the assent of the Governor-General. Some classes of laws must be reserved for the King's pleasure according to the consitution of the colony, e.g., laws relating to divorce, currency, differential duties; laws inconsistent with the treaty obligations of Britain, or interfering with the discipline or control of the Imperial Navy or the colonial armies ; laws which might conflict with the Royal prerogative, with the rights and property of British subjects, with the trade and shipping of the Empire; or laws imposing disabilities on persons of non-European descent, not imposed on persons of European descent.

as

CHANNELS OF CONTROL.

must

colony

The grant of responsible government does not necessarily remove altogether the control of the Home Government. That control remains, though in a diminished form, and is exercised first of all by the Royal Governor, or Governor-General, appointed by the Crown. He is the chief executive officer of the as far as its own internal affairs are concerned; and follow the advice of the such, ministers of the colonial legislature. But he is also an officer of the mother country, appointed by the Crown to guard her rights and exercise her control, and, as such, in matters that affect other parts of the Empire or foreign countries, he must act on the advice of the ministers at Home. He stands in the colony in the place of the Crown, and like the King, he is the symbol of Empire and Imperial authority on the spot. The second means of control lies in the Imperial power to veto colonial legislation. Every Colonial Statute requires for its validity the assent of the Crown through the Governor-General. And even if a bill has been assented to by him, and has become law, it may still be disallowed by the Crown within a certain time. Moreover, in the colonies, the power of the Royal veto is not as dead as Queen Anne, as in England. It is not seldom exercised, and three or four bills are thus ended on an average every year. The third means of control lies in the Imperial control of all foreign relations. In all, and for all foreign affairs, the British Empire is treated as one Power, and that Power is the United Kingdom. All treaties, all negotiations are made for the component parts of the Empire by or on the advice of Ministers of the Crown in the United Kingdom, appointed by the Crown, and responsible to the British Parliament. Any control of foreign relations by the colonies themselves would rouse perhaps endless frictions and even complications. A fourth means of control, rather of connection, lies in the appeals

that as a rule lie from the decisions of the Colonial Courts to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Such centralisation in the administration of justice is undoubtedly a powerful force for political unification and Imperial unity.

OTHER TIES.

But there are also other ties that bind. Those who did not know the foundations on which the British Empire has been built up, prophesied that, once in the throes of a great war, the component parts of the Empire, thus held together, would fly asunder. That prophecy has been falsified. Far from it, no rally for an empire in the world's history has been more magnificent than the one in which every distant part of the British Empire has joined in the great struggle going on to-day. The war has only served to strengthen the ties of Empire, to cement the Empire all the more, more than has ever been done, be it by ties of common language and common blood, or common sentiment and common traditions. But neither language, nor blood, nor sentiment, nor tradition, valuable assets though they are, are, to be quite plain, as potent factors as the factor of common defence for a common Empire.

What is, in brief, the fundamental basis of colonial self-government? It is that colonies far away from London could not be ruled from London; that representative government is the foundation of British political institutions; that representative government could not possibly be combined with administration by a Governor, be he even in Council, acting outside and independently of the representative body; and that the only solution of the difficulties involved lay in making the Council or Ministers responsible to the elected representatives of the colony. On this basis the self-governing colonies of the British Empire have evolved. On this basis they are. evolving. The ties that bind them to the mother country, and were thought too slender to stand, have stood the strain of a world war. Far from flying asunder, the colonies are nearer the Mother Country to-day than they ever were. For, as long as the heart is sound, and the limbs have fair play, the whole body grows in health and strength. The whole body works for common defence, for common interest, for common growth. For, in the modern world, dissociation means decay and death. Association means life and growth.

TATISTICS of illiteracy help to reveal the

extent to which various Governments in the world have succeeded in mitigating the evils of an ignorant and untrained citizenship, and the circumstances peculiar to each country which have prevented the rapid enforcement of laws relating to compulsory education. That an ignorant and untrained population is a danger to civilisation and weakens the stability of all orderly government by making the cost of administration enormously high is a proposition which all students of political administration will easily admit. The government of the many by the few, is evidently a government by opinion and a high percentage of illiteracy deprives any government in the world of a powerful lever it can use, in organising the moral and intellectual forces of the people it is called upon to govern. In proportion as the population of a country is ignorant and undisciplined it is more subject to the sway of impulses which naturally dominate the crowd-mind.

