George Nathaniel Curzon speaks to the House of Commons on the Indian Councils Bill, 28 March 1892

I AM glad, sir, at this early period of the Session, to be able to introduce to the notice of the House a Bill which, if carried into law, will, I believe, be fraught with advantage to the interests of our fellow subjects in India. It is sometimes said, sir, that this House bestows a scant and reluctant concern upon the interests of the millions of India. And yet I am sure that this alleged indifference of the many, if it be true, which I do not altogether accept, is not more than compensated for by the vigilant and uncompromising attention of the few, whilst I have heard it stated on high authority that the greater interference of this House in the government of India might not be a source of unmixed benefit to that country. However that may be, sir, I hope that this Bill will be one that may approve itself to both sections of opinion in this House-both to those hon. members who may not have direct and personal experience of India, and to that smaller section who, either from long residence there or from official experience, are emphatically entitled to speak on Indian questions, and whose interference in our debates is always welcome. And perhaps I may be permitted to take this opportunity of expressing the regret which I am sure has been felt on both sides of the House at the disappearance from among their number of the omnivorous intellect of the late hon. gentleman the member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell). The object of this Bill which it is my duty to explain to the House is to widen the basis and to expand the functions of government in India; to give further opportunities than at present exist to the lion-official and native elements in Indian society to take part in the work of government, and in this way to lend official recognition to that remarkable development both of political interest and political capacity which has been visible among the higher classes of Indian society since the government of India was taken over by the Crown in 1858. In form this Bill is one to amend the Indian Councils Act of 1861. Legislative powers of some sort or other, but powers of somewhat confused character and conflicting validity, have existed in India for a very long time. They existed under the rule of the old East India Company, dating from the time of the Tudor and Stuart sovereigns but the modern legislative system, under which the government of India exists, owes its origin to the viceroyalty of Lord Canning, and the Secretaryship of State of Sir Charles Wood, afterwards Lord Halifax, who in 1861 carried through the House the Indian Councils Act of that year. I may, perhaps, in starting, be permitted to remind the House briefly of the provisions of that Act, as they are the basis on which we are now attempting to proceed. The Act of 1861 constituted three Legislative Councils in India-the Supreme Legislative Council of the Viceroy and the Provincial Legislative Councils of Madras and Bombay. The Supreme Legislative Council of the Viceroy, or, as it is called in the terms of the Act, the Council 'for the purpose of making laws and regulations only', consists of the Governor-General and his Executive Council, with a minimum of six and a maximum of twelve additional members who are nominated by the Governor-General, and of whom at least one-half must be non-official, whether drawn from the European or the native element. The Legislative Councils of Madras and Bombay are also recruited by a minimum of four and a maximum of eight additional members who are nominated by the Provincial Governor, and of whom at least one-half must be non-official. Since the passing of that Act, sir, Legislative Councils have been called into existence for Bengal and the North-West Provinces. In Bengal the Council consists of the Lieutenant-Governor and twelve nominated members, and the Council of the North-West Provinces consists of the Lieutenant-Governor and nine Councillors, of whom, in each case, one-third must be non-official. Such is the constitution of the legislative machinery which has existed during the past thirty years. This system has undoubtedly worked well. It has justified itself and the anticipations of its promoters. Operating to a very large extent through the agency of special committees composed of experienced persons, it has proved to be an efficient instrument for the evolution of laws. The publicity which has attended every stage of its proceedings has had a good effect. A number of native gentlemen of intelligence, capacity, and public spirit have been persuaded to come forward and lend their services to the functions of government, and undoubtedly the standard of merit in these Legislative Councils has stood high. Indeed, I would venture to say that few better legislative machines, with regard to their efficacy for the particular object for which they were constructed, are anywhere in existence, nor can better legislation produced by such bodies be found in any other country. At the same time, these Councils have been subject to restrictions and limitations which were intentionally, and I think wisely, imposed upon them in the first place. The House must recognize that they are in no sense of the term parliamentary bodies. They are deliberative bodies with a comparatively narrow scope, inasmuch as they only assemble for the discussion of the immediate legislation which lies before them, and are not permitted to travel outside that very circumscribed radius. I will take the instance of financial discussion. In these Councils no financial discussion is possible unless there is a proposal for a new tax, and then it can only be in connexion with the immediate legislative proposal before the Council for the time being. Under these circumstances it has been felt that there has been wanting, to the Government an opportunity of explaining its policy and of replying to hostile criticism and attack, such as a less restricted system of discussion would provide; and that at the same time there was wanting an opportunity to the non-official element, to those who may legitimately call themselves the guardians of the public interest, of asking for information, stating their grievances, and becoming acquainted with the policy of the Government. These feelings have been expressed in many memorials which have been addressed over a large number of years to the Government of India by important public bodies and associations in India. They have been further testified to by successive Viceroys. Lord Dufferin, in a speech which he delivered at Calcutta in February 1887, the occasion being the celebration of the Queen's Jubilee, spoke of the desirability of reconstituting the Supreme Legislative Council of the Viceroy on a broader basis, and of enlarging its functions. And in the November of the following year he sent home a dispatch, extracts from which have been published in a parliamentary paper, in which he recommended in the first place a yearly financial discussion in the Supreme Legislative Council of the Budget of the year. And, sir, inasmuch as his words are of very great importance, and will, of course, carry deserved weight in this House, I hope the House will pardon me if 1 read some portions of it. Lord Dufferin said:

'I do not mean that Votes should be taken in regard to the various items of the Budget, or that the heads of expenditure should be submitted in detail for the examination of the Council, but simply that an opportunity should be given for a full, free, and thorough criticism and examination of the financial policy of the Government. Some such change as this would, I think, be as beneficial to the Indian administration as it would be in accordance with the wishes of the European and native mercantile world of India. At present the Government is exposed to every kind of misapprehension and misrepresentation in regard to its figures and the statement of their results. Were the matter to be gone into thoroughly and exhaustively on the occasion I suggest by independent critics, who, however anxious to detect a flaw and prove the Government wrong, would be masters of their subject and cognizant of the intricacies of Indian administration, the result would be more advantageous to the financial reputation of the Indian Government, as well as more conducive to improve her financial system, than the perfunctory debates of the House of Commons, and the imperfect criticism of Indian finance by some English newspapers.'

In the same dispatch Lord Dufferin expressed the opinion that questions should be asked in the Supreme Legislative Council, subject to certain restrictions, upon matters of domestic as distinguished from matters of Imperial interest. At the end of 1888 Lord Dufferin left India and was succeeded by the eminent statesman who now holds that office. Quite early in his viceroyalty, in a speech delivered in the Legislative Council in March 1889, Lord Lansdowne signified his approbation of the annual discussion of the Budget in the manner suggested, and also of the right of addressing questions to the Government on matters of public interest. Both these proposals were accepted by the Secretary of State in a dispatch dated August 1889, not merely as referring to the Supreme Legislative Council of the Viceroy but also in reference to the Provincial Councils. In the same dispatch my noble friend also signified his desire for an enlargement of the representation of public opinion in India by an addition to the number of members on these Councils by means of an extension of the present system of nomination, and, inasmuch as these changes were found to be impossible without fresh legislation, he also included a draft Bill upon which he invited the opinions of the Government of India and of the several Provincial Governments. These views and other suggestions were received from India, and they were found on the whole to be eminently favourable to the contemplated measure. From these terms sprang the Indian Councils Bill which it is now my privilege to introduce to the notice of this House. Now, a few words as to the parliamentary history of this measure. It has been in no ordinary degree a victim to the vicissitudes of parliamentary existence. Its career up to this point has been one of mingled success and disappointment. It was introduced for the first time in the House of Lords by the Secretary of State in 1890, and a very important discussion-if I may venture humbly to express the opinion, the model of what such a discussion should be-took place on the second reading of the Bill. In Committee a number of important and valuable amendments were introduced in it by noble lords who have had experience in the Government of India, and it passed through that House. It came down in the same Session to the House of Commons, but did not succeed in getting beyond a first reading. In the ensuing year, 1891, it was again introduced into this House, and again it fell a victim to that fate which hon. members, according to their political feelings, will be disposed to ascribe to the hardships of fortune or to the immoderate interest displayed by their opponents in other topics of parliamentary interest. So much for 1891. This year the present Bill, in its amended form of 1890, has again been introduced into the House of Lords, and subject to some speeches implying strong approval from a number of noble lords it has passed without alteration through its various stages, and thus it comes about that it is now my duty to bring it before the House of Commons. This delay which I have been describing has naturally been the source of considerable disappointment in India, where there has been a good deal of murmuring at the tardy arrival of this long-promised reform, and at the apparent willingness of this House to postpone the consideration of a non-controversial constitutional change for India to the perennial and unprofitable discussion of changes of a highly controversial character for other parts of the Empire nearer home, which, from the Indian point of view are infinitesimally small and unimportant. I think this disappointment has been a perfectly legitimate feeling, and it undoubtedly has been felt by the noble lord the present Viceroy of India, who, having inaugurated his term of office by signifying his hearty approval of this Bill, is naturally looking forward to being able to carry it into execution before the termination of his period of office. This anxiety has been shared in this House, if I may judge from the numerous questions addressed to my right hon. friend who preceded me in the office I now hold. These feelings of disappointment and interest are, moreover, I believe, shared by those who hold more extreme views, and who, while they regard this Bill as in some respects an inadequate measure, are desirous that it should pass into law. In July of last year the British Committee of the Indian National Congress, who may be supposed to be the representatives of extreme views in India, wrote a letter to the Secretary of State in which occurs the following passage:

'They express the deep regret with which they view the withdrawal by Her Majesty's Minister of the Indian Councils Amendment Bill, and respectfully bring to your notice that bitter disappointment, will be caused throughout India by the abandonment for yet another year of any action in a matter of such paramount importance to our Indian fellow citizens.'

In the present year Lord Kimberley, who has himself been Secretary of State for India, has elsewhere expressed himself in the same sense in a paragraph which I propose to read. He says:

'I echo most sincerely the hope that this measure will be pressed by Her Majesty's Government and will pass into law. It is really a misfortune that a measure of this kind should be hung up Session after Session. However important to us may be our domestic legislation, let us not forget that we have an immense responsibility in the Government of that great Empire in India, and that it is not well for us to palter long with questions of this kind. And I am more desirous that this measure should be dealt with, because I have observed, with great pleasure, that in India the tone has much moderated and that very sensible views have been expressed at meetings held in India, and there is now reasonable promise that there will be an agreement as to a tentative and commencing measure on his subject. We must not look for it all at once, but if we can make a beginning, I believe we shall lay the foundation for what may be a real benefit, and a real security to our Indian Empire.'

I hope I may draw from the extracts I have read to the House, and from the expressions of opinion to which I have alluded, the inference that this Bill will be welcomed on both sides of this House, and subject to the expression of opinion by those who hold more advanced views, will as rapidly as possible be passed into law. So much in explanation of the history of the measure and the circumstances under which it falls to my lot to introduce it to this House. Now briefly turning to the Bill itself, I will give an outline of the manner in which it is proposed to carry out the recommendations of successive Viceroys and of the present Secretary of State. The changes which it is proposed to introduce by this Bill are, broadly speaking, three in number. The first is the concession of the privileges of financial criticism both in the Supreme and Provincial Councils; the second, the privilege of interpellation or the right of asking questions; and the third, an addition to the number of members in both classes of Councils. First, as regards the financial discussion. I have already pointed out to the House that under the existing law this is only possible when the Finance Minister proposes a new tax. At other times the Budget in India is circulated in the form of a pamphlet and no discussion can take place upon it at all, and as an illustration of the practical way in which this works, I may mention that during the thirty years since the Councils Act of 1861 there have been sixteen occasions on which new legislation has been called for and on which discussion has taken place, and there have been fourteen on which there has been no discussion at all. In this Bill power will be given for a regular annual discussion of the Budget both in the Supreme and Provincial Councils. It is not contemplated, as the extracts I have read from the dispatch of Lord Dufferin will show, to vote the Budget in India item by item in the manner in which we do it in this House, and to subject it to all the obstacles and delays which party ingenuity or loquacity can suggest. That is not contemplated, but it is proposed to give opportunities to members of the Councils to indulge in a full, free and fair criticism of the financial policy of the Government, and I think all parties will gain by such a discussion. The Government will gain, because they will have an opportunity of explaining their financial policy, of removing misapprehension, of answering calumny and attack; and they will also profit by the criticism delivered in a public position, and with a due sense of responsibility, by the most competent representatives of non-official India. The native community will gain, because they will have the opportunity of reviewing the financial situation independently of the mere accident of legislation being required for any particular year, and also because criticism of the financial policy of the Government, which now finds its bent in anonymous and even scurrilous articles in the newspapers, will be uttered by responsible persons in a public position. Lastly, the interests of finance themselves will gain by this increased publicity, and by the stimulus of a vigorous and instructive scrutiny; and the application of the external aid that I have described cannot have any other result than the promotion of sound and economical administration in India. It is now twenty years since Lord Mayo, that wise and enlightened Viceroy, first proposed the submission of Provincial Budgets to the Provincial Councils. At that time he was overruled by the Government at home, which, I believe, was one of the Governments of the right hon. gentleman opposite. However that may be, I hope both sides of the House will now co-operate in introducing this change, which speaks for itself, and requires no further defence from me. The second change introduced by the Bill is the concession of the right of interpellation, or of asking questions. That is a system with which we are tolerably familiar and which is sometimes severely attacked in this House. It is not for me to say whether the right is or is not abused, but I have observed that those who denounce the system most savagely when they are its victims, view it with a benevolent regard when they are in a position to become its masters. It is proposed to give to members of both classes of Councils, the