of that Statute. To some extent it had been the practice to include in the annual statement matters relating to the Press of the country, and it could be extended if that were thought desirable. To present the subject to Parliament as a separate Return would be merely to challenge criticism of Government action in a form which it was not desirable to encourage. The right hon. Gentleman had expressed his satisfaction at the conduct of Lord Lytton, and his confidence that what he did in the future would be worthy of all that he had done in the past. The House, he believed, generally approved of the despatch of the Secretary of State (Lord Cranbrook), which showed the spirit in which he was disposed to urge the Government of India to work the Act. In these circumstances, he hoped that the House would be satisfied with the despatch and with the discussion that had taken place; and, so far from weakening the hands of the Government of India, would give it, in the trying circumstances in which it was placed, an active and adequate support. SIR HENRY JAMES said, he was aware that the hour to which the debate had been protracted rendered it desirable that he should not trespass unnecessarily upon the attention of the House; but in view of the course taken by the Government in refusing to accept the more than moderate Resolution of his right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), and after the statement contained in the most able speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. E. Stanhope), that it was not the intention of the Government to place before Parliament in a separate Return the proceedings consequent upon the passing of the Act, he hoped the House would allow him to point out the results that would probably follow if that Resolution were negatived. It was not immaterial, in viewing the matter, to consider the circumstances under which the Act had been passed, and the way in which it had received the approval of the Secretary of State (Lord Salisbury). Tracing, as briefly as possible, the history of the matter, there appeared to be a complete agreement that for years past the position of the Native Press in India had attracted the attention, and, perhaps, the consideration, of the Government of that country. There were traces in the Papers before him that the Indian Government had, since the year 1873, from time to time sought counsel and advice of those from whom it was right to seek such assistance; but he could not find, by any of the extracts from Native publications which had been placed before the House, nor from the speech of any hon. Member pronounced in the course of the debate, that during the last year, or during the last month, there had been any aggravation or increase of the acts complained of. Whatever was complained of at that moment had existed for months and years past. The extracts placed before the House were, for the most part, written 18 months ago; they were made from newspapers that had since ceased to exist; they pointed to no case of disaffection, and he would say, that after examining a number of extracts proportioned to the number of newspapers from which they were taken, no one could suggest that in the month of March, 1878, there existed any greater cause for anxiety than had existed for years before. But what course had the Government of India pursued? It had proceeded, cautiously and secretly during the previous year, first to make a memorandum, and then to make a representation to the local authorities in India, of the course intended to be followed with respect to the Native Press. With regard to the urgency alleged to exist as a reason for the passing of the Act, the only suggestion that occurred in support of that view was that the Governor General was about to leave Calcutta, and upon that one fact alone rested the unfortunate procedure of carrying that measure in so unsatisfactory a manner. The Governor General, in expressing his view as to the necessity of carrying the measure in a way that would avoid opposition, said, as distinctly as he could, that if the measure became an accomplished fact, and was declared to be in the interest of public safety, it would probably be accepted with less objection than if it formed the subject of previous excitement. It was for the House of Commons, and for the country generally, to consider whether the whole object of this was not that the Act should become an accomplished fact before anyone could proceed to examine its provisions, before any discussion should take place, and before the public | opinion in India and this country grave consideration. The approval of as to the necessity for legislation the English Government was sent by could be expressed. It was to explain telegram, and must have arrived early the necessity for that mode of procedure on the morning of the 14th March. The that the suggestion had been made Legislative Council were summoned, with regard to Simla. The Governor and on that very day the Act was put in General said "We have prepared a force virtually throughout the whole of Bill, and I propose to pass it at a single India. By what promise had the sitting on the plea of urgency, and Viceroy obtained that assent in Engafterwards to report our proceedings in land? He said, that the chief providetail." This course-which was most sions of the Act would take effect only fatal to the confidence that ought to in those parts of British India to which exist between the two countries-had they might be specially extended by the been deliberately adopted by the Go-Governor General in Council, and cease vernment of India, and sanctioned by the Government of this country. It appeared that the plea of urgency had developed in a most strange manner. On the 13th March a telegram was sent to this country by the Indian Government, and was received on the 13th or 14th March. The duty of the Secretary of State, which, as prescribed by the Statute of 1858-21 & 22 Vict.