full force? Do you suppose these Boards will act with cordiality and unanimity? It is one of the noble Marquess's fundamental principles that there should be small districts. How can you expect to find in these small districts education and intelligence, or persons capable of managing these Local Boards? Do you suppose the local gentry will care to meet on these Boards the traders to whom, perhaps, they are in debt; that high caste and low caste, Hindoo and Mahomedan, will fraternize and act together for the benefit of the whole; that no jobbing for parties and individuals will prevail? It is admitted by one of the most eminent officials you have that such proposals, if carried out, will throw back India 20 years. Then, where is the money to come from? The other day I was told of a large district, the revenue of which amounted to 2½ lakhs. I have calculated that if that district were divided into small districts of 10 square miles, and the 2½lakhs were divided among those districts, the share for each district would be 300 rupees; 300 rupees to spend for sanitation, water, and other works! What would be the result? These works, which are necessary in India, are inter-dependent; but if you have a separate Board for each small district with no official President,
  1776
  with a civil engineer, who is never to take the initiative—for that is expressly laid down in the Resolution—how could those works be properly managed? The noble Earl says that care must be taken to instruct these Boards in drainage operations. That must be done by the Government engineer; but he is to be the servant of one Board or of many, and how is he to solve the problem of serving many masters? It is important in India to give an exhibition of power, and there is no power so strong as the power of initiation. But what is now proposed will promote the idea that this power has passed into the hands of the Natives. The Government engineer is not to initiate, but to be a servant in a small locality, with 300 rupees to spend upon public works! If the Government has engineers to spare for such work as that, there is certainly room for economy. The Chairman, if it is necessary for a time to have a European official, is not even to vote; he is to leave the members of the Board to themselves, and they are to take the initiative. But if there is no control within—you say there is to be control from without—friction with individuals is to be replaced by collision with the whole Board. Suppose that your controller without enforces works, and you come to taxation in order to supply these needs forced upon you through control without—suppose it came to be a question of local taxation; if the matter were loft to these Local Boards, they would certainly fix taxes upon articles of primary necessity. If you check them in this, they will not care to serve on the Boards again. If they cannot collect the taxes as they like they will soon fall away. I do not know whether your Lordships' attention has been called to a law made by the Emperor Nicholas, establishing similar bodies in the villages in Russia. In the neighbourhood of large towns they did do something, but elsewhere they entirely failed. Twenty-five years ago one of the greatest dangers this country has ever passed through took place in India—the Mutiny. Many are now living in India who remember the shock of those occurrences; but great numbers have come, and are coming away, and its lessons are fading from men's minds. Now, notwithstanding that experience, after 25 years you venture again to rouse the ambitions of the

  1777
  people. The educated, talking, professional Natives of India—what are they? I will not speak of them in my own words. What does Mr. Monro say of them? He says that among the large and influential classes he finds a desire to obtain benefits for themselves; much clamour and much public speaking, but little public spirit; much grasping at power and position, and much talk of Constitutional principles, but little practice of Constitutional morality. But, my Lords, let us come nearer home. We were told that one of our great advantages would be that we should have the services of the educated and Europeanized Natives in this country. You are trying in vain, I think, to graft on Eastern civilization Western institutions. There is no Democracy, there is no "demos" in India to which you can appeal. If you give local institutions, they will end in embarrassment and confusion. Let me tell your Lordships what one of these highly Europeanized Natives in this country, who are to be of such service in governing India, says of our rule. He is very likely to be satisfied with the petty details of unpaid local government. He says, in a speech which is published by the East India Association, that—
  "Events have taken a course which has made England the worst foreign invader that India has ever had the misfortune to have—that India did not get a moment's breath from the rush of Europeans that took place."
  He goes on to say that—
  "At present the Indians are loyal, but that they may any day become disloyal; there is but a short step from one to the other."
  What is it that the Government now propose to do? Suppose a difficulty were to arise between the Natives and the governing Power—between the sword and those who submit to the sword. What would happen with these thousands or tens of thousands of Local Boards meeting in secret to plot rebellion, with no European present? Directly you take away the Europeans from the local committees you will take away the authority which gives excellence and stability to the work done in India; and you will attempt to use materials for building for which the Natives of India have neither the force, nor the desire, nor the will, in any way, for it is wholly alien to their feelings. If paid for the work they might do it; but, otherwise, the objects are such as they
  1778
  take no interest in. Unless this scheme is carried out carefully, it will act in a most disastrous manner to the interests which the Government now profess to support. In Bombay local funds' committees abound, but with an official Chairman. Some unpleasant differences had arisen between the Governor General and the Government of Bombay, in consequence of the course taken by the former. The Government of Bombay was ready, even against its judgment, to endeavour to carry out the scheme of the Governor General; but when it was proposed to take away the Europeans, who were the life and soul of the committees, the Government of Bombay strongly protested that such a measure was not compatible with safety, and that it was practically a subversion of their existing system. With reference to the language of mine to which reference has been made, I said that it was perfectly proper that Natives should be employed in judicial capacities for which they were specially fitted. But my language cannot be distorted so as to make me appear to approve their being given a jurisdiction they had not previously enjoyed. I meant that they should be permitted to exercise judicial functions among Natives, holding the same relative position that they had always held towards Europeans. I admit that it is most desirable, if you can, to teach the people to manage small local affairs, and to become acquainted with the most important interests of their own localities. But to conduct the education of these people by taking away their teachers from the midst of them is an absurdity. It was the "association of Natives and Europeans to a greater extent" that was advocated by Lord Mayo; but the plan of the present Governor General is their dissociation. To lay down for the whole of India one fundamental principle that must be acted upon, whatever the circumstances might be, is what the Government of India has done, though it leaves the mode of carrying this into effect for a time to Local Governments. Local Boards are to be elected at some future date in every locality by the resident electors—something very like household suffrage. I do not believe that these wild and extravagant schemes can do anything more than excite in the minds of the Natives of India, and particularly of the portion called the Euro-

  1779
  peanized Natives, hopes and passions which may be difficult to quench, and which may lead at any time—though I hope to God they will not—to such difficulties as arose at the time of the Mutiny, and your scheme, as laid down on May 18, will inevitably fail. If it does fail, it brings discredit on your Government and confusion in India; while, if it seems to succeed, it will but lead to further demands on the part of the Europeanized Natives which will in time destroy the dominance of England in India.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If, my Lords, I had been asked in what tone and manner a subject of this nature would be treated by the House of Lords, I should have expressed some confidence that whatever differences of opinion might exist as to policy between the different sides of the House, yet the same tone would prevail on both sides, and that all would agree that our aim and object in the government of India should be to govern equally, justly, and impartially, for the benefit of all subjects of the Crown. I should have said that the object of noble Lords taking part in such a debate would be to mitigate any exaggerated jealousies and antipathies of races, to avoid saying anything which might be offensive and irritating to any class of the Natives of India, and to appease, instead of inflaming, panic and needless alarm. I should be doing injustice to the noble Earl who introduced this discussion if I did not say, after making due allowance for the doubts expressed by him as to the policy of the Indian Government on certain points, that the tone and the character of his speech was in accordance with my expectations. I wish I could say the same of the speech your Lordships have just heard. The speech of the noble Viscount was full of arguments from panic, not from policy, and full of reference to opinions expressed by Englishmen of such a character as are calculated, not to mitigate, but to inflame the antipathies, jealousies, and passions of race. I heard the speech with regret. It seemed to be mainly addressed to vituperation of the Viceroy for a supposed attack, which he never made, upon Sir Ashley Eden, and for, as was most groundlessly alleged, putting pressure upon the Local Governments to obtain from them opi-
  1780
  nions in accordance with his own views. With the exception of that part of the speech which consisted of vituperation of the Viceroy, I heard little or nothing from the noble Viscount in the way of argument. There was a marked contrast between the speech of the noble Viscount and that of the noble Earl. In parts of his speech the noble Earl wont far to admit that, under certain conditions, the Criminal Law Amendment Bill might be proper. The truth is that the question before your Lordships has, off and on, been under discussion in India for 33 years; and the principles which it is now proposed to adopt have, over and over again, been recommended by the highest authorities in India and England. So far back as 1857 Sir James Colvile said it must be adopted in time. Surely, after so much consideration of the matter, and such frequent postponements, the action of the Indian Government cannot be said to be precipitate. It is a remarkable fact, which justifies the Government of India in seizing every opportunity of establishing sound principles on a subject of this kind, that to abolish exemptions invariably takes much time. It took much time, for example, to get rid of the general exemption of European British subjects from the jurisdiction of the Local Courts, although those Courts were in the hands of British Judges. Panic after panic was caused by the proposal to do away with that exemption; and it was not until 40 years after the power to abolish it had been given that the thing was done. The noble Viscount referred to the opinions of Sir Fitzjames Stephen, a learned Judge, for whose high character and great abilities I have as much respect as the noble Viscount has. Indeed, the respect which I entertain for him has, perhaps, caused me to regret the more that he should have been led to publish anything which might have a tendency to increase the difficulties of the Indian Government on this subject. But what did he say of the state of things which the Indian Government could not find an opportunity of abolishing until 1872 His words are—
  "In the state of the law before 1872 the position of European British subjects undoubtedly did constitute a serious practical grievance. In the remoter parts of the country they enjoyed something equivalent to impunity in

