2 Lords and it became the well known Act of 1892.

The Act increased the number of additional members in the Governor-General *s Council, that is, the number of members added to the executive council when it went into legislative session, from a

maximum of twelve to a maximum of sixteen, and that in the Governors* Councils from a maximum of eight to a maximum of twenty. Of the ten non-official additional members in the Governor General’s

Council, four were to be chosen by the non-official members of the Governors* Councils in Madras, Bombay Bengal and the North Western Provinces and Oudh,

that is, one from each province, and the remaining seats were reserved for the appointments of

experts on special subjects of legislation. The

1. Curzon*s speech on 28 March 1892: O p . c i t .» p.64. 2• Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates (Fourth Series) ,

3 May 1892-26 May 1892,""vol.' XV, p. 1930. 3* Mehrotra, S.R., O p . cit .» p.29;

Also, Dodwell, H . H . , O p . cit.f p.546; Report on the Indian Constitutional Reforms, 1 9 1 8 j Op. cit. p p . 6 l - 6 2 .

3 S9

municipalities, district boards, chambers of commerce, trading associations, and senates of universities were allowed to make recommendations for eight seats in the Provincial Legislative

1

Councils* The Provincial Councils, though not the Governor General’s Council, were empowered to

discuss the budget and raise administrative questions, 2

though not to vote on them.

After the Act was passed, Lansdowne wrote on 31 May 1892 to Cross: "I do not see how we are to provide for the representation of the Mahomedans except by special nominations in their favour. It might be possible, in certain cases, to allow a Mahomedan Society, or organisation, to recommend

1. The exact clause was the following:

" ’Where corporations have been established with definite powers upon a recognised adrainistrative basis, or where associations have been formed

upon a substantial community of legitimate interests, professional, commercial or territorial, the

Governor General and the Local Governors might find convenience and advantage in consulting

from time to time such bodies, and in entertaining at their discretion an expression of their views and recommendations with regard to the selection of members in whose qualifications they might be disposed to confide."

Quoted in Report on the Indian Constitutional Reforms, 1918. O p . cit.t p.60.

2• Ibid.

Also, Mehrotra, S.R., Op. ci t ., p.28; Gopal, S., British Policy in India 1858-1905* p.185*

1

a Member. 11 But after a month, on 5 July 1892, i | { he Informed him: "As to minorities, and especially Mahomedan minorities, nomination pure and simple,

without a previous recommendation from a constituency of any kind, will, of course, be the best safeguard# 11

In his correspondence with Crosthwaite,-* Lieutenant Governor of the North Western Provinces and Oudh, he gave his opinion on 2 9 June 1893: ,fThe Mahomedans all over India will, I suspect, have to depend upon Government nominations, if they are to have their share of the seats."**

The Congressmen, though they accepted the Indian Councils Act of 1892 "in a loyal spirit", expressed their regret that the Act itself did not, in set terms, concede to the people "the right of electing their own representatives to the Council."-* The Congress delegates in the eighth Congress

session, held on 28 December 1 8 9 2 in Allahabad,

1# Lansdowne to Cross, 31 May 1 8 9 2, Lansdowne Papers. Correspondence with the Secretary of State for India, January to December 1892, L.No.26. ■—

2. Lansdowne to Cross, 5 July 1892, Ibid*, L.No.31. ' 3. Crosthwaite, Sir Charles Hankes Todd (1 8 3 5-1 9 1 5):

Entered India civil service, 1857; C.S.I. and Chief Commissioner of Burma, 1887; K.C.S.I., 1888, Lieutenant Governor of North Western Provinces and Oudh, 1 8 9 2-5; on Council of India, 1 8 9 5-1 9 0 5.

k* Lansdowne to Crosthwaite, 29 June 1893» Lansdowne Papers. Correspondence with persons in India. January to June

1893, L.No. 3^9*

5* Report of the Indian National Congress. 1892, Resolution No.I, p.l*

resolved that the Government should do "adequate justice to the people of* this country" by allowing a real living representation of the people of

1

India* In support of this resolution, Rai Bahadur Ananda Charlu in his speech on 29 December 1892

demanded that all persons must unquestionably

possess the franchise as "an individual or personal franchise*"* "Anything short of it", he remarked,

"will be a perfect farce, if not a eham, and an unjustifiable injustice to the vast majority."^ Surendranath Banerjea in his speech on the same day declared that the Indian Councils Act did not

4

come up to their expectation* "Year after year", he stated,

"we have been recording resolutions praying for the introduction of the representative element in the Councils*... But what do we

1. Report of the Indian National Congress, 1892, Resolution No.I, p.l.

2. Rai Bahadur Ananda Charlu*s Speech on 29 December 1892: Ibid., p.2 7.

3• Ibid*

4. Surendranath Banerjea*s Speech: Report of the Indian National Congress, I8 9 2, p.29*

find has been done? As a matter of fact the representative element has not been recognized in the Act, but a clause has

been inserted, which is known as "the Kimberley Clause *, and which provides for selection,

but not the election, of representative 1

members from various bodies."

The Hindu Press expressed much the same sort of reaction* The Kerala Patrika of Madras on 18 February 1893 wrote that although the Act was unsatisfactory, it was a useful achievement of

2

the Congress* The Hitechchhu of Ahmedabad on

23 March 1893 called the Act "an incomplete measure in itself" and observed:

"It is to be regretted that the loyal subjects of the British Crown have been given so late a right which they deserved long ago, and that

3