5
The new provisions took effect from 1 December 1886. The Council consisted of nine members besides the President, Sir Alfred lyall
grudgingly accepted the formation of the Council with restricted powers* lest* he thought* prolonged discussion over the question might indefinitely delay its establishment. It was his strong wish to open the Council, if possible* before his term ended. nevertheless* he urged the Government
1 Des. from India* Fo.J* 2 March 1886. 2 Jud. Des. to India, Fo.20, 27 May 1886.
151
of India to remove these restrictions. He pointed out that the despatches of Wood and Canning did not contemplate any such limitation, and emphasised that the utility of the Council would he seriously impaired if it was
debarred from touching, by way of adjustment to local needs, any laws passed between 1861 and 1886, a period during which many important laws affecting the Horth-Western Provinces had been passed# Lyall expressed the view that the disability to which the Council was subjected would also affect its dignity and reputation} The Government of India accepted the argument that the powers of the Council should not be unnecessarily
2
fettered, but Lord Cross in London declined to alter the previous decision, 5
and thus the disability remained;
The establishment of the Council of the North-Western Provinces and Oudh in 1887 was# as Dufferin said, the outcome of the efforts of Sir
4
Alfred Lyall. To Lord Dufferin* s Government goes the credit for extending its constant support to Lyall*s proposals, including the removal of
limitations on the powers of the Council. The Pioneer* s remark that "had it not been for the vigour and persistency with which he urged these claims,
5
they might have remained in the background for another twenty years" .was a fitting tribute paid to Lyall, though, in the light of the fact that the Punjab and Burma Councils were established in 1897, it may be said that the North-Western Provinces could hardly have gone without a Council for more
1 Letter to Govt# of India, 14 Feb. 1887. 2 Des# from India, H o .19, 11 #une 1887. 5 Jud# Des# to India, No.25» 28 July 1887# 4 Dufferin, Speeches (1884-88), 209.
152
than another ten years.
Although Wood1 s despatch of 1861 envisaged the establishment of Councils for the Rorth-Western Provinces and the Punjab almost simultaneously with that of Bengal, it was not until 1897 that the Punjab was provided with a Council of its own. In 1885* at its very first session, the national Congress passed a resolution for the creation
1
of councils in these two Provinces. As late as 1888 the Dufferin Committee expressed the view that the time for the constitution of cofcncils in the Punjab and Burma had not arrived. In 1891 Sir tfames Lyall, Lieutenant Governor of the Punjab, submitted a note to the
Government of India in anticipation of the reintroduction of Cross’s Bill in Parliament, saying that the codification of customary law, remedial measures in connection with agricultural indebtedness, sanitary legisla
tion, and many other matters of local interest could be dealt with by a local council. He also pointed out that it would not be difficult to
2
find a sufficient number of qualified non-official members. In view of the fact that the Indian Councils Bill was not likely to be reintroduced before February 1892, the Government of India preferred that the
5 question should be reserved for lyall’s successor.
1 See Resolution III, Report (1885). 2 India Pub. Letters (1896), 521-25.
5 Jud, Letter to Punjab, Ho. 1297, JO Sept. 1891.
In 1892 Sir W. Plowden moved an amendment that the Bill should fix the number of members of the Punjab Council, to be nominated by the Lt. Governor, at not more than 12, when the provisions of the Act of 1861 were extended. Curzon said that it would not be wise to tie the hands of the Government of India, or "to impose numerical restrictions upon a Council which is not yet called into existence, and the date of whose birth is not even approximately known” .
155
In March 1896 the question was reopened. The Central Government invited the opinion of Sir Dennis Fitzpatrick, Lieutenant Governor of the
1
Punjab, who put forward many arguments against the proposal for a Council in the Punjab. He maintained that legislation for the Punjab m s
carried out in a very satisfactory manner by the Imperial Council at which the Lieutenant Governor also sat when meetings were held at Simla. He was against allowing his officials to speak freely, and moreover, he remarked there was a dearth of "articulately speaking or articulately thinking men" in the Punjab. In his view the establishment of a Council m s not desirable on political grounds, for those who demanded it
represented none but themselves. He emphasised that in view of the
2
presence of many turbulent elements the Punjab needed a strong executive. The members of Governor-General* s Council by a majority of five to two rejected the proposal. Lord Elgin, the Governor-General, and
3
J. Woodbum were in favour. In a remarkable minute, Elgin strongly advocated the scheme of legislative decentralisation. He emphasised that the opponents of the policy of reforms must reckon with a different
set of conditions, and pointed out that the object of the change was to make the people feel that matters connected with their daily life were
decided with due regard to their interests. Decentralisation, he stressed, was the only remedy. He was of the opinion that non-officials, whose
advice would be of great value, were not difficult to find. Eeplying
1 Pub. Progs.. No.171, Aug. 1896.
2 Note by Sir D. Fitzpatrick, 10 April 1896. 3 Pub. Des. from India, No.64 , 25 Aug. 1896.
154
to the argument that the presence of turbulent elements in the Punjab was not congenial to the institution of a counci1* Elgin said that such elements existed in other Provinces also* and that in case any disorder broke out, a strong military force was at hand to deal with it. He
observed that opposition to the institution of councils on the ground that they might promote a recrudescence of sedition and disloyalty was based oh a wrong appreciation of the situation. "Of one thing" he stressed, "I am confident, and that is, that it (sedition) will not be overcome by
stifling criticism, but rather by inviting free discussion, whenever and wherever we can, and by throwing open to the light of day and being
prepared to justify every act of our administration and of the officers 1
who carry out our orders". In a private letter to Lord Hamilton he expressed the view that, on the whole, the population in the Punjab was more loyal than elsewhere; and added; "Men who have grown old in the
2