A 
 
 A 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 8 
 
 
 Gt. Brit* India office, 
 
 tast India <Indian states (protection 
 adainst disaffection) act, 1922> 
 1922.
 
 1 
 
 \ EAST INDIA [INDIAN STATES (PROTECTION 
 
 AGAINST DISAFFECTION) ACT, 1922]. 
 
 Indiiiii States (Protection against 
 Disaffection) Act, 1922. 
 
 Passed under the procedure prescribed hij Scct'io)i G7b of the 
 
 Government of India Act. 
 
 India Office. ) F. W. DUKE, 
 
 November 23. 1922. ) Under 8eci"etary of State for India. 
 
 {Presented pursuant to the Govcrumeut of India Act, Section, 67b (2).) 
 
 Ordered, hy the House of Commons, to he printed, 
 November 23, 1922. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 I'llINTKD k PlULlsHKl) HY JILS MAJKSTV'S .ST.VT]O.Ni;i! V OFFICE 
 
 To he iiinxhaHefl lliroiiKh any Bookseller or directly from H.M. STATIONF-IIV OFFICE 
 at th'i follow ijiu' adilifHHOH: Imperial IIohhc, Kiiiy:MW!(y, Loiidoii, W.('.2, and 
 23 Ahinu'doii .Strer-t, London, .S.W.I; 37 I'eter Street. l\I;iiirliester ; 
 1 .St. Andrew'H CieHcent. Cardiff; or 
 23 Forth St ret. |-.litil,mi.'li 
 
 1922 
 
 I'lii'c Vs. Od. ;iei. 

 
 TABLE OF CONTiCNTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 No. 1. Te.xl of llie Indian States (Protection against Dis- 
 affection) Act, 1922 - - - - - 3 
 
 Xo. 2. Debate in the l>egi.slative Assembly, 2ord September 
 
 1922 ------- 6 
 
 No. 3. Debate in the Council of State, 26th September 1922 - 11 
 
 No. 4. Despatch from tlie Go vei'nor- General to the Secretary 
 of State for India, dated 12th October 1922, with tAvo 
 annexui"es - - - - - - 53 
 
 I. Note on the protection promised to Indian 
 
 Princes by treaties, engagements, and sanads 61 
 
 II. Summary of Royal pronouncements regarding 
 
 protection of Princes and Chiefs - - 63 
 
 No. 5. Telegram fi-om the Secretai-y of State for India to the 
 
 Governor-General, dated 1 kh November 1922 - 63
 
 EAST INDIA [INDIAN STATES (PROTECTION 4*7 4S 
 AGAINST DISAFFECTION) ACT, 1922]. _ ^ '^.n 
 
 No. 1. 
 
 Whereas the Legislative Assembly has rei'used leave to intro- 
 duce a Bill to prevent tlie dissemination by means of books, 
 newspapers and other documents of matter calculated to bring into 
 hatred or contempt, or to excite disaffection against, Princes or 
 Chiefs of States in India or the Governments or Administrations 
 established in such States, a cojiy of which is hereto annexed ; 
 
 Now, therefore, I, Hufus Daniel. Earl of Reading, in exercise of 
 the powers conferred by subsection (1) of section G7b of the 
 Gove]-nment of India Act, do hereby certify that the said Bill is 
 essential for the interests of British India. 
 
 READING, 
 Viceroy and Governor-General. 
 
 2-Ith September 1922. 
 
 J, Rufus Daniel, Earl of Reading, in exercise of the powers 
 conferred by subsection (I) of section 67b of the Government of 
 India Act, do recommend that the Bill to prevent the dissemination 
 by means of books, newspapers and other documents of matter 
 calculated to bring into hatred or contempt, or to excite disaffection 
 against, Princes or Chiefs of States in India or the Governments or 
 Administrations established in such States, be passed in the form 
 annexed hereto. 
 
 READING, 
 Viceroy and Governor-General. 
 
 24th September lit22. 
 
 A BILL 
 
 7'o prevent the dissejiilnation hij means of hooks, newspapers 
 and other documents of mal.ier caladated to bring into 
 hatred or contempt, or to e.x^cite disaffection against, Princes 
 or Chiefs of States in India or the Governments or 
 Administrations established in such States. 
 
 Whereas it is ex])edient to prevent the dissemination by means 
 of l)ooks, newspapers and other documents of matter calculated to 
 bring into hatred or contempt, or to excite disafifection against, 
 Princes or Chiefs of States in India or the Governments or Admini- 
 strations establishe<l in such States ; It is hereby enacted as 
 follows: — 
 
 1. — (J) This Act may be calk<l the Indian States (Protection 
 Short litk- uud i-xicni. against Di-salfeciion) Act, l'.»22. 
 
 (2) It extends to the whole of British India, including Britisii 
 Baluchistan and the Sonthal I'arganas. 
 
 2. In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject 
 
 U.-fuiitioiis. or context— 
 
 (ti) " l)ook " and • newsj)aper " have the meanings respeclivdy 
 
 assigne<l to them by the I'rcss and Registration of Books 
 
 Act. J.Slw ; WV. of 18(57, 
 
 {h) '• (lit-alfection " inchides disloyalty and ;dl feelings of enmity 
 
 and 
 (r) "document" includeH any painting, drawing, photograph, or 
 
 other visilile lepresentation. 
 [:!(17">-'J lN:«)ios \Vi. JI5!i»/:{|-' 2r>n lii.iii' l.o.l'. A -'
 
 VI. of 1898. 
 
 3. — (1) Whoever edits, prints or publishes, or is the author of, 
 
 any book, newspaper or other docu- 
 Penalty. ment ubich brings or is intended to 
 
 bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or is intended to excite 
 disaiiection towards, any Prince or Chief of a Htate in India or the 
 Government or Administration established in any such 8tate, shall 
 be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to five years, 
 or wdth tine, or with both. 
 
 ^2) >«o person shall be <!eemed to commit an offence under this 
 section in respect of any book, newspaper or other document which, 
 without exciting or being intended to excite hatred, contempt or 
 disaffection, contains comments expressing disapprobation of the 
 measures of any such Prince, Chief, Govemiment or Administration 
 as aforesaid with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, 
 or disapprobation of the administrative or other action of any such 
 Prince, Chief, Government or Administration. 
 
 4. The provisions of sections yjA to 99g of the Code of Criminal 
 ,. ,1? lonc -n i V * -^ ^ • ir Procedure, 1808, and of sections 27b to 
 
 \ . ot 1898. Power to lorfeit certain publi- __" „ , ' _' .^ ^ ^^ . , i one- 
 
 cations or to detain theui in 2 / D of the Indian Post Ofhce Act, 1898, 
 course of transmission through shall apply in the case of any book, 
 post. newspaper or other -document contain- 
 
 ing matter in respect of which any person is punishable under section 3 
 in like manner as they apply in the case of a book, newspaper or 
 document containing seditious matter within the meaning of those 
 sections. 
 
 5. No Court inferior to that of a Presidency Magistrate or a 
 Courts by which and conditions Magistrate of the first class shall 
 
 subject to which offences may be proceed to the trial of any offence 
 tried. under section 3, and no Court shall 
 
 proceed to the trial of any such offence except on complaint made 
 by, or under authority from, the Governor-General in Council. 
 
 This Bill has been consented to by the Council of State. 
 
 (8d.) A. P. MUDDIMAN, 
 President, Council of State. 
 
 I assent to this Bill. 
 
 (Sd.) READING, 
 Viceroy and Governor-General, 
 lltfi October 1922. 
 
 This Act has been made by nie as Governor-General under the 
 provisions of section GTb of the Government of India Act. 
 
 (Sd.) READING, 
 Viceroy and Governor-Geueral. 
 11th October 1922. 
 
 STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS. 
 
 as appended to the bill when presented to the 
 Legislative Assembly. 
 
 The repeal oE the Press Act has deprived the Ruling Princes and 
 Chiefs of the protection which they have hitherto enjoyed since 
 1910 against attempts to bring them into hatred or contempt or to 
 excite disaffection against them by means of books, newspaper
 
 articles, &c., pnblisliel in British India. The need for such [jrotec- 
 tion, however, remains, and the Government oE India consider that; 
 they are under an obligation to substitute the present measure for 
 the safeguards which disappeared when the Press Act was repealed. 
 
 The Bill, which has been prepared with this object, provides 
 penalties of fine and imprisonment for the editor, printer, publisher 
 or author of any offending book, newspaper, or other document. It 
 m.akes it clear that comments expressing disapprobation of any action 
 tiken by a Ruling Prince or his administration are outside the 
 purview of the measure, provided that they neither excite nor are 
 intended to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection. As a safeguard 
 it is also provided that no Court shall proceed to the trial of any 
 offence under the Bill except on the complaint or under the authority 
 of the Governor-General in Council. 
 
 Subsidiary matters provided for in the Bill are the power to 
 forfeit offending publications or to detain them in coiirse of trans- 
 mission through rhe post, and the status of the Courts by which 
 offences may be tried. 
 
 J. P. THOMPSON. 
 
 2r)th September 102\ 
 
 
 
 No. 2. 
 
 THE INDIAN STATES (PROTECTION AGAINST 
 DISAFFECTION) BILL. 
 
 Extract from the Lerj id alive Assembly Debates, Vol. III., 
 
 No. 13. 
 Assembly Chamber, Simla, 23rd September 1922. 
 
 Sir William Vincent (Home Member): Sir, I move for leave : — 
 
 '• To introduce a Bill to prevent the dissemination by means of 
 books, newspapers and other documents of matter calculated 
 to bring into hati'ed oi- contempt, or to excite disaff'ection 
 Hgainst, Princes or Chiefs of States in India or the Govern- 
 ments or administi-ations established in such States.'' 
 
 The object of this Bill is explained in the Statement of Objects 
 and Reasons, an<l I will not detain the House for any time in 
 discussing it to-day. If the present motion is passed, the House 
 will have a])untlant opportunities for disi-ussing this (juestion fui-ther 
 at a later stage. J^ut I will give, briefly, the reasons for the intro- 
 duction of this measure. I am well aware that the lirst charge that 
 will Ije l)rought against me will be that I was a meml)er of the Press 
 Act Committee which did nut recommend this legislation. But I 
 think hon. Metnbt rs who have r'^iid the Repoi't of that (\)nimittee will 
 lind that it did not negative the idea that such legislation might be 
 necessary in the future, but only stated that adequate nuiterial had 
 not been brought Ijefore the members of that (,'ommittee to justify 
 such legislation at that juncture. 1 do not remember myself to have 
 signed as to aiiytliing more than that. I shall no doubt be corrected 
 if I am wrong. The ])oint is that very few instances wore brought 
 to th(! notice f)f the Committee in which the Pr<'ss had e.vcited 
 disaffection against, or had attempted to bring into hatred, Princes or 
 Chiefs of States in India. We had before us a witness from the 
 Political De})artmert who was cross examined bj- various members 
 of this Assembly, including myself, on this subject, and he did not 
 adduce evidence of a satisfactory character ia our opinion on that
 
 (3 
 
 point ; we were therefore not conviiicet] iliut tliere was anj' justifica- 
 tion for such u law. 
 
 Sir. that view has not been accepted by the (lovernment of India 
 as a whole, particularly in rht- light of recent circumstances. And 
 here 1 should like, if 1 may, to read a word or two from what His 
 Excellency said in his address to the Legislature in 19.21.1 He said: — 
 
 " There is, however, one part of the report upon which it is 
 necessary to make some reservation, and that is, in relation to 
 the protection hitherto afforded since 1910 to Ruling Princes 
 against seditious attacks upon them in new^spapers published 
 in British India If the Press Act is repealed it may become 
 necessary to consider v/hat form of protection shall be given 
 to them in substitution." 
 
 His Excellency again in his inaugural address to the Legislatures 
 this year refei'red to the subject, lie said: — 
 
 " The Press Act of 19I.() has been repealed. In this connection 
 I pointed out last year that the repeal of the Act might 
 necessitate the consideration of the form of protection to be 
 given to the Princes against seditious attacks upon them in 
 newspapers published in British India, In the meantime the 
 Local Governments have been consulted and this question 
 has been closely examined and has been the subject of corre- 
 spondence between my Government and the Secretary of 
 State. We have decided that we are l)ound by agreements 
 and in honour to afford to Princes the same measure of 
 protection as they previously enjoyed under the Press Act — 
 which is the only protection available to them, and a l)ill to 
 secure this ol)ject will be brought before you in the present 
 session. This protection to Princes was first given by the 
 Act of 1910 ; it is not suggested that it has been abused, and 
 the only reason for its repeal is because in British India we 
 have decided to dispense with special remedies under the 
 Press Act and to rely on the general law, wdiich is not 
 applicable to the Princes." 
 
 The general grounds upon which the Government of India consider 
 this legislation necessary are explained very clearly in that speech 
 of His Excellency. Government have come to the conclusion that 
 this legislation is necessary under the terms of the treaties and in 
 accordance with Royal pronouncements regarding the protection of 
 Princes and Chiefs. The Government of India are pledged to 
 accord to the Princes and States in India full protection of their 
 honour, rank and dignity and to maintain unimpaired their privileges 
 and their rights. 
 
 May I refer here to a Royal Proclamation on this subject which 
 was issued as late as February 1921. It is stated there:— 
 
 •• In my former proclamation I repeated the assurance given on 
 many occasions by my Royal predecessors and myself of my 
 determination to maintain unimpaired the privileges, rights 
 and dignities of the Princes of India. The Princes may rest 
 assured that this pledge will remain inviolate and inviolable." 
 
 Sir, the second reason for this measure of protection is that it 
 has been found on examination to be necessary. I am told, and I 
 accept it, that the case was not fully put before the Press Act 
 Committee. There have been a number of cases in which protection 
 of this character has been jiistly required and demanded. I will
 
 quote a very few o£ them to this House ; I am not going to mention 
 names, and I think hon. Members will not expect me to. I fimi 
 one paper in India suirgesting that Indian States are cursed by 
 absentee despots and it is the duty of every patriotic Indian to 
 prepare the country for an Indian Republic. Fi'om another paper I 
 quote the following: — 
 
 " People will see to it that the present system of administration — 
 (J.e., in Indian States) — is smashed to pieces within five years." 
 
 From another paper I take this citation: — 
 
 "We cull upon the 700 odd gilded puppets in India to put iheir 
 house in order, to liberalise their administration, lest the flame 
 of the popular movement should gut the old and moth-eaten 
 fabric of indigenous but autocratic rule in India." 
 
 Here is another Maharaja, a man of great weight, spoken of in these 
 terms: — 
 
 "An impatient new-fledged detective in search of sedition and is 
 worth no more than an ordinary detective who is a traitor to 
 Swaraj." 
 
 I could go on and multiply these instances, but I do not wish to 
 do so at this stage. I merely give them as instances of the pro- 
 position which I have stated. I submit that articles of this kind 
 not only transcend all the limits of decency, but are really a 
 dangerous source of disaffection to the Governments of the States 
 which are attacked in this manner. It is against such insult;^, it is 
 against the fomenting of such disaffection that the Government of 
 India now think it right to introduce this measure, in order to secure 
 to the Princes that legitimate protection which they have, in the 
 opinion of the highest anthoritie:f!, a right to claim. 
 
 I only want to mention two other points at this stage. One is 
 that there are States in which fomenting disaffection against the 
 Government of British India is penalised. Can we in justice 
 withhold from those States that protection against the preaching of 
 disaffection against them in British India which they afford to us ? 
 Further, in any case, if they were to allow it, could we allow 
 Indi;m States to l)e centies of diaaft'ection against the Government 
 of India ': If the answer is in the negative, ought we not in all 
 fairness and in all justice to prevent British India from being a 
 centre for movements of disaffection against them ? 
 
 I know it has been said that this 13111 will stille all legitimate 
 criticism. I do not accept this and I think if hon. Members will 
 read clause (2) of the Bill which is before them, they will see all 
 jjossible safeguards in this respect have been inserted in the 
 measui-e. We have protected every form of legitimate criticism 
 from coming within the h;co])e of this law There is yet another 
 safeguard, namely, that no prosecution can be instituted without the 
 sanction of the Governor-General in Council. I am aware that 
 there is a certain amount of feeling against this measure in this 
 House, if 1 may judge from conversations with various individuals 
 and from the jjrocecdings of the Press Act Committei^ l>ut 1 hope 
 the House will really view this matter in a fair and just spirit and 
 afford to our allies in the Indian States that protection whicli seems 
 to be demandeil. Finally, I niay add that this Bill follows again 
 very closely the principles of English law. I do not know whether 
 I am making too wide a statetnent, but at any rate I can say this 
 much, no on«" under the law in Kngland if allowed, without
 
 8 
 
 roiulorins^ himself liable to prosfciition, to i-'i'oiiiote disaffection 
 against a foreign Htute or to auike seditious attacks upon tli(; 
 Government of a foreign State, and this is a similar proposition to 
 that contained in the Bill. I do not think it is necessary for me to 
 cite authorities on the point and I believe that I am stating the law 
 correctly. I also believe that in many other European countries the 
 same provision applies. 
 
 But the real point is, as I have said, that we consider this Bill 
 to be necessary for the fulfilment of our promises to the Indian 
 States. The Indian States are almost unanimous in demanding this 
 protection from us and we have now evidence that this protection is 
 needed I'or their safeguard. In these circumstances I move for 
 leave to introduce the Rill. 
 
 MUNSHI ISWAR Saran (Cities of the United Provinces : Non- 
 Muhammadan Urban) : Sir, I rise to offer opposition to the motion 
 which is before the House to-day. Sir, I wish to assure the House 
 that it is in no spirit of hostility or unfriendliness to the Indian 
 Princes that I am offering this opposition. I cannot forget that they 
 are our own countrymen, and if they choose they can make them- 
 selves and their States objects of joy and pride for us. If there be 
 anything in our humble power which we can do in order to aid, 
 help and assist them, our humble services are at their disposal. But, 
 Sir, as regards the question which we have got to onsider at the 
 present moment, I shall say only this. The hon. the Home 
 Member has appealed to us to look at it in a fair spirit ; I shall only 
 say that I shall look at it in the same spirit in which the hou. the 
 Home Member himself looked at it on the llth July 1921. The 
 hon. the Home Member told us what he meant when he put his 
 signature over the Report of the Press Act Committee. May I tell 
 him with all respect ttjat this is not his individual report; it is the 
 unanimous report of the entire Committee ; and I may be a very 
 humble man, but having put my signature to it I may claim the 
 right of interpreting what the Committee meant at that time as 
 much as the hon. the Home Member himself. What does this Com- 
 mittee say ? Here let me pause for a minute. This Committee was 
 not composed of fire-eaters, perhaps like myself, but it had on it two 
 distinguished members of the Government of India itself, very sober 
 I should think, very thoughtful, very experienced, very far-sighted. 
 Who were they ? The hon. the Law Member presided over it, and 
 the hon. the Home Member was the most distinguished member of 
 that Committee. With your permission, Sir, I shall read out a short 
 passage from the report of this Committee : — 
 
 " Perhaps the most important of these is the question whether the 
 dissemination of disaffection against Indian Princes through 
 the Press of British India should be penalised in any way. 
 We have been handicapped in our examination of this 
 question by very inadequate representation of the views of 
 the Princes, many of whom were unwilling to allow their 
 opinions to be placed before the Committee. We have, how- 
 ( ver, had the advantage of seeing some minutes submitted by 
 them, and of examining Sir .lohn Wood, Secretary in the 
 Political Department. It has been argued — {the same argument 
 which the hon. the Home Member now advances) — that the Govern- 
 ment of India is under an obligation to protect Indian Princes 
 from such attacks, that the Press Act alone affords them such 
 protection, and that if it is repealed it is unfair — {the same 
 argument, I toish to remind the House, has heen used noiv) — having
 
 9 
 
 rPijaid to ibe constitntioual position oC the Government of 
 India L-is-u-vt.i the Indian Srato?, that the I'ress in Brit'sh 
 India should be allowed to foment disaffection against the 
 ruler of an Indian State. On the other hand — (I shall beg the 
 Hi/use to mark this) — various witnesses have protested in the 
 strongest terms against any such protection being afforded to 
 the Princes. It is alleged that the effect of any such provision 
 in the law would be to stifle all legitimate criticism and 
 deprive the sabjects of such States of any opportunity of 
 ventilating their grievances and protesting against maladmini- 
 stration or oppression. We understood — {and here again I beg 
 the House to mark these ivord.<) — that before the Press Act 
 became law it was not found necessary to protect Indian 
 Princes from such attacks, and we note that the Act, so far as 
 the evidence before us shows, has only been used on three 
 occasions for this i)urpose. We do not in the circumstances 
 think that we shouhl be justiiied in recommending on general 
 grounds any enactment in the Penal Code or elsewhere for 
 the purpose of affording such protection in the absence of 
 evidence to prove the practical necessity for such a provision 
 of the law." 
 
 Sir, I ask what has happened between the 14th of July 1021 and 
 the 2i]vd of September 11I22 ? Have so many new facts come to the 
 knowledge of the Govei-nment of India, have so many seditious 
 writing.s appeared in the newspaper Press that we should be justified 
 in. ignoring the unanimous opinion of the Committee appointed by 
 Government ? Sir, it may be that some thin-skinned people might 
 suggest that instead of having a Press Act we ought to apply the 
 extradition laws to these offences, and anybody who was con.sidered 
 to have written seditious articles in the Press against the Princes 
 should be l)odily handed to them to be tried in their Courts ; but I 
 sincerely hope, Sir, that no such suggestion will be made, even by 
 the boldest advocate of the motion that is before us at the present 
 moment. As the House is aware, there was no statutory law in 
 existence before 1910, and I take it that tliese agreements, these 
 obligations between the Government of Inilia and the Indian Pi-inces 
 existed even before l'.)l(». Are we to understand, Sir, tint these 
 oliligations have come into being since 1910? I do not thiidc so. 
 I submit that they have been in existence ever since the relation 
 between the Government of India and these Princes started. 
 
 Sir, at this moment, I sliall ai)peal from the hon. the Home 
 Member, the mover of tliis motion, to the hon. the Home Member, 
 the member of the Press Act tJonnnitti^e ; and if I am (;rring at all, 
 I have the satisfaction of erring in most excellent and in most 
 distinguished company. Now, what will be th(^ result of this Act f 1 
 liopc ttii House knows that tln-re are few Indian newspapers in Indian 
 States, and even they do not i)oesess the courage of freely and fear- 
 lessly criticising admiriistrative measures of theii- States. If you ])ass 
 an Act like this, tlic! result will be, iti the words of the Report of the 
 Press Act (.'oinmittce, that you will stith' all legitimate critii-ism in 
 P)ritish India. It is well known to idl of us that we the Members 
 of this Asseml)ly ennnot ])ut a single question al)out any In<liati 
 State. We cannot j-ass any resolution about the affairs of any liulian 
 State. We may look at their affairs and we may feel intensely about 
 them ; but we dare not come up to you, Sii-, and ask your i)crmission 
 to ventilate our grievances against these Indian Stal(!S on the floor 
 of this House. Such being the ililliculties of the situation, Sir, 1
 
 TO 
 
 ask. is it fair, is it rca-oiKiblc, is it pi'()])er that iicnnispioii should ho 
 given I'of llio itilfoducuou ot' a iiioasiire like tliis 't 
 
 Sir, there is another matter to which 1 wish to invite attention. 
 Why, I nsk, shonKl not these Indian Princes, very distinguished, 
 very exalted personages indeed, on occasions behave like ordinary 
 individuals ? 
 