It is interesting however to note, how the causes that influenced the increase or decrease of illiteracy in Europe were, to begin with, mainly religious.

The Protestant Reformation made it a necessary article of its creed that members of that religion must be able to read the word of God. This left an open door for the exercise of private judgment and all the tendencies which culminated in the rationalism of the 18th century. To-day the smallest percentage of illiteracy is to be found in the Teutonic and the Mixed Teutonic nations of Northern and Western Europe.

Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, the States of Germany have the largest proportion of literate population. Then come England, Scotland, Switzerland, France, and Netherlands. European countries with a large Roman Catholic population shew a higher percentage of illiteracy. The South and East of Europe shew increasing degrees of illiteracy, which reaches its highest point in Spain, Portugal, Russia, Servia, Roumania, Greece, Italy and the States of AustroHungarian Empire. In all these countries the illiteracy of females.is higher than that of males. America is the only country where females from the ages of ten to twenty-four show a higher degree of literacy than in any other part of the world. In Asiatic countries the male population

shows a larger percentage of illiteracy than in the rest of the world. The illiteracy of females is more complete there than anywhere else. It is curious to note how, in spite of a highly accentuated religiousness in the general mentality of Eastern peoples, the spirit of Eastern religions should not have promoted a widespread knowledge of reading for purposes of using their Scriptures. Scriptural texts are more or less memorised as a matter of customary training.

It is only in the last few decades of the 19th century that Governmer.ts in Europe have carried on a vigorous campaign for the suppression of illiteracy. The experience of the United States of America, in this respect, is unique. In 30 years they have stamped out every trace of illiteracy and have gradually raised the statutory requirements of a minimum of elementary education for exercising the privileges of citizenship. There the reasons were of an imperative character arising mainly from the democratic character of their Government and the extent to which the interests of orderly government vitally depend upon the education of the average citizen.

The following statistics will help to throw considerable light on the main elements in the problem of illiteracy and the place which India occupies in the scale of national values.

The illiteracy of the population of India is highest in the world, and most of the difficulties of administration arising from what appear on the surface to be racial, religious or economic causes will be found on a closer examination to result from this wide-spread illiteracy. The proverbial indebtedness of the Indian agriculturist, his inability to emancipate himself from the thraldom of custom and convention, and many other facts of social life too numerous to mention here are at bottom remediable by a systematic campaign against illiteracy. In this respect, suffering is the penalty of ignorance, for a vast population in which only five out of every hundred are literate. The census of 1911 may shew a slight decrease in the percentage of illiteracy but that will not affect the substantial accuracy of the figures quoted above and of the conclusions that may be legitimately drawn from them.

HAT, to begin with, should be the political ideal of India? To some the raising of this question may seem to be unnecessary and at best academic and, to others positively mischievous. To me, however, it seems that the greatest danger in the path of the future well-being of the country is the want of such a reasoned ideal of our future as would satisfy the aspirations and ambitions of the rising generations of India and at the same time meet with the approval of those to whose hands our destinies are committed. It is my belief that a rational and inspiring ideal will arrest the insidious and corrupting influence of the real enemies of our Motherland, even if it is not able to root out from the land that malignant mental disease which has been called Anarchism and whose psychology it is so difficult to analyse. It must be obvious to all sincere and impartial judges that no mandate whether of the Government or of the Congress will be able to still the throbbing pain in the soul of awakening India unless the ideal which is held up by the Congress and accepted by the Government commends itself first to the heart and then to the head. It

seems to me that the only satisfactory form of selfgovernment to which India aspires cannot be anything short of what President Lincoln so pithily described as "government of the people, for the people, and by the people."

When I say this, I do not for one moment imply that the British Covernment is not the best Government we have lad for ages. We have only to look round to see the manifold blessings which have been brought to this country by that Government. But as a British Premier early in this century very truly observed, "good government cannot be a substitute for self-government." Says a recent writer in a well known British periodical:

Every Englishman is aware that on no account, not if he were to be governed by an angel from heaven, would he surrender that most sacred of all his rights, the right of making his own laws. . . He would not be an Englishman, he would not be able to look English fields and trees in the face, if he had parted with that right. Laws in themselves have never counted for much. There have been beneficent despots and wise law-givers in all ages who have increased the prosperity and probably the contentment and happiness of their subjects, but yet their Government has not stimulated the moral and intellectual capacity latent in the citizenship or fortified its character cr enlarged its

understandings. There is more hope for the future of mankind in the least and faintest impulse towards selfhelp, self-realisation, self-redemption than in any of the laws that Aristotle ever dreamt of.