  1781
  criminal cases which were not of sufficient importance to attract special attention. The expense and delay, for example, of having a trial in Calcutta for an offence committed, say, on a tea plantation in Assam practically prevented prosecution. This grievance was felt more and more as a large number of Europeans were introduced into India belonging to a class likely to commit less crime."
  The noble Viscount seemed to think that there was no class of European British subjects in India likely to commit petty criminal offences, which must be repressed by prompt punishment; but that, evidently, was not the opinion of Mr. Justice Stephen. To say that the time has not arrived for the passing of a measure which a country has long wanted simply because an outcry has been raised against it would be to invite an outcry in every case of the proposed abolition of any privilege or exemption. It is remarkable that the legislators of this country did not form the opinion that the Mutiny made it necessary, in order to preserve our position in India, to keep Natives out of public employments. On the contrary, they thought that the true lesson to be learnt from the Mutiny was that confidence should be placed in those Natives who were willing to servo the Government, and that they should be given an interest in the government of their country. That policy was first established by the Act of the Imperial Parliament which vested the government of India in the Crown, and which made provision for examinations for the Covenanted Civil Service of India, to which Natives were to be admitted. Then, in 1861, when the High Courts were established, the British Legislature provided that there should be Native Judges in them. That provision is fatal to the argument that it is not proper that British subjects should be liable to be judged in criminal as well as in civil cases by Native Judges. Then came the Act of 1870, which enabled the Local Governments to appoint any Native to any office or employment in the Indian Civil Service, which terms wore intended to include the office of Session Judge and district magistrate—the judicial offices with which we are now dealing. The noble viscount having to justify and explain his own despatch, written in 1879, says—"It is true that we intended that there should be Native Judges for Natives; but we did not
  1782
  intend that they should have jurisdiction over Europeans." But if Native Judges are trusted to adjudicate justly in oases in which Natives are concerned, why should they not be trusted in cases in which Europeans are interested? How can you trust a Hindoo Judge to do justice to a Mahomedan, or a Mahomedan to a Hindoo, if you cannot trust the same man to act with impartiality and integrity in a case affecting the interests of a European? It should be remembered that the exemption at the present time is an exemption only of natural-born British subjects, their sons and grandsons. Native Judges have jurisdiction over all Frenchmen, Germans, Italians, and Europeans of any nationality not entitling them to the privileges of natural-born British subjects; also over those who are subjects of the United States of America. You trust the Natives now to exercise the power of judgment over these Europeans; arid by the arrangement made in 1879 you have made it necessary that one-sixth in every year of all the Civil Service in India shall be filled with Natives, in addition to those who pass examinations in this country. The consequence will be that in a few years you will have more than one-sixth—or at least one-sixth—of the Session Judges and district magistrates belonging to that class of Native Judges to whom you now object to give criminal jurisdiction over British Europeans; and if the policy proposed is not carried out, the effect will be, under these circumstances, to revive, in one-sixth part of your Local Courts, the very state of things which existed in 1872. This would happen also—that a European subordinate would have jurisdiction over cases which his superior Judge was disqualified from trying. The question might be asked, What has been our experience hitherto of Native Judges? My Lords, for many years, while I was at the Bar, I practised in Indian cases before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and during those years there were few such cases of any considerable importance in which I was not engaged. I had, therefore, good opportunities of observing the manner in which, in civil cases, the Native Judges did their duty; and I have no hesitation in saying—and I know this was also the opinion of some of the most eminent Judges who sat on the Judicial Com-

  1783
  mittee during that time—that the judgments of the Native Judges in India did not suffer by, but bore favourable comparison, as a general rule, with, the judgments of the English Judges there. I should be sorry to say anything in disparagement of those English Judges, who, as a class, were most anxious to carefully discharge their duty; but I repeat that I have no hesitation in saying that in respect of integrity, of learning, of knowledge, of the soundness and satisfactory character of the conclusions arrived at, the Native judgments wore, as a rule, quite as good as those of the local English Judges. And since 1861, my Lords, we have had further experience of Indian Native Judges in the High Courts, whore they have had jurisdiction over Europeans. How have they used that power? Have they not deserved the confidence of the public? I venture to say they have. What are the objections against the principle? First, there is the idea of national privilege; and I can only say that, if that be the principle we should act upon, we are condemning ourselves, for we judge Hindoos and Mahomedans by English Judges. If it is to be the universal notion that every man of a particular race or religion should be tried or judged by Judges of his own race or religion, all I can say is that it is not our practice in India, any more than at home, and I hope it never will be. Nothing but a very degraded state of the Judicature, or inability on the part of the superior Government to keep it in proper order, can justify the application of that principle. Another argument brought forward is that, in this matter, the opinion of unofficial Europeans in India should be preferred to that of officials. I would ask, my Lords, who are the Government of India—the unofficial class? Does the responsibility of government rest with them? Have the unofficial class better means of forming sound opinions on such a subject than those who govern? It appears to me, my Lords, that this argument is an astounding paradox. It is quite true that the opinion of the unofficial class may be entitled to respect, and it should not be ignored; but, in a matter of this kind, to put that opinion, in point of value, above that of the official—the governing class—is a surprising paradox. My Lords, I contend that the effect of
  1784
  the policy proposed on the minds of the Natives would be most salutary. Its effect on the official class of Natives must be beneficial, as proving that trust is reposed in them, and giving them fresh motives to be faithful to that trust. And what would be the effect of it on the unofficial classes? They will perceive in it a further advance in the beneficent policy of treating all the subjects of the British Crown with fairness and justice—proof that it is the aim and object of the British Government in India not to increase or exaggerate, but to diminish, as far as they can, those antagonisms of race which have hitherto been attended with so much disadvantage. The noble Viscount spoke once or twice as if we had no choice between one or the other of two extreme courses—to do nothing or to remove all anomalies; but things more or loss anomalous must exist in every system. Why should we not take a middle course, as the Government of India has in this case, I believe, succeeded in doing? I do not go into the details of their scheme; but I cannot help submitting to your Lordships that what is being now done is the necessary sequel to the steps which the Imperial Parliament has obliged the Government of India to take, for the admission of Native Civil servants in India to judicial office.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, the noble and learned Earl (the Lord Chancellor) had stated that his noble Friend (the Earl of Lytton) preached the doctrine that, because there had been a panic, therefore legislation should be suspended. He had done nothing of the kind. He had merely called attention to the extraordinary outburst of feeling on the subject in India. Some of the arguments used by the noble and learned Earl savoured to him (the Earl of Carnarvon) much more of the arguments they had lately heard used by the Colleagues of the noble and learned Earl in "another place" as to Irish conciliation. He did not doubt the good intentions of the present Governor of India; but his fear was that the humanity and sympathy of Lord Ripon were carrying him beyond the limits of policy and prudence. The English in India looked upon the proposed change as an inroad upon their property, liberty, and status. The non-official classes of India had never been so united as they were on