 I know, Sir, and the House knows also, that it was not long ago 
 that His Most Gracious Majesty the King-Emperov, when a vile 
 iinpntution was made against him, absolutely declined to take 
 advantage of! iiis position as sovereign, and he said that he would 
 claim as a private individual the vindication of his right. Might 
 I not submit to the Indian Princes, with all respec^, to follow the 
 gloi'ious example, if I might be X)ermitted to say so, set by His 
 Most Gracious Majesty the King-Emperor himself 'i Sir, wdiat I say 
 is this : introduce, if you like, a measure in this House which will 
 »nve protection to the subjects as well as to the Indian Princes ; 
 place such a measure before us, and we shall then be inclined to 
 consider it ; but a one-sided measure like this, in which you try to 
 do nothing for the subjects of lu'lian Princes, is one, I submit, 
 which cannot be acceptable to this House. You have. Sir, the Report 
 of the Press Act Committee. You have it in that Report that only 
 on three occasions the provisions of the Press Act w^ere brought into 
 operation ; you have it that before 19 JO there was no such law. 
 Having regard to all these facts, I submit, Sir, that it is up to us 
 Membei-s of this House to reject this motion, and not to allow the 
 lion, the Home Member to introduce it. On one occasion the hon. 
 the Home Member said "Come out in tiie open if you want to." 
 Sir, 1 shall beg the House to come out in the open and reject this 
 motion : — 
 
 " That leave be given ro introduce a Bill to prevent the dissemi- 
 nation by means of books, newspapers and other documents, 
 of matter calculated to bring into hatred or contempt, or to 
 excite disaffection against Princes or Chiefs of States in India, 
 or the Governments or administrations established in such 
 States." 
 The Assembly then divided as follows : — 
 
 AYES— 41. 
 
 Al'dul Quiulir. Maulvi. 
 Al:.dul Rahim Khan. Mr. 
 AbduUa. Mr. S. M. 
 Allen, Mr. B. 0. 
 Amjad Ali, Maulvi. 
 Arbutbnot, Mr. R. E. Y. 
 Asad Ali, Mir. 
 Asjad-ul-lah, Maulvi Miyan, 
 Bhanja Deo, Raja R. N. 
 Bradley-Birt, Mr. F. B. 
 Bray, Mr. Denys. 
 Bridge, Mr. G. 
 Burdou. Mr. E. 
 Butler, Mr. M. S. D. 
 Chatterjee, Mr. A. C. 
 Clarke, Mr. G. R. 
 Cotf'lingam, Mr. .1. P. 
 Crookshank, Sir Sydney. 
 Davies, Mr. R. W. 
 Gidney, Lieut.-Col. H. A. .1. 
 Hailey, Sir Malcolm. 
 
 Hudson, Mr. W. F. 
 Hullah, Mr. J. 
 
 rahim Ali Khan. Lt. Nawab M. 
 Innes, Mr. C. A. 
 Lindsay, Mr. Darcy. 
 Mitter, Mr. K. N. 
 Moir, Mr. T. E. 
 Muhammad Hussain, Mr. T. 
 Muhammad Ismail, Mr. S. 
 Percival. Mr. P. E. 
 Sapru, Dr. T. B. 
 Sarfaraz Hussain Khan. Mr. 
 Singh, Mr. S. X. 
 Sinha, Balm L. P. 
 Slocock, Mr. F. S. A. 
 ToUinton, Mr. H. P. 
 Yincent, Sir William. 
 Waghorn, Colonel W. D. 
 Way, Mr. T. A. H. 
 Zahiraddin Ahmed, Mr,
 
 11 
 
 XOKS— 4"). 
 
 Abdul Ralimau, Miuisbi. 
 Abul Kasem, Maulvi. 
 i^gai-Avala, Lala Girdharilal. 
 Agnihotn, Mr. K. B. L. 
 Ahmed, Mr. K. 
 Bagde, Mr. K. G. 
 Barodawala. Mr. S. K. 
 Barua, Mr. D. C. 
 Bhargava, Pandit J. L. 
 Chaudhuri, Mr. J. 
 Dalai. Sardar B. A. 
 Das, Babu B. S. 
 Gajjan Singh, Sardar Bahadur. 
 Gulab Singh, Sardar. 
 Hajeebhoy. Mr. Mahomed. 
 Hussanally. Mr. W. M. 
 Iki-amullah Khan. Raja M. M. 
 Iswar Saran. Munshi. 
 Jatkar, Mr. B. H. R. 
 Joshi, Mr. N. M. 
 Kamat, Mr. B. S. 
 Lakshmi Narayan Lai, Mr. 
 Man Singh, Bhai. 
 
 The motion was negatlTed. 
 
 ilisra, Mr. B. N. 
 Misra, Mr. P. L. 
 Mudaliar, Mr. S. 
 Mukherjee, Mr. J. N. 
 Nag, Mr. G. C. 
 Nand Lai. Dr. 
 Neogy, Mr. K. C. 
 Pyari Lai, Mr. 
 Rangachai'iai", Mi'. T. 
 Reddi, Mr. M. K. 
 Saklatvala, Mr. N. B. 
 Samarth, Mr. N. M. 
 Sarvadhikary, Sir Deva Prasad. 
 Shahab-ud-Din, Chaudhii. 
 Shahani. Mr. S. C. 
 Singh, Babu B. P. 
 Sinha, Babu Ambika Prasad. 
 Sohan Lai. Bakshi. 
 Srinivasa Rao, Mr. P. V. 
 Subrahmanayam, Mr. C. S. 
 Venkatapatiraju. Mr. B. 
 Vishindas. Mr. H 
 
 No. 3. 
 
 E:i'tract from the Council of State Dchate><, Vol. II T., Xo. \'?>. 
 Council rhiiniber, Simla, 26th Septombor 1922. 
 
 Mr. J. 1'. Thompson (Officiating I'olitical Secn'lary) : 1 move, 
 Sir, that the P)ill to pievent the dissemination by means of books, 
 newspapers and other documents of matter calculated to bring into 
 hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against Princes or 
 Chiefs of States in India or tl)e Governments or Administrations 
 established in such States, be taken into consideration. 
 
 Sir, the Bill before the House is the first that has ever been 
 l)n'sented to eilhei- Chamber of the Legislature under a certilicate 
 from the (Jovernor-tjeneral. The position which has arisen is not 
 of Government's seeking. The Bill was placed before the Legisla- 
 tive Assembly last Saturday, and they n^fused leave to introduce it. 
 It is not an oi'dinary r>ill. It is a 15111 which provides something 
 which the (jo\ crnor-General has told us that his (Jovciimeut 
 decided that thej' were bound by agreements, and bound in honour, to 
 provide. Surely, Sii-, those ai'<^ words of tremeiubais weight. The 
 Govcrnor-(Jenf)'al, himself a lawyer of the highest eminence, has 
 told u8 that the Government over which he presides has come to the 
 conclusion that their agreements, that is to say, their contracts, 
 with the States oblige them to do sonu thing f<ir fhe other ])arlies 
 to tliose contracts, namely, tlic^ States. Tliey luld ns, too, (hat they 
 feel that thej' are bound in honour to (his course. Surelj', Si)', a 
 Bill that comes iiefore (dlber (ylianilier of the Jiegislatui'e witli 
 creilentials of ibis nature is one wbicli deHerves the most earnest 
 and tbe most serious consideration. And what is the answer that 
 the J^egislative Assembly liave given r 1 am willing to believe 
 that when they gave that answer, they did not realise all
 
 \-2 
 
 lliiit ir impHcil. P>ut, tiilcen ;it its face valno, wliat doL'S tliat 
 uiiswoi- incai) f Tiiey refused to allow this Bill within the precincts 
 of their House ; they have flung it back practically in the face of 
 the Government of India ; they have told the Head of that Govern- 
 ment that his ideas about the inter})retation of contracts, his ideas on 
 the subject of honour, are less than dust in the balance. But what 
 is more than this is that their decision, at its face value, means that, 
 in their view, cor.tracts and treaties have no meaning, that honoui' 
 is a jilea that they will not discuss, and that they recogni-«e none of 
 the agreements which have been concluded 1)y the Executive 
 Government of this country. Surely. Sir, that brings us to the edge 
 of an abyss, and it is only the feeling that the Assembly did not 
 really realise what their action implied that makes it ])ossible for us 
 to take a more optimistic view of the situation than we might other- 
 wise have l)een able to do. But be that as it may, it must be 
 perfectly obvious that no Government, unless it is prepared to 
 abdicate, could accept that position. Two courses were open. They 
 might either have the Bill re-introduced here or in the Legislative 
 Assembly. 'J'hat would have meant delay and uncertainty. The 
 other alternative ^\as the procedure which has been adopted — the 
 procedure under section tWB. The Government of India feel that 
 this procedure must have an appearance at any rate of ungracious- 
 ness towards this House which has so often supported them in 
 difficult days. But they regret that the wording of the section 
 leaves them no option, and I may pei-haps take this opportunity. Sir, 
 of informing the House that after full consideration the Government 
 of India have decided that they are unable to accept any amendments 
 in the form of the Bill as it has been recommended by the Governor- 
 General. The reason for this is that they fear the possibility that, 
 if they did so, awkward legal objections might afterwards be raised 
 in Courts if the validity of the legislation was challenged. 
 
 Now I will just give the House a very brief description of the 
 Bill. I should have been glad to spare them that, but yesterday 
 when I was discussing the case with a leading Member of the 
 other House, lie informed me — and I believe he was one of those 
 wlio voted against the motion for leave to introduce the Bill — 
 That he had not realised that under the Bill the sanction of 
 the Governor-General in Council would be necessary before 
 any prosecution could be launched. The Bill provides, as hon. 
 Members are aware, that whoever edits, prints or publishes, or la 
 the author of, any book, newspiper or other document which bring-^, 
 or is intended to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or is 
 intended to excite disati'ection towards, any Prince or Chief of a 
 State in India, or the Government or Administration established in 
 any such State, shall be punishable with imprisonment which may 
 extend to five years, or with fane, or with both. A subsection of 
 thM same section ?> goes on to protect — in terms which are modelled 
 on the Explanations to section 12Ia — legitimate criticism. The 
 next clause contains certain necessary provisions as to the power 
 to forfeit offending publications or to detain them in course of 
 transmission thi-ough the post ; and the concluding section provides 
 for the status of the Courts by which the offences may be tried, 
 and also proposes to enact that no Court shall proceed to the 
 trial of any such offence except on complaint made by, or under 
 author! y from the Governor-General in Council. 
 
 Tha:* is the Bill, Si-, which 'the Governor-General considers 
 essential for the interests of British India. He considers that it is 
 essential, because he is convinced that the keeping of promises and
 
 13 
 
 the honouriug of pledges is one of the basic principles on Avhich all 
 civilised Governments must rest. 
 
 That is the Government case in a nutshell. I have stated the 
 case and it is now for me to prove it. The Hoa.-e will expect me 
 to prove two points, first of all that the pledges exist, and secondly, 
 tliar the Princes are justified in appealing to those pledges and that 
 Government are justilied in restoring the protection which they 
 have lost. 
 
 Now first as to the i)le(lges. The pledges fall into three classes. 
 There are lirst of all those which are contained in tlif treaties and 
 engagements which have been conchided with the States ; secondly, 
 there are those — second in point of chronological order — which are 
 contained in the pronouncements which have been madi' by the 
 Sovereigns of this country ; and thirdly, there are those which are 
 contained in the speeches which have been made by His Excellency 
 the Viceroy and by the spokesmen of the Government of India on 
 different occasions when (he question of giving protection to the 
 Princes has come up. I will deal only with the most striking of 
 these. 
 
 First as regards the treaties. There are a group of some "iU States 
 in India, including some of the most important in the country, which 
 have treaties, many of them of very old standing, which provide 
 that "there shall be perpetual friendship, alliance and ^mity of 
 ititerests between the two parties from generation to generation, and 
 the friends and enemies of one shall be the friends and enemies of 
 both." Several of these States have interpreted their obligations so 
 as to include the duty of providing protection for the British 
 Government against what A\e may call seditious attacks. The 
 l)rinciple underlying the clause which I have read is that of 
 reciprocity in regard to the matters theiein mentioned. It one of 
 the^e States which has passed an enactment ol this nature comes to 
 us and asks us how we have interpreted our obligations, what answer 
 shall we give ? 
 
 There is another important State situated not far fi-om one of our 
 provincial capitals which has a treaty, also of old standing, which 
 provides that " the honour and rank and dignity of the Paja sliall 
 be ef-timaied by tljc Pritish Government in the same degree as that 
 in wliich the} were estimated by the former I'hnperors oi Hindu- 
 stan." Suppose a lampoon c)ii that Prince is pitblished at his 
 very doors and is circulated Ijroadcast among his subjects, and he 
 asks us to mete out to the offender the same treatment that one of 
 the Moghul Emperors might have been expected to mete out. 
 What answer are we to give ? 'i'here is another imi)or1ant group of 
 States in Northern India which have Sauads <lating from PStlO which 
 provide that the jlritish (iovernmeiit "will likewise C(»ntinue to 
 t:pliold their honour, respect, rank and dignity in the manner it is 
 done at itresent."' There are some small States in Cen(i-al India 
 whicli have a century-old assui'ance that '"if any iterson shall be 
 convicted of calumniating them, he shall be treated as he deserves." 
 If we allow calumny to revel unchecked, how coidd we lof)k those 
 Princes in the face ? More than -SO y(i;irs;igo a treaty was concluded 
 with one of the great Prince.^ of Uajiuiiana. It jjrovided that tiie 
 JJritish (Jovernment would i)ermit no diminution of the honour and 
 re])nla(ion of (he Maharaja at the hands f)f others "and it becomes 
 guarantee for the same." Kecently, a iu'ii;hi)oiiiiiig Slate has been 
 the subject of eome most infatnous attacks. Suppose it lia<l been 
 Ills State which had this treaty, and they iiad aiipcaUd (o the 
 ])rovisionH of their treaty ; what answer couhl we give th<'m ? We
 
 i4 
 
 could not I'olil our luuuls uud plead thiit we had L'ui-golLeii oiti* 
 obligations. 
 
 I now come to the second class of pledges, Roj'al pledges ; and 
 tirst of all [ will deal with the adoption sanads of 1S60 and suhse- 
 qiieut years. Hon. Members will recollect that the adoption sanads 
 were given after the mutiny in order to allay the apprehensions 
 which had been cxciled by the previous policy of the British Govern- 
 ment. Those sanads contain an assurance, given in the name of 
 Her Majesty Queen Victoria, of her desire that •' the Governments 
 of the several Princes and Chiefs shall be perpeuirited and that the 
 reputation and dignity of their Houses should bd continued." It we 
 allow calumny and vituperation to undermine that reputation and 
 that dignity, how can we square it with the terms of that sinad r 
 
 I now pass on to the Royal Pronouncements which have been 
 made on various great occasions since the Government of India 
 passed to the Crown. The general tenor of these is no doubt familiar 
 to most lion. Members, but I should like to bring to their memory, 
 for purposes of this debate, the terms in which the assurances were 
 given to the Princes. The tirst of these is the great Proclamation of 
 Queen Victoria in 1858 : — 
 
 " We shall respect the rights, dignity and honour of India's Princes 
 as Our o\vn." 
 
 Each of her successors has renewed those pledges. The Coronation 
 message of His Majesty King Edward VII. to the Princes ran as 
 follows : — 
 
 "To all My Feudatories I renew the assurance of My regard for 
 their liberties, of respect for their dignities and rights, of 
 interest in their advancement and of devotion to their 
 welfare." 
 
 Our present Emperor at the Coronation Durbar of I'Jll again renewed 
 those pledges : — 
 
 " Finally, I rejoice to have this opportunity of renewing in my 
 own person those assurances which have been given by my 
 revered predecessors for the maintenance of your rights and 
 privileges and my earnest concern for your welfare, peace and 
 contentment." 
 
 The introduction of the Reforms seemed to His Majesty an occasion 
 which called for a solemn renewal of those assurances ; and in the 
 Royal Proclamation of the 23rd December 1919 you will find these 
 words: — 
 
 " I take the occasion again to assure the Princes of India of my 
 determination to maintain unimpaired their privileges, rights 
 and dignities." 
 
 The Proclamation of the 8th February 1921 is still more 
 
 emphatic: — 
 
 '' In my former Proclamation I repeated the assurance given on 
 many occasions by my Royal predecessors and myself of my 
 determination to maintain unimpaired the privileges, rights 
 and dignities of the Princes of India. The Princes may rest 
 assured that the pledge remains inviolate and inviolable." 
 
 I repeat those words, " inviolate and inviolable." Am I wrong in 
 thinking that when His Majesty penned those words he liad in 
 jnind not only his own detei-minaiion to main lain I hose pledges, but
 
 lo 
 
 a firm faith that the Legislatures which \vere then being created 
 would honour those pledges and redeem those ])ronii6es 'i 
 
 I now pass on. Sir, to the announcements wliich have been made 
 by His Excellency the Viceroy and by spokesmen of the Govern- 
 ment of India with specific reference to the question of the 
 protection of the I'rinces against Press attacks. His Excellency's 
 speech at the opening of the Legislatures in September 1'.I21 
 contained the following passage: — 
 
 " If the Press Act is repealed it will become necessary to 
 consider what form of protection shall be given tu them in 
 sitbstitation." 
 
 A year later, His Excellency stated in more definit'j terms, which 
 I have already cited; the intention of the Government of India, 
 which was based on their obligations of honour and of contract, to 
 introduce the Bill which is now before the House. Going l)ack to 
 IDIO, when the Press xVct was introduced, I find that Sir Herberc 
 Risley used these words: — 
 
 " In the first place, we have included what I may describe as the 
 preaching of sedition against the Princes or Chiefs of our 
 Native States. \Ve have had not a few instances of news- 
 papers published in British India containing seditiovTS matter 
 of that kind. The Government of India cannot tolerate this ; 
 thev cannot allow their territories tr> be used as a safe asylum 
 from which attacks can be launched upon Indian Princes." 
 
 Why could not Government tolerate that such attacks should be 
 launched upon Indian Princes ? Simply, I tnke it, because of those 
 pledges and ihose ])ronouncements to which I have referred, and it 
 was in ]JursQance of those pledges that the protection was given. 
 
 I now come down to the speech made by Sir William Vincent on 
 Mr. O'Donnell's motion for the appointment of a Committee to 
 examine the Press Act. Sir William Vincent said: — ' 
 
 " Another purpose for which it is used (that is, the Press Act) — 
 and I think very justiliably used — is to prevent the libelling 
 and of attempts to blackmail Indian Princes. I do not know 
 whether Members of this Assemldy are aware that a certain 
 section of the Press sometimes does publish sucfi articles and 
 ■we cannot i)ro6ecute any paper for such conduct under the 
 ordinal y law. At the same time, the Government of India 
 and the peojile of India have received such loyal help from 
 the Princes duiing the war — and indeed at all times in all 
 good work — that it is our duty to do what we can to protect 
 them and to sectirc them immunity from such nefarious 
 practices." 
 
 I do not know whether the hon. .McUiljer had that passage^beforc 
 him when he signed the Report of the Pnss Act Commiitci', but it is 
 clearly an announcement on the part of the Government of India of 
 a limitation on the action which they tI)ouglit tlu'm3elve.>-; then at 
 liberty to take in regard to the repeal of the ]ji'(»visions of the Press 
 Act which ijr()vide<l for the protection of the I'linces. That con- 
 cludes all I have t(i say in i-egard to the pledges and the jii-omises 
 which have l»een given, and, before I pass Kj my ne.xt point,! should 
 like to summarise what I vimiure to thiidv 1 have jjroved. The first 
 ]oinf is that there are thosi- ]>ledg«,'S. Tie secoml is that (hose 
 jdedges will covei' the action which (loveriinii^it now propose to 
 Like. The tl)ird point is tiiat the i»i'o(ecllon which was given nndeji'
 
 ic 
 
 tho Press Act of J'JIO must have been f^'iven in pursuance of those 
 pledges, and the last point is that even when the doom of the Press 
 Act was |)roiiounced the Government still thought that the Princes 
 were entitkMl to retain protection. 
 
 That brings me down to the period of the Press Act Committee's 
 Heport. 
 
 1 will read to hon. Members the finding of that Committee : — 
 
 " We understand that before the Press Act became law it was not 
 found necessary to protect Indian Princes from such attacks 
 and we note that the Act, so far as the evidence before us 
 shows, has only been used on three occasions for this pur- 
 pose ; we do not, in the circumstances, think that we should 
 be justified in recommending on general grounds any enact- 
 ment in the Penal (Jode or elsewhere for the purpose of 
 affording snch protection in the absence of evidence to prove 
 the practical necessity for such provision of the law. Our 
 colleague Mir Asad Ali desires to express no opinion on this 
 question." 
 
 I want the House to note in the first place that that is not a finding 
 that there is no case for the protection of Princes. It is merely a 
 finding that n'o case had been made out to the satisfaction of the 
 Committee. Their finding is based on two statements and an 
 inference. I shall, I think, have little ditficulty in showing to the 
 House that both those statements are inaccurate aad that the 
 inference is unsound. The first statement is that, it was never 
 found necessary to protect the Indian Princes before 1910. That, as 
 I have said, is inaccurate. The first Regulation which was passed 
 for the protection of Indian Princes \>r-ds passed as long ago as 1823, 
 when Mr. Adam was officiating as Governor-General in the short 
 intei-regnum between the departui-e of Lord Hastings and the arrival 
 of Lord Amherst. I have a copy of that regulation and of the rules 
 made under it, and I can shew them to any hon. Member who 
 Avould care to see them. Under tlie rales which were published in 
 April 1823, observations or statements touching the character, con- 
 stitution, measures or orders of friendly Native Powers, their 
 Ministers, or Representatives, or the character, constitution, measures 
 or orders of the Indian Governments, impugning the motives and 
 designs of such authorities, or in any way tending to bring into 
 hatred or contempt, or excite resistance to their orders, or weaken 
 their authority, rendered a man liable to the confiscation of his 
 license. Now, that Regulation remained in force for 12 years, until 
 it was re])ealed by Sir Charles Metcalfe in 1835. But it shows that, 
 as far back as 90 years ago, the people who were responsible for the 
 administration in India felt that there was a case for affording 
 protection to Princes. The second instance in which protection was 
 given before the introduction of the Press Act refers only to what 
 are known as the administered areas, that is to say, those canton- 
 ments and civil stations and so on which are situated in Indian 
 State territories but which are actually administered by officials of 
 (jrovernment. In J891 an order was issued that no newspaper 
 shouM be publi.^hed in any such area except under a license from 
 the Political Agent. That order is still in force in those areas. 
 'J'hese two instances which I have cited, show ta my mind con- 
 clusively that the perniciousness of attacks on Princes was not a 
 doctrine which was discovei-ed for the fii'st time in 19J0. Thesis 
 attacks were a recurring nuisance against which Government iiad 
 been driven more than once to take action. ■
 
 17 
 
 The second statement which Avas made by the Press Act 
 Committee was that so far as they knew the Act had only been used 
 on three occasions with reference to attacks made on Princes in the 
 Press. I have gone into the hguresi, Sir. We have made inquiries 
 from Local Governments, and I find that, as a matter of fact, while 
 the Press Act was in force, no less than 13 newspapers were warned 
 for attacks of this Jiature, one of them on several occasions. One 
 Press was put on the maximum security and the security of another 
 Press was confiscated. I may claim, therefore, that the number of 
 occasions on which the Act was used — for I take it that the House 
 will agree with me that although these warnings cculd not be given 
 under any section of the Press Act, they would never have been 
 given unless they had been backed by the Press xAct — therefore, the 
 number of cases in which the Press Act has been used in connection 
 with these attacks on Princes is very much nearer 20 than 3. But 
 even if the Act had only been used in three cases, I should still 
 demur to the inference that was drawn by the Press Act Committee 
 that the number of occasions on which the Act was used was the 
 measure of its utility. The utility of a penal enactment, I take it, 
 is to be gauged not by the number of offences it punishes, but by 
 the number of offences it prevents, and I know of no criterion 
 which would enable me to determine the ratio between the two. 
 These are the arguments on which the Press Act Committee based 
 their conclusions, and I think that the House will agree with me 
 that they cannot be used with any effect against the Bill which is 
 now before the House. 
 
 I have said, Sir, that those statements of the Press Act Committee 
 were inaccurate. I do not wish it to be understood that I am 
 imputing any blame to the Committee. It was the duty of the 
 Department which T represent to place the case before the Com- 
 mittee, but unfortunately we were very much rushed and some of 
 the information which I have now placed before the Council was 
 not available in Simla, and consequently the department was not in 
 a position to place, the full facts bef(jre the Committee. 
 
