William Ewart Gladstone speaks to the House of Commons on the Indian Councils Bill, 28 March 1892

I SHOULD wish, if in my power, to curtail this Debate, so far at any rate as any controversial element is concerned. I do not speak of the information, the knowledge and the experience which may be brought into this Debate by members competent to enter into an examination of Indian affairs, but so far as controversy is concerned I should hope it may be compressed within narrow limits. We have before us a motion on the part of the Under Secretary of State for India that this Bill be now read a second time. We have on the other hand before us the amendment of my hon. friend the member for Manchester (Mr. Schwann), who asks the House by that amendment to declare that in his opinion

'No reform of the Indian Councils which does not embody the elective principle will prove satisfactory to the Indian people or compatible with the good government of India.'

Well now, Sir, I ask myself the question whether there is between the Bill now before us and the amendment of my hon. friend such a difference of opinion or of principle as to make me desirous of going to an issue in respect of that difference. Undoubtedly, Sir, if I look at the Bill I am disposed to agree with my--hon. friend that taken by itself its language is unsatisfactory in so far as it is ambiguous; but then, Sir, I have the advantage of an authoritative commentary. The hon. gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India has introduced this Bill to our notice in a very comprehensive and lucid speech. If I were to criticize any portion of that speech it would be the portion in which the hon. gentleman addressed himself to the consideration of the amendment before the House. It appeared to be his object, or at all events I thought it was the effect of his language, to put upon that amendment the most hostile construction it could bear, whereas I desire to put on the speeches that we have heard on the Bill not the most hostile, but the least hostile and the least controversial construction to which they are susceptible. Now, sir, while the language of the, Bill cannot be said to embody the elective principle, yet, if it is not meant to pave the way for the elective principle, it is in its language very peculiar indeed. It was, I believe, suggested by a nobleman in the House of Lords, friendly to the elective principle, that unless it were intended to leave room for some peculiarities not as yet introduced in the Indian system in the appointment of the members of the Indian Councils under this Bill it would have been a very singular form of speech to provide, not simply that the Governor-General might nominate, but that he might make regulations as to the conditions under which such nominations, or any of them, might be made either by himself or by the Governor-General in Council. It is quite plain that those who framed that language, and we must assume also those who adopted that language and have sent for our consideration a Bill couched in such language, had in view something beyond mere nomination. Now, sir, I come to the speech of the hon. gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India. That speech appeared to me, I confess, distinctly to embody what is not very different from the assertion of my hon. friend in his amendment, except as to this important point--that the Under Secretary proposes to leave everything to the judgement, the discretion, and the responsibility of the Governor-General of India and the authorities in India; but, otherwise, apart from limitation, I think I may fairly say what the hon. gentleman the Under Secretary did embody in his speech was the elective principle in the only sense in which he could be elected to embody it. My construction of that speech is--and I do not think it admitted of two constructions, especially considering the reference the hon. gentleman made to the speeches of Lord Kimberley--my construction of that speech is that it is the intention of the Government and the intention of the House of Lords, in which we are now invited to concur, that a serious effort shall be made to consider carefully those elements which India in its present condition may furnish for the introduction into the Councils of India of the elective principle. Now, Sir, if that effort is seriously to be made, by whom is it to be made? I do not think it can be made by this House, except through the medium of empowering provisions. The hon. baronet the member for one of the divisions of Worcester (Sir R. Temple) has spoken at some period of proposing a plan of that kind; and I have observed on more than one occasion with pleasure, the genuinely liberal views of the hon. baronet, with respect to Indian affairs and to the government of the Indian people; and were he to produce a plan of that kind, I have no doubt it would contain a great deal that was wise, a great deal that was useful, and a great deal that would be honourable and agreeable to the spirit of an assembly such as this. But I doubt if, even under such enlightenment, it would be well or wise on our part, with our imperfect knowledge, to proceed with the determination of the particulars of any such plan. The best course we could take would be to commend to the authorities of India what is a clear indication of the principles on which we desire them to proceed. It is not our business to devise machinery for the purpose of Indian Government, it is our business to give to those who represent Her Majesty in India ample information as to what we believe to be sound principles of government; and it is of course the function of this House to comment upon any case in which we may think they have failed to give due effect to those principles; but in the discharge of their high administrative functions, or as to the choice of means, we should leave that in their hands. It would be a great misfortune if, with imperfect information, we were to indicate leanings which might tend to embarrass them in the discharge of the duties of an office so highly responsible. It is quite evident, without any disparagement to the remarks of my hon. friend, that the great question we have before us--the question of real and profound interest--is the question of the introduction of the elective element into the government of India. That question overshadows and absorbs everything else; it is a question of vital importance, and also, at the same time, a question of great difficulty. Do not let us conceal from ourselves that no more difficult duty has ever been entrusted to a Governor-General than the duty of administering such a Bill as this and giving effect to it in a manner honourable and wise. I am not at all disposed to ask from the Governor-General or the Secretary of State who has communicated with him and shares his responsibilities--I am not at all disposed to ask them at once to produce large and imposing results. What I wish is, that their first steps should be of a nature to be