have harmed the Swaraj party, but that we have given it a new lease of life.

I am aware that it has been urged that there is a third method open to us of dealing with the terrorist menace, viz, the prescription put forward by those leaders who agree with our diagnosis of the disease. That is the establishment of Swaraj or provincial autonomy or some further advance on the road thereto. It is claimed that this will produce an atmosphere in which terrorism cannot flourish. Now, Sir, I entirely deny that this is a method of dealing with a terrorist conspiracy at all. I regard this terrorism conspiracy as a thing entirely apart by itself, a danger that must be faced and got rid of because of its own intrinsic evil; it is on a separate plane entirely from anything like constitutional politics. If political parties wish to go on pressing for constitutional changes, for what each of them means by Swaraj, by all means let them do so no measure that we are asking the Council to pass will interfere with that in any way; we are pledged to a goal and we have no intention of letting terrorism interfere with our advance to that goal. But to link terrorism to political changes is not to destroy terrorism but to encourage it. I have reason to believe that the opinion is prevalent with very many people that although violence and terrorism will never bring a nation political freedom they are not bad instruments with which to weaken a government; in the words of a leading article in an Indian paper recently, they are the "sappers and miners of the constitutional advance," and it is claimed that their use is always followed by an advance. That, Sir, I think is a misreading of the facts and is based on a profound misunderstanding of psychology. To ny mind it is a conception that is fatal to the future of Swaraj; to identify political progress with political blackmail is to poison the springs of future political life. If the atmosphere can be improved, if the clouds of distrust and racial hatred can be blown away, by all means let us all do what we can towards it. But terrorism can have no part in this; it is a stumbling block in all the paths that lead towards our common goal.

It is on the basis that there exists a terrorist conspiracy and that it is Government's first duty to grapple with it that I bring forward this Bill. I have given the reasons why Government-and here I speak for all my colleagues, Indian and European alike--consider that there is no alternative method of grappling with it, and I shall ask the Council not to take the responsibility of refusing to give us the powers which, with a full sense of our own responsibility in the matter, we are convinced are absolutely necessary to enable us to remove the common menace.

Mr. PRESIDENT; Order, order. The House will now adjourn for 10 minutes. When the Council reassembles, I shall put the motion that leave be given to introduce the Bill and if there is any opposition I will under Rule 50 accept only one speech in opposition and thereafter I shall, without further debate, put the question. The House will now adjourn for 10 minutes.

The Council was then adjourned.

[After the adjournment.]

Sir P. C. MITTER: As a signatory to the Rowlatt Report, it is my painful duty to oppose this motion and I must naturally stand by the recommendations of that report. The present Bill departs

from the recommendations of the Rowlatt Report in almost every important question of principle and proceeds on the Defence of India Act. The Rowlatt Committee had before it the Defence of India Act, which was a war measure; it accepted some of its principles but did not accept others, and laid down new principles of its own-principles which my honourable friend Sir Hugh Stephenson is aware of. Sir, I intend to be very brief. I may point out to the Council that these principles are set forth at pages 206 and 207 of the Government publication. However much the public may criticise the Rowlatt Report, Government, in my opinion, has no justification whatsoever to go back upon the recommendations of the Rowlatt Report. As the only non-official Indian who was privileged to examine the inner workings of the revolutionary movement, I claim I have some right to speak on this subject. I may begin by saying that I believe that there is at the present moment a revolutionary movement. I believe also--and I have always held the opinion, and I am still of the same mindthat, apart from other considerations, in the interest of the very important question of our national aspirations-this revolutionary movement must be checked: but I am sorry to say, Sir, that the Bill proposes not a physician's treatment of the malady but a quack's remedy. I think that if the Bill be certified or passed by the Legislative Council, it will not only fail in its object but will perhaps be, although it is farthest from the intentions of the members of the Government, a helpful measure towards the propagation of the revolutionary movement. In view of the dangerous

nature of the movement, I do not like to further elaborate my reasons publicly on this point. This being my view, I have, after mature consideration, come to the conclusion that in the very interest of the object Government have in view and out of loyalty to the Committee on which I had the privilege to serve, I must oppose this Bill. But I want to be helpful towards the Government and the public and I would suggest very shortly certain constructive proposals. My suggestion to the Government and the public is—and I am only repeating here certain amendments which had been disallowed by you, Sir-that Government should re-enact Part I of the Rowlatt Act. This should be done as a temporary measure and the Act should remain in force for three years.

Mr. E. VILLIERS: May I rise to a point of order? Is the hon. member in order in moving amendments while opposing the Bill?

Mr. PRESIDENT: Sir Provash is quite in order. The amendments to which he alludes were disallowed as being irrelevant to the provisions of the Bill. He is now putting them forward as constructive proposals in explanation, I understand, of his determination. to vote against the motion; in other words, it is an alternative to the Bill which he proposes, and he is perfectly entitled to do so.