 Another point that I wish to make in regard to the Press Act, or 
 jatlier the repeal of the Press Act, is that it was brought about 
 ])urely in our own interests. We wanted to conciliate public 
 opinion and we felt that we had Builicient protection in other 
 enactments for our own purposes, but for the Princes the protection 
 under the Press Act was all that they had, and when the Press Act 
 went they were left without pt otection. We gave them protection 
 under the Press Act in payment of a debt we owed to them and 
 when the Press Act was withdrawn that debt revived. 
 
 Now, Sir, T have shown that the pledg<'S I'xist. T have sliown 
 that they cover everything that we want to do, and 1 have shown 
 that since the repeal of the L'rcss Act those pledges are crying for 
 redemption. All that is necessary, I think, to complete my case 
 now is to show that the Princes have solid grounds for making 
 those very i)ointed re^jrcBentations which they have made, both 
 individually and collectively, for the restoration to them of the 
 luotecticn wliich was granted by the Press Act. I shall give the 
 House a few ligures. I find that in the year ending May 11)'22 there 
 were not less than 170 attacks made on Princes and their Admini- 
 strations in tlie public I'less. Of these 2'.) were i)('rs<»nal attacks, 
 KOUKi of them very gross, f)n the Chiefs themselves and Ihei'i- were 
 very nearly a liundred attackti on the acts of their atluiinistration. I 
 will give the House some examples ; —
 
 18 
 
 The inhabitaut.s of a well-known Stale in Southern India are 
 invited to imitate their predecessors who 200 years before " packed 
 away" an oppressive Diwaii whatever that euphemism may mean. 
 A Prince is charged with having married a foreign lady "from 
 among those whites, unlit even to clean an earthen pot." Another 
 paper which complains of harassment, says that the people will see 
 to it that the present system of administration is '* smashed to pieces 
 within live years," if things do not improve. Again 1 find a warning 
 " to ihe 700 odd gildetl puppets in India to put their houses in 
 oi'der lest the flames of the populai" movement should gut the old 
 and moth-eaten fabric." A welldvuown Piince is told that his 
 heart is as black as his skin and that his "' rotten brain " cannot see 
 that the bureaucracy think him a fool. States in India are described 
 as boils on the body politic of India, and a Prince who was suspected 
 of an intention to arrest a prominent agitator is warned that the 
 " man who is not afraid to twist the lion's tail will certainly not 
 mind the bark of a dog." One of the })rincipal Indian Rulers is 
 given a year's notice that if he does not set up responsible govern- 
 ment he will be ejected. In another case a whole pamphlet is 
 devoted to a largely iniiginary account of the action taken to 
 suppress what might have been a dangerous rising. I could 
 multiply instances, but I will not weary the House, and I think 
 those that I have quoted are quite sufficient to prove that justification 
 exists for redeeming the pledge that has been given to the Princes. 
 
 Now, Sir, I will not anticipate possible criticisms of this Bill. I 
 will leave it to hon. Members to i-aise them, but there is one point 
 which I feel that I must refer to. I believe that much of the feeling 
 which exists against this Bill is due to a conviction on the part of 
 Members of the Legislature that there is a good deal of oppression 
 and misrule in some of the Indian States. That feeling is a feeling 
 which is based on humanity and it is a feeling which I honour and 
 respect. I regret that I cannot deny the charge and I do not think 
 that Ruling Princes themselves would deny it. It is true too that 
 Government cannot always intervene even in the cases which come 
 to its notice, but the question which I would put to hon. Members 
 who feel that difficulty about agreeing to this legislation is this. 
 How are you going to improve mattt-rs by refusing to accept this 
 Bill ? That I cannot see. The Bill specially safeguards anything 
 in the way of honest and legitimate criticism, and the view that a 
 Bill of this nature will stiHe legitimate criticism must surely be 
 based on the claim tJiut criticism is inseparable from abuse, that you 
 cannot put another man right, if I may say so, without putting 
 yourself in the wrong, and that criticism to be effective must be 
 seasoned with hatred and contempt. That I believe to be an 
 entirely' wrong view. It is an argument which is often advanced 
 against enactments of this nature, but I think, as Sir William 
 Vincent said in one of his speeches, the existing state of the Press is 
 a complete disproof of any such allegation. 
 
 Sir, I do not think that our case rests only on the pledges that 
 have been given and on the safeguards in this Bill. Surely there 
 are other considerations of prudence, comity and common sense 
 which must appeal to members of this House. It seems to me that 
 now that we h&ve started in this country on a nev/ era it is most 
 important that we should do nothing at this stage to antagonise the 
 liulers of two-fifths of the country. I feel that in the time before 
 us unity and concord are the things, the great qualilies, at which we
 
 J9 
 
 have got to aim. They are qualities which require cultivation, and 
 I would beg this House to do everything in its power to cultivate 
 them. I have not, Sir, covered the whole of the ground that I 
 might have covered, and there are one or two points which I feel 
 very conscious of having neglected. One of those points is the 
 possible reaction from anv disaffection or disorder that may be 
 allowed to harbour in the States beyond our borders. There is one 
 more, Sir, to which Sir William Vincent alluded in the speech from 
 which I have quoted, and that is the debt of gratitude that we owe 
 to the Princes for their unfailing support in the great crisis through 
 which the Empire has passed. 
 
 This is a subject on which much has been written and much has 
 been said. I would only add one sentence. Their troops and our 
 troops have trodden many a march of glory side by side, and their 
 dead and our dead have their rest together. That is all. Nothing 
 more. Lest we forget. 
 
 The President : I think the hon. Member would do well to 
 conclude his speech by formally moving the motion standing in 
 his name. 
 
 Mr. J. P. Thompson : With your permission. Sir, I move that 
 the Bill be now taken into consideration. 
 
 Sir Edgar Holbertox (Burma Chamber of Commerce): Sir, but 
 few words of mine are necessary to support the case put forward bj' 
 Mr. Thompson. As he has explained to this House, he has a case 
 which is entirely four square, and in which, I feel sure, it will be 
 impossible to find any loophole We are exceedingly obliged to him, 
 I am sure, for having gone into such detail and explained to us 
 exactly why the occasion arose, and what steps were necessary to 
 support the Princes. 
 
 There is, however, one aspect of this question on which I should 
 like to be allowed to say a few words. Sir, and that is that the 
 hon. Member who has just spoken found it necessary to fear that 
 this House might find in the fact of this certified J]ill some ajjpear- 
 ance of ungraciousness. Sir, my personal view is that there is 
 no symi)tom at all of ungraciousness in the whole occurrence. A 
 careful student of the reformed constitution will find that a very 
 tree hand indeed has been given to the Indian Legislature. The 
 two Houses have very full powers, and it was practically essential 
 and natural that at all events in the first period of time in which 
 those powers were going to be exerci.sed, some sort of a veto, bome 
 sort of a power to remedy errors which young politicians and young 
 l)olitical Houses miglit make, there must be. My sur])rise, Sii-, is 
 not that His Ivvcellency the (ioveruor-tieneral has found it mcessary 
 to certify this I Jill ; my surprise is that he has been so patient with 
 us in the pa>t and has not usetl his perfectly justifiable privilege 
 before. I could detail to you cas(;s where many of us have longed 
 for the exercise of this veto. JJuring the course of (he last Budget 
 del)ate, when I myself had the honour of putting up a proposition 
 in this House, my personal view was that never in the history of tlie 
 country was a more suitable occasion to be found for liie exercise of 
 tlie vt!to ; but His lOxcellency the Viceroy hchi his hands in the 
 spirit of that wonderfully ]>atient })f)liey wliicJi he has all the 
 time displayed towards this Indian iiegislatiue in its first efforts. 
 Now, however, we have arrived at a i)osition where a definite and an 
 indefensible mistake has been made by one of the Houses. Time 
 wa.s not availaMf to adojil the reincily, wliieh I tlniik was in (he
 
 L>0 
 
 COBstitntion, of introduciug the J]ill afresh in this House with the 
 chance of it being passed when it went down again to the Legislative 
 Assembly. The obvious course was taken, and the Will \\as sent to 
 this House as a certihed l^ill. Now, gentlemen, where is the 
 ungraciousness in that ? This House will use its privileges 
 absolutely to the full. It has the ])Ower to i-ecord its vote in favour 
 of passing or rejecting this ]>ill. None of that power has been taken 
 away from it by this recomniemlation. It will have the fullest 
 opportunity to debate it, although, for obvious reasons, which I 
 foresaw yesterday, the amendments have had to be disallowed. 
 
 The Tresident : I may remind the hon. Member that no 
 amendments have been put forward, and no amendments have been 
 disallowed. 
 
 Sir Edgar Holberton : I stand rebuked. I have before me a 
 list of amendments, and I understood Mr. Thompson to say that no 
 amendments Avill be accepted by the Government. But I stand 
 rebuked. 
 
 The President : That is a very different proposition. 
 
 Sir Edgar Holberton : As I have said, this House has the 
 fullest discretion to express its opinion about this Bill and to di^cuss 
 it. If, as I feel coniident, the Bill is passed unanimously, the 
 Viceroy will then know that even if one of his Houses has made a 
 mistake, the other one has realised it and has stood behind his action 
 and given it its fullest support. If, on tbe other hand, the worst 
 occurred, and this House found itself actually voting in a majority 
 against this measure, the Viceroy would still have the support of 
 most people in this country — who read the speech of Mr. Thomison, 
 whose case in favour of the Bill now before the Hous^, which has 
 necessitated His Excellency's action, will appear to the eyes of the 
 world beyond dispute or doubt. Therefore, Sir, I have only one 
 more remark to make in giving my fullest and most cordial support 
 to this Bill. This House to-day will carry out one of the functions for 
 which it was intended ; it is an older and a more sober House possibly 
 than the Assembly ; it consists of men of i)roved standing and stake 
 in the country. It may not be so hard worked as the other House, 
 but it certainly will always be able to record on any question which 
 may be put before it a considered view from people with a stake 
 and standing in the country. All I ask is that Government will 
 consider this ; some of us have been discouraged ; we have thought 
 that in some ways we have not been very well treated ; we have had 
 to suffer fiom the absence of our leading and most prominent 
 Ministers and advisers from our Benches, which has caused us the 
 most intense regret. We have in many ways felt that more use 
 could have been made of us in the ])ast, and we have longed for 
 more responsible and good work to do. Sir, I hope to-day's good 
 work will be only a forerunner of many other useful services which 
 this House may do for India. 
 
 Mr. V. G. Kale (Bombuy, Xon-Muhammadan) : Sir, I stand to 
 move that to the motion that the Bill be taken into consideration 
 the words " early next year " be added. Sir, in spite of the very 
 friendly admonitions administered to us by Mr. Thompson, I make 
 bold to Siiy that the amendment which I am moving is intended not 
 to defeat the purpose of the Bill before the Houae, nor is it intended 
 to call in question the fundamental principle involved in the Bill, 
 but is intended to ask for time for tlie consideration of the various
 
 21 
 
 features of the ]>ill. yiv. Thompson himself, in (liscnssin<j: the 
 opinion of the Press Committee, observed that that Cjnimittee drew 
 certain inferences which he tried to show were inaccurate, because 
 the Department he represented had been rushed, and consequent!}' 
 all the necessary materials could not be placed before that Com- 
 mittee. May I, Sir, use the same argument, and say that we should 
 not like to be rushed, and should have placed before us all the 
 materials that the Government possesses. My hon. friend has, indeed, 
 tried to meet the House by giving a certain amount of information, 
 by giving a number of illustrations to prove why the Bill is 
 necessary, and how the British Government is in honour bound and 
 is bound by treaties and pledges to afford protection to the Indian 
 Princes and Chiefs. But, Sir, in oi'der that we may be enabled to 
 judge of the merits of the various provisions of the Bill — the 
 principle underlying the Bill being no longer under discussion or in 
 doulit — in order that we may be able to study the whole situation, a 
 postponement is essential. Exactly what protection is neede.l for 
 the Princes, in what way that protection may be extended, wluit are 
 exactly the pledges which have been given to the Indian Rulers by 
 treaties, whether the interpretation put upon the treaties by the 
 British Government, in the words of Mr. Thompson, is an inter- 
 pret ition which may be accepted by us wholesale, or whether 
 protection, if necessary, may not be g.^anted in some other form, are 
 many of the issues which arise in my mind. I do, therefore, want 
 tiiat time should be allowed for the discussion of all these features 
 of the Bill. Then, Sir, I must very frankly and gratefully admit 
 that we have the highest respect for our Indian Rulers and Princes. 
 I speak from the bottom of my heart when I say that we, in British 
 India, are indebted to many of these exalted Rulers for some of the 
 educational and other improvements which have taken place as a 
 result of their philanthropy and charity ; and it would be the heigrit 
 of ingratitu le on our part not to give to these Rulers what is but 
 their due. I do not, therefore, in any way question the necessity of 
 considering what sort of protection should be given and how ifc 
 should be given. I only want that this House should be given more 
 time, and that this question should be taken up at some more 
 suitable later date. 
 
 I will not follow Mr. Thompson in the various remarks which he 
 made concerning the attitude taken up by the other House towards 
 the Bill. I do not know wdieth(;r the other House committed a 
 mistake or not. I also do not know whether Mr. Thompson was 
 quite correct in stating what he regarded as the constitutional 
 ])Osition. Ili.'^ Excellency the Governor-General wa? certaiidy 
 entitled to use his i)ow(!rs, which have been given to him under the 
 Act, and I do not think that there is anything extraordinary in that, 
 or that any objection can be taken by anyone to the step which has 
 been taken by His Excellency. We are not, therefore, in this House, 
 going to commit that mistake which is 8U])posed to have been 
 committed by the other House. All I ask for by this amendment is 
 that Hullicient time should i)o allowed, and I do not think that hon. 
 Members of this House will regard this re(|ue8t as unreasonable, or 
 as being irit<mdod to hang up the Uill or to hamper its progress. 
 I do not want, lastly, to notice what Mr. Thom|)son saiil with rcg.ird 
 to the fate that the many ainendmenis, of which notice has becni 
 given, are going to have. My hon. friend, Sir l*]dgar Holberton, 
 carrietl away the im|)re.ssion, from what Mr. Thompson said, that all 
 of those amendments had ])een rlisaliowed. 'i'hat shows the frame 
 of mind of some of the hon. Members, who seem to have takou
 
 •)<;) 
 
 fright :it ilic ohscrvatioiis ni:nle by Mi'. 'I'liD.iiiisoii. I'ut you, Sir, 
 have ah-eady ruled that tliis JUll will he cunsidered in all its details 
 as any otlier Bill ; consequently, 1 want to tell my hon. friends that 
 tliere is no objection from the o])posite Benches if remarks are made 
 and votes are given which ai-e jiot exactly in c<nisoii:ni('e with tlie 
 des"re of Mr, Tliom])son. 
 
 Wilii these words, Sir, I move my ain'.'uJm.'iit. 
 
 The President : To the motion under discussion an amendment 
 is moved : — 
 
 " That the words ' early next year ' be added." 
 
 Sir Benode Chandra Mitter (West Bengal, Non-Muham- 
 jnadan) : Sir, I desire to say a few words only upon the question of 
 this amendment. This Bill, Sir, comes before us, I may say, under 
 exti'aordinary and unique circumstances. The Legislative Assembly 
 has thought fit to refuse permission even to introduce this Bill. 
 Speaking for myself, Sir, I must give them the credit that it gave to 
 that decision that earnest consideration which a question of this 
 character tlemands at its hands. The Assembly has not even thought 
 fit to allow a discussion of this matter. I, for my part. Sir, have 
 always a wholesome respect for people who take a contrary view. 
 1 therefore cannot come to the conclusion, without further con- 
 sideration and deliberation, that it has necessarily acted hastily or 
 foolishly. On the other hand, Sir, I find that this Bill has been 
 recommended to us by the Viceroy and Governor-General of India, 
 by a person who holds the highest and most responsible p 'sition 
 under the Crown so far as India is concerned. This Bill has been 
 recommended to us by one of EnglaniBs greatest lawyers and states- 
 men ; is it permissible f'>r us then to think that there is really not 
 that demand or interest, so far as India is concerned, in the passing 
 of this Bill ? I should be sorry to come to that conclusion in a hurry. 
 I desire just at present to express no opinion on the merits of this 
 Bill, but I do think that a case has been made out that further 
 opportunity and time should be given to us to con!^ider this matter 
 very carefully. I have heard with almost rapt attention the weighty 
 words that fell from Mr. Thompson, and the many cogent argu- 
 ments that he has placed before us. But I for my part, Sir, 
 would like to consider them more fully and coolly when I am no 
 longer under the spell of his eloquence. I wish to consider carefully 
 whether Mr. Thompson's interpretation of the treaties are sound or 
 not. I do not desire it to be understood by the House that I disagree 
 with him or that I say that protection is not to be given to the 
 Princes. IjQt I am not one of those who can come to important 
 decisions and conclusions within five minutes. 
 
 This Bill, I take it, has been rejected on Saturday last by a 
 responsible body, by a body which is said to have earned for it the 
 reputation of sobriety and maturity of judgment. Now, from the 
 Government's point of view, I should like to put it to the official 
 members whether it is not desirable that if we are to pass this Bill 
 we should do so after more mature consideration. Would not the 
 votes given by us after a maturer consideration c irry more weight 
 with the pu])lic and create more confidence in the public mind ? 
 I ask my hon. friends on the other side of this House what is the 
 ])articular hurry with regard to this Bill ? No doubt. His Excel- 
 lency the Governor-General has said in the sentences which my 
 hon. friend has quoted, " We have decided that we are bound by 
 agreements and in honour to afford to the Princes the same measure of
 
 00 
 
 CO 
 
 pi'otection as they previously enjoyed uuder the I'ress Act, wliich is 
 the only'prorection available to them." Speaking for myself, Sir, I 
 sliouhl be the last person not to attach the greiitest weight to lliose 
 sentences, and I am sure most of us will feel that it is of the 
 utmost importance to all civilised Governments that treaty ol)liga- 
 lions shor.ld l>e s^TuiJulously and jealously niiint lined, and that 
 mutual understandings should be respected. The Bill has been 
 introduced in this Council to-day. The speech of Mr. Thompson 
 explaining the reasons for its introduction will be read by the 
 public all over the country. The Princes will know that steps 
 have been taken to give effect to that understanding which is 
 supposed to be between them and the Government of this country. 
 Therefore, it cannot be said that the Princes can reasonably come 
 to the conclusion that the Government is tardy in the fulfilment of 
 those jDledges which we are told exist between our Government and 
 them. Sir, I, for myself, think that when Mr. Thompsoa's speech 
 is reported in the Press and the intelligentia of the country read 
 the whole of it, consider it, and digest it, there will not be that 
 amount of prejudice which unfortunately exists against this Bill 
 to-day. Therefore, I say it is important from the point of view of 
 the Government that further time should be given for the considera- 
 tion of this Bill. Sir, there is not going to be any Select Committee 
 over this Bill. That is all the more reason why we should have 
 further time to consider if anj' amendments are necessarj- to check 
 the drafting of the Bill. These are, I submit, cogent reasons wdiy 
 further time should be given to us to consider this Bill. 
 
 Sir, this is one of those Bills which, when passed, has got to be 
 laid on the table of both Houses of Parliament under section 67b 
 at least for seven days when the Houses are sitting. I am not 
 aware whether there is going to be any autumn Sessions of Parlia- 
 ment or not. If there is not going to be an 3' autumn Sessions at all 
 and if this Bill is passed by us in Januarj- — that is in our next 
 sitting — then the time from which the [^)ill will take effect would 
 practically be the same whether any adjournment is allowed by 
 this House or not. From that i)oint of view no possible prejudice 
 could ai'crne to the Government case or to the Princes. 1 think 
 that I shall be within the bounds of truth if I say that there is no 
 immediate ])re.--sing necessity for this Bill, necessity of such a 
 character that it will be harmful to the interests of India if 
 as a matter of fact it is passed in January and not to-day. 
 Mr. Thompson in his speech has j)ointed out to u:^ that in 1<S2I} there 
 was a Regulation, that the operation of that Regulation came to an 
 end in LS.'».'), and that after that protection to the Princes has been 
 confined to administered areas, 1)ut beyond that thei-e was no further 
 ])rotection to tlie Princes till the passing of the Press Act of I'.'lO, 
 which after all was an emergency measure. I do not know whether 
 I have undei'.'^tood him correctly, but I believe T have. If, therefore, 
 the Princes couhl havt; gone on from J(S"i)'» down to I UK) the question 
 of a delay of a fortnight or so, because probably that would be the 
 utmost extent of the delay between the date when this Bill will 
 come into operation if it is passed to-day and the date when it will 
 come into operation if it is paH^•ed in .Jauuai-y, cannot be oF mucli 
 consoquence. 'i'herefore I appeal again to the official members and 
 I say that this l')il! is the first instance when a certificate has l)een 
 granted, when we have got to consider a recominend(!d IVill. Sir, it 
 is a Bill which raises questions of great constitutional imi)ortance, 
 and, in these circumstances, 1 submit that the House will favourably 
 receive th'' anu-ndrn'-nt which my hon. friend Mr. Kale h;is moved.
 
 •1\ 
 
 Mian Sir MrifAM.MAD Shaki rMembor for Education and 
 Health) : The uiuendinent moved by my friend, I'rofessor Kale, 
 would, I venture to submit, have been perfectly justifiable had 
 it been a Bill suddenly sprung upon hon. Members without pre- 
 vious notice or without any previous warning. Or there might 
 have been justification for this amendment even if the provisions of 
 the Bill had been so complicated or so difficult as to require careful 
 and prolonged consideration on the part of hon. Members before 
 they could make up their minds one way or the other upon the 
 Bill. What are the facts ? In 1910 an Act is placed upon our 
 Siatute-book which gives a measure of protection to our Ruling 
 Chiefs against attempts to create disaffection against them. That Act 
 remains in full force for 12 yeai'S. After the expiry of this period of 
 12 years, a step in the direction of constitutional reform is taken in 
 this coiuitry which places India's feet on the path of responsible 
 governnieat. The Indian Legislature, or rather non-olficial Indian 
 0[)inion, feels that in the new state of things the retentian of the 
 Act of I'.nO upon our Statute Book is inconsistent with the spirit of 
 the Chelmsford-Montagu ReforiXis. In consequence, the Indian 
 Legislature recommended the appointment of a conimit';ee to 
 consider the question of repeal or modification of our Press laws. 
 That Committee reported that the Indian Press Act of IIUO should 
 1)6 repealed. The Government, sympathising fully with the feeling 
 which led this Committee to recommend the repeal of the Press Act, 
 introduced a repealing Act with which we are all familiar. Bat it 
 should be remembered that the new era, the first step towards 
 responsible government to which I have already alluded, was 
 introduced not in any Indian State but in British India, and in 
 consequence the feeling among the nou-official Indian circles that 
 the retention of the Press Act of 1910 w.is inconsistent with the 
 spirit of the Reform Scheme could have no application whatever to 
 territories governed by the Indian Princes, for these Ruling Chiefs 
 have taken no steps to introduce within their own territories any 
 reforms on the lines of the Chelmsford-Montagu Reform Scheme. 
 
 In consequence there would be no justification, in so far as 
 Indian States are concerned, for the existence of the feeling 
 appreciated by the Government of India which led to the repeal 
 of the Indian Press Act of 1910. Now, as was pointed out bj' 
 Mr. Thompson, the repeal of that Act led to this — that while 
 section 121a of the Indian Penal Code and certain provisions in 
 the Criminal Procedure Code still made it possible for the British 
 Government to take action against any newspaper or even against 
 any public speaker who attempted to spread disaffection against the 
 Ik-itish Government in British India, the Ruling Chiefs were left 
 entirely unprotected against any such attempt by reason of the 
 repeal of the Indian Press Act. In consequence it became neces- 
 sary for the Government of India, by reason of the obligations 
 based upon agreements as well as obligations of honour, to under- 
 take this measure in order to extend protection to the Ruling d'hiefs. 
 The fact that the Government of India contemplated such an enact- 
 ment was well known in Indian political circles. It has been 
 discussed during the deliberations of that Committee. Subsequently 
 the Chamber of Princes passed a resolution demanding from the 
 Government of India, in view of the facts place I before this 
 House, the protection which they require. That fact was well 
 known, it was an open secret. Again on the opening day of the 
 Legislative Session this year on the 5th of this month, His Excellencj* 
 the Viceroy in his opening address gave notice practically of the 
 
 ^
 
 25 
 
 measure which has ultimately been introduced in tliis House to-day. 
 In those circumstancee, can one say that this measure ha^ been 
 sprung upon hon. Members ? Has any hon. Member any justification 
 for saying that this measure has been sprung on him and therefore 
 it is necessary for hoii. Members to take time in order to weigh the 
 pros and cons of the proposed enactment ? 
 