The ideal, therefore, of self-government is one that is not based merely on emotion and sentiment but on the lessons of history.

I believe in all sincerity that such has been the ideal which the British Government itself has entertained and cherished almost from the commencement of British rule in India. Generations of statesmen have repeatedly laid down that policy, solemn declarations of successive sovereigns have graciously endorsed it, and Acts of Parliament have given it legislative sanction. I will not burden my speech with quotations from these: they will all be found in previous Presidential addresses. But, with your leave I will quote only one passage from a speech of John Bright delivered at Manchester on the 11th of December, 1877.

I believe that it is our duty not only to govern India well now for our sake, and to satisfy our own conscience, but so to arrange its Government and so to administer it that we should look forward to the time when India will have to take up her own government and administer it in her own fashion. I say he is no statesman-he is no man actuated with a high moral sense with regard to our great and terrible moral responsibility—who is not willing thus to look ahead and thus to prepare for circumstances which may come sooner than think and sooner than any of us hope of but which must come at some not very distant date.

we

It is, however, unfortunately the fact that a few years ago unhappy statements and even actions of responsible statesmen gave rise to a widespread suspicion among large classes of people in all parts of India that there was a change of policy-a deliberate intention to retrace the steps. That this suspicion is not wholly without foundation will appear from the estimate of an eminent French publicist who cannot be charged with either lack of admiration for the British administration of India or excess of sympathy for the Indian reform party. This is what M. Chailley says (I am reading from page 188 of the translation by Sir William Meyer):

Had England taken as her motto 'India for the Indian,' had she continued following the ideas of Elphinstone and Malcolm to consider her rule as temporary, she might without inconsistency grant to the National Party gradual and increasing concessions which in time would give entire autonomy to the Indians, but that is not now her aim. (The italics are mine).

Does any reasonable man imagine that it is possible to satisfy the palpitating hearts of the thousands of young men who, to use the classic words of Lord Morley, "leave our

universities intoxicated with the ideas of freedom, nationality and self-government," with the comfortless assurance that free institu tions are the special privilege of the West? Can any one wonder that, many of these young men, who have not the same robust faith in the integrity and benevolence of England as the members of this Congress, should lose heart at the mere suspicion of such a policy, and, driven to despair, conclude that "the roar and stream of confusion

and carnage is better than peace and order without even the distant prospect of freedom? Fifteen years ago Lord Morley said: "The sacred word 'free' represents, as Englishmen have thought until to-day, the noblest aspiration that can animate the breast of man." And to-day millions of Englishmen are freely sacrificing their lives that others may be free: therefore, an Englishman will be the first person to realise and appreciate the great insistent desire in the heart of India and I say with all the emphasis and earnestness that I can command that if the noble policy of Malcolm and Elphinstone, Canning and Ripon, Bright and Morley, is not steadily, consistently and unflinchingly adhered to, the moderate party amongst us will soon be depleted of all that is fine and noble in human character. For my part, I believe with the fervour of religious conviction that that wise and righteous policy is still the policy of the great English nation. When His Majesty sent us his gracious message of sympathy and later on hope, what did he mean but sympathy for our political aspirations and hope for their ultimate fulfilment? As late as the 8th day of October this year, His Excellency the Viceroy, addressing a large number of representative officials at the United Service Club of Simla, said:

England has instilled into this country the culture and civilisation of the West with all its ideals of liberty and self-respect. It is not enough for her now to consider only the material outlook of India. It is necessary for her to cherish the aspirations, of which she has herself sown the seed, and English officials are gradually awakening to the fact that high as were the aims and remarkable the achievements of their predecessors, a still nobler task lies before them in the present and the future in guiding the uncertain and faltering steps of Indian development along sure and safe paths. The new rule of guide, philosopher and friend is opening before you and it is worthy of your greatest efforts. It requires in you gifts of imagination and sympathy, and imposes upon you self-sacrifice, for it means that slowly but surely you must divest yourselves of some of the power you have hitherto wielded. Let it be realised that great as has been England's mission in the past, she has a far more glorious task to fulfil in the future in encouraging and guiding the political self-develop

ment of the people. The goal to which India may attain is still distant and there may be many vicissitudes in her path, but I look forward with confidence to a time when, strengthened by character and self-respect and bound by ties of affection and gratitude, India may be regarded as a true friend of the Empire and not merely as a trusty dependent. The day for the complete fulfilment of this ideal is not yet, but it is to this distant vista that the British official should turn his eyes, and he must grasp the fact that it is by his future success in this direction that British prestige and efficiency will be judged.

These noble words of Lord Hardinge, which must still be ringing in our ears, are not the idle speculations of an irresponsible enthusiast, but the well-considered pronouncement of a statesman who, after guiding the ship of state during a period of unprecedented storm and stress, sends forth this message both to his own countrymen and to us. Lest there be any among us of so little faith as to doubt the real meaning of those memorable words, or any Englishman inclined to whittle down the meaning of this promise, I hope there will be an authentic and definite proclamation with regard to which there will be no evasion or misunderstanding possible. So far as we are concerned, there is no real reason for mistrust, for this policy proclaimed so long ago and repeated so recently has been fruitful of innumerable beneficent results. Officials, even the highest, may sometimes have spoken or even acted in a different spirit, but England always did and does still consider it her glorious mission to raise this once great country from her fallen position to her ancient status among the nations of the earth, and she enjoins every English official in India to consider himself as a trustee bound to make over his charge to the rightful owner the moment the latter attains to years of discretion.

But are there any among us who, while accepting His Excellency's message of hope are disposed to demur to the qualification therein expressed, namely, that the goal is not yet? If so, I do not hesitate to express my entire disagreement, because I would sooner take the risk of displeasing than injuring my countrymen. -I am fortified in my opinion when I find that almost every prominent leader of the Congress has laboured to 'impress upon all true lovers of our country that the path is long and devious and that we shall have to tread weary steps before we get to the promised land. "Day will not break the sooner because we get up before the twilight." The end will not come by impatience. I maintain that no true friend of India will place the ideal of selfgovernment before us us without this necessary

qualification. It inevitably makes passionate youth anxious to avoid the steps and weary path, take to dangerous and even fatal short-cuts, for it is undoubtedly true that impetuous youth finds it easier to die for a glorious ideal than to live and work for it with steady patience and persistent self-sacrifice. I yield to none in my desire for self-government, but I recognise that there is a wide gulf between desire and attainment.

Let us argue out for ourselves freely and frankly the various ways by which we can obtain the priceless treasure of self-government. It seems to me that it is possible only in one of the three following ways:—

First, by way of a free gift from the British

nation.

Second, by wresting it from them.

Third, by means of such progressive improvement in our mental, moral and material condition as will, on the one hand, render us worthy of it and, on the other, impossible for our rulers to withhold it.

Now, as to the first, even if the English nation were willing to make us an immediate free gift of full self-government-and those who differ most from the Congress are the first to deny the existence of such willingness-I take leave to doubt whether the boon would be worth having as such, for it is a commonplace of politics that nations like individuals must grow into freedom and nothing is so baneful in political institutions as their prematurity: nor must we forget that India free can never be ancient India restored. Such a vision, as has been justly remarked, could only be realised if India free from the English could have stood in a tranquil solitude or in a sphere of absolute isolation, but unfortunately the hard facts of the modern world have to be faced and India, free from England, but without any real power of resistance, would be immediately in the thick of another struggle of nations.

As to the second, I doubt if the extremist of the extremists consider it feasible to win selfgovernment immediately by means of a conflict with the British Power. Such a conflict is impossible, if not inconceivable and I cannot imagine any sane man thinking that assassinations of police men and dacoities committed on peaceful unoffending citizens will do aught but retard progress towards our goal. Such acts, if they proceeded from any considerable section of the people, would only emphasise our incompetence for self-government, which demands the highest qualities of patient preparation and of silent and unobtrusive work in every aspect of