serious disadvantages.  In the old days they were able to command the services on the Indian committees, of ex-Ministers, of members of this House and members of another place, who had had much experience of Indian administration, and I am doubtful, considering the preoccupations of public men, whether we should now be able to call a large body of experienced administrators, with the necessary balance between the two Houses, to sit on one of these committees.  And then I would point out another disadvantage.  You would have to call away from the performance of their duties in India a large body of men whose duties ought to occupy, and I believe do occupy, all their minds and all their time.  Still it is an idea, and I will only say that I do not entirely banish it from my own mind.  Two interesting speeches, and significant speeches, have been made this afternoon.  One was made by my hon. friend, the mover, and the other by the hon.  Member for East Leeds.  Those two speeches raise a really important issue.  My hon. friend the Member for Leeds said that democracy was entirely opposed to, and would resist, the doctrine of the settled fact.[1] My hon. friend tells you democracy will have nothing to do with settled facts, though he did not quite put it as plainly as that.  Now, if that be so, I am very sorry for democracy.  I do not agree with my hon. friend.  I think democracy will be just as reasonable as any other sensible form of government, and I do not believe democracy will for a moment think that you are to rip up a settlement of an administrative or constitutional question, because it jars with some abstract a priori idea.  I for one certainly say that I would not remain at the India Office, or any other powerful and responsible Departmental office, on condition that I made short work of settled facts, hurried on with my catalogue of first principles, and arranged on those principles the whole duties of government.  Then my hon. friend the Member for Brentford quoted an expression of mine used in a speech in the country about the impatient idealists, and he reproved me for saying that some of the worst tragedies of history had been wrought by the impatient idealists.  He was kind enough to say that it was I, among other people, who had made him an idealist, and therefore I ought not to be ashamed of my spiritual and intellectual progeny.  I certainly have no right whatever to say that I am ashamed of my hon. friend, who made a speech full of interesting views, full of visions of a millennial future, and I do not quarrel with him for making his speech.  My hon. friend said that he was for an Imperial Duma.  The hon.  Gentleman has had the advantage of a visit to India, which I have never had.  I think he was there for six whole long weeks.  He polished off the Indian population at the heroic rate of sixty millions a week, and this makes him our especially competent instructor.  His Imperial Duma was to be elected, as I understood, by universal suffrage.