which I thought Government might make between civil matters of smaller and of greater importance. My exact words were: It may be said that, while Government have no objection to the unauthorized publication of official news of minor importance, they certainly want to prevent the publication of papers such as the confidential circulars about the wider employment of Europeans and Eurasians in the public service, which were published by some of the Indian papers last year.' And later on, when I spoke of the annoyance caused to the officers of Government, I spoke of the annoyance caused by the publication of circulars such as were made public last year.' I had thus used the circular only for the purpose of an illustration, and I beg leave to use it for a similar purpose again to-day. It is probable that, as this circular had been issued without Your Lordship's knowledge or the knowledge of the Member in charge of Public Works as stated by Your Lordship on a previous occasion, Government would not sanction a prosecution in this case; but supposing for the sake of argument that they did, how would the matter stand? Government might urge that the publication of the circular had inflamed the minds of many Hindus, Muhammadans and Parsis against the Government and had thus led to increased disaffection in the country. And if the trying Magistrate came to accept this view, the task of the prosecution would be comparatively simple. The injury to public interests would be held to lie in the alleged increased disaffection, and the circular being confidential, the Magistrate would have no difficulty in holding that the publication was wilful; and the editor would be presumed to have known what the consequences of such a publication would be. It may be that on an appeal to the High Courts or similar authority, the conviction may be set aside. But the worry and expense caused to the editor by such a prosecution might, in themselves, prove a heavy punishment, especially when it is remembered that the prosecution would have behind it all the prestige, power and resources of the Government. Even if no prosecution were actually instituted by the Government under the proposed legislation, the mere fact that the Government was armed with the power to

prosecute cannot fail to affect prejudicially the liberty of the Press in this country. My Lord, nowhere throughout the British Empire is the Government so powerful relatively to the governed as in India. Nowhere, on the other hand, is the Press so weak in influence, as it is with us. The vigilance of the Press is the only check that operates from outside, feebly, it is true, but continuously, upon the conduct of the Government, which is subject to no popular control. It is here, therefore, if anywhere, that the Legislature should show special consideration to the Press, and yet here alone it is proposed to arm Government with a greater power to control the freedom of the Press than in any other part of the Empire. My Lord, we often hear Government complaining of the distrust shown by the people in this country, and the people complaining of the Government not trusting them enough. In such a situation, where again the question is further complicated by a tendency on the part of the Government to attach undue importance to race or class consideration, the wisest and safest and most statesmanlike course for it is to conduct its civil administration as far as possible in the light of day. The Press is, in one sense, like the Government, a custodian of public interests, and any attempt to hamper its freedom by repressive legislation is bound to affect these interests prejudicially, and cannot fail in the end to react upon the position of the Government itself. My Lord, I fear, that the retention of the words or any other matters of State' in the definition of 'civil affairs' will unduly curtail the liberty of the Press in India, and I, therefore, move that these words be omitted from the definition.

[At the same meeting, the Hon. Mr. A. T. Arundel having moved that the Bill, as amended, be passed, the Hon. Mr. Gokhale opposed the motion in the following speech:-]

My Lord, the motion now before the Council is only a formal one. But as it marks the conclusion of our discussion of this important measure, I would like to say a few words. My Lord, I greatly regret that Government should not have seen their way to accepting even a single one of the more important amendments of which notice