  1785
  this subject; the English Press was unanimous; and nine-tenths of the Civil Service were agreed upon it. The noble and learned Earl seemed to ignore all those distinctive differences between England and India. His argument was an abstract one; but he (the Earl of Carnarvon) wished to lay down two propositions—first, the vital necessity of preserving the harmony between the Government of India and the non-official population; and, in the second place, that if, indeed, there were a drift of opinion in the direction of the change indicated by the Ministerial advocates, and if that opinion had been running for many years in the same direction, it was most important that when the change was made it should come gradually, and not by leaps and bounds. If he was not mistaken, the state of the case was this. In 1872 a compromise was arrived at; between 1872 and 1882 there had been a very great growth of the non-official population in India; and, of course, the greater the amount of the English population, the greater the necessity for insuring to them all the proper safeguards of justice. In 1882 the Criminal Code was once more revived; and, that being so, he could not help asking why it was that in 1883 a question obviously of fundamental importance should be brought up, and he could not understand upon what principle such a course as that was taken. As he understood from the other side, it had been argued that this change flowed out of the change which his noble Friend (the Earl of Lytton), as Governor General of India, had made; but he apprehended his noble Friend would deny that, for his change had amounted to this—that one-sixth of the Civil servants in India might be appointed from the Natives. He failed to understand that there would be the least administrative difficulty in this, for the railways and telegraphs would give ample opportunities for avoiding any which might arise. It would be perfectly possible to appoint Natives in those Provinces when there were very few Europeans. Anomalies they must have in India so long as they retained their power there. If the Government really set themselves to work to sweep away anomalies, the first which they would have to remove was the British Government itself. It was strange that, although they had had many authorities cited, not one word was
  1786
  said about the opinion of the Judges. It had been argued, indeed, that as Native Judges tried civil cases, there could be no reason why they should not also try criminal. But it was in criminal cases that so much distrust existed in the popular mind. It was said that, as we permitted Europeans to try Natives, why should not Natives try Europeans; and why, when Natives tried Europeans in the Presidency towns, should they not do so elsewhere? But the analogy would not hold good. In the Presidency towns the Courts were placed in the full blaze of public observation. You had newspapers and reporters; and although it was true that a European convicted in the Provinces could appeal, still he might be thrown into prison and his character receive a slur from which he could not redeem it. Besides, before the appeals could be heard, he might be kept in prison for a long time. There was a case not long ago where an Englishman in Upper Burmah was condemned and placed by a Native authority in prison with an iron collar round his neck, and detained for a considerable period. Supposing that had been done by one of these Native Judges in India, how strong would have been the feeling if it was known that the sentence was unjust? The Government contended that they were only logically carrying out the system as it at present existed; but if they proposed to justify their position logically they would have to go a great deal further; for, as it was, Native Judges would have different powers from English Judges, and a logical view necessitated putting both on the same footing. This, indeed, was what the Native Press was already clamouring for, and he did not suppose Her Majesty's Government were prepared to sanction that. It was said that an overwhelming consensus of great authorities was in favour of the change. The opinions of Commanders-in-Chief were more valuable on military matters than on questions of Imperial policy in India, as to which their views were almost always traditional. Why had not the opinion of the Judges of the High Court of India been given? In the discussion which took place on the subject in the Council, Mr. Stewart Baillie, a distinguished civilian, remarked that he failed to perceive either the extent or the depth of feeling aroused in favour of the measure;

  1787
  while an eminent Indian, a Member of the Council, said that while under the dictates of prudence he was in favour of the measure, yet his heart was against it. With regard to the question of privilege, it must be remembered that the privilege was not of the Judge, but of the prisoner, and that it was common to the whole of the countries of the East. There was nothing in English law making such an exemption. If Englishmen were subjected in distant Provinces to the jurisdiction of the Native magistrates, cases of hardship and abuse must arise. It appeared to him reasonable that Europeans should desire to be tried by a Judge of their own nationality. It must be remembered that the English population were always in the position of a garrison, and that nothing ought to be done which was calculated to alienate the loyal sentiments they possessed towards us. He deeply lamented that such a measure as this, which would lead to an antagonism of race, had been brought forward; and he hoped that, in spite of the language that had been used that evening, the Indian Government would reconsider their determination to press it forward. If the measure were so serious as some persons said it was, they should pause before they carried it through; while, on the other hand, if it were a merely trivial matter, they should, with kindness and confidence, give way to the strongly-expressed feeling of the European inhabitants of India.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, there could be no doubt that the subjects brought before the House had attracted great interest in India. He had listened with attention to the speech of the noble Earl who had succeeded him in the Government of India, and to the arguments which he used. That part of the speech which dealt with what was called local self-government might, he thought, be dismissed without much difficulty. It was evident that the noble Earl misapprehended the scope and extent of the measures introduced by the Viceroy. As was clearly pointed out by his noble Friend the Secretary of State, Lord Ripon had been simply carrying on the edifice which had been begun by his Predecessors.
  THE EARL OF LYTTON: Am I to understand that I am in error in assuming that the district officers are to be excluded from the Local Boards?
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, he would notice that particular part of the subject later on. The noble Earl had characterized the measures of the Viceroy as an introduction of Radicalism into India. But there was no foundation for such an assertion in fact. It was 30 years since the question of municipal institutions in India was first mooted, and since that time many men who knew most of the feelings and dispositions of the people of India had pressed on the Government to give more powers of local self-government to the people. The noble Viscount who spoke last had called the creation of small Municipalities in India absurd; but he (the Earl of Northbrook) recollected the question of the size of the Municipalities in India being discussed in the Legislative Council by men of the highest experience, who had spout their lives in that country. Mr. Clive Bayley, who had experience of three Provinces of India, said, in 1873, that he could mention many small towns—places almost too insignificant to be called towns—which had enjoyed municipal institutions, and had worked them with great credit and very satisfactorily. In the same debate Sir Barrow Ellis, another eminent authority, said that, in the Presidency of Bombay there were many small Municipalities which had been carried on with complete success. The noble Viscount asked whether there was any administrative officer in India who would assert that it was desirable that the members of those Municipalities should be left to manage their own affairs without the intervention of an European officer. Why, it was the very men who knew most about the country, who had said that the defect of those municipal institutions was that, on the whole, the civil servants, no doubt in their desire to secure the efficient administration of Municipalities, were rather in the habit of forcing their opinions on those bodies, and of not giving the people sufficient scope in the management of their local affairs, so that they did not take the interest which it was desirable they should take in such matters. For example, he would give the House the opinion expressed, as long ago as the year 1861, by Sir Donald M'Leod, a most experienced officer, who had filled the Office of Lieutenant Governor of the Punjab with great distinction. Sir

