so far as I am concerned in the matter, his resignation shall be promptly and definitely accepted.  It is said to-day that Sir Bampfylde Fuller recommended certain measures about education, and that the Government have now adopted them.  But the circumstances are completely changed.  What was thought by Lord Minto and his Council to be a rash and inexpedient course in those days, is not thought so now that the circumstances have changed.  I will only mention one point.  There was a statement the other day in a very important newspaper that the condition of anti-British feeling in Eastern Bengal had gained in virulence since Sir Bampfylde Fuller’s resignation.  This, the Viceroy assures me, is an absolute perversion of the facts.  The whole atmosphere has changed for the better.  When I say that Lord Minto was justified in the course he took, I say it without any prejudice to Sir Bampfylde Fuller, or the slightest wish to injure his future prospects.

Now I come to the subject of the disorders.  I am extremely sorry to say that some disorder has broken out in the Punjab.  I think I may assume that the House is aware of the general circumstances from Answers to Questions.  Under the Regulation of 1818 (which is still alive), coercive measures were adopted.  Here I would like to examine, so far as I can, the action taken to preserve the public interests.  It would be quite wrong, in dealing with the unrest in the Punjab, not to mention the circumstances that provided the fuel for the agitation.  There were ravages by the plague, and these ravages have been cruel.  The seasons have not been favourable.  A third cause was an Act then on the stocks, which was believed to be injurious to the condition of a large body of men.  Those conditions affecting the Colonisation Act were greatly misrepresented.  An Indian member of the Punjab Council pointed out how impolitic he thought it was; and, as I told the House about a week ago, the Viceroy, declining to be frightened by the foolish charge of pandering to agitation and so forth, refused assent to that proposal.  But in the meantime the proposal of the colonisation law had become a weapon in the hands of the preachers of sedition.  I suspect that the Member for East Nottingham will presently get up and say that this mischief connected with the Colonisation Act accounted for the disturbance.  But I call attention to this fact, in order that the House may understand whether or not the Colonisation Act was the main cause of the disturbance.  The authorities believe that it was not.  There were twenty-eight meetings known to have been held by the leading agitators in the Punjab between 1st March, and 1st May.  Of these five only related, even ostensibly, to agricultural grievances; the remaining twenty-three were all purely political.  The figures seem to dispose of the contention that agrarian questions are at the root of the present unrest in the Punjab.  On the contrary, it rather looks as if there was a deliberate heating