1916, which were held at Lucknow, we enter on a new phase of domestic affairs. It was then that, advancing far beyond the limits suggested by the cautious utterances of a year before, both bodies, composing all differences, declared together for "Home Rule." At the same time Congress Moderates and Extremists proclaimed their reunion. The proceedings of all the meetings were orderly and the speeches composed in tone; but there were evidences that although the Extremists had accepted the ideal of the Moderates, the former had in fact prevailed over the latter. The reception accorded to Mr. Tilak far exceeded in enthusiasm the welcome given to any other Nationalist leader.

A list of demands was formulated by the Congress and Muslim League in consultation and was publicly accepted. These demands were based on the claim that India must become a self-governing, independent unit of the British Empire and embodied much that was afterwards conceded. After long private discussion, the leaders of the two bodies agreed on separate electorates for Muhammadans. They also set forth the proportion of the seats to be reserved for these electorates.

Speakers on both bodies complained of the measures adopted under the Defence of India Act, but did not suggest any alternative arrangement. The Chairman of the Muslim League, in allusion to recent events in Arabia and Mesopotamia, asked that Muhammadans might be allowed to choose their own Khalifa. Both associations decided to co-operate with the Home Rule League. Favoured by the sense of self-esteem produced by the conduct of Indian soldiers during the war, the effect of these meetings was to spread and intensify nationalist doctrines among the educated classes.

While the politicians had been holding their meetings, the country had been entirely quiet, and the Government had been mainly absorbed in war activities. An Industrial Commission, appointed on May 19, 1916, in order to examine and report upon the possibilities of further industrial development, had begun to tour the country. At the February 1917 sessions of the Imperial Legislative Council, Lord Chelmsford announced that the Report of the Royal Commission on Public Services appointed in 1912, which had just been published, would be carefully considered. The increased employment of Indians in the higher branches of the service would be taken into consideration without delay. The expediency of broadening the basis of government and the demand of Indians to play a

large part in public affairs were receiving attention. An Indian War Loan would soon be launched; and a Defence Force would be organised which would include Indians. India would be represented by three selected delegates at the coming War Conference in London.

The sessions proceeded smoothly. Sir William Meyer, the Finance Member, announced that on March 1, in pursuance of resolutions moved by Indian non-official members and carried on September 8, 1914, and February 24, 1915, the Government of India had informed the home Government of their willingness to borrow the largest sums that could be raised as a War Loan, in order to make a special contribution of £100,000,000. They would also put forward proposals for increasing Indian resources in order to meet the consequent recurring liabilities. One method of meeting the contribution would be the raising of the impost on cotton fabrics from 3 to 7 per cent., the general Indian tariff rate. But the cotton excise duty would remain 3 per cent. A grievance of twenty years' standing which had virtually meant protection for Lancashire was thus removed. The announcement was received with enthusiasm, and the financial proposals were approved. Before the sessions closed came the news of revolution in Russia and of the taking of Baghdad by British and Indian troops.

Outside, however, the press was in a bad humour. A deputation approached the Viceroy on March 5, asking for repeal of the Press Act, and His Excellency in a carefully reasoned reply pointed out that there were still journals in circulation which ascribed all evils to the course of an alien Government, which deliberately encouraged a lack of discipline and of respect for all authority among impressionable boys, thereby swelling the ranks of secret revolutionaries. He therefore rejected the petition in firm but courteous terms. Resentment was expressed; and Mrs. Besant busily pursued her Home Rule campaign, in such a manner as gradually to persuade the Government of Madras, the headquarters of her activities, that she was doing serious mischief. She was, therefore, together with her two principal lieutenants, directed to take up her residence in one of various specified healthy localities, to cease lecturing and publishing and to submit her correspondence to censorship. She took leave of her public in a letter to the press in which she described herself as having been "drafted into the modern equivalent for the Middle Ages oubliette." Indian taxation to pay the interest on the War Loan would be crushing. She had striven for Home Rule after the war

as only by that could India be saved from becoming " a nation of coolies for the enrichment of others."

Mrs. Besant's internment had been preceded by the return from the Imperial War Conference of the delegates selected by the Government of India, His Highness the Maharajah of Bikanir, Sir James (now Lord) Meston, Lieutenant-Governor of the United Provinces, and Sir Satyendra (now Lord) Sinha, then Member of the Bengal Executive Council. For the first time an Indian Prince and an Indian Member of Council had shared in the innermost deliberations of the Empire. But this auspicious event in no way allayed the vigorous agitation among the political classes which followed on the internment of Mrs. Besant. Passive resistance even was proposed and discussed.