  1789
  Donald M'Leod said that the genius of the Natives was essentially suited for municipal organization, and that—
  "Municipal institutions were as well adapted to the Natives of India as to those of England."
  He further said no Government official ought to be associated with, or allowed to interfere in any way in, the nomination of Members, and that—
  "In short, the Municipal Body should he, as regarded essentials, really independent so far as interference of our officials goes."
  He would put that opinion against the opinion of the noble Viscount, who said that no district officer was in favour of the people managing their own local affairs. Again, quite lately, Mr. Crossthwaite, a Member of the Legislative Council of the Governor General, with as great a local experience of the North-West Provinces now as any man could have, gave his opinion entirely in favour of local self-government, as explained in Lord Ripon's Resolutions; and added that he would have gone even further, and given those Local Bodies at once still more power than was proposed by Lord Ripon; that we were more likely to make a mistake in giving too little power rather than too much to the Local Bodies; and that we must give confidence to the Natives, and try to get them to work with us in the management of their affairs if we wished to enlist them as efficient aids. The noble Earl who had succeeded him as Governor General had declared that Lord Ripon's plan of local self-government was a scheme to change the fundamental nature of the government, and to establish representative government in India. Now, the Viceroy of India was surely more likely to understand the meaning of his policy, and to interpret it correctly, than the noble Earl. What did the Viceroy say as to the intention, of his own policy? There were Resolutions of the Government of India published on the subject, and afterwards a discussion in the Legislative Council of India on the first of the Bills being introduced into the Legislative Council for the purpose of giving effective shape to those Resolutions. Lord Ripon, on that occasion, gave a description of his policy, which was diametrically contrary to the interpretation which the noble Earl and the noble Viscount bad put upon that policy. The noble Viscount said that
  1790
  the Viceroy wanted to have a stereotyped system all over India; that no district officer could have anything to say to those Municipal Bodies; that all India was to be given representative institutions, and there was to be no latitude in the matter. In his speech, made in the Legislative Council, in November, 1882, upon the Central Provinces Bill, the Viceroy spoke as follows:—
  "In drawing up the Resolution of the 18tli of May last, the Government of India very particularly pointed out that they had not the slightest intention of laying down hard-and-fast rules of a uniform character for the extension of local self-government throughout the whole of this vast peninsula. It would have been an exceedingly absurd idea if it had ever entered into the heads of the Government to do anything of the kind. The circumstances of different parts of India are most various. We have in this country races almost on the verge of the savage state; and we have, on the other hand, large populations marked by a very considerable advance, political and social, and counting among them men of very subtle and developed intellects. It is, of course, obviously impossible to deal with a country in that condition upon any uniform plan in regard to a system of local self-government.
  "Therefore, what we proposed was that, laying down a few broad and general principles, those principles should be applied according to the peculiarities and requirements of the different parts of the country in different ways, so as to meet those requirements and to suit those peculiarities; and we especially and clearly pointed out that we thought it was very desirable that the mode in which the principles of that Resolution were to be carried out should be varied, not only from province to province, but in the different parts of each province itself; because we wanted to make trial of various methods of procedure, various modes of composing the local boards and electing and controlling them, in order that, after experience, we might learn in the course of time what were the best methods of dealing with these matters, and what might be the system generally applicable, at all events, to the great divisions of the country."
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKexplained that he had read from the words of Lord Ripon's Resolution.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, he disputed the correctness of the noble Viscount's interpretation. The noble Viscount bad better read the passage.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, he had quoted the words in which it was stated that the Government of India wished to extend throughout the country in every district a network of Local Boards to be charged with definite functions.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, he must complain that the noble Vis-

  1791
  count had read part of Lord Ripon's words apart from the context, and from subsequent utterances, in which he said that it was impossible to establish a uniform system, and that it was necessary to take into consideration the requirements of different parts of the country; and that the Government hoped by experience to find out the best mode of dealing with existing circumstances. He protested against the noble Viscount placing interpretations on Lord Ripon's policy which his explanations did not justify.
  THE EARL OF LYTTONremarked, that the noble Viscount had read a passage in which Lord Ripon had distinctly spoken of establishing a network of Local Government Boards.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, he thought Lord Ripon was more likely to know what his intentions were than either the noble Earl or the noble Viscount. With regard to Sir Ashley Eden, he (the Earl of Northbrook) believed that his noble Friend (the Earl of Kimberley) had correctly referred to Sir Ashley Eden's opinions, who, without being an advocate of any particular scheme, was, on the whole, favourable to an extension of the policy of local self-government. How far Sir Ashley Eden considered that the district officers of Bengal should be dissociated from the Local Bodies of Bengal he did not know; but he thought that Sir Ashley Eden considered that those officers should have more control than his successor—Mr. Rivers Thompson—proposed to give them by the Bill he had introduced into the Legislative Council of Bengal. As he had not himself seen the Bill, he could not say more upon that subject. It should be clearly understood that what might be suitable for one part of the country might not be suitable for another. The real policy of the Government was indicated by Lord Ripon's opinion which he had quoted. As his noble Friend the Secretary of State for India had said, it was not a new policy; it was a policy which had been carried on for the last 20 or 30 years by successive Governments in India. He himself (the Earl of Northbrook) had been engaged in the year 1873 in passing Acts establishing municipal institutions for many different Provinces in India. If the noble Earl opposite, who succeeded him in the Office of Viceroy, had applied
  1792
  his abilities to the subject of local self-government, he was satisfied he would have arrived at the same conclusion as he (the Earl of Northbrook) had—namely, that this was not a new policy; but that the Government, in carrying it out, were only carrying out what had been considered right, proper, and safe for the country.
  With regard to the other question before their Lordships—the alteration proposed to be made in the Law of Criminal Procedure—his noble Friend behind him, and the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, had told their Lordships clearly how small was the change proposed by the Government of India, and how consistent it was with the policy of the Parliament of England, and of successive Administrations of this country, whatever might have been their political opinions, as well as of successive Governors General of India. Whether it was Lord Dalhousie, with his Imperial instincts, or Lord Canning, with the responsibility laid upon him of dealing with the Mutiny, or Lord Lawrence, with his great knowledge of the internal organization of the country, or Lord Mayo, associated from childhood with the Conservative Party: all alike hold that, so far as was possible in India, there should be no distinction of class or race, and that there should be one law for all Her Majesty's subjects. Was this disputed by noble Lords opposite? Did they remember the Charter Act of 1833? By that Act India was, for the first time, opened to Europeans. Before that time no European could settle in that country unless licensed by the East India Company. When it was then proposed that Europeans should be allowed freely to resort to India, it was also declared that Europeans and Natives should be subject to the same laws, Lord Ellenborough expressed himself against the proposal in language almost identical with that used to-night in their Lordships' House, and he received an answer in the other House of Parliament from no less a man than Thomas Babington Macaulay—an answer which was given in one of the most eloquent of his speeches, and which was received with cordial approval by Mr. Wynn, who having been President of the Board of Control, represented the Conservative Party upon the subject in the other House. In 1833 Parliament passed a clause enacting that—