Supreme and Provincial Councils, this right of asking questions on matters of public interest. But both this privilege and the one to which I have previously alluded will be subject, under the terms of the Act, to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed in rules made by the Governor-General or the Provincial Governors. In answer to the hon. gentleman who cheers somewhat ironically, I may observe that we are not altogether unfamiliar with such rules and restrictions in this House, and if they are needed here, where we have, perhaps, the most perfect and highly elaborated system of parliamentary government that has ever been known, how much more will they be needed in India, where parliamentary institutions cannot be said to exist. The merits of this proposal are self-evident. It is desirable in the first place in the interest of the Government, which is at the present moment without the means of making known its policy, or of answering criticism or animadversions, or of silencing calumny, and which has frequently suffered from protracted misapprehension, which it has been powerless to remove; and it is also desirable in the interests of the public, who, in the absence of correct official information, are apt to be misled, and to entertain erroneous ideas, but who, within the limits dictated by the judgement of the responsible authorities, henceforward have opportunities of making themselves acquainted with the real facts. I hope this liberty may provide a wise and necessary outlet in India for feelings which are now apt to smoulder below the surface because there are no public means for their expression, but which might often be allayed a little if timely information were given from the right quarter. The third proposal is to add to the number of members on these Supreme and Provincial Councils, and I will state the numbers to which, under this Bill, the members, will be increased. The Supreme Legislative Council consists at present, in addition to its ex officio members, who number seven, of a minimum of six and a maximum of twelve nominated members, of whom half must be non-official. The Bill proposes to raise the minimum to ten and the maximum to sixteen. The Madras and Bombay Councils now consist, independently of their four ex officio members, of a minimum of four and a
maximum of eight nominated members, of whom half are non-official. In the Bill the minimum is raised to eight and the maximum to twenty. The Council of Bengal consists at present of twelve nominated members, of whom one-third are non-official, and we propose to raise the number to twenty. In the North-West Provinces the number is nine, of which one-third are also non-official, and under the Bill the number will be raised to fifteen. The object of these additions is very easily stated, and will be as easily understood by this House. It is, by extending the area of selection in each case, to add to the strength and representative character of the Councils. The late Mr. Bradlaugh, who at different times introduced two Bills dealing with the reform of the India Councils into this House, proposed in those measures to swell the numbers on these Councils to quite impracticable and unmanageable proportions. Under his first Bill their totals would have amounted to more than two hundred and sixty, and under the second to more than two hundred and thirty. It is within the knowledge of every one who is acquainted with India that the number of persons who are competent and willing to take part in the functions of these Councils is nothing like adequate to supply the extravagant expectations of those Bills.

Mr. SCHWANN: Do the figures just quoted refer to the Councils separately or are they clubbed together?

Mr. CURZON: I was speaking of the five Councils I have mentioned and the totals for those five Councils. As I was saying, you could not get the number of persons; but still, the number is sufficient to justify a not inconsiderable addition to the present totals. Every year the number of native gentlemen in India who are both qualified and willing to take part in the work of Government is increasing, and every year the advantage of their co-operation increases in the same ratio. More especially in the case of the Provincial Councils it has been found that more effective means are needed of reinforcing native and non-official opinion. The Government believe that this moderate addition which they propose to the numbers will have the effect which I contemplate, and at the same time that it will be compatible with efficiency. This House does not need to be told by me that the efficiency of a deliberative body is not necessarily commensurate with its numerical strength. We have instances in this country of public bodies prevented from working well in consequence of the large number of their members. Over-large bodies do not necessarily work well. They do not promote economical administration, but are apt to diffuse their force in vague and vapid talk. And if this be true of deliberative bodies in England, it is still more true of deliberative bodies in a country like India. I hold in fact that it would be better that competent men should be left outside than that incompetent men should be included. Now we will look at the question of how these additional members are to be appointed. I notice that the hon. member for North Manchester (Mr. Schwann) has placed on the paper an amendment declaring that no reform on the Indian Councils which does not embody the elective principle will prove satisfactory. But in reply I should like to point out that our Bill does not exclude some such principle, be the method election, or selection, or delegation, or whatever be the particular phrase that you desire to employ. I would, with the permission of the House, read the very important subsection of Clause 1, which deals with that question:

'The Governor-General in Council may from time to time with the approval of the Secretary of State in Council make such regulations as to the conditions under which such nominations (that is the nomination of additional members), or any of them, shall be made by the Governor-General, Governors and Lieutenant. Governors respectively, and shall prescribe the manner in which such regulations should be carried into effect.'

'I should say that this clause was introduced into the Bill as an amendment by Lord Northbrook in the House. of Lords, and was gladly accepted by the Secretary of State with the avowed object of giving considerable latitude in this respect. Let me call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that Lord Kimberley has thus expressed himself elsewhere on this clause:

'I am bound to say that I can express my own satisfaction because I regard this as to a certain extent an admission of the elective principle.'

On another occasion be said:

'I myself believe that under this clause it will be possible for the Governor-General to make arrangements by which certain persons may be presented to him, having been chosen by election if the Governor-General should find that such a system can properly be established.'

Mr. MACLEAN (Oldham): Does the Government accept this view of Lord Kimberley?

Mr. CURZON: Undoubtedly the opinions expressed by Lord Kimberley are those which are also shared by the Secretary of State. Under this Act it would be in the power of the Viceroy to invite representative bodies in India to elect or select or delegate representatives of themselves and of their opinions to be nominated to those Houses, and thus by slow degrees, by tentative measures, and in a matter like this measures cannot be otherwise than tentative, we may perhaps approximate in sonic way to the ideal which the hon. member for North Manchester has in view. With respect to the character of such bodies and associations as those to which I have alluded, I may mention, only as indicating what may be possible, such bodies as the well-known Association of the Zemindars of Bengal, the Chambers of Commerce of India, the municipalities of the great cities, the universities, the British India Association, and perhaps even more important than any, the various great religious denominations in that country. I believe that the House will hold that this method of dealing with the question is a wise method, since it leaves the initiative to those who are necessarily best acquainted with the matter and does not lay down any hard-and-fast rule by which they may find themselves unfortunately bound. I cannot myself conceive anything more unfortunate than that this House should draw up and send out to India a cast-iron elective scheme within the four walls of which the Government would find itself confined, and which, if it proved at some future period inadequate or unsuitable, it would be impossible to alter without coming back to this House and experiencing all t1he obstacles and delays of parliamentary procedure in this country. But I am well aware that these proposals may not altogether suit those hon. members on the other side, whose ideas of political progress have been formed in the breathless atmosphere of life in the West, and who are perhaps unable to accommodate their pace to the slow movement of life in the East. The hon. member (Mr. Schwann), for instance, is anxious to have the elective principle more clearly defined and more systematically enforced, and he has placed an amendment on the paper, in which he asks the House to signify its opinion that no reform of the Indian Councils which does not employ the elective principle will be satisfactory to the Indian people, or will be compatible with the good government of India. I venture to say, sir, that this amendment is vitiated by a twofold fallacy, for while, in the first place, the hon. member affects to speak on behalf of the Indian people, he at the same time entirely ignores the primary conditions of Indian life. When the hon. member assumes in this House to be the mouthpiece of the people of India, I must emphatically decline to accept his credentials in that capacity. No system of representation that has ever been devised, no system of representation that the ingenuity of the hon. member can suggest, no system of representation that would stand the test of twenty-four hours' operation, would, in the most infinitesimal degree, represent the people of India. Who are the people of India? The people of India are the voiceless millions who can neither read nor write their own tongues, who have no knowledge whatever of English, who are not perhaps universally aware of the fact that the English are in their country as rulers. The people of India are the ryots and the peasants, whose life is not one of political aspiration, but of mute penury and toil. The plans and policy of the Congress Party in India would leave this vast amorphous residuum absolutely untouched. I do not desire to speak in any other than terms of respect of the Congress Party of India. That party contains a number of intelligent, liberal-minded, and public-spirited men, who undoubtedly represent that portion of the Indian people which has profited by the educational advantages placed at their doors, and which is more or less imbued with European ideas; but as to their relationship to the people of India, the constituency which the Congress Party represent cannot be described as otherwise than a minute and almost microscopic minority of the total population of India. At the present time the population of British India is 221,000,000; and of that number it has been calculated that not more than from three to four per cent. can read or write any one of their native tongues; considerably less than one per cent.