 Mr. Y. G. Kale : Yes. 
 
 Mian Sir MUHAMMAD Shafi : I submit " No." 
 
 Mr. Y, G. Kale : The Bill has been in our hands for two days. 
 
 Mian Sir Muhammad Shafi : Two days certainly. Professor 
 Kale interrupts me by saying that the Bill has been in the hands 
 of hon. ^Members for two days. I know Professor Kale and hi.s 
 experience of legislation. I know his keen and far-reaching 
 intellect. I am sure that two days are more than sufficient for him 
 at any rate to make up his mind with reference to a l^ill the essence 
 of which really consists of only one clause, clause 3. In fact th& 
 remaining clatises refer to other matters which are more or less of 
 secondary importance, so far as the actual object is concerned. The 
 whole object of the Bill is embodied in clause 3, and if I may 
 venture to say so the enactment which is embodied in that clause is 
 one that does not require, cannot require more than even a day's 
 deliberation, not to speak of three days, and that for the simple 
 reason that the first portion of that clau>;e merely re])roduce8, as was 
 pointed out by Mr. Thompson, a portion of section 12±A of the Indian 
 Penal Code, an enactment which has been on the Statute-book for 
 many years and has been the subject-matter of judgments of various 
 High Coui-ts. and in consequence it really does not require such a 
 ])rolonged deliberation or consideration as Professor Kale would 
 have us believe it does. I would like to invite the attention of hon. 
 Members to the proviso to that claus-, clause 3. Hon. Members will see 
 that the i)roviso to this clause carefulh- protects honest criticism of 
 the actions of individual Ruling Chiefs or of acts of their admini- 
 stration from any pi-osecution whatever under this Act, so that the 
 scope of this proposed enactment is really very much limited, far 
 more limited than ai-e the provisions of section 12Ia of the Indian 
 Penal Code. It will be remembei-ed that under section 12Ia of 
 the Indian I'enal Code attempts at creating disart'ection, whether 
 verl)»] or written, ai'e made jjenal, while in the present enactment 
 there is no interference with the right of public si)eech in any 
 manner or in any kind whatever, but all that is made penal is 
 attempt to create disallection by written documents, books, paiiiphlots 
 and so on. It is theivfore clear that in its scope the present enact- 
 ment is far more limited than the enactment embodied in the 
 Indian Penal Code. And further no i)rf)Becution under the proposed 
 Act can ]>('. launched without the ])ri;vious sanction, not of the Local 
 Government, not of the District Magistj-ate, not even of the Agent 
 to the (ioveiiKtr-ficiicral, but of the (jovernor-Cenei'al in Council, so 
 that it is ol>vious that no one need be afraid of a groiiiulless i)rosecii- 
 tion in cases that come under this Act, for in the first instance the 
 scope of the Act is limited, aiul in the next place no prosecution 
 can be instituted witlnnit the sanction of the (Joveinor-General in 
 Council. It seeinH to me that in those circumstances the nervous- 
 ness that seems to exist in certain (jtiarters with regai-d to the 
 propoKcd enactment is a])Solutely unjustilieii. It s< ems to me that 
 this House, which has already accjuired a reputation for sobriety of
 
 jiuli^'ment, iitH'd lia\f no lu'silatioii wluitsorvei- in a^rei'ini,' (i» place 
 this uieas irc on the 8Latute-bouk oL' this countrj'. 
 
 Hajah Vasi'DKVA, Kajah oT Ivollengode : Sii', in view of the 
 extraoi-dinarv circumstances mentioaed in this Council yesterday, 
 under whicii the motion before us has now been made, I have had 
 my mist a:ixio;id coasi Icratiju p.iil to the matter .... 
 
 Sardar JOGENDRA SiNGH : Is the hon. Member speaking on the 
 amendment or on the Bill ? 
 
 The President : Both the amendment and the principal motion 
 are under discussion. 
 
 Rajah Vasudeva, Rajah of Kollengode (Madras : Non-official 
 Nominated) : And I have unhesitatingly come to the conclusion 
 that it is the paramount duty of this Council to support the motion 
 before us. I may express my regret that owing to certain causes, 
 of which we are all aware, the Governor-General had been forced 
 to adopt the only course left to him of certifying that the Bill was 
 essential in the interests of Ih'itish India and of recommending that 
 it be passed. 
 
 In dealing with the necessity for this Bill, I may mention to this 
 Council that I know personally several of the Indian Native States 
 and their affairs somewhat closely, and that, from my knowledge 
 of those States and the scurrilous criticisms and seditious attacks 
 that are sometimes published against thera by a few unprincipled 
 newspapers, I think there exists a real necessity for a Bill of the 
 kind that is proposed. 
 
 Most of the Members in this Council, and especially the European 
 Members of it, read only the English newspapers, and not the 
 various vernacular ones, whicli in some rare cases appear as if 
 specially started with the deliberate intention of malicioush' 
 attacking the Indian Rulers and their administiation. I am, 
 however, happy to think that such newspapers are very few in 
 number, but at the same time it has to be admitted that they do 
 exist in this country. Those that come under this category are 
 conducted by penniless upstarts whose object is simplj^ blackmailing, 
 and they make attacks calculated to bring the Rulers and their 
 administration into hatred and contempt. It is probably because 
 that many of the Members do not read vernacular papers of the kind 
 that I have described, or that they do not take interest in matters 
 affecting Native States which do not concern them, that they have 
 not felt the necessity for a Bill of this kind. But I may assure the 
 Members that I have often pitied the lot of the Indian Rulers who 
 are unjustly attacked by British sul)jects in papers conducted in 
 British India. If, in the past, Nati^'e Rulers have not freely taken 
 action in the matter, it is due to their forbearance and magnanimity 
 and not to the absence of the evil. It may be argued that the 
 Native States are in a position to prevent the circulation of outside 
 papei'S in their States, but this will not give adequate relief. Many 
 of the Native States subjects are also British subjects, and have 
 great many relations in British India, and if such papers are 
 circulated in British India the dissemination of the mischievous 
 matter in the Native State can be easily achieved. 
 
 No honest and fair criticism of any action taken by Ruling 
 Princes is touched by the Bill i)roposed to be introduced, and it is 
 only suc'i literature as is intended to excite hatred, contempt or 
 disaffection that will come under the purview of this Bill. We 
 have seen in Malabar the consequences of incitement, and if any-
 
 1^7 
 
 thin<f similar happens in Native States as a result of excitement of 
 disaffection, one can easily iiuagine that it is much more ditfi3uU to 
 put it down there than in British India, as tliey have much less 
 resources and military behind them. Further, tlie person and 
 ])ositiou of an Indian Ruling Chief are hehl by tradition in tlie 
 inghest esteem in their States, and I think it is tlie duty of Govern- 
 ment to see that tlie British, subjects, over whom the Aative States 
 have no jurisdiction, are not allowed to attack the Rulers maliciouslj' 
 or to do anything tending to excite hatred and disaffection towards 
 them. It is only during the last few years that special measures 
 had to be taken to prevent the dissemination of hatred and dis- 
 affection among the masses in this country, as those evils did not 
 exist before, and since the year 1910 the Ruling Princes had enjoyed 
 the protection of the special Press Acts along with our Government, 
 but since those Acts heve been repealed recently the Ruling Chiefs 
 are now place<l in a position much worse than ever before, while 
 the Ih'itish Government have at least the protection of section I'i-lA 
 of the Indian Penal Code ; as pointed out by Sir Muhammad Shati, 
 the Native States have not, I believe, even that protection. If 
 there has been necessity in the past for special protection, for which 
 1 have no doubt, I am equally certain that the necessity for 
 protection of the Ruling (.'hiefs in the future is all the more. 
 There is a wave of unrest in the country owing to the desire 
 of the people to rule themselves, and much of the power which 
 remained hitherto in the hands of the Rulers in British Inilia 
 has been transferred 1o those of the jteople, either as a resttlt of 
 these agitations or as a concession by the Rulers themselves. With 
 this example before them in Ih-itish India ami with the appearance 
 of a new class of dangerous agitators called the Non-co-operators, 
 it can be easily discerned that in future strenuous attempts will 
 1)t' made, and are iM'obably being ma(ie, to change the form of 
 administrations in Native States also by adopting uncK'sii-ible methods. 
 There is nothing surprising therefore that the Indian Rulei-s should 
 entertain srnne legitimate fear regarding the spread of disaffection 
 by the numerous agitators aroun<l them in British India. If due 
 and timely protection is not given to the Indian Rulers by the 
 paramount Power against the activities of these unconstitutional 
 agitators, it may have disastrous effects and the Rulei-s will have 
 every reason for resentment. Further, the Govtrnment will be 
 rightly accused of not discharging their duties to the Indian Rulei-s, 
 who have, it will be admitted, been staunch adherents of the 
 British Raj, and helped them in all ways and at all critical time.-i in 
 the ])ast. It wouM be most imprudent and unstatesmanlike to 
 create an impression that the Government are not sulhciently 
 ])rotecting their interests. As far as 1 can see there is nothing 
 extraordinary in the l>ill, and tlit! greatest possible safeguard that 
 can jmssibly be placed has been {irovidod in it. No action can be 
 taken by anyone^ except on the coniplaiur and under the au'luirity 
 of the (jovei-nor-Genei'al in Council, and if a Ruh r has niatle out a 
 case to tlie satisfaction of the Governor-General in ('ouncil, it is 
 aHtonishing lo be told that the law should still not be put in 
 motion. The Governor-tienerars Council contains tlii' best legal 
 talent aiul ex j)erieiiced administrators and the (iovernor-Cieneral 
 himself is undoubte<lIy a distinguished statesman ol' great al)ilities, 
 ami if we are not to trust even this body 1 i'e;illy do not know 
 which authority it is we are going tr) (ru.^l in this eounlry. In my 
 own opinion it would have been quite enough if a case had been 
 made oui to the satisfaction of a British liesiilent lor setting the
 
 law in motion, hut extniordiuurv precaution lius been tiiken tbiit 
 the Governoi'-General iu Council alone should de il with the uiaitHi-, 
 evidently to satisfy the iiiSatiable. If, in spite of all tlit-se safe- 
 guards, we, in this Council, should fail to strengthen the hands of 
 Government t) fulfil their obligations to the Indian States, I think 
 we would be guilty of great injustice both to the Native States and 
 to our Government. Sentiments and temporary popularity should 
 not at all weigh with us, and I trust that this Council will fully rise 
 ro the occasion and show their keen sense of responsibility and 
 sound juilgment in this mattei-. Ijefore I close I chould like to say 
 one word more, 1 think the sincere thanks of the Native States of 
 India and of those who wish to see them preserved intact are due to 
 His Excellency the Governor-General for his firm and statesmanlike 
 iiction in regard to this Bill, which may probably be regarded in 
 some quarters as only a half-hearted measure. For it is always not 
 an easy Ujatter for those who are in Cape Comorin to convince those 
 authorities in the Himalayas of the need for immediate action. I 
 nse the word Cape Comorin only to show the distance without 
 meaning any particular State. I may also add, Sir, that in supporting 
 this Bill. I have absolutely no personal interests. I hold no brief 
 for any Native State, nor am I a subject of any one of them. It is 
 merely as one of the many who would like to see the Indian States 
 preserved in their Eastern glory, happiness and contentment that 
 I speak. 
 
 Lastly, I should like to congratulate Mr. Thompson on the lucid 
 and forcible presentation of the case, and I hope he has been able to 
 convince the House of the necessity of the legislation proposed, as 
 he has convinced me. 
 
 With regard to the amendment projjosed by Mr. Kale, Sir, I must 
 say that I strongly oppose it. The Bill is more in the nature of a 
 preventive measure against the spread of an evil into the Native 
 States. If any delay is allowed preventive measures miy be found 
 useless and more drastic curative measures may have to be taken 
 after a great deal of mischief has been done, which will be more 
 difficult. The very fact that the Governor-General has certified as 
 to the necessity of the Bill so quickly must show that there is 
 urgency in the legislation. Any dela}' will therefore be undesirable. 
 With these words I strongly oppose the amendment, but support the 
 motion before us. 
 
 Sardar .TOOSNDRA SrXGH (Panjab: Sikh): Sir, I must begin 
 by assuring the Government that no Member of this House or the 
 other ever thinks of going back on any pledges given l)y His 
 Excellency the Viceroy or any inember of the Government. Pledges 
 in India have been always respected, whether verbal or written, and 
 I am sure they will be respected in future. Now coming to the 
 question of this Bill, Sir, and the way in which it has been presented 
 to this House, 1 cannot approve of the procedure. I always take it 
 that we are members of the same team. Some of us ara playing 
 forward, some are playing as backs, but with one object only — that 
 India should be better governed ; and if at moments we criticise the 
 Government, we criticise with oue object only — that Government 
 may be stimulated to right and helpful action. Here, Sir, I respect- 
 fully submit that the rules of the game have not been oljserved in 
 presenting this certified Bill to the House. I submit. Sir, whether 
 it would not have been right, as ))ointed out yesterday by our 
 President, in whose hands the dignity of this House is altogether 
 safe, to bring in an ordinary Bill in the ordinary course of things
 
 29 
 
 which we could have sent to the other House after i)assing it. 'i^he 
 rules of the game would have been observed, I am not enamoured 
 of the veto, as my honourable friend Sir Edgar Holberton is. 
 I think 
 
 The President : Would the hun. Member mind raising his 
 voice ? I cannot hear a word. 
 
 Sirdar JOGENDRA SiXGH : Very well. Sir. I said tha^ 1 am not 
 so much enamoured, as Sir Edgar Holberton seems to be, of the 
 veto ; that I wish to empliitsise that the rules of the game should be 
 always observed, and that no 13111 should be rushed, ceMified or 
 otherwise, s^ that tbe whole team may play the game together, 
 according to the rules which have been laid down. I will say 
 nothing more regarding the presentation of this Bill. But 1 say. Sir, 
 that it woukl be wise to postpone the consideration of t- e Bill to 
 the next session. Mr. Thompson dwelt a good deal on the pledges 
 and treaties made between the })aramount Power and the ])rotected 
 States. His knowledge of Persian and Indian history, so far as 1 
 know, is unrivalled in this House ; and there can be no greater 
 authority in this House on this point. Ho\v the M-^ghul Emperors 
 would have dealt in olden days with questions such as arise to-day 
 is another matter. What I would like to ask Mr. Thompson is, have 
 any of the Chiefs asked for this Bill ? One of the very important 
 Princes told me that he did not need any Hill of the kind to protect 
 liim. I do not know if any of the Chiefs have approached the 
 Government of India and asked for such protection as the Govern- 
 ment of India is to-day offering to them. If not, I do not think 
 there is any case for hurrying the Bill through at the last moment 
 of this session. Then, Sir. I would like to ask Mr. Thompson 
 whether he was not putting too far-fetched a construction on the 
 words which he quoted from the treaties. Was it ever considered 
 at the time wh<^n these treaties were made that there would he such 
 a thing as a Press Act ? I know that the words as employed can 
 l)ear no such meaning : — *' the friends and enemies of one shall be 
 the friends and enemies of both." Bu: is a critic a fri.Mid or an 
 enemy r And if in l^ritish India the paramount Power can be 
 criticised for certain of its actions, is it not neccssai-y tluit in the 
 States also there should be full and free scope for an expression 
 of free opinion ? We are bound by our treaties to respect the 
 Chiefs and to keep them in power and position ; but we are at 
 the same time compelled to recognise our duty to tiie peoi>le 
 who live in thosL' States, and that duty, so far as we are concerned, 
 has always been recognised by the Government of India much 
 more strongly than is allowed by the treaties. I would ask 
 Mr. Tliomp.>-oii, who has (juottd I'rom some of the m'ws])apeis, 
 whether he would caiv to lift the veil and reveal some of the facts 
 which are in the faithful custody of his coididinitial liles. That 
 would make an interesting n-vclatioii indeed ami might enable him 
 to secure nioi«' sni)poi't than he h:is done l)y quoting extracts from 
 the Press. Sir Muhammad Shali in his speech jjointed out that a 
 section in th*- i'enalCodf — 121a — I tliink'itwas — was good ei^.ough to 
 give ail the pi'()teftion that was rc(ii:ii"eil in India. Then why ilo we 
 neetl another law to afford adecjuate i)rotection to Indian States? 
 That is another jjoint to be considered. Then we have tbe report of 
 tlie Press Committee, and the Press Committee clearly sai<l that there 
 was no need for any Hi)ecial legislation of this kind. 1 want to ask 
 Mr. Thompson whether he is justified in putting the construction he
 
 30 
 
 Las p'lt oil the treaties, whether he is justilied in enacting a L'ress 
 Act for the Indian States, which was never contemplated when 
 these treaties were made ? Is he jastilied in committing his 
 Government and in s lying that the (Tovernment is in lionour bound 
 by tliorie treaties to pass a Press Act ? Is it a fact 'i If it is not a 
 fact, is he not currying the interpretation too far and putting a 
 construction on the treaties whicli they wore never meant to have ? 
 Under these cii'cumstances. Sir, I strongly support the amendment 
 that the consideration ol: the Bill be postponed to the next Session, 
 when there will be time for us to consider what the Ruling Princes 
 themselves reiiuiro and whether they have made any demand for 
 this protection. If they make no demand, the case falls through. 
 If they make a demand, there will certainly be a ground for further 
 consi(ieration. At the same time. Sir, I would personally support 
 the Bill if it is a question of honouring the pledges given by the 
 Viceroy. I would only point out that the people of the protected 
 States need protection, since the protection which the Moghul 
 Emperors gave is not now available. In its absence we require 
 something more clear in order to control some of the activities of 
 the State. 
 
 Sir Arthur Froom (Bombay Chamber of Commerce) : Sir, I 
 must at once admit that the eloquence of Sir Muhammad Shaft 
 left me quite unmoved as to the (piestion of this House having 
 had the Bill which we are now discussing a sufficiently long time in 
 our hands, or perhaps I should express it, as long a time as we might 
 have had it. From their own showing Government have had this 
 measure in their mind for seme very considerable time, and I cannot 
 help thinking it is a great pity that they did not introduce this 
 15111 earlier in the Session. No doubt Mr, Thompson had this in 
 mind when he went into such detail and explained to us so fully 
 the reasons for, and the object of, this Bill. Without delaying this 
 Council with a long speech, I wish to say tha tMr. Thompson con- 
 vinced me most thoroughly of the necessity for this measure, and 
 I hope that the other hon. Members of this House were also con- 
 vinced. There is no getting round the extr.ic's which the hon. 
 Member read from papers,— most abominable attacks on the Ruling 
 Princes of this country. Now, Sir, having been thoroughly con- 
 vinced by Mr. Thompson of the necessity for this Bill, and 
 recognising that we can all make mistakes — and I think that 
 Government did make a mistake in not introducing it earlier — I 
 am strongly against its postponement, and am in favour of its being 
 taken into consideration in this Council to-day. I see no object in 
 postponing it. I think hon. Members must have been convinced of 
 the reasons for this Bill. Mr. Thompson informed us that the 
 honour of the Government of India was at stake. Are we, the 
 ^Members of this Council, not going to support the Government of 
 India when it comes to a point of honour ? I think we are. 
 
 I have stated. Sir, that I think this measure should have been in 
 our hands a longer time. At the same time, I hope we are so con- 
 vinced of the necessity for the Bill that on this occasion we can 
 waive any objection we might otherwise have to make. I support 
 the consideration most heartily and oppose this amendment for 
 procrastination, which we all dislike. 
 
 Sir William Vincent (Home Member) : Sir, I should like 
 to say at the outset that I do not take the same view as 
 Mr. Thompson took of the action of the Legislative Assembly in 
 respect to this Hill. I do not l)elieve, and I have every authority
 
 for what I am saying, that they ever intended in any way to flout 
 His Excellency. I do not think that the suggestion that the honour 
 of the Government of India or the honour of the Viceroy has 
 not weighed with them as dust in the balance is correct. I 
 believe .... 
 
 -Mr. .1. P. TjrOMPSOX : May I rise to a personal explanation, Sir ? 
 
 The President : If the hon. Member gives way. 
 
 Mr. J. P. Thompson : 1 thiulv Sir William Vincent is really 
 explaining that he is in full agreement with the view I have 
 expressed. 
 
 Sir WiLLTAM Vincent : I believe that the Assembly acted 
 unwisely in rejecting the motion for introduction, an I I believe 
 that that feeling is shared by many here. Bat I feel with Mr. Kale 
 that it is neither fair to them to criticise them in the manner 
 adoi)ted, nor do I think it will do this House or the Oovernment 
 any good. I cannot believe that remarks made here in antagonism 
 to the other House can produce good results. I agree that we have 
 been forced by the action of the Assembly into a very unfortunate 
 l)osition. If it had been possible to re-introduce the Bill in the other 
 House, if it had been possible to introduce it here without a certifi- 
 cate and get it passed and then take it to the other H<Mise in this 
 Session,- that course would obviously have been preferable; but those 
 who read the rules will see that without a certificate it would not 
 have been possible to enact this Bill for another year at least and we 
 should have been uncertain as to whether that would be possible 
 even then because of the ap])roaching elections. Under the Rules 
 you cannijt bring a motion of substantially the same nature before a 
 House twice in the same Session, and this rule would, in our interpre- 
 tation of it, have prohibited us from taking this Bill back to the Legis- 
 lative Assembly at any rate till next September, unless the zVssembly 
 had been prorogued. So, as we wanted to gat this Bill jiassed, it 
 was essential that it should be certified at the earliest opportunity, 
 I am very anxious that this Council should not think, however, for 
 one moment that this certitication is due to any doubt as to their 
 readiness to assist the Government. It was due to nothing of the 
 kind. If the Bill had not l)een certified, it would not have been 
 possible to secure its enactment in reasonable time. I was myself 
 confident and am confident that this Council will accept this 
 measure as a just and reasonable one. There has never been any 
 suspicion whatever as to the attitude of this Council, and it is 
 unfortunate, therefore, that the f.n-m of the statute should have 
 made it necessary for the Governor-General to certify the Bill in 
 order to secure its enactment, as this coui-se might, in the absence of 
 explanation, tend to create the impressitui that some slur was cast 
 on this Council where none was at all intended. It was in fact 
 <*ljligatory on His Excellency to take this course in order to get iho 
 Bill through with reasonable exi)edition. We should luive been 
 very glad iudied if it had been possible by any moans to avoid 
 certification— even u\> lo yesterday I was struggling (o avoid this 
 method of h-gislat ion. rnfortiinatelx , we could find no way out of 
 the difiiculty. Another point was mentioned by the hon. Mover, 
 and I think put a little Iduntly or i)lainly, when he said that 
 the Government of India will accept no amendments 
 
 Now, 1 want to explain that and to put it, ii 1 nijy, a little 
 more
 
 
 Mr. .1. V. Thompson : May I rise at,'aiu to a personal expiand- 
 tion, Sir ? The hon Member has niisundeistood what I said. 
 What I said was that the Government felt that thej' could not 
 accept any amendments, not that they would not. 
 