  1793
  "No Native shall by reason only of his religion, place of birth, descent, colour, or any of them, be disqualified from holding any place, office, or employment."
  And the Court of Directors interpreted those words in an explanatory despatch to mean—
  "That there shall be no governing caste in British India; that whatever other tests of qualification may be adopted distinction of race or religion shall not be of the number."
  When the Grown assumed the government of India, after the Mutiny, under a Conservative Government, it was announced that all Her Majesty's subjects—
  "Of whatever race or creed, were to be freely and impartially admitted to offices the duties of which they might be qualified by their education, ability, and integrity duly to discharge."
  These were the words of the Queen's gracious Proclamation of the year 1858. When Governor General of India, the noble Earl opposite, in May, 1878, urged a great increase in the employment of Natives; and in recommending his views to the noble Viscount (Viscount Cran-brook), who was then Secretary of State, said that he desired—
  "The new Native Civil Service to be regarded as a branch of the Covenanted Civil Service; no distinction being made in the duties, or responsibilities, of those particular posts which will be open alike to both branches, and the status and position of officers holding the same posts being the same, whether they were taken from the one branch or the other."
  This proposal received the warm approval of the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Cranbrook), and was carried into effect. How did the noble Viscount reconcile that with the statement he had just now made that the Natives introduced under those rules were not members of the same Service as the Europeans? If words meant anything, the declaration made by the Viceroy meant nothing less than that the Natives who had been admitted into the Covenanted Civil Service were to be in the same position as the other members.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, the noble Earl did not seem to be aware that they could not be made members of the Covenanted Civil Service without an Act of Parliament.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, that an Act of Parliament was passed in 1870 giving ample power to appoint these gentlemen to the Covenanted Civil Service.
  THE EARL OF LYTTONsaid, that he had recommended that, under certain conditions, Natives appointed by nomination in India should, without passing a competitive examination, be constituted into a branch of the Covenanted Service. But it had been ascertained that the Act in question distinctly excluded all such persons from that Service; and, therefore, the Native civilians appointed under statutory rule were certainly, in the present unaltered state of the law, not members of the Covenanted Service.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, that the noble Earl and the noble Viscount seemed to be anxious now to appear less generous than they really were. Whether they had been more generous than they intended or not, they had, undoubtedly, deliberately sanctioned the admission of Natives into the Covenanted Civil Service, for this was the first rule sanctioned by the noble Viscount, under the Act of 1870, upon the recommendation of the noble Earl—
  "Each Local Government may nominate persons who are Natives of India within the meaning of the said Act for employment in Her Majesty's Covenanted Civil Service in India within the territories subordinate to such Government."
  The rule would be found in Papers presented to Parliament in the year 1879. He thought that he had proved that this had been the policy even of the noble Earl; and the only question was, whether race distinctions were to be kept up in this particular case which was now under consideration. That was the principal point, and it was a small point. The race distinction was introduced in 1872, and he was very sorry for it. In introducing the Criminal Procedure Act the Government of Lord Mayo had not raised the question of race disqualifications between magistrates and Judges of the same rank in the Service; but the mistake, as he (the Earl of Northbrook) considered it, was made in Committee upon the Bill, when the race distinction was introduced which had given rise to the present difficulty with which the Government of India were endeavouring to deal, and he might inform their Lordships that some of the most practical men in India were against the provisions which became law in 1872. No man had calmer judgment or greater respect for his fellow-countrymen than Lord Napier of Magdala; but he was

  1795
  opposed to the race distinction. Two Civil servants of high reputation, Sir George Campbell, Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, and his successor, Sir Richard Temple, were likewise both opposed to it; and the opposition was initiated by Sir Barrow Ellis, a man of great experience and remarkably sound judgment. Therefore, when it was said that there was no one in favour of the policy now carried out by the Government of India, a great mistake was made. He did not, indeed, remember any subject in which the weight of authority was greater than with regard to the abolition of this race disqualification. It had been attempted to undervalue the opinion of the different Lieutenant Governors; but anyone who was acquainted with them would be satisfied that the opinions they had expressed represented their honest convictions. It had been said elsewhere that the Viceroy had endeavoured to force this Bill upon India by his majority in the Legislative Council against the opinion of the non-official Europeans. Nothing could be more contrary to the fact, for nothing could be more calm, more deliberate, or more regardful of public opinion, than the manner in which Lord Ripon had proceeded since the Bill was introduced. In his speech in the Legislative Council in India upon the measure, Lord Ripon showed how superior he was to all feeling of irritation—a feeling which might well have been the result of the attacks to which he had been subjected. Upon the answer to a very simple question depended their Lordships' estimation of the Bill. Were the Native officers in the Covenanted Civil Service fit to exercise the functions which the measure would impose upon them, or were they not? If they were not fit, by no means allow them to exercise those functions; but if they were fit, no question of race ought to stand in their way. It was a mistake to suppose that the Native magistrates and Judges whom the Bill affected were inferior men. The measure would only confer jurisdiction upon magistrates of the first class, who had served 12 or 13 years in the Civil Service, and passed the necessary examinations, and who were selected by the different local Governments as fit and proper persons, and upon Sessions Judges, who were officers of still longer service and experience. It had been, said by the
  1796
  noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon) that the Government proposed to take from British subjects in India privileges which they enjoyed in Turkey, Egypt, China, and Japan; and he asked whether the Secretary of State for the Colonies would permit such a monstrous thing as the exercise of jurisdiction by a Native Judge over a British subject in Ceylon or Hong Kong. But it should be borne in mind by those who made use of that argument that the system of law in Turkey and the Levant was not adapted to the cases in which Europeans were concerned. Consular jurisdiction was, therefore, exercised under Treaties. In India, however, the Criminal Law was far more simple than the Criminal Law in this country, and was applied to all the inhabitants of India. As regarded the Colonies, the noble Earl was mistaken. In Ceylon there were Native magistrates and a Native Judge of the Supreme Court who exercised jurisdiction over British subjects, and in Hong Kong a Chinese magistrate had exercised a similar jurisdiction. In the High Court of Calcutta Native Judges had for 20 years exercised criminal as well as civil jurisdiction with very great credit to themselves. In the Presidency towns Native magistrates had possessed for many years criminal jurisdiction over European British subjects without any complaint, and civil causes affecting European British subjects were satisfactorily dealt with all over India by Native Judges, to whose merits their Lordships had just heard the highest testimony given by the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack. In his (the Earl of North-brook's) opinion, the Viceroy had taken a right course in endeavouring to remove the race disqualification introduced in 1872 with respect to criminal procedure; and he felt confident that the prophecy that danger would result from the proposed step would not be fulfilled. Before sitting down, he wished to say that he had watched the career of his noble Friend (the Marquess of Ripon) with all the interest which anyone must feel who had experienced at one time the responsibility of the high Office he now filled. He had noticed the able manner in which Lord Ripon was dealing with many important questions of administration in India, and he had always observed in him the most anxious desire to