-was that he should in ordinary cases consult with his Council. [Mr. E. STANHOPE: No.] He said in ordinary cases, and he thought this an ordinary case. He admitted that in cases of extreme urgency --such as the outbreak of war-there should be given the power of dispensing with the assistance of the Council; but he protested against the present being considered as a case in which the assistance of the Council should have been dispensed with. His hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State suggested that if the Indian Government said that urgency was required the Council was to bear no portion of the responsibility of what was done in India; but he (Sir Henry James) ventured to think that the question as to whether the Secretary of State should consult his Council or dispense with their assistance, must rest upon the judgment of the Secretary of State, and not upon the wording of a telegram. But what was done in the present case? Sir Erskine Perry said "When the telegram of the 13th of March was received in this country, Lord Salisbury circulated it amongst such Members of the Council as were at the Office." Now, that must have been on the night of the 13th or morning of the 14th of March. Only two remarks were made -one highly approving the measure, and the other suggesting that it required to have effect in those parts where the Governor General so directed. But on the same 14th day of March an Order was issued, announcing that in the exercise of powers for the better control of the publication of Oriental newspapers, the Governor General in Council was pleased to extend the same to Bombay, Bengal, the North West Provinces of Oude, and the Punjaub; and so, having promised that if assent was given the Act should only take effect in case of special urgency, on the very same day that assent was received and on the day the Act was passed, that Act was applied virtually to the whole of India. Was that an example to the Natives of India that we were dealing with them fairly, and in a way that we should wish ourselves to be dealt with? The Natives of India could not have known of the Act being passed secretly, and without the opportunity for a voice to be raised against it; while on the 14th March, when they read that Proclamation, they were to be told that on the same day, in Council the Government of India had, without previous announcement, thought it necessary to take that step. Must not the people of India have asked, What have we done? Have we proved ourselves disloyal subjects of the Queen? Was it wise, when they were asked to sacrifice their lives if necessary to show their loyalty to the Queen, and for the good of our country, to tell them in the same breath that we considered it a matter of policy and consistent action towards them that their opinion should not even be consulted before the passing of the Act? When we refused to trust these men, who were to be subject to the law-who had no voice in any legislative Assembly, and were consequently deprived of the liberty of expressing their opinion upon the law about to be cutive Government had sanctioned by telegram without consulting its Council, and which the Under Secretary of State described as well worthy of the approbation of the House? Although such deposits were, of course, prohibitory, there was, however, a way by which a person could, so to speak, contract himself out of the operation of the Act. Lord Cranbrook, it was said, had done something to mitigate the effect of the Act, and he (Sir Henry James) was sure that his intention was to do so; but he had, in reality, rendered it much harsher in its operation, because, until he took exception to the censorship clause, any Native who imposed upon them-did we not tell paper. Was there any example for such them that while we distrusted them we legislation-legislation which the Exealso feared them, and that while we regarded them as disloyal, we also regarded them as so powerful that we did not dare to meet the expression of their opinion? What law did we impose upon the Indian subjects of the Crown? Speaking generally, it was a law that placed them beyond the law, and by the imposition of which we made a confession of weakness much to be deplored. We told them that our much vaunted English justice was so weak and insufficient that it could not encounter the criticism of the Press, and that its administration in India was a failure. Again, was it advisable to tell them that they would not be dealt with as Eng-wished to enter into the speculation of lishmen, by being summoned before a tribunal, but tried simply by the will of the Governor General? The law was without precedent in the legislation of this or any other country that had ever possessed a free Press. He could not conceive that any precedent had existed, even during the most arbitrary periods of the most arbitrary Governments, for the passing of such an Act, which was not intended to prevent the mere publication of evil writing but the existence of newspapers altogether. The Governor General now had the power to prevent the publication of any newspaper in the Native tongues of India. By sanctioning that Act, we had handed over to the arbitrary will of the Governor General the power to prevent the publication of any newspaper even by the most well affected subject in India. The Under Secretary of State did not appear to appreciate the real effect of the Act when he said all that was required was that the local authorities should, with the permission of the Governor General, call upon any editor to give a bond for the payment of a sum of money as security for his good behaviour. If that was the case, what was the use of the Act? If, as the Under Secretary of State said, you could only try to enforce the bond, what was the use of such defective machinery? The Act provided that a sum of money, practically unlimited, should be deposited before the publication of a newspaper would be allowed. The local authority might choose to call upon an editor to go to the police office and deposit 10,000 rupees before he could publish his news newspaper publication could say "I will not publish until my articles are approved," thereby getting rid of the effect of that clause. But now the Secretary of State for India said he should not have an opportunity of contracting himself out of the deposit and out of his liability; he must now deposit the money; and the mitigation of which they had heard so much amounted only to an unintentional aggravation. The Natives of India now knew that they could publish no newspaper without the permission of the Governor General. He asked the House to consider what had been the effect of that legislation. Formerly they had only to contend with an evil limited both in area and effect; there were few newspapers which no one would say produced sedition with much effect; they were dealing only with a small class-it might be of disaffected men; but, since the passing of the Act, they had to deal with wellaffected men, amongst whom more disaffection would be produced by the secret and hurried passing of this measure than could be produced by newspaper writing in 100 years. Let hon. Members read the Petitions presented from Poonah and Calcutta ; and it would be seen at once that the Petitioners were well-affected men, who stated a grievance, and complained that one law was administered to the English subjects of the Queen and another to the Natives. They set forth their grievances clearly and moderately, pointing out that whilst that legislation existed the best intentioned criticism on the Government would be prevented, and that they could not rest satisfied as long as the spirit of which preceded the passing of this Act. such legislation was directed against