Procedimiento de coordinación fusible-fusible

Both Northbrook and Ripon remarked that in the absence of the papers from the Government of India, the House felt greatly handicapped in

5

discussing the Bill. Lord Kimberley concurred in the proposals for the introduction of some element of election into the Local Councils and for the extension of some representation to the Supreme Council. Referring to the delay in introducing reforms, Kimberley observed that if the

matter had been dealt with three or four years earlier, much of the 4

agitation could have been avoided.

1 Hansard* s Indian Debates (1890) , 61. 2 Ibid., 62-65.

5 Only an extract from Dufferin*s minute was laid upon the table, though it had appeared in some Indian papers. Banerjea writes that The Bengalee, of which he was the editor, was the first paper to publish this minute in March 1889. A Ration in Making,

95

In I885 Lord Randolph Churchill advocated the appointment of a committee to consider the different acts which regulated the machinery of the Government of India, including the Legislative Councils., In 1886, when Lord Kimberley was Secretary of State for India, the House of Lords agreed to his proposal for the appointment of a Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament for the purpose of considering those acts. But the proposal fell through. Kimberley told the Lords that the Commons'Committee was not appointed on

account of the opposition of Churchill. Hansard1 s Indian Debates (1886), 285-4.

119

Although Liberal members like Northbrook and Kimberley were in favour of some form of elective system* they were decidedly opposed to any scheme of parliamentary government for India. Kimberley emphasised that the notion of a parliamentary system for a vast country like India was "one of the wildest imaginations that ever entered the minds of men". Lord Salisbury* the Prime Minister* said: "the principle of election or government by representation is not an eastern idea* it does not fit eastern tradiation or eastern minds"# He urged the House not to slip into that "great innovation" which, one£ accepted, would not admit of

2

being confined to a restricted area# The application of occidental

machinery in India* said Salisbury, would bring into power not the strong and natural elements of Indian society, but its "artificial and weakly"

5 parts.

Replying to the debate* Lord Cross remarked that the only fault found with the Bill was not with regard to what it contained, but as to

4 5

what it left out# In Committee he accepted Lord Northbrook’s amendment. He remarked that it would make clear the intention of Parliament and

6

would also satisfy the people of India. Lord Kimberley regarded the acceptance of this amendment by the Government as "to a certain extent

1 Ibid.* 84. 2 Ibid., 86.

3 Indian Pari. Debates* 15 Feb. 1892, 35* 4 Debates, 6 March 1890,

73

5 "Provided that the Governor-General in Council may from time to time, with the approval of the Secretary of State in Council, make regula­

tions as to the conditions under which such nominations* or any of them, shall be made by the Governor-General, Governors, and Lieutenant Governors respectively, and prescribe the manner in which such regula­

tions shall be carried into effect." This amendment was incorporated in the Act.

120

admitting the elective principle” , In February 1892 he said that the opposition would have preferred the more explicit recognition of the

2 principle.

Drawing the attention of the House to the omission from the Bill of a provision contained in the third clause of the original Bill* Lord Herschell said that its removal would seriously, fetter the power and

5

functions of the Provincial Councils. The insertion of the above clause had removed the disability imposed upon the Provincial Councils under Section 42 of the Act of 1861, which debarred them from legislating upon any matter dealt with by the Governor-General in Council between 1861 and the time of its constitution. Lord Cross said that the clause was

s'

omitted in order to "lighten” the Bill. He agreed to its re-insertion

4 5

in Committee» and accordingly, it was restored.

In February 1892 the House of Lords passed the Indian Councils Bill, on its re-introduction, vdthout any modification. In March 1892 Curzon, Trader Secretary of State for India, introduced the Bill into the House of Commons. A number of amendments were moved by certain members who were "endeavouring to fight the cause of the Indian people", but

6

none was accepted. The most important amendment, which was later with­

1 Ibid., 101. Kimberley’s construction was neither modified nor controverted by the Government.

2 Indian Pari. Debates, 15 Feb. 1892, 30.

J Hansard’s Indian Debates, 13 March 1890, 95*96. 4 Ibid., 97.

5 See Sec.5 of 1892 Act.

6 Indian Pari. Debates, 25 April 1892, 285, C.E.Schwann, Seymour Keay, Samuel Smith and Swift Mac Heill were strong supporters of the

Congress movement. • They strongly urged that the Bill should provide for election.

121

drawn, related to the introduction of the elective principle. The mover of the resolution, C#E.Schwann spoke like an ardent Congress man?’

Gladstone, speaking for the Opposition, deprecated any division on this question* He expressed the view that "the acceptance of the elective principle by the Under Secretary, though guarded, and necessarily guarded,

2

was, on the whole, not otherwise than a frank acceptance". Curzon concurred in this interpretation, and thds, the elective principle for India was recognised without being embodied in the Act# J# Maclean, who was opposed to Schwann*s amendment, characterised this procedure as

3

introducing election by a "side wind". Sir Hichard Temple, an experienced 4

Indian administrator, suggested that the right of selection should be conferred on certain cities, to be so selected as to represent as nearly

5