  1797
  do his duty fairly by all classes of Her Majesty's subjects, alike to the Natives of India and to his fellow-countrymen. He hoped that that discussion would show, at any rate, that Her Majesty's Government were prepared to give him their hearty and entire confidence in regard to those measures which he had introduced, believing that they were right in themselves, and that they were not likely to produce any of those ill effects which noble Lords opposite seemed to apprehend from them.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, at this late period of the evening I shall not prolong the debate but for a few minutes, as I feel that both sides of the subject have been very fully discussed; and, besides, I feel that there is some difficulty in following the noble Earl who has just sat down. He is a man of great authority, but I think he crushes his opponents with the weight of his authority. Whenever anyone tries to fulfil his duty as a Member of this Legislative Assembly, and ventures to criticize the course which any agent of Her Majesty's Government has thought fit to pursue, his only answer is—"Which ought to be right; they on the spot or you?" Well, that is an excessively compendious system of political philosophy, which would speedily put an end to Parliamentary debate. It would only be necessary for the Government to publish such opinions as they were able to collect in favour of their policy, and forthwith to proclaim them, and to put up a noble Lord with the authority of the noble Earl, who would exclaim—"I am Sir Oracle; let no dog bark." In this way, it would only be necessary to suppress any attempts at criticism on the part of the Opposition. In the remarks which I am about to make I will endeavour, as far as possible, to refrain from giving any opinion of my own, and speak rather from the facts of others. I confess that there is some difficulty in doing that, because information is not the strong point of the argument which we have had to-night. Now, it appears to mo that a phrase which the noble Earl dropped furnished a key to the discussion. He said that we must go back to first principles—we must adhere to a generous policy. In other words, the Government of India is to be conducted on vague sentiment and à priori reasoning, and that is very much
  1798
  the principle on which Lord Ripon appears to have gone. "You must get rid of these race distinctions," said the noble Earl. My Lords, that is a very fine popular phrase. It may be very fitting for popular use; but does the noble Earl get rid of these race distinctions? He laid it down as an inexorable principle that no person was to be excluded from office on account of his race—that no person was to be prevented from holding any appointment for any reason except unfitness. But are these the principles on which the Government of India is to be conducted? Is there really to be this universal admission to office without the slightest regard to race? Is there any man who will have the hardihood to tell me that it is within the range of possibility that a man in India should be appointed Lieutenant-General of a Province, or Chief Commissioner, or Commander-in-Chief of the Army, or Viceroy, without any regard whatever to his race? That he should be appointed simply with reference to his fitness? My Lords, I do not see what is the use of all this political hypocrisy. It does not deceive the Natives of India. They know perfectly well that they are governed by a superior race, and that all this talk is hollow and unreal. There was considerable difference of opinion as to what Lord Ripon meant in the Minute that has been quoted; but surely Lord Ripon must know what his own opinions are, and I think the words of the Minute very clearly show it. Perhaps I may be permitted to point out that a speech made in debate in the Council can be no kind of answer to the words that are written in the Minute. A speech is not official in the sense that a Note or Resolution is; and though the latter may not have the weight of an Act of Parliament, it has all the force of an official act. The noble Earl referred to the point that Lord Ripon was ready to allow considerable liberty in the application of the principle in question; but it by no means followed that Lord Ripon has not authorized a very large, and, as we think, a very revolutionary change, extending over the whole Peninsula. The two propositions are in no way contradictory of each other; and this phrase about setting up a network of Local Boards is not an isolated phrase picked out, as the noble Earl said, without considering the

  1799
  contexts of other parts of the document. After discussing the question of the latitude of application, and saying that a large latitude of application must be left to the law, the document goes on—
  "But there are, nevertheless, fundamental principles, which, after every allowance has been made for local liberties, must be universally followed and frankly adopted if the system is to have a fair trial."
  Then the next sentence is to the effect that efforts are to be made, as far as possible, to establish a network of Local Boards. Therefore, when the noble Earl speaks of this reference to a network of Local Boards as an isolated phrase, he is guilty of that want of examination of documents which he has charged against noble Lords on this side of the House. I do not think, my Lords, that the attempts of the noble Earl to minimize the marked changes which the Marquess of Ripon has made are at all borne out by the words of the Resolution itself. The noble Earl sought to show that Sir Ashley Eden was in favour of this system set up by Lord Ripon. I have received from Sir Ashley Eden a card of very recent date, which is as follows:—
  "I said that under no circumstances would it do to have Local Boards of which the district officers were not Chairmen."
  That is a point of vital importance. No doubt there were Municipal Bodies in India from a very early time, and that they exist still. No doubt the genius of the Indian people is suited to Municipal Bodies of this character. But the question we want to know, and that has raised so much feeling and apprehension, is whether or not these Local Boards are to be under the district officers of the Provinces, or whether they are to have any dependence, however qualified, upon these officers? We wish to know whether these Local Boards are a germ or not? We live in days of evolution; in days when the doctrine of evolution has a high position in both science and politics. I must say that anybody who wished to alarm the English population could not have done it better than by the language in this Minute. It is full of the catchwords of cosmopolitan Radicalism. The Governor General begins by saying—
  "That the municipal institutions were not quite so successful in all cases, and that the
  1800
  problem before the Government is one of no slight difficulty. The attempts hitherto made have been made with too little success, and the best men do not present themselves as candidates."
  All that does not look as if the change was very congenial to the population of India. But then the Viceroy asks where the remedy for this is, and he says—
  "The remedy must be in ascertaining, by patient and practical experiment, how best to call forth and render effective that desire and capacity for self-government which all intelligent and fairly educated men may safely be assumed to possess."
  I believe that in the Teutonic races intelligent men do generally wish to possess self-government, and have generally been successful in attaining it. But that, speaking of all races, all periods, and all climes, all intelligent men desire, and have a capacity for self-government, is the most startling statement of historical philosophy it has been my good fortune to come across. These commonplaces of Radical philosophy have, no doubt, alarmed the people, and they wish to know if this desire and capacity for self-government is to be carried out; for people who have a desire for self-government may, perhaps, extend it to political affairs, and when the Viceroy says we are to call it forth, we fear there are wider political schemes connected with it which may justly alarm Europeans. With respect to this matter of the alteration of the Criminal Law, it has been so thoroughly discussed that I do not wish to say much concerning it; but I desire to observe two things. In the first place, we have been assured by the noble Earl that those who are concerned with the actual government of the Provinces are immeasurably superior Judges to those outside. But the Natives who could be appointed to these Judgeships are mostly, if not all, Natives of Bengal, and the present Governor of Bengal is an opponent of the scheme. I think we have wandered from the path in trying to deal with it on first principles. The question is, what will the political effect of it be upon the European population, and through the European population upon the prosperity of India, which depends upon them. That is the whole question. I do not agree with the noble Earl that it is simply a question whether these Judges are fit or not. The Lieutenant

  1801
  Governor of Bengal said that this was unmistakably the most united demonstration of popular discontent he had ever witnessed. I will not say what these Judges will do; I only want to say what the European population expect them to do; and I will, therefore, read from a speech of a Member of the Legislative Council, Mr. Robert Miller, in which he said—
  "I will appeal to the universal Indian experience to bear mo out; false evidence is cheap. I am stating a fact well known to every zemindar, to every ryot and European who was ever engaged in litigation, that the practice of bringing false charges for the purpose of ruining a rival in business is a well-known practice."
  This is a fact of which European capital is to take account before it allows itself to be locked up in India. Apprehensions of that kind are likely to move men of business very deeply, and you will easily believe they are not lightly entertained. There are similar speeches delivered at public meetings, and some are expressed in language so violent, that it is better not to repeat them. The gravamen of our charge is that a great Malthusian difficulty confronts you in India, and that you show no sense of the policy required to meet it. The population is increasing at an appalling rate, faster than the resources of the country are increasing at present; and if you hope that the resources will increase faster than they do now, it is to England and to English capital alone that you can appeal with success. It matters not whether there be Administrative inconveniences or not; they must be settled by Administrative re-arrangements; but the interests of the Europeans cannot be permitted to be ignored. The Government by their policy have brought themselves into this position. If the charges are true, and if the effect of this Bill is great, a great injustice will have been committed. If the effect is small, the Government have committed a portentous folly. For the sake merely of gratifying the feelings—or, if you like, the legitimate ambition—of a small number of Native Government servants, the Government are promoting an hostility which will be far more dangerous than the hostility of the coloured millions of India, and they are alienating from the shores of India that capital and industry by which alone the millions of India can live.

EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES BILL.

