and through. Its so-called 'cognitive' operations are just as subservient to its vital purposes, just as biologically useful, as any of its other acts. So James concludes:

'I must still contend that the phenomenon of subjective "interest," as soon as the animal consciously realises the latter, appears upon the scene as an absolutely new factor. . . . The knower is not simply a mirror floating with no foothold anywhere, and passively reflecting an order that he comes upon and finds simply existing. The knower is an actor, and coefficient of the truth on one side, whilst on the other he registers the truth he helps to create. Mental interests, hypotheses, postulates, so far as they are bases for human action-action which to a great extent transforms the world -help to make the truth which they declare. In other words, there belongs to mind, from its birth upward, a spontaneity, a vote. It is in the game, and not a mere looker-on; and its judgments of the should-be, its ideals, cannot be peeled off from the body of the cogitandum as if they were excrescences, or meant, at most, survival. We know so little about the ultimate nature of things, or of ourselves, that it would be sheer folly dogmatically to say that an ideal rational order may not be real' ('Essays and Reviews,' pp. 65, 67).

The rest of James's philosophic career was spent in the working out of this programme, though, owing to circumstances beyond his control, he was not, alas, able to complete it. But it is the clue to his 'pragmatism,' a vile and unlucky' (II, p. 295) word, which he lamentably adopted from his friend, the 'queer being,' Charles S. Peirce, whose lectures he could not understand a word of (1, p. 80), and whose papers he found 'bold, subtle, and incomprehensible' (1, p. 149). He admitted (in letters to me) that 'I dislike "pragmatism," but it seems to have the international right of way,' and that "Humanism" which did not at first much " speak" to me, I now see to be just right'; but nevertheless he chivalrously stuck to 'pragmatism'; because his opponents, seeing what a

*Letters,' II, p. 191. The rest of the description is unfortunately suppressed. Only ignorance of Greek can explain the prevalent philosophic delusion that the word somehow connoted practicalism,' and involved 'subjective idealism'; etymologically it should mean a testing of ideas' by things. However, it was not ugly enough for Peirce's taste, and he subsequently substituted 'pragmaticism' for his own brand.

bad word it was, gladly took it up. For the rest he gave the chief credit of his conversion to Renouvier, whose recalcitrance to determinism had kept him in countenance at the turning-point, and whose 'pluralism'had shattered for him the hideous burden of the block universe.'

But it was James's nature to confess to more obligations than he owed, and to expand and expound the doctrines he took over, until they became little more than pegs for his own. There is little doubt that his answer to Naturalism was substantially his own achievement. And it is the only sound answer that has ever been devised. It will continue to appeal to all who really feel the pressure of religious problems, in a way that neither theological dogmatism, nor the verbal dialectics of à priori metaphysics, nor mere emotional revolt, can emulate. Its only effective rival is mysticism; for this too assumes a personalist attitude towards reality.

F. C. S. SCHILLER.

Art. 3.-LORD CHELMSFORD'S VICEROYALTY.

1. A History of the Indian Nationalist Movement. By Sir Verney Lovett, K.C.S.I. Third edition. Murray, 1921. 2. Indian Nationality. By R. N. Gilchrist. With an introduction by Prof. Ramsay Muir. Longmans, 1920. 3. Letters to the People of India on Responsible Government. By Lionel Curtis. Macmillan, 1918.

4. Report on Indian Constitutional Reforms [Cd. 9109]. H.M. Stationery Office, 1918.

5. Report of the Committee appointed to investigate Revolutionary Conspiracies in India. [Cd. 9190]. H.M. Stationery Office, 1919.

6. Report of the Joint Committee of Lords and Commons on the Government of India Bill. H.M. Stationery Office, 1919.

WHEN Lord Chelmsford accepted the Viceroyalty of India in 1916, he had served an apprenticeship to political office in two Australian Governorships, but, beyond that, he was comparatively an unknown man. His period of office as Viceroy has been perhaps the most important and difficult of modern times. It has included a change in the system of British government in India of stupendous importance; the revelation of an anarchical conspiracy, widespread in its ramifications and managed with marvellous skill; a fiscal crisis hotly debated in the British House of Commons; two years of a World-war, an Afghan war, and a war with the tribes on the North-Western frontier; and the worst manifestations of racial feeling since the Mutiny, in the anti-Sedition-Act and Non-Co-operation agitations.*

