self-governing Dominions), that the power of dismissing and replacing their executives should be taken from the Secretary of State and vested in their own electorates and in the assemblies elected thereby. That demand has always been made in the name of responsible government. In the minds of men like Mr. Lloyd George and Lord Milner, in whose recollection the demands made and granted in South Africa are still fresh, the term cannot possibly have suggested anything else.

5. But the matter admits of no kind of doubt. Within the last few weeks the Lieutenant-Governor of the United Provinces, addressing the Convocation of the Allahabad University, used the following words: The British Government has announced that the ideal for India is responsible government, which means the administration of the country by an executive authority responsible through an elected legislature to the people; and we now have to shape our course towards that goal.'

§ 6. An executive is only responsible to a higher authority when that authority can remove it and put another in its place. In this pronouncement the goal prescribed for India is identified with that already attained by the self-governing Dominions. It is to be reached as an integral part of the British Commonwealth. At present the Government of India and those of the provinces are answerable to, and removable by, the British electorate through Parliament and the Secretary of State. The Imperial Government now looks forward to a time when those executives will all be answerable to, and removable by, Indian electorates, through elected assemblies. It is added, however, that this goal can only be achieved by successive stages'. The British Government and the Government of India, in other words the Imperial Parliament and electorate, to which both these Governments are answerable, are to decide, from time to time, what those stages are to be and how fast

they can be taken. But why are these stages needed? Why cannot the final power of removing and replacing these executives be transferred at one stroke from the Secretary of State to Indian electorates? The answer is contained in the words of the pronouncement: The British Government and the Government of India, on whom the responsibility lies for the welfare and advancement of the Indian peoples, must be judges of the time and measure of each advance, and they must be guided by the co-operation received from those upon whom new opportunities

of service will thus be conferred, and by the extent to which it is found that confidence can be reposed in their sense of responsibility.'

§ 7. In plain words, the British Government, at the moment of making the announcement, sees no electorates to whom it can transfer the responsibility which now rests on itself. The immediate task before it is to develop such electorates in India, and in such manner that it is possible to test the reality of the development. The question how this is to be done is the root of the whole problem set by the pronouncement of the Imperial Government.

§ 8. Short of a pronouncement involving the separation of India from England, no declaration of policy more definite and final could have been made. From public statements we know that its terms were under discussion between the Imperial Government and the Government of India since the earlier months of 1917. We know that Mr. Montagu engaged to take up matters where Mr. Chamberlain left them; nor is it unlikely that, when the records are laid bare, the future historian may find the pronouncement, as issued on August 20, amongst the papers of Mr. Chamberlain. In any case it was accepted by a cabinet which includes not only a Liberal Prime Minister and a Labour member, but Lord Curzon, Lord Milner, and Sir Edward Carson. It was tacitly accepted by the House of Commons and by the House of Lords. Its announcement to Parliament without provoking a vote of censure is equivalent to its acceptance by the Imperial Parliament and electorate. It is now, despite the casual form in which it was announced, in every way a pronouncement of the Imperial Government, a British declaration of policy. It was made by the lawful and accredited government of a people now in arms to vindicate the word they plighted to the Belgian nation. If I know our people, they will not go back on their word. It reflects, moreover, their innermost mind. In the last few days I have listened to one, unconnected with party or press, who was recently sent to discuss public affairs with the men in the trenches on the Western front. To his questions about India he was met with the answer, 'Well, we know little about India. But we're fighting for the British Empire, which stands for self-government, and it's up to England to help India to self-government. That is the principle for which we are fighting.'

§ 9. In the last few weeks I have read and listened to suggestions that this declaration of policy was wrung from

England by fear. Would Indians, who have said such things in Calcutta, repeat them within the sound of the guns, to those who stand in the presence of death, to whom the word fear' cannot be named? By such words they dishonour not England, but themselves. Not once nor twice in this country have I felt how little they know of India, who only India know. Englishmen must learn to know India better, but some Indians have need to know what England is, and that knowledge must be sought in the shambles of Flanders and France.