had been given. This is the first time within my experience that a legislative measure has been opposed by all classes and all sections of the public in this country with such absolute unanimity. Of course with our Legislative Councils as they are constituted at present, the Government has the power to pass any law it pleases. But never before, I think, did the Government dissociate itself so completely from all public opinion-including AngloIndian public opinion—as it has done on the present occasion. I recognize that the responsibility for the good administration of the country rests primarily on the shoulders of the Government. But it is difficult to allow that this responsibility can be satisfactorily discharged, unless the Government was supported in its legislative and executive measures by some sort of public opinion. My Lord, Your Lordship has often declared that it was your constant aspiration to carry the public with you as far as possible in all important acts of your administration. I do not think it can be said that that aspiration has been in the smallest degree realized in the present case. The whole position is really most extraordinary and very painfully significant. Here we had a law, already in force, identical in character and identical in wording with the law obtaining in the other parts of the British Empire. The British Government in England, with its vast naval and military concerns and its foreign relations extending over the surface of the whole globe, has not found its law insufficient for its purpose. How then has the Government of India, with its more limited concerns, found it necessary to make the law more drastic in India? The explanation, I think, is simple. It is that, while in England the Government dare not touch the liberty of the Press, no matter how annoying its disclosures may be, and has to reconcile itself to the latter regarding them as only so much journalistic enterprise, in India the unlimited power which the Government possesses inclines it constantly to repressive legislation. This single measure suffices to illustrate the enormous difference between the spirit in which the administration is carried on in England. My Lord, as the Bill is still open to serious objection; I must yote against this motion to pass it.

THE INDIAN UNIVERSITIES ACT.

[At a meeting of the Imperial Legislative Council, held on Friday the 18th December 1903, His Excellency Lord Curzon presiding, the Hon. Sir T. Raleigh moved that the Bill to amend the law relating to the Universities of British India be referred to a Select Committee. In opposing the motion, the Hon. Mr. G. K. Gokhale made the following speech :--]

My Lord, as this is the occasion on which the principle of the Bill may be usefully discussed, I cannot give a silent vote on the motion now before us, especially in view of the great attention which this subject has received during the last three years at the hands of both the Government and the public, and the angry controversy which has raged round it for most of the time. In the course of the Budget Debate of last year, Your Lordship, while referring to the attitude of the educated classes of this country towards University Reform, was pleased to observe Surely there are enough of us on both sides, who care for education for education's sake, who are thinking, not of party-triumphs, but of the future of unborn generations, to combine together and carry the requisite changes through.' My Lord, I do not know if my claim to be regarded as one of such persons will pass unchallenged. But this I venture to say for myself: I hope I have given, in my own humble way, some little proof in the past of my interest in the cause of higher education; and that, in the observations which I propose to offer to-day, the only consideration by which I am animated is an anxious regard for the future of Western education in this land, with the wide diffusion of which are bound up in large measure the best interests of both the Government and the people. My Lord, in your Budget speech of last year, Your Lordship complained of the unnecessary distrust with which the educated classes regarded the attitude of the present

Government towards higher education. I can assure Your Lordship that, even among those who have not been able to take the same view of this question as Your Lordship's Government, there are men who regret that the difficulties which already surround a complicated problem should be aggravated by any unnecessary or unjustifiable misapprehension about motives. But is it quite clear that the Government itself has been free from all responsibility in this matter, and that it has given no cause whatever for any misapprehension in regard to its object? Let the Council for a moment glance at the circumstances which have preceded the introduction of this Bill. More than two years ago, Your Lordship summoned at Simla a Conference of men engaged in the work of education in the different Provinces of India. Had the Conference been confined to the educational officers of Government, one would have thought that Government was taking counsel with its own officers only, and of course there would have been no misunderstanding in the matter. But the presence of Dr. Miller at the Conference at once destroyed its official character, and gave room for the complaint that the deliberations were confined to European educationists in India only. The fact that the proceedings of the Conference were kept confidential deepened the feeling of uneasiness already created in the public mind by the exclusion of Indians from its deliberations. Later on, when the Universities Commission was first appointed, its composition, as is well known, afforded much ground for complaint; and though, to meet public opinion half way, Your Lordship took the unusual step of offering a seat on the Commission, almost at the last moment, to Mr. Justice Guru Das Banerjee, the objection remained that, while missionary enterprise was represented on the Commission in the person of Dr. Mackichan, indigenous enterprise in the field of education was again left unrepresented. The hurried manner in which the Commission went about the country and took evidence and submitted its report was not calculated to reassure the public mind. Finally, the holding back of the evidence, recorded by the Commission, on the plea that its publication would involve unnecessary expense, was very unfortunate, as other