ought to be the substantial unity of Parliamentary opinion in face of the Indian situation, it would be a marked disaster.  I would venture on the point of delay to say this.  Your Lordships will not suspect me of having any desire to hurry the Bill, but I remember that when Lord Cross brought in the Bill of 1892 Lord Kimberley, so well known and so popular in this House, used language which I venture to borrow from him, and to press upon your Lordships to-day—­

“I think it almost dangerous to leave a subject of this kind hung up to be perpetually discussed by all manner of persons, and, having once allowed that, at all events, some amendment is necessary in regard to the mode of constituting the Legislative Councils, it is incumbent upon the Government and Parliament to pass the Bill which they may think expedient as speedily as possible into law.”

Considerations of social order and social urgency in India make that just as useful to be remembered to-day, as it was useful then.

The noble Marquess the other day, in a very courteous manner, administered to me an exhortation and an admonition—­I had almost said a lecture—­as to the propriety of deferring to the man on the spot, and the danger of quarrelling with the man on the spot.  I listened with becoming meekness and humility, but then it occurred to me that the language of the noble Marquess was not original.  Those noble Lords who share the Bench with him, gave deep murmurs of approval to the homily that was administered to me.  They forgot that they once had a man on the spot, the man then being that eminent and distinguished personage whom I may be allowed to congratulate upon his restoration to health and to his place in this Assembly.  He said this, which the noble Marquess will see is a fair original for his own little discourse; it was said after the noble Lord had thrown up the reins—­

“What I wish to say to high officers of State and members of Government is this, as far as you can trust the man on the spot.  Do not weary or fret or nag him with your superior wisdom.  They claim no immunity from errors of opinion or judgment, but their errors are nothing compared with yours.”

The remonstrance, therefore, of Lord Curzon, addressed to the noble Lords sitting near him, is identical with the warning which I have laid to heart from the noble Marquess.

The House will pardon me if for a moment I dwell upon what by application is an innuendo conveyed in the admonition of the noble Marquess.  I have a suspicion that he considered his advice was needed; he expressed the hope that all who were responsible for administration in India would have all the power for which they had a right to ask.  Upon that I can—­though I am half reluctant to do it—­completely clear my character.  In December last, shortly before I addressed your Lordships, Lord Minto, having observed there was some talk of my interference with him and his Council, telegraphed these words, and desired that I should make use of them whenever I thought fit—­