In the meantime the Mesopotamian Commission had reported in England, to the effect that Lord Hardinge's government had struggled hard to wage war on a peace-budget, that thus the wants of the Mesopotamian Expedition had, during the first sixteen months of the operations, been provided for insufficiently. "The Government of India rather than the governed had been laggards." Various measures recently taken by Lord Chelmsford and his advisers should have been adopted by their predecessors. The Commission animadverted on the system of military administration in control of the Indian Army. Their report justified in the fullest manner the determined opposition of Lord Curzon in 1905 to the abolition of the Military Member of Council. It is safe to say that but for that disastrous step, Lord Hardinge and his Government would have occupied a far stronger position for appreciating accurately the military requirements of a most difficult situation.

The Mesopotamia Report was considered in both Houses of Parliament. It was keenly debated, and led, among other things, to the resignation of Mr. Austen Chamberlain, who was succeeded as Secretary of State of India by the Hon. Edwin Samuel Montagu. Mr. Montagu had previously served as Under-Secretary of State for India, had visited that country, and had taken a prominent part in the recent debate, urging that the whole system of government in India should be explored in the light of the Report. That system was, he said, insufficient and wooden. It was not elastic enough to express the will of the Indian people, to make them into a warring nation as they wanted to be. They must be allowed growing control of the Executive. The creation of self-governing provinces co-ordinated with the Ruling States by a Central Government

should be declared to be the goal of British rule in India. A substantial step should be taken towards it.

Mr. Chamberlain, in following Mr. Montagu, urged the House not to make the discussion of the Report the text for a great debate upon the future of the Indian Empire. The question of political reforms in India, to be carried out after the close of the war, was under the consideration of the Cabinet. But "nothing but injury could come to National, Imperial and Indian interests from mixing up a debate on a military breakdown, or alleged military mismanagement, with the question of the whole future fabric of Indian Government." The effect of the debate was to diffuse the wrong impression that the whole existing system of Government in India was responsible for the Kut catastrophe.

Shortly after Mr. Montagu's assumption of office, on August 20, 1917, two memorable announcements were made by the Secretary of State for India. The first stated that the policy of His Majesty's Government was that of increasing association of Indians in every branch of administration; and the gradual development of self-governing institutions, with a view to the progressive realisation of responsible government in India as an integral part of the British Empire. Substantial steps in this direction would be taken as soon as possible. The Secretary of State would proceed to India to discuss with the Viceroy what those steps should be. Progress in the new policy could only be achieved by successive stages. "The British Government and the Government of India, on whom the responsibility lies for the welfare and advancement of the Indian peoples, must be the judges of the time and measure of each advance, and they must be guided by the measure of co-operation received from those upon whom the 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. Ample opportunity will be afforded for public discussion of the proposals which will be submitted in due course to Parliament."

The second announcement related to the removal of the bar which had up till then precluded the admission of Indians to commissioned rank in His Majesty's Army.

The September sessions of the Legislative Council opened with a speech by Lord Chelmsford which contained a remarkable record of war-activities. He concluded with an earnest appeal to leading politicians for co-operation and for the promotion of calm and dispassionate consideration of the difficult

problems which were to be investigated during Mr. Montagu's stay in India. The Viceroy's speech had been preceded by the announcement made by the Home Member of Council that Mrs. Besant and her coadjutors would be released from all restrictions if the Government of India were satisfied that they would abstain from unconstitutional and violent methods of political agitation during the remainder of the war. They were released.

Before the arrival of the Secretary of State violent HinduMuslim riots broke out in Bihar, over cow-killing, an old cause of contention. The riots were on a scale which far exceeded any previous trouble of the same kind, and were undoubtedly largely due to a belief that Britain was exhausted by the efforts of the war, and that British rule was sinking into weakness and decline. The Hindus were the aggressors; the Muhammadans were on the defensive throughout. In other provinces things were quiet.

XXII

THE REFORMS PROPOSALS

THE object of Mr. Montagu's visit to India was to decide on the spot, and in consultation with the Viceroy, what steps should be taken in the direction of establishing in India a Government responsible to the various peoples of the subcontinent. He arrived with a small party of helpers, late in the year 1917, and after preliminary conferences with the Government and the heads of provinces, visited Calcutta, Madras and Bombay. The party was accompanied by the Viceroy and the Home Member of His Excellency's Executive Council. At each halting-place various officials and nonofficials were consulted; and it was not until the end of April 1918 that the Secretary of State returned to England.

The tour attracted universal attention. It was understood that the old order had been sentenced to death. So European non-officials and many Indian communities had appointed representative councils to draw up petitions embodying their proposals for the future. The Viceroy and Secretary of State were beset by demands that in the new era, which had been announced, the interests of numerous sections of society should not be left to the arbitrament of any general numerical majority. Not only Europeans, but Muhammadans, Sikhs, Marathas, Eurasians, Indian Christians, depressed classes, the tenants of