 Sir WlLTilAM VixCKNT : I am sorry if I have in any way niis- 
 rei)resented Mr. Thompson. I thought I was repeating the very 
 words, but I want to ex[)lain that, in my expei-ience of this Council 
 and the Assembly, I have always found that statements of that kind 
 ])ut very forcibly sometimes create misapprehension and antagonise 
 instead of Avinning Members over, and I want to explain why it is 
 that the Government cannot accej^t these amendments. It is very 
 simple. We are in stmie doubt as to whether, if we accept any such 
 amendments, the validity of the certilicate may not be called in 
 question. There are some of these amendments which I will deal 
 with later, which seem to me of a more or less reasonable character 
 and which I would have liked to examine with greater care and in 
 greater detail. But I think anyone who examines the Statute and 
 considers the facts will see that it would be very unwise for us to 
 pass a penal enactment on the validit}' of Mdiich any shadow of doubt 
 can rest, particularly in a matter of this kind, and I am sure I 
 shall have the support of every legal Member of this Council in 
 this view, I will deal with the amendments in detail as they come 
 up later and I shall be very glad to have an opportunity of doing so. 
 As to the main principles of this Bill, our obligations in regard to 
 this matter are based, as Mr. Thompson said, firstly on treaties and 
 on obligations of honour. lie has said that we have undertaken to 
 give these I'rinces the same protection that was given them 
 in the Moghul days. In this connection my hon. friend Sardar 
 Jogendra Singh has suggested that there was no thought of a Press 
 Act then. Well, there is no idea of the old Press Act in this Bill, 
 no suggestion of it. The Bill penalises the publication of seditious 
 attacks on Indian States and it is a law that obtains in everj'' civiliseil 
 country. I daresay it prevailed in the days of the Moghuls in a 
 more drastic form. I imagine that those who were tempted to libel 
 ruling monarchs during the days of the Moghuls met with very 
 short. shrift. (Sardar .Jogendra Singh: "That is what 1 meant.") 
 We on the other hand propose a fair trial for men who have com- 
 mitted the offence ; evidence will be recorded before Magistrates 
 according to the law of British India, and each case will be fully 
 inquired into before any man is convicted ; that I think is a perfectly' 
 fair position. The accused person will also have the right of 
 appeal as is remarked by my hon. colleague. 
 
 The second reason for this Bill is this. Here I want to go back 
 and discuss the Keport of the Press Act Committee, to which such 
 frequent reference has been made in this Council. It is only 
 reasonable that I should support that report becatise I was one of 
 the signatories, indeed I took an active part in the work of that 
 (.'ommittee. I am told in the first place that the statement of the 
 Committee that there was no law protecting the Indian Princes from 
 attacks in the Press prior to 1910 is inaccurate. I had little thought 
 that anyone would have referred to the old Press Regulation of 
 l<S'2o to refute the statement that we made. The Press Regulation 
 of 182o itself contained no reference to Indian Princes at all, though 
 they were protected bj' rules made under that Regulation. 
 
 If hon. Members have ever studied those rules, they will see that 
 there is much in them besides the protection to Indian Princes, and 
 even such a stalwart conservative as my hon. friend would scarcely
 
 
 venture to defend those rules, now in this or in anj' other Council. 
 If anyone here has read the petition of Raja Ram Mohan Roy, 
 which he took to the Privy Council, against those rules, he will 
 remember the great protest put forward against those rules, un- 
 successfuly, it is true, but I venture to say that if he was unsuccessful, 
 he had net the worst of the argument ; and I cannot regard the 
 Regulation of 182)), which was in fact re])ealed in bSH.'), as affording 
 any support for the proposition that legislation of the present kind 
 was needed at the time the Committee reported. Well, Sir, the 
 Press Committee was attacked on other grounds because it was 
 stated in the report that only three instances of attacks on Indian 
 Princes were brought to their notice. That is a fact, and what was 
 the reason for that ? Whose fault was that r Was it our fault ? 
 Was it the duty of the (Committee to hunt round for a justification for 
 the protection of Indian Princes ? Was it the non-otHcial Members' 
 business, or Avas it the hon. the Home Member's business to spend 
 their time delving into old records for the purpose ? The Committee 
 gave ample opportunity for the production of evidence, but in my 
 judgment adequate evidence was not produced, and up to that time 
 the necessity for this 1)111 was not proved. There is nothing more 
 than that in the report. I defy anyone to read into the report 
 anything more. We had no material brought before us to show that 
 at that time it was necessary to protect the Princes, and I will not 
 resile from any single word that I put down in that report. I main- 
 tain that adequate evidence was not produced before us, and that we 
 were correct iu the attitude we took up on the material before us. 
 Since then there has been a change. I am satisfied fi-om the 
 numerous instances that have been read out that these Princes have 
 been shamelessly defamed in the Press. I have never seen anything 
 like some of the articles. They excel, indeed, anything that the 
 Press says about me. There is, Sir, great force in the arguments 
 ])ut forward by Sir Arthur Froom that the Council has had very 
 little time to consider this question. I regivt it. I admit that his 
 is a reasonable complaint. On the other hand, the Council and the 
 public nere cleai'ly told this legislation was necessary : they were 
 well aware that this I Jill was goiiu', to be introduced. Copies of the 
 Ijill have been in the hands of Members of the other Chamber for 
 some time, ami there has been constant reference to it in the public 
 Presg. After all, Sii-. tlie iJill is not a very long one ; it consists of 
 live clauses only, and it would not be a diiiicult thing for anyone to 
 master it completely, or even to learn it by heart, in a couple of days. 
 It has been exi)lained that it merely repeats, lui'lafi.-; mufuiuUs, the 
 language of secticjn 121a. Sir, Sardar .Jogendra Singh asked me 
 whelhei- there has been any demand from the Princes lor this 
 legislation. 1 am happy lo Ijc able to assure him — and 1 tni.-<l that 
 this assurance will carry his vole — that there has been a unanimous 
 demand from all the Princes for this legislation. 
 
 Sardar .1o<;endu.\ SiNfiii : Not in the Chiefs' Conference. 
 
 Sir WiLMA.M ViNCFl.N'i' : i am expressing the views of the Princes 
 as pul forth as a result of the Ci)icfs' Conference. 1 think the 
 hon. .Member is mistaken about this, lie must be tliiukiiig of 
 somrtliing else. Tin- matter was brctuyht before the (.'hamber of 
 i'rincis in November last and the following Ucsolulion was passetl 
 iu that House without division : — 
 
 "That in vit^w of the contemplated re])fal of the Press Act of 
 P.tlO, section 1 (1) ('") <>\ whieli pro\ i<li\s (nr llu' safeguardiiiL'
 
 34 
 
 of the Rilling Princes and ChiefB against attempts by the 
 Press in British India to bring into hatred or contempt or to 
 excite disall'ection towaixls any Ruling Prince or (.^hief, this 
 Narendra Mandal (I suppose it means the Cha'uber of Princes) 
 is strongK'' of the opinion, in view of the firmly established 
 relations of alliance and friendship and of the identity of 
 interests between the Imperial Government and the Princes 
 of Iu>Iia, that His Excellency the Viceroy be moved to very 
 kindly and favourably consider the urgent necessity of 
 providing and adopting measures to safeguard and secure 
 the Princes and Chiefs, their States and their (jovernments, 
 against any such insidious or dangerous attemp's." 
 
 Sardar JoGEXDRA SiNGH : Then I withdraw my remarks. 
 
 Sir William Vincent: In a way I am glad; in a way I am 
 sorry, for I could have added a few more comments on this statement. 
 Then, Sir, we have been asked Avhy wo should not delay this legis- 
 lation. We are as unwilling as anyone else to force legislation in 
 this way on the ('ouncil, but there arc reasons for that. Look at the 
 action, which has been taken in the Legislative Assembly. I believe 
 that was due largely to error, oversight or lack of wisdom. But 
 what is tlie present position ? His Excellency's solemn declaration 
 ■which w^as read out to you by Mr. Thompson has bee'i disregarded, 
 and the Princes undoubtedly feel that their interests ami their 
 authority have suffered seriously. Is that a position in which either 
 the Government or this Council can let matters rest ? I submit not. 
 I know there are men here who differ from me on this point. Again, 
 His Excellency has certified that the passage of this Bill is essential 
 for the interests of British India. Therefore, in His Excellency's 
 judgment, the passage or the enactjnent of this measure is essential 
 without delay, and, after all, what is being done ? We are only 
 restoring to the Princes the protection which was given them by the 
 Act of 1910 in a safer and, if I may say so, in a better form. Those 
 who offend against this law will not be liable to summary action at 
 the hands of the executive. They will be tried before a Court of 
 law or a Magistrate, and the accused will, I suppose, ultimately have 
 a right of going up to the High Court. Surely that is a reasonable 
 safeguard against any injustice. Further, there is the great safe- 
 guard of the previous sanction of the Governor-General in Council. 
 Sir, would it be fair to leave the Princes indefinitely without this 
 protection in view of the instances which have been cited by Mr. 
 Thompson, and in view of the proved necessity for this measure ? 
 If it was a long and complicated measure, then I might agree with 
 Sir Benode Mitter, whose views carry great weight, but it is after all 
 a very short Bill for him to consider in this time. It is a Bill which 
 we consider neceesary to fulfil our obligations — our honour and 
 treaty obligations. It is a l>ill which the Princes demand for their 
 own protection. It has been proved to be necessary for the safe- 
 guarding of their legitimate interest, and I hope that this Council 
 Avill accept it, even with the short notice that they ha\e had. It is 
 no good denying that they have had very short notice ; I regret it 
 very much ; but I hope they will take up the same attitude as Sir 
 Arthur Froom, and accept the Bill before them. Sir, if anyone 
 needs a recent instance of the danger that has arisen from the evil 
 which the Bill S"eks to iirevent, let him consider what happened a 
 few nioutbs ag) — the rising among the Bliils in Mewar. incited, I am 
 afraid, lai-.i^ely by agitators in British India. What has been the 
 result of allowing this to go on r The result lias been a loss of the
 
 lives of man}' ignorant, misguided people : are we to I'isk further 
 loss of lives v.iiile we in this Chamber delay legislation ? Is it 
 right that we should hesitate to afford reasonable protection to these 
 unfortunate people, and to afford it to those Princes who have done 
 us great S3rvice in the past, is it right that we should refuse or delay 
 to grant them the protection to which they are entitled ? 
 
 I have only one word to add, 8ir, and that is with refereiice to 
 what fell from Sir Edgar Holberton when he suggested that 
 Government did not assess adequately — I hope I am putting it 
 rightly — the value of this Council. I can assure this Council that 
 there is no foundation whatever for the suggestion. If some of us 
 are detained in the other Chamljer on important business, I think 
 hon. Members will realise that there are good reasons for this. 
 Further, as I said the othei- day, this Council does not rest for its 
 authority on the support of Government ; it needs no backing of 
 that kind. Its authority is based on the weight and character of its 
 Members. The Government has every reason and, doubtless, will 
 have every reason to be grateful for its support on all occasions of 
 difficulty. 
 
 Nawab Sir Bah RAM Khan (Punjab : Nominated Non-Odicial)* : 
 Sir, I rise to support this Bill strongly. It is one of the most 
 necessary measures in the present circumstances, considering how 
 some misguided and malicioiJS people are apt to take liberties if no 
 safeguard is provided against the Princes and Rulers of India. This 
 body of reliable and staunch administrators are a bulwark of the 
 Empire, are administering their respective States for generations. 
 Thcnigh in some isolated places there may have been some flaw in 
 their administrations the Cliief himself considers his subj(^cts as his 
 own children. Xow-a-days when the ablest British otlicers as 
 Residents and Political Agents are watching the affairs of the 
 States which are now run on modern lines by able Councils there is 
 not much chance of any serious mismanagement. One of the main 
 causes for which these distinguished peisonages are maligned by 
 the agitators and evil doers in the country is because they an- 
 strong supporters and allies of the British Government and do not 
 help such peoi)le in their proi)aganda or other dangerous movements 
 against the country. The Ruling Chiefs have amply proved their 
 worth by their services to their King and country during the 
 .Mutiny of 1(S')7, in th^ Kabul \Yiiv, and in nearly all the expeduions 
 from time to lime. Their unicpte effort in the World ^\'ar is too 
 conspicuous to require any mention. 'i'lius the main object of 
 seditious p('Oi)le is to create dissensions and misunderstandings 
 l;etween this body and the Crown. 
 
 it is for tliis as wtdl as othei- vital reasons thai ii is of the utmost 
 necessity that such a law should bo introduced. I again support 
 tin- measure in the strongest terms. 
 
 Colonel Sir Umak Hava'I" Kha.V (West I'unjali, .Muhammadan): 
 Sii, as 1 think' the amendment is still under discussion, I will just 
 say a word on that, though 1 am permitted at the same time, by 
 vo\ir kindness, to Sjieak on thtf Bill also. If I won^ to put forward 
 any amendment, it would he that no amendment be allowed in this 
 Bill at all. Sir, it has been said that a long lime had elapsed 1 
 think' from IS'Jii to l'.U(t, during whicii the necessity for this enact- 
 ment did not ai-ise. (Jn this point I may say that i have myself 
 been at the provincial headquarters; in the oltl days tiiei'e used to 
 
 • TifihKlHiiiiii of ii siicfi-li ill! iM nil 111 I 111' vi'iiKu'iilnr.
 
 30 
 
 be Muusbikhcinas, where each State alwajs had a servant. Directly 
 some of the people wanted to blaclcniail the Rajas they were given 
 one or two thousand rupees ; and after that money was exhausted 
 daring the period in which those men had k(!pt f[uiet, they again 
 published some other offending article. In this way a number of 
 people absolutel}' lived on the States. That is one of the reasons 
 why 1 think there should be no delay. If this is passed to-day, 
 there is nothing to prevent any member who wishes to do so to 
 bring in an amending Bill later on. The House knows that w^hen 
 the Press Act was being repealed 1 think I was the only member 
 who spoke very much against it. All that I wanted then was that 
 it should continue in operation for f-ix months more. If that had 
 been done in Dflhi to-day this Bid would have taken effect imme- 
 diately after the cessation of the Pres5 Act, which would have been 
 very opportune and useful. 
 
 Sir, in the luncheon interval to-day I had the honour of speaking 
 to some of the members of the Legislative Asseinbl3%and they asked 
 me if we were going to pass this Bill. I said I had a conviction 
 that we would pass it to-day. And from what I could see, they 
 were all very sorry that they had not passed it themselves. I come 
 now to the Bill gentirally. The new reformed Government, Sir, 
 has just stepped into the shoes of its predecessor; and, like a son 
 succeeding his father, it has to carry out the obligations which were 
 binding on its predecessor in regard to these Indian States. If the 
 previous Government had any understandings with the Princes we 
 ought to be bound by them. So when this measure was placed 
 before another House, it should have been their duty to realise their 
 position. At any rate, they ought not to have rejected it, but 
 should have taken it into consideration, and modified it or even 
 rejected it afterwards. But when it was treated in the way it has 
 been done, though I am told that I should not pass any reflection on 
 the other House, I think I should say it was a Himalayan mistake 
 that they committed. If there is a mistake, the sooner we rectify 
 that mistake the better for us and for the country. A friend of 
 mine said something about the rules of the game. If we wait there 
 is danger lest the other side should make a goal and then it w'ill be 
 too late. Now, all of us who have had the honour of participating 
 in the last war have seen what these Princes had done for the King 
 and the country. Nearly all of their best Imperial Service Troops 
 w'ere sent and even that was not considered sufficient by them. 
 Some of them put all their resources at the disposal of the 
 Government, and furthermore, some of them went to the front 
 in person and bore the danger of being killed, one of the ex- 
 treme things that a living man can do on this earth. Now, 
 I Avant to ask those who want to withhold this protection from 
 them, what they have done for the King and country during 
 that struggle ? We all know what a magnificent reception the 
 Prince of Wales had during his visit to this country wdien- 
 ever he went to the territories of those Chiefs, and we also 
 know of something else when he was not there ; are we going to 
 hamper such Chiefs in thn administration of their territories so 
 that they should become powerless \ We have got a great deal of 
 trouble in the country going on now, and we expect that if anything 
 more serious happens these Chiefs will come to our help. But are 
 we going to paralyse them l)efore that 'i If you do iliat, that will 
 be a great mistake. Sir, a great deal has been said about the various 
 treaties. Supposinjj there was Jio treaty at all. whj' do they call our 
 Jving as Emperor !' He is called Emperor becattse many Kings in
 
 India nvo niiilfi' him. T'le wonl "Emper-or"" is inerel}' suffint^iit 
 to show thai he should look after the interests of thoss Kings who 
 are under him. That is quite sufficient. If this measure is goiu» 
 to be carried by the present Government — that is what they are 
 doing now — we must congratulate them on that. This is a thing 
 that I emphasised the other day too, that we do not realise, some of 
 u*!, that we are part and parcel of the Government, and if Govern- 
 ment wants a thing like this, we ought to give our support to them 
 and upholl them, and I am sure that this House will demont-trate 
 its existence as a House worthy of being called an Upper House. 
 Then, Sir, you remember when the Prime Minister made his speech, 
 how from the Himalayas to Cape Comorin a cry was raised which, 
 I think, would hav(? rent the skies above us because some people 
 wrongly thought that their rights were going to be curtailed. Now, 
 we call the reforms as our Magna Charta and we ai-e very much 
 frightened if anything happens to it. What about the Princes ? 
 They have been assured of their rights, which is their Magna Charta, 
 and as a Persian proverb goes, 
 
 Har c/ieh Ji-ar liluul mapasandi bar dicjaran mapassand. 
 
 Any treatment that you do not like for yoiirself, don't accord it to 
 another. So I hope that this Council will pass this measure 
 unanimously. 
 
 Mr. Lalubhai Samaldas (Bombay, Non-Muhammadan): Sir, 
 while I heartily congratulate Mr. Thompson on the lucid and 
 clear manner in which he put the whole case before the House, 
 I regret I cannot congratulate him as regards his references 
 to the attitude of the other Chamber. Now, Sir, we have got to be 
 very careful in what we state about the other House. If 1 remember 
 rightly, Mr. Thompson said that their action might be taken as 
 an insult to the Governor-General. lie went a little further and 
 said that it might appear as if that House did not want to keep 
 ui) the contracts and treaties, as if they were of no value whatever 
 and that honour will not be recognised. I think. Sir, that perhaps 
 my hon. friend made these reflections in the excitement due to the 
 present occasion, and 1 hope that when he considers tliem c.irefully 
 he will see reason either to withdraw or to modify them. {An hon. 
 Member : " Why r ") A question is asked from the opposite benches, 
 ■• Why r " I will answer it. I do not think that that House, as it is 
 couBtituted at i)resent, could ever have meant any insult to His 
 Excellency. Tiie respect for His Excellency is not limited to this 
 House, but it also e.\tends to the other House, and I know, as a 
 matter of fact, that the otlier House holds tlu; Viceroy in as great 
 respect as we here, and no insult could have been intended when 
 they rejecte<l the; I'.ill. It may be, as Mr. Th()mi)son said, that tliey 
 did not realise what they did, they did not realise that tliis motive 
 might be attril)uted to them, but 1 do not think that they could 
 have meant any insult to His Excellency. Mr. Thompson g.ive us 
 on(! ])iece of advice whicli I am i)repared to accept and which 1 
 value very much. He said that this is a new Legislature, and weare 
 working under the new reforms. Let us not give an impression to tJie 
 Indian I'rinees that we are likely to go against their rights in any 
 way. It is uj) t> us — I am repenting Mr. Thomj)son's jdirase — not 
 to do anything that may antagonise them. Not only that, if tht> 
 reforms are to be a success the j)eoples of India and the I'rinees of 
 In<lia should march togetlier. We should not create an impression 
 in the minds of the Princes that this House, whenever it gets full 
 
 2(i<)()f>.'i
 
 38 
 
 responsible govermuent, will iise theiv power to cui'tail the power's 
 of the Princes or to abrogate their treaty rights which they have 
 been enjoying under the jiresont rfovernment. I am entirely at 
 one with liiin and 1 am quite sure that all the Members of the 
 House, to whichever party they belong, Avill support what has 
 fallen from Mr. Thompson' that it is our duty to do nothing in a 
 manner which might be understood to be antagonistic to the 
 Princes. We want' to be friendly wdth them, not merely because 
 we ow^e a deep debt of gratitude to them, or because of the possible 
 reaction that sedition spread in the Indian States may have in 
 British India, but because we look on them as a part and parcel of 
 the country. We want to work with them, and we want to march 
 with them to our final goal. 
 
 There I believe that the House, to whichever partj^ the Members 
 may belong, will entirely agree with what has fallen from Mr. 
 Thompson. It is true, as he said, that the Bill will not affect the 
 subjects of the Indian States in any way in fighting far introducing 
 reforms in those States, and that throwing out the Bill is practically 
 out of the question. I only wish that the Bill had been allowed to 
 be introduced in the other Eouse, when it could have gone to a 
 Select Committee, and the Select Committee could have examined 
 the actual Avordiug of the Bill and made the necessary amendments. 
 Some amendments are, I think, necessary in view of the difference 
 between the wording of 12J:A and clause 3 (2), but the hon. Member 
 has said that under the Government of India Act the Bill must be 
 passed as it is. I do not think there is any good ri pressing these 
 amendments now. What I would request Government to do is 
 that after they have passed the Bill and satisfied the Princes that 
 they are prepared to stand by them, later on, if and wdien ihey are 
 satisfied that certain portions of the Bill ought to b; removed, then 
 they would take the first opportunity to modify those expressions, 
 and do what they can to put it in sach a way thtit the fair criticism 
 of the Princes and their Administration will not in any way be 
 disallowed by this clause. Speaking on my friend i\Ir. Kale's 
 amendment, I want to ask Government one question. If the Bill 
 had been introduced in the other House, and if it had been referred 
 to a Select Committee, would there not have been delay ? I would 
 like to know why, if Government would have accepted that delay, 
 they should rush "the measure now. An explanation is due to this 
 House why in the one case they would have accepted delay and not 
 in the other. With these few words I support the Bill, 
 
 The President : I would remind the Council that this Bill has 
 been under discussion since 11.30 this morning on one motion. 
 
 Rai Bahadur Lala Ram Saran Das (Punjab : Non-Muham- 
 niadan) : Sir, I rise to support this Bill. Mr. Thompson has so 
 al)lv and fully put forward the necessity of this legislation 
 that he has not left much for me to say. The defence of the 
 Assembly has been well made out by Sir William Vincent. The 
 Government is bound by pledges and treaties to protect the 
 Ruling Princes and Chiefs in this respect, and so we think it our 
 bounden duty to co-operate and help them to honour their pledges 
 and redeem their promises. The pronouncements made by our 
 gracious Sovereigns from time to time in this connection must be 
 lovally carried out. According to Indian tradition, the sooner we 
 fulfil our pledges the better. I cannot therefore understand why 
 my hon. friend Professor Kale wants to continue the violation of
 
 39 
 
 pledges. His Kxcellency the X'iceroy in his oiieuing speech gave a 
 sort of notice about the coming of this Bill, so this House hid practi- 
 cally a notice of about a month. Government is fully aware of the 
 misrule which does exist in certain Indian States, and realises its 
 duty to use its great influence to get it put right. This House 
 expects that every possible step will be taken by Government to 
 mend wrongs which are being committed by certain Rulers. 
 
 The word '• disaft'ection " is rather vague and means want of 
 affection as has been interpreted by the Bombay High Court, We 
 hope that in the rules which Government will frame iinder this Act 
 this word will not be given such a wide meaning. 
 
 As Government is solemnly bound to keep up its promises and 
 to honour its treaties and pledges, and which it must, I request this 
 House to pass this Bill. 
 