Sir P. C. MITTER: The Act should remain in force for three years the life of the Rowlatt Act. If the Government feel too apprehensive it may even re-enact some portions of Part II, but it would be against the recommendations of the Rowlatt Committee to re-enact Part III of the Act on the case made out by Government. I would, however, point out that even the re-enactment of the whole of the Rowlatt Act is quite a different proposition from the passing of the present Bill; I hope it will not be too late for the Government to accept this humble suggestion of mine,

I may mention, Sir, that in putting forward these views I do not profess to represent my party opinion. The opinion of Liberals in Bengal has been embodied in the letters of the Indian Association and that of the All-India Liberals in the resolution of the Liberal Federation. My opinion differs from my Liberal friends, as it is based on knowledge which they do not possess. It also differs from Government opinion, as my association with political movements and political activities of the last 30 years gives me an insight into an aspect of the question which is not available to any members of the Government, British or Indian.

I trust the Government and the public will not misunderstand me. I have no right to arrogate, and indeed I do not arrogate, that the Government and the public in holding their opposing views are necessarily wrong. As a public man, I consider I am not only justified in placing my views before them, but I should have been. failing in my duty if I shirked doing so.

The motion that leave be given to introduce the Bill was then put, and a division taken with the following result ::

Pahlowan, Maulvi Md. Abdul

Jubbar.

Phelps, Mr. T. J.

Philip, Mr. J. Y.

Rahim, the Hon. Sir Abd-ur-.
Rahman, Mr. A. F.

Ray, the Hon. Maharaja Baha-
dur Kshaunish Chandra.
Ray Chaudhuri, Mr. K. C.
Roy, Mr. S. N.

Roy, Raja Maniloll Singh.
Salam, Khan Bahadur Maulvi
Abdus.

Sarkar, Maulvi Allah Bukhsh.
Skinner, Mr. S. A.

Stephenson, the Hon. Sir Hugh.
Swan, Mr. J. A. L.
Travers, Mr. W. L.
Villiers, Mr. Edward.
Woodhead, Mr. J. A.

Noes-66.

ENCLOSURE No. 4.

In pursuance of the provisions of section 72E of the Government of India Act, I, Rufus Daniel, Earl of Reading, hereby reserve for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1925.

ENCLOSURE No. 5.

STATEMENT.

1. It is a matter of common knowledge that a revolutionary conspiracy existed during the years 1912-17, which has left the most poignant memories of the misery and terror it created throughout Bengal. All other methods of dealing with this conspiracy having

been tried without avail, it was not suppressed until its leaders were confined under the provisions of Regulation III of 1818, and many of its subordinate members dealt with under the Defence of India Act. After the Royal Proclamation of 1919, most of these persons were released. Many forsook their connection with revolutionary crime and have not since returned to it. To the remainder who have since showed themselves to be irreconcilable, the amnesty was, after the institution of the reformed system of government, gradually extended, in the hope that under a new political era they would recognise the duties and the advantages of good citizenship. This hope has not been realised. The majority of these still retained their faith in the efficacy of violence and assassination as political weapons. They speedily returned to their old methods and reorganised their old associations, taking care only to avoid the mistakes to which they attributed their previous failure. During the years 1920 to 1922 they carried on their activities under the cloak of the political movements then in progress, recruiting their followers and perfecting their organisation with a view to future action when opportunity offered.

2. Towards the end of 1922 the leaders of these conspiracies, believing that their objects would not be attained by the methods of the non-co-operation movement, decided to revert to methods of violence. The two main terrorist organisations had now been resuscitated; new members in large numbers were recruited; arms and ammunition, partly of a kind which cannot be obtained in India, and must therefore have been smuggled from abroad, were collected; a new and highly dangerous type of bomb was manufactured; and projects of assassination against certain police officers and other persons were devised. The movements of these officers and their residences were watched, and those who watched, being themselves placed under observation, were traced to places known to be haunts of the conspirators.

3. During the year 1923, a series of outrages was perpetrated, including a dacoity with double murder at Kona, near Howrah, and the looting of the Ultadingi Post Office in May, a robbery with murder in July, the Sankaritolla murder and others which I need not specify. In January of the present year Mr. Day was murdered in Calcutta and an attempt was made to murder Mr. Bruce in April, in both cases, as it appears, in mistake for a prominent and distinguished police official. In March a bomb factory was discovered, and other activities directed to the manufacture of bombs and the illicit collection of arms were detected. It is known that other crimes were planned, and that projects of assassination continued and still continue to be devised. I say nothing of other deplorable events which are now under judicial investigation. Evidence has been placed before me which shows to my satisfaction that the movement is deepseated and dangerous. It is impossible for obvious reasons to divulge much of the information available to Government, but it confirms in every respect the view I have been forced to accept.

4. Though the situation during 1923 was grave, I was reluctant to invoke the powers conferred upon me by the Government of India Act until I was fully persuaded that all other means for dealing with the emergency had been exhausted. My Government accordingly authorised the confinement of certain leaders of the criminal associations under the provisions of Regulation III of 1818. The