Indian speeches (1907-1909) | Page 5

is said that
there has been supineness, vacillation and hesitation. I reply boldly,
there has been no supineness, no vacillation, no hesitation from
December, 1905, up to the present day.
I must say a single word about one episode, and it is with sincere regret
I refer to it. It is called the Fuller episode. I have had the pleasure of
many conversations with Sir Bampfylde Fuller since his return, and I
recognise to the full his abilities, his good faith, and the dignity and
self-control with which, during all this period of controversy, he has
never for one moment attempted to defend himself, or to plunge into
any sort of contest with the Viceroy or His Majesty's Government.[1]
Conduct of that kind deserves our fullest recognition. I recognise to the
full his gifts and his experience, but I am sure that if he were in this
House, he would hardly quarrel with me for saying that those gifts were
not altogether well adapted to the situation he had to face.
[Footnote 1: An unhappy lapse took place at a later date.]
What was the case? The Lieutenant-Governor suggested a certain
course. The Government of India thought it was a mistake, and told
him so. The Lieutenant-Governor thereupon said, "Very well, then I'm
afraid I must resign." There was nothing in all that except what was
perfectly honourable to Sir Bampfylde Fuller. But does anybody here

take up this position, that if a Lieutenant-Governor says, "If I cannot
have my own way I will resign," then the Government of India are
bound to refuse to accept that resignation? All I can say is, and I do not
care who the man may be, that if any gentleman in the Indian service
says he will resign unless he can have his own way, then so far as I am
concerned in the matter, his resignation shall be promptly and
definitely accepted. It is said to-day that Sir Bampfylde Fuller
recommended certain measures about education, and that the
Government have now adopted them. But the circumstances are
completely changed. What was thought by Lord Minto and his Council
to be a rash and inexpedient course in those days, is not thought so now
that the circumstances have changed. I will only mention one point.
There was a statement the other day in a very important newspaper that
the condition of anti-British feeling in Eastern Bengal had gained in
virulence since Sir Bampfylde Fuller's resignation. This, the Viceroy
assures me, is an absolute perversion of the facts. The whole
atmosphere has changed for the better. When I say that Lord Minto was
justified in the course he took, I say it without any prejudice to Sir
Bampfylde Fuller, or the slightest wish to injure his future prospects.
Now I come to the subject of the disorders. I am extremely sorry to say
that some disorder has broken out in the Punjab. I think I may assume
that the House is aware of the general circumstances from Answers to
Questions. Under the Regulation of 1818 (which is still alive), coercive
measures were adopted. Here I would like to examine, so far as I can,
the action taken to preserve the public interests. It would be quite
wrong, in dealing with the unrest in the Punjab, not to mention the
circumstances that provided the fuel for the agitation. There were
ravages by the plague, and these ravages have been cruel. The seasons
have not been favourable. A third cause was an Act then on the stocks,
which was believed to be injurious to the condition of a large body of
men. Those conditions affecting the Colonisation Act were greatly
misrepresented. An Indian member of the Punjab Council pointed out
how impolitic he thought it was; and, as I told the House about a week
ago, the Viceroy, declining to be frightened by the foolish charge of
pandering to agitation and so forth, refused assent to that proposal. But
in the meantime the proposal of the colonisation law had become a
weapon in the hands of the preachers of sedition. I suspect that the

Member for East Nottingham will presently get up and say that this
mischief connected with the Colonisation Act accounted for the
disturbance. But I call attention to this fact, in order that the House may
understand whether or not the Colonisation Act was the main cause of
the disturbance. The authorities believe that it was not. There were
twenty-eight meetings known to have been held by the leading agitators
in the Punjab between 1st March, and 1st May. Of these five only
related, even ostensibly, to agricultural grievances; the remaining
twenty-three were all purely political. The figures seem to dispose of
the contention that agrarian questions are at the root of the present
unrest