genuine, and whatever amount of scope they give to the elective principle, it shall be real. There are, of course, dangers in the way. There is the danger of subserviency; there is another danger, and that is the danger of having persons who represent particular cliques or classes or interests, and who may claim the honour of representing the people of India. The old story of the three tailors of Tooley Street does, after all, embody an important political truth, and it does exhibit a real danger. It is to the Governor-General's wisdom we must trust to do the very best, and to make the most out of the materials at his disposal. What we want is to get at the real heart and mind--at the most upright sentiment and the most enlightened thought, of the people of India. But it is not an easy matter to do this, although, with regard to the view expressed by the Under Secretary of State for India, I think we are justified in being a little more sanguine than he was as to the amount of these materials. The hon. gentleman did not indicate where such materials for the elective element in India are to be found. Undoubtedly, sir, as far as my own prepossessions go, I should look presumptively with the greatest amount of expectation and hope to the municipal bodies and the local authorities in India, in which the elective element is already included. My hon. friend who moved the amendment that is now before the House did valuable service in pointing out the amount of authority that can now be alleged on behalf of the introduction of the elective principle--the authority not merely of men distinguished generally for their political opinions, but of those who have been responsible for the actual administration of India. These men, after carefully examining the matter and divesting themselves of those prejudices which administration is supposed to impart, have given their deliberate sanction to the introduction of this Bill. It is there that I f eel we stand on very firm and solid ground, and Her Majesty's Government ought to understand that it will be a most grave and serious disappointment to this House if after all the assurances we have received from high quarters that some real attempt will be made to bring into operation this great and powerful engine of government, there should not be some result which we can contemplate with satisfaction. I do not speak of its amount. I think it should be judged by its quality rather than by its quantity. In an Asiatic country like India, with its ancient civilization, with its institutions so peculiar, with such diversities of races, religions, and pursuits, with such an enormous extent of country, and such a multitude of human beings, as probably, except in the case of China, never were before comprehended under a single Government, I can well understand the difficulties that confront us in seeking to carry out our task. But, great as the difficulties are, the task is a noble task, and one that will require the utmost prudence and wisdom to carry it to a successful consummation. But we may feel, after the practical assurances we have had from persons of the highest capacity and the greatest responsibility, we may feel justified in expecting something more than a merely nominal beginning in this great and magnificent undertaking. It is not too much to say that this great people--this nation to which we belong--has undoubtedly had committed to it a most peculiar task in the foundation and the government of extraneous territories. But all other parts of the British Empire present to us a simple problem in comparison with the problem which India presents. Its magnitude and its peculiarities are such as to lift the function of Great Britain in this respect far above all that any other country has ever attempted, and far above all it has itself attempted beyond the sea in any portion of the dependencies of the Empire. I rejoice to think that a great and a real advance has been made, both before and especially since the time of the transfer of the Indian Government to the immediate superintendence of the Executive at home and the supreme authority of the Imperial Legislature. The amount of progress they made has been made by the constant application to the Government of India of the minds of able men acting under a strong sense of duty and also under a strong sense of political responsibility. All that has so far taken place induces us to look forward cheerfully to the future in the expectation that if there should be a real success in the application, the genuine even though limited application, of the elective principle to that vast community, it will be the accomplishment of a task to which it is difficult to find a parallel in history. In these circumstances I deprecate a division on the amendment of my hon. friend. I see no such difference between the amendment and the language of the Bill as ought to induce my hon. friend to divide the House. If the language of my hon. friend is to receive a perfectly legitimate and not a strained construction, it is only an amplification and not a contradiction of what the speech of the hon. gentleman the Under Secretary implies. I think it would be a great misfortune if the House were to divide on this subject. There is no difference of principle disclosed, because the acceptance of the elective principle by the Under Secretary, though guarded, and necessarily guarded, was, on the whole, not otherwise than a frank acceptance. I do not think there is on the other side of the House any of the jealousy of the introduction of that principle, which, if it existed, would undoubtedly form a strong mark of difference between the two parties. In reality and in substance we have the same object in view, and, we are prepared to recommend the employment of the same means to secure that end. If that be so, it would certainly be unfortunate that any division should take place which though the numbers might be unequal (I certainly could not take part in any division hostile or apparently hostile to the Bill) would, after the speech of the Under Secretary, convey a false impression. It is well the people of India should understand the truth--that united views substantially prevail in this House on this matter. My persuasion is that these views are united, and that they are such as likewise tend to the development of an enlightened and so far as circumstances will permit not only of a liberal, but of a free system. While my hon. friend has clone service in bringing this matter forward, he has really no substantial quarrel with the declarations of the Government, and I think he would do well to withdraw his amendment and allow this Bill to receive the unanimous assent of the House, in the hope that without serious difficulty it may shortly become law, and fulfill the benevolent purposes with which it has been submitted.

From: From: A. Berriedale Keith, ed. Speeches and Documents on Indian Policy, 1750-1921. Vol. II. London: Humphrey Milford, Oxford University Press, 1922, 67-75.