  FIRST READING.
  Bill brought from the Commons.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY, in rising to move, "That Standing Orders Nos. XLIX. And XXXV. be suspended," said: My Lords, a similar Motion to this was made in 1847; therefore it will be in accordance with precedent if the House thinks fit to take the course which I now have to propose. The Bill which I hold in my hand, and which has passed through the House of Commons to-day unanimously, I understand, and without alteration, is a Bill the necessity for which is caused by circumstances which are known, no doubt, generally to every Member of this House. It is unnecessary and would be inconvenient for the Public Service that I should enter into any detail, or should state with any particularity the precise circumstances in consequence of which Her Majesty's Government have thought it necessary to propose the Bill. I must, of course, make some statements as to the Bill itself; but I wish to assure the House that there are circumstances which, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, make it absolutely necessary for the public safety that this Bill should be passed into law with the utmost possible despatch. We make that statement upon our own responsibility, feeling deeply the gravity of the situation, and that the necessity we have to put before the House is an indispensable, imperative, and unavoidable necessity. It is for that reason alone that I ask the House to take the unusual and extreme step of proceeding to pass a Bill through all its stages which has only been brought up to the House within the last three or four hours, and necessarily, therefore, one which your Lordships have had a very short time to consider. With regard to the Bill itself, the 1st clause, I need not say that it is unnecessary for the case of murder to be dealt with; that is already provided for; but the case that has to be met is the case of an attempt which fails. The 2nd clause provides that any person causing an explosion likely to prove dangerous to life shall be liable to penal servitude for life, two years' imprisonment being the minimum punishment. The next case is that in which the explosion does not actually take place, but there is an intent to

  1803
  cause an explosion. That offence is punishable by 20 years' penal servitude, with a similar minimum punishment. Where any person is found with explosives in his possession under suspicious circumstances, he is similarly liable to 14 years' penal servitude or two years' imprisonment. There is also a clause dealing with accessories, and another giving the Attorney General power, when he has reasonable ground for believing that a crime has been committed, to order that an inquiry take place, although no person has been charged with the offence. It has been found by experience that the result of such inquiries has been to often lead to the discovery of the person who committed the crime. This is a very valuable provision, which, I hope, will form part of the permanent law of the country. The other clauses are in the nature of securities. It is quite clear that the very unusual powers and the severe penalties imposed by the Bill, and the extensive powers conferred on the Government, could not be safely exercised if they were entrusted to subordinate officers throughout the country; but the Government have provided a safeguard that no prosecution can be undertaken under the Act except by the fiat of the Attorney General; and, therefore, no serious consequences can arise under it to any individual, unless there are circumstances of so suspicious a character that the person inculpated ought to go to trial. There is a power given to the master of a vessel who finds explosives on board to throw them overboard without being liable to an action. These are the principal clauses of the Bill, and I shall be happy to give any further explanation in my power, but, in moving the Resolution, I take leave to repeat that the Government consider this to be a most urgent matter, and believe it to be absolutely necessary that this Bill] should pass this House without delay.
  Moved, "That Standing Order No. XLIX., that no motion for making or dispensing with a Standing Order be made without notice, he now read:" The same was read accordingly:
  Then it was moved, "That Standing Order No. XXXV., that no two stages of a Bill he taken on one day, be now read:" The same was read accordingly:
  Then it was moved to resolve, "That it is the opinion of this House that it is essentially necessary for the public safety that the Bill this
  1804
  day brought from the House of Commons, intituled 'An Act to amend the law relating to explosive substances,' should forthwith he proceeded in with all possible despatch, and that notwithstanding Standing Orders Nos. XLIX. and XXXV. the Lord Chancellor ought forthwith to put the question upon every stage of the said Bill in which this House shall think it necessary for the public safety to proceed therein."—(The Earl of Kimberley.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, there are some provisions in this Bill which, I think, are an improvement in the present law. The 1st and 2nd clauses, securing the punishment of any person causing or attempting to cause an explosion, or keeping explosives with the intention of endangering life, are obviously clauses which are very much wanted in the present law, and which, I think, are highly commendable. If it were merely a question of passing these, I should have no observations to make, even on the unprecedented course taken by the noble Earl. But the Bill is much stronger than that. It is a Bill of a very remarkable character. In the 4th clause punishment is inflicted for making or possessing explosives under suspicious circumstances, any person so convicted being liable to 14 years' penal servitude. That is an unusual provision, although, perhaps, not absolutely unprecedented. But in view of the great danger these explosives cause, and the very serious events which have taken place in various parts of the world, I do not know that reasonable objection could be taken to that clause as it stands, if the words "explosive substances" meant what the phrase is usually understood to mean. But the clause assumes a different character when it is read with the Interpretation Clause, which defines what "explosive substance" is, and which makes it really the most violent in the Bill. Now, the materials for making explosive substances include a number of things which are used in ordinary arts. It has been said, I think, by the distinguished chemist Liebig that you can know the prosperity of a country by the amount of sulphuric acid that it manufactures; and yet that is one of the substances which it will be an offence under this Bill to have. The same is true of nitric acid, alcohol, sawdust, cotton waste, nitrate of silver—largely used by photographers—and of a number of other perfectly innocent substances possessed by a great many persons. I confess that,

  1805
  even if their proceedings he regular, the Government have exercised an unwise discretion in taking this opportunity of adding so wide an enactment to the Statute Book. My objection to this Bill is that it is not a temporary Bill. It is to be a permanent measure; and if you once pass it these liabilities will be placed on the Statute Book and remain there. This is legislation which has obviously been adopted in a panic. It has been constructed with little care, and it is being rushed through both Houses of Parliament. Not only so, but it makes large inroads on the present doctrines of our Criminal Law. In the first place, there is the examination of the prisoners. It is not our practice that prisoners should be examined.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: That applies to witnesses.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No; it applies to prisoners. That is an entirely new principle introduced into our Criminal Law. Then, again, it is not our practice that a prisoner's wife should be examined; but the principle again is broken down. It is not our principle that a man should be called upon to criminate himself; but it is enacted here that a witness shall not be excused from answering a question on the ground that it may criminate himself. Therefore, you are reversing all the traditional doctrines of the Criminal Law. An emergency is met by a Bill which runs for a certain number of months or years. Then you might carefully consider the circumstances under which you are asked to make such large inroads in the doctrines of your Criminal Law, or you might refer it to a Committee to obtain the views on which the Government obtained the Act; but no emergency can justify a permanent measure of this description. But here, without any statement of their case, the Government are taking advantage of the present panic to make permanent alterations in the Criminal Law of a very objectionable character. They are making it, too, in a manner for which there is absolutely no precedent in this House. The noble Earl said that there was a precedent for suspending the Standing Orders in the case of the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act. But that was a temporary measure, and the suspension was passed nemine contradicente. But there is no precedent, I believe, in either House of Parliament
  1806
  for suspending a Standing Order for passing such a Bill in a single night when the Bill was permanent, and objection had been taken to it. I regret very much that the noble Earl has taken this course. I utterly repudiate the idea that it is necessary. It cannot be necessary to pass a permanent measure in this way, though it might be necessary with a temporary measure. I emphatically object to the liberties which have been taken with the Forms of the House. No Notice whatever has been given to the Opposition that a measure of so violent a character was about to be proposed. It would be useless for us, in the present state of the House, to oppose the wishes of the Government. If they had given us a day's Notice, the matter might have been different. Instead of doing that, they have perpetrated a sharp bit of Parliamentary practice; and you must not complain if your turn comes to undergo a similar thing. You have made a breach in the traditional courtesy of the House without any ground whatever. You knew of the necessity two or three days ago, and it was perfectly possible for you to have informed the Members of this House, and so enabled them to exercise their independent judgment on the provisions of the Bill. I freely recognize the necessity of some urgent legislation, and I am fully prepared to entrust the Government with such a temporary measure as they might desire; but I protest against this violation of Forms, which are intended for the security of Parliament; I protest against this violation, in a panic, of the doctrines of our Criminal Law; and I protest against the introduction of this Bill by the practice of a manœuvre which is unworthy of the Government.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, before my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack answers the noble Marquess with regard to the provisions of the Bill, I must protest, in the strongest terms consistent with Parliamentary courtesy, against the language used by the noble Marquess. I protest that when we come to this House, in the name of the Executive Government, and say that the purposes of public safety require that this Bill should be passed, the Leader of the Opposition should thereupon taunt the Government with a manœuvre and a want of courtesy. I am astounded that

