And giving right of interpellation, it is
'provided that if the subject in regard to which the inquiry is made involves matters of foreign policy, military dispositions or strategy, or is otherwise of such a nature that, in the opinion of the Executive, the public interest would be materially imperilled by the communication of the information asked for, it shall be competent for them to instruct the ex-officio Members, or one of them, to reply accordingly and decline to furnish the information asked for.'
And by sub-section 7 it is expressly declared that:—
"'The Executive Government shall possess the power of overruling the decision arrived at by the majority of the Council in every case in which, in its opinion, the public interests would suffer by the acceptance of such decision.'
"As it was on the faith of his reading of these resolutions, which he had in his hand when speaking at Newcastle, that Mr. Bradlaugh made the statement to which Lord Dufferin objects, he ventures to submit that such resolutions show clearly (1) that there is no attempt whatever at 'the application to India of democratic methods of government'; or (2) at 'the adoption of a Parliamentary system which England herself has only reached by slow degrees'; (3) there is no creation of a representative body or bodies, there is simply the proposal that an existing body shall be enlarged and half of it made representative under special limitations of electorate; (4) the Executive is only mentioned to preserve it as paramount and with overruling power over the Legislative Councils which alone are meant or referred to; (5) though it is true that it is proposed that the purely 'official element' shall be a minority, as sitting ex-officio, it is also stated that a moiety of the Legislative Council shall be non-elected Government nominees, such nominees being either official or non-official as the Executive may decide.
"Mr. Bradlaugh notes that Lord Dufferin considers that 'the attitude and suggestions of the Allahabad Congress were much more reasonable and moderate,' and as Mr. Bradlaugh has not yet received any authorised report of that Congress he differs from Lord Dufferin with great hesitation; but so far as he is able to judge from the newspaper reports, and from the comparison of these with the official reports of the three previous Congresses, the attitude in each case was that of moderate statement of grievances with explicit declaration of loyalty to the British Empire. Mr. Bradlaugh feels that on this point Lord Dufferin, who tendered hospitality to the Congress of 1886, speaks with more perfect knowledge than himself, but, judging as an outsider, from the official reports and guided by the extremely amicable relations between Lord Dufferin as Viceroy and the Congress of 1886, Mr. Bradlaugh, whilst gladly recognising the justice of Lord Dufferin's judgment that the attitude and suggestions of the Congress just held were reasonable and moderate, can find no ground for supposing that there was any difference in these respects at Allahabad from the former Congresses at Bombay, Calcutta, or Madras.
"Mr. Bradlaugh is in the highest degree grateful to Lord Dufferin for his repudiation and contradiction of the view urged by Mr. Bradlaugh at Newcastle, that Lord Dufferin had described the Congresses as seditious. Mr. Bradlaugh trusts that he may be permitted to point out that in a question put on the notice paper of the House of Commons by Mr. J. M. Maclean, M.P., immediately on the publication in the Times of the telegraphic summary of Lord Dufferin's Calcutta speech, Mr. Maclean claimed, under cover of that speech, to describe the Congress as one which 'aims at destroying the security of English Rule in India.' On this point Mr. Bradlaugh, in speaking in the future, will take care that it shall be clearly understood that Lord Dufferin 'has always referred to the Congress in terms of sympathy and respect,' and Mr. Bradlaugh tenders to Lord Dufferin his sincere apology that, misled by the Times version and by Mr. Maclean's gloss, he attributed to Lord Dufferin any views hostile to the Congress. With reference to the publications to which Lord Dufferin refers, but which he does not specifically quote, it would ill become Mr. Bradlaugh, without more complete information, to do more than submit that he is unaware of any pamphlets issued by the authority of the Congress 'calculated to excite the hatred of the people against her Majesty's Government in India.' If Lord Dufferin refers to 'the Catechism,' Mr. Bradlaugh observes that the author appeals to the people 'to lay aside their petty jealousies and race antipathies and learn their duties as loyal citizens of the British Empire.'
"Mr. Bradlaugh does not think that, either at Newcastle or elsewhere, he has ever implied that Lord Dufferin was opposed to Indian Civil Service Reform, and he is glad to know that the natives of India may count on Lord Dufferin's powerful help. Mr. Bradlaugh has not yet had the opportunity of fully considering the report, and may possibly underrate its favourable character to the natives. The recommendations to open some 108 offices to natives must be considered with reference to the contention that, under the statutory service rules, at least 150 offices should be so open. Mr. Bradlaugh pleads guilty to a little confusion as to dates, probably the result of insufficient knowledge. Lord Dufferin speaks of the Commission (appointed October 4th, 1886) as 'before the Congress ever put forward any such suggestions.' Mr. Bradlaugh ventures to think that Lord Dufferin has overlooked the resolution on this subject of the Bombay Congress, December, 1885.
"As desired by Lord Dufferin, Mr. Bradlaugh has most carefully read the authorised report of his Lordship's Calcutta speech, and especially thanks Lord Dufferin for the confidential intimation 'that he himself has been doing his very best to forward such a reform of the Provincial Councils in India as Mr. Bradlaugh appears to advocate'; this Mr. Bradlaugh assumes is intended by the parts underlined by Lord Dufferin on p. 18; but it is respectfully submitted that the words on p. 17 might, without Lord Dufferin's kindly confidential assurance, not unreasonably have been held to imply that his Lordship charged the Congress with seeking to effectuate constitutional changes by a stroke of the pen and without deliberation, when, in fact, the very first resolution of the first Congress asked for enquiry by Royal Commission, and it is for such an enquiry that Mr. Bradlaugh has already placed a notice on the order book of the House of Commons.
"Mr. Bradlaugh is pleased to learn that he has fallen into error in considering that Lord Dufferin's speech was likely to cause embarrassment to Lord Lansdowne, and he entirely accepts Lord Dufferin's assurance that it was intended to produce the opposite effect; but, in justice to himself, he thinks it right to submit that confidential information from India leads him to the belief that same embarrassment has actually already arisen.