The first event of political importance after Lord Chelmsford's accession to the Viceroyalty in 1916 was the Memorial on Political Reform signed by nineteen out of twenty-seven elected members of the Imperial Legislative Council, including twelve Hindus, five Mahomedans, and two Parsees. It was a sign of the

This survey touches only the internal government of India. Owing to want of space, the foreign relations of the Dependency, in which some important changes have been made, have had to be omitted on the present occasion.

times to see Mahomedan and Hindu signatures appended to the same political document; and the causes which led Mahomedan and Hindu to join forces require a brief explanation.

Previously to 1913, the Mahomedans had followed the advice of Sir Syed Ahmad, the founder of Aligarh College, and had kept aloof from the National Congress, because it merely counted heads, and disapproved of any special representation of Mahomedan minorities. They insisted that the political reforms asked for must be consistent with maintenance of British control, and they were, as a rule, loyal supporters of the British Government. The estrangement of the Mahomedans from the British Government, and their leaning to the Congress views, was first shown in the adoption of self-government as part of the political programme of the All-India Moslem League in 1913. This may be ascribed to two causes : (1) the Repartition Policy, which led them to think that Mahomedan interests were sacrificed, when the province of Eastern Bengal and Assam was reabsorbed in other provinces; (2) the influence of Pan-Islamism. PanIslamism was a doctrine first preached by Sheikh Jamal uddin el Afghani (an Afghan educated at Bokhara), to the effect that Mahomedans all over the world were brothers and should unite in opposition to the influences working against Islam. This idea of Pan-Islamism was developed by the Sultan Abdul Hamid and, after him, by the Committee of Union and Progress, into an appeal to the faithful to rally round the Ottoman Khalif. Under the influence of Pan-Islamism, the All-India Moslem League in 1913 passed a resolution of protest against the policy of Great Britain in leaving Turkey to her fate, after the Balkan wars. Under the same influence, the Indian Mahomedans also denounced the Arabs who, in 1916, under the Sharif of Mecca, now King of the Hedjaz, rebelled against Turkish misrule, as enemies of Islam.

The war with Turkey was undoubtedly a strain upon the loyalty of Indian Mahomedans, but everything possible was done to respect their religious susceptibilities. In October 1914, after the Declaration of War, the then Viceroy issued a proclamation that no special interests of Islam were involved. He referred to the

guarantee by Great Britain, France, and Russia of Turkey's independence and integrity, provided that she remained neutral, and to the promise by the Allies to respect the sanctity of the Holy Places in Arabia and Mesopotamia. The Aga Khan, the spiritual head of the Khoja section of the Shiah Mahomedans, declared that Turkey, by joining Germany in an unrighteous cause, had forfeited her position as the Trustee of Islam. The Khalifat party did not accept this, and wrongly interpreted Mr Lloyd George's pledge not to dismember Turkey as an undertaking to leave Turkey as she was before the war. They insisted that, because the Sultan's religious position, as Khalif and Trustee of Islam, required that his temporal power should remain undiminished, he must be allowed to enter into an entirely unprovoked war with England with impunity. More than this, the Khalifat agitators claimed that the subject races, Arabs, Syrians, Jews, and Armenians, who had rebelled against Turkish misrule and had received a guarantee from the Allies of their independence, should be replaced under Turkish authority, with some shadowy provision for their autonomy. They offered no practicable suggestion how this should be done, whether by war or otherwise, but merely asserted that their religion required it to be done. In one respect this agitation was successful, for the Turks have been left in Constantinople, largely out of deference to the feelings of the Indian Mahomedans.

moon

The Congress of 1916 was held at Lucknow under the Presidency of Mr Ambika Charan Majumdar, who denounced the Morley-Minto reforms as ' mere shine.' It approved a scheme for the representation of Mahomedan minorities; and the Mahomedans, on their side, formally included Home Rule in their political programme, while both sections united in a Joint Congress-Moslem League scheme of Reform. Their political alliance was thus advertised; and Lord Chelmsford henceforward had to meet a more or less United Congress and Moslem League opposition.

We have now briefly to outline the course of events leading up to Mr Montagu's Declaration of 1917. Mrs Besant's paper New India,' first published in 1913,