§ 10. For the moment, however, I am speaking to my own countrymen in India. Whether it will ever be possible to transfer the control of all Indian affairs to Indian electorates, and to place India on the same footing as the self-governing Dominions, is a point upon which some of us may differ. But on one point we shall all agree, that unless or until that goal can be reached, the final decision of British policy in India must rest with the Imperial Government, Parliament, and electorate, which for the present is the British Government, Parliament, and electorate. Such decisions cannot rest either with Indians, nor yet with the British community in India. But what both communities can do is to give public opinion in England the information it sadly needs, and give it in time. So far the information available there has been drawn from two sources, and two only from Nationalist quarters and from British officials. From missionary circles little has been heard, and from business circles in India, till the last few months, nothing at all. I am not questioning the truth of what Nationalists say, or what the officials say. But I do say that the picture placed before the people of England is utterly incomplete, unless it includes information other than that derived from Nationalist and official quarters.

§ 11. It is for this reason, I believe, that every one in England will welcome the sudden awakening of their unofficial countrymen here to an interest in public affairs. For the moment the trouble is that the awakening has come too late. A new declaration of policy had been long pending and promised; but the views of the European community were not expressed until it had been made in terms which are now impossible to alter.

§ 12. In future the people of England will, one hopes and believes, receive the advice of their countrymen here. The effect of that advice will surely depend on its quality and motive. If it is solely concerned with the interests and

privileges of Englishmen in India it will, I predict, weigh but lightly. If on the other hand it comes from men who are keeping in view the interests of India and of the whole British Commonwealth, and who speak with knowledge, not only of their own business concerns, but also of the public trust which England is seeking to discharge in this country, such advice will, I believe, weigh with preponderant force. The time has come when your countrymen at home are entitled to have your opinions on subjects like communal representation, and the separation of executive and judicial functions. India is not Morocco, nor the Argentine, nor Korea, but an integral part of the British Commonwealth, and the time is past when Englishmen here could confine themselves to business, as though public questions in India could be settled on none but official advice. And therefore the time is past when the European Association could stand only for securing the privilege of Europeans in India. § 13. With all this I know you will agree. But there is another and even graver point. From time to time England must make decisions, and give pledges with regard to her policy in India-such pledges as were given in 1858, and once again on August 20 last. You at least know the value of British prestige, which rests simply on India's faith in the two Saxon words 'Yea' and 'Nay'. In the end England will be judged in India by what England herself does, or leaves undone. But at any given moment the people of England largely stand to be judged by their fellow-countrymen who are face to face with Indians themselves. The men who return from the trenches will, I believe, see that this promise is kept. Let their countrymen here think twice before assuming positions which must lead Indians to think that Englishmen at home may be made to play fast and loose with their pledges. Those pledges are given to you no less than to Indians, and they also will be making a vast mistake, if they dream that after the war England can be brought to change or go back on one phrase or word of this solemn pronouncement.

§ 14. That is the main point. But now there is a kindred point, which I commend to the notice of Indians as well as to my own countrymen at this juncture. The pronouncement is binding on the Secretary of State in all its terms. Under them he was sent here by the Imperial Cabinet, and, as I read them, it is not permissible for him to discuss whether such a declaration should have been made, whether responsible government is a feasible project in India, or whether,

let me add, it can be granted outright, or otherwise than by a succession of steps. His inquiry is limited to the four corners of that pronouncement. The advice he must seek is simply how effect may best be given to it. If this interpretation is right, it follows that every one who feels he has views to offer at this juncture, should consider whether the pronouncement is one which he can accept, and whether the views he has to offer are within its terms. It is perfectly open to any one, British or Indian, to say he does not accept its terms such views can be addressed to the Imperial Government, to Parliament and the public in England with whom the ultimate decision lies. But the pronouncement shows that the Secretary of State has not been empowered to discuss such views. Surely he is limited by its terms to proposals which can be brought within the lines laid down for him by the Imperial Government before he left England. And the limitation is two-edged. Advice to do nothing, and proposals to grant responsible government outright, are in fact demands that the pronouncement should be changed, and that new instructions should be issued to the Secretary of State. I venture to predict that it will not be changed, and that these instructions will bind not Mr. Montagu only, but all Secretaries of State in time to come until, by successive stages, responsible government has been realized in India.

LETTER III

ELECTORAL SYSTEMS FALSE AND TRUE

§ 1. THE steps by which the goal is to be reached, and especially the first of those steps to be taken, which must of necessity determine the character of all those which are to follow, are left for subsequent inquiry. The question before us is simply that of discovering the path whereby that goal can be reached most quickly. But in order to do that we must begin by glancing at the point from which we are to start. Except in the district and municipal boards, there are no executives removable at the will of electorates. So far as the Indian and provincial governments are concerned, responsible government has no place in the existing constitution. In the last few years an Indian member has been appointed to each of the executive councils, but his responsibility to the Secretary of State differs in no respect