 Mr. G. S, Khapardp] (Berar : Nominated Xon-official) : I do 
 not propose to be long. There need be no anxiety on that point. 
 ISIy remarks will be divided into two parts, one addressed to the 
 principle of the Bill and the other the amendment about asking for 
 time. About the princii>le of the Bill I quite agree, and I believe 
 the whole House agrees that obligations, either inherited or now 
 entered into, have to be discharged and we must carry them out as 
 pledges and promises already made. As we put it in the Hindu 
 Law, the son must pay the debts of his father ; and as we have 
 inherited them, so must we meet the obligations. How are those 
 obligations to be met f If the gentlemen in whose favour they were 
 incurred had persisted and taken the necessary steps, ihej would 
 have ])een paid. I said " paid " because they have been compared 
 to debts by the hon. Mover. They are ancestral debts that have 
 to be paid. I quite agree, but I say that I shall pay them in my 
 own way, and in the most convenient manner possible. It in ly be 
 that these debts have accrued. The present debts were incurred in 
 l&r.) and kept up till 1885. Then they fell into abeyance, and 
 nobody knew anything until we come to the year ]'M(). If I wei-e 
 speaking in a Court, I should .say that the debts are barred, but 1 do 
 not want to put forward that technical plea. We agree that, no 
 matter how incurred, the debts have to be paid, and we hope to pay 
 them, but we ask for time so that we may consult our housekeeper, 
 see how our accounts stand with the banker, and then pay them in 
 the way in which they can be paid. It has been said that we ought 
 not to ask for time because the measure was contemplated s(»mi? 
 time ago, to use the word which is common in the newspapers now 
 adumbrated in the speech of His Kxcellency the Viceroy. I (juite 
 agree, but it was only adiiml»i-ate(l and the concrete proposal was not 
 before us. There is a diflcren'.-e brlween a proi)osai ma 1*' gt-nerally 
 and a proposal put specifically l)efore us. Tiiis is a specific thing 
 which has come, and it has come oidy two days ago, and in our 
 Hindu life when a child is born, for 10 days ihcy do nothing, but 
 only lioM feasts and are happy, and then they take measiii-es. This 
 child was l»orn only two days ago, and to-day it claims ihe rights of 
 inheritance, and wants partition fi-otu me. It is too early. How- 
 ever that may be, lei us put that argument away for thi; time being. 
 It ai)pear8 to me that the words " loyalty " and '* disaflectimi " have 
 been used rather loos* ly. AfTictioji and loyalty are relations which 
 exist between ruhrr and iuk<l. We in Uritish India umlerstand 
 what is meant by (li.'^affection towards our Government, We under- 
 stand what is loyalty to our (Jovernment, but in this case the loyalty
 
 40 
 
 is to a neighbour, not to a Government under which I am horn, not 
 to a Government which protects n\e, but to a Government which is 
 friendly with my Government. The relationship is that of an 
 uncle, and not that of a father and son. So, it comes to be that the 
 words affection, disaffection and disloyalty are not used in their 
 right sense. 
 
 Disloyalty subsists between persons who have the relations of 
 rulers and ruled. That relation does not subsist in this case. 
 Therefore, in this particular Bill the words "disaffection" and 
 " disloyalty " have been wrongly used. It is like a gentleman 
 asking for the restitution of conjugal rights when the marriage itself 
 is denied. So, there having been no marriage, restitution could 
 hardly be asked for, Now, there is no relation between me and the 
 Indian Princes. They are not my rulers, nor am I their subject. 
 ■ How am I going to be guilty of disaffection by speaking against 
 them ? If I speak wrongly, if I speak stupidly, of them, if I defame 
 them, under the law they have a i'<^mody against me ; and some of 
 the Indian Princes have, within my knowledge, availed themselves 
 of this remedy, for they took proceedings and they have instituted 
 criminal cases in the Bombay High Court, and I had the honour to 
 appear for the defence- as a junior — but anyhow, that was so. So 
 these terms to my mind appear to be misplace 1 and wrongly intro- 
 duced. There is no difficulty about this, also, for me. It is said 
 that the measure is a very small one, that it is only three sections, 
 that it is practically one section, and that that section is practically 
 taken from the Criminal Code, and, therefore, j'ou do not require 
 any time to consider it. I humbly submit this involves a fallacy of 
 the volume being the measure of the importance. But a microbe is 
 almost invisible, and if there is a microbe coming in somewhere 
 you have got to fight it. Similarly in the case of this " small " Bill ; 
 it may be one word, it may be very small, but it involves a great 
 pi'inciple. It is unknown up to this time in British jurisprudence, 
 and also in Indian jurisprudence, luimely, British subjects having 
 relations with a foreign Prince. I am a subject of His ^lajesty the 
 King, and I am supposed also to owe allegiance to a person who is 
 outside, who rules a different province altogether ; and, by these 
 terms of " loyalty," " affection," " fealty " aud other words that may 
 be introduced here, you introduce not only hei-e but also in British 
 jurisprudence a new relationship, a relationship such as has never 
 been recognised up to this time ; and this is a House of eminent 
 lawj'ers and very eminent statesmen, and I would like to know if 
 they have ever known a single case decided on the point, namelj', that 
 a British subject owes a duty to France or to Germany or to Switzer- 
 land. Such a thing has been unknown ; and therefore this principle 
 requires to be considered very carefullj', and I submit the measure 
 would have to be redrafted in tbe sense of avoiding these terms which 
 involve the relationship between rulers and ruled. I may be wrong, 
 but I am anxious That any pi-omise made by the Government of 
 India should be binding. I am not going to tell a story, but 
 even if a promise has been made even then I would saN', you 
 kindly let me think it out, and let me see if this can l^e embodied 
 in a better fc^rm, — whether it can be understood, and then certainly 
 we shall carry that out ; I mean to carry it out, there is no doubt 
 about that. So my argument therefore comes to be this, that we 
 - agree that the Government of India should perform their obligations, 
 and I also concede that we are bound under oath to help the
 
 il 
 
 r!r)voi-ninein of India to keep its promise. That I A<x}\^e with, bnt 
 I further submit that I wish that you kindly iiive us a little litua to 
 think it out, say six months. If between 18;55 and 1891, I suppose, 
 they have slept over it for nearly 50 years, there is nothing difficult 
 in waiting for another six months. I would say that I did not see 
 the terms, I had no opportunity of judging the effect of these terms, 
 and so I humbly submit that the amendment that has been moved 
 by my hon. friend Mr, Kale is a very good one, an<l I support it very 
 heartily, though at the same time I maintain and I concede that we 
 are bound to ca.rry out the promise made by the Government of 
 India. Otherwise, Sir, I heartily support the motion. 
 
 Mr. J. P. Thc^mt'SOX : Sir, speakers on this side of the House 
 have left m3 very little really to reply to. Mr. Khaparde's 
 criticisms, or perhaps some of them, are more appropriate to the 
 discussion of an amendment than to the discussion of the principle 
 of the Bill. But I may perhajis remind him that under the common 
 law of Englaml any person who attempts to create feelin?s of hatred 
 or contempt against a foreign ruler renders himself liable to be 
 punished. Sardar Jogendra Singh put one or two questions to me, 
 and I am glad to say tint Sir William Vincent has made it unneces- 
 sary for me to reply to all of them. He said, among other things, 
 that it would be dangerous to read specific meanings into tinnities of 
 ICMJ years ago perhaps, which w^ere expressed in general terms ; and 
 that, for instance, a treaty expressing, as one of those which I cited 
 did, the condition that there shall be pei-petual friendship and unity of 
 interests between the high contracting parties ought not to be used to 
 support a demand for legislation to protect the Princes against attacks 
 in the Press. T a u not sure. Sir, that that arguui'^nt is soimd. 
 These general agreements must be held to cover a large number of 
 specific cases as and when they arise ; and in particular regard to 
 attacks in the Press. I may remind the hon. ]\Ieml)er that the Regu- 
 lation of LS'i;') was prior to some of the treaties which I ({uoted, 
 which shows that even at the period when these treaties were 
 concluded, the Government of India must have had in their minds 
 the possil)ility of the need arising for the protection of Princes 
 against these attacks. Another ])oint which the hon Sardar put was 
 that although I had (jroted a number of attacks on Princes and 
 their administrations, I had not cited any of the passages which 
 spoke of them in terms of praise. \Vell, Sir, if it had been a jiart of 
 the proposals of this liill to penalise anybody who praised an Indian 
 Chief then \ think that remark would hive been relevant, but as it 
 is, 1 do not quite see that it carries us any fnrthei-. 
 
 Tiien, Sir, witli regard to Mr. Kale's motion for a<ljiiiirnnieiit, 
 I regret very much that the Council have been so restricted in 
 the time that they have Ijeeji allowed for the consideration of this 
 Bill. P>ut they must recognise. I t liink, that the circumstances are 
 peculiar. 
 
 Mr. Laliii»hai Samaldas askecl why, if we wer-' prepared to allow 
 the l^ill to run its natural (joiirse, if the .Assembly had moved that it 
 should be referred to a Select Committee or circulated for opinion, 
 why, if we were i^reparcd to dr» that, we are not j)repared to give 
 them three months' time now. 'I'he reason, I think, is clear. Wlien 
 the l^.ill was Htill in the AS8eTnl)ly, tlie crisis had not yet arisen. 
 The action of the .Vssembly, as I pointed out .\et^iiiilay, was bound 
 to cause apprehensions in the States. Srjme lion. M.mbers have «ai<l
 
 42 
 
 that ilic^o api'ivlieii.sions need not ])v taken seriously. The diinger 
 is that tJio States maj' apprehend that the Government of India is 
 weakening. 
 
 Lastly, His Excellency the Viceroy has told us that it is a debt of 
 honour, and where it is a question of the payment of a debt of 
 honour I think this House will agree with me that time is always of 
 the essence of the contract. 
 
 The most serious attack that was delivered on my position was a 
 Hank attack from the left. As regards that. Sir, my only regrets are 
 that I failed to make my meaning clear, and, secondly, that this is 
 the last time probably that we shall hear the hon. Member in this 
 Chamber. The first of these regrets will be shortlived. I feel 
 sure that any obscurity there may be in regard to my meaning will 
 disappear as soon as the hon. the Home ^Member and Mr. Lalubhai 
 Samakhjs are in a position to read what I actually said in print. 
 The second regret, that we shall hear the hon. Member no more, is 
 one. alas, which Mill remain with us always. 
 
 The President : The original motion was : 
 
 "That the Bill to prevent the dissemination by means of books, 
 newspapers and other documents of matter calculated to bring 
 into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against 
 Princes or Chiefs of States in India or the Governments or 
 Administrations established in such States, be taken into 
 consideration." 
 
 To that motion an amendment has been moved : — 
 
 " That the words ' early next year ' be added." 
 The question is that that amendment be made. 
 The motion was negatived. 
 
 The President : There remains the original motioji : — 
 
 "That the Bill to prevent the dissemination by means of books, 
 newspapers and other documents of matter calculated to bring 
 into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against 
 Princes or Chiefs of States in India or the Governments or 
 Administrations established in such States, be taken into 
 consideration." 
 
 The motion was adopted. 
 
 The President : The Council will now proceed to the considera- 
 tion of the Bill clause by clause. We will, as usual, reserve the 
 Preamble. 
 
 The question is : — 
 
 " That clause 1 stand part of the Bill." 
 
 The motion was adopted. 
 
 Clause 1 was added to the Bill, 
 
 The President : The question is : — 
 
 " That clause 2 stand part of the Bill." 
 
 The motion was ail opted. 
 Clause 2 was added to the Bill.
 
 4H 
 
 >rr. V. (i. Kale : Sir, to clause '.] I hive two lunendmeuts. The 
 first aineudmeni runs as follows : — 
 
 "That in snb-clause (1) of clause .'] of the Bill — 
 
 (i) the words ' brings or is iatended to bring into hatred or 
 
 contempt, or ' be omitted ; 
 (ii) after the word . . . ." 
 
 The President : Maj- I ask the hon. ]\[ember if these amend- 
 ments are connected in any way r 
 
 Mr. V. G. Kale : Xo, Sir. 
 
 The President : Then they can be moved separately. 
 
 yiv. V. G. Kale : Then my first amendment is : — 
 
 "That in sub-clause (I) of clause 3 of the Bill — 
 
 (i) the words 'brings or is intended to bring into hatred or 
 contempt, or ' be omitted." 
 
 My object in moving this amendment is that the words are rather 
 too vague and comprehensive. It is very difficult to say what is 
 calcvtlated to bring into hatred or contempt the Ruler of an Indian 
 State, and I am afraid that the safeguard which is provided in a later 
 section will be nullified if these words stand. Even ordinary 
 temperate criticism of the administration or the measun^s of a 
 Ruler might be considered as intended to bring him into hatred. or 
 contempt, for this reason, in particular, that in lu'lian States we 
 have not yet got what is called a popular form of government. In 
 most of the States we have an autocratic form of government, anel 
 in those States it would be difficult to distinguish criticism of 
 measures from criticism of the Ruler. To my mind, thei-cfore, these 
 words are likely to occasion injustice and not likely to help in the 
 attainment of the object aimed at. For these reasons, Sir, I move 
 mj' amendment that these words be omitted from clause 3. 
 
 Sir William Vincent : Sir, I am afraid that, apart from any 
 question of the difficulty of inserting amendments in the Bill at the 
 present stage, I must oppose this amendment on the merits. I 
 think anyone who has examined the law, as I am sure tlie hon. 
 Mover has, and has examined section 124a of the Penal Code, will 
 eee that the words are taken from tluit section. They have been the 
 subject on many occasions of judicial interpretation and are. in my 
 humble judgment, entirely suitable in the i)resent Hill. And if I 
 might develop the argument used by the Political Secretary just 
 now, I may say that malicious and scnrrilous rellcctions n])on foreign 
 sovereigns and publications tending to dcgiiule and defame such 
 persons are indictable in England. There is really no fear what- 
 ever of th(! danger to which .Mr. Kale has alluded, and I think 
 if he will a^ain read sulj-clause (2) of clauBe .3 In- will see that 
 any kind of reasonable criticism is edeclively safeguarded. That 
 clause runs: — 
 
 "No person shall be deemed to commit an offcmce und(T this 
 section in res)>eft of any l)o<»k, newHpa]>er oi- other document 
 which, without exciting or being intended to excil(^ hatred, 
 contempt or disalVection, contains comments expressing dis-
 
 44 
 
 ;i])|>rol);iti(>n of" tlie meariiives ol' ;inj' sncli Prince, Cliief, 
 (iovernuient or Adminis' ration as aforesaid with u view to 
 obtain rheir alteration by lawful means, or disapprobation of 
 the administrative or other action of any such Prince, Chief, 
 Government or Administration." 
 
 Now, our intention is to exempt all reasonable criticism from the 
 mischief of this P)ill. I believe we have done so. I am fortified 
 in that view by the fact that the same words and the same exception 
 are use 1 in section I'ilA nnd l)ave been judiciallj'^ interpreted 
 repeatedly in the manner in which I have described. I hope that 
 the House, quite apart from any other question which I may have 
 to urge later, will reject this amendment on the merits. 
 
 The PRESIDENT: The question is:— 
 
 " That in sub-clause (I) of clause ?> of the Bill — the words 'brings 
 or is intended to bring into hatred or contempt, or' be 
 omitted." 
 
 The motion was negatived. 
 
 The PRESIDENT: The next two amendments appear to be 
 connected and mav be moved togethar. 
 
 'o^ 
 
 Mr. V. G. Kale : Sir, I move that: — 
 
 " In sub-clause (1) of clause ?) of the Bill: — 
 
 "(ii) After the word 'excite' the words 'among the sulijects 
 of any Prince or Chief of a State' be inserted ; 
 
 " (iii) batween the word 'any' and the w^ord 'Prince' the 
 word ' such ' be inserted." 
 
 ]\Iy bon. friend Mr. Khaparde has already anticipated me in 
 connection with this amendment. The clause, as it stands, speaks 
 of any print or book or document which brings or is intended to bring 
 into hatred or contempt, or excites or is intended to excite disaffection 
 towards any Prince or Chief of a State in India. The question is, 
 creation of disaffection against whom ? The offence will be com- 
 mitted in British India. An article will b(; written and a document 
 wdll be circulated which, let us sn])pose, is calculated to have this 
 effect. But upon whose mind ? There cannot be, in my opinion, 
 disaffection created in British India by any article or document 
 with respect to tiie Ruler of a Native State, because the relations 
 between the Ruler of an Indian State and the British subject are not 
 the relacions of a sovereign and his subject. So far as 1 understand 
 the matter, I think there can be disaffection only when there is the 
 relation of allegiance, loj'alty — the relation between the rulers and 
 the ruled. No such relation can be contemplated between a British 
 subject and an Indian ruler. For these reasons, I think this 
 amendment is absolutely necessary. The third amendment is 
 consequeniial upon the second. 
 
 The President : To the proposed clause No. 3 (1) amendments 
 moved : — 
 
 " Aftei- the word ' excite ' the words ' among the subjects of any 
 
 Prince or Chief of a State ' be inserted ; and 
 "Between the word ' any ' ami the wor(l ' Prince ' the word ' such ' 
 
 be inserted,"
 
 45 
 
 Sir William Vixcext : I really do not tliink that there is any 
 room for doubt as to the meaning of the clause as drafted. If I 
 take the clause and read it, I think this will be clear : — 
 
 ''Whoever edits, prints or publishes, or is the author of, any book, 
 
 newspaper, or othei- document which brings or is intended to 
 
 , bring into liatred or contempt, or excites or is intended to 
 
 excite disaffection towards any Prince or Chief of a State in 
 
 India .... shall be punishable . . . ." 
 
 T have no doubt in my min I that the disaffeLition referred to is 
 disatfectio:! among the subjects of the State concerned. It is true 
 ttat these subjects need not necessarily be in the State, it may very 
 ■well be that they are for the time in British Indi>i, and that is a 
 ])oint of some importance. This is, however, one of those amen 1- 
 ments which, if we find there is any substantial difficulty in the 
 point raised by my hon. friend, we shall have to consider later. I may 
 fray that after the Bill is passed we shall be prepared in fact to adojit 
 the cotirse suggested by Mi-. Lalubhai Samaldas justi now. If this 
 Act jiroves to be defective in its operation or there are any amend- 
 ments which we find are necessary, I give an undertaking that 
 they will be considered by the Gcvernment of India in the most 
 careful manner, but I really do not think myi-elf as at present 
 advised — I am quite open to conviction — that there is anything in the 
 present amendment. I will, however, have it further examined later. 
 
 The Phesident: Does the hon. ^lember desire that the question 
 should be put ': 
 
 Mr. V. G. IvALE: On the assurance that has been given now by 
 Sir William Vincent 
 
 The PRESIDENT: The hon. Member cannot make a speech ; he 
 must simply inform me whether he desires that tlie amendments 
 should be put to the vote of the Council or whether he asks leave to 
 withdi-aw them. 
 
 Mr. V. G. IvALE: I think I should lilc > th ' qu -stiou to l)c put. 
 
 The PiiE.SlDENT: To the proposed clause o (I ), amendments 
 moved : — 
 
 ••After the word 'excite' the words 'among liie subjects of any 
 
 Prince or Chief of a State ' In; inserteil ; and 
 " Between the word ' any ' and the wo-il' Prince ' thf woi-d ' siu'li' 
 
 be inserted." 
 
 The question is: — 
 
 "'That those aujciid incuts lie inad^'." 
 The motion was iiegativcd. 
 
 Mr. V. (j. KalE: As regards the next aiiHiulinenis, I need not 
 move them as the other amendments which I have moveil have 
 been thrown out. 
 
 The PrESIDEN'I' : Tiicrt' is oue amendu»ent which is not 
 cotiseqiiential — the sul)3titution of thi-er for five. 
 
 Mr. \'. fJ. Kale : 1 thank \oii. Sir. I havi- overlooked ii. .My 
 amendment is — 
 
 " I'V^r the word 'livt' ilo' woitl 'three' \w t-ubni(iited in 
 clause ;» (1). "
 
 46 
 
 My reasou for moving this aniendmenl is that the ends of justice 
 will be sutliciently met if tht* punishment is only three years 
 instead of five 
 
 Sir William VixcEXT : Under section 12J:A, which is a very 
 analo.o^oiis section, my hon. friend knows very well that one of the 
 l)0ssil)le punishments is ti-ans])ortation for life : for that punishment, 
 in a Bill which has already been introduced in another place, we 
 ])rnp<)se now to substitute a maximum of five years' imprisonment, 
 and we have adopted the same punishment in regard to sedition 
 })i'eached ai,'aii:st an Indian Ruler. I do not think myself that 
 there is really any very great difference in the gravity of the 
 two offences, aJid 1 cannot think that a punishment of three years 
 is necessarily sufficient for the worst class of case, say, the case of 
 a man possibly successfully promoting a rising against a State, and 
 thereby causing many innocent lives to l>e lost. 
 
 The President : The question is : — 
 
 "That for the word -five' the word 'three' be substituted in 
 clause 3 (1)." 
 The motion was negatived. 
 
 Tiie President: [Mr. Ivhaparde not rising to move his amend- 
 ment to sub-clause (2) of clause 15]. The question is : — 
 
 " That clause 3 stand part of the Bill." 
 
 The President : If the hon. Member does not move any 
 amendment to clause 3, I shall put the clause. He has on paper 
 certain amendments to sub clause (2) of clause 3. 
 
 Mr. G. S. Khaparde : The amendment which T beg to move 
 runs as follows : — 
 
 " That in sub-clause (2) of clause 3 oi the Bill after the word 
 ' comments ' the words ' on facts vhich are true or contains 
 comments' be inserted. 
 
 The reagon why I am bringing this amendment is that in Ih-itish 
 India as in England the truth of the allegations is not a defence in 
 a prosecution for sedition. Truth is a defence in cases of defamation 
 under certain circumstances, but not in others. This is an anomalous 
 thing as I pointed out in an earlier part of my speech, and therefore 
 I say that if the facts are true and the criticism is there, then it 
 should provide a good defence in a Court of law. Th:it is my object 
 in putting forward this amendment. That truth is no defence in 
 the case of disaffection — it should be a good defence. In this case 
 it is not disaffection strictly so-called, but iiy analogy or in a loose 
 way, and therefoi-e truth should be permitted to be a defence. That 
 is the reason why I put forward that amendment. 
 
 Sir William Vincent ; The hon. Member is quite right in his 
 statement of the law, that in a prosecution for sedition the defence 
 that the statement made is true is not open to a man, and I do not 
 think that that defence should be open to a man who is prosecuted 
 for sedition against Indian States. Bat apart from that point, quite 
 apart from the merits, I think, if the hon. Member will read the 
 sub-clause, that lie will see that unfortunately his desire is not
 
 47 
 
 eit'ected by the auiendraent that he seeks to make. Sub-clause (2) 
 provides that iu certain cases comments Avill not be an offence, and 
 on my reading of the snb-chiu?e I think his ameudmtnt rather 
 limits than increases the scope of this sub-clause. But the real safe- 
 guard against a prosecution, an inipr -per proseoution, av1ip-i a man is 
 putting forward something which is true, lies iu a diifert-nt direction. 
 It lies in this fact, that the Governor-Ganeral in Council has to 
 sanction the institution of the proceedings. anJ by sanctioning a 
 prosecution of this kind the Government make themselves respon- 
 sible that there are gooi.1 grounds for prosecutioii, and the 
 Government will take very good care to ensm-e, in the interests 
 of its own good name, that no man is prosecuteil for attacking an 
 Indian Prince unless he has really done so without justification. T 
 maintain that that is and must be a real safeguanl in cases of this 
 kind. 
 
 The President : The question is :— 
 
 " That in sub-clause (2) of clause o of the Bill after the word 
 ' comments ' the words 'on facts which are true or contains 
 comments" be inserted.'" 
 
 The motion was negatived. 
 
 The President : The question is :— 
 "That clause ',\ stand part of the Bill." 
 The motion was adopted. 
 
 Clause )) was added to the Bill. 
 
 The President : The question is : — 
 " That clause 4 stand part of the Bill." 
 The motion was adopted. 
 Clause -i was added to the Bill. 
 
 ^fr. (i. S. Khaparde : I move that in clause .'• of the Bill for 
 the words "that of :i Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the 
 first chiss " the words "a Court of Sessions'" he substituted. 
 
