§ THE EARL OF WEMYSS,who had given Notice of his intention to put the following Question to the Secretary for India:—
Whether he will use his influence to cause the Bengal Tenancy Bill to be published and circulated, as amended by the Committee of the Council in India, before it is passed into law, so as to enable those interested in the measure, whether zemindars, middlemen, or ryots, to 835 have an opportunity of becoming acquainted with its provisions?said, that he found that he stood somewhat in the position of the man who locked his stable door after his steed was stolen, because he had read in The Times of that morning a telegram to the effect that the Bill had been passed with little alteration, and that, though 250 zemindars and other proprietors of land protested against the measure, and the Viceroy received a deputation, he refused to delay the passing of the Bill. Thereupon the zemindars held a meeting and contributed a large sum of money to continue the agitation against the Bill. That showed a reason for bringing on the question two days ago. It appeared that the Under Secretary for India said in "another place" on Tuesday that there had been no haste; but the announcement to-day came upon those interested in the matter by surprise, and he trusted, therefore, that their Lordships would permit him to say a few words with regard to this measure, so as to explain the nature of the Question he was about to put to Her Majesty's Government in reference to it. In his view this Bengal Tenancy Bill was intended practically to extend to India the principles of the Irish Land Act. That was a fact. The history of this Bill was a somewhat curious one. A Bill on the subject was introduced in 1877 to enable the zemindars to collect their rents, such as was introduced into Parliament to enable Irish landlords, as it was stated ad nauseam, to collect their rents. But in 1883 another Bill appeared of a totally different character—a purely Irish Bill, having in it the principle of the three F's—namely, fixity of tenure, free sale, fair rent, as well as compensation for disturbance, and other points of similarity to the Irish Land Bill. In 1883–4 this Bill was referred to a Select Committee, and after various procedure, the Select Committee, composed of 11 Members, agreed to their Report by only three of a majority. The Report recommended various changes, and the Bill was not published or printed with these changes made in it till the 13th February. The object of himself and all those for whom he spoke was that some time should have been given—for it was now a matter that was past—for the consideration of the amended Bill, in which great and 836 marked changes had been made. Instead of time being given the Bill had been rushed through. More time to consider it and the republication of the Bill in the vernacular were all that was asked for. But the Viceroy had to meet—and he was glad of it—the Ameer of Afghanistan on the 27th, and it was held that this Bill had to pass before the departure of the Viceroy. He could not but think that this matter had been followed up and pressed with undue—that was, unwise—haste. But the Bill would not become law until it received the sanction of the Secretary of State; and what he asked was, that the noble Lord would not give his assent to this Bill until there was a full opportunity of ascertaining what was the opinion of the public with regard to it both in India and in England.
LORD ELLENBOROUGHalso complained that sufficient time had not been given for the consideration of the measure in its altered state. It should be remembered that the means of circulating information in India were not so good as in England. It seemed as if the Bill had been hurried through in order that the Viceroy might hurry off to the North-West Provinces to meet the Ameer of Afghanistan.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that before he went into the details, he thought it would be better for him to read copies of the telegrams which had passed between himself and the Viceroy since the discussion of Tuesday evening in the other House of Parliament. On that evening he telegraphed to the Viceroy as follows:—
From Secretary of State, 10th March, 1885.Statement telegraphed by Durbhunga made in Parliament that you are pressing through Kent Bill without giving time for translation into vernacular; reason given that you must go to Simla. What shall I reply?He received the following reply:—From the Viceroy, dated and received 11th March, 1885.Your telegram 10th. Statement absolutely unfounded. Bill already twice translated into vernacular. Select Committee held 64 meetings. Of these, 28 held in Calcutta within last few months, Maharajah attended only seven. Committee consisted of 11 members, of whom only two go to Simla, and decided vernacular republication unnecessary because almost all alterations were excisions favourable to zemindars and not new clauses. After Bill reported fort-night elapsed before considered by Legislative Council. First motion in Council was for sus- 837 pension by zemindar representative, which was lost by majority of 18 to 2. Two native members who do not go to Simla had voted before members of Executive Council were called upon to vote. Members representing ryots' interests voted in majority. Bill passed to-day without division, after seven days' debate.He thought it was clear, from this, that not only had there not been haste in the passing of the Bill, but that the matter had received an extraordinary amount of deliberation and discussion. In 1877 there was a Bill introduced. That Bill was directed to giving more facilities for the recovery of rents; but it was considered it was impossible to deal with one branch of the subject only. The result was that it was thought desirable by the Viceroy of that time—not his noble Friend (the Marquess of Ripon)—that there should be an inquiry into the whole subject of Bengal tenancy. In 1880 the Commission reported, their Report occupying about 500 pages. A Bill was brought forward in 1881. In March, 1882, the Indian Government sent home the Report of the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, and the Report of a Commission founded upon it. On August 17, the matter was considered by the Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Hartington), and a dispatch sent, stating the opinion of the Secretary of State in Council that the necessity for legislation had been established, and going into the matter, as would be seen from the Papers which would shortly be presented to Parliament. After the receipt of his noble Friend's despatch, the Bill was printed by the Legislative Department of the Government of India, and, in conformity with the views of Lord Hartington, a Bill was introduced into the Legislative Council on March 12, 1883, and referred to a Select Committee on the 13th, being then published in English and three vernacular languages. The Bill was then fully examined and criticized. An amended Bill was prepared, which was published in the early part of 1884. The Select Committee having expressed a wish for further information, reports, opinions, and criticisms were obtained from a vast number of officials and other persons and published. With all these criticisms before them, he should have thought it might be imagined that the subject was ripe for some decision, some legislation. Upon the consideration of all this evidence, the Bengal Government again referred the 838 matter to a Select Committee. On February 12, 1855, the Select Committee reported, stating that the measure was not so altered as to require to be republished, and recommending that it should be passed as amended.