-about one-fourth or one-third-can read or write English. In the Province of Bengal alone, where the population exceeds 72,000,000, it has been calculated that the maximum constituency created by Mr. Bradlaugh's Bill would have only numbered a total of 870,000. It appears to me that you can as little judge of the feelings and aspirations of the people of India from the plans and proposals of the Congress Party as you can judge of the physical configuration of a country which is wrapped up in the mists of early morning, but a few of whose topmost peaks have been touched by the rising sun. To propose an elaborate system of representation for a people in this stage of development would appear to me to be, in the highest degree, premature and unwise. To describe such a system as representation of the people of India would be little better than a farce. The Government assume the responsibility of stating that, in their opinion, the time has not come when representative institutions, as we understand the term, can be extended to India. The idea of representation is alien to the Indian mind. We have only arrived at it by slow degrees ourselves, through centuries of conflict and storm. Nay, it may be said that it is only within the last twenty-five years that we have in this country entered into anything like its full fruition. No doubt we are apt to regard popular representation as the highest expression of political equality and political freedom; but it does not necessarily so present itself to those who have no instinctive sense of what political equality is. How can you predicate political equality of a community that is sundered into irreconcilable camps-('No!')-into irreconcilable camps by differences of caste, of religion, of custom, which hold men fast-bound during their lifetime, and the rigour of which is not abated even beyond the grave? I notice that the hon. member has altered the terms of amendment as it was originally placed upon the paper. At first he spoke of the elective principle as defined at the meetings of the Indian National Congress. But those words are now omitted. I think that that is a prudent omission. For the truth is that the Indian Congress is not of one mind, and does not speak with one voice on this matter. In 1890 we had a Bill containing an elaborate system of electoral colleges and proportional representation, and overswollen Councils, presented to this House; but in the following year this Bill was incontinently withdrawn, and has never been heard of since. And in that year Mr. Bradlaugh-of whose Parliamentary ability no one could have any doubt-introduced another Bill entirely different, in which he showed such extreme diffidence in himself and in the Indian National Congress, and such confidence in the Indian Government, that, although it contained expressed provisions for a system of election, the means by which that system was to be carried out were left entirely to the discretion of the latter. These ambiguous, fluctuating, and hesitating proposals illustrate the premature and experimental character of every reform hitherto advocated. But while these considerations render it, I believe, impossible so to re-model the Legislative Councils of India as to give them the character of representative chambers, I should be the last to deny the importance of the opinions and the criticism of gentlemen representing the advanced phases of Indian society. At present the sole vent that is available for that body of opinion is in the native Press, and in organized meetings such as the Indian National Congress. Everybody on both sides of the House agrees that this knowledge and activity might be better utilized than it is at present; and the Government believe that the sub-section of Clause 1 will provide the means by which representatives of the most important sections of native society may be appointed to the Councils, and may have an opportunity of explaining their views with a fuller sense of responsibility than they at present enjoy. If the Government are able at present to go no further it arises from no want of sympathy with the inhabitants of India, but from a sense of the colossal responsibility that rests upon them, and of the dangers that would accrue from any rash or imprudent step. This Bill is not, perhaps, a great, or heroic measure; but, at the same time, it does mark a decisive step, and a step in advance. As such it has been welcomed by every living Viceroy of India. It was foreshadowed by Lord Dufferin; it is earnestly asked for by Lord Lansdowne; and it has received the emphatic approval of Lord Northbrook, no less than the approbation of Lord Ripon. I hope that these facts, and the explanation which I have given, may commend this Bill to the sympathy of the House, that it may be regarded as a useful measure, and may be exempt from the ordinary Parliamentary obstacles and delays. There are two main objects which this House is entitled to require in any new legislation for India. Firstly, that it should add to, and in no sense impair, the efficiency of Government; and, secondly, that it should also promote the interests of the governed. It is because I believe this measure will further both these ends, that I commend it to the sympathetic attention of the House, and will conclude by moving that the Bill be now read a second time.

From: From: A. Berriedale Keith, ed. Speeches and Documents on Indian Policy, 1750-1921. Vol. II. London: Humphrey Milford, Oxford University Press, 1922, 46-67.