 .My ri-ason in moving this is this. Wiieti thf pros(^cution is 
 sanctioned by the (rovernor-General in Council, there would be some 
 amount of dilliculty if the case were tried by a first-class Magistrate. 
 That is not the (m\\ reason. The other reason is this. In trials 
 before Magistrates, thorc is nothing like opening the case and Public 
 Prosecutr»rs have declined to tell you l)eforphand by what evidence 
 thev wish to ]»rov.' a |iaili(;alar olVeiicf. When the c ise onci' ojx'us 
 and cliarges are framed, tiieii there are certain facilities for defen^-e 
 in a Sessions trial which do not exist in th(» casa of iIh lirst-class 
 Magistrates. Moref)V»>r, the ]>irties will be unei|u;dly luatehed. 
 There will be the resources of an Indian Prince behind the prosecu- 
 tion and the accused will probably be a journalist or a ]K)or num. 
 Therefore in order to ])r"veni miscarriaLr** of justice, theses cases 
 should Ite tried by a hiu'her tribuinl likf that of a Se«sions Court. 
 For these reasons 1 move my auu-ndment. 
 
 Sir WllJilAM VlNtJENT : I do not think there is much force in 
 the lir.st arguiueni that was use 1 by Mr. K'hai)ard<', ojunely, that an 
 accused derives great benefit from the opening of a case before
 
 48 
 
 evidence is adduced. I do not think tliiii accused are prejudiced by 
 i.lie omission of this procedure in ti-ials before Magistrates, and there 
 is in any case no reason why olVenders under tliis hiw shouhl be in 
 a better position than other accused persons. Further, offences 
 undei- section 124a, the analoj^ous section to this, are in fact triable 
 by lirst-class Maiiistrates and by Presidency Magistrates. At the 
 same tim?, 1 realise the force of one of Mr. Khaparde's arguments, 
 namely, that there will be in many such cases a powerful Prince 
 behind the prosecution, and it is desirable that the accused should 
 be conlident that he will j-eceive fair and impartial justice. It is 
 also important that trials of this nature should be carefully con- 
 ducted, and in my own experience trials are conducted in a Court 
 of Sessions better than before Magistrates, and I propose to put this 
 amendment into the category of others that I have postponed for 
 examination by the Government of India after this Act is passed. I 
 trust that this will meet the hon. Member. 
 
 Mr. G. H, Khaparde : Yes. In view of this assurance, I beg 
 for leave to withdraw my amendment. 
 
 The amendment was, by leave of the Council, withdrawn. 
 
 The President : The question is : — 
 " That clause 5 stand part of the Bill." 
 The motion was adopted. 
 Clause 5 was added to the Ijill. 
 
 Mr. G. S. Khaparde : Sir, I move that after clause ,j of the 
 Bill the following clause be added, namely : — 
 *' ('). All trials under this Act shall be by jury." 
 
 Supposing I take it for granted that that suggestion would be 
 accepted and trials will be held before a Court of Sessions, some 
 trials are held with the aid of assessors whose opinions do not count 
 for much, and if trials take place with the aid of a jury the jury is 
 supreme so far as deciding on facts goes. Trials by jury will be 
 very helpful, and therefore I propose that a »>th clause be added 
 saying that all trials under this Act shall be by jury. 
 
 Sir William Vixcent : Under the Code of Criminal Procedtire, 
 section 2^0, a Local Government may by order in the official gazette 
 direct the trial of all offences or any particular class of offences be 
 held before a jury, and I see no reason why this offence should be 
 j)laccd in a different category from other more serious or equally 
 serious offences. So far as I recollect, and I speak subject to 
 correction, cases under section J 2J:A are not tried by a jury anywhere 
 except in High Courts. I cannot at the moment recollect any single 
 district in India where such cases are tried by jury, and I suggest 
 that the present class of cases should be treated exactly as cases 
 under section 12J:A are. I will remind the hon. Member also that 
 there are many districts where it is impossible to have trials by jurj', 
 and district'', some of which possibly are on the borders of these 
 Indian States, where to get a jury competent to try cases of this 
 character would be impi-acticable. The amendment is in conflict 
 with section 209 which I have just cited, and moreover, as I have 
 said, the law^ already provides for jury trials in any case where the 
 Local (iovernment thinks it necessary.
 
 4'J 
 
 The President ; The cjuestion is : — 
 
 " That after clause 5 of the Bill the following clause be added, 
 namely : — 
 
 ' C>. All trials under this Act shall be by jury '." 
 
 The motion was negatived. 
 
 The President : The question is :— 
 '• That the Preamble stand part of the Bill." 
 The motion was adopted. 
 The Preamble was added to ibe Bill. 
 
 The President : That includes the detailed consideration of 
 the Bill. 
 
 Mr. J. P. Thompson : I beg to move that the Bill be passed. 
 
 Mr. K. V. Kangaswami AiyanGAR (Madras: Non-Muhamma- 
 dan) : Sir, it is rather late in the day to oppose the Bill, but yet I 
 should have my say about ihe Bill on the whole. As between the 
 Press and the Princes, the Bill presupposes that the Press is always 
 in the wrong and the Princes are always in the right. I do not go 
 into that question at all, Init 1 want to oppose the Bill for the sake 
 of the pi-estige and honour of the Puling Princes themselves, among 
 whom I count many estimable friends. Sir, 1 am an admirer of 
 some of the Princes and their Administration. I have come across- 
 many, and I have nothing to say against them or theii- Admini- 
 stration. I even memorialised Government that even the bigger 
 Zamindars should be invested with ruling powers, my Resolution to 
 that effect having been negatived, I beg to say that I am one of 
 those who have the greatest esteem and regard for the Princes ; and 
 if at all I oppose this ]>ill it is for the sake of the prestige of the 
 lUilimr Princes ami their Administration. Sir, I do not think it 
 would lie an exaggeration if 1 say that in many of the States I do 
 not hml any Hindu-Moslem rupture or any class hatred or anything 
 of that sort in the name of deniocratic (Joverninent. Sii-, if 1 opi)oso 
 this Pnll it is because this l>ill implies tliat there are Nome I'rinces 
 who have to be shielded by a Bill of this sort, and that their 
 Administration has to be given an aiinour or a ])ur(hih to be shielded 
 by a l>ill of this sort. I do not think thai many of (he Admini- 
 strations of tin- Native Stales rcipiire a purdaii of Ihis sort. Sir. 
 there are two classes — then- is the other side also — ihtrc are good 
 Administrations and bad .VdiniMistr-atioiiK. A good .\dnrmistia(ion 
 docs not require a Bill of this sort ; and a l)ad l\id« r with a Itad 
 Administration does not deserve to liave a P.ill of this sort. Their 
 action shouhl bi- ex])f«sed by tiie puldic Press. My hon. fri«'ti(l Sir 
 Muhammad Shah and other spealcers emphasised the fact that there 
 is aiiii>le i)rovision in the liili for criticism, for right criticism, with 
 a view to correcting an A<lminislralion. i do not think. Sir, tlial a 
 lini^ of demarcation can be drawn with precision, to distin;,'nish 
 between disaffection and rigiil ciiticism : and it is hd't to the State 
 and the Magistrate to draw the iiue of di luaK ation ijctween dis- 
 alVection and right criticism. Sir, now we have no (diecdc upon tho 
 Atlnjinistration of the I'rinces. If the Chamber of Puling Princes 
 Kliould lie invested with tlie jiowerH of e.xamining petitions and
 
 50 
 
 memorials from the subjects of Native States, then that would be 
 some sort ol: check upon bad adminintration. The only existing 
 check upon an autocratic Ruler is this public criticism. For any 
 form of criticism in the Native States there are no public news- 
 l)apei-s worth the name, and the Legislative Councils and the 
 Courts are but creatures of the Rulers. We would be depriving the 
 public of legitimate criticism if we should introduce a Bill of this 
 sort. 
 
 The President : The hon. Member must remember that this is 
 the third reading of the Bill. 
 
 "o 
 
 Mr. Rangaswamt Aiyaxgar : Sir, there is one more point 
 which 1 have to say in protesting against the Bill, which I do in the 
 interests of the Princes. I want the Princes to be classed in the 
 same line with the International Powers. Where is an Act now lo 
 prevent newspapers from criticising the Heads of other Administra- 
 tions, say the Governor of the Dutch or the French Dominions in 
 India, or say the French or the American Presidents abroad ':' 
 Where is a Bill to protect these people ? It is because I am very 
 zealous in guarding the prestige of the Princes, it is only because 
 I want them to be treated on the same lines as we treat allies like 
 America, France, &e., that I oppose this Bill. 
 
 The President : The hon. Member should either continue, or 
 sit down. 
 
 Mr. Raxgaswami Aiyangar : I want to continue. If I am 
 not allowed to say anything unsavoury I shall sit down. 
 
 The President : It is very ditticult for me to deal with the 
 hon. Member, who never hears anything I say. I expressed my 
 wish to him that he should either go on speaking or sit down. 
 
 Mr. Raxgaswami Aiyangar : Then I don't want that our 
 Princes should come to the liritish Magistrates to seek justice here, 
 xA. great deal was said about blackmail. I do not think the Princes 
 are blackmailed. I think they have attained that stage that an 
 adventitious aid like this l^ill is not necessary to check their being 
 blackmailed. There was much said about the treaty obligations. 
 I have not come across any treaty where they were guaranteed that 
 they wouki be protected against the Press existing in India. The 
 Princes have got ample powers to stop the newspapers that speak ill 
 of them from entering their territories, and that itself is a sufficient 
 penalty upon newspapers. I do not think it just that any armour is 
 needed to protect the undesirable Rulers. Sir. 1 wanted to consult 
 some of the Princes who are my friends, but since Mr. Kale's 
 amendment was negatived, I have no time to consult them — and the 
 Bill was circulated only the day before yesterday ; and with this 
 short period of time given, I have only to oppose the Bill, 
 
 Mian Sir MuHAJiMAD SiiAFi (Education Member) : Sir, my hon. 
 friend Mr. Aiyangar started by saying that it was rather late in the 
 day for him to o])pose the Bill. 
 
 Mi-. PaX(;aswami Aiyangar : Because I \\as not triven time.
 
 51 
 
 Mian Sir MuHAMMAD Shafi : In that observation, that profound 
 observation, he was perfectly right. Rut he proceeded, nevertheless, 
 to oppose the ]>ill on certain grounds, some of which I propose to 
 examine in a very few words. He started by saying that he 
 opposed the lUll in the interests of the prestige of the Ruling Chiefs ! 
 Whatever his meaning might have been, w hatever was at the back 
 of his mind, when he gave utterance to that statement, I am afraid 
 1 for one am not able to appreciate the validity or the logic of that 
 observation. Does my hon. friend mean that the prestige of the 
 Ruling Chiefs is enhanced by attempts at creating disaffection 
 against them among their subjects 'i Opposition to the Bill only 
 means that my hon. friend is against taking any steps to prevent the 
 spread of disaffection against the Princes ; if so, how that enhances 
 their prestige 1 for one cannot understand. Then my hon. friend 
 stated that the Ruling Chiefs did not require this armour — to use 
 his expression— to shield them. 
 
 All I can say is that the Ruling Chiefs, in a Resolution passed at 
 a meeting of the Chamber of Princes, have unaniniously asked the 
 Government to provide them with this armour with which to defend 
 themselves against unwarranted attacks in the Press, calculated to 
 spread disaffection against them amongst their subjects. 
 
 The next argument put forward by my hon. friend was that the 
 actions of bad Rulers should be exposed. I am entirely at one with 
 him that the actions of bad Rulers should be ex})osed. But there is 
 nothing in the measures proposed, nothing in the Bill before the 
 House to prevent the exposure of wickedness on the part of bad 
 Rulers. Does my hon. friend imagine that Avhere a hcnui JUic critic 
 in an article or pamphlet ni- book intentls tn expose the bad actions 
 of Princes the Governor-General in Council will give sanction for 
 the prosecution of a critic of that description !' Of course, apart 
 from the sanction of the Govtrnor-General in Council, no prosecution 
 is possible. The provisions of the l^ill are clear : a i)rosei-'ution can 
 only lie in certain circumstances, and the proviso to clause )') would 
 prevent such a prosecution as that fntm being launched. 
 
 Then my hon. frit nd said that we have no check at prost-nt on 
 the bad admiiiistiation of Ruling Chiefs. That remark again will 
 not bear examication. 'Ihere is, in the first place, the Su/.erain 
 Power, whose duty it is to see that there is a check on the bad 
 administration of Ruling Chiefs. In the si-con I place there is the 
 Aveight of public opinion. In these enlightened days, even the 
 Ruling Chiefs aie amenable to public oi>inion — though pos^ibly not 
 in Madras — and lam sure that enlightened Chiefs like Ilis Highness 
 the Maharaja of (iwalior, ilis lli^din«'6-s the Maharaja oii P.ikanir, 
 His Highness the Maharaja of Mysore and Ilis Kxalted Highness 
 the Nizam of Hyderabad, all pay due deference to public opinion. 
 
 And now. Sir, before I close, (heie is one jiosition which 1 have 
 to re-state in (^rder to make the situation i)erfectly clear to hon. 
 Members, A glance at section (»7lJ of the (iovernment of India Act 
 will show that : — 
 
 •Where either ( haniher of the Indian J.cgislalure refustd leave 
 to introduce, or fails to pass in n form n foininctidrd iij lln: 
 (Jovcrvdv- (uncial, any Bill, the (Jovfrnor-G«'neral may e»rtify 
 that the )iasj;age of the Bill is ehst-ntial for ihe safety, 
 trantjnillity, or iuterchls of Brititli Indin i.r any ji.ni tie iroj, 
 and theniii'oji . . . f"
 
 ^■2 
 
 I am tuniiug to sub-cluuse (h) of this section : — 
 " .... If the Bill has not already been so passed, the 
 Bill shall he laid before the other Chamber, and if consented 
 to by that Chamber, in the form recommpndcd hij the Goveriior- 
 Geiicnd. shall become an Act . . . ." 
 
 and so on. It is therefore perfectly clear that under this section a 
 certified J'ill, in order to come within the purview of this section, 
 lias to be i)assed in the form recommended by the Governor General. 
 It is for this reason that Government was not in a position to accept 
 any of the amendments ; because if the amendments had been 
 either accepted or passed by this House, then the Bill as finally 
 passed would n>'t be the Bill in the form recommended by the 
 Governor-General in Council. That being so, an undertaking has 
 already been given by my fi'iend the hon. the Home Member that if 
 the operation of the Bill discloses any defects, such as have been 
 mentioned in the amendments to-day, the Government will give 
 its best consideration to those points. 
 
 Sardar .JOGENDRA SiNGH: Sir, I rise to support the Bill, as I 
 promised in the early stages of this debate. I must remark that 
 Sir Muhammad Shafi, by reciting the powers of the Governor- 
 General to certify the Bill, has not necessarily assured the House in 
 the f^ame way as the speech of Sir William Vincent in the early 
 stages of the debate did. I think it is the general feeling of this 
 House, and possibly of the other also, that this power is to be used 
 only on rare occasions. I will say no more about it. 
 
 There is a word of personal explanation which I must make. 
 Mr. Thompson attributed to me the remark that I said something 
 about not penalising the praise of Princes in the Press, I never 
 made such an al)surd remark. What I meant to ask was that, when 
 he was quoting from newspapers calumnies against the Princes, did 
 he take into account oificial reports which he himself confidentially 
 received ? 
 
 I wdll refer to only one thing more, and that is the great regret, 
 Avhich I believe is shared by every Member of the House, that we 
 shall not hear Sir William Vincent in this Council again. He is 
 one of our best debaters, and I think the feeling is shared by the 
 whole House that in losing him we are losing one of our best 
 Members. He ought really on retiring from the Government side 
 come and sit on the Benches on this side. If he did, the only 
 trouble would be that when responsible government came he would 
 be claimed again by the Government. 
 
 Mr. Lalubhai Samaldas : Sir, I move that the question be 
 now put. 
 
 The President : The question is :— 
 
 " That the question be now put." 
 
 The motion w'as adopted. 
 
 The President -. The question is : — 
 "That the Bill to prevent the dissemination by means of books, 
 newspapers and other documenis of matter calculated to bring 
 into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against 
 Princes or Chiefs of States in India or the Governments or 
 Administrations established in such States, be passed." 
 
 The motion was adopted.
 
 5.". 
 
 No. 4. 
 
 DESPATCH FROM THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL TO THE 
 RIGHT HON. VISCOUNT PEEL, HIS MAJESTY'S SECRE- 
 TARY OF STATE FOR INDIA, DATED r2rH OCTOBER 
 ir>22. 
 
 The Indian States [Fvotec-tion again<^t Disaffection) Act, 1922. 
 
 1 have the lionour to forward herewith an autlientic copy 
 of the Act noted above, to which I have signified iny assent. 
 Tliis Act was laid before the Council of State iii accordance 
 with the provisions of chiuse (h) of subsection (1) of section 67b 
 of the (lovernnient of India Act, and was consented to by that 
 Chamber. I do not propose to exercise the power vested in me 
 in the proviso to subsection (2) of that section to direct that the 
 Act shall come into operation forthwith. 
 
 2'. Ill view of the constitutional issues involved, 1 have 
 thought it advisable to set forth in some detail the circumstances 
 \vhi(h, in my opinion, made it incumbent on me to take the 
 necessary steps to pass the measure into law. 
 
 Although the Government of India in 1823 and again 
 ill 1801 had found it necessary to give to Ruling Princes 
 some measure of ])rotection against attacks in the Press, the 
 Press Act of 1910 was the first regular legislative enactment 
 which provided for that purpose. Instam-es of vilification 
 of Rulers of States and their administrations had from time 
 to time been brought to the notice of the Chn'ernment of 
 India. In reply to the well-i"eniembeie<l letter ol" Lord 
 Minto, several of the leading Piinces had emphasised the 
 dangers of the l^ress, some of them witli specific reference to 
 the States, and in 1909 the Bombay Government had drawn 
 attention to the question of the levy of blackmail from Indian 
 States by newspapers published in British India, ll was in 
 these circumstances that provision was made in ihc Act for 
 the protection of Ruling Princes and Chiefs, and the words 
 used by the late Sir Herbert Risley. when introducing the Bill 
 on the 4th February 1910, deserve to be quoted : — 
 
 " We have included whai 1 may describe as the preaching 
 of sedition against the Princes or Chiefs of our Native 
 States. \Vc have had not a few instances of n(>ws- 
 pajx'rs ])ublished in P.ritish India containing seditious 
 matter of that kind. The Government of India cannot 
 tolerate this; they cannot allow their territories lobe 
 used as a safe asylum from which attacks can he 
 launched upon liiilian Princes." 
 
 o. Eleven years later, the (lovernnient of India, mainly with 
 a view to the removal, as far as possible, from the Statiite-book 
 of all provisions of the law which were regarded or rejiresente.l 
 as savouring of repressif)n, decided to appoint a Committee to
 
 54 
 
 examine the wui-kiiig of llio Ac-is rclallii^i;- to tlio Press, and to 
 report as to the desirability of repealing or modifyino; them. 
 
 The Resolution recommending the appointment of the Com- 
 mittee was an ollicial one moved by the ITome Secretary, and 
 ill the course of the debate the hon. the Home Membc-r, on behalf 
 of the Government of India, used the following words in regard 
 to the case for granting protection to the Princes : — 
 
 " Another purpose for which it (i.e., the Press Act) is used 
 — and 1 think very justifiably used — is to prevent the 
 libelling of, and attempts to blackmail. Indian Princes. 
 I do not know whether mendoers of this Assembly are 
 aware — I think some of tliein are, as I heard a note o£ 
 applause just now — that a certain section of the Press 
 sometimes does publish such articles, and we cannot 
 prosecute any paper for sucli conduct under the 
 .ordinary law. At the same time, the (lovernment of 
 India and the people of India have received such loyal 
 help from the Princes during tiie war and indeed at 
 all times in all good work — charitable and other work 
 — -that it is our duty to do what we can to protect 
 them and to secure them immunity from snch nefarions 
 practices." 
 
 The Resolntion was passed and the Committee was appointed. 
 The case for the Princes was not put before the Committee in a 
 complete form, but 1 observe that several of the witnesses, who 
 were themselves connected with the Press, were not opposed to 
 tlie grant of protection to the Rulers of States, and some of them 
 referred to cases in which attempts liad been made to blackmail 
 1 )arbars. 
 
 The finding of the Press Act Committee was as follows : — 
 
 " We understand that before the Press Act became law, it 
 was not found necessary to protect Indian Princes 
 from such attacks, and we note that the Act, so far as 
 the evidence before us shows, has only been used on 
 three occasions for this puri')Ose ; we do not, in the 
 circumstances, think that we should be justified in 
 recommending, on general grounds, any enactment 
 in the Penal Code or elsewhere for the pur]30se of 
 affording such protection in the absence of evidence to 
 prove the practical necessity ^'or such pi'ovision of the 
 laAv. Our colleague, ^lir Asad Ali, desires to express 
 no opinion on this question/' 
 
 This finding, I desire to emphasise, was not a finding that 
 no protection was required. It was mei'ely a finding that the 
 evidence before the Committee did not show iliat such protection 
 was necessarv. 
 
 4. It is now apparent that the information placed before the 
 Committee was incomplete. I have already drawn attention to 
 the fact that, long prior to tlie passing of the Press Act, it had
 
 been Iduml necessary to take rertain nieasni-es for llie protection 
 of the Princes, a fact wliicli indicates that the evil was not a 
 new one in 1910. Moreover, inquiries, which Avere made after 
 the Foreign and Political Department had formally put its case 
 before the Committee, revealed the fact that the number of 
 cases in which action hatl been taken under the Press Act was 
 about six times as large as the Committee had been led t<> 
 suppose. 1 have felt too from the time wlien I first read the 
 Committee's Report that they had failed to take hito account 
 the deterrent influence exercised by the mere fact of the 
 existence of the Act and bv the instances, few thougli thev 
 were, in wliich they believed it to liave l^een made use of. 
 
 5. Before the Committee reported, my (Tovernment had, in 
 ^la}' of last year, foreseen the necessity of continuing to the 
 Princes i,i another IVirm the protection they would lose if the 
 Press Act were repealed, l)nt in July 11)21 the Connnittee 
 reported that the evidence was insutlicient to estal)lish the 
 l)ractical necessity for this protection. We acce])ted the recjm- 
 mendatious of the Committee, including the linding above- 
 mentioned. Immediately thereafter, complaints of attacks were 
 received from certain important Princes, and further evidence 
 began to accumulate. Accordingly, on fith August, we arrived 
 at the decision that the question of substituting some form of 
 protection, other than that given by the IVess Act, required 
 further consideration but should be postponed until lheChand)er 
 of Princes had met and given its opinion. On the following 
 da\' we received a telegram"'' from Your F.ordsliip's predecessor, 
 which indicated that his mind was working in the same 
 direction. It was in these circumstances that in my speech at 
 the opening of the Legislatures on the r.id September P.HM 
 1 stated that " if the Press Act was rej)ealed, it might be 
 necessary to consider what form of protection should Ix^ given 
 to the Princes in substitution." 
 
 G. The mattei- came before the Chambci- of Trinccs in 
 November, and the following Resolution was passed without a 
 division : — 
 
 "That, in view of llu; contemplated re|)cal of the i^ress 
 Act of 1910, section 4 (1) (c) of which provides for the 
 
 ♦ The telegnnii n-ferred t«» is as f<illoWH : — 
 
 From Secretiry of Stuff fn (iiirrrtniii'Df of Iiniin. Ilmnr I)>-pnr(iuriit, 
 
 r,fli Aii>j>i»l I'tJl. 
 
 (Telegmphic.) 
 
 Press Act. K<'ff*rpnc<' your t«'I«';,'r:im <Lil<'t| .">th ultimo. I Hhall raiso 
 no uhjection to your intnxlnring I.-^riHlalion. I. til hIiiiII !•.• ^jI.kI if you 
 will tronsider the following jxiint:— I underHtund lhi> «il)jootionH U) the 
 retention of le(^al ni«'asurPH for tin* H|>e<inl ]>rot4><-ti<>n «if CliiefHand rHiicoH. 
 Imt I H\nnicst that, in vi<'w i.f the not4»riouH fr<'<|U<-n<'>- of l.hnkmail hy 
 disreputable papers, and of th« hiHlory of the inntter, you Mliould coniiider 
 whether th'* prot'-ftion of your rourfn couM not In- nfTord'-d to Chicfn and 
 Princes in :i maiinr-r that wotild not !-• ne^ativcl I'V th'-ir ..l.j.H-tinn to 
 appearinvc in cnnrt. Dif!if'ultie« tJmt mi«ht nrino if iluH point worn raided 
 in the Chamher of PrinrcH hav<'. no doul-t. l»eon conniilerfd l>y yon.
 
