such as the large area of the proposed experiment, and the difficulty of settling the old debts. He at the same time gave the headings of concessions which he thought might be granted, and expressed a hope that a revised scheme might be brought forward. I really do not think we shall gain by any further argument regarding these objections. My point at present is not that I am right in this controversy, and that my opponents are wrong. My point is that it is only by actual experiment that it can be satisfactorily proved who is right an who is wrong. who is wrong. Do not let us go on like the mediæval philosophers with their live fish and the full bowl of water. Half of them, arguing from the inherent properties of matter, held that if the fish was put into the full bowl, the water would not overflow. The other half, relying on first principles, held that it would have been arguing to the present day if the king, being a man of a practical turn of mind, had not ordered the experiment to be made. So I say, let us go to work at If on actual trial the proposed area is found to be inconveniently large, let it be reduced; if the settlement of old debts is found impracticable, try some other device; if recourse to summary revenue process is found to be so often necessary as to cause public inconvenicnce, we shall be willing to admit that our proposal in this respect is not justified. But what I do maintain is that our scheme, carefully worked out, approved by the local people, and accepted by the Government of India, was entitled to fair trial. The recommendation of so high a financial authority as Sir E. Baring should not have been brushed aside in this summary way, supported as it was by his successor, Sir Auckland Colvin, who was equally prepared to find the funds necessary for the experiment.

once.

SOVITUR AMBULANDO."

That this is the only right and rational mode of pro

ceeding is proved, if any further proof is needed, by the further waste of five years' time since 1892. On March 15, 1892, the Madras Government placed Mr. F. A. Nicholson " on special duty for the purpose of enquiring into the possibility of introducing into this Presidency a system of Agricultural or other Land Banks." Here is the old error over again: the fish and the bowl. Can the authorities not see that the only way of ascertaining"the possibility of introducing" agricutural banks is to begin introducing them; that we shall never learn to swim if we refuse to go into the water? What has been the result of Mr. Nicholson's appointment? He has produced two large folio volumes, one of 400 and one of 300 closely printed pages. But I cannot find that in these five years any practical beginning has been made. The only result of his labours is that he has now realised the truth that we have been declaring for the last fifteen years. This is how he closes his second report, of July 28, 1896: "The writer's motto for the initiation of village banks continues to be 'Solvitur ambuland'; great measures are always impossible till they are found to be successful, and success depends upon incessant experiment, perseverance, and courage; the problem is insoluble till it is attacked in actual experiment."

There is the truth in a nutshell., Success depends upon incessant experiments: the problem is insoluble till it is attacked in actual experiment. This is what Lord George Hamilton should take to heart. He tells us that he hopes to be able to set up some system of agricultural banks. But this will never be done if he continues to proceed in the way the India Office has done for the last fifteen years. As regards the future, a heavy responsibility lies upon the Secretary in Council. He has crushed our scheme and substituted nothing in its place. He is now bound to take the initiative; and I would ask him to profit by the advice of Mr. Nicholson, and set going practical experiments in different parts of India, relying

not only, or mainly, on European official action, but consulting with the people, and obtaining the co-operation of all that is best in the Indian community.*

* As the writings of Sir William Wedderburn on the subject of Agricultural Banks to which occasional references have been made in this speech, in themselves constitute a voluminous document they are here omitted on that account. These valuable writings together with the correspondence on the subject might be preserved and deserve to be brought out in a separate publication.-Editor.

THE NEW LAW OF SEDITION.

On the motion to go into Committee on the East India Revenue Accounts,

Mr. Herbert Roberts moved on Thrusday the 18th August 1898. "That in the opinion of this House the recent alterations made in the law relating to sedition and the control of the Press in India, being a distinct departure from the traditional policy of the Indian Government in regard to the Press and to public criticism, demand the immediate attention of Parliament, and that, having regard to the conditions of British rule in India, and to the exceptional part played by the Indian Press as the only medium for expressing the opinion of the people as to Government measures, and to the fact that such a policy of restriction and intimidation must, if persisted in, result in producing elements of danger to the Government oj India, it is desirable that the legislation in question should be repealed at the earliest opportunity.”

Sir W. Wedderburn in seconding the amendment said he wished to associate himself with the expressions of congratulation which his hon. friend had extended to the right hon. gentleman, the new Viceroy of India— (hear, hear)—and to join in the hope that he would govern India in sympathy with the masses of the population, and with that success which they might hope for from his conspicuous abilities. (Cheers.) Turning to the amendment, he was very glad that his hon. friend had been successful in the ballot, and had thus been able to bring on his amendment directed against the new Sedition Laws, because he (Sir William) considered that all the errors of the present Government culminated in this attack upon free expression of opinion. Within the last few years there had been a new departure in Indian policy. A policy had been adopted leading to aggression abroad and repression at home; and in order to carry out this policy we had been obliged to abandon our

time-honoured British methods, and to adopt Russianised methods. (Ministerial cries of "Oh!") Thus we found ourselves compelled to take this final step, and to suppress freedom of speech. Criticism must be silenced because our doings in India would not stand the test of criticism. Fortunately it was not yet too late to retrace our steps if the House would only look the facts fairly in the face. He proposed, therefore, to address himself to two points; first, to show that by this new departure we had left the path of assured safety and success; and secondly, that the results of following the new Russianised policy had been disastrous to us both politically and financially. Now first, with regard to the new departure, he said that the old policy was the right one, the wise and humane policy of Lord Lawrence and Lord Ripon. (Cheers.) That policy was founded upon trust in the people; and its fruits were friendly neighbours beyond the frontier, a contented and grateful people within our borders, reduced taxation, and a full treasury.

Lord G. Hamilton: No; constant debts.

Sir W. Wedderburn: I was in India during the whole of that period, and I speak of what I know. The noble lord will have an opportunity of replying. Now all this had been reversed. Instead of friendly neighbours we had established a blood-feud with the brave tribes who inhabited the mountains beyond our borders, and had insured their permanent hostility by an irritating and unjust occupation of their territory. He did not suppose that even now the noble lord the Secretary of State for India would admit that his "forward" policy had proved a disastrous failure; but that seemed to be the universal judgment of public opinion in India, whether Indian or Anglo-Indian, whether official or non-official. (Hear, hear. As they knew, the Indian Press and the Indian National Congress had always been opposed to this policy of wild military adventure; but the novel feature in the