  1807
  the noble Marquess or any Member of the Opposition should descend to such language. The noble Marquess might say that the urgency of the case was not such that it was necessary for us to have come to the House to ask for these powers; but I say we had a right to expect that no personal accusation should be made of a petty manœuvre, when we are performing a solemn public duty. Never, in all my experience in Parliament—and it has been considerable in this House—have I heard language which gave me so much pain—more than that, humiliation—as that used by the noble Marquess. I may leave my noble and learned Friend to answer the noble Marquess's remarks upon the Bill; but I must say that, while I hope I do not use terms of personal offence, I can feel nothing but indignation at the language of the noble Marquess.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he would first deal with the criticism of the noble Marquess in regard to certain clauses. The noble Marquess had said that in the Interpretation Clause a great many substances were included which ought not to be so. But their Lordships would see that the principal clause ran—
  "Under such circumstances as give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he has the same in his possession or under his control for an unlawful purpose."
  That, together with the necessary consent of the Attorney General, would be a sufficient protection. The reason why the Bill was drawn in that way was that it would be altogether nugatory if that provision were omitted. If those who had a criminal purpose could not be interfered with while they had in their possession the uncombined elements of explosive substances, which might at any moment be combined with great ease and at once employed to do irreparable mischief, there might as well be no Bill at all. And those who had sulphuric or nitric acid, or any other substance, in their possession for legitimate purposes of which they could give an account, would be fully protected, in the unlikely case of their falling under suspicion. The clause would not operate unless there were circumstances giving rise to reasonable suspicion, or when it could be shown that the articles were possessed for a lawful purpose,
  1808
  or unless the Attorney General authorized a prosecution. Then, with regard to the clauses as to witnesses, they wore not objectionable in principle. They authorized the husband or the wife to be celled as witnesses if they themselves wished it. If there was a primâ facie ground of suspicion, and the explanation was not sufficient, the accused might, if they desired it, give evidence that would excuse them, and show that the articles were intended for a lawful purpose. If it was right to pass that Bill with those stringent clauses for the public safety, it was also right to introduce in favour of any accused person the power of giving evidence for his own exoneration. As to the clause that a witness examined on oath should not be excused from answering on the ground that he might criminate himself by any statement he might make, but that it should not be used against him, there were now many examples of it in our law. He then came to the objections made by the noble Marquess to the manner in which they were proceeding with the Bill. The noble Marquess said they were legislating in a panic. He would not be tempted to recall the echoes of a recent debate; but he must say that if ever there was a reasonable ground for alarm, the events which were known to them all must surely furnish that ground. He totally denied the propriety of the application of the word panic in the only sense in which it could properly be used on that occasion. The sense of a great public danger with which they were brought with some degree of suddenness face to face no doubt was now; but panic was generally understood to mean exaggerated and irrational alarm. He ventured to say that when they discovered a conspiracy for the destruction of public buildings or life, or both, on a large scale, the manufacture on a large scale of materials for that purpose, their transportation from foreign countries, their being brought from one large place to another, and their application actually in one instance with partial success, and in other instances the attempt made manifest, and the fact that these things did not proceed from the exceptional wickedness or folly of some chance individual, but were part of an organized conspiracy, and were so generally felt to be serious, that the whole House of Commons, without a dissentient voice, had

  1809
  thought it their duty, on the urgent representation of the Government, to pass a Bill of that nature through all its stages, he thought he need not say more about the imputation of panic. The Government had reason to know that this was a case so serious that it was not only necessary to legislate in that stringent manner, but not to lose a day in passing their measure. As to the objection that the Bill was made permanent, the dangers which led to the Bill, so far as they depended on the nature of those explosive substances, the facility of their manufacture and transportation, and of using them for purposes the most destructive and ruinous to the public interest, were in the nature of things permanent. It might be that this particular conspiracy might pass away and be put down; it might be that they might not at all times have so much reason to put in force the provisions of that Bill as they had at this moment; but the nature of those explosive substances remained, the power of using them remained; and all those who were disposed to do things that were injurious to this country knew that substances of that kind might be made and used for such purposes. There being, therefore, in that sense a permanent danger, the Government thought it their duty to ask Parliament to apply a permanent remedy. If hereafter a state of things should arise which would disarm those substances of their dangerous character and make them no longer instruments so easy to be used by wicked persons who had for their object the dissolution of all society, then, perhaps, such a Bill might be necessary no longer; but until science should discover the means of depriving them of that nature, a measure of this kind would be requisite. The only reason for dispensing with the Standing Orders was urgency, and that urgency remained whether the Bill was temporary or permanent. The Government thought it ought to be permanent. Though he much regretted the want of unanimity on the Bill, it was not necessary there should be unanimity in order to suspend the Standing Orders. With regard to the absence of Notice, the Government did not themselves know that the Bill would be passed through the other House in all its stages, so that it was impossible that Notice could be given in the ordinary sense of the word.
  1810
  The Government had every reason to believe that noble Lords on the Opposition Bench had as much knowledge on the subject, and as early, as they had. Therefore, he did not think the Government were liable to the charge of want of courtesy, or sharp Parliamentary practice; and he believed they were only doing their duty to the country in demanding urgency for this Bill.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMsaid, he was of opinion that the Bill, having been introduced in this exceptional manner, should have been of a temporary character only.
  On question, agreed to, and resolved accordingly.
  Bill read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 24.) Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Kimberley.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYcharged the Government with having, by their mode of introducing the Bill, ousted the House of all judgment on the disputed clause. If they had made it a temporary Bill, they could have considered the various clauses later. He admitted the emergency; but the plea of urgency was only a plea for ousting the House of all power of discussing the Bill. The House had no Notice until 8 o'clock that evening that the Bill would be passed through all its stages, and the Government were masters of the situation. He believed the Government had set a dangerous precedent, which would affect their Parliamentary procedure, for there was no justification for their present course, which had been adopted without the slightest excuse.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he must deny that the proceedings of the Government had been in any way objectionable. He did not know until that evening that the Bill would pass through the House of Commons in all its stages. As to Notice, his object had been to give the earliest possible Notice in his power. Copies of the Bill had been sent at once to the Leaders of the Opposition, so as not to take the Opposition by surprise. He had not anticipated that a Bill of this urgent nature would be opposed, and he was surprised at the intention expressed by the noble Marquess to oppose the Bill. If the Bill were made temporary, it would have to go back to the other House, and it was impossible to say what they would do with

  1811
  it. He could not see what was the object of the noble Marquess in endeavouring to embarrass the Government.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, the noble Marquess was not embarrassing the Government at all, for there was no opposition to the Bill. The Bill contained clauses which were open to discussion. The 6th section was one that in the Irish Act was made only temporary, the period of its operation being three years. If this Bill had been drawn in the same manner as the Irish Bill with respect to these provisions, there would have been no reason to object. After the declaration the Government had made on their responsibility, and with the knowledge possessed by their Lordships as to what was going on in that City, it would be wrong to stop the Bill; but it was fair to protest that this clause had quite a different purview, and had nothing to do with the permanent part of the Bill as it stood, so that it might have been limited in duration as its permanent adoption needed discussion.
  On question, resolved in the affirmative; Bill read 2a accordingly.
  Then it was moved that the Bill be now committed to a Committee of the Whole House; on question, resolved in the negative.
  Then it was moved that the Bill be now read 3a on question, resolved in the affirmative; Bill read 3a accordingly.
  Then it was moved that the Bill do pass; on question, resolved in the affirmative; Bill passed accordingly, and a message sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.
  House adjourned at half past Eleven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.