 5() 
 
 safegiiarcHug (if the Kuling Priucos ami (■liicJ's against 
 atlenipts by the Press in British India to Ijring into 
 liatrecl or contempt, or to excito disalleetion towards, 
 any Rnling Prince or Chief, this ' Narendra ^Rhuidal' 
 (Chamber of Princes) is strongly of the opinion, in 
 view of tlie firmly established relations of alliance and 
 friendship and of the identity of interests between the 
 Imperial Government and the Princes of India, that 
 His Excellency the Viceroy be moved to very kindly 
 and favonrably consider the ni-gent necessity of pro- 
 viding and adopting measnres to safegnard and 
 secure the Princes and (^hiefs, their States and thei]- 
 Governments against any such insidious or dangerous 
 attempts." 
 In my speech summing up the debate, I spoke sympatheti- 
 cally of the position of the Princes and promised to give to the 
 Resolution my most careful consideration, bearing in mind not 
 merely the letter of the Treaties, but the spirit of the relations 
 which exist between the Sovereign and the Princes. Your 
 Ijordship is already in possession of the proceedings of the 
 meeting at which this Resolution was passed. The}" have not 
 however been published, as it is contrary to practice to publish 
 them. 
 
 7. The next step taken by mj^ Government was to consult 
 the various Local Governments and political authorities and all 
 Darbars whose Rulers were members of the Chamber of Princes. 
 The cjuestions that were put to them were — 
 
 (1) whether it was advisable that the Government of India 
 
 should take action to safeguard and secure the Ruling 
 Princes and Chiefs and their Governments and 
 Administrations against attacks of the nature indi- 
 cated, and 
 
 (2) if so, what form this action should take. 
 
 It was added that the proposal which appeared to find most 
 favour with the Princes was one for the extension of the scope 
 of section 124a of the Indian P'^nal Code. It will, however, be 
 ol)served that the Resolution itself left the question of the form 
 in which the protection should be given entirely to my 
 discretion. 
 
 The result of the inquiry that has been inade has been to 
 show that practically all the States which have replied are 
 definiteh'' in favour of action being taken. There are about 
 half a dozen whose views are somewhat different, in tliat, though 
 they would apparently like to be protected, they would prefer 
 not to ask for protection. Of the Local Governments (avIio, it 
 must be remembered, were not in possession of the fuller infor- 
 mation on whicli m}' subsequent action was based), those of 
 Bengal, the Central Provinces and Assam did not think that a 
 case had been made out for legislation, though the opinion of 
 the (iovernment of the Central Provinces had I'oference only to 
 the minor States with which thej^ are in political relations, The
 
 0/ 
 
 ( iovernmeiits; ot \la<ln\s, tlio I'nited Provinces and tlio Punjab 
 were all hi lavour o! legislation, but Bombay, tliongli appai-ently 
 in sympathy with tlie object aimed at, could suggest no satis- 
 factoiy method of attaining it, while the Government of Bihar 
 and Orissa offered no opinion. Among the political authorities 
 consulted there was an overwhelming majority in favour of 
 taking action. As regards the form that action was to taisc, 
 opinion was generally in favour of extending the scope id" 
 section 124a. 
 
 8. By the time the last of these answers was received I had 
 i^efore me further information, both as to the extent of the evil 
 and as to the number of occasions on which the Act had l)cen 
 used I was able to trace nearly 170 hostile criticisjus atid 
 attacks on Princes and States during a period of I'J months 
 alone, ending ]\lay 1922. Of these, 2o were personal attacks on 
 Ruling Princes, and nearly a hundred were attacks on State 
 administrations. Instances of these attacks were given during 
 the proceedings in the IjCgislalive Assembly and the Council of 
 State, and 1 need not rehu- to them further. 
 
 As regards the action taken under the Press Act dui-ing the 
 j'ears that it was in force, in connection with attacks on Princes, 
 i find that 13 papers were warned, one of them several times ; 
 one printing ])ress was placed on. the maximum security ami 
 another had its security confiscated. It is true that the 
 warnings were not given under any section of the Act, but 
 warnings of this nature are generally classified as warnings 
 under the Act, and they would not have been given uidess the 
 Act had been in existence to back them. 
 
 From the facts 1 have cite<l, it was c-lcar to mc thai the 
 extent of the evil, in spite of the existence of the Act, was far 
 gi-eater than the Committee had been led to b(diev(>. 
 
 9. The cpiestion of legislation was considered by my ( lovern- 
 ment in the midiUe of .\ugust, :ind It was decided tli:it a P.ill 
 should be introducetl during the h)rlhcoming Session. W e did 
 not favour the extension r)f secliiju 124\. as, apart from other 
 objections, an extension of th:it section would have applied to 
 the spoken as well as to the written word, whereas the Press 
 Act had only given protection again-l the latter, \\eilecided 
 therefore to grant protection only in regard to the written word, 
 'i'he i*ress Act. it will be remendtored. ap|ilied only lo the 
 keepers of ]>rinting presses and to pid)lishers. We (hvided lo 
 iuclude in the new Bill editors and authors as wcdi. The most 
 important dilTerence between our ]V\\\ an<l the Press .\ei was 
 that the former made «;editi(»us attacks on PrinccH a penal 
 ofience, where;is under the Press .\el olTenders could only be 
 dealt with bv the security procedure. It might, we recogniHcd. 
 be argued that the latter was a milder method of (lealing with 
 such offences iluin the one we proposed, but we felt that, rightly 
 or wrongly, the securifv procedure had Ix'come so unpopular in 
 connect u)n 'with the pVess tliat it was bett.-r not l<. r.-vivc it. 
 The procedure we proposed invcjlved a jiidicial en.iuiry and
 
 r>8 
 
 rnuHni;'. ami was iiol ojx'n lo tlic uUjcrl 1( ms s(i rr(M[ii('iit ly rulsc<I 
 against [);iroly executive action. We decided furtJior lo make 
 provision for tlie forfeiture of offending publications and foi* 
 tlieir detention in course of transniission tlirougli the post. We 
 pr(^tected legitimate criticism, hy a clause modelled on the 
 explanations to section 124a of the Indian Penal Code and 
 section d of llic repealed Press Act, which made it cleai' that 
 no j>erson sliould be deemed to connnit an olTence under the 
 new Act, " in respect of any hook, newspaj^er or other document 
 Avliich, without exciting or being intended to excite hatred, 
 contempt or disaffection, contains comments expressing disap- 
 probation of the measures of any such Prince, Chief, Government 
 or Administration as aforesaid witli a view to obtain their 
 alteration l)y lawful means, or disap])robation of the adminis- 
 ti'ative or other action of anv such Prince, Chief, (Jovernment 
 or Administration." We added also the important safeguard 
 that no Court shouhl try any offence under the Act except on 
 the complaint or under the authority of the Governor-General 
 in Council. This safeguai-d, 1 may point out, is more stringent 
 than th;it ])rovid(Ml by section 19b of the Criminal Procedure 
 Code in I'ogard to prosecutions for sedition in British India, foi- 
 the institution of which the authority of " the Local Government 
 or some ofllicer empoAvered by the Governor-General in Council 
 in this belialf " is all that is required. 
 
 10. In my speech at the opening of the Legislatures on 
 5th Septend)ej', I definitely announced that the Bill was to be 
 introduced. The passage in my speech which dealt with the 
 rpiestion ran as follow-s : — 
 
 ''The Press Act of 1910 has been repealed. In this con- 
 nection I pointed out last year that the repeal of the 
 Act might necessitate the consideration of the form of 
 protection to be given to the Pj-inces against seditious 
 attacks upon them in newspapers published in British 
 India. In the meantime the Local Governments have 
 been consulted, and this question has been closely 
 examined and has been the subject of correspondence 
 between my G-overnment and the Secretarj' of State. 
 We have decided that w^e are bound by agreements 
 and in honour to afford to the Priiu?es the same 
 measui'e of protection as they previously enjoj^ed 
 under tlie Press Act, which is the only protection 
 availal)le to them ; and a Bill to secure this object 
 will be brought before yon in the present Session. 
 This protection to the Princes was first given b.y the 
 Act of I9I0. It is not suggested that it has been 
 abused, and the only reason for its repeal is because 
 in IMtish India we have decided to dispense Avith the 
 special remedies imder the Press Act and to rely upon 
 tlie general law wliich is not applicable to the 
 rinces.
 
 50 
 
 It will be seen that in this spooch 1 eouimittotl myself to 
 the statement that wc Avcre '' bound by agreements and in 
 honour" tc take the action wliieh I foreshadowed. It is this 
 aspect of the case which has impressed me most, tliough other 
 wein^hty argnments Avere advanced in the course of the discus- 
 sion in the Assembly and the Council of vState. But once it 
 was shown that protection was needed, I made uj) my mind 
 that, in view of our treaties and engagements and of the I^oyal 
 Proclamations and pronouncements which have been made 
 from time to time, we were bound, both in justice and in 
 honour, to rest0]-e the protection which we had given in J 01(1 
 and taken away in ]9l?2. We had taken it away not because 
 it had been abused in the interest of the Princes, not for any 
 fault of theii's, but because we felt that we had snIHcieni 
 protection for ourselves in other enactments, and because we 
 thought that the repeal of the Act would conciliate^ puldic 
 opinion in British India at a time uf peculiar dilliculfy. A 
 synopsis of the obligations under our treaties and engagements, 
 to whicli I have referred, will be fountl in Aimexnre J. to this 
 letter, wliile the relevant portions of the Ixoyal Proclamations 
 and pronouncements are given in Annexure 11. Pecent otlicial 
 utterances on the subject, 1 have alrearly referred to. 
 
 11. The Bill was ready by the Kith Septend)er, and it was 
 decided to ask leave to introduce it in the Legislative Assend)ly. 
 I considered the possil^le advantages of introducing if in the 
 Council of State v.'liere less opposition was to he antii-ipaled, 
 but 1 decided to send the Bill sti-aight to the .\ssembly, as I 
 hoped that the memliers would apjueciate the fact that the Bill 
 was submitted to them as it were with a clean sheet, and 
 without any attempt having been made to secuie a iiidiminary 
 success in the IJppei- House. 
 
 IJ, Tlic P)i!l was accorilingly i-nt hefoi-e the Assenddy at 
 the meeting of llie 2ord September, iind leave to introduce il 
 was refused by 4.") vcjtes to II. 'J'li(> motion Joj- introductii)n 
 was, in view of tli(> impoi-tance attached by my (lovernment In 
 the Bill, made by tli«' Leader of ihc House. Sir William 
 Vincent, lie drew atteiilion to what I had ^-aiil in my oj)ening 
 speech as showing- the importance attached to ihe Bill, .-ind he 
 assured the House that furlhei' information had come to light 
 since the Press .\ct Conuniltee had submitted their report. He 
 was handicapped in dovr'lo|»ing his case by the ride which 
 limits speeches at that Htarje to 10 nnnuli's' duraLiou. but it 
 was never anticipated thai leave to introilucc a ( lovcrmnenl 
 Bill which ihe Head of the (lovernmonl had voucln^d for, as 
 I had done, wrmld be rejecfed in hunnuary fashion by the 
 House. 
 
 I?}. It seemed to me lo be impos.sihle (o ignore the action 
 (.1 ihe Assembly, and, after tliwtiMsing the situation ;it a 
 Council meeting held on Stnnlny the 2Hh, I decided that I 
 must make use of the special |)owerH vested in the ( Idvcrnor
 
 ()0 
 
 Goacral tiiulcf llic ( li)V(M-inneiit of India Ad, and, as the 
 ]>assai>"o ot lli(> l^ill was in my jii<li;'iii(Mil (\sseiilial i'nr tJk? 
 interests of British India. 1 certilied it under section 67ii of that 
 Act. ' . 
 
 1 Irast tliat wliat I have already written Avill have made it 
 clear why I regarded the passage of the Bill in this light. It 
 seemed to me that in the circumstances I liavc explained it was 
 a deht which we owed to the States both niKhn' our engage- 
 ments and in honoui', and that if either House of the Legishature 
 refused to acknowledge il as such, it was my duty as Governor- 
 Genei'al to see that it was paid. 
 
 li. After certifying tlie Bill I recommended it to the 
 Council of State in the form in whicli we had sought to 
 introduce it in the Lower House, It was placed on the agenda 
 for Tuesday the 26th, and as soon as the list was circulated to 
 the members of the Upper House, the fact that I had used my 
 special powers became known. 
 
 The next moi'ning a motion was made in the Assembly for 
 the adjournment of the House to consider the situation which 
 had arisen. The inotion was disallowed by the President, but 
 Sir William Vincent, the Leader of the House, agreed to 
 approach me on behalf of the Assembly with a view to ascer- 
 taining whether there Avas any practicable alternative to 
 allowing the Bill to take its course under section 67b of the 
 Act. As it seemed pi'obable that the members of the Assend^ly 
 Avho had rejected the motion for leave to introduce the Bill had 
 not fully realised all that their action implied, I received 
 certain leading members of tlie Assembly that evening, but 
 the discussion which ensued made it plain that no agreement 
 could he reached. 1 decided therefore to let the 13ill take its 
 course in the Council of State the following day, which had 
 .already been announced as the day on Avhich the Session ^vould 
 be adjourned. 
 
 ] 5. The President of the Council of State ruled, in the absence 
 of any precedents or special rules, that the Bill should be dealt 
 Avith in the manner prescj'ibed for Bills coming up to the 
 Council of State after having been passed by the Assembly, 
 and it was accordingly brought before the Council on a motion 
 for considei'ation. 
 
 Various amendments were moved, among them one for 
 consideration early in 1923, which at the Government's 
 instance Avas rejected l)y the House. As regards the amend- 
 mejits in the Bill itself, doubts had been expressed Avhether any 
 sncli amendments AA'-ere admissible in view of the wording of 
 the section which appeared to require that the Bill should be 
 passed AAUthout alteration in the form recommended by me. It 
 seemed to me, thei'efore, more prudent not to take an^^ risks, 
 and I decided, not without regret, that amendments ought not 
 to be accepted at that stage, though the Home Member gave an 
 assurance that Ave should be prepared later on to considex*
 
 61 
 
 favourably any amejulments Avhidi might subseqiienlly be 
 shown to be desirable. 
 
 The Bill was ultimately passed by the Council of State in 
 the form recommended, witli oidy one dissentient. Co])ies of 
 the proceedings in both Chambers are ft)rwarded herewith. 
 
 16. In accordance with ihe instructions contained in yuur 
 predecessor's Despatch No. 61, dated the 21st December 1869, 
 a copy ol' the papers relating to the Act mentioned in the 
 accompanying list is enclosed. 
 
 List of Documents enclosed. 
 
 (i) Annexures I. and II. 
 (ii) Text of Act (.seepage 3). 
 
 (iii) Text of Bill as laid before the Legislative Assembly and 
 Council of State (not reprinted as the text is identical 
 with that of No. ii). 
 (iv) Debates in Legislative Assembly and Council of State (see 
 pages 5-02). 
 
 I have, &v., 
 (Sd.) HEADING. 
 
 Annexure I. TO No. 4. 
 
 Note on the protect ion promised to Indian P)-inres hij Treaties. 
 
 Enga(iements and Sanadt<. 
 
 The }iromises of protection given by Treaties, &c., appear in a 
 variety of forms. The eame models have, however, been adopted in 
 several cases and the six classes below cover more than '.'0 per cent, 
 of the ciises iti which ])rotecti(:>n baa been promised or a desire for 
 the perpetuation of the State and the Kuiiug family professed. 
 
 Class L 
 
 In over 20 cases, ■which include most of the States in l\;ijputana, 
 three in Central India, Hyderabad. Travancore, Baj'oda, &c., treaties 
 dating from 1803 down to 18()<) ])rovi(led that "there shall be 
 ]jerpetual friendshi]), alliance and unity of interests between the 
 two iJarties from generation to generation and the friends and 
 enemies of one shall be the friends and enemies of both." This 
 declaration is generally accompanied by a detinite promise of 
 protection to the " Principality and Territory " of the State 
 concerned. 
 
 Class II. 
 
 A iiuinber of Sanads were granted in Bundelkhand and Baghel- 
 kli:ind I)et\veen 1S()7 and 1S17 (one ^vas renewed as rec<'ntlyas 1.SG2) 
 which provided that '" so long as the sai<l liaja and his adhticiits (or 
 heirs) shall continue in obedience to the British (Government and 
 shall scniitulonsly adhei-e to the term of the aforesaid obligation of 
 alliance, the said Haja and his successors shall enjoy unmolested 
 poBsessirm of the pergunnahs undej-mentioned." The wording was 
 n<»t (ptite the same in every case, and the guarantee seems to liave 
 been against the into-ference l)y the Uritish (Jovei-nment, Otlier 
 pronn.ses given to the r'i)iefs in these tracts wen- that '"so long as 
 you siiall continue faithful ami subnnssive, evi-ry d'^gree of 
 favourable c<uisideia(ion hliall tic shown Id .you.'' The Chief of 
 Ajaigarli was assured that "it was one, of tlx' j)riucii»li'S <if tho 
 iJrilisli (Jovernmont to I'espect the, dignity and preserve ihf eonse-
 
 62 
 
 queuce of inicient Chiefs and uobles," and somewhat similar 
 assnriinces were given to other Chiefs as well. 
 
 Class III. 
 
 The Ti'caty of LSI 2 with Hewa CArtiele S) provides that "the 
 honour and I'unk and dignity of the Kaja of Kewa shall be estimated 
 l>y the J>ritish Government in the same degree as that in whieli they 
 ^vel■e rstimatetl b.y the former Emperoi-s of Hindustan." Similar 
 })romises were given to two of the Southern Mahratta Jagirdars 
 wdien they wa^re assured that " the Ihitish Government will maintain 
 your rank and dignity as it was maintained under His Highness the 
 I'eshwa. It will attend to any of jour representations and will 
 decide equitably upon them. You shall in no respect suffer injury, 
 iMit will, of course, be supported as far as it is just." 
 
 Class IV. 
 
 This class includes about 177 cases in which ad-ption Sanads 
 have been granted. The Sanads run as follows : — 
 
 " Her Majesty being desirous that the Governments of the 
 several Princes and Chiefs of India, wdio now govern their 
 own territories, shall be perpetuated and that the reputation 
 and dignity of their Houses should be continued, I hereb}' 
 in fultilment of this desire convey to you the assurance .... 
 
 Class V. 
 
 The Sanads of 1<S(')() granted to the three Phulkian States conclude 
 with the following clause :— 
 
 "The Maharaja (Raja) Sahib Bahadur will alw-ays pursue the 
 course of obedience and loyalty to the powerful Govern- 
 ment which will likewise continue to uphold bis honour, 
 respect, rank and dignity in the manner it has done at 
 ])resent." In the case of Patiala the Sanad of 181") 
 guaranteed that the British Government " would always 
 ])rotect and support the said Haj i and liis heirs in the 
 possession of his territory " ; and that of 1817, which was 
 given ill reply to a request for an assurance of protection, 
 stated that " the Governor-General is pleased to confer this 
 assurance in the form of a Sanad or grant as follows in 
 order that the Maharaja and his successors after him may 
 with perfect confidence continue to exercise the same 
 rights and authority in his possessions as heretofore." 
 
 Class VP 
 
 There are about '.]0 cases in Orissa, Chota Nagpitr and the Central 
 Provinces dating from 18'.)1 to 190") in Avhich Sanads were granted 
 which contain the following assurance : — 
 
 "His P^xcellency is pleased to grant to you the following Sanad 
 with a view to assure j'ou that the British Government wdll 
 continue, as long as you remain loyal of the Crown and 
 abide bj' the conditior^s of the Sanad and to your other 
 engagements with the British Goveinment, to maintain you 
 in the possession of privileges which you have hitherto 
 enjoyed or which are now^ conferred upon you." 
 
 One or two miscellaneous items of interest are added. In 
 Article ;") of the Treaty with Cutch in ]8J'.) the Honourable Company 
 engaged "to guarantee the power of His Highness the Rao Dessul,
 
 •0 
 
 6 
 
 his heirs and successors, aud the integrity of his dominions from 
 foreign and domestic enemies." In the answers to the Wajab-ul-arz 
 presented by Guarihar in LSOT and that presented by Garauli in 
 1812 an assurance was given that '" if any person shall be convicted 
 of calumniating yott he shall be treated as he deserves." In the 
 engagement between the Ih-itish (Government and ^laharaja ^Man 
 Singli of Jodhpur in 1^^][\ the eighth Article runs as follows : — 
 
 '• The British Government having solely in view the continuance 
 of the sovereign rights and interests of Marwar and the 
 preservation of the honour and reputation of the Maharaja 
 ■ no diminution thereof shall take place at the hands of the 
 said Sarkar. Xor will it permit such diminution at the 
 hands of others and it becomes guarantee for the same." 
 
 Annex (jRE 11. to No. 4. 
 
 Siiminai'ij of J?oi/al Vronouncemeids )-e'iardiiig protcctio)) of 
 
 Princes and Chiefs. 
 
 1. (^iii'i?ii Victoria's Froclamaiion, lSr><S. — '"We shall respect the 
 rights, dignity and honour of India's Princes as Our own and We 
 desire that they as well as Our own subjects phould enjoy that 
 prosperity and that social advancement which can only be secured 
 by internal peace and good government."' 
 
 2. Kinri Edward VII.'x Curonation Message. — " To all My Feuda- 
 tories and subjects throughout India I renew the assurance of My 
 regard for their liberties, of respect for their dignities and rights, of 
 interest in their advancement and of devotion to their welfare." 
 
 ?). King George V.^s Speecli at tlie Coronation Diirhnr^ 1911. — 
 " Fiiiallj", I rejoice to have this opportunity of i enewing in my own 
 person those assurances which have been given you by my revered 
 predeceS'Sors of the maintenance of your rights and ]»rivileges and 
 my earnest concern for your welfare, peace and contentment." 
 
 \. Royal Prochi»iati07i oj tlir 2orJ iJeceDilier 191!), reijardivij lite ueir 
 Constitntioa. — " I take the occasion again to assure the Pnnces of 
 India of my determination to maintain unimpaired tljcir ])i'ivileges, 
 rights and dignities." 
 
 T). Boijal I'rodaiiiation, dated the >^th Febriinnj 1921, aiilhurisimj Die 
 Vicefiffj to publish the Tt-rnis of the Cooistitution of the Chamber of Princes. 
 — " In my former Proclamation I repeated the assurance given on 
 many occasions liy my Royal predecessors aud myself of my 
 determination to maintain unimpaired the i)rivileges, rights and 
 dignities of the I'rinces of India. The Princes may rest assured 
 that this pledge remains inviolate and inviolable." 
 
 No. 5. 
 
 From the 't^ecreianj of Slate for fiidi'; to t},e Goccrnor-Gencral, 
 
 dated Wlh November lf)L^2. 
 (T»'legrai)hic;. 
 
 I have received Your Kxcellcncy's Despatch, dated 12th October, 
 aud autiientic copy of Indian Stales ( Protfction against I )isalV('ction) 
 Act to which you have signilied youi- assent. I desire to assure 
 you thai Ihi- i)rovisions of the Act, and your action in i-espect of it, 
 have my fidl approval, aud I am taking "tlie further steps recjuired 
 ill pursuance of Section 07u. Government of India Act.
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT LOS ANGELES 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below 
 
 13^6 
 
 DEC 1 8 \95B 
 
 f 
 
 Form L-9-15rn-2,'36 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORiNlA 
 
 AT 
 
 LOS ANGELES 
 
 UBRARY 
 
 VTM
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-LOS ANGELES 
 
 L 007 771 953 2 
 
 LIBRARY SUPPLIES 
 
 lUSotilhCarroMSIrMl 
 ,. MadiM*. WiKOHSiii . 
 
 A^