§ THE EARL OF WEMYSSHow many said that.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that he did not know, as he had not the numbers. The Select Committee consisted of six official and five non-official members, three Natives, and eight Europeans. The Government of India followed their recommendations. The important question was whether it was desirable to delay this legislation any further, and whether the alterations were of such a nature as to render it absolutely necessary there should be such delay. As he was informed, the alterations were not of a very serious or substantial character, and were, at all events, principally in the interests of the zemindars, who now came forward and complained of undue haste. So far as he could judge, the Government of India had acted perfectly right in not postponing this legislation for another Session, as the matter was pressing and had been under consideration a number of years. Information had reached him from India to the effect that the zemindars considered the legislation extremely unfair as regarded them, and that the ryots also looked upon the legislation as unfair towards them. Therefore, he thought, there was a strong presumption that the whole question had been treated in a fair and impartial manner. The noble Earl had spoken of the Bill as an attempt to introduce the three F's into India.
§ THE EARL OF WEMYSSobserved, that he only said that it proceeded on the lines of the Irish legislation of Her Majesty's Government.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the Bill was prepared by gentlemen versed in Indian affairs, but who had nothing to do with Ireland. The Government had acted in the matter entirely upon Indian principles, and in accordance with Indian precedents. If the Indian legislation had any resemblance to Irish legislation it was merely a coincidence, as it was never intended to apply the same principles in countries so utterly dissimilar. The interference in India by the Courts between the zemindars and 839 ryots was such that you could not import into it the observances of other countries. He had only to make one further observation in answer to a remark by the noble Earl that the Bill, although passed, was not yet law. He believed that the Bill would not come into operation for a certain time; but whenever it did operate, according to its own clauses, it would require no assent from the Crown, for an Act passed by the Legislative Council of India, and assented to by the Viceroy, took effect from the time of passing. Of course, it was open to the Secretary of State to advise Her Majesty to disallow the Bill. It would not be desirable that he should anticipate the result of a careful examination of the Bill when it came before him officially. At the same time he thought it his duty at once to state that this legislation had in principle the full approbation of Her Majesty's Government, and therefore it was extremely improbable that he should advise Her Majesty to disallow the Bill.
§ THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, that he might fairly claim that when he was in India he had taken special steps to afford the public the fullest opportunity of considering every measure that came before the Legislative Council. Therefore, it would be unfair towards the present Viceroy if, after the observations of the noble Earl (the Earl of Wemyss), he did not ask the House to allow him to express his entire approval of the course which his noble Friend (Lord Dufferin) had taken in passing the Bengal Tenancy Bill during the present sittings of the Council. The Bill had been before the Council for two whole years, and the question to which it related had been under the consideration of the public for a great deal longer. It had been taken up long before he went to India; one portion of it was considered in 1877, but it was found impossible to deal with that part alone. Forthatreason the Commission was issued to which reference had been made. When he went out to India that Commission was about to report or had just reported; he did nothing until he received from the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal his opinion upon the subject. Sir A. Eden's recommendations were then fully considered by the Government of India and the Bill of 1883 was brought in. After the Bill was published a great many ob- 840 servations were made upon it by those interested, and a Select Committee was appointed to consider the subject. As regarded the composition of that Committee he might mention that he took an unusual step, being anxious that the interests of the zemindars should be fully and completely represented. There happened to be two vacancies in the Legislative Council, and he requested the zemindars to recommend to him a gentleman to fill one of them. This they accordingly did, and the result was that the zemindars were very ably represented. The other vacancy he filled up by the appointment of the Maharajah of Durbhunga, one of the largest owners of land in the Province of Bengal. The Committee reported in 1884, making considerable changes in the Bill. The Bill was then reprinted, and from March to November, 1884, was before the public. If there was any subject which had been fully and thoroughly discussed, it was the Law of Landlord and Tenant in Bengal. The time had now in his opinion come when Lord Dufferin was perfectly justified in passing the Bill. The changes which had been made in the Bill were, as his noble Friend (the Earl of Kimberley) had explained, mainly in favour of the zemindars. Athough not knowing the details of those changes, he was inclined to think that they were likely to be too much in favour of the landowners. He entirely concurred in the opinion expressed by his noble Friend the Secretary of State for India that Lord Dufferin was right in passing the Bill, as now it had been amply considered in all its bearings.
§ THE EARL OF WEMYSSremarked, that he did not in the least dispute that the discussion on this measure had lasted over many years. The point he raised was, that the changes made in the Bill by the late Committee were such that the Bill ought to have been reprinted and circulated before being passed. All that they asked for was to have an opportunity of seeing the Bill. As to the character of the Bill, he would not discuss it further except by stating that Sir Richard Garth, the Chief Justice, had said that he looked with horror and dismay upon this revolutionary measure.
THE EARL OF KIMBEBLEYexplained that he had received a copy of the Bill as amended by the Select Com- 841 mittee; what he had not yet received was a copy of the Bill as passed only a day or two ago by the Legislative Council.