It would appear, from the statement of them, and their loyalty assailed by an the hon. and learned Gentleman, that unjust and unequal measure. A hard this was a matter which had been for blow was struck at the possibility of some time under the consideration of Native loyalty by the effects of legis- different Governments in India; that it lation neither just in itself nor in its had been laid aside; and that suddenly, distribution. The hon. Member for upon a particular day in March, the Canterbury (Mr. A. Gathorne Hardy) Governor General (Lord Lytton) had had laid down a grave principle in say- thought it necessary, by telegraphic ing that it would not be right to place message, to request Lord Salisbury to before the House the Papers relating to give authority for the passing of an Act the action of the Executive in carrying which had hitherto never been contemout the Act. It was meeting the Motion plated; that immediately on receipt of of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) the telegram, omitting his duty of conwith a strange argument to say that sulting the Council of India, Lord SalisParliament ought not to know what was bury had telegraphed back his consent, taking place; but would the Chancellor and that upon the same day the Governor of the Exchequer say that he would not General had acted. I do not think that allow the proceedings taken under the Act this is a fair representation of the real to be made the subject of a Report at the state of the case. As a matter of fact, I India Office, and so to be laid upon the must say that the necessity of taking some Table of the House? To refuse that measure for the purpose of regulating would be to tell the Natives of India and repressing the excesses of a certain that Parliament should know nothing of portion of the Press in India had been the working of an Act arbitrary in its under the very serious consideration of terms and arbitrary in its application, the Government of India, in various and which placed absolute power in the forms, as far back as the year 1873. I hands of one man- the head of the Exe- can personally recollect that it engaged cutive Government. He respectfully the consideration of this Government pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman and the Government in India many that he should avoid the grave respon-years before that time. But in what sibility of refusing to Parliament a knowledge of the way in which the Act was being enforced; for the effect of that course would be felt in the times said to be approaching, when they might have to appeal to the Indian subjects of the Crown for a proof of that loyalty which could have no foundation if it was not rooted in an equality of laws and their just administration. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I shall not trespass at length upon the time and patience of the House; and after the excellent speech of the Under Secretary of State for India, I shall not enter upon much that has been laid before us in the course of this debate. There are, however, one or two points, especially in the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down, upon which I will say a very few words. In the first place, let me point out that I think the hon. and learned Gentleman has done some injustice both to the Governor General and to my noble Friend the late Secretary of State (the Marquess of Salisbury), in the account which he gave of the transactions form did it arise under the Government of Lord Northbrook? It arose in a very peculiar manner, because it was the desire of Lord Northbrook actually to proceed against the publisher of a newspaper for the use of language which appeared to be of a most mischievous and objectionable character. But why were those proceedings not taken? An hon. Member asks, why was it necessary to pass a new Act when the law as it stood was stronger than that proposed? According to the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James), the law as it stood was stronger than the Act. [Sir HENRY JAMES: No.] I think my hon. and learned Friend said that the power of subjecting to penal servitude in force under the then existing law was stronger than the powers given to the Governor General by the present Act. The difficulty in which Lord Northbrook's Government found themselves placed was this. In consequence of the severity of the punishment inflicted in the shape of penal servitude, and in consequence of the difficulties which would present themselves to ob taining a verdict from the jury who, not. It was not at all necessary for Lord Lytton to have communicated with Lord Salisbury before he introduced this Bill. What he did was to communicate with Lord Salisbury and ask his opinion in order that there might be no confusion afterwards, and in order that in taking this important step he might be well assured and satisfied of the way in which it would be received. But he was not bound to make that communication to Lord Salisbury, and Lord Salisbury was in no way bound to consult his Council. He acted in a way which I undertake to say was perfectly legal, and which, under the circumstances, was the only way in which it was possible for him to act. I am not prepared to say-no one in all this debate has even attempted to say-that the passing of this Act, and the necessity which has arisen for this Act itself, are not matters which are fair subjects of discussion and which are not matters of regret. My noble Friend the present Secretary of State (Lord Cranbrook) has expressed that which Lord Lytton had expressed in eloquent language-the regret he felt that any such measure should be deemed necessary; and it is only under the pressure and consciousness of an extreme necessity that such a law has been passed. Lord Lytton himself, in language which has been quoted-language of the most eloquent and touching description-expresses his regret that he, of all men, should have been called to have taken such a step as this. No one can fail to read in the despatch of my noble Friend (Lord Cranbrook) the same expression of extreme regret that it should be necessary to sanction any legislation of the kind. But, after all, we must bear in mind what it is that we are doing, and for whom it is that we are doing it. We are legislating in the case of an Empire where the conditions of life, of society, and of policy, are very different from those in this country; and you have, under every circumstance, to consider what the conditions really are under which those are placed for whom it is necessary to legislate. And it is absolutely impossible to apply those considerations which would arise in the case of English legislation. What has been done has been done under a sense of necessity; and I think it is perfectly obvious that both Lord Lytton and his Government, and my noble Friend the Secretary of |