I do not wish to detain the House with the story of events in Eastern Bengal and Assam.  They are of a different character from those in the Punjab, and in consequence of these disturbances the Government of India, with my approval, have issued an Ordinance, which I am sure the House is familiar with, under the authority and in the terms of an Act of Parliament.  The course of events in Eastern Bengal appears to have been mainly this—­first, attempts to impose the boycott on Mahomedans by force; secondly, complaints by Hindus if the local officials stop them, and by Mahomedans if they do not try to stop them; thirdly, retaliation by Mahomedans; fourthly, complaints by Hindus that the local officials do not protect them from this retaliation; fifthly, general lawlessness of the lower classes on both sides, encouraged by the spectacle of the fighting among the higher classes; sixthly, more complaints against the officials.  The result of the Ordinance has been that down to May 29th it had not been necessary to take action in any one of these districts.

I noticed an ironical look on the part of the right hon.  Gentleman when I referred with perfect freedom to my assent to the resort to the weapon we had in the law against sedition.  I have had communications from friends of mine that, in this assent, I am outraging the principles of a lifetime.  I should be ashamed if I detained the House more than two minutes on anything so small as the consistency of my political life.  That can very well take care of itself.  I began by saying that this is the first time that British democracy in its full strength, as represented in this House, is face to face with the enormous difficulties of Indian Government.  Some of my hon. friends look even more in sorrow than in anger upon this alleged backsliding of mine.  Last year I told the House that India for a long time to come, so far as my imagination could reach, would be the theatre of absolute and personal government, and that raised some doubts.  Reference has been made to my having resisted the Irish Crimes Act, as if there were a scandalous inconsistency between opposing the policy of that Act, and imposing this policy on the natives of India.  That inconsistency can only be established by anyone who takes up the position that Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom, is exactly on the same footing as these 300,000,000 people—­composite, heterogeneous, with different histories, of different races, different faiths.  Does anybody contend that any political principle whatever is capable of application in every sort of circumstances without reference to conditions—­in every place, and at every time?  I, at all events, have never taken that view, and I would like to remind my hon. friends that in such ideas as I have about political principles, the leader of my generation was Mr. Mill.  Mill was a great and benignant lamp of wisdom and humanity, and it was at that lamp I and others kindled our modest rushlights.  What